# Do 'High-End' Audio cables matter?



## SHURE530

I was doing a little research on the net and so far i've gotten mixed reviews.
  There was one experiment where the test subject couldn't tell the difference between a monster cable and a cheap wire.
   
  I'm using the SR71B + Algorhythm Solo + Audeze LCD2 + iPad.
   
  Do you think cables are worth it? I saw Jude using upgraded cables with his portable rig.


----------



## Head Injury

No, cables aren't worth it. It would be better to discuss why in the Sound Science forum.
   
  Suffice it to say that there's no evidence to support real audible differences, and a fair amount to refute them.


----------



## andrewberge

Check this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/572588/audiophile-cables-a-interesting-question
   
   
  I'll uh... I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that thread


----------



## scootermafia

Yes.


----------



## CatboyMac

Jude probably got them from a site sponsor.


----------



## Girls Generation

head injury said:


> No, cables aren't worth it. It would be better to discuss why in the Sound Science forum.
> 
> Suffice it to say that there's no evidence to support real audible differences, and a fair amount to refute them.




Oh really now.

Which cables have you heard again?


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





andrewberge said:


> Check this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/572588/audiophile-cables-a-interesting-question
> 
> 
> I'll uh... I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that thread


 


  actually, instead of a scientific debate i would really like to hear from people (fortunate/unfortunate) enough to get high end cables. like what has your experience with high end cables been like?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> Oh really now.
> Which cables have you heard again?


 

 If you have proof that they matter, I think there would be many people on the forum who would like to see it.


----------



## andrewberge

Quote: 





> actually, instead of a scientific debate i would really like to hear from people (fortunate/unfortunate) enough to get high end cables. like what has your experience with high end cables been like?​


 
   
   
  The problem with that is that the only ones who get the high end cables are the ones who believe they make a difference.
  You probably won't get the most objective answers.


----------



## scootermafia

Any impressions of cables are subjective.  You are correct that there is no way to use a measuring device other than your own ears to prove that a certain cable performance parameter correlates to something sounding a certain way.


----------



## Girls Generation

head injury said:


> If you have proof that they matter, I think there would be many people on the forum who would like to see it.




Same to you. Have you listened to high end cables yourself to make such *bold* statements?




scootermafia said:


> Any impressions of cables are subjective.  You are correct that there is no way to use a measuring device other than your own ears to prove that a certain cable performance parameter correlates to something sounding a certain way.





Which is why one should hear cables first before saying there isn't an audible difference.


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> Which is why one should hear cables first before saying there isn't an audible difference.


 


  which cables have you listened and how do they fair in comparison to stock/low end cables? is it possible to describe the change in tonality or sound quality?


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





andrewberge said:


> The problem with that is that the only ones who get the high end cables are the ones who believe they make a difference.
> You probably won't get the most objective answers.


 


  but maybe, some people bought them and found out they were scammed by the cable industry?


----------



## Rebel975

I bought a HE-6 cable for my HE-500 and didn't hear any difference while others were claiming "better micro detail" or some such. I only bought the cable for it's physical characteristics as the stock HE-500 cable is beyond ridiculous (so thick and unwieldy, and frankly it had subpar craftsmanship. It was quite pathetic for being paired with $900 headphones.). Now, I'm not claiming that that extra detail is or isn't there. I'm just glad I can't hear it. I'd rather put my money towards other things. Amps, DAC, better headphones, etc.


----------



## Girls Generation

shure530 said:


> which cables have you listened and how do they fair in comparison to stock/low end cables? is it possible to describe the change in tonality or sound quality?




I've listened to the ADZ-5 and Q-audio cable with the LCD2 rev2 for a while on loan a while back. Obviously I don't have much experience so I'm not arguing specifically on the subject of cables, but against the fact that Head Injury is making such bold presumptions and projecting his opinion onto others that are not so knowledgeable yet. I don't know if he's heard any high-end cables before, but I don't think that's right.

I've also listened to different quality interconnects with gear. So far to me -I'm not too experienced in describing what I hear- that the Q-Audio cable opens up the sound, and the best way I can summarize this to you that makes sense for people who don't know moon-speak, is that it's like a veil is lifted from the sound. There's not a complete breathtaking change, but I can definitely hear it well enough to say it's worth the $200. It's also ergonomically, astronomically better. I can probably say, the ADZ-5 is like having dirty smudged glasses, and the Q-Audio cable is like having the glasses cleaned with a cloth.

Now, these aren't exactly 'high-end' like those multi-thousand dollar cables, but I was sold on dumping my ADZ-5/6 when it came.  

Similar products : Q-Audio, Double Helix Cables Nucleotide, and Norse Audio Norn.

As for interconnects, as I confirmed with a couple experienced people on head-fi, the shorter it is, the less difference it makes, whether it's a $300 Piccolino, or a $70 regular upOCC copper.


Please do note that all of the above is purely subjective, and it's all just "in my experience, and what I heard"


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





rebel975 said:


> I bought a HE-6 cable for my HE-500 and didn't hear any difference while others were claiming "better micro detail" or some such. I only bought the cable for it's physical characteristics as the stock HE-500 cable is beyond ridiculous (so thick and unwieldy, and frankly it had subpar craftsmanship. It was quite pathetic for being paired with $900 headphones.). Now, I'm not claiming that that extra detail is or isn't there. I'm just glad I can't hear it. I'd rather put my money towards other things. Amps, DAC, better headphones, etc.


 


  wait, shouldn't you be _unhappy_ cause you couldn't hear the difference? o_o;
  if you can't hear the difference means your ears can't hear the extra detail.
  Thanks for your input!


----------



## scootermafia

I think the point here is that for those that don't hear differences with cables, there's a sense of relief as it's one less thing they have to worry about picking out and spending on.


----------



## Girls Generation

scootermafia said:


> I think the point here is that for those that don't hear differences with cables, there's a sense of relief as it's one less thing they have to worry about picking out and spending on.




x2

But I'm forever plagued. :|


----------



## Rebel975

Quote: 





scootermafia said:


> I think the point here is that for those that don't hear differences with cables, there's a sense of relief as it's one less thing they have to worry about picking out and spending on.


 


   
   
  Exactly. 
   
  The replacement cable DID do everything I wanted it to do though. It's lighter, thinner, more flexible, etc. That's all I asked of it and that's all I got from it. I don't even want to think about spending half the price of the headphones on a "nice" replacement cable. It was such a relief to not hear any difference.


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> I've listened to the ADZ-5 and Q-audio cable with the LCD2 rev2 for a while on loan a while back. Obviously I don't have much experience so I'm not arguing specifically on the subject of cables, but against the fact that Head Injury is making such bold presumptions and projecting his opinion onto others that are not so knowledgeable yet. I don't know if he's heard any high-end cables before, but I don't think that's right.
> I've also listened to different quality interconnects with gear. So far to me -I'm not too experienced in describing what I hear- that the Q-Audio cable opens up the sound, and the best way I can summarize this to you that makes sense for people who don't know moon-speak, is that it's like a veil is lifted from the sound. There's not a complete breathtaking change, but I can definitely hear it well enough to say it's worth the $200. It's also ergonomically, astronomically better. I can probably say, the ADZ-5 is like having dirty smudged glasses, and the Q-Audio cable is like having the glasses cleaned with a cloth.
> Now, these aren't exactly 'high-end' like those multi-thousand dollar cables, but I was sold on dumping my ADZ-5/6 when it came.
> Similar products : Q-Audio, Double Helix Cables Nucleotide, and Norse Audio Norn.
> ...


 
   
  well i guess if a $200 cable makes the difference for you it's money well spent :/
  so if lets say i have an interconnect about 30cm in length, would an interconnect of 5cm perform better? and even if it does perform better it would not be something significant right?
  i was thinking about the alo-audio lcd2 cable. (yes, those things cost $450 x_x) and does the jump in performance justify the price tag.
  i think most audio reviews are subjective. which is good.
  thanks for the input!


----------



## Danamr

Wrong question.
  And ambiguous on top of that. What do you mean by high end cables to begin with? $10K+ or what.
  Wire should not be a major part of your investment in your system. You are not going to make a $500 amp sound like a $2500 amp no matter what amount of money you spend on wire. Not going to make a $1000 CDP sound better than a $5000 CDP/DAC combo. Not going to make a HD600 sound like a 009.
  Do they matter in a high end system, sure, why not. It would look stupid, if nothing else to have $10k of gear connected by $2.00 cables. But if you think you are going to make your cheap CDP or headphones sound better by throwing money at high end wire instead of spending the money to upgrade your system..You spend more than 10%-15% of your total system cost on wire, your _[size=small]priorities[/size]_ are wrong and you are wasting your money.


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





danamr said:


> Wrong question.
> And ambiguous on top of that. What do you mean by high end cables to begin with? $10K+ or what.
> Wire should not be a major part of your investment in your system. You are not going to make a $500 amp sound like a $2500 amp no matter what amount of money you spend on wire. Not going to make a $1000 CDP sound better than a $5000 CDP/DAC combo. Not going to make a HD600 sound like a 009.
> Do they matter in a high end system, sure, why not. It would look stupid, if nothing else to have $10k of gear connected by $2.00 cables. But if you think you are going to make your cheap CDP or headphones sound better by throwing money at high end wire instead of spending the money to upgrade your system..You spend more than 10%-15% of your total system cost on wire, your _[size=small]priorities[/size]_ are wrong and you are wasting your money.


 

  
  1. well, i consider $450 to be high end. fair enough?
  2. i do realize it should not be a major part of my investment in my system. but i'm happy with the SR71B, Algorhythm Solo, LCD2 rig. portable, at the very least.
  3. thing is, my original question was if having really good cables would improve the overall listening experience, apart from cosmetic reasons.
  4. as for my priorities.... i already got my SR71B, Algorhythm Solo and LCD2. am i missing anything? is my rig not set up? i don't think my priorities are 'wrong'. i think the only reasonable move now would be a cable upgrade. no? =___=; after all jude has the same rig with upgraded cables. check his 3rd video.


----------



## Girls Generation

shure530 said:


> 1. well, i consider $450 to be high end. fair enough?
> 2. i do realize it should not be a major part of my investment in my system. but i'm happy with the SR71B, Algorhythm Solo, LCD2 rig. portable, at the very least.
> 3. thing is, my original question was if having really good cables would improve the overall listening experience, apart from cosmetic reasons.
> 4. as for my priorities.... i already got my SR71B, Algorhythm Solo and LCD2. am i missing anything? is my rig not set up? i don't think my priorities are 'wrong'. i think the only reasonable move now would be a cable upgrade. no? =___=; after all jude has the same rig with upgraded cables. check his 3rd video.




Well... if you're only going to stick with portable, I supposed you can stick a DB2 in there to make it a balanced through-and-through, though that will mean purchasing a 75ohm coaxial spdif IC, and a Hirose 6pin to Kobiconn Iris IC. I would also improve upon the CLAS cable as well. 
And if you have not custom cables yet, it seems you're using your SR71B in SE mode, which is a no-no!  SR71B was meant for balanced mode.


----------



## Uncle Erik

girls generation said:


> head injury said:
> 
> 
> > No, cables aren't worth it. It would be better to discuss why in the Sound Science forum.
> ...




You're making a false assumption. You are assuming that a difference exists.

_Quod erat demonstratum._

No one has ever demonstrated a difference that I am aware of. So go ahead and demonstrate a difference then we can move on to evaluating your assumption.

Though I'm curious, how do you change the frequency response without actually changin the frequency response? Cables don't change the frequency response, after all. The same signal comes out the other end. If it is the same signal, then how does it make a headphone develop a different response? After all, headphones (well, most of them) are a coil of wire and a magnet.

If a cable produces a certain effect with a coil and magnet, then how could it possibly produce the same result (allegedly) with transducers that work on entirely different electrical theories? I mean an electrostat is completely different from a dynamic; it works kind of like a capacitor. If a cable does something magical with a motor (which is pretty much what a dynamic is) then how does the same result come from a capacitor? Or a balanced armature, planar or AMT? They're all really, really different technologies. How could the magic effect be produced across everything?

That stinks of an imagined difference.

When you get away from the "I hear a difference" claims, nothing adds up with cables. Whenever you take the cable assumptions a step further you end up in impossibilities and nonsense. They sound plausible, like Bigfoot, but the more you look the less you'll find.

For example, a lightbulb will give off slightly different colors depending on the power it is fed. Alright, hook up a magical cable to power a lightbulb as well as an ordinary cable. Take a picture of each and then use Photoshop to see if there is a color difference. There won't be.

I can hear it now. "You're not using an audiophile grade lightbulb." "Your eyes suck." (Admittedly, I'm nearsighted and astigmatic; fortunately my hearing has held up.) "Your camera is cheap and not good enough." "You HATE lightbulbs!" And so on.

But whatever way you slice it, no matter the angle you approach it from, you end up with a whole lot of nothing. Though you will collect plenty of slings, arrows and accusations.

Oddly, the loudest voices and fiercest waving of hands is from those who sell cables.

Imagine that.

Oh, and yes, I have tried cables. I had a Silver Dragon and a Cardas for Sennheisers for a few years. No difference. They measured the same as the stock cables. They were nicely made and looked good, though. I think they were more durable than the stock cables, too. I eventually sold them.

Currently I run a silver Van Den Hul somethingorother between my tonearm and phonostage. It works. It doesn't measure differently from other cables. It came with the arm and works, so I leave it there. Maybe someday I'll build a replacement and sell it.


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> _Quod erat demonstratum._


 


  on a related note, how about interconnecting cables? another bunch of cowpat?


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


shure530 said:


> on a related note, how about interconnecting cables? another bunch of cowpat?


 
  Uh-huh.


----------



## TMM

They look pretty and cause a placebo effect. Reminds me of that thread where someone cut open some expensive power cable which ended up to be a regular power cable run through garden hose and filled with sand lol.


----------



## Chris_Himself

Oh hey, another cable thread.


----------



## Lenni

Yes, high-end audio cables matter. the same way a better amp, or source matters. I can’t say it’d matter to everybody, but it matters to me. are they necessary to enjoy a good system’s sound? not necessarily. but if you spent thousands on speakers and tried better cables and heard the difference they make to the sound is very likely that they'll matter to you too.
   
  I can’t say specifically of headphone cables as I’ve never tried it, but if I’d own a top hp I’d definitely re-cable it, after I'd taken care of the IC's. I’ve tried a few IC’s and speaker cables, and while I got mixed results... the last speaker cables I bought (Nordost Red Dawn) made a *huge* difference in the sound; it has to be heard to be believed. Was it worth what I paid for? I’m not completely satisfied with it so can’t say 100%; otherwise, yes,  it was... to me. best cables I’ve had to date.


----------



## Gatepc

Being someone who held no opinion one way or the other I went to a local hifi shop and brought my setup. I had been using standard monoprice cables and at the hifishop they had some of the top of the line Cardas Clear interconnects and Cardas clear USB cable. I hooked both up to my headphone setup and A/B them. The results? Well I can tell you they are not worth the price. Did I hear a difference? Well maybe but it was not my mind playing tricks on me the difference was very very minor for a cable that cost upwards of $4000... So even if their was a tiny tiny difference (which may have been placebo) I would say the money is better spent on higher end headphones,amps,dacs etc.


----------



## rawrster

I've tried some after market cables in the past and I heard no different upon A/B. However I am currently in the market of one for my custom but not because of sound. I look for ones that have better build quality as well as the plug that I like. Although it is expensive if it has the build quality I like among some other things i find it is worth it within a reasonable price. I don't hear any sound difference but if it did improve things i would not mind.


----------



## Girls Generation

gatepc said:


> Being someone who held no opinion one way or the other I went to a local hifi shop and brought my setup. I had been using standard monoprice cables and at the hifishop they had some of the top of the line Cardas Clear interconnects and Cardas clear USB cable. I hooked both up to my headphone setup and A/B them. The results? Well I can tell you they are not worth the price. Did I hear a difference? Well maybe but it was not my mind playing tricks on me the difference was very very minor for a cable that cost upwards of $4000... So even if their was a tiny tiny difference (which may have been placebo) I would say the money is better spent on higher end headphones,amps,dacs etc.




I found interconnects don't make much of a difference as opposed to headphone cables.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





gatepc said:


> Being someone who held no opinion one way or the other I went to a local hifi shop and brought my setup. I had been using standard monoprice cables and at the hifishop they had some of the top of the line Cardas Clear interconnects and Cardas clear USB cable. I hooked both up to my headphone setup and A/B them. The results? Well I can tell you they are not worth the price. Did I hear a difference? Well maybe but it was not my mind playing tricks on me the difference was very very minor for a cable that cost upwards of $4000... So even if their was a tiny tiny difference (which may have been placebo) I would say the money is better spent on higher end headphones,amps,dacs etc.


 


   
  well it's possible they didn't matter to you, or in your system. hard to say. however, I would've preferred if you had taken the cables home and tried for few days instead for few minutes at the audio store. I wouldn't agree that the money is better spent on dacs, amps etc. as they all equally matter. for sure, cables worth $4000 are not gonna make a $400 system sound like a $4000 system.


----------



## tim3320070

I have about $5000 in transport, preamp and amp all connected with about $50 in power cables, interconnects and speaker/headphone cable (mostly Monoprice or Mogami). I simply cannot wrap my head around the fact that recording studios use similar wire and we expect that there will be improvements on our end using different wire. What seems more sensible, using the same or similar wire to recording studios or $500-$5000 "elite" wire?


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





tim3320070 said:


> I have about $5000 in transport, preamp and amp all connected with about $50 in power cables, interconnects and speaker/headphone cable (mostly Monoprice or Mogami). I simply cannot wrap my head around the fact that recording studios use similar wire and we expect that there will be improvements on our end using different wire. What seems more sensible, using the same or similar wire to recording studios or $500-$5000 "elite" wire?


 

 I don't understand what is that got to do with anything. where’s the logic in that? so if use better speakers than the recording studio used they would make no difference – is that what you’re saying? IIRC, Q. Jones use the cheapest speakers he could find to record 'Thriller'.
   
  this discussion keeps going around, but come to it is always the same - have you tried high-end cables with your system? the answer is *not*. and there’s nothing wrong with that, you don’t have to, but please don’t give opinions on something that you haven’t tried.


----------



## Chicagoan

I was wondering about the exact same questions,, all of these are very helpful info. Thanks much!!


----------



## Girls Generation

lenni said:


> this discussion keeps going around, but come to it is always the same - have you tried high-end cables with your system? the answer is *not*. and there’s nothing wrong with that, you don’t have to, but please don’t give opinions on something that you haven’t tried.


 


x2

But some have heard and still do not perceive a difference. Weird, isn't it.


----------



## AudioDwebe

Personally, I'm a firm believer in cables making a difference.  But this difference is quite suble, at best, and you've got to have a remarkably revealing system to realize that difference. 
   
  I find this to be the case in home audio.
   
  As for headpone related products, my guess is that this difference would be even more slight.  But I'm not qualified to give an opinion, as I've never swapped cables out in this arena.
   
  My guess is that upgrading the cable should probably be the last upgrade one makes.


----------



## Girls Generation

audiodwebe said:


> My guess is that upgrading the cable should probably be the last upgrade one makes.




Unless one would like to use the balanced out of his/her SR71B or PB2.


----------



## cn11

Quote: 





chris_himself said:


> Oh hey, another cable thread.


 

 Uhhhh, yup...... j-o-y.


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





cn11 said:


> Uhhhh, yup...... j-o-y.


 

 wait, why would the manufacturers of say LCD-2 or HD800 use 'cheap' cables? wouldn't those stock cables be the best cables they produce for the headphone?


----------



## andrewberge

Not sure who you're quoting there for "cheap", but if there is no difference in sound from one cable to another, there is a difference in design and build quality.
  In that domain everyone has different needs, so there is no 'best', really.


----------



## tim3320070

Quote: 





lenni said:


> I don't understand what is that got to do with anything. where’s the logic in that? so if use better speakers than the recording studio used they would make no difference – is that what you’re saying? IIRC, Q. Jones use the cheapest speakers he could find to record 'Thriller'.
> 
> this discussion keeps going around, but come to it is always the same - have you tried high-end cables with your system? the answer is *not*. and there’s nothing wrong with that, you don’t have to, but please don’t give opinions on something that you haven’t tried.


 

 How do you know what I've tried? Wait, do you have a camera in here somewhere?....dammit, got to find it before my deepest secrets are revealed.


----------



## TheGame21x

In my opinion, nope.

 The only reason I can see myself upgrading from cheaper cables is purely for aesthetics, ergonomics or usability. I wouldn't expect to hear an audible difference between a cheap monoporice cable and one of those stupidly expensive boutique cables.
   
  Just my opinion though and if I do come across a cable that I hear an actual audible difference from that's not influenced by the placebo effect, I'll be happy to change it.


----------



## TheGame21x

Quote: 





shure530 said:


> wait, why would the manufacturers of say LCD-2 or HD800 use 'cheap' cables? wouldn't those stock cables be the best cables they produce for the headphone?


 


  This has always bugged me.
   
  I can't see why Sennheiser or Audeze would spend so much time designing a top-of-the-line headphone and then intentionally cripple it with a mediocre cable.


----------



## Girls Generation

I don't think it necessarily "cripples" the sound. More like, the nice cables improve upon it.


----------



## Elysian

Even if upgrading headphone cable helps, I don't see how a silver wired LCD-2 makes any difference when the wiring inside the LCD-2 is reportedly copper.


----------



## tim3320070

Quote: 





thegame21x said:


> This has always bugged me.
> 
> I can't see why Sennheiser or Audeze would spend so much time designing a top-of-the-line headphone and then intentionally cripple it with a mediocre cable.


 

 He was being ironic. Hopefully you are too.


----------



## Girls Generation

tim3320070 said:


> He was being ironic. Hopefully you are too.




Oops didn't read the "intentionally" part.


----------



## Gwarmi

Here's another spanner in the works concerning upgraded/braided USB cables for
  source devices like DAC's.
   
  I'm currently using a $20AUD USB Type A to B 5mm thick copper item from a reasonable retailer down here called
  Jay-Car, I bench marked this cable against a freebie, spindly looking thing that came with a UPS I bought a little
  while ago.
   
  The 'cheapy' drops out every now and then and is more or less unusable, it just stutters and fumbles it's way
  through each track. Clearly a case of it's bandwidth not coping.
   
  Does this mean I'll see an improvement with a $180AUD Cardas USB over my $20 gold plated item? Probably not,
  but I've still got one on the way nonetheless. <Shrug> my loss I guess..


----------



## scootermafia

I've taken apart my LCD2s.  The wiring inside is pure silver.
   
  Quote: 





elysian said:


> Even if upgrading headphone cable helps, I don't see how a silver wired LCD-2 makes any difference when the wiring inside the LCD-2 is reportedly copper.


----------



## Girls Generation

scootermafia said:


> I've taken apart my LCD2s.  The wiring inside is pure silver.





There you have it.


----------



## Elysian

Great.  We need balanced 24k gold lines for LCD-2s now.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





lenni said:


> well it's possible they didn't matter to you, or in your system. hard to say. however, I would've preferred if you had taken the cables home and tried for few days instead for few minutes at the audio store. I wouldn't agree that the money is better spent on dacs, amps etc. as they all equally matter. for sure, cables worth $4000 are not gonna make a $400 system sound like a $4000 system.


 


  This statement is completely contradictory. You say $4000 cables can't make a $400 system sound like a $4000 one, but say cables are equally as important as an amp, dac, etc? Obviously not, even by your own admission. Money is almost always better spent on a dac, amp, etc.


----------



## Gatepc

tmars78 said:


> This statement is completely contradictory. You say $4000 cables can't make a $400 system sound like a $4000 one, but say cables are equally as important as an amp, dac, etc? Obviously not, even by your own admission. Money is almost always better spent on a dac, amp, etc.




Sorry for the slow reply (at school) anyway that's what I was thinking when I read the post.


----------



## Danamr

Quote: 





lenni said:


> this discussion keeps going around, but come to it is always the same - have you tried high-end cables with your system? the answer is *not*. and there’s nothing wrong with that, you don’t have to, but please don’t give opinions on something that you haven’t tried.


 

 I keep seeing this and it makes no since.
  Do you really think, say, a HD650 with a $500 cable on it is anything other than a HD650? 
  Are seriously saying you should spend big money on cables before you you upgrade the rest of your system?
  Come on, even people who believe in cable magic admit that they are the last few percent of tweaking you do after you have the major parts in place. If the cost of your wire is a significant % of your total system cost, you are not getting good value for your money.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





danamr said:


> I keep seeing this and it makes no since.
> Do you really think, say, a HD650 with a $500 cable on it is anything other than a HD650?
> Are seriously saying you should spend big money on cables before you you upgrade the rest of your system?
> Come on, even people who believe in cable magic admit that they are the last few percent of tweaking you do after you have the major parts in place. If the cost of your wire is a significant % of your total system cost, you are not getting good value for your money.


 


  Especially regarding the HD 650 since it upscales so nicely with a great source and high end solid state amp. 
  Cable should be the last finishing touch on that rig.


----------



## SHURE530

huh, on a related note audeze and sennheiser does not produce any 'upgraded cables' for their headphones. i suppose that in itself means something.............


----------



## Girls Generation

I don't think their main focus is cables, and they probably do not really want to get into aftermarket cabling mainly because there aren't many manufacturers that focus on supreme quality cabling and design. So I think they left that up to the DIYers/MOTs to handle the cable market since high quality cables is really only assured by hand-making them with good soldering experience. That's most likely why the high end headphones have detachable cables instead of hard wired ones. 

And you're still going to want an aftermarket cable to use your sr71b to its fullest potential in balanced or there wouldn't be much point in your spending the extra money on a balanced amp.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> This statement is completely contradictory. You say $4000 cables can't make a $400 system sound like a $4000 one, but say cables are equally as important as an amp, dac, etc? Obviously not, even by your own admission. Money is almost always better spent on a dac, amp, etc.


 


  contradictory? the differences the nordost speaker cables made to the system were on par (though in different ways) to differences the dac made. Considering what the dac cost, I’d say the cables were a bargain.
   
  but then, according to you "science priests" everything sound about the same... so ymiwyw
   
   
  I really wish to say more about this... unfortunately I’ve got priorities. my apologies


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





lenni said:


> contradictory? the differences the nordost speaker cables made to the system were on par (though in different ways) to differences the dac made. Considering what the dac cost, I’d say the cables were a bargain.
> 
> but then, according to you "science priests" everything sound about the same... so ymiwyw
> 
> ...


 


  So you've come up with one example. A subjective one at that. That doesn't make what he said any less contradictory.


----------



## Currawong

I'm going to warn you guys_ in advance_: Don't start getting personal with each other on this topic. Respect each other's opinions and, most importantly, each other. Ultimately it's a topic the answer of which people can only decide for themselves. Again, presenting your opinion (as _that is all it is_, whether you like it or not -- the one genuine fact that you'll never escape no matter how much you don't like it) is fine. Trashing other people because they don't agree is not.
   
  Carry on.


----------



## Chris_Himself

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I'm going to warn you guys_ in advance_: Don't start getting personal with each other on this topic. Respect each other's opinions and, most importantly, each other. Ultimately it's a topic the answer of which people can only decide for themselves. Again, presenting your opinion (as _that is all it is_, whether you like it or not -- the one genuine fact that you'll never escape no matter how much you don't like it) is fine. Trashing other people because they don't agree is not.
> 
> Carry on.


 


  Always can count on you to save the day haha


----------



## Gwarmi

I'll be comparing my current 4mm gauge copper USB Type A to B cable vs a ALO variant very soon,
  hopefully next week. That should throw some fuel into the fire, feel free to vent the vitriol at that time!


----------



## DaveBSC

Aaaaand here we go again. I've had many years of experience on this subject, and here's what I can tell you. Are there published AES papers proving that high-end cables make a difference? No. Can you hook up a cable to a meter, and have it spit out a different number than another cable? Yes you can. Inductance, capacitance, and resistance figures will vary quite widely, and you can change them just by arranging the same wires in a different fashion. Do certain wire arrangements have an effect on resistance to outside noise? Yep. "Star-quad" for example is very good at noise rejection. Frequency response in a very broad sense (think DC-100KHz+) can vary between cables. 
   
  Cables tend to fail double blind tests. Guess what - so do amplifiers, cd players, etc. Just about any audio related product other than loudspeakers will fail double blind tests, and I suspect even speakers with similar designs and response figures will probably fail as well.
   
  Why would Sennheiser or anyone else use an under performing cable? Why do Canon or Nikon include a crappy $200 kit lens with their $2,000 DSLRs? Aren't they crippling their own cameras? Kind of, yeah. If all you ever shoot with is the kit lens, you aren't really getting your money's worth. If they included $2,000 pro grade lenses in their kits, well that would double the price of the camera, wouldn't it?
   
  Cables are like any other audio product. There are some great values out there, and there are some really poor values as well. $300 or $500 doesn't automatically get you to certain level of additional performance, regardless of brand or design. That's like saying, what if I spend $500 on "a headphone", will it sound way better than what I have? I don't know. What kind is it, who makes it?
   
  S/Pdif cables are in my experience by far the easiest to understand. Use the best possible conductor (solid core silver, as pure as possible). Use an insulator with the lowest possible resistance, one that gets as close as possible to a vacuum with no insulator (foam teflon). Build it so that it so that impedance maintains 75 Ohms from tip to tip, which means 75 Ohm connectors. This can be done for about $100/m. Unless you have source equipment well into the 5 figure range, I wouldn't bother spending more than that on a digital cable.
   
  With every other type of cable, there is no "right way" to do anything. The possibilities are near endless. Of the cables I've tried starting at the bottom in terms of price, Signal Cable's Silver Resolution gets a heck of a lot right for the money. Going up from there, I've found Audio-Magic's Excalibur series to be very impressive. The newest entry level Kimber Selects are very good. At the high-end, I like Kubala Sosna, Siltech, and Jorma the most. There's also a lot of stuff out there that's very expensive, and lousy (looking at you, Nordost).
   
  USB cables are still a black art, and the best ones are made by very small companies. I don't think the big guys (Cardas, Kimber, Audioquest) really "get" them yet. This is why its so unfortunate that Locus Design is gone, theirs were pretty much universally regarded as the best USB cables on the market. Ridge Street Audio will now have to try and carry that torch.


----------



## Girls Generation

davebsc said:


> -snip-




I'm looking at VH Audio's Pulsar Ag for my coaxial.

http://www.vhaudio.com/wire.html#vhpulsar


----------



## Parall3l

What about balanced cables ? They will make an audible difference right ? At least thats what I thought.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> What about balanced cables ? They will make an audible difference right ? At least thats what I thought.


 

 Balanced cables themselves wouldn't do anything without a balanced amp. Balanced amps only sound different if they're designed to sound different, as far as I know. No one's convinced me otherwise, at least. Balanced systems have advantages and disadvantages, all of which seem to be present in some single-ended amps as well.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> What about balanced cables ? They will make an audible difference right ? At least thats what I thought.


 

 If the component uses fully balanced topology, there may be some benefit. Many components are "quasi-balanced" via a phase splitter. With those it makes no difference. Balanced cables also deal with noise better when used in very long runs.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> I'm looking at VH Audio's Pulsar Ag for my coaxial.
> http://www.vhaudio.com/wire.html#vhpulsar


 


  The Pulsar Ag ticks all the right boxes. VH also carries the Neotech NEVD-2001 which is a really nice digital coax cable. They may be willing to terminate it for a fee. I know Take Five Audio offers the Neotech pre-terminated, or you could buy a bulk run of it, and then send it to somebody like Drew at Moon Audio and have them terminate it with whatever connector you want.


----------



## Chris_Himself

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> What about balanced cables ? They will make an audible difference right ? At least thats what I thought.


 


  They can and have in my experience.


----------



## scootermafia

In the future, head-fi will have an algorithm that analyzes your posts along with the list of gear you're personally familiar with, and auto deletes posts that are just made up bias and have no basis in personal experience.


----------



## IPodPJ

Quote: 





scootermafia said:


> In the future, head-fi will have an algorithm that analyzes your posts along with the list of gear you're personally familiar with, and auto deletes posts that are just made up bias and have no basis in personal experience.


 


  Sounds reasonable.


----------



## Gwarmi

News just in,
   
  Just benching my new Nordost Blue Heaven 1metre USB versus my old 1.5 4mm copper USB cable
   
  Nordost has eradicated any clipping I was getting earlier on some recordings and there appears to
  be a little more sound stage depth.
   
  All in all, pretty positive which for the small sum paid.


----------



## Chris_Himself

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> News just in,
> 
> Just benching my new Nordost Blue Heaven 1metre USB versus my old 1.5 4mm copper USB cable
> 
> ...


 

 Thats really interesting, I've usually dismissed most digital cables, this is an interesting datapoint!


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> News just in,
> 
> Just benching my new Nordost Blue Heaven 1metre USB versus my old 1.5 4mm copper USB cable
> 
> ...


 

  
  Must've been a *really* old cable


----------



## Uncle Erik

gwarmi said:


> News just in,
> 
> Just benching my new Nordost Blue Heaven 1metre USB versus my old 1.5 4mm copper USB cable
> 
> ...




Clipping?

Sorry, that is not possible with a cable.

If it were, there would be _measurable_ amounts of power differences.

There is no possible way that a cable could make the difference without there being significant, measurable, differences in power transmission.


----------



## Gwarmi

<Shrug>
   
  Not a cable sympathizer or hater either way, just after small incremental benefits where ever possible
  concerning my rig.
   
  Could be a faulty cheapy and just bad manufacturing - one thing that I noticed was that the
  Nordost came with plastic caps to be removed before installation, the square-B plastic cap did not fit
  over the square end of the cheapy when I went to put it away.
   
  This explains why I always thought the the DAC end connection felt a little loose, perhaps this
  played a part in the clipping even though there was no movement?
   
  What this proves is that perhaps, the cheapy (not so cheap, $20AUD infact) may in fact have
  been incorrectly made. There is no question that the Nordost provides a more snug connection
  at the DAC end.
   
  Someone else is no doubt probably sitting out there in Head-Fi land with the exact same cable
  and Arcam rDAC blissfully unaware.
   
  So in summing up I have 3 x USB A to B cables,
   
  The cheap USB cable that came with my UPS ~ this is not usable, it just clips all through
  a track.
   
  The still cheap $20AUD 4mm copper USB cable, occasional clipping, suspect poor manufacture
  on the apparently undersized B square end.
   
  The Nordost.
   
  Wish you guys were over here for an audition ~ it's clear as daylight, the sound stage may be
  placebo but loud squawking in my ear from the other two cheapies is not.


----------



## uelover

It is a blessing to your wallet, always, to be unable to find any difference between cables. =)


----------



## kiteki

Can you connect audiophile USB cables to printers?


----------



## Head Injury

Yeah, they give you smoother whites and darker blacks.


----------



## fatcat28037

It seems to me that if replacing a headphone cable so vastly improves a phones performance the manufacturer would have used a better cable to begin with. They want to sell headphones, so it stands to reason they'd want their product to sound a good as it can.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Can you connect audiophile USB cables to printers?


 


  Your printer will print out musical scores and starts singing =)


----------



## Pudu

My cable philosophy:

Whether the cable affects sound or not (either through physics or psychology), if you are in search of a better/different sound, and given the price of some aftermarket cables, it makes more sense putting that wampum into an upgrade of cans first and then amp. Don't get me wrong. I have a beautiful aftermarket cable - but I got it because I needed a second cable and for the difference in price between the one I got and stock, mine is significantly better in terms of aesthetics, feel, ergonomics, and microphonics.


My answer to the original question would be that another cable might affect the sound 'you hear' and it might not. Don't invest a lot expecting big, if any, changes.There are good reasons to get a cable but paying a lot of money to tweak the sound a tiny bit isn't the way to go. Spend your cash in the way that gives you the most pleasure and satisfaction.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





fatcat28037 said:


> It seems to me that if replacing a headphone cable so vastly improves a phones performance the manufacturer would have used a better cable to begin with. They want to sell headphones, so it stands to reason they'd want their product to sound a good as it can.


 

 That's why Vsonic use silver cables, they're a good manufacturer.
   
It's all part of their "mighty research", they don't have "thirty middle or high-ranking professionals" for nothing, "three high-ranking engineers and three professional timbre evaluation experts", of course they use silver? FATCAT?
   
"Experienced earphone design experts who had once studied in Japan are also included."
   
"modernized dustless workshop, advanced computerized checking and analyzing system which were all imported from Japan." (they imported their workshop from Japan)
   
"A management system which is operated on the spot and centered on 5s management"
   
*source*: http://www.vsonic.com.cn/company/company-profile.htm
   
  I think the GR02 (not GR07) is seriously underrated, have you ever seen a $27 earphone with a *silver cabel*? It's right here http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Genuin-VSONIC-R02PRO-Silver-Cord-earphone-GR02-IPod-MP3-Newly-Version-/140620262943
   
  More info on GR02 here: http://www.vsonic.com.cn/product/GR02.htm
   
  " the new GR02 ‘silver cable edition’ has been retuned and manufactured under stricter standard using Brüel & Kjær Head and Torso Simulator (HATS) and SoundCheck software audio measurement system to achieve channel balance of less than 2dB apart and ensure the highest fidelity for each earphone.
· Newly developed high strength composite heat resisting diaphragm with better damping and shorter phase delay to further improve the sound quality
· High quality silver cable (composed of 20 individual strands of silver wire each on the left and right channels and 28 strands of silver wires on the ground channel) preserves the fidelity of the signal during the transmission.
· Optimized for CD, MP3 players, cellphone and portable gami"


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The Vsonic webiste has lots of hype but like all others fails as they cannot show a link between a cable and sound qaulity differences. More of that here -
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link
   
  These debates would progess more if we recognise that some people hear a difference between cables and others do not, so the real question is why does that happen? The divide then becomes whether there is something inherent in a cable that can affect sound quality and whether there is not. I say the evidence is that there is nothing inherent in acbale that can casue sound quality differences. Breifly the reasons for that are
   
  - inconsistency, according to those who do hear a difference and cable makers all ways of making a cable are capable of creating better sound quality than other cables amde a different way and with different materials. How can that make an objective truth that cable construction affects sound quality? It strongly suggests subjective opinion on what cables sound better than others.
   
  - the missing link between the properties of a cable and sound quality. For example, if skin effect affected sound quality more or less skin effect on a cable would be directly correlated to say a deeper bass which can then be measured. But nothing like that exists.
   
  - the results of listening tests, of which you need to be on the Sound Science part of the forum to discuss.
   
  - that placebo effect, buyer justification and other in the listener and not the cable reasons do explain why some hear a difference and others do not and why those who hear a difference disagree on what the differences are.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





chris_himself said:


> Thats really interesting, I've usually dismissed most digital cables, this is an interesting datapoint!


 

 In my experience, S/Pdif cables sound noticeably better, the more ingredients you get right. Hit most or all of them with a cable like the NEVD-2001, and you've got at least a near perfect cable. I suspect I would have quite a bit of trouble distinguishing between an $80 run of NEVD-2001, and Audioquest Wild or Siltech Golden Ridge at 25X the cost.
   
  USB cables are a completely different animal. When you use them with hard drives or printers, they transfer in what's called "block" mode. The most expensive USB cable in the world will not make your printer print better, or make your hard drive transfer any faster. Real time audio streaming is different. Imagine if instead of S/Pdif, a CD player sent both power and the digital audio stream to a DAC through one multi-pin cable, something like a VGA cable. Oh, and did I mention the power provided by the CD player is full of noise? The pins for power and signal are right next to each other, and the power and signal are not separated inside the cable. Terrible idea right? That's exactly how USB works. It wasn't designed to be a high-end audio streaming medium, and in order to get it to work that way, you have to kind of adapt around its limitations. Locus Design helped to pioneer the idea of physically separating the power and signal legs inside the cable, and Ridge Street and Acoustic Revive have now taken that a step further and used two separate runs entirely.
   
  That still leaves the problem of signal and power sharing the same connector though, so they've partially solved that issue by splitting the source end into two separate power and signal connectors. You still end up at the same place at the other end, but it's better than not doing it. If you combine that with asynchronous mode operation and galvanic isolation, you can solve *most* of the issues with USB streaming. The only way to really get it right is to simply not use the power supplied by USB at all.


----------



## Girls Generation

fatcat28037 said:


> It seems to me that if replacing a headphone cable so vastly improves a phones performance the manufacturer would have used a better cable to begin with. They want to sell headphones, so it stands to reason they'd want their product to sound a good as it can.






girls generation said:


> I don't think their main focus is cables, and they probably do not really want to get into aftermarket cabling mainly because there aren't many manufacturers that focus on supreme quality cabling and design. So I think they left that up to the DIYers/MOTs to handle the cable market since high quality cables is really only assured by hand-making them with good soldering experience. That's most likely why the high end headphones have detachable cables instead of hard wired ones.
> And you're still going to want an aftermarket cable to use your sr71b to its fullest potential in balanced or there wouldn't be much point in your spending the extra money on a balanced amp.





==========================================

It disgusts me how some people here are just set on expressing their beliefs without first-hand experience. It's one thing to deny hearing a difference cables, but a whole nother to vehemently presume, and shoot down anyone who says otherwise.
I really do feel sorry for your ears, but just because YOU cannot hear it does not mean you should go around trying to persuade others that they cannot hear it either. 
Just because things are not quantifiably measureable does not mean it's impossible; I don't know what happened in your life to be so one-dimensional. Just because the bitterness of coffee is not mathematically measureable on a graph, does not mean every cup of coffee in the world will be equally bitter.
You're pathetic, and you know who you are if you're reading this.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





andrewberge said:


> The problem with that is that the only ones who get the high end cables are the ones who believe they make a difference.
> You probably won't get the most objective answers.


 


  The other problem is the placebo effect and buyer justification.
   
  Every day, hundreds of people send thousands of dollars of "earnest money" to recently orphaned sons/daughters of  African princes, diplomats and corrupt government officials in order to  assist, for a commission, these wealthy orphans expatriate millions of dollars and/or relocate to a free country in furtherance of their educations.  It is estimated that less than 1/2 of one percent of these good Samaritans ever report their experience to the authorities once circumstances force them to accept the fact that they have been scammed.  If questioned, a significant percentage would deny it altogether.  No one likes to admit getting ripped off, especially as a result of doing something for which there was doubt or second thoughts, or despite being warned by others, or in the course of a dubious transaction.  When it happens, it is human nature for people to perform tremendous feats of unconscious psychological acrobatics and self-delusion in order to minimize or deny their loss.
   
  This is not to say the work or don't. It's just that the people who have bought them are exactly the wrong people to ask.
   
  Just sayin'


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





fatcat28037 said:


> It seems to me that if replacing a headphone cable so vastly improves a phones performance the manufacturer would have used a better cable to begin with. They want to sell headphones, so it stands to reason they'd want their product to sound a good as it can.


 

 Funny, Denon does exactly that. The cable supplied with the D7000 is significantly better than the one supplied with the D2000. Now why would Denon spend even a penny more on the D7000 cable if there was no difference in the sound between the two?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> The other problem is that buying the high end cables creates a placebo effect of its own and introduces yet another phenomenon that probably has a name, of which I am unaware.  I think of it as reverse buyers remorse, a sort of cognitive dissonance that goes something like this:  Only stupid people spend big money on stuff that doesn't work. => I'm not stupid. ==> I spent big money on this ==> It works.


 

 Riddle me this then sir. Let's say I spend exactly $500 on cables from two different manufacturers. Same type of cable, same price, just two different brands. The both look equally pretty, and are both backed by marketing fluff and positive reviews. I think one sounds great, and the other does not. Please explain how the placebo effect is working there. All factors are the same, the only variable is brand and design. If all cables sound the same, $500 cable 1 MUST sound the same as the $5 Monoprice equivalent, and $500 cable 2 MUST sound the same as the two other cables. If I'm comparing just one $500 cable to a Monoprice cable and I decide the $500 cable sounds better, fine you can write that off as placebo. You'd be wrong, but you'd have an argument.
   
  How does placebo work when one expensive cable beats another though? Shouldn't they sound the same? How am I tricking myself if they are both expensive? I'm still waiting for a cogent argument on this.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Funny, Denon does exactly that. The cable supplied with the D7000 is significantly better than the one supplied with the D2000. Now why would Denon spend even a penny more on the D7000 cable if there was no difference in the sound between the two?


 


  What do you mean by "significantly better"?  Better contacts? soldering? covering? microphonics? aesthetics? Those are a few reasons, other than sound, they'd spend more on the D7000 cable.


----------



## Willakan

To sell it to audiophiles. AKG's flagship have ultra-high purity copper cables - somehow I doubt that's because the engineers thought it would make it sound better.
   
  Cables are very cheap in parts and allow you to put a "Uber Cable of Win" as one of the product's selling points. "Improved" cables is just the sort of thing reviewers actually pick out in their reviews and praise for "attention to detail."


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> ==========================================
> It disgusts me how some people here are just set on expressing their beliefs without first-hand experience. It's one thing to deny hearing a difference cables, but a whole nother to vehemently presume, and shoot down anyone who says otherwise.
> I really do feel sorry for your ears, but just because YOU cannot hear it does not mean you should go around trying to persuade others that they cannot hear it either.
> Just because things are not quantifiably measureable does not mean it's impossible; I don't know what happened in your life to be so one-dimensional. Just because the bitterness of coffee is not mathematically measureable on a graph, does not mean every cup of coffee in the world will be equally bitter.
> You're pathetic, and you know who you are if you're reading this.


 

 I agree. We have to get away from the nonsense spouted in denying no one can hear a difference between cables. People clearly can. Cable deabtes are continually ruined by such and they avoid the real issue of what causes some to hear a difference and others not to.


----------



## Pudu

The end of Cable Wars

Those who know the truth about cable improvements, when asked just give your opinion that they make a difference. Then go back to listening to your music with the confident knowledge that you're right and enjoying the best possible sound.

 and

Those who know the truth about cable improvements, when asked just give your opinion that there are better ways to spend your cash. Then go back to listening to your music with the confident knowledge that you're right and enjoying the best possible sound.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Riddle me this then sir. Let's say I spend exactly $500 on cables from two different manufacturers. Same type of cable, same price, just two different brands. The both look equally pretty, and are both backed by marketing fluff and positive reviews. I think one sounds great, and the other does not. Please explain how the placebo effect is working there. All factors are the same, the only variable is brand and design. If all cables sound the same, $500 cable 1 MUST sound the same as the $5 Monoprice equivalent, and $500 cable 2 MUST sound the same as the two other cables. If I'm comparing just one $500 cable to a Monoprice cable and I decide the $500 cable sounds better, fine you can write that off as placebo. You'd be wrong, but you'd have an argument.
> 
> How does placebo work when one expensive cable beats another though? Shouldn't they sound the same? How am I tricking myself if they are both expensive? I'm still waiting for a cogent argument on this.


 


  Because there are many other factors that could determine which cable you think is best, at any given moment.  If you could consistently identify the same cable, among two identical looking cables with similar levels of quality, in a double blind test, you'd have something.  I've never heard of that being done.
   
  I'm willing to conceded the possibility of perceivable differences between a $5 and $500 cable. A $5 cable might have poor connections, poor fitting connectors or other gross QC deficiencies. Other properties, such as aesthetics and covering, that don't necessarily affect the sound may be far better on the $500 cable.  But, I have a harder time believing that there are perceptible SQ differences between, for example, a $100 cable and a $500 cable. BTW, analog cables may be a different case.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Riddle me this then sir. Let's say I spend exactly $500 on cables from two different manufacturers. Same type of cable, same price, just two different brands. The both look equally pretty, and are both backed by marketing fluff and positive reviews. I think one sounds great, and the other does not. Please explain how the placebo effect is working there. All factors are the same, the only variable is brand and design. If all cables sound the same, $500 cable 1 MUST sound the same as the $5 Monoprice equivalent, and $500 cable 2 MUST sound the same as the two other cables. If I'm comparing just one $500 cable to a Monoprice cable and I decide the $500 cable sounds better, fine you can write that off as placebo. You'd be wrong, but you'd have an argument.
> 
> How does placebo work when one expensive cable beats another though? Shouldn't they sound the same? How am I tricking myself if they are both expensive? I'm still waiting for a cogent argument on this.


 

 I do not think placebo is the only cause and it may not even be the cause, it may be something else instead. But I do think the cause is with the listener and not inherantly in the cable as we have ruled out how cables are made, what they are made with and the electrical properties of cables being the cause.


----------



## Girls Generation

Unsubscribing. Too many people here commenting on cables being all placebo when they themselves have not tried a high end cable, nor have sat down long enough to really hear the difference. There's no doubt it's not going to be a sudden change and a wow factor, but unless your ears are underprivileged, if you sit for a while listening to music, then switch back, there's a possibility that you'll notice the difference. However, you people choose not to, because everything must be quantifiable, no?
Give a listen to some nice headphone cables like a TWag v2 or DHC RS Silver, and then come back and comment. Otherwise, you've absolutely no right to cantankerously project your opinions on to others, attemping to clearly define a "right" and "wrong."
Not everything in the world is measureable on paper, but that does not mean it's not possible. Read my coffee analogy.
I'm out. I gave up all hope when an obnoxious Mod started saying stuff like, "CLIPPING? I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE." All I could say to that was, herp derp.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I do not think placebo is the only cause and it may not even be the cause, it may be something else instead. But I do think the cause is with the listener and not inherantly in the cable as we have ruled out how cables are made, what they are made with and the electrical properties of cables being the cause.


 


  In order for the placebo effect to happen, the subject has to know something about at least one of the cables.  AFAIK, there have been no double blind tests done that would rule out the placebo effect and show that someone, anyone, can distinguish between 2 cables, both properly functional but with widely varying price.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Girls Generation please do not let the trolls drive you away. Those of us who gathered evidence know people can and do hear a difference between cables and differences can be heard between two cheap ones, not just cheap and expensive.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> In order for the placebo effect to happen, the subject has to know something about at least one of the cables.  AFAIK, there have been no double blind tests done that would rule out the placebo effect and show that someone, anyone, can distinguish between 2 cables, both properly functional but with widely varying price.


 

 The results between different types of listening tests are very consistent. Beyond that such discussion should take place eleswhere.


----------



## Antony6555

Cables are a matter of faith, or they are treated that way by "believers." If you want to know, just try it for yourself since someone's else personal, subjective experience is just that and won't necessarily determine your experience
   
  This thread has already been discussed a thousand plus times, and since it's not in sound science we cannot even go into the evidence. So it's really a waste of space here...


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> Unsubscribing. Too many people here commenting on cables being all placebo when they themselves have not tried a high end cable, nor have sat down long enough to really hear the difference. There's no doubt it's not going to be a sudden change and a wow factor, but unless your ears are underprivileged, if you sit for a while listening to music, then switch back, there's a possibility that you'll notice the difference. However, you people choose not to, because everything must be quantifiable, no?
> Give a listen to some nice headphone cables like a TWag v2 or DHC RS Silver, and then come back and comment. Otherwise, you've absolutely no right to cantankerously project your opinions on to others, attemping to clearly define a "right" and "wrong."
> Not everything in the world is measureable on paper, but that does not mean it's not possible. Read my coffee analogy.
> I'm out. I gave up all hope when an obnoxious Mod started saying stuff like, "CLIPPING? I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE." All I could say to that was, herp derp.


 


  Sorry, your coffee analogy doesn't hold up.  There are indeed quantifiable properties in coffee that are known to affect the taste. These can be measured objectively.  It is the taste itself that is subjective.  Whether one person finds a certain property desirable or not is a different issue, but they can be measured.  What is the analog to cables?  Putting aside the issue of whether a particular property is good or bad, what  properties of different cables can be measured and shown to be more or less prevalent in high-end cables?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> Because there are many other factors that could determine which cable you think is best, at any given moment.  If you could consistently identify the same cable, among two identical looking cables with similar levels of quality


 
   
  And those factors are what? Again, still waiting for a real argument on this. The only thing ABX tests prove is that those tests don't work. If you demand an ABX test to prove a difference, and you accept its conclusions, than you MUST ACCEPT that there is no difference between any amplifier or CD player. There is also no difference between analog and digital recordings, and no difference between 16/44 and 24/96. ABX tests have "proven" those things all to be true. If you do not accept those conclusions, than you are being disingenuous.
   
  Uncle Erik buys into that idea whole hog, that everything sounds like everything else. He's wrong, but at least he's being consistent.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> And those factors are what? Again, still waiting for a real argument on this. The only thing ABX tests prove is that those tests don't work. If you demand an ABX test to prove a difference, and you accept its conclusions, than you MUST ACCEPT that there is no difference between any amplifier or CD player. There is also no difference between analog and digital recordings, and no difference between 16/44 and 24/96. ABX tests have "proven" those things all to be true. If you do not accept those conclusions, than you are being disingenuous.
> 
> Uncle Erik buys into that idea whole hog, that everything sounds like everything else. He's wrong, but at least he's being consistent.


 


  That is only true if all such testing finds no difference, but it does not as there are positive tests out there. You need to do some reading up on the subject. But as Antony6555 points out, we cannot discuss that further here.


----------



## JRG1990

I agree everything solid-state sounds pretty much the same, unless theres audiable defects like high disortion or noise or frequency roll off, but some amps do interact differently with certain headphones due to output impedance.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The answer to the original question is that yes they do matter, to some people, some of the time with some kit. But you will not know if you are one of those who will get the benefit until you try yourself. I am a sceptic regarding claims about cables, but I can still hear differences when I know what I am listening to. When I do not know what I am listening to, those differences disappear.
   
  Ignore those who say cables do not sound different as much as you should ignore those who make pseudoscientific claims for high end cables.


----------



## J0nny

This topic was already very well worn out on "HD650, the veil is gone!" Lets not let it blow up like that one did. Plus, shouldn't this be in Sound Science? And why are all cable aficionados so reluctant to post any scientific measurements or results of ABX testing? To me, all this points to one conclusion...


----------



## JRG1990

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> The answer to the original question is that yes they do matter, to some people, some of the time with some kit. But you will not know if you are one of those who will get the benefit until you try yourself. I am a sceptic regarding claims about cables, but I can still hear differences when I know what I am listening to. When I do not know what I am listening to, those differences disappear.
> 
> Ignore those who say cables do not sound different as much as you should ignore those who make pseudoscientific claims for high end cables.


 
   
  I still can't hear differences in cables or dacs/ cd players even when I know what I am listening to, minus optical cables in which case I am pretty sure my glass core 1 sounds better than my plastic core 1 maybe placebo maybe real differences I'm not sure because I don't know that much about opitcal cables.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

And that is what we should be looking into, not going over old ground yet again.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> The answer to the original question is that yes they do matter, to some people, some of the time with some kit. But you will not know if you are one of those who will get the benefit until you try yourself. I am a sceptic regarding claims about cables, but I can still hear differences when I know what I am listening to. When I do not know what I am listening to, those differences disappear.


 
   
  Agreed pretty much. I honestly don't know why I keep wasting my time with these threads, the arguments are always the same, and minds are never changed. I think part of the reason ABX tests generally fail is that people are brought in to listen to an unfamiliar system, with unfamiliar music. I also suspect that the switching in most cases simply takes FAR too long. Unless the switch from A to B to X is either instant or at least close to it, the results are worthless.
   
  When I evaluate cables or anything else, I'm using my system that I'm very familiar with, and tracks that I know backwards and forwards and that I've picked specifically because they stand out in one area or another. I have reference tracks that I use to test treble response, reference tracks for soundstaging, reference tracks for midrange body and warmth, and reference tracks for bass.
   
  If somebody just brought me into a room, played a bit of classical music, made me wait two minutes in silence while cables were switched, and then played that same bit of music again, I'd probably fail to be able to distinguish between anything too.


----------



## Girls Generation

deleted


----------



## Prog Rock Man

If switching has to be instant, why buy a 'better sounding cable' at all?
   
  In real life the switch will not be instant, so if you say you would not be able to hear a difference unless the switching is not instant, how can you hear one in normal listening conditions?
   
  Surly a high end cable, particularly because of its cost and sound enhancing properties should sound differnece and indeed better no matter what.
   
  That goes back to my post on reasons why cable claims do not stack up, they are inconsistent, so have nothing to do with the cable itself.


----------



## Girls Generation

j0nny said:


> This topic was already very well worn out on "HD650, the veil is gone!" Lets not let it blow up like that one did. Plus, shouldn't this be in Sound Science? And why are all cable aficionados so reluctant to post any scientific measurements or results of ABX testing? To me, all this points to one conclusion...




Again with the scientific measurements. Oh jeez... One-dimensional through-and-through.

No one person is the same, and everyone will taste the same coffee in a different way. One might say the coffee is way too bitter, one might say it's just mild. It really all depends on what we're used to, and I think same goes for cables.





davebsc said:


> Agreed pretty much. I honestly don't know why I keep wasting my time with these threads, the arguments are always the same, and minds are never changed. I think part of the reason ABX tests generally fail is that people are brought in to listen to an unfamiliar system, with unfamiliar music. I also suspect that the switching in most cases simply takes FAR too long. Unless the switch from A to B to X is either instant or at least close to it, the results are worthless.
> 
> When I evaluate cables or anything else, I'm using my system that I'm very familiar with, and tracks that I know backwards and forwards and that I've picked specifically because they stand out in one area or another. I have reference tracks that I use to test treble response, reference tracks for soundstaging, reference tracks for midrange body and warmth, and reference tracks for bass.
> 
> If somebody just brought me into a room, played a bit of classical music, made me wait two minutes in silence while cables were switched, and then played that same bit of music again, I'd probably fail to be able to distinguish between anything too.




+1


----------



## Girls Generation

prog rock man said:


> If switching has to be instant, why buy a 'better sounding cable' at all?
> 
> In real life the switch will not be instant, so if you say you would not be able to hear a difference unless the switching is not instant, how can you hear one in normal listening conditions?
> 
> ...




Why buy an LCD3 over LCD2? Why HD800 over HD650? If the switch isn't instant, you'll just get used to the sound of the latters. 
It's just the fact that we're listening to the best we can afford, and the satisfaction that comes with it. If you cant hear cables, so be it. Don't try to create a crusade with it. What I notice is, most of these cable threads are made by people who deny cables make a difference. I don't think the cable enthusiasts have a problem with others not being able to hear the difference; however I think it ticks them off that those people are constantly picking a fight, telling the enthusiasts to give scientific proof and quantifiable measurements before they're allowed to believe in cables. Just leave it alone and errthang will be fine.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> Again with the scientific measurements. Oh jeez. One-dimensional through and through.


 

 It is easier to dismiss than to falsify. The science and measurements do not back up cable maker claims and also many audiophile arguments as to what makes one cable sound better than another. That makes some people curious as to what is happening with regards to cables. If you are not, so be it. Please do not dismiss others who disagree with you, as you do want to be dismissed yourself.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> Why buy an LCD3 over LCD2? Why HD800 over HD650? If the switch isn't instant, you'll just get used to the sound of the latters.


 

 Because the differences between headphones are readily apparent in blind tests, with or without instant switching?
   
  Because the differences between headphones are objectively quantifiable?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> Why buy an LCD3 over LCD2? Why HD800 over HD650? If the switch isn't instant, you'll just get used to the sound of the latters.


 

 There are lots of reason why you and I will buy one headphone over another. Comfort, sound, image, what it is going to be used for. We are getting awy from cables now.


----------



## Girls Generation

prog rock man said:


> It is easier to dismiss than to falsify. The science and measurements do not back up cable maker claims and also many audiophile arguments as to what makes one cable sound better than another. That makes some people curious as to what is happening with regards to cables. If you are not, so be it. Please do not dismiss others who disagree with you, as you do want to be dismissed yourself.




I'm expressing that there doesn't need to be scientific measurements in order for something to exist. Not everything is "law," and that's why we are taught "theories" in science class.


----------



## Girls Generation

prog rock man said:


> Comfort, sound, image, what it is going to be used for.




That's what I look for in cables.


----------



## Girls Generation

head injury said:


> Because the differences between headphones are readily apparent in blind tests, with or without instant switching?
> 
> Because the differences between headphones are objectively quantifiable?




But the thing is, we will get used to the sound of the LCD2/HD650 anyways. Why by a higher end can unless we're constantly comparing the two just to appreciate the better?


----------



## J0nny

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> Again with the scientific measurements. Oh jeez... One-dimensional through-and-through.
> No one person is the same, and everyone will taste the same coffee in a different way. One might say the coffee is way too bitter, one might say it's just mild. It really all depends on what we're used to, and I think same goes for cables.


 


  Girls Generation; of course, no one person is the same and we all prefer different sounds and different setups. The point you make would be relevant if the cables actually made an audible difference for the listener to prefer/dislike. Scientific testing is useful because it is based on verifiable, measurable, quantisable differences in the sound produced. Any aspect of a sound that a cable improves upon should be measurable. For example, if a cable improves detail, a headphones impulse response should improve, because this describes a drivers ability to return to a rest state in a short a time as possible. The shorter the time taken to return to a rest state, the more "spare" time there is for a driver to move to produce extra detail.


----------



## Girls Generation

J0nny said:
			
		

> The point you make would be relevant if the cables actually made an audible difference for the listener to prefer/dislike.




So you're assuming we don't hear an audible difference?

May I ask what cables you've listened to?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> But the thing is, we will get used to the sound of the LCD2/HD650 anyways. Why by a higher end can unless we're constantly comparing the two just to appreciate the better?


 

 If you get used to the sound of a new headphone that easily, don't buy one. I still hear something new every day from old headphones.


----------



## Pudu

girls generation said:


> I'm expressing that there doesn't need to be scientific measurements in order for something to exist. Not everything is "law," and that's why we are taught "theories" in science class.





Not to be pedantic, or more accurately to be pedantic, a law just helps us predict how things will behave, a theory describes why it behaves that way. A theory is valid until dis-proven. A theory of cables needs to tell us why the sound is different.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> So you're assuming we don't hear an audible difference?


 

 I think the point he was making is simply that no one has demonstrated that they do.
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> If switching has to be instant, why buy a 'better sounding cable' at all?
> 
> In real life the switch will not be instant, so if you say you would not be able to hear a difference unless the switching is not instant, how can you hear one in normal listening conditions?
> 
> ...


 

 It has to be instant because our ability to remember fine aural details exists for a few seconds. I once had a conversation with an engineer at Philips about this. They do internal ABX testing when developing new audio products, and they have a system that allows them to switch A to B with no interruption in playback. This is the only effective way to do it.
   
  If you have to wait a minute or two between A and B, you've already forgotten exactly what A sounds like, so B sounds close enough that you have to guess which is which.
   
  Since you can't do that at home, the effective alternative is critical listening. Spend 20 or 30 minutes with one cable, using reference tracks to evaluate it in different areas. If necessary take notes to help you remember strengths and weaknesses. Then swap, and spend another 20 or 30 minutes with the same reference tracks.
   
  Differences between high quality cables are generally small, but there should be at least some in one area or another. If I have a new challenger in place that fails to demonstrate noticeable improvements in at least one area, it gets returned or sold. I have no problem admitting to myself that I just spent $1,000 or whatever on a cable that didn't sound better than what I already had. That's happened more than once. I don't attempt to trick myself into thinking that it must've sounded better, I just return it or sell it to somebody else. Maybe it will work better for them.
   
  In rare cases I've spent quite a bit on expensive cables that just flat out sucked. Whether it was bad design or just bad synergy, doesn't matter, I got rid of them.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *DaveBSC* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Since you can't do that at home...


 
   
  Sure you can. You can use an ABX comparator.
   
  Tom Nousaine installed ABX comparators in a number of peoples' homes so they could do their listening tests in the comfort of their own home, using their own system, at their leisure and over a long period of time.
   
  However no actual audible differences were ever established.
   
  se


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *DaveBSC* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> And those factors are what? Again, still waiting for a real argument on this. The only thing ABX tests prove is that those tests don't work. If you demand an ABX test to prove a difference, and you accept its conclusions, than you MUST ACCEPT that there is no difference between any amplifier or CD player. There is also no difference between analog and digital recordings, and no difference between 16/44 and 24/96. ABX tests have "proven" those things all to be true. If you do not accept those conclusions, than you are being disingenuous.


 
   
  I don't understand this post, are you simply saying that ABX tests don't work, and we shouldn't rely on ABX testing because it's flawed?


----------



## Elysian

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Balanced cables themselves wouldn't do anything without a balanced amp. Balanced amps only sound different if they're designed to sound different, as far as I know. No one's convinced me otherwise, at least. Balanced systems have advantages and disadvantages, all of which seem to be present in some single-ended amps as well.


 

 What is the disadvantage of a balanced system, aside from the 100% increase in cost due to doubling up on components?
   
  From what I've read and heard, the advanced of having a truly balanced system is less noise.  It's also helpful for systems with long cable runs and lots of cables densely packed together.
   
  I recently ran across two reference-grade tube preamps.  The entry-level model (unbalanced) has four configuration settings: low feedback, high feedback, anode direct output, and cathode follower output.  Each setting provides significantly different output (such as dryness, clarity, soundstage, etc.).  The high-end model (balanced) doesn't have those configuration settings because it's balanced.


----------



## J0nny

Quote: 





girls generation said:


> So you're assuming we don't hear an audible difference?
> May I ask what cables you've listened to?


 


  It is true that I haven't heard many cables. I have however, listened intently to a £60/metre cable vs. a free, thin, cheap looking cable that came with my Denon CDP. I heard zero difference, I listened intently and intensively for many hours. This wasn't in a shop where I was surrounded by noise, where I had little time, this was in the comfort of my own home, in a quiet room. If you wish, I shall go out and buy some cables costing a good deal of money and compare it to the stock cables on my stereo if the shop will offer me a refund if I can't hear a difference. If this thread isn't locked by then I'll post my results.


----------



## kiteki

ASUS have released a balanced amp now, with 11 opamps, and 384kHz upsampling.
   
  Expect your head-shot ratio to skyrocket.


----------



## J0nny

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> ASUS have released a balanced amp now, with 11 opamps, and 384kHz upsampling.
> 
> Expect your head-shot ratio to skyrocket.


 

 Hehe! I would never, _ever _use a balanced headphone with a PC soundcard.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I don't understand this post, are you simply saying that ABX tests don't work, and we shouldn't rely on ABX testing because it's flawed?


 
   
  I've not seen any indication that ABX is suited for audio testing, except when there are radical differences between A and B. There have just been too many failures. You can take two conclusions from those failures - either that their findings are correct and any perceived sonic difference between nearly any component other than loudspeakers amounts to self delusion, or that something in the process itself is wrong. I choose to believe the latter. You can obviously fool some of the people some of the time, but I simply cannot believe that the competing products from hundreds of different companies, designed by thousands of different engineers, ALL SOUND EXACTLY THE SAME. It's hogwash.
   
  The idea that amplifier circuits, or anything else has been "perfected" and there's nowhere else to go is also hogwash. There's no more perfect amplifier than there is a perfect car. Mercedes has been at it for some 125 years, and I don't see them saying "oh, we've figured it out, we're done".


----------



## Uncle Erik

Dave, can you explain - precisely - why you need to see the cable you're listening to? If the difference is heard, a blind person would pick it out.

You should also download Audio Diffmaker. Show us what your cables are doing.

If the signal doesn't change, then what is going on?

Elysian, balanced is mostly a product developed by marketing. Well, for audio. If you have to transmit signals over many miles it really does help. For 3' runs it has no value. But you sure can increase the prices and make people buy new cables.

Those preamps you saw are pure marketing. Some people sat down and decided how best to position features to extract the most profit.

And, yes, there are real problems with balanced:

1. Doubling the parts doubles the points of failure. You will have twice the failures and twice the chance of having to send it to the shop. All parts wear out and fail eventually. Further, repairs will be more costly because it is more complex and there will be more to replace.

2. Doubling the parts doubles the heat. This can be managed with bigger/multiple chassis, but a lot ofnstuff out there isn't designed for maximum cooling. It is designed (again) by marketing who put all other considerations aside so there can be a 1" thick aluminum faceplate (or whatever) because consumers associate that with "quality."

3. Not everything marketed as balanced actually is balanced. You can use a $25 input transformer so the amp will accept a XLR jack, run that through a single-ended amp, then use output transformers connected to XLR jacks. It adds maybe $100 to the build cost. Yet it will be loudly trumpeted (by marketing, again) as OMG BALANCED!!!!!! and the price increases by at least $1,000. To be fair, input transformers are good things. But not $1,000 better and single-ended amps should not be marketed as balanced.

4. Then there's component matching. Something you don't hear much about. The average layperson thinks that a 100 Ohm resistor is precisely that.

Nope.

The average component comes with a tolerance, typically 10%. So a 100 Ohm resistor will be anything from 90-110 Ohms. To have a 20 Ohm variation between left and right really is a Big Deal. You'll get a channel imbalance. Better parts will have a 5%, 2% or 1% tolerance. Those are more expensive. Even then, a 1% tolerance will result in a channel imbalance.

If you want a really tight tolerance, you have to buy a lot of extra parts and hand-match them with a meter. I did this with speaker crossovers once. I had to buy about $50 of extra resistors and caps then took a couple hours to hand-match. I got left and right mirrored to .005. Excessive, but I wanted it done right. Mind you, this was with about 20 components total. If I had 200 components in a balanced amp, then I would have spent another $500-$600 for parts and spent 9-10 hours matching and sorting. In a production environment, that can add an extra $1,000 to costs.

So excessive matching doesn't really happen unless you're an obsessive DIY'er or paying high four figures for a custom build.

To get to the point, a balanced amp has twice as many parts and twice the variation in values. The chance for a channel imbalance is higher.

And speaking of channel imbalance, I always find it curious that the Golden Ears who can (supposedly) hear unmeasurable differences between cables cannot hear the channel imbalances in their amp. After all, the imbalances really are there. You can measure them. You can also go through the gear, component by component, and measure how they vary between left and right.

So if unmeasurable differences are "night and day," then a measureable difference should have its hands around your neck while jumping up and down and screaming.

Yet the Golden Ears never seem to notice that.

Curious.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I've not seen any indication that ABX is suited for audio testing, except when there are radical differences between A and B. There have just been too many failures. You can take two conclusions from those failures - either that their findings are correct and any perceived sonic difference between nearly any component other than loudspeakers amounts to self delusion, or that something in the process itself is wrong. I choose to believe the latter. You can obviously fool some of the people some of the time, but I simply cannot believe that the competing products from hundreds of different companies, designed by thousands of different engineers, ALL SOUND EXACTLY THE SAME. It's hogwash.
> 
> The idea that amplifier circuits, or anything else has been "perfected" and there's nowhere else to go is also hogwash. There's no more perfect amplifier than there is a perfect car. Mercedes has been at it for some 125 years, and I don't see them saying "oh, we've figured it out, we're done".


 

 I can't understand why one would choose to believe either one given the ambiguity.
   
  Quote: 





> You can obviously fool some of the people some of the time, but I simply cannot believe that the competing products from hundreds of different companies, designed by thousands of different engineers, ALL SOUND EXACTLY THE SAME. It's hogwash.


 
   
  That's a non sequitur. There are indeed products out there which sound different.
   
  Singe-ended triode tube amps for example can easily sound differing owing to bandwidth limitations, frequency response abberations and distortion. Just as any other piece of equipment can sound different if it alters the signal sufficiently.
   
  Quote: 





> The idea that amplifier circuits, or anything else has been "perfected" and there's nowhere else to go is also hogwash. There's no more perfect amplifier than there is a perfect car. Mercedes has been at it for some 125 years, and I don't see them saying "oh, we've figured it out, we're done".


 
   
  One doesn't need a "perfect" amplifier. It only needs to keep from altering the signal enough that we're able to perceive its difference with our decidedly imperfect sense of hearing. And by all indications thus far, that's been rather trivially easy to do for some time now.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> 1. Doubling the parts doubles the points of failure.


 

 Who says you have to double the parts?
   
  Quote: 





> 3. Not everything marketed as balanced actually is balanced. You can use a $25 input transformer so the amp will accept a XLR jack, run that through a single-ended amp, then use output transformers connected to XLR jacks. It adds maybe $100 to the build cost. Yet it will be loudly trumpeted (by marketing, again) as OMG BALANCED!!!!!!


 
   
  And they would be right because it would actually be balanced.
   
  Quote: 





> To be fair, input transformers are good things. But not $1,000 better and single-ended amps should not be marketed as balanced.


 
   
  If it has balanced inputs and/or outputs, I see no reason at all why it shouldn't be marketed as balanced.
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Dave, can you explain - precisely - why you need to see the cable you're listening to? If the difference is heard, a blind person would pick it out.


