# electrical engineers: Why do cables improve sound?



## EricP

1) This thread is not meant to be a rehash of the "skeptic's challenge" wherein someone says "cable upgrades are useless lol"

 That out of the way, what is the technical explanation for why a cable upgrade can improve the sound? For instance, there are many who would laugh you out of the room if you suggested that adding a different cable to the HD650 would make it sound differently. I was one of those until I got the Zu cable, and while the difference isn't night and day like some would make you believe, there is a small audible difference in the sound, and I'm curious as to why that is the case.

 If you do not have a knowledgeable (and scientifically correct) technical explanation, please refrain from gibberish.

 Thanks,
 Eric


----------



## Solude

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?ar...truction+Guide

 Have fun 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Be sure to read the burn in article too.


----------



## EricP

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Solude* 
_http://www.cardas.com/content.php?ar...truction+Guide

 Have fun 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Be sure to read the burn in article too._

 

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...resonances.php

 Not quite what I'm looking for. I read the guide at cardas about resonance, but the audioholics guide completely debunks that.


----------



## Solude

Think you missed about 10 pages of the document if all you read was resonance.

 That said Audioholics are on crack! I don't care about their paper world, in the real world cables resonate. All I have to do to prove that is pick up my Kimber 8TC while music plays and its resonating away in my hand.

 Didn't point you to Cardas because I'm a fanboy, pointed you there because George has posted real world facts about cables for the world to read. I don't know of any other manufacturer that does that.


----------



## DrewWinters

I'm no EE, so I can't explain the details, but there is a direct and measurable correlation between cable length vs. width and its effect on damping factor. Indeed, this effect is even quite predictable! For instance... Play with this! (at the bottom)

 Notice that while the changes are fairly large with subwoofer-like numbers (High power, low impedence) while with headphone like numbers (low-power, high-impedance) that the changes are fairly small. Still, they might be audible and thus may explain some of the differences in cables. Incidently, it is my opinion that this is why the cheap Home Depot wires sound better (and they do!). They are simply thicker and thus allowing a higher damping factor. 

 But then again, I'm no EE... so don't take my word for it.


----------



## EricP

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Solude* 
_Think you missed about 10 pages of the document if all you read was resonance.

 That said Audioholics are on crack! I don't care about their paper world, in the real world cables resonate. All I have to do to prove that is pick up my Kimber 8TC while music plays and its resonating away in my hand._

 

The problem is that their "paper world" is based on scientific law. To me, that supercedes whatever it is I think I'm perceiving. I don't think I've ever felt a cable "resonating away in my hand".

 As for the construction guide, all I read is what they think is happening and why they think it is happening. That takes a backseat to proper science, as far as I am concerned. Which is why I posted this thread: I'm looking for proper science.


----------



## K2Grey

I don't want to jump into this, but I do want to point out that the reason that you have audio equipment in the first place is because of people slaving away in the paper world while other people thought they were insane because you can pay a small fee to go hear live people play nearby.


----------



## Solude

To say George Cardas is back of the bus pretty much guarantees no one else will reply to this thread. If what a highly respected and admired 40 year veteran has learned over the years isn't good enough well your search is hopeless.

 But there is hope, you have a SinglePower and Mikhail is building cables now so... maybe he can enlighten you since George isn't good enough for you.


----------



## Solude

Think my paper world comment is being taken out of context. Mathematics and electrical engineering are real world things. They exist on paper to apply to the real world. I am an engineer, I know the paper world represents the real world most times.

 That paper says one thing, while the real world says another is nothing new, nor should it surprise anyone in design.

 The audioholics article goes through an equation to achieve a result. The result is correct on paper. In the real world, that result is present but so are things not accounted for in the equation. Essentially, that my PSB Gold/Kimber 8TC/Acurus DAI100 combo results in the 8TC resonating proves that the equation didn't account for cabinet pollution. Ie the Audioholics article is single minded and does not take into account the 'system'.

 So while the equation's result is true, the equation doesn't take the system as a whole into account and therefore fails to represent the real world findings.


----------



## Chri5peed

So what is the cable construction of the smurf?


----------



## Jeff Wong

EricP - If all that matters is Audioholic's words and formulas, why bother listening or asking? I've heard differences in interconnects using different dielectric insulation and it corresponds with explanations that have been "debunked" by Audioholic types, who always seem willing to provide links and formulas but never bother to listen for themselves. The proper science may be lurking somewhere out there, but it may be that the wrong things are being measured, or more accurately the right things aren't... but not everything is placebo and just because there may not be a suitable explanation right now doesn't mean there isn't one to explain the difference in cables sounding... well, er, different. My contention, in simplistic terms would be that wire with insulation that has a lower dielectric constant displays phase diistortion that is less audible than one with a higher dielectric constant; I prefer Teflon to PVC because cables wrapped in the latter usually sound smeared in the treble.


----------



## NeilPeart

Capacitance is the most important concern for interconnects.

 Inductance and resistance are the most important concerns for speaker cables.

 Read the FAQs on BlueJeanCable's website:
http://bluejeanscable.com/articles/index.htm

 These guys are actual engineers and technicians, and my company has actually sought engineering advice and cabling tips from them.

 I decide based on a magical hybrid technical specifications and listening tests.


----------



## Solude

Smurf is based loosely on the Reference series with changes made for headphone application. Ie though based on the Reference config, its no Neutral Reference. Unless you are, forget his name in France, then it is


----------



## omedon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Solude* 
_So while the equation's result is true, the equation doesn't take the system as a whole and therefore fails to represent the real world findings._

 

There is a place for theory. I think that everyone can agree that while theory and the real world are often related they are, by their very definition, fundamentally different.

 Theory is the domain of the abstract while the real world is the domain of the concrete.

 In theory a perfect circle that conforms to pi exists. In the real world it does not.


----------



## AlanY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Solude* 
_To say George Cardas is back of the bus pretty much guarantees no one else will reply to this thread. If what a highly respected and admired 40 year veteran has learned over the years isn't good enough well your search is hopeless._

 

The thing is, George Cardas is an ex-racecar driver turned entrepreneur, not an engineer, so the marketing material on his site is not really relevant to this thread -- especially since it cites no sources and may be prone to a certain degree of unscientific bias since he sells these products. The original poster seems to be looking for answers from actual electrical engineers.

 Siegfried Linkwitz, the EE who co-invented the Linkwitz-Riley filter used in most mainstream speakers, has some good comments about cables on his site.


----------



## DarkAngel

Check the *Analysis Plus* website.......they test/analyze audio cables for many big names in the industry, top engineers with sophisticated testing equipment and techniques that "attempt" to understand the most important scientific reasons cables sound different, they have extensive cable research/data to read:

Analysis Plus

 Even though they can show you scientific proof thier cables transmit the music signal with less distortion than any other cable design, I still find other cables sound better to me.


----------



## marvin

*** EDIT: Dammit, ignore comments. Inability to read means I completely misunderstood point of Audioholics article. (cable resonance vs cable/load resonance) ***


----------



## EricP

NealPeart, DarkAngel, and marvin have all given some terrific insights thus far. Thank you for a useful scientific explaination (and links to useful scientific explainations), I'm just trying to gather information.

 (if you or anyone else have further contributions, I am in your debt!)


----------



## Born2bwire

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marvin* 
_The problem is that by treating a speaker cable as a classic transmission line, Audioholics skips over the fact that a speaker is a very nasty reactive load and amplifiers aren't perfect either. This invalidates the use of the classic transmission line formulas when it comes to speaker wires, which invalidates their conclusions. It may work as an approximation, but could also be a few orders of magnitude off._

 

There is no requirement for transmission lines to be terminated by real loads, the theory is perfectly applicable to reactive terminations (Lord knows we'd be having a hell of a time with microwave antenna design if it wasn't.). Still, it is a gross simplification but has the advantage of being a wonderful tool for 1 dimensional wave behavior. It fails to reveal many of the effects of the actual three dimensional waveguide. It would be more interesting for people to model an actual cable via a finite element method software. Most people have a hard enough time understanding transmission lines so it's easy to throw out terms and formulas. Showing an actual propagation of current through the cable visually is far more effective. There was a website that had crossections of cables of a few geometries (twisted pair and coax) and would provide the current distribution from an inputted frequency. Was a neat way to show the skin effect to people.


----------



## marvin

*** EDIT: Dammit, ignore comments. Inability to read means I completely misunderstood point of Audioholics article. (cable resonance vs cable/load resonance) ***


----------



## Ferbose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_Capacitance is the most important concern for interconnects.

 Inductance and resistance are the most important concerns for speaker cables.

 Read the FAQs on BlueJeanCable's website:
http://bluejeanscable.com/articles/index.htm

 These guys are actual engineers and technicians, and my company has actually sought engineering advice and cabling tips from them.

 I decide based on a magical hybrid technical specifications and listening tests._

 

Thanks for the link, NeilPeart.
 The guys at Blue Jean seem to really know what they are saying don't don't promote snake oil.
 Analysis Plus and Cardas--their websites may have less snake oil than some other companies, but still....(the less said the better)


----------



## helix

i wish i was in the cable business.


----------



## AdamWill

Just a general comment: someone said the real world is the domain of the concrete. Maybe, but it's also the domain of placebo, marketing, and headology...


----------



## helix

just to throw a wrench in the works take a look at this thread for people's opinions i do value:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...600&highlight=


----------



## EricP

As I explore this further, with an open mind, a few significant questions spring to mind:

 It strikes me as odd that we have the technology to build long-range handheld radios conforming to complex timeslice protocols in the GHz spectrum, at a price point where cellular companies are willing to give them away for free, but we somehow can't figure out a way to build a 10' copper wire that is flat out to a few dozen KHz?

 We have analog equipment operating at extremely high frequencies & precisions too. But the $75k Tektronix scopes used to calibrate the world's hottest new technologies (for enormous sums of money, try $10,000 per test) use a 10GHz cable that costs around a hundred bucks.

 One can obtain a cable *certified* for signal analysis up to 5GHz for less than $20.

 So why is a simple, low-bandwidth signal like analog audio so perplexing (and expensive)?


----------



## nph134

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AdamWill* 
_Just a general comment: someone said the real world is the domain of the concrete. Maybe, but it's also the domain of placebo, marketing, and headology..._

 

Sorry to be anal but, Yeh I didn't agree with that either in fact I would have said things are the other way around if anything:

 All scientific theories that are used to describe physical systems in nature are simple approximations of the way nature is in reality.

 usually things happen like this:

 1 - scientist has hypothesis (eg Ohm found V=IR) either by experiment or mathematically.

 2- scientist will publish his/her findings.

 3- if over time the hypothesis is found to hold true in tests by other scientists also...eventually the hypothesis will be accepted by the scientific community in general and the hypothesis will become a theory.

 This is not to say when a hypothesis becomes a theory that it describes nature perfectly after all a theory may test accurate a billion times then on the billion+1 time it fails.

 Science approximates nature. They may be highly accurate approximations...but they are approximations none the less.

 Newton's laws of gravity are a great example....Einstein has given a far more accurate description of how gravity is linked with space and time but Newtons are not considered wrong as they still describe how gravitational systems behave very accurately.

 Often as our scientific knowledge improves theories are ammended and improved also.

 So I would say science is more concrete than the natural systems it is used to describe.

 This applies to cables also. We know how a conductor works and behaves in general, but that's not to say that new ways of getting a complex signal signal down a cable without being attenuated or distorted aren't being developed all the time.


----------



## K2Grey

People have heard clear differences between lossless formats and between lossless formats and WAV, as well. Are you going to say that obviously lossless is BS and that the codec developer's equations don't match up with the real world performance of lossless formats?


----------



## EricP

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *K2Grey* 
_People have heard clear differences between lossless formats and between lossless formats and WAV, as well. Are you going to say that obviously lossless is BS and that the codec developer's equations don't match up with the real world performance of lossless formats?_

 

What the heck does digital compression have to do with analog waveforms


----------



## omedon

A scientific theory may appear to be valid as it gives the right result.

 3+2=5

 but we find many theories overtime are proven to be wrong.

 new theories will explain the same phenomonon but do it differently and more accurately.

 4+1=5

 Lots of science as little as 20 years old is very outdated. Lots of science that is much older is not.

 As others have said theories are an approximation. Until our understanding is complete, which it will likely never be, theories will be subject to revision.

 Theory is just an explanation of what is happening. The real world IS what is happening. Theory is imposed on the real world to help explain the phenomonon. It is incredibly useful, but it is a means and not an end.

 In the case of audio gear there maybe many phenomonon we are not aware of acting upon it. Perhaps we have not yet developed tools to measure them. Science is never a closed book.


----------



## breez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EricP* 
_What the heck does digital compression have to do with analog waveforms 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Nothing in particular. He just pointed out the placebo factor when comparing things and of course it applies to sighted listening tests with cables too


----------



## marvin

Depending on equipment and codec decoder implementation methods, it is possible to hear the difference between lossless files and WAVs during playback. It is possible to have lossy playback of loseless files depending on the format and decoder used, or for errors to occur during real time decoding, especially in marginally stable computers or computationally underpowered mp3 players. Add in that many people have difficulty in getting volume level matches in their testing, how the brain confuses volume for quality, and the placebo effect, then you can pretty easily see how people may come to that conclusion.

 What is impossible though is hearing differences between a WAV file and a WAV file properly reconstituted and error checked from a lossless file.


----------



## EricP

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *omedon* 
_Lots of science as little as 20 years old is very outdated. Lots of science that is much older is not.

 As others have said theories are an approximation. Until our understanding is complete, which it will likely never be, theories will be subject to revision._

 

But the answer I am looking for is this: Why does the scientific justification of analog audio cables fly in the face of common sense, and also in the face of other current scientific knowledge in directly related fields? If we have the technology to transfer with perfect accuracy a 5GHz signal through an analog cable (which we do), and that technology costs $20 to implement (which it does), why does a far simpler 30KHz signal require such expensive cabling to transfer with imperfect accuracy? It doesn't make sense to me that the solution to a more difficult engineering problem would be less complex and less expensive than the solution to a directly related but less difficult engineering problem.


----------



## AlanY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EricP* 
_But the answer I am looking for is this: Why does the scientific justification of analog audio cables fly in the face of common sense, and also in the face of other current scientific knowledge in directly related fields? If we have the technology to transfer with perfect accuracy a 5GHz signal through an analog cable (which we do), and that technology costs $20 to implement (which it does), why does a far simpler 30KHz signal require such expensive cabling to transfer with imperfect accuracy?_

 

You're looking at this the wrong way. You're assuming that the more expensive cables are more accurate. In the audiophile realm, the opposite is often true; that's why they sound different. As Siegfried Linkwitz puts it:
 "Cables can have audible effects and some manufacturers make sure they will, either through unusual electrical parameters and/or by suggestion. Weaknesses in the design of the output-to-input interface are exploited. In any case, sounding different does not automatically mean that you now have a more accurate transfer from electrical to acoustical output."

 He has a few more things to say here, though nothing exhaustive:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion-faq.htm#Q10
 Linkwitz is a real EE, and co-invented the Linkwitz-Riley filter.


----------



## helix

the reason so called "audiophile" cables cost so much has nothing really to do with design, it's becuase the market allows it and the cable companys know this hence the 1000% markup. out of all the gear in audiophile land cables have the biggest margin.


----------



## JahJahBinks

I guess in the world of audio you have to treat interconnects as transmission lines. It's mostly L and C that affect the signal.


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EricP* 
_It doesn't make sense to me that the solution to a more difficult engineering problem would be less complex and less expensive than the solution to a directly related but less difficult engineering problem._

 

One thing to note here is that you are assuming that the factors which you are optimizing and designing for in the case of the 5 GHz are exactly the same as those you are optimizing and designing for in the case of the 30KHz cable. That is plainly an assumption which may or may not be accurate. In particular the usage for audiophile cables may not require or demand perfect reproduction. As a related example, solid state amplifiers tend to have far less distortion than tube amplifiers and yet many prefer them because they like the sound better which is the exact opposite of what the measurements would lead you to expect. Likewise with a cable which rolls off the high end of the signal. Not as accurate yet it may be more pleasing for a particular listener...


----------



## helix

i find it funny to see people spouting "transmission lines" when were dealing with short runs, mismatching impedance, and almost dc audio.


----------



## nph134

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_the reason so called "audiophile" cables cost so much has nothing really to do with design, it's becuase the market allows it and the cable companys know this hence the 1000% markup. out of all the gear in audiophile land cables have the biggest margin._

 

one of the most accurate posts in this thread I reckon!


----------



## EricP

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gpalmer* 
_One thing to note here is that you are assuming that the factors which you are optimizing and designing for in the case of the 5 GHz are exactly the same as those you are optimizing and designing for in the case of the 30KHz cable. That is plainly an assumption which may or may not be accurate. In particular the usage for audiophile cables may not require or demand perfect reproduction. As a related example, solid state amplifiers tend to have far less distortion than tube amplifiers and yet many prefer them because they like the sound better which is the exact opposite of what the measurements would lead you to expect. Likewise with a cable which rolls off the high end of the signal. Not as accurate yet it may be more pleasing for a particular listener..._

 

Huh... as a pseudoengineer I was assuming that perfect transmission of a signal from point A to point B was the goal in cable construction. Cabling is *intended* to imperfectly transfer a signal?


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EricP* 
_Huh... as a pseudoengineer I was assuming that perfect transmission of a signal from point A to point B was the goal in cable construction. Cabling is *intended* to imperfectly transfer a signal?_

 

Well, I think you're missing one subtlety about this equation. The task is to transfer the signal in the manner which causes the best readings on the measuring instruments. BUT, those measuring instruments are human ears and brains not mechanical and that's where the fun starts. Let's just say that the accuracy of the calibration may vary somewhat...


----------



## nph134

I'm not an expert but i imagine for a real hi-fi buff it is how the cable colours the sound and not just how well the data is transfered.

 Headphones are a prime example, the HD650s sound was coloured on purpose since when measured flat the testers decided the sound was somehow lacking to the human ear.

 People who listen to music for pleasure want it to sound nice whereas in other cable/sound applications what is usually wanted is an accurate representation of signals rather than just what sounds nice to the human ear.


----------



## Leporello

I humbly suggest that the real problem is the lack of the very phenomenon (i.e. audible differences between wires), not the lack of a scientific explanation for it.


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## TheSloth

As always, we have the hi-fi dichotomy between what we call 'good' and what is 'accurate'. A cable that 'sounds fantastic' isn't necessarily a more accurate conductor of electrical information that one that 'sounds like crap'. We have no way to truly hear if a cable is actually accurately transmitting the electrical data or not - we can only hear if we like the sound or not.

 People pay through the roof for different cables, because through whatever means, they do adjust the sound of the system, and people enjoy those adjustments that suit their tastes. It does not however mean that the cabling setup they prefer sonically is 'better' than one they don't. It could actually be a hell of a lot worse, technically. I said this in another thread, but a cable that by a complete accident of engineering turns a horrific recording of some teenagers scratching at a few stringed instruments into the four clones of Paganini, we're going to say it's a great cable, despite the fact that technically it's electrical transmission is obviously a complete mess.


----------



## EricP

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gpalmer* 
_Well, I think you're missing one subtlety about this equation. The task is to transfer the signal in the manner which causes the best readings on the measuring instruments. BUT, those measuring instruments are human ears and brains not mechanical and that's where the fun starts. Let's just say that the accuracy of the calibration may vary somewhat... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I see. So if the only measure of a cable is a subjective one, then it is useless to read a review of a cable and base your buying decision on it, because what one person heard may be entirely different from what you hear. Or you may hear something they don't, or vice versa.

 I think considering the price of some of these cables I will try and make sure I hear no difference


----------



## JahJahBinks

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_i find it funny to see people spouting "transmission lines" when were dealing with short runs, mismatching impedance, and almost dc audio. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

what is almost dc audio in your definition?


----------



## PFKMan23

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EricP* 
_I see. So if the only measure of a cable is a subjective one, then it is useless to read a review of a cable and base your buying decision on it, because what one person heard may be entirely different from what you hear. Or you may hear something they don't, or vice versa.

 I think considering the price of some of these cables I will try and make sure I hear no difference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

I wouldn't say that it's useless, but I sure as hell wouldn't call it gospel if you don't hear the review/impressions say that is bing heard. I use cable reviews and even can reviews as a guideline, kind ofa tough picture of what to expect, but I know that various exists.


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EricP* 
_I see. So if the only measure of a cable is a subjective one, then it is useless to read a review of a cable and base your buying decision on it, because what one person heard may be entirely different from what you hear. Or you may hear something they don't, or vice versa._

 

You have to be very, very careful about it. You look for people who appear to hear the same things as you and sum them up in the same words and you read their reviews! You have to gauge for the drift. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 There are also people whose comments are so opposite mine that they act as reverse indicators.


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JahJahBinks* 
_what is almost dc audio in your definition?_

 

Anything audible.


----------



## helix

one last note, using cables as tone controls means you have some serious flaws in your setup. (mod edit) tone controls are a good thing


 what is almost dc audio, <20khz waves that are to long to cause reflections in the short runs in our IC or speaker cables.


----------



## MikeW

Don't let those Haters at Ars get you down EricP, if you dig it, go with it. Someone around here really wise said "If it sounds good, it is good" 

 Regards,
 Mike


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_...using cables as tone controls means you have some serious flaws in your setup. repeat after me, tone controls are a good thing..._

 

Everyone has serious flaws in his/her setup -- if you compare it to a live concert. The ones cables can cure are definitely of the less serious kind. To my experience cables have a much more subtle and different kind of influence on the sound than tone controls. For a minority of my CDs I feel the need to equalize them. I do this by editing the ripped Wave files on my computer and burn them onto CD-ROMs. Now the equalized recordings (still) benefit or suffer exactly to the same degree (and in the same way) from different cables as the unedited, «unadapted» recordings.

 I think we should forget frequency response in the context of interconnects -- the difference is marginal in 99% of the cases. Of course that raises the question what to measure at all. I have no idea. You can measure capacitance, inductance and resistance, but what is there to _hear_ if not frequency-response distortions _caused_ by them? Nevertheless, among other things I often do perceive changes in sonic balance, but at the same time I know they can't be caused by effective, measurable deviations.


----------



## DrewWinters

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *MikeW* 
_Don't let those Haters at Ars get you down EricP, if you dig it, go with it. Someone around here really wise said "If it sounds good, it is good" 

 Regards,
 Mike_

 

That would be none other than Duke Ellington himself, "“If it sounds good and feels good, then it IS good!”

  Quote:


 I think we should forget frequency response in the context of interconnects -- the difference is marginal in 99% of the cases. Of course that raises the question what to measure at all. I have no idea. You can measure capacitance, inductance and resistance, but what is there to hear if not frequency-response distortions caused by them? Nevertheless, among other things I often do perceive changes in sonic balance, but at the same time I know they can't be caused by effective, measurable deviations. 
 

What about damping factor? Don't cables have a measurable and predictable effect on it? (I said this earlier and not a soul seemed to even notice - am I way off base?)


----------



## helix

all cables have some resitance the greater it is the lower the damping factor is, it will be very small thou. like less than 50 with an 8 ohm load (not counting tube amplifiers). if you want it as high as you can get just use a larger gauge. most everyone who builds amps agrees that it really doesn't matter.


----------



## SemperFidelity

There are a LOT of factors. I suspect that some cannot hear such phenomena; there are color blind people, tone deaf people, and I don't see why we should assume that all can hear these effects. 

 Unless the cable is pretty bad, the system has to be fairly decent to hear cable differences. Recently, some changes were made in my system, and a difference between two expensive cables that had sounded essentially identical now have audible differences. I've heard some tell of being unable to hear any difference who had systems that were very good in the '60's, but are very low resolution by today's standards. Incidentally, I started out believing that cables would NOT make a difference. I was strongly predisposed to not hear a difference, but I did. A good friend (also an electrical engineer) had a system that was not satisfying, trying out supposedly better equipment did not help. I lent him a set of Kimber 8TC speaker cables, to replace his 16ga. Zip cord, and some interconnect cables, forgotten which. A couple of days later he dumped them on my desk sorta hard, and snorted "the difference was NOT subtle". He was irritated, because he had no ready explanation, but had clearly heard the difference. To paraphrase Groucho Marx; you gonna believe your measurements or your own ears?

 Some cables are deliberately designed as tone controls, and if you have a "bright" cable and match it to a dull system it will sound good. If you put the same cable in a hot system, it will drill you right between the eyes. If two people did this, they'd have markedly different perceptions. Both observations would have been accurate, but the disagreement could be used as "proof" that the divergent observations were obviously figments of overactive imaginations. 

 Sometimes the cable sounds better than its predecessor simply because it removes something that detracted a bit from the sound, and the new does not. If you reversed the order, the question would be, "Why do some cables make your system sound worse"? 

 Some companies (Kimber, WireWorld, others ) consistently make clean, neutral cables, that improve with price. Their consistency argues that they have a good handle on how this is done, and which factors matter, but they regard the information as propietary. It does *not* appear in the marketing literature. Or anywhere else. (However, the materials are shown, and do change; PVC at the low end, Teflon at the high end, different wire, etc. But I don't feel that is the entire explanation.) 

 And certainly there have been voodoo physics/snake oil/junk peddlers, who charge high prices to ratify the product. And then say that it sounds bad because it's so good that it exposes system problems. They haven't helped rational discussion.

 Some factors that seem to matter; varying designs place different emphases on the various factors...

 Construction techniques. I saw a good, not great speaker cable assembled at a show; the stripped wire end was treated with Tweak, and then the connector was strongly crimped on. Cold weld, not soldered. Neither was mentioned in their literature. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Dielectric absorption of the insulating material. Some cables that sound quite good use foam Teflon; low dielectric constant, and very low dielectric absorption. 

 Multiple metals. It has been hypothesized that metal/metal interfaces form poor Schottky diodes or thermocouple junctions; and that the resulting low level hysteresis is audible. Some say this effect is measurable, others have not confirmed. 

 Metallurgy. Low purity copper does not sound good; how pure does it need to be until it makes no difference? 5 N?? Similarly for Silver. And the cast copper seems to help.

 Length matters. Short cables usually have a lower sonic signature than longer ones. 

 I have no idea why cables break in, but they do. Capacitors do too, and it may be the same phenomenon. You can run in interconnect cables easily, and quietly, tuner or repeat CD to muted preamp (both ON) and compare to raw cables to see the effect. 

 After some time, some connections in a system seem to need to be cleaned; a friend with Martin Logans needs to clean his connections every few weeks. I get by without cleaning for much longer. But clean before evaluating. 

 Masking phenomena are very nonlinear, and very difficult to predict. 

 I have not mentioned capacitance, except in connection with dielectric absorption; nor resistance, skin effect, or inductance. I really don't think these are factors in reasonable cables. 

 But basically, we have a situation where some easily hear the differences, and not necessarily people with much experience. And some cannot. For those who hear the differences, the supposed need for complex testing techniques is almost ludicrous. For those who cannot, any test that cannot find a difference is welcome affirmation.

 It's an American characteristic to require an explanation to support an observation. Europeans were much less dismissive of Wegener's (?) observations that the continents must once have been connected; American scientists were strongly opposed until continental drift/plate tectonics was discovered. But the lack of that discovery should not have discredited the observations; they should have been filed in the "we dunno YET" file. And so I feel about cables.


----------



## helix

some of the things you've said are just plain wrong. first wire can't act like a diode becuase it's not directional it's a 'sea of electrons' attacted to opposite charges. caps don't need to break-in, if they did they'd be out of spec, imagine the problems we'd have with everything electronic if caps had to break-in. they can dry out (electrolytic) after 7 years but thats about all. even then i see a lot of old tube stuff still working fine after 50 years. most of the stuff you said is pointless mumbo-jumbo cuz if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. 

 "Masking phenomena are very nonlinear, and very difficult to predict." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (mod edit) wire is as linear as it gets.

 i have a suggestion maybe it was oxidation on the contacts that was rubbed of when you put on the new cable, that would explane a lot.

 when i hear these people talk about night and day differances with cables its-


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_some of the things you've said are just plain wrong. first wire can't act like a diode becuase it's not directional it's a 'sea of electrons' attacted to opposite charges. caps don't need to break-in, if they did they'd be out of spec, imagine the problems we'd have with everything electronic if caps had to break-in. they can dry out (electrolytic) after 7 years but thats about all. even then i see a lot of old tube stuff still working fine after 50 years. most of the stuff you said is pointless mumbo-jumbo cuz if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist._

 

It seems likely to me that sonic differences in cables could be measured, we just don't know exactly what to measure for.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrewWinters* 
_What about damping factor? Don't cables have a measurable and predictable effect on it?_

 

Not with interconnects (that's what my statement refers to). Speaker cables can influence the damping factor -- and thus define the Q factor of the bass resonance, usually the only system resonance causing back EMF in a speaker system --, but considering the 0.5-2 ohm already added by the crossover network, the 0.05-0.3 ohm from speaker cables don't matter much.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_caps don't need to break-in..._

 

I guess you're about the only audio-electronics developer with this experience. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Break-in isn't about fulfilling specs, BTW (apart from speaker drivers where it's indeed part of the process), but increasing sound quality. There's a physical explanation for it, but I'm not an engineer.


----------



## DrewWinters

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_most of the stuff you said is pointless mumbo-jumbo cuz if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. _

 

Forgive me for being blunt, but it's absurd to assume that we have learned everything there is to know about electricity after only a few hundred years of toying with it. Even more absurd to believe we know everything about sound reproduction after only a hundred years of toying with it.

 I could list off a nearly-infinite number of examples where our ancestors did not believe in something because they couldn't measure it only to be later proven wrong.

 Furthermore, it is naive to assume that just because something doesn't physically exist that it doesn't exist at all. For instance, cultural taboos do not physically exist, yet the force they exert on the actions of people is immeasurable! (forgive the pun) A basic tenet of sociology is, "If something is perceived as real, it is real in its consequences." 

 I'm gonna cut myself off now before I start rambling, hope this makes sense.


----------



## K2Grey

I think we can all agree that social constructs and sound changes of cables are two entirely different things. One is a group of perceptions and does not have physical existence. The other is the physical changes that differing cables have on the sound waves coming out of a headphone.

  Quote:


 Furthermore, it is naive to assume that just because something doesn't physically exist that it doesn't exist at all. For instance, cultural taboos do not physically exist, yet the force they exert on the actions of people is immeasurable! (forgive the pun) A basic tenet of sociology is, "If something is perceived as real, it is real in its consequences." 
 

That does not mean, however, that if something is perceived as real, then it is real. For example, it was widely held that blacks were inferior to whites, that does not mean it is real, although it does have consequences. Similarly, the perception of cables making sound quality differences does not mean that an actual sound quality difference is made, although there may be consequences in terms of people buying cables, psychological effect, etc.

 Although, didn't RnB claim that in the past his sister was able to hear differences between 4 cables and then hear that the 4th and 5th cables were actually the same cable in a row? This is hardly a definitive DBT or anything, but it is somewhat convincing.


----------



## star882

Higher quality cables do improve the performance, to a point. The better cables have better shielding. But for low level signals, I really suggest sticking with an optical connection if possible. After all, optical fibers are used for high bandwidth communications. They also cannot cause ground loops or be affected by EMI.


----------



## SnoopyRocks

As always, this topic makes for an entertaining read with no concensus in sight. I've always thought of audio as more akin to religion than science, as it's not about absolutes, but instead which half truth or outright lie you prefer to listen to. What do you believe?

 Additionally, I'd just like to point out that the inherent ambiguity of original assertion that cables "improve sound" doesn't lend itself to the desired goal of a technical explanation based firmly in science. Improve sound in what way, if at all? Without limiting the scope, more clearly defining the problem, an explicit answer will always remain just beyond the horizon, as elusive as ever. Then again, perhaps it's the dialouge that's important here, if not an answer...


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SemperFidelity* 
_"Cut great first post"_

 

Welcome to head-fi, sorry about your wallet.


----------



## helix

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Not with interconnects (that's what my statement refers to). Speaker cables can influence the damping factor -- and thus define the Q factor of the bass resonance, usually the only system resonance causing back EMF in a speaker system --, but considering the 0.5-2 ohm already added by the crossover network, the 0.05-0.3 ohm from speaker cables don't matter much. 




_

 


 not only are IC's not in the damping factor equation (Zout/Zload) but back EMF isn't an issue becuase OF the high damping factor of most every amp made.

 here is some reading:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...les/cables.htm

 shurley if anyone had a reason to promote "audiophile" cable it would be this ezine because it would increase there advertising revenue, but they don't.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_...not only are ICs not in the damping factor equation (Zout/Zload), but back EMF isn't an issue because OF the high damping factor of most every amp made._

 

Add to this that no amp will cause any back EMF through its _input_ -- because it has no voice coil...


----------



## DrewWinters

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *K2Grey* 
_I think we can all agree that social constructs and sound changes of cables are two entirely different things. One is a group of perceptions and does not have physical existence. The other is the physical changes that differing cables have on the sound waves coming out of a headphone.



 That does not mean, however, that if something is perceived as real, then it is real. For example, it was widely held that blacks were inferior to whites, that does not mean it is real, although it does have consequences. Similarly, the perception of cables making sound quality differences does not mean that an actual sound quality difference is made, although there may be consequences in terms of people buying cables, psychological effect, etc.

 Although, didn't RnB claim that in the past his sister was able to hear differences between 4 cables and then hear that the 4th and 5th cables were actually the same cable in a row? This is hardly a definitive DBT or anything, but it is somewhat convincing._

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough afterall... what I'm saying is just a more sophisticated way of saying "If it sounds good, it IS good". That is, 
 not that perception creates reality, but that perceptions create real consequences. In this case, a person perceiving the sound as having increased in quality will now enjoy the music better, be more content with their equipment and will unfortunately also be more likely to spend more money on scientifically impotent devices. I'm not placing fancy cables in that catagory (or removing them from it). Rather, I'm just pointing out that there are indeed things that affect sound reproduction that cannot be measured.

 Actually, to be fair, I'm just being a prick that wanted to prove wrong what I felt was a ridiculous and ignorant statement (I mean that in the best possible way, of course). But since I'm not really adding anything else useful to the discussion, I'll shut up now and just read...except for this one last paragraph.

 Incidently, speaking of damping factor, I was only referring to speaker wires, not IC's - I just failed to specify. The literature I've found suggests that any DF over 50 is inaudible. This implies that in some systems, your speaker wire is almost entirely irrelevant (i.e. even very small cables will not reduce the DF below 50) while in other systems, larger cables will only help up to a certain point, while in still others, the biggest cable feasible is best. Of course, it turns out that the damping factor is FAR greater affected by amp and speaker impedence than it is by speaker wire - so much so that some literature fails entirely to mention the affect that speaker wire has! This may help explain why some people hear no change while others hear non-subtle changes and why others' perceptions change later (i.e. the system has changed to the point where they do make a difference). <shrug> I'm just speculating, of course.


----------



## K2Grey

I know, but people still want to think that there are actual differences. Let's say a cable manufacturer makes a ZX1 cable and a ZX2 cable and the only differences between them is that one has a cooler looking sleeve and costs $100 more. If someone were to upgrade from ZX1 to ZX2 and found that the ZX2 sounded significantly better, and then they found out that they were really the same, would they still think their upgrade was worth the price, even though it resulted in the music sounding better to them?


----------



## halcyon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_ caps don't need to break-in, if they did they'd be out of spec, imagine the problems we'd have with everything electronic if caps had to break-in. _

 

Have you read Cyril Bateman's measurements on Capacitor distortion in (ex) Electronics World?

 For original poster, also perhaps worth checking out:

http://www.empiricalaudio.com/frwhite_papers.html

http://www.empiricalaudio.com/frAudio_FAQ's.html

 The German audio magazines (Audio and Stereoplay) also do technical measurements of some of the cables in test. Sometimes they show a correlation with subjective audio assessment of "sound of cables" sometimes not.


----------



## helix

what does capacitor distortion have to do with break-in?


 quick summery:
http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=7122

 nope not a word on break-in, keep grasping at straws thou it's funny.


----------



## SemperFidelity

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_some of the things you've said are just plain wrong. first wire can't act like a diode becuase it's not directional it's a 'sea of electrons' attacted to opposite charges. caps don't need to break-in, if they did they'd be out of spec, imagine the problems we'd have with everything electronic if caps had to break-in. they can dry out (electrolytic) after 7 years but thats about all. even then i see a lot of old tube stuff still working fine after 50 years. most of the stuff you said is pointless mumbo-jumbo cuz if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. 

 "Masking phenomena are very nonlinear, and very difficult to predict." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 repeat after me: wire is as linear as it gets.

 i have a suggestion maybe it was oxidation on the contacts that was rubbed of when you put on the new cable, that would explane a lot.

 when i hear these people talk about night and day differances with cables its- 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Oh my. You can't look at wire in isolation. You need to add connectors, and bi-metallic interfaces can indeed act as diodes. Schottky diodes are the extreme example. And you need to add insulation, so you unavoidably have a capacitor. I always clean contacts first. Oxidation (depending on the metals involved) is an example of a bimetallic interface. 

 For a relatively long time, no one could measure relativistic effects; nonetheless they existed, waiting to be discovered and measured. Measuring them obviously did not bring them into existence. 

 Perhaps if you described your experiments in some detail we could assist you further.


----------



## halcyon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_what does capacitor distortion have to do with break-in?
 nope not a word on break-in, keep grasping at straws thou it's funny._

 

Heh, I _asked_ if you've read it, nothing else.

 It seems you haven't 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you had, you'd now that it ran for 6 issues and it covers also distortion as capacitors age 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You'd also notice that the summary was written before the series ran all the pieces (lots of good data in it). 

 Also, had you really done your googling properly, you'd have noticed I did a summary myself for diyaudio three years before that diyhifi forum post 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But I digress, I'm not saying it affects sound quality, but changes are measurable.

 Please stop putting me in one of your "categories". I'm merely giving information. Not argumenting for or against.

 As such, any grasping for straws is purely in your imagination 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 friendly regards,
 halcyon


----------



## K2Grey

It does need to be noted that at the point that no one could measure relativistic effects, no one could actually notice relativistic effects subjectively, either, and today people still cannot notice relativistic effects in the majority of situations.


----------



## Born2bwire

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *K2Grey* 
_It does need to be noted that at the point that no one could measure relativistic effects, no one could actually notice relativistic effects subjectively, either, and today people still cannot notice relativistic effects in the majority of situations._

 

One of the interesting things about electromagnetics is that Maxwell's equations, which are over a hundred years old, already account for relativity. It is one of the nice little occurances where experimental results dictated relativity in easily measurable and reproduceable experiments. The equations predict the speed limit of electromagnetic radiation. In fact, the independence of the speed of light to frames of reference was discovered (and confirmation of the velocity) was confirmed via experiments in the late 1800's. The problem that people had until Einstein, was why this was so, leading many people down the deadend that is ether. Now relativity does affect electromagnetics in a way that Maxwell's equations do not show explicity. Griffiths' text, "Introduction to Electrodynamics," has a brief section discussing relativistic electrodynamics. The fact is that the problem does not lie in the classical understanding of electromagnetics, but rather in the understanding of classical mechanics. Once you correct for relativistic mechanics, you can finalize the relativistic effects upon electromagnetics. But this has to deal with sources and experiments traveling in relativistic frames of reference (i.e. relativistic mechanics) and not with the inherent behavior of electromagnetism. So when we talk about relativistic electrodynamics, we are talking about how force and waves translate between frames. The only real update to electromagnetic theory in over a hundred years is quantum electromagnetics.


----------



## Steve999

Perhaps because we are in a sense travelling through time at nearly the speed of light, but only very slowly through the spatial dimensions. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Interesting this sort of thing is, maybe Born2bwire can help us some more. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *K2Grey* 
_It does need to be noted that at the point that no one could measure relativistic effects, no one could actually notice relativistic effects subjectively, either, and today people still cannot notice relativistic effects in the majority of situations._


----------



## helix

Now with 78% more GIBBERISH!! < you got that right! if your gonna bring up maxwell's equations, QED, quantum electromagnetics, etc. provide some equations to prove your point.

 halcyon: lets see just how much you got out of this article, quote me the part which descibed the physical or chemical change in the capacitor that made this change in sound over time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 btw this info has been know for the last 50 years, it get published in a audio magazine and suddenly it's a revelation lol.

 SemperFidelity: plain and simple, you don't know what your talking about. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 i have a theory, "audiophiles" want to be involved with the tweaking of their stereo system as much as possible but most don't have an EE background, so they read the audio magazines. now since these are made for the layperson they won't go into the reason for the long tailed pair with vas and emitter followers but they might have an article on capacitors or some such other part so they can maintain some credability. now because they have to make money they have a lot of advertiseing in the magazine with some of their revenue comming from cable manufactures. now becuase there macking money from the cable companys they don't want to refute the cable manufactures claims of audible differances between cables. because the magazine doesn't question the ad's people who read assume it to be true. no their is a problem where noone was before. and so the world turns with all the EE's designing audio with circuit theory and the "audiophiles" beliving that some magical reasons based on the outer limits of physics is making a differance in the sound of wire. 

 stop looking for problems where there are none.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_Stop looking for problems where there are none._

 

You have your problems, we have ours... No need to feel inferior because you can't hear cable differences -- maybe you haven't tried hard enough or you have other qualities instead...


----------



## bigshot

Helix's theory about audiophiles getting a lot of their info from "advertorials" in hifi publications is undeniably true. I would add that the info from promotional websites and brochures and salesmen in high end stereo stores are just as spurious. The most effective sales pitch is to plant doubt. That's what leads to horizontal "upgrade" after horizontal "upgrade".

 Good sound isn't a complex or overly scientific thing. Horse sense will get you most of the way there. A hefty dose of OCD combined with an passion to intellectually justify its effects can wreak havok on one's horse sense.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## mbriant

This thread is unfortunately rapidly going down hill because of personal insults and sarcastic remarks. If you have something intelligent and non-insulting to say on this topic, then please post it .... otherwise, keep it to yourself. Please.


----------



## Born2bwire

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve999* 
_Perhaps because we are in a sense travelling through time at nearly the speed of light, but only very slowly through the spatial dimensions. Or maybe born2bwire will disagree. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Well I thought it would be a fun fact to know. That is, relativity has existed in our understanding of electromagnetics far before we even knew what it was. Experimental results spurred the final forms of Maxwell's equations and then everyone basically had to play catchup to figure why that was. So when it came to electricity and electromagnetic waves, we often do observe relativity in everyday occurances, due to the finite velocity of light. For example, it takes about 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach us. People often get caught up on the idea that relativistic speeds leads to spatial translation, the relativeness of simultaneity, and the idea that time travels differently between frames of reference that they often forget that the basis of the special theory of relativity bases itself around the finite speed of information, namely the speed of light. So I guess the point I wanted to iterate was that while we may not be able to notice the effects that arise out of relativity corrected mechanics, we can more readily observe the presence of relativity in electromagnetics.


----------



## Steve999

That's interesting. Thanks. I don't doubt you. Now, I am just a layperson. So, what may I observe physically in my day-to-day world that is a manifestation of relativity but would not be predicted by Newtonian physics? Are electro-magnetic fields predicted by relativity but not by prior theories? If I see magnetic filings scattered in circles representing the shape of an electromagnetic field, is this predicted by relativity but not by prior theories? I don't doubt that light takes 8 minutes to get here from the sun, but did we know this before the theory of relativity, and if so, did it take the theory of relativity to predict that this would be so? Do we have a theory that predicts the speed of light, or is this an empirically calculated constant? Or am I not following you at all?

 I was born at the hospital at your University, by the way. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Born2bwire* 
_Well I thought it would be a fun fact to know. That is, relativity has existed in our understanding of electromagnetics far before we even knew what it was. Experimental results spurred the final forms of Maxwell's equations and then everyone basically had to play catchup to figure why that was. So when it came to electricity and electromagnetic waves, we often do observe relativity in everyday occurances, due to the finite velocity of light. For example, it takes about 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach us. People often get caught up on the idea that relativistic speeds leads to spatial translation, the relativeness of simultaneity, and the idea that time travels differently between frames of reference that they often forget that the basis of the special theory of relativity bases itself around the finite speed of information, namely the speed of light. So I guess the point I wanted to iterate was that while we may not be able to notice the effects that arise out of relativity corrected mechanics, we can more readily observe the presence of relativity in electromagnetics._


----------



## Born2bwire

Well basically, there are four equations that dictate pretty much the entire behavior of electromagnetics. There are Gauss' laws (two of them), Faraday's law and Ampere's law (with a correction by Maxwell, called the displacement current). In fact, we only need Ampere's law and Faraday's law. We can actually derive Gauss' laws from the other two now. Around the Civil War, 1865 or so, Maxwell made a corrective term to Amprere's law that coupled the magnetic field with a changing electric field and repackaged those four equations as a unified theory so to speak. This coupling now meant that Faraday's law and Ampere's law now predict that a changing magnetic field creates an electric field and a changing electric field produces a magnetic field. Basically what Maxwell did was when he added the coupling term, you could now manipulate the equations into a vector wave equation. You could now describe the E and H fields as coupled waves and thus we give birth to a mathematical description of the electromagnetic wave. Another interesting characteristic of this form is that the wave equation has a velocity that is dependent upon the permittivity and permeability of the medium. This meant, that in a vacuum, the speed of light is constant. Maxwell sat down and actually worked out the speed of light in a vacuum from available data of the day and was very close in his estimate. It was commonly thought of that light and other EM waves moved through what is called an ether. It's some abstract medium that permeates all space, even vacuum, that is the medium that supports the propagation of EM waves. Like how the vibration of air and water supports acoustic waves. So if light travels through this ether, then the Earth's relative velocity to the ether should make in impact on the speed of light. That is, in classical mechanics, if I'm running 2 mi/hr and I throw a ball 20 mi/hr (which is probably the best I can throw a ball 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), then the ball's new velocity with reference to the rest frame (Earth) is 22 mi/hr and it's velocity in your reference frame is 20 mi/hr. In the same way, the Earth is moving through an ether and the sun is considered the rest frame of the ether, so depending upon the Earth's orientation in the orbit around the sun, we would be moving in different directions respect to the ether. 

 So there is a famous experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment that was conducted in the late 1880's where they measured the speed of light at different positions of the Earth around the sun (at various times of the year). They took a series of mirrors and cast a light source on a splitter. The light was split along two paths of the same lengths that were perpendicular to each other. They then merged the light together and looked at the phase difference. The experiment was thought out and conducted such that it had a high degree of accuracy and was supposed to provide concrete proof for the ether theorem. They had expected, that since the split paths of light were moving through the medium at different orientations (one with/against the other perpendicular to it) that the would have different velocities and the resulting waves would be out of phase. But what they found, to their surprise, was that there was no significant change in the speed of light relative to the ether. Further experiments kept proving to higher degrees of accuracy that light travelled the same velocity irrespective to its frame of reference. So all of this was done between the 1860's and 1890's. Faraday's law and Ampere's law were derived in the first half of the 1800's. So what happened in the last half of the 19th century is that the classical explanation of electromagnetic waves, the idea that there is an ether, started to unravel. And unfortunately, many physicists kept trying to modify the ether theory to fit the new experimental results. My understanding is that it got really complicated near the end. It took the thinking of Lorentz and Einstein to make the breakthrough. They basically sat down and decided that the experiments were right and to think about what would happen if there was a finite speed of light (and hence information, another consequence is that if light is finite, the any transferrence of energy, force, or what we can call in general information is finite).

 So in all of this ramblings, what I mean to get across is that in the basis of electrodynamics was laid down by the mid-1800's. As better understanding of electromagnetic waves came about, Maxwell added the final touch and put out his four equations which unified classical electromagnetism. His equations predict such phenomenon as waves, fields, and electrostatics. But the only really new idea he had was the equations for electromagnetic waves. His equations predicted a finite speed to these waves and this speed was found from experimental results of the time. This is how relativity comes about, because now we have a speed limit, and this speed limit is independent of our frame of reference. Pretty much all of special relativity is a consequence of this.

 I'm going to submit this now and edit it as needed.

 EDIT:
 But in response to your original questions (you see, ask a simple question and look what all you get from me), the phenomenon of iron filings in a magnetic field was described most certainly before Maxwell. Part of the reason for it occuring is that iron can be descibed as having these regions of local magnetic preferences. That is, there are small domains that have an effective magnetic polarity. Like a bunch of small magnets in different directions glued together. When we apply a magnetic field, we line these domains up and they all start working together and we now have a reinforcing magnetic field. Why they line up is probably described by another law called Lorentz's law, which relates the force on a charge from an electric or magnetic field. But the phenomenon of magnetism and polarization (like how the magnetic domains line up, polarization is when electric dipoles line up in an electric field) can be incorporated into Maxwell's equations. They are commonly thought of as changing the permittivity or permeability of the medium (the mu and epsilon). So basically, polarization or magnetization of a material supplements an existing field. Thus, we just set D = epsilon*E + P and B = mu*(H+M). D and B are the flux densities of the fields and can be thought of as taking into account the effects of the medium. When it comes to electrostatics and quasistatics, sometimes there are a few more equations that we need to pull in. But for example, Maxwell's equations can describe how antennas work, how current propagates through a waveguide, like your cables or the traces on a PCB, how a solenoid works, or how induction occurs (ie: transformer or how you pick up EMI noise). Circuit equations can be derived from Maxwell's equations, like Kirchoff's Voltage and Current laws. For example, the total amount of current entering a node is the same as leaving the node is a consequence of Guass' law (if I recall correctly that is), were the divergence of B is zero (you can think of it as the amount of magnetic flux entering a closed surface is the same that is leaving the surface).

 The next big breakthrough came about from Einstein and other researchers with quantum mechanics. The idea that energy is always quantized in discrete packages was applied to EM and electrodynamics. This is not an area that I am versed in to any real degree. I mainly focus upon the microwave and lower regions. Maxwell's equations are just fine for describing phenomenon in those areas. I think that if you want to get into the finer details in optics in the terahertz (optical region) and above that you may have to start getting into quantum.

 If you want the actual Maxwell's equations and the electromagnetic wave equation, I believe you probably can find them on wikopedia. It's a little obtuse to try and type them out since they are most informative (in my opinion at least) when presented as vector wave equations, and I don't think vBulletin would be as nice as LaTex.

 So basically, classical electromagnetics incorporated relativity. It was not until Maxwell added the displacement current to Ampere's Law and worked out the resulting consequences that they found a finite speed to EM waves. From this point on, they had a relativistically correct understanding of EM. What they did not have, was a correct understanding of relativity. I think I'll stop here and save you guys from having to endure anymore. Now most of this stuff is off the top of my head with a few glances at wikipedia to check some of the dates. So there could be some incorrect statements here, but I am no longer at my office so I do not have my references with me. A good text that I would recommend (if anyone's interested) on classical electrodynamics is the electrodynamics book by Griffiths. He discuss classical electrostatics and warms his way all the way into special relativity. He discusses some of the consequences of having a finite speed to electricity (this isn't actually accounted for in time dependent solutions all the time but the understanding is still there, it's just such a small impact that it isn't usually considered) and the effects that relativistic mechanics has on electrodynamics. But these latter parts are fairly brief. I cannot remember if he goes over electromagnetic waves though.


----------



## helix

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...con.html#emcon

 just the facts 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 can't seem to find any IEEE papers on the differances in audibility in wire, wonder why.

 btw: the physics forums has LaTeX math, that would be the place to debate the differances in wire according to QM, thou when i posted the question everyone told me there was no differance but that was onlt the EE section, try the quantum physics section.

http://www.physicsforums.com/


----------



## helix

you don't know what my credentials are 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 if all you can attack is my spelling 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ps: i was told by a moderator to stop being offensive, didn't know that i was. 

