# The Cable Factor



## Czilla9000

(I wrote a big long editorial on this...but then realized I could sumerize it into a few sentences.)


 Ok....the battle wages on on the issue of "do cables matter". Many claim that it is only placebo and psychology...others argue that it is not... but no side will ever win...

 Why? 

 Because somebody who spends $2000 dollars on a cable is never going to admit, even if he or she knows it in his or her gut, even if there is overwhelming scientific evidence otherwise, that purchasing that cable was a waste of money.


 I am not saying that one side is correct, I am just stating something that impacts the battle that we do know is psychological.

 Peace.


----------



## MacDEF

Possibly a valid statement if everyone who claims to hear a difference between cables had paid $2000 for cables.

 But the truth is that even people who haven't spent a dime on cables can audibly tell the difference between stock cables and upgraded cables -- and not just $2000 cables, but even $40 cables. So basically your assertion that placebo, generated by the need to justify a purchase, explains any differences doesn't make sense.


----------



## Czilla9000

I am not saying that cables do not make a difference. I am not saying that cables do make a difference either. I am just saying why the war will never end.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Basically you're showing that there is a group of people that will never surrender to the naysayers, even if they are right, *if* they are right.

 Do you have a similar proof showing that there is a group of people that will never surrender to the 'yeahsayers', even if they are right, *if* they are right? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Well I have a pretty good proof of that myself, I think--

 Somebody who stakes his whole reputation on the power of science and who happens to know squat about science will never admit, even if he or she knows it in his or her gut, even if there is overwhelming *real* scientific evidence otherwise (as against his own deluded view of science), that purchasing cables can be a valid use of money.

 Another many a somebody who who has tin ears would seem to have overwhelming personal evidence that cables are a waste of money, despite overwhelming scientific and anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

 All this applies *only if* there is going to be overwhelming scientific evidence for this, scientific evidence for that, blah blah blah...


----------



## Czilla9000

I agree Bloggs.


----------



## Czilla9000

BUT however Bloggs...

 "yeahsayers", however, have nothing left to experience if they are proven wrong. They have already spent the money on cables. They can know longer, if proven wrong, spend money cables seriously thinking it will increase there musics realism. 


 "naysayers", however, do, if they are proven wrong, have something new to experience. They can gain in a sense by losing, because they will now know there is something new they can spend money on to increase audio repreduction. The "naysayers' will be more likely to surrender because they have not already made an investment, and will be more likely to, when proven wrong, just say "Oh wow, now I have something new to research and spend money on. Yippeee!"


 EDIT:


 It comes down to believing....people want to believe in things. 



 If a "yeahsayer" is proven wrong, he will have one less thing to believe in.


 If a "naysayer" is proven wrong, he will have one more thing to believe in.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

So how about the tin ear population?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I'm sure there are people in the world who want to *not* believe in things as well as the usual kind of people


----------



## kelly

I classify myself on the skeptic side of things. My outlook from the onset is always biased in this way: "X is cheaper than Y. Therefore, I'd rather buy X than Y. For me to purchase Y knowing X is cheaper, Y must be substantially and clearly better than X."

 I hate brand loyalties, technology loyalties and snobbery and virtually all other prejudices. I care only about the quality of the product relative to other products in a similar price bracket.

 So cables, for me, definitely fall into the "yeah right" category. They're expensive as hell and there's no way a price/performance freak like me wants to blow my hard earned money on a (explicitive) cable when I could be spending it on components, music, hookers, crack, whatever.

 The problem is that the cables do matter.

 There seem to be two schools of thought--people who share a lot of my frustrations expressed above who will search for evidence on paper of a difference and when they cannot find anything conclusive on paper will do no further research and in the other school people who value subectivity above all else and will dismiss anything on paper.

 I land firmly in the middle. I believe science is NOT taking what other scientists have put to paper and using these papers to explain the universe. Rather, science is observing the universe and then attempting to explain it. I believe we all strive to be scientists in this sense of the word and that we often fall into one of the extremists views is when we lose site of our purpose. </surmon>

 So... listen to cables. If you hear a difference, then we can begin to look at trying to explain that difference. If you don't hear a difference, looking for one on paper will probably not make you a happier audiophile.

 The test...

 Theory aside, here's the real test of whether cables matter. Go to a Headroom tour stop if you can. Listen to the HD600. Get a sense of what it is like with the StefanAudio Art Cable vs the Clous vs the Cardas. Personally, dparrish and I liked the Cardas better. Nick and Flumpus liked the StefanAudio Art cable better. Not one single person thought they were identical--NOT ONE. These people had NO MONEY on the line and no motive to perceive a placebo effect. Furthermore, when we talked about the differences we seemed to all reach similar conclusions about how they sounded--meaning not only that we all pereceived a difference but that we all perceived the same difference.

 I'm not going to tell you every $2000 cable is worth $2000. I can only tell you that cables matter and cables do not all sound the same. I think you'll find this to be true yourself after some auditioning.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I think me and Czilla can put together the 'Bloggs-Czilla Theory of Die-Hard Boilerheads in Cable Flame Wars'


----------



## Ricky

Cables CAN sound different... as long as there are gross differences in their electrical parameters. In these cases, these differences are easily measurable.

 I believe some high-end cable manufacturers do strange things in their cables, which in fact lead to degraded performance. This cables can sound different. Maybe X cable has a high-frequency rolloff which makes it sound less "harsh" and more pleasant to some listeners. This is what in fact happens with valve amplifiers. These amplifiers in fact distort the sound much more than a decent solid state amplifier, but for many this is a pleasant distortion, which adds "warmth" to the sound.

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*I land firmly in the middle. I believe science is NOT taking what other scientists have put to paper and using these papers to explain the universe. Rather, science is observing the universe and then attempting to explain it. I believe we all strive to be scientists in this sense of the word and that we often fall into one of the extremists views is when we lose site of our purpose. * 
 

Agreed 100%. If me and many others had any reliable proof that under controlled conditions, two cables having similar RLC electrical parameters (in practice this means that they are not very different to a regular RS cable) sound different, be sure that many people, amateur or true scientists, would be investigating WHY. That's what's science about.


----------



## DarkAngel

More tempest in the teapot
 More chasing of the unicorn

 This is all pointless arguing/discussing of things that don't concern the audiophile, who is corcerned with how something sounds to him in his system.

*THIS IS SUBJECTIVE AND EMPIRICAL!* 

 No amount of measuring and analysis can tell "ME" what will sounds "GOOD" to me, it is "MY" preference. If we were electrical engineers or actually designing cables these measurements can be useful yardsticks, but again back to the subject we are audiophiles and our opinions and preferences are purely subjective and even subject to change over time.

 I don't need a spectrum analysis to tell me whether I should like 
 Matisse or Monet paintings better, it is my subjective preference
 just like it is my subjective preference what sounds good to me.

 The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can end these pointless discussions. You can't measure what sounds "GOOD"

 BTW, I do think people naturally try to rationalize that the more something costs the better it is and it is easy to fall into this trap,
 and applies to all types of consumer products.


----------



## Jeffo

How good does the equipment need to be in order to notice a difference in cables (for the yeahsayers), especially interconnects? My starter system:
 Denon DRA-685 Receiver (100w x 2)
 Denon DCD-810 CD Player
 B&W 560 Speakers (Similar to 600 line)
 Monster speaker wire
 Stinger Hyper interconnects ($7)

 Would I (or you) notice a difference going up to $40-$50 interconnects in this system?


----------



## kelly

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*Agreed 100%. If me and many others had any reliable proof that under controlled conditions, two cables having similar RLC electrical parameters (in practice this means that they are not very different to a regular RS cable) sound different, be sure that many people, amateur or true scientists, would be investigating WHY. That's what's science about. * 
 

I hate to argue with someone who claims to agree with me but...

 When I said as scientists we should observe the universe first and then attempt to explain what we see on paper--I did not mean to imply that only that which we observe through instruments and tools is valid.

 If my meager ears hear a difference then it is a difference worth exploring. If the tools by which you measure cannot discern the difference which I hear, I will be more apt to blame the inadequacy of your measuring tools than a placebo effect on my ears.

 To pretend differences we have not yet been able to measure do not exist *even though we perceive them* is to bury our heads in the sand and fall victim to the _religion of science_ rather than using science.


----------



## kelly

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Jeffo _
*How good does the equipment need to be in order to notice a difference in cables (for the yeahsayers), especially interconnects? My starter system:
 Denon DRA-685 Receiver (100w x 2)
 Denon DCD-810 CD Player
 B&W 560 Speakers (Similar to 600 line)
 Monster speaker wire
 Stinger Hyper interconnects ($7)

 Would I (or you) notice a difference going up to $40-$50 interconnects in this system? * 
 

Jeff

 It is my opinion that cables cannot improve a sound. They can only destroy a sound. Therefore, the differences are how much sound are they distorting. Some cables distort more than others. If this is the case, a better cable would distort less regardless of the components the cable connects yielding better performance in a similar way across all price ranges of components.

 I realize this flies in the face of the formulas people try to generate "spend x% on cables, y% on speakers" but these formulas are senseless. The answers are not so simple and you'd have to audition and experiment to figure out what price points are worthwhile for you.

 I don't have any experience with the Singer Hyper interconnects. I'd say most people (even of the "religion of science" variety) can somewhat justify cables that have shileding and quality connectors meaning that even they are willing to pay $30-40 for ICs or for parts to build them and I tend to think versus generic unshielded cables with low quality parts, the differences should be obvious to almost anyone.


----------



## Jeffo

kelly, the Stinger Hypers are shielded and have good quality (as far as I know) connectors:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=1356383228
 I bought them because I didn't have money to spend and was just looking for something shielded with gold connectors that would be better than the typical interconnects that come with some equipment.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*Cables CAN sound different... as long as there are gross differences in their electrical parameters. In these cases, these differences are easily measurable.
* 
 

This is of course a simplistic assumption, and assumes that you know what to measure, which would be a very arrogant and likely false assumption for any scientist. A far more useful assumption is to look at the anecdotal data, determine if there is merit in the number of people who claim to hear differences, and then try to find out why. Since you quoted pharmaceutical research in another thread, I can tell you that that's the way it works. A drug is on the market. Anecdotal reports appear as case histories in journals, or adverse side effect reports to FDA. Eventually, there's enough anecdotal evidence that it becomes apparent that a controlled study is needed, and one is done.

  Quote:


 *
 Agreed 100%. If me and many others had any reliable proof that under controlled conditions, two cables having similar RLC electrical parameters (in practice this means that they are not very different to a regular RS cable) sound different, be sure that many people, amateur or true scientists, would be investigating WHY. That's what's science about. * 
 

You've got science ass-backwards. Science is about observing the world, coming up with explanations, and then testing them. If a doctor sees an adverse drug effect in a patient, it's not the doctor's job to figure out why it's happening. It's up to the scientist to put together the anecdotal information, form a hypothesis, and test it. With regard to cables, the anecdotal information is there. Anybody who's heard the effects knows that they are there, and that's all they really need to know. After all, to listeners trying to achieve the best sound out of their systems, that's what's important, not trying to prove what they hear to somebody else. You've got the anecdotal evidence. The percentage of people who report hearing cable differences is so high that the anecdotal evidence is compelling in and of itself. Either form a hypothesis and do a properly designed study (or provide references to a properly designed study that has been done. Hint: In audio, I haven't seen any), or butt out. Repeating your *beliefs* about cables is a religious, not a scientific approach, and not worth the time that I and others have wasted on you.


----------



## kelly

I love when Hirsch and I agree. It's so rare and yet so rewarding.


----------



## jona

I must agree with Kelly. There are some poor I/C's out there which clearly degrade the performance of otherwise fine audio equipment. OTOH, once one gets beyond the stage of larger gauge OFC wire with well-made gold connectors the return on investment $$$ becomes rather small to my ears. I think I offended one friend when I could honestly not tell a difference between his baseline $150 I/C's & some newer $800 ones even on blind a/b testing on his >$10K home system. (Incidentally, he refused to blind a/b test these same I/C's after I could not tell a difference!) It offends me greatly when some high-end audio shops push high-profit margin items (inc. some I/C's) when they know (or should know) that the items will not significantly improve the buyer's system. I know of an incident where an audio shop highly recommended $250 I/C's to the buyer of a $5K system, then used generic 18ga speaker wire for the sub on deliver & installation!!! 
 That said, I can consistently pick out differences in some cables. I find some of those differences pleasing. Some manufacturers construct I/C's to produce certain audio effects (e.g. rolling off high frequencies) & I see nothing inherently wrong with that. Such options may help competent (and honest!) audio shops in matching a system's sound to the listening room's characteristics and (most importantly) to the owner's preferences.

 Jon


----------



## pigmode

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*I classify myself on the skeptic side of things. My outlook from the onset is always biased in this way: "X is cheaper than Y. Therefore, I'd rather buy X than Y. For me to purchase Y knowing X is cheaper, Y must be substantially and clearly better than X."



 So cables, for me, definitely fall into the "yeah right" category. They're expensive as hell and there's no way a price/performance freak like me wants to blow my hard earned money on a (explicitive) cable when I could be spending it on components, music, hookers, crack, whatever.

* 
 

I agree with DA--it's all subjective and personal depending on one's budget and taste. My approach to the question has been to through a lot of money at it in an attempt *to find my own truth to the matter.* I'm completely happy with the results. Who dares, wins.


----------



## Leporello

What an interesting thread!

 Indeed we have heaps of anecdotal evidence about differences between cables (to name an example).

 Anecdotal evidence is about perception: “To my ears brand A sounded better/different/brighter/more musical etc. than brand B”. For many an audiophile this seems to be sufficient. It is also true that they do not have to prove anything.

 However, there is another breed of audiophiles (like me, for instance) who would like to explore a little further than the surface level of perceptions. Many of us also feel that making factual statements about empirical reality in public is more convincing if it is backed by evidence. You may choose not to care (“I do not have to prove anything”), but then what is the point in debating publicly? Better close the doors and windows...

 “… Anybody who's heard the effects knows that they are there…”. I agree with Hirsch to the extent that a genuine perception of an effect certainly is there. Those claiming to hear differences are not faking.

 But a question that still remains unanswered is: are these perceptions of an effect caused by different acoustic output between to different pieces of equipment – or by something else? This is what my kind of audiophiles are interested in. Perceptions are fine, but as an audiophile I am not terribly interested in other peoples’ perceptions per se.

 I do not think that the amount of anecdotal evidence could be compelling in and of itself, although it is an interesting phenomenon. Think about astrology or various quack ‘medicine’ that people buy to lose weight (or people who are mentally crippled by “memories” of having been abused by aliens). No matter how much we have anecdotal evidence of perceptions, the aforementioned question still remains.

 About forming a hypothesis and conducting a properly designed study, I fully agree with Hirsch. It is about time!

 All comments welcome.

 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Jeffo

>>>>However, there is another breed of audiophiles (like me, for instance) who would like to explore a little further than the surface level of perceptions. Many of us also feel that making factual statements about empirical reality in public is more convincing if it is backed by evidence.<<<<

 I'm a newbie, budding audiophile. One question I have is - how can expensive speaker cable make any difference when the cable used inside the speakers themselves are just ordinary cable?

 I realize this has probably been discussed before and don't want to start a flame war or anything, but I am curious.


----------



## pigmode

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Jeffo _
*
 I'm a newbie, budding audiophile. One question I have is - how can expensive speaker cable make any difference when the cable used inside the speakers themselves are just ordinary cable?

* 
 

How do you know? Which speaker?


----------



## Jeffo

>>>How do you know? Which speaker?<<<

 This is only what I've read. I may be wrong. My particular speakers are B&W 560s.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by pigmode _
*
 How do you know? Which speaker? * 
 

In some exceptional cases, special silver cabling is used in speakers, but don't doubt that in these cases they advertise it!! 

 From an engineering point of view, it is a not good idea to use silver in a driver's coil, because it has more mass for the same conductivity than copper, and the lighter the better in a speaker driver.

 By the way, the beloved by many Sennheiser HD600 (I believe a very good headphone), has aluminium cable coils, because aluminium is even lighter than copper. You know what? Aluminium is worse conductor than copper.

 By the way, all the tracks at any printed circuit boards' circuits, are ordinary copper too.


----------



## aos

Kelly explained about role of science very eloquently.

 There is also another problem that I observed happening in discussions over the last few years, and that tends to be the actual cause of many flame wars. It's when people who either have received some engineering training or have gained it by themselves enter discussion throwing some better known formulas or theorems showing that it's not possible to see a difference. That's possibly the consequence of education received these days where focus is not on the background of physical phenomena and how things actually work but rather on generalized or even simplistic explanations, usually through ready to use formulas or rules. Anyone who have taken a proper multiyear degree at a good university or college will learn that most processes we use or observe are very complicated results of interaction of many participants and while we may know the basic rules governing those participants, it is impossible to analytically describe the behaviour of the whole system because mathematics is simply beyound us. The only recourse is to use numerical methods (i.e. number crunching computer) to solve a very specific problem or to make sweeping assumptions about participants or elements of the system that then allow us to write formulas and actually solve them. The second thing is what's done in universities since it's the only way to give students something to work with. Also, generalization is in many cases perfectly acceptable and gives insight into phenomena. So, a course usually starts by pointing out that things are very complicated but that if you assume this and that you can get a formula that let you analyze stuff and even build things.

 Problem arises when you then try to use generalized formulas as a god-given truth, ignoring the assumptions that were used to derive it. The assumption might have been that the electrical field is uniform all accross the conductor or that a single frequency is used or that a value is within certain range. One of the common things done in mathematics competitions or entry exams is to give you a "paradox", e.g. use standard rules to transform an equality formula into unequality one. Usually the tricks is that formulas that people use every day, regarding square roots for example, are valid only if the variables are non-negative. Vast majority of people never realize this and keep using formulas that the teacher wrote on the board, learn them by heart and in almost all cases that works out well.

 So, when you encounter something a generalized formula (like the ones using generalized R/L/C) cannnot explain, it's time to go back to basics, instead of claiming that it's impossible. Of course, you have to be sufficiently persuaded that what you've encountered is indeed happening. Most of modern technology is based on generalized formulas and it does indeed work, so scepticism certainly has its place. There is a lot of placebo I'm sure so it's hard to separate chaff from the wheat.


----------



## Ricky

Sorry, I repeated the previous post at this. I've deleted it now.


----------



## Audio-Me

Every single component in the audio chain makes a difference (each part in the signal path makes a small change and adds up to make an audible difference). If cable B sounds better than cable A to you, why the hell do you want to try and prove or disprove yourself? I trust *my* perception and only mine on what I like and what I don't. If somebodys graph, some fabricated theory, etc. tells me that I'm wrong, I tell them to go **** themselves. Who's to say what my preferences should be? I'm all about customization whenever possible. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Do I think cables make an audible difference? I sure do, hell I just spent near $100 on a mini to rca cable to connect pcdp to a portable diy amp.


----------



## pigmode

dbl post...


----------



## pigmode

triple post (sigh)


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*
 This is of course a simplistic assumption, and assumes that you know what to measure, which would be a very arrogant and likely false assumption for any scientist. 
* 
 

Ok, about measuring, let's apply a little bit of logic here. If a cable makes a difference in sound, it must be because it's altering or distorting the signal that passes through it in some way, right? The signal that passes through it is an electrical signal, right? So the cable must be altering the electrical signal. If there is an alteration, it can be measured, right? Don't you think that it is arrogant for audiophiles to think that decades of research and experience in transmission of signals (some of them much more demanding than audio signals), electronics, linear systems, etc, are not enough to know in which ways any signal (including electrical) can be altered, and how to measure it? It is a false myth supported by high-end manufacturers, magazines that live from their advertisements, people who like to think they have expensive superior audio gear, etc, that there are some mysteries about transmission of audio signals that have not still been discovered by science.

 And, human ear is far from being accurate compared with today's measurement equipment and techniques, the same way sight is less accurate than microscopes or telescopes. And it has been quite well established by many years of research which are the limits of audibility of the human ear, which are at any case below the limits of today's measurement technology.

 It is arrogant too that audiophiles that don't know much about audio from a scientifical or engineering point of view, think that they know more than people that has in fact studied and worked in these fields for many years. And some of these people are audiophiles too, but I guess a different type of audiophiles.

 Only because most people at these forums think the same way about the importance of cables, it doesn't mean that is the truth. If you go to Usenet newsgroups such as rec.audio.high-end, rec.audio.tech or rec.audio.pro, you will find that most people, many of them (as opposite of most of you) with wide knowledge of engineering and science in the audio fields, audio professionals, etc, have different opinions than you. Please go to any recording studios, or ask any recording audio engineer at any of these studios about what type of cables they use. Won't find silver or strange hyper-expensive cables there...

  Quote:


 *... is to look at the anecdotal data, determine if there is merit in the number of people who claim to hear differences, and then try to find out why.
 ...
 adverse side effect reports to FDA. Eventually, there's enough anecdotal evidence that it becomes apparent that a controlled study is needed, and one is done.
* 
 



 There's no controlled test that I (or many people that know much more and has much more experience than me, and is on the real world of audio engineering and research) know that shows any difference in "how it sounds" in gear that doesn't show significant measured differences. Maybe a serious study over many people should be done to definitively disprove that this cable effect is happening. If this was disproved, there still would be many people that would say that they do hear a difference, so they don't want need to know anything else.

 And for those that say that nobody has interest in studying the elusive properties of special cables, this is an example of what do people research on nowadays at the real world of audio and acoustics:

http://ojps.aip.org/journal_cgi/dbt?...=CURISS#MAJOR6

 These guys must know a little about these things, don't you think so?

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*To pretend differences we have not yet been able to measure do not exist even though we perceive them is to bury our heads in the sand and fall victim to the religion of science rather than using science. * 
 

First we should make sure that these differences are real, through
 a controlled test, using the adecuate (and banned at this forum) metodology. Sometimes our perceptions are not very reliable, and can be altered by many other factors aside from the real sound coming to our ears. Same thing happens with, for example, sight, see:

http://www.portalmix.com/english/illusions/i03.htm

http://www.portalmix.com/english/illusions/i13.htm


 But if you're happy buying megabuck cables because they sound better to you, go ahead, it's your money and your enjoyment. But don't try to convince everybody that they DO sound different. They sound different to YOU for whatever reasons (placebo effect most probabily), but it's not because they are objetively better.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*I love when Hirsch and I agree. It's so rare and yet so rewarding. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



* 
 

Rare? Kelly, we agree on lots of things. For example, I think we both agree that Dallas is located in Texas. I'm almost sure of that.


----------



## dhwilkin

Quote:


 Ricky said...

 But don't try to convince everybody that they DO sound different. 
 

Only if you don't try to convince everybody that they DON'T sound different.


----------



## Hirsch

There's really only one sentence in here that's worth looking at:

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*Maybe a serious study over many people should be done to definitively disprove that this cable effect is happening. . * 
 

That says it all. A properly done study to determine whether or not cable differences are perceivable might be interesting. A study to "disprove that this cable effect is happening" is biased from the start. If the experimental hypothesis is flawed, the rest of the study isn't going to be worth the effort. (Note that "no difference" is very likely to be the null hypothesis of the analysis, but that's a very different thing.) No point in even attempting a study without an open mind going in.

 The one thing I miss about web-based forums, as opposed to Usenet, is a good killfile... This would be an appropriate time for a <plonk>


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*There's really only one sentence in here that's worth looking at:
 That says it all. A properly done study to determine whether or not cable differences are perceivable might be interesting. A study to "disprove that this cable effect is happening" is biased from the start.* 
 

Well, I didn't mean such study should be formulated with the idea of disproving or proving anything. I meant that if that study was done, it would definitively disprove that this effect is happening.