 

 Being able to see it doesn't present any issues. Going back to the example of two different cables that both cost $500. Where does being sighted present a problem? I put one cable in, listen to it for awhile, then put in the other and listen to that one for awhile. If they sound identical, there aren't any biases that would lead to me picking one or the other. I might as well flip a coin. If they don't sound identical, I pick the one I like better. This method has worked for me quite well.


----------



## Elysian

Thanks for the thoughts.  Interesting to hear, and I'll file that away with everything else I've been learning through reading and communicating with designers.
   
  I've actually communicated with a few designers who recommended against getting the balanced version of their $5k+ amps/preamps, since they said the difference between the unbalanced and balanced versions wasn't significant for normal home use.  I actually haven't run into many people in the industry who have tried to pressure a sale, so maybe I've been lucky.  After I'm more settled in with the new setup, it'll be interesting to test if there's any audible difference between balanced and unbalanced for short cable runs.
   
  Anyway, sorry for the brief topic detour.  I wanted to bring up the question since it came up as a related point in some of the earlier replies.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Going back to the example of two different cables that both cost $500. Where does being sighted present a problem?


 
   
  Because you know there are two different cables and which one you're listening to at a given time.
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Because you know there are two different cables and which one you're listening to at a given time.


 

 Uh huh. Again, where's the problem. The challenger either outperforms the existing cable, or it does not. Two man enter, one man leave.


----------



## Pudu

The point of blind testing is to remove any preconceptions - conscious or unconscious - from the results.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





pudu said:


> The point of blind testing is to remove any preconceptions - conscious or unconscious - from the results.


 

 Haven't found preconceptions to be a problem. I'm quite pleased with my K-S and Siltech cables, and I feel no need to move up the ladder any further with the level of equipment that I have.


----------



## Pudu

davebsc said:


> Haven't found preconceptions to be a problem...




Glad that's working out for you.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Uh huh. Again, where's the problem.


 
   
  The problem is that our subjective perceptions are not the unerring reflection of the physical reality we would like to believe they are.
   
  That means that for any sighted test, there will remain this ambiguity and no firm conclusions with regard to actual audibility can be made.
   
  se


----------



## Elysian

Some of the earlier blind tests for cables had to go through a lot of trouble to make sure the cables weren't sighted, such as having 1-2 people manage and monitor the test, have the cables hidden from sight, etc.  I think the testing methodology was written up in the full report.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





elysian said:


> Some of the earlier blind tests for cables had to go through a lot of trouble to make sure the cables weren't sighted, such as having 1-2 people manage and monitor the test, have the cables hidden from sight, etc.  I think the testing methodology was written up in the full report.


 

 An ABX comparator makes it a piece of cake. No need to hide the wires, monitor the test, etc. The listener always know what cable is A and what cable is B. X is the unknown.
   
  se


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Haven't found preconceptions to be a problem.


 

 Then I recommend you take a few Psychology courses at your nearest university.
   
  We are inherently biased creatures, in everything we do. Our subconscious preconceptions are numerous and complex. Just because you think they're not altering your sense of reality doesn't mean they aren't. In fact, that itself is a preconception that's altering your sense of reality!


----------



## Parall3l

Waiting for some graphs


----------



## Pudu

head injury said:


> ... Just because you think they're not altering your sense of reality doesn't mean they aren't. In fact, that itself is a preconception that's altering your sense of reality!





Now I have a head injury. :confused_face_2:


----------



## Uncle Erik

davebsc said:


> Being able to see it doesn't present any issues. Going back to the example of two different cables that both cost $500. Where does being sighted present a problem? I put one cable in, listen to it for awhile, then put in the other and listen to that one for awhile. If they sound identical, there aren't any biases that would lead to me picking one or the other. I might as well flip a coin. If they don't sound identical, I pick the one I like better. This method has worked for me quite well.




Because knowing what brand, construction, etc. they are triggers your belief system. You have to remove your expectations. They really do change what you experience.

This has been nailed down in wine studies. Give someone the belief they're drinking a $100 bottle and it'll get higher marks than the same wine labelled at $10.

The same test would work for cables. The experience changes depending on what the test subject expects.

As for hundreds of products and companies as well as a group of believers, well, that's another preconception. That leads you to think that there is a difference while excluding evidence against it.

If so many engineers have developed cables, where's the research? I'm not talking about high power lines and radio transmission feeds. Research showing a difference at audio frequencies.

There should also be a sizeable amount of amateur research. You'll find that in every field of science. Look at what amateur astronomers contribute. What people who tinker with their cars produce. The vast amount of amateur work on audio - things like speakers, DACs, amps, turntables, and much else. There are measurements, figures and you can use that to do further research.

Everything with audio cables falls into the folklore category. Silver sounds thin and bright, copper is warm, cotton dielectric sounds like this and vinyl sounds like that. Nothing backs that up. When you look at a DIY speaker design, you might find a comment that the bass is rolled off. OK, you'll get a graph showing that the driver is down 12 dB at 40Hz, a calculation from the enclosure showing that the bass is rolled off, a measuremen with a SPL meter showing that the bass drops off, and much else along those lines. You can approach it from several angles and gather data confirming that the bass is rolled off.

There's nothing like that with cables. You're just told that a certain construction sounds "warm." Then you're told that no device, whatsoever, can measure that warmth. The frequency will be the same, but you're told that it is actually different. You can try to measure the actual response of a speaker and find it the same only to be told that it is different but no one understands how it is different.

No matter how you try to get at what makes the difference, there's always an excuse for why it is impossible to test it. The universe just doesn't work that way. Things not understood leave traces and footprints. They might not be understood, but there's always a place to start looking.

Steve, my understanding of balanced operation is that the ground cannot be shared between channels. Isn't one of the benefits that you don't get crosstalk between channels? So if you run a balanced signal into a single-ended amp with a common ground, can't crosstalk occur then, which would then be fed into the output signal? Also, running into a single-ended amp wouldn't give you the increased power from having bridged amps.

So I'm not sure what the benefit would be. You'd get noise rejection from the input transformers, which would be good, but why then wire it with XLR jacks? What good would that do? Most people who buy balanced think they're getting an increase in power and channel separation, but an amp like this would be the same as single-ended amp with input transformers.


----------



## Gwarmi

@ Uncle Erik
   
  Just a side note, the wine analogy does not work with everyone though, I'm not likely to be earning a
  living as a sommelier anytime soon but I've bought a few $80+ bottles out and about only to be
  very disappointed. Eg, boozy, flat - disappointed basically and then I've been charmed silly by
  some $30 examples.
   
  This cable debate will never reach consensus, but it's interesting to note that no one has taken
  the bait on my earlier point ~ I have noted physical discrepancies between 3 x cables over here
  and this is translating into flawed operation with 2 of them.
   
  My ears are still ringing from the loud squawking, not auditioning again sorry.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Steve, my understanding of balanced operation is that the ground cannot be shared between channels. Isn't one of the benefits that you don't get crosstalk between channels? So if you run a balanced signal into a single-ended amp with a common ground, can't crosstalk occur then, which would then be fed into the output signal?


 

 In spite of the headphone folks misappropriating the term, balanced is all about impedances. As in each line's impedance being equal with respect go ground, hence, "balanced."
   
  You wouldn't want to feed a balanced signal into a single-ended input. That would create a hell of a noise as the balanced out's inverting line isn't at the same potential as the single ended amp's ground.
   
  Quote: 





> Also, running into a single-ended amp wouldn't give you the increased power from having bridged amps.


 
   
  Running into a balanced amp wouldn't necessarily give you increased power. That's due to bridging. If your amp is balanced using input and output transformers with an unbalanced circuit in between, you'd have a balanced input and a balanced output but not any increase in power.
   
  Quote: 





> So I'm not sure what the benefit would be. You'd get noise rejection from the input transformers, which would be good, but why then wire it with XLR jacks?


 
   
  You'd get noise reduction with a proper electronically balanced input too. By proper, I mean a balanced, differential input, not a balanced input that's achieved simply by bridging.
   
  As for the use of XLR's, they have three pins. Pin 2 is the non-inverting signal, pin 3 is the inverting signal and pin 1 is shield, which should connect to the chassis, not ground. Of course if the cable doesn't have a separate electrostatic shield, then yeah, you wouldn't need to use XLR's as you'd only be using two of the three pins.
   
  Quote: 





> Most people who buy balanced think they're getting an increase in power and channel separation, but an amp like this would be the same as single-ended amp with input transformers.


 
   
  They think they're getting an increase in power because of the headphone guys conflating balanced and bridged.
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The wine analogy does work as it helps to show and explain how some people who can see the different cables still hear no difference. So like wine tasting we have varied results depending on whether the tasting/listening is sighted, blind comparison or ABX.
   
  What I have found with the three different audio tests is 100% consistency in the results -
   
  - sighted - people hear differences from night and day to minimal and also no difference at all.
   
  - blind comparison - people hear differences, they are minimal rather than night and day and they find cheap products often do as well as if not better more expensive ones.
   
  - ABX - people cannot reliably pick out any difference between cables. But, it is worth noting that there have been ABX tests passed with the likes of CDPs, amps, bit rates and most of all speakers.
   
  Blind testing as conducted by the tests I have found have been very well done with good procedures. Blind testing is a repeatable, verifiable scientifically recognised form of testing. To dismiss the results of such is wrong. (In the same way claiming people cannot really hear a difference between cables is wrong i.e sighted test results)
   
  So we should be able to accept that the results of sighted, blind comparison and ABX are correct and that leads us into further enquiry as to why it happens.
   
  My view is that the difference is in the listener. For those who do hear a difference I think that sighted test results prove that they really do hear a difference and I am one of them. For those who do not hear a difference with sighted tests, I do not think there is something wrong with their kit or ears. There is, instead something else going on in the brain. An explanation can be that rather than golden ears and cloth ears, we have more susceptible to sighted influences or not.
   
  If we can get past the idea that there is something wrong with those who hear a difference in sighted testing then we can progress these debates into at least new and more interesting territory.
   
  If people are adament there is an electrical property in cables that causes such differences, fine, but please start bringing testable and verifiable evidence that that is the case. Please don't dismiss the evidence that is there without having counter evidence of your own.


----------



## uelover

nice post, Steve


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





uelover said:


> nice post, Steve


 

 Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
   
  I thought maybe it could have used a little more salt though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## Elysian

Really liked your post too, Steve.  I appreciate you going into details for laypeople like us.
   
  Just out of curiosity, on a proper A/B test, can you detect the difference between balanced and unbalanced outputs?  For example, going from a DAC -> amp -> headphones (with all devices having properly balanced implementations) over XLR, vs. going over RCA for the exact same rig.  This assumes short cable runs, functional cables (like Mogamis), and the typical environment for a home audio setup.


----------



## Currawong

I'm pretty sure that some of the differences I (believe) I've heard between components (not just cables) are below the threshold at which I'd be able to pass any kind of test on it, at the very least not without a lot of practice first.  A single test is not the decider of a generalised fact.


----------



## Gwarmi

I might organise a blind cable test tomorrow at my local retailer.
   
  If he's got the time, we'll do the whole blind fold thing and see how I go


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





elysian said:


> Really liked your post too, Steve.  I appreciate you going into details for laypeople like us.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, on a proper A/B test, can you detect the difference between balanced and unbalanced outputs?  For example, going from a DAC -> amp -> headphones (with all devices having properly balanced implementations) over XLR, vs. going over RCA for the exact same rig.  This assumes short cable runs, functional cables (like Mogamis), and the typical environment for a home audio setup.


 

 All else being equal, I wouldn't expect so, no.
   
  se


----------



## Gwarmi

Wish I'd taken a photo of this dual channel monster yesterday at the Hi Fi show...
   
  Each block was this massive 1ft x 1ft metal contraption either side of decent, power cables
  60mm thick running into each. This was part of the Manley stand.
   
  Independent channel power conditioner system.
   
  Price? $58,900 - yes, $58,900.
   
  Almost bought one for my non existent stereo rig at the moment, figured I'd start off with the
  most important part of a rig.


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


currawong said:


> I'm pretty sure that some of the differences I (believe) I've heard between components (not just cables) are below the threshold at which I'd be able to pass any kind of test on it, at the very least not without a lot of practice first.  A single test is not the decider of a generalised fact.


  However, if there is not a single test that can prove these differences exist, which is what appears to be the case, the existence of these differences is wandering into the realm of unfalsifiable claims. And the burden of proof has to lie on the maker of such claims to prove they exist, lest we demand science proves we are not followed by incorporeal, invisible gnomes. They cannot prove that it is not the case with absolute logical certainty, but you would have to be insane to accept otherwise.


----------



## kiteki

Quote:


davebsc said:


> I've not seen any indication that ABX is suited for audio testing, except when there are radical differences between A and B. There have just been too many failures. You can take two conclusions from those failures - either that their findings are correct and any perceived sonic difference between nearly any component other than loudspeakers amounts to self delusion, or that something in the process itself is wrong. I choose to believe the latter. You can obviously fool some of the people some of the time, but I simply cannot believe that the competing products from hundreds of different companies, designed by thousands of different engineers, ALL SOUND EXACTLY THE SAME. It's hogwash.
> 
> The idea that amplifier circuits, or anything else has been "perfected" and there's nowhere else to go is also hogwash. There's no more perfect amplifier than there is a perfect car. Mercedes has been at it for some 125 years, and I don't see them saying "oh, we've figured it out, we're done".


 

 Can you link to a good example of where an ABX study failed, where the difference should be audible?
   
   


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure that some of the differences I (believe) I've heard between components (not just cables) are below the threshold at which I'd be able to pass any kind of test on it, at the very least not without a lot of practice first. A single test is not the decider of a generalised fact.


 

 I think there's a possibility that 50 average iPod listeners might fail an ABX test of a HM-601 versus an Apple iPod, since they wouldn't have had any practice, and wouldn't know what differences to look for.


  Quote: 





willakan said:


> However, if there is not a single test that can prove these differences exist, which is what appears to be the case, the existence of these differences is wandering into the realm of unfalsifiable claims. And the burden of proof has to lie on the maker of such claims to prove they exist, lest we demand science proves we are not followed by incorporeal, invisible gnomes. They cannot prove that it is not the case with absolute logical certainty, but you would have to be insane to accept otherwise.


 

 Weren't rainbows incorporeal, invisible gnomes of folklore and spoken word... until we could take photos of them?


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kiteki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Weren't rainbows incorporeal, invisible gnomes of folklore and spoken word... until we could take photos of them?


   
  What?


----------



## kiteki

I mean, something like a rainbow or the northern light, as far as a scientist in the 1800's was concerned, it didn't exist and it was just the nonsense of people that ate poisonous berries.


----------



## Willakan

The existence of rainbows is not an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Your example is irrelevant.


----------



## Tycn

I for one am glad that 'high end' audio cables do not have the ubiquity of... rainbows.


----------



## Pudu

kiteki said:


> ...Weren't rainbows incorporeal, invisible gnomes of folklore and spoken word... until we could take photos of them?




No. Anyone could and can see a rainbow. They may not have had the correct theory to explain it but that doesn't negate its existence. This is the exact opposite of _cable theory_ (I hope this term enters the scientific lexicon). Observable changes from different cables are not reliably repeatable (a key element of scientific method). 


Man, has this thread taken a turn to the tangential.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





willakan said:


> However, if there is not a single test that can prove these differences exist,


 

 Between what specific pairs of cables? The ones I've owned that altered the sound tonally surely have to be measurable. I do intend to try this, when I can be bothered setting up a Windows PC (as I don't know of any suitable Mac software for it).


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Quote:
> Can you link to a good example of where an ABX study failed, where the difference should be audible?
> 
> 
> .....


 

 No, I know of none. I can show you loads of ABX where there is no evidence of an audible difference and ABX has backed that up by people being unable to hear any difference. Yet in a sighted test there is now a difference.
   


  Quote: 





currawong said:


> Between what specific pairs of cables? The ones I've owned that altered the sound tonally surely have to be measurable. I do intend to try this, when I can be bothered setting up a Windows PC (as I don't know of any suitable Mac software for it).


 

 Please bother and bring evidence to the debate. And please find evidence and then make your mind up, rather than making your mind up and then only look for evidence to suit your already decided case.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





j0nny said:


> This topic was already very well worn out on "HD650, the veil is gone!" Lets not let it blow up like that one did. Plus, shouldn't this be in Sound Science? And why are all cable aficionados so reluctant to post any scientific measurements or results of ABX testing? To me, all this points to one conclusion...


 


   
  I think the thread is exactly where it should be - or at the least it was - it’s the science related comments that should not.
   
  the Admin in here is very tolerant - too tolerant - of this level of thread-crapping and trolling, imo.


----------



## Pudu

To be fair though, if kept on topic the thread would just be full of :

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No


----------



## Gatepc

currawong said:


> Between what specific pairs of cables? The ones I've owned that altered the sound tonally surely have to be measurable. I do intend to try this, when I can be bothered setting up a Windows PC (as I don't know of any suitable Mac software for it).




Download Fuzz Measure its a good mac program for measuring frequency response.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





pudu said:


> To be fair though, if kept on topic the thread would just be full of :
> Yes
> No
> Yes
> ...


 

 that's true. however the bottom line is: I have tried high-end cables therefore I can say something about it. none of you has. *no-one.*
   
  let me give you an example: let’s imagine the OP question was about a place he/she was considering to go on holiday. the difference between *you* and *us* is that you’ve read some brochures about this place, a few comments here and there, but you’ve actually never been there.
   
*us*,  on the other hand, we’ve been there, lived there – some may few weeks, other few years - have experienced the place.
   
  comprende?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





lenni said:


> that's true. however the bottom line is: I have tried high-end cables therefore I can say something about it. none of you has. *no-one.*
> 
> let me give you an example: let’s imagine the OP question was about a place he/she was considering to go on holiday. the difference between *you* and *us* is that you’ve read some brochures about this place, a few comments here and there, but you’ve actually never been there.
> 
> ...


 

 So because your brain interpreted what very well could be biases and expectations as audible differences with nothing but subjective experience to back it up, and because even though we have studies and measurements that show no difference we haven't yet experienced those same biases, we should believe you instead?
   
  Your analogy isn't complete. We read a brochure that makes no mention of the pink elephant sitting in the corner of the hotel lobby we plan to stay at. You've been to that hotel and you've seen the pink elephant. The pink elephant has never been photographed, not by all the tourists who stay there. But we should believe you that there is a pink elephant. That's about what you're arguing.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Lenni, are you also the only one who has done any repeatable, verifiable testing on high end cables?


----------



## Gatepc

lenni said:


> that's true. however the bottom line is: I have tried high-end cables therefore I can say something about it. none of you has. *no-one.*
> 
> let me give you an example: let’s imagine the OP question was about a place he/she was considering to go on holiday. the difference between *you* and *us* is that you’ve read some brochures about this place, a few comments here and there, but you’ve actually never been there.
> 
> ...




I triad them as I posted before,... Top end Cardas Clear interconnects and usb cables. The difference I heard (assuming it was not placebo) was so small that I was not even sure I really heard any difference. Many would also say that although not top of the line the K702s and Burson are extremely detailed and resolving I would expect to hear a difference.


----------



## Pudu

lenni said:


> that's true. however the bottom line is: I have tried high-end cables therefore I can say something about it. none of you has. *no-one.*
> 
> let me give you an example: let’s imagine the OP question was about a place he/she was considering to go on holiday. the difference between *you* and *us* is that you’ve read some brochures about this place, a few comments here and there, but you’ve actually never been there.
> 
> ...




No comprende.

Are you suggesting that the only people who are saying cables don't make a difference are those who have never tried one? Sorry if I completely misunderstood your point.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





gatepc said:


> I triad them as I posted before,... Top end Cardas Clear interconnects and usb cables. The difference I heard (assuming it was not placebo) was so small that I was not even sure I really heard any difference.


 


 It's good. Help you save money =)


----------



## duetta

Cables can absolutely sound different.  Whether you decide different means better, especially within the specific context of system configuration, with the most expensive cables sounding the best-est...that's an entirely different equation!


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





antony6555 said:


> Cables are a matter of faith, or they are treated that way by "believers." If you want to know, just try it for yourself since someone's else personal, subjective experience is just that and won't necessarily determine your experience
> 
> This thread has already been discussed a thousand plus times, and since it's not in sound science we cannot even go into the evidence. So it's really a waste of space here...


 


  Not believing in cables is an act of faith as well.  It takes great faith to believe that we can measure everything audible and that there is proof that people who claim to hear a difference do not.
   
  I'm not really arguing one direction or the other, just pointing out that a strong belief one direction or the other is equally an act of faith.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





barleyguy said:


> Not believing in cables is an act of faith as well.  It takes great faith to believe that we can measure everything audible and that there is proof that people who claim to hear a difference do not.
> 
> I'm not really arguing one direction or the other, just pointing out that a strong belief one direction or the other is equally an act of faith.


 

 It would be an act of faith if there were no evidence to suggest that there are no differences. But there is evidence to suggest that. If strong evidence suggested that differences are audible, I would believe it. It's not faith in a belief so much as it is trust of facts and evidence.


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





j0nny said:


> This topic was already very well worn out on "HD650, the veil is gone!" Lets not let it blow up like that one did. Plus, shouldn't this be in Sound Science? And why are all cable aficionados so reluctant to post any scientific measurements or results of ABX testing? To me, all this points to one conclusion...


 


  this is not in Sound Science as:
  1. you can't change cold hard scientific facts/results, all the results are already there, link them if you need to.
  2. i don't see how having background scientific knowledge should determine how something should sound better than something else.


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
> 
> I thought maybe it could have used a little more salt though.
> 
> ...


 

  
  nah, i think it was good  too much salt and you'll get hypertension.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





barleyguy said:


> Not believing in cables is an act of faith as well.  It takes great faith to believe that we can measure everything audible and that there is proof that people who claim to hear a difference do not.
> 
> I'm not really arguing one direction or the other, just pointing out that a strong belief one direction or the other is equally an act of faith.


 

 Well I went from being convinced of the reasons as to why cables sound different as put forward by cable companies and many audiophiles to not believing them. It was nothing to do with faith and all to do with evidence as presented by science. If science produces evidence that a silver cable does enhance treble and make such a cable sound brighter, I will go with that. Again, nothing to do with faith.


----------



## Willakan

@Currawong:
   
  I was speaking of the majority of audiophile cables, which behave the same as far as audio reproduction is concerned. There are of course cables that audibly change the sound, but I would be inclined to describe them as broken.
   
  @Barleyguy:
   
  The "science is faith" argument is given as a classic example of a logical fallacy on the Wikipedia page for fallacies.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Quote:
> Can you link to a good example of where an ABX study failed, where the difference should be audible?


 

 The one I remember most is the ABX study done with a $220 Pioneer receiver, and a $12,000 tube amp. The test subjects failed to report any difference between the two. I have also not seen any ABX study done able to show any difference between 16/44 and 24/96.
   
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/487awsi/index.html


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





head injury said:


> It would be an act of faith if there were no evidence to suggest that there are no differences. But there is evidence to suggest that. If strong evidence suggested that differences are audible, I would believe it. It's not faith in a belief so much as it is trust of facts and evidence.


 


   


  Quote: 





willakan said:


> @Currawong:
> 
> I was speaking of the majority of audiophile cables, which behave the same as far as audio reproduction is concerned. There are of course cables that audibly change the sound, but I would be inclined to describe them as broken.
> 
> ...


 

 I'm not saying science is faith.  The faith is in the belief that you are actually measuring the correct thing.
   
  1. People hear a difference
  2. There must be something measurable that causes that difference (whether it's in the cable or in a brain EKG)
  3. Therefore, the goal should be to find what measurement correlates with hearing a difference.
   
  Another thing that needs a proper study is whether blind/double blind/ABX testing is actually statistically neutral all the way to zero difference, or whether it trends towards null at a certain level of difference.
   
  (This thread needs to be moved to sound science instead of clogging up the cables forum.  This type of thread is the reason that sub-forum was created in the first place.)


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Measuring the brain's response during sighted, comparison and ABX testing would be my next test, but sadly not one I could do or am I aware of one being done.
   
  Bear in mind that the results of ABX tests of cables where no difference is discernable is further corroborated by null and frequency tests of cables. So three different ways of measuring a cable and still many are not happy with the science and are closed minded to looking elsewhere for the reasons people hear differences. Wierd.


----------



## tnmike1

Only cabling I'm using is a $65 Whiplash and a $195 ALO cable as the interconnect with iPod and amp.  I "think" I can hear a sligiht difference between them--a little more detail, more openness, etc--but doubt highly if it's worth the additional $130 or so between the two.  Actually I'm quite happy with either one.


----------



## Rebel975

The question I have is what's the difference between _actually_ having high-end cables matter and _thinking_ that high-end cables matter? Other than hundreds-thousands of dollars, of course.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





rebel975 said:


> The question I have is what's the difference between _actually_ having high-end cables matter and _thinking_ that high-end cables matter? Other than hundreds-thousands of dollars, of course.


 

 If it's all placebo, absolutely nothing. You could take some Monoprice cables, dress them up in a spiffy new tube with new connectors, slap an audiophile brand name on them, and sell them for a grand. No one would know the difference.


----------



## Rebel975

Let me rephrase: What's the difference between actually hearing a difference and thinking you hear a difference? As far as the person is concerned there is a difference either way.
   
  In a strange way it reminds me of some form of OCD. Ever go into a bathroom and see that the toilet paper has been put onto the wheel the_ wrong way?_ Ever triple checked the door to make sure it's locked? Ever see someone with a multi thousand dollar audio setup with $2 RCA cables from Wal Mart? They're doing it wrong, right? The interconnects must match the system! ...Or something like that.
   
  Thank God I'm content with Monoprice cables. Although to be fair I've never heard an expensive cable. I wouldn't be against giving one a try- I just can't justify buying one.


----------



## Marburger

it is very hard to judge about the cable sound. Both sides have their own arguments, one is for sure that good cable is good isolated and you can be sure about your audio chain.
  But otherwise, manufacturers of course, making money producing super-pupper cables. scientifically trying to prove us. But i think in some stage price (maybe till100$ ) the quality of the cables do not any significant  role.
  for example, i have recabled my hd580 with cryoed copper wire and did not hear any change. maybe i have not enough experience or golden ears. i think,  junior head fiers should not bother themselves with high end cable, as other already said, cables are last  little flavor in an expensive audio rig.


----------



## Pudu

Keep in mind, there are many great reasons to invest in a good quality after market cable.


But when someone asks whether they make a difference to the sound, an emphatic, unqualified yes is not the best answer.


----------



## SHURE530

Quote: 





marburger said:


> as other already said, cables are last  little flavor in an expensive audio rig.


 


  or you could save that money and get yourself another headphone. decisions oh decisions. >_<


----------



## SHURE530

mythbusters has to get their hands on this. HONESTLY. why have they not done this?


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





shure530 said:


> mythbusters has to get their hands on this. HONESTLY. why have they not done this?


 


  Because non-audio crazies think we're about as interesting to watch on TV as seeing
  a documentary on paint drying out?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





rebel975 said:


> Let me rephrase: What's the difference between actually hearing a difference and thinking you hear a difference? As far as the person is concerned there is a difference either way.


 

 Again, nothing. Just one costs you money.
   
  I don't have a problem with people _using_ cables. I have a problem with them _recommending_ cables. They're trying to sell an illusion. It's the last thing a newbie should spend on. Buy real improvements first.


----------



## sailorman

Quote:


prog rock man said:


> I do not think placebo is the only cause and it may not even be the cause, it may be something else instead. But I do think the cause is with the listener and not inherantly in the cable as we have ruled out how cables are made, what they are made with and the electrical properties of cables being the cause.


 

  Something else occurs to me. What properties do cables have, other than electrical and construction related, that can affect the signal transmitted to a transducer in such a way as to produce audible results? 
   
  What you have essentially said here is that we can rule out the construction and electrical properties as the cause of people hearing a difference between cables. I agree, BTW.
  But when people hear a difference, and you have ruled out the only properties of cables capable of making a difference, what you have left is, by definition, the placebo effect. Once you rule out the construction and electrical properties of a cable they become, in effect, inert.  If one desired to cause a cable to affect the sound of a speaker, how would it possibly be done without altering the construction or the electrical properties?  Would you paint it a different color? Would you sprinkle it with fairy dust? Would you chant incantations over it?  No!  You'd change its construction and/or electrical properties.  If you rule out construction and electrical properties as the cause of a perceived sound difference, the placebo effect is all you have left.
   
  In medicine, for example, when a physiological change occurs in a patient as a result of his taking a medication, and the med. is inert or there is no known reason for the medication to produce the effect, the physiological change is attributed to the placebo effect.  This is not to say that the mechanisms of all drugs must be known. Many aren't. But in those cases, the desired effect is achieved consistently enough, as established through clinical trials, to expect a significant number of patients to respond similarly.  So, even though the exact mechanism may not be known, the results are not considered to be due to the placebo effect.
   
  It seems the medical field uses a looser criteria in designating something as being caused by the placebo effect than you are willing to use for audio.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> If it's all placebo, absolutely nothing. You could take some Monoprice cables, dress them up in a spiffy new tube with new connectors, slap an audiophile brand name on them, and sell them for a grand. No one would know the difference.


 

 This is the same argument that says that you can fill a fancy bottle with Two Buck Chuck, and sell it as a $1,000 '49 vintage. Anyone who has ever had even a small amount of wine before will see right through that.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> This is the same argument that says that you can fill a fancy bottle with Two Buck Chuck, and sell it as a $1,000 '49 vintage. Anyone who has ever had even a small amount of wine before will see right through that.


 

 And for what it's worth, double blind testing is routinely used in the wine tasting industry. So it's perhaps best to not make any analogies to wine.
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> prog rock man said:
> ...


 

  
  This shows an incredible ignorance about how audio components work. Electrical and construction properties don't matter? On what basis can you prove that? What do you think a cross over is made out of? Do you really a believe cross overs have ZERO impact on how a speaker sounds? What you're essentially saying is, the only thing that the effects the sound is the motor assembly physically moving the driver and thus the air, and everything behind that might as well be made out of tin foil. It's a conductor, and electrical properties and construction don't matter, right?


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





elysian said:


> Some of the earlier blind tests for cables had to go through a lot of trouble to make sure the cables weren't sighted, such as having 1-2 people manage and monitor the test, have the cables hidden from sight, etc.  I think the testing methodology was written up in the full report.


 


  What a waste of time. All they really had do do was find testers who were immune to preconceptions and bias.  You may think that such a person is a rare specimen indeed, but I know there must be lots of them out there because at least one of them is posting on this very thread!!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> And for what it's worth, double blind testing is routinely used in the wine tasting industry. So it's perhaps best to not make any analogies to wine.
> 
> se


 


 You don't think it's a bit disingenuous to say that I could put some techflex and some WBT connectors on a two dollar monoprice cable, and NO ONE could tell the difference between that and a thousand dollar cable, having you know, never actually done that, or tested it. I'm just gonna say it, as if there's any factual basis to it.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> [snip]
> 
> *If we can get past the idea that there is something wrong with those who hear a difference in sighted testing then we can progress these debates into at least new and more interesting territory.*
> 
> If people are adament there is an electrical property in cables that causes such differences, fine, but please start bringing testable and verifiable evidence that that is the case. Please don't dismiss the evidence that is there without having counter evidence of your own.


 


  Here's the issue. Who says there's "something wrong" with those who hear a difference?  I've never heard that expressed.  Saying that someone is subject to the placebo effect is not saying there's something wrong with them.  Only people who have an unrealistically high opinion of themselves would take that as a criticism.  If someone told them that they couldn't really hear a 40Khz frequency, would they be insulted? Would they insist that they, and they alone, were "special"? Would they claim that no one had the right to say that unless they had heard 40Khz themselves?  Those are the kind of arguments that you get when you dare suggest that there is no evidence that anything other than the PE causes a perceived sound difference between two cables with otherwise adequate electrical and material characteristics.
   
  As much as I'd like to think that there's more interesting territory to get into, there's no evidence that such territory exists.  What evidence is there that points to something other than the PE?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> This is the same argument that says that you can fill a fancy bottle with Two Buck Chuck, and sell it as a $1,000 '49 vintage. Anyone who has ever had even a small amount of wine before will see right through that.


 

 There are quantifiable _and_ tasteable differences between wines


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





pudu said:


> No. Anyone could and can see a rainbow. They may not have had the correct theory to explain it but that doesn't negate its existence. This is the exact opposite of *cable theory (I hope this term enters the scientific lexicon)*. Observable changes from different cables are not reliably repeatable (a key element of scientific method).
> Man, has this thread taken a turn to the tangential.


 


  Cable_ theory _is not the right term. Cable _hypothesis_ would be more accurate, but not really because, unlike rainbows, the existence of sound differences between cables has not been established beyond dispute. Theories require more evidence to be accepted as such. In the realm of science a theory is much, much more than a guess. A theory explains a set of observed phenomena or facts. Those facts, regarding cables, have not been observed with any reliability.  The "cable placebo effect theory" would be more appropriate.  When proponents of cable differences can come up with proof they really do exist, and form a hypothesis other than the PE, to account for them, and if their hypothesis can be falsified via testing, then they can call it a cable theory.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





lenni said:


> that's true. however the bottom line is: I have tried high-end cables therefore I can say something about it. none of you has. *no-one.*
> 
> let me give you an example: let’s imagine the OP question was about a place he/she was considering to go on holiday. the difference between *you* and *us* is that you’ve read some brochures about this place, a few comments here and there, but you’ve actually never been there.
> 
> ...


 


  By that logic, if I'm researching healing crystals, only people who have tried them should be given credence.  Only people who have paid a telephone psychic are qualified to criticize phone psychics. Only people who have spent thousands on homeopathic medicine should be listened to regarding homeopathy. Only theists are qualified to discuss the existence of God. If you've never done drugs, you've got no leg to stand on in your anti-drug crusade.
   
  How much sense does that make?
   
  People who have done the research and don't believe in magic cables won't buy them.  That doesn't mean they aren't fully qualified to evaluate the claims of believers.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> This shows an incredible ignorance about how audio components work. Electrical and construction properties don't matter? On what basis can you prove that? What do you think a cross over is made out of? Do you really a believe cross overs have ZERO impact on how a speaker sounds? What you're essentially saying is, the only thing that the effects the sound is the motor assembly physically moving the driver and thus the air, and everything behind that might as well be made out of tin foil. It's a conductor, and electrical properties and construction don't matter, right?


 


  That was exactly what I WAS saying.  Anything in the cable that changes how a speaker sounds IS electrical or construction related.  If there is no, or insignificant, electrical or construction differences between two cables then any sound difference is placebo.
   
   
  Quote:
 Originally Posted by Head Injury
 If it's all placebo, absolutely nothing. You could take some Monoprice cables, dress them up in a spiffy new tube with new connectors, slap an audiophile brand name on them, and sell them for a grand. No one would know the difference.
   
   
  In fact, that's exactly what one company did a few years ago. They bought filtered power cables from a Europen company, dressed them up and sold them for outrageous prices.  No one was the wiser until one head-fi'er cut into the jacket and saw the European name still on the cable. There's a thread that mentions it around here somewhere.  I have no doubt at all that the same thing could be done with speaker and interconnect cables.  I also have no doubt that there are plenty of testimonials about the wonderful performance of those power cables.


----------



## Pudu

sailorman said:


> Cable_ theory _is not the right term. Cable _hypothesis_ would be more accurate, but not really because, unlike rainbows, the existence of sound differences between cables has not been established beyond dispute. Theories require more evidence to be accepted as such. In the realm of science a theory is much, much more than a guess. A theory explains a set of observed phenomena or facts. Those facts, regarding cables, have not been observed with any reliability.  The "cable placebo effect theory" would be more appropriate.  When proponents of cable differences can come up with proof they really do exist, and form a hypothesis other than the PE, to account for them, and if their hypothesis can be falsified via testing, then they can call it a cable theory.




I just like the name because it sounds even more robust and substantial than String Theory. 


How about Cable Hypothetical Effect, or Cable Hyp-E for short? 


And before anyone thinks I'm making light of this (which I am), let me qualify my stance by saying I love my high-end cable and am about to order another. If you are looking to improve certain aspects of your headphone experience I highly recommend it. Especially if you _think _it will improve your headphone experience.


----------



## Pudu

davebsc said:


> steve eddy said:
> 
> 
> > And for what it's worth, double blind testing is routinely used in the wine tasting industry. So it's perhaps best to not make any analogies to wine.
> ...






How do you know he's never done that?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> That was exactly what I WAS saying.  Anything in the cable that changes how a speaker sounds IS electrical or construction related.  If there is no, or insignificant, electrical or construction differences between two cables then any sound difference is placebo.


 

 Oh, ok. That makes sense. Two different wires made out of the same conductor and insulator should sound the same. Is anyone disputing that? What I don't understand is how one can say that some crappy stranded copper in a highly resistive insulator like PVC sounds the same as OCC silver in foam teflon. That's the old "electrons don't care" argument. What I've always wondered about that argument is why mil-spec wire is teflon insulated silver plated copper. If "electrons don't care", why would they need to use that stuff? Why not just use the cheapest crap they can get hold of? I've made some cables out of mil-spec wire and it actually doesn't sound very good. I think it's intended for high-speed airframe data type use.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> You don't think it's a bit disingenuous to say that I could put some techflex and some WBT connectors on a two dollar monoprice cable, and NO ONE could tell the difference between that and a thousand dollar cable, having you know, never actually done that, or tested it. I'm just gonna say it, as if there's any factual basis to it.


 

 I've no idea what you're trying to say here.
   
  se


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





willakan said:


> The existence of rainbows is not an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Your example is irrelevant.


 
   
  Quote: 





willakan said:


> @Barleyguy:
> 
> The "science is faith" argument is given as a classic example of a logical fallacy on the Wikipedia page for fallacies.


 
   
   
  Trusting wikipedia is a logical fallacy, though.
  _______________
   
OK forget the rainbows thing, I'll give a better example, let's say there is a scientist in Ecuador in year 1899, and someone tells him about the northern lights in the sky in Finland, of their extreme beauty and different colours, they have no scientific evidence to explain it and no cameras exist yet.
   
Why should he believe someone, that giant shapes of colour randomly appear in the sky in Finland?

  
   
   
  Quote: 





head injury said:


> It would be an act of faith if there were no evidence to suggest that there are no differences. But there is evidence to suggest that. If strong evidence suggested that differences are audible, I would believe it. It's not faith in a belief so much as it is trust of facts and evidence.


 

 If there was strong evidence to suggest that cables do nothing, or they do something, then I would believe it too, but these threads are lots of words and not many graphs or pictures.
  
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The one I remember most is the ABX study done with a $220 Pioneer receiver, and a $12,000 tube amp. The test subjects failed to report any difference between the two. I have also not seen any ABX study done able to show any difference between 16/44 and 24/96.
> 
> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/487awsi/index.html


 

 OK thanks.
   
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Measuring the brain's response during sighted, comparison and ABX testing would be my next test, but sadly not one I could do or am I aware of one being done.


 

 Well, there is that controversial study of hypersonic testing, where measuring the brain was performed.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Trusting wikipedia is a logical fallacy, though.


 

  Wikipedia cites its sources, unlike cable believers.
   
   


> OK forget the rainbows thing, I'll give a better example, let's say there is a scientist in Ecuador in year 1899, and someone tells him about the northern lights in the sky in Finland, of their extreme beauty and different colours, they have no scientific evidence to explain it and no cameras exist yet.
> 
> Why should he believe someone, that giant shapes of colour randomly appear in the sky in Finland?


 
   
  Why _should_ he? He shouldn't. Only after he's been able to study it himself, or he has a larger number of reliable and consistent observers come forward, should he believe it exists.
   
   


> If there was strong evidence to suggest that cables do nothing, or they do something, then I would believe it too, but these threads are lots of words and not many graphs or pictures.


 

  No blind tests have ever been passed. Interconnects have been measured and null tested by the forum's very own nick_charles and showed no audible differences. How strong a piece of evidence do you need?
   
  We've been over the Oohashi study before, kiteki. What caused the difference in brain activity in that study was most likely the audible amount of IMD introduced by the playback system, reliant on hypersonic sound but not hypersonic sound itself. It showed that gear may perform differently, for the worse, but not that hypersonic sound itself has any effect.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Oh, ok. That makes sense. Two different wires made out of the same conductor and insulator should sound the same. Is anyone disputing that? What I don't understand is how one can say that some crappy stranded copper in a highly resistive insulator like PVC sounds the same as OCC silver in foam teflon. That's the old "electrons don't care" argument.


 

 So then what's your argument? What exactly does that "crappy stranded copper" and "highly resistive insulator like PVC" (I thought insulators were supposed to be highly resistive) do to the signal that would alter the signal in such a way as to be audible?
   
  Quote: 





> What I've always wondered about that argument is why mil-spec wire is teflon insulated silver plated copper. If "electrons don't care", why would they need to use that stuff? Why not just use the cheapest crap they can get hold of? I've made some cables out of mil-spec wire and it actually doesn't sound very good. I think it's intended for high-speed airframe data type use.


 
   
  Because military specs tend to have more to do with mechanics, durability and reliability as military gear has to work under some very harsh conditions. There are also military specs for plain bare copper PVC insulated wire.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Wikipedia cites its sources, unlike cable believers. *[citation needed]*


 
   





   
  se


----------



## kiteki

Does anyone know of a really cheap headphone with replaceable cables in 3.5mm jack form?
   
  I figure a silver cable such as this one would be sufficient to test for any perceived audible difference http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Ultimate-Solid-Silver-3-5mm-RCA-iPod-Interconnect-1m-/180687285373


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> se


 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#References


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





head injury said:


> No blind tests have ever been passed. Interconnects have been measured and null tested by the forum's very own nick_charles and showed no audible differences. How strong a piece of evidence do you need?
> 
> We've been over the Oohashi study before, kiteki. What caused the difference in brain activity in that study was most likely the audible amount of IMD introduced by the playback system, reliant on hypersonic sound but not hypersonic sound itself. It showed that gear may perform differently, for the worse, but not that hypersonic sound itself has any effect.


 

 OK... I'll check the nick_charles thing.
   
  As of right now, all I've seen is a couple FR graph comparisons, IMHO they are not sufficient because you can measure identical FR on 10 different amplifiers and they all sound different, so IMHO FR does not prove in any way that two things sound identical.
  
   
  As for Oohashi, I was just pointing out to him that such a study of brain activity exists.
   
  In fairness the data above 20kHz usually seems to be at very quiet volumes, so for the vast amount of music out there I doubt it will make any difference if we can't even hear it (masked by all the loud audible music), so unless the 20kHz+ stuff is amplified, or a specific type of music is selected (like that balinese gamelan stuff or whatever) I don't think it will realistically make much difference, unless a 70kHz tone directed at a particular part of our brain makes us see rainbows.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> OK... I'll check the nick_charles thing.
> 
> As of right now, all I've seen is a couple FR graph comparisons, IMHO they are not sufficient because you can measure identical FR on 10 different amplifiers and they all sound different, so IMHO FR does not prove in any way that two things sound identical.


 

 What amplifiers sound different? Most of them actually sound pretty similar!
   
  What an amp has that a cable doesn't is a direct relationship to the headphone's impedance through its output impedance, which can alter the frequency response. That's not taken into account by the amp's frequency response. There's also THD, which a cable doesn't add. I hope you don't mean to suggest that a cable is as complex as an amp. It's just a means of transferring electricity, it's not _supposed_ to change it like an amp.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> So then what's your argument? What exactly does that "crappy stranded copper" and "highly resistive insulator like PVC" (I thought insulators were supposed to be highly resistive) do to the signal that would alter the signal in such a way as to be audible?
> 
> 
> Because military specs tend to have more to do with mechanics, durability and reliability as military gear has to work under some very harsh conditions. There are also military specs for plain bare copper PVC insulated wire.
> ...


 

 Crappy stranded copper is less conductive than OCC silver, and has lots of impurities in it. For an audio cable, the best type of insulator is nothing. Air. That's not exactly practical though, which is why the high-end brands go to great lengths to use the lowest resistance insulators like foam teflon, or "air tubes" where the the insulator is larger than the conductor. I understand making a mechnaical argument for using teflon, although PVC is also tough and can handle extremely high voltage. Where's the durability and reliability argument for silver plating, though?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Does anyone know of a really cheap headphone with replaceable cables in 3.5mm jack form?
> 
> I figure a silver cable such as this one would be sufficient to test for any perceived audible difference http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Ultimate-Solid-Silver-3-5mm-RCA-iPod-Interconnect-1m-/180687285373


 

 Using a really cheap headphone is self defeating. That's the princess and the pea, can you feel a pea under ten mattresses? A crappy headphone is the equivalent of ten mattresses. Aside from that, the wiring _behind _the detachable jack that's actually connected to the driver is likely to be crap. The way to do it is to use a headphone like the HE-6 or LCD-3.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





head injury said:


> What amplifiers sound different? Most of them actually sound pretty similar!
> 
> What an amp has that a cable doesn't is a direct relationship to the headphone's impedance through its output impedance, which can alter the frequency response. That's not taken into account by the amp's frequency response. There's also THD, which a cable doesn't add. I hope you don't mean to suggest that a cable is as complex as an amp. It's just a means of transferring electricity, it's not _supposed_ to change it like an amp.


 

 Indeed, a cable just transfers electricity, not magical rainbows.
   
  Just like the sun transfers light, not magical rainbows.
   
  I think it's possible that silver cables make the electrons form complex arc beams of superpolarity with a wide spectral decay that our mind perceives as sonic rainbooms, this does not happen in copper cables, where the electricity just flows normally in one direction.
   
  In other words, I think copper is a normal sky, and silver is a rainy sky, the superconductivity of silver has passed a certain threshhold (just above 7N copper, it's around 9N copper actually) where electrons shatter in a theory known as ultracollision, however it's not far away from how lightbeams 'shatter' on raindrops.
  


Spoiler: %20%20%20%20%20%20%20



I'm just kidding


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





head injury said:


> What amplifiers sound different? Most of them actually sound pretty similar!
> 
> What an amp has that a cable doesn't is a direct relationship to the headphone's impedance through its output impedance, which can alter the frequency response. That's not taken into account by the amp's frequency response. There's also THD, which a cable doesn't add. I hope you don't mean to suggest that a cable is as complex as an amp. It's just a means of transferring electricity, it's not _supposed_ to change it like an amp.


 
   
  I mean I don't think the difference in sound between various sources can be accurately measured with FR and THD, we'd all be using the sansa clip+ if that was the case, right? I am pretty sure the Darkvoice 339 sounds better than the clip+ but how are we supposed to show that with FR and THD. =p
   
  You're right though, cables don't have that complexity, and trust me I think $500 USB and HDMI cables sound the same as a $5 cable, I'm just wondering if the higher conductivity of silver in a headphone or speaker cable can do something to the sound.
   
  Well, actually I think there are expensive cables that use tin and lead and so on and that probably would do more to the sound than silver... isn't there a possibility that high-end cables make systems sound worse, and people perceive it as better due to the marketing and price?
  
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Using a really cheap headphone is self defeating. That's the princess and the pea, can you feel a pea under ten mattresses? A crappy headphone is the equivalent of ten mattresses. Aside from that, the wiring _behind _the detachable jack that's actually connected to the driver is likely to be crap. The way to do it is to use a headphone like the HE-6 or *LCD-3*.


 

 I hope you're not serious that an LCD-3 is necessary to hear the difference in cables.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Crappy stranded copper is less conductive than OCC silver, and has lots of impurities in it. For an audio cable, the best type of insulator is nothing. Air. That's not exactly practical though, which is why the high-end brands go to great lengths to use the lowest resistance insulators like foam teflon, or "air tubes" where the the insulator is larger than the conductor.


 

 All you're doing is parroting a bunch of meaningless marketing verbiage. That's not an argument. Nor does it answer the question.
   
  Here it is again:
   
  What exactly does that "crappy stranded copper" and "highly resistive insulator like PVC" (I thought insulators were supposed to be highly resistive) do to the signal that would alter the signal in such a way as to be audible?
   
  Quote: 





> I understand making a mechnaical argument for using teflon, although PVC is also tough and can handle extremely high voltage. Where's the durability and reliability argument for silver plating, though?


 
   
  Because extruding such insulations as Teflon, Tefzel and Kapton require high temperatures. The silver plating is there to keep the copper from oxidizing under high temperature conditions. Nickel is sometimes also used for the same purpose.
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I hope you're not serious that an LCD-3 is necessary to hear the difference in cables.


 

 Necessary, no. The best platform likely to show the largest differences, that also happens to have a high quality detachable cable system, yes. An HD-650 would do the job, although it might mask small differences in the upper treble region. The HD-800 would definitely be a better candidate.


----------



## kiteki

If the differences in cable material are so subtle that a sub-$200 headphone can't even detect them, then the differences would have to extremely subtle, probably esoteric.
   
   
  There are very accurate and revealing cheap headphones, I mean just look at studios, they use Sony MDR-V6 and Fostex stuff that never costs more than $150!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> If the differences in cable material are so subtle that a sub-$200 headphone can't even detect them, then the differences would have to extremely subtle, probably esoteric.
> 
> 
> There are very accurate and revealing cheap headphones, I mean just look at studios, they use Sony MDR-V6 and Fostex stuff that never costs more than $150!


 

 $200 is about the barrier where I stop being able to tell my Hifiman HM-801 apart from my Cowon S9, and the difference between those two is definitely more than a headphone cable. Using a Zeus or DHC Complement on an MDR-V6 would be kind of dumb.


----------



## kiteki

I used to have the S9 and I could easily tell it apart from another DAP with $20 earbuds.
   
  I currently have the HM-601 and Teclast T51 and I could tell them apart with a $1 earbud.
   
   
  Edit: You can even tell the HO and LO apart on the the T51 with a $1 earbud, that's why I don't view FR graphs as substantial evidence to _dis_prove cables, IMHO.
   
  On the other hand, if you don't think the differences will be heard on a Sony MDR-V6, then I can't see the point in silver cables at all, IMHO.


----------



## Willakan

Kiteki:
   
  There are lots more things to measure than FR and THD - others that spring to mind include:
   
  IMD
  Noise
  Crosstalk
  Output Impedance
  Channel Balance
  Phase Shift
  Power Output
   
  And these can and will vary into different loads - especially power ouput.
  We can quite easily measure the difference between the DarkVoice and the Clip. It's pretty trivial to do with the right equipment.


----------



## kiteki

That's cool, and in which one of those do the differences show up, in comparing a lesser good cable made out of let's say Iron, with one made out of Copper?


----------



## Willakan

You would have to buy a pretty crap interconnect to get one that isn't actually made of copper!
  The point is, they don't. There is not a single shred of anything in the entirety of electrical theory which suggests that the differences heard are caused by the cable. People have tried distorting existing ideas - for example, invoking "skin effect," and other things which are of interest only at frequencies orders of magnitude outside the audible range - but there is not a shred of anything, measurement or theory, which suggests differences between a functional pair of cables (functional assuming they don't have capacitors in them or something equally stupid).


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> This shows an incredible ignorance about how audio components work. Electrical and construction properties don't matter? On what basis can you prove that? What do you think a cross over is made out of? Do you really a believe cross overs have ZERO impact on how a speaker sounds? What you're essentially saying is, the only thing that the effects the sound is the motor assembly physically moving the driver and thus the air, and everything behind that might as well be made out of tin foil. It's a conductor, and electrical properties and construction don't matter, right?


 

 No, just the interconnects, USB cable etc. Speakers make the biggest difference and a crossover is not just wire, but an interconnect is.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> Here's the issue. Who says there's "something wrong" with those who hear a difference?  I've never heard that expressed.  Saying that someone is subject to the placebo effect is not saying there's something wrong with them.  Only people who have an unrealistically high opinion of themselves would take that as a criticism.  If someone told them that they couldn't really hear a 40Khz frequency, would they be insulted? Would they insist that they, and they alone, were "special"? Would they claim that no one had the right to say that unless they had heard 40Khz themselves?  Those are the kind of arguments that you get when you dare suggest that there is no evidence that anything other than the PE causes a perceived sound difference between two cables with otherwise adequate electrical and material characteristics.
> 
> As much as I'd like to think that there's more interesting territory to get into, there's no evidence that such territory exists.  What evidence is there that points to something other than the PE?


 

 I have been on many a forum and many a cable debate which decends into anger by those who do hear a difference being made to feel they are being fooled, are making it up and there is something wrong with them. The thread on Audiophile Myths has a number of posts like that and I have been banned from Hifi Wigwam and The Art of Sound forums for putting forward the evidence I have here and people not liking the idea it is all in their head. The vitriol, abuse and misrepresentation I received was staggering.


----------



## Gwarmi

You guys are going to love & hate this, I have the following equipment on loan for evaluation, as of today
   
*~ Nordost power board conditioner $1000AUD*
   
*~ Nordost power cable (woah 10mm thick) for my Violectric V200 $450AUD*
   
*~ Nordost Blue Heaven RCA cables $320*
   
  So far, ho-humming along. Will let you know if I hear anything.
   
  Come on audio gods ~ give me something here with Dark Side of the Moon.
   
  Here's another spanner for the works, pity I live in a quiet suburban area without any industry,
  let's assume I was located between 3 or 4 industrial plants using heavy machinery via 3 phase
  power - do think this conditioning might have more chance of showing something audible?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> You don't think it's a bit disingenuous to say that I could put some techflex and some WBT connectors on a two dollar monoprice cable, and NO ONE could tell the difference between that and a thousand dollar cable, having you know, never actually done that, or tested it. I'm just gonna say it, as if there's any factual basis to it.


 

 Hifi Wigwam made up four power cords to look the same, two were kettel leads, one was a DIY cord and one was an audiophile one. They were sent to different memebers of the forum to try on their own setups over a week or so. At the end when the results were totted up, no one cable did any better than any other, no one could reliable pick out which was which.
   
  http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?433-The-WigWam-Power-Cable-Test&s=a3b92ca672282ebca1e5d357b8948510


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> You guys are going to love & hate this, I have the following equipment on loan for evaluation, as of today
> 
> *~ Nordost power board conditioner $1000AUD*
> 
> ...


 

 Here is a test involving Nordost power cords and others
   
  http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
   
  At the end the result was 49% accuracy identifying which power was which, the same as chance.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Here is a test involving Nordost power cords and others
> 
> http://www.*hometheaterhifi.com*/volume_11_4/feature-article-*blind-test*-power-cords-12-2004.html
> 
> At the end the result was 49% accuracy identifying which power was which, the same as chance.


 

 Nuh uh the casino makes it money on that 1%, and they are making money from youuuuu.
   
  Here's another link from "hometheaterhifi.gov" with a blind ABX test in a listening lab, he even says you'd have to be a Vietnam veteran not to hear the difference. http://hometheaterreview.com/critics-say-all-hdmi-cables-sound-the-same---and-they-are-wrong/
  
   
   
  Quote: 





willakan said:


> You would have to buy a pretty crap interconnect to get one that isn't actually made of copper!
> The point is, they don't. There is not a single shred of anything in the entirety of electrical theory which suggests that the differences heard are caused by the cable. People have tried distorting existing ideas - for example, invoking "skin effect," and other things which are of interest only at frequencies orders of magnitude outside the audible range - but there is not a shred of anything, measurement or theory, which suggests differences between a functional pair of cables (functional assuming they don't have capacitors in them or something equally stupid).


 

 OK fine, I was thinking about making a silver cable but now I'm going to a *really horrible cable* instead, and if that sounds the same as copper, that should be evidence that copper and silver sounds the same, right..? At least to me it will.
   
  Unless there's a "critical point" somewhere between the electrical conductivity of Copper and Silver, where the electrical conductivity breaks the barrier and turns into sonic rainbooms.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Nuh uh the casino makes it money on that 1%, and they are making money from youuuuu.
> 
> Here's another link from "hometheaterhifi.gov" with a blind ABX test in a listening lab, he even says you'd have to be a Vietnam veteran not to hear the difference. http://hometheaterreview.com/critics-say-all-hdmi-cables-sound-the-same---and-they-are-wrong/


 

 You are joking, right?
   
   


> They play a Johnny Cash (or something similar) recording with an acoustic accompaniment on a Radio Shack "zip chord" HDMI cable for 1:30 of the demo. And it sounds good. Open. Spacious. Musical. Really, it sounds pretty good. Then they switch in a $100 HDMI cable and - HOLY CRAP - the midrange opens up and the voices sound more real and less compressed.


 
   
  That's not a blind test. That's not even an AB test, let alone an ABX test.


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Unless there's a "critical point" somewhere between the electrical conductivity of Copper and Silver, where the electrical conductivity breaks the barrier and turns into sonic rainbooms.


 
   
   
   
   
  ^^ You should make a $1000 snake oil cable and advertise in the pony thread 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
   
  I saw some one claiming USB cables make a difference because they have an analogue part as well, anyone care to explain if this is actually true ?


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





gatepc said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Got it. Nice that it generates a distortion graph alongside the frequency response, but pity that it costs $150. Now the only other problem is that the mic XLR inputs on the ULN-2 are too sensitive for what I'm doing.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> I saw some one claiming USB cables make a difference because they have an analogue part as well, anyone care to explain if this is actually true ?


 

 Analog as in "uses electricity"?
   
  With a USB cable, if the signal is changed considerably you get errors during playback. Missing sounds, noise, pops and drops. You don't get "thinner mid-range" or "harsh treble" and stuff like that. What you hear is going to be the result of missing data, not altered data.
   
  Same with HDMI cables. You get noise on the screen, missing pixels, that sort of thing. Not dull colors. I'm sure a digital cable could be _designed_ to do this sort of thing, but they don't do it naturally.


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Analog as in "uses electricity"?
> 
> With a USB cable, if the signal is changed considerably you get errors during playback. Missing sounds, noise, pops and drops. You don't get "thinner mid-range" or "harsh treble" and stuff like that. What you hear is going to be the result of missing data, not altered data.
> 
> Same with HDMI cables. You get noise on the screen, missing pixels, that sort of thing. Not dull colors. I'm sure a digital cable could be _designed_ to do this sort of thing, but they don't do it naturally.


 


  Thanks for the help


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





head injury said:


> You are joking, right?


 

 Yes, I thought it was a horrible test.
  ________________
   
   
  I just went through the nick charles tests and read some of that thread.
   
  It seems like nick charles did some extensive testing and has shown that the differences in FR in the cables he tested is extremely small / insignificant.
   
  So, one cable does not have more volume or less volume than another cable at any particular frequency, during a cymbal crash wav file and so on.
   
  Identical FR is not enough data to prove that two components sound identical, right? An exception is made for cables, since they're a basic component with a simple task, is this how it works? If this is how it works, then the evaluation that all cables sound identical has been done with 'common sense', but not with statistical evidence.
   
  The statistical evidence is only that the cables nick charles tested (and purrin tested a silver cable on the HD650) have identical FR, right?


----------



## kiteki

I'm confused about this one:
   

   
   
   
  Why is there a 4-5dB difference between the silver and copper there?
   
  source: http://www.head-fi.org/t/405217/my-cable-test-enterprise#post_5351973


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I'm confused about this one:
> 
> Why is there a 4-5dB difference between the silver and copper there?
> 
> source: http://www.head-fi.org/t/405217/my-cable-test-enterprise#post_5351973


 

 It doesn't matter. We're talking audible differences here. The silver cable is still below -95dB noise, which is meaningless with the 96dB digital noise floor. You'd only hear it if you're playing 24 bit files with an amp and DAC with better than -95dB noise, and listening over 95dB. You could try that, if you want 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I just went through the nick charles tests and read some of that thread.
> 
> It seems like nick charles did some extensive testing and has shown that the differences in FR in the cables he tested is extremely small / insignificant.
> 
> ...


 

 If two cables produce not only the same frequency response, but the same cymbal crash, wouldn't they sound the same? The cymbal crash would be affected by everything a cable could change. Noise and distortion would be noticeable in the crash if they were significant. What else is there that you think a cable might change?


----------



## uelover

Just curious, is there any test that will measure soundstage, depth, imaging and etc?
   
  Frequency response seems to only measure how well the device will reproduce the sound signal's across the frequency range.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Just curious, is there any test that will measure soundstage, depth, imaging and etc?
> 
> Frequency response seems to only measure how well the device will reproduce the sound signal's across the frequency range.


 

 And if the device produces what's on the recording, won't it have just the right soundstage?
   
  You suggest a way that cables can alter soundstage that is independent of frequency response and distortion, I'll try to come up with a way to measure it.
   
  Some of my guesses on soundstage are here, and I don't see any way a cable can change that.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





head injury said:


> And if the device produces what's on the recording, won't it have just the right soundstage?
> 
> You suggest a way that cables can alter soundstage that is independent of frequency response and distortion, I'll try to come up with a way to measure it.
> 
> Some of my guesses on soundstage are here, and I don't see any way a cable can change that.


 


  I am not suggesting anything. There is no point in hypothetical guesses and philosophies.
   
  I mean, when I use a different speakers, DAC, amps and etc, all these variables will be changed accordingly but FR graphs won't pick them up either.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Just curious, is there any test that will measure soundstage, depth, imaging and etc?
> 
> Frequency response seems to only measure how well the device will reproduce the sound signal's across the frequency range.


 
   
  That's ultimately a function of the brain interpreting a stereo signal which itself is really just an illusion.
   
  In a cable, all you have is a change in voltage and current over time. Anything which would result in any audible change in such perceptions as soundstage, depth, imaging, etc. would manifest itself as change in that change in voltage and current over time. However cable have been examined to microscopic levels in both the time and frequency domains and there's simply nothing there.
   
  se


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





uelover said:


> I am not suggesting anything. There is no point in hypothetical guesses and philosophies.
> 
> I mean, when I use a different speakers, DAC, amps and etc, all these variables will be changed accordingly but FR graphs won't pick them up either.


 

 If we don't know what _changes_ soundstage in a cable, how could we possibly measure it?
   
  You'd think with all the years of electrical knowledge we have, and the 40 years of cable criticism, someone would have figured out _why_ they're different by now, if they really are.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Analog as in "uses electricity"?
> 
> With a USB cable, if the signal is changed considerably you get errors during playback. Missing sounds, noise, pops and drops. You don't get "thinner mid-range" or "harsh treble" and stuff like that. What you hear is going to be the result of missing data, not altered data.
> 
> Same with HDMI cables. You get noise on the screen, missing pixels, that sort of thing. Not dull colors. I'm sure a digital cable could be _designed_ to do this sort of thing, but they don't do it naturally.


 

 Wrong. When an HDMI cable is used for video transmission, you are correct in that it either works or it doesn't. When it's used to transfer _audio, _such as PCM digital, differences between cables will appear. HDMI is bad at this in general because it wasn't designed as a low jitter transfer medium. USB in block mode (hard drives, printers, cameras, whatever) again works or it doesn't. When used in streaming mode, particularly with an adaptive mode converter, the cable matters. Asynchronous mode seems to reduce the need to use an ultra high-end cable, but not eliminate it entirely. It also depends on the device - ones that are powered by the USB supply like the Audiophilleo or the Sonicweld will benefit more than ones that are completely self powered.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





head injury said:


> If we don't know what _changes_ soundstage in a cable, how could we possibly measure it?
> 
> You'd think with all the years of electrical knowledge we have, and the 40 years of cable criticism, someone would have figured out _why_ they're different by now, if they really are.


 


  Please answer my question and don't avoid it.
   
  My question has nothing to do with cables.
   
  If FR graph can't explain anything on soundstage, depths, imaging and other such sort of things, then FR graphs should not be used to justify everything. Even two speakers which gives you the same FR graph may sound different if their soundstaging and imagining capabilities are different.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Please answer my question and don't avoid it.
> 
> My question has nothing to do with cables.
> 
> If FR graph can't explain anything on soundstage, depths, imaging and other such sort of things, then FR graphs should not be used to justify everything. Even two speakers which gives you the same FR graph may sound different if their soundstaging and imagining capabilities are different.


 

 Frequency response is not used to justify everything. It's used to justify everything that a cable will change.
   
  You're making the _assumption_ that equipment like amps, DACs, and cables alter soundstage and imaging, then pointing to their similar frequency responses and saying "See, it doesn't tell the whole story".
   
  Prove the equipment changes soundstage, _at the very least_ suggest ways in which it could, _then_ determine how it should be measured. Otherwise you're just pointing fingers.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Frequency response is not used to justify everything. It's used to justify everything that a cable will change.
> 
> You're making the _assumption_ that equipment like amps, DACs, and cables alter soundstage and imaging, then pointing to their similar frequency responses and saying "See, it doesn't tell the whole story".
> 
> Prove the equipment changes soundstage, _at the very least_ suggest ways in which it could, _then_ determine how it should be measured. Otherwise you're just pointing fingers.


 

 I am not making any assumption on cable. Don't conveniently put words into my mouth.
  I am just as curious as to how people can conclude that  audio equipments sound similar/different (good/bad) based on FR graphs.
   
  The objective of science is to be neutral and impartial, never to jump upon any conclusion prematurely.
   
  If no comprehensive test has been performed (or if no conclusive experimental method has been conceived), any premature writing off of other possible outcomes only goes on to reflect a bias.


----------



## Willakan

There are other measurements aside from FR...


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





uelover said:


> If FR graph can't explain anything on soundstage, depths, imaging and other such sort of things, then FR graphs should not be used to justify everything. Even two speakers which gives you the same FR graph may sound different if their soundstaging and imagining capabilities are different.


 

 This is the classic argument. If there isn't an associated measurement for an acoustic phenomena, then that phenomena must not exist. If we can't measure why a Bryston for example might produce a wider or deeper stage than a Krell, therefore that must mean that there can be no such difference. It's silly.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> This is the classic argument. If there isn't an associated measurement for an acoustic phenomena, then that phenomena must not exist. If we can't measure why a Bryston for example might produce a wider or deeper stage than a Krell, therefore that must mean that there can be no such difference. It's silly.


 

 What do amplifiers have to do with this discussion?
   
  Oh, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.
   
  se


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yes, we're talking about audible difference here, I can see that data is insignificant to a human listening session, however I'm just curious what if he was measuring anything _apart from the cable?_ Then wouldn't the use of the silver or copper cable affect his measurement of the amp, DAC, capacitor, headphone driver, whatever by *4-5dB... *a rather *significant* difference, purely based on his cable choice used in the measurement system?!
  
   
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> Just curious, is there any test that will measure soundstage, depth, imaging and etc?
> 
> Frequency response seems to only measure how well the device will reproduce the sound signal's across the frequency range.


 

 I think there is more sound outside of FR than just soundstage, depth (xyz..), imaging and layering...
   
  If you have 5 different speakers and headphones, and spend hours equalizing them so they all measure exactly the same in FR, they will all still sound uniquely different, right?
  
   
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> I am not suggesting anything. There is no point in hypothetical guesses and philosophies.
> 
> I mean, when I use a different speakers, DAC, amps and etc, all these variables will be changed accordingly but FR graphs won't pick them up either.


 
   
  Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> >
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Illusion or not, there is still a code in that "change in voltage and current over time" which will create the same illusion for all humans listening to it, so if the code is universal, I'm not sure if it can be an illusion?
   
   
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> Please answer my question and don't avoid it.
> My question has nothing to do with cables.
> 
> If FR graph can't explain anything on soundstage, depths, imaging and other such sort of things, then FR graphs should not be used to justify everything. Even two speakers which gives you the same FR graph may sound different if their soundstaging and imagining capabilities are different.


 
   
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> >
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yes, I don't support cables, but I've been trying to convey this point as well.
   
  As far as I can tell, the fact that cables don't make a difference is only an assumption based on their physical properties and their task, to send electrical signals.
   
  What I am wondering is what will happen to the sound signature with an extremely poor cable, and I also wonder if cable manufactuers mix extremely poor materials with good ones, like intertwined wires of lead and silver, if that is the case then I think it's possible one signal may reach the driver a small fraction of time before the other signal, or one signal may move the driver faster than the other signal, this could cause an offset of some kind, and difference in sound.
   

  
  Quote: 





willakan said:


> There are other measurements aside from FR...


 

 There are, but we don't let robots build musical instruments, at least not yet. There is no robot with an in-ear microphone and software processing that can mimic the human experience of sound perception, at this current time, AFAIK.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *kiteki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Illusion or not, there is still a code in that "change in voltage and current over time" which will create the same illusion for all humans listening to it, so if the code is universal, I'm not sure if it can be an illusion?


 
   
  It's what's happening in the left and right channels, not what's happening within the cable itself.
   
  se


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Wrong. When an HDMI cable is used for video transmission, you are correct in that it either works or it doesn't. When it's used to transfer _audio, _such as PCM digital, differences between cables will appear. HDMI is bad at this in general because it wasn't designed as a low jitter transfer medium. USB in block mode (hard drives, printers, cameras, whatever) again works or it doesn't. When used in streaming mode, particularly with an adaptive mode converter, the cable matters. Asynchronous mode seems to reduce the need to use an ultra high-end cable, but not eliminate it entirely. It also depends on the device - ones that are powered by the USB supply like the Audiophilleo or the Sonicweld will benefit more than ones that are completely self powered.


 

 On the HDMI thing, do you have any evidence or measurements to show that cheaper and/or better cables introduce jitter? If so, do you have any tests that show that this jitter is audible? Anything non-anecdotal?
   
  Same for the USB thing - do you have any tests that show people can tell the difference between audio with different USB cables, even in streaming mode?  Any tests that show that where the signal is powered makes a difference?  If you plug a USB audio source into a jammed USB hub, then force something to stream music through it, basically forcing collisions, what happens? Do subtle things happen, or does the signal simply drop out here and there?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





danroche said:


> Same for the USB thing - do you have any tests that show people can tell the difference between audio with different USB cables, even in streaming mode?  Any tests that show that where the signal is powered makes a difference?  If you plug a USB audio source into a jammed USB hub, then force something to stream music through it, basically forcing collisions, what happens? Do subtle things happen, or does the signal simply drop out here and there?


 

 The M2Tech Hiface gets all of its power from the USB port. This powers both the clocks, and the S/Pdif output stage. For his original modified version, John simply cut the USB power to the clocks, and replaced it with batteries. The rest was still powered by the USB port. I've never seen a single person describe the stock Hiface and the original mod as being even close. Clean power matters.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The M2Tech Hiface gets all of its power from the USB port. This powers both the clocks, and the S/Pdif output stage. For his original modified version, John simply cut the USB power to the clocks, and replaced it with batteries. The rest was still powered by the USB port.* I've never seen a single person describe the stock Hiface and the original mod as being even close.* Clean power matters.


 

 But do you have any non-anecdotal evidence?


----------



## Gwarmi

Here's some pictures people of the Nordost power conditioner and amplifier power cable.
   
  <Shrug> Looks nice, I'm currently using the ultra scientific method of 1-2 days on this
  setup using 2 tracks for auditioning and then 1-2 days back on my normal UPS surge
  protector 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   

   

   
  I'm not likely to get a call from Mythbusters anytime soon but
  my 'ideal' method for hearing out this gear would be to test at
  home for a few days and then spend a Monday or Tuesday
  in the middle of a 3-phase industrial zone. If there was no
  difference between home and industry on that front then I'm
  sure my answer would be all but blatantly obvious.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> You guys are going to love & hate this, I have the following equipment on loan for evaluation, as of today
> 
> *~ Nordost power board conditioner $1000AUD*
> 
> ...


 
   
  Go Gwarmi!  For a little unsolicited advice, when comparing any two components, the tester should really blind (have someone else switch them out for you) or your sensory experience will be influenced/overwhelmed by sight and expectation.  And the gold standard in experimental science for demonstrating a real effect is to show that differences are consistent to a degree that they could almost certainly could not have happened by chance (α < 0.05).  Here's a handy probability calculator for your test of discrete outcomes, as described by the binomial distribution.  If testing two cables, type .5 in the top box (outcome assuming purely random choices), # of trials in the second box and # of successes in the third box.  Click calculate and if the score in the very bottom box is less than 0.05, then your effect is statistically significant and scientifically real.  (sweeping type 2 errors and assumptions of homostacity, etc under the rug).


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The M2Tech Hiface gets all of its power from the USB port. This powers both the clocks, and the S/Pdif output stage. For his original modified version, John simply cut the USB power to the clocks, and replaced it with batteries. The rest was still powered by the USB port. I've never seen a single person describe the stock Hiface and the original mod as being even close. Clean power matters.


 


  I had the same experience just by using a powered USB hub.  The USB power from my Mac Mini sucks, and I can hear it as a high frequency noise in my speakers (with 3 different USB powered DACs).  As soon as I added a powered USB hub, the high frequency noise went away and the background was "black".
   