 17 years in electronics design but i'm no EE, still i build and modify my own stuff, i don't just use somebody elses schematic to do it either. if you can do better please let me know. or maybe you know something not said in my >50 EE books.

 funny thing i don't see anybody else being told to show their credentials, do your ears count, lol.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_funny thing i don't see anybody else being told to show their credentials, do your ears count, lol._

 

Interesting. Whenever I evaluate the comments of others about what they liked about a particular amp, set of phones, cables, whatever, I am always interested in what they hear. I can't think of a single instance when I gave a hoot what their profession is or what experience they had that was unrelated to actually listening to and enjoying the type of equipment we are talking about. In fact, there are certain people on this forum whose "ears" I have come to trust, in terms of what they find pleasing and not so pleasing seems to be similar to my own tastes. So their ears are their "credentials" in that sense. After all, this is an enthusiasts forum isn't it? Isn't it all about enjoying the hobby, helping others enjoy the hobby, and sharing our experiences listening to headphones, etc.? Or is just about wining a debate, showing how smart we are, and acting like other people are idiots? Oh wherefore art thou Head-Fi?


----------



## Xanadu777

This may be of interest, The Essex Echo on the subject by Malcolm Omar Hawksford, Centre for Audio Research
 and Engineering University of Essex Colchester CO4 3SQ, Essex, UK. Written in 1985 (with a touch of humor).

 "This article examines propagation in cables from the fundamental principles of
 modern electromagnetic theory. The aim is to attempt to identify mechanisms
 that form a rational basis for a more objective understanding of claimed sonic
 anomalies in interconnects."


 A google scholar search of Malcolm Omar Hawksford brings up many of his AES (Audio Engineering Society) lectures and other credentials.


----------



## strohmie

Mod edit: Personal attack on a member's spelling.


----------



## fewtch

Mod edit: Another attack on a member's spelling.


----------



## helix

the original poster asked for the reason for the difference in sound between cables from an EE, one of the great things about the internet is you can find the information if you know where to look.

 if you go on usenet to rec.audio.high-end you see that most of the old school agree with me, if you go to sci.electronics.design you can find the EE's who write the books everybody uses.

 if you don't belive what i say just ask the people your looking for directly. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 edit: never said i published the books.

 this has got to be the most subjectivist forum on the web, in all the years of reading the audio amature, glass audio, speaker builder, self on audio etc. i have never seen the claims that get posted here. i don't care if you buy $10 cable or $5000 cable but what does get to me is someone who is brand new to high end audio getting suckered into buying in to all of these myths. my ears work just fine so does my head i guess that hurts some of you.


----------



## PFKMan23

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_17 years in electronics design but i'm no EE, still i build and modify my own stuff, i don't just use somebody elses schematic to do it either. if you can do better please let me know. or maybe you know something not said in my >50 EE books._

 

50+ EE books eh?? How about 5-6 titles for verification of what you've written?


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_if you go on usenet to rec.audio.high-end you see that most of the old school agree with me,_

 

I used to lurk there regularly... there's an ongoing debate on these topics, but I don't see most of the newsgroup agreeing with you. 

 Anyway, perhaps you should be aware that Usenet is confrontational to a degree not allowed on head-fi, so now that you've been warned by moderator you ought to take it seriously if you want to stick around here.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *helix* 
_this has got to be the most subjectivist forum on the web,_

 

Nope, that would probably have to go to audioasylum (IMO). It is definitely subjectivist though, and if that bothers you a lot then you're in the wrong place. Ever heard the statement "when in Rome, do as the Romans...?"

 Edit -- now back to the thread topic, if there really is one worthy of the title... (apologies for injecting personal comments, but it was just driving me nuts).


----------



## helix

are you sure you've been ther lately?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...rch+this+group


 here's a little bit of reading:

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...o/subjectv.htm


----------



## Steve999

Thank you!!!! I read on these types of things once in a while and try to get it to soak in a little bit. I read your most recent post once tonight and will give it a few more readings tomorrow. Thanks for your time and effort. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Born2bwire* 
_Well basically, there are four equations that dictate pretty much the entire behavior of electromagnetics...

 So in all of this ramblings, what I mean to get across is that in the basis of electrodynamics was laid down by the mid-1800's...

 But in response to your original questions (you see, ask a simple question and look what all you get from me), the phenomenon of iron filings in a magnetic field was described most certainly before Maxwel...

 A good text that I would recommend (if anyone's interested) on classical electrodynamics is the electrodynamics book by Griffiths. He discuss classical electrostatics and warms his way all the way into special relativity...._


----------



## chris719

I believe the differences in cables exist because certain manufacturers have figured out how to alter the Z / dielectric / geometry to cause "mini filter" type effects. Many people find that these cables sound better with certain systems, like the Cardas/Zu with the Sennheiser headphones. Many cable prices are outrageous though. I think diminishing returns kicks in really fast when you talk about cables. Often the best cables aren't even the most expensive anyway.

 I have used some of those belden blue jeans cables and what you get is a very well made cable that has quality wire, 100% published specs, excellent connectors, and a reasonable price. I think the goal is accuracy in every component, not compensation, so I go for the cable that is has good connectors, good dielectric, reasonable geometry, and low capacitance.

 Cables for analog have some wiggle room.. but a lot of these audiophile SPDIF cables make me cry. Many of them aren't even coax and not even 75 ohm. I believe most of the cable vendors just take their analog RCAs , put a new techflex on it and sell it for 3x as much.

 The reason there are so many cable vendors is that they have a unique market.. they sell a product that is cheap to manufacture, can take no research and development for some, and yet can be sold for huge markups. The best thing is they can't ever be proven to have a bad product, they can take their cheap interconnect, make it stiffer and thicker with god knows what and price it with the highest end, and still come out "competitive" in magazine / online reviews. There is just too much snake oil being sold these days and virtually no way to identify it.

 Don't even get me started about power cords... if people saw the crap that ran through their walls they might have second thoughts about that new 800 dollar 4 gauge power cord doing anything.


----------



## Born2bwire

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve999* 
_Thank you!!!! I read on these types of things once in a while and try to get it to soak in a little bit. I read your most recent post once tonight and will give it a few more readings tomorrow. Thanks for your time and effort. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Don't mention it and feel free to PM me if you have any questions, I'll try to come up with a plausible answer. I always found electromagnetics to be very interesting and I am glad I am working with the compututational electromagnetics group at my university. Weird thing is though, it has much less to do with the actual physics (since that's been hashed out to death for well over a century) but more with mathematical methods on evaluating the problems. So it's been different from what I expected.


----------



## mbriant

If all these paragraphs of electromagnetic scientific jargon actually somehow directly apply to the topic of this thread, please explain in layman's terms how and why. If not, and it's off topic, please save it for another thread...or start another thread. Thanks.


----------



## RedLeader

well he did ask for an EE anwser originally. If you ask for an engineers anwser, what do you expect? Just be glad I didn't post that, none of it would have made any sense. GJ b2bw, a couple things that were a little off, but mostly spot on. What program are you in btw?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chris719* 
_I believe the differences in cables exist because certain manufacturers have figured out how to alter the Z / dielectric / geometry to cause "mini filter" type effects. Many people find that these cables sound better with certain systems, like the Cardas/Zu with the Sennheiser headphones._

 

If this was the case, there has to be a default Z/dielectric/geometry configuration which would stand for neutral sound. I doubt you can tell what this has to be, so for now this is not more than an (IMO unfounded) assumption. 


  Quote:


 _Many cable prices are outrageous though. I think diminishing returns kicks in really fast when you talk about cables. Often the best cables aren't even the most expensive anyway._ 
 

Very true. I don't have too much experience with buyable cables, but after all there's a clear tendency that better sound costs more. 


  Quote:


 _I have used some of those belden blue jeans cables and what you get is a very well made cable that has quality wire, 100% published specs, excellent connectors, and a reasonable price. I think the goal is accuracy in every component, not compensation, so I go for the cable that is has good connectors, good dielectric, reasonable geometry, and low capacitance._ 
 

Of course this «good dielectric, reasonable geometry, low capacitance» claim has to be taken with a grain of salt and is nothing more than the manufacturer's self-advertisement and nothing every other cable manufacturer wouldn't claim for his own products. As to «compensation»: As long as you don't have absolutely neutral components (source, amp, sound transducer), it's impossible not to benefit from synergistic compensations from cables, so the most «neutral» cable probably won't sound best in your setup -- if it was possible to rate neutrality at all.


  Quote:


 _Don't even get me started about power cords... if people saw the crap that ran through their walls they might have second thoughts about that new 800 dollar 4 gauge power cord doing anything._ 
 

I'm not the right person to answer this, but there have been a few reasonable sounding attempts to explain why the last meters matter most.


----------



## F1GTR

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nph134* 
_All scientific theories that are used to describe physical systems in nature are simple approximations of the way nature is in reality.

 So I would say science is more concrete than the natural systems it is used to describe._

 

Go work in the automotive industry, specifically fabricating cages for track cars, and this opinion will quickly change.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *omedon* 
_As others have said theories are an approximation. Until our understanding is complete, which it will likely never be, theories will be subject to revision.

 Theory is just an explanation of what is happening. The real world IS what is happening. Theory is imposed on the real world to help explain the phenomonon. It is incredibly useful, but it is a means and not an end._

 

Truth.


----------



## JohnFerrier

It's not the physics of the cable. The physical differences are too small. It's how the brain works, which is _extremely_ complex. So, it's a psychological or a social-cultural phenomena.

 Cables are more like an optical illusion.






 Does square B look as dark as square A???
_BOTH squares are RGB: 107,107,107._

Wikipedia Optical Illusion


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_It's not the physics of the cable. The physical differences are too small. It's how the brain works, which is extremely complex. So, it's a psychological or a social-cultural phenomena.

 Cables are more like an optical illusion.






 Does square B look as dark as square A???
BOTH squares are RGB: 107,107,107.

Wikipedia Optical Illusion_

 

I love that illusion. But hearing and seeing involve two different senses, and for this reason and others, an optical illusion is not really a good analogy in the present context. This is actually a concession in favor of the skeptics' position, since in reality the optical illusion favors the proponents of cable differences. Indeed, squares A and B do not look to the human eye to be the same in this example. Yet a "measurement" tells us they are the same. If you're looking for something that is pleasing to the eye, and the different colored squares are pleasing to your eye, then who cares that some measurement tells you the two squares are the same? That is not how your brain is _seeing_ it. I would use the mechanism or device that makes the squares appear to my eye to be different, since that gives me more pleasure than squares of the same color.

 You're also right that the brain is "extremely complex," which is why it is presumptuous to assume we know everything about it, including how we preceive sounds or what sounds we can percieve.


----------



## JohnFerrier




----------



## Vul Kuolun

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't every scientist/ ee, before he starts researching a phenomenon (in this case: "different cables sound different, differences are not satisfactory explainable with todays measurements and parameters" or something alike), insist on a proof (or research about) the phenomenon existing at all? We would't expect scientists to start researching (on a Nobel-price worthy level) because they heard that someone at head-fi found that a Zu made his 650 brighter.
 Did i miss something here?


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't every scientist/ ee, before he starts researching a phenomenon (in this case: "different cables sound different, differences are not satisfactory explainable with todays measurements and parameters" or something alike), insist on a proof (or research about) the phenomenon existing at all? We would't expect scientists to start researching (on a Nobel-price worthy level) because they heard that someone at head-fi found that a Zu made his 650 brighter.
 Did i miss something here?_

 

Why do you insist on proof and research before starting research?
 Don't you think that if you have a question that an EE might be able to answer it is sensible to ask them that question?
 Maybe they can answer it and maybe they can't. If they can't, more research is obviously needed. 
 It is up to the scientist to decide if they want to spend time doing this research. 
 If there is a scientifically interesting side to it, they might. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 If a big company paid them to do so they might.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 If they're just curious (because they are personally involved, like being an audiophile for instance) they might.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 If they are just interested and helpfull they might....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But they can't if you don't ask the question.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Hope this is what you were missing.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

I do not insist on anything.

 But if a was a scientist, i would make sure i'd ask the right question; i wouldn't want to waste my precious time and money on something that probably doesn't exist. This would be the first step, if you ask me.

 If you tell a scientist about this guy cutting this virgin in half, and the scientist starts researching about virginity and immortality and stuff, i would call him a bad scientist. Don't you think he should first try to evaluate the observation? Maybe try to seperate human failures in perception of the seen or heard?

 Isn't it a fact, that if you're a ee today, with no (emotional) connection to the "audiophile world", you wouldn't even have a faint suspicion to believe that a signal in the audible spectrum could be altered by a cable (as long as it hits some minimum standarts already known)?

 If there's an explanation for cable sound based on R, L, and C, i'm sure it would be highly apreciated here. But for what i've read so far, exactly this seems to be the problem. 
 Always asuming that there is in fact a difference, which is yet to proove for what i've read so far.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Always assuming that there is in fact a difference, which is yet to prove from what I've read so far._

 

Not really. Most people who have heard the Zu Mobius or the Silver Dragon on their HD 650s instead of the stock cable can hear the difference, no matter how skeptical they have been about cable sound. Also, I'm quite sure that you wouldn't claim for proofs in terms of sonic differences among amps or source devices -- I guess because there's an explanation for them to sound different, as they're rather complex and physically different enough. But tell me what measuring differences make e.g. amps sound different! You'll most likely fail. 

 Remember: EEs usually don't have a clue about what measurings make amps sound different (and sure they do!). So not few of them have decided to deny sonic differences among different amps as well. That's why my respect for EEs generally isn't much higher than that for physicians (doctors). 
.


----------



## tourmaline

If something can't be explained, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

 If i look 30, but i am 35, it doesn't mean i am feeling like 30.

 I hear differences in every cable really quick. Dunno why but i do; in interlinks, powerkabels etc. As long as i hear differences for the good, it doesn't matter what other people think, i will buy the cable that sounds best for me. There is (small) increases in quality in cables and interlinks in a brand troughout the collection of cables. The reference series or most expensive give more detail and musicallity. Also speed is another thing that differs from cable to cable, as well as clarity.

 I don't care how they make a cable, i only care about the sound it let me hear.

 The only real discussion point is maybe why the top cables have to be that expensive. Well, some are really expensive to make, relativaly speaking...some look like ordinary radio shack kabels with ridiculous prices.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


 Not really. Most people who have heard the Zu Mobius or the Silver Dragon on their HD 650s instead of the stock cable can hear the difference, no matter how skeptical they have been about cable sound 
 

This is the point, where the discussion ends as long as we have to give the same relevance to every simple anectode as to every halfway scientific testing i've heard about. Too bad we cannot get more into this one.

  Quote:


 Remember: EEs usually don't have a clue about what measurings make amps sound different (and sure they do!). So not few of them have decided to deny sonic differences among different amps as well. That's why my respect for EEs generally isn't much higher than that for physicians (doctors). 
 

I cannot agree with you here. (Edit: as usual )
 I have highest respect for ee, as they designed every single circuit enabeling me and you to hear music in such a highly sophisticated way as we do. The problem seems to me, people take all that for granted (mostly, as we all don't even come near understanding the way these devices really work besides simple models?) ; An 650, 880 or 701; 7.1 receivers; CD-/DVD-Players; etc, etc.

 If i was an ee that, for example took part in the development of the 650, would be seriously pissed if someone told me i hadn't a clue about sound and measurement, and that the real experts sell aftermarket cables sell for as much as my entire headphone.
 Tell me, which cable manufacturer would you believe to be able to develop a headphone, a CDP, a 7.1 receiver? That kind of perspective seems totaly absurd to me. These devices sound fantastic nowadays, so fantastic it's become very very hard to hear differences between different devices of the same kind. 
 I truly believe (yes, i believe too) that all this is a fantastic achievement based on the things we know about electricity and the perception of sound. The knowledge on these things canot be that bad, that an ee should not be able to develop and measure a cable with the task of transfering a signal over maybe 20 inches if the same company is able to produce a CDP, or a DAC, or ....


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_I have highest respect for ee, as they designed every single circuit enabeling me and you to hear music in such a highly sophisticated way as we do. The problem seems to me, people take all that for granted. ... If i was an ee that, for example took part in the development of the 650, would be seriously pissed if someone told me i hadn't a clue about sound and measurement, and that the real experts sell aftermarket cables sell for as much as my entire headphone._

 

You have taken extremely care to avoid answering my question -- although your strategy isn't bad...

 Of course I have respect for the designers of amps who know what they're doing, every single one with a personal sonic philosophy, realized in a corresponding design. I was just talking of those mentioned who have decided to just believe data instead of listening experiences, and those seem to be in the majority among EEs (although not necessarily in the function of developers of audio devices for demanding listeners). 

 So again my question: Which measuring values are, in your opinion, responsible for the distinct characteristics shown by modern solid-state amplifiers? As you may possibly know, frequency-response, harmonic and intermodulation distortion as well as noise are usually so low that they're «officially» below the hearing threshold defined by conservative EEs. So why the broadly perceived differences, even noticed by most cable skeptics? You have tried to save yourself by pretending: _«These devices sound fantastic nowadays, so fantastic it's become very very hard to hear differences between different devices of the same kind.»_ That's not my experience at all, and if you look around on Head-Fi, you're fairly alone with this opinion. Even though sound transducers show bigger differences, the sonic differences among electronics components are big enough to be considered fairly big and quite noticeable to someone with decent hearing and hearing experience. 

  Quote:


 _The knowledge on these things cannot be that bad that an EE should not be able to develop and measure a cable with the task of transferring a signal over maybe 20 inches if the same company is able to produce a CDP, or a DAC, or ...._ 
 

Now you're on the wrong track. I'm in no way putting serious, experienced and open-minded electronics manufacturers down. But if an EE develops an audio-electronics product solely oriented on measurements -- thinking they sound the same anyway --, he will treat and think about cables accordingly. 
.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


 So again my question: Which measuring values are, in your opinion, responsible for the distinct characteristics shown by modern solid-state amplifiers? As you may possibly know, frequency-response, harmonic and intermodulation distortion as well as noise are usually so low that they're «officially» below the hearing threshold defined by conservative EEs. So why the broadly perceived differences, even noticed by most cable skeptics? You have tried to save yourself by pretending: «These devices sound fantastic nowadays, so fantastic it's become very very hard to hear differences between different devices of the same kind.» That's not my experience at all, and if you look around on Head-Fi, you're fairly alone with this opinion. Even though sound transducers show bigger differences, the sonic differences among electronics components are big enough to be considered fairly big and quite noticeable to someone with decent hearing and hearing experience. 
 

Oh, sorry, i didn't mean to avoid your question. Here's my two cents:

 As i'm not a person with too much technical knowledge (and yes, despite the measurements you mentioned, there aren't too much left i know- maybe signal to noise would be not uninteresting too), so my thoughts on the subjects are not really based on technical information. As little as 95% of the members here.

 At the moment, i don't plan to buy another amplifier as i'm quite happy with my simple, cheap setup- though i'm sure, there are better ones; i'm a believer in this case.

 But i'm quite sure too, there's a point where going up the ladder doesn't show any significant effect. If this point is between a CMoy and a PPA, or a LD+ and a Gilmore, i've got no clue. But i'm sure as hell, if i ever get unhappy with my setup (which will sooner or later happen, that's part of the hobby/sickness/whatever you call it) i will test with blinded eyes. And i find it quite possible to find out there's no night and day in this case too. Though i't seems quite plausible if someone tells you that amps sound different this doesn't mean every super-duper-fancy-oil-sheik-amp makes sense. As i said, i'm afraid theres a placebo boarder in amps too; I just got no clue where it is. For what i've read so far, i expect it to be quite low for head-fi standards.
 For differences between amps, i think you should bear in mind that it's a popular way of colouring the sound. Absolute quality should be quite hard to judge.

 But i'm starting to feel uncomfortable in a thread once adressed to engineers.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_As i'm not a person with too much technical knowledge (and yes, despite the measurements you mentioned, there aren't too much left I know- maybe signal to noise would be not uninteresting too), so my thoughts on the subjects are not really based on technical information. As little as 95% of the members here.

 At the moment, i don't plan to buy another amplifier as i'm quite happy with my simple, cheap setup- though i'm sure, there are better ones; i'm a believer in this case.

 But I'm quite sure too, there's a point where going up the ladder doesn't show any significant effect. If this point is between a CMoy and a PPA, or a LD+ and a Gilmore, I've got no clue. But I'm sure as hell, if I ever get unhappy with my setup (which will sooner or later happen, that's part of the hobby/sickness/whatever you call it) I will test with blinded eyes. And I find it quite possible to find out there's no night and day in this case too. Though i't seems quite plausible if someone tells you that amps sound different this doesn't mean every super-duper-fancy-oil-sheik-amp makes sense. As I said, I'm afraid theres a placebo boarder in amps too; I just got no clue where it is. For what I've read so far, I expect it to be quite low for head-fi standards._

 

Now we're getting somewhere! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 BTW, I didn't mean to make you look like a newb -- I don't know myself which measuring values in amplifiers cause which sonic characteristics. But since we agree on this point, we know that measuring values don't tell us all about the expectable sound -- at least the way «we» look at them until now. So let's treat cables exactly in this sense! 

 You may be surprised, but I also agree with you that especially headphone amps are overrated on Head-Fi. I've made my own «objectivizing» tests regarding amplifier neutrality, and my provisional conclusion is that -- roughly spoken -- the more expensive the amp, the more euphonic and the less neutral it is. Of course that's a simplification, and I'm sure amps need a decent expense for sounding relatively neutral as well, but every über-expensive amp I've tried in my setup so far has altered the input signal clearly more than my relatively modest own amps. I think audiophilia can also lead to heavily colored sound in certain sectors -- a fruit of the subjectivism (which I otherwise absolutely advocate, as you know). 
.


----------



## ehlarson

Science predicts certain cable characteristics affect sound, RLC, noise rejection, and so on. It easy easy to build an cable that is theoretically transparent to audio applications using basic materials. You certainly don't need silver or gold wire.

 I am sure that a lot of the differences people hear are real. High end manufacturers can manipulate the electrical characteristics of their cables to get audible effects. But is this desirable? Surely an equalizer could achieve the same result and much more reliably and flexibly. Consider what sound engineers do in their recording studios - they use equalizers when they want to tailor sound- and they have some very nice equalizers indeed. What they most certainly do not do is use patch panels where they swap in exotic cables to tailor sound! Why should audiophiles go down this route? 

 The big problem comes when people claim observable sound differences when cable measurements predict that the sound differences should be zero. This is where the tension between science and subjectivist audiophiles exists.

 A good scientist regards a disagreement between fact and theory as a golden opportunity to improve the theory. Einstein's relativistic physics arose from exactly such disagreements. The orbital precession of Mercury. The Michaelson-Morley experiment. And so on.

 The problem with the subjectivist audiophile claims is that they are not reproducible under controlled conditions. Until they can be repeated under controlled conditions in multiple laboratories these claims will not be recognized as facts any more than dowsing, phrenology or past life regressions. There is just no establishment of fact that the science is lacking.

 Now from my own point of view this is very telling. Why should I pay money for something that the maker cannot show hard evidence will benefit me? Myrtle blocks, silver litz wire, Bybee devices etc. sound like fun, but there is no reliable evidence that ithey will percievably improve my system's sound while there are plenty of places where science has established that money spent will improve the sound of my system.

 It is obvious to me where the odds are stacked and I spend my money accordingly.


----------



## MatsudaMan

Scientist can't begin to explain why a Stradivarius violin sounds the way it does. Scientist also may not be able to even hear the difference between a Stradivarius and a copy of a Strad or a violin bought on ebay for that matter. In my opinion that makes them (scientists and engineers) useless in the subject of sound. Music trancends 1's and O's. Those who argue the other way around just can not begin to comprehend this idea. You can't come up with an equation to why and how something makes music spiritual, transcendent, magical, etc...


----------



## joojoo2915

Quote:


 ... Scientist also may not be able to even hear the difference between a Stradivarius and a copy of a Strad or a violin bought on ebay for that matter. In my opinion that makes them (scientists and engineers) useless in the subject of sound. Music trancends 1's and O's. Those who argue the other way around just can not begin to comprehend this idea. You can't come up with an equation to why and how something makes music spiritual, transcendent, magical, etc... 
 

Yeah, I've heard about this. At all engineering schools in the country they demand that every applicant lose all appreciation for music before they are admitted 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . Why would having an understanding of the underlying systems that make sound systems work diminish at all from the experience one can get from listening to said systems? It is my opinion that the experience can even be heightened due to the fact that a scientist/engineer/informed consumer knows exactly what to tweak to make things sound just that much better. 

 Having just read through this whole thread I would like to say it is probably the most informative that I've read on head-fi. To add my 2 cents - it appears the only point of contention anymore is whether or not our current methods of measurement are sufficient in describing reproduced sound. This is incredibly easy to test, and has been done before without any indication that people can hear things that are not being measured. It could be very possible that the tests are flawed, but it would only take one person to be able to hear differences, that could not be measured, on a consistent basis, to prove that there is something else out there not currently described by contemporary measurements. The scientist can't prove the negative to the hypothesis, so it is up to the subjectivists to step up and prove that they can do it. 

 I would also like to reiterate this little tidbit just because it made me laugh out loud when I read it:

 Good sound isn't a complex or overly scientific thing. Horse sense will get you most of the way there. A hefty dose of OCD combined with an passion to intellectually justify its effects can wreak havok on one's horse sense.
 -Bigshot


----------



## setmenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *MatsudaMan* 
_Scientist can't begin to explain why a Stradivarius violin sounds the way it does. Scientist also may not be able to even hear the difference between a Stradivarius and a copy of a Strad or a violin bought on ebay for that matter. In my opinion that makes them (scientists and engineers) useless in the subject of sound. Music trancends 1's and O's. Those who argue the other way around just can not begin to comprehend this idea. You can't come up with an equation to why and how something makes music spiritual, transcendent, magical, etc..._

 

If I correctly recollect an article I read somewhile back.
 It mentioned, a possible contributing cause of the unique sound, was that wood used in the making of the Stradivarius violins was stored for some time floating in water polluted with sewage.
 The article went into some detail about the effects of such an environment on the cellular structure of the wood compared to other storage methods.

 .


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ehlarson* 
_...It easy easy to build an cable that is theoretically transparent to audio applications using basic materials. You certainly don't need silver or gold wire. I am sure that a lot of the differences people hear are real. High end manufacturers can manipulate the electrical characteristics of their cables to get audible effects._

 

It's absolutely possible that some, many or most of the high-end cables are less neutral than cheaper cables. But if you state neutrality achieved by «basis materials», how would it reflect itself in measuring data as opposed to «high-end cables»? Of course cables show measurable differences, but in the audible range they're so minimal that they can't be responsible for sonic differences, the less so in the eyes of conservative EEs (for whom only the audible range is of any importance anyway).

  Quote:


 _Surely an equalizer could achieve the same result and much more reliably and flexibly._ 
 

I don't believe this. Equalizers alter the frequency response, cables don't. Although they can sometimes cause the impression of FR alterations, but IME there are also sonic subleties on a specific level which aren't explainable by FR distortions (and generally hard to couch without causing raised eyebrows with objectivists). 

  Quote:


 _Consider what sound engineers do in their recording studios - they use equalizers when they want to tailor sound- and they have some very nice equalizers indeed. What they most certainly do not do is use patch panels where they swap in exotic cables to tailor sound! Why should audiophiles go down this route?_ 
 

Theoretically I have nothing against equalizing. If a recording has a flawed sonic balance, it will sound better and more correct after equalizing. Now there are two alternatives: 1) analog equalizers; they imply dozens if not hundreds of additional electrical components in the signal path. There may be some hyper-expensive devices which barely degrade the signal nonetheless, but affordable analog equalizers will inevitably do this, independent of the EQ settings, even in neutral position. 2) digital equalizers; theoretically the additional electronics components don't degrade the (digital!) signal, so they're the perfect tool for this purpose. But one precondition has to be fulfilled: you have to have digital out- and inputs, hence normally a digital transport and a DAC. And although many DACs are compatible with high-resolution signals such as those from DVD-As, the number of DVD-As with high-rez output is near zero. Not to mention the SACDs' DSD format, which can't be processed at all. So you're virtually bound to redbook CD with its 16 bit and 44.1 kHz. If you can live with this restriction, then equalizers do make sense, as long as you know how to handle them. But still they don't provide exactly the same tuning effect as cables. BTW, I equalize bad CD recordings on my computer (by ripping and editing).

  Quote:


 _The big problem comes when people claim observable sound differences when cable measurements predict that the sound differences should be zero. This is where the tension between science and subjectivist audiophiles exists._ 
 

Yes -- and if you're not planning to retire your above statement that high-end cables can be tuned to a «sound», it will remain a _real_ problem. 

  Quote:


 _Now from my own point of view this is very telling. Why should I pay money for something that the maker cannot show hard evidence will benefit me? Myrtle blocks, silver litz wire, Bybee devices etc. sound like fun, but there is no reliable evidence that they will perceivably improve my system's sound while there are plenty of places where science has established that money spent will improve the sound of my system._ 
 

I'm not saying this approach is wrong. But mine looks like this: I test equipment under real-world conditions. If a can hear a consistent and repeatable improvement under these circumstances, it serves my purposes, no matter what science (more precisely: today's state of science) has to tell to the matter. 



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *joojoo2915* 
_...it appears the only point of contention anymore is whether or not our current methods of measurement are sufficient in describing reproduced sound. This is incredibly easy to test, and has been done before without any indication that people can hear things that are not being measured._

 

Yeah, it seems like this... But you seem to forget amplifiers: Today's solid-state amps all show virtually identical (= perfect!) measurements -- despite very different designs -- and nevertheless sound very different to 99% of the Head-Fier's ears, obviously. Which measuring values, in your opinion, are responsible for the sonic differences? 

  Quote:


 _It could be very possible that the tests are flawed..._ 
 

That's what I think, indeed... Plus: how do you know that a positive result hasn't happened yet? There are only second- and third-hand reports from failed tests so far, and they are regularly conveyed by the subjectivist camp who's interested in those in first place. (As mentioned earlier, I have passed my one and only headphone-cable blind test.)
.


----------



## setmenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I don't believe this. Equalizers alter the frequency response, cables don't. Although they can sometimes cause the impression of FR alterations, but IME there are also sonic subleties on a specific level which aren't explainable by FR distortions (and generally hard to couch without causing raised eyebrows with objectivists). _

 

Hi Jazz
 Funny business this cable stuff eh?
 I tend to sit on the objectivist side of the fence but I also seem to hear 
 differences.
 So basically I don't believe my ears!
 But love my silver ics...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 On the subject of filters, you remember my passive modules for the ER4 
 setup?
 Well when I was using my proto board to set the values I inadvertently 
 swapped my interconnect cable during the process.
 I though hang on a mo this does not sound right [like before] I must have 
 moved a pot or something.
 So I tweaked the values again until happy.[but not 100%, if one ever is!]
 It was then I noticed the swapped cable.
 So I returned the original cable, and well I needed to adjust the filter again!
 Thing is the ic was only 100mm of wire and its rlc properties would not affect
 the audio spectrum at all.[unless one considers effects on the hundreds of 
 Khz to be and issue...]
 But the filter changes were obviously in audio spectrum!

 It seems to me that the possibilities could be :

 1.the cable is doing something I don't understand or have not learned about.

 2.the cable effect is all in my mind, and is influencing my sonic preferences in 
 such a way as to induce me to make gross changes in the audio spectrum to 
 support this illusion.

 3. my filter changes are so small that they are in reality inaudible but I have
 fooled myself into believing I can hear them.
 One illusion dispelling another........


 Funny business cables.


----------



## Sovkiller

You may find this interersting as well:

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


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *setmenu* 
_...On the subject of filters, you remember my passive modules for the ER4 setup?_

 

Yes, I do!

  Quote:


 _Well when I was using my proto board to set the values I inadvertently swapped my interconnect cable during the process. I though hang on a mo this does not sound right [like before] I must have moved a pot or something. So I tweaked the values again until happy. [but not 100%, if one ever is!] 
 It was then I noticed the swapped cable. So I returned the original cable, and well I needed to adjust the filter again! Thing is the ic was only 100 mm of wire and its RLC properties would not affect the audio spectrum at all. [Unless one considers effects on the hundreds of kHz to be and issue...] But the filter changes were obviously in audio spectrum!_ 
 

What happened to you is no surprise to me. It's exactly the scenario described above and quoted by you. Really funny! BTW, I also regularly deal with ultra-short cables.
.


----------



## ehlarson

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *MatsudaMan* 
_Scientist can't begin to explain why a Stradivarius violin sounds the way it does. Scientist also may not be able to even hear the difference between a Stradivarius and a copy of a Strad or a violin bought on ebay for that matter. In my opinion that makes them (scientists and engineers) useless in the subject of sound. Music trancends 1's and O's. Those who argue the other way around just can not begin to comprehend this idea. You can't come up with an equation to why and how something makes music spiritual, transcendent, magical, etc..._

 

That is an urban myth. Scientific investigation of Stradivarius sound characteristics is quite advanced and in fact it is possible to build a violin that sounds as good as a Strad, if not better. There have been surveys in Strings magazine of performers which indicate that most experts believe that modern instruments are fully equal to the best vintage instruments including Strads, and of course blind tests to verify this.

http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedai.../020701-8.html
http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/sto...H/Sep2203a.htm


----------



## ehlarson

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_
 I don't believe this. Equalizers alter the frequency response, cables don't. 
_

 

Ah, but is is a well established fact that cables can and do change frequency response. It is quite easy to measure (and in the case of video cables very easy to see).

  Quote:


 
 Yes -- and if you're not planning to retire your above statement that high-end cables can be tuned to a «sound», it will remain a _real_ problem. 

 

I'll retire the statement when this can be verified in a repeatable test. Right now it can't.

  Quote:


 
 I'm not saying this approach is wrong. But mine looks like this: I test equipment under real-world conditions. If a can hear a consistent and repeatable improvement under these circumstances, it serves my purposes, no matter what science (more precisely: today's state of science) has to tell to the matter. 

 

The problem is that there is no objective evidence that it is a real phenomena rather than a placebo effect. Ultimately you can't do science on this, it is the same as a superstition.

  Quote:


 
 Yeah, it seems like this... But you seem to forget amplifiers: Today's solid-state amps all show virtually identical (= perfect!) measurements -- despite very different designs -- and nevertheless sound very different to 99% of the Head-Fier's ears, obviously. Which measuring values, in your opinion, are responsible for the sonic differences? 

 

There have been a number of double blind tests on amplifiers that have failed to show that these differences exist so long as the amplifiers are precisely volume matched, have proper input and output impedences, are not operating outside thier low distortion power envelope and have good frequency response. Until there is evidence that is repeatable there is no way to do any science on it because the correlations will all return 'not significant' results.

  Quote:


 Plus: how do you know that a positive result hasn't happened yet? There are only second- and third-hand reports from failed tests so far, and they are regularly conveyed by the subjectivist camp who's interested in those in first place. (As mentioned earlier, I have passed my one and only headphone-cable blind test.) 
 

Remember, I am not saying that the differences don't exist - I am saying that if the electrical measurements are appropriate, then there is the issue of proving the differences exist. So my question is to you, when you ran your cable test, did you also do a set of measurements on the cables that indicated that they should perform equally? And did you follow standard double blind placebo methodology?

 As far as knowing there hasn't been a positive result, I would think that a positive, reliable scientific result would have been published in a peer reviewed journal somewhere. It hasn't been. There are however numerous publications of what measureable phenomena are audible in the audio engineering scientific journals.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ehlarson* 
_Ah, but is is a well established fact that cables can and do change frequency response. It is quite easy to measure (and in the case of video cables very easy to see)._

 

I'm not denying that cables can alter the frequency response measurably (which I mentioned myself), but not significantly so (greater than -0.25 dB at 20 kHz) in the audible range without built-in electronics components such as capacitors or inductors. Do you know any available equalizer with such a fine regulation grid?


  Quote:


 "Yes -- and if you're not planning to retire your above statement that high-end cables can be tuned to a «sound», it will remain a real problem."
_I'll retire the statement when this can be verified in a repeatable test. Right now it can't._ 
 

I guess you have difficulties to recall or understand your own former statements... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Read it again!


  Quote:


 _There have been a number of double blind tests on amplifiers that have failed to show that these differences exist so long as the amplifiers are precisely volume matched, have proper input and output impedances, are not operating outside their low distortion power envelope and have good frequency response. Until there is evidence that is repeatable there is no way to do any science on it because the correlations will all return 'not significant' results._ 
 

There we have it: Blind tests obviously lead to absurd results. 99% of the Head-Fiers are convinced to hear differences among (headphone) amps. And no test ever will convince me of the opposite. You can't deny that there's a huge discrepancy, so huge that it's not easily explainable by simple placebo effect. 


  Quote:


 _Remember, I am not saying that the differences don't exist - I am saying that if the electrical measurements are appropriate, then there is the issue of proving the differences exist. So my question is to you, when you ran your cable test, did you also do a set of measurements on the cables that indicated that they should perform equally? And did you follow standard double blind placebo methodology?_ 
 

No and no. But it was definitely a blind test (blinded eyes and prepared cable surfaces in case I came in touch with it) with virtually no possibility of being influenced by the switching person.

 You know, this is a ...-free forum, so no further discussion about test methodology! I just felt forced to counter the forum-rules violation on your part. 
.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


 are not operating outside thier low distortion power envelope 
 

This is interesting stuff. Read something alike in a german sceptics forum recently.

 It should be possible for a technicaly educated person to calculate the power needed to drive a lets say 250 Ohm headphone savely, i.e. what power output a hp-amp typically should have?
 Are OP-amp designs with a buffered output stage already on the safe side, from an engineers view?


----------



## setmenu

Unless I missed the reason elsewhere in the thread.
 If your average audio IC rcl values [especially short ones!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




] that have 
 no effects at audio frequencies, why on earth do I hear differences?
 Would I still hear 'differences' in completely RF free environment?

 The whole cable thing has made me a bit of a skeptic, but I still hear 'them'.
 I would love to believe it is all in my head.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 .


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Yeah, it seems like this... But you seem to forget amplifiers: Today's solid-state amps all show virtually identical (= perfect!) measurements -- despite very different designs -- and nevertheless sound very different to 99% of the Head-Fier's ears, obviously. Which measuring values, in your opinion, are responsible for the sonic differences?_

 

Amplifiers do not measure identical, and the distortion patterns varies considerably from one amp to the next, even in the same design, done by the same manufacturer, due to tolerances in parts, and tunning....OTOH in double blind tests those arguable differences are a lot less noticeable, and I do not believe in the majority of the cases, that they are so big as sometimes they are said to be, honestly..... just to mention one example, we did one A/B comparison between some of the Ray Samuels amps in the last NYC meeting, as I stated him the same, that the HR-2 was brighter than the tube one, and he proved me wrong, and we all heard the same. All of them offer very close sound, if not identical, and that was testing even SS versus tube amps, so while people say this amp is warmer, and this one is colder, honestly hear that for yourself, sometimes there is not such a big difference...


----------



## ehlarson

Quote:


 I'm not denying that cables can alter the frequency response measurably (which I mentioned myself), but not significantly so (greater than -0.25 dB at 20 kHz) in the audible range without built-in electronics components such as capacitors or inductors. Do you know any available equalizer with such a fine regulation grid? 
 

 OK, but that is not quite what you said. 

 And yes, there is pro equipment that has 0.25 db eq resolution. 
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...Print?id=56918

  Quote:


 There we have it: Blind tests obviously lead to absurd results. 
 

So what objective quantitative mechanism do you have? The problem is you can't do science unless you can establish a fact, and you don't have a way to do that. If you say science is missing something you have to back up with something more than astrology. 

  Quote:


 And no test ever will convince me of the opposite. 
 

That is not the point. The point is that you have no way to validate your claim that holds water. 

  Quote:


 You can't deny that there's a huge discrepancy, so huge that it's not easily explainable by simple placebo effect. 
 

That remains to be proven. A simple assertion is far short of that proof.

  Quote:


 No and no. But it was definitely a blind test (blinded eyes and prepared cable surfaces in case I came in touch with it) with virtually no possibility of being influenced by the switching person. 
 

Well, then there is another hypothesis. Your test yielded audible differences because there was a real electrical difference in the cables.

  Quote:


 You know, this is a ...-free forum, so no further discussion about test methodology! I just felt forced to counter the forum-rules violation on your part. 
 

I wasn't the first to bring this up.

 Look - here is what I want to get across. People in this forum talk freely about the insufficiency of science in explaining the audible differences they experience in listing to different cables. There are two issues here - many of the differences they hear may in fact be explainable by the electrical differences between cables. But since nobody is making those sort of measurements you can't tell if in fact the differences are explainable by current science or not. The other is that assuming that the differences are not explainable using current science there is the requirement that the observed difference be an established repeatable phenomena before you can call into question the adaquacy of science. That step hasn't occured EITHER.

 From an science or engineering point of view this is a hopeless situation. An electrical engineer or scientist is not going to be able to address this without having the basic facts to proceed with.

 The original question that started this thread is unanswerable under the conditions extant.


----------



## digitalmind

I haven't read the entire thread -- yet. I will and will possibly edit things here if I feel like it. 

 Main consensus here seems to me that there is a lack of evidence. Also, DBT can be flawed, and start such a riot that discussion is not allowed here. 

 I'm an EE student, 3rd year and currently doing an intership at a research centre. Good thing about being there is lots of very nice toys. Lots of VERY accurate toys. I have access to a very good scope and frequency generator. I could give some exact measurements and document findings of what cables do to sound, and screencaptures of the scope. 

 My background knowledge leads me to believe cables don't make a hearable difference, but there are so many convinced people that they have me in doubt. I don't have experience with high end cable so I could be wrong here, but I do work with high frequency applications and I haven't seen cable deformations untill well past 2MHz. I would really like to get to the bottom of it, but I don't have any fancy cables. I've been toying around with purchasing a couple expensive ones for a shootout and sell them after (or not, if I like them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ), but I can't afford it at the moment. 

 Anyone willing to borrow me a cable (interconnects or just the wire) to do some tests, document findings, and post them on here? I think it would be great to atleast have something to refer to (or something to dismiss) when judging cables.

 [size=xx-small]
 And oh, actually most EE's don't know what changes the sound in amplifiers. Sadly EE has taken a turn from analog to digital. 
 Allmost everything we learn now is based on digital signal processing and the connection between software and hardware. There is very little analog tought and learnt. I've been so fortunate to be allowed to design an amplifier, incuding equaliser, balance, etc, for one of my half year projects. It was without a doubt the most fun thing I have ever built. It really is too bad that so much of EE has turned digital. 
 [/size]


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Amplifiers do not measure identical, and the distortion patterns varies considerably from one amp to the next, even in the same design, done by the same manufacturer, due to tolerances in parts, and tunning....OTOH in double blind tests those arguable differences are a lot less noticeable, and I do not believe in the majority of the cases, that they are so big as sometimes they are said to be, honestly..... just to mention one example, we did one A/B comparison between some of the Ray Samuels amps in the last NYC meeting, as I stated him the same, that the HR-2 was brighter than the tube one, and he proved me wrong, and we all heard the same. All of them offer very close sound, if not identical, and that was testing even SS versus tube amps, so while people say this amp is warmer, and this one is colder, honestly hear that for yourself, sometimes there is not such a big difference..._

 

«...a lot less noticeable» (to someone's ears) is still not the same as nonexistent. -- Yes, amps do have individual distortion patterns which absolutely are candidates for being the cause for audible differences. But with values clearly below 0.05% (we're talking of modern SS amps!) they are far below the hearing threshold according to the classic EE school. That's why I was talking of virtually identical and «perfect» measurings. If you think the human hearing is able to detect such subtleties, it may also be able to detect phase distortions caused by cables even though they have straight frequency responses in the audible range. 



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ehlarson* 
_ OK, but that is not quite what you said._

 

I would say it the same way again -- I think it's not hard to understand how exactly it's meant in the context of my whole text. -0.25 dB at 20 kHz is even a very optimistic value -- and certainly nothing you would want to install an equalizer for. 

  Quote:


 _So what objective quantitative mechanism do you have? The problem is you can't do science unless you can establish a fact, and you don't have a way to do that. If you say science is missing something you have to back up with something more than astrology._ 
 

I'm somewhat interested in astrology, BTW... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But there's no need to call for scientific explanation if you can use your ears to decide if this or that amp makes the sonic difference you want. I seriously don't trust your ears or then your experience if you deny sonic differences with amps. 

  Quote:


 _That is not the point. The point is that you have no way to validate your claim that holds water. That remains to be proven. A simple assertion is far short of that proof._ 
 

Well then... you trust your data, I trust my ears. 

  Quote:


 _Well, then there is another hypothesis. Your test yielded audible differences because there was a real electrical difference in the cables._ 
 

That may indeed be true. Cables show distinct measuring differences. They're just waiting to be decoded in terms of audible phenomena.
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Well then... you trust your data, I trust my ears._

 

No one has demonstrated that they can hear differences in cables with _only_ their ears.

 Why spend money on an after market cable, when the Sennheiser cables are better? They are more flexible and non-microphonic.


----------



## BrianS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_No one has demonstrated that they can hear differences in cables with only their ears.

 Why spend money on an after market cable, when the Sennheiser cables are better? They are more flexible and non-microphonic._

 

because they look pretty, and are more durable.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BrianS* 
_because they look pretty, and are more durable._

 

But, I've read of at least two people having to send aftermarket cables back for repair because of poor connections. I don't recall anyone writing the same about Sennheiser cables. Good point. Sennheiser cables may be more reliable too.


----------



## BrianS

and ive encountered great service from zu cable, and i can hear the significant difference the cable made in my musical enjoyment. on the otherhand, i have not heard a real difference between powercables.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BrianS* 
_and ive encountered great service from zu cable_

 

Glad to hear that I've read the same from other people.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BrianS* 
_...and i can hear the significant difference the cable made in my musical enjoyment._

 

I've made some adjustment in my setup that have improved my listening, but they don't involve cables. I think stock cables are fine.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Why spend money on an after market cable, when the Sennheiser cables are better? They are more flexible and non-microphonic._

 

In this respect, they're indeed better, thus more comfortable. If those are your priorities, stick with the stock cables!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I've made some adjustment in my setup that have improved my listening, but they don't involve cables. I think stock cables are fine._

 

Conclusion: Cables aren't the only possible tweaking measure. But cables are fine.
.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_«...a lot less noticeable» (to someone's ears) is still not the same as nonexistent. -- Yes, amps do have individual distortion patterns which absolutely are candidates for being the cause for audible differences. But with values clearly below 0.05% (we're talking of modern SS amps!) they are far below the hearing threshold according to the classic EE school. That's why I was talking of virtually identical and «perfect» measurings. If you think the human hearing is able to detect such subtleties, it may also be able to detect phase distortions caused by cables even though they have straight frequency responses in the audible range. 



 I would say it the same way again -- I think it's not hard to understand how exactly it's meant in the context of my whole text. -0.25 dB at 20 kHz is even a very optimistic value -- and certainly nothing you would want to install an equalizer for. 

 I'm somewhat interested in astrology, BTW... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But there's no need to call for scientific explanation if you can use your ears to decide if this or that amp makes the sonic difference you want. I seriously don't trust your ears or then your experience if you deny sonic differences with amps. 

 Well then... you trust your data, I trust my ears. 

 That may indeed be true. Cables show distinct measuring differences. They're just waiting to be decoded in terms of audible phenomena.
._

 


 IMO if something is noticeable to your ears, it exists, I'm not denying that, but OTOH if it is noticeable to your hears, as your ears are not more sensitive, nor more accurate than any modern instrument, it must be measurable by nowadays science as well....Just to mention one example: the smallest variation in volume that can be perceive by the human ear was called dB, IIRC, but some devices can measure far below 1db, same happen with notes and octaves, sometimes the hearing is not able to determine the octave, but instruments does, it is measurable...

 How the hell differences in sound like those people claim to hear are not measurable, are we measuring the wrong parameters then? Is that difference due a combination of them? It could be possible but it is hard to believe, that in 50 years or more, nobody has been able to prove that, nor figure out what is the reason for those differences, that some audiophiles claim to hear, and others with same sensitive and trained ears (and in some cases better due to the age) does not? Sorry but I doubt that...honestly...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_IMO if something is noticeable to your ears, it exists, I'm not denying that, but OTOH if it is noticeable to your hears, as your ears are not more sensitive, nor more accurate than any modern instrument, it must be measurable by nowadays science as well....Just to mention one example: the smallest variation in volume that can be perceive by the human ear was called dB, IIRC, but some devices can measure far below 1db, same happen with notes and octaves, sometimes the hearing is not able to determine the octave, but instruments does, it is measurable...

 How the hell differences in sound like those people claim to hear are not measurable, are we measuring the wrong parameters then? Is that difference due a combination of them? It could be possible but it is hard to believe, that in 50 years or more, nobody has been able to prove that, nor figure out what is the reason for those differences, that some audiophiles claim to hear, and others with same sensitive and trained ears (and in some cases better due to the age) does not? Sorry but I doubt that...honestly..._

 

Hey Sov... it was you who brought up distortion patterns in amps officially below the hearing threshold -- you remember? I for one generally believe in measurements, but not less I trust my ears. 

 From what I read many of the skeptics hear sonic differences in cables, but they refuse to trust their ears, unless the comparisons happen in ... (what they consider the only objective evaluation method). So it's not always a matter of better or worse hearing, but of inner readiness or open-mindedness or naivety...
.


----------



## Jeff Wong

It may be possible the wrong things are being measured. It may also be that hearing/listening to music involves more than our ears. Subtle harmonics and possibly their effect on our skin or the hairs on our skin (and in our ears) may be of such a delicate nature, only our brains can process the signals properly. Sometimes it may just be a matter of some people knowing what to listen for a little better at a given time. I remember detecting a negative change in the system of an audiophile's home that I was familiar with and pointed it out right away. He got upset with me and said, "How is it that 99 people have come over here and told me my system has never sounded better, and you say it sounds smeared? You must be deaf." I told him I heard what I heard. We listened some more, and I asked him if the diffusion device he usually placed in front of the TV screen was where it was supposed to be. It wasn't. The reflections of the treble on the screen were scattering and smearing the sound. He apologised after listening again with the diffuser in place and without. Sometimes people get caught up in what they "think they know" instead of really listening.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


 So it's not always a matter of better or worse hearing, but of inner readiness or open-mindedness or naivety... 
 

But you're surely aware that telling a person who prefers to solely listen instead of listening and knowing anyway is either:

 a.hearing bad
 b.prejudiced
 c.narrow-minded
 d.naive

 is rather hostile in the first , and absolutely absurd in the second place?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_But you're surely aware that telling a person who prefers to solely listen instead of listening and knowing anyway is either:

 a.hearing bad
 b.prejudiced
 c.narrow-minded
 d.naive

 is rather hostile in the first , and absolutely absurd in the second place?_

 

Uurrmm... no, paragraph d. doesn't belong to the same category of people (objectivists) -- it would apply to audiophiles who trust their ears in first place. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_No one has demonstrated that they can hear differences in cables with only their ears.
_

 

No one has demonstrated that they can't either.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_No one has demonstrated that they can't either._

 

Happened many times.

 The last time someone did, it was Edwood:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=192802

 Good Night.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Happened many times.

 The last time someone did, it was Edwood:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=192802
_

 

 That's _not _what the test demonstrated at all, and the reasons it did not are explained at several points in the thread you cite. The test was interesting, but there were a number of flaws (or perhaps "constraints" is a better word) that limit its relevance to the issue under discussion.

 Moreover, a test that indicates that certain people could not differentiate among certain cables under certain test conditions does not establish that nobody can hear differences between any cables under any conditions.

 It also appears that the number of tests is quite small in number. In other words, the data is far from complete and not much testing under real world conditions has been done. That doesn't mean that there is an audible difference, but it is clear that nobody to date has proven that there is _not _one. Nobody has "proven" anything either way.


----------



## setmenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_From what I read many of the skeptics hear sonic differences in cables, but they refuse to trust their ears, unless the comparisons happen in ... (what they consider the only objective evaluation method). So it's not always a matter of better or worse hearing, but of inner readiness or open-mindedness or naivety...
._

 

It not refusing to trust my ears , or requiring some sort of objective 
 evaluation method before I do.
 It more a case of accepting that all things are not what they seem, and that 
 our senses/mind present a subjective reality based on more than the need for 
 cold hard facts.

 I do in fact accept and enjoy my hifi/music experiences with open arms in the 
 full knowledge that it is in most part an illusion, and requires me to embrace 
 this fully for maximum pleasure.