  Quote:


 *The one thing I miss about web-based forums, as opposed to Usenet, is a good killfile... This would be an appropriate time for a <plonk> 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



* 
 

Good arguments from your part. I'd suggest that if you don't like this kind of discussions in a thread, please don't read or write in them. If you have anything more constructive or some other real arguments against my previous post, I'd be glad to read them.


----------



## DarkAngel

Hey Ricky,
 Since you are so well informed and scientifically disciplined how about enlightening us poor audiophiles. Perhaps I can learn something from you.

 Please tell us what cables you use in your system and why. Also a description of your system would be helpful.


----------



## Anders

Posted by Ricky:
  Quote:


 And for those that say that nobody has interest in studying the elusive properties of special cables, this is an example of what do people research on nowadays at the real world of audio and acoustics: 

http://ojps.aip.org/journal_cgi/dbt...e=CURISS#MAJOR6 

 These guys must know a little about these things, don't you think so? 
 

I am sure these guys know a lot, but you give a list of some hundreds of articles, not referring the content of any article and not even telling which of these references are adequate. 
 Should I be so impressed that I agree with you? Or should I spend some hours just to read through the list of references, and weeks to read maybe relevant articles?
 I made a search on cable and there was no hit!
 So it is very appropriate that you specify those references that support your claims, and at least shortly explain how. If you want to be scientific and one should take you seriously.


----------



## Dusty Chalk

Where to start, where to start...
  Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 Ok, about measuring, let's apply a little bit of logic here. If a cable makes a difference in sound, it must be because it's altering or distorting the signal that passes through it in some way, right? 
 

Absolutely. Quote:


 The signal that passes through it is an electrical signal, right? So the cable must be altering the electrical signal. If there is an alteration, it can be measured, right? 
 

Absolutely. Quote:


 Don't you think that it is arrogant for audiophiles to think that decades of research and experience in transmission of signals (some of them much more demanding than audio signals), electronics, linear systems, etc, are not enough to know in which ways any signal (including electrical) can be altered, and how to measure it? 
 

Yes, it is. Doesn't make us wrong, just arrogant. Quote:


 It is a false myth supported by high-end manufacturers, magazines that live from their advertisements, people who like to think they have expensive superior audio gear, etc, that there are some mysteries about transmission of audio signals that have not still been discovered by science. 
 

This is a bit of an overstatement. People in these fields know all about impedance matching, inductance, resistance, capacitance, etc. But what they don't know is the relative importance of all of these things, their interaction, etc., and ultimately the effect of it on enjoyable listening. For example, many of them swear by Fourier's analysis. But they completely abuse it. They pay no attention to phase smearing, they figure as long as it has the exact same frequencies, then it is going to be heard the exact same way. This is simply not true. You could certainly devise a D*T (censored) test using stationary tones, and I would certainly fail it. But I could also probably devise a test with transients and the like that I could pass with ease. I'm not doing this because it's not my job, but this "placebo effect" of which you repeatedly refer to can also screw up the creation of an otherwise perfectly valid test. 

 It's not just that they measure different. You're backpedaling a bit when you say that. Previously you said that they can measure different, as long as it wasn't within appreciable amounts of capacitance, resistance, etc., and that most cables didn't vary (as compared to, for example, rs cables) enough to be perceivably different. Now you're saying, well, if you can tell the difference, then they should measure different.

 Fine, then they measure different. I'll go along with that. No, I don't believe the measurements that are crucial to audiophile listening are being taken. I'm arrogant. Feel free to call me arrogant again. Doesn't make me any less right or wrong. Quote:


 And, human ear is far from being accurate compared with today's measurement equipment and techniques, the same way sight is less accurate than microscopes or telescopes. 
 

That may be, but these sceptic scientists of yours had better be using their equipment correctly. I distinctly remember my physics lab professor showing me the impedance setting on the oscilloscope. He had it set ridiculously high, because, he said, most measurements, you want the circuit to be relatively unaffected. You want the path of least resistance to not be your oscilloscope. Are you measuring these cables without loads? That would be wrong. Are you measuring their DC resistance, capacitance, and inductance? I have never, other than on sites like Audioquest's, seen frequency values alongside these measurements. That, too, would be wrong. Quote:


 And it has been quite well established by many years of research which are the limits of audibility of the human ear, which are at any case below the limits of today's measurement technology. 
 

Again with the Fourier's analysis. Quote:


 It is arrogant too that audiophiles that don't know much about audio from a scientifical or engineering point of view, think that they know more than people that has in fact studied and worked in these fields for many years. 
 

No, wrong, in this I will disagree with you. It's not that we know more. We don't know. But we're not the ones trying to explain it. All we know are the results. We don't know what measurements need to be taken to explain these phenomenon. Quote:


 Only because most people at these forums think the same way about the importance of cables, it doesn't mean that is the truth. If you go to Usenet newsgroups such as rec.audio.high-end, rec.audio.tech or rec.audio.pro, you will find that most people, many of them (as opposite of most of you) with wide knowledge of engineering and science in the audio fields, audio professionals, etc, have different opinions than you. 
 

That's fine. Most places get taken over by people who can outlast or outshout another person. I always lose to those people because I have a job to go to during the week, and they seem to have infinite resources. Fortunately, this place is moderated. Quote:


 Please go to any recording studios, or ask any recording audio engineer at any of these studios about what type of cables they use. Won't find silver or strange hyper-expensive cables there... 
 

Not true. I ran into a guy at a music store about two years ago that re-wired his entire studio with silver cable. Quote:


 First we should make sure that these differences are real, through a controlled test, using the adecuate (and banned at this forum) metodology. 
 

As someone previously mentioned in this thread, the only thing that would test is our memory. It sometimes takes me a long time to realize that my enjoyment has deteriorated by doing something as subtle as leaving the upsampling switch in the disengaged position. But I do eventually figure it out.  Quote:


 But if you're happy buying megabuck cables because they sound better to you, go ahead, it's your money and your enjoyment. But don't try to convince everybody that they DO sound different. They sound different to YOU for whatever reasons (placebo effect most probabily), but it's not because they are objetively better. 
 

No, if you will accept that cables can sound different (you have, under the conditions that they measure considerably different), then one can extrapolate that they will sound marginally different if they measure marginally different.

 "Objectively better" is an oxymoron -- "better" in the world of audio is entirely subjective. On that, I think we can agree. Better to stick with "different". But now you're contradicting yourself -- do they sound different, or don't they?

 Look at that self-same review of Jude's. He likes the Cardas Neutral Reference because it's revealing as all heck -- for the purposes of reviews. But for pure enjoyment, he prefers other cables. So this is one person, that does not hold one cable as superior to all others.

 You're also mixing arguments. We argue about the value of diminishing returns here all the time. That is a perfectly valid criticism. Where to draw the line is an individual decision. You just draw the line way too early for our tastes.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*

 Well, I didn't mean such study should be formulated with the idea of disproving or proving anything. I meant that if that study was done, it would definitively disprove that this effect is happening.
* 
 

If you know what a study will show before you do it, there's little point in performing the study. If you make broad statements about what a study will show before you run it, you're opening yourself up to allegations of scientific fraud even if you obtain those results legitimately. Got to drop that bias before you can even pretend you're talking about science.

  Quote:


 *
 If you have anything more constructive or some other real arguments against my previous post, I'd be glad to read them. 
* 
 



 Unfortunately, your other post didn't say anything substantive, except that you believe that there are no audible differences between properly constructed cables. We knew that. I can't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't really matter to me that you believe that. I'm prefectly willing to engage in scientific debate, but I try not to argue with people about their religion, as they're not going to let anything as trivial as scientific methodology change their mind.


----------



## MacDEF

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 Ok, about measuring, let's apply a little bit of logic here. If a cable makes a difference in sound, it must be because it's altering or distorting the signal that passes through it in some way, right? 
 

That appears to makes sense; however, since we (human beings) don't understand everything about such signals or how they end up reprocuding audio, it's more of a working hypothesis than a fact.


  Quote:


 If there is an alteration, it can be measured, right? 
 

Again, that's the assumption, but it's not necesarily a fact. And even if we assume this is true, the even BIGGER assumption you're making is that we possess the technology to _measure_ such changes. It's quite possible that the changes that affect sound are not measurable by current technology.

 Now you might say that this is just all BS people are making up to support their placebo-induced belief that cables sound different. However, anyone with even a modicum of education in science and research methodology realizes that, regardless of your view on cables, the above two caveats are the first two questions any decent scientists would ask.


  Quote:


 Don't you think that it is arrogant for audiophiles to think that decades of research and experience in transmission of signals (some of them much more demanding than audio signals), electronics, linear systems, etc, are not enough to know in which ways any signal (including electrical) can be altered, and how to measure it? 
 

Not at all, given the history of science. To the contrary, it is arrogant for anyone to think that we know everything there is to know about audio and electrical signals, and possess the end-all be-all in measurement technologies.


  Quote:


 It is a false myth... that there are some mysteries about transmission of audio signals that have not still been discovered by science. 
 

Really? So you know for sure, eh? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


 And, human ear is far from being accurate compared with today's measurement equipment and techniques, the same way sight is less accurate than microscopes or telescopes. 
 

Again, you're making statements that simply aren't supportable. There have been many cases where the human eyes can see something or some difference, the human ears can hear things, human tongues can taste things... things that instruments cannot measure.


  Quote:


 And it has been quite well established by many years of research which are the limits of audibility of the human ear, which are at any case below the limits of today's measurement technology. 
 

And yet, even though the human ear cannot "hear" above 15,000 - 25,000 Hz, depending on the person, other studies have shown that the harmonics that occur at MUCH higher frequencies are somehow detectable by some people...

  Quote:


 It is arrogant too that audiophiles that don't know much about audio from a scientifical or engineering point of view, think that they know more than people that has in fact studied and worked in these fields for many years. 
 

It's arrogant to question whether we possess the technology to _measure_ differences when double-blind tests clearly show that people can reliably _hear_ the difference??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I call it healthy skepticism... and a skepticism that's more valuable that one that says "if we can't measure it, it cannot exist."


  Quote:


 If you go to Usenet newsgroups such as rec.audio.high-end, rec.audio.tech or rec.audio.pro, you will find that most people, many of them (as opposite of most of you) with wide knowledge of engineering and science in the audio fields, audio professionals, etc, 
 

What a rude and insulting thing to say, Ricky -- what makes you so sure that some of the people you're talking to in these threads don't have backgrounds just as "qualified" as those of the people you appear to worship in the newsgroups? We have many people with backgrounds in science, engineering, recording, production, etc. here on Head-Fi, some of whom have been participating in these "cable" threads.

 For all the times you throw the word "arrogant" around, you might do well to take a look in the mirrir 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


 First we should make sure that these differences are real, through
 a controlled test, using the adecuate (and banned at this forum) metodology. 
 

I already explained how I did just this.

  Quote:


 But if you're happy buying megabuck cables because they sound better to you, go ahead, it's your money and your enjoyment. But don't try to convince everybody that they DO sound different. 
 

How about not trying to convince everyone that they _don't_?

  Quote:


 They sound different to YOU for whatever reasons (placebo effect most probabily), but it's not because they are objetively better. 
 

I think you mean to say that in your _opinion_, since it's clearly not been proven.


----------



## kelly

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*By the way, the beloved by many Sennheiser HD600 (I believe a very good headphone), has aluminium cable coils, because aluminium is even lighter than copper. You know what? Aluminium is worse conductor than copper.* 
 

HD600 mod plans...
 1. Cardas cable
 2. Bybee filters
 3. replace stock aluminum wiring with copper wiring

 Thanks!


----------



## kelly

I need to get on my soapbox again. I'm really sorry guys.

 This is the first post on HeadFi that has legitimately offended me. Sure, I get irked regularly and I'm pretty contrary on a regular basis, but I'm outright offended by some of the content in this thread.

 Let me explain...

 I value science a lot. I have a great deal of respect for the great physicists of history and of those today who have helped shape our understanding of the world around us. My philosophy of life is grounded in this appreciation.

 What Ricky portrays is NOT science. This is a perversion and a corruption of science. This is a religion. This is a preceonceived belief system that Ricky is trying to justify by haphazardly borrowing the conclusions of others.

 Through much of my existence, I keep hoping people will grow to abandon tradition and prejudice in favor of logic and reason. It is this thought that drives my hope that the human race can ever become worthy of our position on this planet. In my lifetime, I have on occasion seen unreasonable men lead to reason. I've seen wars end and I've seen hatred replaced with understanding. As rare as it may seem, it happens and it gives me hope.

 What offends me is knowing that some of the people who read this thread will think that what Ricky represents is science and divorce themselves from it. After all, if you're going to have preconceived notions and beliefs, you may as well stick with the ones you already have instead of bending over to the religion of science.

 If anyone has bothered to read this overly dramatic piece of rhetoric and was effected in this way, please look beyond this idiotic misrepresentation of science and find that science can be valid and useful. Audio engineers are not magicians and voodoo doctors. They apply science in their daily lives to produce better audio equipment. All of them at some point hear something they at first cannot explain and then strive to explain it so they can apply the discovery to their products' designs.

 I am interested in discussing topics like this but I see Ricky's ongoing comments to serve no purpose other than to convince people that Ricky represents a "side" and that that side is the side of science. Please do not be taken in by this. What Ricky represents has no basis in science.


----------



## DarkAngel

*Still think Ricky should tell us what cables he uses in his system* 

 Lay your cards on the table, nothing to hide right?


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


 _Originally posted by DarkAngel _
*Still think Ricky should tell us what cables he uses in his system 

 Lay your cards on the table, nothing to hide right? 
* 
 

I am curious: what difference could this possibly make?


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


 _Originally posted by MacDEF _
*

 It's arrogant to question whether we possess the technology to measure differences when double-blind tests clearly show that people can reliably hear the difference??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




* 
 

Mac Def, could you please give us a more detailed description of your DBTs (level-matching, how many trials, how many scores/errors, perhaps measurements of the cables etc.).

 That someone has been able to detect differences in cables in a properly conducted DBT is truly sensational news. It definitely deserves wider audience.


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## MacDEF

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Leporello _
 Mac Def, could you please give us a more detailed description of your DBTs (level-matching, how many trials, how many scores/errors, perhaps measurements of the cables etc.). 
 

Yet another example of how the anti-cable people simply aren't reading the posts in this thread... or that they are selectively ignoring certain ones 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 What I didn't include in the earlier post:
 - Level-matching: there's no need to in my setup -- using the same CPD with identical outputs into identical inputs on the same amp. In addition, swapping the cables between inputs/outputs in various combinations provides the same exact results, indicating that there are no level matching issues.
 - Trials: I didn't set it up with a set # of trials, but I have done this experiment *many* times for myself, for friends, skeptics, etc., and the results are quite repeatable.
 - Measurements: the comparisons I've done have always been between stock RCAs or RatShack $.99 alternatives vs. some more expensive aftermarket cables (AudioQuest, Kimber, StraightWire, etc.). Unless there is a distinct pattern in "measurements" that would consistently affect these tests in *exactly* the same manner each time, I think asking for "measurements" is a red herring.


  Quote:


 That someone has been able to detect differences in cables in a properly conducted DBT is truly sensational news. It definitely deserves wider audience. 
 

Again 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Double-blind tests that show a difference in cables have been done over and over and over. It's just that the Church of Cables Can't Make a Difference refuses to acknowledge these tests, and always seems to find some way of weaseling out of accepting their results.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


 _Originally posted by MacDEF _
*

 - Measurements: the comparisons I've done have always been between stock RCAs or RatShack $.99 alternatives vs. some more expensive aftermarket cables (AudioQuest, Kimber, StraightWire, etc.). Unless there is a distinct pattern in "measurements" that would consistently affect these tests in *exactly* the same manner each time, I think asking for "measurements" is a red herring.

 Again 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Double-blind tests that show a difference in cables have been done over and over and over. It's just that the Church of Cables Can't Make a Difference refuses to acknowledge these tests, and always seems to find some way of weaseling out of accepting their results. * 
 

Thank you, MacDEF. 

 I mentioned measurements only because it could be argued, that the perceived differences were actually caused by very ordinary aberrations in frequency response, for example. But that obviously was not the case here.

 Could you give me any further references of the positive DBTs you mentioned? I am especially interested in tests with statistically significant results (that is why I inquired about the amount of trials).

 Regards,

 L.


----------



## MacDEF

Quote:


 Could you give me any further references of the positive DBTs you mentioned? I am especially interested in tests with statistically significant results (that is why I inquired about the amount of trials). 
 

I don't have any handy; however, I've read quite a few articles over the years. As someone with a very strong background in scientific research methodology and statistics, I'm generally a pretty harsh critic of the types of "experiments" you see in audio. Some of the test were not what I would call methodologically sound, but a number of them were solid, using similar methodology to my own (identical outputs/inputs, double-blind switching, etc.).

 In terms of statistical significance, you're generally not going to find too many results that demonstrate it with any high level of confidence. Not because it can't be done, but rather because getting a big enough sample size is an obstacle: who's going to pay a few hundred people to come in for multiple sessions of A/B testing, and most people don't have the patience or ears to sit through many, many rounds of it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 However, given how easy it is for people using my setup to differentiate between cables (nearly or at 100% for some cables), I'm not too concerned about developing statistical significance at a level that would satisfy reviewers of statistical journal articles


----------



## markl

Frankly, I haven't been following this thread or any other "cables make no difference" threads because they are a total waste of my time. 

 The ONLY people who make this argument are people who have never heard better quality cables. My suspicion is that they don't have enough money for them, so in order to feel better about the situation, they try to believe that people who CAN afford these cables are fools or morons. Also, they likely don't have equipment nearly good enough to enable something like a cable swap to make a difference in the first place. 

 I just want to really upset this Ricky character by giving him the conclusion of my power cord-rolling experience. No doubt he thinks power cord rolling is even more foolish than IC rolling. This should really piss him off:

 Adding better quality power cords makes even MORE of a difference in improving sound quality than merely swapping ICs. You know how I know this? Get this--- I TRIED it!!!! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

 markl


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*
 HD600 mod plans...
 1. Cardas cable
 2. Bybee filters
 3. replace stock aluminum wiring with copper wiring
* 
 

Are you joking???

 Cardas cables: no comments, I guess I've talked about cables quite clear so far.

 Bybee filters: I've done a bit of research about those Bybee filters, and they seem to be another magic device explained in pseudo-science terms. I found a thread in sci.physics with real physicists making a good laugh at them. So, another "green pen"-"cable lifter"- style fraud.

 Replace stock aluminum wiring with copper wiring: so, the very experienced engineers at Sennheiser use light aluminium coils in their expensive top-of-the-range dynamic headphone in order to improve transient response, and you go and replace it with copper just because "it must be better". Makes a lot of sense...


----------



## MacDEF

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 Cardas cables: no comments, I guess I've talked about cables quite clear so far. 
 

You probably shouldn't comment about things you don't understand; especially things in audio you've never heard.

 Those of us who have auditioned the Cardas cables, even in blind tests, know that they do indeed sound different than the stock cables. If you've never heard them, you really aren't in any position to comment on them.


  Quote:


 Bybee filters: I've done a bit of research about those Bybee filters, and they seem to be another magic device explained in pseudo-science terms. I found a thread in sci.physics with real physicists making a good laugh at them. So, another "green pen"-"cable lifter"- style fraud. 
 

Hmmm... odd how so many people who have them hear a difference. I've never heard them myself, so I won't comment on them (hint, hint).


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Anders _
*I am sure these guys know a lot, but you give a list of some hundreds of articles, not referring the content of any article and not even telling which of these references are adequate. 
 Should I be so impressed that I agree with you?
* 
 

No, it was only intended to show that people who do research, do research in a vast amount of themes related to audio and acoustics, trying to explain the tinniest phenomena at this field.

  Quote:


 *So it is very appropriate that you specify those references that support your claims, and at least shortly explain how. If you want to be scientific and one should take you seriously. * 
 

I did a bit of research, knowing where to, and found some of these at:

http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm

 and

http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_book.htm

 Some of those study the phenomena of subjective perception. Don't know if any of these refer specifically to cables, though, but the matter is the same. By the way, this web page is a good recopilation of information about blind tests and their utility.


  Quote:


 _Originally posted by MacDEF_*
 And yet, even though the human ear cannot "hear" above 15,000 - 25,000 Hz, depending on the person, other studies have shown that the harmonics that occur at MUCH higher frequencies are somehow detectable by some people... 
 ...
 It's arrogant to question whether we possess the technology to measure differences when double-blind tests clearly show that people can reliably hear the difference??? 
 ...
 Again Double-blind tests that show a difference in cables have been done over and over and over.
* 
 

I'd like to see any references to controlled tests, and/or scientific or at least technically riguous references that actually support those claims, aside from your personal possibly non-rigorous, uncontrolled tests. I'll go over these further.


  Quote:


 *
 That appears to makes sense; however, since we (human beings) don't understand everything about such signals or how they end up reprocuding audio, it's more of a working hypothesis than a fact.
 ...
 Again, that's the assumption, but it's not necesarily a fact. And even if we assume this is true, the even BIGGER assumption you're making is that we possess the technology to measure such changes. It's quite possible that the changes that affect sound are not measurable by current technology. 
 ...
 ...anyone with even a modicum of education in science and research methodology realizes that, regardless of your view on cables, the above two caveats are the first two questions any decent scientists would ask. 
* 
 

If all these you say are true, why is it impossible to find any scientific ot technical literature that supports it? Or at least that tries to explain or research into that "unknown" or "unmeasurable" things?

 As other person, electronic engineer, much more audio technically informed than me, who has done theorical and practical research for years over the issues discussed here, said at another forum:

 "Audio ain't nuclear physics and it ain't rocket science.
 ...
 There are differences between cables but they always have causes that are well-understood.
 ...
 In fact, no new forms of distortion or new measurable whatsis have been discovered in audio for decades and
 decades and decades.
 ...
 ...its because the science of cables is well-understood, and learnable and we learned it and we understand it.
 "

 This seems to be widely accepted by audio professionals all over the world. Again, if you have any serious reference or technical literature that contradicts this, I'd like to know it. 


  Quote:


 *
 What a rude and insulting thing to say, Ricky -- what makes you so sure that some of the people you're talking to in these threads don't have backgrounds just as "qualified" as those of the people you appear to worship in the newsgroups? We have many people with backgrounds in science, engineering, recording, production, etc. here on Head-Fi, some of whom have been participating in these "cable" threads. 
* 
 

I said "most" of the people, not all. I'd like to know how many of these have a minimal scientific or technical background aside from what they read at audiophile magazines. I'd say not many, reading what I've read about Bybee filters, people being in effect "blind" to anything other than their own perception and whatever stupidity they read from advertisers, and not interested at all in knowing the real working of things.

  Quote:


 *
 For all the times you throw the word "arrogant" around, you might do well to take a look in the mirrir 
* 
 

Yeah, but I was not the first one that used the "arrogant" word here. In fact, I used "arrogant" as a reply to other poster that first called me "arrogant".

 Some points about your blind tests:

  Quote:


 *
 - Measurements: the comparisons I've done have always been between stock RCAs or RatShack $.99 alternatives vs. some more expensive aftermarket cables (AudioQuest, Kimber, StraightWire, etc.). Unless there is a distinct pattern in "measurements" that would consistently affect these tests in *exactly* the same manner each time, I think asking for "measurements" is a red herring. 
* 
 

So you are saying that measurements by itself would be useless? I thought you agreed that if there's a difference, it should be measurable somehow, even if it's not possible to do it right now, as you seemed to say. If there's a difference but there's no way to measure it even if we had the neccesary technology, then it must be some sort of paranormal phenomena.

 Over the rest of the explanations, I DO believe that some measurements should be done in order to effectively prove that your equipment's outputs, inputs and cables, wether cheap or expensive ones, don't have gross measurable differences. That should be a controlled test.