  Clean power does matter.  That why studio DACs have complex power supply circuits and/or external power supplies.


----------



## Gwarmi

It is going to be very difficult to draw any solid conclusions using a rigorous method with this gear,
  I can already see it now. Only thing I'll be able to say is whether I heard a nuance here or there
  (all in my head placebo or not).
   
  I think there's a few interesting aspects to consider here, some enthusiasts who have climbed the
  ladder and found their ultimate rig eg, Weiss DAC and Sugden Masterclass (assuming you have
  expensive taste and the means) may look at this gear and think 'why not, it cannot hurt even if
  the results are all in my head, at least the cables are nicely made and will last'
   
  I also suspect that the components may play a very tiny, tiny part. Any DAC or amp with a nasty
  cheap Walmart supply pack (looking at you Arcam rDAC) may be a better contender for review
  than something that the manufacturer has considered carefully for noise isolation eg,
  Benchmark DAC1 or Rega DAC.
   
  Sample size does play a factor too ~ regarding any component in audio.
   
  I am very, very wary of any review assessing the virtues of any amp or DAC that involves
  10+ tracks of music. Maybe I'm a cynic but no one's music memory is that good.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





head injury said:


> But do you have any non-anecdotal evidence?


 


  Girlfriend: All my friends who tried ABC pasta said that it is the best in town. Shall we go and try?
   
  Boyfriend (Scientist): I don't believe in you. Any non-anecdotal evidence?


----------



## Rebel975

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Girlfriend: All my friends who tried ABC pasta said that it is the best in town. Shall we go and try?
> 
> Boyfriend (Scientist): I don't believe in you. Any non-anecdotal evidence?


 
   
   
   
  ^Actual response from Boyfriend: How can they say that it's _the best in town? _I know for a fact that they haven't been to every one. I think XYZ Pasta is the best!


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Girlfriend: All my friends who tried ABC pasta said that it is the best in town. Shall we go and try?
> 
> Boyfriend (Scientist): I don't believe in you. Any non-anecdotal evidence?


 

 See, there's a difference between using anecdotal evidence to say "We should..." and "It is..."
   
  In the first you present subjective experiences as a basis for a suggestion. You don't make any further extrapolations on the experiences. They're simply subjective. You can test them later.
   
  In the second, you're presenting the subjective experience as proof of something. Like Dave did.
   
  Scientists can use anecdotal evidence to form a hypothesis, not a theory. They can start an experiment on anecdotal evidence they have discovered. They can't skip the experiment entirely and call that evidence proof.
   
  What he said: "People say this product sounds better, therefore what it does must work."
  What he should have said: "People say this product sounds better, therefore we should see what causes that."


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





rebel975 said:


> ^Actual response from Boyfriend: How can they say that it's _the best in town? _I know for a fact that they haven't been to every one. I think XYZ Pasta is the best!


 

 Hahah I think that will be the typical response from someone in the humanities/social science field.
   
  Not something a Scientist will do.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





head injury said:


> See, there's a difference between using anecdotal evidence to say "We should..." and "It is..."
> 
> In the first you present subjective experiences as a basis for a suggestion. You don't make any further extrapolations on the experiences. They're simply subjective. You can test them later.
> 
> ...


 


  Come on. I am making a joke.
   
  Need to be so serious on a nice sunny morning? =)
   
  I am not in the mood here for pointless debates. Chill dude.


----------



## Pudu

uelover said:


> I am not in the mood here for pointless debates. .





You've come to the wrong thread.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





pudu said:


> You've come to the wrong thread.


 

 And/or forum


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





pudu said:


> You've come to the wrong thread.


 


  I am in here for some laughter to entertain myself from all the previous postings.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





barleyguy said:


> I had the same experience just by using a powered USB hub.  The USB power from my Mac Mini sucks, and I can hear it as a high frequency noise in my speakers (with 3 different USB powered DACs).  As soon as I added a powered USB hub, the high frequency noise went away and the background was "black".
> 
> Clean power does matter.  That why studio DACs have complex power supply circuits and/or external power supplies.


 

 I suspect a lack of galvanic isolation may have been at least a part of the issue there. If the USB input on the DAC isn't isolated, that noisy power goes straight through.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I suspect a lack of galvanic isolation may have been at least a part of the issue there. If the USB input on the DAC isn't isolated, that noisy power goes straight through.


 


  Yep, one of the very reasons why my Arcam rDAC is a new door stop and the Rega DAC's isolated USB input is my new number #1.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Girlfriend: All my friends who tried ABC pasta said that it is the best in town. Shall we go and try?
> 
> Boyfriend (Scientist): I don't believe in you. Any non-anecdotal evidence?


 

 That's what I call missing the point:
   
  Pasta example: There's no "reference pasta" by which all other pastas are judged, the said judgment is a subjective perception (pardon my pleonasm) which suffices to itself, If you don't like the same pasta as your friends do, no one can actually say that the pasta you like taste bad to you
  Cable example: The better cable is the one for which the signal at one end of the cable is the closest to the signal at the other end, there exist an objective evaluation criterion.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> That's what I call missing the point:


 


  This is what I call missing the point. I am making a joke, not making an assertion.
   
  You are just so passionate about cable theory don't you?


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *khaos974* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> Cable example: The better cable is the one for which the signal at one end of the cable is the closest to the signal at the other end, there exist an objective evaluation criterion.


 

 We can only eat pasta at live concerts, we can't record pasta, store it onto a digital media, and then play it back through a pasta generator in the comfort of our own home, or via an iPasta device for portable pasta eating.
   
  If such devices existed, then we'd be able to argue about the efficiency of the cables used from the iPasta device to the pasta generator, and how different the pasta tasted from the live concert.
   
  The pastaphone is probably the most important part, the iPasta device is pretty important, and the cables don't really matter at all, but at pasta-fi.org there's a bunch of pastaphiles that are very concerned with the realm of taste, and the science of pasta transmission, I don't think they care about chef who made the pasta.


----------



## Gwarmi

If someone had told me that this thread would descend into 'pasta-dom', I would've thought that this would be beyond even
  the limits of Head Fi surreality.
   
  Carry on with the absurdity


----------



## uelover

I think that kiteki needs to catch some sleep.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





uelover said:


> This is what I call missing the point. I am making a joke, not making an assertion.
> 
> You are just so passionate about cable theory don't you?


 

 Not so much, just enough to past a comment here and there, and you know, the thing about Poe's law, I'm never sure who's joking on the net,


----------



## kiteki

It's difficult to tell who's joking on the internet because copper doesn't transfer enough emotion.
   
   
  Anyway khaos974 you said a cable is about measuring the signal at one end of the cable and the other end of the cable, if we assume that a 1mm wire of copper is perfect for all audio transmission needs, at which material / density etc. does the signal start to differ into clearly audible levels?
   
  For example, do you think a tin wire will sound the same as copper, or will it sound worse? and if it will sound worse, how?


----------



## Gwarmi

Come on now, we've moved on ~ I've got nearly a grand's worth of silver between 3 cables here.
   
  Copper, prrrrrt, silver is the new black


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> It's difficult to tell who's joking on the internet because copper doesn't transfer enough emotion.
> 
> Anyway khaos974 you said a cable is about measuring the signal at one end of the cable and the other end of the cable, if we assume that a 1mm wire of copper is perfect for all audio transmission needs, at which material / density etc. does the signal start to differ into clearly audible levels?
> 
> For example, do you think a tin wire will sound the same as copper, or will it sound worse? and if it will sound worse, how?


 

 I'd have to find my signal theory book as well as my metal properties book, which I haven't touched for years, and brush up those disciplines, you understand why I don't feel the need to do so for an Internet debate. But without any calcultation, I would guess that a tin wire of sufficient diameter would sound (to my ears) exactly the same as a copper wire.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *khaos974* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I would guess that a tin wire of sufficient diameter would sound (to my ears) exactly the same as a copper wire.


 

 Thanks!


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> By that logic, if I'm researching healing crystals, only people who have tried them should be given credence.  Only people who have paid a telephone psychic are qualified to criticize phone psychics. Only people who have spent thousands on homeopathic medicine should be listened to regarding homeopathy. Only theists are qualified to discuss the existence of God. If you've never done drugs, you've got no leg to stand on in your anti-drug crusade.
> 
> How much sense does that make?
> 
> People who have done the research and don't believe in magic cables won't buy them.  That doesn't mean they aren't fully qualified to evaluate the claims of believers.


 

 no... what you're saying doesn't make sense to me, whatsoever.
   
  something else that doesn't make sense is the "science forum" listed under the Equipment Forums. wouldn't it be best listed in the Misc-Category/DIY (sub/sub) forum, and possibly with a different title. something like - "Let's Talk About Nonsense (Trolls Hide Out)". ...lol


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The question of have we measured the right thing or have we missed something out is regularly trotted out to try and cast doubt. But the transmission of electricity and signals down cables has been going on since the C19th. Indeed much of what cable companies use to describe how their cables may affect sound quality has been known since then, L R and C and skin effect.
   
  Audiophile cables have been here since the early 1970s. There are loads of audiophile companies who have doing R&D and yet they have not isolated anything that accounts for SQ improvements or identified anything previously missed out.
   
  Then there are companies not associated with hifi for whom cables are important as is sound quality, Telecoms, radio and TV companies are doing R&D all of the time. They have also found nothing.
   
  So combine all of that with Nick_Charles and other audiophiles who know their elctronics and have done measurements and we can safely conclude that there is nothing inherent within a cable that causes sound qaulity differences.
   
  I say that the evidence points to this being a psycho-acoustic issue and not an electronic one.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


 

 I linked to Nick Charles study where the noise floor was 4 to 5dB higher with the silver cable and asked the question: If he was measuring his sound-card, why would the choice of cable (silver or copper) alter the measurments of his sound-card, by 4-5dB? That is a significant difference, don't you think?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I don't know how significant it is, I rely on Nick to tell me if it is or not. But what I am sure about is that if in all cases there was a 5dB variation between silver and copper cables in all cases, we would know by now.
   
  In any case if all cables do is slightly affect volume that is not a sound quality issue which makes some cables worth hundreds of pounds. You can do the same with your volume control.


----------



## JRG1990

4-5db is a audiable amount but there could have been a mistake somewhere in the test, or maybe it is because silver is more conductive but the same could be archieved by using a larger gauge copper cable thats equal in resistance to the smaller gauge silver cable.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





lenni said:


> no... what you're saying doesn't make sense to me, whatsoever.
> 
> something else that doesn't make sense is the "science forum" listed under the Equipment Forums. wouldn't it be best listed in the Misc-Category/DIY (sub/sub) forum, and possibly with a different title. something like - "Let's Talk About Nonsense (Trolls Hide Out)". ...lol


 

 Honestly someone should just set up a DBT to silence them.  Tyll has already gone half-way with his "burn in" blind test (not true DBT but half way there, also not on cables, but many tried to discredit burn in previously.)
   
  I believe there is great little idiom "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".  
  The sheer amount of conceptual leaps commonly employed in the skeptics arguments should come as the forewarning of a conspiracy theory.
  Positivism is alive and well in the 21st century, and no less superficially cogent.  On the one hand you have cable companies who incorrectly employ science to market their products, and on the other you have academics and engineers who rightly discredit their theories, and attempt to discredit their products.  Really cable manufacturers are as much to blame as the skeptics here.  
   
  Yes there is science behind the behavior of cables in audio systems, and electronic theories that place limits on the effects of cables in audio systems, and experiments that place limits on the sensitivity of human hearing.
  The skeptics argument usually combines the second two statements above and thereby concludes that cables do not have audible effects.  There are also some DBT's that attempt to bridge these two theoretical conclusions by creating experiments that test these two statements together.
  Unfortunately this makes for a very convincing argument, one which is very difficult to argue against, and in which the obvious resort is to question the validity of established theories and experimental data.
   
  Instead though I propose something else - that there are gaps in the data and theory - approximations and limits, margins of error, and gaps in the domains of concept that the brain too easily ignores, and that the frailties of human perception is a double edged sword.
  To further extrapolate this last point, the very inaccuracy of the human ear, and of recording equipment, that creates a theoretical noise floor also concedes that there are practical limits to what can be proven in human as well as empirical experiments.
   
  Cables, to grossly oversimplify, have electrical properties of resistance, inductance and capacitance.  These factors are measurable and have a measurable impact on analogue and digital signals. Knowledge of these parameters and how they affect signals is fundamental to the engineering of almost all modern technology.  Engineering attempts to find limits at which cables in these systems allows for operation within allowable tolerances.
   
  Modern technology is continually reducing the operational tolerances of our speakers, headphones, electrical components, and yes wires.  Research published 40 years ago is no longer current.  Engineers do not use 40 year old textbooks.  Engineers do not even use 5 year old textbooks.  The kind of fidelity we are extracting from contemporary equipment, the increasingly low levels of distortion that transducers are achieving has changed hugely over this timeframe.  Academic and other DBT's are usually done with speakers and multiple volunteers, and as any honest sound engineer will point out, room acoustics and comb effects creates a huge margin of error in these tests (and also for the evaluation of speakers - another double edged sword.)
   
  DBT's are not done with stax SR009's.  So we have inaccurate and fickle measuring devices being fed inaccurate stimuli in an often confusing and rigidly contrived methodology with huge margins of error from numerous factors.  Little surprise the results are inconclusive.
   
  The engineers who designed the K701, HD800 and SR009 didn't stop and say, "hmm, you know what I think we shouldn't improve this diaphragm design, its performance is already below what test have shown to be audible limits."
  They didn't say, "Yep, OFC copper is a total waste for the chord, a metal coathanger has been shown to be indistinguishable, so that should do"
  All electrical equipment affects the signals that pass through it, and the distortions from this equipment is cumulative and is often amplified by a large magnitude.
  Good engineers know this and try their best to make every part of their system perform optimally.
   
  But really all this may be entirely irrelevant - audiophiles and engineers alike will admit that some applications of distortion are actually desirable, while others just ruin the sound.
  Designers and sound engineers, at least the good ones, do not write off distortion because it degrades technical performance, rather they use their ears to tell them what is best, and their brains to intuit how to shape the technology to improve the sound.  
  Similarly, any useful engineer will not say "some distortion is good, so why bother minimising distortion elsewhere"
  The useful engineer will accept that the world is more complex than theories and tests can predict, and do his best to use his technical knowledge to support his perception, not the inverse (using technical knowledge to limit perception.)
   
  The skeptical enthusiast will use his limited knowledge of theories to predict what others can hear, and what sounds good or not.  Anyone with common sense can see that this is a stupid and pointless way to [not] enjoy the world.


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


drez said:


> The useful engineer will accept that the world is more complex that theories and tests can predict, and do his best to use his technical knowledge to support his perception, not vice versa.


   
  Thus we see the problem - you are still placing some additional, misplaced trust in human perception.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> 4-5db is a audiable amount but there could have been a mistake somewhere in the test, or maybe it is because silver is more conductive but the same could be archieved by using a larger gauge copper cable thats equal in resistance to the smaller gauge silver cable.


 
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I'm confused about this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

  
  @JRG1990, Just to clarify the topic, you're suggesting that either A) Nick Charles made a mistake or B) He didn't make a mistake, and the material and width of a cable result in different measurments.
   
   
  I don't think this particular result is humanly audible, but it's a significant difference when measuring _equipment._
   
  If people think all cable widths and materials are exactly the same and then measure a DAC with a silver cable and it results in a higher noise floor than the DAC with a copper cable that's not very good.
   
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I don't know how significant it is, I rely on Nick to tell me if it is or not. But what I am sure about is that if in all cases there was a 5dB variation between silver and copper cables in all cases, we would know by now.
> 
> In any case if all cables do is slightly affect volume that is not a sound quality issue which makes some cables worth hundreds of pounds. You can do the same with your volume control.


 

 You make a clever point, after all that's all cable testers really do, they look for differences in volume - that's really all an FR graph or equalizer is, a volume control. 
   
  I respect your POV though, you should never spend hundreds of pounds on a cable.


----------



## Currawong

I find it entertaining that people repeat there is no measurable difference in cables, even after someone here measures a difference (between two particular cables). When that is brought up, it is either inaudible or possibly a mistake in the measurements. As I've said before, many of you guys are only interested in what you believe in being true, not whether or not it is or not.  That is not science, that is religion.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





drez said:


> The useful engineer will accept that the world is more complex than theories and tests can predict, and do his best to use his technical knowledge to support his perception, not the inverse (using technical knowledge to limit perception.)


 


  I should probably have been more clear there and have edited to clarify.  I find the latter to be the antithesis of creativity.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

There are two points which keep being repeated and bog everyone down
   
  - we should stop saying that people cannot hear a difference, when clearly they can
   
  - we should stop saying there is no measureable difference between cables, when clearly there is
   
  I think we should concentrate on why do people hear a difference and are the measureable differences audible in such a way that they account for reported differences in sound quality.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I find it entertaining that people repeat there is no measurable difference in cables, even after someone here measures a difference (between two particular cables). When that is brought up, it is either inaudible or possibly a mistake in the measurements. As I've said before, many of you guys are only interested in what you believe in being true, not whether or not it is or not.  That is not science, that is religion.


 

 Who is saying that?


----------



## JRG1990

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> @JRG1990, Just to clarify the topic, you're suggesting that either A) Nick Charles made a mistake or B) He didn't make a mistake, and the material and width of a cable result in different measurments.
> 
> 
> I don't think this particular result is humanly audible, but it's a significant difference when measuring _equipment._
> ...


 

 I've looked at thread the test was in, it looks to me like a test of noise below the signal in which case anything below -80db is inaudiable, it's likely because silver is more conductive it also conducts the unwanted noise better.


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


currawong said:


> I find it entertaining that people repeat there is no measurable difference in cables, even after someone here measures a difference (between two particular cables). When that is brought up, it is either inaudible or possibly a mistake in the measurements. As I've said before, many of you guys are only interested in what you believe in being true, not whether or not it is or not.  That is not science, that is religion.


   
  4-5db difference in the noise floor implies that one of the cables has inferior shielding. A cable with inferior shielding is not a properly functional cable if it is going to be used in environments where the absence of shielding would be a problem.
   
  There are no significant (not defining 4-5db difference in the noise floor as not significant, but see above) measurable differences in properly functional cables. Happy? 
   
  To present a straw man (there are absolutely no differences in cables that are measurable) and then use it to claim that the Sound Science crowd is a load of loonies, all the while preaching on how they are only interested in what they believe is true I find *very* entertaining.


----------



## JRG1990

Nothing is mentioned in the test about what cables were being used, and other properties such as shielding also in the other tests the cables were shown as having signal to noise of 74-76db.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

So does that mean we are talking about a 4-5dB difference between the inaudible and the inaudible?


----------



## JRG1990

Yes if I understand the test correctly and it's measuring noise over 90db below the signal.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Cable makers are very guilty of taking small differences and inflating them by suggestion that such cause sound quality difference between their and opposition cables.


----------



## JRG1990

True skin effect is the worst one that I see most cable makers claiming makes a audiable difference, tests and measurements prove skin effect causes around a 0.01db loss at 20hz in the cheapest of cables, it would be even less if you went for a large gauge short cable run.


----------



## jcx

skin effect can be larger in speaker cable - for head-fi it is relatively orders of magnitude smaller - we use higher impedance loads, the cable has to use thinner wire for flexibility


----------



## JRG1990

No it's actually more of a problem in digital coax cables http://lavryengineering.com/forum_images/SE.pdf


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I don't think this particular result is humanly audible, but it's a significant difference when measuring _equipment._
> 
> If people think all cable widths and materials are exactly the same and then measure a DAC with a silver cable and it results in a higher noise floor than the DAC with a copper cable that's not very good


 
   
  I'm confused. Are you trying to justify to yourself how there could possibly be a measured difference?


----------



## markkr

"confused" is a great word for this thread


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I'm confused. Are you trying to justify to yourself how there could possibly be a measured difference?


 


 Well audiophile cable companies are happy to hood wink and bamboozle with psuedoscience. It is no wonder people get confused.


----------



## tim3320070

I think the point is to confuse, thereby call into question the need for $500 interconnects.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





willakan said:


> 4-5db difference in the noise floor* implies that one of the cables has inferior shielding. *A cable with inferior shielding is not a properly functional cable if it is going to be used in environments where the absence of shielding would be a problem.
> 
> [...]


 

 That looks like an assumption to me, it's not part of his measurements. What kind of shielding do cables have btw? That's an honest question, I'm not actually aware of how shielding works on cables.
   
   
  Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> I've looked at thread the test was in, it looks to me like a test of noise below the signal in which case anything below -80db is inaudiable, it's likely because silver is more conductive it also conducts the *unwanted noise* better.


 

 It seems like it's inaudible, yes, however I don't know where you got "unwanted" from, be careful implying that a silver cables transmits "unwanted" noise. =)
   
  As I pointed out, this data may be irrelevant to human listening, but if he was hypothetically measuring the performance of a sound-card and the results varied by 5dB that's not very good.
  
   
  Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> Nothing is mentioned in the test about what cables were being used, and other properties such as shielding also in the other tests the cables were shown as having signal to noise of 74-76db.


 

"Originally Posted by *nick_charles* 



This text is between a *DH labs BL-1 Series II Silver Plated Copper cable *and *the solid copper Sidewinder*"
  
   
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Cable makers are very guilty of taking small differences and inflating them by suggestion that such cause sound quality difference between their and opposition cables.


 

 I have said this before, but in measuring a USB, HDMI, composite or component (anything data transmission, or visual) cable, as far as I know every experience of the human visual experience can be measured in data, for example "ghosting" and "input lag" on a monitor, as humans we can _sense_ it, but we can't measure it's existence as accurately as a high speed camera, nor can we measure color fidelity, contrast and blackness levels as well as whatever they call that device.
  
  However maybe now that 3D has come along there are some things that can't be accurately measured, so the technology is developed with trial and error human evaluation of the 3D experience, since it's too difficult to use data to predict how the human eye and brain will interpret a fake 3D experience.
   
  The first version of the Nintendo Gameboy Advance was causing kids to get blurry double-sighted vision, I don't think Nintendo wanted that and wouldn't have built 1 million units to make kids go half blind, we just currently lack the sophistication of measuring equipment to predict such an outcome.
   
  I'm sure you get my drift of where I'm going with this. Audio is just *air*, right? It's just moving air, there are no invisible ghosts and goblins in our speakers.
   
  The problem is audio is not air, if we're underwater we can still communicate and listen to music, so then audio is water, or if we were in a vat of oil, then audio would be oil, makes no sense, I mean audio can even be pancakes and hot butter if you wish.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I'm confused. Are you trying to justify to yourself how there could possibly be a measured difference?


 

 No I'm just pointing out that if Nick Charles was hypothetically measuring a sound-card (NOT cables) in his testing then there would be a huge deviation in the noise floor *depending on which cable he used.*


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> No I'm just pointing out that if Nick Charles was hypothetically measuring a sound-card (NOT cables) in his testing then there would be a huge deviation in the noise floor *depending on which cable he used.*


 

 This raises another point. Measurements shouldn't be taken as gospel, regardless of the performance limits of the measuring equipment. The Audio Precision tools that John Atkinson uses for example in his tests for Stereophile cost a fortune.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> That looks like an assumption to me, it's not part of his measurements. What kind of shielding do cables have btw? That's an honest question, I'm not actually aware of how shielding works on cables.


 
   
  The most common shields are a foil wrap, and some type of metal braid, usually copper. The two are used together because they target noise at different frequencies. They are tied at the connectors (one or both, depending on the type of cable) to ground, where the noise is drained. Shields do have an electrically significant impact on cables, and there are good arguments for not using them.


----------



## JRG1990

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> It seems like it's inaudible, yes, however I don't know where you got "unwanted" from, be careful implying that a silver cables transmits "unwanted" noise. =)
> 
> As I pointed out, this data may be irrelevant to human listening, but if he was hypothetically measuring the performance of a sound-card and the results varied by 5dB that's not very good.


 

 So you want noise, hiss etc, in your audio signal? to me any added noise is unwanted.
   
  If it was soundcards, being measured and the noise measured 80db below the signal on both I wouldn't worry about it, if 1 had measured noise -90db below the signal and the other -120db below the signal you wouldn't hear the difference.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> This raises another point. Measurements shouldn't be taken as gospel, regardless of the performance limits of the measuring equipment. The Audio Precision tools that John Atkinson uses for example in his tests for Stereophile cost a fortune.


 

 Actually the one he's using now didn't cost him or Stereophile anything. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Oh, and you still haven't come up with an answer to my question I see. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The most common shields are a foil wrap, and some type of metal braid, usually copper. The two are used together because they target noise at different frequencies. They are tied at the connectors (one or both, depending on the type of cable) to ground, where the noise is drained. Shields do have an electrically significant impact on cables, and there are good arguments for not using them.


 
   
  That's another common mythunderstanding.
   
  Noise is not "drained to ground" as if ground is this magical one-way sink for noise.
   
  Shielding works in two ways; reflection loss and absorption loss. Reflection loss is due to the interfering wave reflecting off the shield due to the impedance mismatch between the wave of the interfering noise and the low resistance of the shield. Absorption loss is due to energy from the interfering wave being turned into heat due to eddy currents in the shield.
   
  It's this myth about ground that causes some audiophiles to do silly (and unsafe) things, like connecting their systems to copper rods pounded into the ground in their back yards.
   
  se


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> So you want noise, hiss etc, in your audio signal? to me any *added *noise is unwanted.


 

 Where did you get _added_ from now? If there's noise and hiss at the source, there should be noise and hiss at the destination.
   
  Hi-Fi is about recording reality, storing it on a media, and then playing it back to us, with the highest information retrieval and the shortest chain of components possible.
   
   
  Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> If it was soundcards, being measured and the noise measured 80db below the signal on both I wouldn't worry about it, if 1 had measured noise -90db below the signal and the other -120db below the signal you wouldn't hear the difference.


 

 Theorising on if we can hear the difference between the -90dB soundcard and the -120dB is pointless, all that matters is that everyone has the -120dB soundcard and then we start developing the -125dB soundcard.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Where did you get _added_ from now? If there's noise and hiss at the source, there should be noise and hiss at the destination.
> 
> Hi-Fi is about recording reality, storing it on a media, and then playing it back to us, with the highest information retrieval and the shortest chain of components possible.


 
  Noise is always unwanted, and always additive. Zero noise in a component would transfer exactly what noise is upstream. More noise does not represent a more accurate signal in any way. You can't feed a signal with -90dB noise through a cable and get -100dB noise. The source used in the cable test must have had noise at or below the lowest measured noise of either cable at any given frequency. So the silver cable had to add noise at that hump. It's not transferring the source's noise more accurately or anything like that.
   
  The measured noise has nothing to do with noise on the original recording.
   
  That's my understanding anyway. JRG1990, what did you mean when you initially said that silver was better conducting noise?


----------



## JRG1990

Quote:


kiteki said:


> Where did you get _added_ from now? If there's noise and hiss at the source, there should be noise and hiss at the destination.
> 
> Hi-Fi is about recording reality, storing it on a media, and then playing it back to us, with the highest information retrieval and the shortest chain of components possible.
> 
> ...


 
  Added as in not part of the oringal signal, extra noise can also be picked up by cables especially long runs near things like computers, wifi routers and power cables.
   
  I used to think Hi-Fi was the same thing until I came here.
   
  It's not pointless if you already have the soundcard that has noise -90db below the signal why spend more money just to have noise -120db below the signal when it's just as inaudiable, theres no need for a -125db soundcard.


----------



## JRG1990

Quote:


head injury said:


> That's my understanding anyway. JRG1990, what did you mean when you initially said that silver was better conducting noise?


 

 Silver is more conductive than copper, it's slightly better at conducting everything, but the cables used in that test were different so it wasn't exactly a copper vs silver wire test, more like a test of 2 different cables.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *JRG1990* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Added as in not part of the oringal signal, extra noise can also be picked up by cables especially long runs near things like computers, wifi routers and power cables.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Why is the silver cable picking up extra noise from his Wi-Fi router and not the copper cable? How do you know it's the Wi-Fi router in which the noise is coming from, and not the source material?
   
  As for soundcards, the point isn't what I should be spending money on, the point isn't either what the difference between -125 and -120 is, the point is being able to measure the difference between -120 and -125 and why that measurment has been affected by a cable which Nick Charles clearly labelled as "SILVER" and "COPPER" in the measurement data.
   
   
  Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> Silver is more conductive than copper, it's slightly better at conducting everything, but the cables used in that test were different so it wasn't exactly a copper vs silver wire test, more like a test of 2 different cables.


 
   
  See above.
   
  By the way according to user Khaos-something, Tin is just as good as copper, and copper is just as good as silver, he says it's all about how thick the cable is. =p
   
  A problem I see, even if taking his theory into account, is if you intertwine different threads of tin and silver into a single cable that may very well affect the electrical signal resutling in a [coloured] perceptible difference in sound.


----------



## markkr

deleted


----------



## JRG1990

In the test it was 2 different cables being used, it was likely the shielding or construction of the cable or something not that 1 had silver wire and the other copper. The noise could have come from anything or anywhere, I don't think it was the recording since he was using test tones and the equipment was likely measuring added noise not noise in the oringal signal, but it could have come from the source dac, since this noise was over 95db below the signal and inaudiable to any human ear and it's not proof cables sound different to the human ear I wouldn't worry about it.
   
  A tin cable could have the same conductiveness as a copper cable if a large enough gauge is used, the tin cable would have to be about 5-10mm thicker, to get a audiable difference you would probley have to use long run of 30+awg tin cable, then the resistance might make a difference to the sound.


----------



## OpieVonKannoli

Shure530,
   
  In my opinion good cables make a world of difference, but only trust your own ears my friend.  As for myself, I've gone through a lot of cables over time and now use Nordost.  Our downstairs system is wired up with Nordost Vishnu power cords and Heimdall interconnects and speaker cable.  Our upstairs system is wired with Nordost Shiva & Blue Heaven power cords and the new Blue Heaven interconnects and speaker cable. My personal opinion is that the power cords make the most difference, then the interconnects and lastly the speaker cable.
   
  If you have a Nordost dealer near where you live go there and hear what they do for yourself.  Nordost is not the only good cable company out there, it's just what I feel is the best performance to my ears.  Kimber Kable, Cardas, Transparent and AudioQuest are all good cable companies and worth you taking a listen to.
   
  Your ears will tell you the truth.  I hope this helps a bit.  May the best source be with you,


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





opievonkannoli said:


> My personal opinion is that the power cords make the most difference, then the interconnects and lastly the speaker cable.


 

 Interesting, because that's the exact opposite of what I would expect.


----------



## JRG1990

Power cords/conditioners depend on how good the power circuits are in the device if there utter crap then it's possible a shielded twisted pair power cord might make some sort or difference, interconnects none , speaker cable you just want the correct gauge for your length and speaker ohm rating.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> See above.
> 
> By the way according to user Khaos-something, Tin is just as good as copper, and copper is just as good as silver, he says it's all about how thick the cable is. =p
> 
> A problem I see, even if taking his theory into account, is if you intertwine different threads of tin and silver into a single cable that may very well affect the electrical signal resutling in a [coloured] perceptible difference in sound.


 

 The problem is that wire gauge isn't just resistance and nothing else. For a given signal level, different gauges are more suitable than others. 10AWG is great for speaker cables and power cords. You could make an interconnect out of solid 10AWG wire if you wanted, but it would likely sound worse than something using higher resistance wire like 20AWG, even though it's technically more conductive.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The problem is that wire gauge isn't just resistance and nothing else. For a given signal level, different gauges are more suitable than others. 10AWG is great for speaker cables and power cords. You could make an interconnect out of solid 10AWG wire if you wanted, but it would likely sound worse than something using higher resistance wire like 20AWG, even though it's technically more conductive.


 

 Why?


----------



## JRG1990

I don't think a 10awg would sound any different to a 20awg cable, in any case you'd only run into problems if the resistance of the cable is too high.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *OpieVonKannoli* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> My personal opinion is that the power cords make the most difference, then the interconnects and lastly the speaker cable


 

 It's quite possible that power cords can make a world of difference. I've experienced that in my system. It's also possible that power cords can do absolutely nothing. I've also experienced that in my system. It depends on the cord, and the component. Some components benefit more than others. The best cords are ones that work with the largest variety of components, and make little to no compromise in one area in order to improve another.
   
  Interconnects and speaker cables I've found to be pretty close in order of improvement. The nice thing about speaker wire is that it's by far the easiest to make. Basically all you need is a wire stripper, a hex wrench for the connectors, and a bit of free time. The cable that seems to matter the least is the digital coax. Silver and 75 Ohm and you're pretty much good to go.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> I don't think a 10awg would sound any different to a 20awg cable, in any case you'd only run into problems if the resistance of the cable is too high.


 

 Higher frequencies traveling near the surface of the conductor would arrive faster than lower frequencies near the core. You don't see interconnects using 10 AWG conductors for a reason. They all tend to run somewhere around 18AWG - 28AWG. There was an article on this subject that attempted to prove the ideal conductor size, maybe in Stereophile. I don't feel like Googling it, but feel free.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Why?


 

 Don't hold your breath. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> In the test it was 2 different cables being used, it was likely the shielding or construction of the cable or something not that 2. 1 had silver wire and the other copper. The noise could have come from anything or anywhere, I don't think it was the recording since he was using test tones and the equipment was likely measuring added noise not noise in the oringal signal, but it could have come from the source dac, since this noise was over 95db below the signal and inaudiable to any human ear and it's not proof cables sound different to the human ear I wouldn't worry about it.
> [...]


 

 Please tell me what reason you have to believe that the silver cable had no shielding or other poor construction that caused the differences? He clearly wrote "SILVER" versus "COPPER" in his diagram... he didn't write "UNSHIELDED BAD CABLE WITH NOISE FROM MY WI-FI(SILVER BTW)" versus "COPPER".
   
   
  Quote: 





head injury said:


> Interesting, because that's the exact opposite of what I would expect.


 

 Same here...?!
  
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The problem is that wire gauge isn't just resistance and nothing else. For a given signal level, different gauges are more suitable than others. 10AWG is great for speaker cables and power cords. You could make an interconnect out of solid 10AWG wire if you wanted, but it would likely sound worse than something using higher resistance wire like 20AWG, even though it's technically more conductive.


 

 I thought you told me recabling a Sony MDR-V6 with a silver cable was pointless/self-defeating since the differences are only heard in exotic headphones, and now you're saying that wire gauge is audible?!


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Please tell me what reason you have to believe that the silver cable had no shielding or other poor construction that caused the differences? He clearly wrote "SILVER" versus "COPPER" in his diagram... he didn't write "UNSHIELDED BAD CABLE WITH NOISE FROM MY WI-FI(SILVER BTW)" versus "COPPER".


 

 Because it has more noise. How else will a cable produce noise?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Higher frequencies traveling near the surface of the conductor would arrive faster than lower frequencies near the core.


 

 Says who?
   
  Show me a group delay plot for a 10 AWG cable that's not flat in the audio band.
   
  Quote: 





> You don't see interconnects using 10 AWG conductors for a reason.


 
   
  Yeah, because it's unnecessary. 
   
  Quote: 





> There was an article on this subject that attempted to prove the ideal conductor size, maybe in Stereophile. I don't feel like Googling it, but feel free.


 
   
  You're not thinking of Hawksford's Essex Echo are you?
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Because it has more noise. How else will a cable produce noise?


 

 A cable will only produce noise by way of its own resistance.
   
  se


----------



## JRG1990

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> It's quite possible that power cords can make a world of difference. I've experienced that in my system. It's also possible that power cords can do absolutely nothing. I've also experienced that in my system. It depends on the cord, and the component. Some components benefit more than others. The best cords are ones that work with the largest variety of components, and make little to no compromise in one area in order to improve another.
> 
> Interconnects and speaker cables I've found to be pretty close in order of improvement. The nice thing about speaker wire is that it's by far the easiest to make. Basically all you need is a wire stripper, a hex wrench for the connectors, and a bit of free time. The cable that seems to matter the least is the digital coax. Silver and 75 Ohm and you're pretty much good to go.


 
  1 of them power cords did make a difference with my tv, but made no difference with my amp, it was the cheapest shielded cord I could find here http://www.mains-cables-r-us.co.uk/mains-cables-/148-mains-cables-r-us-no14-mains-lead.html , it's only £25 and it reduced the noise present on my tv and the colours looked alot deeper it was quite a big difference.
   
  Digital coax cables are actually more complex than standard interconnects, resistance is much more important and so is skin effect and capacitance.
  

  
   Quote:


davebsc said:


> Higher frequencies traveling near the surface of the conductor would arrive faster than lower frequencies near the core. You don't see interconnects using 10 AWG conductors for a reason. They all tend to run somewhere around 18AWG - 28AWG. There was an article on this subject that attempted to prove the ideal conductor size, maybe in Stereophile. I don't feel like Googling it, but feel free.


 
  It sounds like a load of BS I use 16awg interconnects in my system sounds no different from the 22awg they replaced, but i'l find the article and give it a read.


----------



## JRG1990

Quote:


kiteki said:


> Please tell me what reason you have to believe that the silver cable had no shielding or other poor construction that caused the differences? He clearly wrote "SILVER" versus "COPPER" in his diagram... he didn't write "UNSHIELDED BAD CABLE WITH NOISE FROM MY WI-FI(SILVER BTW)" versus "COPPER".


 

 It wasn't a controlled test and I wasn't there, there are many variables that could be debated but it's pointless.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote:  





> I thought you told me recabling a Sony MDR-V6 with a silver cable was pointless/self-defeating since the differences are only heard in exotic headphones, and now you're saying that wire gauge is audible?!


 

 Again, can you feel a pea under ten mattresses? Just as measurements are limited by the resolution of the measuring equipment, so too are cables limited by the resolution of the headphones or speakers. If you're connecting a $50 DVD player to a $150 A/V receiver and some cheap bookshelf speakers, _don't waste any money on cables. _I'd be the first to tell you that. You could spend tens of thousands of dollars on Siltech Royal Signature for that system, and you'd hear no difference. The equipment simply couldn't take advantage of it. It would be the same as strapping a $2K piece of Canon L glass to a cellphone camera. Kind of dumb.
   
  Though I don't always follow it, generally I think the "20% rule" for cables is sound advice. Spend 20% of the price of the equipment on cables for that piece of equipment. Thousand dollar amp? Spend $200 on interconnects. _Where _you put that $200 of course makes a lot of difference. Signal Cable's $100 Silver Resolution will beat up $200 cables from most of the big brands. One should always spend wisely.
   
  If you have a $60 MDR-V6 and you follow the rule, that leaves $12 for a headphone cable. So.. don't bother.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> It wasn't a controlled test and I wasn't there, there are many variables that could be debated but it's pointless.


 

 Right, so you're invalidating his entire testing then.
   
  Well, at least that settled our discussion, your POV is "his test was invalid" "the differences aren't audible anyway" "I wasn't there" "we could debate variables, but it's pointless, due to said reasons".
   
  I'm fine with that then, but seriously, my POV is entirely different.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> Quote:
> It sounds like a load of BS I use 16awg interconnects in my system sounds no different from the 22awg they replaced, but i'l find the article and give it a read.


 


  Here ya go:
   
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Here ya go:
> 
> http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable


 

 Sorry, but Hawksford got it wrong. His article has been pretty well debunked by John Escallier for years now. Wish people would stop making reference to it.
   
  se


----------



## JRG1990

Quote:


kiteki said:


> Right, so you're invalidating his entire testing then.
> 
> Well, at least that settled our discussion, your POV is "his test was invalid" "the differences aren't audible anyway" "I wasn't there" "we could debate variables, but it's pointless, due to said reasons".
> 
> I'm fine with that then, but seriously, my POV is entirely different.


 

 What was said to be a test or copper vs silver actually wasn't I looked into the cables used, 1 was long grain copper , the other silver plated copper not pure silver , the cables were simlar in construction but not exactly the same and not by the same manufacturer, I believe there was a 4-5db difference in noise over 95db below the signal, but I am pretty sure it wasn't cause by the copper or silver plated copper wire, it was caused more likely by another variable. There is little point in debating a difference that isn't audiable.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

  
  If you believe in cables, why are you acting so adverse to an easily accessible experiment, such as a decent resovling headphone with a replaceable 3.5mm headphone jack, and some DIY silver cables? Wouldn't this get a lot more people onto your side?
   
  I am trying to help you out here, and you are telling me nonsense like 20% rules, diminishing returns in headphones start at around the Fostex T50RP level right? Are you honestly going to suggest that the Ultrasone Edition 8 will be able to reveal any sonic differences that an MDR-V6 or T50RP can not?
   
  Furthermore, I want to make a bad cable, with bad measurments, to see what the audible differences are, because if you take something much further away from silver and copper, then the audible differences of iron (if any) will make the differences between silver and copper more apparent.
   
  You may have missed the point, I don't want to recable any of my headphone or achieve better sound quality, I want an easily accessible experiment that can demonstrate the differences (if any) between iron, copper and silver.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> What was said to be a test or copper vs silver actually wasn't I looked into the cables used, 1 was long grain copper , the other silver plated copper not pure silver , the cables were simlar in construction but not exactly the same and not by the same manufacturer, I believe there was a 4-5db difference in noise over 95db below the signal, but I am pretty sure it wasn't cause by the copper or silver plated copper wire, it was caused more likely by another variable. There is little point in debating a difference that isn't audiable.


 

 Indeed, this is the silver-coated copper cable Nick Charles used which had a higher noise floor - http://www.silversonic.com/docs/products/BL1.html
   
   

   
   
   
  It says "100% coverage shield"
   
  I guess the cable itself wasn't picking up any noise then.
   
  Again, I don't see how it's relevant if we can hear the measured differences or not, the current opinion is that copper fulfills all needs and silver is uselss/marketing garbage... right? If a shielded silver-coated copper cable gives such huge differences when measuring Nick Charles DAC then something is wrong with A) his measurements B) the current cable theory (that silver (or silver-coated) is pointless).


----------



## JRG1990

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Sorry, but Hawksford got it wrong. His article has been pretty well debunked by John Escallier for years now. Wish people would stop making reference to it.
> 
> se


 

 I've seen other sites make reference to the "maxwell effect" , but then they go and say how skin effect and dielectric loses make huge differences so I just ignored them on the "maxwell effect" aswell, further googling it appears the "maxwell effect" was debunked by John Escallier.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Sorry, but Hawksford got it wrong. His article has been pretty well debunked by John Escallier for years now. Wish people would stop making reference to it.
> 
> se


 


http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/1811.html
   
  I am sure there is more, but I didn't look too hard.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Indeed, this is the silver-coated copper cable Nick Charles used which had a higher noise floor - http://www.silversonic.com/docs/products/BL1.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Or that the cable itself is flawed. The silver/silver-coated sample size is too small to make a generalization about all silver cables.
   
  Are you suggesting that the higher noise on the cable is a good thing? Why would there be a point in increasing noise with a silver cable? If that's all a silver cable does, then it is pointless.


----------



## JRG1990

Quote:


kiteki said:


> Indeed, this is the silver-coated copper cable Nick Charles used which had a higher noise floor - http://www.silversonic.com/docs/products/BL1.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Not necessarily, it could just be a foil shield sometimes foil shields can unraavel and leave gaps when the cable is bent which is why braided shields are always better, also it's just a single shield so it's absorbing and conducting the RFI right next to the main signal conductors with only pvc or some other plastic in the way, just because the cable says 100% coverage shield just mean it's completly inmune to all interference.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/1811.html
> 
> I am sure there is more, but I didn't look too hard.


 

 Yeah, John's written quite a lot about it over the years at both Audio Asylum and diyAudio.
   
  I suspect that Hawksford realized fairly soon after its initial publication in HiFi News & Record Review that he'd screwed the pooch. I mean, he's not shy at all of publishing in professional journals (see http://www.essex.ac.uk/csee/research/audio_lab/malcolms_publications.html#Journal). And yet, this article, which if his discovery were real would have significant implications well beyond audio, has ever only been published in two consumer audio magazines.
   
  se


----------



## Gwarmi

Ok guys, my 3 day evaluation of Chord Crimsonplus (copper) vs Nordost Blue Heaven (silver plate) is in..
   
  Take my subjective evaluations with a grain of salt as always, the following components were
  established as a control, as in they were consistently used back and forth.
   
  Nordost power conditioner board
  Nordost power cord for the Violectric V200
  Violectric V200 amplifier
  Rega DAC
  Nordost Blue Heaven USB cable
  Grado 325i
   
  For the sake of keeping my subjective sample placebo tendences at a minimum, I opted to
  test back and forth between the Chord Crimson copper RCA's and Nordost Blue Heaven
  silver RCA's using only one track.
   
  Pink Floyd 30th anniversary Experience: Immersion 'Dark Side of the Moon' ~ Time
   
  I conducted the test 6 times, 3 times on the Chord Crimsons and 3 times on the
  Nordost Blue Heavens. Nothing else was changed in the rig.
   
  Results?
   
  Neither positive or negative depending on how you look at it. I found no extra detail
  or apparent spaciousness, I did conclude on one thing though.
   
  Brightness~! The Nordost silver cables are certainly brighter.
   
  As in perceived? Nope as in pain in my ear, no better control than pain over
  impressions.
   
  My rig is a little bright which is the way I like it, the Pink Floyd 30th album
  was perfect since I knew it had been re mastered for consumer use, loud
  and nasty. Using the Chord Crimsons, the experience was unpleasant
  as the cacaphony of clocks chimed on the track 'Time'. Switching to
  the Nordost, it became unbearable, I had to wince my way through the
  track, resisting the temptation to turn down the volume to
  avoid any further discomfort.
   
  This was painfully repeated 3 times each way as stated. 3 times
  with pain and 3 times without on the Crimsons at precisely the
  same volume levels.
   
  Price ~ $110AUD will get you the Chord Crimsons (copper) and
  $320AUD will get you the Nordost Blue Heavens (silver)
   
  Which would I choose?
   
  If I had a HD650/LCD-2 + Burson 160 rig, the Nordosts could be
  worth a look for my taste just to liven things up.
   
  For the record, I know that Nordost themselves like to audition
  for a prospective client/retailer using grainy, badly mastered
  material. The first listen is with cheap, unknown copper cables
  and then they use the Nordost range.
   
  Makes sense, the extra brightness would give the allusion
  of clarity and extra detail on a bad track assuming sibilance
  could be managed.


----------



## JRG1990

I think the brightness was in your mind since you knew it was silver, I used to have 2 silver plated cables in my system, the inconnects and speaker cable when they were replaced with pure copper cables nothing happened to the brightness of the sound it made no difference at all.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> I think the brightness was in your mind since you knew it was silver, I used to have 2 silver plated cables in my system, the inconnects and speaker cable when they were replaced with pure copper cables nothing happened to the brightness of the sound it made no difference at all.


 
   
   
  Placebo causes pain now?
   
  I must be pretty amazing then, 3 times without pain on copper and 3 times with on silver,
  my placebo abilities are quite something I see.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Gwarmi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Placebo causes pain now?


 
   
  If placebos can relieve pain, why can't they cause it?
   
  se


----------



## Gwarmi

Fair enough, anyway, they were my conclusions, nothing more, nothing less.
   
  Still have this conditioner and power cord to conclude upon before it has
  to go back to the distributor. May find nothing there, who knows.


----------



## kiteki

Gwarmi are you saying you perceive the $320 silver-plated USB cable as brighter, or something else?


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Gwarmi are you saying you perceive the $320 silver-plated USB cable as brighter, or something else?


 


  Well I tried to minimize the placebo factor as much as possible, as it turns out yes that is what
  I have subjectively concluded.
   
  The test track which is nasty and loud was bearable with the copper Crimsons but unbearable
  and painful with the Nordost silver.
   
  Track was tested 3 times each way with each RCA set.
   
  Assuming I'm not the only who thinks it's not a pain illusion ~ it makes sense, Nordost
  would want to have that brightness.


----------



## sailorman

Well, I've done some reading and I want to do some testing myself. 
  I'm going to a DBT with regular, decent quality copper radio shack speaker wire and a set of Klipsch loudspeakers I have. 
  For the "audiophile" cable, I was looking at these.  They're pretty expensive, but should illuminate any differences quite well.
  What do you think?
   
  http://www.coconut-audio.com/extreme/speaker.htm
   
  I figure if "audiophile" cable really makes a difference, these should do it. 
  The testimonials for all of this company's products, and there are quite a few, are quite enthusiastic.


----------



## Head Injury

Definitely. Coconut Audio gear is top notch.
   
  Gwarmi, how did you "minimize" placebo? It was a sighted test, wasn't it?


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





head injury said:


> 1. Or that the cable itself is flawed. The silver/silver-coated sample size is too small to make a generalization about all silver cables.
> 
> 2. Are you suggesting that the higher noise on the cable is a good thing? Why would there be a point in increasing noise with a silver cable? If that's all a silver cable does, then it is pointless.


 


 1. I agree, the sample size in his measurements is too small to make a generalisation about all silver cables, but just two days ago in reference to his measurements you said to me "How much proof do I need?", in respect to his measurements disproving silver cables.
   
  In answer to your question, without currently having heard any silver cables, I'd need a lot more data and extensive testing than a single FR graph (or any FR graph at all really), and one noise floor.
   
  To convince myself with listening experience, I'd rather compare a really bad cable with a silver cable, than compare a copper cable with a silver cable, if I can't hear the difference when A/Bing a really bad cable with a silver cable, that would convince me I wouldn't be able to hear the difference between a copper cable either, since the objective data between them would be significantly smaller and have no reason to perform any difference there.
   
  For example, if someone told me all wine tastes the same, isn't it wiser to compare a $1 bottle of wine and a $100 bottle of wine, than a $90 and $100? If I can't tell the difference with the $1 bottle, then I can dismiss the $90 one automatically, and assertions like the difference is only audible on the LCD-3 or some special beryllium and tibetan silk fused speaker cone.
   
   
  2. Of course it would be a good thing if the silver cable can transmit more low-level information from the source.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> 1. I agree, the sample size in his measurements is too small to make a generalisation about all silver cables, but just two days ago in reference to his measurements you said to me "How much proof do I need?", in respect to his measurements disproving silver cables.
> 
> In answer to your question, without currently having heard any silver cables, I'd need a lot more data and extensive testing than a single FR graph (or any FR graph at all really), and one noise floor.
> 
> ...


 

 I was only using his measurements as an example. I also mentioned all the blind tests done. There's tons of other studies you can look at.
   
  If you need more proof, go out and perform some blind tests of your own. No one's stopping you. We encourage you.
   
  What are you talking about low level information? This noise is not low level information from the source. The lowest amount of noise measured in any cable must be equal to or greater than the noise of the source. It's additive. If one cable has more noise than another, that cable is adding noise. It's less accurate.
   
  The noise we're talking about is not noise from the recording. That noise we want, if we're being objective. This noise is electrical noise. It's unrelated to the recording, and it obscures information on the recording. It is _bad_.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





head injury said:


> What are you talking about low level information? This noise is not low level information from the source. The lowest amount of noise measured in any cable must be equal to or greater than the noise of the source. It's additive. If one cable has more noise than another, that cable is adding noise. It's less accurate.
> 
> The noise we're talking about is not noise from the recording. That noise we want, if we're being objective. This noise is electrical noise. It's unrelated to the recording, and it obscures information on the recording. It is _bad_.


 

 That is just your theory.
   
  Another theory is that the silver cable is more conductive, thus transmitting more low level information. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I don't think nickel, iron, tin, lead etc. cables will show that low level noise, that's just my hunch, if they do then we are possibly wasting our money on copper cables and should downgrade to DIY paperclip cables this instant.
  
  Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity


----------



## Head Injury

How can a cable be measured to have lower noise than the signal it is fed? And how would this translate to a lack of low level information?


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Definitely. Coconut Audio gear is top notch.
> 
> Gwarmi, how did you "minimize" placebo? It was a sighted test, wasn't it?


 


  Hardly scientific stuff on my end. Just tried to take a few precautions
   
  1) Used only one track for testing that I knew well and knew was mastered for the i-generation.
  2) Kept other DAC's and amps out of the equation
  3) For the record I auditioned other tracks like Corcovado by Stan Getz that
  I know back to front ~ no difference to my ears.
   
  Infact, I found no discernible traits like spaciousness, bass layers or detail.
   
  Just brightness. Again, only way this test could make progress is if this
  test was re-conducted with a second person swapping cables without
  my knowledge under the desk ~ a blind test as you say.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> 1. I agree, the sample size in his measurements is too small to make a generalisation about all silver cables, but just two days ago in reference to his measurements you said to me "How much proof do I need?", in respect to his measurements disproving silver cables.
> 
> In answer to your question, without currently having heard any silver cables, I'd need a lot more data and extensive testing than a single FR graph (or any FR graph at all really), and one noise floor.
> 
> ...


 


  What would you consider a "really bad cable"?  Why not use a piece of string?  There's a level at which it is adequate to do the job.  A cable is only "really bad" when it falls below that level.  So, you may as well use string.
   
  It doesn't work that way with wine.  Your example would be more appropriate if you were asking isn't it wiser to compare a bottle of ink and a $100 bottle of wine, instead of a $90 and $100 bottle of wine.  Besides, no one asserts that all wine tastes the same.  
  Unlike cables, where differences in SQ cannot be attributed to quantifiable properties, wines have different tastes due to properties that can be quantified. 
  The claim is that the taste often has no correlation to the price.  That's an entirely different argument.
   
  Nobody here is suggesting that a "really bad cable" is just as good as a silver cable.  
  A "really bad cable" is, by definition, worse than a silver cable and equally worse than a decent copper one. 
  That's the point.  It's not a just a little worse than a decent copper one and a whole lot worse than a silver one.
  If any given cable is not worse than an adequate copper one, it's not "really bad" at all.
  There are two kinds of cables, in terms of S.Q..  Really bad and not really bad.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





head injury said:


> How can a cable be measured to have lower noise than the signal it is fed? And how would this translate to a lack of low level information?


 

 Possibly the copper cable is not picking up enough of the signal since it's so weak.
   
  A cable made out of teflon is picking up 0% signal, a cable made out of silver is picking up 100%, so a 0.1mm thick cable made out of lead is picking up how much of the signal?


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> What would you consider a "really bad cable"? Why not use a piece of string? There's a level at which it is adequate to do the job. A cable is only "really bad" when it falls below that level.


 

 Something low on this chart, miles away from the differences between silver and copper is what I am suggesting as "really bad" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity
   
   
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *sailorman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Nobody here is suggesting that a "really bad cable" is just as good as a silver cable.


 
   
  Pretty sure that's what everyone is 'suggesting' here actually. "all cables sound/perform the same", check back a few pages user Khaos-something said tin and silver will sound identical.
   
   
  Edit: Don't worry about the wine thing I wasn't referring to that study on prices AT ALL I was just trying to come up with an example where I could demonstrate why comparing lead and silver is more LOGICAL than comparing copper and silver, for ALL people involved, scientist or listener.
   
  I don't know why I'm having such a hard time getting this point across, if the differences between silver and copper are FAINT, then use something WORSE than copper where the differences are exaggerated, and then it should be much easier to localize and pinpoint the differences between copper and silver, it makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Possibly the copper cable is not picking up enough of the signal since it's so weak.


 
   
  But what would that have to do with lower noise? Wouldn't that manifest itself as rolled off treble, lower volume, or (gasp) lower SNR?
   
  And if the signal was weaker, would the two produce the same cymbal crash?


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





head injury said:


> But what would that have to do with lower noise? Wouldn't that manifest itself as rolled off treble, lower volume, or (gasp) lower SNR?
> 
> And if the signal was weaker, would the two produce the same cymbal crash?


 

 I think the cymbal crash was just an FR graph snapshot right? Not an oscilloscope or anything.
   
  The noise is lower because the copper cable is not conductive enough to receive the entire electrical signal from the jack, in the other cable the silver-plating is able to receive the low-level noise information at -95dB volume levels, yet at normal volume levels the signals are identical, which would make sense since the core material of both cables is copper.
   
  This is just a guess.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Something low on this chart, miles away from the differences between silver and copper is what I am suggesting as "really bad" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  But then, no one is suggesting lead either. When someone suggests that "all cables sound/perform the same", that takes a few things as givens.  What they're suggesting is that all cables sound/perform the same assuming they all have specific properties that fall within a certain range of parameters.  Those parameters relate to resistivity and conductivity, among other things.  If a cable falls outside of those parameters it is, by definition, a bad cable.  A string makes an equally bad cable as does fishing line.  If the properties fall within within that known range, then it doesn't matter where they fall and a Copper cable is as good as a silver one.
   
  By making a "bad cable".  You must, by definition, create a cable that falls outside the parameters that define what a good cable is.  If you use a 40' run of 36ga. tin, you'd have a bad cable. If you used a heavier cable of tin, and/or a shorter run, you'd have a good cable that would indeed sound as good as a silver cable (assuming the minimum parameters are met).  
   
  Comparing lead and silver is not logical, unless the lead had the necessary minimum electrical properties to constitute a good cable.  Then, it wouldn't be a bad cable. If you made the lead cable without the necessary minimum electrical properties, you'd have your bad cable but all you'd be proving is that a bad cable is bad.  You might as well use string.


----------



## Mochan

The build, material and geometric configuration of the cable do have an influence on the sound. Different materials (copper, silver basically), different formations (straight, twisted, quad braided, etc.) do seem to have some effect on the sound signature.
   
  But.... a $20 cable using similar configurations as a $800 cable.... will not have an audiblel, quantifiable difference in quality. In other words, they'll sound the same. So don't get ripped off by the cable industry.  Buy cheap cables or make your own emulating the design of the $1000 cables. You'll get pretty much the same results.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





mochan said:


> The build, material and geometric configuration of the cable do have an influence on the sound. Different materials (copper, silver basically), different formations (straight, twisted, quad braided, etc.) do seem to have some effect on the sound signature.


 

 I can't believe I'm going to ask this again, but "How?"
   
  Come on people, this is in the Sound Science section now. You've gotta be objective. And no making stuff up like kiteki.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





mochan said:


> The build, material and geometric configuration of the cable do have an influence on the sound. Different materials (copper, silver basically), different formations (straight, twisted, quad braided, etc.) do seem to have some effect on the sound signature.
> 
> But.... a $20 cable using similar configurations as a $800 cable.... will not have an audiblel, quantifiable difference in quality. In other words, they'll sound the same. So don't get ripped off by the cable industry.  Buy cheap cables or make your own emulating the design of the $1000 cables. You'll get pretty much the same results.


 


  I think that's the argument. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell, the cable non-believers are arguing that the fancy formations, exotic materials, and geometric configurations have little or no *audible* effect on the sound signature.  
   
  Basically, the position is that a well connected coat hanger wire with the proper conductivity and resistance, and maybe shielding, will sound no different than a $1000 silver, quad braided cable.


----------



## Mochan

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> Placebo causes pain now?
> 
> I must be pretty amazing then, 3 times without pain on copper and 3 times with on silver,
> my placebo abilities are quite something I see.


 


  Placebo has been shown in clinical tests to remove the pain from cancer.  A little pain in the ears from a headphone is nothing. 
   
  The power of the mind and imagination is far greater than you give it credit for.


----------



## drez

wow 5 pages in 12 hours, you would think we were arguing something worthwhile here.  
   
  We can argue til we are blue in the face as to whether we predict something to be audible or not, but at the end of the day you you put the damn thing in your system and either like what you hear or not.
   
  With the headphone cables I have on hand, I can say without any doubt I would be able to tell them apart in a blind test.  I can't say the same about my coaxial cables, they are just too similar.
   
  Each of these cables cost me around $200 and offer me a self-verifiable (these cables are for my own use, not for convincing others of their efficacy) difference.
   
  If for some reason I find I have nothing better to do with my time other than to try and convince some stubborn positivists that cables make a difference, I might set up a blind test someday.
   
  This however would be totally without consequence to my enjoyment of my system.
   
  Wrt audibility, when it comes to small differences in anything human perception is fickle.  I probably cant tell if my baker put +/- a pinch of salt into the bread he bakes me in a blind test, but this will not stop me shopping from my favorite baker.  
   
  I probably cant reliably tell in a DBT if the colour of the water off the Adriatic is 2 degrees of hue, and 3 of saturation different from that off the coast of Nice.  This does not stop me from enjoying either.
   
  If you gave me two computer monitors, one at 60 Hz refresh and the other at 75 Hz, I might not be able to reliably tell the difference in a DBT, but this doesn't mean the difference is insignificant.  75 hz is just better.
   
  If tin really is indistinguishable from copper I would encourage you to replace all your cables with tin, and then have the self satisfaction that you know everyone else is wrong.  Maybe run a soundcard as the DAC output should be as good as any.  Just be sure to make clear that you are using your preconceptions to hear instead of your ears.


----------



## Gwarmi

Here's another facet that has not been addressed here, I've read countless pages on various forums regarding
  the quagmire of cables being this and that...but this one is perhaps the most contentious
   
  Distance and length of cables.
   
  What we need is a blind test with 15 metres of cheap $20 copper RCA versus what ever we have on hand that is
  considered high end copper or silver.
   
  It would be interesting to see if signal degradation plays a part over a long distance.


----------



## drez

Even shorter lengths should show up any differences.  if a cable claims to sound better because of lower resistance, capacitance or inductance, having a shorter cable should improve all 3 of these parameters, but is often not very practical.
   
  From memory silver has around 6% lower resistance than copper (please correct me here) so making the cable shorter or thicker (not sure if the relationship is linear) should have the same effect *if resistance is the only factor.*
   
  If you can hear differences between wires of the same resistance, and same construction, say one of silver and one of copper, that would be interesting.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> If you believe in cables, why are you acting so adverse to an easily accessible experiment, such as a decent resovling headphone with a replaceable 3.5mm headphone jack, and some DIY silver cables? Wouldn't this get a lot more people onto your side?
> 
> I am trying to help you out here, and you are telling me nonsense like 20% rules, diminishing returns in headphones start at around the Fostex T50RP level right? Are you honestly going to suggest that the Ultrasone Edition 8 will be able to reveal any sonic differences that an MDR-V6 or T50RP can not?
> 
> You may have missed the point, I don't want to recable any of my headphone or achieve better sound quality, I want an easily accessible experiment that can demonstrate the differences (if any) between iron, copper and silver.


 

  
  I disagree with what you are suggesting is a decently resolving headphone. The Fostex T50RP is not accurate, not even close. If you're looking for flaws in a piece of jewelry, would you look through a dirty piece of acrylic? No. If you're trying to determine differences in tread noise and ride quality between a Michelin and Goodyear, would you use a rusty old pickup truck? No. Pick whatever analogy you want. A $75 headphone is not a good platform to try and determine very subtle differences between $500 headphone cables.
   
  http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/FostexT50RP2011A.pdf
   
  Turn that T50RP into a Thunderpants, and now you're talking. Now you have an accurate, high resolution platform, one well suited to judging differences between headphone cables.
   
  http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/FostexT50RPDSmeggyThunderpantsontherivet.pdf


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





drez said:


> wow 5 pages in 12 hours, you would think we were arguing something worthwhile here.
> 
> We can argue til we are blue in the face as to whether we predict something to be audible or not, but at the end of the day you you put the damn thing in your system and either like what you hear or not.
> 
> ...


 

 75hz might measure better, but if it is out of the range of human eyesight, is it really worth paying $1,000 for the 75hz one when you can get a 60hz one for $200? That is the real question. No one is saying every cable measures exactly the same, but the measurements are out of the realm of audibility.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> *No one is saying every cable measures exactly the same*, but the measurements are out of the realm of audibility.


 


 This is what many are claiming before someone brought up an evidence that cable do measure differently.
   
  Then, the argument was shifted to 'even if there is a measurement differences, the differences are inaudible'.
   
  This is why Currawong popped out and get a good laugh. Lol.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> 75hz might measure better, but if it is out of the range of human eyesight, is it really worth paying $1,000 for the 75hz one when you can get a 60hz one for $200? That is the real question. No one is saying every cable measures exactly the same, but the measurements are out of the realm of audibility.


 

  
  I guess it depends on the relative value of money to the individual - if I had earned $10k in a few weeks of work (rather than $15 an hour after studying for 6 years), I would probably not mind spending it on my audio system, especially if music was the only hobby I had time for.
  I would also hesitate to use the word audible so flexibly - a parameter (there are many parameters which may be affected by cables) audible with one set of equipment to one person may or may not be audible with another set of equipment to another person.  All factors are not equal, and not readily accounted for.
  Overall I would say that due to taste, a more expensive cable will not guaranteed to be to one's liking.  Unless you have a chance to audition a piece of equipment you are taking a gamble.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





uelover said:


> This is what many are claiming before someone brought up an evidence that cable do measure differently.


 

 Could you point me toward these posts?


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> [...]
> By making a "bad cable".  You must, by definition, create a cable that falls outside the parameters that define what a good cable is.  If you use a 40' run of 36ga. tin, you'd have a bad cable. If you used a heavier cable of tin, and/or a shorter run, you'd have a good cable that would indeed sound as good as a silver cable (assuming the minimum parameters are met).
> 
> Comparing lead and silver is not logical, unless the lead had the necessary minimum electrical properties to constitute a good cable.  Then, it wouldn't be a bad cable. If you made the lead cable without the necessary minimum electrical properties, you'd have your bad cable but all you'd be proving is that a bad cable is bad.  You might as well use string.


 

 I see what you're saying, you think lead and tin will sound identical to silver, as long as the lead and tin cable meet the minimum electrical requirements and surpass the critital point after which all cables sound the same.
   
  AFAIK no one has compared lead and silver cables, and no such critial point is documented, but if it was, it would help the whole cable discussion a lot, and if lead and silver can indeed sound exactly 100% identical, that should say something about copper... don't you think?
  
   
  Quote: 





head injury said:


> *Come on people, this is in the Sound Science section now. You've gotta be objective. And no making stuff up like kiteki.*


 

 Yes, but saying Nick Charles telephone caused that noise is just as much making stuff up, you have only implied "if two cables don't have an identical noise floor, then one is picking up external noise". 
   
  If the silversonic cable was indeed picking up exterior noise at those levels, then it should probably belong on some sort of blacklist.
   
  Nick Charles said he compared a "copper sidewinder" and a "silversonic BL-1 series II" cable, here is some info on the silversonic cable::
   
   
  "*SILVER SONIC BL-1 Series II Interconnect*, (consisting of an identical positive and negative lead plus *separate shield*), is a high performance audio interconnect cable that combines the highest sound quality and reliability available at its price point. In the tradition of our highly acclaimed SILVER SONIC T-14 High Resolution Speaker Cable, SILVER SONIC BL-1 is _made in USA_ and uses the finest materials available, including high purity silver, Teflon and oxygen-free copper.
  SILVER SONIC BL-1 is designed for use with both RCA and XLR connectors. *It is 100% shielded, and can operate in close proximity to digital equipment without noise pick up. *The conductors consist of *slow drawn oxygen free copper, which are coated with pure silver*, the silver coating thickness being chosen to provide optimum synergy with the OFC base metal. The conductors are *insulated with a special Teflon *copolymer dielectric.
  Silver Sonic BL-1 uses large 20 gauge conductors for* low signal loss*. Every spool is tested, and our Teflon insulators are made to the highest standards in the industry. Cables are terminated with special silver bearing solders and the finest connectors available. Each connector is meticulously hand soldered by carefully trained craftspeople. Bulk lengths are also available for custom installations."
   
  source: http://www.audioc.com/accessories1/dhlabs/bl1.htm
   
   
  So, with what you are saying Head Injury, the next time someone measures the noisefloor on _any_ device, we may as well ask them which cable they're using?
   
  If they start pointing to advertised claims of shielding and teflon and so on, we may as well link to Nick Charles tests as evidence that claims of shielding and teflon actually tend to produce _more _noise than basic copper cables lol, unless you have some other explanation.
   
  source: middle of this page - http://www.head-fi.org/t/405217/my-cable-test-enterprise#post_5351973


----------



## Willakan

Look, cables do not simply generate significant extra noise for no reason at all. They will always generate some miniscule amount of noise (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson–Nyquist_noise) but if the cable is somehow managing to add a fair bit of noise to the signal, this simply cannot be the behaviour of a properly functioning cable. Is it really speculation to conclude that a properly functional cable doesn't add measurable and not insignificant (but still likely inaudible at any reasonable listening level) amounts of noise to the signal?


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





willakan said:


> [...] Is it really speculation to conclude that a properly functional cable doesn't add measurable and not insignificant (but still likely inaudible at any reasonable listening level) amounts of noise to the signal?


 

 Willakan the Nick Charles tests have been referred to over and over that all cables measure identical, such as silver versus copper.
   
  In his tests he only had two (2) measurements of silver versus copper, and the cable was not even silver it was just silver plated, furthermore one of the measurements (out of a total of 2) showed differences between the cables, that is a 50% error margin in proving that silver and copper measure identical.
   
  If you want to speculate that the silversonic cable is "not a proper cable" or "it was broken" and that's why the measurements were different, that does seem like wishful thinking or pure speculation to me, yes.
   
  The point is if that is your speculation, then we should give a 5dB error margin to every single noise floor measurement, on the basis that we have know way of knowing if they used a proper cable or not.


----------



## JRG1990

None of us where present at that test, so no 1 knows for certain that he did or didn't maybe put his mobile phone next to that cable when measuring it or what was happing.
Also don't mistake cable marketing bs for fact its far from it.
And even with the most expensive resolving gear you would fail to hear 0.045db changes in frequency responce or volume and noise or disortion over 90db below the signal.


----------



## danroche

I'm seeing people make three common bad assumptions here around audiophile topics:
   
  1. I can hear something different, therefore something must be objectively different. Science, it is your job to explain what is objectively different that is creating this result.
   
  Not exactly. Science's next step would be to verify and isolate what you are hearing, validating it and isolating it from any kind of expectation or suggestion bias. This is REALLY REALLY easy to do with audio equipment, and I'm always amazed at the resistance people have to the idea. You'll notice that very few scientists work to explain why placebo pills work so well to treat migraines. There's a reason for this.
   
  2. Differences between (cables, DACs, etc.) are measurable. Therefore I can hear/sense them, and any claim I may have made to do so is justified.
   
  We can measure the presence of ultraviolet light, and even measure continental drift to bizarre levels of accuracy. This doesn't mean we can see or feel it. Measurable does not mean audible, and establishing measurable differences is still about 500 miles short of establishing audible ones.
   
  3. I hear a difference when I change (cables, DAcs, etc.) and now you are telling me there is no audible difference. Are you calling me an idiot?
   
  No, I'm calling you human. Nobody can will themselves out of the range of suggestability. Blind tests are critical even when testing skeptics. Our brain's going to do things with our perceptions that we can't control, and no level of wisdom, maturity, or zen-like self control is going to exempt someone from this requirement.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





danroche said:


> I'm seeing people make three common bad assumptions here around audiophile topics:
> 
> 1. I can hear something different, therefore something must be objectively different. Science, it is your job to explain what is objectively different that is creating this result.
> 
> ...


 

 That pretty much sums it all up very nicely.
   
  se


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I see what you're saying, you think lead and tin will sound identical to silver, as long as the lead and tin cable meet the minimum electrical requirements and surpass the critital point after which all cables sound the same.
> 
> AFAIK no one has compared lead and silver cables, and no such critial point is documented, but if it was, it would help the whole cable discussion a lot, and *if lead and silver can indeed sound exactly 100% identical, that should say something about copper... don't you think?* .....[snip]


 


  No, it wouldn't say anything about copper. Sound quality aside, all metals have other unique properties that would make them more or less suitable for cables.
  Even if it was proven that lead cables could sound better than silver ones, unless the difference was significant, lead would still be unsuitable for other reasons. Same thing applies to tin, gold, aluminum or any other metal.


----------



## kiteki

You made a nice post danroche, and yes it seems like people are wasting money these days on overpriced useless HDMI cables and audiophile USB cables and so on.
   
  Exotic picturephile USB cables connected to a printer or camera don't exist, because they won't result in better pictures since we can easily A/B the pictures and notice there's no difference.
   
  So basically, audio is full of smoke and mirrors, 4cm thick toslink cables that do nothing at all, other than be thick, waste money and space... so what?
   
  Just because this smoke and mirrors problem exists doesn't mean the 'smarter audiophiles' that belong to science and not nonsense should get up on their highhorse and pretend that _every single cable_ in the world is subject to the same marketing as the 4cm thick toslink cable.
   
