# Power Cables Make A Difference?  Have A Listen Here...



## SamNOISE

.
*Stereo System Power-cables – Audible difference? - Listen for yourself here... *

 Last time ‘round (see January 24th post on Cdnav.com), I put together a quality, ultra-thick, shielded power cable with cytogenetically treated, ‘audiophile quality’ IEC and plug, and compared it to a ‘freebee’ power lead the likes of which accompanies pretty-much every non-portable computer sold in North America. I supplied you with high-quality, lossless .WAV audio files to audition as well as high-resolution visual graphs comparing the data throughput from each cable. In the end, no-one who contacted me was successful in audibly identifying which cable was which, nor see any visual difference between the two cables data transfer characteristic.

 I received quite a bit of email concerning this evaluation; some folks were courteous and supportive, others not so much… ridiculing me [without actually addressing the subject]. They appeared to feel that the topic should be above subjective investigation.

 Others suggested that I re-do the evaluation with a commercial-grade cable instead of a D.I.Y. unit - I assume they feel that laborers on assembly-lines are able to construct products to a higher tolerance than a dedicated individual with time on his hands and a knack for excellence. At any rate, I acquiesced and purchased a power-cable from a well-known manufacturer - one with rave reviews from audiophiles around the world; the xStream PSAudio Prelude.

 Speaking strictly from an aesthetics / physical build standpoint, I must give high marks to this beast. Its heft is impressive (10-guage), and the build-quality is really a thing to behold. The cable is fairly stiff and it’s solid-billet, machined prongs are at the absolute limit as far as size goes – its takes some seriously heroic effort to actually plug it into a top-quality, ‘hospital-grade’ socket on one end and the DAC on the other – I thought I might damage these sockets just plugging / unplugging this power lead – supposedly however, the ‘tightness of connection’ is important. PSAudio states that the Prelude cable offers the following benefits:

 Multi-strand OFC copper
 Connectors machined from solid billet
 Nickel plated connectors
 Hermetically sealed connectors
 2 shields
 Hot and cold welded connections
 Removable ground pin
 Ferrite impregnated jacket
 Unrestricted power delivery
 No stamped brass parts
 No corrosion
 Huge surface area for connections
 Cleans while it powers
 Excellent power delivery
 Lower noise floor
 Ability to eliminate ground loops

 And here are some accolades heaped upon this cable by audiophile folk around the Net’:

  Quote:


 "I have just installed four Prelude power cords throughout my system. These 4 cords are being used with a high current Ultimate Outlet and a Juice Bar. WOW, what a difference in sound...more richness, clarity, depth, and warmth. Better still the removable ground pins entirely eliminated those annoying ground loops...gone 100%. Now there is nothing but beautiful music and movie soundtracks. The overall improvement was well worth the investment. In addition, these cables look great.” 
 

 Quote:


 “The Prelude is very dynamic and lively. All PS Audio cables definitely have more of a "power punch" than almost all competing products. I attribute this to their size, better soldiering, and nickel plated plugs.” 
 

I put this beautiful bit of cable engineering up against what surely must rate as the most pathetic example of a power cable ever devised: my dangerously dilapidated, ridiculously constructed ‘free PC power lead’. My previous ‘specialty cable vs. PC lead’ indicated that any functional, ‘standard computer power cable’ was more than up to the task of moving electricity – without acoustic detriment to the equipment it was connecting to the source. As such, I decided to push the envelope and see how far one has to go in order to cause an audibly detrimental effect via 120 volt power lead. On one hand we have the outstanding build quality of the PS-Audio device, on the other; my FrankenCable: details below:

 I began by cutting a generic computer power cable (likely near-identical to the one powering your home PC at this very moment), into three sections with a pair of scissors (yes, it’s that thin). Then, in order to re-attach the (now), three lengths of cable back into one whole length, I stripped bare the conductors on each side of the first two pieces and simply twisted each appropriate wire back together to rejoin them. I then cellophane-taped the exposed wires, thus covering the bare conductors in order to avoid electrocution.

 The other cut-off section I re-affixed to the whole by twisting and taping [one] of the wire conductors as described above. For the remaining two wire conductors, I decided to create a worst-case scenario by splicing in a one-meter length of 18-guage, unshielded ‘zip-cord’! This created uneven lengths of wire in the overall cable length – what some might call ‘asymmetrical’. Afterwards, I taped it similarly to the previous splice.

 A few moments of pondering how to make matters worse for this cable found me attaching a metal rotary brush to my power-drill and proceeding to abrade all three exposed prongs on the plug-end in order to tarnish the cheap plating and encourage oxidation. I dipped the prongs in tap-water and hung the cable assembly outside on a tree in my back yard in order to see what a little elemental exposure might bring. After about two weeks of the cable hanging in a tree, I took the cable and rubbed the prong-end in dirt outside my shop for eight to ten seconds or so, then brought it inside and pounded the prongs with a hammer. Finally, I twisted the prongs to-and-fro with a pair of pliers – all this in an effort to absolutely deteriorate / minimize the three prong’s overall connection with the hospital-grade wall-receptacle I would be plugging it into.

 Beat-up D.I.Y FrankenCable in one hand, PSAudio lead in the other, I proceeded to conduct a series of recordings and measurements, contrasting the two cables head-to-head. Details of the audio kit & the custom-build audio workstation PC used for these recordings is detailed on the Cdnav.com site – Jan 24th. The only change I’ve made since then was to remove the hard disk drive from within the PC and mount it in an external shielded box as I had done previously with the power-supply. This was at the suggestion of an audiophile who participated in the previous cable-audition, who felt that it might attract or be the cause of, “extra noise that would veil detail in the recordings”. 

 Additionally, I’ve created a slightly enhanced setup for auditioning this time around by partnering the PSAudio power cable on the DAC with my carefully made D.I.Y cryo-cable on the computer. On the other side of the evaluation, I coupled the FrankenCable on the DAC with a standard PC cable on the computer. In both cases, I hosted the Pioneer Elite transport on an APC ‘Pure-Sine-Wave’ UPS device.

 I’ve not messed with the supplied lossless .WAV files in any way aside from cropping the ends of the file to a length that I hope is short enough that Chesky Records won’t sue me for posting them. Again, for the sake of shaking a horde of lawyers off my case: I strongly suggest that if you enjoy the music files posted for this evaluation, you take it upon yourself to go out and purchase the Chesky Records – ‘Ultimate Demonstration Disk’

Chesky Records - Ultimate Demonstration Disk 

 The music featured in this evaluation is [a section of] Track 3: Spanish Harlem, by vocalist Rebecca Pigeon.

 I haven’t bothered to hide the files amongst others identical to it in order to throw you off, rather, I trust that you’ll be mature enough to take the evaluation at face-value and audition them back-to-back on the PC, using a quality set of headphones and perhaps an outboard DAC or high-quality sound-card. I also (strongly) suggest that you burn these two lossless tracks to CD and play them back on your main, high-resolution stereo system in an attempt to discern audible differences. It’s up to you to decide which file is which, I’ve simply gone so far as to supply them with two innocuous titles: ‘Spanish Harlem Left’ and ‘Spanish Harlem Right’. The files are not exactly the same byte-length, only because I wasn’t quick enough on the start / stop record buttons in the software application. File-size is no indication of anything in this evaluation aside from my reflexes.

 Take your time; as many hours / days as you feel necessary. Relax, pour a drink of your favorite beverage, put your feet up, pop the CD in and hit ‘repeat’… Let me know what you feel you are hearing. According to audiophile lore, one of the files should be instantly discernable as sounding absolutely horrid, thin, veiled, vague – while the other will be sweet and velvety, full bodied and robust.

 My original intension was to supply a graphic representation / waveform for you to view, but decided against it as several listeners in the previous power-cable shootout berated me for employing an open-source application for this procedure, suggesting that I would need to spend a minimum of several hundred dollars on a commercial product in order to get anything like a serious representation from the files. I wasn’t prepared to do so for this one-off eval’, thus, no pretty pictures.

 I’ll be sending PSAudio a link to this evaluation as well and we’ll see how they respond and what they have to say in regards to the performance of their product. Maybe they’ll send me one of their ‘top-of the line’ / $1000.00 per meter cables to evaluate  (I’ll not hold my breath on that one). I happen to have one of their late-model power amplifiers on hand (HCA-2), and am working on methods to capture its’ output to file with my PSAudio prelude power cable as well as my FrankenCable - while the amplifier is outputting signal just below clipping. The amplifier’s user’s manual specifies that the unit will ‘offer enhanced performance’ with an after-market cable (which they conveniently happen to sell…). Perhaps noteworthy; the user’s manual for the Yulong DAH1 outboard DAC which I’m employing for this evaluation also specifically states that it will “greatly benefit from an aftermarket power cable”.

 Please note: I am more than prepared to redo this evaluation with (any) power cable on the market vs. my junker or whatever my readers suggest as ‘competition’. I am also working on the acquisition of a PSAudio DAC III external digital audio unit for future experiments. If any of you have cables that you’d like to add to this evaluation, please contact me and we’ll arrange for shipping – which I’ll pay for both ways – insured / express.

 I strongly suggest that you conduct your own auditions in a manner similar to that which I’ve outlined above, incorporating any enhancements you can think of; then publish them on the web. I, as well as any of the 100+ A/V forums out there (see Cdnav.com’s ‘Other Forums’ list), will publish your results so that others can attempt their replication.

 I realize that I’ll hear from all kinds of audiophiles who will state that “in their systems, in their homes, with their environment / city power-supply etc, etc., “their power-cables make a huge difference”. Well, here’s an easy way to find out if you’re fooling yourself lads: capture your own lossless audio (or video), files with your own equipment and post it for replication by others. None of this stuff is rocket-science; all of the required components are easily obtainable. I’ll offer to help in any way reasonably possible (short of jumping on a plane and coming to your home in another province / state / country).

 Notes: with regards to the layout of my shop’s electrical feed and potential electrical interference in the immediate area. I wired this shop myself; each wall (!) has its own lead back to a brand-new Siemens ‘EQ Load-Center’ box. The lines have been tested and certified by our city’s electrical engineer (have paperwork for those interested). I’ve also re-tested the plugs I installed for this particular evaluation using GB-Electrical GRT-500 Circuit-Tester. I used separate wall-plugs for running the PC / DAC and Pioneer Elite transport in this evaluation (PC/DAC on South wall – Transport on West)

 As for potential air-borne interference; the shop is located in a residential neighborhood located approximately eight blocks from an electrical sub-station to the North, eight or nine blocks from an AM radio station to the East and about the same distance from an FM radio station to the South. I am running a D-Link wireless router a few meters from the test-bench, as such; there is enough electrical energy in the air around here to make my body’s molecules shake somewhat I suppose  We appear to have a fairly decent power-grid in the area; I very seldom experience brown-outs and the power only fails in weather extremes. The city is host to approximately forty-three-thousand persons.

 Without further ado: the audio files and images:

https://cdnav.sslpowered.com/Auditio...0-%20Right.wav
 Spanish Harlem - Right.wav - 12.5MB

https://cdnav.sslpowered.com/Auditio...20-%20Left.wav
 Spanish Harlem - Left.wav - 12.5MB

https://cdnav.sslpowered.com/Auditions/Junk%20Cable.jpg
 FrankenCable - 110Kb

https://cdnav.sslpowered.com/Auditio...io%20Cable.jpg
 PSAudio Cable - 103Kb

 Andrew D.
Canadian Audio Video

.


----------



## colonelkernel8

I just listened, there is no difference, at all. It is impossible to even guess. You are fooling yourself if you think you can hear the difference (this is directed at anyone who thinks they can hear a difference).

 Now the subjectivist people will be on your case about how your DAC wasn't able to pick up the subtle nuances of the change a cable makes, even though the DAC is many, many times more sensitive than your ears...but this is pretty clear to me. If they have the exact same waveform when you record the line-output, then there can be no difference in the sound. MOD EDIT: Religious mention removed.

 Nice song though, and Andrew, thank you for the amazing effort and the detail in your description and for furthering the cause of sanity in the audiophile world.


----------



## Uncle Erik

I listened to those tracks several times with different headphones (K-501, HP-2, HD-600, DT880, SA5000) and heard no difference. Terrific music selection, too. I've always liked the song, but unadorned vocals are what I use to get a handle on how a piece of gear sounds and whether my cartridge and arm are set up correctly after a change. Distortion and other problems seem to leap out. The piano near the end gives you a little more range and is helpful, too. Still, nothing jumped out from either recording to signal a difference.

 Would you mind conducting a similar test with interconnect cables?


----------



## d-cee

How much will you sell the tweaked PC cord?

 I think it sounded better.


----------



## goldenratiophi

Woah, the difference was even bigger than the difference between FLAC and WAV!!!!


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *goldenratiophi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Woah, the difference was even bigger than the difference between FLAC and WAV!!!!_

 

I think 'just as big as' would be the optimal term here.


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *goldenratiophi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Woah, the difference was even bigger than the difference between FLAC and WAV!!!!_

 

quoted for TROOF


----------



## Riboge

This is interesting and perhaps telling. I for one need some more explanation and discussion of the capture process and the implied equating of what the computer 'hears' of the music reproduced with each power cable and then encodes to a .wav file with what someone would hear if the music instead 'continued' thru a dac, amp and speakers or headphones at that point (vs. takes your .wav and has their system reproduce that second recording thru their system). Your method seems to show that your computer cannot tell a difference in terms of what it then is able to encode to a file.