 Over this issue, I'm planning something for all of you having a cd burner, so that your can do your own blind tests at your homes, to test how good are you telling a piece of music not altered, from a played through a cheap cable and then recorded again, same piece of music.


 More issues...

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by Dusty Chalk _
*
 This is a bit of an overstatement. People in these fields know all about impedance matching, inductance, resistance, capacitance, etc. But what they don't know is the relative importance of all of these things, their interaction, etc., and ultimately the effect of it on enjoyable listening.
* 
 

Wow! If so, what is audio and acoustics engineering about ??? Are audio engineers and researchers just playing with their toys because it is funny, or what?

  Quote:


 *
 For example, many of them swear by Fourier's analysis. But they completely abuse it.
* 
 

Fourier analysys is just another mode of viewing signals. It's maths, no more, no less.

  Quote:


 *
 They pay no attention to phase smearing, they figure as long as it has the exact same frequencies, then it is going to be heard the exact same way.
* 
 

What a gratuituous claim!! Easy to talk, isn't it?

  Quote:


 *
 It's not just that they measure different. You're backpedaling a bit when you say that. Previously you said that they can measure different, as long as it wasn't within appreciable amounts of capacitance, resistance, etc., and that most cables didn't vary (as compared to, for example, rs cables) enough to be perceivably different. Now you're saying, well, if you can tell the difference, then they should measure different. * 
 

?? Don't see the contradiction. If it sounds different, it measures different. If it measures different, I may not sound different if the differences are small enough. And all regular non-faulty, non-special-sound-coloring design I/C cables, measure pretty much alike.

  Quote:


 *
 That may be, but these sceptic scientists of yours had better be using their equipment correctly.
 ...
 Are you measuring these cables without loads? That would be wrong. 
* 
 

And YOU are the one going to teach them how to use their equipment? I see you really believe scientists and engineers are sort of stupids playing with their expensive toys. That's what I mean when I say that some audiophiles are arrogant.

  Quote:


 *
 Not true. I ran into a guy at a music store about two years ago that re-wired his entire studio with silver cable.
* 
 

What a big proof. I could say that thay I knew a guy 5 years ago that put a cup of water on top of his DAC at his home studio because it sounds better. Please go to any real professional big (or small) studio, and see what they use.

  Quote:


 *
 No, if you will accept that cables can sound different (you have, under the conditions that they measure considerably different), then one can extrapolate that they will sound marginally different if they measure marginally different. 
* 
 

True. But for a cable to measure marginally different, must have a very weird or crappy design.

  Quote:


 *
 "Objectively better" is an oxymoron 
* 
 

Ok, I should have said "different".

  Quote:


 *
 You're also mixing arguments. We argue about the value of diminishing returns here all the time. That is a perfectly valid criticism. Where to draw the line is an individual decision. You just draw the line way too early for our tastes.
* 
 

I'd say that diminishing returns here have not much sense, as a decent industrial, not expensive cable, as the ones used at recording studios, is as good as any other cable no matter its price.

 By the way, in recording studios they care about what is really important. In a quick manner, they are, more or less in this order: acoustics, transducers (microphones/speakers/headphones), electronics, and finally cables.

 Long post...


----------



## Dusty Chalk

Now you're just getting sarcastic. What cables have you heard? Have you ever done a DBT? Or do you just listen to two different cables with the preconception that they won't sound different? You know, preconception can really detrimentally affect the outcome of an experiment...
  Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 If all these you say are true, why is it impossible to find any scientific ot technical literature that supports it? Or at least that tries to explain or research into that "unknown" or "unmeasurable" things? 
 

Perhaps because you're not looking and you don't want to find it? Quote:


 As other person, electronic engineer, much more audio technically informed than me... 
 

Quit thumping your freakin' bible. This is not religion. This is audio. We want to know what you have heard with your own ears. Your lack of answer tells us exactly that -- nothing. The exact same accusation can be thrown at you that you are throwing at us -- just as you would accuse us of mentally defending our purchases, you are mentally defending your lack of purchase. Go do a search on "Jon Risch".
  Quote:


 There are differences between cables but they always have causes that are well-understood.
 ...
 In fact, no new forms of distortion or new measurable whatsis have been discovered in audio for decades and
 decades and decades. 
 

Again, with the preconceptions. You, yourself, have told us how bad preconceptions are. Quote:


 ...
 ...its because the science of cables is well-understood, and learnable and we learned it and we understand it.
 " 
 

Please state your sources. I want to make sure I never buy anything from someone who would make such an idiotic statement. Quote:


 Wow! If so, what is audio and acoustics engineering about ??? Are audio engineers and researchers just playing with their toys because it is funny, or what? 
 

The ones that you listen to, yes. Quote:


 Fourier analysys is just another mode of viewing signals. It's maths, no more, no less. 
 

No. All models of the universe take into account some generalization. Cartesian coordinates do not take into account the effects of relativity. Most of these are fair. Fourier analysis -- from the perspective of audio and enjoyable listening -- is inadequate in most of the ways in which it is used. Quote:


 ?? Don't see the contradiction. 
 

Of course you don't. Quote:


 And YOU are the one going to teach them how to use their equipment? I see you really believe scientists and engineers are sort of stupids playing with their expensive toys. That's what I mean when I say that some audiophiles are arrogant. 
 

I didn't say all of them -- just the ones that you incorrectly and very hand-wavingly quote. I don't think these scientists and engineers you keep pseudo-quoting exist. I think you made them up. I think you hear voices. I think you see little green men. I think you are quoting little green men. You should stay away from that stuff. Quote:


 What a big proof. I could say that thay I knew a guy 5 years ago that put a cup of water on top of his DAC at his home studio because it sounds better. Please go to any real professional big (or small) studio, and see what they use. 
 

You've obviously never heard of Abbey Road. Or been there. I read trade journals all the time. I read them more than this forum. The best ones do use upgrade cables. I just saw something that said Steven Spielberg (you've heard of him?) uses XLO cables. Quote:


 True. But for a cable to measure marginally different, must have a very weird or crappy design. 
 

Why? I say, marginally different (sounds) == marginally different (measures). Quote:


 I'd say that diminishing returns here have not much sense, as a decent industrial, not expensive cable, as the ones used at recording studios, is as good as any other cable no matter its price. 
 

So you mean stuff like they sell at Markertek? There are many people here who love Markertek. These are upgrade cables. You just endorsed upgrade cables. Ha-ha.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Quote:


 By the way, in recording studios they care about what is really important. In a quick manner, they are, more or less in this order: acoustics, transducers (microphones/speakers/headphones), electronics, and finally cables. 
 

So you do endorse upgrading cables _somewhat_? Again, define your stance. How much is too much? US$100/m? US$500/m? US$50/m?

 Do yourself a favour, do your research before you answer that question. You specifically said "...in recording studios..." You're basically saying that whatever recording studios upgrade to, you're okay with.

 I'm outta here...


----------



## setmenu

Good Grief!!
 This thread is somewhat cyclic isn,t it?
 So if I have missed something in one of the posts ....sorry!

 Ricky I still cannot work out if you have done any comparitive
 cable auditioning here,[again if I have missed that critical statement:"when I listenened to cable A comared to Cable B I observerd......", I am sorry]
 surely listening is a good first step?

 Most of us are very sensitive to the slightest change in intonation
 in the spoken word and can percieve a great deal of change in 
 meaning at the smallest change in pitch or emphasis on a word
 or a component of that word.
 But the conversants do really have to share that language/culture
 to pick up on those subtleties.
 Not forgetting that this sensitivity also grows with familiarity,as in
 say a Husband and Wifes level of subtle comunication.

 So I do feel personal preferances and familiarity with ones own
 audio equipment chioces will make one far more sensitive to the
 minute changes those exotic cables [components] can make to 
 our chosen equipment but not so noticable to the unfamiliar casual listener.

 I would be curious to see graphs of the feguency range etc of
 a single word /sentence spoken by the same individual with different emphasis etc.
 How subtle would the measurements be compared to what was 
 heard?
 Probabaly not a practical experiment to perform [too many variables] but you get the picture.

 I think yes with the right measurements measuring the correct paremeters it is possible to have comparitive data from most 
 things.

 But audio component designers are human with all that implys and some of those designers may well follow their audio philosophys with religeous zeal irrespective of whether their sonic
 nirvana is based on an Ideal scientific goal.
 [Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note springs to mind here]


 MM...Ricky no doubt if you hang out here long enough you too will also end up chanting mantras and placing weird bits of wood infront of your hifi like the rest of us......
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	











 Setmenu

 Team fun


----------



## Magic77

Hey Everyone,

 Let's relax and stop trying to "prove" things. We are all different people with different tastes, likes,dislikes and beleifs. No one is right or wrong here.

 Buy the cables that you want and that appeal to you the most, no matter what the price.


----------



## kelly

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*Replace stock aluminum wiring with copper wiring: so, the very experienced engineers at Sennheiser use light aluminium coils in their expensive top-of-the-range dynamic headphone in order to improve transient response, and you go and replace it with copper just because "it must be better". Makes a lot of sense... * 
 

Actually, you were the one who implied that copper was better than aluminum. You used it to try to prove there was no substantial difference.

 Yes, I was joking. I am not an engineer and I only understand the very high level of how audio electronics work. I wish you could admit the same since you're clearly about fifteen leagues over your head.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*
 No, it was only intended to show that people who do research, do research in a vast amount of themes related to audio and acoustics, trying to explain the tinniest phenomena at this field.
* 
 

If they know all of the phenomena involved in signal transmission, why are they still doing research. They should quit and do something productive if they already know the answers.

* Quote:


 I did a bit of research, knowing where to, and found some of these at:

http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm

 and

http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_book.htm

 Some of those study the phenomena of subjective perception. Don't know if any of these refer specifically to cables, though, but the matter is the same. By the way, this web page is a good recopilation of information about blind tests and their utility.

 

*

 Generally speaking, in science it's considered good form to have read papers you're citing. Just out of curiousity, have you read ANY of them?

 I'd hardly call a commercial web site for a failed ABX comparator an unbiased source of information. 

* Quote:


 

 As other person, electronic engineer, much more audio technically informed than me, who has done theorical and practical research for years over the issues discussed here, said at another forum:

 "Audio ain't nuclear physics and it ain't rocket science.
 ...
 There are differences between cables but they always have causes that are well-understood.
 ...
 In fact, no new forms of distortion or new measurable whatsis have been discovered in audio for decades and
 decades and decades.
 ...
 ...its because the science of cables is well-understood, and learnable and we learned it and we understand it.
 "

 This seems to be widely accepted by audio professionals all over the world. Again, if you have any serious reference or technical literature that contradicts this, I'd like to know it. 

 

*The Church was able to get enough experts to testify that the sun revolved around the earth to convict Galileo of heresy. That didn't change the reality.

* Quote:


 
 Yeah, but I was not the first one that used the "arrogant" word here. In fact, I used "arrogant" as a reply to other poster that first called me "arrogant".

 

*That was me, and I was being very purposeful, and probably overgenerous. I'm a scientist, and as such find a "know it all" attitude particularly offensive. Science is about discovery. You'll never hear a good scientist claim that he knows everything there is to know about anything. The mark of a good scientist is trying to understand where the limits of his knowledge are, and trying to expand them. 

* Quote:


 
 I see you really believe scientists and engineers are sort of stupids playing with their expensive toys. That's what I mean when I say that some audiophiles are arrogant.

 

*Why? Because we believe our senses over what someone tells us our senses are capable of? I'm a scientist who happens to be an audiophile. 

 Someone who posts that he listened to cables X and Y and heard (or didn't hear) effect Z is presenting a data point. You're presenting nothing. No science. No information about what you have or have not listened to, and differences you have and have not heard. Nothing. Nada. So far, just a parrot repeating things you've read or been told. If you're that easily influenced that it offends you that some people can listen and make judgements for themselves, go join a cult where all your thinking will be done for you. Hmmm...maybe you already have....


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*Someone who posts that he listened to cables X and Y and heard (or didn't hear) effect Z is presenting a data point. You're presenting nothing. No science. No information about what you have or have not listened to, and differences you have and have not heard. Nothing. Nada. So far, just a parrot repeating things you've read or been told. If you're that easily influenced that it offends you that some people can listen and make judgements for themselves, go join a cult where all your thinking will be done for you. Hmmm...maybe you already have.... * 
 

Agree Hirsch, I will now ask Ricky for the 3rd time to lay his cards on the table:
 -what cables do you own now
 -what cables have you prevously owned
 -what cables have you compared in your system
 -what cables have you tested DBT, and what were your results


----------



## LTUCCI1924

When I got the equniox replacenent cable for my 580s at 185.00 the mids were no longer laid back. The mid was equal with the highs and the lows. The sound stage became wider, The highs were higher but soft and the lows were tighter.
 When I bought the Di Mazio ics 4 of them for 200.00 the sound was more pure and more dynamic just more sound comming out of them. I put 2 of them to my cd deck to my stereo amp and 2 of them from my amp tape out to my supreme amp and have a better signal all around. Is it 200.00 worth I dont know and is my equinox worth 185.00 I dont know. But what I do know is that my main rig sounds better that befor I bought this stuff. Ant this called audio file? Than if so any improvement that one makes is on that course to quality sound even if the money dont give the actual moneys worth but still improves the sound ant that some of our goalds? To achive better quality sound with upgrading. Maby I am wrong and can accept that but at least I try to give what I have all the upgrade that goes with what I got and if I am wrong so what. Its only money.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Ricky ought to be banned for wasting so much of our time and bandwidth.

 So what if you say that all audible differences must be measurable? Let's say we grant you that--then can't you accept that high-end cables sound different from cheap cables because they actually measure different? And can it be that it's actually the high end cables that are measuring more correctly than the cheap cables?

 Sure, a cheap shiedless cable will probably do better than a high end twisted + shielded + whatever cable in RLC characteristics, but what about noise rejection??

 I haven't studied cables for long but it's already obvious to me that there is a crapload of design compromises to be made for cheap cables all over the place.


----------



## setmenu

This cable subject/issue has now become a bit of a baiting subject
 hasn,t it?
 Strikes me those doing the baiting have had little experience with
 auditioning cable[or so it seems]as yet for instance, Dark Angels
 reguest to Ricky has had no response,but plenty of the respondants here do seem to have a wealth of experience with cables of various design and price pionts.

 I for one get the impression that doubt is being cast over the 
 faculties of the individuals who report differences in cables[myself
 included here as obviously I am fool enough to purchase cables of
 considerable cost based on my own ears and sonic preferences].

 I can't help but find this a little insulting.

 Afterall in this universe I doubt anything is truly identical on all levels.

 Two lengths of cable taken from the same reel are not going to
 be truly identical even if we are unable to measure the difference.

 Cable from different manufacturers made to different spec are 
 definitely going to be different.

 Whether a listener is going to be attuned to those differences is 
 another matter.
 But to have any chance of detecting differences one has to at least try to listen.

 Will the thread starter please speak up 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






 Setmenu


----------



## Ricky

I'm not the thread starter, but I guess you are referring to me.

 Does it matter if you put a sewing needle glued on top of a car on the driving experience? The needle changes the car's mass, aerodynamics, etc, it's not the same thing, there are differences. But, do they matter? Can you notice them?

 I'm not calling you fools for hearing differences, I'm just trying to explain that those truly perceived differences might be for different reasons than you think, and those reasons would make moot how much money you spend on cables.

 I believe that the listening experience is many times more brain-driven than ear-driven. So, any feelings, emotions, thoughts, desires, doubts, expectations, anything, can make you perceive a different sound quality, even when objetively there's none, or if there is, is far beyond our hearing abilities as imperfect humans we are.

 I have done casual blind tests over cables, although I have no audiophile-grade quality cable as yours, using a self-made switch box. I use from time to time a 10 meter supposed good quality cable (but I guess it's not so good quality for what I paid for it) and some short microphone cable. I use regularly some cheap standard RCA interconnects, some coaxial ethernet cable, of low capacitance and good shielding, and on my casual, non thorough blind tests, I have noticed no difference between none them. The only different effect over audio signal I've been able to measure between some of these cables, is a higher or lower noise rejection, and still I don't know if the higher noise would be audible under regular listening conditions, maybe it would be for the long cable, but I didn't notice on casual listening.

 I think I've layed my cards on the table. I think it would be fair if you did the same thing.

 So, please take the test I've set up at www.kikeg.arrakis.es , and tell me your results.

 In this test, I've played and recorded a 30 sec. musical clip up to 4 consecutive times with my soundcard and a pair of cheap interconnects. There are 5 clips at the page, one of them being the original unprocessed original clip, extracted from a cd. The other four have been played and recorded 1, 2, 3, and 4 times.

 The clips can be easily burned to cd in order to do your listening tests with your favourite equipment.

 The effect of the soundcard should be greater than the effect of the cable, so I believe it would be easy for you to tell the original clip from the others, and even rating correctly the 5 clips from best to worst quality.

 I'm waiting to know your results.


----------



## MacDEF

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 Does it matter if you put a sewing needle glued on top of a car on the driving experience? The needle changes the car's mass, aerodynamics, etc, it's not the same thing, there are differences. But, do they matter? Can you notice them? 
 

Interesting that you used the exact _opposite_ analogy than your argument for cables. The above example is one where we can measure a difference, but it does not affect performance. Your standard anti-cable argument is that if we can't measure a difference, there will be no difference in performance.

  Quote:


 I'm not calling you fools for hearing differences, I'm just trying to explain that those truly perceived differences might be for different reasons than you think, and those reasons would make moot how much money you spend on cables. 
 

To be a skeptic, and to raise that question, is one thing. But to continue, over and over and over again, questioning people's experiences, _especially_ when some of us who have a lot more experience in research methods than you have done some of our own double-blind tests and identified audible differences in cables -- that's precisely what setmenu was talking about.


  Quote:


 I believe that the listening experience is many times more brain-driven than ear-driven. So, any feelings, emotions, thoughts, desires, doubts, expectations, anything, can make you perceive a different sound quality, even when objetively there's none, or if there is, is far beyond our hearing abilities as imperfect humans we are. 
 

If this was the case, a double-blind test would identify it.


  Quote:


 I have done casual blind tests over cables, although I have no audiophile-grade quality cable as yours, using a self-made switch box. 
 

But using a self-made switch box probably invalidated any conclusions at which you might have arrived. How can you test cables when they're just going through some home-made switch box? If you want to test cables, test cables. You're testing cables and a switch box.

 You also said you did "blind" tests -- what methodology did you use? If they were simply "blind," then the very phenomenon you claim is responsible for people "hearing" differences in cables is just as, if nor more, appropriate for explaining your "inability" to _not_ hear differences.

 What is the "good" cable you have? Why not tell us the brand/model? You've finally admitted that you've never even tried really good cables, which speaks volumes for your position.


  Quote:


 I think I've layed my cards on the table. 
 

Yes, thankfully.

  Quote:


 So, please take the test I've set up at www.kikeg.arrakis.es , and tell me your results.
 In this test, I've played and recorded a 30 sec. musical clip up to 4 consecutive times with my soundcard and a pair of cheap interconnects. There are 5 clips at the page, one of them being the original unprocessed original clip, extracted from a cd. The other four have been played and recorded 1, 2, 3, and 4 times. 
 

What are you testing here? Interconnect quality? Soundcard quality? Recording quality?


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*I have done casual blind tests over cables, although I have no audiophile-grade quality cable as yours, using a self-made switch box. I use from time to time a 10 meter supposed good quality cable (but I guess it's not so good quality for what I paid for it) and some short microphone cable. I use regularly some cheap standard RCA interconnects, some coaxial ethernet cable, of low capacitance and good shielding, and on my casual, non thorough blind tests, I have noticed no difference between none them. The only different effect over audio signal I've been able to measure between some of these cables, is a higher or lower noise rejection, and still I don't know if the higher noise would be audible under regular listening conditions, maybe it would be for the long cable, but I didn't notice on casual listening.

 I think I've layed my cards on the table. I think it would be fair if you did the same thing.
* 
 

Thanks for the info Ricky, even you have not mentioned by brand name any cable you have used or owned, I think we all get the picture of your experience level comparing cables. Also you have not given any info about what audio equipment was used with your "cables" so nothing really to go on here.

 Most members here do "lay their cards on the table", check the profile buttons for equipment and cables owned. I have probably tried @15-20 brands of cable in the last 10yrs, that doesn't make me an expert on anything but what DarkAngel likes in his system.

 My point is if you had really tried several recognized good cables and then reported they all sound the same to you therefore don't waste money on cables, I would respect you opinion even though my experience is different.


----------



## setmenu

Thats a good point Dark Angel..Profiles,I think that counts as
 cards on table, decision made hard earned bucks spent.



 setmenu

 Team deluded


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by MacDEF _
*

 Interesting that you used the exact opposite analogy than your argument for cables. The above example is one where we can measure a difference, but it does not affect performance. Your standard anti-cable argument is that if we can't measure a difference, there will be no difference in performance.
* 
 

I was responding to setmenu, when he said that there are always small differences even between similar cables.

 My "standard" argument is that if we can't measure a difference, there will be no difference in performance, but also that even if we can measure small differences, many times they won't make a perceivable difference in performance.

  Quote:


 *especially when some of us who have a lot more experience in research methods than you have done some of our own double-blind tests and identified audible differences in cables
* 
 

I can't understand how with so much experience in research methods, you didn't do a true rigorously controlled double blind listening test, including measurements, effective level matching, and statistical analysis.

  Quote:


 *You also said you did "blind" tests -- what methodology did you use?
* 
 

Very similar to yours, but witch a switchbox that adds no measurable degradation, and also effectively matching levels.

  Quote:


 *If they were simply "blind," then the very phenomenon you claim is responsible for people "hearing" differences in cables is just as, if nor more, appropriate for explaining your "inability" to not hear differences.* 
 

No logic here. so, if the test is not truly blind, that is a reason for NOT hearing differences? Doesn't make much sense, it should be the opposite. The person making the extraordinary claims is the one that should prove it using the most rigorous methods.

  Quote:


 *What is the "good" cable you have? Why not tell us the brand/model?
* 
 

It's no good for your standards. It's regular cable, a little bit more expensive than cheap coax., no brand.

  Quote:


 *
 You've finally admitted that you've never even tried really good cables, which speaks volumes for your position.
* 
 

I have said that I hear no difference with different regular cables. Is a good cable of those make he hear a difference? I don't think so, unless those cables do alter the sound, which is not my goal at sound reproduction.

  Quote:


 *
 What are you testing here? Interconnect quality? Soundcard quality? Recording quality? * 
 

Everything at the same time, including the cable factor. Mostly, if our ear is as sensitive as some like to think.

 Please try the test, and let me know your results.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by DarkAngel _
*
 Thanks for the info Ricky, even you have not mentioned by brand name any cable you have used or owned, I think we all get the picture of your experience level comparing cables. Also you have not given any info about what audio equipment was used with your "cables" so nothing really to go on here.
* 
 

No cables of any known expensive brand, I think it's useless.

 Audio equipment: Sennheiser HD 560 headphones, Sony MDR-7506 headphones, Denon DCD-2560 cd player, M-Audio Audiophile 2496 sound card, Turtle Beach Santa Cruz sound card, AVC Soul Player DMP-01 (= Rio Volt SP100) portable cd/mp3 player, Pioneer A-307R stereo amplifier's speaker outputs as headphone amp. I'm planning on purchasing a couple of small Tannoy studio monitors, and another pair of good headphones, such as Sennheiser HD 580. Also planning on building some twisted pair shielded interconnects, in order to test their noise pickup, for measurement purposes.

 Please note that my equipment is irrelevant according to the main argumentations I've exposed along the different posts.