 But a bit of healthy skepticism is in my mind a good thing as it helps one keep 
 a sense of perspective and prevents the illusion from gaining control of my 
 wallet!



 Now where did I put those pebbles........


----------



## Vul Kuolun

As it's Mr. Cardas who wants to seperate me from 200 Bucks for a microphonecable. He's not gonna get em without a proof.

 Though i've not been around here for too long, this is already starting to get quite boring. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW, i'm quite sure, most people not already on the omg-cables-make-such-a-difference-train will draw their own conclusions from the test.


----------



## bigshot

The post about the last test whithered away and died due to endless back and forth about how to "construct a test that would yield conclusive results"- an endless circle of dissembling dialogue designed to beat down anyone from pointing out the obvious.

 When a test tells you that in blind listening, audiophiles thought $3 Radio Shack cables were fancy silver and high end copper cables, what more do you need to know?

 The tests have all been done, the info is out there. It's just a matter of sorting the meaningful stuff from the hooey. (Which is what surfing the net is all about...)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

It is weird that skeptics keep cherry picking blind tests that failed but ignore the rest. I know of a couple blind tests in Sweden and one of them was on TV a month ago. Both clearly showed cables make a difference. They even made a thread and no skeptics were there, gee I wonder why.

 For skeptics it's like a hobby to post in every thread, if proof was in front of them they still would refuse to believe it, because what else would they do all day?

*Mr Skeptic:* "I hear a difference but I don't believe my ears, it is placebo pure and simple! 
*Mr Skeptic doing whiskey swirling:* "I can't hear a difference AT ALL between cables. Now I will post in every thread and spread the truth!"


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Yeah, that's why subjectivists like blind testing so much.


----------



## Klefbek

Quote:


 Moreover, a test that indicates that certain people could not differentiate among certain cables under certain test conditions does not establish that nobody can hear differences between any cables under any conditions. 
 

Which basically means you will never accept any result of any test that does not prove your beliefs. There is obviously no test that can cover all cases, so there is always something to hide behind with such reasoning.

 If one wants to discuss and make claims about improved sound quality by means of a certain tweak (cables, speakers, wallpaper, etc.) it sensical to expect from that person some kind of proof that he can notice that improved quality. When this is not the case, one could make any absurd claim. Unfortunately, this part of the forum does not allow such a discussion, which means we will never get any further here on establishing anything other than finding new insults for other people. 

 On a side not, at least it seems strange to me that people who claim that only ears count do not wish to do a DBT where ears are the only tools of measurement. The test seems to be invented for subjectivists in the first place.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_As it's the subjectivists statement to be able to hear something todays measurements cannot prove, it's the subejectivists dept to prove something, not the objectivists.
_

 

 No it isn't. I think I hear differences in cables. I am willing to defend that viewpoint, but I don't have to "prove" it to you or anyone else. Just like the skeptics don't have to "prove" to me or others that cables don't make a difference. 

 Burdens of proof are imposed in a court of law and in other contexts for certain purposes, including econominc efficiency, organizational purposes, etc. It makes no sense in this context (i.e., discussions on a hobbyists forum) to say one side or the other has some "burden of proof." Both sides are entitled to their opinion, and both sides have good points to make, but there is no basis to say anyone has a "burden" to prove anything.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Klefbek* 
_Which basically means you will never accept any result of any test that does not prove your beliefs. There is obviously no test that can cover all cases, so there is always something to hide behind with such reasoning.
_

 

It doesn't mean that at all. But the tests that have been conducted have arguably had several flaws or problems, and have not been conducted under conditions that simulate the conditions under which people claim to hear differences.

 And while there is some merit to the argument that believers might criticize any test, it is equally facile to assert that any test that supports the skeptics point of view must be accepted without any question as to whether the testing methodolgy was appropriate. The skeptics camp is supposedly the "sceintific" camp, but sometimes their arguments regrading whether certain tests should be accepted run head on into accepted principles of science regarding testing methodolgy, interpretation of results, etc.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


 It doesn't mean that at all. But the tests that have been conducted have arguably had several flaws or problems, and have not been conducted under conditions that simulate the conditions under which people claim to hear differences. 
 

???!?!?!??
 They tested in their own homes, with their own systems (with wich the participants surely heard the differences probably 100 times before), no time pressure.... if this aren't good conditions, tell us what conditions would be correct in your opinion.

 It's just absurd discussing flaws in a blind test, when the alternative offered is a simple A/B.

 If the conditions were that bad, why did nobody complain before? Why did people take part at all? 

 But most of all: Why did no one send the cables back, telling Edwood he cannot hear the differences under that conditions? Why was everyone sure to be able to tell the differences? Worth a thought, don't you think?


----------



## Klefbek

Quote:


 No it isn't. I think I hear differences in cables. I am willing to defend that viewpoint, but I don't have to "prove" it to you or anyone else. Just like the skeptics don't have to "prove" to me or others that cables don't make a difference. 
 

If there is no burden of proof, you don't have to defend your viewpoint and any discussion about sound quality would be pointless. Anyone could say anything that way.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Klefbek* 
_If there is no burden of proof, you don't have to defend your viewpoint and any discussion about sound quality would be pointless. Anyone could say anything that way._

 

That's exactly the point of the DBT-free forum. Nobody has to prove nothing. As it's usually the cables forum where debates get out of control, and in contrast to every other equipment category listening-experience reports are regularly put down for ideologic reasons. 

 As if anybody could prove that an Orpheus has indeed the qualities often attributed to it, and this to everyone's ears. Sure, there are measurable differences to other headphones -- just like among other headphones --, but no measurings clearly prove any sort of sonic superiority. This is valid for every other equipment category as well, and cables are no exception: They show distinct measuring differences, but none of them can be clearly attributed to sonic superiorities -- or differences, if you will. 

 So please respect that nobody has to justify his or her listening experience or deliver any proof. And stop violating the forum rules!
.


----------



## bigshot

Anyone can make any observation they want. The value of what they say depends on how their observation is supported. Remove the ability to test and validate anecdotal comments and you make all observations equal... even totally incorrect ones.

 But that said, I think everyone is aware of why there's no pro-DBT cable forum. It's the elephant in the corner of the parlor that everyone pretends doesn't exist.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Hey Sov... it was you who brought up distortion patterns in amps officially below the hearing threshold -- you remember? I for one generally believe in measurements, but not less I trust my ears. 

 From what I read many of the skeptics hear sonic differences in cables, but they refuse to trust their ears, unless the comparisons happen in ... (what they consider the only objective evaluation method). So it's not always a matter of better or worse hearing, but of inner readiness or open-mindedness or naivety...
._

 

I did not discussing that magnitude, of if they are or not, above or below the human threshold, what I'm saying is that they are different from one amp to another, of course the variations are small in some cases, but ot say that all the amps measure alike is not accurate, not even the same model measure alike. BTW even while THD should be below certain level to be acceptable, what is curious is that some tube amps has really high values and still people like the sound of them...so go an d figure, that complicates more the explanation for the ones who are looking for some light here...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_BTW even while THD should be below certain level to be acceptable, what is curious is that some tube amps has really high values and still people like the sound of them._

 

That's evidence that relatively high harmonic distortion levels can be acceptable, not that extremely low levels can sound bad.

 Electronic components have achieved high fidelity sound with a great deal of accuracy and at just about every price point. The area that isn't well dealt with is speakers. Mid priced speakers have gotten much worse in the past twenty years.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_???!?!?!??
 They tested in their own homes, with their own systems (with wich the participants surely heard the differences probably 100 times before), no time pressure.... if this aren't good conditions, tell us what conditions would be correct in your opinion.

 It's just absurd discussing flaws in a blind test, when the alternative offered is a simple A/B.

 If the conditions were that bad, why did nobody complain before? Why did people take part at all? 

 But most of all: Why did no one send the cables back, telling Edwood he cannot hear the differences under that conditions? Why was everyone sure to be able to tell the differences? Worth a thought, don't you think?_

 

Again, the operative question in the test you refer to was NOT whether people could hear differences between cables, and the test was not designed to determine that. This was pointed out both _before _and after the test was conducted. The operative question was which cable was which. And, among other problems, one problem is that this assumed that everyone was operating under the same assumptions regarding what a RS cable would sound like, what a silver cable would sound like, etc. If people had different assumptions about this (and other threads reveal that they clearly do) this invalidates the results entirely with respect to the proposition that the results _must _mean that people could not hear any differences between the cables at all. I don't want to reopen and rehash all this again, but it is discussed at length on the other thread. AND the limitations of the test were acknowledged by all even before the test was conducted, except now the skeptics want to use it for propositions that it was agreed in advance would not be tested.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Klefbek* 
_If there is no burden of proof, you don't have to defend your viewpoint. . . . Anyone could say anything that way._

 

Exactly! Now you're getting it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 People can come on this forum and say anything they want about the cables they tried. And we all can evaluate whether what they say has merit, and what it means for us. And we can ask questions about their experience, suggest they re-evaluate, try the cables ourselves if we are so inclined, and so on and so on. But this is not a courtroom, or a science seminar, where the end game is to prove or establish something. It is a hobbyists forum, where people come to have fun, talk about the hobby, exchange ideas, including ideas that might improve their listening experience, etc. And it is an interference with that concept for folks to _constantly _interrupt with comments to the effect that "we" have to prove something, that cables make no difference, etc. The point has been made a thousand times already and the darn horse is dead and rigor is setting in.

 In fact, look at the initial post in this thread. They guy who started said "I hear a difference and would like to know from an EE if there is an scientific explanation for what I'm hearing." He then expressly stated that the did not want to hear the usual stuff about why cables don't make a difference, etc. And yet look where we are! I guess we should have shut down this thread on page one by replying: "You cannot prove what you heard therefore your question will not be answered by any EE, and it is not even worthy of discussion on this forum."


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Anyone can make any observation they want. The value of what they say depends on how their observation is supported._

 

 It may be of no value to you, but it may have value to others. Again, you insisit on burdening everyone else with your preferences and conditions. If you don't like the fact that people make observations without demonstrable proof, just roll your eyes, ignore it, and go somewhere else. Let the rest of us enjoy and discuss the "unsupported" observations for what they are worth.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Exactly! Now you're getting it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 People can come on this forum and say anything they want about the cables they tried. And we all can evaluate whether what they say has merit, and what it means for us. And we can ask questions about their experience, suggest they re-evaluate, try the cables ourselves if we are so inclined, and so on and so on. But this is not a courtroom, or a science seminar, where the end game is to prove or establish something. It is a hobbyists forum, where people come to have fun, talk about the hobby, exchange ideas, including ideas that might improve their listening experience, etc. And it is an interference with that concept for folks to constantly interrupt with comments to the effect that "we" have to prove something, that cables make no difference, etc. The point has been made a thousand times already and the darn horse is dead and rigor is setting in.

 In fact, look at the initial post in this thread. They guy who started said "I hear a difference and would like to know from an EE if there is an scientific explanation for what I'm hearing." He then expressly stated that the did not want to hear the usual stuff about why cables don't make a difference, etc. And yet look where we are! I guess we should have shut down this thread on page one by replying: "You cannot prove what you heard therefore your question will not be answered by any EE, and it is not even worthy of discussion on this forum." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Sorry but there is no way that touching this theme in public, you will not get responses as the ones above, that in unavoidable, we are simply pasionate on what we believe in this hobby.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Now, about answering the initial question, or the initial post, and we all should know that by now, so IMO the question does not make much of a sense, and this is the main reason this forum in DBT free, *NO* the EE can't prove that cables improve or not sound, there is no scientific evidence at all of that there are such differences (I mean talking of well done good cables, with no defects, OK?) And if they could, there would be absolutelly no discussion at all about the topic, nobody discuss what is a proven fact, as they simply agree on that they do, or they don't, but simply science has failed in proving what "some people claim to hear"...simply as that...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Now, about answering the initial question, or the initial post, and we all should know that by now, so IMO the question does not make much of a sense, and this is the main reason this forum in DBT free, *NO* the EE can't prove that cables improve or not sound, there is no scientific evidence at all of that there are such differences (I mean talking of well done good cables, with no defects, OK?)_

 

In fairness, I don't think he was really asking for "proof" or "scientific evidence." He really seemed to be asking for a possible "technical explanation" of why they sound different. It seems to me a proper response could be an explanation of a possible technical reason, or a statement that there is no technical explanation, or perhaps that there is no technical explanation and there is no technical data that indicates cables sound different. There are probably other differences as well. But to suggest the question does not make sense, or that it should not even be asked without providing proof that cables make a difference, is absurd. It is a legitimate question.

 And I submit the reason this forum is DBT-free is not because there is no "proof." It is DBT-free because many of us want to talk about cables unencumbered by the types of commments you and others make repeatedly on same issue -- with all due respect.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_In fairness, I don't think he was really asking for "proof" or "scientific evidence." He really seemed to be asking for a possible "technical explanation" of why they sound different. It seems to me a proper response could be an explanation of a possible technical reason, or a statement that there is no technical explanation, or perhaps that there is no technical explanation and there is no technical data that indicates cables sound different. There are probably other differences as well. But to suggest the question does not make sense, or that it should not even be asked without providing proof that cables make a difference, is absurd. It is a legitimate question.

 And I submit the reason this forum is DBT-free is not because there is no "proof." It is DBT-free because many of us want to talk about cables unencumbered by the types of commments you and others make repeatedly on same issue -- with all due respect. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Well IMHO, to ask for an explanation about something that nobody had proved that exists in the first instance, is not a good idea. In order that you could offer an explanation of why something happen, you need an evidence first, that such thing exists, and nobody had till now....sorry to disagree...*one more time* I mean, and again, as I'm not a total skeptic about cables, as you think I am, that we are talking of moderate good and well done cables, not defective or horrible quality ones...I have ehard some differences between horrible cables and well done cables, but between two good ones, sorry, my ears are telling me to spend in other stuff instead....

 IMO the only fact that we have about cables, is that nobody can prove a thing about them, nor explain a thing about the differences ones claim to hear, and others not....


----------



## PhilS

Sov, we just disagree, and I'm not going to debate it further. I did go back and edit my last post though to remove the all caps. That was a bit rude and I apologize.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Sov, we just disagree, and I'm not going to debate it further. I did go back and edit my last post though to remove the all caps. That was a bit rude and I apologize._

 

I'm not mad with you, Phil, and we agree to disagree, period, honestly I do not take anything personal, here, and I do not feel the caps rude at all, we all get excited, and that's it....we're cool man!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 I will edit mine as well if you like...


----------



## Steve999

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_... I think everyone is aware of why there's no pro-DBT cable forum. It's the elephant in the corner of the parlor that everyone pretends doesn't exist.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Actually, here's one:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums...splay.php?f=11


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_It may be of no value to you, but it may have value to others. Again, you insisit on burdening everyone else with your preferences_

 

Wait a minute! You get to come on and say whatever you want about cables sounding like whipped cream and buttermilk and no one can say anything, but when I voice my preferences it's a burden?!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_In fairness, I don't think he was really asking for "proof" or "scientific evidence." He really seemed to be asking for a possible "technical explanation" of why they sound different._

 

How can you give a technical explanation of something when there's no evidence of it even existing? It seems to me that his question was answered as well as could be expected.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Wait a minute! You get to come on and say whatever you want about cables sounding like whipped cream and buttermilk and no one can say anything, but when I voice my preferences it's a burden?!
_

 

Wha chu talkin' bout Willis? I didn't say no one can say anything. And I didn't say you can't voice your preferences. Don't overreach or mischaracterize. I merely pointed out another characertistically overbroad and categorical statement made by you -- to the effect that any one that makes an observation about cables that is not "supported" is of no value. Get it? Got it? Good.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_How can you give a technical explanation of something when there's no evidence of it even existing? It seems to me that his question was answered as well as could be expected.
_

 

In my view, the original question in fairness also asked for possible explanations of the technical possibilities. In any event, all sorts of scientific discplines or quasi-scientific discplines (including but not limited to medicine) routinely offer hypotheses to explain observsations that have been reported without insisting in every instance as a precondition to a possible explanation that there be concrete scientific evidence that the event or phenomenon reported is real. Geez!


----------



## bigshot

My favorite quasi-scientific discipline is water witching. Has anyone tried dowsing rods on their cables yet? It might work!

 see ya
 Steve


----------



## Klefbek

Quote:


 In any event, all sorts of scientific discplines or quasi-scientific discplines (including but not limited to medicine) routinely offer hypotheses to explain observsations that have been reported without insisting in every instance as a precondition to a possible explanation that there be concrete scientific evidence that the event or phenomenon reported is real. 
 

Uhh... no.

 Routinely, before an hypotheses is made the (unexpected) measurement is verified to be actually a correct one. Eliminating possible errors in the measurement is usually the first thing that is done, and, I might add, doing that saves a lot of time hypothesizing.


----------



## setmenu

The power of the mind....
 I was at a UK hi-fi show a few years ago where there was an exhibitor who
 sold racks etc.
 We always payed him a visit every time we visited the show, cant remember 
 the name of the business, but he was a great guy and showman.
 It was usual to have a small audience in attendance and for him to give one
 of his wonderful performances demonstrating the effects of this or that 
 accessory on the sound of the demo setup.

 After he had finished with the tables, one year he demonstrated the 
 effect of lifting the power cable off the carpet with spacers.[including the 
 multi plug box]
 I was not paying much attention to the show as we had been there chatting 
 through a number of them over about an hour or so.
 But it was the first time that he introduced the spacers, more by way of : 
 "hey look at this phenomena ain't it weird, don't know whats going on here 
 myself"
 I just gently poked fun and laughed with him, the audience were in a rapture.
 Thing is I heard a difference!
 And when the room cleared of most people, he kept switching the spacers,
 but even with both of use laughing about it, still 'heard' something.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 He was not even trying to sell the things.[think they were just ceramic
 food bowls or something..]

 I guess the effect could have been real, but I feel it is more likely to be
 to have been a sort of subconscious mutual agreement between myself
 and the guy.
 It would have been interesting to see whether I continued to hear a 
 difference in another situation.


 .



 .


----------



## JohnFerrier

A person's brain is strongly influenced in a myriad of ways. Unlike a standard PC that typically operates serially, our brains are massive parallel processors taking input and output to all over our bodies: heart, lungs, taste, smell, hearing, feeling, seeing, etc. etc. All simultaneously. The heart is controlled unconsciously. Breathing can be consciously controlled or unconsciously controlled. Various events control the release of chemicals in the brain such as Serotonin and Dopamine, etc. Such influences a person's sense of well-being and influence perception, outlook on life, etc. It is difficult, if not impossible, to not let such influences cloud a person's perception and judgement.

 If areas are blocked off that inform the brain about changes in cables and only a person's hearing is involved, I believe that differences are well below audibility. Current understanding of the physical differences of cables supports this. "Objective" listening tests tend to support this. Since this forum is DBT-free, we may have to wait for something like FMRI or other brain imaging technology to help answer such questions. Unless the forum first becomes a DBT/FMRI-free forum.


----------



## setmenu

Based on the fact that we do perceive holistically as oppose to some sort of 
 serial audio port.
 Does it realy matter whether the changes that some people perceive in 
 cables are due to electrical parameters or a psychological state?
 After all it could be argued that as long as the object performs a function 
 with a desirable outcome for the user then that is OK.
 So perhaps instead of howling for DBT testing, there should calls for 
 investigation into whether cables that share similar overall physical as well as 
 electrical properties [I guess this would also have to cover marketing too...] 
 elicit similar responses in a test group.[or types of persona?]
 But I doubt whether any sort of definitive results would be achieved though.

 For example I feel certain that colour and thickness to length ratio of and IC
 plays its part for me.

 To the engineer in me , what I have stated above sticks in the throat 
 somewhat , but I do feel that such testing could still prove illuminating.


 .

 .


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Klefbek* 
_Uhh... no.

 Routinely, before an hypotheses is made the (unexpected) measurement is verified to be actually a correct one. Eliminating possible errors in the measurement is usually the first thing that is done, and, I might add, doing that saves a lot of time hypothesizing._

 

Uhh. . . no. I'm not just talking about the labaratory, or what is necessary to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, etc.. I'm talking about real life. And in my law practice I work with scientists and consultants all the time. And they often are called upon to offer a hypothesis or explanation regarding preliminary observations of some phenomenon prior to the time that undeniable scientific evidence or measurements of the phenomenon have been confirmed.

 In the real, real world, next you time you go to the doctor and you tell him you' ve got a pain in a certain part of your body, how about if he tells you he is not going to offer any diagnosis or offer any medication until you prove with incontrovertible scientific evidence that the pain you are experiencing is actually the result of some injury and not just in your head?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *setmenu* 
_Does it realy matter whether the changes that some people perceive in 
 cables are due to electrical parameters or a psychological state?_

 

No, as long as you realize that's what it is and focus on trying to maintain the psychological state instead of paying a great deal of money for a "magic token" that's supposed to induce it.

 I find a comfortable chair and a glass of wine improves the clarity and definition of my system. Closing my eyes as I listen lifts the veil of fuzziness from the sound and removes the digital harshness. Putting my feet up improves the resolving of phase and cancels out jitter.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_In the real, real world, next you time you go to the doctor and you tell him you' ve got a pain in a certain part of your body, how about if he tells you he is not going to offer any diagnosis or offer any medication until you prove with incontrovertible scientific evidence that the pain you are experiencing is actually the result of some injury and not just in your head? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

They sure should have done that with Elvis!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_No, as long as you realize that's what it is and focus on trying to maintain the psychological state instead of paying a great deal of money for a "magic token" that's supposed to induce it.

 I find a comfortable chair and a glass of wine improves the clarity and definition of my system. Closing my eyes as I listen lifts the veil of fuzziness from the sound and removes the digital harshness. Putting my feet up improves the resolving of phase and cancels out jitter.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

No wonder, drunken people don't hear anything, let alone focus your mind on something.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_They sure should have done that with Elvis!

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Elvis is da king, he doesn't need to prove anything.


----------



## tourmaline

Sorry, this thread is getting a bit rediculous; there are differences in cables, the more expensive ones are usually better, the only discussion we ought to have here is why those better cables are sooo expensive!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 I guess most o the cables money goes to advertising and engeneering, hopefully in the opposite order, so most money goes to experimenting and the least money to advertising.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Sorry, this thread is getting a bit rediculous; there are differences in cables, the more expensive ones are usually better, the only discussion we ought to have here is why those better cables are sooo expensive!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 I guess most o the cables money goes to advertising and engeneering, hopefully in the opposite order, so most money goes to experimenting and the least money to advertising._

 

That's very earnest of you and I admire the trust you place in the fine businessmen of the cable industry. It's also a little bit worrisome, since you're trusting the guys trying to sell you really, really expensive things of controversial benefit. Skepticism has its place in trade, man. Snake oil salesmen in earlier times made a fortune selling worthless cure-alls which often actually harmed the individual taking them, while the same individual marveled at their miraculous properties. Placebo is a strange and highly present medical phenomenon, and audio expectancy is similarly powerful in our own hobby. Perhaps there are significant differences in cables, but those differences need to be quantified for me to commit to them rationally. I'm unwilling to accept whatever claims a vendor chooses to make as fact without a further, reasonable basis. I don't think that everyone who buys cables is an idiot, and I don't think everyone who sells cables is a scammer. I do, however, think that some definitely shady practices go on and some definitely unfounded ideas are pushed around. 

 Everyone has a theory, small t, and everyone wants a better sound - when those two intersect, just about anything can appear reasonable in the quest for the perfect setup, especially when it's something with a somewhat intuitive perspective: the sound goes through cables, so better cables make better sound - this is often presented in the form of an analogy: "Picture the cables as windows between your components. A clear window, or a good cable, allows you to 'see' perfectly through, while a cloudy, dirty window, or a bad cable, obscures the view." The problem is that electricity doesn't really work like the analogy of the window would have it, but everyone likes to feel like they have a genuine handle on what's going on "behind the scenes" of their equipment, so they take it and run with it. It seems natural, after all, that something made out of precious metal would be better than something made out of something as base as copper, but electricity doesn't have our appreciation for shiny things and large sums of money.

 At the end of the day, it's your (large sum of) money, spend it where you want to.


----------



## setmenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_No, as long as you realize that's what it is and focus on trying to maintain the psychological state instead of paying a great deal of money for a "magic token" that's supposed to induce it.

 I find a comfortable chair and a glass of wine improves the clarity and definition of my system. Closing my eyes as I listen lifts the veil of fuzziness from the sound and removes the digital harshness. Putting my feet up improves the resolving of phase and cancels out jitter.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I agree it about keeping an informed sense of perspective.
 That way if one decides to pay a fortune for a 'magic token' it will be on the understanding thats just what it may be.
 [in fact these magic tokens are everywhere $$$$ as the more need to use generally dictates the strength of the spell, hehe]


----------



## Klefbek

Quote:


 I'm talking about real life. 
 

Ah yes, science and labaratories are not part of real life.

  Quote:


 And in my law practice I work with scientists and consultants all the time. And they often are called upon to offer a hypothesis or explanation regarding preliminary observations of some phenomenon prior to the time that undeniable scientific evidence or measurements of the phenomenon have been confirmed. 
 

But they offer an hypothesis on the assumption that the evidence and measurements are there, and that those in the end will be verified to be true or false. That is several miles away from the situation here, where nothing will ever be verified. People keep just on hypothesizing without verification of anything whatsoever.

  Quote:


 In the real, real world, next you time you go to the doctor and you tell him you' ve got a pain in a certain part of your body, how about if he tells you he is not going to offer any diagnosis or offer any medication until you prove with incontrovertible scientific evidence that the pain you are experiencing is actually the result of some injury and not just in your head? 
 

Heh? This comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

 Making a diagnosis is making hypothesis *after* establishing certain facts, it is not just making a hypothesis. If I go to my doctor telling him my leg hurts he will first try to find out what is wrong with it (=establishing facts), if anything (I could be suffering from a factitious disorder) and then offer proper treatment. I don't know if your doctor would say: "Well, you have pain in your leg, and this week all the people with pain in the leg had broken it. So let's just put a cast on it right away." I'm actually quite sure he won't. I am quite sure Dr. Frankenstein is fictitious and not part of the "real world" as you call it. No doctor will treat any injury or illness without checking if the symptoms are there.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_ Closing my eyes as I listen lifts the veil of fuzziness from the sound and removes the digital harshness. Putting my feet up improves the resolving of phase and cancels out jitter.
_

 

Closing your eyes and putting your feet up removes digital harshness and cancels out jitter? And you think the guys who think cables may remove digital harshness and jitter are crazy? Ok. Gotcha.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EricP* 
_1) This thread is not meant to be a rehash of the "skeptic's challenge" wherein someone says "cable upgrades are useless lol"_

 

You can't avoid that, obviously.

  Quote:


 _That out of the way, what is the technical explanation for why a cable upgrade can improve the sound? For instance, there are many who would laugh you out of the room if you suggested that adding a different cable to the HD650 would make it sound differently. I was one of those until I got the Zu cable, and while the difference isn't night and day like some would make you believe, there is a small audible difference in the sound, and I'm curious as to why that is the case.

 If you do not have a knowledgeable (and scientifically correct) technical explanation, please refrain from gibberish._ 
 

The latter is a bit asked too much, since there's not much research been done on the subject, and for now nobody seems to have a final answer to this question. BTW, I'm one of those who take the question seriously, no matter how vocal the objectivistic camp with its pseudo-plausible arguments: I've heard and hear the difference, and I consider especially your above example with the Zu Mobius an impressive ear-opener.

 I'm no EE myself, but I'll try to offer an (open-minded) EE's perspective from second-hand experience with corresponding tests. I'll do so referring to several, regular comparative cable tests performed by the German audio magazine «Stereoplay», more precisely, the EEs there acting as editors and testers, which are -- believe it or not -- cable believers. 

 In this context a short interruption and topic change for answering another post :

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_I did not discussing that magnitude, or if they are or not, above or below the human threshold, what I'm saying is that they are different from one amp to another, of course the variations are small in some cases, but to say that all the amps measure alike is not accurate, not even the same model measure alike..._

 

Sorry for my «inaccuracy», but it was fully intended. As I wanted to convey a classic EE's perspective: values below 0.05% THD are clearly below the hearing threshold as defined by old-school EEs, and it's those who tend to deny sonic differences among amps -- among cables anyway. 

 Long story short: «Stereoplay» has measured the HD patterns of different (speaker) amps throughout several years and found a correlation between them and sound quality. Note: it's not even about low distortion, the pattern itself has dominating meaning for them. That said, the values of solid-state amps were mostly very low (with almost all of them more than -90 dB below the usable signal over a wide power range), so there's no discussion needed that they're commonly considered inaudible (or even hidden in the noise floor). And I'm sure the same applies to the SS headphone amps of the Head-Fi sponsors. 

 Back to cables (and sorry, Eric!): As mentioned, they (the «Stereoplay» EEs) also regularly measure cable characteristics. In earlier editions they've published detailed graphs, but nowadays they're unfortunately reduced to tables with electrical values. Nevertheless, they've remained serious advocates of cable differences, but their now sonic characterisations have little to do with the measurings. So they don't seem to have found a similar key pattern as in amplifiers. 

 Now, personally I'm somewhat optimistic that one could find something like this in the distortion spectra of the cables, like they've been published in earlier «Stereoplay» editions. Of course I'm not talking of harmonic distortion (as it's close to zero), but of frequency-response and (above all) phase distortion. I'll give you a little anecdote of my personal experience with sonic phenomena caused by expanded bandwidth, in this case with a Metaxas Solitaire power amp. I got the Metaxas importer (which is an amp developer himself) to do a little mod in the output stage, primarily consisting of removing two tiny inductor coils (of certainly not more than 0.01 mH) right before the speaker terminals which served to prevent the amp from HF ringing. Although the frequency response was virtually a straight line already before the modification, the effect was not subtle: The treble seemed even much cleaner than before and at the same time less prominent and less harsh (although it wasn't harsh before). 

 What could be the reason for this? Firstly, removing the inductors resulted in a bandwidth increase. On the other hand, the FR alteration happens exclusively above the audible spectrum. The only expectable effect reaching down into the audible range was phase distortion (or the reduction of it, resp.). That's why I think the most promissing attempt for measuring cable characteristics and finding a correlation with the perceived sonic characteristics would be to measure phase distortion. I know, that's something classic EEs consider to be below the human hearing threshold. But there's a lot to it. Just think about the skin effect and the various interaction mechanisms in different cable geometries easily able to distort phase response in very different and characteristic manners. 
.


----------



## Seamaster

After 100 hours on Zu Moubis, and went back to stock cable, the difference is big enough for $250 USD. Money well spend on the Zu. A must have item in my headphone setup.


----------



## Seamaster

I will never ever go back to stock cable.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Closing your eyes and putting your feet up removes digital harshness and cancels out jitter? And you think the guys who think cables may remove digital harshness and jitter are crazy? Ok. Gotcha. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

My delusions are comfortable and inexpensive!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## BrianS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_My delusions are comfortable and inexpensive!

 See ya
 Steve_

 

as long as you like them!


----------



## JohnFerrier

Testing done by Bruno Putzeys--Chief Engineer Class D Audio at Philips Digital Systems Labs.

 (If I remember, Bruno was also a "believer" who became a "skeptic".)

*Distortion*: *Not only sine wave, but also extremely complex full-spectrum multitone testing (including signal sequences derived from actual music)*. *There were NO differences between the cables tested.*

 Graphs over the full audible range...
 "Cheap" cable





 "Expensive" cable




 image credits:Steve Eddy


*Phase noise*: While this would have shown up anyway in the above tests, it was separately checked at frequencies well above the audio band. *Nothing showed up*. 

*"Micro phase shifts"*: The AP2's resolution is so good you can read the length of a cable to within a few inches by measuring the phase difference between input and output. *Apart from this, nothing turned up.*

* In-Out difference*. Actually, two different cables of equal length were fed the above distortion test signals in opposite phase. The two outputs were summed through a trimmable network to null the output. *Well, the output nulled completely (better than 120dB across the audio band).*

Understanding Sonic Differences of Cables


----------



## BrianS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_*It shows that people who claim that cables do make a difference are plainly deluding themselves. On the other hand, those that say that cables should not make a difference, are dead right.*_

 

k. so im an idiot. im buying monster cables for my next system


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_My delusions are comfortable and inexpensive!
_

 

But what about the bottle of wine?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Testing done by Bruno Putzeys--Chief Engineer Class D Audio at Philips Digital Systems Labs.

 * * *

*It shows that people who claim that cables do make a difference are plainly deluding themselves. On the other hand, those that say that cables should not make a difference, are dead right.*

Understanding Sonic Differences of Cables_

 

What? You mean cables don't measure different? Well, that's never been said before! Well that's it for me; that clearly means that we can't hear them differently. End of debate I guess, and I don't know what we've been arguing about. I wish someone would have brought this up earlier. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 P.S. John, could you also point to some testing that shows the two squares in the optical illusion you referenced earlier measure the same. We need that, because then we will know that people absolutely will see them as the same shade or color with their eyes.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I wish someone would have brought this up earlier._

 

I referred to Putzeys' testing two years ago and 6 months. You were involved in all three threads. Did you ignore it the first two times?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I referred to Putzeys' testing two years ago and 6 months. You were involved in all three threads. Did you ignore it the first two times?_

 

No, it just doesn't add anything to the discussion at this point, as we've have assumed that such findings exist in the context of this debate. It's like me pointing you to a bunch of threads where people claim to have heard a difference and claiming that this "proves" conclusively cables are audibly different.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_It's like me pointing you to a bunch of threads where people claim to have heard a difference and claiming that this "proves" conclusively cables are audibly different._

 

Right. I know. Doesn't really add anything to the discussion at this point.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_P.S. John, could you also point to some testing that shows the two squares in the optical illusion you referenced earlier measure the same. We need that, because then we will know that people absolutely will see them as the same shade or color with their eyes._

 

If you want, you can download a utility called WhatColor. As I indicated, both squares A and B have R,G,B values of 107,107,107.







 -






 Cut the left side and pasted it down.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_But what about the bottle of wine? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Two buck Chuck goes best with Radio Shack cables!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## setmenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Two buck Chuck goes best with Radio Shack cables!

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I prefer a nice single malt with my Siltech...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 .


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Two buck Chuck goes best with Radio Shack cables!

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Quality House Vodka for me, thanks. 9.95 a handle of sweet, sweet justice. My liver...


----------



## JaZZ

_John Ferrier..._

 ...you're competely wrong. There are distinct measuring differences among different cables; frequency and phase response are the most characteristic ones. They're not even avoidable, since there are different LRC values -- which result in different wave resistances and bandwidths. I've not measured them myself, BTW, but seen a lot of corresponding graphs in the mentioned «Stereoplay» editions. They were published there to underline the heard differences, although I can't remember direct conclusions to and from the graphs.

 However, you're certainly no EE, are you? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_John Ferrier...

 ...you're competely wrong._

 

What specifically are you referring to?

 -

 Take your time, I was just leaving to go out for a hike.

 -





 The destination (left) and Mt Rainier (right). 

 The above photo also depicts an illusion. Mt Rainer at 14,409' (4.39 km) is 8 times the height of the mountain at the left. The numbers may only inform people who trust measurements. If you trust just your eyes, you might have other ways to assess correct perspective.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_What specifically are you referring to?_

 

Nothing in your post 189 makes much sense as response to my post 184. If you take two cables and feed them with opposite-phase signals, which results in complete cancellation of the test signal, all you prove is that these two specific cables have identical phase response -- in the audible range! or in the range covered by the test signal, resp. --, because that's what's been tested. It doesn't show -- on the other hand -- that cables have limited, individual bandwidths and individual FR and phase responses, which is a well known fact. BTW, if you want to test if a cable's phase response affects the audio band, it's best to use highest-frequency sine waves; the «distortion test signal» used in your example doesn't seem like an adequate signal for the purpose. Does it have decent bandwidth at all? No -- it looks like a 1-kHz sine wave to me. That doesn't make sense if you want to measure relative phase, especially at the upper end of the audio spectrum.

 The more I think about it, the more I think you don't know what phase distortion is...

 And above all the gist of your post which tries to «prove» that all cables measure identically is dead wrong. 
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Nothing in your post 189 makes much sense as response to my post 184. If you take two cables and feed them with opposite-phase signals, which results in complete cancellation of the test signal, all you prove is that these two specific cables have identical phase response -- in the audible range! or in the range covered by the test signal, resp. --, because that's what's been tested. It doesn't show -- on the other hand -- that cables have limited, individual bandwidths and individual FR and phase responses, which is a well known fact. BTW, if you want to test if a cable's phase response affects the audio band, it's best to use highest-frequency sine waves; the «distortion test signal» used in your example doesn't seem like an adequate signal for the purpose. Does it have decent bandwidth at all? No -- it looks like a 1-kHz sine wave to me. That doesn't make sense if you want to measure relative phase, especially at the upper end of the audio spectrum.

 The more I think about it, the more I think you don't know what phase distortion is...

 And above all the gist of your post which tries to «prove» that all cables measure identically is dead wrong. 
._

 

The graphs do just show the results at one of the test frequencies. However, according to the report distortion test was also conducted with "*extremely complex full-spectrum multitone testing (including signal sequences derived from actual music).*" And the result was, "NO differences between the cables tested."

 As far as phase distortion, the second bullet item covered that: "Micro phase shifts: The [Audio Precision 2's] resolution is so good you can read the length of a cable to within a few inches by measuring the phase difference between input and output. Apart from this, nothing turned up."

 My question is why do cable companies not publish technical information? Do they make measurements. Or do they just have people sitting around listening to different wires? I wonder what the research lab is like at an aftermarket cable company.

Understanding Sonic Differences of Cables


----------



## surfboardz26

intresting john. Thanks for the link


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_The graphs do just show the results at one of the test frequencies. However, according to the report distortion test was also conducted with "*extremely complex full-spectrum multitone testing (including signal sequences derived from actual music).*" And the result was, "NO differences between the cables tested."

 As far as phase distortion, the second bullet item covered that: "Micro phase shifts: The [Audio Precision 2's] resolution is so good you can read the length of a cable to within a few inches by measuring the phase difference between input and output. Apart from this, nothing turned up."

 My question is why do cable companies not publish technical information? Do they make measurements. Or do they just have people sitting around listening to different wires? I wonder what the research lab is like at an aftermarket cable company.

Understanding Sonic Differences of Cables_

 

?

 Nordost for instance does publish their measurements for each specific cable.


----------



## Riboge

1) You have to admit that the engineers herein seem to have offered proof that laboratory instruments should not waste their money on expensive cables because they cannot tell the difference. People, on the other hand, ...

 2) The fact that state of mind--whether intoxication or passionate belief or training--is a factor in the perception of cable differences does not prove that it is "all in the head" but just that it is in the head. I wonder where else some people thought it was?

 3) Obiously according to existing scientific understanding "cables should not make a difference", but when they do anyway the question is who or what needs changing?

 4) The visual 'analogy' of the checkerboard offered is a fascinating demonstration of the difference between what an instrument 'perceives' and what a person does. But it is not an apt analogy to perceived cable differences. The two squares(=music sample) are under different light conditions(=volume difference or other non-cable difference) so should appear different. If there were two similar graphics in which one's squares seemed to have different color or darkness and the other didn't (not that I can imagine such), that would be the correct analogy. And for that analogy it would be comparably interesting to explain the difference in perception: what differences in the construction of the graphic and/or visual pathway processing contribute to the perceived difference.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_You have to admit that the engineers herein seem to have offered proof that laboratory instruments should not waste their money on expensive cables because they cannot tell the difference._

 

 I don't think it's appropriate to refer to skeptics as "laboratory instruments."


----------



## F1GTR

Skeptics don't spend their money on expensive cables in the first place so the "laboratory instruments", I mean "tools", comment was clearly referring to the placeboists.


----------



## Riboge

Not to go too far back for some of you dudes, but suddenly I feel as if I'm Bud Abbot or Oliver Hardy.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Obiously according to existing scientific understanding "cables should not make a difference", but when they do anyway the question is who or what needs changing?_

 

You might try isolating the effect to try to determine whether it's coming from the cables themselves or just subjective perception. There's a way to do that conclusively and scientifically- three little letters in the title of this forum.

 Between the article John Ferrier linked to and Edwood's informal test, it's pretty obvious what the truth of the matter is. Those looking for advice on how to improve the sound quality of their rig would be well advised to use this as one of their crteria to determine which posters who give good advice and which don't.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_You missed the essence of the test: Most people heard a difference between the three cables! 
._

 

That is not a valid conclusion to take from the test.


----------



## JaZZ

You missed the essence of the test: Most people heard a difference between the three cables! 
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_That is not a valid conclusion to take from the test._

 

Firstly, your answering post should not be placed above my post to which it refers. Secondly, the conclusion is certainly as valid as it gets. Because there's no other conclusion that can be made.
.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_You might try isolating the effect to try to determine whether it's coming from the cables themselves or just subjective perception. There's a way to do that conclusively and scientifically- three little letters in the title of this forum.
_

 

This is a "three little letters"-free forum. 

 And there's not a way to do it "conclusively." That's proabably one of the reasons why this is a "three little letters"-free forum, i.e., you just get endless arguments (like this thread).

 Anyway, how about we go back to complying with the rules of the forum?


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_You might try isolating the effect to try to determine whether it's coming from the cables themselves or just subjective perception. There's a way to do that conclusively and scientifically- three little letters in the title of this forum.

 Between the article John Ferrier linked to and Edwood's informal test, it's pretty obvious what the truth of the matter is. Those looking for advice on how to improve the sound quality of their rig would be well advised to use this as one of their crteria to determine which posters who give good advice and which don't.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Bigshot, I can only wish that you would think DBT in the forum title stood for Dense Beyond the Tolerable and so withhold your usual in-your-face commentary. There is no other kind of perception but subjective. Where is the difference in the squares "coming from"? The graphic is carefully constructed and the visual cortex creates the perception of difference (this is all very well worked out by neurophysiologists by now-mainly by Hubel and Weisel at Harvard) which is useful because it allows the 2d graphic thus perceived to seem like what would actually be the case in the 3d situation it depicts (if it includes the non-depicted light source casting the shadow). Get the analogy to reproducing in the headphones musical performances occuring in a concert hall or recording studio or do the dbts stand in your way? An only subtly different graphic would not evoke this illusion and hence would fail to reproduce the 'real' checkerboard as well. So are the perceptions of the drawings and their differences coming from the drawings or the visual cortex?


----------



## Vul Kuolun

This is kinda like debating with Jehovas Witnesses in an Armageddon-free forum.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_You missed the essence of the test: Most people heard a difference between the three cables! 
._

 

To be precise most people *thought* they heard a difference (they reported hearing a difference), which is almost the same but not quite. As has been mentioned before all participants in the test *knew that the cables were different*, this makes it hard to not perceive a difference.


----------



## bizkid

I dont have the time to read through this thread completely, but i found an interesting small article about Vovox XLR Cables used mostly in Studios for recording, especially for microphones. If you want to record the human voice you'll need/want a great mic, great mic preamp, and a great converter if you want to go digital (lavry is leading in studio converters btw), So every step you go up in the qualities of your preamps, mics and converters will deliver a better transient response and end in an natural sounding vocal recording. If you record vocals, transients (besides other things) are what defines the qualities of microphones and preamps.

 Now this Studio guy measured the usual things, phase etc of the Vovox Cable, it didnt excell there. Then he sent some short signals through the vovox and measured what happens in the time axis.. And the vovox was the only cable to deliver transients correctly. The other cables had some small kind of echo to transients which blurred them little.
 Even if this was only some kind of guerilla marketing, it should be pretty easy to measure this.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bizkid* 
_I dont have the time to read through this thread completely. . . ._

 

I think that T.O. tried it, and that's what led to his overdose.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Firstly, your answering post should not be placed above my post to which it refers. Secondly, the conclusion is certainly as valid as it gets. Because there's no other conclusion that can be made.
._

 

If we are talking about Edwood's test, there's certainly another conclusion that can be made...

 Audiophiles were unable to identify three totally different cables, ranging from Radio Shack to silver, with any more accuracy than random chance.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


 Now this Studio guy measured the usual things, phase etc of the Vovox Cable, it didnt excell there. Then he sent some short signals through the vovox and measured what happens in the time axis.. And the vovox was the only cable to deliver transients correctly. The other cables had some small kind of echo to transients which blurred them little.
 Even if this was only some kind of guerilla marketing, it should be pretty easy to measure this. 
 

It should be. The fact that it isn't tells me the article is pure marketing. If measuring a cables parameters was that easy, we wouldn't discuss it here. We would have expressive(!) measurements on every manufacturers/sellers/reviewers homepage. We maybe even would have cables that measure perfectly, because the manufacturers could easily develop the perfect cable. But wait a minute... we would be exactly at the same point as we are. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And if the sound examples offered on the Vovox-HP were true, it would be childishly easy even to record and reproduce sound differences. Everybody could record the same song through different cables, make a digital comparison- proofed. End of thread.
 I know that article.The guys talking about the measuring like it was totaly self-evident to measure quality differences between cables. As if he was the first to try. Ridiculous.
 The only thing that keeps him from beeing laughed out is he doesn't give informations about what exactly he was measuring.

 What amazes me again and again is just how gullible people are when it's about cables. At last, this is about money to be earned!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_And there's not a way to do it "conclusively." That's proabably one of the reasons why this is a "three little letters"-free forum, i.e., you just get endless arguments (like this thread)._

 

Circular rhetorical arguments and blanket dismissals of obvious evidence are two great ways to waste time. But as long as you're enjoying it... go crazy with your bad self! It's kind of interesting to hear someone passionately defend the flatness of the Earth. I'm learning a lot about how to creatively use logical fallacies in a debate. Better than law school!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If we are talking about Edwood's test, there's certainly another conclusion that can be made...

 Audiophiles were unable to identify three totally different cables, ranging from Radio Shack to silver, with any more accuracy than random chance._

 

Send me three different cables I've never heard before, tweaked to look the same, and ask me to tell which is which... I say: you must be joking. 
.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_There is no other kind of perception but subjective. Where is the difference in the squares "coming from"? The graphic is carefully constructed and the visual cortex creates the perception of difference (this is all very well worked out by neurophysiologists by now-mainly by Hubel and Weisel at Harvard) which is useful because it allows the 2d graphic thus perceived to seem like what would actually be the case in the 3d situation it depicts (if it includes the non-depicted light source casting the shadow). Get the analogy to reproducing in the headphones musical performances occuring in a concert hall or recording studio or do the dbts stand in your way? An only subtly different graphic would not evoke this illusion and hence would fail to reproduce the 'real' checkerboard as well. So are the perceptions of the drawings and their differences coming from the drawings or the visual cortex?_

 

Brilliant solipsistic dissembling! Bravo! I like your style.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bizkid* 
_I dont have the time to read through this thread completely, but i found an interesting small article about Vovox XLR Cables used mostly in Studios for recording, especially for microphones. If you want to record the human voice you'll need/want a great mic, great mic preamp, and a great converter if you want to go digital_

 

That's absolutely true... but as a producer who has supervised more recording sessions and sound mixes than I can count, I can tell you that I have never spoken to a single recording engineer who advocated the use of high end cables.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Send me three different cables I've never heard before, tweaked to look the same, and ask me to tell which is which... I say: you must be joking._

 

Send me three cables that I've heard before and look totally different and ask me to identify each by sound alone and I'll tell you the same.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## BrianS

soo, i should go out and buy a 24 gauge copper cable unshielded and use it as a powercord to my amp? if cables make no difference, then do you have an argument for getting the right amount of power or current?

 why do space shuttles use gold? obviously to waste tax payer's dollars.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Circular rhetorical arguments and blanket dismissals of obvious evidence are two great ways to waste time. But as long as you're enjoying it... go crazy with your bad self! It's kind of interesting to hear someone passionately defend the flatness of the Earth. I'm learning a lot about how to creatively use logical fallacies in a debate. Better than law school!
_

 

What was that Kevin Costner line in the movie *Bull Durham*? Oh yeah. "Having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a fungo."


----------



## PhilS

Duplicate post.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_What was that Kevin Costner line in the movie *Bull Durham*? Oh yeah. "Having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a fungo." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








_

 

yo I be here to bring da agenda up in this piece


 Where all the circumaurals at?


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_That's absolutely true... but as a producer who has supervised more recording sessions and sound mixes than I can count, I can tell you that I have never spoken to a single recording engineer who advocated the use of high end cables._

 

Because jitter isn't as important when recording a sound. Microphones are the most important. If the cable doesn't have loss of data it is good enough. That's why the recording engineers laugh when you tell them about cables.

 A computer recording the sound and human ears perceiving the sound isn't the same thing.


----------



## bizkid

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_It should be. The fact that it isn't tells me the article is pure marketing. If measuring a cables parameters was that easy, we wouldn't discuss it here. We would have expressive(!) measurements on every manufacturers/sellers/reviewers homepage. We maybe even would have cables that measure perfectly, because the manufacturers could easily develop the perfect cable. But wait a minute... we would be exactly at the same point as we are. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And if the sound examples offered on the Vovox-HP were true, it would be childishly easy even to record and reproduce sound differences. Everybody could record the same song through different cables, make a digital comparison- proofed. End of thread.
 I know that article.The guys talking about the measuring like it was totaly self-evident to measure quality differences between cables. As if he was the first to try. Ridiculous.
 The only thing that keeps him from beeing laughed out is he doesn't give informations about what exactly he was measuring.

 What amazes me again and again is just how gullible people are when it's about cables. At last, this is about money to be earned!_

 


 We had this discussion before at the other forum 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The same people who dont believe in "Cable Sound" also dont believe that preamps/amps/DA Converters are making a difference. Luckily these guys dont record any music, the results would be crappy, very crappy.
 But honestly a person with no experience in recording would probably hear no difference between mic preamps because he just doesnt know what to listen for. That doesnt mean its not there.
 Did you ever hear very sensitive equipment? Ie studio monitors in the 3k range? Or higher end headphones like the W5000? My W5000 shows every little piece of crap from the source or the amp, same for high end monitors.


 Also you blindly believed some person claiming the vovox files were 1db louder without even checking for yourself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 And about the price... a few hundred $$$ on some cables in a 100.000$ studio isnt something to write home about


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bizkid* 
_We had this discussion before at the other forum 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The same people who dont believe in "Cable Sound" also dont believe that preamps/amps/DA Converters are making a difference. Luckily these guys dont record any music, the results would be crappy, very crappy.
 But honestly a person with no experience in recording would probably hear no difference between mic preamps because he just doesnt know what to listen for. That doesnt mean its not there.
 Did you ever hear very sensitive equipment? Ie studio monitors in the 3k range? Or higher end headphones like the W5000? My W5000 shows every little piece of crap from the source or the amp, same for high end monitors.


 Also you blindly believed some person claiming the vovox files were 1db louder without even checking for yourself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 And about the price... a few hundred $$$ on some cables in a 100.000$ studio isnt something to write home about_

 

Don't forget that if the cable is crappy in a studio, they will compensate for that in a recording. The recording engeneer will compensate the incomming sound to something he thinks is right or listenable. How will those guys explain the differences in recordings? Some recordings are outstanding and some are really crappy.

 I know that some recordings were made with high end equipment and cables, like audioquest recordings and they really sound alot better then any general recording.

 The strange things is that most people hear differences in speakers(wich uses cable internally, externally and capacitors(the don't even know how much the capacitors in a crossover filter determine the sound of a speaker, i'll bet they are all the same as well
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 ) dac's dvd/cd players amps etc. But they don't hear or recognize differences in cables, yet it is one of the most important transports between alot of audio equipment.

 I know humans are not all the same, maybe some have not that good of hearing that they can determine differences in cables, who am i to judge, but they also have to accept that some or alot of people do hear (huge) differences in cables.

 To face the truth, why don't we have just one brand of cables, amps, dvd/cd players etc., because they all sound different and you can pick your equipment to your liking, *also speakers and amps are tweaked by ear, most people do or don't know that, not by measurements but by experienced specialists that tell the companies how to fine tune a speaker or amp for the best sound! Now, that is a contradiction!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*Yet, alot of people who say that cables are all the same state that amps and speakers are all different, yet they use internal cables as well and are fine tuned by ear, so, the ear is still the best measure instrument yet?!