  If there was a wave of juicy apples that cost $10 per apple, and they were full of marketing and hype about how damn juicy they are, and then science said there was nothing special about those apples, it doesn't mean every single apple in the world is all of a sudden equally juicy and any differences between apples are just placebo and marketing. Just because there's an issue with one type of apple doesn't mean I'm going to stop eating fruit, well in reality I'm not eating any fruit but what I mean is that since there is very little scientific evidence to disprove the differences between passionfruit, then why should I believe all passionfruit is identical?
   
  Another example, sneakers, sneakers are subject to marketing and hype and they are overpriced, people spend $200 on sneakers, or even more, actually I think there are limited edition sneakers that cost over $500, there are sneakerphiles that will line up just to get the latest sneaker...
   
  This looks like a bunch of sneaker-oil... don't you think? Again... _so what?_ Just because someone wants to spend $500 on a pair of sneakers that cost $5 to make in Vietnam, isn't going to stop a pro athlete from believing, or experiencing, that there are high performance sneakers out there that will make him run 12ms faster in a 100m dash.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *danroche* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> This is REALLY REALLY easy to do with audio equipment, ...
> 
> We can measure the presence of ultraviolet light, and even measure continental drift to bizarre levels of accuracy. ...
> ...


 
   
  I think this is bad assumption/misconception *number 4.*
   
  Since science has "bizarre levels of accuracy" in determining continental drift, solar flares and can measure a TV more accurately than the human eye, for some reason people assume that audio somehow equates to continental drift and satellite imagery!!
   
  I think the reality of the situation is science really sucks at audio.
   
  I can't get a satellite to tell me which headphone will have the most accurate sounding piano solos, I can't even get the internet to tell me that, attempting to find out (with scientific data) and I'll end up reading discussions about how sound bounces of walls or something, and then after a couple hours I'll most likely be on google translate trying to read Korean golden dogs, or with some guy in Hawaii, and looking at completely different data sets in total conflict and I'll still have no idea how to know which headphone has the better sounding pianos, so I'll most likely give up and start reading reviews in written word, or go to a shop and listen, once I've arrived at the shop I'll most probably realise all the FR graphs I was obsessing over in Korea were deceiving and the headphone sounds nothing like I expected it to!!
  _____
   
  What I can agree on is that limited edition sneakers are like the Dr. Dre Beats, or the Ultrasone Edition 8,,, that placebo pills in medicine are like all the fake cloned audio products from China (that people listen to and are convinced it's the real deal), and that ultraviolet light is like seeing ultrasonic frequencies, and I do agree that blind ABX testing is important, but I think the whole "pillar of science" thing is just dumb.
   
  If we take the TV example, science can measure a TV surpassing the human eye, and science can help reach ultimate fidelity with televisions, but there's an overlooked problem with audio IMHO:
   
  1. Our TV's (headphones) currently suck at producing a good picture, but a lot of us like it that way, the offset in distortions, contrast, sharpness and saturations in the picture have sortof become a form of art themselves!, we don't just want "a perfect picture", we want weird TV's and look at them like pieces of art, and watch different movies on different TV's! A film noir looks good on this one, and a horror looks good on another one! we have "open-air" and "closed" TV's, and we have screens with different materials, not just LCD.
   
  2. I can't remember 2.


----------



## Head Injury

It's just electricity, kiteki. Electricity is pretty well understood.


----------



## kiteki

I know it's just electricity, movies are just electricity too, videogames too, nintendo 3DS is just electricity... and so on.


----------



## liamstrain

Those are "just electricity" but interpreted by electronic equipment. Instruments that "do something". Cables do nothing but transfer electricity. They can do it more efficiently, or less efficiently - but besides efficiency, (and barring any breaks or outside interference) - the electricity on one end is the same as the other. There is no "coloration" or other effects mumbo jumbo. It's "just electricity."


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





drez said:


> [...]
> 
> With the headphone cables I have on hand, I can say without any doubt I would be able to tell them apart in a blind test.  I can't say the same about my coaxial cables, they are just too similar.
> 
> [...]


 

  
  same here. there’s absolutely no-doubt that I could tell which speaker cables are used in the system in a blind test - *no-doubt*
  I have to say I’m kind of perplexed about this claims that nobody has ever, ever passed a blind test. I find it really strange. either the ones with the gear cannot be bothered with setting up this test or the ones who tried didn’t meet the requirements… whatever...
   
  because some of the differences I hear are similar to differences I would hear between two similar instruments.
  which bring me to the question: what about musical instruments - are every musical instrument electronically measured... or just tuned by ears. let’s say a $200 violin and a $2000 one (or any other instrument) – would you tell which is which in a blind test, or would it be placebo?
   
  sorry for being so concise or erratic.


----------



## liamstrain

Differences in tone woods, resonances, manufacturing, etc. would definitely account for differences in sound between two violins. Reasonably pure Copper, on the other hand - provided it is a heavy enough gauge for the load and distance you want to use it, doesn't have the same kind of effect on the signal passing through it. Electricity doesn't act the way air and vibration do against reflective and resonant surfaces... Your analogy is more akin to comparing two different manufacturers of speaker, than wires.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





lenni said:


> which bring me to the question: what about musical instruments - are every musical instrument electronically measured... or just tuned by ears. let’s say a $200 violin and a $2000 one (or any other instrument) – would you tell which is which in a blind test, or would it be placebo?


 

 Instruments of the same type are all made with different materials, with slightly different shapes. There are measurably audible differences between them. Guess where it manifests? Frequency response!
   
  Categorizing them based on price is stupid, though. I can't say if you can hear the difference between a $200 and a $2000 instrument, because price isn't an indicator of construction.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





lenni said:


> which bring me to the question: what about musical instruments - are every musical instrument electronically measured... or just tuned by ears. let’s say a $200 violin and a $2000 one (or any other instrument) – would you tell which is which in a blind test, or would it be placebo?
> 
> sorry for being so concise or erratic.


 

 That's an interesting question. How many could correctly identify a Steinway vs. a Boesendorfer in a blind ABX test, given the same musician, same space, etc. What about a recording of the instruments? How much would that process mask differences that might be heard live?


----------



## Pudu

This is turning into the "Debunk Another Metaphor" thread.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That's an interesting question. How many could correctly identify a Steinway vs. a Boesendorfer in a blind ABX test, given the same musician, same space, etc. What about a recording of the instruments? How much would that process mask differences that might be heard live?


 

 They could be easily identified in an ABX test, because an ABX test doesn't require the participant to name one the Steinway and one the Boesendorfer, only to identify the differences. Provided, of course, that their frequency response differs enough to be audible.
   
  True pudu. They can't prove cables make a difference, so they dance around the issue with analogies that are completely off target.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That's an interesting question. How many could correctly identify a Steinway vs. a Boesendorfer in a blind ABX test, given the same musician, same space, etc. What about a recording of the instruments? How much would that process mask differences that might be heard live?


 


  Easy - a Bosendorfer grand has additional keys (92-97 total, depending on model) - it can play a broader frequency range.  And again - different tone woods and materials will change the frequency response - solid spruce transmits sound better than it reflects it - changing the treble, especially in a Bosendorfer vs. Steinway/Yamaha who use different methods.


----------



## nick_charles

I tested both Silver and Silver-plated copper cables. I did not put a cell phone near the test kit and the Silver cable was braided pure silver, unshielded and measured worst overall for noise. There was a strange hump in the noise levels at a specific frequency range ~ 17K  - which I could not explain. The test setup was always the same:  analog output from CD player to RCA cables to analog input on USB sound card ---- PC-----Audacity  running at 16/44.1 - the input impedance on the card was 27KOhms. Same computer and same physical location for all trials. All tests averaged over 10 trials to help cope with random variation.
   
  As mentioned the noise levels seem to be better than the sound card should be - my guess is that the FFT routine used by audacity is not as accurate as it should be. The noise tests were done with digital zeros - when a musical signal was present the levels were typically at or above -50db and the cable to cable differences were very small - I keep hoping someone with enough money to buy better measuring gear will take up the challenge.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Those are "just electricity" but interpreted by electronic equipment. Instruments that "do something". Cables do nothing but transfer electricity. They can do it more efficiently, or less efficiently - but besides efficiency, (and barring any breaks or outside interference) - the electricity on one end is the same as the other. There is no "coloration" or other effects mumbo jumbo. It's "just electricity."


 

 This is correct! However the signal purity, signal loss, or signal difference is what happens when sending an audio signal down a cable as electricity right?
   
  For example if someone mixed strands of silver, lead, nichrome and copper into a cable, wrapped it in lamb-skin and sold it for $400 I think it will most likely sound worse/less pure than a regular OFC cable, however the price and lamb-skin autosuggests that it sounds better.
   
  I can't know myself if there is any signal loss between silver and copper, but considering that as little as 10 µseconds of variance is perceptible then I leave the possibility open.
   
  DaveBSC isn't being very encouraging when he says only $500+ headphones can detect the difference between silver and copper, and there is some sort of "20% audiophile rule" on how much you're supposed to spend on cables, but whatever... if anyone wants to test copper versus any other material this headphone should be fine, this is the only decent and cheap one I could find with a 3.5mm detachable jack on both ends of the cable -> http://www.arlancommunications.com/products/amateurRadio/radioSport/Headsets.asp
   
  The sony MDR-7520 also has a detachable 3.5mm cable on both ends and costs $700 something and won some studio award so I guess that is another candidate ...
   
  Cable material (silver, copper, tin, lead, nichrome, w/e) is available on ebay per metre, and neutrik jacks.
   
   
  Quote: 





head injury said:


> Instruments of the same type are all made with different materials, with slightly different shapes. There are measurably audible differences between them. Guess where it manifests? Frequency response!


 

 No, you can't make one instrument sound like another with an equalizer, the difference is in timbrel aspects and overtones etc.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> No, you can't make one instrument sound like another with an equalizer, the difference is in timbrel aspects and overtones etc.


 

 What is timber and overtones? Harmonics. Those are frequencies.
   
  There is software that can mimic real instruments. It does a pretty convincing job, too. It's not yet a replacement for real _players_, who are a larger variable than the instrument itself but not up for consideration in what we're talking about.


----------



## kiteki

Yep overtones are frequencies.

 What do you mean software, like reason? They just recorded the sounds of individual guitar and violin notes in studios that's all.

 Time to pony up, the purest part of an audio signal is inside the microphone, it's the A/D conversion, techno-jazz, D/A conversion, amplification and speakers that stuff up the signal, I think everyone is in agreement that cables are of fairly low importance in any system, the contention is basically between "low" and "zero".
  The Radiosport RS20S (http://www.arlancommunications.com/products/amateurRadio/radioSport/rs20S.asp) is $47 shipping so I will pass on that test, shipping is cheaper for U.S. citizens though.
   
  When I get my custom IEM's I'll compare a couple cables, if I can hear any difference at all I'll ABX them, just like I did with the 192kHz upsampling, right Pony Injury?
   
  Have fun with this thread.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> DaveBSC isn't being very encouraging when he says only $500+ headphones can detect the difference between silver and copper, and there is some sort of "20% audiophile rule" on how much you're supposed to spend on cables, but whatever... if anyone wants to test copper versus any other material this headphone should be fine, this is the only decent and cheap one I could find with a 3.5mm detachable jack on both ends of the cable -> http://www.arlancommunications.com/products/amateurRadio/radioSport/Headsets.asp
> 
> The sony MDR-7520 also has a detachable 3.5mm cable on both ends and costs $700 something and won some studio award so I guess that is another candidate ...


 

 I don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand. Let me use YET ANOTHER analogy to see maybe if it seeps in this time. Let's say you're trying to judge differences between pro grade Canon L or Nikkor FX lenses. Not by measuring vignetting or CA with equipment, just using your eyeballs and looking at pictures, in other words, subjective testing. If you use a consumer grade crop format DSLR for the tests, the differences in optical quality will be masked because the crop cameras don't use all of the lens. The sharpness and light fall-off at the extreme edges of the frame are part of what separates a good lens from a great one, and on a consumer grade DSLR, that will be difficult if not impossible to spot. Several different lenses might look equally good. Step up to a full frame, professional SLR, and differences between lenses will become considerably larger.
   
  Do you understand what I'm saying here? If you are using a $50 headphone, with lumpy bass, a recessed midrange, and crappy, low resolution and grainy treble, the improvements that a high quality copper or silver cable might make would be *entirely masked by those built in deficiencies. *There is also another issue that you're ignoring. When you have a detachable cable on a headphone, there has to be a wire *behind that connector *that actually connects to the driver. Do you really think the manufacturer of a $50 headphone is going to spend *any money *on that piece of wire? Of course not, they are going to use the cheapest crap they can possibly get hold of. So you've got a $500 headphone cable, and a connector, and then a 5 cent piece of copper actually going to the driver. Do you see the problem here?
   
  If you're going to use a headphone with a detachable cable to test for differences between headphone cables, you want one that actually has high quality wire going from the connector to the driver - like the LCD-3.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





danroche said:


> I'm seeing people make three common bad assumptions here around audiophile topics:
> 
> 1. I can hear something different, therefore something must be objectively different. Science, it is your job to explain what is objectively different that is creating this result.
> 
> ...


 

 Well this sounds reasonable if I was doing some research for a scientific journal article I was trying to contribute toward an existing scientific body of knowledge.
   
  It is well and good to have blind testing and theories about cognitive bias and placebo, and double blind tests to suggest that certain things are clearly discernable to most people, most of the time, while others are not.
   
  Now we [or rather you] are free to use this information, and try to predict everything from looking at measurements or insist on double blind testing to verify all differences.  However I would not recommend it as an enjoyable world view. 
   
  This philosophy has descended from the mid 19th century philosohpy of Auguste Comte (see also: Positivism)
   
  This is all well and good to insist on scientific rigor, but we are beginning to see the undoing of statements such as "What is not clearly measurable is surely inaudible" with the most recent example being Tyll Hersten's blind test with k701 burn in.  The measurements were inconclusive, but he could still hear a difference.  OOTB the K701 has very  VERY low distortion figures (-95 dB if I remember correctly) and yet it has been demonstrated that differences can be heard.  Prior to this many people claimed they could hear clear differences with the k701 after burning in, and the positivists derided these observations as "placebo" and insisted that the differences were too small to clearly measure, the methodology too problematic, and that no blind test had confirmed this therefore it is not a valuable source of information.
   
  My main problem is that positivists usually apply their philosophy to provide a-priorised critiques to the observations of others, and to insist that only blind test provide usable data.  My counterargument is that just because tests have shows that said number of people cannot perceive something does not mean it is inperceivable.  Just because in certain situations people are susceptible to bias does not mean that all observations are biased.  Just because blind testing provides scientifically more positive and watertight data does not mean that blind testing is the only viable source of information.
   
  In the ideal world it would be great if there were more blind tests done, but they are time consuming, tiring and offer little reward to the person undertaking them apart from confirmation of their observations.  
   
  Ultimately if you want to find the best gear in this hobby you will have to trust your ears at some point and accept the risk and fallibility that comes with this.  This is just part of living a rich and beautiful life rather than living some controlled and contrived process of experimental consumption and scientifically verified experience.


----------



## Head Injury

We're not here to share an enjoyable world view. This is the Sound Science subforum.
   
  Oh boy. You are way off target on the K701 comment.

 He found differences, measurable differences, but could not conclude that they were audible or all attributed to burn-in
 He heard audible differences between the "burned in" Q701 and a brand new Q701. That does not prove he heard burn in. Every Q701 sounds different. He even said that all he did was demonstrate he could hear the difference between two Q701s, not between burn-in and not-burn-in. I suggest you check the thread dedicated to the experiment to find out how wrong you are.
 What he measured and what he heard has little or nothing to do with distortion. He found differences in frequency response, and that's what he seemed to hear. Frequency response? Hey, that sounds familiar.
 No, we did not deride the differences as placebo. We derided the differences as potentially being product variation, because he did not control for it. There could be placebo as well, because he could have felt a difference between pads, or even saw a glimmer of reflection in the laptop screen (though he tilted it to attempt to control for that).
 The differences were not too small to measure. He measured them. Where do you get this stuff?
 The fact that no blind testing before had demonstrated a difference has nothing to do with his blind test. It was flawed, if it was attempting to prove burn-in, because it didn't control for product variation.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





head injury said:


> We're not here to share an enjoyable world view. This is the Sound Science subforum.


 

 I lol'd.  This is the science subforum - we all have stern faces and use only equipment that has been scientifically proven to be audible better
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  On an aside - what I can say is that the consistent positivist approach to audio is highly unproductive.  Confidence in what you hear is needed.
   
  If we insist in accounting for product variation we would need a time machine to prove burn in with a blind test.
  What Tyll claimed to hear was a difference in subjective smoothness which may or may not be correlated to FR plot results, however the FR plots from his other experiment are rather unambiguous:

   
  Now this in now way proves that the results of his blind test are valid, but I would say that quite a strong trend has been demonstrated.
   
  But anyway why aim I posting in this thread?  Because even though it is located in the Sound Science forum the thread title is whether high end cables matter.  
  Its a bit of a nooby thread to start to be honest.  The positivists will say "the tests have shown distortion and FR changes that are too low to be audible and the blind test have all come up inconclusive" (probably tin. eared all of them) and then those who trust their hearing will say that the changes are unambiguous and of a magnitude beyond where bias and placebo operate.
   
  My argument is that in the end you listen to music using your ears, so you should trust what your ears hear when selecting equipment.  In the end you could look at the FR plot or the THD+N or the impulse response  of any piece of equipment and it will give you no useful insight into whether you will like what you hear.  Looking at the measurements is completely abstract unless you have a working knowledge of engineering and wish to design some audio gear, and IMO will lead to more confusion than enlightenment.
   
*"a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" *(attributed to Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744). It is found in _An Essay on Criticism_, 1709)
   
  "A little learning is a dangerous thing; 
  drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: 
 there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, 
 and drinking largely sobers us again"


----------



## Head Injury

What do your ears hear? Frequencies. There's nothing magic about what enters the ear.
   
  Determining what purchases to make using numbers might seem dull, but it sure it rewarding when you build a system that sounds better than one ten times the price 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  So when are you going to contribute something useful to the thread?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

On top of that, if you want to "trust" what your ears hear you better abandon sighted testing of any sort...  Because as mentioned so many times before, our aural perceptions are heavily influenced by non-sonic cues concerning what we are listening to.
   
  There's no problem with being content with sighted auditions, but know that you aren't just hearing the gear - you are perceiving it as a whole (looks, price, prestige, build, reputation etc.) both consciously and unconsciously, even if you think you can isolate just the sonics.  You can't.  Ever.  Not without performing the correct blind test for the situation.


----------



## Gwarmi

This
   
  "*[size=x-small]THE MISSING LINK[/size]*
_The concepts of accuracy and musicality can be seen as the basis for the two categories of neutrality. _
_The history of audio componentry is peppered with instances of components that measure well but don’t make the grade sonically, _
_as well as components that measure poorly but are pleasant to listen to._
   
  Full article
   
http://www.positive-feedback.com/pfbackissues/0705/vansevers.7n5.html


----------



## Rebel975

Quote: 





lenni said:


> there’s absolutely no-doubt that I could tell which speaker cables are used in the system in a blind test - *no-doubt*


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> This
> 
> "*[size=x-small]THE MISSING LINK[/size]*
> _The concepts of accuracy and musicality can be seen as the basis for the two categories of neutrality. _
> ...


 


   
  Why even bother with high end gear if you don't want accuracy? Just buy a tube amp and some department store headphones.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Why even bother with high end gear if you don't want accuracy? Just buy a tube amp and some department store headphones.


 

 Everyone is different ~ some purists some might say like the stalwart 'flat sound' from one pair of headphones and associated gear
  others prefer a varied selection of colored headphones with gear that has a certain signature to it like tube amps and even DAC's
  and solid state amps.
   
  I'm in the second camp, I like varied colored sound from my Grados through fairly neutral sounding gear like the Rega and Violectric
  V200. Each to their own.
   
  I appreciate the Beyer T1 for what it is, but subjectively I find it a little boring.
   
  I dig the detail on a Benchmark DAC1 but again, it's too clinical for my taste.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





head injury said:


> What do your ears hear? Frequencies. There's nothing magic about what enters the ear.
> 
> Determining what purchases to make using numbers might seem dull, but it sure it rewarding when you build a system that sounds better than one ten times the price
> 
> ...


 


  I hoped that I had.  My piont is that, say with the STX, it can be useful to look at the specs from an ompant (say setlling time, slew rate, gain stability, voltage range) but that cant necessarily tell you whether or not you will like the sound, or even if the characteristics you are seeking will be present.  Opamps can change FR output but there are also other factors of their performance that are important.  An opamp can sound slow or fast, energetic or laid back depenging on its performance characteristics and it's implementation in the circuit.
   
  I am not qualified to speculate on the relatoinship between the electrical characteristics of audio cables (or electrical components) and the effect on an analogue signal, however there are variations in measurable performance depending on conductor, dielectric and geometry, and there are also observably (by many parties) changes (although yet to be blind tested) changes in audible performance.  I didn't wish for there to be a difference - that would be ridiculous as I would have more money to spend on other things, however I have heard my headphones out of higher end equipment, and that made me a sad panda, mostly because I cant afford an esoteric CD player nor a high end tube amp to suite a HD800, at least not in the next couple of years.  There are measurable characteristics of performance, however these are mostly useful to experts who talented and knowledgeable enough to interpret this and use it to design gear/select components that sound good subjectively.
   
  Where is this going WRT the thread? I would suggest that the burden of scientific contiguity (as in insisting in reconciling observations with prior research) be dismissed and that in its place subjective impressions be correlated to electrical characteristics in a means feasible given that the participants in this thread are enthusiasts, not scientists or engineers.  Let us practice alchemy.
   
  Science is an instrument, where it is no longer instrumental we should look elsewhere.


----------



## deadlylover

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Why even bother with high end gear if you don't want accuracy? Just buy a tube amp and some department store headphones.


 

 And here I was thinking that the whole point of high end gear was to make my crap sound better.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





drez said:


> I hoped that I had.  My piont is that, say with the STX, it can be useful to look at the specs from an ompant (say setlling time, slew rate, gain stability, voltage range) but that cant necessarily tell you whether or not you will like the sound, or even if the characteristics you are seeking will be present.  Opamps can change FR output but there are also other factors of their performance that are important.  An opamp can sound slow or fast, energetic or laid back depenging on its performance characteristics and it's implementation in the circuit.
> 
> I am not qualified to speculate on the relatoinship between the electrical characteristics of audio cables (or electrical components) and the effect on an analogue signal, however there are variations in measurable performance depending on conductor, dielectric and geometry, and there are also observably (by many parties) changes (although yet to be blind tested) changes in audible performance.  I didn't wish for there to be a difference - that would be ridiculous as I would have more money to spend on other things, however I have heard my headphones out of higher end equipment, and that made me a sad panda, mostly because I cant afford an esoteric CD player nor a high end tube amp to suite a HD800, at least not in the next couple of years.  There are measurable characteristics of performance, however these are mostly useful to experts who talented and knowledgeable enough to interpret this and use it to design gear/select components that sound good subjectively.
> 
> Where is this going WRT the thread? I would suggest that the burden of scientific contiguity be dismissed and that in its place subjective impressions be correlated to electrical characteristics in a means feasible given that the participants in this thread are enthusiasts, not scientists or engineers.


 

 The implementation in the circuit is key, yes. That's why most measurements of amps and DACs are taken as a whole unit, not at the opamp. Those measurements do tell you what it sounds like.
   
  I can't press these points enough:

 Measurable differences != audible differences
 Subjective impressions != anything worthwhile
   
  The trouble is, there doesn't appear to be any correlation between subjective impressions and electrical characteristics, at least not if the listener isn't wise to those electrical characteristics. Sure, once they know a cable is some sort of stranded silver star quad configuration, there'll be airy highs and wide soundstage or whatever. But what is it about the electrical characteristics of that configuration that create it, when all the differences it makes at the other end are measurably inaudible? You _need_ blind tests for that. Without them, there's no point in pursuing any answers because _subjective impressions are useless_. Blind tests are the _first_ step.
   
  I should probably clarify my department store comment. I don't mean to say that headphones are useless, or that they must be objectively perfect. Headphones are much more complex, and much much harder to objectify. But amps and DACs and cables are all able to reach inaudible levels of error. That should be the goal, minimize issues so the component that causes the most issues (the headphones) have the best signal to work with. If you're buying $3000 tube amps because you like how their distortion sounds, you might as well get department store headphones.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





deadlylover said:


> And here I was thinking that the whole point of high end gear was to make my crap sound better.


 


  Nah mate, got it all wrong, ditch the STAX grab yourself a Little Dot 1+ and preferably a broken
  pair of HD201's (shouldn't be too hard, they usually come that way out of the box)
   
  Flllyyyin!


----------



## drez

Quote: 





head injury said:


> I can't press these points enough:
> 
> Measurable differences != audible differences
> Subjective impressions != anything worthwhile


 

 Just don't forget the last point:
   
  audible differences != sounds good 
   
  I have no idea of the mechanism at play, however of the three cables I have, all 3 are milloit braided, although each of them has different weave density, two have cotton dielectric and jacket, one is clear PTFE.  Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the only difference was the weave density, but to test that I would need a whole load of cotton jacketed litz wire, and a lot of free time with nothing else I would rather do.  Thing is though this would require motivation on my part, and someone to change cables while I am blindfolded, and a couple of days to fabricate cables, and personally I would rather direct that time to building a B22.  I'm guessing the same is the case with most people that neglect to conduct blind tests.
   
  i guess though first step is to blind test the existing cables...


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





drez said:


> Science is an instrument, where it is no longer instrumental we should look elsewhere.


 

 I agree to a point. But when you have an industry built up around very expensive cables, and getting people to spend their money on them... and ESPECIALLY if they are making scientific claims (that is, things that are eminently measurable, and testable). They by all means, we should insist on them, as good consumers. 
   
  If you are rolling your own, and having fun - it's one thing. But be careful of the statements and claims you make in relation to that... lest you are aiding and abetting the bilking of honest enthusiasts who just don't have a head for the science to know what is being sold them is a piece of lead dolled up like the philosopher's stone.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





rebel975 said:


>


 
   

  if the opportunity arises and the conditions are right I might do it, just for the sake of it. like I said - *no-doubt.* but I’d like to do it properly - not like the useless ones I've seen that were bound to fail. 
   
  but I’m not in a rush to prove you, or any of the trolls here, anything. if any of you were really interested in this you would’ve at least tried the cables. I could care less whether you believe high-end cables matter or not. it's pathetic.
   
  enjoy another useless debate. I’ll go water ducks’ back in the park


----------



## Gwarmi

Go silver cables!!! Especially Nordost ones...with matching red and green boots over the RCA ends.
   
  Actually switched back to my Copper Crimsons, nearly crapped myself after hearing static in the
  right cup of the 325i ~ figured the driver may have been on the way out. Switched to the M50's
  - yep still there, SR80i yep still there also.
   
  Switched everything off, swapped over to the Crimsons. Gone.
   
  <shrug>


----------



## kiteki

@Gwarmi - I thought you liked the silver USB cable the best, Nordost Blue Heaven right?
   
  The problem with USB is, if I send a 10.01MB FLAC file along a 1km USB cable, the FLAC file will still be 10.01MB at the other end, I don't think there are any "dead pixels" in a $2 USB cable, so to speak...
   
  ____
   
  @liamstrain - yes there are some people without any "head for science" or any interest or time for science that might be fooled into thinking expensive cables are important, and they'll spend $300 on a cable instead of $300 on a DAC, well... we just have to tell them that the $300 DAC is much more important in their system, that's not too difficult to get accross.
   
  My view is the discussion takes for granted that 99% of audio enthusiasts know the difference between a DAC and a cable, or a speaker and a cable, etc...
   
  My other view is a lot of audiophiles on a "quest for Hi-Fi" don't care if it's audible or measureable, as long as it's "better" and we're pushing the envelope, that's all that counts, to them, and that makes perfect sense.
   
  Someone with a "pure FLAC collection" likes the peace of mind everything is ripped to FLAC, and they know they're taking the correct path in their quest for Hi-Fi, if the differences between FLAC and V0 MP3 "are not audible/measureable" according to the scientists, they simply don't care, and that POV makes sense, IMHO, it's just "knowing" there is a difference. =P


----------



## Nom de Plume

If your only agendum is saying you don't care, I entreat you to refrain from posting such useless drivel. Some of us express our interest by attempting to understand how cables work and why they do or don't make an audible difference. I'm not about to throw $200+ into something without knowing what I'm really getting from it. 
   
  Quote: 





lenni said:


> but I’m not in a rush to prove you, or any of the trolls here, anything. if any of you were really interested in this you would’ve at least tried the cables. I could care less whether you believe high-end cables matter or not. it's pathetic.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> @Gwarmi - I thought you liked the silver USB cable the best, Nordost Blue Heaven right?
> 
> The problem with USB is, if I send a 10.01MB FLAC file along a 1km USB cable, the FLAC file will still be 10.01MB at the other end, I don't think there are any "dead pixels" in a $2 USB cable, so to speak...
> 
> ...


----------



## kiteki

Are they on loan from addicted to audio?
   
  I need to go there and try the Fostex HP-P1 again, there was something special about that amplifier.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Are they on loan from addicted to audio?
> 
> I need to go there and try the Fostex HP-P1 again, there was something special about that amplifier.


 


  Someone who's actually not a retailer as yet or on Head-Fi as yet!
   
  I tried the Fostex HP-P1 again last time I saw George at Addicted to Audio, spent a bit of time with
  my K601 and the Fostex rig (with simple iPod) ~ it did a fair job of driving them. 
   
  His supply of various stock is on the up ~ just this week
   
  Denon and AKG range are now available
  Rega DAC
  Fostex HP-A3 desktop 24/96 DAC and amp
  Cambridge DacMagic
  Ultrasone Pro 2900
   
  He's on the up! and on the portable front ~ the ALO Continental is currently in transit.


----------



## kiteki

So they have the Fostex HP-A3 available for demo now? Cool.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That's an interesting question. How many could correctly identify a Steinway vs. a Boesendorfer in a blind ABX test, given the same musician, same space, etc. What about a recording of the instruments? How much would that process mask differences that might be heard live?


 

 Blind testing of violins
   
37. A blind test of old and new violins. Westerlunds Violinverkstand AB March 2006
   
  This is really a bit of fun, but it again shows how we hear differently sighted to blind. In this test 6 violins, three c1700 (including a Stradivari) and three modern were played to a group of string teachers who cast votes 1 to 3 on their preferred violin. The stage was kept dark and they could not see which was which. The Stradivari came last, a modern brand won.
   
http://www.westerlunds.se/blindtesteng.htm
   
  and if you want to search google rather than wonder there are others.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand. Let me use YET ANOTHER analogy to see maybe if it seeps in this time. Let's say you're trying to judge differences between pro grade Canon L or Nikkor FX lenses. Not by measuring vignetting or CA with equipment, just using your eyeballs and looking at pictures, in other words, subjective testing. If you use a consumer grade crop format DSLR for the tests, the differences in optical quality will be masked because the crop cameras don't use all of the lens. The sharpness and light fall-off at the extreme edges of the frame are part of what separates a good lens from a great one, and on a consumer grade DSLR, that will be difficult if not impossible to spot. Several different lenses might look equally good. Step up to a full frame, professional SLR, and differences between lenses will become considerably larger.
> 
> Do you understand what I'm saying here? If you are using a $50 headphone, with lumpy bass, a recessed midrange, and crappy, low resolution and grainy treble, the improvements that a high quality copper or silver cable might make would be *entirely masked by those built in deficiencies. *There is also another issue that you're ignoring. When you have a detachable cable on a headphone, there has to be a wire *behind that connector *that actually connects to the driver. Do you really think the manufacturer of a $50 headphone is going to spend *any money *on that piece of wire? Of course not, they are going to use the cheapest crap they can possibly get hold of. So you've got a $500 headphone cable, and a connector, and then a 5 cent piece of copper actually going to the driver. Do you see the problem here?
> 
> If you're going to use a headphone with a detachable cable to test for differences between headphone cables, you want one that actually has high quality wire going from the connector to the driver - like the LCD-3.


 



 Good theory, any proof?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





nom de plume said:


> If your only agendum is saying you don't care, I entreat you to refrain from posting such useless drivel. Some of us express our interest by attempting to understand how cables work and why they do or don't make an audible difference. I'm not about to throw $200+ into something without knowing what I'm really getting from it.


 


  I agree. Lenni, you have nothing of worth to contribute here.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> If you're going to use a headphone with a detachable cable to test for differences between headphone cables, you want one that actually has high quality wire going from the connector to the driver - like the LCD-3.


 

 I wouldn't worry too much about the hookup wires in the t50 - yes it probably is a little (less than 6% for the same wire gauge) more resistive than the silver wire used in the LCD-2 (and I think a couple of people have changed out the hookup wire in the LCD-2 and claimed to hear improvments) but I think the main source of resistance is that between the connector/receptacle and the solder joint.
   
  Eliminating the need for a hookup entirely would probably net the greatest reduction in resistance, if that has an effect on the performance of the driver at all.
   
  A while back I was obsessed over trying to get the damping factor of my LCD-2 in my system as high as possible, however cables will, if they do have an effect, make a very small influence on damping factor compared to variations in amplifiers' output impedance.
   
  Several sources I have found claim that damping factor has no effect on headphones, and I am yet to find measurements to prove otherwise, however what tweaked my interest was the question of why Audeze use 20AWG wires in their stock cables.  For reference 20AWG is much larger than the typical gauge used in headphone cables.  Using thinner wire would save them money, make the headphones lighter, etc thus the source of my speculation.


----------



## danroche

Okay, we've ended up at a couple of other common sticking points with this thread:
   
  1. I don't care what your supposed DBTs say! How can you tell me what I hear, with MY ears? How can you pretend to tell me what I can or cannot perceive? The arrogance!
   
  Okay, don't take this the wrong way, but all you've done here is find a roundabout way of challenging me to prove a negative. I can't PROVE that you couldn't suddenly tell the difference between (speaker cables, DACs, etc.) where others before you have not. I also can't prove you couldn't run a sub-3 minute mile, or slam dunk a basketball from a dead stop in bare feet. The thing is, as someone making a positive statement AND challenging what prior tests have supported, the burden of proof is on you. The fact that you seem so reluctant to take what would be a really simple test to settle the matter makes me more suspicious. Don't you find it curious that no manufacturer of pricey cables has published such positive results?
   
  2. Audio is a subjective world of personal tastes and preferences. I like what I like, you're going to like what you like, and we'll all be happy. Why must you insist on killing my buzz? Would it kill you to let me buy and enjoy my (pricey cables, etc.)?
   
  Okay, we're all agreed that audio is about personal preferences, but that's not what we're talking about. We aren't arguing if strawberry ice cream can taste better than chocolate ice cream. We're arguing if the same ice cream can taste different in different circumstances. Science doesn't get into the business of telling you what your personal tastes should be.
   
  As for why do we feel the need to rain on your parade, I would say that saving people money on audio equipment is a perfectly worthwhile pursuit. Money spent on space-age speaker cables can't be spent on other things. The same goes for helping people NOT feel as if their perfectly-competent audio components are inadequate. If this is petty, then kindly direct me to the internet forum where we actively support the progress of cancer research.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

By finding out and showing how a cable can affect how someone perceives sound quality, we will make those who have shelled out shed loads of cash unhappy, but we will make the majority who cannot afford/don't want to spend shed loads on such cables happy.
   
  My music sounds better now I do not worry about cables.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





danroche said:


> [...]
> As for why do we feel the need to rain on your parade, I would say that saving people money on audio equipment is a perfectly worthwhile pursuit. Money spent on space-age speaker cables can't be spent on other things. The same goes for helping people NOT feel as if their perfectly-competent audio components are inadequate. If this is petty, then kindly direct me to the internet forum where we actively support the progress of cancer research.


 
   
  This is all wise and noble, but for example if FLAC cost 10 times what MP3 cost, then there'd be a bunch of crusaders saying FLAC is snake-oil stealing peoples money.


----------



## liamstrain

I can understand wanting quality cables over radio-shack seconds... I have no problem with ensuring quality materials - it's when you start to see thousands of dollars throwing into 5 or 10 feet of cable, that my hackles go up, and it's that kind of abuse of a customer's faith in the industry (and failure of our education system) that I really want to push against. 
   
  Part of that push, is fighting back against the hyperbolic, entirely subjective (and often flawed or baseless) statements made here when someone went from a perfectly decent cable (mogami/canare, etc.) to something a bit more exotic - and we know. KNOW. that there was not suddenly a magic veil smasher uber change that happened... but statements to that effect build a mythos that can be hard to undo. 
   
  A fool and their money - and all that - more power to them. But I'd really rather we didn't participate in the making of fools out of people who otherwise wouldn't have been...


----------



## Pudu

kiteki said:


> This is all wise and noble, but for example if FLAC cost 10 times what MP3 cost, then there'd be a bunch of crusaders saying FLAC is snake-oil stealing peoples money.




No you'd have a bunch of people saying most folks won't benefit by moving from 320VBR MP3 to FLAC for ten times the price. FLAC can be shown to have better quality (audible on some systems, but not on others). 

Cables have not been objectively shown to be worth any increase in cost.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

What FLAC vs MP3 demonstrates is that there are diminshing returns for bit rates and codecs. We can prove that by use of blind testing which finds people can tell the difference between lowest and highest, but far less so between middle and highest. So imagine a graph with a downward slope.
   
  If we do the same with cables we get a different graph, a flat line one as there is no benefit from cheap to expensive. ABX and blind comparison prove that.


----------



## uelover

Cheap and good audio setup recommendation for Prog Rock Man: Blindfold him, give him ipod earbud,  load 128kbps mp3 tracks into an ipod.


----------



## Head Injury

And he'd hear the difference, because there are measurably audible differences between headphones and file formats.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





head injury said:


> And he'd hear the difference, because there are measurably audible differences between headphones and file formats.


 
   
  Yeah, but the difference will be less pronounced than the case if he can see what he is listening to.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Yeah, but the difference will be less pronounced than the case if he can see what he is listening to.


 

 Probably. What's your point? Biases affect all equipment. That's well known.
   
  Oh boy, are you implying that if the differences are less pronounced between headphones when blind, that maybe cables only make enough of a difference to be audible when sighted? Please say no, because that's stupid.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Probably. What's your point? Biases affect all equipment. That's well known.
> 
> Oh boy, are you implying that if the differences are less pronounced between headphones when blind, that maybe cables only make enough of a difference to be audible when sighted? Please say no, because that's stupid.


 

 No, my point is that a cheap way to enjoy good sound is to blindfold yourself when listening to music.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





uelover said:


> No, my point is that a cheap way to enjoy good sound is to blindfold yourself when listening to music.


 

 But like I said, the differences are still audible with headphones.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

A proper cheap set up that I have -
   
  Ipod classic with apple lossless files, FiiO E5 amp and Sennheiser PX200 headphones.
   
  It is significantly better than what I had to put up with in my youth with an Aiwa boombox and then a Sony Walkman with its own headphones playing cassettes.
   
  Another cheap way of listening to great music is to lose yourself of as many biases as possible by checking out the science and what really makes a difference. Then be happy with any old working cables, a good but cheap DAC and amp and really nice headphones.
   
  That way you do not even have to spend money on a blind fold


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





head injury said:


> But like I said, the differences are still audible with headphones.


 

 I did not say that the differences are inaudible.
   
  I say that the differences will be less pronounced - it will eliminate any placebo effects due to sight.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

My message here is that if like me you can music nirvana without spending silly money on things that do not work, great. If you can find music nirvana with £500 cables and putting green pen lines round the edge of your CDs great.
   
  But please allow both points of view to be fairly heard so that those new to hifi can make an informed choice. That way fewer people will be left dissatisfied with a superb hifi system, the dissatisfaction being cause by those who claim cables and other spurious products objectively improve sound quality.


----------



## JRG1990

I use a pair of superlux hd681 I paid £17.50 for as my main headphones, i've spent more than £17.50 on cables aswell.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> What FLAC vs MP3 demonstrates is that there are diminshing returns for bit rates and codecs. We can prove that by use of blind testing which finds people can tell the difference between lowest and highest, but far less so between middle and highest. So imagine a graph with a downward slope.
> 
> If we do the same with cables we get a different graph, a flat line one as there is no benefit from cheap to expensive. ABX and blind comparison prove that.


 

 It's not quite as conclusive as that.  Firstly I have not personally come across test with cables in headphones where comb effect does not play a part.  The tests with speaker cables/interconnects/power chords that I am aware of came up flat (as in no trend).
   
  Those who do purport to hear differences in cables will probably also vouch that increase in cost does not universally improve performance - audio is a subjective business.  Personally I'm pretty sure no cable is worth over a couple of hundred dollars (even that is a bit much to be honest)
   
  If it hasn't passed a blind test yet, the difference is demonstrably slight if not nonexistent.  Personally I am fairly confident I can pass a BT between the headphone cables I have on hand - but its certainly not easy, but neither is telling 128 from 320 MP3 at times (yes there are some tracks that are very difficult indeed to tell)
   
  Is it a good idea to spend money on cables when your gear is mid-fi - probably not as it probably isn't very revealing as it is.  (yes my gear is still mid-fi as I see it)
   
  But if you are handy with a soldering iron you can whip together a cable for less that $50 that you can test out, or just enjoy the aesthetic appeal of.


----------



## Rebel975

Quote: 





lenni said:


> but I’m not in a rush to prove you, or any of the trolls here, anything. if any of you were really interested in this you would’ve at least tried the cables. I could care less whether you believe high-end cables matter or not. it's pathetic.
> 
> enjoy another useless debate. I’ll go water ducks’ back in the park


 


   
  Yikes. Why get so upset? You should expect to get called out for making a claim like that on this forum. What if I went onto a car forum and claimed that my Ford Pinto could go from 0-60 in 2 seconds flat? How many "prove it"'s would I get?
   
  Besides- I WOULD like to try an expensive cable. I'm just not going to spend $300-$XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to get one. If someone sent me a "high end" replacement cable for my HE-500's I'd gladly give it a try. I'd even give it a blind test, because I don't have any stake in the outcome. I haven't spend thousands of dollars on cables, after all.


----------



## comperic2003

Quote:


opievonkannoli said:


> Shure530,
> 
> In my opinion good cables make a world of difference, but only trust your own ears my friend.  As for myself, I've gone through a lot of cables over time and now use Nordost.  Our downstairs system is wired up with Nordost Vishnu power cords and Heimdall interconnects and speaker cable.  Our upstairs system is wired with Nordost Shiva & Blue Heaven power cords and the new Blue Heaven interconnects and speaker cable. My personal opinion is that the power cords make the most difference, then the interconnects and lastly the speaker cable.
> 
> ...


 

 While my experience confirms the same findings, I have also found that marinating my speaker cables in an animal oil, preferably snake, can actually greatly increase the resolution of said cable to the point where it surpasses the power cord as the critical link in a gig's wiring set-up.
   
   
  On a related note, y friend down in Burbank has heard amazing results after putting a dollop of peanut butter (avoid the crunchy kind) in between his amp and speaker wire.  He claims to have never heard music sound so rich and creamy before.  Once I find the purest grade nut butter available, I too am going to give this a try.
   
  Happy listening!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> The problem with USB is, if I send a 10.01MB FLAC file along a 1km USB cable, the FLAC file will still be 10.01MB at the other end, I don't think there are any "dead pixels" in a $2 USB cable, so to speak...


 

 This statement doesn't even make sense. For a start, a 1km USB cable wouldn't even work. You'd get nothing at the other end. An ordinary passive USB cable is good to something like 16 feet. Second, how do you think USB streaming works? Do you think that the hard drive sends a 10MB FLAC file to a DAC, in its entirety, and the DAC checks to make sure the CRC value is the same as the one on the hard drive before it starts playing anything?
   
  Do you believe that 50ns of jitter (the yellow line) would be inaudible? It should be, shouldn't it. The FLAC file is the same at both ends, bits are bits, its either a 1 or a 0, yadda yadda yadda.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





drez said:


> Eliminating the need for a hookup entirely would probably net the greatest reduction in resistance, if that has an effect on the performance of the driver at all.


 

 Agreed. Hard-wiring is always better, but it's not exactly convenient for testing different headphone cables on the same headphone. Using different pairs of the same model of headphone with different headphone cables hard-wired is also unfortunately not a solution, as different samples can and often do have slightly different response. The point I was trying to make is not that you need an LCD-3 in order to hear any difference between a stock headphone cable and a $600 DHC. It's about trying to make any differences that might be there as large and easy to spot as possible. The question is not "is it worth spending $600 on a headphone cable" the question is "is there ANY difference between a stock cable and a $600 headphone cable". If you're using a $50 headphone, I don't believe you can definitively answer that question.
   
  When the Mythbusters tested the myth that you can outrun a speed camera, their initial conclusion was that no, you can't. They were wrong, they just didn't go fast enough. Saying that there's no difference between headphone cables by using a $50 headphone to test is like saying that you can't beat a speed camera because I went by one at 90mph, and it flashed. There's no reason to drive faster than 90mph. What? that's no conclusion at all. You could certainly start with a $50 headphone, and then ramp it up until you get to the LCD-3. If you test using the LCD-3 and you STILL can't hear any difference between a $2 cable and a $600 one, THEN you can definitively conclude that there is not one (at least that you were able to hear 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Do you believe that 50ns of jitter (the yellow line) would be inaudible? It should be, shouldn't it. The FLAC file is the same at both ends, bits are bits, its either a 1 or a 0, yadda yadda yadda.


 

 Well, that depends. Has an audible level of jitter ever been established?


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





rebel975 said:


> Yikes. Why get so upset? You should expect to get called out for making a claim like that on this forum. What if I went onto a car forum and claimed that my Ford Pinto could go from 0-60 in 2 seconds flat? How many "prove it"'s would I get?
> 
> Besides- I WOULD like to try an expensive cable. I'm just not going to spend $300-$XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to get one. If someone sent me a "high end" replacement cable for my HE-500's I'd gladly give it a try. I'd even give it a blind test, because I don't have any stake in the outcome. I haven't spend thousands of dollars on cables, after all.


 

 I don’t know. if I went onto another forum (cameras; bicycles; cars… whatever.) and start making comments like: spending more than $200 on a bicycle is not worth it; every bicycle is the same; you’re all fools… etc. (you get the point) - without having tried the gear I reckon I’d get banned. I haven’t tried, but that’s what I reckon would happen.
   
  I must admit sometimes the comments in this forum drive me nuts - the sarcasm; the silly jokes - I find it kinda upsetting that I keep out of it altogether.
   
  but you’re right. I shouldn’t get upset. awhile after I posted the comment I realised it was excessive and wished I didn't. I've no excuse. it was a mistake. I sincerely apologise.
   
  you're also right at being skeptic. there's snake oil, and is far from easy to detect what is, but not everything is. even if you try a headphone cable and doesn't make any difference to you, it's wrong to conclude that every cable out there is snake oil, imo.


----------



## jcx

not in the digital domain - bits ARE bits, if they arrive in the correct values, order then the digital comm link jitter can have only indirect effects on DAC output jitter, then only if the clock is derived from the digital link - no longer the case with USB Audio Class 2 async standard - if only Microsoft would go ahead and implement it in the OS standard drivers
   
  but older USB Audio receiver PLL are pretty good, the best chips give single digit-to-sub ns jitter on the recovered clock for the DAC - the clock for the DAC is what matters - not the data link jitter
   
  in DBT tests the thresholds for jitter ( DAC clock ) audibility are 100+ ns


----------



## Pudu

removed


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> When the Mythbusters tested the myth that you can outrun a speed camera, their initial conclusion was that no, you can't. They were wrong, they just didn't go fast enough. Saying that there's no difference between headphone cables by using a $50 headphone to test is like saying that you can't beat a speed camera because I went by one at 90mph, and it flashed. There's no reason to drive faster than 90mph. What? that's no conclusion at all. You could certainly start with a $50 headphone, and then ramp it up until you get to the LCD-3. If you test using the LCD-3 and you STILL can't hear any difference between a $2 cable and a $600 one, THEN you can definitively conclude that there is not one (at least that you were able to hear
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 The problem I have with this reasoning is that you are beginning with the assumption that "There ARE audible differences in headphone cables" and are waiting for experiments to rule out every single possibility where this might be the case. This never ends. You can always move the goalposts if a test suggests otherwise. The cable could always have been nicer. The headphones could always have been more revealing. The hearing of those doing the testing could have been better. Whenever you frame the conversation by challenging the skeptics to prove a negative, you've built yourself an automatic escape clause.  The abominable snowman could have been hiding behind the one tree you DIDN'T look behind.   I could just as easily challenge you to prove to me that ingesting large quantities of pop tarts DOESN'T make your hair turn blue. Maybe the subject didn't eat enough pop tarts?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





lenni said:


> I don’t know. if I went onto another forum (cameras; bicycles; cars… whatever.) and start making comments like: spending more than $200 on a bicycle is not worth it; every bicycle is the same; you’re all fools… etc. (you get the point) - without having tried the gear I reckon I’d get banned. I haven’t tried, but that’s what I reckon would happen.
> 
> I must admit sometimes the comments in this forum drive me nuts - the sarcasm; the silly jokes - I find it kinda upsetting that I keep out of it altogether.
> 
> ...


 



 I think that a closer more accurate example would be going onto a wine forum and stating that under blind testing wines are much harder to tell apart and proving that with examples. You would upset some, but I would hope others accept the science. But if you went on and stated all wines taste the same you would correctly be riddiculed and maybe banned.
   
  I am sorry if I have made comments that have upset, but I it takes a few broken eggs to make an omlette.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I have become such a sceptic I am now on the Sceptic Society's forum. It is not just audio, but medicine, history, politics, science that is being plagued by nonsence and myth and conspirancy and pseudoscience.
   
  I agree that if you try one headphone cable and cannot hear a sound difference it is wrong to conclude that all are snake oil. That is a non sequitur. But if you go with proper, verifiable and repeatable testing you can conclude that the reason why some people hear a difference with some cables in some equipment some of the time is nothing to do with the cable and it electrical properties. The reason is all down to the listener and the likes of placebo and psychoacoustics.


----------



## Gwarmi

The real divide appears to be that those among us who renounce cable differences do abide by
  the fact that there are differences between headphones and even amps and DAC's.
   
  Here's the problem, that in itself is a form of bias and placebo by simply being an enthusiast
  in the first place, sure the measurements prove this to be so but to a 'virgin green ear' this
  does not always translate into reality.
   
  I have had a few people listen to my rig and adopt the very same 'snake oil' views when
  compared to their own Apple i-buds.
   
  They don't wish to be antagonizing in any way ~ their ears are simply telling them a subjective
  truth ~ to them, we're all imbeciles hanging onto a placebo and a prayer


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> The real divide appears to be that those among us who renounce cable differences do abide by
> the fact that there are differences between headphones and even amps and DAC's.
> 
> Here's the problem, that in itself is a form of bias and placebo by simply being an enthusiast
> ...


 

 I don't get your point. Are you saying that we should ignore the lack of evidence in support of cables and believe they matter because we believe in everything else, or that we should ignore the evidence in support of everything else and not believe that anything matters because we don't believe in cables?


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





head injury said:


> I don't get your point. Are you saying that we should ignore the lack of evidence in support of cables and believe they matter *because we believe in everything else,* or that we should ignore the evidence in support of everything else and not believe that anything matters because we don't believe in cables?


 


  It's a grey area Head Injury,
   
  I'm saying - most of us believe in everything else, because it can be measured.
   
  It depends who you are asking, if the answer is an enthusiast - we have a robust
  discussion like we have here, if you're asking someone who is completely green
  they will most likely tell you that the measurements are 'real' but that they remain
  inaudible to their ears regarding different headphones, amps and DAC's.
   
  Hence the science doesn't translate into a real world audible result ~ it is neutered
  and defunct according to their ears.
   
  But plenty of green ears will tell you there is no difference between a headphone amp
  or a DAC ~ they're not picking it up, you cannot convince them otherwise.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> It's a grey area Head Injury,
> 
> I'm saying - most of us believe in everything else, because it can be measured.
> 
> ...


 
   
  I don't think they will say it is inaudible, but I will say they don't really care. I have a lot of friends who aren't interested in spending money for great audio reproduction, but will comment that my computer set-up sounds really good when hearing it.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> I don't think they will say it is inaudible, but I will say they don't really care. I have a lot of friends who aren't interested in spending money for great audio reproduction, but will comment that my computer set-up sounds really good when hearing it.


 


  We need to hook them up to a lie detector machine!
   
  I've had both types too ~ the indifferent but the other type too - those who maintain we
  really are just living one big fat juicy placebo.
   
  My point earlier in summing up is that 'absolute science' once it is fact cannot be
  denied by anyone ~ it is empirical fact like arguing against the world being round.
   
  But you've still got people out there like 'flat earthers'


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> We need to hook them up to a lie detector machine!
> 
> I've had both types too ~ the indifferent but the other type too - those who maintain we
> really are just living one big fat juicy placebo.
> ...


 


  I've never met anyone who says it all sounds the same....that I can recall. I mean I probably have, cause we all probably have, but I am having a tough time thinking of anything offhand.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





danroche said:


> The problem I have with this reasoning is that you are beginning with the assumption that "There ARE audible differences in headphone cables" and are waiting for experiments to rule out every single possibility where this might be the case. This never ends. You can always move the goalposts if a test suggests otherwise. The cable could always have been nicer. The headphones could always have been more revealing. The hearing of those doing the testing could have been better. Whenever you frame the conversation by challenging the skeptics to prove a negative, you've built yourself an automatic escape clause.  The abominable snowman could have been hiding behind the one tree you DIDN'T look behind.   I could just as easily challenge you to prove to me that ingesting large quantities of pop tarts DOESN'T make your hair turn blue. Maybe the subject didn't eat enough pop tarts?


 

 I'm not beginning with any assumption. I am asking, is there a difference? To conclude that there is not by using a $50 headphone and then ending the test there is to fail to answer that question. I cannot continually move the goal posts because there is a finite amount of ultra high-end headphones. If you hear no difference on the T1, no difference on the HD-800, no difference on the HE-6, and no difference on the LCD-3, I think you can firmly conclude that at the very least, YOU cannot hear differences between cables. I accept that result. You must also accept that everyone hears differently, and I may hear differences that you don't.
   
  Your abominable snowman assertion is ludicrous. Science discovers new species *all the time. *Until very recently, scientists believed that all life on this planet depended on at least some form of photosynthesis. We now know that not to be true. There is both simple and somewhat complex life on the ocean floor that feeds on minerals directly from the earth. The sun is of absolutely no consequence to these creatures. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about much of the ocean. Your pop tart test is just dumb. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? That question is unanswerable. There could be very slight differences in manufacturing between one Tootsie Pop and the next. Different flavors could dissolve at different rates. Further, the amount of Tootsie Pop consumed by each person, per lick would be different.
   
  The only answerable question would be, how many licks does it take *me* to get to the center of this particular Tootsie Pop.


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





> My point earlier in summing up is that 'absolute science' once it is fact cannot be
> denied by anyone ~ it is empirical fact like arguing against the world being round.
> 
> But you've still got people out there like 'flat earthers'


 


  Are you seriously drawing a line between people who doubt speaker cables can make an audible difference and flat earthers?
   
  And I think you've got science wrong. Science LOVES dissent and challenge. It demands it. It begs for it. It just demands that is comes in the form of testable, objectively verifiable argument and not speculative, subjective claims. You might recall that a few weeks back a bunch of stubborn, flat-earther types discovered that some particles could be objectively and repeatably observed moving faster than the speed of light. Those were SCIENTISTS, son, shaking a whole lot of well-established assumptions and having a grand old time doing it. Science says "bring it on," but expects you at least show up in the ring in fighting shape.
   
  To date, NOBODY has made a reasoned, testable, independently verifiable claim that speaker cables, beyond a basic level of function, can make an audible difference in the signals they pass to a loudspeaker or headphone assembly. A lot of people on this forum would LOVE to see data that supports this claim - we'd eat it up. But nothing's there. You'd THINK the people spending R&D and advertising selling these cables would take the 30 minutes or so necessary to assemble this data, but they have yet to do so.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





danroche said:


> Are you seriously drawing a line between people who doubt speaker cables can make an audible difference and flat earthers?
> 
> And I think you've got science wrong. Science LOVES dissent and challenge. It demands it. It begs for it. It just demands that is comes in the form of testable, objectively verifiable argument and not speculative, subjective claims. You might recall that a few weeks back a bunch of stubborn, flat-earther types discovered that some particles could be objectively and repeatably observed moving faster than the speed of light. Those were SCIENTISTS, son, shaking a whole lot of well-established assumptions and having a grand old time doing it. Science says "bring it on," but expects you at least show up in the ring in fighting shape.
> 
> To date, NOBODY has made a reasoned, testable, independently verifiable claim that speaker cables, beyond a basic level of function, can make an audible difference in the signals they pass to a loudspeaker or headphone assembly. *A lot of people on this forum would LOVE to see data that supports this claim - we'd eat it up*. But nothing's there. You'd THINK the people spending R&D and advertising selling these cables would take the 30 minutes or so necessary to assemble this data, but they have yet to do so.


 

 This is point a lot of the cable believers tend to forget. All of the skeptics on here at one time or another have stated they would love for cables to make a difference.


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Your abominable snowman assertion is ludicrous. Science discovers new species *all the time. *Until very recently, scientists believed that all life on this planet depended on at least some form of photosynthesis. We now know that not to be true. There is both simple and somewhat complex life on the ocean floor that feeds on minerals directly from the earth. The sun is of absolutely no consequence to these creatures. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about much of the ocean. Your pop tart test is just dumb. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? That question is unanswerable. There could be very slight differences in manufacturing between one Tootsie Pop and the next. Different flavors could dissolve at different rates. Further, the amount of Tootsie Pop consumed by each person, per lick would be different.
> 
> The only answerable question would be, how many licks does it take *me* to get to the center of this particular Tootsie Pop.


 
   
  You're missing the point(s) here. My abominable snowman example is a common one used to demonstrate the folly of trying to prove a negative. If you challenge someone to prove that say, there's no Bigfoot, they will always fail. You will ALWAYS be able to think of ways to qualify their testing or observation methods in order to keep other doors of possibility open. This happens a lot in audio.
   
  The Pop Tarts example is another example of that. I can go on all day and make lots of silly claims - you won't be able to disprove any of them. This doesn't give them any more credibility.
   
  The way you could shut us all up, once and for all, would be if you conducted a double blind test with speaker cables, published your methodology and findings, and illustrated that you were able to do so beyond statistical chance. That would be awesome, frankly. Head Injury did it a few weeks ago with high bitrate MP3s. It was fantastic.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I'm not beginning with any assumption. I am asking, is there a difference? To conclude that there is not by using a $50 headphone and then ending the test there is to fail to answer that question. I cannot continually move the goal posts because there is a finite amount of ultra high-end headphones. If you hear no difference on the T1, no difference on the HD-800, no difference on the HE-6, and no difference on the LCD-3, I think you can firmly conclude that at the very least, YOU cannot hear differences between cables. I accept that result. You must also accept that everyone hears differently, *and I may hear differences that you don't.*
> 
> Your abominable snowman assertion is ludicrous. Science discovers new species *all the time. *Until very recently, scientists believed that all life on this planet depended on at least some form of photosynthesis. We now know that not to be true. There is both simple and somewhat complex life on the ocean floor that feeds on minerals directly from the earth. The sun is of absolutely no consequence to these creatures. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about much of the ocean. Your pop tart test is just dumb. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? That question is unanswerable. There could be very slight differences in manufacturing between one Tootsie Pop and the next. Different flavors could dissolve at different rates. Further, the amount of Tootsie Pop consumed by each person, per lick would be different.
> 
> The only answerable question would be, how many licks does it take *me* to get to the center of this particular Tootsie Pop.


 

 You may hear them, but they MAY NOT be the cable, and could well be placebo. You simply want to dismiss this, and act like there is NO WAY that it's in your head. Like a lot of other people said, this doesn't make you crazy, it makes you human. I don't know how old you are, but if you are older than me, and lets say 15 years+ older than I am, I am going to say that my hearing is probably better than yours. Again, not a personal attack, but the truth. I am sitting here with my parents, and neither of them can hear a 16khz test tone.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> I don't know how old you are, but if you are older than me, and lets say 15 years+ older than I am, I am going to say that my hearing is probably better than yours. Again, not a personal attack, but the truth. I am sitting here with my parents, and neither of them can hear a 16khz test tone.


 

 It's certainly possible that your hearing range extends higher than mine. It's also possible that my critical listening skills are considerably better than yours. Over the years I've heard many, many different systems, tube and SS, analog and digital, dynamic and electrostatic, and lots of cables. You may have better eyesight than an art expert, but its possible that expert would be considerably better than you at identifying different types of brush strokes, etc. Hearing range is a mechanical ability, critical listening is a skill. I know my reference tracks _very _well, and I know what sounds right and what doesn't.
   
  High frequencies produced from ICEpower amps for example to me are not right. Their measured frequency responses are basically as flat (at least to 20Khz) as any A/B amplifier, but THD is very high in the upper frequencies, and the HF square waves they produce are pretty ugly. They might sound perfectly fine to a person with ears good to 20Khz, but with no ear for how cymbals are supposed to sound.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





danroche said:


> Are you seriously drawing a line between people who doubt speaker cables can make an audible difference and flat earthers?
> 
> And I think you've got science wrong. Science LOVES dissent and challenge. It demands it. It begs for it. It just demands that is comes in the form of testable, objectively verifiable argument and not speculative, subjective claims. You might recall that a few weeks back a bunch of stubborn, flat-earther types discovered that some particles could be objectively and repeatably observed moving faster than the speed of light. Those were SCIENTISTS, son, shaking a whole lot of well-established assumptions and having a grand old time doing it. Science says "bring it on," but expects you at least show up in the ring in fighting shape.
> 
> To date, NOBODY has made a reasoned, testable, independently verifiable claim that speaker cables, beyond a basic level of function, can make an audible difference in the signals they pass to a loudspeaker or headphone assembly. A lot of people on this forum would LOVE to see data that supports this claim - we'd eat it up. But nothing's there. You'd THINK the people spending R&D and advertising selling these cables would take the 30 minutes or so necessary to assemble this data, but they have yet to do so.


 

 That wasn't my point regarding speaker cables, my point was that you can have all the data you want in the world
   
  Some people will still think that our hobby is ridiculous ~ different headphones, cables, DAC's, amps - it's all the same to them
  and it all sounds like a pair of i-buds. The data is there but they will maintain.
   
  It's all just in your head. Everything sounds the same, data or no data.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





comperic2003 said:


> Quote:
> 
> While my experience confirms the same findings, I have also found that marinating my speaker cables in an animal oil, preferably snake, can actually greatly increase the resolution of said cable to the point where it surpasses the power cord as the critical link in a gig's wiring set-up.
> 
> ...


 


  Be careful of what kind of peanut butter you use.  I've done some testing and prefer organic for its more natural sound.  Jif and Peter Pan make the highs too tinny and the mids take on a synthetic tone.  Smuckers All Natural, while not organic, is much better and yields a flatter response.  Of course if you prefer colorization, the PB&Jelly products should be tried.  DON"T use the chunky kind as it leads to a grainy sound.


----------



## drez

To be honest through, there are some definite differences in cables, try running your headphones off 30 awg wire, I guarantee there will be issues just as you wouldn't run speakers off 24 AWG wire.
   
  With speakers it is accepted that the damping factor (speaker impedance divided by amp output impedance + cable impedance) affects bass response if it drops below a value of 20.  This is broadly acknowledged by speaker designers.  Increasing this value above 20 apparently provides exponentially less difference.
   
  Some sources suggest that damping factor does not apply to headphones, but to my knowledge there hasn't been any tests to prove this.  At any rate high impedance headphones can be considered unaffected by this.  
   
  WRT capacitance and inductance, these factors can influence signal risetime, however I can't comment on the relative magnitude of this effect versus capacitance and inductance in the amplifier/source circuits.
   
  However what this suggests is that it is useless to talk of the audibility of effects of a cable without taking the electrical properties of the whole system into account, from the headphone, to the source/amp.  
   
  While it may be useful to look at the relative magnitude of these electrical properties relative to source/amp circuits, I think it is also important to look at the possibilities of the cumulative influence of these components in a practical application.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





drez said:


> Some sources suggest that damping factor does not apply to headphones, *but to my knowledge there hasn't been any tests to prove this*.  At any rate high impedance headphones can be considered unaffected by this.


 

 Tyll did w/ the DT880, all 3 versions.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





rebel975 said:


> Besides- I WOULD like to try an expensive cable. I'm just not going to spend $300-$XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to get one. If someone sent me a "high end" replacement cable for my HE-500's I'd gladly give it a try. I'd even give it a blind test, because I don't have any stake in the outcome. I haven't spend thousands of dollars on cables, after all.


 

 It's not $XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
   
  Silver cable wire is around $15 per metre and neutrik jacks around $5.
   
  I'd never send a headphone to that moon something place that replaces the cables for you, since with the huge time lapse I'd have no way of knowing if the headphone I received back actually sounds different or not.
   
  I know one user on head-fi that had a SA-5000, he bought _another _SA-5000, compared them, and then sent one of them to moon.com for silver recabling. Upon return, he compared both his SA-5000's because he wanted to know if there was a difference.
   
  His result was: "Yes, there is a difference" with some explanations on the difference in sound between the two. I think that was my first witnessing of a cable experiment on head-fi.
   
  User experiments like these make me wonder if the material composition of silver (or lead, whatever) does something to the signal, I don't care if it's "just electricity", humans are "just DNA".
   
  If I send an audio stream along a cable and record it at the other end, and then send the recording back and record at the first end, and repeat that 1000 times, I'll probably end up with a really horrible sounding recording of warm rolled-off static and noise (depending on the system).
   
  Of course, this can be due to anything along the signal chain, along with the A/D and D/A conversions, so it's not just the cable and that experiment doesn't really prove anything.
   
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> This statement doesn't even make sense. For a start, a 1km USB cable wouldn't even work. You'd get nothing at the other end. An ordinary passive USB cable is good to something like 16 feet. Second, how do you think USB streaming works? Do you think that the hard drive sends a 10MB FLAC file to a DAC, in its entirety, and the DAC checks to make sure the CRC value is the same as the one on the hard drive before it starts playing anything?
> 
> Do you believe that 50ns of jitter (the yellow line) would be inaudible? It should be, shouldn't it. The FLAC file is the same at both ends, bits are bits, its either a 1 or a 0, yadda yadda yadda.


 

 What does jitter have to do with USB cables?
   
  I didn't know USB cables stop working after 16 feet that's weird, I guess that's the "critical point" where all USB cables sound the same, thanks for establishing it, now make a critical point for speaker cables.
  
   
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> [...] The point I was trying to make is not that you need an LCD-3 in order to hear any difference between a stock headphone cable and a $600 DHC.
> 
> [...] the question is "is there ANY difference between a stock cable and a $600 headphone cable". If you're using a $50 headphone, I don't believe you can definitively answer that question.


 

 You said using a Sony MDR-V6 or Fostex T50RP would be self-defeating.
   
  The question is not "is there a difference between a stock cable and a $600 headphone cable, on super expensive headphones", the question is "is there any difference between copper and silver, or other materials, on any reasonable headphone?"
   
  By using super expensive cables, people _want_ to believe there is a difference, they didn't make a $600 investment thinking "I wonder if there will be a difference?", I think most of the time they are already sold on the difference before they even heard the cable, it's like if someone went to a fancy Chinese restaurant with 10 respected men, the atmosphere of the restaurant, the service and the menu is all excellent, and then they serve you birds nest soup, you are already sold on the fact that it's birds nest soup, you don't taste it thinking "Hmm I can't taste the flutter sparrow, I think this is just regular seagull soup".
   
  By using a cheap DIY silver cable that meets all requirements, on any perfectly decent headphone, there is much less expectation bias. So the price of the cable means nothing, other than the cheaper cable is better, imho.
   
  The Fostex T50RP might not have silver on the inside, so what? Recable that to silver as well, problem solved, right? Ziricote wood cups are not required.
   
  This cheap experiment would not be _self-defeating_, that's just your belief. An experiment proves the parameters laid out within the experiment, any experiment is limited to the parameters of what it's actually testing, that's why I don't take a lot experiments very seriously when they don't even list (or very vaguely list) the components involved.
   
  A Fostex T50RP with interchangable silver, copper and lead cables with 3.5mm jacks will prove the difference between silver, copper and lead cables on the Fostex T50RP, no one is implying it will prove that geometrically quad-braided palladium cables make a difference on the LCD-2, so I can't see why you'd be opposed to the experiment other than to be adverse to testing cables, which is confusing to me because it seems like you believe in them, that's all.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *danroche* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The abominable snowman could have been hiding behind the one tree you DIDN'T look behind.   I could just as easily challenge you to prove to me that ingesting large quantities of pop tarts DOESN'T make your hair turn blue. Maybe the subject didn't eat enough pop tarts?


 

 One of you is saying "The snowman exists, but you need to look really hard and proper" and the other is saying "The snowman doesn't exist, so why bother testing?".
   
  Neither of you are interested in looking for the snowman, one is believing and the other is disbelieving, key word here is "believing".
   
  Saying that any reported differences is just placebo is also a "belief" by the way, since you have no evidence to prove it's placebo. In medicine on the other hand, they _do_ have evidence to prove that the pills they gave the patient are placebo.
   
  People repeat scientific studies have been done countless times, so I ask where, and then they say Nick Charles. So I read through Nick Charles testing and all it says is he tested a silver-plated cable, and he received a *50% error rate *in showing they were identical. Then he comes around here to comment his soundcard sucked and he hopes someone can do proper testing one day, he also says he used a pure silver cable (which wasn't listed anywhere in the documented testing).
   
  Basically he went looking for the snowman in the Bahamas, and all the cable disbelievers rejoice there's no snowman in the Bahamas.
   
  Of course, it's not up to him to go to Siberia and look for the snowman there, at least he was looking for the snowman at all! key word here is "looking", and yes it seems like cable manufacturers aren't very interested in looking either!
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I think that a closer more accurate example would be going onto a wine forum and stating that under blind testing wines are much harder to tell apart


 

 It's probably harder to tell apart Coke and Diet Coke under blind testing as well btw, I'm sure a lot of people would fail, just food for thought. =P


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





drez said:


> *To be honest through, there are some definite differences in cables, try running your headphones off 30 awg wire, I guarantee there will be issues just as you wouldn't run speakers off 24 AWG wire.*
> 
> With speakers it is accepted that the damping factor (speaker impedance divided by amp output impedance + cable impedance) affects bass response if it drops below a value of 20.  This is broadly acknowledged by speaker designers.  Increasing this value above 20 apparently provides exponentially less difference.
> 
> ...


 


  Straw man.  The differences to which you refer are related to resistance an no one denies that resistance has an audible impact on speakers or headphones.
  FWIW though, I've used short runs of 24ga. wire on 8 ohm speakers plenty of times with no audible effects.
   
  This whole discussion about cables is predicated on the fact that any "cheap" cables meet the minimum specifications for the application at hand.  When it is argued that cables make no difference, that doesn't imply that 50 feet of 30 ga. cable is the same as 50 feet of "audiophile" cable. 
   
  You're making this more complicated than it need be. Given the same water pressure, a cheap and ugly garden hose of a specific length and inside diameter will deliver water exactly the same as a $5000 kevlar reinforced, alligator hide sheathed garden hose of the same length and inside diameter. I have no doubt that, with enough marketing, I could convince people that the water issuing from the $500 hose is "smoother", "more balanced", "cleaner" and better for their lawn.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I didn't know USB cables stop working after 16 feet that's weird, I guess that's the "critical point" where all USB cables sound the same, thanks for establishing it, now make a critical point for speaker cables.


 

  They don't just stop working, but as the distance increases lost bits are more likely. There's probably a critical point for all digital transport methods, where bit loss is high enough that the signal starts to fail completely. USB has a short critical point. Not sure why you'd need 16 feet of USB cable anyway. Just use S/PDIF if you need that much.


----------



## Anaxilus

.


----------



## Anaxilus




----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> [Snip]...
> 
> 
> One of you is saying "The snowman exists, but you need to look really hard and proper" and the other is saying "The snowman doesn't exist, so why bother testing?".
> ...


 


  In medicine, the evidence they use to prove something is a placebo is almost identical to the evidence of the placebo effect of cable marketing. 
  They know the properties of the placebo (we know the properties of cables)
  They know that no known property of the placebo is capable of producing the effects as reported by the patients. (as we know of cable)
  They don't surmise some hitherto unknown property of their placebo that is responsible for real biological changes. (the way cable believers insist there's some ummeasurable force at work)
  Unlike audiophile cable believers, they don't deny the existence of the placebo effect. They recognize it is a universal human trait and nothing to be ashamed of.
  And when people discover that the pills that have been so effective for them are, in reality, sugar pills, they don't go all crazy and insist that those pills have some unknown, mystical and unmeasurable property that "positivist" doctors refuse to acknowledge because they're closed minded.
   