  Quote:


 *My point is if you had really tried several recognized good cables and then reported they all sound the same to you therefore don't waste money on cables, I would respect you opinion even though my experience is different. * 
 

Please try my little test at www.kikeg.arrakis.es, and report how different my cables sound to you, compared to no cables at all.

 That's what I mean when I ask you to lay your cards on the table. You wanted me to tell what good cables I had auditioned and the results. I want you to audition my standard cables and tell me what you hear.


----------



## Ross

... and once again a quiet forum is thrown into turmoil by the suggestion that cables might make no difference. For the 68th time on this forum. For the 19,876,368,977th time on all known audio forums. The same arguments, the same responses. Science, double blind-tesing, resistance, capacitance, inductance, proof, placebo ... out they all come, yet again, the same tedious pattern of ill-informed argument and counter-argument. 

 The person who started this thread ended his first post with "peace", knowing full well that the exact opposite would ensue. And then he disappeared. What was _his_ goal, and did he achieve it?

 Ross


----------



## markl

Quote:


 I have said that I hear no difference with different regular cables. Is a good cable of those make he hear a difference? I don't think so, unless those cables do alter the sound, which is not my goal at sound reproduction. 
 

There is a HUGE GAPING FLAW in the very foundation of your reasoning Ricky. You ASSUME that your sub-standard, one step above stock cables are NOT altering the sound, but that well-made well-designed, and high-performance cables (that you have NEVER tried) are the ones that screw up the signal.

 No cable can "improve" the sound. At best, better quality cables interefere with the sound LESS than cheap-ass stock cables of the variety you own.

 And it's incredibly relevant to know what you are listening to. I bet it's a crappy computer sound card or a portable Mp3 player or some such. Of course devices like those will reveal no differences in cables. Get some real gear, some real cables, then come back and talk to us.

 markl


----------



## markl

And another thing...

 Before the invention of the thermometer, your ancestors insisted that you couldn't conclude it's colder today than it was yesterday, because there was no way to measure it.

 Meanwhile, it's snowing outside.

 markl


----------



## MacDEF

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 My "standard" argument is that if we can't measure a difference, there will be no difference in performance, but also that even if we can measure small differences, many times they won't make a perceivable difference in performance. 
 

But yet you continue to ignore the fact that there are plenty of things humans can hear that science cannot accurately describe, let alone measure.


  Quote:


 I can't understand how with so much experience in research methods, you didn't do a true rigorously controlled double blind listening test, including measurements, effective level matching, and statistical analysis. 
 

1) I don't have the funds, nor the lab, nor the subjects to do a large-scale study.

 2) Given #1, the test I did, fully controlled and double-blind, showed with 100% accuracy that I could tell the difference between cables. Everyone else I've sat down in that test has also clearly been able to identify the differences. The sample size is small, but given the overwhelming results, the level of confidence in the results is quite high.



  Quote:


 Very similar to yours, but witch a switchbox that adds no measurable degradation, and also effectively matching levels. 
 

1) Have you even tried to measure the degredation? (And remember the truth that measurements can't "measure" all audible differences.)

 2) Adding a switchbox adds another variable to the mix, no matter how much you try to "match" the levels or claim that it adds no degredation.

 3) Not "very similar to mine," since you're using all cheap, poor-quality cables.


 I'm not surprised that using a switchbox on poor-quality cables and your less-than-high-end system, plus your own admitted skepticism about cable differences, that you hear no difference. In fact, I'd argue that your test was doomed to not find differences.

  Quote:


  Quote:


 If they were simply "blind," then the very phenomenon you claim is responsible for people "hearing" differences in cables is just as, if nor more, appropriate for explaining your "inability" to not hear differences. 
 

No logic here. so, if the test is not truly blind, that is a reason for NOT hearing differences? Doesn't make much sense, it should be the opposite. 
 

The logic is quite clear. If people's own expectations or biases lead them to hear a difference in cables, it also follows (and has been demonstrated quite clearly in the fields of audiology and psychology) that their expectations or biases can also lead them to *not* hear a difference, even when it's measureable and quite clear to others. Your test wasn't double-blind, used such equipment and test materials so as to minimize any possible differences, and was undertaken by someone who is overwhelmingly skeptical of such differences. Your bias was more than enough to have overcome any differences your ears might have been able to hear. You can't use the "bias" argument to discredit others and then hope no one aims it right back at you, especially when it's far more appropriate in that direction.


  Quote:


 The person making the extraordinary claims is the one that should prove it using the most rigorous methods. 
 

As I have... and I would point out that claiming there is a difference between cables is no _more_ "extraordinary" than claiming there isn't.


  Quote:


 It's no good for your standards. It's regular cable, a little bit more expensive than cheap coax., no brand. 
 

So you're testing a cable that is little, if any, different from another cable, and that proves there is no difference between cables 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






  Quote:


 I have said that I hear no difference with different regular cables. Is a good cable of those make he hear a difference? I don't think so, unless those cables do alter the sound, which is not my goal at sound reproduction. 
 

If you're using cheap cable, it may not be your goal, but it is most certainly your result.



  Quote:


 Please note that my equipment is irrelevant according to the main argumentations I've exposed along the different posts. 
 

Your equipment is very relevant. If your equipment is not up to snuff to begin with, how are you going to hear the subtle, but valid, differences between cables?

 A cable is like a pipe, carrying the signal as if it were water. A crappy cable is like a rusty pipe, adding color and crap to the water. A good cable is like a new copper pipe, carrying the clean, crystal-clear water without adding a thing.

 Comparing cables with less-than-great components is like trying to figure out if your pipes are rusty by pouring dirty water down the drain -- how are you supposed to see if the crud in the water is from the source or from the pipe? And how are you supposed to see which pipe is rustier if the water started out brown to begin with?


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*I'm not calling you fools for hearing differences, I'm just trying to explain that those truly perceived differences might be for different reasons than you think, and those reasons would make moot how much money you spend on cables.

 I believe that the listening experience is many times more brain-driven than ear-driven. So, any feelings, emotions, thoughts, desires, doubts, expectations, anything, can make you perceive a different sound quality, even when objetively there's none, or if there is, is far beyond our hearing abilities as imperfect humans we are.* 
 

My degree is in psychology. No real point in false modesty here: I know much more about the influence of the brain on perception than you do. There are certain systematic distortions in perception that are hardwired into the nervous system. There are others that can be attributed to "software", our beliefs and expectations. However, the distortions so introduced tend to be short-term in nature. One way to think of them is short-cuts our brain takes to sort out relevant data in novel situations. As the situation becomes less novel, our brain becomes more efficient at processing the information. A wide variety of exposure, across various times, in various settings, and with various ancillary equipment will eventually allow a person to sort out what parts of a sensory experience are stimulus-driven, and what parts are driven by expectation. To put it more succintly, expectations change, while stimuli don't. That part of the sensory experience that is stimulus driven will stay constant, while other aspects will be far more labile depending on mood etc. The fact that the brain influences perception is unquestionable. However, your assumption that we cannot tell when this is occurring is true only for brief exposures in novel situations. It's not all that hard to get past this.

  Quote:


 *

 I'm waiting to know your results.

* 
 

You're going to wait a long time for mine. I have no interest in listening to a poorly recorded musical cut that won't prove anything. If you want to illustrate that an expensive cable doesn't sound different than a cheap one, you're going to need to throw an expensive cable into the mix. You're also going to need to take steps to insure that your system is not introducing distortions that might conceal or interact with the cable differences that may be present. 

 Do read MacDEF's comment about how your own biases might be affecting this experiment. Read it several times until you understand it.


----------



## grancasa

Jude, other Moderators,

 I thought the whole point of declaring this a Double Blind Testing Free zone was to eliminate threads like this. So how about shutting a thread down when it gets into DBT, and banning members who continue to bring up DBT's. I don't find these threads particularly helpful, especially when some of the participants don't seem to have much understanding of the science they are bashing and/or promoting, contradict themselves, and not present a very coherent argument.

 If you want to talk about psycho-acoustic affects, fine, start a thread about that. If you want to talk about overpricing of cables, start a thread. BUT NO TALK ABOUT DOUBLE BLIND TESTING! Please, read the sign before entering. Just my thoughts


----------



## Ricky

Man, we're not going to arrive anywhere with this type of discussion.

 So, please, TRY my test at www.kikeg.arrakis.es, and see at least if you cant sort out the ORIGINAL FILE from the others ones recorded with my crappy equipment. Would be great if you could sort out the worst one, and would be greater if you coud rate the 5 from best to worst, best the ORIGINAL, UNPROCESSED, NON-DEGRADED, UNTOUCHED file from the original cd, the worst the 4 times passed one. Should be very easy with your great ears and great equipment. 

 I'm sincerely interested in having an idea on how good people's ears are.


 Anyway, here's my reply

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by MacDEF _
*
 But yet you continue to ignore the fact that there are plenty of things humans can hear that science cannot accurately describe, let alone measure.
* 
 

What fact? Where's that fact? Where's any serious study claiming that humans are able to hear things that science cannot measure? I mean, besides from just your non-rigorous blind tests.

 The opposite has been many times done. I mean, people claiming to hear differences, that suddenly dissapeared under blind and 
 controlled conditions. It's easy to disprove, there's no need to do a serious study, because the differences DO dissapear from sighted to blind. What uncontrolled conditions could make the differences dissapear after going blind?

  Quote:


 *
 1) I don't have the funds, nor the lab, nor the subjects to do a large-scale study.
* 
 

I wasn't talking about a large-scale study, I'm only interested about your experiment with you as subject. The statistical results were about your number of trials. You say here that you were successful 100% times. I'd like to see the exact procedure you used for every trial, and series of trials.

  Quote:


 *
 2) Given #1, the test I did, fully controlled and double-blind, showed with 100% accuracy that I could tell the difference between cables. Everyone else I've sat down in that test has also clearly been able to identify the differences. The sample size is small, but given the overwhelming results, the level of confidence in the results is quite high.
* 
 

Everyone? Then, your test setup must be flawed, as many people can't hear any differences even on sighted conditions, not to talk under blind conditions. Still, your test lacks effective level matching and additional measurements, things that could spoil your test.

  Quote:


 *
 1) Have you even tried to measure the degredation? (And remember the truth that measurements can't "measure" all audible differences.)
* 
 

Of course I have measured it, I try not to talk cheap.


  Quote:


 *
 3) Not "very similar to mine," since you're using all cheap, poor-quality cables.
* 
 

Well, the cables are the subject of the experiment, I was talking about the procedures.

  Quote:


 *
 I'm not surprised that using a switchbox on poor-quality cables and your less-than-high-end system, plus your own admitted skepticism about cable differences, that you hear no difference. In fact, I'd argue that your test was doomed to not find differences.
* 
 

I said that they were casual, non thorough tests. I just have answered to your questions of what tests I had done. If I had found differences, we won't be talking about the matter, obviously. It's your tests that matter, not mines, as I can't hear any differences.

  Quote:


 *
 The logic is quite clear. If people's own expectations or biases lead them to hear a difference in cables, it also follows (and has been demonstrated quite clearly in the fields of audiology and psychology) that their expectations or biases can also lead them to *not* hear a difference, even when it's measureable and quite clear to others. Your test wasn't double-blind, used such equipment and test materials so as to minimize any possible differences, and was undertaken by someone who is overwhelmingly skeptical of such differences. Your bias was more than enough to have overcome any differences your ears might have been able to hear. You can't use the "bias" argument to discredit others and then hope no one aims it right back at you, especially when it's far more appropriate in that direction.
* 
 

It's much more likely for bias the reason of hearing differences that don't exist, that don't hearing differences that exist. Yes, I'm skeptic and that could have influenced me. But then, there's no need for a blind test. I said I had done casual ones, but just because you asked me to do, but when not hearing differences, blind tests are irrelevant, can be only relevant if the listener is more sensitive under blind conditions. Blind test are needed when trying to prove if differences are real or self-induced by external factors to sound.

  Quote:


 *
 As I have... and I would point out that claiming there is a difference between cables is no more "extraordinary" than claiming there isn't.
* 
 

You seem to think that way, but indeed it's extraordinary claiming to hear things that are not measurable, since it has been never scientifically proven.

  Quote:


 *
 So you're testing a cable that is little, if any, different from another cable, and that proves there is no difference between cables 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



* 
 

I didn't say that proved anything. I just wrote it because you asked me to do it. I did say that I don't think expensive cables would make a difference. Please, stick to what I really said.


  Quote:


 *
 Your equipment is very relevant. If your equipment is not up to snuff to begin with, how are you going to hear the subtle, but valid, differences between cables?
* 
 

Because it's not he point of my argumentation.

  Quote:


 *
 A cable is like a pipe, carrying the signal as if it were water. A crappy cable is like a rusty pipe, adding color and crap to the water. A good cable is like a new copper pipe, carrying the clean, crystal-clear water without adding a thing.
 Comparing cables with less-than-great components is like trying to figure out if your pipes are rusty by pouring dirty water down the drain -- how are you supposed to see if the crud in the water is from the source or from the pipe? And how are you supposed to see which pipe is rustier if the water started out brown to begin with? * 
 

Then, my test should be very easy for you, as there's a file that has no cable influence at all.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
* 
 And it's incredibly relevant to know what you are listening to. I bet it's a crappy computer sound card or a portable Mp3 player or some such. Of course devices like those will reveal no differences in cables.* 
 

Then, my test at www.kikeg.arrakis.es shoud be fairly easy for you.

  Quote:


 * 
 Get some real gear, some real cables, then come back and talk to us.
* 
 

I could say, try my test, and then come back and talk to me.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by grancasa _
*
 I thought the whole point of declaring this a Double Blind Testing Free zone was to eliminate threads like this. So how about shutting a thread down when it gets into DBT, and banning members who continue to bring up DBT's.´
 ...
 BUT NO TALK ABOUT DOUBLE BLIND TESTING! * 
 

I was asked to talk again at this thread. At this last posts, I was asked from others to talk about my blind tests, and other people are the ones that are binging their blind tests as their main argument.

 By the way, it's easy to keep away from this discussion, just don't follow this thread. As you see, I'm not interfering talking about DBT's in other threads different that this, even not interfering at all in other discussions from you, over particular brands of cables and the like.

* Quote:


 I don't find these threads particularly helpful, especially when some of the participants don't seem to have much understanding of the science they are bashing and/or promoting, contradict themselves, and not present a very coherent argument. 
 

*I'd say you are not talking about me, are you?


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*
 You're going to wait a long time for mine. I have no interest in listening to a poorly recorded musical cut that won't prove anything. If you want to illustrate that an expensive cable doesn't sound different than a cheap one, you're going to need to throw an expensive cable into the mix. You're also going to need to take steps to insure that your system is not introducing distortions that might conceal or interact with the cable differences that may be present. 
* 
 

Please read again what my experiment consists of, I guess you didn't understand it very well. 

 If you did, you should know that there's one file whose content has not been touched at all by my system. And the 4 times recorded one should just sound as filth to your ears.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Ricky, you seem to have a very strange assumption:

WHO SAID THAT CABLE DIFFERENCES CAN'T BE MEASURED??????


----------



## setmenu

I have found just the concept of 'listening' to cables bothers
 some people and the Idea of paying out lots of cash for them
 even more so.

 So Ricky tests asside what do you actually think the so called high
 end[or any specialist manufacturer] cable manufactures are actually up to?
 Are they a bunch of con merchants or deluded individuals who 
 are hell bent on extracting our hard earned bucks from us under
 false pretences?

 There has to be a demand for something for a business to exist
 so what about those customers?

 Surely the fact that these companys exist selling such a product
 suggests there just may well be something in this?

 Or is every purchaser[thousands of people] mistaken in their 
 beliefs?

 Are cable purchasers indulging in an act of faith?

 Is it a religeon
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






 Setmenu


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by grancasa _
*
 If you want to talk about psycho-acoustic affects, fine, start a thread about that. If you want to talk about overpricing of cables, start a thread. BUT NO TALK ABOUT DOUBLE BLIND TESTING! Please, read the sign before entering. Just my thoughts
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

While the idea of banning DBT from a cable forum may be a good one, and I have abided as best I can, the danger (and problem) of this is that you're also banning discussion about a major methodology used to test cable differences from a forum specifically about cables, tweaks, etc. where this methodology may be most relevant. Rather than an outright ban, perhaps an alteration of the thread title of those threads involving DBT (DBT in parentheses?) would be appropriate, so that those who do not want to participate are warned, while on-topic discussion can limp along as best it is able.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*Please read again what my experiment consists of, I guess you didn't understand it very well. 

 If you did, you should know that there's one file whose content has not been touched at all by my system. And the 4 times recorded one should just sound as filth to your ears. * 
 

Oh, I understood it. Either you recorded the file, or someone else did, which introduces variables from somebody's system into the equation. The farther it gets from your system, the less we know about it.

 You're also assuming that cable effects are additive in some way over your process. If all of the damage was done in the recording, why on earth should I expect the differences I would listen for to be there in the first place?


----------



## kwkarth

Ricky,
 I'll try to be gentle. You appear to be a willfully ignorant fool. 

 This is quite evident from your picking and choosing which posts and portions thereof to which you respond. There is no point in continuing discussion with you since it seems evident you're not seeking to enlarge the scope of your own knowledge. 

 You appear to be stubbornly clinging to your horribly ignorant and flawed misconceptions and trying to convince others of the same. 

 This is a waste of time. 

 While many of us enjoy a good challenge, I think this one is a lost cause folks.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


 _Originally posted by grancasa _
*Jude, other Moderators,

 So how about shutting a thread down when it gets into DBT, and banning members who continue to bring up DBT's. 
* 
 

Again, a wonderful, priceless example of high-end open-mindedness.

 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


 _Originally posted by MacDEF _
*

 But using a self-made switch box probably invalidated any conclusions at which you might have arrived. How can you test cables when they're just going through some home-made switch box? If you want to test cables, test cables. You're testing cables and a switch box.

* 
 

Hello MacDEF,

 If Ricky´s (supposedly) simple and passive switchbox is truly detrimental to sound - so as to mask the differences between wires (I confess I have a hard time believing this) - how can we ever evaluate anything? Just think of the amount of different components (passive and active) in CDPs, amplifiers etc. 

 You made your DBTs with your Max. Would the parts used in your amplifier be of sufficient quality to make a simple switchbox?

 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Hirsch,
 It depends on what kind of file the original was. The most sensible thing would have been just to rip a CD. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That said, I still don't see much interest in the test. Understandable... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 Again, a wonderful, priceless example of high-end open-mindedness. 
 

You have no idea how long we have tolerated this guy.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*

 You have no idea how long we have tolerated this guy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

"We?" So Ricky is not one "you"? How about me?

 Very telling...


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I would hate to give the impression that we are a bunch of snobs, especially since my post count belies my actual audio experience, which is rather little 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I haven't really had the chance to look for sonic differences between cables (hint $$ $$ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) but I trust people when they say that they have already DONE DBT and 'we all heard the difference, so there you are'. Whether *I* will hear cable differences in the future is another story, but I let other people keep their ears with them, and I don't decide for them what they can and can't hear.

 This Ricky's first post was a link to a usenet discussion that ridiculed Jude's review of the Cardas Neutral Reference Interconnects. Over the course of 2 (or is it 3 including this one?) flame wars started by Ricky over this subject, it became apparent that this guy doesn't really know what he's talking about, and is impossible to argue with, since he would ignore what you are saying, or apparently concede a point in one post then go right on asserting the opposite in the next.

 I would also love to find that cables make no difference--but they DO measure different (resistance, capacitance and inductance per meter are common measurement statistics and are different for each cable design) while Ricky continues to assert that they don't, with nothing to back up this claim at all. If they measure different, why can't they sound different too? Why should we have to put up with him talking our ears off about how all cables are the same, all cables can't be anything BUT the same, etc. etc. when he is just repeating the same pathetic and incoherent arguments over and over again and wasting our time and bandwidth?

 YOU, Leporello, on the other hand, seems to be quite a reasonable guy. FWIW, I agree that the same kinds of switching mechanisms are involved in both the Max and a switchbox. However, if you're not hearing differences you should look for flaws in your equipment instead of proclaiming a conclusion straight away. There are several flaws in Ricky's equipment:

 1. The switchbox (may or may not matter)
 2. The cables (he hasn't got anything that anybody thinks would be much superior to stock)
 3. The rest of the system (not up to snuff)

 There will always be popular and unpopular people in any place. The thing is Ricky is unpopular not because he holds a minority viewpoint, but because he's been acting like an utter *******. We will welcome anyone, whatever special viewpoint they may have, as long as those views are presented reasonably and (s)he is open to other people's views.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*Ricky, you seem to have a very strange assumption:

 WHO SAID THAT CABLE DIFFERENCES CAN'T BE MEASURED?????? * 
 

I'd say another poster did, and he was the one I was replying to. Last time, he said: 

 "But yet you continue to ignore the fact that there are plenty of things humans can hear that science cannot accurately describe, let alone measure. "

 All in the context of audible cable differences, of course. For more examples of his assertions, go backwards in the thread.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Ricky, are you deliberately mixing up the issues?

 Issue no.1: Do cables measure different if they sound different?
 Answer: in most cases probably yes but there may be measurements we are missing out on.

 Issue no.2--THE ONE I'M ADDRESING--do the cables out there actually measure different?

 OF COURSE THEY DO!

 You repeatedly make the argument that effectively goes something like 'cables all measure the same, so they can't possibly sound different'.

 e.g.
  Quote:


 You seem to think that way, but indeed it's extraordinary claiming to hear things that are not measurable, since it has been never scientifically proven. 
 

Yeah right.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by setmenu _
*
 So Ricky tests asside what do you actually think the so called high
 end[or any specialist manufacturer] cable manufactures are actually up to?
 Are they a bunch of con merchants or deluded individuals who 
 are hell bent on extracting our hard earned bucks from us under
 false pretences?
* 
 

I'd say so, but it doesn't happen just with cables. At audio segment, there are many examples of this: green pens, cd degaussers or demagnetizers, bybee filters, cable holders, power cords, etc.

 Happens also in many other non audio areas, but I think the audio one must be of the most profitable.

  Quote:


 *
 There has to be a demand for something for a business to exist
 so what about those customers?
* 
 

Demand created by the manufacturers.

  Quote:


 *
 Surely the fact that these companys exist selling such a product
 suggests there just may well be something in this?
* 
 

It suggests that there are too many unfounded myths over audio, and many people willing to believe in these.

* Quote:


 Are cable purchasers indulging in an act of faith?
 Is it a religeon
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

*Could be something of that style, but I guess you won't agree.


----------



## jude

I don't know......but I go to bed every night with a prayer that goes something like, "In the name of the Tara, the Zen, and the Golden Ref'rence......"

 [size=xx-small]* Quote:


 Are cable purchasers indulging in an act of faith?
 Is it a religeon
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 

* Quote:


 
 Could be something like that, but I guess you won't agree. 
 

[/size]


----------



## setmenu

Ricky
 Mmm
 So I [and the others here] Have been had eh?

 Now thats What I call cards on the table!


 Oh fun fun fun
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Setmenu


----------



## LTUCCI1924

WOW did I get riped off. I payed 185.00 for the equinox replacement cable for my senn. 580s and after 70 hour breakin the mids are no longer laid back and the bass is tighter and lower and the hight are much sweeter. I also bought 4 DiMarzio ics and after a breakin I am getting a much better signal. Is this all make believe in my head? Am I deceiveing myself? Well if so its ok for I think that I do hear a difference a big difference and if its all in my head ok thats a good place for it to be besides my ears which lead to my head.But in all fairness if you dont think there is a difference ok. That is your opinion and I respect that. Rather then going on with this debait why not just say that you dont think that there is a difference and you need not explain your self any further. And if you do hear a difference ok you dont need to explain your self any further. We could accept all opinions even if we think that they may not be what other opinions are. Most of use do hear the difference but maby we have good ears.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*Ricky, are you deliberately mixing up the issues?
* 
 

No, I'm not. I guess you would do better if you read the whole threads. Hey, I have to answer to a bunch of different ideas proposed by different people, and many of these ideas are different and not coherent from one person to another. Rather messy, but so are different people's arguments.