 We all know that currently we are not able to see a difference in instrument/computer measurements between cables themselves, at least not that can be correlated with any perceived difference. I'm not sure this procedure shows anything different or more than that. But maybe it does, some more discussion would help.


----------



## UseName

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *colonelkernel8* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now the subjectivist people will be on your case about how your DAC wasn't able to pick up the subtle nuances of the change a cable makes, even though the DAC is many, many times more sensitive than your ears...but this is pretty clear to me. If they have the exact same waveform when you record the line-output, then there can be no difference in the sound. You'll find the subjectivists here will defend their faith not unlike that of early religious groups (and some modern ones).
_

 

I agree. At this point I think the debate whether a reasonably built power cords is better than a premuim one, is dead. By that, I mean there is no evidence to suggest that they actually make a difference, or even any evidence that they *could possibly* make a difference. 

 Unless you are one of the many unfortunate people on this forum who already prescribe to that belief, there is very little to argue about.


----------



## JohnFerrier

I wonder if discussion of psychological aspects of why people perceive differences would be helpful.

 .


----------



## Hopstretch

I suspect you will soon have both SPCCs on your case: The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Cables and The Super-Priced Cable Cult.

 Run for the border.


----------



## xnothingpoetic

So even if there is no audible difference, there is still (can be) a difference between a $2 cable and a $1000 one- but the difference is not mesuable because it is emotional.

 example of such
Study: $90 wine tastes better than the same wine at $10 | Underexposed - CNET News.com

 Well, I guess there is something you can measure- the brains "pleasure center"

 Both cables technically sound the same, but for some people, the more expensive, exotic one will sound better- "real" or not, it does effect the way they enjoy the music.

 I don't feel like going into more depth on this, as I frankly don't care about expensive/exotic cables...


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is interesting and perhaps telling. I for one need some more explanation and discussion of the capture process ._

 

From the CDNAV article
 ----------------------

 The evaluation employs a Pioneer Elite DV-45A as a transport and Yulong DAH1 outboard DAC combination, connected with a Toshiba pure-glass TOSLink Cable. This is driven into a PC (using one or the other of the two cables under consideration), which has been custom-built for this evaluation. The computer sports an Intel D915GA series mainboard with the latest BIOS update (0482), a dual-core 2.8 GHz Pentium processor, one-gigabyte of Kingston brand DDR-400 RAM memory and a Seagate 80 Gigabyte, SATA hard disk drive. All other drives have been disconnected and cables removed. The mainboard hosts only one PCI card; an ASUS Xonar audio interface (onboard audio has been disabled at the BIOS level). Said card is running the very latest drivers – version 8.17.25. The operating system is Windows Vista Business Edition, build 6.0.6000. All patches, updates, service packs etc., have been added to the OS and it’s been freshly defragmented. This edition of Windows Vista has been tweaked as an audio recording and playback platform according to suggestions in the Benchmark Audio Windows Vista Audio Playback - Setup Guide

 The hard disk drive contains no extraneous application software aside from Audacity version 1.2.6 and LAME version 3.97 – basically, its’ pretty much empty.

 The PC is running in a chassis without an internally mounted power supply unit. Said PSU is situated approximately eight inches outside the case. This is due to concerns with electromagnetic noise contaminating the audio signal – as expressed by many audiophiles when it comes to PC-based audio manipulation… The power supply in question is a 380 watt, Antec ‘True-Power’ version 2.0 unit, custom-ordered for this project. The power supply, transport and DAC are all plugged into three separate wall sockets – each sporting an independent feed back to the breaker panel (I built the shop several years ago and ran separate lines for - every – plug and light fixture!). No other devices are plugged into any of the three sockets. Correct polarity has been confirmed in all wall-plugs by myself and the city electrical inspector. (Image of equipment CD & DAC / Audio Card)

 ---------------------------------------------


----------



## Carmantom

Over the years I have often heard huge changes with different power chords. What I have not been able to figure out is if it was my imagination (wishful thinking), the real deal (maybe science of audio yet to be understood).


----------



## Riboge

Thanks, nick_charles, but what I meant was discussion of the role and effect of the inputing of analogue (yes?) to the sound card which then digitizes it (again) to a .wav file. Can some of the characteristics of the output of the DAC which has conceivably been energized, filtered, etc., in some characteristic way by a given power cable be lost in this translation back to 1's and 0's? If so, these possible characteristics could/would effect the amplification and speaker electromechanical conversion in reproducing the original recording but not effect the reproduction from the derived recordings. I am not asserting this, please note. I am just indicating what seems to need more explication and explanation.

 Also, btw, the interconnect from DAC to PC card is not specified though I realize the digital and analogue interconnects are the same for both arrangements. Could these filter out a difference that some other interconnects would not? You have to assume no cable differences (beg the question) to not consider this.


----------



## UseName

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks, nick_charles, but what I meant was discussion of the role and effect of the inputing of analogue (yes?) to the sound card which then digitizes it (again) to a .wav file. Can some of the characteristics of the output of the DAC which has conceivably been energized, filtered, etc., in some characteristic way by a given power cable be lost in this translation back to 1's and 0's? If so, these possible characteristics could/would effect the amplification and speaker electromechanical conversion in reproducing the original recording but not effect the reproduction from the derived recordings. I am not asserting this, please note. I am just indicating what seems to need more explication and explanation.
 (Also, btw, the interconnect from DAC to PC card is not specified though I realize the digital and analogue interconnects are the same for both arrangements)._

 

If I understand the set-up correctly, the process of converting the analog signal to digital would effect both signals in the same manner. So in order for it cause problems with this test, the converting to .wav would have to filter/color the signal in the exact opposite way that the power cable would enhance it provided the quality of the recording is sufficient in the first place (which it should be).


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Can some of the characteristics of the output of the DAC which has conceivably been energized, filtered, etc., in some characteristic way by a given power cable be lost in this translation back to 1's and 0's? _

 

Not sure what you mean ? The specified PC audio device looks pretty good from a technical perspective, what characteristics are you referring to ?

 Actually I am not sure from the OP whether the power cable was used on the DVD, the DAC or on the PC ?


  Quote:


 (Also, btw, the interconnect from DAC to PC card is not specified though I realize the digital and analogue interconnects are the same for both arrangements). 
 

Perhaps the OP could answer that ?

 I looked at these files in Audacity, and I have to say they are not identical. It *isnt* the length or the starting point, once you trim them and align them they are still not the same. The differences are admittedly *miniscule* and invisible unless you zoom down to the 0.001 second level but they are not identical as such, there are differences in energy levels. The audibility is questionable but there are measurable differences. 

 Whether these differences are attributable to the cables is another matter. I would like to see some replication, perhaps these differences are at the level of variations you would expect from any two trials, given that a voltage supply from the mains can vary by as much as 10% from time to time it may be as simple as that, more data would be helpful.

 Also Audacity, while very nice and a personal favourite is pretty crude by professional standards, this may also be a limiting factor.


----------



## unoab

I'm going to try and answer this leaving out as much signal processing terms as possible, but I may not be able to refrain. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The only way information would be lost in the conversion is if one of the power cables would be able to introduce signal content above half of the sampling frequency (nyquist frequency). Then the filters in the ADC would remove it so it would not alias to another frequency it should not be. but as he was using a CD to play the sound clip you are limited to a bandwidth of 22050Hz, so even sampling at 44.1K (samples a second) should not be a problem, let alone the fact most sound cards can go up to 96.2K nowadays.

 Also another place where information could possibly be changed is in the load that is presented by the ADC to the DAC. Depending on the circuit design it could present a different load than your amplifier or processor that you would normally hook it up to, thereby possibly changing the response of the DAC.

 All these exceptions aside, the relative comparison of the cables would be valid still. And I applaud SamNOISE for doing this experiment, just proves alot of things me and a few of my audiophile friends on campus have known for some time.


----------



## UseName

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I looked at these files in Audacity, and I have to say they are not identical. It *isnt* the length or the starting point, once you trim them and align them they are still not the same. The differences are admittedly *miniscule* and invisible unless you zoom down to the 0.001 second level but they are not identical as such, there are differences in energy levels. The audibility is questionable but there are measurable differences. 

 Whether these differences are attributable to the cables is another matter. I would like to see some replication, perhaps these differences are at the level of variations you would expect from any two trials, given that a voltage supply from the mains can vary by as much as 10% from time to time it may be as simple as that, more data would be helpful.

 Also Audacity, while very nice and a personal favourite is pretty crude by professional standards, this may also be a limiting factor._

 


 This is a very good point. It is difficult to know what the error in the experiment is, especially with only 1 test case.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I looked at these files in Audacity, and I have to say they are not identical. It *isnt* the length or the starting point, once you trim them and align them they are still not the same. The differences are admittedly *miniscule* and invisible unless you zoom down to the 0.001 second level but they are not identical as such, there are differences in energy levels. The audibility is questionable but there are measurable differences._

 

I was going to do the same thing this morning (with GoldWave rather than Audacity, but the end result is the same) but didn't have time. I'm glad someone took that step. 

 What I would like to see is two different .wav files (or lossless files) created with the *same *cable to see if the types of differences that you are observing happen even with the same cable.


----------



## Riboge

Now we're talkin'. You have to be careful not to assume the conclusion in the design. You have to assume there might be a difference caused by a different power cord and then ask what would allow it to be detected if so or prevent it from being evident, on the other hand. It's the latter I'm asking about: whether the quality of the interconnects could mask any difference while still acting the same both ways. Likewise the reception to the card or card characteristics and a/d conversion. You have to be sure the setup would reveal any difference that IS there. Then, if and when it doesn't, it really means something.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now we're talkin'. You have to be careful not to assume the conclusion in the design. You have to assume there might be a difference caused by a different power cord and then ask what would allow it to be detected if so or prevent it from being evident_

 

Let me see if I have this straight. Your suggestion is that power cables may make audible differences but the differences may be masked by other variables such as interconnects and or capture cards.

 So you would want to repeat the experiment with a large number of different interconnects and or capture cards. 

 My question was somewhat different. I wonder if the differences I observed were natural random variation. If such random variation could be replicated then you need to derive the limits of variation for cable 1 then do the same for cable 2. Until you can do this you cannot proceed as you need to adjust for this.


----------



## bigshot

Obfuscation on parade. No difference is no difference.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let me see if I have this straight. Your suggestion is that power cables may make audible differences but the differences may be masked by other variables such as interconnects and or capture cards.

 So you would want to repeat the experiment with a large number of different interconnects and or capture cards. 
_

 

You could do either or both of 1) try a variety of cable sets and cards, but a large number would seem unnecessary and make it impossible which I wouldn't want to see happen, or 2) get recommendations from those who believe they hear differences in power cords of which interconnects and cards are most conducive to detecting these differences and use one of those. For cables this would probably be some higher end brand like Virtual Dynamics Master or higher, Purist Dominus, Synergistic Tesla or some such. Likewise for cards, though for all I know you may be using the best already.


----------



## LordofDoom

The difference is one will rip/tear/break easier, but you can spend less money replacing the cable every ten years than buying a huge unbreakable one


----------



## Grizzlepaw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Obfuscation on parade. No difference is no difference.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

except of course that that files ARE different on the small scales, according to nick_charles and my own observations.

 Now we can argue about how much of that is random fluctuations in the equipment (margin of error), and it would be nice to have 2 or 3 files from each power cord to get a better idea, but clearly your above statement is false and misleading.


----------



## JustPhilbo

Do any of the folks that sell (or review) power cables ever make false or misleading statements. <eye roll>

 I think Bigshot might have been better off including the word "significant" in his post, but he is still dead on: obfuscation is obfuscation. Call the duck whatever you want, but if it quacks, swims and flies it is probably still a duck.

 But what do I know, I only have 13 posts, right?


----------



## goldenratiophi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think 'just as big as' would be the optimal term here._

 

no, because this time one file is slightly longer.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JustPhilbo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_... but if it quacks, swims and flies it is probably still a duck._

 

The important word in this is "probably". It is proof that is being sought so that doesn't quite do it. But it appears close and a few more efforts to rule out other remaining possibilities might be all it takes. How in the world is that "obfuscation"? Try to take off you combative and partisan blinders long enough to notice that I am not trying to defeat this experiment but to see if it can be perfected and rendered convincing and irrefutable to all. Some of you must be interested in more than victory and jeering at those of different opinions, mustn't you?


----------



## Grizzlepaw




----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


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

_

 

Well, the differences were not audible to me. Also to see these differences you are zooming down to 0.0001 or 0.00005 second divisions (the scales are not the same for your last two segments).

 Once you play this back at normal speed (as it were) any effects will be much harder to detect due to the masking effect of adjacent wave segments. 
 However you could run them through FooBar's ABX plug-in and see if they really are detectable, but you will have to trim the files to the same length and do a best effort alignment first or you could just tell from the file length. Let us know how you get on.


----------



## Grizzlepaw

I dunno. If I listen to the decay on both tracks, it sounds to me like left has a much smoother edge, and right has a much harder fall-off.

 But that could just be my mind playing tricks.

 I don't do much A/B listening, but to me it sounds like Left has more nuance.

 dunno. I'm listening to it through in ear monitors right off my mac PC. So YMMV.


----------



## unoab

If you are going to post graphs and use them to draw conclusions also make sure you include the divisions on the y-axis also. For all we know you may be complaining about .02dB of difference in a silent section of the music.

 If you want to use numerical data, like graphs of the WAV files make sure both amplitude and time information is visible. Then we can figure out both the approximate frequency that is present and its amplitude (only if there is a semi-sinusoidal shape to the noise). Objective data requires an objective evaluation.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What I would like to see is two different .wav files (or lossless files) created with the *same *cable to see if the types of differences that you are observing happen even with the same cable._

 

exactly - otherwise the experimental design is somewhat flawed, but pretty easily fixable.