  If an entire medical business (homeopathy) can be based 100% on the placebo effect, why is it is so unbelievable that the "audiophile" cable industry can do the same thing?


----------



## kiteki

Quote:


sailorman said:


> [...]
> You're making this more complicated than it need be. Given the same water pressure, a cheap and ugly garden hose of a specific length and inside diameter will deliver water exactly the same as a $5000 kevlar reinforced, alligator hide sheathed garden hose of the same length and inside diameter.


 

 That's correct, it's the inside of the cable that counts.
   
  Last time I checked, pure 7N silver is not very expensive per meter, so I can't see what $600 cables have to do with anything in this discussion, unless people want to argue that fashion statements, hand-made workmanship and geometrically intertwined patterns from the Zhing dynasty are supposed to sound better.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





head injury said:


> They don't just stop working, but as the distance increases lost bits are more likely. There's probably a critical point for all digital transport methods, where bit loss is high enough that the signal starts to fail completely. USB has a short critical point. Not sure why you'd need 16 feet of USB cable anyway. Just use S/PDIF if you need that much.


 

 Theres a thread here discussing the benefits, or lack thereof, of high end usb cables. Ultimately, someone wrote to the developers of the usb standard, usb.org.
   
  They responded that, personally, they would not waste their money on "high-end" usb cables.  If the usb standards are met, then the usb standards are met. 
   
  A $3500 usb cable is functionally equivalent to a $10 usb cable.
   
  I would argue the same thing for analog cables, although other issues are involved so the science is not so straightforward.  Unfortunately, there are no standards developers to consult.
   
  But there are a lot of people swearing up and down, with religious fervor, that they can hear dramatic differences between usb cables. One poster even swears he can identify particular cables. None will subject themselves to a DBT, or even a BT, however.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> User experiments like these make me wonder if the material composition of silver (or lead, whatever) does something to the signal, I don't care if it's "just electricity", humans are "just DNA".
> 
> I didn't know USB cables stop working after 16 feet that's weird, I guess that's the "critical point" where all USB cables sound the same, thanks for establishing it, now make a critical point for speaker cables.
> 
> ...


 

 Material composition of the metal is quite important. This differs even among the same type of metal. This is where copper grades come in - TPC, OFC, OFHC, so called "long grain" copper, and Ohno Continuous Cast copper. The higher grades have significantly less in the way of impurities, and the individual grains are considerably longer. A typical length of pure OCC copper should be comprised of a single grain. This is where the phrases "single crystal" or "unicrystal" come in. Grain boundaries within the cable are said to be detrimental to sound quality.
   
  USB cables are subject to signal degradation just like any other type of cable. HDMI cables will also begin to fail around the 15 - 20 foot mark. Higher quality cables will work at longer distances, as you would expect.
   
  I don't have a problem with using the T50RP to test headphone cables. That's fine. My point is that if the T50RP gives a negative result, you can't just stop there and say test done, there are no differences between cables because I tried them on this T50RP, and I didn't hear any. All you've proven is that difference between cables are inaudible on the T50RP.
   
  To use yet another analogy, let's say you're testing armor, and you shoot it with a .22 rifle. It stops the bullet. Your job isn't done. It's bullet proof against .22 rounds. So are a lot of things. You've got to ramp it up. Shoot it with a 30 cal. If it stops that, use a 38. If it stops that, use a 44. If it stops a 454, you can pretty much conclude that its handgun proof, but you still aren't done. It's bullet proof right up until it isn't.
   
  Differences between cables are just not that big, and may be too small for many inexpensive headphones. You've got to ramp up the test until you find one good enough to resolve those small differences. If you go all the way up to the top with the LCD-3 and you still hear absolutely no difference, then the test is over.


----------



## Rebel975

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> It's not $XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> 
> Silver cable wire is around $15 per metre and neutrik jacks around $5.


 


  
  Does a homemade cable even count? Would the people who hear a difference accept a negative result if it came from a $50 homemade silver cable (is a $50 homemade cable really considered "high-end"?), or would it simply become "you built it wrong"?
   
  Because if a homemade cable doesn't count then you have to buy a homemade cable from some guy next door that'll cost at least 6X the raw components, which is asking a lot from someone who is very skeptical about hearing any difference.
   
  Oh, and how can you say it's not "$XXXXXXX"? You can easily spend $8000 on ONE speaker cable.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> They responded that, personally, they would not waste their money on "high-end" usb cables.  If the usb standards are met, then the usb standards are met.
> 
> A $3500 usb cable is functionally equivalent to a $10 usb cable.


 

 They should also respond that, personally, they are not audiophiles, and have likely never used a high-end USB DAC. When USB is used in block transfer mode, all cables work the same. They are correct in what they have experience with. A $10 USB cable will transfer the exact same word document to a USB hard drive as a $3500 cable. No difference. When USB cables are used for real time audio streaming, they are wrong. The USB standard is not "met or not met" anymore than the S/Pdif standard is "met or not met" by any functioning coaxial cable. Impedance and construction matters with both.


----------



## sailorman

What I don't understand is, if cables really make an audible difference, why do cable companies have to cheat in their demos?
  Why can't they just go honestly, head-on-head, with the cheap cables?
   
  http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm


----------



## Gwarmi

I think by default ~ cables should be reserved for a certain upper echelon or niche ~ with the exception of USB cables! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  We've already established that high end RCA cables for a headphone rig not to mention power conditioning equipment
  is really only a viable upgrade for when someone has reached a point where source and amplification are ideal.
   
  That's a pretty lofty goal for any of us, to have a source and amp/s that we feel cannot be improved upon according
  to our listening preferences.
   
  RCA cables and power conditioning comes after that, and heck, if you've spent that amount of money by then
  ~ all they have to do is be well constructed and look good ~ that's enough for the price of entry according to me.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> They should also respond that, personally, they are not audiophiles, and have likely never used a high-end USB DAC. When USB is used in block transfer mode, all cables work the same. They are correct in what they have experience with. A $10 USB cable will transfer the exact same word document to a USB hard drive as a $3500 cable. No difference. When USB cables are used for real time audio streaming, they are wrong. The USB standard is not "met or not met" anymore than the S/Pdif standard is "met or not met" by any functioning coaxial cable. Impedance and construction matters with both.


 

 You're saying that audiophiles know more about the benefits of a good USB cable than the people who designed and manage the USB standards?


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> They should also respond that, personally, they are not audiophiles, and have likely never used a high-end USB DAC. When USB is used in block transfer mode, all cables work the same. They are correct in what they have experience with. A $10 USB cable will transfer the exact same word document to a USB hard drive as a $3500 cable. No difference. When USB cables are used for real time audio streaming, they are wrong. The USB standard is not "met or not met" anymore than the S/Pdif standard is "met or not met" by any functioning coaxial cable. Impedance and construction matters with both.


 


  Sorry. I don't buy it.  Everything you are claiming, and a whole lot more, was addressed in the thread I was referring to. Other than the chants of the religiously fanatical, the evidence and arguments were overwhelming that high-end usb cables make no difference in the transmission of digital data.  Some pretty convincing tests are in that tread as well.
   
  One of the best reasons is that a cable has no way of "shaping" a FR, as a cable that transmits a range of voltages has.  It makes absolutely no sense to say that any audible differences between usb cables would consist of anything but cracks, pops, or skips.  The data either makes it, or it doesn't.  Clocking issues were also discussed on the other thread.
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/554008/dont-get-why-audiophile-usb-cable-would-improve-sound-quality


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> What I don't understand is, if cables really make an audible difference, why do cable companies have to cheat in their demos?
> Why can't they just go honestly, head-on-head, with the cheap cables?
> 
> http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm


 

 Because most people are incapable of testing correctly even if differences do exist.  As you saw from the vids I linked people can't even tell what food they are eating even if they are professional chefs under accepted test conditions.  Let alone ask a random customer of the street to do the old ipod switcheroo versus the $5K DAC or cable swap test using unfamiliar music and gear.  Just because many humans fail at tests doesn't negate the existence of differences.  Also, please don't compare these audio tests people cite to federally backed and financed medical trials either.
   
  People here like to throw the baby out with the bath water and be content with their simple preconceptions but that isn't the case in real world terms usually.
   
  Do companies lie and cheat for marketing and profit?  You better believe it.  Does that mean their product offers no substantial benefit or change?  Not necessarily.  When people lump everything together and form universal conclusions they are just being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves.
   
  FYI many car companies used to and still supply magazines w/ 'ringer' models that drive and benchmark great for magazine reviews.  They aren't however the same as the production models.  Because they cheated does that mean a BMW drives like a Volvo and they drive the same?  No.
   
*Caveat*-I'm not entering the cable debate and offer no position on the matter.  Just presenting an analysis of what some feel to be accepted methodology and conclusiveness.
   
  I can't tell you how many times I've seen that link.  Look at this poorly structured claim for example:
   
  "The percentages of tin, aluminum, nickel, zinc and phosphorus that make up alloys such as brasses and bronzes are relatively small but they degrade the electrical conductivity of the resulting alloy much more than their compositional percentage would indicate. However, there are instances where the superior tensile and machining characteristics like brass make it a better choice than copper as long as the sectional areas are increased proportionately to achieve the same electrical conductivity that a copper part would have for the same application. Size for size, however, copper is exceeded only by silver among the materials commonly used for electrical applications.* Silver is more expensive but there is no listening difference, provided the resistance is low enough."*
   
  ^  How does he get from the non bolded to the bolded claim/conclusion?  Is he inferring someone else's test which may or may not be flawed?  He just reiterated his own belief set and people will now accept as gospel without any actual science or hardly any logic. 
   
  Don't get me wrong, it's a nice guide and can be informative.  Just beware wild non-sequitur claims and conclusions.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *sailorman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> In medicine, the evidence they use to prove something is a placebo is *almost identical *to the evidence of the placebo effect of cable marketing.
> They know the properties of the placebo (we know the properties of cables)
> ...


 

 Wow, a psychoactive drug... versus... a sugar pill!
   
  If you gave someone a cable *without anything inside it*, just air, and they *reported hearing music,* then the comparison to the pharmaceutical industry would be valid.
   
   
  A valid comparison in *the other direction* from cables to pharmaceuticals, would be giving some people drug X, and giving some people drug X.1, on paper drug X and drug X.1 are slightly different in conductivity and resistance in chemical transfer, however it's accepted that a slightly larger dose of drug X should act like drug X.1 (there's no documented testing though, it's just electrical theory).
   
  When surveying the subjective experiences of drug X and X.1, some users say they're the same, and some users say there's slight differences.
   
  Since the reported differences were subtle, the pharmaceutical industry chooses drug X, since it's much cheaper to produce!
   
  The "purist" pharmaceutical industry, continues to defend drug X.1.
   
   
  This has nothing to do with sugar pills.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





head injury said:


> You're saying that audiophiles know more about the benefits of a good USB cable than the people who designed and manage the USB standards?


 


  Sure. Those guys get a question specifically about audio cable, and they are so dumb that they don't know the application is any different than a printer.
  I'm sure that none of them even know what an A/D is.  They probably all still use Wordstar.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> Because most people are incapable of testing correctly even if differences do exist.  As you saw from the vids I linked people can't even tell what food they are eating even if they are professional chefs under accepted test conditions.  Let alone ask a random customer of the street to do the old ipod switcheroo versus the $5K DAC or cable swap test using unfamiliar music and gear.  Just because many humans fail at tests doesn't negate the existence of differences.  People here like to throw the baby out with the bath water and be content with their simple preconceptions but that isn't the case in real world terms usually.


 

  This is a terribly inaccurate conclusion. I only had to watch twenty seconds of the first video to know that.
   
  The test conducted in your videos is a completely different kind of test. They were given a spoonful of food, and without any comparisons were told to guess what kind of food it was. No matter how different two pieces of food taste, if you're not given the opportunity to eat one of them you will have a hard time naming which is which, don't you think?
   
  Cable tests, on the other hand, allow direct comparisons between the two cables. The listener can switch between them as often as he or she wishes. Not only that, but they aren't asked to determine which is "silver" or which is "stranded" or anything like that. They are only asked to determine which cable, A or B, is X. If there are differences, that should be simple, don't you think?
   
  If cable tests were conducted like the tests in the video, blind listeners would listen to a cable of some material and configuration, and after one minute of listening without any comparison to other materials, are asked to determine how the cable was made. Pretty hard, even if there are clearly audible differences, don't you think?
   
  If the video you linked were conducted like cable tests, the test taster would be given three plates of food, two of which are the same (say, two chicken plates and one pork). They are able to eat from any plate they choose at any time. They have to determine which two plates have the same food. Even I could do that, and I don't have much of a taste for cooking. Sounds easy enough, don't you think?
   
  My god, between kiteki and all the cable believers, I'm afraid the volume of fallacies is going to tear a hole in space-time.


----------



## kiteki

DaveBSC what's your personal experience with cables and HP/speakers where you thought there was a difference?


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> Because most people are incapable of testing correctly even if differences do exist.  As you saw from the vids I linked people can't even tell what food they are eating even if they are professional chefs under accepted test conditions.  Let alone ask a random customer of the street to do the old ipod switcheroo versus the $5K DAC or cable swap test using unfamiliar music and gear.  Just because many humans fail at tests doesn't negate the existence of differences.  *Also, please don't compare these audio tests people cite to federally backed and financed medical trials either.*
> 
> People here like to throw the baby out with the bath water and be content with their simple preconceptions but that isn't the case in real world terms usually.
> 
> ...


 


  I've never compared medical trials to headphone testing.  I simply stated that the placebo effect is extraordinarily well known in medical circles and it's used and taken into consideration by everyone in the field, whether in medical trials or in day to day practice.  Yet, somehow, audiophiles become immune to this extraordinarily documented and universal human phenomenon as soon as they drop $500 on a cable.
   
  The bit about silver was an assertion. So, what?  It was no doubt influenced by the author's familiarity with Gowan's speaker cable tests which, to him at least, proved pretty conclusively that silver cables don't provide a listening difference. That page was an informative paper, not a theoretical one.  Of course, believers will argue that the subjects in Gowan's demonstrations weren't discriminating enough.  Or, the equipment was sub-standard. Or the tests were biased even though McIntosh wasn't even in the cable business. Or, the tests were flawed in some way.  But, it's curious that that test was done many, many times in McIntosh dealers' showrooms and audio shows, yet no real audiophiles were ever subject to it.  Because, of course a REAL audiophile could have told the difference. And, it was evidently convincing to enough of those non-audiophile McIntosh customers that the dealers lost cable sales because of it and prevailed upon Gown to stop the demos.  Seems like the only way the McIntosh dealers could sell high price cables is if the customers knew what they were listening to.  
   
  I'm sure there are many valid DBTs showing that there are audible differences between cables. With all the millions invested in R&D by the cable manufacturers, there are bound to be dozens of them.  I'm sure they're all over the net too.  I must have lost my bookmarks to them, because all I can find are tests that indicate the opposite.  So, please, post some links to some of those DB and BT's that have been so valuable to the audiophile cable manufacturers in demonstrating the superiority of their wares.  I'll put them in the same folder with the tests proving the efficacy of homeopathic preparations, so I don't lose them again.


----------



## kiteki

By the way I once saw someones Grado falling apart and there was some cotton inside the cable.
   
  I just found out why, scroll down to "Teflon vs Cotton" http://www.tempoelectric.com/cables.htm


----------



## Gwarmi

This quote from the article for me sums up this whole thread :-
   
  "However, we were truly surprised to hear noticeably less grain through the gold hybrid pair. The sound was clearly more fluid and analog sounding,
  in a way that only live music can be. Although they seemed to shift the spectrum down a notch, the highs did not really suffer—in fact,
  they sounded even smoother—nor did the speed of the music. The benefits, at least on LPs, were all positive. *Results varied from record to record *
*and your equipment may tell a different story, but now we use them as our personal front-end reference!*


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote:  





> I'll put them in the same folder with the tests proving the efficacy of homeopathic preparations, so I don't lose them again.


 

 Oh that's so witty.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Most people can't DBT a Pineapple from a Nectarine and you still want to bark up the same tree?  Find you links on the internet??  Yes, this must be the sound 'science' forum. 
   
  I hope you don't use Apple products because Steve Jobs used a juicer rather than surgery.  iDevices must all be hooey as a consequence.
   
  Nothing new under the sun here.  Move along folks....


----------



## Gwarmi

Hmm, what's that smell?
   
  Oh yes, the impending death stench of a thread


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> Other than the chants of the religiously fanatical


 
   
  And nearly every manufacturer that builds a high-end USB converter or DAC, the majority of which do not sell USB cables, and derive no financial benefit from you going out and spending $500 on one.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> By the way I once saw someones Grado falling apart and there was some cotton inside the cable.
> 
> I just found out why, scroll down to "Teflon vs Cotton" http://www.tempoelectric.com/cables.htm


 

 Cotton is also sometimes used outside of a more traditional insulator to help absorb vibration. It is a good insulator though, very low loss. I think foam Teflon can match it though.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> .....  Just because many humans fail at tests doesn't negate the existence of differences. ........


 

 The tests in question are blind ones of food and cables. The results are consistent. When people know what food they are eating and what cable they are listening to they can easier tell a difference when compared to doing the same but blind.
   
  IMO that does not mean the blind test is a fail. It is another test result to add to the sighted ones we have. We should look to see what final result is and progress this debate.
   
  So what I think that we can concluded from both tests is that the senses work together differently than in isolation. So when people know what they are eating and listening to they can differentiate better between them. If you remove a sense which you think is not important to differentiation (in both cases sight) it turns out that has a big effect on the sense under test (taste and hearing).
   
  So blind tests are not fails, they are results.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> .......
> 
> 
> I'm sure there are many valid DBTs showing that there are audible differences between cables. With all the millions invested in R&D by the cable manufacturers, there are bound to be dozens of them.  I'm sure they're all over the net too.  I must have lost my bookmarks to them, because all I can find are tests that indicate the opposite.  So, please, post some links to some of those DB and BT's that have been so valuable to the audiophile cable manufacturers in demonstrating the superiority of their wares.  I'll put them in the same folder with the tests proving the efficacy of homeopathic preparations, so I don't lose them again.


 

 There are no ABX cable tests which have shown a difference. There are blind comparison tests which found a difference, but not one that was connected to construction or anything consistent.
   
  I have emailed some makers and have searched high and low for published results of makers doing any form of blind testing. I cannot find any. The likes of Chord tell me they do do blind testing, but then decline to provide details. Belden and QED have also refered to blind testing, but again show no results.


----------



## Willakan

I don't like how blind testing is being positioned as the cornerstone of the objectivist argument.
   
  It isn't - it's just that as the cable believers have decided that their senses are better than everything and bias-proof, some kind, rational people tried to construct tests on their terms, so they could use their senses instead of measuring equipment. It is fairly ironic that then the believers spit at such tests, criticise them (which is entirely fair, a lot of them weren't particularly scientific) and then from that claim the scientific viewpoint is thrown into doubt ( Not fair or even rational. DBTs have precious little to do with the pure, distilled objectivist argument. They are just trying to disprove the cable believers on their own terms, which as their terms reconstruct themselves constantly to uphold the *absolute truth* of cables sounding different and it not being due to bias, is nigh impossible - but at least we tried!)


----------



## drez

Quote: 





sailorman said:


> You're making this more complicated than it need be. Given the same water pressure, a cheap and ugly garden hose of a specific length and inside diameter will deliver water exactly the same as a $5000 kevlar reinforced, alligator hide sheathed garden hose of the same length and inside diameter. I have no doubt that, with enough marketing, I could convince people that the water issuing from the $500 hose is "smoother", "more balanced", "cleaner" and better for their lawn.


 

 I'm not much of a fan of the garden hoes analogy - it absurdly oversimplifies the effect of wire on an electrical signal apart from providing an analogy of resistance, however you are right in that any grade of copper/silver/whatever can provide a given level of resistance simply by altering the gauge.
   
  Form an a-priori standpoint I really cant argue a point for the effect of impurity/type of copper on an analogue signal.  The magnitudes are too low.  The effects of higher purity/OCC copper on resistance are probably similarly small (ie. not high enough to allow use of a lighter gauge thereby reducing weight/capacitance)
   
  However what I was hoping to discuss further was the implications of inductance and capacitance relative to ideal amplifier/source capacitance/inductance values.
   
  As for the emphasis on subjective impressions, the fact is that in the end any self respecting audiophile, musician, patron of music, sound engineer *has* to trust their ears first and foremost.  It is the because these people use their hearing that beautiful music can reach your ears, rather than a bunch of primitive noise.  Our senses are flawed and our impressions prone to bias, and our memories prone to confusion, but they are the most important way we produce and shape our music.  Designers of tube amps, John Grado, musicians don't make music by looking at the numerical output of some experiment.  It simply doesn't work.
   
  With the differences between decent DAC's, neutral solid state amps, the differences are quite small but still appreciable.  Blind testing is HARD, testing different bitrate mp3's can be very taxing.  Blind testing with speakers is prone to comb effect, where if you or somebody else moves even slightly the sound reaching the test subject will be different.  It would be good to have blind testing for these things, but to set these things up takes time, bravery, and an assistant.  In the end though if the results were positive, you would still need to use your ears to select components.  If they come back negative, you can still enjoy the placebo effect


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


drez said:


> As for the emphasis on subjective impressions, the fact is that in the end any self respecting audiophile, musician, patron of music, sound engineer *has* to trust their ears first and foremost.


   
  Why?


----------



## kiteki

Since when are the differences between DACs and Amps small? If I connect my stereo to my RealTek soundcard, or connect it to my Sabre DIY, I can probably hear the difference from down the street.


----------



## Willakan

So getting the noisiest DAC you can find and comparing it to a presumably decent one demonstrates what exactly? Nobody is arguing that crap DACs don't exist.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





willakan said:


> Why?


 
   
  Yet I have hope.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





willakan said:


> So getting the noisiest DAC [...]


 
   
  I'm pritty shure there's no audible noise in my realtek onboard sound-card and 95% of the populous thinks it (or any other modern sound-card) is perfectly decent.
   
  Even within the audiophile community there is some skepticism, a la "all amps and DACs sound the same", which is a bunch of horse defecation.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Gwarmi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> The real divide appears to be that those among us who renounce cable differences do abide by
> ...


 


  No. This is the real divide. Even if hearing the differences is a subjective experience... we *can* measure them and show they are there. 
   
  This is not the case, with cables*. Until you can show me objective evidence that cables make a difference (audible or not), I will remain skeptical. 
   
   
  *always with the caveat of good conductors and enough capacity.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Material composition of the metal is quite important. This differs even among the same type of metal. This is where copper grades come in - TPC, OFC, OFHC, so called "long grain" copper, and Ohno Continuous Cast copper. The higher grades have significantly less in the way of impurities, and the individual grains are considerably longer. A typical length of pure OCC copper should be comprised of a single grain. This is where the phrases "single crystal" or "unicrystal" come in. Grain boundaries within the cable are said to be detrimental to sound quality.


 
   
  Detrimental in what respect exactly?
   
  The most I've seen beyond some meaningless "scary pictures" is that the OCC process can yield a copper wire that at best is barely 1% less resistive than ETP and OFHC. And that's only when it's been properly annealed. I've encountered OCC wire that hasn't even been annealed. Which means its resistance would be higher than soft annealed ETP and OFHC.
   
  Let's take a cable, 10 feet long, using plain Jane soft annealed 24 gauge ETP copper wire. Total resistance would be 0.514 ohms. If the same cable were made using properly annealed OCC copper wire that's 1% more conductive, the total resistance would be about 0.509 ohms, for a difference of a mere 0.005 ohms.
   
  To put that into perspective, if you took that 10 foot, ETP copper cable and made it just 1.2 inches shorter, it would have the same resistance as the OCC copper cable.
   
  As for anything else that may be going on due to those additional crystal boundaries, it would be buried in the thermal noise of the wire itself. And since you can't hear the thermal noise of the wire, I'd like to know how anyone is going to hear anything going on below that level.
   
  se


----------



## Head Injury

Steve Eddy, you should post in here more


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> By the way I once saw someones Grado falling apart and there was some cotton inside the cable.
> 
> I just found out why, scroll down to "Teflon vs Cotton" http://www.tempoelectric.com/cables.htm


 
   
  No, what you found was just more misinformation.
   
  That 1.3 figure that gets bandied about with regard to cotton's dielectric constant is highly misleading.
   
  That figure only applies to cotton in its raw form at its loosest packing density. Think cotton balls. And the reason for that low figure is because there's more air than cotton in a given volume.
   
  The dielectric constant for cotton in textile form, i.e. when it's spun into thread and made into fabric is much higher because now there's much less air in a given volume. Also, cotton is rather hygroscopic, meaning it likes to absorb moisture. Which means that its dielectric constant will further increase depending on humidity.
   
  Bottom line, with regard to its dielectric constant, unless someone's just feeding their wire through cotton balls, cotton is no better than PVC.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Cotton is also sometimes used outside of a more traditional insulator to help absorb vibration. It is a good insulator though, very low loss. I think foam Teflon can match it though.


 

 PVC can match it.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Steve Eddy, you should post in here more


 

 No, I shouldn't. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## kiteki

This video reminded me of speaker cables - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7MGgxbhho


----------



## Lenni

this video reminded me of most of the comments in this forum - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmLAj9iIfQk


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





lenni said:


> this video reminded me of most of the comments in this forum - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmLAj9iIfQk


 

 Yes, there is a fair amount of that in some of the comments made here.
   
  se


----------



## Head Injury

While we're on the subject of videos...


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> DaveBSC what's your personal experience with cables and HP/speakers where you thought there was a difference?


 

 The first pair of speakers I had from a real audio dealer rather than the kind of stuff they sell at Sears was a pair of Mission monitors, which were connected to an upper mid-level Onkyo. I used hardware store zip cord for speaker wire, and Radioshack level interconnects. I bought some thick Monster Cable from Circuit City (didn't know any better). I didn't hear any difference, but since I had cut up the roll already, I just stuck it in a drawer. After some time the zip cord began to turn green/brown, so I swapped the Monster Cable back in, and if I recall correctly I think it sounded a bit better than the oxidized zip cord.
   
  The next speaker cable I bought was some overstock Audioquest Bedrock from Audio Advisor. At this point I was using Mirage OM-6 towers, driven by a Pioneer Elite receiver. I swapped in the AQ for the Monster and noticed a significant improvement right away. I swapped back and forth a few times, and also experimented with wiring one speaker with Monster and the other with AQ, and going back and forth using the balance control. the AQ always sounded noticeably better. After using the AQ for awhile, I wanted to see if I could match or beat it with a DIY cable. I bought some 14AWG mil-spec Teflon SPC on eBay for something like 50 cents a foot, hand twisted it, and attached some connectors. I did the same swapping with the AQ, and didn't like the results. The SPC sounded colder and recessed in the mids, and the treble sounded forward and very grainy.
   
  At first blush the solid copper AQ seemed like the less "detailed" cable, but it's response was actually much more accurate. The mil-spec SPC was just the equivalent of turning a treble knob up a notch and a mid-range knob down a notch and adding a bunch of grain, so I got rid of that in a hurry. For S/Pdif cables or USB cables I think SPC can work, but for analog cables with signals in the audio band, not so much. I think you can make a good analog cable out of a combination of silver and copper, but silver plating never sounds right.
   
  Since getting rid of my failed DIY experiment I've tried more cables using the same swap method, some of which I really liked, and some which I did not. I should note that I put my system together first and _then _started experimenting with cables, and I still think that's the best way to do it.
   
  If I had $10K to spend on a new system, I'd put $4K towards a pair of Vapor Cirrus monitors, somewhere around $5K towards a USB DAC and integrated amplifier, and $500 for a B-P-T CPC. With the $500 left over, I'd probably buy something like SC Silver Resolution interconnects, some bulk Kimber 8VS speaker cable, and some bulk Oyaide or Furutech AC wire. Once everything is locked in, then I'd start experimenting with upgrading cables here and there.


----------



## danroche

Responses in bold italics, inline...
  
  Quote: 





drez said:


> However what I was hoping to discuss further was the implications of inductance and capacitance relative to ideal amplifier/source capacitance/inductance values.
> 
> _*Great! Lucky for you, the science behind inductance, capacitance, resistance, etc. is well established. For like 20 bucks you can buy a multimeter, a solderless breadboard, and a bunch of little components at radio shack. Create a little junction box and run it between your amp and speaker, changing the effective resistance, capacitance, and inductance of the connection. Take note of when the results are audible, having a friend twiddle knobs while you listen from behind a curtain. Note these values. Then, using the multimeter, test a variety of speaker cables, determining where they lie relative to the critical values you established in the earlier test. Presto! Valuable, quantifiable information!*_
> 
> ...


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> This quote from the article for me sums up this whole thread :-
> 
> "However, we were truly surprised to hear noticeably less grain through the gold hybrid pair. The sound was clearly more fluid and analog sounding,
> in a way that only live music can be. Although they seemed to shift the spectrum down a notch, the highs did not really suffer—in fact,
> ...


 

 I agree, but for different reasons that you, I think. The reviewer waxes poetic about something using terms that are 100% impossible to quantify, measure, or nail down outside someone's personalized experience. They make weird, amorphous comments using words like "fluid" and "spectrum shifting down a notch." They mention that the "speed" of the music didn't suffer, which I would be really curious to hear more about if it did. Finally, they tie a great big bow around the argument that results varied, YMMV, your equipment may tell a different story, etc. that served to totally exclude them from ever having to verify, quantify, or repeat their findings.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





danroche said:


> I agree, but for different reasons that you, I think. The reviewer waxes poetic about something using terms that are 100% impossible to quantify, measure, or nail down outside someone's personalized experience. They make weird, amorphous comments using words like "fluid" and "spectrum shifting down a notch." They mention that the "speed" of the music didn't suffer, which I would be really curious to hear more about if it did. Finally, they tie a great big bow around the argument that results varied, YMMV, your equipment may tell a different story, etc. that served to totally exclude them from ever having to verify, quantify, or repeat their findings.


 


  That's what I loved the most about the blurb ~ they managed to sell themselves and yet include such a sneaky disclaimer
  right at the end, brilliant!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> That's what I loved the most about the blurb ~ they managed to sell themselves and yet include such a sneaky disclaimer
> right at the end, brilliant!


 

 I'm not sure what's so strange about that. Any cable believer will tell you that results are system dependent. If you are using the exact same system as the reviewer, you should expect to hear similar results. If your results are wildly different, then you might want to question the reviewers findings. Cables seem to depend on synergy, I'm not sure why, but they do. Some cables seem to work very well with nearly every type of component, while others are much more narrow. Take Nordost. To my ears they have a "house sound" that is tight but somewhat lean in the bass and lower mid-bass, and a bit too much treble. I really can't stand excessive brightness, so I generally haven't liked Nordost cables in systems I've heard them in. For a system with bass that's a little bit bloated and out of balance, and sounds dark in the upper registers, a Nordost cable could be exactly what the doctor ordered.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I'm not sure what's so strange about that. Any cable believer will tell you that results are system dependent. If you are using the exact same system as the reviewer, you should expect to hear similar results. If your results are wildly different, then you might want to question the reviewers findings. Cables seem to depend on synergy, I'm not sure why, but they do. Some cables seem to work very well with nearly every type of component, while others are much more narrow. Take Nordost. To my ears they have a "house sound" that is tight but somewhat lean in the bass and lower mid-bass, and a bit too much treble. I really can't stand excessive brightness, so I generally haven't liked Nordost cables in systems I've heard them in. For a system with bass that's a little bit bloated and out of balance, and sounds dark in the upper registers, a Nordost cable could be exactly what the doctor ordered.


 

 Well that was pretty much my finding too between the Chord Co CrimsonPlus RCA's and the Nordost Blue Heaven Silver played RCA's.
   
  Some tracks showed little difference but the likes of Tron Legacy 'Derezzed' and Pink Floyd 30th crap re-master created a line in
  the sand ~ it was just so much brighter on the Nordosts.
   
  Again, according to the skeptics, that's just placebo but I'm sticking to it anyway, that was my experience.
   
  Would I keep them? Nope, for exactly the reasons you pointed out. My rig is neutral to slightly bright as it is, not that I'm
  a laid back guy who likes a dark signature but limits are limits!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I'm not sure what's so strange about that. Any cable believer will tell you that results are system dependent. If you are using the exact same system as the reviewer, you should expect to hear similar results. If your results are wildly different, then you might want to question the reviewers findings. Cables seem to depend on synergy, I'm not sure why, but they do. ...


 


  That doesn't strike you as just a little convenient? It's statements like that, that will forever keep your results from approaching anything at all like science, or objectivity, or frankly - usefulness.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I look at cables for speakers and interconnects one way and power cords another. The amazing thing is each interconnect cord has a slight personality characteristic which it bestows upon the music. These same traits can even be understood to be used for judging both cd players and DACs or even phonograph cartridges in a way. Heck even different amps can be looked at in the same light.
   
   
  You have at one extreme a camp who loves the detail found when the lower mids are reduced along with the bass. To some this actually sounds like higher resolution in the music. It's like your showing the listener more detail in the mids and highs because of reducing the rest of the spectrum in the mix.This even gets so very complicated that each cable is showing slight changes in how the full spectrum is being replayed. There can be this instant gratification by seemingly hearing more detail but in the end these slants on the signal end up not as warm. There may not be test equipment to graph this or even science to explain why this happens. Each part of the musical chain is a component unto itself and shares a slight color to the sound, some a ton and some just a little.
   
  I believe in solid copper as it seems to get me the bass and warmth. I don't understand it completely but some manufactures will not plate copper with silver in an interconnect as they believe it causes the signal to loose it's collective pureness. The overall sound can at first seem dull but after time listening and matching with components which have a bright character the system can be balanced out.
   
  Power cords actually can get the power to some amps at a more rapid rate causing them to increase in PRaT and clarity. The issue which is so confusing is it is from the wall to the amp which is most important. I have two very similar cords made by the same manufacture which still have very different personalities and therefor have there respected duties in relation to their sound.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





head injury said:


> While we're on the subject of videos...


 

...


----------



## Gwarmi

Did I miss something or is this like 'My Little Pony' gone anime? Ahh the memories..


----------



## RexAeterna

i'm detecting some unsettling moods here. 







this should help the thread.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> [/]
> If I had $10K to spend on a new system, I'd put $4K towards a pair of Vapor Cirrus monitors, somewhere around $5K towards a USB DAC and integrated amplifier, and $500 for a B-P-T CPC. With the $500 left over, I'd probably buy something like SC Silver Resolution interconnects, some bulk Kimber 8VS speaker cable, and some bulk Oyaide or Furutech AC wire. Once everything is locked in, then I'd start experimenting with upgrading cables here and there.


 
   
  Ok thanks for the speaker cable story, I noticed you recommend some $400 Polestar Locus USB cable in this thread -> http://www.head-fi.org/t/571932/tips-for-shopping-and-not-buying-into-bs-cables-coming-from-an-ex-sales-executive/15#post_7762005
   
  At least I can give you some points for optimism and enthusiasm.  I realise science can't explain everything, it's everything that comes first, and science after... it's just I don't see what a $400 USB cable is supposed to do other than look pretty and give peace of mind.


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Ok thanks for the speaker cable story, I noticed you recommend some $400 Polestar Locus USB cable in this thread -> http://www.head-fi.org/t/571932/tips-for-shopping-and-not-buying-into-bs-cables-coming-from-an-ex-sales-executive/15#post_7762005
> 
> At least I can give you some points for optimism and enthusiasm.  I realise science can't explain everything, it's everything that comes first, and science after... it's just I don't see what a $400 USB cable is supposed to do other than look pretty and give peace of mind.


 

  
  How about riding the line between generic and the land of fabled USB cables?
   
  Nuforce seem to offer just that. Nice build quality, looks the part and it won't break the bank at $30.00
   
http://www.nuforce.com/hp/products/cable/index.php
   
   
 NuForce Impulse Cable TM - USB Cable For Digital Audio Application 

 Impulse USB-AB-1.8M - 3.5mm stereo to USB (1.8m), MSRP $29.95
 
 Nuforce Impulse USB Cable has been designed to optimize computer-based music playback via USB cable. By providing ultra-high bandwidth, superior RF noise rejection,
 and all-encompassing shielding, our Impulse USB Cable improves digital audio performance by reducing the jitter and timing errors normally associated with USB audio
 data transmission.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> ...The amazing thing is each interconnect cord has a slight personality characteristic which it bestows upon the music. These same traits can even be understood to be used for judging both cd players and DACs or even phonograph cartridges in a way. Heck even different amps can be looked at in the same light.
> ...
> 
> Power cords actually can* get the power to some amps at a more rapid rate* causing them to increase in PRaT and clarity. The issue which is so confusing is it is from the wall to the amp which is most important. I have two very similar cords made by the same manufacture which still have very different personalities and therefor have there respected duties in relation to their sound.


 

 The "same traits" make some sense for electronics components that have active, dynamic components that must process, or produce (or read - phonograph cartridge) the music. Especially those with actual moving components... speakers, etc. But you are making a blanket statement about wires having the same effects, without describing why or how they possibly could. 
   
   
  At a more rapid rate? How do you know this? Surely this is something that if real, we could test? Show me some evidence. Then we'll talk.


----------



## Sylafari

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> It's probably harder to tell apart Coke and Diet Coke under blind testing as well btw, I'm sure a lot of people would fail, just food for thought. =P


 

 No way! If I did a blind taste test with Coke and Diet Coke I would get it right 10000/10000 times. They taste like two totally different things >.>, one's digusting (Diet Coke) and one's not (Coke).
   
  Audio, on the otherhand I have trouble with just about everything


----------



## kiteki

Some people think Coke and Pepsi are exactly the same too btw.
   
  *in queue at cinema*
   
  "One Coke and one popcorn please"
   
  "We only have Pepsi, is that OK?"
   
  "LOL?! Coke is pepsi, same difference whateverz lol @ u!!!"
   
  "Okay..."


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> The "same traits" make some sense for electronics components that have active, dynamic components that must process, or produce (or read - phonograph cartridge) the music. Especially those with actual moving components... speakers, etc. But you are making a blanket statement about wires having the same effects, without describing why or how they possibly could.
> 
> 
> At a more rapid rate? How do you know this? Surely this is something that if real, we could test? Show me some evidence. Then we'll talk.


 


  I like your posts liamstrain. Sadly, even though this is the Sound Science part of the forum, people are allowed to troll it with subjective opinion backed up by no evidence. We are not given the same level of access to the rest of the forum.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





lenni said:


> this video reminded me of most of the comments in this forum - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmLAj9iIfQk


 

 Why do you bother posting here? How will you like it if the reverse happens to a thread you like and think is interesting?


----------



## kiteki

Don't be harsh on Lenni, he is either A) Clearly hearing the difference between his cables, so he's upset at the scientific community.
   
  B) Was tricked into paying $XXXX for cables, and is in self-denial.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Why do you bother posting here? How will you like it if the reverse happens to a thread you like and think is interesting?


 


  what's the matter... did the video ring true for you? ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I post here because I've tried high-end cables... you, on the other hand, have not.
   
  so why are you posting here?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





lenni said:


> I post here because I've tried high-end cables... you, on the other hand, have not.


 

  
  Fair enough -
   
  Do you have any quantifiable, or objective evidence to share from your experiences with higher-end cables? This is, after all, the sound science forum, so repeatable, testable evidence is greatly appreciated.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Just testing Lenni to see if is the kind of person who likes to dish it out, but cannot take it when the same is done to him.
   
  All cable believers and subjectivists are welcome, when they are constructive and bring evidence. That is more than we are allowed to do elsewhere on the forum, where we are not allowed to present certain evidence, no matter how constructive it is.
   
  I am thinking of a past thread outwith Sound Science where a newbie posted how he had bought an expensive aftermarket headphone cable, but it made no difference. He was seriously worried there was something wrong with him, his ears, his kit and others were advising that those reasons were correct. Utter BS yet when I posted that there is no difference ihertant in the cable and his ears and kit were actually more accurate I was slated.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> That doesn't strike you as just a little convenient? It's statements like that, that will forever keep your results from approaching anything at all like science, or objectivity, or frankly - usefulness.


 
   
  I dont think so. If you drive like a lead foot, you'll never get the fuel economy that the EPA promises on the window sticker. That doesn't mean they are wrong, it's what they achieved with their testing. If you drive using the same pattern as their controlled methodology, you should get pretty much exactly what they promise (allowing for things like wind and hills). If you use the same equipment as the reviewer and listen to his demo material, you should hear what he reports (allowing for some room variances).


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I dont think so. If you drive like a lead foot, you'll never get the fuel economy that the EPA promises on the window sticker. That doesn't mean they are wrong, it's what they achieved with their testing. If you drive using the same pattern as their controlled methodology, you should get pretty much exactly what they promise (allowing for things like wind and hills). If you use the same equipment as the reviewer and listen to his demo material, you should hear what he reports (allowing for some room variances).


 


  Your rough shod attitude to testing, evidence and proof means you will, as liamstrain stated "will forever keep your results from approaching anything at all like science, or objectivity, or frankly - usefulness."
   
  I can come up with loads of theories and analogies to suit my view point as you do. But I can also come up with testable evidence. You cannot.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Ok thanks for the speaker cable story, I noticed you recommend some $400 Polestar Locus USB cable in this thread -> http://www.head-fi.org/t/571932/tips-for-shopping-and-not-buying-into-bs-cables-coming-from-an-ex-sales-executive/15#post_7762005
> 
> At least I can give you some points for optimism and enthusiasm.  I realise science can't explain everything, it's everything that comes first, and science after... it's just I don't see what a $400 USB cable is supposed to do other than look pretty and give peace of mind.


 

 I think if you want to try and see if there's a difference between a $10 USB cable and a high-end one, you might as well buy something from the (now defunct, sadly) brand generally considered to be the best. I'd have to substitute the Ridge Street Poiema for the Polestar now, but same idea. I will say that USB cables seem to be less important for the new generation of asynchronous mode devices, particularly the ones that are powered by AC or batteries. If you have a Monolith powered Empirical OR4, get the rest of the cables in your system in place first, then try some USB cables like the Poiema to see if you hear any improvements.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> If you use the same equipment as the reviewer and listen to his demo material, you should hear what he reports (allowing for some room variances).


 

 You'd need his ears and, by far most importantly, his brain too.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> You'd need his ears and, by far most importantly, his brain too.


 

 Potentially. I guess it depends on how large those improvements actually are, and whether they go in a direction you like. If you have a speaker with an aluminum tweeter and you disconnect the tweeter, everybody should report similar findings - who turned off the treble. If you replace the aluminum tweeter with a silk dome, I wonder how many people would say the sound is better, and how many would say it's worse.


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


davebsc said:


> Potentially. I guess it depends on how large those improvements actually are, and whether they go in a direction you like. If you have a speaker with an aluminum tweeter and you disconnect the tweeter, everybody should report similar findings - who turned off the treble. If you replace the aluminum tweeter with a silk dome, I wonder how many people would say the sound is better, and how many would say it's worse.


   
  One also wonders how whether you inform them that a change has been made/the nature of the change would affect how people perceived the sound.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





willakan said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> davebsc said:
> ...


 
   
  That would be an interesting test indeed. Do the test first with the grills on, so that no one is aware of what kind of driver is being used and just ask people if they hear anything different after the tweeters have been switched. Then do the same test with the grills off, and explain that aluminum has been replaced with silk. I wonder how different the answers would be.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I like your posts liamstrain. Sadly, even though this is the Sound Science part of the forum, people are allowed to troll it with subjective opinion backed up by no evidence. We are not given the same level of access to the rest of the forum.


 

  
  here you go again, whinging at being somewhat castigated to this forum, which is not true.
   
  IIRC, this thread was initially started in the Cables forum, until some of you showed up with your objective comments, and had to be moved here. and you call other trolls?
   
  I think you should count yourself lucky that you can discuss your "theories" freely in an audio forum. I don't visit any other audio forum... but I doubt you could do the same.
   
  one of these days I'll set up a DBT and prove that cables make a difference.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That would be an interesting test indeed. Do the test first with the grills on, so that no one is aware of what kind of driver is being used and just ask people if they hear anything different after the tweeters have been switched. Then do the same test with the grills off, and explain that aluminum has been replaced with silk. I wonder how different the answers would be.


 

 Then do the test without switching the drivers, but say you switched the drivers, and everyone waxes poetic about the changes.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Then do the test without switching the drivers, but say you switched the drivers, and everyone waxes poetic about the changes.


 

 Quite possibly. This raises an interesting point though, because all of us should accept that the differences between an aluminum and silk dome tweeter are real, and should show up both in objective measurements and subjective listening tests. If people are unable to distinguish between them, or much fewer people are, in a blind ABX test vs. a sighted test, what does that say about the blind ABX test?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That would be an interesting test indeed. Do the test first with the grills on, so that no one is aware of what kind of driver is being used and just ask people if they hear anything different after the tweeters have been switched. Then do the same test with the grills off, and explain that aluminum has been replaced with silk. I wonder how different the answers would be.


 


 Harman have done a similar set of experiments. They get listeners to audition the same sets of speakers blind and sighted. Consistently the prettier/more impressive/expensive looking speakers score higher on the sighted tests. Unsighted the relative ratings frequently change. More interestingly when listening unsighted the subjective ratings much more closely correlate with the technical quality of the speakers (low distortion, linear FR and so on)  and are overall lower. Dr. Sean Olive who visits here occaisionally has published on this and has a blog.
   
  My early background is in Psychology and these results are very predictable from what we know about human cognitive biases. Even knowing you have a bias does not really help much. Whenever I grade my undergraduates' tests I ask them to put ID numbers not names on their scripts to protect them against potential bias.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Quite possibly. This raises an interesting point though, because all of us should accept that the differences between an aluminum and silk dome tweeter are real, and should show up both in objective measurements and subjective listening tests. If people are unable to distinguish between them, or much fewer people are, in a blind ABX test vs. a sighted test, what does that say about the blind ABX test?


 
   
  What I just proposed is not a blind ABX test. Don't go making strawmen again.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





lenni said:


> what's the matter... did the video ring true for you? ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Because this is Sound Science, where we ask for verifiable, testable evidence and not reports of subjective experience. In any case, the question is not whether you hear a difference, it is why do some people hear a difference sometimes with some hifi? If I listen to a high end cable, whether I hear a difference or not is not the issue as that is only subjective experience.
   
  What you are arguing is the equivalent of saying, I was cured by a medicinal placebo and unless you have tried the same placebo, you cannot know if it will cure you or not. Wrong, your cure by a placebo shows both the effect placebos can have and an apprent cure cannot then be used to say placebos work like a an effectively tested and proven medicine.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> What I just proposed is not a blind ABX test. Don't go making strawmen again.


 

 You're talking about the power of suggestion, which is different. You could use the aluminum tweeter, then say that you've replaced it with a new $2,000 diamond tweeter that's the best in the world, when you've actually done nothing. You just use the exact same speaker again, and a certain amount of people will fall for the suggestion and say the non-existent diamond tweeter sounds better. That's not really a useful test.
   
  A more useful test would be A is aluminum, B is silk, what is X. There's no suggestion here, the tester has to decide on their own whether they are hearing A or B. If a lot of testers fail to make that determination, when the differences are quite real, what does that say about the ABX test. The pretty speaker vs the ugly speaker doesn't apply here, the speaker looks exactly the same in both cases.
   
  If you then do a test with the grills off, how reliably would the test subjects hear differences between the aluminum and silk tweeters? You can't say anything about the tweeter's performance, that's suggestion. The only difference is that the test subjects know that a potential difference exists.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





lenni said:


> here you go again, whinging at being somewhat castigated to this forum, which is not true.
> 
> IIRC, this thread was initially started in the Cables forum, until some of you showed up with your objective comments, and had to be moved here. and you call other trolls?
> 
> ...


 
   
  Sadly, I do have to count myself lucky that science can be discussed freely in this one part of the forum. The only other forums I know where you can discuss science are Hydrogen Audio and the HDD forum.
   
  I hope you do do a DBT test. But saying such will prove that cables make a difference shows a lack of understanding about such testing. So far, all DBTs have found that with cables there is on average a random chance of getting ABX correct. Even if you do score very highly with your ABX you will only show that test has scored above random. You would then need to do a whole series of tests to show proof cables make a difference. Even then, you would have to explain why other DBTs have not show the same results. (Which you cannot credibly do by just dismissing them).


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> A more useful test would be A is aluminum, B is silk, what is X. There's no suggestion here, the tester has to decide on their own whether they are hearing A or B. If a lot of testers fail to make that determination, when the differences are quite real, what does that say about the ABX test. The pretty speaker vs the ugly speaker doesn't apply here, the speaker looks exactly the same in both cases.
> 
> If you then do a test with the grills off, how reliably would the test subjects hear differences between the aluminum and silk tweeters? You can't say anything about the tweeter's performance, that's suggestion. The only difference is that the test subjects know that a potential difference exists.


 

 Yes, and I have no doubt that if there is an audible difference between the two types of tweeters, subjects will be able to distinguish between them in an ABX test. How are you coming to the conclusion that they would fail?
   
  If you did the test with the grills off, they would not more reliably hear the differences. They would more readily suggest differences, and justify those differences based on the material, but the differences they describe won't necessarily be real.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

An interesting comparison of sighted and blind listening of speakers
   
  http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
   
   
  A blind test of speakers
   
  http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_spk.htm
   
  which at 97% corrrect is by far the best result from a whole series of blind tests by the ABX Company on their website.
   
  Come on guys, lets see evidence not theory........


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Yes, and I have no doubt that if there is an audible difference between the two types of tweeters, subjects will be able to distinguish between them in an ABX test. How are you coming to the conclusion that they would fail?
> 
> If you did the test with the grills off, they would not more reliably hear the differences. They would more readily suggest differences, and justify those differences based on the material, but the differences they describe won't necessarily be real.


 


  What if that audible difference is quite small? Would the test being blind and being ABX have any impact on the subjects ability to hear a difference? What if instead we take two different tweeters made of similar material, say an Esostar vs. a ScanSpeak AirCirc. Is it possible that the very process of the blind ABX itself would produce results closer to 50/50 than if the grills are off and subjects are told they are listening to the Esostar, and then the AirCirc?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> What if that audible difference is quite small? Would the test being blind and being ABX have any impact on the subjects ability to hear a difference? What if instead we take two different tweeters made of similar material, say an Esostar vs. a ScanSpeak AirCirc. Is it possible that the very process of the blind ABX itself would produce results closer to 50/50 than if the grills are off and subjects are told they are listening to the Esostar, and then the AirCirc?


 

 No. _Why_ would ABX or sighted have an effect on audibility? All you lose is knowledge of what the product is. You still hear exactly what it produces. The ears are not hindered.


----------



## Pudu

It's not a difficult concept.

Blind Experiment

ABX


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> No. _Why_ would ABX or sighted have an effect on audibility? All you lose is knowledge of what the product is. You still hear exactly what it produces. The ears are not hindered.


 

 That's what most professional reviewers and the like believe, that something in the ABX process itself is harmful to the results, or that ABX is not suitable to judging very small sonic differences. That's what J Gordon Holt mentioned in his article that I referenced awhile back:
   
  "On Carver's own null tests, nulling between the two amps was 11dB or so less than the 50dB that he had claimed would result in an inaudible difference. Thus, there _should_ have been an audible difference. But what bothered me was why differences which I had previously described as "dramatic" should suddenly become "very small" under the conditions of a blind listening test. Why, in fact, do _all_ blind listening tests seem suddenly to deprive trained, normally perceptive, listeners of their powers of discrimination?
   
  The skeptic's viewpoint, of course, is that the differences reviewers claim to hear are due to nothing more than autosuggestion. We expect a tube amplifier to sound a certain way, so that's what we hear. The hard evidence to support that skeptical view is scant but overwhelming. The evidence to refute it is abundant, but almost entirely "anecdotal"—that is, "a lot of people have reported it, but no one has proven it." It is appalling that, after more than 100 years of sound reproduction, during most of which time anecdotal evidence of audible differences was practically _all_ we had to spur on technological advances, there should still be serious questions about the validity of observational data. So-called subjective testing, today, is still viewed by most of the "scientific community" as being in the same category as psychic phenomena: not proven, and thus the province of crackpots.
   
  Some tests have almost conclusively proven that listeners _cannot_ distinguish between objectively similar components—that, under carefully controlled tests, the ability to make such distinctions simply evaporates. A few tests have suggested that, perhaps, under some conditions, some people _may_ be hearing inexplicable differences. But hard, incontrovertible evidence for the latter continues to elude researchers


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That's what most professional reviewers and the like believe, that something in the ABX process itself is harmful to the results, or that ABX is not suitable to judging very small sonic differences. That's what J Gordon Holt mentioned in his article that I referenced awhile back:
> 
> "On Carver's own null tests, nulling between the two amps was 11dB or so less than the 50dB that he had claimed would result in an inaudible difference. Thus, there _should_ have been an audible difference. But what bothered me was why differences which I had previously described as "dramatic" should suddenly become "very small" under the conditions of a blind listening test. Why, in fact, do _all_ blind listening tests seem suddenly to deprive trained, normally perceptive, listeners of their powers of discrimination?
> 
> ...


 

 I'll go by paragraph.
   
  Of course professional reviewers don't like ABX tests. They may prove them biased. How's that going to go over with the readers?
   
  Why would the differences lessen? Because they were the result of sighted bias in the first place. Nothing to do with training. The power of discrimination was never really there, they just believed it was because they were hearing differences that were the result of biases.
   
  This next paragraph clearly shows a misunderstanding of placebo, bias, and the flaws of sighted tests. They never really present a good reason for why subjective testing is valid. They just use the same argument they called "anecdotal" the very sentence before. "Lots of people have heard it over the past 100 years, why isn't it valid anymore?" Because our understanding of human perception has changed radically, and in the end it never really should have been valid.
   
  Did they supply any sources for the tests they mention in the second to last sentence, the ones that suggest, perhaps, under some conditions, some people may be hearing inexplicable differences?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Of course professional reviewers don't like ABX tests. They may prove them biased. How's that going to go over with the readers?
> 
> Why would the differences lessen? Because they were the result of sighted bias in the first place. Nothing to do with training. The power of discrimination was never really there, they just believed it was because they were hearing differences that were the result of biases.


 

 I have mentioned this previously, but there isn't any positive *evidence* that proves that the sighted results were skewed because of mechanisms of cognitive bias, only extrapolation from other research which shows a trend.  Having said this I find it very likely that cognitive bias plays a role in a significant proportion of sighted impressions, just it is impossible to positively prove which ones.
   
  DaveBSC's point though is also valid - phenomena that should be easily discernable seem to magically vanish in blind test conditions, however to suggest this is because of prior cognitive bias is again not *positively* supported by evidence.  Personally I find it more likely that blind test conditions are in fact often confusing due to a lack of reference point - ie that under blind conditions the test candidates confuse themselves due to the lack of reference point.  One can easily stand on one leg with your eyes open, but blindfolded candidates will tend to fall because their usual mechanisms of balance have been removed.  Blind testing where the subject has no visual reference, even an abstract one such as red and blue, A or B is depriving the subjects of any method of grounding their observations.  For the mp3 bitrate test I took, I the samples were given abstract labels, so I was able to organise my observations and build up to a decision.  If the samples were instead presented as a blind sequence, I would have definitely failed.
   
  The second notable point is that DaveBSC's quote shows that very large changes can go undetected under some blind conditions, my own experience with mp3 bitrate where it took me dozens of attempts to consistently achieve good results (like above 75%) also shows how readily small changes can pass under the radar.  Now I also know of blind tests were participants were able to switch between cables at their own leisure, in their own houses, which does not prove that their are no differences in performance, just that the differences in that test were too small to be detected by the test participants in the test conditions - and from separate quantified testing shown to be of a very small magnitude.  From these two points you can conclude that you are not missing out on very much by not having high end cables, or anything else for that matter that doesn't measure significantly differently or pass blind testing.
   
  Personally though I trust my sighted impressions, even though they are prone to bias.  I would probably like to do blind testing of the cables I have on hand, and may do so if I manage to get hold of someone willing to be filmed swapping out the cables, but reasonably cannot expect to do this with every piece of equipment I audition or try out in my system, it is just way too time consuming when frankly I listen to my system sighted anyway.
   
  By the way found that link to the dt880 damping factor test - interesting read.  Still not sure if it means that amplifier with very low output impedance or 8 wire cables are a sure way to improve orthodynamic bass response.


----------



## Head Injury

I was under the impression that there usually is a visual stimulus of some kind to denote whether A or B or X is being listened to at a given time. There's nothing about the ABX test that requires literal blindness.
   
  To me, the fact that you were unable to tell MP3s apart at first doesn't mean that blind testing obscures subtleties, but that the differences are very subtle to begin with.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





drez said:


> Personally though I trust my sighted impressions, even though they are prone to bias.  I would probably like to do blind testing of the cables I have on hand, and may do so if I manage to get hold of someone willing to be filmed swapping out the cables, but reasonably cannot expect to do this with every piece of equipment I audition or try out in my system, it is just way too time consuming when frankly I listen to my system sighted anyway.


 

 One test that I think I'll do when my KGSSHV is finished is an ABX test between two different productions of one of my favorite albums - Oscar Peterson's We Get Requests. I have both the SHM-CD, and the JVC K2 CD. They are very close, but when I know which one is playing, I always prefer the SHM-CD version. I'm pretty sure Foobar has an ABX plug-in, so I'm curious if with my KGSSHV and Omega 2, whether I'll fail an ABX test or be able to reliably tell which is which.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





drez said:


> DaveBSC's point though is also valid - phenomena that should be easily discernable seem to magically vanish in blind test conditions...


 
   
  Phenomena that should be easily discernable by what metric exactly?
   
  se


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> A blind test of speakers
> 
> http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_spk.htm


 
   
  Ahahahah http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm
   
   
  Ok so in the first test they were using Etymotic ER-4's from the headphone jack of some amazing amplifier, and switched around the RCA cables leading to the amplifier with "$2.50 blister pack" and "PSACS best".
   
  I look up "PSACS wire" "PSACS cable" on google and all I can find is "Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference" and "Pacific Sea Air Cargo Service" and some other stuff, nothing relating to cables, I spent a good 10 minutes looking!
   
  So the test compared some unknown fancy sounding non-existent cable with a $2.50 cable, they didn't mention the material composition of the cable, and they were only testing the RCA interconnects, the wire in the ER-4 remained the same, all in all a completely useless test AFAI'MC.
   
   
  Second test "Type T1 cables"
   
  Third test "Type Z speaker cable"
   
  Fourth test "Type T2 ($990) cable"
   
   
  I don't care if "he chose his own program material and had no time limit", what is the use of tests like these if they don't even mention the material composition of the cables themselves? Even if they are writing "Type Z" so as not to flame a specifc company, they should at least go into fine detail about the cables they are testing, and not just "Type Z".
   
  All they have proved is that expensive cables were not discernable from the cheap cables in a blind ABX test, so what? Simply proving expensive cable X and cheap cable Y sound the same doesn't prove anything other than the cable market is overpriced, and we already know that.
   
  Maybe the current "cable rage" is mostly about the price and your average joe getting ripped off by salesmen every single day in every city in the world selling $200 HDMI cables, and yes perhaps that is some kind of thievery and that is happening with usless RCA, composite, component and gold-plated carbon-fiber USB cables bla bla bla, but imho this thievery has become intertwined a bit with the legit discussion of speaker and IEM cables.
   
  My question remains what is the difference in sound concerning pure lead, pure copper and pure silver, and if there is a possibility that there are indeed high-end cables made out of 'pure lead' or some equally 'weak' material, that is objectively lessening to the sound quality, however the cables look really nice and are expensive so the customer is _easily_ persuaded that the _true difference_ in sound quality perceived is an improvement.
   
  When I was blind ABXing different sample rates and experimenting with them I would resample and duplicate the same song into 22.05kHz, 44.1kHz and 192kHz, on one occasion I accidentally selected the 22.05kHz track thinking I'd selected the 192kHz track, not realising my mistake naturally I was only looking for improvements in sound, so I thought "Hey, the percussion sounds so... raspy and... visceral... this is easy!" then naturally I realised I was listening to the 22.05kHz track "Oh, NVM.." and continued looking for the subtle differences in the 44.1kHz and 192kHz tracks.
   
  My point is, if someone sold me a cable that 'resamples to 22kHz', with enough marketing, shiny crystals and nice aesthetics, then on my first listening to the raspy and visceral percussion I'd most likely think "Ah I can actually hear the difference, it's more 'analog' sounding now, it's more 'real' like a cassette tape" etc. etc. hahaha.
   
  The second issue is that now (with lots of listening) I can tell apart 44.1kHz and 192kHz upsampling much faster and easier than the first time I ever tried, when I don't think I could hear hardly anything at all.
   
  If a blind ABX test was conducted with my setup and 20 random people off the street they'd all fail at hearing the upsampling since they didn't have any listening practice / experience at all, so the results would be just like flipping a coin, however a rather useless test to start off with anyway!
   
  My perception is there's quite a few of these "useless tests".
   
   
  By the way in another thread recently some studio sound wizard cable hater kept telling me "sound is only air, us studio people understand it 100%, you don't" and "If cables made a difference, why would all recording studios use pure copper Mogami and Canare? We spend thousands on a single microphone! I think if cables made a difference, we would like to know! LOL!!!" and he kept talking like that.
   
  I don't think studios care about the potential fine nuances of difference in their speakers and headphones if they used a silver cable, when the performer is right in front of them? After all if they are using a $10,000 microphone and a Sony MDR-V6 why would they even care about a silver cable, when they don't even care about the MDR-7520?
   
  Anyway I spent a while lookin for this scroll down on the left side, there they mention the cables used in their studio, so _some_ do seem to select higher grade cables, it seems http://www.channelclassics.com/high-resolution-audio-downloads/dijkstra-31411.html
   
  I'm not implying they can hear the difference, I'm just pointing this out, for example it could just be a "peace of mind" alteration to their system, or they want pretty cables, or they can hear it, who knows, send them an email. =P
   
   
  I am leaning towards that it's "just electricity" and lead could sound the same as silver, but the explanations _why_ and the tests I can find aren't very convincing or fulfilling.
   
  Why can't someone just compare a pure lead and pure silver speaker cable in some high-end speakers in front of people, and compare a $1 and $200 HDMI cable on a nice plasma, and put it on youtube?!
   
*OR why can't someone record their speakers or headphone with copper versus silver, and then upload the two files so we can listen?*
   
  Oh wait, I just looked on youtube, it exists, thanks Marco Angelo, the difference is night and day! you saved me! (this was the best I could find)
   
   





   
   
  Edit: Skip to 1:31... this is the proof you have all been waiting for!


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Ahahahah http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm
> 
> 
> Ok so in the first test they were using Etymotic ER-4's from the headphone jack of some amazing amplifier, and switched around the RCA cables leading to the amplifier with "$2.50 blister pack" and "PSACS best".
> ...


 

 Ten minutes looking? Maybe you should have looked lower on the page?
   
   


> In the first test, five specialty interconnects from AudioQuest, MIT, Monster Cable, H.E.A.R., plus Belden cable with Vampire connectors were compared to a $2.50 blister pack RCA phono interconnect. Listeners used Etymotic Research ER4 in-ear phones driven by the headphone jack of a Bryston 2B power amplifier.


----------



## kiteki

Oh damn haha, anyway it's just an RCA cable not very interesting, and using cables from "Monster" and "Vampire" isn't proving anything other than $2.50 cables can't be ABX'd to more expensive ones with fancy brand names.
   
  Same thing in the Nick Charles test, a bunch of different fancy cables, all copper... except one, silver-plated.
   
  A lot happens to a signal after it's travelled along an RCA into an amplifier, it's the last cable that's interesting, not really the power cable or amp interconnects, imho.


----------



## Head Injury

What is it about Monster cables that make them just "more expensive ones with fancy brand names", that sets them apart from "audiophile" companies that make cables?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> What is it about Monster cables that make them just "more expensive ones with fancy brand names", that sets them apart from "audiophile" companies that make cables?


 

 Monster uses the same cheap stranded crap that's in Monoprice cables. The difference is that Monoprice is honest about what they are selling. Mogami wire is not expensive at all, and its MUCH higher quality than Monster. Everybody knows who Noel Lee is and what he represents. They've tried to sell to "real" audiophiles rather than gullible Best Buy customers in the past with their Sigma Retro series. I don't think they were successful. Same with their speakers and amplifiers. I'm also surprised they weren't sued by Mazda for that logo, they certainly deserve it.  Monster drilled a lot of dry wells until they struck oil with the Dr Dre headphones, which unsurprisingly sell to gullible morons.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Monster uses the same cheap stranded crap that's in Monoprice cables. The difference is that Monoprice is honest about what they are selling. Mogami wire is not expensive at all, and its MUCH higher quality than Monster. Everybody knows who Noel Lee is and what he represents. They've tried to sell to "real" audiophiles rather than gullible Best Buy customers in the past with their Sigma Retro series. I don't think they were successful. Same with their speakers and amplifiers. I'm also surprised they weren't sued by Mazda for that logo, they certainly deserve it.  Monster drilled a lot of dry wells until they struck oil with the Dr Dre headphones, which unsurprisingly sell to gullible morons.


 

 But what does the stranded wire not do, that audiophile wire does? What makes it cheap, just the cost to the manufacturer?


----------



## kiteki

Monster make cables for home theatre equipment, they make a toslink look nice and thick and supple in navy blue or hot pink, so the customer shells out more cash for the nicer looking cable.  When they get home they run to their PS3, connect it to their stereo with their new toslink salami, and it sounds fantastic, story finished!  In truth, the customer didn't know (an will never know) a $6 toslink would have sounded just as good.
   
  Pure silver cables, OCC copper, types of quad/hexa-braiding, hybrid tin/lead/silver whatever cables connected to speakers and IEM's should (in theory) have (or not have) affect on the sound quality of said speaker or IEM.
   
  These are two seperate instances.
   
   
  Since electric guitarists can very easily A/B any cable and seem happy to shell out a bit more, maybe shielding matters too, or the transmission there is different, I dunno, or maybe every youtube video showing a difference between electric guitar cables is just a trick too, this is the annoying part, it's just too hard to find any conclusive evidence anywhere. =(
   
  /offline


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Monster uses the same cheap stranded crap that's in Monoprice cables.


 
   
  There you go with the "crap" again.
   
  Why don't you refrain from using that word until you can provide a meaningful answer to the question I put to you some time back? I mean, until you can, your use of the term "crap" is utterly meaningless.
   
  Quote: 





> Mogami wire is not expensive at all, and its MUCH higher quality than Monster.


 
   
  What exactly makes it MUCH higher quality?
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> But what does the stranded wire not do, that audiophile wire does? What makes it cheap, just the cost to the manufacturer?


 

 It's low quality wire, in low quality insulation, with low quality connectors. Noel Lee can buy his Ferraris because his markups are _enormous. _Best Buy makes very little money selling TVs. They make their money by selling $100 Monster HDMI cables, and Monster makes their money by charging Best Buy a fortune. Apple's profit margin on the iPhone 4S is about 3 to 1. Monster's margins are probably 10 to 1, if not more.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> It's low quality wire, in low quality insulation, with low quality connectors.


 

 Low quality in what respect exactly? You keep saying stuff like this but you can never seem to quantify it in any meaningful way.
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> What exactly makes it MUCH higher quality?


 

 Mogami wires seem to sound better than the basic stuff from Belden or Carol or Canare. Of the brands that produce huge rolls of professional use type wire, theirs is the best. I'm not sure why, whether it's better copper or what, but it is. Monster is just big neon pink insulation over the same level of copper that you can buy at Home Depot.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Mogami wires seem to sound better than the basic stuff from Belden or Carol or Canare. Of the brands that produce huge rolls of professional use type wire, theirs is the best. I'm not sure why, whether it's better copper or what, but it is.


 

 This is the Sound Science forum, remember? And in here, such comments are meaningless.
   
  Quote: 





> Monster is just big neon pink insulation over the same level of copper that you can buy at Home Depot.


 
   
  And that "same level of copper you can buy at Home Depot" is used by the military, the aerospace industry, etc. It's used in the most sensitive instruments made.
   
  You keep using terms like "crappy" and "copper you can buy at Home Depot," but you continually fail to quantify these statements with anything meaningful. It's pretty clear by now that all you're doing is denigrating that which you know nothing about.
   
  Again, until you can offer up something meaningful instead of just repeating the same nonsense over and over, I suggest you refrain from using such terms.
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> This is the Sound Science forum, remember? And in here, such comments are meaningless.
> 
> 
> And that "same level of copper you can buy at Home Depot" is used by the military, the aerospace industry, etc. It's used in the most sensitive instruments made.
> ...


 


  I don't get why you are having such a big issue with this. Do you accept that copper grades exist? Or are you trying to imply that all copper is the same?
   
  "The first family, the coppers, is essentially commercially pure copper, which normally is soft and ductile and contains less than about 0.7% total impurities. Commercially pure copper grades are designated by UNS numbers C10100 to C13000. The dilute copper grades contain small amounts of various alloying elements that modify one or more of the basic properties of copper.

 Electrolytic tough pitch copper C11000 is made from cathode copper, that is, copper that has been refined electrolytically. C11000 is the most common of all the electrical copper grades. It has high electrical conductivity, in excess of 100% IACS. It has the same oxygen content as C 12500, but differs in sulfur content and in over-all purity. C11000 has less than 50 ppm total metallic impurities, including sulfur.

 Oxygen-free copper grades C10100 and C10200 are made by induction melting prime-quality cathode copper under nonoxidizing conditions produced by a granulated graphite bath covering and a protective reducing atmosphere that is low in hydrogen."
   
  From Paul at PS Audio:
   

 Professor Atsumi Ohno began the study of the solidification of metals in the mid 1960's, and published his landmark book, Solidification; The Separation Theory and its Practical Applications, in 1984. In this book, Ohno describes his many theories and concepts regarding the processing and solidification of molten metals, and the resulting crystal structures. He goes on to describe his unique process for casting metals with virtually no crystal structure, the O.C.C. process. This concept was first conceived of in 1978, and utilizes heated molds in a continuous casting process. Eventually, international patents were granted for O.C.C. (Ohno Continuous Casting).

 The copper produced by this method is small rods of O.C.C. pure copper, from which wire can be drawn and which can have Copper grains of over 700 ft in length.  A Japanese manufacturer is currently using this process and produces O.C.C. under the trade name PCOCC (Pure Copper by Ohno Continuous Casting).
   
  Some type of continuous cast copper is generally what you find in high-end copper cables. Incidentally, according to Paul they measure their cables with time-domain reflectometers.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> This is the Sound Science forum, remember? in here comments are meaningless.
> 
> 
> se


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> IMO that does not mean the blind test is a fail.


 

 Once again I need to clarify a misrepresentation/miscommunication.  I didn't say the test failed or that tests fail.  I said humans fail tests.  Please try to understand the nuance which isn't really nuanced tbh.  Even when they know the answer, humans can answer incorrectly.  
  ____________________
   
  My problem w/ the majority of the 'objective' camp as they portray themselves here is the lack of skepticism in their own arguments.  They tend to be more prejudicial than skeptical.  As someone who has debated more significant topics than speaker cables for many years, the fact of the matter is that those who seek objectivity will have to accept the absence of proof and no more.  There is no path to the proof of absence.  The rest is intellectual auto-erotica.  
   
  It should be noted as well, that the second a sound experiment is made demonstrating a repeatable result supporting the 'subjectivist' claims the objectivists should now switch sides and support the new data if it holds true.  In reality this is rarely the case around these parts.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> There is no path to the proof of absence.  The rest is intellectual auto-erotica.


 

 Excellent point, I wish I thought of that one.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> It should be noted as well, that the second a sound experiment is made demonstrating a repeatable result supporting the 'subjectivist' claims the objectivists should now switch sides and support the new data if it holds true.  In reality this is rarely the case around these parts.


 


  I will spin on a dime, if a well designed and executed experiment under reasonable conditions shows a quantifiable objective measurement we can then apply to audible characteristics. 
   
  The reason you see such a person rarely, is it is rare that the subjectivists claims are held up under a well controlled experiment. 
   
  But seriously - show me good, reliable data - and I'm all yours. 
   