  Quote:


 Issue no.1: Do cables measure different if they sound different?
 Answer: in most cases probably yes but there may be measurements we are missing out on.
 Issue no.2--THE ONE I'M ADDRESING--do the cables out there actually measure different?
 OF COURSE THEY DO!
 You repeatedly make the argument that effectively goes something like 'cables all measure the same, so they can't possibly sound different'.
 [/B] 
 

I know it's complicated, but so are many things in the world.

 I'll try to summarize, and be concise:

 1 - Regular standard non-expensive non-broken cables don't measure very different from neutral expensive cables, from the audio point of view. The only noticeable difference is their ability to reject electromagnetic noise. With short interconnects, this rejection is quite good even on standard cheap cables, I'd say not audible under normal listening conditions.

 2 - Even though there can be differences in the electrical parameters of cables, most of the times these differences are irrelevant at audio levels and frequencies. To be significant, there must be quite gross diferences in these electrical parameters. When I measure a cable, I measure its effect on the audio signal, not their electrical parameters.

 3- If two cables objectively sound different, there must be easy to measure differences between the cables at audio levels and frequencies.

 Got it now?

 By the way, thanks for your nice words on me, I'd say I didn't insult you nor anybody at this forums, or at least I tried not to.


----------



## setmenu

Ho Hum.


 Setmenu


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*
 Oh, I understood it. Either you recorded the file, or someone else did, which introduces variables from somebody's system into the equation. The farther it gets from your system, the less we know about it.
* 
 

Well, I think the recording engineer did it for me and also for the whole world. I guess his equipment is quite good, as it's used regularly to make discs like the ones you listen to at your home.

 ...ever hear of digital audio extraction from a cd, or shorter, a cd rip? Ever heard of EAC? Ever bothered to read my first post about this test? Ever bothered on going to the test's page?

* Quote:


 You're also assuming that cable effects are additive in some way over your process. If all of the damage was done in the recording, why on earth should I expect the differences I would listen for to be there in the first place? 
 

*All degrading effects use to be additive. If you can't hear differences, then the included cable factor can't be heard either.

 Some of this things are explained at the test page, www.kikeg.arrakis.es.

 Would you please bother to make a"click" and go to that page, and read what's written there. I think it's not so difficult.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kwkarth _
*Ricky,
 I'll try to be gentle. You appear to be a willfully ignorant fool. 
* 
 

Thanks. Who's flaming here?

  Quote:


 *This is quite evident from your picking and choosing which posts and portions thereof to which you respond. There is no point in continuing discussion with you since it seems evident you're not seeking to enlarge the scope of your own knowledge. 
* 
 

Oh, how fair!! So I have to answer to every portion of every message of every person, and you and the others can post whatever you want and reply to whatever you want, whenever you want from whoever you want? How funny. You're truly an impartial guy.

  Quote:


 *TYou appear to be stubbornly clinging to your horribly ignorant and flawed misconceptions and trying to convince others of the same. 
 This is a waste of time. 
 While many of us enjoy a good challenge, I think this one is a lost cause folks.
* 
 

I could say exactly the same.

 I'm starting to believe you are afraid of the real and definitive challenge at www.kikeg.arrakis.es. Why is, that nobody has written here his impressions over the how the files sound?


----------



## DarkAngel

Anyone else here think it is time for a "mercy kill" and close this thread, I think everyone knows each others position


----------



## setmenu

Things have become a tad circular now.

 I agree.


 Setmenu


----------



## Leporello

Let us change our point of view for a while. 

 A common complaint about blind tests with negative results is that the equipment/recording/switch box/ the ears of the testee etc. were not good/transparent/musical etc. enough to reveal the differences that otherwise wqould have been very real. There are plenty of examples of this kind of critique even in this thread.

 So, I am kindly requesting suggestions about how to make those differences most apparent:

 What particular headphones should I use ( I already have the HD600s)?

 What aftermarket cables (if any) should I use?

 What amplifier should I use? (I'm planning to buy a Corda - is it good enough?)

 Suitable music (perhaps a particular recording) for listening?

 Good enough source?

 Two interconnects that supposedly sound different.

 Any other requirements.


 Thanks in advance.


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## MacDEF

This is a long post; Ricky, I hope you'll read it in its entirely; you continue to selectively ignore valid criticisms of your position.


  Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 Man, we're not going to arrive anywhere with this type of discussion. 
 






 By "this type of discussion," I'm assuming that you mean you continuing to ignore the facts presented, and just repeating over and over "just take my test, please!"

 If you want to test whether or not good cables make a difference, _test good cables vs. cheap cables in a controlled environment using good equipment_. You can't "prove" your argument using a flawed experiment.


  Quote:


 So, please, TRY my test at www.kikeg.arrakis.es, 
 

If you had used a cross-platform codec, people who aren't using Windows could at least try it.




  Quote:


 What fact? Where's that fact? Where's any serious study claiming that humans are able to hear things that science cannot measure? 
 

*sigh* I'm not going to do your research for you. I even posted a link last week, directed to you, quoting a prominent physics professor; you must have ignored my post.

  Quote:


 _Part of the difficulty is that there are still unexplained acoustic phenomena. William Morris Hartmann, a professor of physics at Michigan State University in East Lansing, works on psycho-acoustic projects, which investigate the way sound is perceived, rather than the way it is produced. 

 There are examples, he said, of sounds that measure beyond the range of human hearing, and yet some people seem to perceive them._ 
 

Are you going to just dismiss him, as well, since he disagrees with you?


  Quote:


 It's easy to disprove, there's no need to do a serious study, because the differences DO dissapear from sighted to blind. 
 

WRONG. _Some_ perceived differences disappear when going to a blind test. That is _not_ the same thing as _all_ differences being eliminated and/or controlled for.



  Quote:


 I wasn't talking about a large-scale study, I'm only interested about your experiment with you as subject. The statistical results were about your number of trials. You say here that you were successful 100% times. I'd like to see the exact procedure you used for every trial, and series of trials. 
 

I outlined them quite clearly, several times. Were you in "ignore" mode then? Sorry, but it's utterly frustrating to keep going over the same argument when you don't even bother to read about the things which you're criticizing.


  Quote:


 Everyone? Then, your test setup must be flawed, as many people can't hear any differences even on sighted conditions, not to talk under blind conditions. 
 

OMG? Are you serious? So if an experiment simply proves you wrong, rather than admitting you might be wrong, you suddenly pronounce from on high that the test must be flawed? Give me a break, Ricky. This is actually becoming quite funny.

 Couldn't it have been, just maybe, that there WERE differences in the cables? Naaah...


  Quote:


 Still, your test lacks effective level matching and additional measurements, things that could spoil your test. 
 

How does it lack effective level matching? _You're making it clearer and clearer with every post that you don't even read what is being presented to you._ If you had read my description carefully, you'd see that there was no need for level matching, because by design the levels were perfectly matched. And even then I controlled for that by swapping the outputs and re-doing the test.


  Quote:


  Quote:


 Not "very similar to mine," since you're using all cheap, poor-quality cables. 
 

Well, the cables are the subject of the experiment, I was talking about the procedures. 
 

The _point_ of these "experiments" is to find out if "better" cables sound different from "cheap" cables. My experiment actually tested that. Yours tested differences between various cheap cables. Therefore, our experiments were not the same.

 In addition, my experiment did not use switchboxes, cheap cables, and a poorer quality system. My experiment was also double-blind, eliminating experimenter bias; your's apparently did not, according to your description.



  Quote:


 It's much more likely for bias the reason of hearing differences that don't exist, that don't hearing differences that exist. [snip] Yes, I'm skeptic and that could have influenced me. But then, there's no need for a blind test. [snip] but when not hearing differences, blind tests are irrelevant, can be only relevant if the listener is more sensitive under blind conditions. Blind test are needed when trying to prove if differences are real or self-induced by external factors to sound. 
 

From those statements, it's obviously that you have _no_ experience or training in psychology, experimental methods, or sensory perception.

 Precisely _because_ you're a skeptic is *why* you have to do not just a blind test, but a double-blind one, in order to get any sort of validity out of your conclusions (not to mention using equipment that actually has the resolution to reveal difference that might exist). Even then, someone with your skepticism is not likely to hear a difference, even if (in your all-important condition) the differences are measurable. That's why you need a sample size of more than one.

 Since you don't seem to understand experimental methods, or results, here are the possible outcomes of a single run of such a double-blind test using a single test subject, along with the possible conclusions you can draw from them, assuming you have controlled for other factors.

 1) _The person consistently does not hear a difference._ There are three possible explanations: a) there is no audible difference; b) there is an audible difference, but the subject does not have good enough hearing to hear it; c) there is an audible difference, but the subject's own biases prevent them from hearing it.

 2) _The person can sometimes or always hear a difference, but cannot consistenly identify it._ a) there is no audible difference, but the subject sometimes or always thinks there is, for whatever reason; b) there is an audible difference, but the subject's hearing is not good enough to consistently identify it. There is also "c) there is an audible difference, but the subject's biases prevent them from hearing it consistently;" however, such an explanation is less likely than the other two since such a bias would generally either prevent the subject from hearing differences at all, or prevent the subject from admitting to hearing such differences. This is a difficult outcome to explain with certainty because of these possibilities.

 3) _The person can consistently hear *and identify*a difference._ There is only _*one*_ possible explanation for this result: differences exist, and the person has good enough hearing to not only hear them, but identify them. "Bias" _cannot_ account for such results, since "expecting" to hear a difference would still not allow you to consistently identify which cable was which. The only way this result could be achieved if a difference could not exist is if the subject was the luckiest person in the world and guessed the correct cable every time -- the more trials you run, the lower the chances of this already unlikely scenario occuring.


 Because of these factors, a sample size of a single individual is MUCH more valid if the results are #3 than if they are #1 or #2. Even so, the bigger the sample size, the more confidence you can have in your results.


  Quote:


 You seem to think that way, but indeed it's extraordinary claiming to hear things that are not measurable, since it has been never scientifically proven. 
 

Um, see above. You're again making claims that are not supportable.



  Quote:


 I didn't say that proved anything. I just wrote it because you asked me to do it. I did say that I don't think expensive cables would make a difference. Please, stick to what I really said. 
 

You _did_ say it proved something. You've said many times that your own "experiments" showed you that there is no difference between cables.


  Quote:


  Quote:


 Your equipment is very relevant. If your equipment is not up to snuff to begin with, how are you going to hear the subtle, but valid, differences between cables? 
 

Because it's not he point of my argumentation. 
 

The point of your argument is that cables do not make a difference. You use as support for your argument your own "experiments." Therefore, the equipment you use in such "experiments" is relevant to your argument.


  Quote:


 I could say, try my test, and then come back and talk to me. 
 

Again, your "test" does not effectively measure the difference between a cheap cable and a good cable in a high-quality system. It simply doesn't measure that. Comparing a cheap cable to a good cable in a high-quality system _*does*_.



  Quote:


 If two cables objectively sound different, there must be easy to measure differences between the cables at audio levels and frequencies. 
 


 Again, you keep repeating that statement as if it's a fact, when it is anything but. Have you _ever_ actually read up on this subject, other than the literature of the anti-cable brigade? Do you even _know_ any audiologists? First, read what I posted above (the quote from the physicist). Second, do some searches in the literature on human auditory perception. Third, go find an audiologist and ask them to teach you about human hearing.

 I was at a get-together this past weekend where I was talking to a friend who is actually an audiologist. You know... someone who is _trained_ in the human hearing system and regularly does research in the field. This person works at the best audiology department in the western United States, and knows the people at Etymotic personally. This person is well-read on the topic of auditory perception. I asked this person point-blank, without any prompting: Can we measure everything the human ear can hear? The answer was quite clear: there are lots of things that human beings can hear that we cannot measure with existing technology, and there are lots of things about the human ear and hearing system that we, as a species, do not understand.

 I don't know how much clearer I can be, Ricky. I appears that you simply don't understand this topic.

  Quote:


 All degrading effects use to be additive. 
 

I'm assuming you meant to say that "all degrading effects will be additive," since that is one of the bases of your "test;" the problem is that it is not true. If a cable's defect is that it strips out or distorts certain parts of the spectrum, there will be no additive effect.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


 _Originally posted by MacDEF _
* I outlined them quite clearly, several times. Were you in "ignore" mode then? Sorry, but it's utterly frustrating to keep going over the same argument when you don't even bother to read about the things which you're criticizing.

* 
 

Hello MacDEF,

 Perhaps my "ignore" mode is permanently on... If so, I'm sorry but anyway:

 I too asked about the number of trials and scores vs. errors. To me you replied:



> *Originally posted by MacDEF
> - Trials: I didn't set it up with a set # of trials, but I have done this experiment *many* times for myself, for friends, skeptics, etc., and the results are quite repeatable.
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDEF

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Leporello _
 If Ricky´s (supposedly) simple and passive switchbox is truly detrimental to sound - so as to mask the differences between wires (I confess I have a hard time believing this) - how can we ever evaluate anything? Just think of the amount of different components (passive and active) in CDPs, amplifiers etc. 
 

The problem is that every time you add something to the signal path, you're affecting the signal -- a Max amp is no exception. Limiting the number of things in the path is one way to improve things; another is improving the quality of the things you _do_ put there.

 Unfortunately, given Ricky's views towards spending more than the bare minimum on wires/components/etc., I have little faith that his switchbox is anything more than a cheap switch using $3 in Radio Shack parts 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Of course, if he'd care to correct me by letting us know more about it, that would be appreciated.


  Quote:


 You made your DBTs with your Max. Would the parts used in your amplifier be of sufficient quality to make a simple switchbox? 
 

Using the Max served a couple purposes: 1) I was able to remove a couple objects from the signal path, since the amp/switch/etc. were all contained in a single component; 2) given the extremely high quality of parts in the Max, I was able to ensure a better signal path than by using a cheap amp and/or switch box.




> _Originally posted by Leporello _
> I too asked about the number of trials and scores vs. errors. To me you replied:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Leporello

Well, I still remain a sceptic, but your points were interesting, MacDEF. Using components of highest possible quality will certainly do no harm.

 Thanks for replying.

 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Tim D

I'm sorry but I've looked at Ricky's test...it is very biased and will state why.

 First of all, you acknowledge that your soundcard + cable setup results in high frequency roll-off (i.e. inaccurate playback of high frequencies). You apply a compensation EQ for this in each and every loop. And you normalize the result which can minimize the aspects of signal loss.

 IMO your test of soundcard + cable degradation is about as useful as a test of trying to prove there is little perceptable sonic degradation caused by room interaction using a TaCT room interaction equalizer to compensate.

 Your test is inaccurately titled as "how good are affordable soundcards and cheap cables?" it should be called "how good are affordable soundcards and cheap cable + digital mastering to compensate for the affordable soundcard and cheap cable".

 If you were to apply that SAME equalization and normalization routine to the original file WITHOUT the soundcard and cables through the loop and did this 2-4 times, you would end up with ridiculously boosted high range. In otherwords you are intentionally masking the degradation qualities of what you were testing for. 

 From the viewpoint of anyone who has taken any science courses and learned how to run any experiments...I find it quite boggling myself.

 After listening to all 5 files...I can conclude the following. Your ability to digitally remaster audio files to compensate for degradation of the EXACT variables you are trying to test for, outweighs your ability to set up conclusive tests.

http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/stest/techdetails.html

 I am glad you included technical details which shows how your testing methodology entirely fails to test your hypothesis as stated. I think you should do more than hide it in a little link...but make it flashing red and call it "why my test is invalid and biased". 

 If my explanation of why your digital remastering of the test data does not shine a light on why your test process is invalid, than I suggest you take some basic science courses again. You are incorrectly assuming that the original file is the "control" set. The true control set would be the original file with all N equalized and normalized settings applied to them...and how THIS set compares with the equalized set with the soundcard and cables in the path. Even better, don't apply any digital compensation at ALL...but of course this is only if you actually wanted to test a real hypothesis instead of trying to confuse people with poor test methodology.

 So a breakdown on having correct control sets. IF you did not apply any compensations, your test would actually have some value with the current test set. Seeing that you however did apply compensation, in order to compare diffence you would need to add the original audio file with soundcard EQ and normalizations applied to those as well REGARDLESS that the recording was not looped through the soundcard (a possible result being that the 4 looped EQ'd soundcard + cheap cable sample may perceptively differ from the 4 looped EQ'd original recording...GEE YA THINK?). If you do not understand what I am saying than I do not think you really understand the basics of scientific testing.

 I am being harsh...this is only because there is only one thing more annoying than detractors of science. Proponents of science that do not know science.


----------



## grancasa

-From the above linked page Quote:


 The M-Audio Audiophile card introduces a slight rolloff at low and high frequencies,[snip]The cable has no effect on this frequency response, because the slight capacitance presented by the cable has no significant effect at audio frequencies. This was verified repeating the measurement with a much lower capacitance interconnects, and the measured response was identical. 
 

I think MacDEF has show very well that because it can't be measured does not mean it can not be heard. 

 Also, assuming that the cables produce "no signifigant effect" defeats the whole purpose of the test. The point was to test IF THE GOD DAMN CABLES HAD ANY EFFECT!!!!!! Jeeze and christmas, sometimes I get all riled up. 

 [takes deep breath]

 Feeling better now. 

 Ricky, my man, please please give it up, or come with something intelligent, or interesting, or something. This is getting old. Fast.


----------



## Tim D

grancasa:

 The funny thing is...Ricky has intentionally compensated for the actual measurable differences of the soundcard + cable. Then asks people if they can hear a difference leading people to think these are just samples looped through his soundcard multiple times i.e. they assume a test methodology that would actually test his hypothesis as opposed to a test methodology that entirely skirts it.

 This is my hypothesis: the equalization removes tonal differences of the soundcard + cable factor. The normalization minimizes the effects of signal loss. 

 How do I test it? Well run the test correctly maybe without digital touch ups.


----------



## grancasa

Tim D-

 Exactly. I know very little about actual acoustic science, but equalizing and normalizing the sample of course is going to make major changes to its sonic structure. 

 I just looked back to see what started this whole thread, and all it was was flame bait, pure and simple. There was no question, just a statement meant to inflame and get the juices going. The post was even ended with "Peace", but not in the sense of calm and tranquility. In the sense of "I just dropped this napalm in the middle of your little group, and now I'm outta here". Let the madness end. No more posting for me to anything by Ricky or Czilla9000.


----------



## Nezer

I thought this forum was supposed to be DBT free to keep **** like this from happening....

 Joe Blogs, you wanted a flame ware, here you go.

 My personal opinion is the mods should shut-down this thread immediatly as it's not going to change anyone's mind.


----------



## dvw

This debate has been going on for near 20 years. There have been NO conclusion what so ever. Here's a recent archive bashing both sides.

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?602

 There are a lot of emotional response and that creates a lot of ill feeling. I like to put some logic here.

 If a cable measure different, then it will sound different.

 So, if it sounds different it must measure different. Right!

 If it is a horse, it must have four legs and a tail.

 So, if it has four legs and a tail, it must be a horse.

 There is also a lot of snake oil in the cable business. If some technology is so great, why wouldn't the technology be deployed in the telecom application. We are constantly looking for better cable in broadband access. The market is certainly much larger than audio cable.

 Okay, I managed to offens both side. IMO, cable is a personal choice. Debating cable is not fruitful unless new idea and new data is found.


----------



## Nezer

One more thing, I think we should all chip-in and buy Ricky a pair of Outlaws. I'll throw-in the worst POS pair of ICs I can possibly make (using copper seeing how he is so in love with copper). If he can't hear a difference than he is clearly deaf


----------



## Ken

cables do sound different . Then again so can using tone controls. There must be some middle ground


----------



## taoster

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Nezer _
*One more thing, I think we should all chip-in and buy Ricky a pair of Outlaws. I'll throw-in the worst POS pair of ICs I can possibly make (using copper seeing how he is so in love with copper). If he can't hear a difference than he is clearly deaf * 
 

if Ricky can't or "does not want" to hear the difference than that is fine with me. knowledge needs to be seeked not taught.

 i much rather spend a pair of outlaws on someone who might appreciate it than a skeptic.


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by taoster _
*

 if Ricky can't or "does not want" to hear the difference than that is fine with me. knowledge needs to be seeked not taught.* 
 

True, no one should know that more than I.

 In that case I change my statement to "We should all pitch-in for a pair of Outlaw's for me." 

 Hopefully in another few weeks that will be *another* pair of Outlaws.


----------



## Czilla9000

The fact that this post of mine is still around amazes me.


----------



## pigmode

I'll say it again: the direct knowledge of the sonic differences in cable is an expensive and personal undertaking. 

 I enjoy reading and sharing experiences with like minded individuals, but have no desire to convince skeptics nor engage in academic discussions with those whose cable experience is purely theoretical. Well, unless I'm absolutely bored out of my brain, but in those cases my time is better spent heading over to the strip club.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*

 1 - Regular standard non-expensive non-broken cables don't measure very different from neutral expensive cables, from the audio point of view. The only noticeable difference is their ability to reject electromagnetic noise. With short interconnects, this rejection is quite good even on standard cheap cables, I'd say not audible under normal listening conditions.

 2 - Even though there can be differences in the electrical parameters of cables, most of the times these differences are irrelevant at audio levels and frequencies. To be significant, there must be quite gross diferences in these electrical parameters. When I measure a cable, I measure its effect on the audio signal, not their electrical parameters.

 3- If two cables objectively sound different, there must be easy to measure differences between the cables at audio levels and frequencies.

 4- Got it now?
* 
 

1- WRONG! There are substantial, measurable differences between cables.
 2- WRONG! By the way, you've just contradicted your statement #1.
 3- WRONG again. Gee Ricky, you're batting 1000!
 4- Well, apparently, Ricky still doesn't get it.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by pigmode _
*I enjoy reading and sharing experiences with like minded individuals, but have no desire to convince skeptics nor engage in academic discussions with those whose cable experience is purely theoretical. Well, unless I'm absolutely bored out of my brain, but in those cases my time is better spent heading over to the strip club. * 
 

I've got some thoughts I want to post later. In the meantime, I'm going to grab a roll of bills and join pigmode


----------



## kelly

There's just one thing I really don't get about anti-cable people. The thing is that they fully think everyone who buys cables is biased toward them because they spent money on them and whatever. Yet, somehow, they don't think the NON cable buying person is biased.

 See, I speak from experience here, because I'm a non-cable buying person. I'm a skeptic. I'm the kind of person who takes every one of these whacko voodoo audiophile tweaks and thinks "yeah right, how does that matter." And I'm pretty much reluctant to try them. Moreover, I'm really reluctant to want to spend any money on them.

 So it was only a matter of time before I had to listen to some cables. Being someone who'd rather hang on to my money and having not actually spent the money on cables yet, I was armed and ready to discredit them. And yet, despite what I consider here to be an overwhelming anti-cable bias, the differences were there and they weren't even subtle.

 Oh don't get me wrong, I'm sure even in that setup there'd be one or two people who couldn't hear the difference from the general population, but I'd be willing to bet anyone from THIS forum could have heard a difference--gagged, blindfolded, whatever. It was just that apparent.

 It just makes me think the other cable skeptics haven't tried it. I don't care what you've read or logically figured or calculated--that's really just another bias. If you've listened to very differently designed cables in a high end rig, you don't have to employ your imagination to hear the difference.