 These are the same people that state there is no difference in cables, yet they spent alot of time listening to amps and speakers and choose the ones to their liking, the two most important pieces of equipment that are fine tuned by ear! fact is that speakers and amps sound the way the designer THINKS they should sound best.

 The best measuring amps and speakers just sound awefull. Yes, measurements are used for guidance(we all know not to look at the specs of an amp or speaker and listen to them), the finetuning is done by ear!
 The instrument that is not performing the same in every human and nobody knows how well it perferms in that person is used to make the finest equipment, not a technical device!

 Again, yes, i hear easally differences in cables. What i don't understand is some of the extraordinary prices for the cables. I've seen interlinks of 15.000 dollars, some powercables are easally over 1000 dollars a piece, same for interlinks and speakercables easally way over 1000 dollars a meter for a good cable. I imagine that they aren't that expensive to produce...In that respect more realistic pricing would be very welcome.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Don't forget that if the cable is crappy in a studio, they will compensate for that in a recording. The recording engeneer will compensate the incomming sound to something he thinks is right or listenable. How will those guys explain the differences in recordings? Some recordings are outstanding and some are really crappy.

 I know that some recordings were made with high end equipment and cables, like audioquest recordings and they really sound alot better then any general recording._

 

So that is because of the cables used. Aha. Now I know. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_The strange things is that most people hear differences in speakers(wich uses cable internally, externally and capacitors(the don't even know how much the capacitors in a crossover filter determine the sound of a speaker, i'll bet they are all the same as well
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 ) dac's dvd/cd players amps etc. But they don't hear or recognize differences in cables, yet it is one of the most important transports between alot of audio equipment._

 


 Which is (for the speakers) a totaly different case, as we're talking about hearable, but not measurable phenomenons here. Differences in the sound of speakers can be easily measured, in case you don't know.
 For the DVD/Caps/Amps... as this Forum is DBT-free, you can affirm anything you want.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_I know humans are not all the same, maybe some have not that good of hearing that they can determine differences in cables, who am i to judge, but they also have to accept that some or alot of people do hear (huge) differences in cables._

 

As long as you have to know which cable is playing to tell he difference, this is obviously not about bad or good hearing.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_To face the truth, why don't we have just one brand of cables, amps, dvd/cd players etc., because they all sound different and you can pick your equipment to your liking, *also speakers and amps are tweaked by ear, most people do or don't know that, not by measurements but by experienced specialists that tell the companies how to fine tune a speaker or amp for the best sound! Now, that is a contradiction!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*Yet, alot of people who say that cables are all the same state that amps and speakers are all different, yet they use internal cables as well and are fine tuned by ear, so, the ear is still the best measure instrument yet?!_

 





 If you spend your money on amps and speakers, where the internal wiring is chosen by ear, well then... good luck. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_These are the same people that state there is no difference in cables, yet they spent alot of time listening to amps and speakers and choose the ones to their liking, the two most important pieces of equipment that are fine tuned by ear! fact is that speakers and amps sound the way the designer THINKS they should sound best._

 

What does "cablesound" and coloured equipment to do with each other? Where's the link?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_The best measuring amps and speakers just sound awefull. Yes, measurements are used for guidance(we all know not to look at the specs of an amp or speaker and listen to them), the finetuning is done by ear!
 The instrument that is not performing the same in every human and nobody knows how well it perferms in that person is used to make the finest equipment, not a technical device!_

 


 Good measuring Speakers sound fine. As long as you like neutral , not a coloured sound.
 Speakers are fine tuned by ear, because the goal is seldom a linear speaker, but one that sounds comfortable (or whatever market the producer targets at). This decision is can not be made by an analysing tool. Same goes for instruments.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Again, yes, i hear easally differences in cables. What i don't understand is some of the extraordinary prices for the cables. I've seen interlinks of 15.000 dollars, some powercables are easally over 1000 dollars a piece, same for interlinks and speakercables easally way over 1000 dollars a meter for a good cable. I imagine that they aren't that expensive to produce...In that respect more realistic pricing would be very welcome._

 

So doesn't this make you think? Why do you trust companys ruthlessly overpricing their products, as it's usual in the cables business?

  Quote:


 Also you blindly believed some person claiming the vovox files were 1db louder without even checking for yourself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

It was right anyway. Your measuring was wrong, as you measured the wrong parameter, if you remember.
 The point is, if it was possible to record the differences in cables, we sure would have sample to compare for evvery cable on the market. 
 And it would be veeeery easy to organise a proper test....


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_So that is because of the cables used. Aha. Now I know. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Which is (for the speakers) a totaly different case, as we're talking about hearable, but not measurable phenomenons here. Differences in the sound of speakers can be easily measured, in case you don't know.
 For the DVD/Caps/Amps... as this Forum is DBT-free, you can affirm anything you want.



 As long as you have to know which cable is playing to tell he difference, this is obviously not about bad or good hearing.







 If you spend your money on amps and speakers, where the internal wiring is chosen by ear, well then... good luck. 



 What does "cablesound" and coloured equipment to do with each other? Where's the link?




 Good measuring Speakers sound fine. As long as you like neutral , not a coloured sound.
 Speakers are fine tuned by ear, because the goal is seldom a linear speaker, but one that sounds comfortable (or whatever market the producer targets at). This decision is can not be made by an analysing tool. Same goes for instruments.



 So doesn't this make you think? Why do you trust companys ruthlessly overpricing their products, as it's usual in the cables business?



 It was right anyway. Your measuring was wrong, as you measured the wrong parameter, if you remember.
 The point is, if it was possible to record the differences in cables, we sure would have sample to compare for evvery cable on the market. 
 And it would be veeeery easy to organise a proper test...._

 

Every speaker is fine tuned by ear, if you like it or not, the crossover filters are tuned by listening.......cables and caps are replaced by ear for the sound they want in a speaker. You can either accept this as a fact, wich it is, a speaker builder will confirm this, or just as any cable sceptic, dismiss the fact.
 So, cables seem to have effect on the sound in speakers after all.
 Your amp is 100% tweaked by the company by ear, in the final stage. How do you think they do the modifications? BY EAR!

 yes, i do wonder why some cables cost 3000 dollar a meter, but some are really better then other cables and if you like em and want em, you have to pay that price set in the audio-industry. or buy second hand, wich is even better. more value for money.

 So, for speakers it is accepted that they use not measurable phenomenan but not for cables!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







  Quote:


 As long as you have to know which cable is playing to tell he difference, this is obviously not about bad or good hearing. 
 

I don't have too, i can tell you blindfolded wich cable you put on my amp; they all 3, i have 3 powercables, sound different.

  Quote:


 What does "cablesound" and coloured equipment to do with each other? Where's the link? 
 

 A lot! I considder this the same thing, cables that are neutral or more warm, same goes for amps. Some are more neutral then others! Every cabl has it's own sound, so does an amp! if you like it or not, no cable and no amp sound the same! At least, not to my ears!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








 If it is not possible to measure cables, then how come some companies specify the specifications for each cable and they are not the same!!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Not every man that sells something is a liar.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Every speaker is fine tuned by ear, if you like it or not, the crossover filters are tuned by listening.......cables and caps are replaced by ear for the sound they want in a speaker._

 

I have a friend who builds speaker systems, and he uses a set of frequency sweeps at different volume levels to test and adjust his systems. The idea is to remove the subjective reaction and focus on balancing the response of the speakers to a known test tone. It's not a bunch of aesthetes deciding how the speaker should sound over wine and cheese. It's developing optimal performance through testing and application of known acoustic theory. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Not every man that sells something is a liar._

 

Your faith in the high end cable market is a little over optimistic. If one could sell something for $1000 that cost $5 to make; and one's own customers would swear the product made a "night and day" difference, when the truth is that it made none at all... I think most people in that situation would cheerfully prevaricate till the cows come home.

 By the way, I'm sorry if I made anyone cry. There's no reason to get all worked up over a simple discussion about a wire.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

Skeptics use test tones to compare cables?


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


 If it is not possible to measure cables, then how come some companies specify the specifications for each cable and they are not the same!!! Not every man that sells something is a liar. 
 

Man, this is really getting embarrassing. Sure, you can measure a cable as every construction has it's own characteristics. You just cannot make a correlation between that what is beeing measured, and that what people like you affirm to hear.
 Every communications engineer will laugh in your face if your telling him you're able to hear skin efects at 20 000Hz, unless you're an oscilloscope on two legs. Same goes for capacity, induction and resistance, unless you're cable is a crappy misconstruction only to be found in the so called Hi-End audio. The engineers (read:technical people) i've seen writing about this subject find a proper constructed cable (constructed for the purpose used) can be excluded to have any effect in the hearing range.
 Maybe thats the reason no engineers seem to answer here.
 Before you get into parapsychology i suggest you'llat least try to get an overview of whats known and whats not. Then we can talk about virgin land explored by ominous cable/speaker/ whatever builders.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Skeptics use test tones to compare cables?_

 

I was talking about a speaker system designer, not a skeptic... and speakers, not cables. What was your question again?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_The engineers (read:technical people) i've seen writing about this subject find a proper constructed cable (constructed for the purpose used) can be excluded to have any effect in the hearing range._

 

Well, that's exactly why I have so low respect for (typical, old-school) EEs. They pose as know-it-alls to impress the laymen, and they even believe they are. So they also know that all SS amps must sound the same, because their harmonic distortion -- the only criterion where they show significant measuring differences at all -- of -80 or -90 dB below the usable signal is definitely inaudible -- verified in their ...tests.
.


----------



## setmenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Well, that's exactly why I have so low respect for (typical, old-school) EEs. They pose as know-it-alls to impress the laymen, and they even believe they are. So they also know that all SS amps must sound the same, because their harmonic distortion -- the only criterion where they show significant measuring differences at all -- of -80 or -90 dB below the usable signal is definitely inaudible -- verified in their ...tests.
._

 

Those typical old school EEs are the ones who most likely came up with much 
 of the fundamental audio electronics that everyone today takes for granted.
 Once the real engineers have laid the groundwork the field becomes open to 
 tweakers.



 .


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *setmenu* 
_Those typical old school EEs are the ones who most likely came up with much 
 of the fundamental audio electronics that everyone today takes for granted.
 Once the real engineers have laid the groundwork the field becomes open to 
 tweakers.
 ._

 

So right. If you believe the cable sellers, every moron can build a headphone but the state of the art in audio is the ability to build a copperstrand with an insulation.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_If you believe the cable sellers, every moron can build a headphone but the state of the art in audio is the ability to build a copperstrand with an insulation._

 

Can you back up this claim?

 BTW, Sennheiser uses OFC magnet wires in their headphone cables.
.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Can you back up this claim?

 BTW, Sennheiser uses OFC magnet wires in their headphone cables.
._

 


 Just compare what 200 Bucks will buy you in headphones or other "real" gear, and in high-end aftermarket cables.

 BTW, of course they use OFC Copper. What else should they use? For what i know, there's no other copper on the worldmarket than OFC. But what's a magnet wire supposed to be?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Just compare what 200 Bucks will buy you in headphones or other "real" gear, and in high-end aftermarket cables._

 

And what does this tell? What you stated above? I don't see a connection. 

  Quote:


 _BTW, of course they use OFC Copper. What else should they use? For what i know, there's no other copper on the worldmarket than OFC._ 
 

Really? That's new to me. I'm not sure if you're right, though. After all Sennheiser emphasizes it in their specs.

  Quote:


 _But what's a magnet wire supposed to be?_ 
 

Separately insulated wires _(Lackdraht)_ with ultra-small diameters in this case (my own favorite recipe, BTW) -- to prevent them from the skin effect -- for better HF extension and phase response. 
.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


 (Lackdraht) 
 

Ah. O.K.

  Quote:


 to prevent them from the skin effect -- for better HF extension and phase response. 
 

Even if Sennheiser says this -which i doubt- what does this mean? That the marketing section did do their homework? Like the "we-use oh-so-precious-OFC"- comment? In my opinion: Yes.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Even if Sennheiser says this -which i doubt- what does this mean? That the marketing section did do their homework? Like the "we-use oh-so-precious-OFC"- comment? In my opinion: Yes._

 

You may visit the Sennheiser homepage yourself. The OFC copper is mentioned in the specs, but the magnet-wire thing is my own discovery, during cable shortening and reterminating. You can doubt it if you like, though. 

 BTW, why is it that you have to be so permanently sarcastic the way you are? E.g. marketing rhetoric is a very normal thing and no bone of contention for cool people (I simply ignore it). As is selling products for the highest price you can get if there's enough demand.
.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

I didn't want to doubt that the cable is made of magnet wire;
 I doubted that sennheiser is refering to skin effect.

 The reason for my sarcasm is that it seems to me, as if every normal caution is switched of by a lot of people when it's about cables.

 The totaly unbacked-up statements made by the manufacturers, together with the absurdly high promises would make everyone alert if we were talking about almost every other product. But as soon as it's about audio, products seem to regularly even exceed the manufacturers already ridicuolus promises.
 Audio seems to be a place where common sense makes you a complete alien.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *setmenu* 
_Those typical old school EEs are the ones who most likely came up with much 
 of the fundamental audio electronics that everyone today takes for granted.
 Once the real engineers have laid the groundwork the field becomes open to 
 tweakers._

 

This discussion has degenerated to the level of children throwing spitballs. But the problem stems from the oversimplifications involved in the way the subject is approached in the first place. There are so many intelligent participants one has to wonder at what underlies this tendency to take up polarized and one-sided positions which are as bound to lead to fighting overtaking thinking as they are to be wrong because they deliberately exclude any of the kind of nuances and multifactorial aspects inherent in auditory perception, sophisticated equipment, etc. But I am not going to try to take this up despite an expertise in doing so because others clearly aren't interested at all or are too threatened, I don't know what combination of these. I for one have also tried to use a different expertise to invite the consideration of the many different factors at play philosophically and psychologically that make this sort of black and white debate ridiculous. But also clearly others don't want to take that up either. Again I'm not sure if it's uncomprehension, fear, the dullness of this compared to trading insults or my inability to communicate it well enough.

 In any case, what I am trying to say is that such discussion are pointless for any purpose besides having an outlet for aggression and contentiousness per se. It's just embarrassing to witness smart guys pit against eachother such different substantialities of enterprise as electrical engineering and cable designing, much as the quote above says (until it spoils itself with the contemptuous "tweaking" at the end). On the other hand, the aesthetics of listening to music and of the nuances of that final few percent of the whole sound/reproduction of music that we audiophiles specialize in and love trying to enhance and enjoy cannot be denied or dismissed in the name of science. The part worth discussing is the interaction and relating of the engineering and the aesthetics of listening, if I may call it that. And the marvel is that it is so hard to define, identify with measuring devices or reconcile with theory. The two aspects are hand in glove and interdependent. That, after all, was the sort of question that initiated this thread.
 So if you're feeling aggressive kick the dog or something, and if you crave polarized contention between parties who will never really listen to one another consider that it's election season and there's plenty of it to be had elsewhere. Otherwise I encourage any who agree with me to refrain from participating in the likes of most of this thread so far.


----------



## bigshot

I have great respect for the engineers at Bell Labs in the 20s and 30s. The more I read about their experiments, the more I realize how much has been ignored or forgotten.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I have a friend who builds speaker systems, and he uses a set of frequency sweeps at different volume levels to test and adjust his systems. The idea is to remove the subjective reaction and focus on balancing the response of the speakers to a known test tone. It's not a bunch of aesthetes deciding how the speaker should sound over wine and cheese. It's developing optimal performance through testing and application of known acoustic theory. 



 Your faith in the high end cable market is a little over optimistic. If one could sell something for $1000 that cost $5 to make; and one's own customers would swear the product made a "night and day" difference, when the truth is that it made none at all... I think most people in that situation would cheerfully prevaricate till the cows come home.

 By the way, I'm sorry if I made anyone cry. There's no reason to get all worked up over a simple discussion about a wire.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Sorry, i don't agree with you, it is known that well known large speaker companies use experts in listening to speakers and they tell em how to finetune the speakers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Testing includes listening to the speaker how it sounds after the tweaks, it's that simple, in the end the trained ear desides if the tweakes worked or not, not any measuring instrument! This is a fact! 


 How do you know the cables cost ony 5 bucks to make?!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Maybe it's a tenner.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's really funny to hear that the same people buy high end phones for alot of money, amps for alot of money but cables do nothing for them.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Oh well, you're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Audio seems to be a place where common sense makes you a complete alien._

 

For me common sense is to listen to a cable, if it sounds better, i hear more music or is more musical, i buy that cable if i think the price is right.

 If cables are all the same, then all amps are the same; all resistors, tubes, capacitors, transistors and even internal cables are all the same. Get real.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Explain to me one thing: alot of non oversampling cdplayers measure like s**t, On paper they should sound horrible according to the measuring tables...yet they sound much better then real good measuring cdplayers.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 have more details , are more musical, sounds much more natural. go figure...


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Just compare what 200 Bucks will buy you in headphones or other "real" gear, and in high-end aftermarket cables.

 BTW, of course they use OFC Copper. What else should they use? For what i know, there's no other copper on the worldmarket than OFC. But what's a magnet wire supposed to be?_

 

Real gear also use cables to connect the drivers to the plug.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 I can tell you that the cardas on the hd600 made a big difference compared to the standard cable. Was the same difference as going to a higher priced cdplayer or headphone.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The highs and lows extended clearly, the soundstage became much bigger and details revealed that i couldn't hear before. The only thing that was changed, was the cable, so it must have been the cable doing those large improvements.

 if you don't trust my real life experiences, then everybody on head-fi is a liar.


----------



## Patrick82

It is weird that skeptics don't even want to try cables for themselves. I have offered 3 skeptics to borrow my $5080 cable, they all declined. Gee I wonder why? They are scared that cables may make a difference and they need to start buying $$$$$ cables after they hear the truth.

 EDIT: Also, they are afraid they need to go back and edit each misinformed post they have done in this forum. Who wants to spend days doing that? It's easier to just ignore the truth. 
 This is the same for the believers too, they are afraid cables don't make a difference so they don't fully test the cables. Both sides are narrow minded and it doesn't lead anywhere, there has already been thousands of threads like these. 

 The believers are more open-minded because they actually try the cables for themselves while the skeptics just look at pieces of paper!


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_It is weird that skeptics don't even want to try cables for themselves. I have offered 3 skeptics to borrow my $5080 cable, they all declined. Gee I wonder why? They are scared that cables may make a difference and they need to start buying $$$$$ cables after they hear the truth._

 

Besides money, I think it's a waste of time. I'd rather spend my time listening to different CDs. Or doing other things.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Besides money, I think it's a waste of time. I'd rather spend my time listening to different CDs. Or doing other things._

 

Looks like iPod and stock earbuds is for you then.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Besides money, I think it's a waste of time. I'd rather spend my time listening to different CDs. Or doing other things._

 

Me to, but i have so much more fun with a very good cable because it gives me more detail, more musicallity and natural sound.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Looks like iPod and stock earbuds is for you then._

 

And 64k compression as well.


----------



## BrianS

ill ask again. why do space vehicles use gold rather than copper?


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BrianS* 
_ill ask again. why do space vehicles use gold rather than copper?_

 

Because gold is a denser material which rejects larger particles which, without the benefit of an atmosphere to filter the majority of them out, could rend DNA and damage certain, very sensitive electronics.

 Which has nothing to do with audio reproduction. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Honestly, I can't tell if sometimes the cable believers are just trying to get objectivists riled up, what with equating components that actually interact with air to produce sound (and thus have very intuitive, easily understandable design principles which are comparatively simple to test) and cables, which to anyone's definition simply carry a signal. The lossiness of a cable is orders of magnitude lower than even the best speaker in terms of distortion. Or do (some, not all of) you guys genuinely think that the cable's construction contributes as much to the output sound as the speaker's construction?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_This discussion has degenerated to the level of children throwing spitballs. But the problem stems from the oversimplifications involved in the way the subject is approached in the first place. There are so many intelligent participants one has to wonder at what underlies this tendency to take up polarized and one-sided positions which are as bound to lead to fighting overtaking thinking as they are to be wrong because they deliberately exclude any of the kind of nuances and multifactorial aspects inherent in auditory perception, sophisticated equipment, etc. But I am not going to try to take this up despite an expertise in doing so because others clearly aren't interested at all or are too threatened, I don't know what combination of these. I for one have also tried to use a different expertise to invite the consideration of the many different factors at play philosophically and psychologically that make this sort of black and white debate ridiculous. But also clearly others don't want to take that up either. Again I'm not sure if it's uncomprehension, fear, the dullness of this compared to trading insults or my inability to communicate it well enough.

 In any case, what I am trying to say is that such discussion are pointless for any purpose besides having an outlet for aggression and contentiousness per se. It's just embarrassing to witness smart guys pit against eachother such different substantialities of enterprise as electrical engineering and cable designing, much as the quote above says (until it spoils itself with the contemptuous "tweaking" at the end). On the other hand, the aesthetics of listening to music and of the nuances of that final few percent of the whole sound/reproduction of music that we audiophiles specialize in and love trying to enhance and enjoy cannot be denied or dismissed in the name of science. The part worth discussing is the interaction and relating of the engineering and the aesthetics of listening, if I may call it that. And the marvel is that it is so hard to define, identify with measuring devices or reconcile with theory. The two aspects are hand in glove and interdependent. That, after all, was the sort of question that initiated this thread.
 So if you're feeling aggressive kick the dog or something, and if you crave polarized contention between parties who will never really listen to one another consider that it's election season and there's plenty of it to be had elsewhere. Otherwise I encourage any who agree with me to refrain from participating in the likes of most of this thread so far._

 

There are some really good points made in this post. Several good points.


----------



## euclid

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Send me three cables that I've heard before and look totally different and ask me to identify each by sound alone and I'll tell you the same.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

my understanding after reading that thread was the testers could easily tell the difference in the 3 cables, they just didnt fit the preconceived stereotypes regarding silver, copper, and Rat shack. only if the majority would have decided they all sounded the same then it would have brought up some suspision regarding placebo.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BrianS* 
_ill ask again. why do space vehicles use gold rather than copper?_

 

Because gold is used here as an insulator. Gold blankets are used in medical envirements for keeping the warmth in and the cold out. Gold is used for this. Also in space vehicles and for other things. Gold is used in audio mainly to not let it oxidate and slightly better conductivity. Pure gold cables would sound very bad, silver is much better for this!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_There are some really good points made in this post. Several good points._

 

Conclusion:

 there are differences in cables but why the heck are the really good sounding cables so rediculessly priced!


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Explain to me one thing: alot of non oversampling cdplayers measure like s**t, On paper they should sound horrible according to the measuring tables...yet they sound much better then real good measuring cdplayers.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 have more details , are more musical, sounds much more natural. go figure...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Supposing they really sound different, there will always be listeners who _prefer _that sound. Then they try to express their feelings in words by using adjectives like "detailed", "musical" or "natural". Some listeners on the other hand will prefer the uncoloured sound of ordinary dacs or cdps. What is your point?


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Explain to me one thing: alot of non oversampling cdplayers measure like s**t, On paper they should sound horrible according to the measuring tables...yet they sound much better then real good measuring cdplayers. have more details , are more musical, sounds much more natural. go figure... _

 

Many CDPS with "poor" measurements are still so good in terms of SNR ,THD and so on as to make differentiating between poor and good CD players by specs largely meaningless - any SNR of > 95db is as good as inaudible and THD of < 0.05% may not be audibly worse than < 0.005%. Gross distortion in the whole number range ( old Rigonda record players used to manage 10% THD) will probably be serious but modern CD technology is now so good that a CD player would have to be apalling to measure really badly.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Leporello* 
_Supposing they really sound different, there will always be listeners who prefer that sound. Then they try to express their feelings in words by using adjectives like "detailed", "musical" or "natural". Some listeners on the other hand will prefer the uncoloured sound of ordinary dacs or cdps. What is your point?


 Regards,

 L._

 

See hciman77 commend about this!

 The differences in those equipment is so small that it should not be audible, yet people do hear alot of differences in cdplayers and make statements that cables are all the same. remember, only steps of 3db suppose to be audible, thd, s/n etc is way under the 3db limit!

 If you hear micro details between cdplayers, you should be able to hear micro differences in cables!


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_The differences in those equipment is so small that it should not be audible, yet people do hear alot of differences in cdplayers and make statements that cables are all the same. remember, only steps of 3db suppose to be audible, thd, s/n etc is way under the 3db limit!

 If you hear micro details between cdplayers, you should be able to hear micro differences in cables!_

 

What I was getting at is the possibility that many listeners may actually prefer the sound of the NOS Dacs _because _of their sound altering properties (which are reflected in the measurements), not despite of them.


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## setmenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_This discussion has degenerated to the level of children throwing spitballs. But the problem stems from the oversimplifications involved in the way the subject is approached in the first place. There are so many intelligent participants one has to wonder at what underlies this tendency to take up polarized and one-sided positions which are as bound to lead to fighting overtaking thinking as they are to be wrong because they deliberately exclude any of the kind of nuances and multifactorial aspects inherent in auditory perception, sophisticated equipment, etc. But I am not going to try to take this up despite an expertise in doing so because others clearly aren't interested at all or are too threatened, I don't know what combination of these. I for one have also tried to use a different expertise to invite the consideration of the many different factors at play philosophically and psychologically that make this sort of black and white debate ridiculous. But also clearly others don't want to take that up either. Again I'm not sure if it's uncomprehension, fear, the dullness of this compared to trading insults or my inability to communicate it well enough.

 In any case, what I am trying to say is that such discussion are pointless for any purpose besides having an outlet for aggression and contentiousness per se. It's just embarrassing to witness smart guys pit against eachother such different substantialities of enterprise as electrical engineering and cable designing, much as the quote above says (until it spoils itself with the contemptuous "tweaking" at the end). On the other hand, the aesthetics of listening to music and of the nuances of that final few percent of the whole sound/reproduction of music that we audiophiles specialize in and love trying to enhance and enjoy cannot be denied or dismissed in the name of science. The part worth discussing is the interaction and relating of the engineering and the aesthetics of listening, if I may call it that. And the marvel is that it is so hard to define, identify with measuring devices or reconcile with theory. The two aspects are hand in glove and interdependent. That, after all, was the sort of question that initiated this thread.
 So if you're feeling aggressive kick the dog or something, and if you crave polarized contention between parties who will never really listen to one another consider that it's election season and there's plenty of it to be had elsewhere. Otherwise I encourage any who agree with me to refrain from participating in the likes of most of this thread so far._

 

I agree these discussions do often end up partisan.
 From a personal viewpoint on these matters.
 If you read my previous responses you will realize that I am quite comfortable 
 with both sides of the 'debate'.
 If the objective camp 100% proved the effects an illusion, would it bother 
 me?
 Nope.
 If the subjective can proved 100% the effects were real, would it bother me?
 Nope.
 Either result would be interesting and [hopefully] expand upon current 
 knowledge within their specific fields.

 I do lean toward the objective camp, but have been in the subjective 
 camp too.
 I have also [like many] spent pretty hefty sums of money on cables in the past, my 
 Siltech were not cheap, and I thoroughly enjoyed all that intense auditioning of 
 different cable brands and types that led to my choice.
 I still have the sonic signatures of most burned into my memory.
 At the time I had no doubt what I was hearing was as real as night and day.
 But I might have been wrong in this belief.
 Does this make me wring my hands at the thought of having spent good 
 money on cables?
 Nope.

 Would I do it again?
 Quite possibly as I feel sure that having learned to find differences that 
 resulted in improved listening enjoyment ,that I would or could repeat the 
 experience, regardless of the influence of any intellectual understanding.

 Though these days I tend to make my own ics, silver of course, but I like to 
 fine tune them by the choice of outer insulation colour. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 .


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_See hciman77 commend about this!
_

 


 Hold on there. You are using my words out of context. My comments were solely related to the value(?) of using specs for differentiation. I made no comment on any relation or lack thereof between specs and sound.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *euclid* 
_my understanding after reading that thread was the testers could easily tell the difference in the 3 cables, they just didnt fit the preconceived stereotypes regarding silver, copper, and Rat shack. only if the majority would have decided they all sounded the same then it would have brought up some suspision regarding placebo._

 

If they thought they all sounded the same, it *wouldn't* be placebo. The placebo effect is that they *thought* they heard a difference, but the impressions tallied among all the participants ended up averaging out to total random chance.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_there are differences in cables but why the heck are the really good sounding cables so rediculessly priced!_

 

If it's possible to make good sounding cables affordably, what makes you think that there are no affordable cables that sound good? Perhaps Radio Shack cables sound just as good as the overpriced ones.

 Perhaps you're assuming that expensive=good and inexpensive=bad. That would be an error in logic, because price does not necessarily equate with quality.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_If you hear micro details between cdplayers, you should be able to hear micro differences in cables!_

 

That's a logical fallacy of using one assumption to prove another.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Looks like iPod and stock earbuds is for you then._

 

Compression rates and headphones/speakers are things that really do make a difference. Because someone says cables doesn't make a difference, it doesn't mean that they think nothing makes a difference.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Or do (some, not all of) you guys genuinely think that the cable's construction contributes as much to the output sound as the speaker's construction?_

 

I think the root of the disagreement is that some people are unable to quantitatively rank degrees of difference. "Little or no" is the same as "night and day" to them. I think it all comes down to having to justify the purchase price to themselves. That's why "more expensive" always ends up "sounding better".

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I think the root of the disagreement is that some people are unable to quantitatively rank degrees of difference. "Little or no" is the same as "night and day" to them. I think it all comes down to having to justify the purchase price to themselves. That's why "more expensive" always ends up "sounding better".

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I jump at the chance to say that for once I agree with you, or at least the first two sentences and only as a part of the disagreement not its root. But that is to a degree a response to those like you who will not acknowledge there is that degree of difference among cables (given the right set, setting, motivation, training, etc.) however much smaller that is than the contribution of some other components.

 The diminishing marginal return for the cost of components seeking to improve the least well understood and engineered parts of audiophile enterprise has been the case always in the forty years I have been an audiophile. It's nothing new and undeniablely leaves a lot of room for charlatans and gougers to wield the power of suggestion via high prices, but it is not "always" that higher priced items sound better, just more of the time than is justified. Sorry, but most of life is lived in the grey zone. Try it you might like it.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I think it all comes down to having to justify the purchase price to themselves. That's why "more expensive" always ends up "sounding better".
_

 

And yet there are repeated instances reported on this forum in which cable "believers" have stated that the more expensive cable did not sound better to them, but sounded worse. The argument that cable "believers" always prefer the more expensive cable is a straw man.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_ Because someone says cables doesn't make a difference, it doesn't mean that they think nothing makes a difference.
_

 

True, but to be fair, that was not the thrust of the argument. It appears (as has been pointed out many times by Jazz) that the measured differences between other components that generally are acknowledged to sound different are often not in the range that people think would be audible, so saying that the measured differences between cables are not in a range that should be audible does raise the question of whether the measurements are completely conclusive on the issue, given the situation with other components. That seems to be what what hciman77 and tourmaline were referring to, if I read their posts correctly.

 It's easy to say something is a logical fallacy if you ignore the thrust of the argument.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I think the root of the disagreement is that some people are unable to quantitatively rank degrees of difference._

 

That indeed is a problem in this area. Perhaps you could suggest some ways in which people reporting improvements in sound could report the differences "quantitatively." If we can settle on a meaningful standard for everyone to use, perhaps it will make the discussion more clear and narrow the dispute somewhat.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_That indeed is a problem in this area. Perhaps you could suggest some ways in which people reporting improvements in sound could report the differences "quantitatively." If we can settle on a meaningful standard for everyone to use, perhaps it will make the discussion more clear and narrow the dispute somewhat._

 

Your use of irony is splendid sir !

 As to quantitative measures......Oink Oink flap flap. I use survey devices such as Likert scales and so on and well at best they are pretty crappy and only of any possible value if you have really big samples and dodgy even then - sigh.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_so saying that the measured differences between cables are not in a range that should be audible does raise the question of whether the measurements are completely conclusive on the issue, given the situation with other components. That seems to be what what hciman77 and tourmaline were referring to, if I read their posts correctly.
_

 

Yep, all I was trying to say was just that the difference between "poor" and "good" specs may not be useful to distinguish since even "poor" specs such as 95db SNR are actually damn good anyway, so if a 95db SNR CD player sounds better (or worse) than a 105db SNR CD player the SNR may not really have any actual bearing on this. Assuming that CD players actually do sound different at all


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_It is weird that skeptics don't even want to try cables for themselves. I have offered 3 skeptics to borrow my $5080 cable, they all declined. Gee I wonder why? They are scared that cables may make a difference and they need to start buying $$$$$ cables after they hear the truth.

 EDIT: Also, they are afraid they need to go back and edit each misinformed post they have done in this forum. Who wants to spend days doing that? It's easier to just ignore the truth. 
 This is the same for the believers too, they are afraid cables don't make a difference so they don't fully test the cables. Both sides are narrow minded and it doesn't lead anywhere, there has already been thousands of threads like these. 

 The believers are more open-minded because they actually try the cables for themselves while the skeptics just look at pieces of paper!_

 

If i was you, i wouldn't go to much into the motivation thing.
 You know, if it was for deleting posts or having to admit to be wrong is one thing; but after spending 12000 Bucks on bling-bling made of copper and PVC i could imagine you're quite motivated to keep it real, too.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_That indeed is a problem in this area. Perhaps you could suggest some ways in which people reporting improvements in sound could report the differences "quantitatively." If we can settle on a meaningful standard for everyone to use, perhaps it will make the discussion more clear and narrow the dispute somewhat._

 

1) A night and day improvement is like comparing an LCD to a CRT monitor. (Nordost Vishnu VS Valhalla power cord)

 Valhalla has greater dynamics; blacker blacks and whiter whites.



 2) A small improvement is 90Hz VS 100Hz computer monitor. (Stock VS Vishnu)

 Vishnu is similar to stock except it is little smoother which is less fatiguing in the long-term.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_If i was you, i wouldn't go to much into the motivation thing.
 You know, if it was for deleting posts or having to admit to be wrong is one thing; but after spending 12000 Bucks on bling-bling made of copper and PVC i could imagine you're quite motivated to keep it real, too._

 

I don't want it to be real, but I can't deny the truth that cables make a difference. I wish I could use stock cord and just plug it in, but I have tried it so many times I have lost count. It sounds absolutely horrible.


----------



## euclid

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If they thought they all sounded the same, it *wouldn't* be placebo. The placebo effect is that they *thought* they heard a difference, but the impressions tallied among all the participants ended up averaging out to total random chance.

 See ya
 Steve_

 


 no, i wasnt referring to placebo within that test. placebo is caused by a preconceived notion that since one cable has a reputable name, costs 20x more, and uses exotic materials then it will automatically sound better. within the test all the cables looked exactly the same but were built from different materials, there is no factor to promote placebo, and all the cables still sounded different from one-another... they just didnt fit the specific material stereotypes.

 if they were all built with different wire and still sounded identical because they all looked identiacal, ONLY THEN i would think that in an ordinary non-blind test placebo leans towards the more reputable cable.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Compression rates and headphones/speakers are things that really do make a difference. Because someone says cables doesn't make a difference, it doesn't mean that they think nothing makes a difference._

 

It only makes a difference if you use crappy speakers in the first place. This is a headphone forum you know, you get more detail than speakers for a fraction of the price. That's why cables make a difference early in the upgrade path. 
 When I had K501 ($200) Valhalla power cables were already required to bring out their potential.

 Compression rate isn't as important as cables! I can use 96 kbps mp3 to hear a difference between cables. In my system 128 kbps + Valhalla sounds better than 320 kbps + stock.
 It is weird that skeptics only believe things that are proven and written on paper. They also claim they can hear a difference between 320 kbps mp3 and WAV, but can't hear the difference between cables! Who's having the placebo!? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I think the root of the disagreement is that some people are unable to quantitatively rank degrees of difference. "Little or no" is the same as "night and day" to them. I think it all comes down to having to justify the purchase price to themselves. That's why "more expensive" always ends up "sounding better"._

 

Then why did I downgrade my system into cheaper gear and lost thousands? The cheapest components sounded better to me.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_That's a logical fallacy of using one assumption to prove another.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

people say they hear differences in cdplayers, so theoretically it should be possible to hear differences in cables.

 Assuming that others don't hear differences between cdplayers and cables is an assumption.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If it's possible to make good sounding cables affordably, what makes you think that there are no affordable cables that sound good? Perhaps Radio Shack cables sound just as good as the overpriced ones.

 Perhaps you're assuming that expensive=good and inexpensive=bad. That would be an error in logic, because price does not necessarily equate with quality.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Unfortunately it seems it isn't. I tried reasonably priced cables and they didn't come even close to the reference series of cables.

 I would see it like this:
 expensive cables=closer to the real thing cheap=far from the real deal.

 I tried em all, cheap to expensive and to me the expensive ones sound way much better. Some brands are much better then others.
 Don't you think i would save a few quit if i was thinking that the cheap ones are as good?!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_True, but to be fair, that was not the thrust of the argument. It appears (as has been pointed out many times by Jazz) that the measured differences between other components that generally are acknowledged to sound different are often not in the range that people think would be audible, so saying that the measured differences between cables are not in a range that should be audible does raise the question of whether the measurements are completely conclusive on the issue, given the situation with other components. That seems to be what what hciman77 and tourmaline were referring to, if I read their posts correctly.

 It's easy to say something is a logical fallacy if you ignore the thrust of the argument._

 

You hit the nail.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* 
_Hold on there. You are using my words out of context. My comments were solely related to the value(?) of using specs for differentiation. I made no comment on any relation or lack thereof between specs and sound._

 

I know, see PhilS commend.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_It only makes a difference if you use crappy speakers in the first place. This is a headphone forum you know, you get more detail than speakers for a fraction of the price._

 

Detail is just one part of sound reproduction. Headphones, even the best of them, don't come close to matching the presence and realism of a good speaker system.

 A $1000 speaker will sound much better compared to a $100 one, than a $5 Radio Shack cable sounds compared to a $500 audiophile one. That should be blindingly obvious.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_I tried em all, cheap to expensive and to me the expensive ones sound way much better. Some brands are much better then others._

 

Think about the generalization that "expensive cables sound better"...

 If audiophile cables are grossly overpriced when one looks at the cost of manufacturing them, as you said yourself, why aren't there good sounding inexpensive cables? Do you think that inexpensive cable manufacturers are deliberately designing their cables to be inferior? If the manufacturing cost is comparable, why not just make an inexpensive cable that sounds as good as an expensive one?

 Or do they sound better simply because they are more expensive?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Compression rate isn't as important as cables! I can use 96 kbps mp3 to hear a difference between cables. In my system 128 kbps + Valhalla sounds better than 320 kbps + stock._

 

That's because you're auditioning synthesizer music that already has digital artifacting built into the voices. If you used acoustic instruments to audition with (assuming you are familiar with the sound of a violin or classical guitar) you would hear a big difference between 96 and 320 on any system.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Assuming that others don't hear differences between cdplayers and cables is an assumption._

 

No, it isn't because I've done those comparison tests myself. The differences are slight, if they exist at all.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_True, but to be fair, that was not the thrust of the argument. It appears that the measured differences between other components that generally are acknowledged to sound different are often not in the range that people think would be audible, so saying that the measured differences between cables are not in a range that should be audible does raise the question of whether the measurements are completely conclusive on the issue, given the situation with other components._

 

The differences between speakers are most definitely measurable. A frequency sweep to measure the effect of the room on the response is also very measurable. These are the elements that make the biggest difference to sound reproduction, and they are ones that an audiophile should spend most of his time and resources working on improving.

 An amp can have measurable, yet small S/N, THD and frequency response error; particularly if the amp is underpowered for the speakers you are trying to push or if it is a tube amp. Amps can sound a little different from each other.

 A CD or SACD player has measurements that encompass the full range of our ability to hear. They are very similar in sound.

 Cables have no measurable differences. They are for all intents and purposes interchangable.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_A $1000 speaker will sound much better compared to a $100 one, than a $5 Radio Shack cable sounds compared to a $500 audiophile one. That should be blindingly obvious._

 

You are right. $1000 VS $100 speakers is sort of like comparing Porta Pro against stock earbuds. I doubt you can hear a difference between cables with those. I wouldn't spend less than $10 000 on a speaker system before buying cables for it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Detail is just one part of sound reproduction. Headphones, even the best of them, don't come close to matching the presence and realism of a good speaker system._

 

Headphones don't sound like real life if you move your head around. After a few minutes of keeping my head still I am listening to real life.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The differences between speakers are most definitely measurable. A frequency sweep to measure the effect of the room on the response is also very measurable. These are the elements that make the biggest difference to sound reproduction, and they are ones that an audiophile should spend most of his time and resources working on improving._

 

Thanks. I appreciate your frequent comments regarding what others "should" do and how others "should" spend their money. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_A CD or SACD player has measurements that encompass the full range of our ability to hear. They are very similar in sound.
_

 

No they're not. And the fact that you insist that they are also demonstrates (as Riboge pointed out so eloquently earlier) why much of this debate is pointless. If you think that CD players basically all sound the same, your are starting from a fundamentally different position that many of the rest of us, or your experiences are vastly different from many of ours, who have heard quite noticeable differences between CD players.


----------



## trains are bad

I would like to thank bigshot. For those of us for whom reality is important, and who realize the presence and importance of the placebo effect, and want objective information in this hobby, posts like bigshots' are very important. Thank you for saying it like it is.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Thanks Bigshot. I too appreciate your clear thinking, informative posts, and ability to respond to so may angles presented at Head-fi. At the same time, you often responds with wit and a touch of humor. You mentioned a while back something like, small issues receive a lot of attention here, while aspects that do make a difference are rarely discussed. I think that this is true.


----------



## joojoo2915

Quote:


 no, i wasnt referring to placebo within that test. placebo is caused by a preconceived notion that since one cable has a reputable name, costs 20x more, and uses exotic materials then it will automatically sound better. within the test all the cables looked exactly the same but were built from different materials, there is no factor to promote placebo, and all the cables still sounded different from one-another... they just didnt fit the specific material stereotypes.

 if they were all built with different wire and still sounded identical because they all looked identiacal, ONLY THEN i would think that in an ordinary non-blind test placebo leans towards the more reputable cable. 
 

The participants of the cable test knew going in that there were 3 different cables. The only way to conclude that they had actually heard a difference among the cables would be to test for such. If there had been two of the same cable and one different cable you could see if the testers could consistently pick out the cables that sounded the same. One could also mix up the cables after each test and see if the participant would make the same guesses a significant number of times. The Edwood test, however, didn't directly test for the ability to hear the difference among cables and utlimately the results didn't show any kind of correlation between participants picking the same wrong cables (i.e. everyone said the copper cable sounded like the silver cable). Based on the data and testing methods that Edwood arranged it is not possible to draw the conclusion that everyone that participated heard a difference in the cables.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *trains are bad* 
_I would like to thank bigshot. For those of us for whom reality is important, and who realize the presence and importance of the placebo effect, and want objective information in this hobby, posts like bigshots' are very important. Thank you for saying it like it is._

 

For whom is reality not important? Who does not realize that the role of the placebo effect ? Who doesn't want objective information? Listen to Heinlein as you quote him, take responsibility for making absurdly over-reaching partisan and deliberately polarizing statements which make useful discussion impossible.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_No, it isn't because I've done those comparison tests myself. The differences are slight, if they exist at all.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

You're thinking to much for others, others seem to notice differences like night and day.

 Don't you think it is possible that your hearing is not as good as some others in this thread?!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I would agree with you if just 1 person said those things about differences in cables and equipment; since over millions of people make posts about differences in cables and equipment, i am likely to believe what they say, this cannot be a coincidence. Not everyone is crazy.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Reality is also that some people are yealous on people who can afford expensive equipment. Alot of people say therefor that expensive cables are placebo. Even they never heard those cables themselves! Now that is a reality check for ya.
 I had those discussions before on other fora as well and after interigating futher, it turned out that those people who said those cables that are very expensive are not better never heard those cables themselves, yet know exactly how they sound.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Think about the generalization that "expensive cables sound better"...

 If audiophile cables are grossly overpriced when one looks at the cost of manufacturing them, as you said yourself, why aren't there good sounding inexpensive cables? Do you think that inexpensive cable manufacturers are deliberately designing their cables to be inferior? If the manufacturing cost is comparable, why not just make an inexpensive cable that sounds as good as an expensive one?

 Or do they sound better simply because they are more expensive?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Manufacturors who make inferior cables should do their homework better!

 Or the other good cable makers think if they ask those prices for their crap cables our higher prices are therefor justified, ours are much better.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thus far, i haven't found an inexpensive cable that sounds as good as an expensive one...

 If you're satisfied with the sound of an inexpensive one is another question.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_That's because you're auditioning synthesizer music that already has digital artifacting built into the voices. If you used acoustic instruments to audition with (assuming you are familiar with the sound of a violin or classical guitar) you would hear a big difference between 96 and 320 on any system.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I agree with ya on this one, classical instruments sound best. With good cables, they just sound closer to the real instrument.

 However, electronical music is more of a challenge for your amp then classical music, it seems that electronical music needs more power then classical music. Even so we think because of the greater peaks in classical music, this is not the case.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Patrick is talking about power cables, if anyone doesn't know. Are any of you headphone cable believers doubtful towards power cables, or does one buy-in get you a free group membership to the whole shebang? I mean, you may be using an expensive headphone cable, but would you also use an expensive grounded outlet plug? You may be depriving yourself of higher highs and lower lows, blacker blacks and whiter whites, more chocolatey chocolates and more raspberryish raspberries...

 The Magic Rocks stuff, the things outside the remotest possiblity of altering the signal chain; is that the end of the rabbit hole? I'm going to sell karma. I do good acts every day and as such have quite a bit of extra karma, so for a small fee I'll transfer it to you, and it will improve your existance and very well may improve your listening pleasure!


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_No, it isn't because I've done those comparison tests myself. The differences are slight, if they exist at all.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I have to say that I pretty much agree here. In my experience of low to moderate budget CD players ($50 - $750) by such as Rotel Onix NAD Marantz Philips and Yamaha I have yet to find a CD player that sounds substantially different from any other. 

 These CD players have been very different in terms of DACs (16/20/24 2X,4X,8X oversampling, Upsampling and non upsampling)and analog sections. Maybe big differences exist at the boutique or midfi level but at my ordinary Joseph level I cannot **reliably** find big differences. After much experimenting my normal listening player is the infamous Philips DVP642 - albeit now with the addition of an external budget ($50) DAC which mostly appears to make it louder rather than better. Though I am still evaluating this change.

 Incidentally I really wanted to find a big difference between the Philips and the NAD as there was a big big price difference between them (a factor of 7) and I had always (for the 30 years I have been a music lover) assumed that the more expensive kit would sound better. The ideal oucome for me would have been for the Philips to be listenable for Mp3 (for which I bought it originally) but naff for red book. This would have left my perception of value in the audio industry unchallenged.

 I got my first clue when the Rotel RCD855 (budget classic) did not easily surpass a bog standard Denon DCD560, at the time I just dismissed this as being due to a poor headphone circuit on a integrated Rotel Amplifier, basically I denied what I heard (or didnt hear as it were) , I stayed in this state of denial and constant experimentation for two more years going from new to Classic and back again until my damascene revelation - now I am healed


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Cables have no measurable differences._

 

That's certainly and demonstrably wrong. 

  Quote:


 _They are for all intents and purposes interchangable._ 
 

Yes, of course -- but with different sonic results (to those who are receptive for this kind of sonic subtleties).

  Quote:


 _...The differences are slight, if they exist at all._ 
 

Compared to sound transducers all other audio categories show just «subtle» sonic differences. That doesn't mean they're not there or not real or not important in the individual case. 

 I have several source configurations at my disposal, and while they don't differ that much in quality (they do, of course), they differ considerably in terms of sonic characteristics. «Considerably» still meant in the context of non-sound-transducer categories.

 As to _Jeff's_ question about power cables: I'm still hesitating to take position. I'm not sure if they make a difference in my setup. But then again, I've not tried expensive PCs so far, the maximum is clearly below $100. (BTW, sarcasm isn't good for a good and rational discussion.)
.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* 
_I have to say that I pretty much agree here. In my experience of low to moderate budget CD players ($50 - $750) by such as Rotel Onix NAD Marantz Philips and Yamaha I have yet to find a CD player that sounds substantially different from any other. 

 These CD players have been very different in terms of DACs (16/20/24 2X,4X,8X oversampling, Upsampling and non upsampling)and analog sections. Maybe big differences exist at the boutique or midfi level but at my ordinary Joseph level I cannot **reliably** find big differences. After much experimenting my normal listening player is the infamous Philips DVP642 - albeit now with the addition of an external budget ($50) DAC which mostly appears to make it louder rather than better. Though I am still evaluating this change.

 Incidentally I really wanted to find a big difference between the Philips and the NAD as there was a big big price difference between them (a factor of 7) and I had always (for the 30 years I have been a music lover) assumed that the more expensive kit would sound better. The ideal oucome for me would have been for the Philips to be listenable for Mp3 (for which I bought it originally) but naff for red book. This would have left my perception of value in the audio industry unchallenged.

 I got my first clue when the Rotel RCD855 (budget classic) did not easily surpass a bog standard Denon DCD560, at the time I just dismissed this as being due to a poor headphone circuit on a integrated Rotel Amplifier, basically I denied what I heard (or didnt hear as it were) , I stayed in this state of denial and constant experimentation for two more years going from new to Classic and back again until my damascene revelation - now I am healed 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Try a 200 cdplayer and a 2000 dollar one, you will hear big differences.

 If you compare budget class all the time, i bet there isn't that much of a difference.

 I can tell ya that the difference between a 200 dollar cdplayer and 15000 one is night and day!

 Probably the same is going on with the cable sceptics, they compare budget cables with budget cables and don't hear much of difference, not knowing that a higher priced one could make alot of a difference.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Hence they say there is no difference in cables.

 I agree with you on the sometimes rediculous prices of cables. Not much you can do about it, then buy second hand. This way value for money increases. If you want a certain cable you think sounds best, you have to pay the price they ask for it, simple as that.

 Some brands have more value for money then others and can deliver a certain quality other companies can do for much more money. It's for the audio-lover to find out wich stuff has good value.....


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Patrick is talking about power cables, if anyone doesn't know. Are any of you headphone cable believers doubtful towards power cables, or does one buy-in get you a free group membership to the whole shebang? I mean, you may be using an expensive headphone cable, but would you also use an expensive grounded outlet plug? You may be depriving yourself of higher highs and lower lows, blacker blacks and whiter whites, more chocolatey chocolates and more raspberryish raspberries...

 The Magic Rocks stuff, the things outside the remotest possiblity of altering the signal chain; is that the end of the rabbit hole? I'm going to sell karma. I do good acts every day and as such have quite a bit of extra karma, so for a small fee I'll transfer it to you, and it will improve your existance and very well may improve your listening pleasure! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 I tested this myself:
 1,5-2,5mm2 kabels are more focused and sound clear.
 4mm2 kabels have more body and sound warmer, darker sounding, like a blanket over the sound. So, yes by changing the cable of your amp, you can change the sound of the whole system, apperntly.

 Silver cable sounds clearer then copper cables and have more micro-details in the xtreem highs. Silver cables can have problems with harsh sound in the extreem highs and lows.

 Even a better cable on my powerplant made a sonically hearable difference, more details and tranparancy. So, some powercables are cleaner then others.

 Nature works in mysterious ways, alot is not explorered yet!


----------



## Jasper994

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Can you back up this claim?

 BTW, Sennheiser uses OFC magnet wires in their headphone cables.
._

 

...and we throw them out because we all think they are crap.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jasper994* 
_...and we throw them out because we all think they are crap. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Not me, my setup sounds fantastic with the stock hd650 cables. I don't feel the need for an aftermarket cable. Maybe it could be even better with an aftermarker cable, that, i have to try out sometime.