----------



## nick_charles

I have just spent the last 2 and a half hours trimming and editting the two wav files. The differences are still there but once you align the files properly so that you can see them against each other the differences are really really small.





 In the picture above each time division is 1/10,000 of a second. So you see about 4 samples per division. The Y-axis is amplitude ranging from +1 to -1, it is hard to quantify percentage differences but they are small.


----------



## unoab

One thing I have been wondering about, if you were to take one test signal and feed it to the left ear, and feed the other signal to the right ear (assuming mono recordings), then if they were exactly the same you should get a perfect mono image directly in front of you. The fun comes when both signals vary from each other, based on the difference in both amplitude and phase it will create the effect of an inter-aural intensity and phase/time difference, thus locating the sound off axis of the center (soundstage? not quite..). This will be able to tell us if there is a difference in the recordings, since what is better at picking up subtle acoustic cues (read differences) than our auditory system?

 I don't think this will solve the problem of which cable is better, but it could possibly give an idea of where the differences lie between both of the cables, if it shows anything at all. Also lining up the sound clips becomes critical, down to the very sample, so maybe it is not a feasible idea, in which case I want my time back that I spent typing this...


----------



## Drag0n

Using my Chaintech Av710 > Canare Starquad mini to mini > Shellbrook MaxiMoy > Gradp SR80.....

 I might be imagining it, but the Right Wave version seems to have more echo and the Left Wave version seems like her lips are closer to my ear with less room ambience, but its so slight and i could be imagining it....but listen for that exact artifact yourself.

 Even if there is a difference though, its not worth the money to change cables. Niether is better, just possibly different.

 A well made $10 Volex cable would be fine in this case then.

 Ill have to listen again to be sure of what i heard, but if there is a difference, it isnt much at all.

 Maybe the difference would be more prominant on a high powered stereo amp though, being it will draw some serious current.


----------



## infinitesymphony

If we didn't have to worry about the issue of time-alignment, we could cancel out whatever was alike between the two files, leaving only the differences...

 Just looking at frequency spectrum vs. volume, it appears that the "Left" version is between 0.01-0.02 dB louder, but that might be because I don't have them perfectly time-aligned. Either way, the waveforms are extremely similar, even near the sample level. They're not identical, but they're close enough that a second playthrough with the same power cord might have yielded the same differences.

 Thank you for putting together this test, SamNOISE. Admittedly, you've put much more effort and consideration into your wall power than most of us have. Perhaps some of the positive effects of a filtering or shielded power cord won't be noticeable if the incoming power is already good? At least, that's what a manufacturer might ask, especially if they include ferrous materials in their power cables.


----------



## nick_charles

I tried a small expt myself. I took the analog output from my Entech DAC and used it as the input to an Edirol external USB soundcard/DAC. I then ran this into my Toshiba laptop (Core 2 Duo) 1.5GB ram and recorded the same track sample 3 times. Since my Edirol has a pretty good SNR it was quite easy to recognise where the track started and I was able to align the samples and trim them all to exactly 1:00:000000, (give or take 0.000001s since audacity has finite limits). I then ran a spectrum analyser on all three tracks from 86 hz to 21963.87 in 255 steps. I might change the granularity and try again but it will do for now. I then used Excel to calculate the differences at each frequency for the first 23.8 seconds. The results were as follows

 Diff-----------1 vs 2--------------1 vs 3------------- 2 vs 3 

 ave*****-0.00900618 *****-0.013965263 ******-0.004959082
 max******0.173462********0.041366 *********0.102386
 min******-0.168647*******-0.195579*********-0.281968


 So there were still differences - though quite small between the 3 trials that *should* have been identical. The 0.17db and -0.19db differences look impressive but these were at 21447 and 21533 where the energy levels hovered around -107db.

 EDIT
 -----
 Bother ! I just checked again and 1 and 2 are 0.000025 out of alignment - I will start again.


----------



## Sovkiller

Just as a double check, try to measure ten times the same track, to see if the curves are all alike...to me those differences observed could be more due to the tolerance of the instruments...


----------



## markl

I'm sorry, but IMO, this is the most ridiculous "test" of a cable I've ever read, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can't understand what the OP thought he was measuring. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What exactly were you expecting the *power cord* to do to the individual digital bits encoded on the CD you were copying to your computer? It can't turn an AC/DC track into a Barry Manilow tune... You will get the same digital bits out as you put in.

 What you have done here is analogous to filming a person tasting a glass of wine A and glass of wine B, standing back, looking at the playback and asking other people to prove that they can tell the difference between the two glasses of wine that the person in the video is drinking.


 EDIT: adjusted the tone controls on my post to mediate some of the sarcasm.


----------



## vcoheda

power cables for filtration. interconnects for tone adjustment.

 it's that simple.


----------



## Sovkiller

Here we go again....guys do you have any better suggestion for any other experiment, to prove that cables make a difference, other than your ears that will be really good for you, but for nobody else???


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is the most ridiculous "test" of a cable I've ever read, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can't even believe the OP is serious about this. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What exactly, pray tell, were you expecting the *power cord* to do to the individual digital bits encoded on the CD you were copying to your computer? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Turn an AC/DC track into a Barry Manilow tune?

 What you have done here is analogous to filming a person tasting glass of wine A and glass of wine B, standing back, looking at the playback and demanding other people prove that they can tell the difference between the two glasses of wine that the person in the video is drinking.

 Bravo! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

If power cables can make an audible difference then we should be able to detect some differences in the audio output, yes ?.

 So we can either ask for listening experiences or we can do some measurements. In this case the op has posted two samples recorded using two different cables for us to listen to and examine at our leisure. 

 If the cables make a difference then the sound output of the playback device should be different, yes ?.

 So far so good ?

 Now we cannot experience the OP's personal listening experience so the OP recaptures the analog outputs via a digitization process. So we have the analog streams re-digitized and in that form we can mess around with it, do measurements on it, listen to them ourselves and so on.

 We have to take it a bit on faith that the digitization process is a "near" perfect capture of the analog waveform and that it operates consistently. However with a decent band-limited capture device and or capture software the capture to 16/44.1 should be as good as we need. We also have to take it a bit on faith that the DAC behaves consistently in the first place. 

 If we can accept these assumptions then the digital captures should be sufficient to reveal any wave form differences between the two samples.

 Now if we reject the assumption of the consistency of the DAC and ADC then we have a much bigger problem than changing cables since we can never know what differences can be attributed to normal variations and in this case no sensible comparison is possible, but in that case we can posit with some legitimacy that the cables themselves may behave inconsistently and we could never ever know when the do, if that is the case then no listening tests will ever be meaningful due to the possibility of random variation and we can all happily buy kettle leads.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 Here we go again....guys do you have any better suggestion for any other experiment, to prove that cables make a difference, other than your ears that will be really good for you, but for nobody else??? 
 

 If he wanted to do something scientifically valid that could "solve" the problem, he would take a statistically significant sample size of true, acknowledged "golden ears" (like an army of Michael Fremers and such), use *their* systems that they know like the back of the their hand, and then conduct your double blind test by swapping out *their* power cord of choice (the sound of which they know like the back of their hand), and swap it out with a cheap stock cord. Then report your results. That would be a good start. But this test?...

 nick_charles, I wish I had more time to play today, but I am confident if people just *think* about this experiment for a minute or two, they will see that they are not measuring anything.

 You guys agree a digital bit is a digital bit, yes? He's transferred the *exact same information* twice (albeit from different sources), and has ended up with (guess what) two identical copies of the same data! How on earth could they sound different?


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You guys agree a digital bit is a digital bit, yes? He's transferred the *exact same information* twice (albeit from different sources), and has ended up with (guess what) two identical copies of the same data! How on earth could they sound different?_

 

He swapped the power cords on both his DAC and PC; the DAC was outputting analog information and the PC was receiving it and converting it back to digital. You seem to be implying that he basically ripped the tracks from the CD, which wasn't the case. Also, the waveforms are not identical...


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You guys agree a digital bit is a digital bit, yes? He's transferred the *exact same information* twice (albeit from different sources), and has ended up with (guess what) two identical copies of the same data! How on earth could they sound different?_

 

No, you are missing the point here. The point was to see if there was a diffrence in the analog outputs from the DAC using different cables, not the digital bistream. 

 The outputs from the DAC using two different cables were then recaptured to wavs, the wavs are proxies for the analog outputs.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If he wanted to do something scientifically valid that could "solve" the problem, he would take a statistically significant sample size of true, acknowledged "golden ears" (like an army of Michael Fremers and such), use *their* systems that they know like the back of the their hand, and then conduct your double blind test by swapping out *their* power cord of choice (the sound of which they know like the back of their hand), and swap it out with a cheap stock cord. Then report your results. That would be a good start. But this test?..._

 

Do you have any link to that test to see the results as well...it will be really interesting...

  Quote:


 You guys agree a digital bit is a digital bit, yes? He's transferred the *exact same information* twice (albeit from different sources), and has ended up with (guess what) two identical copies of the same data! How on earth could they sound different? 
 

Well not according to the cable adorers, they say that power cords make a difference (and regardless of where it is use) or sort of, for better or worst, right? That is what we have heard here, people lsitening diferences between two power cords in DACs, CD players, amps, (TVs, even irons an microwaves!!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)

 That is not the first time we heard of those right, then, why the hell if that can be heard, it could not be measured??? I do not get this logic, is your hearing better than any instrument? Sorry but I doubt that...otherwise we do not need them...

 If there is a *heard difference*, this difference by all means *could be, should be, and must be, (and if not now, in the future) measured and quantified* in one way or another...audio this is not a faith, it is part of an exact science...

 Why not leaving margin for other opinions as well, a wise advise, what about if in 20 years from now science prove you all wrong, with objective measurments, that thaere is no differnece, and make you all try and fail all imaginable tests? what are you going to say? Will you still insisit in that the earth is still flat and on top of 4 elephants!!!!


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He swapped the power cords on both his DAC and PC; the DAC was outputting analog information and the PC was receiving it and converting it back to digital. You seem to be implying that he basically ripped the tracks from the CD, which wasn't the case. Also, the waveforms are not identical..._

 

Even though I was unable to get two perfectly aligned samples even my crude tests show quite definite (small) variations in the wave forms from two attempts.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He swapped the power cords on both his DAC and PC; the DAC was outputting analog information and the PC was receiving it and converting it back to digital. You seem to be implying that he basically ripped the tracks from the CD, which wasn't the case. Also, the waveforms are not identical..._

 

On both ?, that isnt so good. If that is true then there are two variables DAC cable and ADC cable, that makes it a poorer design. It is always best to just change one variable at a time before you start getting into interaction effects.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even though I was unable to get two perfectly aligned samples even my crude tests show quite definite (small) variations in the wave forms from two attempts._

 

You might want to capture a couple of times with the same setup to see if the difference in waveform is just capture variability.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## markl

Quote:


 The point was to see if there was a diffrence in the analog outputs from the DAC using different cables, not the digital bistream. 
 

 This must have been buried deep in his post, because he talks about "data throughput from each cable". I've scanned the post again, and I still don't see where he says he's comparing the analog output. He talks a lot about the poor quality of the stock cable but does not discuss his methodology in a an easily readible way.

 I have no time, but even if he is, this is absolutely riddled with problems:

 1. You are comparing a copy of a copy on a different machine, you are evaluating the perrformance of *your* set-up, not the original. And what about the original set-up? Is it so hot to begin with? There will be degradation of the signal made during the copying process. How good is the source of the transfer, how good is the recipient of the transfer? If you are taking a picture of a picture, if your lens is not absolutely *perfect* (and what is), you will have artifacts, blurring, that extra layer of grain you get from a print of a print, etc. What DAC is he using to make the transfer or is it a computer? Is that buried in there somewhere? Does this source even reveal differences in things like cables in the first place? What interconnects were used to make the transfer? Are they also of low quality, further degrading sound?

 2. Now, subjects are listening to the copy of a copy on their *computers*, which are poor sources compared to the high-end stand-alone machines. Are they using cheap computer speakers to try to hear the differences? I can barely use my stock Dell speakers to listen to Youtube clips. 

 3. Who are these subjects? Audiophiles or other skeptics who can't hear cable differences to begin with?

 4. The test actually did reveal some (small) variances between the two samples (oops, how embarrassing). But there are some saying that this could be due to simple variances that occur with the machinery from copy to copy. OK, so it is acknowledged you are using flawed gear that can't consistently provide the same result to measure something as small as cable differences. This is a big problem with this test. 

 This "test" again makes the same mistake that the skeptics continue to make WRT to cables-- these differences are *small*. Now you are taking a recording of the original event to evaluate an original, possibly using crummy eqipoment to do it with. How do these differences even have a chance of showing up? 


 Rats, out of time, will play more tomorrow.


----------



## unoab

well if we really want to kick this study into high gear, I think we should bust out a true analysis program like matlab.

 Use your soundcard to play a sound file out and loop it back into the computer, now import both sound files into matlab (ideally this would be done IN matlab using device drivers with synchronus playback/recording). Do a fourier transform and divide them to find out the transfer function of the computer+soundcard, now we are ready to test power cables.

 Use the soundcard out to play a test signal, like you did before, through any number of components using whatever power cord you want. Record the output back into the computer, do another fourier transform in matlab, and divide by the transfer function of the computer you determined before. Now you will be left with a sound clip that is just affected by the particular component you ran the sound through, and the power cord it is using (well and the interconnects, but you can daisy chain them in the first step so they are included in the response of the computer).