 Keep in mind, this is coming from me--voodoo skeptic and cheapass among us. The last thing I want to do is spend money let alone spend money on something that doesn't do anything.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

By Tim D:
  Quote:


 After listening to all 5 files...I can conclude the following. Your ability to digitally remaster audio files to compensate for degradation of the EXACT variables you are trying to test for, outweighs your ability to set up conclusive tests. 
 

Still and all, could you tell which was the original and which was the 4 times re-recorded + remastered wav? If he could make *that* sound indistinguishable from the original, this is still a major triumph for Team EQ, and he may be the one to come up with the Cary 300SEI EQ for Sony D-EJ625 discmans! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	
















 Yipee


----------



## millerdog

wow!
 This certainly was excellent reading for 3am.
 C'mon guys, you can lead a horse to water but.......
 The guy obviously has no intentions on spending more than five bucks on a set of cables. His methods may be flawed, but he's done a hell of job convincing himself that he's right. If he doesn't want to step up to the plate, let him live in ignorant bliss.
 This was actually good reading; much like a suspense novel: Will he get it? Will he get it? Will he get it?
 lol
 md


----------



## kwkarth

Joe, Quit smokin the rugs man!


----------



## taoster

Quote:


 Still and all, could you tell which was the original and which was the 4 times re-recorded + remastered wav? 
 

i dont think anyone would be able to (or bother) tell the difference between crap against crap.. 

 can you tell the difference between microwaved vs cooked food?? if it taste like **** already, no.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kwkarth _
*

 1- WRONG! There are substantial, measurable differences between cables.
 2- WRONG! By the way, you've just contradicted your statement #1.
 3- WRONG again. Gee Ricky, you're batting 1000!
 4- Well, apparently, Ricky still doesn't get it. * 
 



> *
> 
> 1 - Please read and understand what I wrote.
> 2 - Please read and understand what I wrote.
> ...


----------



## Ricky

Some notes about my test, for people with some technical knowledge.

 Note that I have compensated just some of the soundcard deficiencies, not cable deficiencies. These are frequency response and SNR. Other deficiencies such as soundcard nonlinear distortion cannot be compensated (note that cables don't produce nonlinear distortion at all).

 - I could not measure any deficiency in frequency response of cables, since a 2 meter long plastic connectors stock interconnect and a 25 cm. metal connectors low capacitance network cable interconnect, had no measurable differences on frequency response in my setup, as I expected, and as physics clearly predicts for audio frequencies and cable capacitances.

 - About SNR compensation, I did a 0.88 B amplification before the loopback process, and the same attenuation value after the whole loopback process, so I got a 2 x 0.88 = 1.76 dB of SNR improvement (edit: see correction at the bottom). Note that I could have had similar results using a higher output level soundcard, OR a for example a cd player that usually has higher output levels. My Denon cd player puts a signal 4.8 dB higher than my Audiophile soundcard (full scale 2.2 Vrms vs 1.27 Vrms). From the interconnect added EMI noise point of view, a cd player like mine would "stand" over this added noise better than my sound card plus digital SNR improvement. It would keep the noise interconnect 4.8-1.76=3.04 dB lower. So, in this cable noise respect, a standard cd player would be better than my soundcard and digital SNR improvement together. I will add this explanation to my web page in the next few days.

 I have updated my web page to add some of these data, and to make clear from the beginning which is the procedure used at the process.


 Edit: must do a correction. There is only SNR improvement due to the initial amplification step. So, the SNR gain due to initial amplification in my test is of just 0.88 dB. So, my cd player would keep the interconnect noise 4.8-0.88=3.92 dB lower than the whole soundcard loopback + dsp process.


----------



## Nezer

Jeez, I've *never* seen someone go through so much trouble to prove what a closed-minded moron they actually are. 

 Well, at least since Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann ( you may better remember these guys for thier 'work' on the field of 'cold fusion').


----------



## Ricky

Now, for people that think like MacDEF about human hearing abilities and science.

 Just make as if you had not read my previous post, if you have done so.

 Just one simple question: 

 If you say that there are cable differences and cable effects over sound that cannot be measured but you and others can perceive, how is that I managed in my test, just using some easy measurements and processing, to make a clip that has been passed 4 times through a soundcard and a $4 interconnect, that until now has been impossible to distinguish from the original clip, which has no soundcard or cable effect at all?

 I mean, unless you afirm that a good cable in my test would "improve" the sound of this non-processed clip over no cable at all.


----------



## LTUCCI1924

Why dont you give it a brake? Ant there something else that you know or can talk about?


----------



## taoster

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _

 If you say that there are cable differences and cable effects over sound that cannot be measured but you and others can perceive, 
 

why dont you do something useful, try some DBT on sniffer dogs for example. after all, they claim to be able to sniff drugs inside a suitcase!! HAHA what a joke. i've never been able to smell any scent and my scientific eq has failed to detect any traces either! those dogs are just guessing and suffering psychological effects.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*If you say that there are cable differences and cable effects over sound that cannot be measured but you and others can perceive, how is that I managed in my test, just using some easy measurements and processing, to make a clip that has been passed 4 times through a soundcard and a $4 interconnect, that until now has been impossible to distinguish from the original clip, which has no soundcard or cable effect at all?
* 
 

You didn't make such a clip. You produced a clip that you can't distinguish from subsequent generations. My guess is that most other people had enough sense to see the flaws in your methodology and didn't bother. If you are making the claim that it cannot be distinguished, please report the number of responses you are basing your claim on, a summary of the actual data that support your assertion, and the data analyses that were performed, if any.


----------



## millerdog

Sheesh! The solution is so simple. Mr. Ricky should just go to his local audiophile shop, sit down and at no cost to him, audition speaker cables and ICs. If he still hears no difference, then he obviously has bad hearing and his arguments are moot.
 md


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by millerdog _
*Sheesh! The solution is so simple. Mr. Ricky should just go to his local audiophile shop, sit down and at no cost to him, audition speaker cables and ICs. If he still hears no difference, then he obviously has bad hearing and his arguments are moot.
 md * 
 

I was a skeptic until I went to the WoH tour and heard the different HD600 cables. At that point I was happy with my Clou Red and had no intention on switching... Then I heard the Cardas and Equinox. At this point the only thing that could have biased my opinion were asthetics and sound. I prefered the sound of the Cardas (by a slim margin) over the Equinox and I though both were well ahead of the Clou. Believe me, I don;t have anything for Smurf Blue so asthetcs were def. not a factor in this (if they were the Clou Blue would have won hands-down). Neither was price as had no idea what anything cost until I decided if I like how it sounded.

 I have since sold the Clou Red and have a smurf-blue cardas on it's way. I was so convinced of the improvement that I practically gave away the Clou so I could get the Cardas.

 Now I have Outlaws on order to replace my crappy mosters and audio research.

 I just don;t understand how someone can argue and tell me I don't hear somthing I clearly do! If they don;t hear it fine, but don't try to convince me I can't.

 Maybe I'll start a thread disputing that the color of the sky is, in fact, not blue. It's about as relavent as Ricky trying to tell us we can't hear a difference.

 At this point Ricky is so entrenched in his view that even if he ever does come around pride would likely stand in his way of changing is stance here publicly.

 Ricky, if you're so hell bent on proving something there are a LOT of problems that need you that are MUCH more critical than this audio cable debate. Go find a cure for AIDs or cancer. Hell, go get some sun and fresh air. Do something more productive than trying to convince everyone that the sky is yellow when we all clearly see that it's blue!


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*
 You didn't make such a clip. You produced a clip that you can't distinguish from subsequent generations.
* 
 

Again, about my original clip, I didn't "produce" any clip. I just ripped it from a cd with 100% accuracy, and not touched it at all, except getting just 30 sec. of it. How many times do I have to repeat it until you realize? Is there any other reason for that particular clip not to count for perceiving differences?

  Quote:


 *
 My guess is that most other people had enough sense to see the flaws in your methodology and didn't bother.
* 
 

It seems you like others to give some data that supports their claims, but it seems that this doesn't count much for yourself. So, just wild guessing.

  Quote:


 *
 If you are making the claim that it cannot be distinguished, please report the number of responses you are basing your claim on, a summary of the actual data that support your assertion, and the data analyses that were performed, if any. * 
 

I did not make such claim. What I claimed is that until now, it has been impossible to distinguish by anyone, or at least, I've received no responses claiming otherwise. I try not to talk cheap, you know.

 According to my web page statistics, about 12 persons have downloaded the 5 files so far. Two persons have reported results, none of them from this forum. One of them reported he could'n hear any differences. The other person, more audiophile type, but also a reasonable and nice guy, reported that at ABX (blind) testing he couldn't detect any differences. However, he tried to rate the five clips just by listening, and his results seemed just like random guessing, he rated wrong most if not all of files, including the best and the worst ones. I will give the exact data when the test is finished.

 I know 12 people is not much. You and the others could try the test and help me increase my sample, it would be much appreciated.


----------



## LarryS

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*
 Again, about my original clip, I didn't "produce" any clip. I just ripped it from a cd with 100% accuracy, and not touched it at all, except getting just 30 sec. of it. How many times do I have to repeat it until you realize? 
* 
 

*100% accuracy???*

 Now why do I have a hard time accepting this?

 Next thing you know, Ricky will be claiming that all CD players and burners are exactly the same and produce exactly the same signal...


----------



## kelly

Quote:


 _Originally posted by LarryS _
*

100% accuracy???

 Now why do I have a hard time accepting this?

 Next thing you know, Ricky will be claiming that all CD players and burners are exactly the same and produce exactly the same signal... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

Bits is bits, a wire's a wire, Vern.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*I know 12 people is not much. You and the others could try the test and help me increase my sample, it would be much appreciated. * 
 

Why bother? It's the wrong test. You want to do it right? Hook a good external cdp to a good sound card (You'll need a good quality RCA to mini adapter if the sound card uses mini instead of RCA connectors). Now get a set of cables to test. They should vary in price range. Get all of the parameters on your sound card set, and record a segment from an external CD. Change the cables and do it again. Note that you're keeping all parameters constant except the cable connection between the CDP and the computer. Do NO signal processing, except to edit the start/stop point of your segments so that all are identical. Then create pairs out of your segments. Make at least a dozen files in different configurations. Some pairs will be made with different interconnects, while some will have the same interconnects used for both segments. The listener simply has to decide if the two segments in each file were made with the same or different interconnects. Now try a different variant. Again, all you change is the cables. Simply record some segments using pairs of interconnects, and record other segments using randomly drawn interconnects that are from different brands. The listener has to decide whether or not the sound sample came from a pair of interconnects of the same brand, or whether different interconnects were used for the right and left channels. Make at least a dozen of these. Note that in order to make generalizations about expensive cable, you'll need some expensive cables. Audioadvisor.com and usedcables.com have good 30 day return policies, so you don't have to risk anything but shipping charges. Get some decent cables to use along with your cheap ones, and set up your test properly. Then report back.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by LarryS _
*

100% accuracy???

 Now why do I have a hard time accepting this?
* 
 

Because you have no idea of how digital works??

 Please learn a bit about EAC (www.exactaudiocopy.de) secure mode ripping, C2 errors, re-reads, crc matching, etc.


----------



## LarryS

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*

 Because you have no idea of how digital works??

 Please learn a bit about EAC (www.exactaudiocopy.de) secure mode ripping, C2 errors, re-reads, crc matching, etc. * 
 

EAC is software...so your 2nd comment implies that as long as you have good software the hardware (CDP) is irrelevant.

 Your first comment implies you're arrogant and rude.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*
 Why bother? It's the wrong test. You want to do it right? Hook a good external cdp to a good sound card (You'll need a good quality RCA to mini adapter if the sound card uses mini instead of CA connectors). Now get a set of cables to test. They ...
 ...
* 
 

Maybe some day I will try something similar, if somebody is willing to do such a test. If you are, please tell me and I'll set it up for you, but with no expensive cables, since the best and easiest way to check if a cable alters the sound is to check it against no cable. I mean, again, unless you think that a good cable would improve the sound over no cable at all. (Sorry to repeat same things, but it seems that you boys don't notice things at first time).

 I can write a simple program for doing ABX testing with a cd burner and cd player. I can provide you for means on analyzing statistically the results (binomial distribution). I can use different clips, ripped from different cds.

 Until that, please explain me why my test is the wrong test. You can do any blind or sighted testing over the 5 files, and you have plenty of time to do this, and then report your results.

 By the way, please see www.pcabx.com, with lots of sound samples to listen and test, and explanations over the adequate metodology to use. More info about ABX testing at http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx.htm

 Or if you want, we can use an ABC/HR metodology. Just what you want.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by LarryS _
*

 EAC is software...so your 2nd comment implies that as long as you have good software the hardware (CDP) is irrelevant.
* 
 

As long as the hardware is not broken and effectively works, yes, it is irrelevant if properly used. That's how digital and computer works.

  Quote:


 *
 Your first comment implies you're arrogant and rude.
* 
 

Maybe because your first comment implied I was lying, even when you didn't know much about the subject you were talking about.


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by LarryS _
*Your first comment implies you're arrogant and rude. * 
 

Have you not been reading the rest of the thread? I think he proved this point many, many times in the posts above.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Nezer _
*Have you not been reading the rest of the thread? I think he proved this point many, many times in the posts above. * 
 

It seems that you guys are the most kind type of people, I just realized reading some of your nice responses and comments about me.


----------



## millerdog

"Maybe some day I will try something similar, if somebody is willing to do such a test. If you are, please tell me and I'll set it up for you, but with no expensive cables, since the best and easiest way to check if a cable alters the sound is to check it against no cable. I mean, again, unless you think that a good cable would improve the sound over no cable at all. (Sorry to repeat same things, but it seems that you boys don't notice things at first time). 

 As long as the hardware is not broken and effectively works, yes, it is irrelevant if properly used. That's how digital and computer works." ricky

 Uhhhhhh..... I got a question: Are we talking about digital or analog cables?
 Mr. Ricky, are you talking about digital or analog signals? 
 It's late, perhaps there's something lost in the translation, I ain't the brightest guy in the world but I'm beginning to wonder if you guys are talking about the same thing?
 md


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*

 It seems that you guys are the most kind type of people, I just realized reading some of your nice responses and comments about me. * 
 

Becasue I think you're an arrogant idiot. 

 How arrogant and idotic to tell me there is no difference when I hear it with my own ears. Tell me you don't hear a difference, that's fine, and quite honestly I envy you a bit. But don't come here and tell me what I can and can't hear!

 Am I trying to tell you that you *can* hear a difference? No, only you can answer that.

 If you feel so strongly about ICs I'd love to hear what you think about power cables.


----------



## LarryS

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*

 As long as the hardware is not broken and effectively works, yes, it is irrelevant if properly used. That's how digital and computer works.

 Maybe because your first comment implied I was lying, even when you didn't know much about the subject you were talking about. * 
 

It was _your_ choice to interpret my comment as calling you a liar. I think it would be obvious to any reasonable person that I was doubting the capability of your equipment to _100%_ accurately recreate the original. My implication was that you were mistaken.


----------



## setmenu

Wow this thread is still bowling along quite nicely isn't it!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






 Setmenu


----------



## gloco

I'm thoroughly enjoying it...


----------



## kelly

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*It seems that you guys are the most kind type of people, I just realized reading some of your nice responses and comments about me. * 
 

*snicker* Gotta admit he's got a point, there. For as quick as we are to call each other rude, most of us are pretty damned rude to each other--bein' both victim and perpetrator there, myself.

 Still think he's wrong about the cables, tho.


----------



## kwkarth

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> *
> 
> Quote:
> ...


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*
 *snicker* Gotta admit he's got a point, there. For as quick as we are to call each other rude, most of us are pretty damned rude to each other--bein' both victim and perpetrator there, myself.

 Still think he's wrong about the cables, tho. * 
 

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I'm an *******. I still think it's arrogant and arrogant to try to convince others that what they hear with thier own ears is, in fact, not really there. It would be different if there were some science behind the claims which there are not. Posting a test that has too many flaws to even be listed is hardly scientific in nature. The type of scientific test this argument needs transcends the internet and must, in fact, be done in-person. Even still proper ABX testing for cables is a tough, if not downright impossible, thing to accomplish. It all boils down to the differencecs, that *DO IN FACT EXIST* being subjective to the listener.

 Taking a ****ty sound card and pushing audio through it with different cables to prove your point is, well, downright ****ing idiotic in nature. There's a very good reason that soundcards used by professionals are, by nature, anything *BUT* "non-expensive but decent quality soundcard." Well, what about the power supply and all the other **** inside a PC that produces noise pollution? What soundcard is it? Like I said, there are just too many problems with this loosly-controlled test for it to be considered anything more than laughable.

 *THIS* is why i think that Ricky is an arrogant idiot with regards to this field. Who knows, in real-life Ricky might be a very nice person and has a cure for cancer on a notebook stashed away in his closet along with solutions to mathmatical problems that haven't been solved. But when it comes to cables and the 'testing', he is clearly both and idiot and arrogant in his views.

 That's not to say that I'm not, however. After all it 'takes one to know one.'


----------



## Fubar

hey kwkarth:
 Thanks for the info on the Outlaw cables a while back. What a performance boost for the money. It's very helpful to read from someone that has actually TRIED many cables.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Dammit, Ricky, what is your definition of a significant change in sonic character caused by different electrical measurements?

 FR--0.01dB down at 20kHz? 0.05dB? 0.1dB? 1dB???
 Phase shift--0.05 degree, 0.1 degree, 0.5 degree, 1 degree, 10 degrees???

 Or is the standard being 'my crappy radioshack multimeter can't measure any difference between the two cables when connected to my crappy computer so they must be the same down to the 10th significant figure'???

 FUBAR:
 Did you choose your username based on this thread?


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*Dammit, Ricky, what is your definition of a significant change in sonic character caused by different electrical measurements?
* 
 



 The term would be "electrical parameters". Electrical parameters can be measured, and are independent from the type of signal you are passing through them. Electrical parameters are harder to measure than just the effect of the cable over an audio signal. So when I say that I can't measure differences between cables for audio signals, I'm not talking about electrical parameters, but about the measurable effects of the cable over the audio signal.

  Quote:


 *
 FR--0.01dB down at 20kHz? 0.05dB? 0.1dB? 1dB???
 Phase shift--0.05 degree, 0.1 degree, 0.5 degree, 1 degree, 10 degrees???
* 
 



 About effects of equipment or any other kind of device over audio signal, and according to Arny Krueger, a quite knowledgeable person on audio subjects:

 "If all forms of nonlinear distortion and noise are > 100 dB down,
 frequency response is within < +/- 0.1 dB, there is less than 5
 degrees of differential phase shift between the channels, and less
 than 45 degrees of total phase shift 20-20 KHz with a phase slope of no more than 22 degrees per octave, then it is quite assured that the equipment has no *sound* at all."

 For high frequencies, it is quite difficult for many people to distinguish a lowpassed 16 KHz musical clip from a non-lowpassed one. I'd dare to say that a lowpassed 18 KHz musical clip would be inaudible for nearly everyone. Examples of this at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm

 At frecuencies very sensitive for human ear, being 4 KHz the most sensitive one, I think it's agreed that differences over 0.3 dB are not so difficultly perceivable.


  Quote:


 *Or is the standard being 'my crappy radioshack multimeter can't measure any difference between the two cables when connected to my crappy computer so they must be the same down to the 10th significant figure'???
* 
 



 Of course not. To do some significant measurements on audio signals and alterations, it is necessary to use a fairly reasonable quality soundcard, being advisable a 24/96 type, and adequate software. The better the card, the more resolution of measurements. Lots of measurements of audio equpment, including audio hardware used to do the measurements, at www.pcavtech.com.

 I know it seems I'm making free propaganda of Arny Krueger's sites, but this guy has lots of useful info at his pages.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Nezer _
*
 Taking a ****ty sound card and pushing audio through it with different cables to prove your point is, well, downright ****ing idiotic in nature. There's a very good reason that soundcards used by professionals are, by nature, anything *BUT* "non-expensive but decent quality soundcard." Well, what about the power supply and all the other **** inside a PC that produces noise pollution? What soundcard is it? Like I said, there are just too many problems with this loosly-controlled test for it to be considered anything more than laughable.
* 



Let's put aside again your nice comments about me.

 I think you are again not getting the point of my test. The fact is that on my test, there's a sound clip that has not been touched at all by my ****ty soundcard, noisy power supply, cheap cables, or other **** inside my PC. It is 100% equal to the original song from the cd, 0 errors, bit after bit being equal.

 So, it should be fairly easy for you and others to distinguish it from the other 4 clips, which have been touched by my ****ty soundcard, lousy cable, etc, up to 4 times.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by LarryS _
*

 It was your choice to interpret my comment as calling you a liar. I think it would be obvious to any reasonable person that I was doubting the capability of your equipment to 100% accurately recreate the original. My implication was that you were mistaken. * 
 

If so, please accept my apologies. But in the context of the discussion, it seemed another easy attack against what I was saying, and interpreted as an insinuation of that I wasn't telling the truth, when for me, it was absolutely verifiable and uncontrovertible that I was, in fact, telling the truth.


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*

 Let's put aside again your nice comments about me.

 I think you are again not getting the point of my test. The fact is that on my test, there's a sound clip that has not been touched at all by my ****ty soundcard, noisy power supply, cheap cables, or other **** inside my PC. It is 100% equal to the original song from the cd, 0 errors, bit after bit being equal.

 So, it should be fairly easy for you and others to distinguish it from the other 4 clips, which have been touched by my ****ty soundcard, lousy cable, etc, up to 4 times. * 
 

But, why?? What is this supposed to prove?


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Nezer _
*
 But, why?? What is this supposed to prove? * 
 


 ...I guess you want me to get mad by responding such questions.

 That is supposed to prove that the effect of the ****ty equipment and lousy cable is , or is not, easily perceivable just by listening.

 I mean, that you can, or cannot, tell a file just ripped with 100% accuracy from a cd, from the same file passed up to 4 times through my ****ty equipment.

 I hope you understand it this time, I hope too you were not just pulling my leg.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kwkarth _
*
 Ricky,
 It is you who need to provide proof of your assertions. I have in another thread shown quite clearly that my arguements are valid and factual. You, however, simply made statements with NO substantiation. Substantiate your assertion. * 
 

I said that sometimes there are small differences in the electrical parameters of cables (RLC), but that they are nearly irrelevant from the audio point of view. I said that from this audio point of view, different cables measure very similar, meaning that the measurable effects of the cables over the audio signal are very slight. Physics laws say this too. I have verified this too by doing those measurements. Only relevant differences are related to noise pickup on long and cheap cables. Other differences are nearly unmeasurable for audio signals.

 You said that there are substantial measurable differences between cables, but didn't say which were them, or what importance they have over the audio signal. Could you please elaborate which are those differences, and what influence they have on audio signals, so that we can have some kind of useful discussion?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Fubar _
*hey kwkarth:
 Thanks for the info on the Outlaw cables a while back. What a performance boost for the money. It's very helpful to read from someone that has actually TRIED many cables. * 
 

You're welcome man! I'm enjoying them too! Great bang for the buck!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*[size=xx-small]I said that sometimes there are small differences in the electrical parameters of cables (RLC), but that they are nearly irrelevant from the audio point of view. I said that from this audio point of view, different cables measure very similar, meaning that the measurable effects of the cables over the audio signal are very slight. Physics laws say this too. I have verified this too by doing those measurements. Only relevant differences are related to noise pickup on long and cheap cables. Other differences are nearly unmeasurable for audio signals.