----------



## Jasper994

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_That's very earnest of you and I admire the trust you place in the fine businessmen of the cable industry. It's also a little bit worrisome, since you're trusting the guys trying to sell you really, really expensive things of controversial benefit. Skepticism has its place in trade, man. Snake oil salesmen in earlier times made a fortune selling worthless cure-alls which often actually harmed the individual taking them, while the same individual marveled at their miraculous properties. Placebo is a strange and highly present medical phenomenon, and audio expectancy is similarly powerful in our own hobby. Perhaps there are significant differences in cables, but those differences need to be quantified for me to commit to them rationally. I'm unwilling to accept whatever claims a vendor chooses to make as fact without a further, reasonable basis. I don't think that everyone who buys cables is an idiot, and I don't think everyone who sells cables is a scammer. I do, however, think that some definitely shady practices go on and some definitely unfounded ideas are pushed around. 

 Everyone has a theory, small t, and everyone wants a better sound - when those two intersect, just about anything can appear reasonable in the quest for the perfect setup, especially when it's something with a somewhat intuitive perspective: the sound goes through cables, so better cables make better sound - this is often presented in the form of an analogy: "Picture the cables as windows between your components. A clear window, or a good cable, allows you to 'see' perfectly through, while a cloudy, dirty window, or a bad cable, obscures the view." The problem is that electricity doesn't really work like the analogy of the window would have it, but everyone likes to feel like they have a genuine handle on what's going on "behind the scenes" of their equipment, so they take it and run with it. It seems natural, after all, that something made out of precious metal would be better than something made out of something as base as copper, but electricity doesn't have our appreciation for shiny things and large sums of money.

 At the end of the day, it's your (large sum of) money, spend it where you want to._

 

But the reality is that regardless of whether or not those precious shiny metals are used, the price of audiophile cables is ridiculous. Silver is just not that expensive, and copper is dirt cheap (relatively speaking). I bet if you were to price out the materials cost of all the 1 meter cables out there you'd be hard pressed to find a single one where the materials cost was above $25 for the pair. 

 I can hear some differences in cables; materials, do seem to make some audiable differences as best as I can tell... The reality is, however, that we allow these baffoons to charge us astronomical markups for these products. You wouldn't even pay your doctor $1000 per hour in labor costs, why are you paying your cable maker more than that (in many cases). Honestly, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night charging the markups that they do, but there are many people in this world that will happily sell you beach front property in Arizona, and 1 meter cables for $12,000.

 -EDIT-

 The other reality that we so often ignore when it comes to cables is that your system can never be better than its weakest link. Many people have these mondo huge voodoo witch doctor cables on one end only to come out the other end with a very simple and cheap cable and then try to claim that the mondo huge voodoo cable made all the difference in the world. In every other situation, we acknowledge that bottlenecking is a major problem, but somehow when it comes to audio we believe a $1000 interconnect can somehow get the signal through the $0.02 wire on the other side better than an equally inexpensive wire on both sides.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jasper994* 
_But the reality is that regardless of whether or not those precious shiny metals are used, the price of audiophile cables is ridiculous. Silver is just not that expensive, and copper is dirt cheap (relatively speaking). I bet if you were to price out the materials cost of all the 1 meter cables out there you'd be hard pressed to find a single one where the materials cost was above $25 for the pair. 

 I can hear some differences in cables; materials, do seem to make some audiable differences as best as I can tell... The reality is, however, that we allow these baffoons to charge us astronomical markups for these products. You wouldn't even pay your doctor $1000 per hour in labor costs, why are you paying your cable maker more than that (in many cases). Honestly, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night charging the markups that they do, but there are many people in this world that will happily sell you beach front property in Arizona, and 1 meter cables for $12,000._

 

I happen to know that teflon is pretty expensive, so the higher priced cables use mostly teflon because it is the best insulator. That might increase the price a bit, i bet some cable actually do cost more then 25 dollars to produce.

 Nevertheless 3000 dollars and more for a meter cable is expensive, i bet all the money goes into research, mostly the salary of the people.


----------



## Jasper994

See this is the beauty of it all. We spend countless hours arguing over whether or not we can hear a difference which the manufacturers are just fine with, because as long as we're arguing over that, we forget to question why we're paying the ridiculous prices they charge.


----------



## Jasper994

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_I happen to know that teflon is pretty expensive, so the higher priced cables use mostly teflon because it is the best insulator. That might increase the price a bit, i bet some cable actually do cost more then 25 dollars to produce.

 Nevertheless 3000 dollars and more for a meter cable is expensive, i bet all the money goes into research, mostly the salary of the people._

 


 Depending upon where you source your materials, yes, it's possible for the DIYer to pay more than that, but I think it highly unlikely that most of the manufacturers are paying what the DIYer would pay for materials. Don't forget too, that a good number of these guys are just buying premade stuff out of China and putting a nice jacket over it.

 Oh yeah, and as far as research and salary... If everyone could charge this much for R&D and salary, a RSA "The Hornet" would cost you $50k, your computer would cost, $100,000+, and your average Mercedes would cost $1,000,000+!

 Hey Ray, maybe you're in the wrong business, maybe you should be making cables for some of the guys on this board... Way less labor, way less materials cost, way less R&D cost, much more money...


----------



## Jahn

16 pages of vitriol and yet not one mention of Double Blind Testing. see? we can agree to disagree without bringing in the big guns!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jasper994* 
_...and we throw them out because we all think they are crap. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Right now I'm listening to my stock HD-650 cable and enjoying it very much. I think I prefer it in my system to my $300 Silver Dragon aftermarket cable, which is being repaired. The sonic differences between the two cables are definitely noticeable. This is at least the fourth or fifth occasion for me in which I have differences between cables and preferred the less expensive cable.


----------



## F1GTR

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jahn* 
_16 pages of vitriol and yet not one mention of Double Blind Testing. see? we can agree to disagree without bringing in the big guns!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Oh there's plenty mention of that between pages 10-13.

 It was just referred to as "those three letters" in order to mask its appearance.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jasper994* 
_...and we throw them out because we all think they are crap. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I don't. But other cables sound even better in my system, so I use those. 
.


----------



## F1GTR

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Right now I'm listening to my stock HD-650 cable and enjoying it very much. I think I prefer it in my system to my $300 Silver Dragon aftermarket cable, which is being repaired. The sonic differences between the two cables are definitely noticeable. This is at least the fourth or fifth occasion for me in which I have differences between cables and preferred the less expensive cable._

 

Isn't it already perfectly obvious, and accepted, that silver and copper indeed sound different? No one has questioned that or implied otherwise in this thread, unless one has a case of selective interpretation.

 Let's get back to discussing apples and apples.


----------



## F1GTR

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_If you want a certain cable *you think* sounds best, you have to pay the price they ask for it, simple as that._

 

Thank you for finally coming clean and admitting it to the rest of us.

 Now if the rest of the placeboists would follow suit, we can get this CA meeting underway.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *F1GTR* 
_Thank you for finally coming clean and admitting it to the rest of us.

 Now if the rest of the placeboists would follow suit, we can get this CA meeting underway._

 

LOl. I know wich cable sounds best and i have to pay the price for that cable if i want to keep it! it's that simple. if you want a certain quality out of a cable, you have to pay the price the manufacturer asks for it. Very simple. They don't have nothing for nothing price ranges.......
 if you think the chreapest is as good as a more expensive one, buy those, i want a certain quality out of a cable and buy the one i can afford(most expensive). I hear differences in cables and the most expensive let me hear more details, musicality etc.

 As i said before, i my tests, the most expensive also sound best in my system!
 But that doens't mean why i can't wonder why they are sooo expensive!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And don't twist my words again.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 I'll rephrase for ya:
 if you KNOW wich cable sounds best, you have to pay the price for it!(the price the manufacturer set for the cable)


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_However, electronical music is more of a challenge for your amp then classical music, it seems that electronical music needs more power then classical music. Even so we think because of the greater peaks in classical music, this is not the case._

 

I stopped listening to classical music over a year ago because it wasn't demanding enough.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Patrick is talking about power cables, if anyone doesn't know. Are any of you headphone cable believers doubtful towards power cables, or does one buy-in get you a free group membership to the whole shebang? I mean, you may be using an expensive headphone cable, but would you also use an expensive grounded outlet plug? You may be depriving yourself of higher highs and lower lows, blacker blacks and whiter whites, more chocolatey chocolates and more raspberryish raspberries...

 The Magic Rocks stuff, the things outside the remotest possiblity of altering the signal chain; is that the end of the rabbit hole?_

 

It's called Brilliant Pebbles.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Probably the same is going on with the cable sceptics, they compare budget cables with budget cables and don't hear much of difference, not knowing that a higher priced one could make alot of a difference.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Hence they say there is no difference in cables._

 

Yes, they think if the difference is so small with $50 vs $100 cable it will be smaller with $100 VS $3000 cable. It's the opposite.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_I happen to know that teflon is pretty expensive, so the higher priced cables use mostly teflon because it is the best insulator. That might increase the price a bit, i bet some cable actually do cost more then 25 dollars to produce.

 Nevertheless 3000 dollars and more for a meter cable is expensive, i bet all the money goes into research, mostly the salary of the people._

 

It takes hard work to optimize the cable to work well with every system. After a few years when the design has been chosen it's an easy job and they can start making profit after a few months.
 They start with making the reference cable first and then make budget cables without giving it as much thought, that's why those cables don't sound as good. IMO the reference cable is the better value.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jasper994* 
_The other reality that we so often ignore when it comes to cables is that your system can never be better than its weakest link. Many people have these mondo huge voodoo witch doctor cables on one end only to come out the other end with a very simple and cheap cable and then try to claim that the mondo huge voodoo cable made all the difference in the world. In every other situation, we acknowledge that bottlenecking is a major problem, but somehow when it comes to audio we believe a $1000 interconnect can somehow get the signal through the $0.02 wire on the other side better than an equally inexpensive wire on both sides._

 

In my system the weakest link is Nordost Valhalla cables. When I modified them it made the biggest improvement in detail I have ever heard. And they got even better when removing the connectors. Amazing cable, I wish it would cost $100 so everyone can afford it.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Right now I'm listening to my stock HD-650 cable and enjoying it very much. I think I prefer it in my system to my $300 Silver Dragon aftermarket cable, which is being repaired. The sonic differences between the two cables are definitely noticeable. This is at least the fourth or fifth occasion for me in which I have differences between cables and preferred the less expensive cable._

 

Interesting. The $11.62 stock cable is preferred to a $300 cable. (A 25x difference.)

 Would you also agree that it's more flexible, less microphonic (has lower handling noise), and more reliable?





 Sennheiser HD650 Replacement Cable

 Specially modulated connecting cable (detachable) made from highly conductive OFC copper, Kevlar-reinforced, with very low handling noise, i.e. low structure-borne sound sensitivity

Replacement cushions are also available.


----------



## F1GTR

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_LOl. I know wich cable sounds best and i have to pay the price for that cable if i want to keep it! it's that simple. if you want a certain quality out of a cable, you have to pay the price the manufacturer asks for it. Very simple. *They don't have nothing for nothing price ranges.......
 if you think the chreapest is as good as a more expensive one, buy those, i want a certain quality out of a cable and buy the one i can afford(most expensive). I hear differences in cables and the most expensive let me hear more details, musicality etc.*

 As i said before, i my tests, the most expensive also sound best in my system!
 But that doens't mean why i can't wonder why they are sooo expensive!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And don't twist my words again.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 I'll rephrase for ya:
 if you KNOW wich cable sounds best, you have to pay the price for it!(the price the manufacturer set for the cable)_

 

LOL. I didn't twist your words my friend. You were quoted for posterity. All I did was bold.

 You can't KNOW which cables sounds the best period. That's the whole point of this conversation. You can however know what cable *YOU THINK* sounds the best according to placebo at the moment.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Interesting. The $11.62 stock cable is preferred to a $300 cable. (A 25x difference.)

 Would you also agree that it's more flexible, less microphonic (has lower handling noise), and more reliable?
_

 

Yes, yes, and yes, although for me these issues are of almost no consequence. In any event, in this instance, one might choose the less expensive cable. However, someone else might prefer the sound of the $300 cable in their system (or the sound of a different aftermarket cable to either of the foregoing), and conclude the sound differences warrant dealing with the flexibility issues, etc. It's a matter or personal preference.

 I guees my point is that what is right for one person may not be right for another and, furthermore, it is by no means always the case that people automatically prefer the more expensive cable in every circumstance.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *trains are bad* 
_I would like to thank bigshot. For those of us for whom reality is important, and who realize the presence and importance of the placebo effect, and want objective information in this hobby, posts like bigshots' are very important. Thank you for saying it like it is._

 

It isn't fun beiing nailed to a cross on a daily basis!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *F1GTR* 
_Isn't it already perfectly obvious, and accepted, that silver and copper indeed sound different? No one has questioned that or implied otherwise in this thread, unless one has a case of selective interpretation.

 Let's get back to discussing apples and apples._

 

Huh? I don't think that it is accepted by many of the skeptics that silver and copper sound the same. Why don't you ask bigshot, John Ferrier, etc. for their thoughts on this issue.

 And my point was not "apples" and "oranges." I was specifically referring to the intimation that believers think the Senn cable is krap and the suggestion that believers think that because it is cheap. This is a point made several times by the skeptics on this thread, i.e., that believers always prefer the more expensive cable.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_You're thinking to much for others, others seem to notice differences like night and day. Don't you think it is possible that your hearing is not as good as some others in this thread?_

 

I've made a living on my ears. I've supervised recording sessions and mixes. I've restored old recordings for CD release and my equalization balance has been described as being so lifelike "it makes the hair on the back of the neck stand up". I've been able to discern a 2dB difference in listening tests (only because it created a masking effect- I normally can't hear variation that small). Last time I checked, my hearing went up over 18.5 kHz.

 But I'm not talking about ability to hear... I'm not even saying that all CD players sound alike. I'm pointing out *relative differences*. Read this sentence carefully...

 The difference between speakers is HUGE compared to the difference between CD players.

 That simple observation should be self-evident. The fact that it isn't tells you a lot about how deeply the need to deny what I'm saying goes with some people.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

I'm not going to mention specific posters by name, but I have a little advice to offer... If you want your points to be taken seriously, think them out. State them clearly. Don't obfuscate. If you want a reply, restate your question succinctly at the bottom to make quoting easy. And PLEASE check your spelling. All of these things do matter if you want to engage in a serious discourse.

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If you want your points to be taken seriously, think them out. State them clearly. Don't obfuscate._

 

 "Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things." Romans 2:1.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Try a 200 cdplayer and a 2000 dollar one, you will hear big differences._

 

How can you generalize on the basis of the price? Are all high end CD players worth the money? There aren't any models that are no better than a midpriced CD player?

 I have heard high end CD players. They're usually auditioned with high end speaker systems. I visited a fella's house once who had those living room filling sound systems you see in magazines. (He sold high end audio and video and had no wife to tell him what the living room should look like...) He played some stuff for me and it sounded great. Then I went out to my car and got my Sony diskman and asked him to patch it in. Guess what? It sounded great too. His speaker system, equalization and room treatment was responsible for the great sound, not his $5,000 CD player.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_How can you generalize on the basis of the price? Are all high end CD players worth the money? There aren't any models that are no better than a midpriced CD player?
_

 

 Why can't you accept his general point without nitpicking or taking it out of context? You know what he meant by his point, and it _wasn't _that there is a direct correlation between price and quality at every level. Gee whiz dude.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_f you crave polarized contention between parties who will never really listen to one another consider that it's election season and there's plenty of it to be had elsewhere.
_
_


P.S. Now go ahead and say you're sorry you made me cry. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I guees my point is that what is right for one person may not be right for another and, furthermore, it is by no means always the case that people automatically prefer the more expensive cable in every circumstance._

 

I can clearly state that a particular set of speakers have a natural sounding response. It doesn't matter if you plug them into a $100 CD player or a $5000 one. They will sound better than unbalanced speakers with any source.

 As soon as one person says "zirconium cables sound like butterscotch", someone else says, "No they don't... they sound like black licorish!" 

 How do you explain why cables seem to have such a random effect on stereo systems? If a cable is affecting the sound in a particular way, wouldn't it affect it that way with every system?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I was specifically referring to the intimation that believers think the Senn cable is krap and the suggestion that believers think that because it is cheap. This is a point made several times by the skeptics on this thread, i.e., that believers always prefer the more expensive cable._

 

Re: My question for someone who said "expensive=better":
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Why can't you accept his general point without nitpicking or taking it out of context? You know what he meant by his point, and it wasn't that there is a direct correlation between price and quality at every level._

 

It's been clearly stated that there IS a direct relation between price and quality.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_As i said before, i my tests, the most expensive also sound best in my system!_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_they think if the difference is so small with $50 vs $100 cable it will be smaller with $100 VS $3000 cable. It's the opposite._

 

See ya
 Steve


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I can clearly state that a particular set of speakers have a natural sounding response. It doesn't matter if you plug them into a $100 CD player or a $5000 one. They will sound better than unbalanced speakers with any source._

 

Your focus is completely and exclusively directed to speakers and frequency-response effects. As I've tried to convey to you in the past, frequency response isn't the only criterion in audio. Of course the sound transducer -- be it a headphone or a speaker -- matters most, at least in the first moment, but the upstream devices do have a considerable impact as well and nonetheless -- not necessarily and not often primarily in the FR domain, but more so in criteria hard to measure or hard to fix on certain measurings, resp. That's what I experience with electronics (amps, source devices) and cables -- and I'm obviously not alone with this. 
.


----------



## hembergler

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_I happen to know that teflon is pretty expensive, so the higher priced cables use mostly teflon because it is the best insulator. That might increase the price a bit, i bet some cable actually do cost more then 25 dollars to produce.

 Nevertheless 3000 dollars and more for a meter cable is expensive, i bet all the money goes into research, mostly the salary of the people._

 

Yeah, Teflon is insanely expensive. It cost me a whole $1.50 for the necessary Teflon in a 1 meter pair of interconnects I made.


----------



## bigshot

In this particular forum, speakers and balanced frequency response ARE the most important unaddressed issue for most people. Read the sigs and you'll see folks with multi-thousand dollar CD players and bookshelf speakers or satillite speaker systems. People are arguing over the effect of various cables when they have absolutely no equalization or tone controls on their system. Frequency response is something we actually HEAR, which is more than I can say for jitter and oversampling.

 The problem is, really good speakers cost a lot more than really good headphones. And properly equalizing a system to a particular room requires analytical listening. It's easier to randomly switch cables in and out, send components out to get "magic mods" performed on them, read up on pseudo-science relating to unhearable sound, and depend on the number of digits in the price tag of a CD player to tell you how good it sounds.

 People around here make being a hifinut sound so complicated. It really isn't like that- the principles are simple. They just require dogged determination to use analytical thinking and analytical listening to figure out what to focus on and what to let slide.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_In this particular forum, speakers and balanced frequency response ARE the most important unaddressed issue for most people. Read the sigs and you'll see folks with multi-thousand dollar CD players and bookshelf speakers or satillite speaker systems. People are arguing over the effect of various cables when they have absolutely no equalization or tone controls on their system. Frequency response is something we actually HEAR, which is more than I can say for jitter and oversampling.
_

 

Perhaps part of the problem is that, while you are focusing on speakers, I and others may be focusing on headphones (after all, this is "Head-Fi"). I don't need to equalize my headphone system to a particular room. So I don't necessarily dispute your point about "multi-thousand dollar CD players and bookshelf speakers or satillite speaker systems," but iit is not particularly relevant to me since that is not my system, and it is not the system that I was using when I have noticed differences in cables. And I think I would agree with you that "room effects" probably do have a bigger influence on overall sound with speakers than would most cables. So perhaps we are talking about two different things to some extent.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_"Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things." Romans 2:1. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

 — Benjamin Franklin 

 Besides, Big Shot brought up a good point.

 Goodness, this really is a dead horse here. It's a DBT free forum, objectivists - don't you understand what that means? Head-Fi in general was declared by the founder to be a subjectivist site. It's better to talk about testible, empirical things at HydrogenAudio, where that's welcome. Coming in here and kicking dirt around just gets you asked to leave and then banned.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

 — Benjamin Franklin 
_

 

You lost me with that one. I'm not sure whether you were responding to my previous point (in which case I don't see the relevance) or whether you are making a new point that people who believe in cable differences are acting on "faith." Probably doesn't matter, but I don't get your drift.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Interesting. The $11.62 stock cable is preferred to a $300 cable. (A 25x difference.)

 Would you also agree that it's more flexible, less microphonic (has lower handling noise), and more reliable?





 Sennheiser HD650 Replacement Cable

 Specially modulated connecting cable (detachable) made from highly conductive OFC copper, Kevlar-reinforced, with very low handling noise, i.e. low structure-borne sound sensitivity

Replacement cushions are also available._

 

The question is:

 will ALL people prefer that cheaper cable in their system! I can give you the answer, NO!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *F1GTR* 
_LOL. I didn't twist your words my friend. You were quoted for posterity. All I did was bold.

 You can't KNOW which cables sounds the best period. That's the whole point of this conversation. You can however know what cable *YOU THINK* sounds the best according to placebo at the moment. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

WRONG,

 you interpreted my words wrong, and used them as an example that way!

 Furthermore if i compare 2 cables at the same time on the same system, i can tell wich one sounds best. Period.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_
 The difference between speakers is HUGE compared to the difference between CD players.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Try a 200 dollar player and 15000 dollar player, i bet you will call it huge difference.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_How can you generalize on the basis of the price? Are all high end CD players worth the money? There aren't any models that are no better than a midpriced CD player?

 I have heard high end CD players. They're usually auditioned with high end speaker systems. I visited a fella's house once who had those living room filling sound systems you see in magazines. (He sold high end audio and video and had no wife to tell him what the living room should look like...) He played some stuff for me and it sounded great. Then I went out to my car and got my Sony diskman and asked him to patch it in. Guess what? It sounded great too. His speaker system, equalization and room treatment was responsible for the great sound, not his $5,000 CD player.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

You are missing the point here, and read what you wanna read;

 the point is about differences in cdplayers, if the more expensive one is worth the omney is up to the buyer!

 It sounded great to, but you don't say it sounded as good as the 5000 dollar player.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 useless example therefor.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_It sounded great to, but you don't say it sounded as good as the 5000 dollar player.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







_

 

If a $50/$100 discman sounded great but not as great as a $5000 CD player would it really matter if it was not quite as good given the factor of 100/50 price difference ?. I would have thought that the finding that a Discman can sound great through highly revealing equipment a pretty fundamental result in itself.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Try a 200 dollar player and 15000 dollar player, i bet you will call it huge difference._

 

How about a $15,000 one or a $15,000,000,000,000,000,000 one? At what point does money stop being an indicator of quality any more?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_It sounded great to (sic), but you don't say it sounded as good as the 5000 dollar player_

 

We didn't do a direct A/B, but neither of us could hear any difference between the two with the informal comparison. The fella who owned the rig was convinced that there must have been a difference we weren't hearing though (natch!)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## hciman77

Beaten to the punch


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* 
_If a $50/$100 discman sounded great but not as great as a $5000 CD player would it really matter if it was not quite as good given the factor of 100/50 price difference ?. I would have thought that the finding that a Discman can sound great through highly revealing equipment a pretty fundamental result in itself._

 

The point is, that somebody can be satisfied with the sound of the dicman for that price. Another however, who wants it all, could be satisfied with the price of the 5000 dollar player and be very happy.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_How about a $15,000 one or a $15,000,000,000,000,000,000 one? At what point does money stop being an indicator of quality any more?



 We didn't do a direct A/B, but neither of us could hear any difference between the two with the informal comparison. The fella who owned the rig was convinced that there must have been a difference we weren't hearing though (natch!)

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I have never heard a discman that came close to a 5000 dollar player.
 Was it a 1000 dollars discman?!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 The fella who owned the rig was convinced that there must have been a difference we weren't hearing 
 

 That is just silly. i'll give ya that one.

 The problem is that i hear very easally differences in kabels and equipment. So , my experience is not the same as yours...therefor there will be people that buy expensive cables and people that will not. This will just be an endless discussion.

 I can only trust my ears and common sense.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 trust me, the moment i find a cable that cost much less and sound better or equal to the more expensive cable, i will sell the expensive one and buy the cheap cable. Same goes for equipment. However i didn't find such a bargain to date, not in cables and not in equipment.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* 
_If a $50/$100 discman sounded great but not as great as a $5000 CD player would it really matter if it was not quite as good given the factor of 100/50 price difference ?. I would have thought that the finding that a Discman can sound great through highly revealing equipment a pretty fundamental result in itself._

 

The fundamental statement is something we allready know. The more expensive the equipment, the less gain you get for it. Sound increases not exponentionally with the price. We all know that, i hope.

 Some people are willing to pay an exceptional price for say 10% better sound. Some don't. it's that simple. I won't judge either.

 All i say is that i hear differences in cable and buy the one that sounds better, even it's considderably more expensive!

 I won't buy interlinks or cables for 15000 dollars a meter 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 though.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I've made a living on my ears. I've supervised recording sessions and mixes. I've restored old recordings for CD release and my equalization balance has been described as being so lifelike "it makes the hair on the back of the neck stand up"._

 

None of the reference classical albums sound like real life to me.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I've been able to discern a 2dB difference in listening tests (only because it created a masking effect- I normally can't hear variation that small). Last time I checked, my hearing went up over 18.5 kHz._

 

How did you make test?

 I made a 20 trial blind test in Foobar and guessed the correct volume within 0.3 dB average.


 EDIT: Here it is:

 [size=xx-small]Volume blind test #1, in dB

 Trial_True_Guess
*1)* -0.29 -0.29

*2)* -0.29 -0.14

*3)* -0.74 -1.05

*4)* -0.14 -0.44

*5)* -0.14 -0.14

*6)* -1.05 -0.44

*7)* -0.59 -0.89

*8)* -0.89 -0.44

*9)* -1.36 -1.52

*10)* -0.29 -0.14

*11)* -0.14 -0.89

*12)* -0.14 -0.59

*13)* -0.14 -0.59

*14)* -0.29 -0.59

*15)* -0.14 -0.14

*16)* -0.89 -0.29

*17)* -0.29 -0.59

*18)* -0.89 -1.05

*19)* -0.59 -0.74

*20)* -0.89 -0.59

*Result:* Guesses within 0.2945 dB of true answer
 Average of true answer: -0.509 dB
 Average of guessed answer: -0.563 dB
 [/size]

 Test wasn't that accurate but I can hear a night and day difference when reducing the volume by 1 dB, and 0.5 dB still is easy to hear.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_How about a $15,000 one or a $15,000,000,000,000,000,000 one? At what point does money stop being an indicator of quality any more?_

 

When it is jammed with jewelry.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_We didn't do a direct A/B, but neither of us could hear any difference between the two with the informal comparison. The fella who owned the rig was convinced that there must have been a difference we weren't hearing though (natch!)_

 

Is that supposed to prove anything? Many people don't hear a difference.

 Do you only hear a difference between speakers?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Perhaps part of the problem is that, while you are focusing on speakers, I and others may be focusing on headphones_

 

Then I would have to say that the sound presentation you're used to is by definition unnatural. Headphones are great for private listening when you don't want to disturb others, but they're no substitute for a good loudspeaker setup.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Test wasn't that accurate but I can hear a night and day difference when reducing the volume by 1 dB, and 0.5 dB still is easy to hear._

 

I think you misplaced a decimal point in that clutter of cables!

 And by the way, the best way to find classical recordings to use for equalization balancing is to use recordings of a local orchestra. There's a record of Giulini conducting the LAPO that I use because I've been to the Dorothy Chandler enough to know how it should sound. (I actually attended a performance of Giulini conducting that particular symphony.)

 In order to know what natural acoustic instruments should sound like, you need to be familiar with them. I suspect you haven't been to many philharmonic concerts, but I'm just guessing here.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Then I would have to say that the sound presentation you're used to is by definition unnatural. Headphones are great for private listening when you don't want to disturb others, but they're no substitute for a good loudspeaker setup._

 

Don't the speakers need to be in the same spots as the microphones were when it was recorded?
 How far apart are the microphones in orchestral recordings?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Then I would have to say that the sound presentation you're used to is by definition unnatural._

 

Putting aside for a moment whether "unnatural" is the proper word to use and whether this is an accurate assessment or not, what the heck does that have to do with the price of tea in China???? I mean seriously, what does that have to do with the issue under discussion in this thread, which is bascially whether cables make an audible difference? 
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Headphones are great for private listening when you don't want to disturb others, but they're no substitute for a good loudspeaker setup.
_

 

 They're no substitute for a good loudspeaker setup _if what_ or _under what circumstances_? I'm sorry, but this time, I'm not able to identify the value judgment that you're attempting to impose on everyone else. Usually I can see it, but this time it's somewhat obscure.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Steve,

 I'm trying to find the same db level as at an orchestra hall. The music is so dynamic. So, do I use peak or average, etc.? Also, it would depend if I'm trying to match the sound in front row or mid floor, etc. I want it loud, but not so that it damages my ears... I've got a fixture that holds two seperate db meters into my headphones. This seem to help me find the ballpark. Do you have rules of thumb for loudness? Do you recommend dbA, dbC? I've been using dbB because it seem like it's a good compromise. Like equalization, I think matching the record level loudness is important. Sure it varies recording to recording. I don't know if you are aware of some industry guidelines.

 -

 About 10 years ago, I was at Boston Symphony Hall when they recorded Berlioz _Requim_ live. But I didn't think to take my db meter in with me to do sound level measurements. Such measurements are exactly what I'd like to have for a reference. I'd like to have do this for one CD to use as a reference point.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Don't the speakers need to be in the same spots as the microphones were when it was recorded?
 How far apart are the microphones in orchestral recordings?_

 

The distance between isn't the important factor, it's the relative proportions of how far you are sitting from the sound source and the angles left to right.

 Hard to describe in words, but think of it as a triangle, with you in the point and the widest points of the sound source (whether speaker or orchestra) as the other two corners.

 A recording engineer would place two mikes over the orchestra at about 1/3 of the way across the stage. When you play this back using speakers that are 8 feet apart sitting in the sweet spot for listening, it simulates the soundstage of sitting in the 15th row of the audience.

 The mikes are wider apart than the distance between speakers, but you sit closer to speakers than you do an orchestra, so the angles of the triangle turn out the same.

 It's hard to describe without drawing a diagram. Was my explanation clear?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I'm trying to find the same db level as at an orchestra hall. The music is so dynamic. So, do I use peak or average, etc.? Also, it would depend if I'm trying to match the sound in front row or mid floor, etc. I want it loud, but not so that it damages my ears._

 

Ah! This is the stuff I love to talk about!

 If I remember correctly, an orchestra is capable of producing 100dB at full fortissimo. That's not quite the threshold of pain, but it sure isn't comfortable! Obviously, that's WAY too much for normal home listening. I just explained to Patrick about the way the spread is normally adjusted (at least when they aren't monkeying around with a million mikes for technicolor effects...) You're absolutely right that well balanced dynamics are an important part of getting presence to a recording, and the soundstage distance is used in classical music to reduce the dynamics to a listenable level.

 Before the advent of digital sound, recording engineers had limits to how wide the dynamics could be. Vinyl could accomodate a maximum signal to noise of 60dB or so. It just so happens that 60dB is just about the limit for comfortable listening in a living room to a stereo system. Any wider and the soft stuff fades away into your room tone, or the loud stuff is just too loud.

 Here's the problem... When digital recordings were introduced, engineers wanted to take advantage of every ounce of its capability. Mikes crept in closer to capture more detail, and they captured wider dynamics too. This wreaked havoc on soundstage and listenability. I have some recordings (particularly Herbert von Karajan DGG CDs from late in his life) that are downright impossible to listen to without jumping up to adjust the volume every few minutes. The sound never coalesces into a soundstage... it morphs and rolls around like a Peter Gabriel record on acid.

 You can figure out a natural level for your playback system, but it doesn't make any difference if the engineer has recorded it with too wide a dynamic range. All you can do is set peak level as your baseline and let the rest fall where the engineer put it.

 There are a couple of things you can do, though... The key to achieving naturalness with an over-loud recording is to decide on a peak level and then compress everything below that to compensate for the extreme dynamics. Peak limiters are good for 78s that tend to "blast", but it's better to bring the low stuff up with digital recordings, rather than bring the loud stuff down. If you don't have a compressor, you should do whatever you can to lower the room tone... turn off the air conditioning, shut all the doors and windows, send the kids out to the movies, etc.

 That's not a really scientific answer, but this falls into the field of sound mixing, which is an art, not a science.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_ Was my explanation clear?_

 

Yes, that explains why orchestral music sucks with headphones, soundstage is too narrow and almost fits inside my room (3 meter wide). Trance music has a huge soundstage (200 meters) and vocals are recorded with one microphone. It sounds more like real life than orchestral music.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If I remember correctly, an orchestra is capable of producing 100dB at full fortissimo. That's not quite the threshold of pain, but it sure isn't comfortable! Obviously, that's WAY too much for normal home listening._

 

If someone has blasted his ears at real life orchestra at 100dB volume and then comes home to compare cables at 70dB, would he hear a difference?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Sennheiser has published two different specifications for the loudness level of the HD650 at 1V and there is 12dB difference. Twelve db is huge.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Yes, that explains why orchestral music sucks with headphones, soundstage is too narrow and almost fits inside my room (3 meter wide)._

 

The problem isn't the narrowness of the soundstage, it's the width between your ears.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Anyway I've adjusted my listening level to stay within the guidelines for safe listening (which is weighted by duration and level)._

 

Have you found anything about a difference between enclosed headphones and speakers in open air? I wonder if the range of safety is different when the ear cups are forming a seal around the ear, or perhaps directionality of sound pressure...

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Have you found anything about a difference between enclosed headphones and speakers in open air? I wonder if the range of safety is different when the ear cups are forming a seal around the ear, or perhaps directionality of sound pressure...

 See ya
 Steve_

 

The headphone manufactures probably have industry guidelines that define such things, but I'm not sure where to find a copy. AKG or Beyerdynamic references performance standards in some of their spec sheets. I can't find the reference number right now. I've wondered if the loudness specification changes if the sound source (transducers) is within an inch of one's ear. I don't know if that is why Sennheiser increased the rating by 12 dB. Avoid liability for hearing damage.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Yes, that explains why orchestral music sucks with headphones, soundstage is too narrow and almost fits inside my room (3 meter wide). Trance music has a huge soundstage (200 meters) and vocals are recorded with one microphone. It sounds more like real life than orchestral music._

 

I don't agree with you on this one...especially electrostatic systems are really good for classical music and for detail retreval in that section!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Yes, that explains why orchestral music sucks with headphones, soundstage is too narrow and almost fits inside my room (3 meter wide). Trance music has a huge soundstage (200 meters) and vocals are recorded with one microphone. It sounds more like real life than orchestral music._

 

I don't agree with you on this one...especially electrostatic systems are really good for classical music and for detail retreval in that section!


----------



## Riboge

Just thought I'd throw in a few items I've accumulated in my head over the years about the topic of the last dozen posts:

 The decibel was defined as the unit of just noticeable difference on average among people ("jnd" to earlier researchers) in sound level based on some studies done many many years ago (don't recall the specifics). So it would be expected that some few people can hear even less as Patrick claims and some need a little more to hear the increment.

 Speaker manufactures at least formerly often put in their manual the ratio of speaker separation to the distance from listener to midline between speakers they recommended (what Bigshot was describing). I have seen either 1:1 or 1:1.5 recommended. 

 120db is usually cited medically as the level definitely causing damage for any meaningul length of time. Pain starts in around 110db, obviously, then, lower for some people since these are average values. Symphony orchestras do get to 100db and could possibly get higher. I don't find full volume like this uncomfortable but thrilling, but we all know that a mix of pleasure and a bit of pain is usually what is most exciting.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I have great respect for the engineers at Bell Labs in the 20s and 30s. The more I read about their experiments, the more I realize how much has been ignored or forgotten.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I just found 30 pages of insight from Bell Labs circa 1934.
Symposium on Auditory Perspective

 This is close to what I've been looking for, but I'm still searching.

 -

 From the preface: "In 1964, _Paul Klipsch_ reprinted this paper. Here is his introduction – I cannot say it better: The following paper is a reprint of one of the most important papers in the field of audio. _Fundamentals do not change. The laws of physics endure._" 


 .


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I just found 30 pages of insight from Bell Labs circa 1934.
Symposium on Auditory Perspective_

 

OOoooo! Oooo! that's my meat! Thanks for the link.

 Steve


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The problem isn't the narrowness of the soundstage, it's the width between your ears.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

You haven't seen my BIG head.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_OOoooo! Oooo! that's my meat! Thanks for the link.

 Steve_

 

That paper is about perception of sound in a certain place and how to let everybody hear the same...


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Lol, back to the future.....papers of 1929...don't you think they can do more now?_

 

Skeptics can't learn new information because they aren't open-minded enough. He has made thousands of posts telling about his old-school knowledge. It's like saying airplanes can't fly, it's all placebo.


----------



## JohnFerrier

"...the fantasy of audible differences continues despite the fact of audibility thresholds."


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_"...the fantasy of audible differences continues despite the fact of audibility thresholds."_

 

Does that mean that skeptics agree there are differences between cables but human ears aren't good enough to hear them? 
 Isn't it possible to improve if you listen to complex music 6 hours a day for a year? 
 2 years ago I couldn't hear a difference when upgrading from a soundcard into a dedicated amplifier! It seems like I was below average since others could hear the difference.

 You also need to be interested enough to be able to listen many hours a day. If you just listen 10 minutes a day and do whiskey swirling it isn't going to do much. It's no wonder skeptics switch cables every 5 seconds when comparing cables, they don't have patience to do longer testing...


----------



## Steve999

....


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Skeptics can't learn new information because they aren't open-minded enough. He has made thousands of posts telling about his old-school knowledge. It's like saying airplanes can't fly, it's all placebo._

 

How much do you know about sound recording? For instance... what research facility invented electrical recording? the condenser microphone? The dynamic microphone? The moving coil speaker driver? When was the first binaural recording made and what research facility was responsible for developing that?

 The answer is old school... All of those things were accomplished before 1932 at Bell Labs.
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/reco...bell-labs.html

 But it's also today's news...
http://www.bell-labs.com/news/grammy.html

 QUOTE: Current research and development at Bell Labs has expanded to include audio as part of a blended multimedia experience, work on new digital compression technologies for delivering music and other medias over a wide variety of networks and devices, nano-based "micro-microphones" for dynamically directional, high quality sound recording, and flexible and tunable hypersensitive recording arrays for improved sound capture. Some of Bell Labs' longer term research projects in this area include the investigation of new types of lasers, materials, and processing formats that have the potential to yield the next generation of high density media storage and advanced digital playback technologies. END QUOTE

 Ignorance is cool... Mark Twain said "Everyone is ignorant- just on different subjects." Ignorance is curable. All you have to do is listen.

 Stupidity is the unwillingness to learn. Don't be stupid.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Isn't it possible to improve if you listen to complex music 6 hours a day for a year?_

 

I bet if you jumped off a two foot ledge... then worked your way up to a three foot one... and kept adding two feet every month for 10 years, eventually you would develop the ability to fly.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_How much do you know about sound recording? For instance... what research facility invented electrical recording? the condenser microphone? The dynamic microphone? The moving coil speaker driver? When was the first binaural recording made and what research facility was responsible for developing that?

 The answer is old school... All of those things were accomplished before 1932 at Bell Labs._

 

What does that have to do with cables and playback? You only need to put on headphones and listen for the differences...


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I bet if you jumped off a two foot ledge... then worked your way up to a three foot one... and kept adding two feet every month for 10 years, eventually you would develop the ability to fly._

 

Everyone can fly, they just can't survive the impact.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_What does that have to do with cables and playback?._

 

I was referring to your claim that I wasn't open minded and my experience is outdated.

 (question withdrawn)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I was referring to your claim that I wasn't open minded and my experience is outdated. What does your reply have to do with my point about the difference between ignorance and stupidity? (I think I can answer that, but I'd rather you answer it for me.)_

 

The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that the ignorant person is intelligent and can learn new things, while the stupid person can't. Like with cables, the ignorant person compares cables and learns from it while the stupid person does not want to touch cables because he already "knows" there will be no differences.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that the ignorant person is intelligent and can learn new things, while the stupid person can't. Like with cables, the ignorant person compares cables and learns from it while the stupid person does not want to touch cables because he already "knows" there will be no differences._

 

They have a technical word for that as well; it means that if you THINK there is no difference, you'll hear no difference. Same goes for the opposite, by the way.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that the ignorant person is intelligent and can learn new things, while the stupid person can't._

 

Correct. Don't be stupid.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Correct. Don't be stupid.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Your stories aren't consistent. Why don't you try cables for yourself then? Or do you already have your room full of exotic cables?


----------



## bigshot

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man." --Groucho Marx


----------



## adhoc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Everyone can fly, they just can't survive the impact._

 

Can I add this to my sig? It made me smile.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man." --Groucho Marx_

 

What do you mean, unarmed? I have the cables and can test them and you don't, who's unarmed?


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *adhoc* 
_Can I add this to my sig? It made me smile. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Sure why not.


----------



## threepointone

i find it rather amusing how I jumped to the last page, hoping that maybe something technical and productive had come out of this thread.

 Does every thread in the cables forum really end up being like this, with everyone arguing against patrick?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *threepointone* 
_i find it rather amusing how I jumped to the last page, hoping that maybe something technical and productive had come out of this thread.

 Does every thread in the cables forum really end up being like this, with everyone arguing against patrick?_

 

 Every thread in the cable forum that includes a debate about whether there is proof that cables make an audible difference ends like this, although Patrick is not always the protagonist. (bigshot is usuallly the antagonist, though). In any event, that's why these discussions ought to be banned from this sub-fourm. They are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," to quote the bard. And they waste bandwith. Probably will never happen, but one can dream.


----------



## Aman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *threepointone* 
_i find it rather amusing how I jumped to the last page, hoping that maybe something technical and productive had come out of this thread.

 Does every thread in the cables forum really end up being like this, with everyone arguing against patrick?_

 

It's Patrick's fault. He sets himself up for everything that comes to him with the silly, inane comments he makes with absolutely no proper logic or reason, to the point of sheer ridiculousness.


----------



## Zenja

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Aman* 
_It's Patrick's fault. He sets himself up for everything that comes to him with the silly, inane comments he makes with absolutely no proper logic or reason, to the point of sheer ridiculousness._

 

No reason? His direct experience with what he hears is no reason?


----------



## joojoo2915

Okay, Patrick, say Bigshot does try your cables, everything would be perfect, right? So let's say Bigshot sets up a good ***, all the conditions are agreed upon, everyone is happy. He takes the test and doesn't hear any difference between the $15,000 cable and the cable he ripped from a lamp a couple hours prior. Now, since you've obviously heard the difference, you either claim that he has made up his answer, can't hear well enough, doesn't have resolving enough equipment, etc. The only possible "scientific" outcome that could arise from you sending Bigshot your cables would be in the affirmative (cables do sound different). Unfortunately, Bigshot has stock in believing that the cables don't sound different so he wouldn't be your ideal candidate for testing. You on the other hand firmly believe that cables do sound different, and you own the cables, so this seems like kind of a no-brainer to me. Having you/your friends set up a *** and taking the test yourself would be infinitely more useful, and far easier, than having Bigshot take one.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *joojoo2915* 
_ Having you/your friends set up a *** and taking the test yourself would be infinitely more useful, and far easier, than having Bigshot take one._

 

This is a ***-free forum.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zenja* 
_No reason? His direct experience with what he hears is no reason?_

 

I think science is underestimating nature again and the ears are more capable then they thought they would be!


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_I think science is underestimating nature again and the ears are more capable then they thought they would be! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

I think you're underestimating science as well as the influence of the mind on the perception of sound again; the ears are far less capable of what you whish them to be. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Did you ever think about how much "science" has to know about your hearing to make something like mp3 possible? Do you think you could contribute anything to the research of such a process with your revolutionary, 'breaking-the-walls-of-traditional-science'-kinda wisdom?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_I think you're underestimating science as well as the influence of the mind on the perception of sound again; the ears are far less capable of what you whish them to be. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Did you ever think about how much "science" has to know about your hearing to make something like mp3 possible? Do you think you could contribute anything to the research of such a process with your revolutionary, 'breaking-the-walls-of-traditional-science'-kinda wisdom?_

 


 Science always think they know it all. Alot of statements have been corrected during the years. I rest my case.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Science always think they know it all. Alot of statements have been corrected during the years. I rest my case._

 

And a lot will have to be corrected in the future I might add.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Alot of statements have been corrected during the years. I rest my case._

 

 Quote:


 And a lot will have to be corrected in the future I might add 
 

That's what i would call "learning".


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_That's what i would call "learning"._

 

Yes. And it can only be done if you accept there are things out there you don't know (yet).


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* 
_Yes. And it can only be done if you accept there are things out there you don't know (yet)._

 

No. It can only be done if the scientist with the new theory is willing to prove it and tries to isolate the phenomenon with the goal to find the reason for it. 
 Nothing of the above applies to subjectivists by definition.
 While it's the nature of the scientist to find out things he doesn't know, not the ones already known.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Science always think they know it all. Alot of statements have been corrected during the years. I rest my case._

 

Your case is porous. Here, let me show you why universal skepticism (what you're advocating, there) is incorrect. I'll draw this directly from George H. Smith, as he does a good job of collecting a concise argument against your position.

 "The second form of universal skepticism consists of the doctrine that we must doubt every alleged instance of knowledge. Through this negative formulation, the universal skeptic seeks to avoid the contradiction of asserting a knowledge claim while denying the existence of knowledge. But the doctrine that we should doubt every knowledge claim translates into the positive assertion that man can never attain certainty - and this version of skepticism fares no better than the preceding.

 We must ask if this "principle of universal doubt" is itself certain, or is it open to doubt as well? If it is known with certainty, at least one thing is beyond doubt, which makes the principle false. However, if the principle is open to doubt - that is, if it is not certain - then on what grounds can the skeptic claim greater plausibility for his theory than any other? 

*Why, according to the universal skeptic, should every knowledge claim be doubted? 'Because,' he will reply, 'man is capable of error, and it is possible in any given instance that he has committed an error.' We must remember, however, that 'error' (or falsehood) is the opposite of 'truth' and the skeptic who appeals to error implicitly admits that a proposition cannot be true and false, correct and incorrect, at the same time and in the same respect. thus, whether he likes it or not, the skeptic must surrender to the logical principle known as the Law of Contradiction (which states that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same manner). At the barist minimum, therefore, the skeptic must concede the validity of the Law of Contradiction and its corolaries: the Law of Identity (A is A; a thing is itself) and the Law of the Excluded Middle (something is either A or not-A).*

 Here we must note the main source of confusion in the skeptical approach: _the equation of knowledge and certainty with infallibility_. When the skeptic claims that every knowledge claim should be doubted because man is capable of making mistakes, he is simply pointing out the obvious: that man is a fallible being. No one, not even the most resolute antiskeptic, will deny that man is fallible.

*The skeptic fails to realize that it is precisely man's fallibility that generates the need for a science of knowledge. If man were infallible - if all knowledge were given to him without the slightest possibility of error - then the need for epistemological guidelines with which to verify ideas, with which to sort the true from the false, would not arise. Man requires a method to minimize the possiblity of error, and this is the function of epistemology.* A science of knowledge enables us to discriminate between justified and unjustified beliefs; and since the beliefs of an infallible being would not stand in need of verification, he could have no use for epistemological standards.

*Man's capacity for error is not sufficient reason to suppose that he has committed an error in any specific instance. The skeptic cannot appeal solely to man's fallibility as the grounds for skepticism; further argumentation is required. If the skeptic wishes to attack a knowledge claim for which evidence has been provided, he must attack the evidence itself; he cannot merely appeal to human fallability. "Being aware that you may be mistaken doesn't mean merely being aware that you are a falible human being: it means that you have some concrete reason to suppose that you may be mistaken in this case."*

 Rational doubt arises contextually, in specific circumstances when the arguments and evidence offered inm support of a proposition are determined to be defective or insufficient. The skeptic cannot bypass the particulars of a knowledge claim and merely assert that, since man is fallible, the knowledge claim deserves to be doubted. To do so is to commit the "infallibility fallacy."

*In order to justify his doubt, the skeptic must take issue with the specific arguments and evidence offered in support of a knowledge claim. If the proposition in question can withstand scrutiny, it qualifies as knowledge; and if the evidence in favor of the proposition is overwhelming, it rationally qualifies as certain knowledge - man's fallibility notwithstanding.*








 So, care to take issue with any particular claim after having rationally evaluated the evidence? Or are you just going to stick with "Well, man has been wrong before, so I choose to believe that man is wrong always!"


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Your case is porous. Here, let me show you why universal skepticism (what you're advocating, there) is incorrect. I'll draw this directly from George H. Smith, as he does a good job of collecting a concise argument against your position.

 "The second form of universal skepticism consists of the doctrine that we must doubt every alleged instance of knowledge. Through this negative formulation, the universal skeptic seeks to avoid the contradiction of asserting a knowledge claim while denying the existence of knowledge. But the doctrine that we should doubt every knowledge claim translates into the positive assertion that man can never attain certainty - and this version of skepticism fares no better than the preceding.

 We must ask if this "principle of universal doubt" is itself certain, or is it open to doubt as well? If it is known with certainty, at least one thing is beyond doubt, which makes the principle false. However, if the principle is open to doubt - that is, if it is not certain - then on what grounds can the skeptic claim greater plausibility for his theory than any other? 

*Why, according to the universal skeptic, should every knowledge claim be doubted? 'Because,' he will reply, 'man is capable of error, and it is possible in any given instance that he has committed an error.' We must remember, however, that 'error' (or falsehood) is the opposite of 'truth' and the skeptic who appeals to error implicitly admits that a proposition cannot be true and false, correct and incorrect, at the same time and in the same respect. thus, whether he likes it or not, the skeptic must surrender to the logical principle known as the Law of Contradiction (which states that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same manner). At the barist minimum, therefore, the skeptic must concede the validity of the Law of Contradiction and its corolaries: the Law of Identity (A is A; a thing is itself) and the Law of the Excluded Middle (something is either A or not-A).*

 Here we must note the main source of confusion in the skeptical approach: the equation of knowledge and certainty with infallibility. When the skeptic claims that every knowledge claim should be doubted because man is capable of making mistakes, he is simply pointing out the obvious: that man is a fallible being. No one, not even the most resolute antiskeptic, will deny that man is fallible.

*The skeptic fails to realize that it is precisely man's fallibility that generates the need for a science of knowledge. If man were infallible - if all knowledge were given to him without the slightest possibility of error - then the need for epistemological guidelines with which to verify ideas, with which to sort the true from the false, would not arise. Man requires a method to minimize the possiblity of error, and this is the function of epistemology.* A science of knowledge enables us to discriminate between justified and unjustified beliefs; and since the beliefs of an infallible being would not stand in need of verification, he could have no use for epistemological standards.

*Man's capacity for error is not sufficient reason to suppose that he has committed an error in any specific instance. The skeptic cannot appeal solely to man's fallibility as the grounds for skepticism; further argumentation is required. If the skeptic wishes to attack a knowledge claim for which evidence has been provided, he must attack the evidence itself; he cannot merely appeal to human fallability. "Being aware that you may be mistaken doesn't mean merely being aware that you are a falible human being: it means that you have some concrete reason to suppose that you may be mistaken in this case."*

 Rational doubt arises contextually, in specific circumstances when the arguments and evidence offered inm support of a proposition are determined to be defective or insufficient. The skeptic cannot bypass the particulars of a knowledge claim and merely assert that, since man is fallible, the knowledge claim deserves to be doubted. To do so is to commit the "infallibility fallacy."

*In order to justify his doubt, the skeptic must take issue with the specific arguments and evidence offered in support of a knowledge claim. If the proposition in question can withstand scrutiny, it qualifies as knowledge; and if the evidence in favor of the proposition is overwhelming, it rationally qualifies as certain knowledge - man's fallibility notwithstanding.*








 So, care to take issue with any particular claim after having rationally evaluated the evidence? Or are you just going to stick with "Well, man has been wrong before, so I choose to believe that man is wrong always!"_

 

You forget one thing, they still haven't proven yet it exists or not.