 From here we could either audition these sound clips to see if there is a difference. Or the other option is to go back into matlab, go back into the fourier domain and divide the newly created output file by the original test file that we played. We are now left with the response of the component it was passed trough and the effects the power cable has. Both of these responses can be plotted and compared since the differences will be purely from the power cable.

 This is probably the best way to go with this experiment, completely objective, and all parts of the chain are taken into account and are removed from the final two files. But there will always be those that say something something is wrong.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Also, if you think a power cord improved your system are you not saying something greater about the power supply built into your components? I find esoteric powercords an insult to power supply engineers...


----------



## Sovkiller

May I ask which more credible physical methodology is under the saying I hear this or that, and what makes it more valid than this experiment? Do you know how easy is to fool your perceptions, even more while they are sometimes a month or two appart?

 Oh yes, I forgot, there is one, I take out this cable and put the other one in, but that is the same for both cases... 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You might want to capture a couple of times with the same setup to see if the difference in waveform is just capture variability.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

That is the first thing to determine, as I stated before, if the system at least is accurate with the same track, if not we are wasting out time since square one...


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You might want to capture a couple of times with the same setup to see if the difference in waveform is just capture variability.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

It was - 3 attempts all three slightly different, we are talking very very small variations and not visible until you zoom in to absurd levels i.e 0.0001s or even 0.00005s. would this swamp variations in cables - dunno ?


----------



## JohnFerrier

I agree with markl, except that it doesn't take a team of Michael Fremers, it takes only one. Akin to what Hirsch posted in 2004:  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If one, and only one, person can be shown to be able to reliably detect cable differences in a properly controlled setting, meeting stringent statistical criteria, then the question is answered. The differences exist._

 

However, it seems to me, that people need to think more clearly about human perceptions. Neural networks interconnect informaton. The brain, "the most complex thing in the known universe", is "massively parallel." How do you seperate the interconnections? If you don't fine, but then I don't think we are talking about "the real thing".

 (Regarding the "test" in this tread. I don't know. If the cables measure difference resistances, do you want this test to reveal differences in resistance? If it can't, then is the test equipment resolving enough?)


 .


----------



## unoab

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_(Regarding the "test" in this tread. I don't know. If the cables measure difference resistances, do you want this test to reveal differences in resistance? If it can't, then is the test equipment resolving enough?)_

 






 Different resistances? I can tell you as a fact they are different resistances, it is 10 vs. 14 gauge there will be a difference (you can find charts online). But whether that is going to be an audible factor I can definitely tell you it will not be, the only thing resistance would do is lower the voltage at the other end of the cable based on the load being drawn. If you want to take into account inductance and capacitance too, then we are talking about a transmission line here, and also a filter, so we go into different problems. And a multimeter would be used to measure resistance, not a soundcard.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


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





 Different resistances? I can tell you as a fact they are different resistances, it is 10 vs. 14 gauge there will be a difference (you can find charts online). But whether that is going to be an audible factor I can definitely tell you it will not be, the only thing resistance would do is lower the voltage at the other end of the cable based on the load being drawn. If you want to take into account inductance and capacitance too, then we are talking about a transmission line here, and also a filter, so we go into different problems. And a multimeter would be used to measure resistance, not a soundcard._

 

Sure. I, like markl, don't understand how sound cards can be used to reveal audible differences (especially, since I question that it would reveal resistance differences, then you have capacitance, inductance, shielding, orientation to other equipment, etc).


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_1. You are comparing a copy of a copy on a different machine, _

 

Do you mean the wav file on the website ? It is a digital copy I could download it 100 times and it will be exactly the same each time.


  Quote:


 you are evaluating the perrformance of *your* set-up, not the original. And what about the original set-up? Is it so hot to begin with? 
 

The evaluation employs a Pioneer Elite DV-45A as a transport and Yulong DAH1 outboard DAC combination, connected with a Toshiba pure-glass TOSLink Cable. This is driven into a PC (using one or the other of the two cables under consideration), which has been custom-built for this evaluation. The computer sports an Intel D915GA series mainboard with the latest BIOS update (0482), a dual-core 2.8 GHz Pentium processor, one-gigabyte of Kingston brand DDR-400 RAM memory and a Seagate 80 Gigabyte, SATA hard disk drive. All other drives have been disconnected and cables removed. The mainboard hosts only one PCI card; an ASUS Xonar audio interface 

 My own set-up is not quite so good , but pretty decent and I have a good external DAC , amp and headphones, I bypass the DAC in my USB soundcard so I only use the USB to S/PDIF function and I have bit-perfect output.

  Quote:


 There will be degradation of the signal made during the copying process. 
 

Do you mean the digitization process ?

  Quote:


 How good is the source of the transfer, how good is the recipient of the transfer? 
 

see above

  Quote:


 If you are taking a picture of a picture, if your lens is not absolutely *perfect* (and what is), you will have artifacts, blurring, that extra layer of grain you get from a print of a print, etc. 
 

For a digital copy this isnt an issue. I cannot help feeling you are mixing metaphors here.

  Quote:


 What DAC is he using to make the transfer or is it a computer? Is that buried in there somewhere? Does this source even reveal differences in things like cables in the first place? What interconnects were used to make the transfer? Are they also of low quality, further degrading sound? 
 

See above

  Quote:


 2. Now, subjects are listening to the copy of a copy on their *computers*, which are poor sources compared to the high-end stand-alone machines. Are they using cheap computer speakers to try to hear the differences? I can barely use my stock Dell speakers to listen to Youtube clips. 
 

For me an Edirol external sound receiver simply taking a bit-perfect USB stream and outputting S/PDIF into an Entech DAC then an M^3 amp and Sennheiser HD580 or Audio-Technica ATH-A700 headphones. Not stellar but surely good enough ?

  Quote:


 3. Who are these subjects? Audiophiles or other skeptics who can't hear cable differences to begin with? 
 

Folks here, several posted earlier, what does skepticism have to do with it ?. 

 Are you suggesting that those who cannot hear differences become skeptics, or that skepticism somehow makes you unable to detect differences, or that some people decide to be skeptical and thus some organic change occurs in their auditory systems, does that then mean that you have to actively believe in the differences before you can hear them ? 

  Quote:


 4. The test actually did reveal some (small) variances between the two samples (oops, how embarrassing). But there are some saying that this could be due to simple variances that occur with the machinery from copy to copy. OK, so it is acknowledged you are using flawed gear that can't consistently provide the same result to measure something as small as cable differences. This is a big problem with this test. 
 

When I did the digitization of the same CD track 3 times with the same set up I did get minor variations in the wavs, I posted some images and numbers and the variations were miniscule - seriously near 44.1K sample level. For a serious test you would want to repeat the process 20 times or so to get an average picture, I do not quibble with that and hopefully the Op will be moved to do this. 

 Please dont use the word copy when you mean digitization it is hard to get what you mean and it is misleading.

  Quote:


 This "test" again makes the same mistake that the skeptics continue to make WRT to cables-- these differences are *small*. Now you are taking a recording of the original event to evaluate an original, possibly using crummy eqipoment to do it with. How do these differences even have a chance of showing up? 
 

As above the recording kit does not look crummy, though even my laptop without my new and improved sound recording get-up could show differences between the analog outputs of two different CD players easily and measurably and my new set-up is quantifiable superior, it measures far better.

 Just how small are these cable differences, I can resolve down to the sample level, if they are smaller than that then it doesnt really seem worth the bother


----------



## markl

Quote:


 Do you mean the wav file on the website ? It is a digital copy I could download it 100 times and it will be exactly the same each time. 
 

 You are listening to a recording of an event (the output of the analog signal), that's copy#1. You are also listening to the recreation of that event on *your* gear (it has to go through your analog outputs, too, to get to your ear), that is copy #2.

  Quote:


 The evaluation employs a Pioneer Elite DV-45A as a transport and Yulong DAH1 outboard DAC combination, connected with a Toshiba pure-glass TOSLink Cable 
 

 You have 3 components here that require power cabling-- the transport, the DAC, and the PC recording their output. Where was the "good" cord placed? Why there and not somewhere else? Would it not make more sense to replace *all* these cables, rather than diluting the effect of the one cord you are trying to measure?

  Quote:


 Do you mean the digitization process ? 
 

 Yes, a digital picture of your backyard is not the same as the view from your window. Now we are introducing all the artifacts that digital recording entails. We are limited to the 16/44.1 resolution of the event, which is not the 100% resolution of actually listening to the actual analog output yourself. Ask a mastering engineer like Steve Hoffman, he will gladly tell you (what we all know) that digital has a "sound". This sound deviates from the absolutely perfect and is a coloration. You are adding this coloration to the sound when you record the output.


  Quote:


 For a digital copy this isnt an issue. I cannot help feeling you are mixing metaphors here. 
 

 You informed me the OP was not simply transferring digital data, he recorded the analog output of his system for this test. There will absolutely be a difference between the actual analog output and the digital recording of it. Also, you are then passing this along to be processed by your own PC, sending that signal back out through the noisy, low-quality analog output section of your sound card. Then you pass that signal on again into your headphone amp for even further distance from the source signal and more degradation. No one should labor under the illusion that they are hearing *exactly* what they would hear by listening to the OP's actual system. Not even close.


  Quote:


 For me an Edirol external sound receiver simply taking a bit-perfect USB stream and outputting S/PDIF into an Entech DAC then an M^3 amp and Sennheiser HD580 or Audio-Technica ATH-A700 headphones. Not stellar but surely good enough ? 
 

 Not picking on you, you have what you have, but Entech, is that that ancient Monster Cable litle DAC? Or am I thinking of something else? Not familiar with your headamp.

  Quote:


 Folks here, several posted earlier, what does skepticism have to do with it ? 
 

Placebo cuts both ways. If I expect a certain result (or non result) I will likely get it.

  Quote:


 Please dont use the word copy when you mean digitization it is hard to get what you mean and it is misleading. 
 

 Sorry, but you are making a digital recording of sound, namely the output of a couple RCA jacks. It's not that different than taking a mike and making a digital recording of the ambient sounds in your room or the traffic outside. It may sound pretty good, but it's still a recording/copy. the quality of that recording will depend largely on your recording device. How good do you think the computer soundcard's input is? Studio grade? How much time did the designers spend on this feature very few people will use? It may get overloaded during busy/loud passages and distort. Maybe it lacks full dynamic range and compresses the the sound. Maybe it's made of cheap parts that add grain to the sound? Who knows.

 What you are doing in effect is "mastering" an analog recording. Big mastering studios that do this professionally to wring every last drop of sound out of an analog source have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of better equipment than your humble sound card.

 If you don't think the quality of digital transfers can vary, compare an antique CD from 1984 to one made today (that has not been compressed to death). The old ADC chips and associated gear were vastly inferior to what we have today. And what the OP is using in his computer is vastly inferior to what is needed to do it as well as modern technology can (which still ain't "perfect".

  Quote:


 Just how small are these cable differences, I can resolve down to the sample level, if they are smaller than that then it doesnt really seem worth the bother 
 

 Please tell me what you are attempting to measure and how do you quantify it and what machines are you using to measure it? Please show me the machine that measures soundstage, air around instruments, the firmness of the bass, speed of attack, decay of notes, etc.

 You will tell me you are looking at either or both of the two measurable things:

 1. The output/peak levels (volume). Well, if a power cord changed peak levels or made certain passages louder and other quieter, that would indeed be a remarkable finding.

 2. The frequency response. All those measurements can tell you is, is there a signal present at 1,000 Khz? Is there a signal at 125Hz? Etc. Etc. It tells you absolutely zero, about how those frequencies sound, and how the whole gestalt of frequencies in that area sound together playing actual music.


 Man, it's my free night and I keep getting taken away from my chance to do some actual music listening. Bye!


----------



## bigshot

It really doesn't matter how stringent the testing methodology is. Folks will find fault in it just the same. To me, inaudible is inaudible. What I can't hear won't bother me. When I get some aspect of sound inaccuracy down to the unmeasurable and inaudible range, it's time to move on to something else that might make a significant improvement... or at least a perceptible one.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are listening to a recording of an event (the output of the analog signal), that's copy#1. You are also listening to the recreation of that event on *your* gear (it has to go through your analog outputs, too, to get to your ear), that is copy #2._

 

Okay, now I see what you were saying, thanks. 


  Quote:


 You have 3 components here that require power cabling-- the transport, the DAC, and the PC recording their output. Where was the "good" cord placed? Why there and not somewhere else? Would it not make more sense to replace *all* these cables, rather than diluting the effect of the one cord you are trying to measure? 
 

I dont know, I keep waiting for the OP to come back in. No, you should change one variable at a time, otherwise you have all sorts of interaction effects.

  Quote:


 Yes, a digital picture of your backyard is not the same as the view from your window. 
 

Agreed but not for the reason you think, the view doesnt exist without a viewer, a digital photo exists even if nobody sees it, even if it is in the box with the cat. 

  Quote:


 Now we are introducing all the artifacts that digital recording entails. We are limited to the 16/44.1 resolution of the event, which is not the 100% resolution of actually listening to the actual analog output yourself. Ask a mastering engineer like Steve Hoffman, he will gladly tell you (what we all know) that digital has a "sound". This sound deviates from the absolutely perfect and is a coloration. You are adding this coloration to the sound when you record the output. 
 