  I try to maintain skepticism regarding my own stance as well. But those who want objective results do not have to accept the "absence of proof" as anything at all. If there is no proof, you cannot with certainly claim something is. That's all. No ifs ands or buts. We are happy to accept objective results with known caveats regarding resolution and measurement limits - as well as required suppositions on which to base our science... but that is a very different ball-game than "absence of proof."
   
  That is to say, I'll take 98% sure of something as "good enough for me" - 100% is a rare thing - but I will not take an inconclusive result, or some small percentage chance of something as evidence that it MUST be. At best you can say it MAY be... but that it isn't very likely.


----------



## DaveBSC

Curious, does anyone know of any tests between high-end cables and Monoprice type stuff done on TDRs? I don't recall seeing any.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> ......
> 
> Oh wait, I just looked on youtube, it exists, thanks Marco Angelo, the difference is night and day! you saved me! (this was the best I could find)
> 
> ...


 

 Here is more evidence that guitar cables do make a difference
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/563603/guitar-cables-evidence-that-they-do-make-a-difference-to-sound-quality
   
  and yet that thread was virtually ignored and some responses were pathetic.
   
  Here is even more evidence, this time a null test were there is a clear audible difference
   
  http://web.mac.com/davewronski/audio/null.html
   
  I accept that guitar cables make a difference. We do concentrate a bit too much on blind testing. There are two other ways of proving a cable will make a difference. One is showing a clear audible difference backed up by measurements (so that we know it is not placebo) and the other is Null testing.
   
  Looks like it takes an objectivist to gather the necessary evidence and to have an open mind. If we had waited for subjectivists to gather any evidence, we would still be here next year.


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


davebsc said:


> I don't get why you are having such a big issue with this. Do you accept that copper grades exist? Or are you trying to imply that all copper is the same?
> 
> "The first family, the coppers, is essentially commercially pure copper, which normally is soft and ductile and contains less than about 0.7% total impurities. Commercially pure copper grades are designated by UNS numbers C10100 to C13000. The dilute copper grades contain small amounts of various alloying elements that modify one or more of the basic properties of copper.
> 
> ...


   
  You are in danger of making missing the point into an art form. There are indeed lots of different types of copper. They are in no way superior to the copper wire you can buy at Home Depot, assuming a sufficient gauge for the application. As far as audio cables are concerned, virtually* all copper is the same.
   
  *Finding a grade of copper that is 32% cake is not a sensible counter-argument.
   
  As for guitar cables, capacitance doesn't result in audible differences with all but the most broken of amplifiers outside the guitar cable world(I believe NwAvGuy documented an instance on his blog somewhere where the input stage of an amplifier oscillated ultrasonically to different degrees depending on the capacitance of the input cable used!)


----------



## Pudu

anaxilus said:


> Once again I need to clarify a misrepresentation/miscommunication. I didn't say the test failed or that tests fail. I said humans fail tests. Please try to understand the nuance which isn't really nuanced tbh. Even when they know the answer, humans can answer incorrectly.
> ____________________
> 
> My problem w/ the majority of the 'objective' camp as they portray themselves here is the lack of skepticism in their own arguments. They tend to be more prejudicial than skeptical. As someone who has debated more significant topics than speaker cables for many years, the fact of the matter is that those who seek objectivity will have to accept the absence of proof and no more. There is no path to the proof of absence. The rest is intellectual auto-erotica.
> ...





liamstrain said:


> I will spin on a dime, if a well designed and executed experiment under reasonable conditions shows a quantifiable objective measurement we can then apply to audible characteristics.
> 
> The reason you see such a person rarely, is it is rare that the subjectivists claims are held up under a well controlled experiment.
> 
> ...





This may be well and good in the realm of debating and philosophy, but in the physical sciences for an experimental hypothesis to be proved correct it has to be repeatable, by anyone who performs the experiment properly. Using the above logic we should all be investing heavily in cold fusion now and forget all this solar/wind/fuel cell rubbish.

The problem we have here is people are saying cable X is better than cable Y because _I think it should be and because it sounds that way to me_. That is not a hypothesis based on any kind of logical conclusion.

If the hypothesis was that cable X should sound better because it has property {XXX} that cable Y is lacking, then the onus would be to disprove the hypothesis by showing that property {XXX} doesn't affect the sound produced.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





pudu said:


> If the hypothesis was that cable X should sound better because it has property Q that cable Y is lacking, then the onus would be to disprove the hypothesis by showing that property Q doesn't affect the sound produced.


 


  No. The onus is on those making the claim to show that it does. Not on us to show it does not. 
   
  But really - the purpose of the experiment would be to see what affect property Q has on the sound. Not to either prove or disprove. Just observe and make conclusions from the data.


----------



## Pudu

Yes, I think you are correct - because we are dealing with the hypothesis that property {XXX} will affect sound quality. And one should start with a hypothesis that {XXX} could affect the sound because of some logical reasoning. Generally you don't randomly test things just 'because'. 


I was thinking in bigger terms of theories, where a theory that has a sound logical basis is valid until proven invalid.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





pudu said:


> I was thinking in bigger terms of theories, where a theory that has a sound logical basis is valid until proven invalid.


 


  Provided it is in fact falsifiable in the first place, sure, I'll give you that.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> No. The onus is on those making the claim to show that it does. Not on us to show it does not.
> 
> But really - the purpose of the experiment would be to see what affect property Q has on the sound. Not to either prove or disprove. Just observe and make conclusions from the data.


 

 If the onus is then on cable makers and they are to study the effect of Q on sound they have failed so far. All means of making a cable, all electrical the properties of a cable and all materials that a cable can be made from are apparently able to sound better than any other. I had a look at what cable makers say about their products here
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link
   
  and there is no consistency whatsoever. So no Q. That is further evidenced by subjective reports and reviews of what cables sound like which are also conflicting and inconsistent.


----------



## Pudu

prog rock man said:


> If the onus is then on cable makers and they are to study the effect of Q on sound they have failed so far. All means of making a cable, all electrical the properties of a cable and all materials that a cable can be made from are apparently able to sound better than any other. I had a look at what cable makers say about their products here
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link
> 
> and there is no consistency whatsoever. So no Q. That is further evidenced by subjective reports and reviews of what cables sound like which are also conflicting and inconsistent.




I know I introduced the term, but can we change it to Property {XXX}. In reading this I suddenly realized we might be making subconscious associations with certain products. And while I know some of you are completely and totally immune the effects of the subconscious, I think it's inappropriate all the same.


----------



## liamstrain

XXX it is... so now I can make subconscious associations with the strip club down the street. 
   
  --
   
  Prog Rock Man - You can treat each cable manufacturer independently - each has proposed a Property {XXX} - they may all be different... but regardless, the onus is on them to show us that that property has any effect whatsover. Not on us to track down every one and test for it to prove it does not. 
   
  Honestly - half of these sound no different than claiming the extra stripe on my Adidas makes me run faster. Or the dielectric property of the cotton shoelaces...


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *DaveBSC* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I don't get why you are having such a big issue with this.


 
   
  Because I have issues when people spew a bunch of meaningless stuff that they don't understand in an attempt to impugn someone or something.
   
  Quote: 





> Do you accept that copper grades exist?


 
   
  Of course I do.
   
  Quote: 





> Or are you trying to imply that all copper is the same?


 
   
  When it comes to such things as wires and cables, you're pretty much just talking about C110 ETP copper and C101 OFHC copper. And as far as their electrical properties go, there's no meaningful difference between the two. Nor I might add have you or anyone else been able to demonstrate any meaningful difference between the two. You just spout nonsense like "crappy" and "Home Depot."
   
  Quote: 





> From Paul at PS Audio:
> 
> 
> Professor Atsumi Ohno began the study of the solidification of metals in the mid 1960's, and published his landmark book, Solidification; The Separation Theory and its Practical Applications, in 1984. In this book, Ohno describes his many theories and concepts regarding the processing and solidification of molten metals, and the resulting crystal structures. He goes on to describe his unique process for casting metals with virtually no crystal structure, the O.C.C. process. This concept was first conceived of in 1978, and utilizes heated molds in a continuous casting process. Eventually, international patents were granted for O.C.C. (Ohno Continuous Casting).
> ...


 
   
  Whoop de doo.
   
  Again, this adds absolutely nothing meaningful. Nowhere does it say anything as to what the actual problem is with regular ETP and OFHC copper wire that the Ohno process addresses. In other words, he's implying that it's some sort of cure, but he can't tell you what the disease is. It's just classic marketing gibberish. Attempting to make something meaningless seem meaningful to those who don't know any better.
   
  Quote: 





> Incidentally, according to Paul they measure their cables with time-domain reflectometers.


 
   
  Again, whoop de doo.
   
  Sure, a TDR would come in handy for measuring cables. Measuring their _length_ that is. Or for determining if there are any full or partial opens or shorts in the cable which would be useful for QC purposes.
   
  But so what? What's this have anything to do with the topic of discussion?
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





warriorant said:


>


 

 Nice editing job. Oh, and I love your Halloween costume! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Curious, does anyone know of any tests between high-end cables and Monoprice type stuff done on TDRs? I don't recall seeing any.


 
   
  No, because it's meaningless. All a TDR's going to tell you is what difference there is in their lengths or if there are any faults in the cables. Beyond simple QC, "TDR" is just a buzzword, which you seem to have quite the appetite for.
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> XXX it is... so now I can make subconscious associations with the strip club down the street.
> 
> --
> 
> ...


 

 But if I was to wait for the subjective side to look for evidence, if I was to wait for cable makers to show {XXXX} and how it directly relates to SQ, then I will die of old age not knowing the answer


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> ... if I was to wait for cable makers to show {XXXX} and how it directly relates to SQ, then I will die of old age not knowing the answer


 


  No. We already have a very good working answer. There is no statistically significant effect that has yet been demonstrated. I'm content with that, until someone shows me evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Here is more evidence that guitar cables do make a difference
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/563603/guitar-cables-evidence-that-they-do-make-a-difference-to-sound-quality
> 
> ...


 

 The null test appears to be rather too simplistic. Far as I can see, he does nothing to account for simple differences in resistance. To do a proper null test you should at least trim resistance to achieve the greatest null.
   
  But talking about guitar cables here is really rather silly. Guitar cables are fed from guitar pickups which, electrically speaking, are big-ass RLC resonant circuits. Y'ever see an impedance plot of a guitar pickup?
   
  Here's an example:
   

   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

It was more of an excercise in showing the subjectivists how to gather evidence. They cannot be bothered, so I'll look for them instead.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> It was more of an excercise in showing the subjectivists how to gather evidence. They cannot be bothered, so I'll look for them instead.


 

 Fair 'nuff. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## comperic2003

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Monster drilled a lot of dry wells until they struck oil with the Dr Dre headphones, which unsurprisingly sell to gullible morons.


 

 Beats by Dre, High-Priced Audiophile Cables . . . tomato, tomahto.


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





comperic2003 said:


> Beats by Dre, High-Priced Audiophile Cables . . . tomato, tomahto.


 

 Nah.  It's an "us" versus a "them", which obviously makes it qualitatively different.
   
(Sarcasm))


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





willakan said:


> You are in danger of making missing the point into an art form. There are indeed lots of different types of copper. They are in no way superior to the copper wire you can buy at Home Depot, assuming a sufficient gauge for the application. As far as audio cables are concerned, virtually* all copper is the same.


 

 This is why I (and of course every high-end cable company) would disagree. If you look at the differences between Kimber 8PR and Kimber 8VS, the biggest one is the type of copper. The geometry is the same, and the insulator is the same. Yes 8VS is slightly larger, but according to Kimber resistance is the same for both - 0.021 Ohms. Capacitance is also nearly identical 742.0 pF @ 20 kHz vs. 744.0 pF. 8VS's inductance is lower, but I've never seen a cable skeptic accept that either L or C measurements have anything to do with sound anyway.
   
  So.... why does 8VS sound better? I'd argue that "virtually" all copper is not the same at all, and that this has a very audible impact.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I'd argue that "virtually" all copper is not the same at all, and that this has a very audible impact.


 

 Sounds reasonable. Are you going to share your argument?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Sounds reasonable. Are you going to share your argument?


 

 That's it. If you take geometry and insulation out of the equation (and gauge is at least close enough not to matter) and you're just left with two different grades of copper, and the better grade sounds better....


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That's it. If you take geometry and insulation out of the equation (and gauge is at least close enough not to matter) and you're just left with two different grades of copper, and the better grade sounds better....


 


  OK... your assertion is made. Now show why (or evidence other than your statement that it actually does). Preferrably in a falsifiable, repeatable/objective way.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> OK... your assertion is made. Now show why (or evidence other than your statement that it actually does). Preferrably in a falsifiable, repeatable/objective way.


 

 You're never going to see that. All you're going to get is unsubstantiated assertions and scary pictures.
   
  se


----------



## liamstrain

Hope springs eternal. 
   
  I also have a hard time letting an assertion like that just sit there, as though it is somehow evidence in and of itself. That's how the unsuspecting start to think something like this is a mythical magic bullet for their system. A hundred little statements like that.


----------



## au5t3n5

I'm not sure if this has happened before, but someone should made like 5 of the same cables with different quality materials, and sheath them all the same and use the same plugs so that they all look alike. Then they should be sent for a pass around so people can blindly test them and select their favorite. 
   
  Or has this already been done?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Hope springs eternal.
> 
> I also have a hard time letting an assertion like that just sit there, as though it is somehow evidence in and of itself. That's how the unsuspecting start to think something like this is a mythical magic bullet for their system. A hundred little statements like that.


 

 Exactly.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





au5t3n5 said:


> I'm not sure if this has happened before, but someone should made like 5 of the same cables with different quality materials, and sheath them all the same and use the same plugs so that they all look alike. Then they should be sent for a pass around so people can blindly test them and select their favorite.
> 
> Or has this already been done?


 

 Not that I'm aware of.
   
  The closest thing to that that I am aware of was Steve Lampen of Belden who did a similar test with regard to the "directionality" of copper wire.
   
  I attempted to do something similar over at diyAudio, but the guy who was making the most boastful claims about how easily he could detect directionality up and disappeared once the initial test cables were sent to him.
   
  se


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





au5t3n5 said:


> I'm not sure if this has happened before, but someone should made like 5 of the same cables with different quality materials, and sheath them all the same and use the same plugs so that they all look alike. Then they should be sent for a pass around so people can blindly test them and select their favorite.
> 
> Or has this already been done?


 

 It's been done with power cables for some entertaining results. It would be interesting to see it done with headphone cables.
   
  Of course, choosing favorites doesn't show whether or not there are real differences. It only shows that maybe people like different cable types. It can suggest (and did with the power cables) that price or material is not an indication of subjective preference, but it doesn't say anything objective. Now, if there are severely conflicting impressions, like if one person says a cable is clearly brighter than another cable, but someone else says the opposite, that suggests bias but still doesn't really go anywhere else with it. ABX tests are more useful.
   
  You could set up a simple ABX test in the same way though. Pass around three cables, two of which are the same, with two of the different ones labeled A and B and the third labeled X. Have people try to figure out which is the same as X. You'd need a lot of volunteers to get significant results though, because you can't switch which cable is X like you can in normal ABX tests.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> OK... your assertion is made. Now show why (or evidence other than your statement that it actually does). Preferrably in a falsifiable, repeatable/objective way.


 

 Of course, using DB-ABX right? Round and round she goes.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Of course, using DB-ABX right? Round and round she goes.


 

 Not necessarily. You could demonstrate significant changes to the signal caused by "cheap" copper.
   
  Surely you didn't expect to get away with "better copper sounds better, so it's better", did you?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Of course, using DB-ABX right? Round and round she goes.


 

 No. Just show that the "crappy," "Home Depot" grade of copper affects an audio signal in any meaningful way.
   
  se


----------



## liamstrain

If you can propose another well controlled objective measurement or testing method to show your differences, I'll be happy to evaluate the results with an open mind. 
   
  As for "round and round she goes" - if you keep making assertions without evidence, I will keep insisting on evidence. So yes. Round and round she goes. But the instigator here is you...


----------



## au5t3n5

Yes! Sorry, I haven't got much sleep recently, but the ABX test you describe is more of what I meant. Silly me, of course everyone will favor a different cable because its preference. But yea, I think a test like that should be done to settle some debate. But the cables would all need to be sheathed the same way and plugged the same way. Also the same width of wire would be good too. I'm sure someone who is more experienced with cables can conjure up a test with more in depth details.
  
  Quote: 





head injury said:


> It's been done with power cables for some entertaining results. It would be interesting to see it done with headphone cables.
> 
> Of course, choosing favorites doesn't show whether or not there are real differences. It only shows that maybe people like different cable types. It can suggest (and did with the power cables) that price or material is not an indication of subjective preference, but it doesn't say anything objective. Now, if there are severely conflicting impressions, like if one person says a cable is clearly brighter than another cable, but someone else says the opposite, that suggests bias but still doesn't really go anywhere else with it. ABX tests are more useful.
> 
> You could set up a simple ABX test in the same way though. Pass around three cables, two of which are the same, with two of the different ones labeled A and B and the third labeled X. Have people try to figure out which is the same as X. You'd need a lot of volunteers to get significant results though, because you can't switch which cable is X like you can in normal ABX tests.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





au5t3n5 said:


> I'm not sure if this has happened before, but someone should made like 5 of the same cables with different quality materials, and sheath them all the same and use the same plugs so that they all look alike. Then they should be sent for a pass around so people can blindly test them and select their favorite.
> 
> Or has this already been done?


 

 Hifi Wigwam have with power cords, the result was that no one could reliably tell them apart.
   
6 - HiFi Wigwam, The Great Cable debate. Power cable ABX test Oct 2005.

 This is a very well done large scale ABX test. A similar set up to Head-fi where four mains cables including 2 kettle leads (stock power cords that had come with hifi products), an audiophile one, a DIY one and a tester CD were sent out forum members. The results were inconclusive to say the least, for example;

 The kettle lead was C. There were 23 answers :
 4 said that the kettle lead was A
 6 said that it was B
 8 said that it was C
 5 said that they didn't know.
  
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?654-The-Great-Cable-Debate&highlight=blind+test

 The overall conclusion was that the kettle lead could not be properly identified or that one cable was better than another.
   
*EDIT - one of the participants to this test has pointed out that the two kettle leads, described in the test as exactly the same were in fact not identical and were just basic leads which had come with hifi products.*


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Not that I'm aware of.
> 
> The closest thing to that that I am aware of was Steve Lampen of Belden who did a similar test with regard to the "directionality" of copper wire.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Of course, using DB-ABX right? Round and round she goes.


 
   
   
  You could also try Null testing and here is a means of doing such  -
   
  http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
   
  You get the various grades of copper cable, swap them a round on your kit, each one with the same piece of music, record that music onto the Diffmaker and then it will tell you if there is a difference or not.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> OK... your assertion is made. Now show why (or evidence other than your statement that it actually does). Preferrably in a falsifiable, repeatable/objective way.


 
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> If you can propose another well controlled objective measurement or testing method to show your differences, I'll be happy to evaluate the results with an open mind.
> 
> As for "round and round she goes" - if you keep making assertions without evidence, I will keep insisting on evidence. So yes. Round and round she goes. *But the instigator here is you... *


 


 No, not necessarily, the instigator isn't actually him, he is asserting that different types of copper sound different, and you are asserting that all types of copper sound the same.
   
  If all types of copper cost the same, I think you'd be more open-minded to his assertions.
   
   
  It would be nice if someone with a microphone could record their speakers using 2 different cables and then upload the files so we can listen.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> No, not necessarily, the instigator isn't actually him, he is asserting that different types of copper sound different, and you are asserting that all types of copper sound the same.


 

 We are requesting evidence for claims which aren't being backed with evidence. We aren't making any claims right now.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> No, not necessarily, the instigator isn't actually him, he is asserting that different types of copper sound different, and you are asserting that all types of copper sound the same.
> 
> If all types of copper cost the same, I think you'd be more open-minded to his assertions.


 


  No. I'm not asserting anything. I'm asking for evidence of his assertion, because to date - no evidence has been shown to indicate that there would be an audible difference. Asking for evidence of an assertion is not the same as positing the contrary position. I'm saying I will follow the evidence, but lacking positive evidence supporting his assertion, I will not accept it.
   
  I say he is the instigator because he is the one making claims, without backing them up.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> No, not necessarily, the instigator isn't actually him, he is asserting that different types of copper sound different, and you are asserting that all types of copper sound the same.
> 
> If all types of copper cost the same, I think you'd be more open-minded to his assertions.
> 
> ...


 



 With Audio Diffmaker that I have linked Dave BSC to he can now do exactly that. Then with an open mind and interest in science he can post the results of his test so that all of us open mindedly can discuss the results.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *DaveBSC* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> according to Paul they measure their cables with time-domain reflectometers.


 

 What's that.
  
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Here is more evidence that guitar cables do make a difference
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/563603/guitar-cables-evidence-that-they-do-make-a-difference-to-sound-quality
> 
> and yet that thread was virtually ignored and some responses were pathetic.


 
   
  I was actually joking when I linked that video, some dark shaman showing off his guitar skills and the differences sounded way too audible to just be a cable swtich, so I thought, and at the end of the video it says "the differences are tube amp!" or something...
   
  the second time I watched it I realised he meant he thinks the differences become even more audible in a tube amp, and not just the digital PC software amp he was using in the video.
   
  After watching more guitar cable A/B videos, I thought the differences were too large in all of them, not "subtle" at all, then after seeing your thread with the graphs showing the huge differences I become more convinced that guitar cables really do sound different, something I didn't believe when I used to play guitar and only used stock cables! =P
   
  So much for all the "it's just electricity" cable hater comments.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Sounds fine and dandy to me.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> What's that.
> 
> 
> the second time I watched it I realised he meant he thinks the differences become even more audible in a tube amp, and not just the digital PC software amp he was using in the video.
> ...


 
   
   
  It's sort of like an electronic sonar.
   
  It sends out a pulse and displays any reflections that return.
   
  So for example, if you ping an unterminated line, once the ping reaches the other end, it sees an open circuit and gets reflected back due to the impedance mismatch between the line and the termination.
   
  It can also find points in a line where there's an impedance mismatch, such as a partial short or open.
   
  And based on the return time of the reflections, it can tell you what the distance is away from the source.
   
  It has no relevance at all to what we're discussing here.
   
  se


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> So much for all the "it's just electricity" cable hater comments.


 

 But it is all electricity. The reason guitar cables matter is because of how the equipment works. Steve Eddy mentions guitar pickups here. Check out those impedances. You don't see anything like that with audio reproduction, like headphones or speakers.
   
  You keep jumping to wrong (and extreme) conclusions. Keep these two things in mind:

 Just because cables matter in one application does not mean they matter in all applications
 Just because cables don't matter in one application does not mean they don't matter in all applications


----------



## kiteki

Yes that's fine, let's accept then that guitar cables are different, and HDMI cables are all the same (even DaveBSC thinks so ), and return back to the contention on speaker cables.
   
   
  I think pure silver cables might attract more energy from the spirit world and this doesn't show up in microphones, it's just a sensation in the room itself, what do you think, Head Injury?


----------



## Head Injury

I think you have some serious burden of proof to shoulder.


----------



## kiteki

Makes sense.
   
  I will go back to my ghost friends now, I hope this thread turns up some microphone recordings one day.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Yes that's fine, let's accept then that guitar cables are different, and HDMI cables are all the same (even DaveBSC thinks so ), and return back to the contention on speaker cables.


 

 With TVs yes, I absolutely agree. Provided the cable is shorter than the limitations of its construction in terms of signal degradation, they should all look identical and work equally well until they begin to fail. The failure length is different and dependent (presumably) on gauge and resistance. I should mention though that analog video cables _do not_ work on a pass/fail metric. Can anyone point to measurement results between low and high-end component video cables? While the frequencies are different, CV cables are constructed identically to digital coaxial cables.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> With TVs yes, I absolutely agree. Provided the cable is shorter than the limitations of its construction in terms of signal degradation, they should all look identical and work equally well until they begin to fail. The failure length is different and dependent (presumably) on gauge and resistance. I should mention though that analog video cables _do not_ work on a pass/fail metric. Can anyone point to measurement results between low and high-end component video cables? While the frequencies are different, CV cables are constructed identically to digital coaxial cables.


 

 I won't make any claims or take a position on audio cables for headphones but I'll go to town on anyone who says all S-video and Component cables render the same video.  You'd have to be blind to not notice the potential deviations depending on the subjects in question.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> With TVs yes, I absolutely agree. Provided the cable is shorter than the limitations of its construction in terms of signal degradation, they should all look identical and work equally well until they begin to fail. The failure length is different and dependent (presumably) on gauge and resistance. I should mention though that analog video cables _do not_ work on a pass/fail metric. *Can anyone point to* measurement results between low and high-end component video cables? While the frequencies are different, CV cables are constructed identically to digital coaxial cables.


 


  Sorry, but do it yourself, you look for evidence for a change.


----------



## DaveBSC

I was able to find a test done a few years ago by PC World. I'll ignore the HDMI section, they confirmed what we've all already agreed upon, HDMI cables at typical distances don't matter. Unless it's so cheap that the connector falls off (which may happen) you get perfect video. This is what they wrote in their test of component video cables:
   
  "We started by measuring characteristic impedance--the extent to which a cable hinders the flow of a signal. The standard impedance for each wire in a component-video cable is 75 ohms. If the impedance in any one wire is far off the mark, it produces an impedance mismatch with the devices it connects to; as a result, some of the signal may be lost in transmission, or it may bounce back along the cable to the source, producing smeared colors or blurriness in the picture's fine details.
   
  Monster's M500CV was the winner here, as all three wires inside the cable varied within a negligible 1 ohm of 75 ohms. Translation: This cable imposes as little distortion as possible. Other cables didn't do as well. The three wires included in the CableWholesale.com cables hovered between 63 and 64 ohms, while the Kimber Kable's wires measured between 85 and 86 ohms. The AudioQuest's wires varied from about 71 to 75 ohms. And the StarTech.com's varied from about 67 to 69 ohms.
   
  But here's the rub: Virtually every consumer component cable uses RCA-style jacks. Originally used for analog audio connections, RCA plugs have an impedance of about 50 ohms, creating unavoidable impedance mismatches at both ends of a cable. How well a cable manages the impedance at every point of the cable, not just at the connectors, affects its performance. But the impedance mismatch between a cable's wires and its RCA connectors has far more impact on performance than any other attribute.
   
  We next calculated return loss, a measure of how much of the signal bounces back down the cable. According to the experts at Tektronix we consulted, 14 decibels is ideal. CableWholesale.com's product exhibited the least amount of signal bounce in our tests, at 13 decibels. The other four brands did worse (all at about 8 decibels). The Tektronix experts explained to us that practically all signal bounce is a result of the impedance mismatch between the wires and their RCA connectors.
   
  We conducted one final test: Insertion loss, measured in decibels, gauges how much of the video signal gets lost as it runs through the cable. Four of the cables managed roughly equivalent performance. The worst performer in the group, the Kimber Kable V21, lost less than 2 decibels--an insignificant amount.
   
  Working with an AccuPel HDG-3000 HD/SD/DVI Component Video Calibration Generator, we sent 720p test patterns through our cables to the Epson PowerLite 500 projector. None of the cables transmitted a perfect signal, but the imperfections were minor. In crosshatch patterns (a grid of fine horizontal and vertical lines), some lines displayed slightly smeared edges or shadows, rather than sharp pixel-for-pixel transitions from white to black. But we had to get within a foot of the screen to see any of this, and we saw the same problems regardless of which cable we used.
  Another set of test screens displayed multiburst patterns, featuring several swaths of parallel vertical lines that get progressively finer from left to right. On every screen, the finest swath--where the lines were just a single pixel wide--looked blurry for each cable, indicating that even a good display might smear small details. The other swaths were sharp, with well-defined transitions, regardless of the cable.
   
*Bottom Line:* Though the analog cables varied slightly in our instrument tests, they did not produce distinguishable differences in transmitting real video content."
   
  The conclusions I take from this are not really any different than what I've though previously about audio cables. Different digital coaxial cables will measure differently, just as these CV cables did. You're after 75 Ohms including the connectors, and you often don't get it. Just throwing money at any brand is no guarantee of results. The problem I have with their conclusions is that they judged generally by eyeballing it, and sorry but our eyes are just not very accurate. Now before anybody starts I KNOW how that sounds. This is aiming to be a scientific test though, and I would've preferred to see more instrumented results. There is _extremely _accurate equipment to measure things like light and color from a display, and unless I'm missing something those measurements weren't done.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The problem I have with their conclusions is that they judged generally by eyeballing it, and sorry but our eyes are just not very accurate. Now before anybody starts I KNOW how that sounds.


 


   
  Indeed. And they don't have a good control - that is to say, they don't show that their Epson projector has the resolution to show those details at all, so they cannot say for sure that the cables are why it is blurring.
   
   
  Quote: 





> This is aiming to be a scientific test though, and I would've preferred to see more instrumented results. There is _extremely _accurate equipment to measure things like light and color from a display, and unless I'm missing something those measurements weren't done.


 
   
  Indeed. We have those tools for audio as well. This test - beyond the Ohm data, presents almost nothing useful. Much like many of the audio tests we've seen.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Indeed. And they don't have a good control - that is to say, they don't show that their Epson projector has the resolution to show those details at all, so they cannot say for sure that the cables are why it is blurring.


 

 Exactly.  Projector is about the worst possible choice for eyeballing differences even if the projector choice was or wasn't the best.  You get diffusion varying over ranges unlike a static screen w/ a set pixel density.
  ________________
   
  As to the comments about science being it's own animal apart from logical philosophy the nuance has again been lost if you believe that.  Scientific method is wholly derivative of logic as is Binary language even.  There is no obfuscating unless one is trying to straw man the point into some notion of post modern linguistic deconstruction or whatever else.  To put it more simply and clearly consider the differences between these two propositions.
   
  One-Based on the following experiment, no perceived measurable deviation has been found to account for any perceptible differences among the cables tested.
  Two-All cables sound the same.
   
  Which of the two is applying logic and the scientific method?
   
  The two propositions also do not say the same thing though many here seem to think so.  To make the leap from proposition one to proposition two you have to make a subjective leap based on inductive logic.  Not that there is anything wrong with that if you actually recognize it and understand the difference.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I agree, saying all cables sound the same is nonsense and contributes nothing to the debate. Anaxilus, we agree........


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I agree, saying all cables sound the same is nonsense and contributes nothing to the debate. Anaxilus, we agree........


 

 We do agree quite often though it's not always apparent.  A lot gets lost is the morass.


----------



## Pudu

:blink:


----------



## eucariote

Wired has an interesting story on multimodal interactions, where music affects the way people taste & describe wine.  In the story, they also note powerful effects of vision (color) affecting the taste of wine.  Stands to reason- the brain uses multimodal information to disambiguate stimuli- including very famous examples of vision affecting audition.


----------



## Willakan

Oh, there are craploads of things that affect human senses! I believe Sennheiser's annual report this year has an article on how what you are hearing affects taste, whilst we're at it.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Very interesting. The study was by Heriot Watt University
   
  http://www.sennheiser-annualreport.com/home/en/the_palate_has_ears.html
   
  It seems very reasonable then that sight can also affect sound.


----------



## Sylafari

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Very interesting. The study was by Heriot Watt University
> 
> http://www.sennheiser-annualreport.com/home/en/the_palate_has_ears.html
> 
> It seems very reasonable then that sight can also affect sound.


 

 No wonder those Beats can sound so great to some people.


----------



## Pudu

sylafari said:


> No wonder those Beats can sound so great to some people.




You mean their vision shuts down in protest from the visual assault, so their ears become hypersensitive?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I now say that the answer to the original question is yes, they do matter, to some people some of the time in some systems. But they are not guranteed to work for anyone and even when they do the results will potentially be different for different people.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I now say that the answer to the original question is yes, they do matter, to some people some of the time in some systems. But they are not guranteed to work for anyone and even when they do the results will potentially be different for different people.


 

 That's about the most accurate statement on the matter I've read.  In celebration I've decided to offer this informative video:


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I now say that the answer to the original question is yes, they do matter, to some people some of the time in some systems. But they are not guranteed to work for anyone and even when they do the results will potentially be different for different people.


 

 AGREED!!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Yipee!


----------



## Currawong

Did hell just freeze over?


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


prog rock man said:


> I now say that the answer to the original question is yes, they do matter, to some people some of the time in some systems. But they are not guranteed to work for anyone and even when they do the results will potentially be different for different people.


   
  Care to speculate as to the mechanism behind such differences?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Did hell just freeze over?


 

 Naaah. Only got down to 36 here this morning. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## goodvibes

Quote: 





willakan said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> prog rock man said:
> ...


 


 Not being deaf?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Totally joking here and just balancing the equation. LOL, I'll go with that consensus.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> No being deaf?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I wasn't aware blindfolds made one deaf!


----------



## goodvibes

Depends on how they're worn.


----------



## DaveBSC

Thought you gents might find this article interesting.
   
  http://www.theaudiobeat.com/visits/shunyata_visit_interview.htm?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_content=%25%25xtlinkname%25%25&utm_name=musicdirect+soundbytes+issue+%23492h+11-4-11


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Thought you gents might find this article interesting.
> 
> http://www.theaudiobeat.com/visits/shunyata_visit_interview.htm?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_content=%25%25xtlinkname%25%25&utm_name=musicdirect+soundbytes+issue+%23492h+11-4-11


 

 Wake me when someone who doesn't sell power cables gets his hands on it.


----------



## kiteki

I was reading that article impartially until I noticed they're glorifying a $6600 wooden rack on the first page, that is supposed to make your music sound better... and they even call it cheap.
   
  It's a rack, guys, a rack.


----------



## kiteki

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/sra/craz.html
   
   
  I'm never visiting 6moons ever again.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/sra/craz.html
> 
> 
> I'm never visiting 6moons ever again.


 

 wow lol.....


----------



## drez

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I was reading that article impartially until I noticed they're glorifying a $6600 wooden rack on the first page, that is supposed to make your music sound better... and they even call it cheap.
> 
> It's a rack, guys, a rack.


 

 Probably not wise to get into the whole microphonics debate - that's a whole separate issue.
   
  6 moons though definitely offer you Kool-Aid.  racks aren't the most outrageous tweaks they market (and with tube amps racks have an influence on the performance of equipment)  Anyone who wants to read about a $6k rack already drank the whole jug of Kool-Aid and asked for seconds.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> It's a rack, guys, a rack.


 

 Put a turn table on a shelf from K-mart. Play a song with some thundering bass. See what happens.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Put a turn table on a shelf from K-mart. Play a song with some thundering bass. See what happens.


 

 Put a turn table on a shelf that costs $6,600. See your wife murder you in your sleep.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Put a turn table on a shelf from K-mart. Play a song with some thundering bass. See what happens.


 


  well ofc don't buy the cheapest thing out there...
   
   
  but any sturdy enough wood will work ok


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Thought you gents might find this article interesting.
> 
> http://www.theaudiobeat.com/visits/shunyata_visit_interview.htm?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_content=%25%25xtlinkname%25%25&utm_name=musicdirect+soundbytes+issue+%23492h+11-4-11


 

 I found it to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. Not one iota of meaningful information in that article.
   
  If they wanted to demonstrate something meaningful, they'd show the effects on the performance of an actual piece of audio equipment. But they don't. Instead they only focus on the power cord dog and pony show.
   
  Care to guess why?
   
  se


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Put a turn table on a shelf that costs $6,600. See your wife murder you in your sleep.


 

 Lol, that's objective truth in it's purest sense.  Completely irrefutable.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Put a turn table on a shelf from K-mart. Play a song with some thundering bass. See what happens.


 
   
  Give me a break.


----------



## kiteki

Look here
   

   
   
  They're saying their *$6600 *rack (their cheapest model) is the opposite of overspending! what a joke!
   
  The fact the URL you provided has 6 pages of praise on how the above rack makes their music sound better invalidates everything they wrote about the power cables as well, actually it invalidates everything that website ever has to say on anything!
   
  It's stuff like this that makes people hate audiophiles and stick to Logitech speakers!


----------



## Dubstep Girl

ill buy it for 6600, but it better be magic and be able to instantly spawn any piece of audio equipment i want.


----------



## nikp

The equipment rack is a joke. It may have a small effect but not worth the $$$$ price tag.


----------



## Anaxilus

I dunno.  If the rack were composed of the crushed hopes and dreams of small children it might be worth the price.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







   
  This is a true audiophile rack:
   

   
  My Ken Rads are pretty microphonic but there are cheaper, more effective solutions than a $7K rack from IKEA.


----------



## kiteki

I don't get it, are you saying they should send $6600 to Africa instead of buying a stand for their turntable?


----------



## khaos974

No, spend the $40,000 they spent on the stand, power cords, cable and various tweaks into hiring an acoustician to calculate the modes of their room, the first reflections, invest into the appropriate bass traps, diffusers, reshape the room geometry and associated acoustical treatment to deal with those issues. Finish with a small dose of digital correction for the details the acoustical corrections wasn't able to deal with.


----------



## kiteki

OK so I bothered to research this... junk. You can buy magnetically opposing feet that will make your turntable levitate in thin air, they support up to 6kg per foot and cost around $200 per foot.
   
  $800 + $100 for the K-mart rack and you're all set with a levitating turntable, that is $5700 less than the "shelve your overspending" rack.
   
  Alternatively, I could buy $3000 worth of magnets, and import a balinese scuplted dining table made out of teak and macassar ebony and put my turntable on that and make that float.
   
   
  Seeing two popular websites rave about the differences in sound quality from an inanimate piece of furniture sends cold iron rivets of skepticism into my unequivocal heart.


----------



## DigitalFreak

Rant on
   
  When these high end cable guys can point me to a reputable scientist who can back their claims with scientific data then I will believe them. The interesting thing I find is when me or someone like me says show me the hard data that proves these cables can circumvent the laws of physics the cable enthusiasts and the cable merchants immediately start to back pedal on any claims they make. Even more interesting is when people like me say something contrary to what Joe Silver Cable Guy Audiophile believes pertaining to cables I immediately get demonized to the point a certain user (who shall remain nameless) goes out of her/his way to slam my gear as loosely quoted: "bought off the Wal Mart rack so how would he know cables don't make a difference".
   
  Ladies and gentlemen I respect everyone's opinion but I also expect that my opinion be equally respected in return. My view is and has always been you only need a good well manufactured cable and not some silver overpriced cable that does next to nothing. If you choose to believe differently that's fine. Like me you are entitled to your opinion. I do draw a line in the sand though when I see people on forums giving out false information such as and I quote loosely "piccalino's are a night and day difference in sound" and "if you want your rig to really sing you should invest in a silver LOD" or "for you to notice a difference in sound you need to allow the cable to burn in at least 100 hours. With me my cable really started to make a difference when I hit the 200 hour mark." I see a lot of younger users come on here seeking information and I find it quite offencive to my eyes when I see these same new users are being led towards spending their limited funds on expensive cabling thinking it will turn their Senn HD 595 into a HD800. No those exact words aren't used but the idea is very much implied. I also take offence when I message a dealer (who shall also remain nameless) in regards to a mobile amp and get a reply with the answers to my questions that also includes a link to his overpriced cable inventory page and said nameless seller suggesting I also get his cables to further enhance the mobile amp I was enquiring about. If I wanted to know anything about a 400 dollar 6 inch LOD cable or a 250 dollar mini to mini interconnect I would have asked.
   
  Rant off
   
  That's my two cents and I feel good getting it off my chest. Sorry for coming off as a blow hard.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





digitalfreak said:


> Rant on
> 
> When these high end cable guys can point me to a reputable scientist who can back their claims with scientific data then I will believe them. The interesting thing I find is when me or someone like me says show me the hard data that proves these cables can circumvent the laws of physics the cable enthusiasts and the cable merchants immediately start to back pedal on any claims they make. Even more interesting is when people like me say something contrary to what Joe Silver Cable Guy Audiophile believes pertaining to cables I immediately get demonized to the point a certain user (who shall remain nameless) goes out of her/his way to slam my gear as loosely quoted: "bought off the Wal Mart rack so how would he know cables don't make a difference".
> 
> ...


 

 racks is one thing, cables are another..
   
   
  cables do make a difference....its your opinion against us thousands and millions audiophiles. no huge lie spawns without any truth, good cables do make a difference in sound.


----------



## DigitalFreak

Hi Dubstep Girl nice to see you again long time no see. Haven't seen you on the getting called out for not wearing the Beats thread in awhile 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> racks is one thing, cables are another..
> 
> 
> cables do make a difference....its your opinion against us thousands and millions audiophiles. no huge lie spawns without any truth, good cables do make a difference in sound.


 


  Fair enough show me the data that proves it and I'll shut up. Bring me a metallurgist who will say without a shadow of a doubt it makes a difference. Bring me a scientist that says burning in a cable for 200 plus hours can scientifically be proven to make a difference. Bring me someone anyone at all with a scientific background who can prove a 1000 dollar USB cable will sound better over a 100 dollar USB and then tell me why. I want to believe. I really really do. All I'm asking is give me the undeniable rock solid indisputable data that proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don't think my demands are outrageous when all I'm asking is show me the data that proves it. By the way this isn't an attack on all audiophiles it's a statement made by me on an opinion I formed after some research and also heavily based upon past cable experience with speakers. I also would like to say there's enough people on here who don't use high priced cables and some of them no doubt at one time once had high priced cables and got rid of them because they were completely disappointed in the results.
   
  Seriously, how does someone burn in a cable for 200 hours and why? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I never even heard of that until I started coming onto these forums. Is this a new thing or did I miss the memo?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> cables do make a difference....its your opinion against us thousands and millions audiophiles. no huge lie spawns without any truth...


 

 Sure they do.
   
  The big lie that Barack Obama was born in Kenya was spawned without any truth whatsoever. Someone just made it up one day, posted it on the Internet, and it became the "truth" for many thousands of people.
   
  What you espouse here is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. If your only argument is a logical fallacy, then I'm afraid you haven't a valid argument.
   
  se


----------



## Dubstep Girl

here we go with all the arguments again.
   
  i dont care. cables do make a difference, i can hear it, my friends can hear it, i like it, thats all that matters
   
  case closed


----------



## kiteki

Can I be your friend and listen to your cables.


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> here we go with all the arguments again.
> 
> i dont care. cables do make a difference, i can hear it, my friends can hear it, i like it, thats all that matters


 
  Differences caused by placebo can occur, unless you can measure the difference or pass a blind test, the correct statement should be: " cables might make a difference, i might have heard it, i like it. "
  
   
  But if you did prove that they make a difference, you'll be able to end this debate.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

no. its right, you can't tell me what to say or what is right, how do you know you're right?


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> no. its right, you can't tell me what to say or what is right, how do you know you're right?


 


  You have not shown scientific evidence that you actually heard the difference. Then that means what you've said is a theory, a guess, which is not necessarily true


----------



## Dubstep Girl

same 2 u. which is why this argument is moot.


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> same 2 u. which is why this argument is moot.


 


  I haven't claimed that your cable doesn't work, I simply said no scientific proof was shown to me, that I can prove to you


----------



## DigitalFreak

@Steve Eddy
  @kiteki
  @Parall3l
   
  Guys I've run across Dubstep Girl on other threads in the past and she's a nice person. All she's doing is voicing her own opinion and whether we agree or not we should respect it as her God given right to voice it. Please everyone this is just a debate so I ask everyone to please be polite towards Dubstep Girl she deserves our respect as an individual.
   
  @Dubstep Girl
  If you truly hear a difference please elaborate how it's scientifically possible. Better yet ask the question to yourself why you perceive a difference in sound. After that take it a step further and read a little on the subject. From there take the question and try and prove the discrepancy with your own hands. Try doing a blind test. Try mixing and matching different grades of cables. Have a friend change cables on you while your blindfolded and see if you can tell the difference. All I'm asking you to do is to ask the question why? I have no doubt your money is hard earned and fancy cables are expensive so if you're going to spend 100's of dollars on cables you better be absolutely sure it's worth it because I can guarantee you once those dollars are out of your hands many of those cable merchants aren't going to refund you. Just some food for thought
   
  Bless
  DF


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> Differences caused by placebo can occur, unless you can measure the difference or pass a blind test, the correct statement should be: " cables might make a difference, i might have heard it, i like it. "


 

 Yeah um... I don't know the exact science behind why Coke tastes better than diet coke, and I haven't passed a blind test on it either.
   
  If I went around soda-fi saying coke and diet coke tastes exactly the same always, they'd ask me for a blind test and some science to back that up.
   
   
  or would they?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> OK so I bothered to research this... junk. You can buy magnetically opposing feet that will make your turntable levitate in thin air, they support up to 6kg per foot and cost around $200 per foot.
> 
> $800 + $100 for the K-mart rack and you're all set with a levitating turntable, that is $5700 less than the "shelve your overspending" rack.
> 
> ...


 

 I never claimed the SRA stuff was any kind of great deal. I was just saying that placing your AVID or Clearaudio on a couple of bucks worth of MDF is kind of dumb. I use an Adona Zero MX3 rack, which is _really _nice and costs $975. Considering a mediocre amp stand with a glass or MDF shelf costs $150-200, I don't think the $325/shelf cost for the Adona is unreasonable at all.


----------



## DigitalFreak

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Yeah um... I don't know the exact science behind why Coke tastes better than diet coke, and I haven't passed a blind test on it either.
> 
> If I went around soda-fi saying coke and diet coke tastes exactly the same always, they'd ask me for a blind test and some science to back that up.
> 
> ...


 

 lol I was actually drinking a can ok coke when i read that and i laughed hard enough it came out of my nose I should look up soda-fi on google there probably is a forum out there somewhere


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





digitalfreak said:


> @Steve Eddy
> @kiteki
> @Parall3l
> 
> Guys I've run across Dubstep Girl on other threads in the past and she's a nice person. All she's doing is voicing her own opinion and whether we agree or not we should respect it as her God given right to voice it. Please everyone this is just a debate so I ask everyone to please be polite towards Dubstep Girl she deserves our respect as an individual.


 


  I'm not sure why you think I wasn't being polite to Dubstep Girl because everything seemed a like a harmless debate to me, then again we are all different. @ Dubstep Girl, if I did offend you with my comments, I am sorry. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Yeah um... I don't know the exact science behind why Coke tastes better than diet coke, and I haven't passed a blind test on it either.
> 
> If I went around soda-fi saying coke and diet coke tastes exactly the same always, they'd ask me for a blind test and some science to back that up.
> 
> ...


 
   
  I'm not a coke expert but the difference can be measured, there is a difference in ingredients and theres also the human body's ability to taste the difference, but we'll debate about that on Soda-Fi


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> No, spend the $40,000 they spent on the stand, power cords, cable and various tweaks into hiring an acoustician to calculate the modes of their room, the first reflections, invest into the appropriate bass traps, diffusers, reshape the room geometry and associated acoustical treatment to deal with those issues. Finish with a small dose of digital correction for the details the acoustical corrections wasn't able to deal with.


 

 I think you make a valid point here that shouldn't be overlooked. With the money some people seem to spend on audio accessories, they could probably hire an 'acoustician' and build a perfect acoustic listening room. 
   
   
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I never claimed the SRA stuff was any kind of great deal. I was just saying that placing your AVID or Clearaudio on a couple of bucks worth of MDF is kind of dumb. I use an Adona Zero MX3 rack, which is _really _nice and costs $975. Considering a mediocre amp stand with a glass or MDF shelf costs $150-200, I don't think the $325/shelf cost for the Adona is unreasonable at all.


 

 Not bad Dave. 
  
  Still, if I ever get into vinyl (doubtful) I'd rather have a nice levitating piece of slate or marble, for the same price.
   
  After all I only need one shelf, for the turntable... right?


----------



## Nom de Plume

Because soda-fi and hi-fi both share the same origin, scien -- wait...
  Regardless, humorous analogy.
   
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Yeah um... I don't know the exact science behind why Coke tastes better than diet coke, and I haven't passed a blind test on it either.
> 
> If I went around soda-fi saying coke and diet coke tastes exactly the same always, they'd ask me for a blind test and some science to back that up.
> 
> ...


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> I'm not a coke expert but the difference can be measured, there is a difference in ingredients and theres also the human body's ability to taste the difference, but we'll debate about that on Soda-Fi


 

 I'm not a Coke expert either, I just like one better than the other, you scientists are telling me that acesulfam-k tastes identical to saccharin, and that Pepsi and Coke are the same and it's just marketing, your words are all palendromic to me, all I know is I can taste the difference between EVERY kind of coke on the market!
   
  and no, I can't link you to measurements on proving the difference in taste, can you? How do we even measure that? Hook up wires to my mouth?_ You're_ the expert, why are you asking _me_ for scientific data?


----------



## Uncle Erik

Dubstepgirl, take a look at how wine is tested. Belief (mostly in terms of price) strongly influences perception of quality.

I used to pick up bottles in the $20-$30 range, thinking they were better. Lately, because of the studies, I've been drinking cheaper ones. Thanks to modern technology, even the inexpensive ones are pretty good. I won't get any snob appeal from drinking Two Buck Chuck, however, it is pretty good and I enjoy it. Just like how I enjoy $1 cables out of a carboard box at the swapmeet.

Don't let perception, expectation and snobbery burn a hole in your bank account. The inexpensive stuff is quite good.


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I'm not a Coke expert either, I just like one better than the other, you scientists are telling me that acesulfam-k tastes identical to saccharin, and that Pepsi and Coke are the same and it's just marketing, your words are all palendromic to me, all I know is I can taste the difference between EVERY kind of coke on the market!
> 
> and no, I can't link you to measurements on proving the difference in taste, can you? How do we even measure that? Hook up wires to my mouth?_ You're_ the expert, why are you asking _me_ for scientific data?


 
   
  http://www.selah.k12.wa.us/SOAR/SciProj2002/SaraW.html
   
  Someone actually measured the acidity of various soft drinks. I'm not if the differences can be tasted or not though. Looks like a blind ABX test is needed
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   

 In case you guys haven't noticed, I enjoy debating just about everything.
   
  Back on topic, has any one ever tried to make a gold cable ? If it did exist was there measurements of that cable ?


----------



## kiteki

Uncle Erik in Australia I can buy wine for $10 that sells for $100 in Asia, and I'm sure in Asia I can buy Sake for $10 that sells for $100 in Australia.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> Back on topic, has any one ever tried to make a gold cable ? If it did exist was there measurements of that cable ?


 

 What's the point? I've heard of a Palladium cable though I think, and crystal..?
   
  Here's some wiki references:
   
  "Conductor materials
Copper has a high conductivity. Silver is more conductive, but due to cost it is not practical in most cases. However, it is used in specialized equipment, such as satellites, and as a thin plating to mitigate skin effect losses at high frequencies. Because of its ease of connection by soldering or clamping, copper is still the most common choice for most light-gauge wires.
  Main article: Aluminum wire
Aluminium has been used as a conductor in housing applications for cost reasons. It is actually more conductive than copper when compared by unit weight, but it has technical problems that have led to problems when used for household and similar wiring, sometimes having led to structural fires"
   
  and a chart:
   
  "This table shows the resistivity, conductivity and temperature coefficient of various materials at 20 °C (68 °F)
   

 Material ρ [Ω·m] at 20 °C σ [S/m] at 20 °C Temperature
 coefficient[size=x-small][note 1][/size]
 [K[size=x-small]−1[/size]] Reference Silver 1.59×10[size=x-small]-8[/size] 6.30×10[size=x-small]7[/size] 0.0038 [size=x-small][2][/size][size=x-small][3][/size] Copper 1.68×10[size=x-small]-8[/size] 5.96×10[size=x-small]7[/size] 0.0039 [size=x-small][3][/size] Annealed Copper[size=x-small][note 2][/size] 1.72×10[size=x-small]-8[/size] 5.80×10[size=x-small]7[/size]   [size=x-small][_citation needed_][/size] Gold[size=x-small][note 3][/size] 2.44×10[size=x-small]-8[/size] 4.10×10[size=x-small]7[/size] 0.0034 [size=x-small][2][/size] Aluminium[size=x-small][note 4][/size] 2.82×10[size=x-small]-8[/size] 3.5×10[size=x-small]7[/size] 0.0039 [size=x-small][2][/size] Calcium 3.36×10[size=x-small]-8[/size] 2.98×10[size=x-small]7[/size] 0.0041   Tungsten 5.60×10[size=x-small]-8[/size] 1.79×10[size=x-small]7[/size] 0.0045 [size=x-small][2][/size] Zinc 5.90×10[size=x-small]-8[/size] 1.69×10[size=x-small]7[/size] 0.0037 [size=x-small][4][/size] Nickel 6.99×10[size=x-small]-8[/size] 1.43×10[size=x-small]7[/size] 0.006   Lithium 9.28×10[size=x-small]-8[/size] 1.08×10[size=x-small]7[/size] 0.006   Iron 1.0×10[size=x-small]-7[/size] 1.00×10[size=x-small]7[/size] 0.005 [size=x-small][2][/size] Platinum 1.06×10[size=x-small]-7[/size] 9.43×10[size=x-small]6[/size] 0.00392 [size=x-small][2][/size] Tin 1.09×10[size=x-small]-7[/size] 9.17×10[size=x-small]6[/size] 0.0045   Lead 2.2×10[size=x-small]-7[/size] 4.55×10[size=x-small]6[/size] 0.0039 [size=x-small][2][/size] Titanium 4.20×10[size=x-small]-7[/size] 2.38×10[size=x-small]6[/size] X   Manganin 4.82×10[size=x-small]-7[/size] 2.07×10[size=x-small]6[/size] 0.000002 [size=x-small][5][/size] Constantan 4.9×10[size=x-small]-7[/size] 2.04×10[size=x-small]6[/size] 0.000008 [size=x-small][6][/size] Stainless steel[size=x-small][note 5][/size] 6.897×10[size=x-small]-7[/size] 1.450×10[size=x-small]6[/size]   [size=x-small][7][/size] Mercury 9.8×10[size=x-small]-7[/size] 1.02×10[size=x-small]6[/size] 0.0009 [size=x-small][5][/size] Nichrome[size=x-small][note 6][/size] 1.10×10[size=x-small]-6[/size] 9.09×10[size=x-small]5[/size] 0.0004 [size=x-small][2][/size]
  "
  
   
  This is often cited as the cable believers scientific data.
   
  According to user Khaos927 here, he says a tin cable of sufficient gauge will sound exactly the same as copper.
   
  It's a waste of time making gold cables and measuring them if you ask me, when you may as well just make a tin cable and listen to and measure that, as that would serve as better evidence that "all cables sound the same", if that is indeed the truth.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Not bad Dave.
> 
> Still, if I ever get into vinyl (doubtful) I'd rather have a nice levitating piece of slate or marble, for the same price.
> 
> After all I only need one shelf, for the turntable... right?


 
   
  Electronics generally don't like to be vibrated. This goes especially for tubes, but there are good arguments for high quality platforms and/or feet for solid state equipment as well.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> Back on topic, has any one ever tried to make a gold cable ? If it did exist was there measurements of that cable ?


 

 Gold is often mixed with silver, as in Siltech and Crystal Cables. You also see it sometimes in a copper/silver/gold alloy, or plated over copper as in the Analysis Plus Golden Oval. I'm not sure that any commercial company has attempted a pure gold cable. I don't think it would be practical, in terms of cost it would be an absolute fortune if the gold was even remotely high purity. Copper is a bargain compared to silver, and silver is a bargain compared to gold. It also probably wouldn't sound very good. The high-end industry likes silver and rhodium because they are extremely conductive, and they don't lose that property when exposed to oxygen the way copper does. Gold doesn't oxidize, but it's not that conductive. Its known for rolling off high frequencies, and a large gauge solid gold cable would probably have really dark high frequency response.


----------



## kiteki

-shrug- I'm not fit to comment on that, I've never heard of audiophile quality furniture until today, I just - intuitively - don't think any amount of vibrations or seismic activity is going to have an affect on a stereo receiver, or a DAC?
   
  Audiophile furniture seems like another "peace of mind" theory to me, or another expensive personal asset, like a watch, pen, crystal wine glass... et cetera.
   
  (with no real life application to time keeping, writing, or intoxication).


----------



## drez

If I may reiterate the general consensus reached a while ago -cable measure differently, just the magnitude of these differences has not been scientifically proven to be audible.
   
  The onus is pretty much on the manufacturers and reviewers if they want to prove that their statements are true - but due to a number of embarrassing blind test many reviewers are now hesitant to set up blind tests.  The rest of us are just a bit lazy or don't see the point.
   
   
  There is also the fact that blind tests tend to make boring reading to all but the most geeky audiophiles.  Presonally I don't mind them although the prose is usually a bit dry for my taste
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Still it would be a shame to lose these quaint arguments that tend to turn up in forms 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (then again there are always functionalist individuals in every forum that turn up and say "prove it" no matter what the question)
   
  Frankly it can become irritating,at least to moderate minded people.  Its not socially normative to challenge every single statement with a challenge to provide proof.
   
  Consider the following scenario - you order a vegetable dish at a restraunt and it is overcooked.  You call over the waiter and tell him, and he brings the chef.  The chef says "prove it," you reply "here taste it."  The chef tastes it and says "its fine to me, I cooked it for 3 minutes at 90 C which has been scientifically proven to be properly cooked, and blind tests have shown this to be indistinguishable from cooking the vegetables for 2.5 minutes at 80 C."
   
   
  The Shunyata article is quite interesting but it contains lots of gaps in the information - sure the $3500 cable measures better in instantaneous current delivery but he doesn't explain how this then causally affects the audio output.  Still it's better than nothing (or not depending on your perspective)


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> -shrug- I'm not fit to comment on that, I've never heard of audiophile quality furniture until today, I just - intuitively - don't think any amount of vibrations or seismic activity is going to have an affect on a stereo receiver, or a DAC?


 
   
  There's loads of the stuff, and the manufacturers attempt to combat vibration from nearly as many different ways as cable designers build cables. The super exotic stuff is not a great value, but of course anything that's super exotic tends not to be a great value. If you have a $1500 amp, I would absolutely recommend spending $80 for a set of Black Diamond Racing cones to replace stock plastic feet. I would not recommend spending $10,000 on a Stillpoints ESS rack for it. If you have a $500K system though, what's 10 grand?


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *DaveBSC* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> If you have a $500K system though, what's 10 grand?


 

 If I was a business tycoon, I'd drop $500 on cables and several $K on furniture.


----------



## Tilpo

kiteki said:


> If I was a business tycoon, I'd drop $500 on cables and several $K on furniture.



Unfortunately most of us are not. As a result we have to spend our money wisely making 4 digit furniture and exotic cables a no-go zone.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





digitalfreak said:


> @Steve Eddy
> @kiteki
> @Parall3l
> 
> Guys I've run across Dubstep Girl on other threads in the past and she's a nice person. All she's doing is voicing her own opinion and whether we agree or not we should respect it as her God given right to voice it. Please everyone this is just a debate so I ask everyone to please be polite towards Dubstep Girl she deserves our respect as an individual.


 

 Fine. Then she can voice it on any of the other forums. This is the Sound Science forum.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The high-end industry likes silver and rhodium because they are extremely conductive, and they don't lose that property when exposed to oxygen the way copper does.


 
   
  Copper doesn't really lose its conductivity when exposed to oxygen either. Not in any meaningful way. When exposed to oxygen, a microscopically thin layer of copper oxide forms on the surface, which creates a barrier against further oxidation. And as far as silver goes, while people yammer about silver oxide and how it's conductive, what they neglect to consider is silver sulfide. That's the tarnish that builds up on silver over time. It's not so conductive. And thanks to our modern, fossil-fuel-based industrial economy, there are plenty of sulfur compounds in the air to react with silver.
   
  Quote: 





> Gold doesn't oxidize, but it's not that conductive. Its known for rolling off high frequencies, and a large gauge solid gold cable would probably have really dark high frequency response.


 
   
  Known by whom exactly?
   
  What rolls off high frequencies is the combination of resistance, inductance and capacitance. A cable made of gold wouldn't roll off high frequencies any more than a cable made of silver if it has the same resistance, inductance and capacitance.
   
  se


----------



## kiteki

The best part of this thread is Steve Eddy and DaveBSC.
   
   
  They both write quality posts from different angles.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Thank you for the kind words.
   
  Hey Dave, shall we start selling tickets? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## Citan

Steve from the correct angle


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





citan said:


> Steve from the correct angle


 

 Which I've found to be 22.6 degrees.
   
  Try it. Trust me, you'll thank me later. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## Willakan

I just peered at the "Black Diamond Racing Feet."
  Any company that speaks about "component to cone synergy," or that some cones are warm and others more analytical, is patently obviously making crap up.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Unfortunately most of us are not. As a result we have to spend our money wisely making 4 digit furniture and exotic cables a no-go zone.


 


  +1
   





  hurray for being poor!!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





willakan said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> prog rock man said:
> ...


 

 I do not nreed to speculate. There is no mechanical cause. It is all in the mind


----------



## DigitalFreak

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Unfortunately most of us are not. As a result we have to spend our money wisely making 4 digit furniture and exotic cables a no-go zone.


 


  +1
   
  Time to get myself to Wal Mart and get some of them there furniture to go with my off the shelf Wal Mart audio gear.
  I'm such a hillbilly, I'm buying a bottle of jack and an old pick up truck on the way home.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have spent a very pleasant couple of days at a friends house, where there are Mackie Active speakers using Spotify as a source off his lap top. If vibration is such an issue for electronics, how come active speakers work so well?
   
  Dubstep Girl, you are correct to say that cables sound different, they do. There is far to much anecdotal evidence to say that they do not make a difference.
   
  The issue that keeps on being missed is how do cables make a difference?
   
  This article linked to before
   
  http://www.theaudiobeat.com/visits/shunyata_visit_interview.htm?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_content=%25%25xtlinkname%25%25&utm_name=musicdirect+soundbytes+issue+%23492h+11-4-11
   
  does not give us the answer as like all cable makers, they fail to show a link between measurements that their cable is different and an audible improvement in sound quality. They do a lot of suggesting but then come out with reasoning like this.....
   
  "[size=x-small]Well, you and I know that in the context of a high-end system there are things that you can hear that you cannot measure. Measuring equipment is not up to the challenge of discerning very small differences that we can hear. And what audiophiles call big differences -- in reality if you could measure it, they are not big differences at all. They are small and they are subtle.[/size]
  [size=x-small]But look, when we were cavemen out in the forest and foraging for food and there’s a mountain lion out there, the slightest, subtlest auditory noise was the difference between life and death. You hear the snap of a twig and instantly the brain can calculate what direction it came from. How far it was. Was it a soft paw? Was it the hard paw of, for instance, a deer?[/size]"
   
  That plays straight to the high end, golden ear market and is nothing more than marketing fluff. It is not substantiated in any way. I would be convinced if [size=x-small]Shunyata Research the company who came out with the above were to submit their research for peer review, but like all audifile companies, they do not. Why is that?[/size]


----------



## JRG1990

If your worried about vibrations there are cheap solutions, http://www.audiovisualonline.co.uk/product/3968/fisual-adhesive-isolation-pads ,http://www.amazon.co.uk/Draper-30743-Vibration-Absorber-Mat/dp/B000UQ7CZK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=diy&qid=1301416721&sr=8-1 , packing foam also works well, I have some of them adhesive pads things under my laptop because the sub vibrates it's shelf and vibrations are good for harddrives, I have the packing foam which came with my sub under the sub which decouples the sub from the floor and the sub sounds a bit cleaner like this and this tweak costed nothing.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> "[size=x-small]Well, you and I know that in the context of a high-end system there are things that you can hear that you cannot measure. Measuring equipment is not up to the challenge of discerning very small differences that we can hear." [/size]


 

 That's always been one of my favorites.
   
  They make the claim, yet have NEVER demonstrated ANY instance where something has been shown to be audible but unable to be measured or detected by instruments.
   
  On the other hand, there are countless examples of differences that are trivially easy to measure or detect but completely escape human perception.
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I would regard stopping furniture and shelves from vibrating as room treatment. It is also completely irrelevant to the topic


----------



## barleyguy

The standard turntable rack for many techno gigs is a stack of concrete blocks.  The easy and effective solution to getting rid of acoustic vibration is simple: mass.
   
  The concrete blocks are a lot cheaper than $6600 (about a decent used car cheaper), and undoubtedly work just as well.


----------



## Head Injury

They look pretty awesome in the living room, too.


----------



## DigitalFreak

Quote: 





head injury said:


> They look pretty awesome in the living room, too.


 


  If you have a little flare with interior decorating they actually do


----------



## uelover

Any idea where to get a cheap but equally good looking rack?
   
  I fancy a nice looking rack but I don't fancy trading in a Mac Pro+LED Screen and a LCD3 for it.


----------



## kiteki

Ikea
   
  get some lingonberry while you're at it


----------



## Pudu

prog rock man said:


> I now say that the answer to the original question is yes, they do matter, to some people some of the time in some systems. But they are not guranteed to work for anyone and even when they do the results will potentially be different for different people.






davebsc said:


> AGREED!!





So close! We were so so very close!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





willakan said:


> I just peered at the "Black Diamond Racing Feet."
> Any company that speaks about "component to cone synergy," or that some cones are warm and others more analytical, is patently obviously making crap up.


 

 Shrug. The MK4 cones are really nice for the money, and they won't deform like crappy Sobrothane feet. I don't care what marketing BDR has to use to sell them. It's the marketers job to make crap up. Have you never seen a commercial before?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Any idea where to get a cheap but equally good looking rack?
> 
> I fancy a nice looking rack but I don't fancy trading in a Mac Pro+LED Screen and a LCD3 for it.


 

 Stands and mounts carries nice looking racks that are very affordable.


----------



## Uncle Erik

uelover said:


> Any idea where to get a cheap but equally good looking rack?
> 
> I fancy a nice looking rack but I don't fancy trading in a Mac Pro+LED Screen and a LCD3 for it.




Make your own!

I picked up about 25 18" x 1 1/2" aluminum extrusions from a surplus shop cheap a few years back. Each has a center hole that can be tapped and threaded. Cut MDF, wood, glass, stone, etc., to length and drill holes so you can bolt on the extrusions, cut to length.

Oh, you can find extrusions at metal scrap yards, eBay, and plenty of places.

Like many other projects, I haven't done this yet. I'll pick up a house soon and make a rack that fits the room.

I'm considering making a few molds and casting concrete for the shelves. It'll be solid and there are some nice options for mixing concrete with various colors. Maybe even throw in some stones or ground glass to polish smooth. The total cost would be around $200-$250 for the extrusions, bolts and concrete.

If you don't want to use extrusions, look for angle irons and long, thick threaded rods. There are lots of options for building racks. Look for surplus parts and be creative. There's no need to drop four figures on a rack.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Make your own!
> I picked up about 25 18" x 1 1/2" aluminum extrusions from a surplus shop cheap a few years back. Each has a center hole that can be tapped and threaded. Cut MDF, wood, glass, stone, etc., to length and drill holes so you can bolt on the extrusions, cut to length.
> Oh, you can find extrusions at metal scrap yards, eBay, and plenty of places.
> Like many other projects, I haven't done this yet. I'll pick up a house soon and make a rack that fits the room.
> ...


 

 Or you could just buy a rack for $200-300. See above.


----------



## rawrster

Right now I have a spc wire cable for my Hifiman HE-500. I do not notice any difference between that cable, the stock HE-500 cable and the HE-4 cable. I no longer own the stock HE-500 cable but between the HE-4 and spc cable I can't really hear anything. Also I feel my rig should be adequate as I use it with a Yulong D100 dac and Violectric V200 amp. 
   
  I do wish I heard a difference but I am unable to although I do appreciate the qualities of an aftermarket cable such as build quality, a better plug as well as length of cable being customized to your liking.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Wishing you can hear a difference and wondering if your kit is good enough is falling into the audiophile marketing trap that makes people want to buy more cables and more expensive kit.
   
  The alternative, which is very real and is backed by evidenced, corroborated science, is that what you are hearing, i.e. no difference is what in reality a cable in itself can do, have no effect on sound. That some do hear a difference is not wrong, it is a perfectly normal reaction to the power and influence of our senses.
   
  I would say that those who do not hear a difference have more accurate hearing than those who do. Imagine a wine tasting where there are two glasses of wines to try and some report differences and some report none. It is then revealed that the wines are in fact identical and out of the same bottle. Those who report no difference have the more accurate sense of taste.


----------



## uelover

I am in no way trying to make a connection about the following statement I am about to make in relation to cables. I do get the idea that you are trying to bring out but you need to fine-tune the statement a little =)
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Imagine a wine tasting where there are two glasses of wines to try and some report differences and some report none. It is then revealed that the wines are in fact identical and out of the same bottle. Those who report no difference have the more accurate sense of taste.


 
   
  1) Assume the above to be true.
   
  2) Consider then three glasses of wines, two from the same bottle and the other that is different. Dress them up and serve them in the same manner (same color, same glass).
   
  3) Those who reported no difference among the three glasses will violate point (1).


----------



## drez

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I would say that those who do not hear a difference have more accurate hearing than those who do. Imagine a wine tasting where there are two glasses of wines to try and some report differences and some report none. It is then revealed that the wines are in fact identical and out of the same bottle. Those who report no difference have the more accurate sense of taste.


 

 And most people probably cant tell between a merlot and a shiraz under blind conditions, but this doesn't mean there is no difference.  We have already I hope established that there are measurable effects of cables on electrical signals, and that these have measurable effects on audio quality.  
   
  There can be numerous reasons why someone can't tell the difference between cables, the most likely that the differences are too small to be readily detected, then there is the headphone, there is the transport, there is the DAC, there is the music selection, there is the acuity of a persons hearing. 
   
  I have no idea whether these are because of wire geometry, dielectric, braid geometry or the grade and gauge of wire used, but there are clear differences between the cables I have tested with my LCD-2 r.2, some as obvious as the treble presence or bass bloom, and others more subtle such as soundstage and textural qualities.
   
  I can also say that there are some cables I have tested, such as coax cables, where the differences were indistinguishable, but others have heard differences, maybe because their gear is better, maybe because they like to show off I cant know for sure.
   
  Believe me though, if I ever failed to hear these differences I would sell my cables as there are better ways to spend money.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I would say that those who do not hear a difference have more accurate hearing than those who do. Imagine a wine tasting where there are two glasses of wines to try and some report differences and some report none. It is then revealed that the wines are in fact identical and out of the same bottle. Those who report no difference have the more accurate sense of taste.


 

 'Fraid not. If you have never heard any differences between cables, this might lead you to believe that there are no differences between cables. Hence you're the smartest guy in the room with the best hearing. Wrong. You actually have the worst hearing (or critical listening skills) and you can't hear them. The same applies with your wine analogy. Take someone who knows very little about wine, and has tried only a few glasses. This person is given two very similar, but not identical glasses to try and reports "I think they taste about the same". Would you say he has the best taste, and everyone else that's reporting various fruits and bouquets are the fools? Of course not.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





uelover said:


> I am in no way trying to make a connection about the following statement I am about to make in relation to cables. I do get the idea that you are trying to bring out but you need to fine-tune the statement a little =)
> 
> 
> 1) Assume the above to be true.
> ...


 

 I do not see how they violate point 1. If you get it wrong, your sense of taste is worse than those who get it right, no matter how many glasses or types of wine are in the test.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I do not see how they violate point 1. If you get it wrong, your sense of taste is worse than those who get it right, no matter how many glasses or types of wine are in the test.


 


  Those who reported the two glasses of wines (which are actually the same) tasted the same may be accidentally reporting the truth - they could have tasting problem (not necessarily but possibly) because they may not be able to tell any difference when there are indeed differences.
   
  Of course, those who reported differences when there is none has poor sense of taste, but that does not necessarily imply that those who reported no differences have good sense of taste.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





drez said:


> And most people probably cant tell between a merlot and a shiraz under blind conditions, but this doesn't mean there is no difference.  We have already I hope established that there are measurable effects of cables on electrical signals, and that these have measurable effects on audio quality.
> 
> *I have been arguing that there is a difference for a long time now and what we should be looking at is what causes the difference. We have not yet established the measureable differences are directly linked to sound quality. Please correct me with evidence if that is wrong. I have been arguing there is a missing link for some time now where no one can should a direct, evidenced and testable link between different cable measurements, construction type and even cost and differences in sound quality. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> 'Fraid not. If you have never heard any differences between cables, this might lead you to believe that there are no differences between cables. Hence you're the smartest guy in the room with the best hearing. Wrong. You actually have the worst hearing (or critical listening skills) and you can't hear them. The same applies with your wine analogy. Take someone who knows very little about wine, and has tried only a few glasses. This person is given two very similar, but not identical glasses to try and reports "I think they taste about the same". Would you say he has the best taste, and everyone else that's reporting various fruits and bouquets are the fools? Of course not.