 As i said before, 99,99 percent of the so called tests are done faultly. As i quoted before, scientifically, the human is only capable of hearing things or differences if it happens in max. 5 seconds. In every situation, the time it takes to shut down the amp, switch the cable(s), turn the amp on, turn the dcplayer on and skip to the musical piece is taking way longer then 5 seconds!

 Hence, total guessing!

 The only theoretically correct setup would be:

 2 exactly the same setups, with only different powercables or interlinks and intervals of 5 seconds are correct! This is never the case in those so called tests!


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_You forget one thing, they still haven't proven yet it exists or not.

 As i said before, 99,99 percent of the so called tests are done faultly. As i quoted before, scientifically, the human is only capable of hearing things or differences if it happens in max. 5 seconds. In every situation, the time it takes to shut down the amp, switch the cable(s), turn the amp on, turn the dcplayer on and skip to the musical piece is taking way longer then 5 seconds!

 Hence, total guessing!

 The only theoretically correct setup would be:

 2 exactly the same setups, with only different powercables or interlinks and intervals of 5 seconds are correct! This is never the case in those so called tests!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

So, which value should we affiliate then to the so called long-term-"tests" with deliberatly chosen volume proclaimed usually by subjectivists?


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_You forget one thing, they still haven't proven yet it exists or not.

 As i said before, 99,99 percent of the so called tests are done faultly. As i quoted before, scientifically, the human is only capable of hearing things or differences if it happens in max. 5 seconds. In every situation, the time it takes to shut down the amp, switch the cable(s), turn the amp on, turn the dcplayer on and skip to the musical piece is taking way longer then 5 seconds!

 Hence, total guessing!

 The only theoretically correct setup would be:

 2 exactly the same setups, with only different powercables or interlinks and intervals of 5 seconds are correct! This is never the case in those so called tests!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Thank you for actually citing something relevant and useful. I agree with you that that sort of rapid comparison of side by side systems would be the best for immediate detection of differences with the following caveats and comments.
 1) Musical passages listened to are themselves longer than 5 seconds, so there is no way to compare sound at the beginning of the passage in one system with the same in another within 5 seconds. Which is related to:
 2) No one is claiming that cables sound different or discernibly different at every moment or, to put it another way, that they are always different.
 3) The studies you refer to (wish I could recall the reference) test different meaningless sounds in brief samples much like most hearing tests in general. It is meaningless and arbitray sounds that people generally cannot retain in memory sufficiently for over 5 seconds. And retention of these and to a much greater extent music is something one can improve with training as every musician must to perform long works or stay on pitch, etc. Music is meaningful and evocative of inner states, sensations and feelings like impact, hairs standing up, excitement, involvement, sadness, etc. People listening to music, especially whole extended passages and works, can discern difference in what is communicated or evoked in addition to discerning the uninterpreted sound only. To allow for this sort of discernment, which is also retained better in the interval until the next sound, longer samples and sessions of listening are more appropriate.
 4) despite all this, having parallel systems subjects move back and forth between with the least interval would be clearly better than what has been done before.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

So, this seems to be the point where night and day differences become almost ridicuosly thin.

  Quote:


 Music is meaningful and evocative of inner states, sensations and feelings like impact, hairs standing up, excitement, involvement, sadness, etc. People listening to music, especially whole extended passages and works, can discern difference in what is communicated or evoked in addition to discerning the uninterpreted sound only 
 

Cables do not transport emotions, but electricity. Emotions are inside your (and my) head. If this was about emotions, a mono cassette recorder would do.


----------



## Patrick82

Not all recording engineers are skeptics, just see this thread: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ind...sg/9441/0/0/0/

 Also see An engineer's view of power cables.

 They are afraid to admit to other engineers and lose their jobs, it's just easier to ignore the truth instead. Skeptics at James Randi forums are laughing at them now.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_I think science is underestimating nature again and the ears are more capable then they thought they would be! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






_

 

There's considerable irony in you saying that your ability to listen might be underestimated.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Not all recording engineers are skeptics, just see this thread: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ind...sg/9441/0/0/0/

 Also see An engineer's view of power cables.

 They are afraid to admit to other engineers and lose their jobs_

 

Patrick, the first thread had people who know what they're talking about in it and people who don't... just like any other internet forum, including this one.

 Secondly, the engineer giving the testimonial to the high end audio website isn't a recording engineer. He manufactures power line bushings. He doesn't know the first thing about pro grade audio.

 Thirdly, no engineer is afraid to admit they found a way to improve sound. Their job is to achieve the best possible sound and they are willing to go to great lengths to accomplish that. If cables really made a difference, high end cabling would have been standard in recording studios across the country long ago.

 This really isn't an issue in pro audio circles. All of the engineers I've spoken to on the subject have the same "been there- done that" dismissal for high end cables. They make their own cables because they can get huge spindles and save money over buying Radio Shack interconnects. That is the truth.

 The only people you hear talking about the importance of cabling are stereo store salesmen, advertorials in stereo magazines, cable manufacurers' sales literature and consumers who listen to and believe stereo store salesmen, advertorials and sales literature.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_So, this seems to be the point where night and day differences become almost ridicuosly thin.



 Cables do not transport emotions, but electricity. Emotions are inside your (and my) head. If this was about emotions, a mono cassette recorder would do._

 

One of the things it is about is the DIFFERENCE between what one cable and another makes in these responses transmitting the same music, that is, subtler indicators of differing perceptions that may not be conscious or only mental but partly physical. You have to read what I wrote with such a tendenciousness of not wishing to understand to miss this. This could of course be like a bias preventing the hearing of cable differences.

 I agree that claims of "night and day" are highly overblown in almost all cases of cable comparison, but differences that affect the meaning and impact of the music on one would surely be significant. Again, you just have to be so blindly into a gotcha mode not to understand that this is a meaningful possiblilty at least in theory.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_There's considerable irony in you saying that your ability to listen might be underestimated.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Irony, my friend, is not transported by cables but made up in your head.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 unless you rule out the cables that transport the signals to your brains.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_One of the things it is about is the DIFFERENCE between what one cable and another makes in these responses transmitting the same music, that is, subtler indicators of differing perceptions that may not be conscious or only mental but partly physical._

 

If we can't perceive a sound consciously... or if we are perceiving it mostly mentally, rather than physically using our ears, what the heck is the point? You're describing exactly what we are saying... that there is no perceivable difference except for placebo.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Irony, my friend, is not transported by cables but made up in your head.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 unless you rule out the cables that transport the signals to your brains.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I always try to use my brain... What about you?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_This really isn't an issue in pro audio circles. All of the engineers I've spoken to on the subject have the same "been there- done that" dismissal for high end cables. They make their own cables because they can get huge spindles and save money over buying Radio Shack interconnects. That is the truth.

 The only people you hear talking about the importance of cabling are stereo store salesmen, advertorials in stereo magazines, cable manufacurers' sales literature and consumers who listen to and believe stereo store salesmen, advertorials and sales literature._

 

I rather believe a store salesman who has tried the cables than a recording engineer who hasn't.

 There are loads of people who think they know everything but they don't.
 When pictures of new hardware are released many people think they are fake because they are blind and can't see properly, see this and this, they see what they want to see to have a chance to boost up their ego and brag that they do Photoshop for a living. Someone has even accused my videos of being fake because he was a "Master video faker". Skeptics are cherry picking pieces of the same puzzle and when they add them together it appears to be the truth to them, but they are never seeing the big picture.

 Recording engineers don't want cables to make a difference because they want to believe they are getting the best sound from their gear and can brag about it. The longer they continue with that the stronger their belief becomes and eventually they are lost forever and can't learn anything new other than something that further strengthens their belief.


----------



## bigshot

Patrick, may I ask you how old you are?

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I always try to use my brain... What about you?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Keep on trying. maybe you'll succeed in actually using your brain someday.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Keep on trying. maybe you'll succeed in actually using your brain someday._

 

Has it completely devolved to second grade name-calling? Come on, we're talking about cables. Be civil.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Patrick, may I ask you how old you are?

 Thanks
 Steve_

 

23. An open-minded person would have looked in my profile first... See what I wrote about cherry picking pieces of the puzzle. How can you know cables make a difference if you choose to ignore it when you turn on music?

 The ones with the crappiest systems don't really hear what comes out of their systems, they ignore it and use their imagination instead. Who's having the placebo?


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If we can't perceive a sound consciously... or if we are perceiving it mostly mentally, rather than physically using our ears, what the heck is the point? You're describing exactly what we are saying... that there is no perceivable difference except for placebo.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I of course didn't say that. I didn't say the perception was mental but rather that the effect of the perception was physical as well as mental. Most of what is perceived as well as the rest of what is physical is not conscious. The physical and mental effects are in fact not distinct and certainly not opposite and obviously all begin "physically using our ears". What I was saying is that there might be a perception that is not consciously noted in the mind which nonetheless evokes different meaning or emotional responses the difference in which between two cables playing the same music might be the way one realizes the difference the cables make. Now let's see you deliberately misread and misunderstand that.

 This is presented to and for others who might gain something from what I have presented if not muddied by your deliberate mischaracterizations.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Thirdly, no engineer is afraid to admit they found a way to improve sound. Their job is to achieve the best possible sound and they are willing to go to great lengths to accomplish that. If cables really made a difference, high end cabling would have been standard in recording studios across the country long ago.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

In fact there are a bunch of recording studio's that use high end equipment like mark levinson, krell and the likes. Are these rare studio's producing those really rare good sounding cd's?!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 99% of the recordings sound like crap; maybe because of the radio shack cables?!

 And no, i don't believe every engineer wants the best sound, most or at least the boss(record company) wants easy money and spend less time in a record studio as possible! They spend instead more money on advertising the bad recordings. This is becomming more commen.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Has it completely devolved to second grade name-calling? Come on, we're talking about cables. Be civil._

 

I try to have an open minded conversation, instead someone calls me brainless. I can, and have the right to react on that.

 I agree, usually beneath my level.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_I try to have an open minded conversation, instead someone calls me brainless. I can, and have the right to react on that.

 I agree, usually beneath my level._

 

Don't worry. You didn't sag noteworthy.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Don't worry. You didn't sag noteworthy._

 

yet you respond on it, wich IS noteworthy!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I of course didn't say that. I didn't say the perception was mental but rather that the effect of the perception was physical as well as mental. Most of what is perceived as well as the rest of what is physical is not conscious. The physical and mental effects are in fact not distinct and certainly not opposite and obviously all begin "physically using our ears". What I was saying is that there might be a perception that is not consciously noted in the mind which nonetheless evokes different meaning or emotional responses the difference in which between two cables playing the same music might be the way one realizes the difference the cables make. Now let's see you deliberately misread and misunderstand that._

 

I can't misread it, because I don't understand what you're trying to say!

 Let's see if we can understand each other... We're talking about comparing two sounds. We hear them with our ears and consciously note them and compare the two sounds in our mind, deciding which is better according to some sort of criteria. Where do unconscious responses come into it? If it's unconscious, how are we going to consciously note them to compare the two sounds? If we're going to move from objective to subjective and note how we "feel" about the music, what we had for lunch, the padding in the chair we're sitting on and whether or not we like the song being used for the test might be affecting our emotional response more than some inaudible/unconscious sound in the sound.

 It seems to me, if you can't hear it with careful A/B comparison, it isn't something that makes a lick of difference, and there's no way to be sure your unconscious feelings are a result of the sound or your particular mood at the moment.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## JohnFerrier

Equipment List for Emil Berliner Studios No mention of expensive cables. I'm aware that they are not DBT-free.

 Recently, Emil Berliner performed the first recorded performance of the Los Angeles Philharmonic in the new Walt Disney Concert Hall. An SACD will be released later this years. For more information, check out this article. I notice that they seem to focus the discussion on how important the microphones are, but don't say anything about how cables make any difference. Are these professionals in a multi-million dollar industry just not leading edge enough?








 "Recording producer Sid McLauchlan from Deutsche Grammophon, recording engineer Fred Vogler and Tonmeister/balance engineer, Rainer Maillard relax for a moment during the recent Deutsche Grammophon recording session with the Los Angeles Philharmonic at the Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles, California."

 I don't know about anyone else, but the above guys sit at the other side of my recordings. And I look forward the release of their recording of Béla Bartók's _The Miraculous Mandarin_.

 -

 Available next week (Oct. 10).



Sound clips


 .


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I notice that they seem to focus the discussion on how important the microphones are, but don't say anything about how cables make any difference. Are these professionals in a multi-million dollar industry just not leading edge enough?_

 

Is Head-Fi now suddenly a recording forum?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Is Head-Fi now suddenly a recording forum?_

 

Personally, I'm interested in the whole picture of audio.


 .


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Personally, I'm interested in the whole picture of audio._

 

If you see the whole picture you know that human ears and computer doesn't interprete sound the same way.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_If you see the whole picture you know that human ears and computer doesn't interprete sound the same way._

 

Where are you going with this thought?


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I can't misread it, because I don't understand what you're trying to say!

 Let's see if we can understand each other... We're talking about comparing two sounds... 
 Steve_

 

What a refreshing acknowledgement. It is a vast improvement over sarcasm, ignorant ripostes, provocations, setting up strawmen, etc.

 No, that's not what I'm talking about as I explained carefully. Listening to meaningless sounds and listening to musical passages or whole works are very different both as to how well they can be retained in memory and the number of ways what comes into the ears affects the body and mind. The additional ways that music affects a person like meaning communicated, emotions evoked, etc., can be used to differentiate cables if the cables make a difference in these things playing the same music. This can be so even when the subject is not aware directly of the sonic difference. Certainly it happens all the time when the listener cannot articulate or indentify specifically what the difference is even if aware of it in a vague way directly. Being able to do this is a gift or something acquired thru experience and training. That's what we admire in the better reviewers of cables and other components on head-fi. It is also why the first testing to do is to have someone talented and highly trained at it do a demonstration of differentiating cables to establish that cables can make a difference that can be repeatably discerned. It takes only one person being able to show he can do it to establish that cables can be different in affecting the musical sound. Then you can address whether it is more generally so, but of course it will never be that all cables are different from one another. And it will never be that any two cables are always and at every moment different-sounding (another reason I cited previously for why a brief sounds makes no sense for testing). Further it will never show how different or how large any difference is in relation to the difference other components make--no matter how many times you set up strawman claims that the believers have claimed otherwise about these things, which no believer I know aside from Patrick has done.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Audio is extremely complex, but our hearing ability has boundaries. If I listen to music a second time, I can have a completely different response to it and notice new aspects even if I've not changed anything else in my setup. These differences can be large (and I contend much larger than many setup changes). This is true even if it's something I've listened to many times. (Off the subject, I'm aware that great books are books that one can find great discoveries in throughout one's lifetime. The books don't change; we do.) This may be due to where a person focuses attention. I'm with Steve, I don't think cables are a good place to focus attention for audible differences. I've worked with semi-professional musicians. They care about the pickups on their guitar, or how a microphone sounds, but as far as cables it's a matter of does it work or not. Beyond that, it's up to the talent of the musician. Again, I say support your artists.


----------



## Riboge

To follow on my last post it has just occurred to me point out similar and familiar examples of this sort of thing in other spheres. People use their inner responses to discern things about other people all the time without being aware of the underlying perceptions involved (or that's what most people believe is involved since they reject the idea of esp). It is the way psychiatrists many times pick up on depression in a patient who gives no overt signs or symptoms of it. They feel wisps of depressed or sad feelings when with them. This then alerts them to 'probe' for it further. Some people are said to have "good instincts about people" which is probably some sort of using their inner responses to them via perceptions they are not aware of. Some people are good a 'perceiving' that someone is lying despite its being in no way obvious, and police often learn to do this with experience. Some poker tells are picked up on unconsciously by skilled opponents. I hope these examples help understand what I am talking about. These are not rare or esoteric phenomena. They are ubiquitous.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Audio is extremely complex, but our hearing ability has boundaries. If I listen to music a second time, I can have a completely different response to it and notice new aspects even if I've not changed anything else in my setup. These differences can be large (and I contend much larger than many setup changes). This is true even if it's something I've listened to many times._

 

Your 'setup' has changed! You are part of your setup. To put it more in the terms I have been using, your mental set and perhaps physical state are different on different ocasions. Inconviently for scientific approaches and those who crave simplicity and black and white distinctions, perception is influenced by many factors such as these. The mental set is in turn affected by what you listen to beforehand, how much you have listened, what you expect, what else happened on that day, etc, etc. Then there is your mood, that is more persisting underlying emotional state, which shifts from time to time, ie, happier some days, depressed other or angry or anxious and distracted, etc.

 That is why this is such a difficult subject. But surely the subject is not about looking for a "good place to focus attention for audible differences." This strawman keeps being re-erected. The relative proportion of cable difference is a different subject, and I believe few really dispute that these differences are usually lesser than made by some other parts/components. And recording as others have said is not the same as reproducing music, so examples from that area are not comparable in any simple way.


----------



## Max F

Not sure if this has been brought up, but Ethan Winer has an interesting take on this issue. His theory would also explain why there is no agreement amoung "the believers" on how certain cables change sound (agreement on what sound characteristics have changed: warmth, brightness, harshness, depth, width, etc. etc.). 

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_No, that's not what I'm talking about as I explained carefully. Listening to meaningless sounds and listening to musical passages or whole works are very different both as to how well they can be retained in memory and the number of ways what comes into the ears affects the body and mind._

 

Generally, human memory for sound is very short. If there is more than 20 or 30 seconds between two very similar sounds, it's impossible to tell what difference there is between them. Direct A/B switching is the most accurate way to discern small differences. Long listening sessions are not going to reveal anything that can't be detected by careful listening and A/B switching at balanced volume levels.

 Describing differences in sounds is a very straightforward thing... dynamics, frequency, distortion, signal to noise, etc... these are all descriptive terms that describe specific sounds. Poetry about warmth and veils sounds great, but it really doesn't communicate anything more than the creative verbal skills of the person reviewing. Learning a vocabulary capable of expressing ideas without ambiguity is much more useful than anything one learns by listening to music for long periods of time.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_ If there is more than 20 or 30 seconds between two very similar sounds, it's impossible to tell what difference there is between them._

 

Can you cite any authority for that statement? I'd be interested in reading about the study that determined it is "impossible." Or perhaps you could detail the parameters of the study if you can't identify the study itself?


----------



## bigshot

Try googling "echoic memory". I gave you a citation once before, if I remember correctly. Auditory memory is a short term sensory memory. For fine differences, it generally lasts about 4 seconds.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Generally, human memory for sound is very short. If there is more than 20 or 30 seconds between two very similar sounds, it's impossible to tell what difference there is between them. Direct A/B switching is the most accurate way to discern small differences. Long listening sessions are not going to reveal anything that can't be detected by careful listening and A/B switching at balanced volume levels.

 Describing differences in sounds is a very straightforward thing... dynamics, frequency, distortion, signal to noise, etc... these are all descriptive terms that describe specific sounds. Poetry about warmth and veils sounds great, but it really doesn't communicate anything more than the creative verbal skills of the person reviewing. Learning a vocabulary capable of expressing ideas without ambiguity is much more useful than anything one learns by listening to music for long periods of time.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Are you just going to go on talking past the difference between sound in general and the highly organized, patterned meaning and feeling laden sounds of a musical passage? This is just mindless. I repeat studies about sound retention are about relatively brief sounds laden with nothing and so connect to nothing in the mind that would help retain it. We could go into such as the ways memory is organized by emotion and other meaningful sensations like the smell of food, etc. These are very well known to serve as markers and containers for sounds and other experiences in such a way that they become storable in longterm memory and evoked by these markers. Read Marcel Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, one of the great novels, which is structured on this idea. Just think of all the oldies but goodies from earlier in your life you can remember word for word with all the music and phrasing exact.

 And of course most of us here, even if not you, are interested in how cables influence listening to music not sounds. So even subtle and hard to define differences in the way the music is experienced are significant to us. Poetry and music are highly related in just these ways, so your dismissal of poetry demonstrates how much you are missing the point. You are just pompously wrong claiming poetic-like metaphors and phrases don't communicate anything. They definitely do to many people I know, certainly all those who post praise for good reviewers, etc. And what a silly attempt to reduce poetry to a showing off of verbal skills and nothing else. What takes skill is choosing the poetic words that do convey a meaning/feeling to readers.


----------



## Melchior

Well, I was gonna skip over posting anything in this thread but today made me reconsider. I was about to start a new one but I figure this is pertinent here. Statements have been made to the effect that the mind has a much larger effect on your audio than cables do. I've always believed that once you get past basic radioshack interconnects your mind has more effect on sound than cables do, and today I just proved it to myself. 

 I had this oddball channel imbalance favoring the right side that I just couldn't trace, I noticed it listening to music yesterday and I'd been trying to figure out what it was. At first I figured it might be speaker positioning, no good, sure I could change it but I could tell the positioning was way off what it should be (since I hadn't had this problem with them in their original placement before). I started using test tones, just to see if it might be the music or maybe my level outputs were off, maybe a room acoustic issue, and the balance was indeed off. I even tried changing where I sat while I listened, this shifted it a bit but like the speakers I was way off where I knew I should be. Then I closed my eyes, and it dissapeared, *poof* properly balanced channels. Opening my eyes I noticed a large crack in my blinds facing me on the right side, It had been there for a day or two but I never bothered to close them since the glare didn't really bug me. On a whim I reached over and fixed it real quick and that permanently fixed the issue. 

 Point being, never ever discount the direct influence your mind has on anything related to sound. Ears can be tricked very easily, even when things don't sound different at all.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Try googling "echoic memory". I gave you a citation once before, if I remember correctly. Auditory memory is a short term sensory memory. For fine differences, it generally lasts about 4 seconds.
_

 

I read a number of articles on the subject that were generated by a search in Google. It is clear that the studies you are referring to deal with the ability of memory to recall and/or distinguish between various simple tones of very short duration. They do _not _deal with the ability of the memory to distinguish a change in sound that has been "learned" as a result of long-term exposure, such as would be the case with someone who is familiar with a child's voice over long term periods. Nor do they deal with the ability of the brain to perceive a subtle distinction in the sound of a musical composition, for example, when the brain has had prolonged expsoure to the composition under a fixed set of conditions. Indeed, the studies are as irrelevant as would be a study of whether people could remember precise colors after the passage of a few seconds to the issue of whether someone could remember what someone's face looked like after knowing them for an extended period of time. 

 Nevertheless, I may be missing the particular studies that support your statement. So if you have some support for the particular absolutist statement you made, I would like to see it.

 P.S. I posted while Riboge was posting his thoughts. His first paragraph says it better than I could. But keeping an open mind, and understanding your emphasis on, and appreciation for, scientific fact and accuracy (as well as your emphasis on carefully listening to and interpreting what others say and write), I'm confident that you are certainly not merely referring to the studies on "echoic memory" referenced above. Certainly, you had something more specific in mind that would support your dogmatic statement about the impossibility of remembering what something sounds like after a few seconds (insofar as it pertains to the alleged audible differences at issue).


----------



## Kees

I can't help myself to chime in, be it only to say: I bow for the valiant effort of Riboge (& PhilS) to explain what is essential in listening. 
 I agree completely with what you are trying to bring across.
 For me that is: Not the ears, but the mind. Not the sound, but the music.


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Personally, I'm interested in the whole picture of audio._

 

Same here. I enjoy and understand PhilS and Riboge's view but I am familiar with those views. I also enjoy bigshot's views which I am much less familiar with. Poets versus the clinician. Byron and Shelley versus James Watt. Labs make drugs that affect my emotions, heart and soul, PhilS and Riboge describe those affects in an attempted soulful reverse engineering way, bigshot knows the lab and how the drugs were made.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

So when you read a poem twice, and one time it makes you cry and one time it doesn't you find it logical to blame the different cover for it?

 But seriously: All that the cable has to do is transport max. 650MB of Data. it cannot do any more than that. What your brain does with that data, how it is interpreted and what you feel during this process has nothing to do with the cable. Unless the knowledge about pricing, haptic appearance, promised charcteristics,etc. influences your emotions during your interpretation process- which is dangerously near what is called "placebo" in this circles. Fortunatly, this source of error can be eliminated by a secret testing method.
 Knowing that most people can live peacefully with maybe 150MB of Data for the same playingtime, carefully screened by today's knowledge about psychoacoustics, doesn't make things look much better.

 For the unconscious but perceptable differences: I'm quite sure it would be easy to distinguish two twins/ body language and voice patterns in a metrological way. The discussed cable phenomenons are about unmeasurable processes, which makes your sophisticated examples pointless imho.

 The "face"-example would be closer to the subject if it was modified like this: Would you be able to distinguish between two pictures of a face of a well known person that can not be distinguished between by technical analysis? Would it be a valid test if you knew which picture is which before you had to give your answer?

 BTW, Kees, i do not have the impression that any of the participants here need an "explanation about what is essential in listening". Get off that high horse.

  Quote:


 I can't help myself to chime in, be it only to say: I bow for the valiant effort of Riboge (& PhilS) to explain what is essential in listening.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* 
_Same here. I enjoy and understand PhilS and Riboge's view but I am familiar with those views. I also enjoy bigshot's views which I am much less familiar with. Poets versus the clinician. Byron and Shelley versus James Watt. Labs make drugs that affect my emotions, heart and soul, PhilS and Riboge describe those affects in an attempted soulful reverse engineering way, bigshot knows the lab and how the drugs were made._

 

I like the spirit of balance in what you offered but the distinction is misapplied. I was a clinician of psychiatry by entire adult life. I am, literally, a little bit a poet also having written maybe 30 poems. These are not antipodes, for heaven's sake.

 The responses of people to music are quite amenable to quantification if you are willing to train a large number of subjects in listening and verbalizing first and offer them musical passages to listen to thru different cables or whatever. It is a problem practically to do so but not theoretically.

 Melchior, of course "the mind has a much larger effect on your audio than cables do" or than anything else does for that matter. What does that prove? The question still is what effect do cables have. Once again the proportionality strawman.

 Vul Kuolun, about reading a poem twice with different effects: did you even bother to read my response to JohnFerrier not too many posts below on this very issue? You may not agree but at least you could address what I said about that, which I am confident is more cogent than your simply contemptuous reference to the effect of the album or book cover, an idea no one but you would even think of.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Sorry Riboge, i did not intend to be contemptuous.

 But there are reasons for "inner responses", be it body language, external circumstances or whatever. The question is, are we looking at the right place for the reason of this "inner responses". And: is it prudent to concentrate the search for the reason on one of the multiple factors coming into question ? I chose the example with the bookcover, because i know that for many bibliophiles the appearance of a book can be quite atractrive. Just like 5mm frontpanels and thick cables do to the audiophile (including me).


----------



## Riboge

I agree that the inner response is affected by any number of things and can mislead one in listening. That is why one would have to demonstrate over multiple trials a statistically significant preponderance of ones that indicate a difference the cable is making despite the interference of other factors.


----------



## Steve999

I'm as right-brained as the next person, and most often moreso. But the answer here is simple, and there is very rich body of knowledge to support it. How many ways are there to argue what is not true to be true? This thread and this forum are brilliantly lit answers to that question. Bigshot is clever yes, and knows what he is talking about, but his real advantage is that he starts from the right answer. It is a simple fact. His logic and manners could be atrocious (though they're not), and he'd still have the right answer. This is not relativity or string theory or quantum mechanics or psychiatry or poetry or whatever. I don't know what his motivation is, but there is always some inherent moral value in rebutting false information, particularly where it is ruthlessly exploited to empty people's wallets.

 In any event, this argument is endlessly amusing, so I will read on...


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Generally, human memory for sound is very short. If there is more than 20 or 30 seconds between two very similar sounds, it's impossible to tell what difference there is between them. Direct A/B switching is the most accurate way to discern small differences. Long listening sessions are not going to reveal anything that can't be detected by careful listening and A/B switching at balanced volume levels._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Try googling "echoic memory". I gave you a citation once before, if I remember correctly. Auditory memory is a short term sensory memory. For fine differences, it generally lasts about 4 seconds._

 

To hear the smallest differences your brain needs to adjust to the sound for many weeks before making the switch. 
 Making the test in a system you have never heard before is silly, and then trying to adjust to it in 4 seconds!?

 It's like a muscle memory, after you do something over and over again it sticks. If a pro gamer switches from a CRT monitor into an LCD you bet he will see the difference in the <4 ms slower response time. But if doing the opposite he wouldn't see a difference because his brain isn't experienced enough.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Audio is extremely complex, but our hearing ability has boundaries. If I listen to music a second time, I can have a completely different response to it and notice new aspects even if I've not changed anything else in my setup. These differences can be large (and I contend much larger than many setup changes)._

 

The only time it sounds different is if your brain hasn't adjusted to your system for many weeks. For me it takes a few hours to make the adjustment and then it sounds the same everytime I listen to it. You just need to have a neutral state of mind. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 If it still sounds different everytime you listen then you aren't listening consistently enough. I can imagine a skeptic sitting there whiskey swirling and vacuum cleaning...



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Where are you going with this thought?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_But seriously: All that the cable has to do is transport max. 650MB of Data. it cannot do any more than that. What your brain does with that data, how it is interpreted and what you feel during this process has nothing to do with the cable._

 

Don't skeptics know about jitter? Jitter is all that matters, it changes how ears interprete the sound. Same data, different sound.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve999* 
_I'm as right-brained as the next person, and most often moreso. But the answer here is simple, and there is very rich body of knowledge to support it. How many ways are there to argue what is not true to be true? This thread and this forum are brilliantly lit answers to that question. Bigshot is clever yes, and knows what he is talking about, but his real advantage is that he starts from the right answer. It is a simple fact. His logic and manners could be atrocious (though they're not), and he'd still have the right answer. This is not relativity or string theory or quantum mechanics or psychiatry or poetry or whatever. I don't know what his motivation is, but there is always some inherent moral value in rebutting false information, particularly where it is ruthlessly exploited to empty people's wallets.

 In any event, this argument is endlessly amusing, so I will read on..._

 

Simply because You decree it to be so? Congratulations! Others have done their darndest, but the above might be the most arrogant and disrespectful posting in this thread.


----------



## joojoo2915

Quote:


 I was a clinician of psychiatry by entire adult life. 
 

I wonder, would you be inclined to listen to the average electrical engineer make a call on someones mental well-being? What if the person in question was screaming at a lamp post like a maniac and otherwise seemed perfectly crazy?


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Don't skeptics know about jitter? Jitter is all that matters, it changes how ears interprete the sound. Same data, different sound._

 

Don't believers know jitter is 1.) a digital phenomenon that 2.) can easily be measured?

 Look, it's that easy:

 On the CD a waveform is stored that has been resolved with 16 Bit and 44100Hz. You can look at the stored waveform with every waveeditor.
 If you transmit this waveform through a IC, and on the other side of the IC theres the exactly identical waveform, the cable is fine. If it's not, it's a faulty or inexpedient cable. 

 Same goes for the literature-comparison: It's no problem to check if the words are the same, and if all the letters are there. The poem is per se a text. Transforming the text into a poem is a task of the brain. It has nothing to do whith the font you use. In fact, the poem will still work even if an amount of letters are missing. See mp3.

 Fortunatly, 98% of all offered cables are capable to do so. The remaining 2% are exotic "high-end"-audiocables purposely designed with unreasonable parameters with the purpose to alter the sound. But this is nothing that a EQ could not do with much more reliable and predictable results, as the result can be dependent on the parameters of the used gear also. And not at all is such a cable worth the money usually demanded for it.

 The point is, the information that has to be transported is not infinate. In fact it is quite small and can be verified easily. Even if your ears have the hearing superpowers that you believe you have, there's nothing on the CD to feed them. And we're not even talking about trance CD's here.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_The remaining 2% are exotic "high-end"-audiocables purposely designed with unreasonable parameters with the purpose to alter the sound. But this is nothing that a EQ could not do with much more reliable and predictable results, as the result can be dependent on the parameters of the used gear also. And not at all is such a cable worth the money usually demanded for it._

 

So you agree there are differences between cables?

 How do I alter power cords with EQ? I'm using modded sine waves for my gear with PS Audio Power Plant and I like it, MWAVE4 makes bass faster and more solid, everything sounds like higher resolution. But power cords add a different form of coloration that I like more.
 Who says a 60Hz sine wave should be neutral anyway? The point is to find a certain coloration that makes the power supply of the gear work optimally.

 I haven't experimented with analog interconnects nearly as much but Valhalla makes everything sound distinct compared to other cables. I think it's from the silver plating which adds jitter. I like jitter, a certain combination makes it sound more like real life.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_So you agree there are differences between cables?_

 

Of course there are differences. I only doubt you can hear them, as they will only have effects in areas where 1.) even you canot hear anymore and 2.) there's no signal on the CD anyway that could be transmitted/altered by the cable.

 Exceptions are cables with extreme parameters, which can under certain circumstances (dependent on the In-and outputimpedances of the used gear; talking about serious misconstruction here) lead to a treble roll of. For what i know, you have to try real hard to produce such a (objectively bad) cable. Usual cabledesigns do regularly not have these attributes, which means their funktion is just perfect. What would you epect using a cable that's building a low-pass filter with the used gear? Nothing any ee couldn't calculate for you.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_...All that the cable has to do is transport max. 650 MB of data. It cannot do any more than that._

 

That's clearly wrong. What cables and our ears have to deal with is an analog signal, not digital data (as long as we're not talking of S/PDIF and Toslink cables) -- so it's in fact virtually an infinity of data. Remember: the digital signal (which on its part may be contaminated with jitter, which can have audible relevance) has to pass a DAC as well as analog (amplification) stages, which all can and will color the signal to a certain (mostly measurable) degree. It doesn't matter if the source is analog or digital. The data output will reach astronomical dimensions in any case.


  Quote:


 _What your brain does with that data, how it is interpreted and what you feel during this process has nothing to do with the cable. ... Knowing that most people can live peacefully with maybe 150 MB of data for the same playingtime, carefully screened by today's knowledge about psychoacoustics, doesn't make things look much better._ 
 

Personally I'm fan of lossy compressed music (MP3) for on the go. But even there it's an analog signal with a virtually infinite data amount, and according to my experience cables still matter, also with lossy compression formats. 


  Quote:


 _For the unconscious but perceptable differences: I'm quite sure it would be easy to distinguish two twins/ body language and voice patterns in a metrological way. The discussed cable phenomenona are about unmeasurable processes, which makes your sophisticated examples pointless imho._ 
 

Cables measure differently. That's a fact. But still nobody has found a correlation between the measurings and the sonic characteristics (personally I'm mostly interested in phase distortion). The same applies, BTW, to amps. Nobody (at least almost) denies the sonic differences among them. But where are the measuring differences? With SS amps, frequency-response, harmonic and intermodulation distortions are extremely low, so low that they're considered below the hearing threshold by a wide margin (think 0.02% harmonic distortion in the normal power range and a -0.5 dB drop-off at 20 kHz at the utmost). I'm still waiting for a halfways plausible explanation from the side of the objectivists and why amps are allowed to sound different, whereas cables are not. 


  Quote:


 _Don't believers know jitter is 1.) a digital phenomenon that 2.) can easily be measured?

 Look, it's that easy:

 On the CD a waveform is stored that has been resolved with 16 Bit and 41000Hz._ 
 

16 Bit and *44,100* Hz.


  Quote:


 _You can look at the stored waveform with every wave editor.
 If you transmit this waveform through a IC, and on the other side of the IC theres the exactly identical waveform, the cable is fine. If it's not, it's a faulty or inexpedient cable._ 
 

The waveform you see in a wave editor is an unfiltered analog signal from an idealized DAC. In the real world DACs have considerable accuracy problems: The signal isn't delivered in an exactly uniform grid (the grid is distorted by the jitter occurring in- and outside the DAC); and the beautiful square forms of the single samples are in fact products from irregularly (de)formed signal shapes with no sharp start and stop marks pressed into a CD; futhermore, the DAC will not manage to get the amplitude values exactly right, there will be certain tolerances which may absolutely exceed 1 or 3 dB -- it's more or less a matter of cost: the more expensive the DAC unit, the more linear the amplitude behavior. Not to forget the various antialiasing-filter algorithms leading to different impulse response. And finally there are electronics in the output stage -- as we know, they produce individual distortion patterns... These measurable differences among CDPs and DACs result in the audible differences we use to hear. 


  Quote:


 _Fortunatly, 98% of all offered cables are capable to do so. The remaining 2% are exotic "high-end"-audiocables purposely designed with unreasonable parameters with the purpose to alter the sound. But this is nothing that a EQ could not do with much more reliable and predictable results, as the result can be dependent on the parameters of the used gear also. And not at all is such a cable worth the money usually demanded for it._ 
 

It's quite clear that you know little about what you're talking about. Or tell me which exotic cables are designed to alter the sound! That said, I'm sure that some (high-end) cables alter the signal more than cheaper cables -- the same goes for amplifiers, BTW. But generally all cables alter the signal more or less, and it's impossible to tell which is more true.


  Quote:


 _The point is, the information that has to be transported is not infinite._ 
 

Well... yes, it is... almost! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_So when you read a poem twice, and one time it makes you cry and one time it doesn't you find it logical to blame the different cover for it?

 But seriously: All that the cable has to do is transport max. 650MB of Data. it cannot do any more than that. What your brain does with that data, how it is interpreted and what you feel during this process has nothing to do with the cable. Unless the knowledge about pricing, haptic appearance, promised charcteristics,etc. influences your emotions during your interpretation process- which is dangerously near what is called "placebo" in this circles. Fortunatly, this source of error can be eliminated by a secret testing method.
 Knowing that most people can live peacefully with maybe 150MB of Data for the same playingtime, carefully screened by today's knowledge about psychoacoustics, doesn't make things look much better.

 For the unconscious but perceptable differences: I'm quite sure it would be easy to distinguish two twins/ body language and voice patterns in a metrological way. The discussed cable phenomenons are about unmeasurable processes, which makes your sophisticated examples pointless imho.

 The "face"-example would be closer to the subject if it was modified like this: Would you be able to distinguish between two pictures of a face of a well known person that can not be distinguished between by technical analysis? Would it be a valid test if you knew which picture is which before you had to give your answer?

 BTW, Kees, i do not have the impression that any of the participants here need an "explanation about what is essential in listening". Get off that high horse._

 

What about if you don't like the poem you're reading. You go to another poet and read his stuff. Don't like the cable, get another one you think sounds best!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_So you agree there are differences between cables?

 How do I alter power cords with EQ? I'm using modded sine waves for my gear with PS Audio Power Plant and I like it, MWAVE4 makes bass faster and more solid, everything sounds like higher resolution. But power cords add a different form of coloration that I like more.
 Who says a 60Hz sine wave should be neutral anyway? The point is to find a certain coloration that makes the power supply of the gear work optimally.

 I haven't experimented with analog interconnects nearly as much but Valhalla makes everything sound distinct compared to other cables. I think it's from the silver plating which adds jitter. I like jitter, a certain combination makes it sound more like real life._

 

I understand that silverplating is used to reduce the skineffect, wich pushes data outside the center of the conductor! This probably why people hear more micro-details in the extreem highs with silverplated or pure silvercables then with coppercables.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Of course there are differences. I only doubt you can hear them, as they will only have effects in areas where 1.) even you canot hear anymore and 2.) there's no signal on the CD anyway that could be transmitted/altered by the cable._

 

If I listen to my system for a month while trying to figure out what the vocalist is saying, and then upgrade a cable and suddenly hear it. Did the cable give me super powers or did it give more detail?
 Valhalla super powers are great, it makes me hear more in the recording and it sounds more like real life, with stock cable I don't have these powers. That's why it's called Valhalla power cord you see? They say you use 10% of your brain, but with Valhalla it boosts up to 100%! Amazing cable. It made me lose fat as well.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_If I listen to my system for a month while trying to figure out what the vocalist is saying, and then upgrade a cable and suddenly hear it. Did the cable give me super powers or did it give more detail?
 Valhalla super powers are great, it makes me hear more in the recording and it sounds more like real life, with stock cable I don't have these powers. That's why it's called Valhalla power cord you see? They say you use 10% of your brain, but with Valhalla it boosts up to 100%! Amazing cable. It made me lose fat as well._

 

I agree, some cables are simply better then others. They let you hear much more of the recording, better vocals, soundstage, timbre and detail.

 If i find the 25 dollar wondercable i'll let you know. After 25 years of listening to high end and different cables in different price segments, i yet have to find that so called wonder cable!


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_That's clearly wrong. What cables and our ears have to deal with is an analog signal, not digital data (as long as we're not talking of S/PDIF and Toslink cables) -- so it's in fact virtually an infinity of data. Remember: the digital signal (which on its part may be contaminated with jitter, which can have audible relevance) has to pass a DAC as well as analog (amplification) stages, which all can and will color the signal to a certain (mostly measurable) degree. It doesn't matter if the source is analog or digital. The data output will reach astronomical dimensions in any case._

 

It will not. It will draw a picture of the waveform stored on the CD. It is not possible to measure distortions of this waveforms within the audible range if the used cable has reasonable parameters.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Personally I'm fan of lossy compressed music (MP3) for on the go. But even there it's an analog signal with a virtually infinite data amount, and according to my experience cables still matter, also with lossy compression formats. 


 Cables measure differently. That's a fact. But still nobody has found a correlation between the measurings and the sonic characteristics (personally I'm mostly interested in phase distortion). The same applies, BTW, to amps. Nobody (at least almost) denies the sonic differences among them. But where are the measuring differences? With SS amps, frequency-response, harmonic and intermodulation distortions are extremely low, so low that they're considered below the hearing threshold by a wide margin (think 0.02% harmonic distortion in the normal power range and a -0.5 dB drop-off at 20 kHz at the utmost). I'm still waiting for a halfways plausible explanation from the side of the objectivists and why amps are allowed to sound different, whereas cables are not._

 

We're still waiting on descriptions of perceived differences while the participants weren't peeking at the amp/ cable/ whatever. Bevore that, no researcher will lift a finger, is it for cables, amps or whatever. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_16 Bit and *44,100* Hz._

 

So your recordings get sampled 44,1 times a second. Aha. Sounds crappy, doesn't it? 44,1 *K*Hz, smartypants.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_The waveform you see in a wave editor is an unfiltered analog signal from an idealized DAC. In the real world DACs have considerable accuracy problems: The signal isn't delivered in an exactly uniform grid (the grid is distorted by the jitter occurring in- and outside the DAC); and the beautiful square forms of the single samples are in fact products from irregularly (de)formed signal shapes with no sharp start and stop marks pressed into a CD; futhermore, the DAC will not manage to get the amplitude values exactly right, there will be certain tolerances which may absolutely exceed 1 or 3 dB -- it's more or less a matter of cost: the more expensive the DAC unit, the more linear the amplitude behavior. Not to forget the various antialiasing-filter algorithms leading to different impulse response. And finally there are electronics in the output stage -- as we know, they produce individual distortion patterns... These measurable differences among CDPs and DACs result in the audible differences we use to hear._

 

Strawmen. The question is this: Is it possible to make a comparison between a signal send into a cable and afterwards. Answer: Yes.
 Is it possible to find deviations within the audible range using standard cables: No.
 Is it possible that there is other information in the signal than a waveform between 20 and 20 000 Hz: No. Unless your talking about distortions from sourcedevices. You want to hear them? Are they part of the original signal? No.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_It's quite clear that you know little about what you're talking about. Or tell me which exotic cables are designed to alter the sound! That said, I'm sure that some (high-end) cables alter the signal more than cheaper cables -- the same goes for amplifiers, BTW. But generally all cables alter the signal more or less, and it's impossible to tell which is more true._

 

It's quite clear that you know little about how little you know:

http://www.tmr-audio.de/ramses_ls.htm

 Look at the specs: 1,3 nF where values in the range of pF are common. For an engineer, it's no problem to tell under which circumstances (in- and outputimpedances of the used gear) this cable will give you rolled off highs. Rip off, that is.

 Telling which cable is more true is a joke if you're not relying on your ears solely.
.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TOURMALINE* 
_I understand that silverplating is used to reduce the skineffect_

 

What you understand is that santa claus brings the christmas presents.
 Ask a fellow sceptic with more mathematic abilities than me to calculate up to how many Mhz your hearing has to reach to recognise skineffects.


 This seems to be a Syssiphos kinda thing.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *joojoo2915* 
_I wonder, would you be inclined to listen to the average electrical engineer make a call on someones mental well-being? What if the person in question was screaming at a lamp post like a maniac and otherwise seemed perfectly crazy?_

 

I don't really get what you are asking or implying rhetorically with the first question. Is it based on something like psychiatrist: person's mental well-being as electrical engineer: cables transmission of music? I don't want to insult you by assuming that's the case. And what does the engineer being average have to do with anything?

 The second question seems to be purely rhetorical implying that some things are so obvious you don't need an expert, yes? I'd say that sometimes some things are so obvious that it's better if don't have an expert.

 The relevant expertise to the issue we have been 'discussing' is being an experienced audiophile, that is, a trained listener, it seems to me, and not engineering or psychiatry, so I am further baffled.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_It will not. It will draw a picture of the waveform stored on the CD. It is not possible to measure distortions of this waveforms within the audible range if the used cable has reasonable parameters.




 We're still waiting on descriptions of perceived differences while the participants weren't peeking at the amp/ cable/ whatever. Bevore that, no researcher will lift a finger, is it for cables, amps or whatever. 



 So your recordings get sampled 44,1 times a second. Aha. Sounds crappy, doesn't it? 44,1 *K*Hz, smartypants.




 Strawmen. The question is this: Is it possible to make a comparison between a signal send into a cable and afterwards. Answer: Yes.
 Is it possible to find deviations within the audible range using standard cables: No.
 Is it possible that there is other information in the signal than a waveform between 20 and 20 000 Hz: No. Unless your talking about distortions from sourcedevices. You want to hear them? Are they part of the original signal? No.




 It's quite clear that you know little about how little you know:

http://www.tmr-audio.de/ramses_ls.htm

 Look at the specs: 1,3 nF where values in the range of pF are common. For an engineer, it's no problem to tell under which circumstances (in- and outputimpedances of the used gear) this cable will give you rolled off highs. Rip off, that is.

 Telling which cable is more true is a joke if you're not relying on your ears solely.
.




 What you understand is that santa claus brings the christmas presents.
 Ask a fellow sceptic with more mathematic abilities than me to calculate up to how many Mhz your hearing has to reach to recognise skineffects.


 This seems to be a Syssiphos kinda thing._

 

I wish i would get those expensive cables for christmas, i have to buy em myself.

 Als i can say is that during my listening sessions i hear micro-details in silverplated or silvercables then in pure coppercables. It is said that silver has less problems of skineffect.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_I wish i would get those expensive cables for christmas, i have to buy em myself.

 Als i can say is that during my listening sessions i hear micro-details in silverplated or silvercables then in pure coppercables. It is said that silver has less problems of skineffect._

 

Yes, it is said.

 Santa Claus


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_
 Strawmen. The question is this: Is it possible to make a comparison between a signal send into a cable and afterwards. Answer: Yes.
 Is it possible to find deviations within the audible range using standard cables: No.
 Is it possible that there is other information in the signal than a waveform between 20 and 20 000 Hz: No. Unless your talking about distortions from sourcedevices. You want to hear them? Are they part of the original signal? No._

 

I don't argue with the overall sense of this statement that what people claim to hear has not been measurable or identifiable with instruments, so far anyway. Would you please explain/educate me about why it couldn't be something other than a waveform. I am assuming it is not just a tautology like calling anything from the source that is not a waveform a distortion and then saying anything other than a waveform in what you identify in the cable's "signal" is therefore a distortion. That would perhaps be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_
http://www.tmr-audio.de/ramses_ls.htm_

 

I wish this page was not in German so I could read it.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_This seems to be a Syssiphos kinda thing._

 

No slight intended, just information offered: its Sisyphus, and it feels that way to me, too.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_It will not. It will draw a picture of the waveform stored on the CD. It is not possible to measure distortions of this waveforms within the audible range if the used cable has reasonable parameters._

 

There's no waveform stored on the CD -- there are data samples. Which are meant to be completed by the DAC: by reproduction of the amplitude values and by low-pass filtering. Both create measuring curves with inherent individuality, as you won't get the same DAC linearity, the same harmonic distortion and the same impulse response from different DAC designs, especially taking the analog output stage into account which will add its individual harmonic-distortion pattern. In contrast to your digital scenario it's an analog signal that's output by any DAC, which is by nature not definable by (650) MB, but in fact has almost infinite resolution. 


  Quote:


 _Strawmen. The question is this: Is it possible to make a comparison between a signal send into a cable and afterwards. Answer: Yes. Is it possible to find deviations within the audible range using standard cables: No._ 
 

I guess you have done the measurements yourself to know this answers with 100% certainty. Well, «Stereoplay» has measured cable frequency and phase response with sine waves and found clear differences, although the frequency-response deviations were minimal in the audible range. I wish I still had these older «Stereoplay» editions, because the newer ones just measure the electrical values of cables and attribute certain sonic characterisations to them.


  Quote:


 _Is it possible that there is other information in the signal than a waveform between 20 and 20 000 Hz: No. Unless your talking about distortions from source devices. You want to hear them? Are they part of the original signal? No._ 
 

Aren't we talking of source devices? What else are you using to listen to music? Every real-world source device will add coloration to the original signal in the form of harmonic distortion with products within and beyond the audible range. Note: There's no «curve» stored on a CD, just samples enabling the reconstruction of a curve. How exactly this curve is _reproduced_ (= reconstructed, with reference to the recorded analog signal, which we don't have at our disposal) is a matter of the quality and characteristics of the digital player or the DAC, resp. 


  Quote:


 _It's quite clear that you know little about how little you know:

http://www.tmr-audio.de/ramses_ls.htm

 Look at the specs: 1,3 nF where values in the range of pF are common. For an engineer, it's no problem to tell under which circumstances (in- and output impedances of the used gear) this cable will give you rolled off highs. Rip off, that is._ 
 

You're very quick in judging cable products as rip-off. The above-linked cable looks very interesting to me; these people have good ideas, I agree with many of them. The only thing I don't like is the high capacitance, although it's a side effect of their philosophy which favors ultra-low inductance. But keep in mind that it takes very unfavorable circumstances such as output impedances higher than 2000 ohms and lengths of 2 meters or more to get an audible treble roll-off. With 1000 ohm and 1 meter you get a -3 dB point above 120 kHz, so the roll-off at 20 kHz is negligible. And the rip-off in your mind. So don't panic!
.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_ Would you please explain/educate me about why it couldn't be something other than a waveform._

 

Because no other information is stored on the CD. Any information (harminic/ disharminic distortion) adding to that waveform is an alteration of the original signal and therefore undesired. Nonetheless measurable.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I guess you have done the measurements yourself to know this answers with 100% certainty. Well, «Stereoplay» has measured cable frequency and phase response with sine waves and found clear differences, although the frequency-response deviations were minimal in the audible range. I wish I still had these older «Stereoplay» editions, because the newer ones just measure the electrical values of cables and attribute certain sonic characterisations to them._

 

Come on. If these measurements had a correlation with the perceived sounds, why don't hey print them anymore? What makes you trust these voodoophile advertisement rag?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Aren't we talking of source devices? What else are you using to listen to music? Every real-world source device will add coloration to the original signal in the form of harmonic distortion with products within and beyond the audible range. Note: There's no «curve» stored on a CD, just samples enabling the reconstruction of a curve. How exactly this curve is reproduced (= reconstructed, with reference to the recorded analog signal, which we don't have at our disposal) is a matter of the quality and characteristics of the digital player or the DAC, resp._

 

So we're talking about the ability of the cable not to bring the original signal across, but the flaws of the source? BTW, do i know that there's no curve stored on the CD; But i'm quite sure, we both know what we're talking about, aren't we?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_You're very quick in judging cable products as rip-off. The above-linked cable looks very interesting to me; these people have good ideas, I agree with many of them. The only thing I don't like is the high capacitance, although it's a side effect of their philosophy which favors ultra-low inductance. But keep in mind that it takes very unfavorable circumstances such as output impedances higher than 2000 ohms and lengths of 2 meters or more to get an audible treble roll-off. With 1000 ohm and 1 meter you get a -3 dB point above 120 kHz, so the roll-off at 20 kHz is negligible. And the rip-off in your mind. So don't panic!_

 

Another Strawman. You know that i was talking about the known oportunities to alter a signal by a cable. It's just a matter of playing with the parameter to find a constellation where it will alter the sound. The fact that most of todays devices are well constructed to avoid such interactions brings us back to the point that from a scientific perspective almost all cables sound the same although their parameters can be quite various.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Come on. If these measurements had a correlation with the perceived sounds, why don't they print them anymore? What makes you trust these voodoophile advertisement rag?_

 

The measuring engineers at «Stereoplay» published measuring graphs. What is there not to trust? They didn't interprete the graphs nor found any correlation AFAIK. 