 You said that there are substantial measurable differences between cables, but didn't say which were them, or what importance they have over the audio signal. Could you please elaborate which are those differences, and what influence they have on audio signals, so that we can have some kind of useful discussion? [/size] * 
 

Ricky,
 You still have not substantiated your claims in any concrete way. Cite some specific examples please. You can go to just about any reputable cable manufacturer's web site and read the published RLC measurements for their cables. They vary considerably from cable model to cable model and company to company.

 There are a number of other parameters that also vary from unit to unit that are not as commonly published if at all such as dielectric characteristics. All of these things can affect the quality of the audio transmission through subtle phase shifts, frequency response alteration and other difficult to measure but easy for a trained ear to hear aberrations. Remember that virtually all source to pre-amp-amp interfaces are inherently grossly mismatched with regard to impedance. Typically sub 10k sources driving 100k loads. What do you suppose happens to all the resultant signal reflections that ensue? Different cables by virtue of their dielectric, geometric, and electrical differences interface with differing levels of synergy or anti-synergy if you will. All of this can, and in many cases does, affect the signal in an audible way.

 BTW, your quotes from Arny Krueger are patently incorrect in many circumstances. [size=xx-small]"If all forms of nonlinear distortion and noise are > 100 dB down, frequency response is within < +/- 0.1 dB, there is less than 5 degrees of differential phase shift between the channels, and less than 45 degrees of total phase shift 20-20 KHz with a phase slope of no more than 22 degrees per octave, then it is quite assured that the equipment has no *sound* at all."[/size] This is undoubtedly true for much of the population, but certainly untrue for many here on this board.

 While your conclusion of [size=xx-small]"For high frequencies, it is quite difficult for many people to distinguish a lowpassed 16 KHz musical clip from a non-lowpassed one. I'd dare to say that a lowpassed 18 KHz musical clip would be inaudible for nearly everyone."[/size] is more true than not, it's not true for everyone. 

 You need to remember that. 

 Present on this forum we do not have a uniform sampling of a cross section of the general population. We have in great numbers here a cross section of the golden-eared elect from the world. A collection of folks whose ears are acutely attuned to detect subtle sonic differences that most of the population would not hear even when you pointed them out.

 Cheers,


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*


 ...I guess you want me to get mad by responding such questions.

 That is supposed to prove that the effect of the ****ty equipment and lousy cable is , or is not, easily perceivable just by listening.

 I mean, that you can, or cannot, tell a file just ripped with 100% accuracy from a cd, from the same file passed up to 4 times through my ****ty equipment.

 I hope you understand it this time, I hope too you were not just pulling my leg. * 
 

No I don't want you to get mad... and I'm not pulling your leg...

 Now, the next question, who is this test for, the person talking it or for you?


----------



## millerdog

Anyone here heard of a snert?
 A snert is someone who comes into a chat room and tries to argue their position without any ON HANDS testing. A snert argues his or her position reguardless of what anyone says. They are adamament about their findings and no one can change their minds. A snert will often overlook challenges to his or her statements, and will often answer with a question.
 Snerts like arguments. Snerts like to discuss things that they aren't willing to try. Snerts hold a high esteem about themselves.
 Their word is gospell and no argument can change their minds. 
 Snerts usually roam from forum to forum looking for people who will listen to them. Then they will grasp onto the most debated topic and let loose.
 Debating is like candy to them. They need it to reassure their place in the world. aka "I am da man"
 Snerts may read your posts, but in his or her mind, they just don't know what you are talking about.
 Their explanation of things should be more than enough for anybody with intelligence like them to understand.
 The often asked question is: I think I have made myself clear. Do you understand?
 I hold no degrees...just a degree in online snerts. lol
 millerdog clears the band!


----------



## millerdog

Did I say something wrong?
 hehe....I am anxiously awaiting my Outlaw cables.
 md


----------



## taoster

woohoo go the outlaws! (and Korea for world cup!)

 wow.. this thread is nearly 10 pages long and we havent made any progress since page 1.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Nezer _
*
 Now, the next question, who is this test for, the person talking it or for you? * 
 

Not for me, but for you, I mean for the person(s) claiming that a cheap cable clearly alters sound and is sonically perceivable. Also the effect of my ****ty equipment should be easily perceivable for you.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by millerdog _
*Anyone here heard of a snert?
 A snert is someone who comes into a chat room and tries to argue their position without any ON HANDS testing. A snert argues his or her position reguardless of what anyone says. They are adamament about their findings and no one can change their minds. A snert will often overlook challenges to his or her statements, and will often answer with a question.
 Snerts like arguments. Snerts like to discuss things that they aren't willing to try. Snerts hold a high esteem about themselves.
 Their word is gospell and no argument can change their minds. 
* 
 

*
*

 This could apply to many of you people here, the only difference is that you are numerically superior to me.

 I think I've addressed some of these challenges, while you have addresed none I have suggested, even when I have a very clear and real one for you.

  Quote:


 *
 Snerts usually roam from forum to forum looking for people who will listen to them. Then they will grasp onto the most debated topic and let loose.
 Debating is like candy to them. They need it to reassure their place in the world. aka "I am da man"
 Snerts may read your posts, but in his or her mind, they just don't know what you are talking about.
* 
 



 Just plainly wrong man 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. Again soooo easy and cheap talk with the only intention to discredit me with no valuable argumentation at all. This is so easy to rebate, quite fun for me, man 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I hold on some other forums aside from this. In these other forums I have no need to discuss over cables. This is the only forum I'm having a serious discussion over the cable factor. At other forums where cable discussions are hold from time to time, it's others but my who defend positions similar to mine here.

 The fact that you live in your little bubble as to what concerns to cables, is no proof of anything, of course.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kwkarth _
*

 There are a number of other parameters that also vary from unit to unit that are not as commonly published if at all such as dielectric characteristics. All of these things can affect the quality of the audio transmission through subtle phase shifts, frequency response alteration and other difficult to measure but easy for a trained ear to hear aberrations. 
* 
 

How do they affect the acoustical output of a signal? If they are difficult (or even impossible) to measure, how do we know we are dealing with frequency response alterations or subtle phase shifts?

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by kwkarth _
*
 We have in great numbers here a cross section of the golden-eared elect from the world. A collection of folks whose ears are acutely attuned to detect subtle sonic differences that most of the population would not hear even when you pointed them out.

* 
 

This is a rather bold factual statement. Do you have any evidence to back this claim? 

 Regards,

 L.


----------



## setmenu




----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Leporello _*[size=xx-small]How do they affect the acoustical output of a signal? If they are difficult (or even impossible) to measure, how do we know we are dealing with frequency response alterations or subtle phase shifts?
 This is a rather bold factual statement. Do you have any evidence to back this claim? 
 Regards,
 L. [/size]* 
 

Leporello,
 As I said, the signal is affected in terms of phase shifts, both linear AND non linear, minor frequency response aberrations, and thirdly, reflections of the signal which alter neither the frequency response nor the phase accuracy of the original signal, but rather add to the original causing an obfuscation of the original. These distortions may be challenging but not impossible to measure. The fact that it isn't common knowledge is probably more responsible for why it hasn't been done in wider circles. About a year ago there was a very good article published in I believe Stereophile about this. It was one of the better written articles that I've read on the subject. When I worked at Tektronix years ago and had access to good instrumentation, we used to be able to chase this stuff down, but alas I no longer have access to that sort of instrumentation. 

 On the other front however, I do have my ears. Being an engineer, I used to strongly believe one could not hear cable differences and indeed in my equipment of the day, I coudn't hear differences between one cable and another. 

 When I bought my first headphone amp I was absolutely amazed by the purity and resolution of the sound. On a lark I ran out and borrowed some expensive interconnects from a local Audio Shop. I about fell of my chair when I discovered for the first time in my life that I *could* hear differences between the cables! I didn't want to hear differences. I was going to really lay into the couple people I knew that claimed that there were audible differences and show them up that there were no differences that were large enough to be audible. Keep in mind that I had been an audio engineer for many years and had trained my ears be able to discern subtle differences in audio environments, but had never believed the human ear was sensitive enough to hear differences between cables. 

 I was really chagrinned to be hearing these differences. They were difficult to characterize at first but I continued to explore. I found that some $40 cables were sonically superior to $300 cables, etc. Some high zoot cables didn't sound any better than some of the cheap $5 cables I had. I found a pair of cables for $125 at a second audio shop that sounded better to my ears than all the other cables that I had tested and I actually bought them. I was embarrassed that I actually was hearing differences. I kept thinking “This is nuts! I can’t believe I’m spending $125 on a 1 meter length of copper wire!” I told no one. I continued to test and explore. I found that I could not detect differences using my big rig. I only seemed to be able to reliably hear the differences with a very simple system consisting of a CDP, the headphone amp, and the headphones. 

 As time went by, I stumbled across this headphone forum one day and subsequently “stepped” up my headphone habit. I found that as I improved the quality of my source, my headphone amp, and or my headphones, I was able to more clearly discern and characterize differences between one cable and another.

 So to summarize, your sound reproduction chain needs to be very high quality to be able to resolve or expose these differences. This does not necessarily mean expensive, but the quality must be there. Another discovery that many of us have made here is that a given cable may sound wonderful between two pieces of gear, and when it’s put in service between another pair of components, it may or may not work as well in the new set up. This is the “synergy” phenomenon you’ve seen discussed here. When I tried to understand what that was all about I was not able to offer a plausible explanation other than this idea of different cables reacting differently in the adverse environment of gross impedance mismatch in which reflections would be very much in existence. 

 The article published in Stereophile was an articulation of suspicions that I had held for quite some time but no longer had equipment to be able to verify. It helped clarify and focus the observations and suspicions that I had. In effect, it posited that if you were to properly match the source and load impedance, a $5 cable could indeed sound as good as a $500 one. One day if I ever get the time, I plan to follow up on that theory to test it. Until then I have my ears and with 100% certainty and repeatability, I hear distinct differences between one cable and another and with little respect to price, choose that which sounds the best to my ears.

 Regarding the community we have here on Head-Fi, there are no doubt folks here who buy fancy equipment to keep up with the Jonses, but there are a significant number of folks here who for whatever reason are able to hear differences in equipment and for whom realism in reproduced sound is very important. There are many of us who even though we can't afford to run out and drop lots of dough on fancy gear, are compelled by our love for music and accurately reproduced sound to take the hobby as far as we can.

 So this is a rarified population sample of people for whom sound means a great deal. Good sound means more to most of us here than it does to most of the rest of the world. That's just the way we're wired I guess! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Happy listening!


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*

 Not for me, but for you, I mean for the person(s) claiming that a cheap cable clearly alters sound and is sonically perceivable. Also the effect of my ****ty equipment should be easily perceivable for you. * 
 

Again, my points above stand. Why would you want to convince me of something I already know? It makes no sense. I've done my own tests in better-controleld circumstances and I have heard the differenc with my own ears.

 For all we know you simply took the same sample and did nothing to it except change maybe a few bits around so they will fail checksum tests.

 Perhaps if you were doing this test for your benefit I could understand it and in that case I was going to take it and sumbit you my results so you can collect your data. But now... It's just a waste of my time.

 I know of *no*scientific test like this where the test was for the benefit of the subject taking it. It's skewed all to hell and, well, a waste of everyones time, especially yours.

 If you wish to remain skeptical, fine. But why do you have the need to prove to me something I know is false?

 This is why I think your arrogant and and idiot. Had this test been so you could collect data and post the results of how many people could tell the differences, that would have some value. but this... Well, it's stupid and it's *very* arrogant of you to shove this down my throat. HOW DARE YOU!!

 And I have to take issue with your statement that 'cheap' cable alters sound... *ALL* cables alter sound. *ANYTHING* the signal passes through colors the sound to some extent and this will be the case until superconducters are perfected and used in our gear.


----------



## pigmode

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Nezer _
*



 This is why I think your arrogant and and idiot. Had this test been so you could collect data and post the results of how many people could tell the differences, that would have some value. but this... Well, it's stupid and it's *very* arrogant of you to shove this down my throat. HOW DARE YOU!!

* 
 

Aren't you taking this waaaay too seriously? Right or wrong, If Ricky has a point to make or a theory to propound then it's his right to do so. Seems that he's been pretty civil all along, but a few Head-Fiers are stuck in feeding-frenzy mode. If you feel so strongly that he is that far off base, then why keep beating a dead horse?


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by pigmode _
*

 Aren't you taking this waaaay too seriously? Right or wrong, If Ricky has a point to make or a theory to propound then it's his right to do so. Seems that he's been pretty civil all along, but a few Head-Fiers are stuck in feeding-frenzy mode. If you feel so strongly that he is that far off base, then why keep beating a dead horse? * 
 

Perhaps but I really started inquiring thinking maybe I misunderstood the whole thing and had previously over-reacted. Now, I don't feel bad about it. Sure it's his right to waste his own time but telling me something isn't true that I know is becasue I can hear it myself is a waste of his breath and that's the only thing I'm trying to point-out.

 If he were colelcting this data to satisfy his own curiousity or maybe see what percentage of people can accuratly identify this, then that would make sense. But to ask me to take a test to prove his point with no scientific evidence, is ,well, arrogant.

 Now that I see the farce for what it is I will no longer listen to Ricky and will certainly not dignify his ignorance with any futher responses.


----------



## pigmode

Yeah and after all, this is a discussion forum, and who knows where discussions may lead? 

 cheers


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by pigmode _
*Yeah and after all, this is a discussion forum, and who knows where discussions may lead? 

 cheers * 
 

This thread? Straight to hell in a cheap handbasket (which works just as well as a vehicle to hell as the more ornate, expensive models).


----------



## Dusty Chalk

Ricky, Leporello, I am confused. I think I've seen you post both ways, and I am not "answering a question with a question", nor am I asking you to "lay your cards on the table", but I am really asking for clarification.

 By both ways, I mean that there are two assertions:

 - Two cables will sound the same if they measure the same, but will sound different if they measure different.

 - Two cables will sound the same even if they measure differently, as long as those measurements are not wildly outside of some "tolerance".

 (Just to alay confusion, please answer for yourselves only.)

 Okay, the rest of this is indeed, continuing arguing with a brick wall:

 I guess the point I am reaching on my own is, I haven't paid too much attention to the electrical measurements that my cables have, only how they sound. For all I know, they _do_ measure differently. But I don't care, I only go by how they sound.

 I suspect you both will claim the second assertion. If so:

 - What measurements?
 - What "tolerance" on those measurements?

 If the first, then we are arguing semantics. I think all of us agree that cables will sound different if they...no, stop there. I think all of us agree that cables sound different. It's just a question of whether or not spending US$500+ is worth the return. As I've said before -- we argue that all the time. To someone who doesn't have US$500, the answer would be no.

 So I guess there's a third assertion -- Two cables will sound the same even if they cost differently.

 Notice I am saying "...will sound the same...", not "...will sound more or less the same..." or "...will sound the same to most people..." It seems to me that you are making the issue too "black and white", when if you allow for the fact that it is not "two cables sound the same" or that "two cables sound differently", but rather "two cables sound similar" by such-and-such criteria, within these parameters (be them scientifical or just audiophile listening adjectives like "musical"), and then compare them to cost, you will see that there are several "grey level" scales -- cost, sound, measurements.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Dusty Chalk _
*
 I suspect you both will claim the second assertion. If so:

 - What measurements?
 - What "tolerance" on those measurements?

 So I guess there's a third assertion -- Two cables will sound the same even if they cost differently.

 Notice I am saying "...will sound the same...", not "...will sound more or less the same..." or "...will sound the same to most people..." It seems to me that you are making the issue too "black and white", when if you allow for the fact that it is not "two cables sound the same" or that "two cables sound differently", but rather "two cables sound similar" by such-and-* 
 

Yes, I claim the second assertion. The measurements I'm talking about are measurements of the effect of cable over the audio signal that passes through it.

 About tolerances, I will quote again Arny Krueger, who has lots of years of experience and knowledge over this issues.

 "If all forms of nonlinear distortion and noise are > 100 dB down, 
 frequency response is within < +/- 0.1 dB, there is less than 5 
 degrees of differential phase shift between the channels, and less 
 than 45 degrees of total phase shift 20-20 KHz with a phase slope of no more than 22 degrees per octave, then it is quite assured that the equipment has no *sound* at all." 

 Note that, in any non-defective interconnect, there is no distortion. In a typical setup, with a cheap short interconnect connecting a cd player to an amp, the noise can be quite easily 100 dB down the signal, from 20 Hz to 20 KHz the frequency response rolloff is below 0.01 dB , and the phase shift is below 1 degree.

 I just measured these parameters this evening on the interconnect used at my test at www.kikeg.arrakis.es.

 So, quite far below audibility for nearly all of the parameters. And that means that the cheap short interconnect will sound "exactly" the same than any better quality interconnect.

 And, as opposed to what kwkarth said in a previous post, there are no transmission line effects at all for audio frequencies in audio cables. For transmission line effects in cables to happen, the length of the cable has to be near the wavelength of the signal carried. Note that, for a 20 KHz signal on a cable, the wavelength is several kilometers (or miles) long.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kwkarth _
*
 Ricky,
 You still have not substantiated your claims in any concrete way. Cite some specific examples please.
* 
 



 I think I've done it at my previous post. Note too that the measured values are in total accordance with what physics or electronics say, if you want some calculations I can give you them in another post.

  Quote:


 *
 There are a number of other parameters that also vary from unit to unit that are not as commonly published if at all such as dielectric characteristics.
* 
 



 The only effect that a dielectric may have on a cable is on its capacitance. Noise rejection, which is not a "classical" electrical parameter, is published at good standard cable manufacturer catalogs, such as Belden ones.

  Quote:


 *
 ear to hear aberrations. Remember that virtually all source to pre-amp-amp interfaces are inherently grossly mismatched with regard to impedance. Typically sub 10k sources driving 100k loads. What do you suppose happens to all the resultant signal reflections that ensue?
* 
 



 As I noted in my previous post, there are no signal reflections (transmission line effects) at audio frequencies.

  Quote:


 *
 BTW, your quotes from Arny Krueger are patently incorrect in many circumstances. ... This is undoubtedly true for much of the population, but certainly untrue for many here on this board.
* 
 



 How do you know?

  Quote:


 *
 While your conclusion of [size=xx-small]"For high frequencies, it is quite difficult for many people to distinguish a lowpassed 16 KHz musical clip from a non-lowpassed one. I'd dare to say that a lowpassed 18 KHz musical clip would be inaudible for nearly everyone."[/size] is more true than not, it's not true for everyone. 
 You need to remember that. 
* 
 



 Again, how do you know? Have you or the other golden ears done any tests to check that this is not true for you? I don't know if I could be considered a golden-eared person, but I ve tested this for myself. And I know that many people has too.


----------



## Dusty Chalk

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 About tolerances, I will quote again Arny Krueger, who has lots of years of experience and knowledge over this issues.

 "If all forms of nonlinear distortion and noise are > 100 dB down, 
 frequency response is within < +/- 0.1 dB, there is less than 5 
 degrees of differential phase shift between the channels, and less 
 than 45 degrees of total phase shift 20-20 KHz with a phase slope of no more than 22 degrees per octave, then it is quite assured that the equipment has no *sound* at all." 

 Note that, in any non-defective interconnect, there is no distortion. In a typical setup, with a cheap short interconnect connecting a cd player to an amp, the noise can be quite easily 100 dB down the signal, from 20 Hz to 20 KHz the frequency response rolloff is below 0.01 dB , and the phase shift is below 1 degree. 
 

While I do appreciate your mapping AK's criteria to how it applies to an interconnect, aren't these more criteria of a system, rather than just an interconnect?

 I am not sure I concur with his assertions on phase, though...


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 _*Originally posted by Ricky *_*
*

 I think I've done it at my previous post. Note too that the measured values are in total accordance with what physics or electronics say, if you want some calculations I can give you them in another post. 
 

Ricky, I do not recall any substantiation, please give me specific reference.


  Quote:


 The only effect that a dielectric may have on a cable is on its capacitance. 
 

You're wrong. Prove your assertion.

  Quote:


 As I noted in my previous post, there are no signal reflections (transmission line effects) at audio frequencies. 
 

You're wrong. Any time you have an impedance mismatch between source and load, you have signal energy reflected back.
  Quote:


 How do you know? 
 

 Read my post. I explain it there.


  Quote:


 Again, how do you know? Have you or the other golden ears done any tests to check that this is not true for you? I don't know if I could be considered a golden-eared person, but I’ve tested this for myself. And I know that many people has too. [/B] 
 

C’mon Ricky, didn't you read my posts? Read them again, you might learn something.

  Quote:


 And, as opposed to what kwkarth said in a previous post, there are no transmission line effects at all for audio frequencies in audio cables. For transmission line effects in cables to happen, the length of the cable has to be near the wavelength of the signal carried. Note that, for a 20 KHz signal on a cable, the wavelength is several kilometers (or miles) long. 
 

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky... Wrong again. Cable length has nothing to do with the impedance mismatch problem causing reflections. BTW, propagation velocity in typical cables is about 60% of C so the wavelength of a 20kHz sine in a cable will be just under 30kft, or about five and a half miles, but again, the length of the transmission line has nothing to do with the reflected energy, other than to re-absorb some of the standing wave due to RLC loading. In the case of typical 1m interconnects, virtually none.

 You still seem to laboring under the misconception that if you don't know how to measure it, it doesn't exist/can't be heard. That's a false concept. Start thinking with your mind and listening with your ears. You might be surprised what you find.

 Again, getting back to the bottom line, we can, with 100% repeatability, hear and identify differences between cables. I really don't care much what it measures if I can hear it. If I can hear it reliably, I will use what sounds best in my system within my budget.

 God gave you two ears and only one mouth. Start listening twice as much as you speak, you might learn something.

 Happy Listening!


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kwkarth _
*Ricky, I do not recall any substantiation, please give me specific reference.
* 
 

Could be helpful if you explained what "substantiation" means for you. "Hard" numbers extracted from measurements or calculations seem not "substantiation" enough for you?? What about you making some "substantiations", instead of wild ranting?

 Also, you ask for references, but you give none solid.


  Quote:


 *
 You're wrong. Prove your assertion.
* 
 

You're the one that said first that the dielectric might have some "unknown" effect over the signal, so please you *prove* your initial assertion instead of disqualifying mine without any valid argumentation.

  Quote:


 *
 You're wrong. Any time you have an impedance mismatch between source and load, you have signal energy reflected back.
 Read my post. I explain it there.
* 
 

You explain nothing, sorry. You just keep repeating again and again the same thing, that there are reflections due to impedance mismatch, but nothing more. No explanations over the effect produced by that reflections.

  Quote:


 *
 C’mon Ricky, didn't you read my posts? Read them again, you might learn something.
* 
 

Sorry to repeat, but I don't see any useful infomation in your posts, just ranting and sometimes beautifully talking about unmeasurable phenomena and non-tested and non substatiated claims about hearing abilities. Maybe if you repeat that information that I have not noticed, it could be of some help.

  Quote:


 *
 Ricky, Ricky, Ricky... Wrong again. Cable length has nothing to do with the impedance mismatch problem causing reflections. * 
 

That might be true, but these reflections importance is NULL at audio frequencies for normal cable lenghts, has no effect. The only effect of reflections in a signal cable is to cause standing waves to appear. This leads to frequency response and transient response variations, somehow due to wavelength "matching" effects at the load sides. But again, this effect happens *only* when the signal wavelength is comparable to the cable lenght.

 From the cable/load/reflections point of view, audio signal is just as DC signal, because its wavelenght is thousands of times greater than the cable length.

 So, transmission line effect has *everything* to do with the reflections at the load side. And cable length has *everything* to do with transmission line effect. If you don't agree, I believe you should read any technical literature about transmission line effects, instead of continuous wild ranting. Maybe if you could explain the misterious effect of those reflections at audio frequencies, that nobody has been able to detect.