I sort of question this, I am far from an expert but I have read about demonstrations where a 16/44.1 A/D/A chain has been inserted into a playback and not been detected. Similarly I have read about others who have recorded LPs to CD and not been able to detect any effect of the digitization process, also some folks at the AES have taken SACD and downgraded it to 16/44.1 with no audible effect. I certainly think that the idea of artifacts of 16/44.1 is at least open to debate. 

  Quote:


 You informed me the OP was not simply transferring digital data, he recorded the analog output of his system for this test. There will absolutely be a difference between the actual analog output and the digital recording of it. 
 

Of course, one is a bit-stream the other is a continuously variable voltage thingy. As for the accuracy of the translation, it doesn't need to be perfect it just has to be transparent i.e not noticeable.

  Quote:


 Also, you are then passing this along to be processed by your own PC, sending that signal back out through the noisy, low-quality analog output section of your sound card. Then you pass that signal on again into your headphone amp for even further distance from the source signal and more degradation. No one should labor under the illusion that they are hearing *exactly* what they would hear by listening to the OP's actual system. Not even close. 
 

No, as I said quite clearly I use the USB to my soundcard to stream bit-perfect data then the soundcard simply sends an S/PDIF digital stream to my DAC, there is no analog component at all until after the DAC has done its job. 

 If there is so much variation in systems between recording and playback then you must agree that the best test is to look at the waveforms /spectrograms and then if there is no significant difference there is no effect of the cable ?

  Quote:


 Not picking on you, you have what you have, 
 

Well it certainly looks a bit like you are trying to demean my kit as if to imply it isnt good enough to detect differences, isn't that your subtext ?, you might as well be honest here, it isn't likely we will ever meet face to face ?

  Quote:


 but Entech, is that that ancient Monster Cable litle DAC? Or am I thinking of something else? Not familiar with your headamp. 
 

Again this looks slightly insulting. The Entech was designed by the designer guy from Audio Alchemy, that is all I know about its aetilogy. The M^3 or M cubed is a DIY Solid state design, mine was made by a well-respected builder and funnily enough a sometime member of this forum.

  Quote:


 Sorry, but you are making a digital recording of sound, namely the output of a couple RCA jacks. It's hardly any different than taking a mike and making a digital recording of the ambient sounds in your room or the traffic outside. It may sound great, but it's still a recording/copy. 
 

Actually I would suggest it is pretty different, unless you have something like a pro standard mike you will striuggle to get to what a half competent 16/44.1 ADC can do with a line level feed, certainly without spending megabucks you can expect your mike to be 3db down at 20K. A decent ADC will do 20 -20K +/- not very much at all.

  Quote:


 Please tell me what you are attempting to measure and how do you quantify it and what machines are you using to measure it? Please show me the machine that measures soundstage, air around instruments, the firmness of the bass, etc. 
 

Oh, I guess differences in the waveform, deviations between the waves from different set-ups measured in db or fractions more likely tiny fractions of db.

 Soundstage ? , not terribly useful as it is entirely subjective and unquantifiable. Air around instruments, what do you mean by this ?, firmness of bass are you talking about decay ?. Easy peasy with a waveform you can see the note peak and die and see how long it takes - trivial.

  Quote:


 You will tell me you are looking at either or both of the two measurable things:

 1. The output/peak levels (volume). Well, if a power cord changed peak levels or made certain passages louder and other quieter, that would indeed be a remarkable finding. 
 

If it doesnt change anything why buy it instead of a kettle lead ?

  Quote:


 2. The frequency response. All those measurements can tell you is, is there a signal at 1,000 Khz? Is there a signal at 125Hz? Etc. Etc. It tells you absolutely zero, about how those frequencies sound, and how the whole gestalt of frequencies in that area sound together playing actual music. 
 

FR also tells you the relative magnitude of the signal at each frequency, i.e how a component deviates from a flat response , assuming that a flat FR is generally a good thing ? that relative frequency behaviour is sort of crucial to how anything will sound !

 Can a cable change this ?

 I am not knocking listening tests if you want to assay subjective impressions that is fine by me, as long as they are unbiased of course. I just think that we should be able to determine some differences objectively as well.


----------



## Ricey20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It really doesn't matter how stringent the testing methodology is. Folks will find fault in it just the same. To me, inaudible is inaudible. What I can't hear won't bother me. When I get some aspect of sound inaccuracy down to the unmeasurable and inaudible range, it's time to move on to something else that might make a significant improvement... or at least a perceptible one.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

While I agree with some of the stuff you've said I have to say inaudible for you may not be inaudible for others. Its like how I was explaining to people in another forum about input lag on monitors. Some people dont notice those milliseconds of delay when playing a game but I'm very sensitive to it and input lag pisses me off while others who don't notice it always say its not a big issue or isn't there. The normal human can perceive about 35-40+ms of input lag while I can feel it even before that at around 25-30ms. Theres a way to test for input lag as well by comparing to a CRT yet even with that info those who cant feel it still argue its not there or doesn't make a difference.


----------



## unoab

Anybody yet to ask the question WHY a power cable would even make a difference? frequency response of the cable does not matter, as long as it passes your 50/60Hz power signal (yes the power from your wall is a signal too, hook up your speakers for fun sometime). 

 Also as long as it is 12 Ga or thicker, it is more than likely able to deliver power equal to or better than the wiring in your walls, which I might add are longer than said power cable.

 Once the power is in your "black box" of equipment the cable is hooked up to, it is most likely going to pass through a power supply which will not only store energy (in capacitors), negating the whole power delivery argument, but it will most likely be filtered again and regulated to a specified amount of ripple on top of a DC signal.

 So I would instead modify your power supply inside of the component before even touching a single power cord other than the stock one.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Agreed but not for the reason you think, the view doesnt exist without a viewer, a digital photo exists even if nobody sees it, even if it is in the box with the cat._

 

That made me laugh a little inside..


----------



## colonelkernel8

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_Not picking on you, you have what you have, but Entech, is that that ancient Monster Cable litle DAC? Or am I thinking of something else? Not familiar with your headamp._

 

The Entech 203.2 number cruncher measures better than probably 90% of the "audiophile" DAC's out there today markl (with their laughable "audiophile" output stages which introduce a sickening amount of distortion), it does not "color" the sound at all. Just because it doesn't have "super audiophile bull****" in the name doesn't mean it isn't better. But of course anything that isn't marketed exclusively toward audiophiles is below you. What a pompous ***. Only the best for markl and everyone else just has subpar equipment that isn't capable of "reproducing the differences in cables". The fact that you haven't even heard of the M^3 is pretty sad considering you have been here since 2001...designed by the same guy who made the B22.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If one, and only one, person can be shown to be able to reliably detect cable differences in a properly controlled setting, meeting stringent statistical criteria, then the question is answered. The differences exist. If they didn't, *nobody* could detect them._

 

This statement is not accurate at all, and could not be more wrong, if the differences are perceived by *just one person* in repeated experiments under the same circumstances, or different, that indicates *only that this person* is able to hear them, that doesn't say a single bit of info as *how universally accepted this fact will be*...but I think that we do no have to worry, about if our hearing is good or not, as till now nobody have been able to, in any test I know off...If this test exists, I honestly would like to read about it...

 Then applying this same logic, of excluding the rest of the population, and limiting the result ot just one single individual on a test, then we could say as well: "...If one, and only one, person cannot reliably detect cable differences in a properly controlled setting, meeting stringent statistical criteria, then the question is answered. The differences do not exist. If they do, *everybody* could detect them..."

 One could be deaf, the other could hear too much...


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *unoab* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anybody yet to ask the question WHY a power cable would even make a difference? frequency response of the cable does not matter, as long as it passes your 50/60Hz power signal (yes the power from your wall is a signal too, hook up your speakers for fun sometime). 

 Also as long as it is 12 Ga or thicker, it is more than likely able to deliver power equal to or better than the wiring in your walls, which I might add are longer than said power cable.

 Once the power is in your "black box" of equipment the cable is hooked up to, it is most likely going to pass through a power supply which will not only store energy (in capacitors), negating the whole power delivery argument, but it will most likely be filtered again and regulated to a specified amount of ripple on top of a DC signal.

 So I would instead modify your power supply inside of the component before even touching a single power cord other than the stock one.


 That made me laugh a little inside.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Don't go there man...this has been argued to death, and to make the long answer short, they do not want to hear about this fact. They say to hear the differences and period, that is the only valid truth for them...what they hear!!!


----------



## unoab

Oh well, it was worth a shot. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 thanks for the heads up though...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This statement is not accurate at all, and could not be more wrong, if the differences are perceived by *just one person* in repeated experiments under the same circumstances, or different, that indicates *only that this person* is able to hear them, that doesn't say a single bit of info as *how universally accepted this fact will be*...but I think that we do no have to worry, about if our hearing is good or not, as till now nobody have been able to, in any test I know off...If this test exists, I honestly would like to read about it...

 Then applying this same logic, of excluding the rest of the population, and limiting the result ot just one single individual on a test, then we could say as well: "...If one, and only one, person cannot reliably detect cable differences in a properly controlled setting, meeting stringent statistical criteria, then the question is answered. The differences do not exist. If they do, *everybody* could detect them..."

 One could be deaf, the other could hear too much...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I still agree with Hirsch. To show that there are audible differences in cables, only one person needs to demonstrate it. No one else may be able to hear the differences, but it still shows that audible differences exist.


 .


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I still agree with Hirsch. To show that there are audible differences in cables, only one person needs to demonstrate it. No one else may be able to hear the differences, but it still shows that audible differences exist.


 ._

 

This of course true, but if it is just one person in the whole world it would enter the realm of being pretty much insignificant and probably get the poor chap dissected to boot.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I still agree with Hirsch. To show that there are audible differences in cables, only one person needs to demonstrate it. No one else may be able to hear the differences, but it still shows that audible differences exist.

 ._

 

The differences in performance do exist, nobody is denying them, materials are different, geometries are different, dielectrics are different, values of parameters are different and the systems are different, what is important is not that, is to what extend those little differences that exist, are audible to us or not. And not to a bat, not to an ubergifted person, that BTW most of the times are not the ones who claim to hear them...and that is why we have seen so many DBT's fail miserably because the ones who participate are all average Joe's, claiming to be bats...

 If a person could hear over 20KHz, or below 20Hz, or other parameters in the spectrum, that are not the average values for a normal person, that person has indeed an extra sensorial gift, as for example Al's girlfriend who is blind, or that black blind child that we all saw here, that had his eyes removed and walks and even skate like a normal child, but these persons are not an average Joe. The average Joe's that we find here claiming hearing these differences, to me, if it is audible to one of those gifted persons, it proves nothing, you need to have a population big enough to conclude that one thing is noticeable at least...BTW they are audible for bats, and dogs, so what?

 BTW while designing something, in audio or in any other discipline, you have always parameters for the design. Those are the ones who govern the cost, and of course the logic behind them, parameter that have been establish, and calculated by human beings, professionals, and are based on the common practice, some of them centuries ago.

 You can maybe design an amp that could go up to 3MHz for audio, but what for? And at what cost? Same with cables, you set some R, L, C, and after that, a fancy jacket, and you build a cable around, depending on the application, of course those values will introduce anomalies, that is why it is said that the best cable is no cable, but those are acceptable, and barely noticeable for the majority of the mortals...they are practical values...

 The other problem, that we face in this discussions, is that nobody had bother to even try to prove, or create a better theory on why they are different or should sound different, not even the manufacturers who sell them, and that is really pathetic and sad...Why paying an outrageous sum of money if they are not even able to tell me why their cables should sound better??? Oh I know, you have to try them, they for sure will do...but what happen when you find no differences at all: then you are deaf, you are a child, and your system sucks, yeah right!!!!


----------



## infinitesymphony

I agree with *unoab*... The differences between the files probably cannot be ABX'd by most people, even on great equipment (though there may be someone out there who could ABX these minute differences), which is why we should first determine if the equipment involved can capture the stream in a sufficiently identical way every time when none of the variables are changed. If it can't, then the test is invalid because the encoding/decoding (i.e. measuring) devices aren't working.

 If it does record sufficiently identical streams without changing variables, then a computer program should be used to cancel the similar parts and show us exactly what is different. It won't necessarily prove audibility or inaudibility, but it will suggest that there is or is not a significant difference when power cables are changed.

*nick_charles*, I think the OP decided to change all of the variables at once in order to give the cheap/awful cables the highest chance of failure versus the equipment that should maintain higher signal quality. His theory is that if the difference between great cords and awful cords is inaudible, then the other tests are unnecessary because the differences will also be inaudible.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The differences in performance do exist, nobody is denying them, materials are different, geometries are different, dielectrics are different, values of parameters are different and the systems are different, what is important is not that, is to what extend those little differences that exist, are audible to us or not. And not to a bat, not to an ubergifted person, that BTW most of the times are not the ones who claim to hear them...and that is why we have seen so many DBT's fail miserably becasue the ones who participate are all average Joes, claiming to be bats...

 If a person could hear over 20KHz, or below 20Hz, or other parameters in the spectrum, that are not the average values for a normal person, that person has indeed an extra sensorial gift, as for example Al's girlfriend who is blind, or that black blind child that we all saw here, that had his eyes removed and walks and even skate like a normal child, but these persons are not an average Joe. The average Joe's that we find here claiming hearing these differences, to me, if it is audible to one of those gifted persons, it proves nothing, you need to have a population big enough to conclude that one thing is noticeable at least...BTW they are audible for bats, and dogs, so what?_

 

The physical differences of cables are buried in the noise/distortion of the other electronic components of the system and the relatively large distortion of the transducers.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The physical differences of cables will buried in the noise/distortion of the other electronic components of the system and the relatively large distortion of the transducers._

 

Exactly, or not even that, simply they could be not noticeable enough, to be perceived as such independently of the system...