  Quote:


 _So we're talking about the ability of the cable not to bring the original signal across, but the flaws of the source?_ 
 

No -- we're talking about your 650 MB which is peanuts for every cable to reproduce bit-perfectly, so to speak. But it turns out it's an analog signal with infinite resolution, not one quantifyable in MB. 


  Quote:


 _Another Strawman. You know that I was talking about the known oportunities to alter a signal by a cable. It's just a matter of playing with the parameter to find a constellation where it will alter the sound. The fact that most of today's devices are well constructed to avoid such interactions brings us back to the point that from a scientific perspective almost all cables sound the same although their parameters can be quite various._ 
 

And how about your «rip-off» warning? Isn't the above cable dangerous anymore now? I for one am mostly interested in phase-response variations, as mentioned. Which are measurable in cables, but not systematically explored so far. There may be other factors (as well) responsible for the sonic differences, which aren't exactly measurable as long as you don't know what to look for. The human hearing is extremely sensitive, although it's not as reliable as a measuring array -- which is what your argumentation is built upon. 
.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_The measuring engineers at «Stereoplay» published measuring graphs. What is there not to trust? They didn't interprete the graphs nor found any correlation AFAIK._

 

Interesting; so why bother when there's no correlation? Why do they even print them? Maybe to convey the impression that all the described phenomenons are well accepted in science?


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_No -- we're talking about your 650 MB which is peanuts for every cable to reproduce bit-perfectly, so to speak. But it turns out it's an analog signal with infinite resolution, not one quantifyable in MB._

 

I'm talking about that it is well known how the waveform on the other side of the cable has to look like. This is because there's only an extremly limited amount of data to be examined. It is sufficient to confine oneself to that data, because there can not be any other except unwanted. Especially refering to the "poetry" and "inner responses" argumentation here.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_And how about your «rip-off» warning? Isn't the above cable dangerous anymore now? I for one am mostly interested in phase-response variations, as mentioned. Which are measurable in cables, but not systematically explored so far. There may be other factors (as well) responsible for the sonic differences, which aren't exactly measurable as long as you don't know what to look for. The human hearing is extremely sensitive, although it's not as reliable as a measuring array -- which is what your argumentation is built upon. _

 

The rip off thing is this: 
 Gear like that cable make you a total fool for unwanted interaction, which you will most likely misinterpret as "upgrades", as you are not able to tell "oh, theres a roll off going on: 1,5 db at 18000Hz". You'll be happy hearing a (real) difference at all, sitting there with your new 300$ toy that gives you oh so smooth analogue treble. Read: roll off.
 No one taking care to have reliabel gear will buy something like this. Hopefully. I won't.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Interesting; so why bother when there's no correlation? Why do they even print them? Maybe to convey the impression that all the described phenomenons are well accepted in science?_

 

It's interesting: You suspect rip-off, fraud and sham behind virtually everything in (high-end) audio. Maybe they wanted to impress the readership with the graphs, nevertheless they have caught my interest and raised ideas. As with some speaker or electronics diagrams which aren't self-explanatory nor have an obvious correlation with the sonic descriptions, it's always good to have the opportunity to make your own thoughts. 


  Quote:


 _I'm talking about that it is well known how the waveform on the other side of the cable has to look like. This is because there's only an extremly limited amount of data to be examined. It is sufficient to confine oneself to that data, because there can not be any other except unwanted. Especially refering to the "poetry" and "inner responses" argumentation here._ 
 

Really? Everything I've stated in my responses contradicts this scenario. Because the analog signals of different CDPs and DACs sound and measure different. 


  Quote:


 _The rip off thing is this: 
 Gear like that cable make you a total fool for unwanted interaction, which you will most likely misinterpret as "upgrades", as you are not able to tell "oh, theres a roll off going on: 1,5 db at 18000Hz". You'll be happy hearing a (real) difference at all, sitting there with your new 300$ toy that gives you oh so smooth analogue treble. Read: roll off.
 No one taking care to have reliable gear will buy something like this. Hopefully. I won't._ 
 

Man, you're full or fears! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I've never encountered a cable that sounded «analog» like in your example. It's rather that I and most people prefer the more transparent and clear sounding cable. So what do you think: are there cables with a treble accentuation around?
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

The HD650 transducers are "(± 1 dB), hand-picked in pairs ". Few, if any, pairs are perfectly matched. Does anyone notice the difference in sound between the left and right transducer? If so, show me the posts. Seems like this mismatch is inaudible to listeners. Cables have significantly smaller differences.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_The HD650 transducers are "(± 1 dB), hand-picked in pairs ". Few, if any, pairs are perfectly matched. Does anyone notice the difference in sound between the left and right transducer? If so, show me the posts. Seems like this mismatch is inaudible to listeners. Cables have significantly smaller differences._

 

Speakers in listening rooms usually have spikes and dips in the size of +/- 20 dB if measured without smoothing. Whereas cables measure virtually flat. 
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Whereas cables measure virtually flat. 
._

 

So, what difference is there to hear? The differences are nearly noise level. And I don't read that people can hear cable noise. Any resistance even 0.1 ohms has a noise. But the noise signal is inaudible. I don't know that it's possible to measure the noise in a cable. And things down at such a small level don't have big effect. The differences of cables is very small compared to the 300 ohm transducer (which has larger R, L, C values). Small changes in cable R,L,C are tiny compared to the constant large transducer impedance. Cables are nearly an ideal component. They are flat from DC to Mhz. This easily covers the audible range of 20hz-40khz. Measurement instruments exceed our hearing ability. Any tiny differences in cables that a meter makes is beyond our ability to hear. In comparison to a cable change, one can make a huge change in sound by simple turning the volume control a small amount.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_So, what difference is there to hear? The differences are nearly noise level. And I don't read that people can hear cable noise. Any resistance even 0.1 ohms has a noise. But the noise signal is inaudible. I don't know that it's possible to measure the noise in a cable. And things down at such a small level don't have big effect. The differences of cables is very small compared to the 300 ohm transducer (which has larger R, L, C values). Small changes in cable R,L,C are tiny compared to the constant large transducer impedance. Cables are nearly an ideal component. They are flat from DC to Mhz. This easily covers the audible range of 20hz-40khz. Measurement instruments exceed our hearing ability. Any tiny differences in cables that a meter makes is beyond our ability to hear. In comparison to a cable change, one can make a huge change in sound by simple turning the volume control a small amount._

 

Add to this that also the (measurable) flaws caused by electronics (DACs/CDPs and amps) are tiny -- smaller by a factor of 50 or 5000 -- compared to those caused by any sound transducer... So actually you just have to care about sound transducers -- if you rely on measurements alone.
.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_
 Man, you're full or fears! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've never encountered a cable that sounded «analog» like in your example. It's rather that I and most people prefer the more transparent and clear sounding cable. So what do you think: are there cables with a treble accentuation around?_

 

No, i never heard there's a technical oportunity to construct a cable in a way it pronounces treble. Snake oil vendors have to work with the oportunities given which are: Ignorance of the customer to placebo-effects; changes,if at all: changing sound to the soft side. 
 If there was an oportunity to get profit out of other kinds of disimprovements, i'm 100% sure there would be someone trying it.

 Not sure if i tell you somethimg new here: There are people selling anti-wrinkle cremes that don't work, used cars that aren't worth the tenth part they sell for and other neatnesses. Seperating the good from the bad is what it's all about. Except when it's about audio, this seems to be the business of the noble and the honest.

 Please tell me: Where do you draw your personal "snake oil line" and why do you draw it where you do?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_So actually you just have to care about sound transducers -- if you rely on measurements alone._

 

Others can debate the merits of components, but I think most of the electronics are pretty well optimized. If any component is under appreciated, I think that it's the attenuator (or volume control). If one can hear the difference in cables (that measures ~0.2 ohms), then one ought to hear the difference between an attenuator with a plastic resistive disk and one with discrete resistors (that measure > 10k ohms). There is also imbalances as one turns the volume that people don't hear. This too is larger than cable difference.


----------



## JohnFerrier

This is something that I've done recently. I've got a way to measure the dB level of my headphones.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Others can debate the merits of components, but I think most of the electronics are pretty well optimized._

 

I wonder what the optimization has been good for: they could be 10 or 50 times worse, and their flaws would still be inaudible considering the much larger flaws caused by sound transducers... I guess the data optimization just served marketing purposes! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


 _If any component is under appreciated, I think that it's the attenuator (or volume control). If one can hear the difference in cables (that measures ~0.2 ohms), then one ought to hear the difference between an attenuator with a plastic resistive disk and one with discrete resistors (that measure > 10k ohms). There is also imbalances as one turns the volume that people don't hear. This too is larger than cable difference._ 
 

The differences in cables are (mostly) of a different kind than volume or frequency-response effects. BTW, a channel imbalance doesn't necessarily have to be obvious if you're listening to stereo and haven't been at the corresponding recording session -- nor is it necessarily that bothering, as long as you aren't aware of it. -- I don't get what the 0.2 ohms and 10 kohms have to do with sonic differences.
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_There are people selling anti-wrinkle cremes that don't work, used cars that aren't worth the tenth part they sell for and other neatnesses. Seperating the good from the bad is what it's all about. Except when it's about audio, this seems to be the business of the noble and the honest._

 

I'm not really interested in your «Snake-oil vendors» or if people make (too much) money, which seems to be your most important concern. I usually buy things that serve my sonic preferences and work as expected. Anti-wrinkle creams and bad used cars which don't work as promised/expected usually cause great disappointment and annoyance. I haven't experienced much of these things during my audio career, and certainly not more with cables than with other components. There have been one or two cables I wasn't really enthusiastic about, on the other hand they didn't cost the world. However, they weren't especially off, as if they were tuned to a distinct characteristic (as you'd probably suspect), just nothing special in my setup and to my ears. 


  Quote:


 _Please tell me: Where do you draw your personal "snake oil line" and why do you draw it where you do?_ 
 

I have no official snake-oil line. But apart from the usual hi-fi components (including cables, even digital cables in the past), I'm not interested in any other gear. I use a power conditioner, just to be on the safe side, and although it's absolutely plausible to me that it could improve the sound, I'm still not sure if there's a real improvement. I've also tried power cables, with similar results -- but I haven't tried expensive ones so far. I'm a bit skeptic about them, but I don't exclude that they could have an impact on the sound, the more so as some Head-Fiers whose opinion I usually respect trust them.
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

JaZZ, there is a thousand and one ways to misunderstand things.

 If you like the difference you can hear with cables, there are many that you haven't tried. You can spend the rest of your life listening to currently available and cables that come out in the future. Each year is like a different vintage.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Are you just going to go on talking past the difference between sound in general and the highly organized, patterned meaning and feeling laden sounds of a musical passage?_

 

Long term listening to a particular complex musical piece will give the impression that you're hearing new things in it, even if you're not. As you become familiar with the piece, you will be able to focus on specific threads in the arrangement. But even though you are hearing things you didn't hear before, that doesn't mean that your hearing or the music have improved... just your ability to perceive its complexity.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* 
_I can't help myself to chime in, be it only to say: I bow for the valiant effort of Riboge (& PhilS) to explain what is essential in listening. 
 I agree completely with what you are trying to bring across.
 For me that is: Not the ears, but the mind. Not the sound, but the music._

 

The irony is that I'm the one saying, "Save the money you're spending on fancy cables and buy more CDs." The value of my music collection is many, many times the value of my stereo equipment. Music is what matters most.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Because no other information is stored on the CD. Any information (harminic/ disharminic distortion) adding to that waveform is an alteration of the original signal and therefore undesired. Nonetheless measurable._

 

In other words you do mean the tautology I described.

 Why doesn't someone try "measuring" or characterizing the stuff additional to waveforms coming from the source and then do the same from the signal coming from the cable to see how this may have been changed by the cable and how it my be changed differently by different cables. It is not implausible that what better cables do, in part or in whole, is remove or correct or improve colorations, distortions and other sound elements added to the recorded waveform (or wavefrom resulting from decoding the recording).given that no source is perfect. Maybe the difference between cables would be deminimus with a perfect source. I don't know if there is anything to this, but I think it is far more promising to work backward from the fact that so many people report persisting differences they hear with different cables to try to figure out how that could be and what may contribute to it than it is to simply deny or facilely explain away such possible clues to phenomena as yet not identified or understood. Nothing would ever get discovered or invented in science proceeding that way. Generating new hypotheses is just as important to science, if not moreso, than substantiating the existing ones.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve999* 
_I don't know what his motivation is, but there is always some inherent moral value in rebutting false information, particularly where it is ruthlessly exploited to empty people's wallets._

 

If you want to know why I do this... When I was a kid in college, there were a couple of hifi nuts who pointed me in the right direction. I'm just returning the favor. The problem is that the internet is a different sort of environment than back when I was in school. The guys that helped me out could just pull me aside in a stereo store and whisper, "That salesman doesn't know what he's talking about... He's just trying to pick your pocket. Save your money and look at this instead." On the internet, you can't do that. I suppose I could PM people, but perhaps what I share might be useful to someone who's lurking and not posting.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Simply because You decree it to be so? Congratulations! Others have done their darndest, but the above might be the most arrogant and disrespectful posting in this thread._

 

There was absolutely nothing rude about that post. Can you see the irony in complaining about what you see as a bullying post by ramping up the bullying in your reply a hundred fold?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_It's quite clear that you know little about what you're talking about. Or tell me which exotic cables are designed to alter the sound!_

 

There was a cable test in Stereo Review, I believe... It found that certain Monster Cables actually were unable to fully conduct all frequencies equally. The manufacturer had designed them to give an "analogue sound" by rolling off a little of the high end. The reason the cables sounded different was because it was coloring the sound by hobbling the conductivity.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_If I listen to my system for a month while trying to figure out what the vocalist is saying, and then upgrade a cable and suddenly hear it. Did the cable give me super powers or did it give more detail?_

 

Your mind had a month to process the garbled input and interpret it. Have you ever noticed that once you understand garbled speech, you can always hear the words in it from then on? You could put the "bad" cable back on, and you would still be able to understand the words.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_If i find the 25 dollar wondercable i'll let you know. After 25 years of listening to high end and different cables in different price segments, i yet have to find that so called wonder cable!_

 

25 years! How old are you if I might ask?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Long term listening to a particular complex musical piece will give the impression that you're hearing new things in it, even if you're not. As you become familiar with the piece, you will be able to focus on specific threads in the arrangement. But even though you are hearing things you didn't hear before, that doesn't mean that your hearing or the music have improved... just your ability to perceive its complexity.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I am having trouble making a connection between what you quote from me and what you replied with here. Hence while I largely agree with what you wrote, it seems irrelevant to the discussion.

 Working hard to find some connection, this occurs to me: Are you perhaps saying that using a music passage to test differentiating cables that a difference from listening to cable A and then to cable B might be due to learning the music better from listening to A such that B sounds better due to this and not due to a cable difference? (you say it doesn't mean improved hearing or improved music (by the cable, I suppose you mean). I say it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that. It may or it may not.) You deal with that via experimental design. You use very well known music to subjects or preliminary listenings prior to testing. Also by varying the order of the cables through multiple trials you can wash out this possible effect.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_It's interesting: You suspect rip-off, fraud and sham behind virtually everything in (high-end) audio._

 

That's been my experience. Midrange equipment needs to compete in the marketplace for a particular level of quality at a particular price point. Pro grade equipment needs to perform consistently to specs. Audiophile equipment too often relies on being a status symbol and the manufacturers provide charts and diagrams that don't directly relate to what you actually hear to justify the outrageous prices. There is someone born every minute who will buy into status symbols and gobbledegook science.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Speakers in listening rooms usually have spikes and dips in the size of +/- 20 dB if measured without smoothing. Whereas cables measure virtually flat._

 

Which is precisely why it's MUCH more important to worry about the quality of your speakers and the setup of your listening room than it is to worry about the inaudible differences between cables.

 1) Speakers and room equalization
 2) Amp
 3) Source
 ...
 99,999) Cables

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_In other words you do mean the tautology I described.

 Why doesn't someone try "measuring" or characterizing the stuff additional to waveforms coming from the source and then do the same from the signal coming from the cable to see how this may have been changed by the cable and how it my be changed differently by different cables. It is not implausible that what better cables do, in part or in whole, is remove or correct or improve colorations, distortions and other sound elements added to the recorded waveform (or wavefrom resulting from decoding the recording).given that no source is perfect. Maybe the difference between cables would be deminimus with a perfect source. I don't know if there is anything to this, but I think it is far more promising to work backward from the fact that so many people report persisting differences they hear with different cables to try to figure out how that could be and what may contribute to it than it is to simply deny or facilely explain away such possible clues to phenomena as yet not identified or understood. Nothing would ever get discovered or invented in science proceeding that way. Generating new hypotheses is just as important to science, if not moreso, than substantiating the existing ones._

 

Interesting thought, i must admit.

 Now the dedicated researcher (the one who will get the nobel price in medicine for finding an unknown parameter in human hearing) would have to encircle if the perceived alteration happens in the cable or in the head wearing the headphones, before he throws away his measuring instruments. End of discussion in this forum.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Add to this that also the (measurable) flaws caused by electronics (DACs/CDPs and amps) are tiny -- smaller by a factor of 50 or 5000 -- compared to those caused by any sound transducer... So actually you just have to care about sound transducers -- if you rely on measurements alone._

 

Um... yes.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_There was absolutely nothing rude about that post. Can you see the irony in complaining about what you see as a bullying post by ramping up the bullying in your reply a hundred fold?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Wrong again. If I meant it was bullying, I would have said so. He proclaimed citing no reasons and no evidence as if from Olympus that one side of what is highly controversial with hundreds of arguments made on both sides here is simply and abolutely true as if his saying so was sufficient to end any legitimate disagreement. And then he implied that it would be immoral to think otherwise and that those who do are associated with crooks for that reason alone. Then he ended by saying in a most contemptuous way that we all amuse him looking down on us from his lofty positon above us inferiors. I wonder why you can't get how arrogant and disrespectful of his fellow headfiers that is? (once again, rhetorical) I said nothing of rudeness.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I am having trouble making a connection between what you quote from me and what you replied with here. Hence while I largely agree with what you wrote, it seems irrelevant to the discussion._

 

Keep reading. It might take some time for you to see my context. Once you do, it'll be clear as day. I'm trying to speak as plainly and straightforwardly as I can.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Wrong again. If I meant it was bullying, I would have said so. He proclaimed citing no reasons and no evidence as if from Olympus that one side of what is highly controversial with hundreds of arguments made on both sides here is simply and abolutely true as if his saying so was sufficient to end any legitimate disagreement._

 

Welcome to the internet. You're soaking in it!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Interesting thought, i must admit._

 

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_Now the dedicated researcher (the one who will get the nobel price in medicine for finding an unknown parameter in human hearing) would have to encircle if the perceived alteration happens in the cable or in the head wearing the headphones, before he throws away his measuring instruments. End of discussion in this forum._

 

I cannot figure out what this paragraph means, especially the use of the word "encircle". Please explain and/or elaborate.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Thanks for the acknowledgement.


 I cannot figure out what this paragraph means, especially the use of the word "encircle". Please explain and/or elaborate._

 

Sorry, would "narrow down" be a better term?


----------



## JohnFerrier

I enjoy Vul Kuolun's perspective. He is making the point that this is a DBT-free forum. Meaning it prohibits something that provides answers.


 .


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I enjoy Vul Kuolun's perspective. He is making the point that this is a DBT-free forum. Meaning it prohibits something that provides answers.


 ._

 

We are not allowed to talk about DBTs even in the abstract here. Good way to get a thread locked. They mean it.

 And they have problems with DBT methodology (though in my opinion those problems come from a misunderstanding about how statistical analysis of DBTs occurs), so they wouldn't consider it "providing answers." Read the wikipedia article on subjectivism versus objectivism in audio if you want a concisely worded presentation of the big divide. They feel like human ears have total primacy, while we objectivists feel that instruments have total primacy. Subjectivists believe objectivists are idiots trying to listen to numbers on paper, basically, and objectivists feel like subjectivists are prone to self-delusion regarding the limitations of human hearing.

 These debates are *always complete dialectic without any give and take on either side* because it comes down to way, way more fundamental, axiomatic issues than just audio equipment.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Not to be mistaken:

 I do not argument against the DBT-freeness of this forum. It's declared and there sure are reasons for it. It just means, the discussion can not go any further without touching this limits.

 BTW, DBT-freeness also means no one can claim "placebo-freeness" for his experiences imho. There are two sides to every coin. It's like fighting with one arm bound on your back, which is not unfair as long as both partys are treated equally.


----------



## bigshot

I believe in the primacy of the human ears too. It's just that I don't think that human ears are any more superhuman than the rest of us. Ears are great for determining what does and doesn't matter. If we all trusted our ears, we would all have nice midrange stereos. Too many people are convinced, however, that their ears should be hearing more than they actually do. They let charts and diagrams and poetic verbiage do the listening for them. It's a short hop to wrapping one's ego around it. That's the leap that stereo store salesmen always want customers to make. "Of course, if you can't hear the difference, you're lucky... here's our BUDGET line..." (complete with dripping condescention)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_We are not allowed to talk about DBTs even in the abstract here. Good way to get a thread locked. They mean it.

 And they have problems with DBT methodology (though in my opinion those problems come from a misunderstanding about how statistical analysis of DBTs occurs), so they wouldn't consider it "providing answers." Read the wikipedia article on subjectivism versus objectivism in audio if you want a concisely worded presentation of the big divide. They feel like human ears have total primacy, while we objectivists feel that instruments have total primacy. Subjectivists believe objectivists are idiots trying to listen to numbers on paper, basically, and objectivists feel like subjectivists are prone to self-delusion regarding the limitations of human hearing.

 These debates are *always complete dialectic without any give and take on either side* because it comes down to way, way more fundamental, axiomatic issues than just audio equipment._

 

Skeptics are accused of being narrow minded. Wouldn't it be more open minded to remove prohibitions?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_BTW, DBT-freeness also means no one can claim "placebo-freeness" for his experiences imho. There are two sides to every coin. It's like fighting with one arm bound on your back, which is not unfair as long as both partys are treated equally._

 

Good points.

 I've also thought how being DBT-free makes this a unique place on the internet. I doubt that it will change. And I'm not sure I'd like it to.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_We are not allowed to talk about DBTs even in the abstract here. Good way to get a thread locked. They mean it.

 And they have problems with DBT methodology (though in my opinion those problems come from a misunderstanding about how statistical analysis of DBTs occurs), so they wouldn't consider it "providing answers." Read the wikipedia article on subjectivism versus objectivism in audio if you want a concisely worded presentation of the big divide. They feel like human ears have total primacy, while we objectivists feel that instruments have total primacy. Subjectivists believe objectivists are idiots trying to listen to numbers on paper, basically, and objectivists feel like subjectivists are prone to self-delusion regarding the limitations of human hearing.

 These debates are *always complete dialectic without any give and take on either side* because it comes down to way, way more fundamental, axiomatic issues than just audio equipment._

 

For me this is most apt and very well put. Thanks.

 About the completeness of the dialectic: I who am likely labeled "subjectivist" for what I've written in this thread want to say for me it is not such a diametrical dialectric. Primacy for me is a matter of time, ie, what is possible at this moment, not importance ultimately. I will not consider what we have been discussing really well delineated or explained until the instruments can 'see' and affirm any difference there is. Either you believe there is divine influence or black magic involved or you have to believe that we should be able to cast in acceptable and rigorous scientific terms whatever is observable/audible or why it is not so. The returns are still out as to whether this means the theory has to adapt to what is reported to occur or vice versa or some blend.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_BTW, DBT-freeness also means no one can claim "placebo-freeness" for his experiences imho. There are two sides to every coin. It's like fighting with one arm bound on your back, which is not unfair as long as both partys are treated equally._

 

I agree with this too--although I sure wish we could be rid of the very inapt term "placebo." What is the case can better be stated as the fact that human perception can never be free of subjective aspects in any totally reliable way since the state of mind and body influenced by prior experiences, expectations, motives, etc., of the individual listening can always play a role as well as arbitrary elements in the setting, setup, etc. The fact that one person says he hears a cable difference is way short of enough, but the fact that many, many do warrants taking seriously and attempting to explain in a more satisfactory and less facile ways than many skeptics tend to do, but not because individual and ad hoc factors can be deemed to play no role. On the other hand, to believe it is all about the influence of salesman and higher prices is just silly.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_The fact that one person says he hears a cable difference is way short of enough, but the fact that many, many do warrants taking seriously and attempting to explain in a more satisfactory and less facile ways than many skeptics tend to do, but not because individual and ad hoc factors can be deemed to play no role._

 

Out of 43,560 Head-fiers, how many do you think hear cable differences? 200 or less?


----------



## adhoc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Out of 43,560 Head-fiers, how many do you think hear cable differences? 200 or less?_

 

That's a fallacious argument - does many people believing something make it true?


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Out of 43,560 Head-fiers, how many do you think hear cable differences? 200 or less?_

 

Aw, come on. Who knows? I could just as readily say 5,000. Who knows how many of the total have even tried to? How many would be enough to warrant explaining rather than explaining away? Remeber that if even one person can do it consistently enough to be significant, then it proves there is a difference between the cables involved that would be worth trying to explain.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Well, I keep reading "many" and now "many, many" without having any idea what that really means. Even 5,000 is less than 2% of Head-fiers.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_This is something that I've done recently. I've got a way to measure the dB level of my headphones.







 By doing this, I now consider that when my volume control is at 3 o'clock, it's like I'm amongst the orchestra. At this level, according to the measured reading and my interpertation of charts on hearing safety, I can listen at this level for about an hour. One click anti-clockwise corresponds to about where the conductor stands. Another click and I'm at front row. (I use stepped attenuators so each turn is a click. Each click is about 2 dB.) At 12 o'clock, I'm about mid-floor of the orchestra hall. And 10 o'clock, at the back of the concert hall. Currently, I like between 1 and 2 o'clock. This gives me about 3 hours of safe listening per day. (I'm using the most conservative safety guidelines used by the EPA.)_

 

With better cable it sounds like real life with lower volumes. With a muddy system you need to boost up the volume. I use below 60 dB volume and can listen 16 hours straight with no fatigue, and it sounds like real life. With xStream Statement power cables I need to increase volume by 3 dB to compensate for the muddy sound. With a full Valhalla system I have decreased the volume about 10 dB in a year.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The irony is that I'm the one saying, "Save the money you're spending on fancy cables and buy more CDs." The value of my music collection is many, many times the value of my stereo equipment. Music is what matters most.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Then why not sell your audio system and stuff the iPod full of 64 kbps mp3?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If you want to know why I do this... When I was a kid in college, there were a couple of hifi nuts who pointed me in the right direction. I'm just returning the favor. The problem is that the internet is a different sort of environment than back when I was in school. The guys that helped me out could just pull me aside in a stereo store and whisper, "That salesman doesn't know what he's talking about... He's just trying to pick your pocket. Save your money and look at this instead." On the internet, you can't do that. I suppose I could PM people, but perhaps what I share might be useful to someone who's lurking and not posting.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

First you need to know the complete truth by testing cables yourself. Otherwise it's a waste of time for you and everyone else, unless you want to make yourself believe you are doing good things and boost up your confidence, which in the end makes you selfish. You can't take power into your own hands if you don't know it all.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Your mind had a month to process the garbled input and interpret it. Have you ever noticed that once you understand garbled speech, you can always hear the words in it from then on? You could put the "bad" cable back on, and you would still be able to understand the words.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

No, when I go back to the cheaper cable I can't hear what the vocalist is saying again! I don't listen to music by trying to imagine and remember how it is supposed to sound like, I use a neutral state of mind and listen to how it currently sounds like! Who's having the placebo now?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_With better cable it sounds like real life with lower volumes. With a muddy system you need to boost up volume. I use below 60 dB volume and can listen 16 hours straight with no fatigue._

 

Great, it's 3:19 AM in Stockholm. But doesn't that only give you 60 dB of dynamic range? I like >75 dB.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Well, I keep reading "many" and now "many, many" without having any idea what that really means. Even 5,000 is less than 2% of Head-fiers._

 

5000 out of 43,650 is 11.5%, but the correct denominator of all those who have tried to hear a difference is surely much less than 43,650. Any way you slice it that's "many", and of course, whose to say it isn't actually "most" since we don't know the correct numerator?

 Why don't you do one of those polls asking who has tried and who has succeeded in hearing a difference?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_5000 out of 43,650 is 11.5%, but the correct denominator of all those who have tried to hear a difference is surely much less than 43,650. Any way you slice it that's "many", and of course, whose to say it isn't actually "most" since we don't know the correct numerator?

 Why don't you do one of those polls asking who has tried and who has succeeded in hearing a difference?_

 

Ooops, you're correct < 12%. My guess, though, is < 200. Of course, we're both guess. I just was looking for some idea of what "many" means.


----------



## Patrick82

Has anyone noticed that all skeptics have very low standards? They are sitting there with mid-fi systems thinking they get "perfect sound". They don't know what perfectionism means, they confuse it with placebo. They wonder "how can it be better than perfect?". The last thing they want to think about is that they may have poor hearing, they don't like to know about their weaknesses so instead they make themselves believe it's not a weakness but a strength, and instead the believers have the weakness because they can "hear something that isn't there". Skeptics do everything to make up things to make them feel superior.

 Like Jazz said, finite data, infinite waveform. How can it get any clearer than that?
 Waveform is different because cable makes the difference, and *people can hear a difference*, where does the placebo come from? It's just something invented by the skeptics to make them feel better about themselves.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Has anyone noticed that all skeptics have very low standards? They are sitting there with mid-fi systems thinking they get "perfect sound". They don't know what perfectionism means, they confuse it with placebo. They wonder "how can it be better than perfect?". The last thing they want to think about is that they may have poor hearing, they don't like to know about their weaknesses so instead they make themselves believe it's not a weakness but a strength, and instead the believers have the weakness because they can "hear something that isn't there". Skeptics do everything to make up things to make them feel superior.

 Like Jazz said, finite data, infinite waveform. How can it get any clearer than that?
 Waveform is different because cable makes the difference, and *people can hear a difference*, where does the placebo come from? It's just something invented by the skeptics to make them feel better about themselves._

 

Should we also devote $30,000 to cabling, as you have? You feel that only experience teaches you about anything. That's a solipsistic position, and far more skeptical than anything objectivists represent (true to the epistemological definition of "skepticism," not the term of the week to refer to objectivists). When is it okay to say the Emperor has no clothes? Why would we spend thousands and thousands of dollars to prove the null hypothesis using the same science behind the design of the headphones and speakers we listen to?

 On a different note, on seperate systems it sounds like "real life at lower volumes." The hearing curve compresses the waveform differently at different volumes, hence different sounds at lower or higher volumes depending on the system used.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Should we also devote $30,000 to cabling, as you have?_

 

Yes. My first Valhalla made the smallest difference because it only solved one problem, but the more Valhalla I added to my system the bigger the improvements got because less and less weaknesses were left. The whole system needs to be wired with the same cable, otherwise there will be bottlenecks.
 The problem is that if skeptics try a cable they only replace *one* cable instead of them all.


----------



## Konig

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Yes. My first Valhalla made the smallest difference because it only solved one problem, but the more Valhalla I added to my system the bigger the improvements got because less and less weaknesses were left. The whole system needs to be wired with the same cable, otherwise there will be bottlenecks.
 The problem is that if skeptics try a cable they only replace *one* cable instead of them all._

 

so how much did u spend on the cables?


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Konig* 
_so how much did u spend on the cables?_

 

Price doesn't matter if you want perfection. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Since I'm poor I bought the power cords used for half price and cut to shorter lengths. And instead of buying thousands worth of AC connectors I hardwired them into the components instead.
 If you arrange your system properly you can use 50 cm Valhalla power cord per component. You only need one $3000 Valhalla to feed power conditioner, amp, DAC and transport. If you buy it used it's $400 per component instead of $3000.
 I wasn't smart enough to cut my Valhalla to pieces earlier, so I have 6m cables. I use a 2 meter Valhalla with my computer for 192 kbps mp3, I can't be without it and would pay $10 000 if the price was that high and if I had the cash.


 I bought my interconnects from eBay for 1/3rd of the price. See the 1 second bid. Valhalla gives me super powers.







 I bought my single speaker cable for half price which I cut to pieces and used as headphone cable and internal wiring.

 It's the *greatest bargain ever* so I haven't bothered calculating how much I have spent, I could spend 100 times more and Valhalla would still be worth it! It's the cable of the future. If I build a city in the future I will wire everything with Valhalla.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

I rest my case. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Other subjectivists: does Patrick represent the extreme, or is it just the same rational carried logically forward? Slippery slope, or the next step? "It is weird that $30k worth of cables are the weaknesses in my system. PS Audio GCC-100 amplifier is amazing that shows it all." Who else wouldn't bat an eye laying down that much on interconnects, cables, and power cords?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_I rest my case. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Other subjectivists: does Patrick represent the extreme, or is it just the same rational carried logically forward? Slippery slope, or the next step? "It is weird that $30k worth of cables are the weaknesses in my system. PS Audio GCC-100 amplifier is amazing that shows it all." Who else wouldn't bat an eye laying down that much on interconnects, cables, and power cords?_

 

I have to agree with patrick though, that the nordost reference series interlinks made the biggest difference yet in my system...they really are THAT good! Some others are maybe as good but the siltech emperor for instance costs 9000 dollars, wich is according reviews, just as neutral. So compared to that, nordost valhalla is a bargain!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 I really would love to have a valhalla powercable on my amp!

 In general i would say get the best cables you can afford. If you have a low level system, i doubt that 30.000 dollars of cables is a good investment. Good cables shine with good equipment but with bad or mediocre systems, it lets you hear every fault in the system!

 So, no, i wouldn't suggest to everybody to rush to the nearest store and buy for a big amount of money some cables. I do know by myself now, how much of a difference a good cable can make. To me, it was like night and day!

 People, who appertly don't hear any differences can just use normal priced cables and be happy with it. People who do hear differences, can do some cable testing in the system and be surprised how much of a difference it could make.

 Don't think a 60 dollar to a 100 dollar cable is gonna be a big difference, that's probably why they think it's not worth it. A cable of more then 1000 dollars makes a bigger difference then between a 60 to a 100 dollar one!

 I think this is a the biggest mistake cable sceptics make: because they tried to replace low level cables with low level cables and didn't hear much of a difference, the same must be true for the higher priced reference series of cables. It's quite the opposite!

 I know people are not the same(hearing), so i am not judging people who say they can't hear any difference, the opposite is true, however.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_I rest my case. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Other subjectivists: does Patrick represent the extreme, or is it just the same rational carried logically forward? Slippery slope, or the next step? "It is weird that $30k worth of cables are the weaknesses in my system. PS Audio GCC-100 amplifier is amazing that shows it all." Who else wouldn't bat an eye laying down that much on interconnects, cables, and power cords?_

 

Certainly not me! It is both the hyperlogical next step and too often represents having slid way down the slippery obsessive slope as well. Perfectionism is a very high maintenance god. Yet I know that for those who can comfortably afford doing so it can bring a wonderful satisfaction of possessing the best that enhances enjoyment or even ecstasy in listening to music reproduced very very well, much similar to what certain drugs might also do at least for a while. Which gives me a seque to repeat that *the placebo effect is always temporary. Lasting perception of improvement by a cable cannot be due to the placebo effect*--though other individual and subjective factors cannot be ruled out as of yet.

 I sure wish that believers would not say such hyperbolic and antagonizing (in this context) things like: "To me, it was like night and day!" I know that the "to me" makes it technically an indesputable expression of personal valuation, but really: Night and Day means darkness to light which could only be an accurate metaphor for Music Absent and Music Present.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_*The placebo effect is always temporary. Lasting perception of improvement by a cable cannot be due to the placebo effect.*_

 

I agree with this. 

  Quote:


 _I sure wish that believers would not say such hyperbolic and antagonizing (in this context) things like: "To me, it was like night and day!" I know that the "to me" makes it technically an indesputable expression of personal valuation, but really: Night and Day means darkness to light which could only be an accurate metaphor for Music Absent and Music Present._ 
 

Very true! I'm well aware of the subjectivity of «night-and-day» experiences -- it's not that the sonic difference is night and day, just the experience and the enjoyment caused by the actually subtle improvement. That's why I usually speak of «subtle sonic effects» in the context of cables. 

 And no, I wouldn't go as far as Patrick in terms of expenses (also, I'm not into power cords so far). It helps that I make cables myself, but if I'd translate the time invested for experiments and manufacturing into money, it would probably result in similar amounts. 
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_*the placebo effect is always temporary.*._

 

I've not been one to push the idea of placebo, but can you support this with external reference? I'm not so interested in how this applies here, but to this idea generally.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Generally, human memory for sound is very short. If there is more than 20 or 30 seconds between two very similar sounds, it's impossible to tell what difference there is between them._

 

OK, let's start with this. How do you reconcile the existence of "perfect pitch" with the simplistic view of auditory memory above?

 It's a long-term auditory memory phenomenon that has several components, including genetics, experience, and critical developmental learning periods. When all of these come together, someone can always tell the pitch of a particular note, without an external referent. That means that they are using an internal referent, which has to be stored in memory. Since someone with perfect pitch can identify frequency and store it, there are virtually no limitations on the interval between two sounds for them. 

 A note is a "C" or it's not. If it is, and a second note is not, they will be able to tell you that, whether the interval between the notes is two seconds or two years.

 After shaking the simplistic view of auditory memory above, we can then move on to memory of different aspects of sound, which are not necessarily the same thing as pitch memory. Some aspects are easy to remember, others are harder. Auditory memory is also not completely separate from memory of other sensory modalities (visual cues can facilitate or attenuate auditory memory, for example). 

 Further, perception is far more complicated than triggering a receptor and having a corresponing neuron fire in your brain. Memory can also produce sensory gating, in which it actually regulates which inputs get through to the brain for processing. The traditional sensory path can be considered as "bottom-up" processing, while the regulation of that path by the brain is sometimes called "top-down" processing.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Long term listening to a particular complex musical piece will give the impression that you're hearing new things in it, even if you're not. As you become familiar with the piece, you will be able to focus on specific threads in the arrangement. But even though you are hearing things you didn't hear before, that doesn't mean that your hearing or the music have improved... just your ability to perceive its complexity._

 

At last you're talking sense, although I'm not sure that you understand the implications of what you wrote. In the late 60's, learning theorist Leon Kamin came up with the theory that learning is a function of the difference between what is perceived and what is expected (this was further elaborated by Robert Rescorla and Alan Wagner into a learning model). This can also be called "surprise", which also has an affective (emotional) component. This actually becomes smaller the better we know a piece, until it is no longer surprising to us. However, if we can change the sound, what we hear is no longer what we expect to hear. So, we now perceive differences which may be minute, but to the listener have a disproportionate affective response: the "night and day" phenomenon. For someone who has not had that listener's particular set of experiences, the difference will be smaller: they are missing the necessary pre-exposure for the difference to become dramatic.

 The flip side is that acquiring a new piece of gear alters expectations. When we expect something different, the difference between what we expect and what we know alters, and the affective response may well be different even when the actual stimulus is the same. A crude way of expressing this would be "placebo effect", but it's not, actually. Note that expectations will eventually drift back to what is heard, as the experience needed to (re)form an expectation is acquired and that the enhanced affective response will no longer occur. Again, this has to occur with experience. Repeat after me: expectation is based on experience. You don't acquire experience in a short-term listening situation. You acquire it over time.

 Any short-term test for subjective sonic differences is going to be confounded by altered expectations that simply can't be controlled for in a rapid test.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I've not been one to push the idea of placebo, but can you support this with external reference? I'm not so interested in how this applies here, but to this idea generally._

 

I'll see if I can find a reference. But also to some extent you can see it has to be so logically. It is a medical term about the pseudo-positive effect of a treatment not due to the treatment per se but the expectation/wish for a positive effect. If it were lasting it would be a real treatment success, and there would be no reason to eliminate it, say, from the count of treatment successes in an effectiveness test. (This isn't strictly true because sometimes the placebo effect on physiological abnormalities is in the patient's experience but not connected to any change in the physiology so the problem remains. Often, however, it is.)

 It occurs to me to draw the parallel to hearing an improvement with a different cable. If the improvement is lasting and is not brought with any other cable but this one in quite this way, then what practical difference does it make to the individual involved whether this is because it is caused by ideas and motivations rather than the physical nature of the cable? That is, in any case it is a quality of the cable since it lasts and comes and goes with the cable. The rub, of course, is that intellectually and scientifically it does make a difference.

 I notice as I wrote this Hirsch chimed in with much more details and impressive specifics about some of what I have stated more generally along with other helpful observations. Thanks for joining in, Hirsch.


----------



## JaZZ

Good Thoughts, _Hirsch!_
.


----------



## F1GTR

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_*In general i would say get the best cables you can afford*. If you have a low level system, i doubt that 30.000 dollars of cables is a good investment. Good cables shine with good equipment but with bad or mediocre systems, it lets you hear every fault in the system!

 So, no, i wouldn't suggest to everybody to rush to the nearest store and buy for a big amount of money some cables. I do know by myself now, how much of a difference a good cable can make. To me, it was like night and day!_

 

Based on all your replies in this thread, you present the opinion that expensive always equals "better".

 Since real world experience constantly proves that wrong, it's hard to give credence to your opinion.


----------



## F1GTR

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_Any short-term test for subjective sonic differences is going to be confounded by altered expectations that simply can't be controlled for in a rapid test._

 

Statements of absoluteness, such as this one, is why the cable debate will always remain circular.


----------



## Sovkiller

We are talking of very small differences here, not a C and D note, BTW I know of very few musicians, if any, that can tell me what a perfect pitch is, and the note and the octave, for sure, while listening, and even some of them play in incorrect pitch all the time....and if they do, for sure, an internationally accepted A note, could be 440Hz, or 444Hz, or 438Hz and still they will believe and assure that it is an "A". Just look how many people accepted as right and listened for years to "Kind of Blue" from Miles that later on they found out that was recorded in a different speed (notes should sounded different then) and later on they fix it...That is why musical instruments are tuned by instruments now days, just to facilitate and increase the accuracy in the process...and create a perfect pitch while in the past would be just aproximate...and sometimes not even that... 

 So by this same arguments, those little details that change with the upgrades, can be determined only IMO with an A/B direct comparison. Just to mention one example, let's say that you send a DVD player for upgrades. It will have later on, a better figures in jitter, filtering (that in some cases, just better caps, keeping the capacitance even at the same value, and going from no brand caps, or bad ones, to Nichicon, which will make an even less noticeable difference) the distortion maybe is less, biasing OP Amps in class A at the output, but keeping them exactly the same ones, those are basically the mods they do, right? And coming here and say that after the player was out for 3-4 months, (and in the meanwhile you are listening other players, as well) you have a DVD player, that sounded day and night in comparison to the stock one, that the last time you heard it was 4 months ago, and this and that was improved, and changed, is IMO naive to call it the least, Gimme a break!!! If you guys want to believe those arguments, that is up to you, I will not sorry...Unless you have two players, one stock and other modded, do not tell me about improvements you heard, if they are of that little magnitude, if any...

 No decent manufacturer IMO will make a product that sound really bad, what for, it will not sell for sure, (and I'm not talking of mass market ones, OK?) so always those differences are small, they exist, of course, and for some more obvious that for others, but still small...Could be corrected but to call them day and night.....


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_ *the placebo effect is always temporary. Lasting perception of improvement by a cable cannot be due to the placebo effect*._

 

That could be the reason why there's always another curtain/veil/harshness left to be pulled away by the next tweak/ cable/ piece of gear.

 Traveling this forum, it's my personal, unverified impression that the "gear-carousel" of the believing fraction turns multiple times faster than the pragmatists.
 The process of trying out new stuff itself seems to have a high importance, often more than reaching a certain target.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_We are talking of very small differences here, not a C and D note, BTW I know of very few musicians, if any, that can tell me what a perfect pitch is, and the note and the octave, for sure, while listening, and even some of them play in incorrect pitch all the time....and if they do, for sure, an internationally accepted A note, could be 440Hz, or 444Hz, or 438Hz and still they will believe and assure that it is an "A". Just look how many people accepted as right and listened for years to "Kind of Blue" from Miles that later on they found out that was recorded in a different speed (notes should sounded different then) and later on they fix it...That is why musical instruments are tuned by instruments now days, just to facilitate and increase the accuracy in the process...and create a perfect pitch while in the past would be just aproximate...and sometimes not even that..._

 

And yet leading skeptics (locally, anyway) write such things as:
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bigshot* 
_...And by the way, the best way to find classical recordings to use for equalization balancing is to use recordings of a local orchestra. There's a record of Giulini conducting the LAPO that I use because *I've been to the Dorothy Chandler enough to know how it should sound.* (I actually attended a performance of Giulini conducting that particular symphony.)

 In order to know what natural acoustic instruments should sound like, you need to be familiar with them. I suspect you haven't been to many philharmonic concerts, but I'm just guessing here._

 

Just how do you go about doing these things unless you can remember what music sounded like after some time! We all have experiences vividly recalling music from our early years and can immediately identify the old recording when we hear it or tell when it is a later imitation no matter how well done. Give it up. It's getting absurd these arguments against the obvious and ubiquitous truth of lasting musical memory--not sounds, not precise pitches, but music!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_the placebo effect is always temporary. Lasting perception of improvement by a cable cannot be due to the placebo effect_

 

Wouldn't that explain why cable fans tend to churn their cables... trying out one and then another and selling the first and so on?

 Also, how many cable fans will go back and recompare their old and new cables a month or two later to verify their comparisons?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_Any short-term test for subjective sonic differences is going to be confounded by altered expectations that simply can't be controlled for in a rapid test._

 

And that's a great argument for doing the type of test that's not allowed in this forum. If you don't know what you're listening to is, there are no expectations. With this sort of arrangement, direct A/B comparison is the best way to detect differences.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Just how do you go about doing these things unless you can remember what music sounded like after some time!_

 

I've had a friend play acoustic guitar against a recording of acoustic guitar to help me EQ my system. It really helped for the high end.

 The quote you were using there was directed to Patrick, who I doubt would be able to identify the sound of an oboe, viola or tympany if his life depended on it, and it was instructions for how to use an equalizer.

 When EQing, there is a very narrow point where the presence becomes vivid. It may be more a matter of clearing up masking problems than your ability to identify the sound of a natural instrument. But using natural instruments as a guide gets you there a lot faster than just EQing to whatever sounds good with no baseline at all. Synths can sound like anything. That's why they aren't useful for adjusting your EQ to.

 If you do a google search for "long term auditory memory" you'll find that our longer term memory for sounds is more along the lines of the conceptual relation between sounds. We will remember whether something was louder or higher pitched than something else, but we can't easily identify subtle differences in sound separated by time, like determining the difference between two cables... assuming a difference even exists. Applying the musical instrument analogy: we may be able to discern the sound of a viola, but we would have a hard time discerning the difference between similar sounding violas that we heard at two totally separate times.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_And that's a great argument for doing the type of test that's not allowed in this forum. If you don't know what you're listening to is, there are no expectations. With this sort of arrangement, direct A/B comparison is the best way to detect differences._

 

No, you've missed it again. Affect, in the model described above, is a function of the difference between what is expected and what is perceived. Affect (or emotion/motivation) does affect perception (That's the foundation of the whole so-called "objectivist" argument). However, removal of expectation doesn't leave perception in a vacuum, where all you hear is the sound. Expectation is still present, however, in the absence of cues it becomes random, which causes affect to become increasingly random also. Increased randomness in affect can cause increased variance in perception, which can actually mask any real differences that might be present.

 To study perceptual differences, you need to control expectation, not eliminate it.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I've had a friend play acoustic guitar against a recording of acoustic guitar to help me EQ my system. It really helped for the high end.

 The quote you were using there was directed to Patrick, who I doubt would be able to identify the sound of an oboe, viola or tympany if his life depended on it, and it was instructions for how to use an equalizer.


 When EQing, there is a very narrow point where the presence becomes vivid. It may be more a matter of clearing up masking problems than your ability to identify the sound of a natural instrument. But using natural instruments as a guide gets you there a lot faster than just EQing to whatever sounds good with no baseline at all. Synths can sound like anything. That's why they aren't useful for adjusting your EQ to.

 If you do a google search for "long term auditory memory" you'll find that our longer term memory for sounds is more along the lines of the conceptual relation between sounds. We will remember whether something was louder or higher pitched than something else, but we can't easily identify subtle differences in sound separated by time, like determining the difference between two cables... assuming a difference even exists. Applying the musical instrument analogy: we may be able to discern the sound of a viola, but we would have a hard time discerning the difference between similar sounding violas that we heard at two totally separate times.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

There you go again reverting to talking about remembering sounds rather than music. The conceptual or conceivable(as in composing) relation between sounds you refer to as indeed memorable is called Music.

 Also, my guitar teacher could indeed remember the difference in the sound of specific guitars because he has been trained to do so. I witnessed him doing this in the process of helping me audition guitars. Musicians do this sort of thing all the time, like being able to tell you the maker or origin of an instrument by its sound and without seeing it. When an old important friend calls on the phone unexpectly after a long time out of contact, one might very well recognize his/her voice with the first words before anything is said that gives any clues. If I told you that you would be killed if you did not pick out the right viola after hearing the right one and one other once, odds are you would remain alive. I could go on and on. What these all have in common is the meaningful and/or emotional content of these sounds for the particular listener and training. You've got both of these with good music listened to by audiophiles.

 Finally, you are just being intellectually dishonest to dismiss the meaning of the quote from you about remembering how a certain venue should sound which in no way changes its meaning whomever it is addressed to and the fact that you described your use of your memory for sound and music in just the way one would remember the way a certain cable should sound and so would be able to recognize when you were hearing something different, meaning it was a different cable.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_There you go again reverting to talking about remembering sounds rather than music. The conceptual or conceivable(as in composing) relation between sounds you refer to as indeed memorable is called Music.

 Also, my guitar teacher could indeed remember the difference in the sound of specific guitars because he has been trained to do so. I witnessed him doing this in the process of helping me audition guitars. Musicians do this sort of thing all the time, like being able to tell you the maker or origin of an instrument by its sound and without seeing it. When an old important friend calls on the phone unexpectly after a long time out of contact, one might very well recognize his/her voice with the first words before anything is said that gives any clues. If I told you that you would be killed if you did not pick out the right viola after hearing the right one and one other once, odds are you would remain alive. I could go on and on. What these all have in common is the meaningful and/or emotional content of these sounds for the particular listener and training. You've got both of these with good music listened to by audiophiles._

 

You can identify musicians playing, and I think, that in the case of your teacher it is very probably that is what happen indeed, not only by the sound of the instrument, also by the technique they use, some are able to do things other won't even dare to try, and there are also some characteristic details of the performance, . as well that are very personal, that is what make Charlie Parker, Monk, Armstrong, Coltrane, Duke so unique, they way they play, not the sound while playing, or the sound of the instruments, how many different sounding pianos did Duke Ellington used, BTW recodings at the beginning of the century were really bad, and to indentify even an instrument alone was really hard, let alone between two different kinds of it...