 

 I have heard differences between cables, where you and I differ (I think ) is what causes that difference. I do not think it is caused by the cable itself, its construction, its electrical properties or anything else inherant in it. You are arguing from an unproven starting point that there are audible sound quality differences inherant in a cable.
   
  If some one is given similar, but not identical glasses of wine and states they are the same, their sense of taste is worse than someone who states that they are different. You are now making straw man arguments to support your case.


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> 'Fraid not. If you have never heard any differences between cables, this might lead you to believe that there are no differences between cables. Hence you're the smartest guy in the room with the best hearing. Wrong. You actually have the worst hearing (or critical listening skills) and you can't hear them. The same applies with your wine analogy. Take someone who knows very little about wine, and has tried only a few glasses. This person is given two very similar, but not identical glasses to try and reports "I think they taste about the same". Would you say he has the best taste, and everyone else that's reporting various fruits and bouquets are the fools? Of course not.


 

 This is nothing about you, but that post is an encapsulation of the attitude that leads many people (perhaps rightfully) to consider audiophiles haughty, condescending, and largely clogged with BS. Oh, that and the blithe dismissal of the same testing method used as the basis for most of our understanding of modern medicine.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





drez said:


> And most people probably cant tell between a merlot and a shiraz under blind conditions, but this doesn't mean there is no difference.


 

 It should be pointed out yet again that double blind testing is routinely done in the wine tasting world.
   
  Quote: 





> We have already I hope established that there are measurable effects of cables on electrical signals, and that these have measurable effects on audio quality.


 
   
  What measurable effects are those, exactly?
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The fact is I can evidence, with scientifically recognised and repeatable tests what I am saying about cables and how they work. The others cannot and rely on unproven theories.
   
  DaveBSC, since your names suggests you have a scientific degree, why don't you come back at us with some real science?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Make your own!


 


  I realised that it is in many cultures to get your hands dirty and do some awesome DIY jobs. It is a little tough to do that over here. I will try to see what I can get but I think that sourcing for woods and sawing materials alone is pretty tough over here


----------



## Tilpo

prog rock man said:


> The fact is I can evidence, with scientifically recognised and repeatable tests what I am saying about cables and how they work. The others cannot and rely on unproven theories.
> 
> DaveBSC, since your names suggests you have a scientific degree, why don't you come back at us with some real science?



If you say you have evidence can you show it to us? I'm on your side, but just saying you have evidence without actually showing it is nothing more than pure bluff.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/sra/craz.html
> 
> 
> I'm never visiting 6moons ever again.


 
   
  This is nuts... I work routinely with high mag (~100000x) electron microscopes whose support racks are not nearly so over-engineered. They have a big concrete base, then some thick rubber pads and springed feet for the main body. The inner body is suspended on a few more springs and air cushions. Footsteps in the room do not affect the images, but humming does. 
   
  If you want to stop vibrations from affecting your equipment, put it in a soundproof enclosure/room away from your speakers.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Evidence of the consistent results of blind comparison and ABX testing which shows no audible difference between cables when only the sense of hearing is used -
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
   
  There are thousands of cable reviews which show that when you do know what you are listening to people can hear a duifference, for example from the review magazine What Hifi?
   
  http://www.whathifi.com/reviews/accessories/audio-interconnects-analogue
   
  So we know that how well (and if)  we can hear a difference between cables is connected to whether or not we can see and know about any cable changes.
   
  Then there is the missing link between how a cable is made and sound quality
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link
   
  where there is total inconsistency between how a cable is made and what from and sound quality improvement claims. Furthermore, measurements put forward by the cable companies are not linked to sound quality.
   
  There is also evidence of the complete lack of peer reviews of cable company claims by reputable scientific bodies such as universities. Why do cable companies not do that? There could be one reason
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/533881/russ-andrews-forced-to-withdraw-a-claim-about-power-cables
   
  Russ Andrews and Kimber could not makes claims in advertisments of improved sound quality because of rejection of RFI, because they could not show a link between the two. Another example of a failure to take a scientific approach is here
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/553255/the-null-testing-thread
   
  where I showed a test that was positive for a cable showing a clear audible difference and a means for cable believers to do their own tests and come back with results showing an audible difference. I am still waiting. Cable companies have to resourt to suggestion and psuedoscience to put forward their claims. That should ring alarm bells with everyone.
   
  Then there are examples where cables have been tested and there is no link to audible sound quality differences, which corroborates the above evidence.
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/533703/hdmi-cables-either-work-or-they-do-not-work-otherwise-they-are-all-the-same
   
  http://www.ethanwiner.com/audibility.html
   
  http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page1.html
   
  and the tests done by the forum member Nick_Charles.
   
  Add to that how we can link the senses and show that they interact and how even taste can change hearing
   
  http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=4190
   
  plus all of the existing knowledge science has of the power of placebo, buyer justification and a whole host of known effects
   
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
   
  that cannot be ignored as no one is immune from them.


----------



## Willakan

I fear the "Prog Rock Man Believes in Cables Being Magic!" celebration from the cable crowd (even an admin dropped by to conduct him into the fold!) may have been premature


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I was wondering 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I think that people thaught that because I say that cables sound different to some people some of the time in some kit means I also think that cables themselves cause the difference. 
   
  The only ways a cable itself causes a difference is when an audiophile thinks it makes a difference, which results in the very real perception that it makes a difference. I am sure the opposite is true as well and people can talk themselves out of hearing a difference. Or when the cable affects volume by resistance and slightly louder sounds better.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I am sure the opposite is true as well and people can talk themselves out of hearing a difference.


 

 Which is why it's so important for cable _believers_ to participate in blind tests.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

They do tend to melt away when asked to stop theorising and philosophising and to start evidencing and testing. Audiophile cable companies, with a few exceptions such as Q-Audio and Blue Jeans are also part of this flight from science, which is so eloquently questioned in my signature.


----------



## DigitalFreak

Don't know why everyone wants to debate the issue. Cables whether you choose to admit it or not don't make a difference. The fact people work themselves up into a mental placebo effect doesn't change the fact cables don't make a difference. Admit it everyone the world of hi-fi is avoided by the average Joe/Jane Blow because they think the money spent for the sonic returns is idiotic, which it is. The fact that snake oil salesmen are embraced and coddled by the audio enthusiast only serves to make this hobby more ridiculously overpriced. I blame the snake oil salesmen greed as well as the greed of the  audio companies for putting the world of hi-fi into the realm of the elitist rich who equate sonic excellence with owning the most expensive system they can buy. It happened in the hi-fi world and it's beginning to happen in the head-fi world.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Which is why it's so important for cable _believers_ to participate in blind tests.


 


  its not a belief, its fact. i can hear the difference between a cheap radio shack cable vs. higher end cables of different tiers. i can also tell if they have silver or they're just copper.
   
  of course, it takes a good ear to hear the difference.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Dubstep Girl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> its not a belief, its fact.


 

 I'm sorry, but it has not been established as fact. And what you're doing here is little more than prosthelytizing a religious belief.
   
  This is the Sound Science forum. Please take it elsewhere.
   
  se


----------



## Armaegis

For curiosity sake, I did recently measure a steel vs copper vs silver cable. Draw from that what you will.
http://www.head-fi.org/gallery/album/view/id/48568/user_id/136355


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> its not a belief, its fact. i can hear the difference between a cheap radio shack cable vs. higher end cables of different tiers. i can also tell if they have silver or they're just copper.
> 
> of course, it takes a good ear to hear the difference.


 
   
   
  What causes you to be able to do that?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> For curiosity sake, I did recently measure a steel vs copper vs silver cable. Draw from that what you will.
> http://www.head-fi.org/gallery/album/view/id/48568/user_id/136355


 


  Could you interprite the differences for us please. From what I can make out going by the right hand scale, the differences are well below what is audible.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> I'm sorry, but it has not been established as fact. And what you're doing here is little more than prosthelytizing a religious belief.
> 
> This is the Sound Science forum. Please take it elsewhere.
> 
> se


 
  science of the unknown. learn from it rather than mingle around with what has already been established.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> If you want to stop vibrations from affecting your equipment, put it in a soundproof enclosure/room away from your speakers.


 


  Ah, but then you have to run extremely long cables, and no one wants that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. It's also a bit of chore to have to leave the room to load a different CD or LP. Spending $1,000+ per shelf is overkill. Does anyone need a $60K pair of Boulder 2050 monoblocks? No, that's overkill. I'm not going to stop anyone from trying to buy a pair though, if you want *the best* you have to pay for it. That bit of concrete, rubber, and springs is probably not that effective against high SPL in the single digit range of Hz.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

just upgraded my digital coax cable that goes from my vlink to my dac.
   
  immediately i noticed the bass on my beyers tightened up and dynamics improved.


----------



## Rebel975

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> of course, it takes a good ear to hear the difference.


 


   
  You certainly have better ears than me! I detected absolutely no difference going from the stock HE-500 cable to the HE-6 OCC cable.
   
  I praise the Audio Gods for not cursing me to hear a difference between 99% pure copper and 99.9999% pure copper.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> just upgraded my digital coax cable that goes from my vlink to my dac.
> 
> immediately i noticed the bass on my beyers tightened up and dynamics improved.


 

 Dubstep Girl, in Sound Science we ask why? So why do you think, with evidence to back up your claims, that the cable is responsible for making such a difference?
   
  Repeatedly telling us what we already know, that you can hear a difference between cables is useless to what is under discussion here.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Dubstep Girl, in Sound Science we ask why? So why do you think, with evidence to back up your claims, that the cable is responsible for making such a difference?
> 
> Repeatedly telling us what we already know, that you can hear a difference between cables is useless to what is under discussion here.


 


  you would have to hear it for yourself, if you can't hear it, your hearing is flawed.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

So my hearing is not flawed as I have heard differences in cables.
   
  What causes you to hear differences (with evidence please) ?


----------



## DigitalFreak

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> you would have to hear it for yourself, if you can't hear it, your hearing is flawed.


 


  A rather arrogant statement don't you think? By the way so that you know usually the first audio frequencies to be effected by a flawed cable is the upper frequencies. What that means is if fancy cables really made a difference the first thing you would notice should be the upper treble and maybe better detail in the upper mids. Interesting how so many cable believers always comment on improved bass when it's the lower frequencies that's supposed to be the least effected by cables. As for dynamics your audio source plays the key component when it comes to dynamics that and depending on your gear proper amping.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> So my hearing is not flawed as I have heard differences in cables.
> 
> What causes you to hear differences (with evidence please) ?


 


  i just do.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Could you interprite the differences for us please. From what I can make out going by the right hand scale, the differences are well below what is audible.


 

 Silver and copper are generally pretty close. The steel and "long" (cheap radio shack interconnect) tend to vary a bit more. Crosstalk/noise/distortion products vary from 3-6dB higher. I also had to turn the volume a tiny bit higher for them in order to volume match. There was also seemingly a slight difference in resistance measurement, but I've got a cheap DMM which is not accurate at all down at those levels so it isn't conclusive. I don't know how much of that resistance would be from the jacks vs the wire itself. It's also not the same as impedance, and I have no way to measure capacitance or inductance either.
   
  *shrug* I'm a skeptic and I'm attempting to A/B to see if I can hear a difference. Unfortunately, the silver cable crapped out so I'm waiting for a replacement. 
   


  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Ah, but then you have to run extremely long cables, and no one wants that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I actually wouldn't consider it too far fetched to build a small separate partition in a room to place all your gear... if you're playing in the league where you'd consider thousand dollar stands, you probably have the space and funds to build an acoustic partition. Like a mini-studio of sorts, and run the relevant speaker cables out through a channel in the wall sealed off with a foam block. As a bonus, it'd give you a place to listen to open backed headphones when there's too much outside noise. 
   
  As for me, I'd probably build (more like stack) a rack from plywood and bricks, then drape a heavy cloth over top


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> just upgraded my digital coax cable that goes from my vlink to my dac.
> 
> immediately i noticed the bass on my beyers tightened up and dynamics improved.


 


  Your experience is good to hear, and I cannot argue with it. But it is NOT evidence, or science, or fact (in and of itself). It is your subjective experience, and nothing more. 
   
  Until you have something that is objective, repeatable, and doesn't go *against* the science and existing evidence, you are going to have to understand when we don't accept your impression of your cables, as a fact. 
   
  Your repeated claims are not any more useful or compelling than someone repeatedly shouting that they can see a ghost in their room... but only when they are alone, and it can't be recorded on film or video to be independently verified (and if we can't see it, it's because our eyes are broken) ... so we have to take their word for it that it's a fact it exists.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





grimsterr said:


> It must have changed 1s and 0s to 3s and 2s.


 

 Indeed! Reflections caused by impedance mismatch and insertion loss don't exist! It's all 1s and 0s because I say it is.


----------



## Willakan

Now, what measurable effect do these reflections have on the output of a given DAC? Getting cables with the right characteristic impedance (save the jacks) is very cheap and easy anyway - I bought a well-built, name-brand (not audiophile name brand, just a company a bit like a UK Monoprice) 75ohm coax cable for about £3.50 with postage.


----------



## comperic2003

Quote: 





digitalfreak said:


> @Steve Eddy
> @kiteki
> @Parall3l
> 
> ...


 
   
  Give it a rest.  This is the Science Forum--your god, your blessings and your white knighting have no place here.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> I actually wouldn't consider it too far fetched to build a small separate partition in a room to place all your gear... if you're playing in the league where you'd consider thousand dollar stands, you probably have the space and funds to build an acoustic partition. Like a mini-studio of sorts, and run the relevant speaker cables out through a channel in the wall sealed off with a foam block. As a bonus, it'd give you a place to listen to open backed headphones when there's too much outside noise.
> 
> As for me, I'd probably build (more like stack) a rack from plywood and bricks, then drape a heavy cloth over top


 
   
  Shrug, that's just not how most people do it, including the people that actually make the stuff. I don't think YG's chief engineer and founder bought Stillpoints stands for his Krell's because he's a sucker who fell for their marketing fluff.


----------



## fatcat28037

This is a previously poster link http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/sra/craz.html I read it. It broke my BS meter. How can these people sleep at night?
   
  They really should share some of what they're smoking when they write these reviews.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Shrug, that's just not how most people do it, including the people that actually make the stuff. I don't think YG's chief engineer and founder bought Stillpoints stands for his Krell's because he's a sucker who fell for their marketing fluff.


 
  The best sales people are those who truly believe their own sales pitches ... that doesn't make them true. He's in an industry partially built on the margins from these products - how would it look if he said, "ok.. this bit of psuedo science is real, but this is not... not that we have actual evidence to make the distinction, you see... "

 He *has* to buy into that crap, or he invalidates half of what puts the bread on the table.
  
  Alternately, they were a freebie, or industry swap. Product placement and all.


----------



## Head Injury

I think this is my favorite passage:
   


> [size=small]Due to the presence of sonic colorations from materials such as acrylic, glass, carbon fiber etc, Kevin went 'whole hog' to construct each shelf on the Craz Rack from a special nano-particle material that is designed around a complex [/size]_[size=small]irregular void matrix[/size]_[size=small]. The voids around each nano particle are predetermined air pockets. This highly specified technology ameliorates structure-borne vibration.[/size]


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> just upgraded my digital coax cable that goes from my vlink to my dac.
> 
> immediately i noticed the bass on my beyers tightened up and dynamics improved.


 

  
http://www.metatube.com/en/videos/32132/Bird-is-the-Word-Family-Guy/


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> The best sales people are those who truly believe their own sales pitches ... that doesn't make them true. He's in an industry partially built on the margins from these products - how would it look if he said, "ok.. this bit of psuedo science is real, but this is not... not that we have actual evidence to make the distinction, you see... "
> 
> He *has* to buy into that crap, or he invalidates half of what puts the bread on the table.


 

 Wow, that's stunning. I'm sure he goes around just throwing away thousands of dollars all day, right, to make himself feel better? What kind of nonsense is that? This is YG's own listening room. Normally no one ever sees it. You don't think maybe he has a bit of a better ear than _you_, and might feel that isolating his amplifiers gives him a better, more accurate baseline to develop new models? Nope. He buys them because he's a BS artist, and BS artists know BS artists, and so he wastes money willy nilly because that supports the industry, or something. I don't think I even understand the conspiracy theory here.


----------



## DigitalFreak

Quote: 





comperic2003 said:


> Give it a rest.  This is the Science Forum--your god, your blessings and your white knighting have no place here.


 


  I see from your profile you're a new member with only 18 posts in this forum. I suggest in future you watch what you post because the life span of trolls is very short here. Unlike other forums our mod's are quite active on here and don't take kindly to new forum members posting rude and insulting posts. I suggest you grow up  and show some maturity. Being rude only serves to make you look like a buffoon and does little to endear you to other members on here. Being polite and showing respect to others is a trademark that shows a person to be well rounded. Welcome to head-fi I hope you enjoy your stay try not to step on anyone else's toes in the near future.


----------



## liamstrain

I posited an alternate as well (industry trade/freebie).
   
  And again, he may believe they have an effect. It's not BS to you, if you think it's true. My point is, that doesn't MAKE it true. Until I see testing and science to back it up, then I'm skeptical. I actually think there is a lot of merit in isolated, solid racks. But I do not think you need to spend big money to get there. It very quickly (like with cables) moves from "that makes sense" to "that's just crazy talk."
   
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> You don't think maybe he has a bit of a better ear than _you_


 
   
  Maybe. Maybe not - I was a professional musician for a while and have very good ears. *shrug* Show me the science.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I posited an alternate as well (industry trade/freebie).
> 
> And again, he may believe they have an effect. It's not BS to you, if you think it's true. My point is, that doesn't MAKE it true. Until I see testing and science to back it up, then I'm skeptical. I actually think there is a lot of merit in isolated, solid racks. But I do not think you need to spend big money to get there. It very quickly (like with cables) moves from "that makes sense" to "that's just crazy talk."


 

 Product placement for a room that no one but YG employees ever see or use. That's smart advertising right there. Have any evidence that Stillpoints hands out stuff for free?


----------



## liamstrain

Have any evidence YG didn't give one away as a doorprize to last year's holiday party? There are LOTS of possible reasons he has them. His choosing them (if it was a choice) doesn't prove anything regarding their performance. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Tilpo

head injury said:


> I think this is my favorite passage:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh wow. When I read that I didn't actually feel as if I got any sensible information, to quote my physics teacher "It's just like going to Mc Donalds. You think you've eaten something, but you're not quite sure."
Also I had to look up 'ameliorate' (who uses that word anyway?)

Let's look at the terms:
_nano-particle:_ Aren't all particles microscopic?

_sonic colorations_: Why would these materials color the sound? At least try to elaborate such a key point

_complex irregular void matrix:_ Isn't that just basically random holes?

_"The voids around each nano particle are predetermined air pockets"_ Isn't in materials such as that a void not per defintion an air pocket?

_"This highly specified technology ameliorates structure-borne vibration."_ So it just reduces vibration?​


----------



## Head Injury

I'm going to make a rack of high-tech material with empty space between atomic nuclei, in order to eliminate the effects of electromagnetism and strong force on vibrations.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





head injury said:


> I'm going to make a rack of high-tech material with empty space between atomic nuclei, in order to eliminate the effects of electromagnetism and strong force on vibrations.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Have any evidence YG didn't give one away as a doorprize to last year's holiday party? There are LOTS of possible reasons he has them. His choosing them (if it was a choice) doesn't prove anything regarding their performance. That's all I'm saying.


 

 Do you agree that if the Stillpoints stands were _completely useless, _YG probably wouldn't bother to have them in their listening room? I'm not saying that they are the best engineered anti vibration devices in the world, or that they make earth shattering, night/day improvements over a less expensive amp stand. I'm just saying that they do something that is of some value to YG for them to be in the listening room. For the record, not everybody uses stands. From the photos I've seen, Dave Wilson has his VTLs and Andy Payor has his Gryphons on the floor. Magico and Egglestonworks use traditional racks in their rooms, and Verity uses what appear to be custom made stands for their stuff.


----------



## Tilpo

head injury said:


> I'm going to make a rack of high-tech material with empty space between atomic nuclei, in order to eliminate the effects of electromagnetism and strong force on vibrations.



I'm going to dampen vibrations using the meissner effect, and a ton of liquid helium.
I shall make the components float in the air, right where those nasty vibrations can't get 'em!

Then you are just left with electromagnetic interference and air vibrations... I'm thinking 3 inches of solid lead?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote:  





> Then there's jitter, from the cable, which is more pseudo-science.


 

 What's "pseudo" about it? Both jitter and reflections caused by impedance are quite easily measurable.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Then you are just left with electromagnetic interference and air vibrations... I'm thinking 3 inches of solid lead?


 

 X-rays and gamma rays are a leading cause of treble grain. The lead would do you good.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Do you agree that if the Stillpoints stands were _completely useless, _YG probably wouldn't bother to have them in their listening room? I'm not saying that they are the best engineered anti vibration devices in the world, or that they make earth shattering, night/day improvements over a less expensive amp stand. I'm just saying that they do something that is of some value to YG for them to be in the listening room.


 


  Sure. They appear to hold the equipment very effectively.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Sure. They appear to hold the equipment very effectively.


----------



## Head Injury

And good DACs should reclock the signal anyway.


----------



## Nom de Plume

I doubt they would bite the hand that feeds them.
  
  Quote: 





fatcat28037 said:


> This is a previously poster link http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/sra/craz.html I read it. It broke my BS meter. How can these people sleep at night?
> 
> They really should share some of what they're smoking when they write these reviews.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





grimsterr said:


> If you knew anything, you'd know those things don't make it to the DAC chip itself.  If you lose a bit due to timing, you lose that whole sample.


 

 So in other words, the S/Pdif output from a $50 Walmart DVD player will sound EXACTLY THE SAME as the AES output from a $24K Boulder 1021. It's 1s and 0s, and any timing errors which may exist (which don't exist because its all 1s and 0s, but if they did) will be wiped out by the DAC. I'm amazed that so many companies go to such lengths to create the ultimate CD transport, when their efforts are entirely useless because the DAC couldn't care less what kind of signal it's receiving. It just magically fixes everything. I'm amazed at the ignorance in this logic.
   
  All of this stuff might as well be cheese and crackers for all the difference it makes once it gets to the DAC right, that's how it works?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> So in other words, the S/Pdif output from a $50 Walmart DVD player will sound EXACTLY THE SAME as the S/Pdif output from a $24K Boulder 1021. It's 1s and 0s, and any timing errors which may exist (which don't exist because its all 1s and 0s, but if they did) will be wiped out by the DAC. I'm amazed that so many companies go to such lengths to create the ultimate CD transport, when their efforts are entirely useless because the DAC couldn't care less what kind of signal it's receiving. It just magically fixes everything. I'm amazed at the ignorance in this logic.


 

 That's right.
   
  I'm not really amazed at all that companies make "ultimate CD transport"s. They're selling them, aren't they?
   
  Using discs isn't exactly a fair comparison, though. Bad players will have problems that cause entire bits to drop, before they reach the DAC. Any competent HDD or SSD storage system like in a computer won't have that problem. Unless you're shaking your computer around while it reads, at which point you'll have more to worry about than sound quality.


----------



## tmars78

Some of the things I read in this thread, usually from believers, makes me think of this:


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> That's right.
> 
> I'm not really amazed at all that companies make "ultimate CD transport"s. They're selling them, aren't they?


 
   
  That's wrong. You have no idea how DACs, clocks, etc. work.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That's wrong. You have no idea how DACs, clocks, etc. work.


 

 Explain it to me then. I'm always on the look out for new information.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Oh wow. When I read that I didn't actually feel as if I got any sensible information, to quote my physics teacher "It's just like going to Mc Donalds. You think you've eaten something, but you're not quite sure."
> Also I had to look up 'ameliorate' (who uses that word anyway?)
> Let's look at the terms:  _nano-particle:_ Aren't all particles microscopic?
> _sonic colorations_: Why would these materials color the sound? At least try to elaborate such a key point
> ...


 

 You know what else is a nano-particle composite with a complex irregular void matrix?
   

   

  
  On a semi-related matter, on my way to/from work every day I drive past a place that makes cultured marble countertops. I've been considering for a while now to make speakers from the stuff...


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> science of the unknown. learn from it rather than mingle around with what has already been established.


 

 Again, take it someplace else.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> you would have to hear it for yourself, if you can't hear it, your hearing is flawed.


 

 This is just simply insulting.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Shrug, that's just not how most people do it, including the people that actually make the stuff. I don't think YG's chief engineer and founder bought Stillpoints stands for his Krell's because he's a sucker who fell for their marketing fluff.


 


  Why not? This is yet another logical fallacy; appeal to authority.
   
  se


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Wow, that's stunning. I'm sure he goes around just throwing away thousands of dollars all day, right, to make himself feel better? What kind of nonsense is that? This is YG's own listening room. Normally no one ever sees it. You don't think maybe he has a bit of a better ear than _you_, and might feel that isolating his amplifiers gives him a better, more accurate baseline to develop new models? Nope. He buys them because he's a BS artist, and BS artists know BS artists, and so he wastes money willy nilly because that supports the industry, or something. I don't think I even understand the conspiracy theory here.


 

 You're assuming YG paid full rack price for his stands.
   
  I'm going to out on a limb here and guess that Stillpoints stands are a high-margin item. In this case, the distributor would be incentivized to sell them at extreme discount or even give them away to those customers who might inspire other potential customers to buy them at full. I'm guessing the cost of manufacture of each of these stands is only a few hundred bucks (at MOST, unless they're making the worst vendor choices imaginable) so if you sell ONE set for every set you give away, you're still a hero.
   
  If I were in the snakeoil audiophile business, I'd ship a free copy of everything I ever made, along with roses and a personal letter, to Barry Diament. A single post from someone like him is going to give me more return than a full year's subscription to ads in any audiophile magazine, I'd wager. If I could get 5:1 return from someone like him, I could even pay HIM to take my stuff, which I imagine is not unheard of in the history of audiophile snakeoil sales. I could even give him a refund voucher if I wanted him to be able to report that he paid for my stuff at full list prices, which he would have, before receiving my cashier's check back.
   
  So yes, in summary, don't be impressed by celebrity endorsers.
   
  And yeah, I'm kind of in sales myself.


----------



## uelover

danroche said:


> If I were in the snakeoil audiophile business, I'd ship a free copy of everything I ever made, along with roses and a personal letter, to Barry Diament. A single post from someone like him is going to give me more return than a full year's subscription to ads in any audiophile magazine, I'd wager. If I could get 5:1 return from someone like him, I could even pay HIM to take my stuff, which I imagine is not unheard of in the history of audiophile snakeoil sales. I could even give him a refund voucher if I wanted him to be able to report that he paid for my stuff at full list prices, which he would have, before receiving my cashier's check back.
> 
> So yes, in summary, don't be impressed by celebrity endorsers.




Absolutely. It is wiser to rely on large numbers of user feedbacks on forums than on those 'professional reviews', not that user feedbacks are always reliable. 

I like items that are well designed and well engineered but I don't like to be cheated of my money through fake marketing.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Explain it to me then. I'm always on the look out for new information.


 


  Check out this article. I don't agree with all of the assertions made (for example I think BNC based 75 Ohm S/Pdif, when implemented properly, can match or exceed AES. Steve at Empirical agrees) in general though, it does a good job of laying waste to the canard that bits are bits and that DACs are the great equalizer.
   
  http://lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/TRANSPORT/CD_transport_DIY.html


----------



## Head Injury

Does it say anything about DACs and reclocking?


----------



## Anaxilus

So we have a post of measured deviations between cable compositions in clearly identified audible ranges of 3dB or more and 99% of you (save PRM) engage is BS OT conversation.  The majority of self proclaimed 'objectivists' and branded 'subjectivists' should just go troll each other in a more appropriate forum.  Oh wait, this is it.  My bad, carry on.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





danroche said:


> So yes, in summary, don't be impressed by celebrity endorsers.


 

 I didn't say that YG endorses Stillpoints. Unless I missed something, I didn't see a giant "YG uses only Stillpoints" sign in that room. Maybe because, as I've said, normally no one sees it. Advertising in a place nobody sees would be kind of stupid. This is supposed to be the scientific forum, so bring some evidence of your assertions. You believe that Stillpoints is just handing out their products to the movers and shakers in the industry. Prove it, or stop making things up.
   
  By the way, in their list of products they use to develop and sell their speakers - you'll notice that Stillpoints isn't on there. I guess the marketing guy at Stillpoints who gave them free racks must be pretty pissed about that. I wonder if the suppliers of YG's CNC machines handed those out too? Why not, they got a nice big fat link on the page! Worth it!
   
  http://www.ygacoustics.com/Content.aspx?lang=1&id=685


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> So we have a post of measured deviations between cable compositions in clearly identified audible ranges of 3dB or more and 99% of you (save PRM) engage is BS OT conversation.  The majority of self proclaimed 'objectivists' and branded 'subjectivists' should just go troll each other in a more appropriate forum.  Oh wait, this is it.  My bad, carry on.


 

 Unfortunately we can't make much of his measurements. He never did verify that they were repeatable, even though I asked a couple times for more graphs.


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I didn't say that YG endorses Stillpoints. Unless I missed something, I didn't see a giant "YG uses only Stillpoints" sign in that room. Maybe because, as I've said, normally no one sees it. Advertising in a place nobody sees would be kind of stupid. This is supposed to be the scientific forum, so bring some evidence of your assertions. You believe that Stillpoints is just handing out their products to the movers and shakers in the industry. Prove it, or stop making things up.
> 
> By the way, in their list of products they use to develop and sell their speakers - you'll notice that Stillpoints isn't on there. I guess the marketing guy at Stillpoints who gave them free racks must be pretty pissed about that. I wonder if the suppliers of YG's CNC machines handed those out too? Why not, they got a nice big fat link on the page! Worth it!
> 
> http://www.ygacoustics.com/Content.aspx?lang=1&id=685


 

 I didn't say YG was an exclusive Stillpoints endorser. I only suggested that maybe, just maybe, he didn't pay full rack rate for those stands. And again, if 1 or 2 customers pull the trigger on those stands because they see him using them (unless those pictures you posted were taken off a stolen camera, and never intended for public consumption) then that's enough to make it worth the while of the distributor, even if "normally no one sees it." In this thread, you've made the case that these stands are a good investment BECAUSE YG must like them. That's different than advertising.... how?
   
  And as for the last sentence of your first paragraph - did you mean that, or are you going for some "World Series of Irony" title here?


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





head injury said:


> though I asked a couple times for more graphs.


 

 Must have missed your relevant posts then.  I know Armaegis will report back.  Purrin and myself have been doing a few data collections and realized we needed to actually move beyond FR and CSDs to be able to offer anything more substantive wrt these 'topics'.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I was wondering
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 If we want to play scientist, we have to make sure our hypothesis are directly supported by specific data.  Let me explain:
   
  -blind test have not shown positive results for interconnects or speaker cables - hypothesis - differences were not clearly audible/discernable.  *Directly supported by the evidence.*
   
  -blind test have not shown positive results for interconnects or speaker cables - hypothesis - all claims to hear differences are caused by confirmation bias.  *Not directly supported by the evidence, requires significant extrapolation from other research.*
   
  -blind test have not shown positive results for interconnects or speaker cables - hypothesis - all claims to hear differences are caused by impedance curves.  *Likely hypothesis, but requires extrapolation from other research.*
   
  Personally I don't understand how level alone can explain some of the specific differences I hear between cables, seeing as I [personally] cannot reproduce all of them merely by adjusting the volume, nor by simple adjustment of an EQ.
   
  This would be interesting hypothesis to test out though - ie whether an equalizer can reproduce all the differences I claim to hear such as bass bloom, instrument proximity, timbre qualities (hard/soft), imaging qualities (focussed, diffuse, open, compressed)


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





drez said:


> If we want to play scientist, we have to make sure our hypothesis are directly supported by specific data.  Let me explain:
> 
> -blind test have not shown positive results for interconnects or speaker cables - hypothesis - differences were not clearly audible/discernable.  *Directly supported by the evidence.*
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  I agree that would be an interesting one. Even if you could replicate 90% of the differences with an equalizer, you'd be saving yourself, and possibly others, a great deal of money. But unfortunately not everyone knows how to use an equalizer properly. I admit, I was(still kinda am) one of those people. I have just now really started to teach myself how to equalize properly with help I have found on Head-Fi.


----------



## uelover

grimsterr said:


> Quote:
> 
> I would respect what they do if they could pull it off treating their workers with dignity, and if the quality of the goods were actually on par with the real stuff.




When that really happen, your country's economy will be on dangerous water.

The China now is different from what it was 5 years ago, and will be much more different in 10 years to come, considering how many of their students are occupying the top schools all around the world.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





drez said:


> This would be interesting hypothesis to test out though - ie whether an equalizer can reproduce all the differences I claim to hear such as bass bloom, instrument proximity, timbre qualities (hard/soft), imaging qualities (focussed, diffuse, open, compressed)


 

 It all depends on what you mean when you use those terms. They're a little vague at times.
   
  Bass bloom as I understand it could be recreated with strategic boosting of mid-bass, especially upper mid-bass in the 300 Hz range. Perhaps a roll off in sub-bass to keep perceived volume similar.
   
  Instrument proximity has a lot to do with volume at the frequency the instrument appears. That's where the terms "forward" and "laid back" seem to come from. That's one reason why Grados have a small sound stage, because they have a lot of boosted frequencies in the mid-range. Also because they're close to the ear.
   
  Soft timbre qualities could be the result of harmonic distortion (hence why tubes sound "smooth"). Hard timbre qualities could be the result of resonance and frequency response peaks. That's how purrin described the LCD-2's 9 kHz resonance, at least.
   
  I have absolutely no idea what your imaging qualities mean. However, I would imagine imaging is also directly related to peaks in frequency response, because peaks will make some notes appear louder (and thus closer) than others, leading to a "diffuse" image. I'd expect open and compressed are directly related to sound stage size, hence driver placement first and foremost and frequency response peaks in some ways.
   
  uelover, you're late to the party.


----------



## khaos974

While YG Acoustics seems to support cables and different tweaks to improve the sound of their speakers, it's not the case of every manufacturer.
   
  - Dunlavy, who was one of the most respected speaker manufacturer during his life didn't think much about audio cable, here's a what he thought.
  - Weiss, the lead designer of tthe eponymous company asserts that whatever comes before his DAC has no impact on the sound. He does sell a $4000 CD transport "that matches the quality" of his DAC, but as far as he's concerned, the sound would be the same as any other CD transport.
   


Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!



*http://ukiro.com/2011/05/12/interview-daniel-weiss/
 If you had a room and a system and choice of music that you have full control over, do you think you could tell a €200 CD player from a €15000 transport feeding one of your DAC’s?*
 I wouldn’t expect to hear a difference actually.
*Because of the jitter suppression?*
 Yes, provided of course that the data is read correctly.
*But who would ever need a Jason transport then?*
 (Laughs) …those who want to have the same design as the Medea, for instance. Or for using the upsampling feature or the volume control.


   
  PS: Go read the whole interview, it very interesting. IMHO, I think that Daniel Weiss makes solid gear that he sells at a premium price, some of it only to please to pander to the consumer and he's not ashamed to admit it (Medea vs Dac2 or the Jason transport), very refreshing.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> While YG Acoustics seems to support cables and different tweaks to improve the sound of their speakers, it's not the case of every manufacturer.
> 
> - Dunlavy, who was one of the most respected speaker manufacturer during his life didn't think much about audio cable, here's a what he thought.
> - Weiss, the lead designer of tthe eponymous company asserts that whatever comes before his DAC has no impact on the sound. He does sell a $4000 CD transport "that matches the quality" of his DAC, but as far as he's concerned, the sound would be the same as any other CD transport.


 

 Dunlavy did make interesting speakers, but talk about vice grip imaging. Yikes. Move your head an inch out of the sweetspot, and the image would completely collapse. I'd be curious as to what Rockport would have to say about why they use Transparent for internal wiring, or NOLA would say about why they use Nordost. I do admit that in those cases, there's at least the appearance of an obvious symbiotic relationship. The speakers look more impressive because they are wired with top shelf stuff, and the buyers of those speakers are more likely than not to buy the matching speaker cable to connect to their amplifier.
   
  Even if that's the case, it doesn't diminish the respect I have for Carl and Andy as engineers. Their speakers are some of the very best in the world.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> ...there's at least the appearance of an obvious symbiotic relationship. The speakers look more impressive because they are wired with top shelf stuff...


 

  
  Not to mention what has become an industry expectation of "high-end" wire. Branded cables on a no expense spared rig - regardless of actual sonic improvement, will appeal to that market. While it would be brave, and appreciated, if a well respected manufacturer came right out and said - "we didn't find any difference when testing, so we used the cheaper cable and dropped the price a few grand for you..." - I REALLY don't think we're going to see that kind of disclosure/honesty, from the industry left to their own devices.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Not to mention what has become an industry expectation of "high-end" wire. Branded cables on a no expense spared rig - regardless of actual sonic improvement, will appeal to that market. While it would be brave, and appreciated, if a well respected manufacturer came right out and said - "we didn't find any difference when testing, so we used the cheaper cable and dropped the price a few grand for you..." - I REALLY don't think we're going to see that kind of disclosure/honesty, from the industry left to their own devices.


 

 Or "we have found no improvements or drawbacks by using cable xxx, but since the manufacturer of cable xxx sells it to us at cost price, this gives us both nice cheap publicity."


----------



## drez

Quote: 





uelover said:


> When that really happen, your country's economy will be on dangerous water.
> The China now is different from what it was 5 years ago, and will be much more different in 10 years to come, considering how many of their students are occupying the top schools all around the world.


 


  We better not get political otherwise there is a serious chance this page might get blocked by a certain state run internet filter (that is if it isn't already)
   
  @headinjury thanks for the tips - I might have to try and find a good parametric eq plugin for Jriver.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Unfortunately we can't make much of his measurements. He never did verify that they were repeatable, even though I asked a couple times for more graphs.


 
   
  Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> Must have missed your relevant posts then.  I know Armaegis will report back.  Purrin and myself have been doing a few data collections and realized we needed to actually move beyond FR and CSDs to be able to offer anything more substantive wrt these 'topics'.


 

 Um, I don't recall anyone asking me for more graphs. I was just tossing gas on the fire. Album here... http://www.head-fi.org/gallery/album/view/id/48568/user_id/136355
   
  Tests done using computer headphone out looped back to the mic input, with a 75ohm dummy load. I did not specifically repeat the tests, though I did goof and forget to save a couple times so wound up repeating, and to my memory the results looked roughly the same.
   
  I am a cable skeptic, but I've got pretty good ears and am willing to test my hearing when my repaired cables comes in. I've also got a pretty strong metallurgy background, so that's gotta count for something either way. Or not. Whatever.


----------



## DigitalFreak

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Um, I don't recall anyone asking me for more graphs.* I was just tossing gas on the fire*. Album here... http://www.head-fi.org/gallery/album/view/id/48568/user_id/136355
> 
> Tests done using computer headphone out looped back to the mic input, with a 75ohm dummy load. I did not specifically repeat the tests, though I did goof and forget to save a couple times so wound up repeating, and to my memory the results looked roughly the same.
> 
> I am a cable skeptic, but I've got pretty good ears and am willing to test my hearing when my repaired cables comes in. I've also got a pretty strong metallurgy background, so that's gotta count for something either way. Or not. Whatever.


 


  Good to see a fellow arsonist on the thread.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Um, I don't recall anyone asking me for more graphs. I was just tossing gas on the fire. Album here... http://www.head-fi.org/gallery/album/view/id/48568/user_id/136355
> 
> Tests done using computer headphone out looped back to the mic input, with a 75ohm dummy load. I did not specifically repeat the tests, though I did goof and forget to save a couple times so wound up repeating, and to my memory the results looked roughly the same.
> 
> I am a cable skeptic, but I've got pretty good ears and am willing to test my hearing when my repaired cables comes in. I've also got a pretty strong metallurgy background, so that's gotta count for something either way. Or not. Whatever.


 

 I was under the impression he meant cheapskateaudio's graphs. We both should have been more clear.
   
  But while we're on the subject, care to demonstrate repeatability?


----------



## Armaegis

You mean my word ain't enough? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Kinda moot at the moment anyways since my silver cable is borked and I'm waiting on a replacement.


----------



## Head Injury

If you can explain the measured differences using your knowledge of metallurgy, that would work too.
   
  Were these cables all of the same construction?


----------



## Armaegis

steel - stock HD25-1-ii Adidas
  copper - stock HD25-13-ii (longer in length)
  silver - custom made
   
  As for measurement differences, well I don't even need strictly metallurgy to explain them. The steel cable had a slightly higher resistance, and I had to turn up my system volume a small notch in order to volume match. The copper and silver cable were at the same volume, despite the copper cable being longer. I'm sure there's going to be an inductance/capacitance difference as well, at least vs the steel, though I do not have the equipment to measure either. I suspect the copper and silver will be very close. 
   
  Whether or not any measured differences are audible... eh, I have my doubts, but I'm willing to try. Maybe if playing specific sine test tones and frequency sweeps, I might be able to pick out something vs steel when listening at the distortion peaks where the differences in measurement are greatest. It would be very difficult/impossible to do so with music playing. And even moreso with copper vs silver where the differences are very small... but like I said I'm going to give it a shot.


----------



## Armaegis

If I were to talk about metallurgy, um... I guess you'd have to consider the binding energy of the electrons in the outermost shells/orbitals, although a metallic bond doesn't really classify into the same types of atomic bond that you learn about in high school chemistry. Grain boundaries and orientations and specific crystal structures and dislocation density will also come into play. We'll just ignore the effect of alloying elements for now. All things considered though, none of those make a difference nearly on the same scale as using a different base material.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:  





> Maybe if playing specific sine test tones and frequency sweeps, I might be able to pick out something vs steel when listening at the distortion peaks where the differences in measurement are greatest. It would be very difficult/impossible to do so with music playing.


 
   
  There shouldn't be any meaningful differences in terms of distortion between the copper and the steel.
   
  Here are two distortion measurements made of a cheapie giveaway copper cable and a cable made with RG-59 which has a copper clad steel center conductor.
   
  Freebie:
   

   
  RG59:
   

   
  The only distortion is the residual distortion of the Audio Precision System Two Cascade which was used to make the measurements.
   
  se


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> There shouldn't be any meaningful differences in terms of distortion between the copper and the steel.
> 
> Here are two distortion measurements made of a cheapie giveaway copper cable and a cable made with RG-59 which has a copper clad steel center conductor.
> 
> ...


 

 That's because the PCB traces of the Audio Precision are made of cheap, low grade copper, if they were made of UltraPure Copper (TM), or BlessedUnderMoonLight Silver (TM), the AP system would have immediately hown the difference


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> That's because the PCB traces of the Audio Precision are made of cheap, low grade copper, if they were made of UltraPure Copper (TM), or BlessedUnderMoonLight Silver (TM), the AP system would have immediately hown the difference


 
   
  HA! Touche! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## Pudu

steve eddy said:


> There shouldn't be any meaningful differences in terms of distortion between the copper and the steel.
> 
> Here are two distortion measurements made of a cheapie giveaway copper cable and a cable made with RG-59 which has a copper clad steel center conductor.
> 
> ...





If you had used visuaphile quality ink and paper you'd be able to see the differences on those maps. On my home rig I can easily tell the difference. I've double blind tested it and I can still see the difference while wearing two blindfolds.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





pudu said:


> If you had used visuaphile quality ink and paper you'd be able to see the differences on those maps. On my home rig I can easily tell the difference. I've double blind tested it and I can still see the difference while wearing two blindfolds.


 

 Uh, I hate to tell you, but Saran Wrap doesn't make for an adequate blindfold. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> That's because the PCB traces of the Audio Precision are made of cheap, low grade copper, if they were made of UltraPure Copper (TM), or BlessedUnderMoonLight Silver (TM), the AP system would have immediately hown the difference


 

 Back when I was working on my master's thesis, I needed some pure copper for my experiments. My source? grabbed a handful of scrap copper wire from a construction site. Tossed it under the electron microscope for analysis... 99.95% pure. Good enough for me.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 [troll]That's because the internal wiring of the microscope wasn't made of PureCopper (tm) [/troll]


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Back when I was working on my master's thesis, I needed some pure copper for my experiments. My source? grabbed a handful of scrap copper wire from a construction site. Tossed it under the electron microscope for analysis... 99.95% pure. Good enough for me.


 

 Which is pretty much right on target for your basic Plain Jane ETP (otherwise referred to as "crappy" by some here) copper. Most of the rest is oxygen, which is used during the smelting process to scavenge impurities and take them out of solution which increases the conductivity of the copper to that of OFHC copper which must have a higher inherent purity to achieve the same conductivity because it can't use oxygen for scavenging.
   
  se


----------



## drez

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Which is pretty much right on target for your basic Plain Jane ETP (otherwise referred to as "crappy" by some here) copper. Most of the rest is oxygen, which is used during the smelting process to scavenge impurities and take them out of solution which increases the conductivity of the copper to that of OFHC copper which must have a higher inherent purity to achieve the same conductivity because it can't use oxygen for scavenging.
> 
> se


 

  
  So for the same purity level, am I understanding that ETP copper is more conductive than OFC?  Pretty interesting, I never knew that (then again this is not really my field.)


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





drez said:


> So for the same purity level, am I understanding that ETP copper is more conductive than OFC?  Pretty interesting, I never knew that (then again this is not really my field.)


 

 Not quite. What I said was that ETP copper, which is less inherently pure than OFHC copper, is AS conductive as OFHC.
   
  If you just leave the impurities in suspension, it would have a lower conductivity. But if you add a precisely controlled amount of oxygen during the smelt, the oxygen reacts with the impurities and takes them out of solution. And this results in a conductivity that's the same as OFHC which has a higher intrinsic purity.
   
  In other words, there's really no difference between the two as far as conductivity is concerned.
   
  The reason OFHC copper was developed was for situations where the copper may be heated in a reducing atmosphere such as hydrogen. Since ETP copper contains oxygen, it can react with the hydrogen which can cause the copper to become brittle. Since OFHC copper can't have any appreciable oxygen content, it has to have a higher intrinsic purity in order to be as conductive as ETP copper.
   
  Bottom line, with regard to audio applications, OFHC copper is just a marketing buzzword. I mean, Oxygen Free High Conductivity copper sounds sexier than Electrolytic Tough Pitch copper. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote:  
   
  So when companies like Sony and Sennheiser include OFHC cables on some their stock phones and IEMs you think they are doing it because some accountant and marketing tool figured out the cost of adding another form of cable to their manufacturing process would prove more profitable?  Seems the added complexity and inefficiency would do the opposite.  I for one know of not one person who ever bought a specific stock, off the shelf Sony or Sennheiser product because it used OFHC cable.  Most people that buy them don't even know there's a difference in the manufacture.  Probably 90% of HD800 owners I've run across didn't even know the stock cables use silver plated OFHC wire.  I'm not saying a cable does or doesn't sound like anything.  My point is that these larger applications don't seem to indicate any sort of marketing success by adding a different and more costly, less efficient process to their lineups.  So while that's a nice argument to make for smaller boutique shops that only sell cables, the same does not follow for larger manufacturers that go to the trouble of incorporating such processes when it offers them little to no marketing benefit to do so.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote:  





> I'm not saying a cable does or doesn't sound like anything.  My point is that these larger applications don't seem to indicate any sort of marketing success by adding a different and more costly, less efficient process to their lineups.  So while that's a nice argument to make for smaller boutique shops that only sell cables, the same does not follow for larger manufacturers that go to the trouble of incorporating such processes when it offers them little to no marketing benefit to do so.


 

 According to Mark Lawton, the stock cable that Denon uses for the D7000 (as opposed to the D2000/5000 cable) is really good. Mark says it's so good that he offers it as a swap for people who send in their D2000s to get modded. Denon makes a bit of a mention about the 7N-OFC cable they use, but they make no distinction between the cable used in any of three variants. If Denon is indeed using a larger, higher quality cable on the 7000, they make no attempt to advertise that. Could it be that... Denon just upgrades the 7000 cable because they think it sounds better?


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> According to Mark Lawton, the stock cable that Denon uses for the D7000 (as opposed to the D2000/5000 cable) is really good. Mark says it's so good that he offers it as a swap for people who send in their D2000s to get modded. Denon makes a bit of a mention about the 7N-OFC cable they use, but they make no distinction between the cable used in any of three variants. If Denon is indeed using a larger, higher quality cable on the 7000, they make no attempt to advertise that. Could it be that... Denon just upgrades the 7000 cable because they think it sounds better?


 

 Maybe they sound better because Sony, Sennheiser and Denon just go to the trouble of properly soldering the cables on those specific models.


----------



## liamstrain

Or is a heavier gauge and so has better impedance/capacitance specifications...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Maybe we could get you to evidence such, rather than make speculative claims


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Maybe we could get you to evidence such, rather than make speculative claims


 


  i believe him.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote:


dubstep girl said:


> i believe him.


 

  
  Based on what? His word? Denon doesn't say why they consider the cable an upgrade - assuming that it is sound reasons, rather than build quality reasons... or that the sound is as a result of a different material rather than better capacitance and impedance due to a larger conductor... is pure speculation. 
   
  It's ok to believe him - but we are in the sound science forum and no scientific claim, much less evidence for it has been presented. We're just asking for the reasons.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> So when companies like Sony and Sennheiser include OFHC cables on some their stock phones and IEMs you think they are doing it because some accountant and marketing tool figured out the cost of adding another form of cable to their manufacturing process would prove more profitable?  Seems the added complexity and inefficiency would do the opposite.  I for one know of not one person who ever bought a specific stock, off the shelf Sony or Sennheiser product because it used OFHC cable.  Most people that buy them don't even know there's a difference in the manufacture.  Probably 90% of HD800 owners I've run across didn't even know the stock cables use silver plated OFHC wire.  I'm not saying a cable does or doesn't sound like anything.  My point is that these larger applications don't seem to indicate any sort of marketing success by adding a different and more costly, less efficient process to their lineups.  So while that's a nice argument to make for smaller boutique shops that only sell cables, the same does not follow for larger manufacturers that go to the trouble of incorporating such processes when it offers them little to no marketing benefit to do so.


 

 Absolutely. Marketing contributes to saleability which is just another way of saying profitability.
   
  Quote: 





> Seems the added complexity and inefficiency would do the opposite.


 
   
  Don't know just what added complexity and inefficiency you're referring to here specifically. I mean, the company has to tool up for virtually every new model. Don't see that adding OFHC to the shopping list makes it any more complex and inefficient in any meaningful way.
   
  Quote: 





> I for one know of not one person who ever bought a specific stock, off the shelf Sony or Sennheiser product because it used OFHC cable.  Most people that buy them don't even know there's a difference in the manufacture.  Probably 90% of HD800 owners I've run across didn't even know the stock cables use silver plated OFHC wire.


 
   
  So then tell me, why do they even bother to mention it in their marketing literature? What exactly does OFHC bring to the table beyond a marketing buzzword?
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> According to Mark Lawton, the stock cable that Denon uses for the D7000 (as opposed to the D2000/5000 cable) is really good. Mark says it's so good that he offers it as a swap for people who send in their D2000s to get modded. Denon makes a bit of a mention about the 7N-OFC cable they use, but they make no distinction between the cable used in any of three variants. If Denon is indeed using a larger, higher quality cable on the 7000, they make no attempt to advertise that. Could it be that... Denon just upgrades the 7000 cable because they think it sounds better?


 

 I recently recabled both a D7000 and a D2000. Other than the D2000 being fitted with a 1/8" plug and the D7000 fitted with a 1/4" plug, I found no differences at all between the two cables.
   
  se


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Which is pretty much right on target for your basic Plain Jane ETP (otherwise referred to as "crappy" by some here) copper. Most of the rest is oxygen, which is used during the smelting process to scavenge impurities and take them out of solution which increases the conductivity of the copper to that of OFHC copper which must have a higher inherent purity to achieve the same conductivity because it can't use oxygen for scavenging.
> 
> se


 
   
  Actually when I measured 99.95%, that was excluding oxygen. The SEM I used lacked the ability to accurately detect/quantify elements that low so they were excluded from analysis. While I don't recall exactly, I think the impurities were mostly iron and aluminum, and probably a touch of sulfur.
   
  Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Not quite. What I said was that ETP copper, which is less inherently pure than OFHC copper, is AS conductive as OFHC.
> 
> If you just leave the impurities in suspension, it would have a lower conductivity. But if you add a precisely controlled amount of oxygen during the smelt, the oxygen reacts with the impurities and takes them out of solution. And this results in a conductivity that's the same as OFHC which has a higher intrinsic purity.
> 
> ...


 

 Surphur embrittlement is a problem too, though I think that's more a concern for steels and nickels.
   
  For ETP copper, I wonder if when the oxygen reacts with the impurities if the entire impurity is skimmed from the melt or if its left as a precipitate (which might actually be a strengthening mechanism I suppose).


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Uh, I hate to tell you, but Saran Wrap doesn't make for an adequate blindfold.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah but it's excellent for bondage...


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Yeah but it's excellent for bondage...


 


  i like your thinking


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> i believe him.


 


  I don't disbelive him. It is just that this is the Sound Science part of the forum and as a matter of principle I think if you have a theory, you should go look for some evidence to back it up.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Yeah but it's excellent for bondage...


 
  Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> i like your thinking


 

  
  Is this flirting in the sound science forum?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Is this flirting in the sound science forum?


 


  I need more evidence before coming to that conclusion.


----------



## Pudu

I need a shower.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





pudu said:


> I need a shower.


 

 Mind if I join you? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Is this flirting in the sound science forum?


 

  
  I'm going to need charts, graphs, and a series of double blind comparisons before I admit to anything substantial and concrete.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Head Injury

This is becoming one big orgy. For _science_.


----------



## Pudu

So, it would appear that most of the tension regarding Cable Hyp-E is actually a symptom of another issue that may, or may not, have something to do with cables.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





pudu said:


> So, it would appear that most of the tension regarding Cable Hyp-E is actually a symptom of another issue that may, or may not, have something to do with cables.


 


  Placebo Effect?


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





head injury said:


> This is becoming one big orgy. For _science_.


 

 You know, this is not the first time I've heard this phrase uttered...


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> You know, this is not the first time I've heard this phrase uttered...


 

 I'd love to see some charts and graphs


----------



## Parall3l

Now all I need is scientific evidence to back up this picture


----------



## dwinnert

If I like the song, I'll enjoy it on an AM radio.


----------



## Pudu

dwinnert said:


> If I like the song, I'll enjoy it on an AM radio.




I don't understand that particular euphemism . 

Now I'm getting a bit scared to return to this thread.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


>


 

 The fact is silver plated OFC copper is more costly and complex to incorporate into your lineup than using the same cable you use for all your other phones.  The accountants at Sennheiser would say one of three things:
   
1-the cable makes no audible difference, use the same cheaper cable.  Since they do use it, we can rule that out.
  2-the cable does do something according to the engineers, so use it.
  3-marketing the more expensive cable will yield greater profits over the greater costs of incorporating it.
   
  So the choice is either 2 or 3.  Now, IME and reading I know of not one instance where someone's HD800 purchase hinged on what cable it was using.  Maybe I just hang out w/ the wrong crowd but I've gotten no sense of #3 being the reasonable or sound choice though it is a valid one.  If you or they can show numbers supporting it then that's a different matter.  If you look at the website, it says this:
   
  "Specially tuned symmetrical, impedance matching cable with low capacitance"
   
  No mention of silver or OFC copper in the description.  No mention of composition in the speciifcations.  No mention of anything on the HD800 box.  You have to actually buy the phones, open the box and read the manual (p. 5) before you even see mention of silver plating or OFC copper.  So exactly what kind of marketing tactic involves making such claims about an audiophile feature after the purchase has already transpired?.
   
  Keep in mind I just had some time w/ the HD25II recently and they advertise steel cable for durability.  I never even knew about it till I got the phones and I doubt other HD25II owners did either till after the fact.  Those that had even read the box at all.
   
  Now you could be right, but with my experience and lack of any data to the contrary I've yet to be persuaded otherwise.  Sorry, I just don't see or hear of anyone buying the HD800 or HD25II based on what kind of cable they have. 
   
  Edit - Sorry for the OT.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> The fact is silver plated OFC copper is more costly and complex to incorporate into your lineup than using the same cable you use for all your other phones.  The accountants at Sennheiser would say one of three things:
> 
> 1-the cable makes no audible difference, use the same cheaper cable.  Since they do use it, we can rule that out.
> 2-the cable does do something according to the engineers, so use it.
> 3-marketing the more expensive cable will yield greater profits over the greater costs of incorporating it.


 

 You can email their accountants and let us know about their reply


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> The fact is silver plated OFC copper is more costly and complex to incorporate into your lineup than using the same cable you use for all your other phones.


 

 And the HD-800 is a more costly and complex headphone.
   
  Quote: 





> The accountants at Sennheiser would say one of three things:
> 
> 1-the cable makes no audible difference, use the same cheaper cable.  Since they do use it, we can rule that out.
> 2-the cable does do something according to the engineers, so use it.
> ...


 
   
  But the marketing is all part of a "package." It's not the singular buzzword that causes people to consciously tip the scales. It's the whole package of which the OFHC is just a part. Much of modern marketing goes after that which is below the conscious level. For an interesting read on this, check out Martin Lindstrom's Brandwashed: Tricks Companies Use to Manipulate Our Minds and Persuade Us to Buy.
   
  Quote: 





> If you look at the website, it says this:
> 
> "Specially tuned symmetrical, impedance matching cable with low capacitance"
> 
> No mention of silver or OFC copper in the description.  No mention of composition in the speciifcations.  No mention of anything on the HD800 box.


 
   
  Look on the HD-800 page on their website under "Premium Parts":
   
_The internals of the Kevlar-strengthened cables are made up of oxygen-free copper (OFC) material while the plugs are gold-plated and tinned with silver solder._
   
  There are three "audiophile" buzzwords in that section. Aerospace industry, oxygen-free copper and silver solder.
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> Now you could be right, but with my experience and lack of any data to the contrary I've yet to be persuaded otherwise.  Sorry, I just don't see or hear of anyone buying the HD800 or HD25II based on what kind of cable they have.


 

 I think the _vast _majority of buyers will buy a particular headphone because they like that headphone, not because of the cable used. You're not going to buy an Audi over a Mercedes because you prefer Audi's OEM tire choice. If you bother to mention your cable at all in your materials (which I don't think you need to do), something like "pure OFC copper" should be enough to persuade the tiny minority of shoppers that care about the cable at all, and small gauge pure OFC copper costs essentially nothing. Anybody who really cares about the cable is likely to replace whatever the stock cable is with an ALO or DHC anyway. Using more expensive copper and better insulators in your cable without telling anyone would seem to be completely senseless - unless you feel that they improve the sound of the headphone.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> You're not going to buy an Audi over a Mercedes because you prefer Audi's OEM tire choice.


 

 No, but you might convince yourself that you prefer the Audi because of any number of psychological factors that aren't directly related to its performance, including but not limited to the persuasion tactics and priming they use in advertising.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> No, but you might convince yourself that you prefer the Audi because of any number of psychological factors that aren't directly related to its performance, including but not limited to the persuasion tactics and priming they use in advertising.


 

 That may very well be true. Car buying is very often an emotional purchase, if it wasn't cars would probably still look like they did in the '80s. However, I think the analogy is still applicable. You buy a Mercedes over an Audi or vice versa because that's the car you want. As long as the car comes with a set of tires, that's good enough. Ultrasone loves to brag about their technologies, and they devote one sentence to the cable used on the Edition 10 for the few people who might care about that part. 
   
  As I said, anybody who really cares about the headphone cable is likely to toss the stock cable, no matter what it is.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





head injury said:


> No, but you might convince yourself that you prefer the Audi because of any number of psychological factors that aren't directly related to its performance, including but not limited to the persuasion tactics and priming they use in advertising.


 


  I purchased a new 1980 Mercedes 4 dr sedan 300 SD Turbo back in 1980 just because I loved the way it looked upon first sight. No one persuaded me, I saw no advertisements. I didn't even drive it first. It was a beautiful looking vehicle. I guess it was all emotional on my part or attraction to the design, or both. Not sure which.    Either way that car lasted me 21 years with no major breakdowns or repairs.  It had nearly 400,000 miles and was still running when I sold it.  Man I loved that vehicle.  One screwdriver fit all the screws in the car.  amazing suspension. and as I was to find out. Chicks really dug it. 
   
  But just to keep this thread on track I think the copper wire used in the audio system was just plain copper.  No special sonic attributes...


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> There are three "audiophile" buzzwords in that section. Aerospace industry, oxygen-free copper and silver solder.


 

  Which is actually wrong according to the manual.  It's silver plated OFC cable.  Imagine all the sales they've lost due to that error!


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I purchased a new 1980 Mercedes 4 dr sedan 300 SD Turbo back in 1980 just because I loved the way it looked upon first sight. No one persuaded me, I saw no advertisements. I didn't even drive it first. It was a beautiful looking vehicle. I guess it was all emotional on my part or attraction to the design, or both. Not sure which.    Either way that car lasted me 21 years with no major breakdowns or repairs.  It had nearly 400,000 miles and was still running when I sold it.  Man I loved that vehicle.  One screwdriver fit all the screws in the car.  amazing suspension. and as I was to find out. Chicks really dug it.
> 
> But just to keep this thread on track I think the copper wire used in the audio system was just plain copper.  No special sonic attributes...


 


  expensive audio cables are the same way, they look beautiful, and perform better than regular  cables as well.


----------



## Tilpo

dubstep girl said:


> expensive audio cables are the same way, they look beautiful, and perform better than regular  cables as well.



I don't know about performance, but for one thing a headphone with a cotton sleeved cable and nice contacts will look prettier than one with a cheap looking stock cable. 

If I were to produce headphones I think it might be a good idea not to get fancy audiophile cables, but rather get a good looking cable of high build quality. You're paying several hundred bucks for you headphones, and you often even get pretty packaging. So why can't the company spend the extra few bucks on a pretty cable?


----------



## Nom de Plume

Dubstep Girl, you certainly aren't prohibited from voicing your opinion, but I implore you to provide something substantial rather than a useless collection of one-sentence claims.
  The reason you repeatedly present these arguments while subsequently neglecting to provide any sound evidence continues to elude me. What do you aim to achieve?


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I don't know about performance, but for one thing a headphone with a cotton sleeved cable and nice contacts will look prettier than one with a cheap looking stock cable.


 

  You know what's funny?  At our recent local meet I asked where someone got their ratty ass cloth sleeved cables thinking they were cheap and I'd pick myself up some.  I was told they were $600+ used!  So much for my expectation bias.  Guess I didn't get the memo.


----------



## Tilpo

nom de plume said:


> Dubstep Girl, you certainly aren't prohibited from voicing your opinion, but I implore you to provide something substantial rather than a useless collection of one-sentence claims.
> The reason you repeatedly present these arguments while subsequently neglecting to provide any sound evidence continues to elude me. *What do you aim to achieve?*



Trolling? 

But I would have to agree. We respect the fact that you don't share our opinion, but it would be better for the discussion if you would give evidence to back up your claims.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> But just to keep this thread on track I think the copper wire used in the audio system was just plain copper.  No special sonic attributes...


 

 Very little thought was given to car stereos in the '80s. There may have been a Bose stereo here or there, but I don't think anyone gave it much thought. Unless I'm mistaken, Lexus was the first to break out of that mold with their Nakamichi branded premium stereo offerings. That opened the floodgates to what we have today - Mark Levinson, Naim, Bang and Olufsen, Lexicon, and Porsche's incredible Burmester system. I wouldn't be surprised if the Panamera stereo used something other than plain copper.


----------



## WarriorAnt

High end expensive cabling in a vehicle is where I draw the line and I'm pretty ridiculous in general. But I guess there are car audiophiles who feel they are worth it...


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> High end expensive cabling in a vehicle is where I draw the line and I'm pretty ridiculous in general. But I guess there are car audiophiles who feel they are worth it...


 


  unfortunately, i don't think much of the car audio market is targeted towards audiophiles. its all about watts and bass.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I put upgraded copper RCAs in rout to the sub amp sets in my wife's car. I swear I could hear a difference. She really does not seem like the type who would get into a booming car stereo but she is fully into it! 
   
  No matter what you do or who makes it, car stereo is still fully cheesy though. I guess that is what is so cool about it. It is like headphones with too much color.......wrong but still fun.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> I put upgraded copper RCAs in rout to the sub amp sets in my wife's car. I swear I could hear a difference. She really does not seem like the type who would get into a booming car stereo but she is fully into it!
> 
> No matter what you do or who makes it, car stereo is still fully cheesy though. I guess that is what is so cool about it. It is like headphones with too much color.......wrong but still fun.


 


  its all about the bass when it comes to cars. and im all about fun and wrong


----------



## Redcarmoose

Wrong fun FTW


----------



## Armaegis

Does anyone remember the Howard Sterm movie and the subwoofer scene?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> No matter what you do or who makes it, car stereo is still fully cheesy though. I guess that is what is so cool about it. It is like headphones with too much color.......wrong but still fun.


 

 At those SPL competitions where a bunch of idiots destroy their hearing for life, yeah it's dumb. The level of sound quality that can be achieved now in a car though is pretty incredible considering the space is so hugely compromised.


----------



## oatmeal769

See for yourself.  Using Foobar and the ABX comparator plug in, you can make ultra hi-def recordings with the cable as the only variable.  You will not score above guessing if you do enough (at least 10-12) attempts.

 I have a Zana Deux, and did it with a P.S. Audio DAC, a Zero DAC, and a Little Dot Dac.  using several different Zu interconnect cables (against a $3 radio shack RCA), and a Cardas, and Stephan Audio headphone cable (against the stock Sennheiser).  No difference to my ears - and that is not subjective, the AB-X tests proved it for me.

 The only time I can realistically tell a bona-fide difference is in comparing the Zana against my $150 Sony stereo receiver, or one of the DAC's headphone outputs.  Even then the differences aren't what I'd call night and day.

 Bearing all that in mind, I now seriously question - outside the aesthetic value - the $5K I have invested, when a > $1K system will easily sound identical.

 Your brain will believe what it wants.  Sometimes the only way to KNOW is through OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE research.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> unfortunately, i don't think much of the car audio market is targeted towards audiophiles. its all about watts and bass.


 

 That's funny, seeing how the biggest draw for Schiit amps and other similar amps is their ungodly and unnecessary amount of power.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Top post oatmeal769.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





head injury said:


> That's funny, seeing how the biggest draw for Schiit amps and other similar amps is their ungodly and unnecessary amount of power.


 


  the he-6 being the exception.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> the he-6 being the exception.


 

 No, not an exception. Lots of amps can power it fine. Half a watt will do in most cases.


----------



## Willakan

-doublepost-


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


oatmeal769 said:


> See for yourself.  Using Foobar and the ABX comparator plug in, you can make ultra hi-def recordings with the cable as the only variable.  You will not score above guessing if you do enough (at least 10-12) attempts.
> 
> I have a Zana Deux, and did it with a P.S. Audio DAC, a Zero DAC, and a Little Dot Dac.  using several different Zu interconnect cables (against a $3 radio shack RCA), and a Cardas, and Stephan Audio headphone cable (against the stock Sennheiser).  No difference to my ears - and that is not subjective, the AB-X tests proved it for me.
> 
> ...


   
  "This is wrong, because I heard it." Of course, such incidences of sighted listening where such preconceptions were formed are prone to about three different kinds of bias, but never mind, because it was heard.
   
  That hypothetical response is prettymuch the entire cable believer position, distilled down to its essentials. Everything else is just icing on an absurdly illogical cake in an attempt to make it metaphorically edible.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





head injury said:


> No, not an exception. Lots of amps can power it fine. Half a watt will do in most cases.


 


  won't it still sound underpowered though? like lacking bass and dynamics?


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Does anyone remember the Howard Sterm movie and the subwoofer scene?


 


  I never saw the movie but I did edit his first home video back in the mid 80's, and passed on his second "Butt Bongo Fiesta"...


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> won't it still sound underpowered though? like lacking bass and dynamics?


 

 If you can think of a valid reason why 110 dB (or 113 dB, which is still under 1 W) isn't enough for dynamics and bass volume at regular listening volumes, I'd love to hear it.
   
  As far as I'm concerned, this is just another audiophile misnomer to get people to spend more. Just like "high resolution" digital files, and cables.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





head injury said:


> If you can think of a valid reason why 110 dB (or 113 dB, which is still under 1 W) isn't enough for dynamics and bass volume at regular listening volumes, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this is just another audiophile misnomer to get people to spend more. Just like "high resolution" digital files, and cables.


 


  i can tell the difference between CD, 24/96, and 24/192. its not night and day, but its there.
   
  likewise, i can differentiate between cheap cables, copper cables, and silver cables.
   
   
   
  its not a way to make people spend more money,  its fact. some people can't hear it, and theres no solid evidence to prove theres a difference, you just have to hear it for yourself.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> i can tell the difference between CD, 24/96, and 24/192. its not night and day, but its there.
> 
> likewise, i can differentiate between cheap cables, copper cables, and silver cables.
> 
> ...


 

 Well, you'd think after so long there'd be solid evidence if it's a fact!


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> unfortunately, i don't think much of the car audio market is targeted towards audiophiles. its all about watts and bass.


 

 It's about the same percentage as it is for headphones and speakers.  Alpine's F#1 status Mercedes S-Class (pre-DVD-A version) is still one of the best auditory experiences I've ever had anywhere.


----------



## Rebel975

This thread is 61 pages too long. Here's how it should of gone:

Post 1) "ITT: Prove you can hear a difference between cables."

Post 2) Someone proves or fails to prove it in blind testing. 


The anecdotal evidence is killing me. What if I told you I could pick out variations of color down to .0001%? I'd get laughed out of the building after I listed off my anecdotal stories about seeing differences. ("Red #1 is so much redder than Red#1.0001... if you can't see it then your eyes are bad.")

Real measurements and testing only, please.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Well, you'd think after so long there'd be solid evidence if it's a fact!


 


  theres alot of things we could have evidence for already in this world.
   
  why we don't is a mystery, or just that its never been truly put to the test the way its supposed to be.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> theres alot of things we could have evidence for already in this world.
> 
> why we don't is a mystery, or just that its never been truly put to the test the way its supposed to be.


 
   
  Talk about vague. Got any examples?


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Talk about vague. Got any examples?


 


  i wish i did.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> theres alot of things we could have evidence for already in this world.
> 
> why we don't is a mystery, or just that its never been truly put to the test the way its supposed to be.


 


  But what about those things which *have* been put to the test "the way it's supposed to be" - and still have no evidence to support it, but have hundreds of people still claiming it? Using Occam's razor - which is more possible... that all the testing was flawed somehow, or that people are influenced by psychological factors into believing something that isn't *really* there? Certainly we have many many examples of the latter in this world.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





head injury said:


> If you can think of a valid reason why 110 dB (or 113 dB, which is still under 1 W) isn't enough for dynamics and bass volume at regular listening volumes, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this is just another audiophile misnomer to get people to spend more. Just like "high resolution" digital files, and cables.


 

 I don't have any real listening experience with the HE-6, but everything I've read says the more power the better, and if you're driving one with a 500mW headphone amp, you're cheating yourself. The Omega 2 which I do have experience with is similar. A 370V SRM-1 is enough to make it _loud, _but just being loud is different from good. Give it 500V+ and now you're talking. The O2 really doesn't get out of bed without at least 450V to play with.
   
  I've also read that the Apex Pinnacle hasn't got the guts to drive the HE-6, while the RSA Dark Star (at less than one third the price of the Apex) makes it sing. That would seem to invalidate your argument. People have also posted good results with affordable speaker amps.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I don't have any real listening experience with the HE-6, but everything I've read says the more power the better, and if you're driving one with a 500mW headphone amp, you're cheating yourself. The Omega 2 which I do have experience with is similar. A 370V SRM-1 is enough to make it _loud, _but just being loud is different from good. Give it 500V+ and now you're talking. The O2 really doesn't get out of bed without at least 450V to play with.
> 
> I've also read that the Apex Pinnacle hasn't got the guts to drive the HE-6, while the RSA Dark Star (at less than one third the price of the Apex) makes it sing. That would seem to invalidate your argument. People have also posted good results with affordable speaker amps.


 

 Good effort! Now we need something that's not entirely subjective and mostly word-of-mouth.
   