 Honestly before spending a big sum of money on any cable, look around to see what else you need to improve in your system, or could be improved if it is not even a need for you, I personally even spend first on a new chair, well indeed my chair shucks...


----------



## JustPhilbo

How about using something like Audio Diffmaker to subtract one track from the other. It handles alignment of the time component. 

 If what is left is audible, then there must be an audible difference between tracks. If not, then there is no audible difference.

 It can be found at Audio DiffMaker evaluation system for audio enhancements

 What do ya'll think?

 PS. I just love to see folks squirm when their paradigm is squeezed a bit <grin>


----------



## markl

Quote:


 The Entech 203.2 number cruncher measures better than probably 90% of the "audiophile" DAC's out there today 
 

 Please list the DACs you've compared it against. Knowing it's better than 90% of DACs out there suggests you've done quite a survey.

  Quote:


 (with their laughable "audiophile" output stages which introduce a sickening amount of distortion), 
 

 that's interesting, please provide the data that shows all other DACs besides your are distortion machines. I'd like to see that.

  Quote:


 Just because it doesn't have "super audiophile bull****" in the name doesn't mean it isn't better. 
 

 I could not care less about what badge is on any gear, just how it sounds. My source is a Marantz, designed by a nameless faceless corporation. No fancy designer there. But I did have it upgraded with a lot of superior parts. It's amazing how simply upgrading parts quality improves sound quality in an existing circuit. This is not untestable "audiophile ********", it something you can test by listening to the before and after of your DAC with better parts. 

  Quote:


 But of course anything that isn't marketed exclusively toward audiophiles is below you. 
 

 Non-sequitur. Read my reviews, the most expensive gear does not always win. For example, I just sold my R10 for a headphone that's 1/8th its cost.

  Quote:


 Only the best for markl and everyone else just has subpar equipment that isn't capable of "reproducing the differences in cables". 
 

 Another non-sequitur. Do we agree there are differences in how equipment perform? I bet we do. Therefore, there is a continuum from poor to great. This is just a fact of life, and as a fact is neutral in its content, although you seem to take it personally. Where my gear is or is not along that continuum is irrelevant. The fact is, there is a point on this continuum at which cable differences become more pronounced. 

 You are not your gear.


----------



## SamNOISE

Wow!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 You guys blow my mind – I posted this one in several other audio discussion forums as well and didn’t get nearly the sane lines of questioning as I have witnessed here. Sorry I took so long to respond, I’ve been on the Mt. boarding my butt off!

 Some unanswered questions: The output from the DAC is taken from the DAC-Out RCAs, not the Line-Outs. It’s fed into the Line-Ins on the back of the Xonar PCI Sound card via a standard, gold-plated, single-shielded cable. (I cleaned the ends with 99.9% isopropyl alcohol and buffed them dry before use).

 What I am really hoping will happen on one forum or another is that folks will decide that this warrants further investigation – by way of folks actually conducting evaluations such as this themselves, recording the results and posting them here (or just ask, I’ll host em’ for free on my server).

 I suspect that many of you have CD players / DACs / other equipment that are stunningly expensive and well-respected in the audiophile world – and I’d love to see you employ your kit for a ‘Peer-Review’ of sorts of this evaluation. If anyone wants power cables to trash, just ask; I have a great many kicking around the shop that you can have for free!

 A whole series of power cable evaluation / recordings of this nature, taken from a wide variety of hardware would be absolutely fantastic – your forum is also the (only) one thus far that has even entertained the option of (you) peer-reviewing the groundwork I have presented here. Kudos to you!

 Good luck, I hope some of you cats pursue this project. If there is any way that I can help, please let me know by contacting me at Canadian Audio Video If you leave me a PM here I might not get back to you promptly as I am a member of (far too many) forums and don’t always get back to each in a timely manner.

 Are you fellows aware that there are over 100 English-language A/V forums on the Net!? Check out ‘the list’ here: Canadian Audio / Video :: View Forum - Other Online Forums. It’s too bad that we can’t consolidate them a bit, so much discussion, so little cross-referencing between the many forums.

 Andrew D.


----------



## stevenkelby

Nice test Andrew, I am keen to try similar things myself. 

 My position is that I believe I have heard differences between silver and copper but not with several thousand dollars of gear, only with several thousand dollars worth in the correct configuration and with the right source material, when I'm in the right mood etc. 

 The differences are very small i would not expect myself or anyone else to pick them out, most of the time.

 I'm interested in the science behind it but not firmly entrenched either way. Logically there is no way to prove the negative, but it would be interesting if someone could consistently DBT for the positive, that would at least get some unquestionable runs on the board for the pro side. Maybe it will happen, maybe not.

 On a side note, hands up everyone who thinks that a frequency response graph tells you everything about how something sounds?


----------



## Riboge

I assert, for the purpose of correcting the perspective about cables, that any 2 cables that are different 'sound' different. In many cases this is audible to human listener(s) and in many the difference is beneath the threshold of audibility. This is something that cannot be proved because there can always be another pair of cables yet to be tested. To disprove this you have to demonstrate that any one pair of different cables sound the same. Can you? That would mean that no difference at all appears in any measurement of the output of each resulting from the same input. That is clearly not the case in what the op presented.

 Please note that this is the engineers' version of the word "sound" (from what I gather), which is often confused with the audiophile's and general public's use of it to mean what is heard or would be heard if there were someone listening.

 As Sovkiller says a bit earlier: "The differences in performance do exist, nobody is denying them" (though many *are* denying them), it is the significance of the differences that is at issue. So it is not an existence (of difference) issue but rather a valuation issue we are debating. Significance is highly related to audibility but audibility varies from person to person and 'within' a person as a function of equipment, age, degree of training, etc, etc. Worth of the difference is even more complex since financial means, opportunity, wives, environment, etc, etc., also come into play. How can an experiment that does not control for all of these hope to settle the issue?

 Further, even if a panel of the best listeners cannot hear the difference, does that settle totally the issue of its significance?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JustPhilbo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How about using something like Audio Diffmaker to subtract one track from the other. It handles alignment of the time component. 

 If what is left is audible, then there must be an audible difference between tracks. If not, then there is no audible difference.

 It can be found at Audio DiffMaker evaluation system for audio enhancements

 What do ya'll think?

 PS. I just love to see folks squirm when their paradigm is squeezed a bit <grin>_

 

I tried this. When Audio Diffmaker is finished there is a track showing the differences, played back it is completely silent and in Audacity it is a completely flat line at the highest resolution. I once again trimmed both wavs and aligned them again, better this time. Viewed as wavs I cannot "see" any differences, viewed as waveform db there are still tiny differences.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I assert, for the purpose of correcting the perspective about cables, that any 2 cables that are different 'sound' different. In many cases this is audible to human listener(s) and in many the difference is beneath the threshold of audibility._

 

If it's beneath the threshold of audibility, it doesn't 'sound' different. It might measure different, but it doesn't sound that way. All reasonably well made audio cables 'sound' the same.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Filburt

Quote:


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

_

 

Considering the scale you appear to be working at, this looks more like non-static ADC error (e.g. sample variance, distortion+noise) than anything else.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Filburt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Considering the scale you appear to be working at, this looks more like non-static ADC error (e.g. sample variance, distortion+noise) than anything else._

 

I recorded the same track 3 times with the same cables and found a similar pattern of minor variations between the 3 versions it was way down , round about 0.003 to 0.009 db, peaking at 0.017db at about 21K.


----------



## SamNOISE

nick_charles / Filburt,

 Nice work fellas.

 Did the same thing today with a CD / RIP - of Eric Clapton's 'Alberta', taken from the excellent Unplugged CD.

 I find the same kind of visual variances - even with the same cable - but don't hear a damned bit of difference when A/B/X'd using WinABX (playback via external DAC into ATH-M40fs cans).

 What’s the recording chain you cats are using? (deck/dac/cables/recording device). I'm wondering if we are all using the free / open-source Audacity software application. It'd be interesting to learn if that is the common factor. I note that Adobe Audition III is available in a DEMO version (time-limited / fully-functional), from their www site:

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/i...on&loc=en%5Fus

 Additionally, I am thinking that clocking / sampling is a gremlin in the graphics we are seeing. Perhaps a direct CD-to-sound-card, ditch the outboard DAC - is the way to go. I know that audiophiles will moan about internal DACs, but I feel confident that the internal DACs in any sanely-built CD player are more than up to the task. Afterall, not all of the fellows who support the 'power-cables-makes-an audible-difference' stance are using outboard DACs; many employ 'standard' CD players. Will spin off and post a couple of more .wav files using Adobe Audition + CD-to-Asus sound-card in the next day or two...

 Andrew D.

.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If it's beneath the threshold of audibility, it doesn't 'sound' different. It might measure different, but it doesn't sound that way. All reasonably well made audio cables 'sound' the same.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

But you regularly reject that meaning of "sound"! By that definition, many sound different to many people. If honest people report hearing a difference it's audible, no? The meaning you usually apply is based on putative measurements and theories that apply via those measurements. So you mean they measure different but you don't consider the difference significant or sufficient to be audible, wrongly I think, but that is what I said.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I tried this. When Audio Diffmaker is finished there is a track showing the differences, played back it is completely silent and in Audacity it is a completely flat line at the highest resolution. I once again trimmed both wavs and aligned them again, better this time. Viewed as wavs I cannot "see" any differences, viewed as waveform db there are still tiny differences._

 

Thanks for testing for us... That's a step toward finding that a change in power cables does not make a significant difference in the resulting audio. Now all that remains is for multiple users to try the test in their own setups. Perhaps someone out there has equipment or dirty incoming power from the wall that _would_ show a significant difference between power cables...

 Given all of the variables in SamNOISE's test that potentially could have changed between the two recordings, the results are surprising (at least to me).


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ *Perhaps someone out there has equipment or dirty incoming power from the wall that would show a significant difference between power cables...*_

 

The cable is not a power conditioner, nor a filter, the best they could do is reject some EMI or RF, but other than that, do you really believe that if the cable could fix the problems you may have at the outlet, the power conditioners and regenerators exist??? The solution is not so simple...Dirty power is a pain in the neck to be treated, and even with conditioners and filters, sometimes is not easy...There are many equipments in which the AC polution is indeed a problem, but AFAIK none of them operate in audio frequencies at all...

 Now to what extend that polution in the AC line, that will be downsized to a few volts, using the induction of a transformer, and later on rectified to DC, and filtered by huge caps, to remove the ripple, can make any difference is the point...


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The cable is not a power conditioner, nor a filter, the best they could do is reject some EMI or RF..._

 

Right, that's all I meant... A cable isn't going to cure every power problem, but even with shielded vs. unshielded cables, there is the potential to avoid external noise. That change didn't create a significant difference in SamNOISE's system, but perhaps it would make a difference in other systems with those issues.


----------



## JohnFerrier

.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But you regularly reject that meaning of "sound"_

 

No I don't. That's a straw man. I reject two types of 'sound': the 'sound" that is inaudible and only shows up in graphs, and 'sound' that isn't able to be objectively perceived... in short, sound you can't hear, you can only think you hear.

 My concern is with the sound you actually listen to.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I recorded the same track 3 times with the same cables and found a similar pattern of minor variations between the 3 versions it was way down , round about 0.003 to 0.009 db, peaking at 0.017db at about 21K._

 

Totally inaudible.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I recorded the same track 3 times with the same cables and found a similar pattern of minor variations between the 3 versions it was way down , round about 0.003 to 0.009 db, peaking at 0.017db at about 21K._

 

Agreed, the difference is negligible, which means that your test setup is working. Now it's time to try some cable substitutions.


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 My concern is with the sound *you *actually listen to.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Who? Or de we all hear exactly the same?


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Soundstage ? , not terribly useful as it is entirely subjective and unquantifiable. 
_

 

Wait a minute, does soundstage exist or not? If it's unmeasurable that means there are things we can hear, but not measure, right?


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Totally inaudible.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Prove.


 It.


 See ya!


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Prove.


 It.


 See ya!_

 

It's the responsibility of the boy who claims to have a bogey monster under his bed to prove its existence.

 --Chris


----------



## stevenkelby

It's totally inaudible to Bigshot. He assumes tht means it's totally inaudible to anyone. That's all it means.


----------



## stevenkelby

I can prove there is no Bogey monster under my bed.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No I don't. That's a straw man. I reject two types of 'sound': the 'sound" that is inaudible and only shows up in graphs, and 'sound' that isn't able to be objectively perceived... in short, sound you can't hear, you can only think you hear.

 My concern is with the sound you actually listen to.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Tell me, when you listen to "the sound you actually listen to" do you "objectively perceive" it? From your point of view that should be a nonsense, self-contradictory phrase--except in the case of someone with your omniscience, of course. Do you realize that you can actually listen to sound that you are not perceiving at all(e.g., remembering).

 In regard to "the 'sound' that is inaudible and only shows up in graphs": that is irrelevant one way or the other because we are interested in differences in audible sound which show up in graphs and that may be 'inaudible' according to the dictates of existing measurements and theories but which nonetheless some trained listeners can hear. And do you realize that it is not nonsense to talk of such differences being actually heard and not only thought to be heard even when the hearer cannot hear them consistently or repeatably? Try to disprove that with an experiment. What can be heard varies among people and within a person due to a huge number of factors which can change over time. Important and more lasting ones include age, training, physical endowment, and the quality of the audio setup.