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_You can identify musicians playing, and I think, that in the case of your teacher it is very probably that is what happen indeed, not only by the sound of the instrument, also by the technique they use, some are able to do things other won't even dare to try, and there are also some characteristic details of the performance, . as well that are very personal, that is what make Charlie Parker, Monk, Armstrong, Coltrane, Duke so unique, they way they play, not the sound while playing, or the sound of the instruments, how many different sounding pianos did Duke Ellington used, BTW recodings at the beginning of the century were really bad, and to indentify even an instrument alone was really hard, let alone between two different kinds of it..._

 

Can't your read? We were trying out guitars. There were no other musicians or performers or performances involved. Heavens, look at the lengths you go to distort in order to refute. I am embarrassed for you.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Can't your read? We were trying out guitars. There were no other musicians or performers or performances involved. Heavens, look at the lengths you go to distort in order to refute. I am embarrassed for you._

 

No need of feeling embarrassed for anybody, and I was not distorting your post, and I can read, of course, and sorry but as I do not believe that, I was just trying to point out that maybe was inside a performance, but given that you refuse to take it, I will be brutally honest with you: Nobody can tell the manufacturer of any instrument by listening it, or by ear, at least not without a huge margin of error, as the same instrument played by two different performers will sound slightly different, and less nowadays when you have literally thousands of them, my brother plays classical guitar as well, and I know a few musicians, you are not alone on that. To identify one instrument by the way it was played is one thing, to identify between two different ones is another thing, and to guess the brand of the instrument with any other reference is another almost impossible to achieve...she was simply guessing and period...with more or less luck...


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Can't your read? We were trying out guitars. There were no other musicians or performers or performances involved. Heavens, look at the lengths you go to distort in order to refute. I am embarrassed for you._

 






 Man, that's what i call hostile. I always thought i tended to be aggressive. But If you're not bullying, i don't know.

 I know, your point is the ability of the human brain to remember sounds/music/pitch/whatever.

 But if musicians are trained to recognise and remember such differences, i wonder why exotic cables play almost no role in the world of professional musicians and recording engineers (which have by far the most training in judging subtle differences in sound, even more than musicians- not to mention the average voodoophile audio enthusiast). This is a phenomenon limited to people exposed to audiophile marketing strategies.

 BTW, talking about the sounds of different guitars: the differences are drastic most of the time. Measuring these differences would be childs play, no musician would have concerns about secret testing methods.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_No need of feeling embarrassed for anybody, and I was not distorting your post, and I can read, of course, and sorry but as I do not believe that, I was just trying to point out that maybe was inside a performance, but given that you refuse to take it, I will be brutally honest with you: Nobody can tell the manufacturer of any instrument by listening it, or by ear, at least not without a huge margin of error, as the same instrument played by two different performers will sound slightly different, and less nowadays when you have literally thousands of them, my brother plays classical guitar as well, and I know a few musicians, you are not alone on that. To identify one instrument by the way it was played is one thing, to identify between two different ones is another thing, and to guess the brand of the instrument with any other reference is another almost impossible to achieve...she was simply guessing and period...with more or less luck..._

 

This is not necessarily true. For mass produced instruments I would suspect true, but for high end instruments that are hand made, they can sound very different from piece to piece . I have friends that can tell different Strad violins by their sound, and even I can hear the difference between a Guarnerius del Gesu, and a Strad, so a trained musician doing the same with a guitar is not unreasonable.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_






 Man, that's what i call hostile. I always thought i tended to be aggressive. But If you're not bullying, i don't know.

 I know, your point is the ability of the human brain to remember sounds/music/pitch/whatever.

 But if musicians are trained to recognise and remember such differences, i wonder why exotic cables play almost no role in the world of professional musicians and recording engineers. This is a phenomenon limited to people exposed to audiophile marketing strategies._

 

I do feel hostile. I have been trying my best to engage others in an honest and meaningful discussion, but over and over encounter such gross lack of good faith from others who don't read what's written, only speak but never listen, refuse to explain when someone shows he is listening, berry pick from what's written to distort and make cheap points, deny the obvious, etc. It is very frustrating and disappointing as well. I guess in some sense I have been bullying toward the end of intellectual honestly and useful discourse. Your objection is correct to the extent that it is futile to try to change others.

 Take your own comment on the issue. Repeatedly people have pointed out that recording music and reproducing it are quite different enterprises and that there is no reason to assume that cables in one area should be used identically with cables in the other. It would be best if you addressed that point or stopped bringing up what otherwise is completely off point. Is that bullying to say or a frank and to the point response?

 I have been a teacher of my profession and other things for decades. I guess now that I am retired I am trying to offer something along that line here since I am also involved in the subject deeply. I feel I have quite a stake in scientific and intellectual rigor as well as in what brings pleasure with music, and I do hear differences in cables consistently though I am no ace at it. I see no necessary antagonism between these things if taken in a full and understanding enough perspective, which is what I have been trying to communicate. The efforts to express this here have helped me develop my own thoughts, as with all worthwhile teaching efforts. But I can see when enough is enough even if later than could be. So that's it for me.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_*the placebo effect is always temporary. Lasting perception of improvement by a cable cannot be due to the placebo effect*_

 

If I have placebo it has lasted my whole life, I never had anything short. If I have placebo I can accept that because all I care about is truth and enlightenment.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Wouldn't that explain why cable fans tend to churn their cables... trying out one and then another and selling the first and so on?_

 

No, they want to search for a different coloration that they like the most.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Also, how many cable fans will go back and recompare their old and new cables a month or two later to verify their comparisons?_

 

Doesn't everyone?? How else can you know if it was worth it? Why buy more cables and lose thousands if there's a chance they don't do anything? That's just silly.

 I had my cables in my system for a year until they were worthy for pictures. Because after a year of comparing against other cables there were no doubts anymore. I don't tell anyone to do something until I'm 100% sure. I don't understand how you can tell people not to buy cables if you haven't even tried it for yourself.

 The difference is "subtle" at first in a crappy system yes, but eventually you hear huge differences the more you upgrade, and later you call the further improvements night and day, because how else can you explain an improvement bigger than huge? You need to make up new stronger words... Night and day isn't enough for me now, the improvement with Valhalla is bigger.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I do feel hostile. I have been trying my best to engage others in an honest and meaningful discussion, but over and over encounter such gross lack of good faith from others who don't read what's written, only speak but never listen, refuse to explain when someone shows he is listening, berry pick from what's written to distort and make cheap points, deny the obvious, etc. It is very frustrating and disappointing as well. I guess in some sense I have been bullying toward the end of intellectual honestly and useful discourse. Your objection is correct to the extent that it is futile to try to change others.

 Take your own comment on the issue. Repeatedly people have pointed out that recording music and reproducing it are quite different enterprises and that there is no reason to assume that cables in one area should be used identically with cables in the other. It would be best if you addressed that point or stopped bringing up what otherwise is completely off point. Is that bullying to say or a frank and to the point response?

 I have been a teacher of my profession and other things for decades. I guess now that I am retired I am trying to offer something along that line here since I am also involved in the subject deeply. I feel I have quite a stake in scientific and intellectual rigor as well as in what brings pleasure with music, and I do hear differences in cables consistently though I am no ace at it. I see no necessary antagonism between these things if taken in a full and understanding enough perspective, which is what I have been trying to communicate. The efforts to express this here have helped me develop my own thoughts, as with all worthwhile teaching efforts. But I can see when enough is enough even if later than could be. So that's it for me._

 

Great post!

 They cherry pick words and ignore the rest and just keep on going with the same comments. They use short-term memory to compare cables. They forget what is being said in a few minutes older posts etc.
 What is wrong with their long-term memory?
 It's like arguing about colors with a color blind person. You NEED long-term memory for music.

 P.S. Recording and playback isn't the same!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_If I have placebo it has lasted my whole life, I never had anything short. If I have placebo I can accept that because all I care about is truth and enlightenment.

 No, they want to search for a different coloration that they like the most.

 Doesn't everyone?? How else can you know if it was worth it? Why buy more cables and lose thousands if there's a chance they don't do anything? That's just silly.

 I had my cables in my system for a year until they were worthy for pictures. Because after a year of comparing against other cables there were no doubts anymore. I don't tell anyone to do something until I'm 100% sure. I don't understand how you can tell people not to buy cables if you haven't even tried it for yourself.

 The difference is "subtle" at first in a crappy system yes, but eventually you hear huge differences the more you upgrade, and later you call the further improvements night and day, because how else can you explain an improvement bigger than huge? You need to make up new stronger words... Night and day isn't enough for me now, the improvement with Valhalla is bigger._

 

Well, you could say valhalla was the best thing that happened to my system.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Well, you could say valhalla was the best thing that happened to my system.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It is better than best, nothing is even close. I can use a different source and amp and it still sounds good as long as I have Valhalla cables.
 I remember 22 months ago I plugged in Valhalla interconnect into $99 EMU0404 soundcard. I heard a subtle difference compared to $100 cable!
 Valhalla lets me hear the source and that is all I care about. Then if the source sounds bad I don't care, it still sounds good because the window is open without anything in front! I only hear the source.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_It is better than best, nothing is even close. I can use a different source and amp and it still sounds good as long as I have Valhalla cables.
 I remember 22 months ago I plugged in Valhalla interconnect into $99 EMU0404 soundcard. I heard a subtle difference compared to $100 cable!
 Valhalla lets me hear the source and that is all I care about. Then if the source sounds bad I don't care, it still sounds good because the window is open without anything in front! I only hear the source._

 

Ever tried the 9000 dollars siltech emperor, suppose to be as good as the valhalla, although valhalla does for 1/3 of the price.


----------



## Steve999

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EricP* 
_1) This thread is not meant to be a rehash of the "skeptic's challenge" wherein someone says "cable upgrades are useless lol"
 ...
 If you do not have a knowledgeable (and scientifically correct) technical explanation, please refrain from gibberish.

 Thanks,
 Eric_

 

Okay, back to the original poster. He was looking for a knowledgeable, scientifically correct technical explanation. That's a tall order. Here are two good reads:

http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p3.htm#interconnects

http://www.sandman.co.nz/index.php?p...e_nonsense.php


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I do feel hostile. I have been trying my best to engage others in an honest and meaningful discussion, but over and over encounter such gross lack of good faith from others who don't read what's written, only speak but never listen, refuse to explain when someone shows he is listening, berry pick from what's written to distort and make cheap points, deny the obvious, etc. It is very frustrating and disappointing as well. I guess in some sense I have been bullying toward the end of intellectual honestly and useful discourse. Your objection is correct to the extent that it is futile to try to change others._

 

You know, i don't feel any of the participants is willing to allow oneself to be conveinced or even get teached. (Same goes for Mr. Hirsch "repeat after me"). The ones willing to learn read, instead of writing. Those willing to contribute to the picture write.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Take your own comment on the issue. Repeatedly people have pointed out that recording music and reproducing it are quite different enterprises and that there is no reason to assume that cables in one area should be used identically with cables in the other. It would be best if you addressed that point or stopped bringing up what otherwise is completely off point. Is that bullying to say or a frank and to the point response?_

 

What you do here is the following:
 -don't read what's written
 -only speak but never listen
 -make cheap points
 -deny the obvious

 It's not a frank and to the point response.

 Though you're obviously not patrick or tourmaline, i must assume you're not misreading accidently.

 I'm not talking about cables in recording, i'm talking about which clientel uses the stuff we're talking about and which don't, although being able to use the brought up key qualification in a way like none of the other users can. Where was i talking about using the cables for recording instead of reproducing? Where are the posts that make a point in differentiating between the different applications?


 You know, two sides to every coin.

 Bye then. Your posts were of the more interesting kind.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_You know, i don't feel any of the participants is willing to allow oneself to be conveinced or even get teached. (Same goes for Mr. Hirsch "repeat after me"). The ones willing to learn read, instead of writing. Those willing to contribute to the picture write.
 What you do here is the following:
 -don't read what's written
 -only speak but never listen
 -make cheap points
 -deny the obvious
 It's not a frank and to the point response._

 

You're not the one to teach friendly and respectful behavior to others. Almost every single one of your posts is furnished with sarcasm and disrespect for audiophiles (you know: those naive people who are easily seducible by salesmen and advertisements). 

 Myself I also wouldn't have responded to Sovkiller's post the way you would have considered adequate: He has managed to distort Riboge's statements in a ridiculous way to make them suitable for his own ideology (which you share by accident) and doesn't deserve any serious answer. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_So that's it for me._

 

It's a pity -- and doesn't correspond to your usual level -- that you have to react this way just because of a post I for one wouldn't have taken seriously at all.
.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve999* 
_Okay, back to the original poster. He was looking for a knowledgeable, scientifically correct technical explanation. That's a tall order. Here are two good reads:

http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p3.htm#interconnects

http://www.sandman.co.nz/index.php?p...e_nonsense.php_

 

Good reads, asa cable believer i read some interesting stuff. Even they state carefully constructed cables are a must. The only thing they cannot measure is what i hear. I hear consistantly better portrail of audio in my so called expensive cable then with a cheaper one. if this was all placebo, then i wouldn't hear a difference at random, right? Since i hear the differences all the time, when i go forth and back, i can rule out placebo.

 The only thing i can think of,is that one cable is better designed according the rules then others and sound therefor better? I hear a difference, aslo blind test in my own system.

 I want to hear the same things in the cheap cable, so i can use the rest of the money for other things, but the truth is, i just don't. The more expensive cable is consistantly sounding better in my system! Maybe caue the cable is better constructed and causes no problems in the amp!

  Quote:


 The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.

 Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.). 
 

So, if i read this, there is a loss in frequency in bad constructed cables afer all, so the better constructed cable should be able to let you hear extended frequency, wich is waht i hear, extension in top and bottom.

  Quote:


 While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! 
 

 true, some really sound bad, so in general, we can say that a good sounding cable is constructed better to the physical laws?! So in short, good constructed cables match better with the amp and should sound better!


----------



## JohnFerrier

Since this forum has certain limitations, I have to guage the value of opinions based on knowledge of many aspects of an audio system. There are too many things that could make a difference in audibility that I don't read about for me to think that one can hear small differences in cables. Not that it's technically possible in the first place.

 Life is much about attitude, in this regard, it's best to have a positive outlook and "believe". I've got my setup tuned very well now. My inexpensive and stock cables sound like $10,000 cables. Bigger than big. Beyond products, it's also about techniques. And this is within reach of everyone willing to focus some time and money in the proper directions.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_You know, i don't feel any of the participants is willing to allow oneself to be conveinced or even get teached. (Same goes for Mr. Hirsch "repeat after me"). The ones willing to learn read, instead of writing. Those willing to contribute to the picture write._

 

You are correct. I'm an empiricist, as opposed to an "objectivist". I trust the opinions of people whose listening preferences I understand. I trust my own ears. Beyond that, I will NOT trust so-called "data" unless it meets rigorous scientific criteria for tight experimental design.

 However, in order to do any kind of testing that meets rigorous scientific criteria, you need to understand the systems you are studying. Subjective perception is a bit complicated, to put it mildly, and everything I've seen that purports to be objective scientific testing in regards to audio cables is simply not designed properly (and I'm expert in this area). If the experiment is bad, the data are meaningless. There's nothing there to learn.

 And yes, repeated idiocy will make me sarcastic.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_I'm an empiricist, as opposed to an "objectivist". I trust the opinions of people whose listening preferences I understand. I trust my own ears. Beyond that, I will NOT trust so-called "data" unless it meets rigorous scientific criteria for tight experimental design._

 

What differences do you hear with cables?


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_No, you've missed it again. Affect, in the model described above, is a function of the difference between what is expected and what is perceived. Affect (or emotion/motivation) does affect perception (That's the foundation of the whole so-called "objectivist" argument). However, removal of expectation doesn't leave perception in a vacuum, where all you hear is the sound. Expectation is still present, however, in the absence of cues it becomes random, which causes affect to become increasingly random also. Increased randomness in affect can cause increased variance in perception, which can actually mask any real differences that might be present.

 To study perceptual differences, you need to control expectation, not eliminate it._

 

In other words, the differences between cables are too small to be heard if you do not expect the cable to change the sound anyway. Differences will get masked through the arise of confusion of not knowing what difference to expect.

 So the next time someone asks if thisandthat cable will solve thisorthat problem, the believers camp will give the deliberate advice: "No, not worth it. The differences with cables are highly dependant on your expectation. The difference made by the cable is too small to be percieved as long as your expectations don't meet with the cables atributes."



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_You are correct. I'm an empiricist, as opposed to an "objectivist". I trust the opinions of people whose listening preferences I understand. I trust my own ears. Beyond that, I will NOT trust so-called "data" unless it meets rigorous scientific criteria for tight experimental design.

 However, in order to do any kind of testing that meets rigorous scientific criteria, you need to understand the systems you are studying. Subjective perception is a bit complicated, to put it mildly, and everything I've seen that purports to be objective scientific testing in regards to audio cables is simply not designed properly (and I'm expert in this area). If the experiment is bad, the data are meaningless. There's nothing there to learn.

 And yes, repeated idiocy will make me sarcastic._

 

As without a doubt you know what you're talking about, i would be really interested in how a proper test would have to be designed in your eyes.
 What's the difference between the data from a maybe incorrect designed contra- cable tests, and nevertheless at least equally unverified data from reported and self-expirienced "tests" supporting cable sound? Or, in other words, what gives the unverified data from your hearing experience a higher value than data from a non-perfect, but endeavored pseudo-scintific test?

 Though speaking of repeated idiocy -meaning objectivists- is not very convincing looking at the current believers camp statements altogether imho.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_In other words, the differences between cables are too small to be heard if you do not expect the cable to change the sound anyway. Differences will get masked through the arise of confusion of not knowing what difference to expect._

 

No, actually very large sonic differences can be masked by the brain. Perception is an interaction between the sensory receptor and the brain, with communication going both ways. If the brain is shutting down input pathways prior to the sensory signal actually reaching the brain (and it was demonstrated many years ago that this happens), whatever information is in that pathway is lost before it can be "perceived".

 Attention also plays a role. If you're attending to one aspect of the sound, and the real differences are somewhere else, you may miss them. There is a limit to the amount of sensory information that you can process, and one of the functions of attention is to reduce that information down to a manageable level. Unfortunately, there is no way to know if the information that is filtered is critical or not.

  Quote:


 So the next time someone asks if thisandthat cable will solve thisorthat problem, the believers camp will give the deliberate advice: "No, not worth it. The differences with cables are highly dependant on your expectation. The difference made by the cable is too small to be percieved as long as your expectations don't meet with the cables atributes." 
 

No, my advice is "trust your ears, and give things time. First impressions are often wrong".

  Quote:


 As without a doubt you know what you're talking about, i would be really interested in how a proper test would have to be designed in your eyes.
 What's the difference between the data from a maybe incorrect designed contra- cable tests, and nevertheless at least equally unverified data from reported and self-expirienced "tests" supporting cable sound? 
 

There have been several threads on appropriate experimental designs, and I get tired of repeating myself. The search function should turn up a lot of my previous postings.

  Quote:


 Though speaking of repeated idiocy -meaning objectivists- is not very convincing looking at the current believers camp statements altogether imho. 
 

Idiocy can go either way. A subjectivist who says "this is so" rather than "this is what I heard" is as much an idiot as anyone else. However, there's a special place for people who trot out bad science and call it "proof". An opinion is an opinion. All opinions are valid, regardless of whether the person is a subjectivist, objectivist, or anything else. However, science goes a bit further than opinion, and attempts to formulate testable hypotheses that can eliminate alternate explanations of a phenomenon. As long as an experiment does not have the proper controls to eliminate confounding variables, then it may look pretty, and even be convincing to someone who hasn't studied perception or experimental design, but it isn't science. Further (and this happens in areas far more important than audio cables), bad science being accepted as dogma can actually set the real science back by years, and slow down the body of work needed to actually understand what's really going on.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_What differences do you hear with cables?_

 

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/search.php


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/search.php_

 

I don't have time to search through them all right now. The first one I did find was the following.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_The Jena Labs cable was tonally very rich, and sound was very enveloping. However, there was a very spread out image, and placement was not precise. Sort of a smearing across the stage, if you will. The Cardas Gold Reference is a very precise cable. Loads of detail and pinpoint imaging. However, it was tonally drier than the Jena Labs cable, and the thing I remember most about the Cardas was its lack of dynamics, something the Jena Labs cable had plenty of._

 

How do you rule out that this wasn't your imagination? Especially, since you require "testing that meets rigorous scientific criteria".


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_...Though speaking of repeated idiocy - meaning objectivists - is not very convincing looking at the current believers camp statements altogether imho._

 

Mark, you're really on a crusade, right? And convinced to fight for the good thing against the axis of evil. 

 I just want to remind you that it's not adequate to speak of «believers» when it comes to audiophiles and people who hear sonic differences in cables. As it doesn't take any sort of belief to hear them -- quite the opposite: the best precondition is an open mind, free from ideologies. Whereas it doesn't really hurt to hear other people's opinions that there are real differences; it's still up to you to decide if they're real (enough) for you personally. 

 Also I'm quite skeptical in terms of the denomination «objectivist» for people who rely on the current state of physics, electro- and psychoacoustics (or their interpretation thereof, resp.) as absolute guideline to which they subordinate and downright sacrifice their personal sensual perception. I know of enough cases of people who in fact do hear differences, but have «learned» to ignore them because of said ideologic indoctrination. 

 As I see it -- and it's not a really implausible deduction -- a mind (de)formed in the above-described manner is highly susceptible to become fanatic. 

 So are «subjectivists» more objective than «objectivists» when it comes to cable comparisons? Personally I'm convinced of it.

 To give another example of how unrealistic the objectivist position is: Still none of them (the cable skeptics) can answer why amps are allowed to produce sonic differences, while cables are not. The «best» answer I got so far was that electronics are «pretty well optimized». Period. 
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_To give another example of how unrealistic the objectivist position is: Still none of them (the cable skeptics) can answer why amps are allowed to produce sonic differences, while cables are not. The «best» answer I got so far was that electronics are «pretty well optimized». Period. _

 

This recurs as if it's a strong argument. Quite simply, you are working the wrong direction. You have to understand simple things before you understand more complex things. The variables involved with cables are much smaller. Once a person understands how much cables really change sound, then you might progress from there.


 . spelling


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_This recurs as if it's a strong argument. Quite simply, you are working the wrong direction. You have to understand simple things before you understand more complex things. The variables involved with cables are much smaller. Once a person understands how much cables really change sound, then you might progress from there._

 

So you belong to the people who understand how much cables really change the sound? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Yes, amps are more complex than cables. But what has complexitiy to do with sonic impact? To give you an example: An electrostatic driver element is not more complex than a cable. Bigger, maybe, but not more complex. But you may know how much sonic variation is possible among electrostatic speakers and headphones. 

 The true «objectivist» approach would be to look at the measuring data to know if there's really a potential for the sonic differences people claim. We had this discussion before, and I had reduced the question to modern SS amps with their ultra-low FR and harmonic distortion clearly below the hearing threshold according to the classic EE school. Now, where in the measurings do you see the potential for sonic differences under these circumstances? This time I'm not satisfied with the «pretty well optimized electronics». 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_ Quite simply, you are working the wrong direction. You have to understand simple things before you understand more complex things. The variables involved with cables are much smaller. Once a person understands how much cables really change sound, then you might progress from there.
_

 

I'm tyring to stay out of this thread, and no offense intended, John, but this response is a complete sidestep of the issue raised repeatedly by Jazz (regarding differences in sound between amps). You're not a politician running for office, are you?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_An electrostatic driver element is not more complex than a cable._

 

I would think that converting electrical energy into mechanical energy was more complex than the simple flow of electrons.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_So you belong to the people who understand how much cables really change the sound?_

 

It's human for imagination to mismatch reality.


 .


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I'm tyring to stay out of this thread, and no offense intended, John, but this response is a complete sidestep of the issue raised repeatedly by Jazz (regarding differences in sound between amps). You're not a politician running for office, are you? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I know where the forum is to discuss amps. It's JaZZ who is sidestepping the issue, by bringing this up in the first place. I've posted in the amps forum. I asked about stepped attenuators and people provided interesting feedback.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_No, actually very large sonic differences can be masked by the brain. Perception is an interaction between the sensory receptor and the brain, with communication going both ways. If the brain is shutting down input pathways prior to the sensory signal actually reaching the brain (and it was demonstrated many years ago that this happens), whatever information is in that pathway is lost before it can be "perceived".

 Attention also plays a role. If you're attending to one aspect of the sound, and the real differences are somewhere else, you may miss them. There is a limit to the amount of sensory information that you can process, and one of the functions of attention is to reduce that information down to a manageable level. Unfortunately, there is no way to know if the information that is filtered is critical or not._

 

We're getting into DBT here. I only wanna comment, that it's not plausible to me why one should be able to tell, for example, that a cable makes a wider stage than another, and in a controlled test shouldn't be able to tell the two apart. When the aspect in question is known, i don't see a reason why perception should filter exactly this information.



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_No, my advice is "trust your ears, and give things time. First impressions are often wrong"._

 

Sorry. The fact that people believe to hear solder joints burn in, miraculous high-budget "sound-stones" lying on the CDP and much more nonsense makes this advice not sufficient for me. You know, there's an editor from a german "HiFi"-magazine, affirming he's able to tell what material the floor covering was made of , in which a particular CD was stored before playing (!). I cannot draw a line between cableism and nonsense like that on the basis of your statement.

 @JaZZ: Please stop questioning my motivation. As you might recognise, all i do is ask questions, and i do the more so, the more informed the poster seems to me. You know, lines are not drawn as sharp as you might think. It's not that objectivists don't search and hope for success in getting better sound. It's a goal we're all after. We just use different filters for our search for the holy grail. And beeing an objectivist about cables and karma-stones doesn't mean one doesn't allow himself the luxury of beeing a subjectivist when it comes to amps. 
 BTW, here's a link of a quite well designed test between an awfull expensive SR Emitter and a reasonable Mid-Fi amp. There aren't few people telling you quite the same about amps than cables. Not sure if you know this one (sorry, it's german):

http://www.hifi-forum.de/viewthread-83-1053.html

 Untill now, i always found the objectivists to be far(!) more informed and open minded then the other camp. In fact, i found them to be the ones to gather information first, then set a objective of what to achieve at all , which is a normal procedure for a new acqisition. In the other camp, "the way often seems to be the goal" (don't know if there's an english term for that).
 Exceptions are really seldom, but exist. I Know that.
 If all the subjetivists statements had the level of Hirschs, there'll be absolutely no reason for sarcasm. But you should know pretty well there are other participants than that.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I would think that converting electrical energy into mechanical energy was more complex than the simple flow of electrons._

 

The action itself is more complex, indeed (although not by a great margin), but the device itself has about the same if not lower complexity as a cable. Two holed electrode plates and a stretched metallized plastic membrane in between. 

 But what about measuring data? Aren't they the nuts and bolts of «objectivists» for verifying the reality of perceived sonic effects?


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I know where the forum is to discuss amps. It's JaZZ who is sidestepping the issue, by bringing this up in the first place._

 

You know exactly that that's not true -- and that you're in fact chickening out. There's no sidestepping in the question why «objectivists» treat amps differently than cables -- so they don't ask for measuring data for supporting the heard differences, despite the fact that modern SS amps offer no measuring differences of the magnitude needed for audibility according to their own standards. 
.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_How do you rule out that this wasn't your imagination? Especially, since you require "testing that meets rigorous scientific criteria"._

 

I don't. Up to the reader to decide. Note that I was expressing an opinion about what I heard. I was not reporting scientific data, or claiming it to be universal truth. It is not necessary to have rigorous scientific data to support an opinion. It is, however, important to have rigorous scientific data to support a "fact".


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_You know exactly that that's not true -- and that you're in fact chickening out. There's no sidestepping in the question why «objectivists» treat amps differently than cables -- so they don't ask for measuring data for supporting the heard differences, despite the fact that modern SS amps offer no measuring differences of the magnitude needed for audibility according to their own standards. _

 

What he said!!!!


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_We're getting into DBT here._

 

True, and at the risk of treading very close to the rules edge, it should be noted that I'm in favor of properly conducted DBT, not opposed to it. However, before setting up a DBT, or any other experiment that purports to be "science" and proclaiming it to be truth, you need to understand what is known about the phenomenon you're testing, and also understand the limits of the methodology you propose to use. If I come down hard on people who report bad science, it's because the experimental design or methodology doesn't support the claimed results, not because I'm opposed to any particular method.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_@JaZZ: Please stop questioning my motivation. As you might recognise, all i do is ask questions, and i do the more so, the more informed the poster seems to me. You know, lines are not drawn as sharp as you might think. It's not that objectivists don't search and hope for success in getting better sound. It's a goal we're all after. We just use different filters for our search for the holy grail. And beeing an objectivist about cables and karma-stones doesn't mean one doesn't allow himself the luxury of beeing a subjectivist when it comes to amps. ... If all the subjetivists statements had the level of Hirschs, there'll be absolutely no reason for sarcasm. But you should know pretty well there are other participants than that._

 

You're right, there's no need for any sort of hostility between the camps or members of the camps. Live and let live! This implies that posters renounce sarcastic tone, disrespect and put-down of members of the other camp. E.g. I for one absolutely don't see myself as a victim of propaganda and salesmen (which I rarely meet at all anyway), and I'm sure this applies to many other Head-Fiers who might be affected by such a statement. And BTW, I don't like your provocative equation of cables and karma stones.


  Quote:


 _BTW, here's a link of a quite well designed test between an awfull expensive SR Emitter and a reasonable Mid-Fi amp. There aren't few people telling you quite the same about amps than cables. Not sure if you know this one (sorry, it's german):

http://www.hifi-forum.de/viewthread-83-1053.html_ 
 

That's actually a test with a reasonable switching scheme (the test person knows if he's listening to A or B instead of the chaotic pattern of random samples which is nonesense), but I'd never submit myself to a test with an unfamiliar setup in an unfamiliar acoustic environment. It's doomed to fail. Because all other components have greater sonic impact than cables (or room acoustics and speakers have greater sonic impact than amps, resp.), so you have to be extremely familiar with the setup -- i.e. the test has to be done with your own setup in your home. 
 .


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Life is much about attitude, in this regard, it's best to have a positive outlook and "believe". I've got my setup tuned very well now. *My inexpensive and stock cables sound like $10,000 cables*. Bigger than big. Beyond products, it's also about techniques. And this is within reach of everyone willing to focus some time and money in the proper directions._

 

Gee, I wonder who's having the placebo? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Have you even compared stock against $100 cable?

 Who's living in the dream world? Skeptics want to get good sound for as cheap as possible. It's placebo pure and simple. They want to believe... You can't bring them out of their dream because it is so strong.


 Any open-minded person who has read this whole thread will believe that cables make a difference for sure. Unless they are cherry picking posts.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Have you even compared stock against $100 cable?_

 

Based on opinions such as yours, there is no reason to.


----------



## Born2bwire

Why... won't... this... thread... DIE?!? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 /me gives the horse another kick.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I do feel hostile. I have been trying my best to engage others in an honest and meaningful discussion, but over and over encounter such gross lack of good faith from others who don't read what's written, only speak but never listen, refuse to explain when someone shows he is listening, berry pick from what's written to distort and make cheap points, deny the obvious, etc. It is very frustrating and disappointing as well. I guess in some sense I have been bullying toward the end of intellectual honestly and useful discourse._

 

Time to take a break. I think you'll find that others seem a lot more reasonable when you're calm and collected yourself.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I've got my setup tuned very well now. My inexpensive and stock cables sound like $10,000 cables. Bigger than big. Beyond products, it's also about techniques. And this is within reach of everyone willing to focus some time and money in the proper directions._

 

There's the definition of an audiophile... Someone who is able to achieve the optimal sound possible. It's not about who spends the most money, or who has the best graphs and numbers. It's about getting the most sound possible by approaching the problems with experience, perspective and attention to balances.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_There's the definition of an audiophile... Someone who is able to achieve the optimal sound possible. It's not about who spends the most money, or who has the best graphs and numbers. It's about getting the most sound possible by approaching the problems with experience, perspective and attention to balances.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

The counter-argument, of course, is that it's not the optimal sound until you have the _real_ optimal equipment. And that, naturally, is furnished by manufacturers catering to the very tip top of the market, at rather high prices.

 You know that we agree, man, but I think this is a battle best fought on a forum not officially dedicated to subjectivism in audio. There's a certain underlying axiomatic difference here that we're not going to get around, and they likewise. Two truisms: "A fool and his money are soon parted," and "You get what you pay for" are both battling out like protagonists in a side-scrolling beat-'em-up videogame, and apparently they've both got infinite life.

 I vote let it be, on both sides. Skeptics aren't welcome here, and there's no point being obtuse about it. Best case scenario, from your viewpoint, is you convince someone he's spent a very large sum of money for no reason. Where's the satisfaction in that?

 Don't get me wrong. This is, in my opinion, a debate *very much worth having*. But it doesn't need to happen here, because it's doomed from the onset to go absolutely nowhere over the course of pages and pages of the same words being thrown around with increasing vitriol and decreasing civility. It has taken me some time to understand this, but I think it's time to acknowledge that we're going to have to agree to disagree or get banned.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_There's no sidestepping in the question why «objectivists» treat amps differently than cables -- so they don't ask for measuring data for supporting the heard differences, despite the fact that modern SS amps offer no measuring differences of the magnitude needed for audibility according to their own standards._

 

Aside from their ability to push the speakers, I really don't find that amps make that much of a difference- slightly more than CD players and certainly more than cables. Nowhere near headphones, room treatment or speakers.

 In recording, quality preamps are required to accomodate the wide dynamics of unbalanced microphone input, but in a home stereo application, the tolerances are much more controlled, and most amps perform well. Personally, with integrated amps, after you deal with the power needs, usability of the interface (remote controls, etc.) are the primary concern.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_No, actually very large sonic differences can be masked by the brain._

 

Masking effect is a lot more mechanical than that. It involves frequency response imbalances in narrow ranges that can affect the balance of harmonic frequencies further along in the spectrum. A friend of mine vividly demonstrated this to me by taking a midrange frequency and boosting it 2dB. Normally, that would be a very slight imbalance, but with the recording he was using, it completely muffled the high end jangle of the acoustic guitar. It was a really surprising thing, and it showed me how important addressing masking issues can be in equalization.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_The action itself is more complex, indeed (although not by a great margin), but the device itself has about the same if not lower complexity as a cable. Two holed electrode plates and a stretched metallized plastic membrane in between._

 

The basic concept could apply to everything from a high end speaker to a kazoo. I don't see the point here. Isn't it obvious from experience, to say nothing of measurements, that a speaker is going to be a lot more variable than an amp or cable?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_I vote let it be, on both sides. Skeptics aren't welcome here, and there's no point being obtuse about it. Best case scenario, from your viewpoint, is you convince someone he's spent a very large sum of money for no reason. Where's the satisfaction in that?_

 

I'm not participating for the benefit of the people who have cut up sections of cable made from Rhinegold on their living room rug... I'm offering common sense advice to the folks who are just sitting on the sidelines quietly listening. Based on the PMs I've received, there are quite a few of them. If my arguments convince a single hard up college kid to save the money he would have spent on high end cables and CD players and use it on really good speakers and a nice equalizer, my participation in this thread is worthwhile. It doesn't matter if I speak to him directly or not. That's how the interet works.

 Ultimately, I think everyone knows exactly where the illogical arguments and hyper emotional lashing out is coming from.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Ultimately, I think everyone knows exactly where the illogical arguments and hyper emotional lashing out is coming from.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Just a general remark:
 Logic is often counter intuitive. Statistics are an infamous example thereof.
 A lot of people don't even recognise logic if they choke on it.
 Our intuitive way of thinking is based on methods of generalisation and making shortcuts to conclusions that were essential for surviving a hundred thousend years ago. These ways were engrained in us by evolution over a very long period of time. They are now often referred to as "common sense".
 Problem now is: these ways of thinking are totally useless in science. But it is not possible to change that in a couple of hundred (or thousand) years....

 Maybe this background info can help some people to understand what is happening here.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The basic concept could apply to everything from a high end speaker to a kazoo. I don't see the point here. Isn't it obvious from experience, to say nothing of measurements, that a speaker is going to be a lot more variable than an amp or cable?_

 

Sure. Haven't you followed our dialogue which has led us to this point? The objectivist argument was that (SS) amps are more complex than cables and therefore are allowed to produce (subtle) audible characteristics and differences. But _complexity_ isn't the criterion when it comes to verify the reality of perceived _sonic_ differences, but in fact measuring data -- this from an objectivist point of view. 

 Yourself, you seem to be ready to admit subtle sonic differences among different amps, at least that's the logical consequence of your statement «...slightly more than CD players and certainly more than cables». Now the question is: In which amp measurements do the perceived sonic differences reflect themselves? (Note: We have to deal with FR distortion of less than -0.5 db at 20 kHz and harmonic distortion clearly below 0.05%.)
.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Sure. Haven't you followed our dialogue which has led us to this point? The objectivist argument was that (SS) amps are more complex than cables and therefore are allowed to produce (subtle) audible characteristics and differences. But complexity isn't the criterion when it comes to verify the reality of perceived sonic differences, but in fact measuring data -- this from an objectivist point of view. 

 Yourself, you seem to be ready to admit subtle sonic differences among different amps, at least that's the logical consequence of your statement «...slightly more than CD players and certainly more than cables». Now the question is: In which amp measurements do the perceived sonic differences reflect themselves? (Note: We have to deal with FR distortion of less than -0.5 db at 20 kHz and harmonic distortion clearly below 0.05%.)
._

 

Jazz, same thing i allready mentioned before. If there is a difference in amps and cdplayers, there should be at least theoretically also a difference in cables. The same measurements for cables and amps, sources are just as small, however, the cable sceptics claim to hear differences in amps and sources but refuse to acknowledge any difference in cables.

 This, to me is very contradictive.

 If they claim any difference in cables is placebo, then certainly the differences in amps and sources should be stated as such as well. The measurements are way, way below the values scientists believe can be heard.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Jazz, same thing i allready mentioned before. If there is a difference in amps and cdplayers, there should be at least theoretically also a difference in cables. The same measurements for cables and amps, sources are just as small, however, the cable sceptics claim to hear differences in amps and sources but refuse to acknowledge any difference in cables.

 This, to me is very contradictive.

 If they claim any difference in cables is placebo, then certainly the differences in amps and sources should be stated as such as well. The measurements are way, way below the values scientists believe can be heard._

 

Yes. I have also said this many times but they don't get it. They just like to cherry pick what is placebo and what isn't. Especially what they already own so they don't need to buy any new equipment. Placebo on demand, doesn't that come handy?

 If you don't want to invest in cables, why invest in amp or source? Just buy iPod and $100 000 speakers, then plug it in with crappy cables. Since according to Bigshot, speakers are all that matter and nothing else. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Or if you are a skeptic to the extreme, get some Logitech computer speakers...


----------



## JohnFerrier

I'm going to be out today, but here are distortion graphs to ponder.

 Headphone Amplifier, distortion: -100 dB (0.001%)
more info





 "Cheap" Cables, distortion: -140 dB (basically, the limit of the $25k distortion meter, meaning no measureable distortion)
more info (links to PDFs at bottom)





 There is greater than 40 dB (or 100x) difference in measureable results.






 This is even more revealing, if you can understand the measurements. The distortion is much larger at smaller signal levels. The cable measurements would not show up using the above scaling. Again, with a wire or cable, there is no measureable distortion. A signal of 0.1V (horizontal axis) is a typical listening level.

 Cables and amplifiers are not the same thing.

 .


----------



## JaZZ

_John..._

 ...you're digressing again. Nobody has pretended that cables produce audible harmonic distortion. In turn, would you seriously pretend that typical SS amplifier distortion (here max. 0.02%, with a distortion product in the ultrasonic range) is audible and the cause for the perceived differences among different solid-state amps? If you do, you're about to leave the objectivist path of virtue which demands much higher harmonic-distortion products for audibility. (Can't remember how much exactly is the officially certified hearing threshold, however, it's much higher.)

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_The distortion is much larger at smaller signal levels._

 

I don't believe that -- it's not typical solid-state behavior. It's much more likely that what seems to be higher distortion at lower levels is the noise floor.
.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* 
_Jazz, same thing i allready mentioned before. If there is a difference in amps and cdplayers, there should be at least theoretically also a difference in cables. The same measurements for cables and amps, sources are just as small, however, the cable sceptics claim to hear differences in amps and sources but refuse to acknowledge any difference in cables.

 This, to me is very contradictive.

 If they claim any difference in cables is placebo, then certainly the differences in amps and sources should be stated as such as well. The measurements are way, way below the values scientists believe can be heard._

 

Well, I for one am beginning to come to the conclusion that the differences between amps or sources are often vanishingly small. I have been comparing my various source combinations CD/DVD/DAC for a week or so and I really cannot find a significant reliable difference between them and they vary in price by a factor of 7. Comparing amps is trickier for me as I cannot avoid cable swapping and headphone unplugging but even there if my life depended on being able to reliably discern the difference between my 5 portable amps, albeit fairly modest amps, over say 20 trials I would be seriously doomed.

 The amusing "Do All amplifiers sound the same" article gives food for thought

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jw65/ampsound.pdf 


 I am a cable skeptic.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* 
_They are now often referred to as "common sense".
 Problem now is: these ways of thinking are totally useless in science._

 

Boy! You've sure got that one nailed! It seems as if logic and common sense are foreign concepts any more. What a world!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Yourself, you seem to be ready to admit subtle sonic differences among different amps, at least that's the logical consequence of your statement «...slightly more than CD players and certainly more than cables». Now the question is: In which amp measurements do the perceived sonic differences reflect themselves? (Note: We have to deal with FR distortion of less than -0.5 db at 20 kHz and harmonic distortion clearly below 0.05%.)_

 

My only concern when buying an amp is 1) can it push the speakers with enough power? and 2) are the controls intuitive and easy to use? I don't bother comparing them for sound. The differences are so small, if they exist at all, it isn't worth the time and trouble.

 But to answer your question, I think the minute differences exist in the THD ratings. Even from one unit to another of the same make and model, there will be variations in distortion levels. Not enough to make much of a difference except in the most extreme cases though.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_...Not enough to make much of a difference except in the most extreme cases though._

 

A quite blurry statement.

 Anyway, nothing against your attitude to not care about amps' sonic characteristics as long as you don't hear significant differences in your setup. But one suspicion comes to mind: Since you evaluate speakers solely from their sonic balance (frequency-response domain), they might miss the ultimate resolution (time domain) to be transparent enough for electronics subtleties. 
.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_A quite blurry statement._

 

I remember a line of receivers that had the specs for each unit printed on the outside of the box. The THD figures varied considerably, while the response curves and S/N were almost identical. The THD ratings were all within spec, but some were much lower.

 I'll try to be less blurry, though with this statement...

 Amps, CD players and cables for all intents and purposes sound pretty much the same. Features, ruggedness of build, and ease of use are what set one model apart from another (and of course with amps, power...)

 Speakers however are a totally different story. Just about every speaker sounds different.

 Is that more specific? Here's one extra one for good measure...

 I don't doubt that jitter and phase distortion exist, but their importance is WAY overstated. We watch movies with 24 samples per second and they look fine to us. Shift them to 25 fps, and they still look fine. You can take a digital reverb and add an amount of phase smearing that would make the kind of distortions talked about in high end audio literature look like grains of sand, and still not hear a lick of difference. It's important to have a sense of proportion. If you spend all your time chasing down teeny weenie details and let the big things slide, you aren't going to achieve anything.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## JaZZ

My original response has disappeared or been removed... anyway...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If you spend all your time chasing down teeny weenie details and let the big things slide, you aren't going to achieve anything._

 

Who sais that I let the big things slide?
.


----------



## ServinginEcuador

While in electronics schooling in the Navy we learned about how voltage and current can lead/lag each other when presented with either a capacitance or inductance. While we measure things like distortion, THD, and other factors has anyone thought about how the lead/lag of voltage and current effects the way we perceive the way something sounds? Are those who take measurements in fact taking the right measurements, and are they calculating the right effects and applying the right formulas to find out what's going on with anything other than simple distortion measurements? 

 IIRC, for those who are interested, the saying is ELI the ICE man. Voltage leads current in an inductuve load; current leads voltage in a capacitive load. 

 Having said this I realize that the capacitance and inductane presented by various cables and cable lengths is rather small, but could be enough to make the sound come across to our brains as something not quite right.

 Any thoughts??


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* 
_Same here. I enjoy and understand PhilS and Riboge's view but I am familiar with those views. I also enjoy bigshot's views which I am much less familiar with. Poets versus the clinician. Byron and Shelley versus James Watt. Labs make drugs that affect my emotions, heart and soul, PhilS and Riboge describe those affects in an attempted soulful reverse engineering way, bigshot knows the lab and how the drugs were made._

 

 I quote myself for context in a rather long thread.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I like the spirit of balance in what you offered but the distinction is misapplied. I was a clinician of psychiatry by entire adult life. I am, literally, a little bit a poet also having written maybe 30 poems. These are not antipodes, for heaven's sake._

 

*Antipodes!
 bigshot & Riboge?*








*"Wire is wire. Do you understand?" 

 "Wire is wire, yes I understand"*





*"now that that's settled lets listen to some music."*






 Psychiatry. That's very suitable to my feeling about what seems to be these theorizing-on-the-fly debates. I was once a Jung enthusiast (still like him) and greatly enjoyed reading his work (not every volume though). But in the end, no matter how fascinating his thoughts were and how much I enjoyed his writing, I wasn't really convinced that he was correct. 

 What's that got to do with music and sound? Music is the architectural construct and sound the building materials. Some may be enthralled with a Frank Gehry but to ascribe properties to the beams and mortar that may not exist is unnecessary to appreciate the work. I think of bigshot as like the project construction manager informing an admirer that "no we just used standard concrete, nothing special".

 I compared my Belkin PureAV RCA to my Nordost Frey for a few hours this morning and the more I listened the more they sounded the same. I never reached the point where I thought they were identical but I also never got to the point where I could be sure of telling them apart either. This is like $40 vs $900 (mine is 2nd hand & half price). Everytime another wonder cable for $100 or so bested a $1000 cable, to the amazment of the writer, I'd think it not because the $100 one was so great but because the $1000 one really wasn't much different. I also compared my PS Audio xStream Statement speaker cables, which I hate tremendously to come into physical contact with due to their unwieldiness, and an old modest pair of Signal cable speaker cables. That'd be $800 (I paid $200 or something) vs $100. No quick ABing with these things. I prefer the cleaner less fuzzy sound of the Signal. Does that mean they sound different? I don't know. It seemed the Statement was messing things up. I'll just keep the Belkin and Signal in place for a week to find out if long term listening brings up any issues. I've three Nordost Vishnu power cords which I'll assess over the weekend.

 I'm in no hurry to decide.

*"Skin-effect! This is skin-effect, do you understand?"*


----------



## Born2bwire

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ServinginEcuador* 
_While in electronics schooling in the Navy we learned about how voltage and current can lead/lag each other when presented with either a capacitance or inductance. While we measure things like distortion, THD, and other factors has anyone thought about how the lead/lag of voltage and current effects the way we perceive the way something sounds? Are those who take measurements in fact taking the right measurements, and are they calculating the right effects and applying the right formulas to find out what's going on with anything other than simple distortion measurements? 

 IIRC, for those who are interested, the saying is ELI the ICE man. Voltage leads current in an inductuve load; current leads voltage in a capacitive load. 

 Having said this I realize that the capacitance and inductane presented by various cables and cable lengths is rather small, but could be enough to make the sound come across to our brains as something not quite right.

 Any thoughts??_

 

The complex impedance characteristics of cables can be approximated by using 1D transmission line models that are sufficient for frequencies in the microwave region and on down to DC. Theoretically, yes, stuff like impedance mismatches, the inherent capicitance and inductance, the finite conductance of the conductor, etc. will impact the signal sent to the load. This due in part because the total impedance is dependent upon the frequency of the signal. And a lot of what people talk about when it comes to cables are results of what transmission lines predict. For example, the skin effect is accounted for in transmission lines. Though if you crunch the numbers, the results are rather insignificant and I'm sure if you calculate the S parameters they would show the same as well (I prefer S-parameter measurements myself since they can also indicate the interaction of a multiport network, ie: the crosstalk between the two stereo interconnects). It comes out that for the normal length of interconnects that we use and the very very low frequency signals that comprise an audio signal offset just about any impact from the capacitance and inductance of the cable itself. That being said though, I feel that there is a noticeable difference in cables that arise from their basic geometry, shielding, and build quality. For example, the Nordost flat line design does not lend itself very well to sheilding as coaxial does. As a result, it isn't uncommon for me to pick up radio stations with my Nordost interconnects. But a coaxial cable runs the ground line on the exterior, surrounding the signal line and as such, the ground creates a decent shield. So I personally believe in putting down some coin for some low end audiophile cables, but I have not been able to hear anything with the higher ends for me to warrant the added expenditure.


----------



## bigshot

This one is the REAL me!






 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_This is, in my opinion, a debate *very much worth having*. But it doesn't need to happen here, because it's doomed from the onset to go absolutely nowhere over the course of pages and pages of the same words being thrown around with increasing vitriol and decreasing civility. It has taken me some time to understand this, but I think it's time to acknowledge that we're going to have to agree to disagree or get banned._

 

You make excellent points NJB. I think many of us have reached the same conclusion, in terms of these threads going nowhere. That's why I also have attempted for the most part to more or less ignore this thread and others the past few days. There are some, however, who, notwithstanding their expressed noble motives about why they post on these types of threads, apparently just like to argue for arguments sake and/or to satisfy some deeper need to show how intelligent they are in comparison to others. This, of course, is a common internet phenomenon seen on many other forums and bulletin boards. Obviously, this kind of attitude (especially the "I'm smart and need to educate you about how foolish you and others are") causes an adverse reaction in others, who often can't help themselves and feel compelled to respond (even though they could stop the debate just by ignoring the provacateur). And that's why these threads go on and on.

 That's why the only way these types of threads will die if they change the rules, as they have on certain other audio forums, so that the cable forum is not for folks wishing to debate the "science" (no matter how legitimate some of the arguments and questions might be). Whether it would be a good or a bad thing to change the rules and restrict the discussions even more than they are presently is not really my point. It's just that we will never convince folks not to argue endlessly and spit vitriol and sarcasm by suggesting they are not convincing others with their arguments, because their purpose in the first place is not to persuade others but to argue endlessly and spit vitriol and sarcasm. That's how they get their jollys.


----------



## bigshot

No disagreement here... I agree with you 100%! You're absolutely right.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## maarek99

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distort..._of_audibility

 I don't trust thd measurements for distortion. Many facts about measuring audio seem to be a bit lost here.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_You make excellent points NJB. I think many of us have reached the same conclusion, in terms of these threads going nowhere. That's why I also have attempted for the most part to more or less ignore this thread and others the past few days. There are some, however, who, notwithstanding their expressed noble motives about why they post on these types of threads, apparently just like to argue for arguments sake and/or to satisfy some deeper need to show how intelligent they are in comparison to others. This, of course, is a common internet phenomenon seen on many other forums and bulletin boards. Obviously, this kind of attitude (especially the "I'm smart and need to educate you about how foolish you and others are") causes an adverse reaction in others, who often can't help themselves and feel compelled to respond (even though they could stop the debate just by ignoring the provacateur). And that's why these threads go on and on.

 That's why the only way these types of threads will die if they change the rules, as they have on certain other audio forums, so that the cable forum is not for folks wishing to debate the "science" (no matter how legitimate some of the arguments and questions might be). Whether it would be a good or a bad thing to change the rules and restrict the discussions even more than they are presently is not really my point. It's just that we will never convince folks not to argue endlessly and spit vitriol and sarcasm by suggesting they are not convincing others with their arguments, because their purpose in the first place is not to persuade others but to argue endlessly and spit vitriol and sarcasm. That's how they get their jollys. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 So you come here, more than 24 hours after an interesting, lively and balanced thread could have found a great, humorously and self-critical finish respecting and cartooning BOTH sides, complaining about bad bad sceptic people not wanting to let this die for selfish showmanship. Aha. Whatever floats your boat. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW, the reason for this discussions is maybe because it's called a discussion board, not compliance or mutual affirmation board.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* 
_So you come here, more than 24 hours after an interesting, lively and balanced thread could have found a great, humorously and self-critical finish respecting and cartooning BOTH sides, complaining about bad bad sceptic people not wanting to let this die for selfish showmanship. Aha. Whatever floats your boat. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




_

 

Ok, my bad. Does that make you feel better? Peace out.


----------



## ken36

I was not a believer, then I was, wasn't, am.


----------