 There are tons of references on transmission line effects at the web, just do a Google search. Just one example at :

http://hibp.ecse.rpi.edu/~crowley/ja.../transinfo.htm

  Quote:


 *
 BTW, propagation velocity in typical cables is about 60% of C so the wavelength of a 20kHz sine in a cable will be just under 30kft, or about five and a half miles
* 
 



 Isn't that what I said?

  Quote:


 *
 but again, the length of the transmission line has nothing to do with the reflected energy, other than to re-absorb some of the standing wave due to RLC loading. In the case of typical 1m interconnects, virtually none.
* 
 



 But has everything to do with the actual effect of the reflection. Again, there are no standing waves (transmission line effect) at audio frequencies, and there are no measurable "reflections" at audio frequencies..

  Quote:


 *
 You still seem to laboring under the misconception that if you don't know how to measure it, it doesn't exist/can't be heard. * 
 



 Not me, nor anybody. If you don't agree, please show me some specific references.

  Quote:


 *
 That's a false concept. Start thinking with your mind and listening with your ears. You might be surprised what you find.

 Again, getting back to the bottom line, we can, with 100% repeatability, hear and identify differences between cables. I really don't care much what it measures if I can hear it. If I can hear it reliably, I will use what sounds best in my system within my budget.
* 
 



 So, I thought we were talking about physical measurable or describable effects, and now you forget those, and simply rely on you ears. That doesn't sound very scientific.

 You could easily prove your golden eared claims trying my little test, which has everything to do with hearing abilities and measurements.

 On the other side, placebo effect is a very verifiable phenomena, doesn't matter if the subject likes to think's he's not prone to it.

  Quote:


 *
 God gave you two ears and only one mouth. Start listening twice as much as you speak, you might learn something.
* 
 



 Useless advice, I think you should re-read some of your engineering books instead of talking about weird, unexplainable, unmeasurable phenomena.


----------



## kwkarth

Ricky,
 I apologize for wasting your time. It seems clear that you are not interested in expanding your field of knowledge. There's no point in restating what's already been articulated many times over, yet another time. So I will refrain from my “ranting.”

 You say that because you read what someone else wrote, cables have no effect on sound.

 I say that I used to believe that until my equipment reached a sufficient level of quality and I was actually able to hear differences in a 100% repeatable, consistent fashion.

 You seem unwilling to explore my (and many other’s) observations and I am unwilling to submit to your ill conceived and invalid “test.” I guess we’re done. 

 You’ll save some money and I’ll enjoy much better sound. We each have what we need.

 Cheers!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Since Ricky in his last post has officially renounced using his ears in favour of poring over equations, measurements and charts, I think we can now officially kick him from this AUDIO forum.


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*Since Ricky in his last post has officially renounced using his ears in favour of poring over equations, measurements and charts, I think we can now officially kick him from this AUDIO forum.
















* 
 

Hey, just because *you* don't listen to your music by watching a scope doesn't mean others can't!! Jeez, why the sterotype that we all listen with our ears? Maybe some of us are just 'outside the box' so to speak!


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*Since Ricky in his last post has officially renounced using his ears in favour of poring over equations, measurements and charts, I think we can now officially kick him from this AUDIO forum.* 
 

Never said such thing, as always, you have a partial, distorted and extremely simplified version of what I actually said.

 I was discussing about technical issues in my previous posts, the "listening" experience was not the matter of the discussion, until suddenly the person I was discussiong with, decided to change the matter of the actual discussion.

 I use my ears for listening to music. I can detect differences on different equipment just by sighted listening. But if those differences are subtle enough, I know my ears might not be accurate enough to really know if there are real sonic differences. In these cases, I have to use a more rigorous method to know if the differences are real or not, to make sure the if perceived differences are just due to the actual sound, or to other external factors.

 Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.


----------



## setmenu

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*





 But if those differences are subtle enough, I know my ears might not be accurate enough to really know if there are real sonic differences. 

* 
 

So then if you think you hear subtle differences but are not sure,
 and on repeated listening you still percieve a difference.
 Are those differences real?

 At what point would you trust your perception to consider something real[a hell of a question that....]


 What if you felt certain there is a difference but...you could not find one with the measuring instruments you have to hand?

 And what if you quite liked the difference but found no measurements to back it?

 hehe

 setmenu


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Nezer _
*
 Again, my points above stand. Why would you want to convince me of something I already know?
* 
 



 I guess people who maintained that the earth was flat said the same things to the people trying to convince them it was round. The former, obviously knew it was flat, because they could see it, so it was stupid to say otherwise!

  Quote:


 *It makes no sense. I've done my own tests in better-controleld circumstances and I have heard the differenc with my own ears.
* 
 



 It's obvious you don't really understand what "controlled" means.

  Quote:


 *
 For all we know you simply took the same sample and did nothing to it except change maybe a few bits around so they will fail checksum tests.
* 
 



 Are you accusing me of lying? Are you saying I took the work to do all the test and just use faked files? I'm not that kind of person, as opposed to what you may think. 

  Quote:


 *
 I know of *no*scientific test like this where the test was for the benefit of the subject taking it. It's skewed all to hell and, well, a waste of everyones time, especially yours.
* 
 



 If you're wrong, it's not supposed to benefit you, of course. But if you pass the test, you could say you passed it, and have a undisputable proof of that my equipment is really ****ty, and of that I could be wrong. Until that, you have proof of nothing, just your words against mine.

  Quote:


 *
 If you wish to remain skeptical, fine. But why do you have the need to prove to me something I know is false?
* 
 



 It is supposed to prove you are wrong, or I'm wrong, simply that. People who said the earth was flat were proved wrong, even when they *knew* it was flat.

  Quote:


 *
 This is why I think your arrogant and and idiot. Had this test been so you could collect data and post the results of how many people could tell the differences, that would have some value. but this... Well, it's stupid and it's *very* arrogant of you to shove this down my throat. HOW DARE YOU!!
* 
 



 Because even if you don't like it, I think you're wrong, simply that. Not so complicated for your "clever" mind, uh? I thought it was pretty clear which was the purpose of the test.

  Quote:


 *
 And I have to take issue with your statement that 'cheap' cable alters sound... *ALL* cables alter sound. *ANYTHING* the signal passes through colors the sound to some extent and this will be the case until superconducters are perfected and used in our gear. * 
 

Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. If you're so sure about what you're saying, you could prove it easily taking my test.

 Remember, in my test I haven't compensated cable differences, simply because I didn't find any, so I didn't know how.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by setmenu _
*
 So then if you think you hear subtle differences but are not sure,
 and on repeated listening you still percieve a difference.
 Are those differences real?
* 
 

If I set up a controlled blind test so that I can make sure that the only thing that can have an effect on my perception is the actual sound coming to my ears, and then truly verify there is a difference, then the difference must be real, of course, just common sense.

* Quote:


 At what point would you trust your perception to consider something real[a hell of a question that....] 
 

*Explained.

* Quote:


 What if you felt certain there is a difference but...you could not find one with the measuring instruments you have to hand?

 And what if you quite liked the difference but found no measurements to back it? 
 

*Again, just back to ranting. I could rant too and say whatever weird idea comes to my mind, but that would not be a solid argumentation, nor of course proof of anything.

 Well, to answer your question, it hasn't happened ever, nor to me, nor to anybody I know of.

 The opposite (measured differences that happen to be inaudible) has happened many times, and can easily be checked. My test, at the moment, just looks like that so far.

 hu-hu


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _


 I guess people who maintained that the earth was flat said the same things to the people trying to convince them it was round. The former, obviously knew it was flat, because they could see it, so it was stupid to say otherwise!

 [/B]

 It's obvious you don't really understand what "controlled" means.

 [/B]

 Are you accusing me of lying? Are you saying I took the work to do all the test and just use faked files? I'm not that kind of person, as opposed to what you may think. 

 [/B]

 If you're wrong, it's not supposed to benefit you, of course. But if you pass the test, you could say you passed it, and have a undisputable proof of that my equipment is really ****ty, and of that I could be wrong. Until that, you have proof of nothing, just your words against mine.

 [/B]

 It is supposed to prove you are wrong, or I'm wrong, simply that. People who said the earth was flat were proved wrong, even when they *knew* it was flat.

 [/B]

 Because even if you don't like it, I think you're wrong, simply that. Not so complicated for your "clever" mind, uh? I thought it was pretty clear which was the purpose of the test.



 Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. If you're so sure about what you're saying, you could prove it easily taking my test.

 Remember, in my test I haven't compensated cable differences, simply because I didn't find any, so I didn't know how. [/B] 
 

Sorry, not gonna bite today. Go troll-fish for someone else.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

by Ricky
  Quote:


 So, I thought we were talking about physical measurable or describable effects, and now you forget those, and simply rely on you ears. That doesn't sound very scientific. 
 

by kwkarth
  Quote:


 God gave you two ears and only one mouth. Start listening twice as much as you speak, you might learn something. 
 

Ricky's reply
  Quote:


 Useless advice, I think you should re-read some of your engineering books instead of talking about weird, unexplainable, unmeasurable phenomena. 
 

If all THAT isn't renouncing your hearing in favour of measurements, I don't know what is! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Talk about putting the cart in front of the horse. The end we want to achieve has only to do with our hearing, whereas measurements are only the means.

 Not everybody on this board is familiar with the intricate engineering aspects of cables (but there are certainly people who are familiar with them) but we HAVE presented results of DBT tests where differences between cables could be reliably picked out. If you want more proof against your theory that all cables sound the same, perhaps you should ask MacDEF for more details about the equipment he used, methodology, etc. You DON'T need a scope to conclude whether cables sound different or not!

 You must understand that there are many possible reasons why people don't want to take tests. 1. It's boring, 2. people don't agree with your methodology, and whether their complaints are valid or nots, it is going to detract from their willingness to take the test. 3. For me the main gripe is that I'm sure I'll be listening to music I've never heard, and this is going to take a heavy toll on my ability to discern differences, so even if I can't tell a difference, it doesn't mean anything.

 By the way, when people say that they hear a difference between cables, they are always right, incontrovertibly right, because they are just making a statement about their subjective experience. Their experience when listening to one cable was different from another cable. Even if the cables are later found out to be exactly the same down to the last atom and the last 0.0000000000000000000001 dB, that doesn't change the fact that 'THEY HEARD A DIFFERENCE'. Whether the difference exists or not is completely irrelevant. And since people don't spend all their music listening time in a DBT, aftermarket cables WOULD HAVE THEIR PLACE EVEN IF THEY DO ALL OBJECTIVELY SOUND THE SAME, IF FOR SOME REASON PEOPLE FOUND SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM.

 Go chew on that one.

 And stop trying to prove that cables don't sound different. When people feel that they sound different to them, this is already incontrovertible proof that they sound different TO THEM. They just may not sound different to YOU. And whether you can MEASURE the difference, whether the difference even EXISTS out there, is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _

 By the way, when people say that they hear a difference between cables, they are always right, incontrovertibly right, because they are just making a statement about their subjective experience. Their experience when listening to one cable was different from another cable. Even if the cables are later found out to be exactly the same down to the last atom and the last 0.0000000000000000000001 dB, that doesn't change the fact that 'THEY HEARD A DIFFERENCE'. Whether the difference exists or not is completely irrelevant. And since people don't spend all their music listening time in a DBT, aftermarket cables WOULD HAVE THEIR PLACE EVEN IF THEY DO ALL OBJECTIVELY SOUND THE SAME, IF FOR SOME REASON PEOPLE FOUND SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM.

 Go chew on that one.

 And stop trying to prove that cables don't sound different. When people feel that they sound different to them, this is already incontrovertible proof that they sound different TO THEM. They just may not sound different to YOU. And whether you can MEASURE the difference, whether the difference even EXISTS out there, is completely irrelevant. [/B] 
 

This is what I've been trying to say! Why take a test with so many unknowns to prove to myself something I already know?!?! You can't tell me I don't hear this. Regardless of the reasons, I *DO* hear a difference even if you don't!

 This has been the only point I've been trying to make all along.


----------



## setmenu

Ricky
 So then after all that.......whats your favourite colour?


 Setmenu


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by setmenu _
*Ricky
 So then after all that.......whats your favourite colour?


 Setmenu
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

Don't you know? All colors are the same.


----------



## setmenu

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Nezer _
*

 Don't you know? All colors are the same. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 


 Sounds like a bit of double blind testing would needed to prove
 that eh?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Setmenu


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Quote:


 This is what I've been trying to say! Why take a test with so many unknowns to prove to myself something I already know?!?! You can't tell me I don't hear this. Regardless of the reasons, I *DO* hear a difference even if you don't! 

 This has been the only point I've been trying to make all along. 
 

Well that's my philosophy classes paying off 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's long been long that it's a complete B***H to try to determine what other people's subjective feelings are from the outside view of another person. Basically a lost cause 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now if Ricky is a philosopher, he might try to argue this point but


----------



## setmenu




----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*If all THAT isn't renouncing your hearing in favour of measurements, I don't know what is! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




* 
 



 He gave me an useless advice, I already use my ears, I gave him another advice I thought could be useful to him


  Quote:


 *
 Not everybody on this board is familiar with the intricate engineering aspects of cables (but there are certainly people who are familiar with them) but we HAVE presented results of DBT tests where differences between cables could be reliably picked out. If you want more proof against your theory that all cables sound the same, perhaps you should ask MacDEF for more details about the equipment he used, methodology, etc. You DON'T need a scope to conclude whether cables sound different or not!
* 
 



 We have talked about his tests enough, I think.

  Quote:


 *
 By the way, when people say that they hear a difference between cables, they are always right, incontrovertibly right, because they are just making a statement about their subjective experience. Their experience when listening to one cable was different from another cable. Even if the cables are later found out to be exactly the same down to the last atom and the last 0.0000000000000000000001 dB, that doesn't change the fact that 'THEY HEARD A DIFFERENCE'. Whether the difference exists or not is completely irrelevant. And since people don't spend all their music listening time in a DBT, aftermarket cables WOULD HAVE THEIR PLACE EVEN IF THEY DO ALL OBJECTIVELY SOUND THE SAME, IF FOR SOME REASON PEOPLE FOUND SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM.
 ...
 And stop trying to prove that cables don't sound different. When people feel that they sound different to them, this is already incontrovertible proof that they sound different TO THEM. They just may not sound different to YOU. And whether you can MEASURE the difference, whether the difference even EXISTS out there, is completely irrelevant. * 
 

Agreed 100%, that's what I wanted people to know. But then, don't say cables sound different. Say they sound different TO YOU, and only to you, and don't say it's because they color the sound, or are ultra-conductive, or other weird technical reasons, because that's false. They sound different to you, but why, it's a different issue.


----------



## setmenu

And yet more....
 And who will reposte?


 Setmenu


----------



## Nezer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 Agreed 100%, that's what I wanted people to know. But then, don't say cables sound different. Say they sound different TO YOU, and only to you, and don't say it's because they color the sound, or are ultra-conductive, or other weird technical reasons, because that's false. They sound different to you, but why, it's a different issue. [/B] 
 

Finally we are getting somewhere. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This statement has finally proven to me that you are neither arogant nore an idiot so I'll rescind all insults stated above.

 I think the only answer as to WHY something sounds different to someone is becuase it does. Nothing more, nothing less. And when someone speaks that 'it colors the sound' I think it goes without saying that it's in thier opinion that it does and no one else has to agree.

 When they start trying to *prove* it to someone (which they shouldn't have to do) it becomes a futile and idiotic venture (as shown above).

 I think we can all agree to disagree about the technical reasons and agree that each person hears what they hear. Regardless of placebo effect or otherwise. If one can hear a difference than there is a difference. 

 If one feels that difference is worth spending $2000 on, thats one's personal right to do so. Are they stupid for doing so? Only if they don't have the $2000 to spend in the first place but the same holds true for the $4 cable as well.

 Hopefully we can put this issue to bed now.

 ---

 Ricky, now that the conversation has taken a intelligent turn I'll address one of your questions above.

 No, I'm not accusing you of lying. All I was stating was the fact that no one but you knows what was done to those files and all we have is your word. For all *I* know you are lying (people have been known to do this on occasion) but for all I know you are not either. Simply put, it was yet another variable in the equation.

 I don't really think you would do that but, you have to admit, it *is* a possibility from where I sit.

 So, I'm not calling you a liar but am saying the potential does exist and there is no way for anyone other than you to know the truth.

 Some people have a need (for whatever reason) to prove themselves right through any means possible and sometimes they resort to unethical practices such as lying. Do I really think you are one of these people? No. But I didn't think Clinton was either. In other words, you just never know.

 I do feel that you feel so strongly on the issue that you wouldn't resort to such tactics. Others may disagree but I can really tell you believe what you speak is the truth.

 So, I apologize for calling you an arrogant idiot but, arguably, what you were trying to do could be called both. I was wrong to reflect that on your character rather than this one action. In other words, we all do stupid things but that doesn't necessarly make us stupid people. I was wrong to imply (or rather, downright state) that *you* were an idiot and arrogant though I still maintain that your actions in this matter were characterstic of both (and, I should know, my actions were the same).


----------



## dparrish

Well, 

 My 2 cents worth--

 The "earth is flat" arguement really isn't a good one to support Ricky's position. It appears that almost all educated people, at least back to the time of the Greeks, believed/knew that the earth was round. Before the Greek mathematicians postulated their theories to "prove" this, sailors surmised it due to slowly-sinking (not suddenly sinking) ships on the horizon (See http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/scolumb.htm). In fact, this example COULD be used to prove just the opposite--that people began with a perception which at first couldn't be proved but which later was.

 But I'm not going to change Ricky's mind nor anyone else's on this board.

 I think it is clear to ALL of us that (if we are all open-minded and truly scientific) there may be MORE to learn about human hearing/perception of sound and how different cables factor in this equation. Certainly, some will say there is no difference, HOPEFULLY not just because they BELIEVE there is none (even from a measurement standpoint), but because they have taken the time to experience/try this for themselves. On the other hand, there are certainly many (as I do) who believe that cables DO make a difference, based on experience.

 In the final analysis, experience is the only thing logically which truly matters. We are not machines--we are physical bodies that must begin with our senses. This is how we ALL come into the world and begin learning ABOUT our world--through the senses. If the difference in sound I hear is one that matters TO ME, that's all that is important. If I want to spend money on this or that cable because I hear a difference, no one has the right to tell me otherwise. Similarly, if another hears NO difference and prefers to not get into cable swapping, that's THEIR right as well. Is it possible that SOME of the differences I hear in cables might be a placebo effect? Perhaps, but I personally believe there is a difference that I'm able to hear with just about every cable I've tried. But does any of this REALLY matter? I really think the end result for YOU is what truly matters. 

 I think discussion of this topic has been good, but I also think there is a point at which we've all pretty much exhausted all that we have to say 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I say, if we're going to continue to disagree without any really NEW information being passed, perhaps it's time to move on to other discussions until something new pertaining to this DOES come up


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I can't believe it! Have I finally managed to bring this discussion to a close?


----------



## setmenu

No
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








 Setmenu

 That rounds it up to a nice 200 posts now.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

LOL setmenu 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Onward march to 300!


----------



## dgs

I must admit, there are some impressive displays of both logic and the denial of it in this thread.

 It reminds me of a line from William Wordsworth:
 "...living in a world have perceived and half created."

 Of course, I can't remember which poem this is from, or whether I have the line exactly right. As with everyone else, I also live in this half-perceived and half created world. 

 But fascinating stuff. I particularly liked the part of the thread where some were considering how subtle sonic differences could reflect either a well-trained ear or an imagined difference, and I found it particularly interesting that some people would turn to outside measurements to confirm or disprove their perception, where others would tend to trust their experience over other types of "evidence."

 I am further reminded of an experiment done in social psychology about 30 years ago. A subject was shown a picture of two lines, one obviously shorter than the other. He was asked if they were equal or different in length. The problem was, there were 6 other people in the room (hired by the researcher) to say that the lines were equal. A large majority of the people tested in this way said that the lines were equal. When even one of the confederates was told to side with the poor subject (saying that they appeared inequal), the rate of those conforming even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary dropped significantly. Thus, the story goes, we use outside cues to validate our own experience. I guess that this need for validation partly explains the success of this forum in general--we headphone-philes are not really alone in a sea of Sony Streetstyle wearing fools...there are those who think like us, at least, like us enough to think that sound matters. 

 Very interesting thread, for the differences in opinion as well as the responses to having those differences challenged.


----------



## Mic

Not to start anything, but I once had an argument with my brother on this topic. He made one interesting statement that made me think.

 I said that we cannot claim that we know all about sound and its properties.

 His response was that perhaps that's true, but we know it well enough and that all the equipment we use for playback hinges on those few properties that we understand. Thus, if there are properties that affect sound that we don't know about, they should affect the equipment randomly, as in better/worse between $0.50 and $800 cables.

 Thus, a $0.50 and a $800 may measure the same.

 But, maybe something has been done to the $800 one that changes a property that we don't understand. The interesting thing is that the manufacturers claim to base their design on science and known knowledge.

 Just some food for thought.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Nah, only if all the good known properties of cables could be designed into a 50c cable and ther is no known way of using $799.5 to improve the cable.

 Also, there are probably a complete continuum from complete unknown to completely known fact. Most everything probably lies in between these two extremes.

 Also, tweaking cables blindly may have a random effect, but our ears do not perceive randomly.

 Also, unknown properties do not yield random effects, they just yield some definite effects that we don't know about.

 With so little information on hand, this thread has indeed mostly been a philosophical debate. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And at the risk of fuelling the flames again, I must say that what I said about people hearing a difference for themselves even between identical cables is only a last-stand position. I do believe that 

 1. cables sound objectively different
 2. at least some people would be able to pick out the difference in a blind test
 3. other people, although they can't pick out the difference in a blind test, would be affected by the objective sonic differences in their cable preferences in a non-random way

 Having said all that, I have no personal experience on this matter


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*I do believe that 

 1. cables sound objectively different
 2. at least some people would be able to pick out the difference in a blind test
 3. other people, although they can't pick out the difference in a blind test, would be affected by the objective sonic differences in their cable preferences in a non-random way
* 
 


 Well, I do believe the opposite.

 1 - Cables (that are not broken or very poorly designed) sound objectively the same.

 2 - That is to be proved, in a rigurously controlled double blind tests. In such a test, it has not been proved so far. Instead, it has been proved many times that:

 - In tests, same people being able to identify clearly cables when doing sighted testing, when just going to blind, are incapable of identify them anymore. Either the differences dissapear, or are just random guessing. Note that, being all others conditions in the test the same.

 - The opposite. In blind, or just partially blind tests, telling people that they were listening to different cables, they could hear differences between them, even when they had been listening to the same cable, but without knowing it.

 There are many first hand references of people that has done these tests.


 3 - How do you know for sure, if its not a blind test?


----------



## setmenu

And the Cycle begins again.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 Setmenu


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I think your claim for (1) is plain hogwash. Only way two cables can sound the same is if they are microphysically identical! Cables definitely sound different. Only thing to debate is if the differences can be heard with human ears. Are you saying that you can't measure capacitance from any cables? Sure with the kind of capacitance we are talking about the corner frequencies may be like 3Hz and 40000Hz but even then you can get 0.001dB differences at 40Hz and 15000Hz! Don't be so sure we can't hear that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Noise rejection? How can you be so sure that you can't tell between 100dB rejection and 120dB rejection? Especially if I put a dialling mobile phone right next to the cable!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*
 Well, I do believe the opposite.
* 
 

What a surprise!


----------



## Ricky

Joe: it's again the same thing, as setmenu says. I think I've talked enough about the issues you point. But then, is YOU who has to actually prove the things you claim, not me, sorry.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Quote:


 _Originally posted by setmenu _
*And the Cycle begins again.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







 Setmenu * 
 


 yay!


----------