 This all leads back to the idea that what is under discussion is the significance and worth of differences in graphs and in what is heard and not their existence. You don't have to try to tell people they don't perceive what they perceive to argue that the difference heard that a cable makes is not enough or heard often enough to matter or to pay for.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's totally inaudible to Bigshot. He assumes tht means it's totally inaudible to anyone. That's all it means._

 

Thank you!

 At least some people understand what that particular line of questioning entails.

 I am asking good 'ol Steve to prove to me that those particular (and specific) measurements are provably inaudible to him.

 In fact, a very simple question.

 But as well, they would be entirely subjective evaluations and entirely based on his own personal capabilities and biases.

 No bandying about with some "logical" or "intellectually honest" muckety-muck, just straight forward:

 STEVE, MR. BIGSHOT, DO YOU HEAR A DIFFERENCE?*







 *which steve has yet to provide (as far as I've searched...) in ANY evaluation of ANY piece of gear in THIS specific forum.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wait a minute, does soundstage exist or not? If it's unmeasurable that means there are things we can hear, but not measure, right?_

 

I am happy with soundstage as a label for the experience of separation between channels and of recordings that create the illusion of instrument placement in space. I can experience that myself, but my wide may be your narrow.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can prove there is no Bogey monster under my bed._

 

Nope, you can only say that you do not see it, but later on I can say that I do, and even touch it, and pull it, but I do not need to prove it, so I will not do it....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wait a minute, does soundstage exist or not? If it's unmeasurable that means there are things we can hear, but not measure, right?_

 

Soundstage is not only measurable, it is created, by the recording engineer most of the times. It is not more than the placement of the material and instruments, and some artificial and added acoustic parameters along the two channels (or more) you can put more here or there, and you can play with it, and create as many sound-stages as you want, placing guitar on left, right, center, moving them along, drums more to the left or to the center, or to the right, etc...

 It is not a real part of the performance in the studio at all, in a recording studio all instruments are most of the times recorded flat, and even mono, and all you hear later on is the performance of the recording engineer using the recodings as he beleives are the closest way to the real placement...


----------



## monolith

...The smallest detectable change in volume is usually quoted as something between 0.1 and 1 dB.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, you can only say that you do not see it, but later on I can say that I do, and even touch it, and pull it, but I do not need to prove it, so I will not do it....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Soundstage is not only measurable, it is created, by the recording engineer most of the times. It is not more than the placement of the material and instruments, and some artificial and added acoustic parameters along the two channels (or more) you can put more here or there, and you can play with it, and create as many sound-stages as you want, placing guitar on left, right, center, moving them along, drums more to the left or to the center, or to the right, etc...

 It is not a real part of the performance in the studio at all, in a recording studio all instruments are most of the times recorded flat, and even mono, and all you hear later on is the performance of the recording engineer using the recodings as he beleives are the closest way to the real placement..._

 

what about that rachmaninoff I just listened to?

 the "soundstage" sounded eerily like when I actually heard it at the BSO... don't think they individually mic'ed each member of the strings.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Totally inaudible.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

He meant totally inaudible to humans. That includes you yotacowboy, right? You cannot hear 0.009 dB. I dont care what your gear is.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what about that rachmaninoff I just listened to?

 the "soundstage" sounded eerily like when I actually heard it at the BSO... don't think they individually mic'ed each member of the strings._

 

Of course not, they put mics in each section and then use the "pan" feature of any mixing board to move it to its corresponding "location" on the stereo "picture". Either that or they recorded the whole thing with two mics and pan them left and right 50%. I doubt they do that though.

 Are you implying that soundstage is something that cable's add? You gotta be kidding me...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wait a minute, does soundstage exist or not? If it's unmeasurable that means there are things we can hear, but not measure, right?_

 

Soundstage is a recording technique. It can be affected by channel separation and phase, both of which are perfectly measurable.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who? Or de we all hear exactly the same?_

 

If our hearing is in good shape, yes we all hear pretty much within the same range. That's how thresholds of perceptibility are established.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's totally inaudible to Bigshot. He assumes tht means it's totally inaudible to anyone. That's all it means._

 

Look at the numbers. Figure out what they mean. You'll agree.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tell me, when you listen to "the sound you actually listen to" do you "objectively perceive" it?_

 

Perceive subjectively. Test for it objectively. If it passes both tests, it's worth worrying about. If it doesn't, worry about something else.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what about that rachmaninoff I just listened to?

 the "soundstage" sounded eerily like when I actually heard it at the BSO... don't think they individually mic'ed each member of the strings._

 

With orchestras the process is quite different, it is more natural, I was talking in general, of the bands of a few members, like in pop, rock, jazz, etc...
 Of course you can not have 100 mikes placed all around, and 100 channels to record, they use a lot less, also there are a lot of interaction among the instruments of the different sections, and in the cases of orchestras, the placement of the mikes along the stage is very crucial, as you can not change what they recorded later on so easily, due to these same intercations, or it will sound fake if you do....usually the placement is decided by the conductor of the orchestra as well... 

 It is also said (not by me) that the best conductors for recording are not the best conductors to listen live, and the best to listen live, are not so good while recording...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am asking good 'ol Steve to prove to me that those particular (and specific) measurements are provably inaudible to him._

 

You aren't worth the effort. I'm talking past you to the rest of the readers here. If you are really interested, do some googling on "threshold of audibility" and "decibel" and find out for yourself what a sliver of a gnat's hair sounds like.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...The smallest detectable change in volume is usually quoted as something between 0.1 and 1 dB._

 

By definition. 1dB is the smallest detectable difference using direct A/B comparison of tones. With music, it's closer to 2 to 3 dB.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By definition. 1dB is the smallest detectable difference using direct A/B comparison of tones. With music, it's closer to 2 to 3 dB.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Here are some charts that will help them understand what a decibell is....Also some here and here just in case...


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You aren't worth the effort. I'm talking past you to the rest of the readers here. If you are really interested, do some googling on "threshold of audibility" and "decibel" and find out for yourself what a sliver of a gnat's hair sounds like.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Thanks Steve!

 Your opinion is worth JUST AS MUCH as anyone else's here. I appreciate your ability to "talk past" anyone's opinion (as little constructive input as you have), but that really does nothing to either prove or disprove anything.

 Steve, you project your beliefs, ahem, I mean, you seem to "know your stuff", so, in fact, I'd rather not do some googling, I'd rather hear you explain what a sliver of a gnat's hair sounds like. Please, I want to know what your experience is as far as gnat's hairs.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks Steve!

 Your opinion is worth JUST AS MUCH as anyone else's here. I appreciate your ability to "talk past" anyone's opinion (as little constructive input as you have), but that really does nothing to either prove or disprove anything.

 Steve, you project your beliefs, ahem, I mean, you seem to "know your stuff", so, in fact, I'd rather not do some googling, I'd rather hear you explain what a sliver of a gnat's hair sounds like. Please, I want to know what your experience is as far as gnat's hairs._

 

What are you asking? Did he not just say 1 dB was the threshold of audibility (at least in a/b testing). What do you think 0.009 dB would be? There is no way 9 _thousandths_ of a decibel is audible. Hell, I doubt a dog could hear that.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *colonelkernel8* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He meant totally inaudible to humans. That includes you yotacowboy, right? You cannot hear 0.009 dB. I dont care what your gear is._

 

The truth is, I have no idea whether I can hear 0.009 db. I can hear differences in music, and differences in speakers, and differences in headphones, and differences in amplifiers, and differences in CD players, and differences in cables.

 I am, afterall, JUST listening to music, right? If I hear a difference, and I find it to be worth the money spent, how can YOU fault that? It is neither your money, nor your equipment, nor your music... correct?


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *colonelkernel8* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What are you asking? Did he not just say 1 dB was the threshold of audibility (at least in a/b testing). What do you think 0.009 dB would be? There is no way 9 thousandths of a decibel is audible. Hell, I doubt a dog could hear that._

 

See above.

 I have no idea whether I can hear 0.009 db difference.

 I also have no idea whether Steve, Mr. Bigshot, Capt. BIGSHOT, THE BIGSHOT, can hear a .009 db difference, or a 1 db difference, or a 6 db difference, or a 30 db difference. Only Mr. Steve the BIGSHOT (he is a BIGSHOT you know, he's famous!) and his audiologist can say.

 Steve, I think you should post the results of your next audiology exam!


----------



## infinitesymphony

Take a second and look back at the post you're all debating:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*I recorded the same track 3 times with the same cables* and found a similar pattern of minor variations between the 3 versions it was way down , round about 0.003 to 0.009 db, peaking at 0.017db at about 21K._

 

If you believe that differences in volume level between 0.003 dB and 0.017 dB are audible, it would mean that nick_charles's system would be generating audible differences on each playback _using the same equipment_. He hadn't swapped anything yet, so his post is not the equivalent of the OP's.


----------



## brainsalad

My experience has shown that believers will continue to believe and non-believers will continue to non-believe. It doesn't matter what facts and scientific principles are used to validate the non-believers, the believers will continue to say that they hear differences. Until a forum or group discussions are permitted to do accurate double blind tests (and believers participate) and publish those results will anyone budge or have the humility to accept the results and be taught.


----------



## SamNOISE

BrainSalad,

 Right you are, but open discussion of DBT [always] ends up in verbal warfare between sides. I’ve seen it now in dozens upon dozens of forums – it’s the same every time…

As for the rest of ya': If we let [this] thread devolve to "F@#$ You", no, F*&^ You!" - It’ll simply be canned / locked, by the mod' team...

 Brain’, the other way, is to have members conduct evaluations along the lines of what I posted originally, then have them listen to their own recordings and post their process and procedures. We can do this with a lot of different equipment, and seeing as a great number of us have kick-ass audio kit, there’s no reason to believe that we cannot amass a ‘library’ of sorts with .wav (or other lossless formats), of various hardware / cables / fuse or whatever evaluations, along with notations of the equipment used to conduct the eval’. 

 This is quite simply Peer-Review at it’s core, and offers the most even-handed method of allowing everyone a chance to hear the item in question without actually owning the equipment, as well as allowing those -with- the same equipment to attempt duplication. I’ll offer to host said files as I have shiploads of unused bandwidth on my account, which allows 205 Gigs a month. Anyone else who wishes to mirror these files is also more then welcome to do so.

 Andrew D.
Canadian Audio Video


----------



## UseName

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *brainsalad* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My experience has shown that believers will continue to believe and non-believers will continue to non-believe. It doesn't matter what facts and scientific principles are used to validate the non-believers, the believers will continue to say that they hear differences. Until a forum or group discussions are permitted to do accurate double blind tests (and believers participate) and publish those results will anyone budge or have the humility to accept the results and be taught._

 

You have to realize how much time and money believers have spent on these cables. Some of these guys take it very, very seriously and a great deal of their ego is involved. This is especially true if they were ones who have spent time A/Bing and writting reviews. 

 Asking them to have humility to accept the results is extremely unrealistic. It's not going to happen. 

 As for skeptics, well... they are the ones willing to test these things, so I guess I don't need to say much. I also think their ego is less involved as they haven't spent the same amount of time, or money.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *UseName* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*You have to realize how much time and money believers have spent on these cables. Some of these guys take it very, very seriously and a great deal of their ego is involved. This is especially true if they were ones who have spent time A/Bing and writting reviews.* 

 Asking them to have humility to accept the results is extremely unrealistic. It's not going to happen. 

 As for skeptics, well... they are the ones willing to test these things, so I guess I don't need to say much. I also think their ego is less involved as they haven't spent the same amount of time, or money._

 


[size=xx-large]GOOD STUFF!!![/size]



.


----------



## Riboge

You think some cables are expensive? Try having a panel of 10 people available whenever you evaluate equipment to corroborate that you did 'objectively perceive' what you hear!

 Enormous Steve, at least you are now talking in terms of what's worth bothering with rather than simply asserting it doesn't exist: a just barely perceptible smidgeon of progress. Let's call that 1 bigshot or 1 bs.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You think some cables are expensive? Try having a panel of 10 people available whenever you evaluate equipment to corroborate that you did 'objectively perceive' what you hear!

 Enormous Steve, at least you are now talking in terms of what's worth bothering with rather than simply asserting it doesn't exist: a just barely perceptible smidgeon of progress. Let's call that 1 bigshot or 1 bs._

 

If a thing is not worth to be considered into the evaluation of a problem, practically talking, it doesn't exist to me....maybe is a matter of semantics, and if you want to go into semantics or philosophy that is good, but technic and science is based in practical values, otherwise nobody could afford it....

 Let's take this example, you are going to build a house, and in the probabilities of unfortunate events that you will consider maybe you decided to consider events that may happen 1 in 15 years, a hurricane, an earthquake, etc....and design for that external forces, or combination of them, but if you want to consider all possible variables, and let's say, consider events that may happen 1 in 1000 years, like a glaciation, then you have a freaking bunker instead of a house!!! How much this will cost you, how much concrete or steel you may need to reinforce even the walls!!!


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Take a second and look back at the post you're all debating:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
I recorded the same track 3 times with the same cables and found a similar pattern of minor variations between the 3 versions it was way down , round about 0.003 to 0.009 db, peaking at 0.017db at about 21K.

 


 If you believe that differences in volume level between 0.003 dB and 0.017 dB are audible, it would mean that nick_charles's system would be generating audible differences on each playback using the same equipment. He hadn't swapped anything yet, so his post is not the equivalent of the OP's._

 


 Correction: The differences peaked at 0.17db - I mis-remembered a decimal point, sorry. At normal listening levels this may just be marginally audible. However this difference occured when the level was at ~ -107db so may well be burried in noise anyway.

 I just did a check of the Spanish harlum files, trimmed and aligned and looked at the differences

 Ave difference*****0.010146047 db
 min difference***** -0.00009db
 Max difference*****0.197006 db

 Where the difference is biggest

 Freq***********left*********right*******difference

 21963.86719*****-81.504868 **-81.701874*** 0.197006

 So the differences I got with one cable were of the same scale as the differences with 2 cables and the biggest differences were in exactly the same place i.e with low intensity high frequency sounds.


----------



## JohnFerrier

If you can hear a pin drop 10 rows over during a rock concert performance, then, yes, maybe you can hear differences in cables.

 -

 Maybe more on topic, and in my mind unyielding, how about trying to amplify the "sound" of cables?


 .


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If a thing is not worth to be considered into the evaluation of a problem, practically talking, it doesn't exist to me....maybe is a matter of semantics, and if you want to go into semantics or philosophy that is good, but technic and science is based in practical values, otherwise nobody could afford it....

 Let's take this example, you are going to build a house, and in the probabilities of unfortunate events that you will consider maybe you decided to consider events that may happen 1 in 15 years, a hurricane, an earthquake, etc....and design for that external forces, or combination of them, but if you want to consider all possible variables, and let's say, consider events that may happen 1 in 1000 years, like a glaciation, then you have a freaking bunker instead of a house!!! How much this will cost you, how much concrete or steel you may need to reinforce even the walls!!!_

 

That all makes perfect sense except for one thing that keeps being ignored (bizarrely in my estimation since it's what it is all finally about): people hear and enjoy the differences! They are not anticipating the unlikely or grasping at minutia. They hear it now, they hear it often, those with practice and skill can even carefully study and describe the differences, others take their recommendations and quite often are glad they did. It seems to me if there were something doable in a home construction that was analogous to this, you'd be foolish to ignore it.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That all makes perfect sense except for one thing that keeps being ignored (bizarrely in my estimation since it's what it is all finally about): people hear and enjoy the differences! They are not anticipating the unlikely or grasping at minutia. They hear it now, they hear it often, those with practice and skill can even carefully study and describe the differences,_

 

With power cables or do you mean interconnects ?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That all makes perfect sense except for one thing that keeps being ignored (bizarrely in my estimation since it's what it is all finally about): people hear and enjoy the differences! They are not anticipating the unlikely or grasping at minutia. They hear it now, they hear it often, those with practice and skill can even carefully study and describe the differences, others take their recommendations and quite often are glad they did. It seems to me if there were something doable in a home construction that was analogous to this, you'd be foolish to ignore it._

 

I'd like to know what differences in cables you hear. If I do a search on head-fi, will I find your description? (Can you provide a keyword that would aid a search?)


 .


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd like to know what differences in cables you hear. If I do a search on head-fi, will I find your description? (Can you provide a keyword that would aid a search?)


 ._

 

You'd best use Markl's descriptions as specimens. I am a neophyte at expressing what I hear in a way that gets across to others in a sufficiently specific way. It is a challenging skill to develop. I fall more in the category of those who have taken some of his recommendations and are glad for it. To put it another way, when I listen to ones he's described I can identify a fair bit of what he says about them.


----------



## mark_h

I'm beginging to notice a trend in these cable erm...discussions.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With power cables or do you mean interconnects ?_

 

That's a good question because I, for one, am far less convinced about power cable differences being important though I do hear some and am glad to have the better ones. With interconnects and speaker cables, some of the differences I've heard are pretty darn clear and sometimes important enough to really be meaningful in terms of listening enjoyment and/or realism. Night and day, never.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your opinion is worth JUST AS MUCH as anyone else's here._

 

There's a common misconception that all opinions are created equal. This is completely wrong. Some opinions are backed up by evidence and experience and others are simply argumentative, semantic and full of logical fallacies. It's up to the person listening to make up their mind which is which. Those are the people out there who read threads like this.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_See above.

 I have no idea whether I can hear 0.009 db difference.

 I also have no idea whether Steve, Mr. Bigshot, Capt. BIGSHOT, THE BIGSHOT, can hear a .009 db difference, or a 1 db difference, or a 6 db difference, or a 30 db difference. Only Mr. Steve the BIGSHOT (he is a BIGSHOT you know, he's famous!) and his audiologist can say.

 Steve, I think you should post the results of your next audiology exam!_

 

Would the mods please take note of this post. If you want a perfect example of what causes these threads to veer over the line into non-productive mudslinging, you have a perfect example right here.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

I'm posting too much in this thread, so one last thought: It occurs to me that those that take the 'scientific' approach see themselves as doing something analogous to saying the emperor has no clothes on when they assert no audible differences to those who hear differences. Here's why that analogy fails. In the fable it's not that the people don't see a naked emperor all along, it's that they are too afraid to admit it and have grown accustomed to acting as if it weren't so. Here the people or many of them anyway hear differences all along, before and after supposedly the truth is asserted. It's more like telling people who persist in seeing a clothed emperor that the clothes really aren't there. This has led to some pretty forced and unlikely claims such as that thousands of people simultaneously and separately are imagining things, the same things. Or that multitudes are so consumed with pride having spent money on cables they can't/won't admit they are deluded. A claim of enduring mass hysteria is the foundation of what is claimed to be a hard-nosed, scientific and practical-minded approach to cables. Talk about improbable!

 Face it. The challenge is to explain how it is that people really hear differences when so little shows up on our current means of measuring. Quit ducking it.


----------



## UseName

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You'd best use Markl's descriptions as specimens. I am a neophyte at expressing what I hear in a way that gets across to others in a sufficiently specific way. It is a challenging skill to develop. I fall more in the category of those who have taken some of his recommendations and are glad for it.* To put it another way, when I listen to ones he's described I can identify a fair bit of what he says about them.*_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm posting too much in this thread, so one last thought: It occurs to me that those that take the 'scientific' approach see themselves as doing something analogous to saying the emperor has no clothes on when they assert no audible differences to those who hear differences. Here's why that analogy fails. In the fable it's not that the people don't see a naked emperor all along, it's that they are too afraid to admit it and have grown accustomed to acting as if it weren't so. Here the people or many of them anyway hear differences all along, before and after supposedly the truth is asserted. It's more like telling people who persist in seeing a clothed emperor that the clothes really aren't there. * This has led to some pretty forced and unlikely claims such as that thousands of people simultaneously and separately are imagining things, the same things. Or that multitudes are so consumed with pride having spent money on cables they can't/won't admit they are deluded. A claim of enduring mass hysteria is the foundation of what is claimed to be a hard-nosed, scientific and practical-minded approach to cables. Talk about improbable!

 Face it. The challenge is to explain how it is that people really hear differences when so little shows up on our current means of measuring. Quit ducking it.*_*
*
*


You admit to hearing the same thing AFTER reading what markl described. If people were really hearing the same differences, they would describe those differences independant of what some 'more experienced' listener said. The challenge of explaining how it is people hear a difference is quite obvious to me... they want to hear a difference. Pretty clear cut IMO.*


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You'd best use Markl's descriptions as specimens. I am a neophyte at expressing what I hear in a way that gets across to others in a sufficiently specific way. It is a challenging skill to develop. I fall more in the category of those who have taken some of his recommendations and are glad for it. To put it another way, when I listen to ones he's described I can identify a fair bit of what he says about them._

 

You can't describe one way that cables make an audible difference for you?


 .


----------



## SamNOISE

Andrew D.
Canadian Audio Video


----------



## mencargo

A friend of mine brought some new speakers, and plugged them with normal twisted cables, he felt they lack a lot of bass and midrange detail.
 After some research he made a cable from UTP LAN CAT 6 cable, twisting 3 of them to make one cable.
 Turned to be much better than his dad's expensive audiophile cables.
 =D


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *UseName* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You admit to hearing the same thing *AFTER* reading what markl described. If people were really hearing the same differences, they would describe those differences independant of what some 'more experienced' listener said. The challenge of explaining how it is people hear a difference is quite obvious to me... they want to hear a difference. Pretty clear cut IMO._

 

That's not what I said, of course. I said he could articulate the difference we both can hear. I hear differences on my own all the time.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can't describe one way that cables make an audible difference for you?


 ._

 

I didn't say that and you damn well know it! Nasty!


----------



## Riboge

Just for the record lest you empty debunkers try to make more of my not saying what I hear: I have heard cables make a difference in:
 timbre of an instrument
 dynamics
 clarity
 apparent separation of instruments
 prominence of a frequency range (no idea if this involves different freq.response)
 location of sounds on a sharpness to smoothness continuum

 But I will not discuss these further or post again in this thread.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That all makes perfect sense except for one thing that keeps being ignored (bizarrely in my estimation since it's what it is all finally about): people hear and enjoy the differences! They are not anticipating the unlikely or grasping at minutia. They hear it now, they hear it often, those with practice and skill can even carefully study and describe the differences, others take their recommendations and quite often are glad they did. It seems to me if there were something doable in a home construction that was analogous to this, you'd be foolish to ignore it._

 

To ignored and to enjoy what? You will keep in ignoring them, till them becomes noticeable, you are misunderstanding me, I'm not talking of differences that could not be heard, I'm talking of the ones that even while are there cannot be heard, as they are beyond of the human threshold...like those 0.009db. They are ignored by default, as they cannot be taken into consideration, they are practically *not there*...unless you want to have redundant information into the equations...

 Another example, we use "pi", the greek number for a number of mathematical and scientific calculations, thousands, but I will ask you, how many digits you use after the decimal point, most of the times 3 or 4 are enough, may I ask you why not using 100 decimal degits? PI is an infinite decimal number...Simply it is not practical, and it will not give you more accuracy at all, given certain level...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I didn't say that and you damn well know it! Nasty!_

 

It was a question, not a statement, based on your post. You didn't indicate that you had previously posted impressions and didn't post an impression. You referred me to markl's posts. I don't know it. That is why I asked.


 .


----------



## brainsalad

around and around we go. I'm getting dizzy.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just for the record lest you empty debunkers try to make more of my not saying what I hear: I have heard cables make a difference in:_

 

timbre of an instrument (Harmonics/Frequency Response Balance)

 dynamics (Dynamic Range)

 clarity / apparent separation of instruments (Distortion/Signal to Noise)

 prominence of a frequency range / location of sounds on a sharpness to smoothness continuum (Frequency Response)

 Every one of those aspects of sound is measurable.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## miscreant

why not just use a little muscular power and pull the copper wires out of your wall and solder directly to your dac or amp... so absolutely no detail will be lost and the veil would be totally gone... forewer!


----------



## SamNOISE

Ohhh, 15-pages and we’ve got where on this subject? Lets see, 15 pages, perhaps an hour worth of typing per page (lotsa’ two-finger hunt & peckers out there), and not one single person has attempted to post their replicated work? Again, let me know and I’ll offer to host you lossless .wav files on my server. Simply share with us the equipment you’ve used so others can attempt to line up similar kit while replicating the experiment (the thousands of you who bought Benchmark DACs can step up any time now…).

 Andrew D.
Canadian Audio Video

 (or would you rather argue a bit more?)


----------



## Jolida302

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Face it. The challenge is to explain how it is that people really hear differences when so little shows up on our current means of measuring. Quit ducking it._

 

It's because measuring criterias don't reflect the differences in musicality.
 On the paper, solid state amps have lower distorsion rates than tube ones.
 But actually good tube amps go much much further (at least in the mid/highs) on all subjective criterias...you can explain that by another theory: the pair and unpair harmonic's issue. So there's a big difference between theory and the reality of sensorial experience. I don't care about the smoky theories of narrow minded pseudo-scientists and jealous...cables of all sorts make a big difference (some downgrade and other upgrade, -just like power filters and vib' control devices and furnitures-, but i'm only interested in the good ones). Only the result and the music counts.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SamNOISE* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_15 pages, and not one single person has attempted to post their replicated work? ... Simply share with us the equipment you’ve used so others can attempt to line up similar kit while replicating the experiment._

 

You may want to start a new thread specifically asking for people to participate in the experiment, defining what it is, what's required, how to take measurements, etc. It will be a little easier to keep a thread like that on track, since you'll be putting the power in the hands of the people, rather than revealing or implying an opinion from the beginning; some people may think that you're trying to justify your own personal conclusions. Let the collection of results speak for itself, and then we can determine both individually and/or as a group if there's anything to be found.


----------



## music_man

i know this is an old post. i wanted to dispel an absurd myth. i thought this was a good thread to do so.

 believers in power cords when confronted with the 100 miles of wire argument say it is the first six feet not the last. uh oh. the power cable is consuming current, not exhausting it! oops.

 music_man


----------



## music_man

i wanted to say something else. if you saw on ebay a lavry da924 for $50 and a nordost odin power cable for $55 but under penalty of law you could only choose one, which would you choose? the cable must make more of a sound difference because it is $5 more right?

 in reality the lavry is about $7,500 and the nordost is about $22,000 for 2 meters. the new math?

 in all honesty "if" you have poor power, a quality comercial grade conditioner is your real answer. if you have perfect power and do not put a conditioner ahead of the cables they may all sound very slightly different. the conditoner should negate that if it is doing it's job. i don't really have any issue with cables besides the unfair marketing practices as to be able to charge thousands for a wire. it upsets me but nobody made me buy all of them. do i feel let down? just a little 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .

 as for audio grade conditioners i think the ps audio power plant premier is real cool. the only problem is some components can be smoked if you fool around with that thing aimlessly. a power regenerator is cool to me though instead of a $5,000 box of mov's.

 music_man


----------