  How does price invalidate my argument? I'm not arguing price. Making a headphone sing subjectively is entirely different from driving them properly, and it has nothing to do with price or excessive amounts of power.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I don't have any real listening experience with the HE-6, but everything I've read says the more power the better, and if you're driving one with a 500mW headphone amp, you're cheating yourself. The Omega 2 which I do have experience with is similar. A 370V SRM-1 is enough to make it _loud, _but just being loud is different from good. Give it 500V+ and now you're talking. The O2 really doesn't get out of bed without at least 450V to play with.
> 
> I've also read that the Apex Pinnacle hasn't got the guts to drive the HE-6, while the RSA Dark Star (at less than one third the price of the Apex) makes it sing. That would seem to invalidate your argument. People have also posted good results with affordable speaker amps.


 


  +1


----------



## liamstrain

"I've read" - ok.. has anyone verified? Is there any evidence beyond anecdotal? What principle is at work that changes how a headphone performs with a more powerful amp, once nominal db/sensitivity needs are met? 
   
  I've read this as well, in relation to the AKG K701/702... and while I'm willing to hear it out, I still want to know why and see data before I accept it as true, rather than just a word of mouth bit of collective wisdom.
   
  *please note* - I'm not saying it's untrue. I'm asking for evidence it is, and an explanation why, because while I've heard it plenty, I don't understand what principle would make it so (tho I do have an analogy I think may partially explain it, the actual science would be appreciated.)


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> "I've read" - ok.. has anyone verified? Is there any evidence beyond anecdotal? What principle is at work that changes how a headphone performs with a more powerful amp, once nominal db/sensitivity needs are met?
> 
> I've read this as well, in relation to the AKG K701/702... and while I'm willing to hear it out, I still want to know why and see data before I accept it as true, rather than just a word of mouth bit of collective wisdom.
> 
> *please note* - I'm not saying it's untrue. I'm asking for evidence it is, and an explanation why, because while I've heard it plenty, I don't understand what principle would make it so (tho I do have an analogy I think may partially explain it, the actual science would be appreciated.)


 

 Take a given SPL, say 90dB. Now vary the frequency. 90dB at 10Hz requires _exponentially _more power than 90dB at 10KHz. There's a reason why bi-amplified active monitors have more powerful amps driving the bass driver as opposed to the tweeter. If you're measuring at 1KHz, 500mW may very well be plenty for the HE-6, but a 1Khz tone is not the same as music, and that 500mW may not be enough when those kettle drums kick in.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Take a given SPL, say 90dB. Now vary the frequency. 90dB at 10Hz requires _exponentially _more power than 90dB at 10KHz. There's a reason why bi-amplified active monitors have more powerful amps driving the bass driver as opposed to the tweeter. If you're measuring at 1KHz, 500mW may very well be plenty for the HE-6, but a 1Khz tone is not the same as music, and that 500mW may not be enough when those kettle drums kick in.


 

 So you're saying you don't get enough bass _volume_? That could be easily verified in blind tests, or even with graphs. At near its limits, an amp should roll bass off. I've never seen that, though.


----------



## Rebel975

Is the HE-6's sensitivity listed @ 1 watt or what?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





rebel975 said:


> Is the HE-6's sensitivity listed @ 1 watt or what?


 

 83 dB/mW (well, I think 83.5). 500 mW to reach 110 dB. Not too tall an order considering the low 50 ohm impedance, just have to be careful of high output impedance and amps that can't handle all that current.


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I don't have any real listening experience with the HE-6, but everything I've read says the more power the better, and if you're driving one with a 500mW headphone amp, you're cheating yourself. The Omega 2 which I do have experience with is similar. A 370V SRM-1 is enough to make it _loud, _but just being loud is different from good. Give it 500V+ and now you're talking. The O2 really doesn't get out of bed without at least 450V to play with.
> 
> I've also read that the Apex Pinnacle hasn't got the guts to drive the HE-6, while the RSA Dark Star (at less than one third the price of the Apex) makes it sing. That would seem to invalidate your argument. People have also posted good results with affordable speaker amps.


 


 I've heard the production HE-6 as well as the prototype on a variety of amps.  Without some serious power behind them, they frankly sound overdamped and lack any sort of bass impact.  I tried them on my CTH, which is plenty of power for just about any pair of headphones (any other one I've tried actually), and the HE-6's sounded pretty blah.  They really sound best on a speaker amp.
   
  Not sure the technical reason why they are that way, nor do I have any plans to argue about it.  But the anecdotal evidence is pretty much unanimous on the fact that they need buttloads of power.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I got the loan HE-6 that was doing the rounds a while back. Compared with my other headphones off my 1.3 watts into 32ohms X-CANV8P the HE-6 needed the volume control higher than most at 11.30. But, it sounded fine, just like all my other headphones and certainly not lacking in power, dynamics etc.
   
  I am also presently listening to some beautiful Q-Audio interconnects c/o Steve and I will get back to you all on $300 cables vs my own DIY interconnects made for about $30.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> But, it sounded fine, just like all my other headphones and certainly not lacking in power, dynamics etc.


 

 I'm not sure how you would gauge the HE6 being driven from speaker posts by referencing your other phones driven from HO.  Does not follow.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

so is it settled? the he-6s do need alot more power than 500mw to sound their best?


----------



## Willakan

Quote: 





dubstep girl said:


> so is it settled? the he-6s do need alot more power than 500mw to sound their best?


 
  Erm, no, it isn't settled, unless you really feel a few anecdotes are enough to settle things.


----------



## Tilpo

dubstep girl said:


> so is it settled? the he-6s do need alot more power than 500mw to sound their best?



I would argue that 500mW should be enough. 

However most audiophiles like to have a bit of headroom, making >2W a very attractive option despite being theoretically unnecessary.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> ...
> 
> I am also presently listening to some beautiful Q-Audio interconnects c/o Steve and I will get back to you all on $300 cables vs my own DIY interconnects made for about $30.


 

  
  Yeah, a cable comparison between a copper wire dressed in shoe-laces and a DIY $30 wire.
   
  I can hardly wait.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I would argue that 500mW should be enough.
> However most audiophiles like to have a bit of headroom, making >2W a very attractive option despite being theoretically unnecessary.


 

 500 mW already accounts for a lot of head room, unless you listen at 100 dB or to very quiet recordings. I would wager that even with a 500 mW amp most wouldn't ever turn the volume up past half.
   
  Especially considering lots of audiophiles are so averse to digital volume control, via ReplayGain or the like, which will reduce head room on most recordings.


----------



## barleyguy

Guy 1: The sky is a beautiful blue today.
  Person from this thread: What scientific evidence do you have?  Based on our particle measurements, the sky appears to be green.  The wavelength of the light should be barely over 560 nm, which is definitely in the green spectrum
  Guy 1: Everybody I've talked to has noticed the blueness.
  Person from this thread: Well, if anecdotal evidence is enough for you, I guess that's OK, but this is the science thread, so that's totally unacceptable.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





barleyguy said:


> Guy 1: The sky is a beautiful blue today.
> Person from this thread: What scientific evidence do you have?  Based on our particle measurements, the sky appears to be green.  The wavelength of the light should be barely over 560 nm, which is definitely in the green spectrum
> Guy 1: Everybody I've talked to has noticed the blueness.
> Person from this thread: Well, if anecdotal evidence is enough for you, I guess that's OK, but this is the science thread, so that's totally unacceptable.


 

 Good thing the wavelength of light is measurable, significant, and established by known science and repeatability, unlike the differences in reasonable cables.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> I'm not sure how you would gauge the HE6 being driven from speaker posts by referencing your other phones driven from HO.  Does not follow.


 


  I was comparing them to my other headphones, powered off the same amp. The headphones which need the volume set at the highest point are some vintage Sonys which are rated at 10,000 ohms. The HE - 6 have the volume control at the same setting as other cans such as the AKG K702 and AKG K340.


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I was comparing them to my other headphones, powered off the same amp. The headphones which need the volume set at the highest point are some vintage Sonys which are rated at 10,000 ohms. The HE - 6 have the volume control at the same setting as other cans such as the AKG K702 and AKG K340.


 


  I'm not sure anyone has said that the HE-6 needs a higher volume setting than other phones.  What is commonly said, and something I concur with, is that they sound lifeless and have a lack of impact on any amp without a lot of power.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





barleyguy said:


> I'm not sure anyone has said that the HE-6 needs a higher volume setting than other phones.  What is commonly said, and something I concur with, is that they sound lifeless and have a lack of impact on any amp without a lot of power.


 

 Why, though?


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Why, though?


 

  
  Analogy alert:
   
  Why do you step on the gas to merge on the freeway?  How much input to get to cruising speed depends on many factors more than just weight to power ratios.
   
  Is 300hp/300lb-ft from a V6 the same as 300hp/300lb-ft from a V12?  Correct answer is NO.
   
  Many of you are hung up on Ohm's law and even then you should be using Joule's law but nvm.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





barleyguy said:


> I'm not sure anyone has said that the HE-6 needs a higher volume setting than other phones.  What is commonly said, and something I concur with, is that they sound lifeless and have a lack of impact on any amp without a lot of power.


 

 Turn up the volume and you get more power.


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Why, though?


 

 I think it's a symptom of the physical damping of the driver.  If you've ever modified an ortho (I have) you'll know that one the most critical things is getting the damping right.  Too little damping will result in a loose low end and sibliance, whereas too much damping will suck the life out of the sound, most likely because of a physical equivalent of dynamic range compression.  Also, the type of material and even the shapes used can affect the perceived sound of the headphone.
   
  In my opinion, the HE-6 is actually overdamped.  But they seem to have done it in a way that sounds really good with massive power behind it.
   
  Another thing about volume control is that our ears and/or brains perceive loudness based on average (RMS) volume rather than peak volume.  The peaks can be shaved off and the RMS brought up, and you will still perceive it as loud even though it lacks transient response.  (Sadly, most modern music is that way in the recording so it's too late by the time the transducers are involved.  But that's a side topic.)
   
  It seems that since nobody here has measured the HE-6 with different amplifiers that it's our ears against blind theory.


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Turn up the volume and you get more power.


 

 Yeah, and hearing damage to go with it.  Turning up the volume does not solve the problem if the problem is dynamic range at normal volume.
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/573699/damn-you-orthodynamics-lcd2-he-6
   
  EDIT: Also, "turn up the volume and get more power" isn't actually true in the first place.  Volume controls attenuate the input.  They don't affect the power of the output.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





barleyguy said:


> I think it's a symptom of the physical damping of the driver.  If you've ever modified an ortho (I have) you'll know that one the most critical things is getting the damping right.  Too little damping will result in a loose low end and sibliance, whereas too much damping will suck the life out of the sound, most likely because of a physical equivalent of dynamic range compression.  Also, the type of material and even the shapes used can affect the perceived sound of the headphone.
> 
> In my opinion, the HE-6 is actually overdamped.  But they seem to have done it in a way that sounds really good with massive power behind it.
> 
> ...


 

 Isn't the amount of damping taken into account by how hard the driver is to move, and thus its sensitivity? The HE-6 has very low sensitivity, but that's already apparent in the amount of power it needs to reach a given volume. How quickly the driver moves would be a factor of the amp's slew rate, not counting inertia. We can assume the amps have good slew rate, since reasonable slew rate is pretty easy to achieve these days.
   
  110 dB is plenty enough for high peaks even at high RMS volume. Again, unless you listen really really loud or with low RMS recordings. That's a given that I've already accounted for. We can easily assume that if an amp isn't near its max volume, it's got enough head room to handle high peaks. Recordings with very low RMS volume compared to peak volume (like old classical recordings) are quite rare, and if you do have them you may need something more powerful. It still all comes down to volume, and whether you need it or not in your situation.
   
  Turning up the volume would only hurt dynamic range, if what you're suggesting is that the "weak" amp is clipping peaks. Increased perceived volume would be increased RMS volume, and the difference between peak and RMS volume would shrink because maximum peak volume is fixed by the amp's available power.


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Turning up the volume would only hurt dynamic range, if what you're suggesting is that the "weak" amp is clipping peaks. Increased perceived volume would be increased RMS volume, and the difference between peak and RMS volume would shrink because maximum peak volume is fixed by the amp's available power.


 


  I didn't say turning up the volume would help.  As for the rest of your post, nice theories you've got there, and no observations or measurements to go with them.  Beautiful green sky today too.
   
  EDIT: On second thought though, the response of our ears varies by volume level (see Fletcher-Munson).


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





barleyguy said:


> EDIT: Also, "turn up the volume and get more power" isn't actually true in the first place.  Volume controls attenuate the input.  They don't affect the power of the output.


 


 Yes, it does. The power you get at the output is dependent on the signal level of the output. The signal level at the output is dependent on the level of the volume control. So turning up the volume increases the signal level at the output and all else being equal, results in more power being delivered to the load.
   
  se


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Yes, it does. The power you get at the output is dependent on the signal level of the output. The signal level at the output is dependent on the level of the volume control. So turning up the volume increases the signal level at the output and all else being equal, results in more power being delivered to the load.
> 
> se


 
  Yes, but if the amplification of the transients of the input signal is being limited by the power of the amplifier, turning the volume up more won't help.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





barleyguy said:


> Yes, but if the amplification of the transients of the input signal is being limited by the power of the amplifier, turning the volume up more won't help.


 

 No, turning up the volume won't allow the amplifier's output stage to swing any higher voltage than its inherent limit. So if that's what you're talking about, we're in agreement.
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I think that volume is directly connected to sound quality. IME on various amps there is a sweet spot usually about 10-12 on the dial where sound quality is at is best. Too low and there is a lack of dynmaics and detail. Too loud and it gets tiring, you lose detail tec.
   
  Within the sweet spot small variations of volume can make a big difference in sound quality.


----------



## Tilpo

prog rock man said:


> I think that volume is directly connected to sound quality. IME on various amps there is a sweet spot usually about 10-12 on the dial where sound quality is at is best. Too low and there is a lack of dynmaics and detail. Too loud and it gets tiring, you lose detail tec.
> 
> Within the sweet spot small variations of volume can make a big difference in sound quality.



Strange. I have experimented several times in changing the volume on the amp and then changing the volume digitally such that the total volume is more or less constant.
Apart from the far extremes I could detect no difference in sound quality.


----------



## barleyguy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I think that volume is directly connected to sound quality. IME on various amps there is a sweet spot usually about 10-12 on the dial where sound quality is at is best. Too low and there is a lack of dynmaics and detail. Too loud and it gets tiring, you lose detail tec.
> 
> Within the sweet spot small variations of volume can make a big difference in sound quality.


 

 Most recording engineers believe the same thing.  There's a technique called "gain staging" which is setting everything in a series of components at it's optimum level to get the best sound quality.  It's one of the secrets to great recordings.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Strange. I have experimented several times in changing the volume on the amp and then changing the volume digitally such that the total volume is more or less constant.
> Apart from the far extremes I could detect no difference in sound quality.


 

 I am sure it varies significantly from amp to amp and volume control to volume control.


----------



## Armaegis

take 1 vs take 2.1 (take 2 goofed because I didn't match levels correctly, hence 2.1)
   
  cheapy vs steel vs copper vs silver
   
  testing conditions may have slightly differed, so I redid all 4 tests
  ... I think the first time I had the dummy load after the cable, and this time the dummy load was before
   
  all cables the same, except for a different silver one (second one twisted)
   
  Crosstalk:
   
   
  Dynamic Range:
   
   
   
  Frequency Response (multitone):
   
   
   
  Frequency response (swept):
   
   
   
  IMD + noise:
   
   
   
  IMD (swept):
   
   
   
  noise:
   
   
   
  THD:
   
   
   
  THD (swept):


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Armaegis, please interpret the graphs for us 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
  My lovely Q-Audio cables differ from my DIY ones with a slight perceived difference in volume to my ears. I cannot verify that with testing though.


----------



## Willakan

I suspect that we are chronicling the weaknesses of RMAA/the audio interface used rather than being on the verge of proving anything significant, TBH.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Armaegis, please interpret the graphs for us


 

 Thus far I have concluded that all the lines like to squiggle a little bit, and seem to come in their own particular chromatic hue. That saucy little purple line likes to dally with the blue one, which came as a shock because we all thought that green and blue were lined up forever. At times, it also looks like the underachieving white occasionally comes onto his own, but no one seems to care.


----------



## Vipa

Bass is definately more obvious and tight since I moved from the usual crappy stuff to monster cables


----------



## zeno

I guess the cable debate is similar to whether or not the same music source sounds better burned to a Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Slow Burn rate Optimized 24K Gold Ultra Disc at a slow burn rate compared to ripping it fast on a cheap plain regular CD-R? I just slow ripped a MFSL gold CD-R and it sounds great, but did not rip it to a regular CD-R, so I can not compare the 2. it would be interesting if one can tell the difference between a slow ripped God CD-R and regular CD-Rs burned fast. By the way, they claim the Mobile Fidelity Sound lab gold CD-Rs use a special dye that is meant for slow ripping, and that the dye has a special "burst mode" etc in the CD-R documentation.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





zeno said:


> I guess the cable debate is similar to whether or not the same music source sounds better burned to a Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Slow Burn rate Optimized 24K Gold Ultra Disc at a slow burn rate compared to ripping it fast on a cheap plain aluminum regular CD-R? I just slow ripped a MFSL gold CD-R and it sounds great, but did not rip it to a regular CD-R, so I can not compare the 2. it would be interesting if one can tell the difference between a slow ripped God CD-R and regular CD-Rs burned fast. By the way, they claim the Mobile Fidelity Sound lab gold CD-Rs use a special dye that is meant for slow ripping, and that the dye has a special "burst mode" etc in the CD-R documentation.


 

 As long as there are no errors, both copies will sound exactly the same. It's the mastering that makes MFSL sound different, not the material in the disc.
   
  It's fundamentally different than the cable debate. Cable believers are arguing that low quality cables are degrading the analog signal. The material of a CD doesn't affect the analog signal, CDs are digital. Unless you're going to start arguing that CD material affects jitter


----------



## Stereodude

Quote: 





zeno said:


> ...it would be interesting if one can tell the difference between a slow ripped Gold CD-R and regular CD-Rs burned fast.


 

 And then afterward can we rip them back to back on a PC and demonstrate they are identical and then mock the person who heard a difference?


----------



## zeno

Yep, Jitter is the key word according to MFSL and their gold CD-Rs. they claim their gold CR-Rs result in less jitter if burned slowly etc compared to fast burn regular CD-Rs. True, it both have no errors they sound the same, but the claim is that the gold CD-Rs with their different dyes result in less errors etc.


----------



## Stereodude

Quote: 





zeno said:


> True, if both have no errors they sound the same, but the claim is that the gold CD-Rs with their different dyes result in less errors etc.


 

 It should be really easy to test this claim with a PC.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





zeno said:


> I guess the cable debate is similar to whether or not the same music source sounds better burned to a Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Slow Burn rate Optimized 24K Gold Ultra Disc at a slow burn rate compared to ripping it fast on a cheap plain regular CD-R? I just slow ripped a MFSL gold CD-R and it sounds great, but did not rip it to a regular CD-R, so I can not compare the 2. it would be interesting if one can tell the difference between a slow ripped God CD-R and regular CD-Rs burned fast. By the way, they claim the Mobile Fidelity Sound lab gold CD-Rs use a special dye that is meant for slow ripping, and that the dye has a special "burst mode" etc in the CD-R documentation.


 

 Actually I think those special black CD-Rs are generally known to sound best among the audiophile press. I should note that the SHM-CD process tries to achieve the same goal by improving the plastic itself, giving the laser a better shot at the data on the disc. The idea that a CD player reads every disc perfectly - 01010100101 and no mistakes are made is a myth. Reads _are _imperfect, and mistakes _are _in fact made. When you hear a skip or a drop out, the read is so bad that the error correction (guesswork that normally happens when a read is missed) simply gives up.


----------



## zeno

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Actually I think those special black CD-Rs are generally known to sound best among the audiophile press. I should note that the SHM-CD process tries to achieve the same goal by improving the plastic itself, giving the laser a better shot at the data on the disc. The idea that a CD player reads every disc perfectly - 01010100101 and no mistakes are made is a myth. Reads _are _imperfect, and mistakes _are _in fact made. When you hear a skip or a drop out, the read is so bad that the error correction (guesswork that normally happens when a read is missed) simply gives up.


 


  That Reed-Solomon error correction in CDs is very robust by the way.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Actually I think those special black CD-Rs are generally known to sound best among the audiophile press. I should note that the SHM-CD process tries to achieve the same goal by improving the plastic itself, giving the laser a better shot at the data on the disc. The idea that a CD player reads every disc perfectly - 01010100101 and no mistakes are made is a myth. Reads _are _imperfect, and mistakes _are _in fact made. When you hear a skip or a drop out, the read is so bad that the error correction (guesswork that normally happens when a read is missed) simply gives up.


 

 From what I can tell, we aren't talking about real time playback. We're talking about ripping the files to a computer. There is plenty of error correction there. There are no skips or drop outs in a ripped file, unless the CD is damaged or can't be read properly, and that has nothing to do with material.


----------



## zeno

Quote: 





head injury said:


> From what I can tell, we aren't talking about real time playback. We're talking about ripping the files to a computer. There is plenty of error correction there. There are no skips or drop outs in a ripped file, unless the CD is damaged or can't be read properly, and that has nothing to do with material.


 


  It not having to do with the material used in a CD-R is something that I would have to not agree with......
   
  What is called "digital" is a label we put on the result of an "interpretation of a range of "analogue" or "real world" values and characteristics". There is never an "exact" or singular state of reality that is interpreted to get so called "digital data" that has no "range" of characteristics involved..., there is always some sort or "range of characteristics" involved, be it so many electrons being present in a static charge, or whether or not there is a pit or raised area in a CD, no matter hat we are looking at, there is always some sort of "range" and a comparison of if that "range" meets the upper and lower end of the comparison parameters or not....(There must be height ranges looked at to say if an area is raised or not on a CD for example...) of what ever is being looked at to get the digital data from, be it ever so small of a range.....It is precisely that "range" of reality in the real world that can be effected by how a CD-R is made. A change in the range of characteristics of the CD-R can determine if errors or jitter are present or not.....therefore it has to do with the materials the CD-R is made from. There are not 2 separate worlds out there, Digital and Analogue, it is all analog, or in other words, there is just "reality" out there...What we choose to call "digital" is merely a "result of an interpretation of the real world via certain "band pass" filters (upper and lower limits that are set to determine just 2 resultant states of being or existence) that we choose to apply to the only reality that is out there....


----------



## liamstrain

Yes and no. Once that "band pass filter" has been applied, then we do have a fixed digital form. A fixed number and sequence of bytes for that given piece of analog data converted to digital form. Any deviation from that digital master (for lack of better word) is flawed and attempted to correct via error correction. It is no longer a fluid range of characteristics. It is either correct, or not. Yes - the nature of reality transmitted thus is arbitrarily imposed by us - but for the purposes of digital music - there is no, almost a 0, almost a 1, melange... it either is, or is not.


----------



## Head Injury

The only deviation from a perfect signal that doesn't result in a simple error is jitter. 1. That doesn't matter for ripping, 2. any effect CD material might have on jitter will be absolutely overwhelmed by the amount of jitter introduced by the CD player itself when it tries to read the disc.
   
  If you believe CD material matters, I've got some lovely green markers to sell you. They greatly improve sound stage once applied.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





head injury said:


> If you believe CD material matters, I've got some lovely green markers to sell you. They greatly improve sound stage once applied.


 

 Really? Pass me your CDs, I will colour them for you.


----------



## fatcat28037

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Really? Pass me your CDs, I will colour them for you.


 


  Before applying the green marker it's best to trim the CD edge to assure perfect balance.


----------



## Stereodude

Hey, CD stabilizer rings and similar products were all the rage for a while.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





stereodude said:


> Hey, CD stabilizer rings and similar products were all the rage for a while.


 

 So were cassette tapes


----------



## Stereodude

Quote: 





head injury said:


> So were cassette tapes


 

 Scarily enough they're making a comeback (supposedly).  link


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





stereodude said:


> Scarily enough they're making a comeback (supposedly).  link


 

 Just a movement fueled by hipster irony. It won't last, I hope.


----------



## livewire

Just for S&G's I'd thought I'd chime in on this cable stuff.
  
  For the longest time I didnt believe in "cable voodoo". Kinda still dont.
  But a month ago I had an epiphany regarding USB cables. They can and do sound different!
  Problem was that my generic $2 cable sounded much, much better than a $30 "audio" cable.
   
  I paid $30 for the super-duper mid-fi cable when I upgraded my system thinking that maybe,
  just maybe I could hear an improvement. (although nothing sounded wrong with the old cheapo cable)
  And being from the school of thought that data is just zeros and ones, I wasnt expecting any change, good or bad.
   
  Boy-o-Boy was I surprised when the new cable sounded like dog crap.
  Of course the marketing hype drew me in: "gold plated connectors, silver plated OHFC large guage conductors,
  clad with super zoot insulation and a woven dual outer shield high efficiency ground plane.
  Boy was I a sucker to think that any of that really mattered.
   
  Lessoned learned: more expensive dont equal more better.
   
  Afterwards I did test the new cable on my DMM for bad internal connections and all tested good.
  I do not have equipment for testing signal degradation, so I left it at that and put the new cable to use
  as a regular USB data cable. (Not as part of my audio chain!)
   
  And I sure as h*ll wont be paying $100's or $1000's for cables in the future
  although now I do believe that it is a good idea to compare a few reasonable priced units to see if differences do emerge.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote:  

  Jim, I had exactly the same experience w/ optical cables a few months ago.  Out of a sampling of 8 or 9 different optical cables ranging from $5-$75 I ended up keeping two.  A $9 and $15 cable.  An LED just blinks and the light travels down the fiber to the receiver unit right?  Go figure.  Haven't played w/ USB yet to see if I notice anything.  Can't say that I have w/ any of the free cables that came with whatever gear I have laying around.  I do believe companies can make stuff worse.  One of the opticals I returned was the high-end audio version of a cable I kept.  That did sound worse as well.


----------



## bmiamihk

I bought silver cables and they did help my Shure 535. A bit more in the bass department.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Just a movement fueled by hipster irony. It won't last, I hope.


 


  I love the last comment. Everyone has a tape player laying around. I haven't owned a tape player in 10 years or more.


----------



## Lenni

well, I was checking reviews about an Esoteric CD transport and stumbled across this article about digital stream... and thought it may relate to whatever this topic is. check the Footnotes about Jitter, Bits, Errors etc... too.
   
  fwiw, here it is


----------



## drez

Quote: 





stereodude said:


> Scarily enough they're making a comeback (supposedly).  link


 

 Hmm let me think...  What is the easiest medium to distribute music...  Lets see theres vinyl, casette...  I cant possibly think of any other medium to distribute music with...  DUHHHHHHH


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





livewire said:


> Just for S&G's I'd thought I'd chime in on this cable stuff.
> 
> For the longest time I didnt believe in "cable voodoo". Kinda still dont.
> But a month ago I had an epiphany regarding USB cables. They can and do sound different!
> ...


 

 That is evidenced by the results of blind comparison testing where cheaper often does as well as if not outperforms expensive.


----------



## JRG1990

Perhaps the expensive cables are sometimes over engineered and that results in there poor performance.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> Perhaps the expensive cables are sometimes over engineered and that results in there poor performance.


 

 I doubt it as ABX testing finds no difference at all. Cable companies emphasis how well their cables are made and suggest that makes them sound better, but there is no evidence linking build to sound, so long as it works properly in the first place.


----------



## bmiamihk

From an English magazine. "
[size=10pt]You can also get a replacement silver cable, which (after we published the initial review) we were sent to test. This is beautifully crafted from thick pure silver cabling plated together and terminated in a high quality gold plated jack connector - it certainly looks the part. It doesn't incorporate a wire for moulding the cable round your ear but we didn't find this at all problematic, and in fact it proved to us that which we've thought for a while; that you don't really need malleable cables. The thicker nature of the cable did introduce a bit more microphony, though. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the listening and indeed it does seem to improve things. In short, it's a bit like adding a decent headphone amp, providing improved bass response and just generally a bit more presence to the sound. Indeed, as much as anything the 'phones simply seemed a tad louder with this cable attached. We definitely approved. However, with it costing £140 it's not an option we'd recommend going for until you've had some time with the normal cable."[/size]


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> From an English magazine. "
> [size=10pt]You can also get a replacement silver cable, which (after we published the initial review) we were sent to test. This is beautifully crafted from thick pure silver cabling plated together and terminated in a high quality gold plated jack connector - it certainly looks the part. It doesn't incorporate a wire for moulding the cable round your ear but we didn't find this at all problematic, and in fact it proved to us that which we've thought for a while; that you don't really need malleable cables. The thicker nature of the cable did introduce a bit more microphony, though. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the listening and indeed it does seem to improve things. In short, it's a bit like adding a decent headphone amp, providing improved bass response and just generally a bit more presence to the sound. Indeed, as much as anything the 'phones simply seemed a tad louder with this cable attached. We definitely approved. However, with it costing £140 it's not an option we'd recommend going for until you've had some time with the normal cable."[/size]


 

 What's the significance of that quote?


----------



## Anaxilus

Beat me to it.  That's pretty bad English for an English magazine.


----------



## bmiamihk

With the replacement of stock cables you can get more lower end sound as if you connected a small amp. I myself at the age of 45, have bought a pure silver replacement for my earphones and it made a nice difference in sound.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Cables are low-pass filters. How do you get more lower end sound from something that will pass low frequencies all the way down to DC?
   
  se


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Cables are low-pass filters. How do you get more lower end sound from something that will pass low frequencies all the way down to DC?
> 
> se


 
   
  Better fit/seal.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> Better fit/seal.


 

 Ok, so a cable made with silver wire makes for a better fit/seal of the ear cups than a cable made with copper wire?
   
  Say what?
   
  se


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Ok, so a cable made with silver wire makes for a better fit/seal of the ear cups than a cable made with copper wire?
> 
> Say what?
> 
> se


 

 Yes, you take the phones off, swap cables and reposition/insert them better after.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> Yes, you take the phones off, swap cables and reposition/insert them better after.


 

 Ah, ok. I see what you're getting at now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> With the replacement of stock cables you can get more lower end sound as if you connected a small amp. I myself at the age of 45, have bought a pure silver replacement for my earphones and it made a nice difference in sound.


 


  Lower end...hmmm, that flies in the face of everyone who says silver cables are "bright".


----------



## Armaegis

So I was testing out silver cables a few days ago and really couldn't tell much of a difference except for the volume change (louder with silver). This was at home out of various hifi gear. 
   
  Then the other day I was working in a production room and plugged into the big mixboard and I could have sworn that the channel separation was better. Maybe it has something to do with the typically high output impedance of the production consoles?


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> So I was testing out silver cables a few days ago and really couldn't tell much of a difference except for the volume change (louder with silver). This was at home out of various hifi gear.
> 
> Then the other day I was working in a production room and plugged into the big mixboard and I could have sworn that the channel separation was better. Maybe it has something to do with the typically high output impedance of the production consoles?


 

 I've been running some tests myself and can say FR is not the place to be looking.  Something other than cables gave me a clue about where to look to see if there are actual perceived differences that can be measured but I haven't had a chance to have at it yet.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> Lower end...hmmm, that flies in the face of everyone who says silver cables are "bright".


 

 Some silver cables are thin in the bass and bright up top, but not all. The Audioquest silver cables for example are not bright sounding cables. There are also copper cables that have the "silver sound".


----------



## Blue Boat

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Some silver cables are thin in the bass and bright up top, but not all. The Audioquest silver cables for example are not bright sounding cables. There are also copper cables that have the "silver sound".


 

 science forum, this is.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





blue boat said:


> science forum, this is.


 

 Well aware, I am.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Some silver cables are thin in the bass and bright up top, but not all. The Audioquest silver cables for example are not bright sounding cables. There are also copper cables that have the "silver sound".


 

 It is exactly that inconsistency of the subjective impressions of how cables sound, which helps to evidence the difference is caused by our own perception and not the cable itself.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> So I was testing out silver cables a few days ago and really couldn't tell much of a difference except for the volume change (louder with silver). This was at home out of various hifi gear.
> 
> Then the other day I was working in a production room and plugged into the big mixboard and I could have sworn that the channel separation was better. Maybe it has something to do with the typically high output impedance of the production consoles?


 

 Unless you volume matched VERY well - the same effect (volume change towards louder) could easily give the impression of better separation. Just as slightly higher volume falsely gives the impression of better sound in general.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Unless you volume matched VERY well - the same effect (volume change towards louder) could easily give the impression of better separation. Just as slightly higher volume falsely gives the impression of better sound in general.


 
   
  Yup. That's a phenomenon that unscrupulous sales people have taken advantage of for many years.
   
  se


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Unless you volume matched VERY well - the same effect (volume change towards louder) could easily give the impression of better separation. Just as slightly higher volume falsely gives the impression of better sound in general.


 

 I am aware of that and did my best to match. On my home rig I do have some calibration points and use those for comparison.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> It is exactly that inconsistency of the subjective impressions of how cables sound, which helps to evidence the difference is caused by our own perception and not the cable itself.


 

 Why is that? I was pointing out that the tendency to lump all silver cables into "thin and bright" is incorrect. They aren't all made out of the same silver, so they don't all sound the same. All copper cables are not "warm and rich", some are the exact opposite.


----------



## liamstrain

So if *what* metal they are made out of, does not consistently account for specific changes in sound (e.g. silver = brighter) - what does? You're still not providing any useful data here, DaveBSC.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Why is that? I was pointing out that the tendency to lump all silver cables into "thin and bright" is incorrect. They aren't all made out of the same silver, so they don't all sound the same.


 
   
  His point was that different people may report a different "sound" even when using the SAME cable.
   
  se


----------



## Tilpo

davebsc said:


> Why is that? I was pointing out that the tendency to lump all silver cables into "thin and bright" is incorrect. *They aren't all made out of the same silver*, so they don't all sound the same. All copper cables are not "warm and rich", some are the exact opposite.



I wonder what they could do with the silver to change it' sound. They can make it an alloy, but won't that reduce conductivity (which should be bad)?
Thickness and wire geometry might theoratically affect the sound, but I don't see how there can be 'different kinds' of silver. Silver is just silver, or am I wrong?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I wonder what they could do with the silver to change it' sound. They can make it an alloy, but won't that reduce conductivity (which should be bad)?
> Thickness and wire geometry might theoratically affect the sound, but I don't see how there can be 'different kinds' of silver. Silver is just silver, or am I wrong?


 

 Pretty much, yup. I mean, really the only relevant characteristics of a conductor is its conductivity and permeability. Since neither copper nor silver are ferromagnetic, their pemeability is about the same as for air so you can scratch that off the list, which just leaves us with conductivity. And that really just translates to simple resistance. Silver's slightly more conductive than copper so all else being equal, a silver cable will have slightly less resistance.
   
  This is one subject where there's always been a lot of choppin' but no chip flyin' if you know what I mean.
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> So if *what* metal they are made out of, does not consistently account for specific changes in sound (e.g. silver = brighter) - what does? You're still not providing any useful data here, DaveBSC.


 

 Everything else does. The insulator matters (PVC is quite different from foam teflon) the geometry matters, gauge matters, purity matters, stranded vs. solid core matters, even the connector matters. A direct gold or silver plate over pure copper is the ideal connector, but most are made out of brass, with a layer of nickel underneath gold so that they look very shiny. Looks great, but not good for sound quality.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Everything else does. The insulator matters (PVC is quite different from foam teflon) the geometry matters, gauge matters, purity matters, stranded vs. solid core matters, even the connector matters. A direct gold or silver plate over pure copper is the ideal connector, but most are made out of brass, with a layer of nickel underneath gold so that they look very shiny. Looks great, but not good for sound quality.


 

 As I said, a whole lot of choppin' but no chips flyin'.
   
  Please, take it someplace other than Sound Science.
   
  se


----------



## liamstrain

DaveBSC - you have yet to provide ANY evidence at all, that any of those things (aside from poor connections, and insufficient capacity) could possibly have ANY impact on sound signature. 
   
  Do you have data you can share with the rest of us? Or are you going to keep slinging nonsense?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Oh, by the way, the nickel under the gold isn't there so much to make it look shiny (though a bright nickel plate will also do that) but rather to prevent the gold from diffusing into the copper or brass (actually it's the copper or brass that interdiffuses with the gold, but for all intents and purposes it doesn't really matter). You can direct plate over copper and brass with "hard gold," but hard gold's alloyed with either cobalt or nickel.
   
  se


----------



## kevin gilmore

Both pure copper and pure silver are diamagnetic. And can be attracted by huge magnetic fields.
   
  The only substance that is conductive and is neither diamagnetic or paramagnetic is a compound
  of 75% copper and 25% palladium.
   
  As far as i know, no one is making wire for audio use this way.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





kevin gilmore said:


> Both pure copper and pure silver are diamagnetic. And can be attracted by huge magnetic fields.


 
   
  That's incorrect.
   
  Diamagnetic materials are not attracted to external magnetic fields. Just the opposite, they repulse external magnetic fields. That's because diamagnetic materials emit a magnetic field of a polarity that opposes the external field impinging on it. Superconductors are highly diamagnetic, which gives rise to the classic superconductor demonstration which has a magnet levitating (and sometimes even spinning) above a superconductor.
   
  Copper and silver are both very very weakly diamagnetic. The most diamagnetic material outside of superconductors is bismuth, and even it's only very weakly diamagnetic.
   
  Quote: 





> The only substance that is conductive and is neither diamagnetic or paramagnetic is a compound
> of 75% copper and 25% palladium.
> 
> As far as i know, no one is making wire for audio use this way.


 
   
  Why would they? The diamagnetic properties of silver and copper don't appear to present any problem that needs to be fixed.
   
  se


----------



## tmars78

How about cables out of argentium?


----------



## liamstrain

silver germanium alloy... should be fine, if expensive since that's mostly made for the fine jewelry market. 
   
  edit: it may increase the electrical resistance. Not sure how much...


----------



## Pudu

tmars78 said:


> How about cables out of argentium?





Makes everything sound like a tango.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





pudu said:


> Makes everything sound like a tango.


 


  Haha. I keep hearing about it on the radio all of the time. I was wondering when someone will actually make one, with a whole new "sound signature"


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Everything else does. The insulator matters (PVC is quite different from foam teflon) the geometry matters, gauge matters, purity matters, stranded vs. solid core matters, even the connector matters. A direct gold or silver plate over pure copper is the ideal connector, but most are made out of brass, with a layer of nickel underneath gold so that they look very shiny. Looks great, but not good for sound quality.


 

 But there is little to no consistency in how all the parts of a cable you list make a difference. If PVC made a difference in itself it would make the same difference for everyone as it is consistent. But it does not and how a cable sounds varies from person to person. I have shown that with lots of evidence in a thread about the missing link here
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link
   
  where no matter what a cable is made of and how it is made, it supposedly sounds the best. That clearly cannot be correct.
   
  You cannot evidence anything.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> You cannot evidence anything.


 

 All I'm saying is that things like the wire geometry and the resistance of the insulator change the electrical properties of a cable. I don't think this is up for dispute, certainly I can show you plenty of data about how a simple change in geometry changes L/R/C values. When you listen to a cable you aren't just listening to the raw wire inside, you are also listening to the geometry and the secondary materials.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> All I'm saying is that things like the wire geometry and the resistance of the insulator change the electrical properties of a cable.


 

 But that isn't all you were saying. What you were saying was in the context of how cables sound, making what you said absolutely meaningless in the context of the Sound Science forum.
   
  se


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> But that isn't all you were saying. What you were saying was in the context of how cables sound, making what you said absolutely meaningless in the context of the Sound Science forum.
> 
> se


 

 Well just take it that next logical step. If we agree that the insulator and the geometry have an effect on the electrical properties, are those changes audible? I believe they are, you believe they are not. That's ultimately what these discussions always come back to.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Well just take it that next logical step. If we agree that the insulator and the geometry have an effect on the electrical properties, are those changes audible? I believe they are...


 

 Yet you haven't provided one shred of objective evidence to support your claim. So please, until you can, stop posting in the Sound Science forum.
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Well just take it that next logical step. If we agree that the insulator and the geometry have an effect on the electrical properties, are those changes audible? I believe they are, you believe they are not. That's ultimately what these discussions always come back to.


 

 You present a total non sequitur that appears logical, but it only works in isolation without taking any other evidence into account. As soon as you take into account the evidence that we provide re cables you argument collapses. These discussions fail to progress because you have a closed mind, flawed logic and cannot evidence your claims.


----------



## bmiamihk

An amp can help right? Better seal from the tips can right? well I have both and then I bought the silver wires cables and tested them out and yes they do improve the sound and yes a better tip that will provide a better seal will help in the bass deepartment. You can try to have the people around you think you are smart if that is important to you but I did the tests and I bought the earphones, amp and cables and have been testing it for a year and there is an improvement. By the way JH13 and JH 16 dont have enough bass even with 6 or 8 speakers per side.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> An amp can help right? Better seal from the tips can right? well I have both and then I bought the silver wires cables and tested them out and yes they do improve the sound and yes a better tip that will provide a better seal will help in the bass deepartment. You can try to have the people around you think you are smart if that is important to you but I did the tests and I bought the earphones, amp and cables and have been testing it for a year and there is an improvement. By the way JH13 and JH 16 dont have enough bass even with 6 or 8 speakers per side.


 

 Have you done blind tests? And how are you controlling for differences in seal between tests?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> You present a total non sequitur that appears logical, but it only works in isolation without taking any other evidence into account. As soon as you take into account the evidence that we provide re cables you argument collapses. These discussions fail to progress because you have a closed mind, flawed logic and cannot evidence your claims.


 

 Well to be honest arguments to prove we cannot hear differences in cables also require logical interpolation and extrapolation (although to a much lesser degree), but are more supportable given the available data.  
  Arguments to the audibility of cables is not supportable wither either by interpolation nor extrapolation from existing data, however I would also argue that that data does not definitively exclude the possibility that later tests might provide different results.  
  But still, you are right, this is the science forum, so scientific method would be desirable to contribute towards the discussion - I promise that blind testing between my cables and transports is coming, but in the meantime I might just continue attempting to problematise the anti-cable argument on a logical basis.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





drez said:


> Well to be honest arguments to prove we cannot hear differences in cables also require logical interpolation and extrapolation (although to a much lesser degree), but are more supportable given the available data.
> Arguments to the audibility of cables is not supportable wither either by interpolation nor extrapolation from existing data, however I would also argue that that data does not definitively exclude the possibility that later tests might provide different results.
> But still, you are right, this is the science forum, so scientific method would be desirable to contribute towards the discussion - I promise that blind testing between my cables and transports is coming, but in the meantime I might just continue attempting to problematise the anti-cable argument on a logical basis.


 

 Of course the data we have doesn't exclude the possibility. Most scientific data doesn't exclude the possibility of something. It's only used to predict outcomes. The scientific data in favor of no real differences is considerably greater than the data against, so it's logical to assume they don't make a difference until there is substantial evidence that suggests otherwise. This is why we encourage continued testing. If the data we have suggested that cables make no difference beyond any possible doubt, there would be no point in doing more blind tests.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





drez said:


> Arguments to the audibility of cables is not supportable wither either by interpolation nor extrapolation from existing data, however I would also argue that that data does not definitively exclude the possibility that later tests might provide different results.


 


  While this is true - it is true of all such claims. You cannot prove a negative in such a way. All we can say is - to date ALL the evidence points to the inaudibility of differences in cables. We should not make a positive claim that cables do not have an audible effect - just that they have never been shown to. We are free to add, though, that we do not think it very likely, given the preponderance of evidence. Just as I cannot prove conclusively that Odin (or any random non-controversial mythological figure) does not exist - that lack of proof should not be taken to mean that there is any reasonable chance that he does.
   
  The burden of evidence falls on the person making the positive claim. Not on me to prove that they are wrong.


----------



## bmiamihk

Listened to 5 tracks over and over and only replaced the cable on the same volume level, also connected a amp with stock cable and new silver cable.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> While this is true - it is true of all such claims. You cannot prove a negative in such a way. All we can say is - to date ALL the evidence points to the inaudibility of differences in cables. We should not make a positive claim that cables do not have an audible effect - just that they have never been shown to. We are free to add, though, that we do not think it very likely, given the preponderance of evidence. Just as I cannot prove conclusively that Odin (or any random non-controversial mythological figure) does not exist - that lack of proof should not be taken to mean that there is any reasonable chance that he does.
> 
> The burden of evidence falls on the person making the positive claim. Not on me to prove that they are wrong.


 

 Well its not THAT far out - cables do measure differently at a certain magnitude, just the possible sonic products of this difference have not been shown to be audible.  There is some theoretical basis to the pro-cables argument (up to the point where they make a measurable difference at the speaker AFAIK) - just the next couple of steps are a bit of a problem.


----------



## bmiamihk

Glad you agree and since I bought the cable I am not using a amp with my Cowon which alone has a good amp. All started when I bought the Shure 535 which for me didnt have enough lower end. A small amp helped and so did the silver cable. Either way even though  the cable helped I still want more with out blasting my ears off.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Listened to 5 tracks over and over and only replaced the cable on the same volume level, also connected a amp with stock cable and new silver cable.


 

 Blind or sighted? Did you take the IEMs out while you switched? If not, did the IEMs shift at all while changing cables? Did you make sure the cables themselves played at the same volume level? How long did it take you to switch?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Glad you agree and since I bought the cable I am not using a amp with my Cowon which alone has a good amp. All started when I bought the Shure 535 which for me didnt have enough lower end. A small amp helped and so did the silver cable. Either way even though  the cable helped I still want more with out blasting my ears off.


 


  tsk - need to frame that in a scientific argument DX"


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Listened to 5 tracks over and over and only replaced the cable on the same volume level...


 

  If the cables had different resistance due to length, material, or gauge - then you need to volume match, not just maintain the same level from the device. Even a slight change in volume can lead one to believe that they are hearing drastic sonic differences which do not necessarily exist.


----------



## bmiamihk

I listened to amp, silver cable, stock for weeks and yes I am very focused on the sealing of the tips. I use Shure foam tips on all my earphones and I changed them often. volume had to be adjusted at times and I d not believe the silver cables is the end of all and if the earphones suck well the cable wont make them acceptable. I am talking about high end earphones comparing to other equally priced earphones except for the JH which cost a lot more. yes there was an issue with the JH seal cause they are hard plastic.


----------



## Head Injury

You're not really answering my questions.


----------



## Blue Boat

Quote: 





head injury said:


> You're not really answering my questions.


 
   
  Say he took all the steps needed to conduct a proper blind test, then what?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





blue boat said:


> Say he took all the steps needed to conduct a proper blind test, then what?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Different cables are audibly different, to some people some of the time with some systems. There is not point in trying to say anything other than that.
   
  The real question is why is that the case? The answer lies with our senses and particularly how sight interacts with sound.
   
  The evidence is the consistent results from sighted, blind comparison and ABX testing. Sighted and people hear and indentify sound quality differences. Blind and the difference is that whilst people can still hear differences they are no longer based on other facts such as looks, barnd image and cost. So cheap often beats expensive and no name beats high image brand.ABX and no one can tell any difference at all.
   
  That is further corroborated by evidence from measurement which finds that differences are in the inaudible range and evidence of inconsistency that there is no link between how a cable is made and what it is made of and sound quality.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





blue boat said:


> Say he took all the steps needed to conduct a proper blind test, then what?


 

  
  Then we evaluate the data, contrasted with the controls of the experiment, and add it in with all the other data regarding this. The study either agrees with all the other data, or runs counter to it. If it contradicts all the other data, then we experiment more, to see if his results are reproducible and repeatable. If they are not, we conclude there was most likely a flaw in the original experiment, and a footnote is added to the documentation.


----------



## bmiamihk

Try it yourself and then you will know. Life is not about thinking without doing.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Try it yourself and then you will know. Life is not about thinking without doing.


 

 The argument here is that under blind test, those who claim that they could hear the difference ceased to be able to hear the difference anymore. Reason - sight is the culprit.
   
  So, unless you can refute this claim with proof, you will be better off keeping your experience to yourself because this thread is in science forum where we want to know what sort of things affect audible differences caused by cables.
   
  There are other people here who like you agree that cable truly makes a difference in the sound but it is difficult to furnish a proof on that claim to convince the skeptics.


----------



## Blue Boat

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Then we evaluate the data, contrasted with the controls of the experiment, and add it in with all the other data regarding this. The study either agrees with all the other data, or runs counter to it. If it contradicts all the other data, then we experiment more, to see if his results are reproducible and repeatable. If they are not, we conclude there was most likely a flaw in the original experiment, and a footnote is added to the documentation.


 

 What other data? I thought there was no data that supported audible differences between cables in blind tests? 
   
  And what if ten trolls came in, purposely conducted similar flawed tests, listed out all the correct steps, and ended up with the same results as bmiah? 
   
  Without video proof, there's no way to see if he did any mistakes during the test or if he was being honest. 
   
   
  Also, what about the skeptics? Have you conducted blind tests to support your stance? Or did you arrive at the conclusion that cables make no audible
   
  difference in sound in a sighted test?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





blue boat said:


> What other data? I thought there was no data that supported audible differences between cables in blind tests?
> 
> And what if ten trolls came in, purposely conducted similar flawed tests, listed out all the correct steps, and ended up with the same results as bmiah?


 
   
  All the data related to blind tests of cables. We draw conclusions from all the data, not the data for or against, but all of it.
   
  I would hope that as long as things are well documented, and the flaws are made public, the trolls won't have any room to maneuver. 
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> Also, what about the skeptics? Have you conducted blind tests to support your stance? Or did you arrive at the conclusion that cables make no audible
> difference in sound in a sighted test?


 
   
   
  Me personally, no. I am not making a positive statement (I am saying, "*the evidence does not show that there is an audible difference* between cables as a result of the material or construction choices", not a statement "cables do not make an audible difference" - see the distinction?). Their hypothesis is that cables make an audible difference - mine is the null hypothesis to theirs. The data from their own tests has not backed up their stance. I don't need to do a separate experiment to show that they do not - my stance is already supported by their data.


----------



## Blue Boat

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *liamstrain* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> (I am saying, "*the evidence does not show that there is an audible difference* between cables as a result of the material or construction choices", not a statement "cables do not make an audible difference" - see the distinction?)... ... I don't need to do a separate experiment to show that they do not - my stance is already supported by their data.


 
   
   
  So your stance is that cables may make audible differences in blind tests, but not due to material or construction choices? I don't think anyone's refuting the claim that cables 
   
  do make an audible difference... It's just that the difference cannot/have not been detected in properly conducted blind tests.
   
   
   
  Yea you don't need to do a separate experiment because the data favours your stance, but it'd be interesting to conduct a blind test to see if _you _can detect the differences. 
   
  If your test results go against your original hypothesis then redo the test a couple of times just to make sure. If the results still go against your original stance, then I don't
   
  see how you can remain on the same camp anymore.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





blue boat said:


> So your stance is that cables may make audible differences in blind tests, but not due to material or construction choices? I don't think anyone's refuting the claim that cables
> 
> do make an audible difference... It's just that the difference cannot/have not been detected in properly conducted blind tests.


 

 I may have formed my words clumsily. The fact that properly conducted blind tests have not shown a difference, leads to the conclusion that it is not material or construction that creates the differences people hear when doing sighted swaps, etc. Trying to cover all those bases, I may have given the wrong impression. Apologies.
   

    
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> Yea you don't need to do a separate experiment because the data favours your stance, but it'd be interesting to conduct a blind test to see if _you _can detect the differences.
> 
> If your test results go against your original hypothesis then redo the test a couple of times just to make sure. If the results still go against your original stance, then I don't
> 
> see how you can remain on the same camp anymore.


 
   
  And because mine is the null hypothesis - it is contained already in the formulation of theirs. That the evidence favors mine, is just a happy coincidence. 
   
  It might be interesting to do my own tests and see what I hear or don't hear. But you've named a LOT of if's before I'd  have to re-evaluate my position. And frankly, if the preponderance of evidence conflicted with my own results - I'd probably have to accept that it is more likely there is a flaw in my methodology, than that I had evidence to truly refute all other studies to date. At the most, I would have to admit that subjectively, I found differences - but i would not expect anyone else to be convinced by my results.


----------



## Head Injury

blue boat said:


> So your stance is that cables may make audible differences in blind tests, but not due to material or construction choices? I don't think anyone's refuting the claim that cables
> 
> do make an audible difference... It's just that the difference cannot/have not been detected in properly conducted blind tests.
> 
> ...


 

 That exactly what we're refuting, though. Cables don't make an audible difference. At the very least, no difference has been demonstrated. The differences are a result of cognitive biases and not the cables themselves. No correlation between sound and construction has been demonstrated. No real audible difference between unbroken cables as been demonstrated at all. The measured differences are below the realm of audibility.
   
  The only positive evidence thus far presented was soon abandoned by the poster before any proof of repeatability was demonstrated.
   
  It's easy to flub a blind test if you're not looking for differences. That's why it's the believers that need to test. They won't purposely produce null results, consciously or subconsciously.


----------



## bmiamihk

Science? this aint no science lab. Dont be such a geek. Take it or not either way you can believe what you like. fact is I bought many higher end earphones and I will continue buying and not only reading about so called facts. Why would I say a cable helped when if it didnt I just go buy another high end earphone?


----------



## Nom de Plume

What sub-forum is this? 
  
  Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Science? this aint no science lab. Dont be such a geek. Take it or not either way you can believe what you like.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Science? this aint no science lab. Dont be such a geek. Take it or not either way you can believe what you like. fact is I bought many higher end earphones and I will continue buying and not only reading about so called facts. Why would I say a cable helped when if it didnt I just go buy another high end earphone?


 

 Because your subconscious is thoroughly convinced that the cable makes a difference.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





head injury said:


> That exactly what we're refuting, though. Cables don't make an audible difference. At the very least, no difference has been demonstrated. The differences are *[most likely]* a result of cognitive biases and not the cables themselves. No correlation between sound and construction has been demonstrated. No real audible difference between unbroken cables as been demonstrated at all. The measured differences are below the realm of audibility.
> 
> The only positive evidence thus far presented was soon abandoned by the poster before any proof of repeatability was demonstrated.
> 
> It's easy to flub a blind test if you're not looking for differences. That's why it's the believers that need to test. They won't purposely produce null results, consciously or subconsciously.


 

 Free editing


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





drez said:


> Free editing


 

 This was already implied in the sentence before it.


----------



## drez

Connotation is not part of scientific prose - we need to play scientist properly (I'm kidding of course - my impersonation of a scientist is pretty lousy)


----------



## Head Injury

Why would we need to play scientist properly? It's not like anyone's going to actually read it anyway. I'm not going to clarify every sentence I type with "maybe"s. Not until there's some evidence that suggests a "maybe" is worthwhile.


----------



## drez

Well IMO to separate hypotheses from results consistently (again I should note that I am famously inconsistent)


----------



## Head Injury

That the audible differences between cables is the result of placebo and not cable construction is not a hypothesis. It is a theory. It is supported by evidence.
   
  Unless you are suggesting there is another reason for the differences?


----------



## Blue Boat

Sure, we all hate the people who come in here claiming that they are not subject to bias. Sure,  all the evidence now points to there being no audible differences between cables. But this is the science forum. You have to keep an open mind about things. Scientists don't just "leave it at that". They continue to look for evidence that might support/refute their original findings. And they accept new evidence and add it to their own, provided the evidence was obtained from properly conducted experiments.
   
  Head Injury, you're not being a "scientist" who's willing to look and assess test results/new findings, you're just being a diehard skeptic.


----------



## Head Injury

\Quote: 





blue boat said:


> Sure, we all hate the people who come in here claiming that they are not subject to bias. Sure,  all the evidence now points to there being no audible differences between cables. But this is the science forum. You have to keep an open mind about things. Scientists don't just "leave it at that". They continue to look for evidence that might support/refute their original findings. And they accept new evidence and add it to their own, provided the evidence was obtained from properly conducted experiments.
> 
> Head Injury, you're not being a "scientist" who's willing to look and assess test results/new findings, you're just being a diehard skeptic.


 

 I'm not leaving it at that. I encourage further testing. I never said I didn't.


----------



## drez

My opinion would be that placebo is not the sole possible explanation, while it has been demonstrated to reproduce the results of sighted impressions... where was I going again...  
   
  I better stop here and agree that it is probably supportable to state that placebo is the most likely factor at play, as long as we define the domain of this statement to be the existing body of blind cable testing.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> But this is the science forum. You have to keep an open mind about things. Scientists don't just "leave it at that". They continue to look for evidence that might support/refute their original findings.


 
   
   
  At some point, however, you do stop and move on until a new technology, or advance in measurement resolution, or new claim comes along to test. You don't wake up every tuesday and say "well, the last 10,047 experiments showed X result... let's try another one, just to make sure..."


----------



## El_Doug

where did you come up with this statement?  if a new set of double blind ABX tests showed a significant ability to distinguish cables, and it was repeated by several sources, I'd be willing to bet Head Injury would be the first to get in line to buy these special cables
  
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Blue Boat* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Head Injury, you're not being a "scientist" who's willing to look and assess test results/new findings, you're just being a diehard skeptic.


----------



## Blue Boat

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> At some point, however, you do stop and move on until a new technology, or advance in measurement resolution, or new claim comes along to test. You don't wake up every tuesday and say well, the last 10,047 experiments showed X result... let's try another one, just to make sure...


 

 I didn't mean that you had to repeat experiments, or do new tests just to find new results to support/refute your claims. What I meant was that you have to keep an open mind and accept new ideas. The vibe I get around here is really negative, especially in these debate threads. It seems like the place is swarming with more skeptics than "scientists". Everyone's so hell-bent on thinking _this _such that when another guy comments with his own hypothesis, he gets the usual automated reply, that is "please list the steps, ... ..." which of course leads to nowhere, because no one treats any new information as a possibility. I.E Even if he does come up with valid, yet slightly different results, no one's going to care.
   
  That's the kind of vibe I get from most of the active posters in the "debate threads". 
   
  Quote: 





head injury said:


> I'm not leaving it at that. I encourage further testing. I never said I didn't.


 

 Idno. You're saying it, but it doesn't seem like you're meaning it.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> where did you come up with this statement?  if a new set of double blind ABX tests showed a significant ability to distinguish cables, and it was repeated by several sources, I'd be willing to bet Head Injury would be the first to get in line to buy these special cables


 

 Well, that depends on how significant the differences, and whether or not I can hear them (which is entirely subjective!)
   
  But I would be in line to admit the differences exist, and I'd want to read up on why they make a difference.
   
   


> Idno. You're saying it, but it doesn't seem like you're meaning it.


 
   
  No way of knowing until some proof surfaces, is there?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> you have to keep an open mind and accept new ideas.


 
   
   
  Within reason, I believe we do. However, when a "new idea" is either not new (as most here are not, despite a poster's unfamiliarity with it), or when the idea clearly goes against what we do know - then you'll see the responses you are getting. Provide evidence. Don't make assertions without support. If you performed an experiment, please let us know what you did, because we cannot evaluate your evidence without knowing if the experiment was actually valid. 
   
  This is not hostility or an attempt to stifle debate. It is the standard required in order to overturn existing theory and evidence. It is an attempt to clarify the difference between opinion and fact.
   
  New information is a data point. This is always true. One experiment - especially one not verified, or repeated, does not overturn existing knowledge. It is a starting point for additional testing - but nothing more. Not yet. We are not rejecting it - on the contrary - we are trying to make sure this new information is really good. We're trying to help you provide real evidence.
   
  If your mind is too open, your brain will fall out.


----------



## Blue Boat

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> where did you come up with this statement?  if a new set of double blind ABX tests showed a significant ability to distinguish cables, and it was repeated by several sources, I'd be willing to bet Head Injury would be the first to get in line to buy these special cables


 
   
  Nope. In this case, the believers do the blind test first. If he showed that he could distinguish different cables, it has to be reproduced again by other members. Like someone else said earlier, for non-believers or anyone who's not looking hard enough, it's easy to flub a blind test. So it has to be reproduced by believers, no? And when the believers come up with similar results in a proper blind test, what then?
   
  Are you just going to brush it off as a couple of flawed experiments? A scientist would look into the matter. A skeptic would brush it off. 
   
  I hope you're getting my point of view.


----------



## Blue Boat

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> New information is a data point. This is always true. One experiment - especially one not verified, or repeated, does not overturn existing knowledge. It is a starting point for additional testing - but nothing more. Not yet. We are not rejecting it - on the contrary - we are trying to make sure this new information is really good. We're trying to help you provide real evidence.


 
   
  I totally get this. 
   
  Someone with an open mind would want to try to make sure this new information is really good.
   
  A skeptic would brush it off as a flawed experiment.
   
   
   
  The problem here is that, how do we really know if the experiment is flawed, or indeed, a proper blind test? 
   
  It's easier to brush it off as a flawed experiment, which seems to be what everyone's expecting of someone who comes in with results.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





blue boat said:


> Like someone else said earlier, for non-believers or anyone who's not looking hard enough, it's easy to flub a blind test.


 

 That was me. Am I still being unscientific?


----------



## liamstrain

That is one reason why we pepper so many questions... to try to get at the methodology used - there are good guidelines for experimental controls and construction (and some measure of faith in their reporting is required). 
   
  Then the test is repeated by others. And the results are evaluated. 
   
  It is not easy. Doing a proper double blind test can take a lot of effort to do well, and have a large enough sample to be truly useful. 
   
  But I guarantee most of the posters in here, if presented with a good study, with statistically significant results - repeatable, falsifiable, etc... will spin on a dime. I love gear and tweaks - I would love to be able to actually have quantifiable, verifiable proof of this... Thus far, no such study has supported the cable crew hypothesis - and yet it is consistently touted as "common knowledge" and used by unscrupulous salesmen (supported by "community wisdom" and false claims to unverifiable evidences) to drive what increasingly appears to be a snake oil business.
   
  I take being an audiophile seriously. I enjoy my music and I enjoy my meager (but growing) gear. I fully acknowledge that there is a place for the aesthetic, the intangible, and the fantastic in my enjoyment of the hobby. But I also really enjoy pointing to something I researched and chose and saying, honestly, THAT doohicky is why you really do hear an improvement - and then being able to prove it. And I really hate having to repeat myself, every time somebody comes into a discussion a year later and says something inane, that has been thoroughly debunked time and time again - but keeps cropping up as "truth" in another forum. It does a disservice to knowledge - and I believe, is far from harmless. 
   
  /rant. 
   
  Sorry. Got going there. I have work to do tonight still. 
   
  Latcho ratya.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





head injury said:


> That the audible differences between cables is the result of placebo and not cable construction is not a hypothesis. It is a theory. It is supported by evidence.


 
   
  Um, if the differences are audible, then it's obviously not the result of placebo. Wanna rephrase that?


----------



## Armaegis

If only it were so simple to bury the hatchet with "louder = better" (at a given gain setting) plus whatever equal loudness cockamamy, but life isn't that simple.
   
  I imagine an ohm or two difference in speakers cables makes for a more noticeable difference in loudness.
   
  Bleh.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





blue boat said:


> So your stance is that cables may make audible differences in blind tests, but not due to material or construction choices? I don't think anyone's refuting the claim that cables
> 
> do make an audible difference... It's just that the difference cannot/have not been detected in properly conducted blind tests.
> 
> ...


 



 What I did was to gather all the credible reports of blind tests I could find here
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
   
  and then after much pondering and discussion realised that there was a definite and consistent connection between blind comparison and ABX tests, where differences are reported in the former but not the latter.
   
  Bear in mind when you say that it would be intersting to see if people can still detect differences in blnd tests the answer is that yes they can can. But and it is a big BUT, what you find is
   
   - sighted testing finds the biggest differences between cables and the most consistent when compared to price, image and construction type (e.g silver is brighter). There is still disagreement between people as to which sounds the best.
   
   - blind comparison finds the differences get much smaller, there is no connection anymore to price, image and construction type. There is still disagreement between people as to which sounds best.
   
   - ABX testing finds that no one can reliably tell a difference between any cable at all. However, some people still report hearing a difference, but others (myslef included) can no longer hear anything. So you find some ABX tests abandoned as people admit they cannot hear anything at all so what is the point in continuing. That is what I did as I saw no point in continuing and risking damaging my amp by constantly pulling tight cables off the connections. However the majority of the tests I have linked to in the audiophile myths thread above are run to their conclusion, with the result that no one can reliably identify one cable from another. 
   
  My conclusion from the above is that the other senses have an affect on how we hear sound quality, as we remove the other senses we reduce the ability to hear sound quality to the point no one can identify anything anymore and that the affects vary from person to person.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





blue boat said:


> Nope. In this case, the believers do the blind test first. If he showed that he could distinguish different cables, it has to be reproduced again by other members. Like someone else said earlier, for non-believers or anyone who's not looking hard enough, it's easy to flub a blind test. So it has to be reproduced by believers, no? And when the believers come up with similar results in a proper blind test, what then?
> 
> Are you just going to brush it off as a couple of flawed experiments? A scientist would look into the matter. A skeptic would brush it off.
> 
> I hope you're getting my point of view.


 

 The vast majority of blind tests have been conducted by audiophiles who generally come into the believer camp. But it turns out that whether you are a believer or not, the results remain the same. The evidence is all there in the audiophile myths thread.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





blue boat said:


> I totally get this.
> 
> Someone with an open mind would want to try to make sure this new information is really good.
> 
> ...


 



 As a sceptic I take exception to the idea that we do not have open minds as I certainly have and so do all the others I know, see here http://www.skeptic.com/. Sceptics are not closed minded at all, what we do is examine evidence to see how true it is, rather tahn just blindly accept it. So what we would do with any experiment is to examine its methodology and see if it is well done or not. To that extent sceptics are very similar to scientists.
   
  When I look at blind testing results I do so as a sceptic rather than a scientist. I look at the methodology of the test and credibility of the person reporting it before I accept it as a valid test. That is a sensible and resonable thing to do. If I brush a test off, it is because so far it has failed the criteria to be a valid test. Again, a perfectly reasonable thing to do.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Um, if the differences are audible, then it's obviously not the result of placebo. Wanna rephrase that?


 

 Why? Placebo medicines cure people and a placebo cable can sound better 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I agree that placebo is not a very good descriptive of what is going on here. There is more to it than that. I prefer psychoacoustics as we are talking of the affect of other senses and influences on sound qaulity.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Why? Placebo medicines cure people and a placebo cable can sound better


 

 But you didn't say "sound better." You said "That the *audible differences* between cables is the result of placebo..." If the difference is an *audible* one, then it's decidedly *not* due to placebo.
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I was commenting on your reply to Head Injury and his comment about placebo. If there really was an audible difference within a cable, it would not be placebo. But the mind effect caused by our senses and influences is a kind of placebo effect.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> But you didn't say "sound better." You said "That the *audible differences* between cables is the result of placebo..." If the difference is an *audible* one, then it's decidedly *not* due to placebo.
> 
> se


 

 Audible differences in sighted tests. Perceived differences. Not real audible differences.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Audible differences in sighted tests. Perceived differences. Not real audible differences.


 

 Audible means only one thing.
   
  se


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Audible means only one thing.
> 
> se


 


*:* heard or capable of being heard 
   
   
  If you ask me, that makes something one _hears_ as a result of placebo audible.  Does that necessarily make it a real sound?  No - because the definition of audible is tied to what you hear, not more specifically to what sounds occur that one may hear.
   
  For example, with the McGurk effect I would say that when the presenter is shown saying "bah" but his lips move like "fah", "fah" is audible when you are watching him - and when you close your eyes, "bah" is now audible.  I would say that audibility is intrinsically tied into what we perceive, and as such does in fact incorporate the rest of our senses - even when they mislead us.
   
  But we're playing word games again - because based on context it is perfectly clear what he meant.


----------



## bmiamihk

Ok let me clear it up. The silver cables brings out a fuller sound. Why does it I do not know I am not a scientist but I can compare it to a hose. If I am using a thin hose there will be a limti on the flow of water. If I use a huge hose that I can walk inside of there will be no flow using the same amount of water as before. I guess the silver wire is like a hose with the correct diameter which allows the better flow.

  
  Quote: 





armaegis said:


> If only it were so simple to bury the hatchet with "louder = better" (at a given gain setting) plus whatever equal loudness cockamamy, but life isn't that simple.
> 
> I imagine an ohm or two difference in speakers cables makes for a more noticeable difference in loudness.
> 
> Bleh.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Ok let me clear it up. The silver cables brings out a fuller sound. Why does it I do not know I am not a scientist but I can compare it to a hose. If I am using a thin hose there will be a limti on the flow of water. If I use a huge hose that I can walk inside of there will be no flow using the same amount of water as before. I guess the silver wire is like a hose with the correct diameter which allows the better flow.


 

 Now we just have to demonstrate a correlation between the not-silver cable and a limit on signal flow.


----------



## bmiamihk

Sounds like a good idea.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *BlackbeardBen* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> *:* heard or capable of being heard
> 
> ...


 
   
  hear : to perceive or apprehend by the ear
   
  Quote: 





> If you ask me, that makes something one _hears_ as a result of placebo audible.  Does that necessarily make it a real sound?  No - because the definition of audible is tied to what you hear, not more specifically to what sounds occur that one may hear.


 
   
  And what you actually hear is tied to what actually reaches your ear.
   
  Quote: 





> For example, with the McGurk effect I would say that when the presenter is shown saying "bah" but his lips move like "fah", "fah" is audible when you are watching him - and when you close your eyes, "bah" is now audible.


 
   
  No, it is not audible. Because there is no change in what's presented to the ear. Therefore the perceived difference is wholly due to the brain and nothing to do with the ear.
   
  Quote: 





> I would say that audibility is intrinsically tied into what we perceive, and as such does in fact incorporate the rest of our senses - even when they mislead us.


 
   
  No, audibility is not intrinsically tied to what we perceive. For there to be an audible difference, there must also be a difference in what's received by the ear.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Ok let me clear it up. The silver cables brings out a fuller sound. Why does it I do not know I am not a scientist but I can compare it to a hose. If I am using a thin hose there will be a limti on the flow of water. If I use a huge hose that I can walk inside of there will be no flow using the same amount of water as before. I guess the silver wire is like a hose with the correct diameter which allows the better flow.


 
   
  But if you simply use a little more copper, you can have a hose of the same size.
   
  se


----------



## drez

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> hear : to perceive or apprehend by the ear
> 
> 
> And what you actually hear is tied to what actually reaches your ear.
> ...


 

 But, if I'm not mistaken, we cannot hear without the brain, which is coloured by our preconceptions unless we trick it by blind testing etc.  But you are right - audible to me suggests the perception of sound which can be repeatably perceived by others.
   
  What you hear on the other hand can be as divorced from reality as you want.


----------



## bmiamihk

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> But if you simply use a little more copper, you can have a hose of the same size.
> 
> se


 


   Maybe so, maYBE ONE DAY THESE SAME COMPANIES CAN OFFER THEIR OWN UPGRADES AND BESIDES THE UPGRADES LOOK PRETTY HAHAHA. My goal is for deeper bass without blasting the volume. what the heck sometimes I do like it poud.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> My goal is for deeper bass without blasting the volume. what the heck sometimes I do like it poud.


 


  Get a ZO, or eq, or cans with drivers designed for it. There is no indication that any cable will have any effect on the amount and quality of the bass you hear.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

It would certainly appear and not unreasonably, that people describe in the mind effects as audible.


----------



## Somnambulist

This one been posted before?
  http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm


----------



## bmiamihk

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Get a ZO, or eq, or cans with drivers designed for it. There is no indication that any cable will have any effect on the amount and quality of the bass you hear.


 


   I agree, EQ is the way to bring out the bass. I use a Cowon for that because Apple well a Apple is a music toy with a lot of limitations.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Sorry, but Hawksford got it wrong. His article has been pretty well debunked by J E for years now. Wish people would stop making reference to it.
> 
> se


 

 Why?  It's fun seeing people believe a 50 hz signal can travel slower than I can jog. (and I'm not a fast jogger..)
   
  jn


----------



## wudai_e

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Why would Sennheiser or anyone else use an under performing cable? Why do Canon or Nikon include a crappy $200 kit lens with their $2,000 DSLRs? Aren't they crippling their own cameras? Kind of, yeah. If all you ever shoot with is the kit lens, you aren't really getting your money's worth. If they included $2,000 pro grade lenses in their kits, well that would double the price of the camera, wouldn't it?


 
   
  This is such a false analogy, Lenses in the camera system is the equivalent of your speakers in the audio chain. Wire is wire, I wonder if Nikon or Canon should upgrade their internal solder and wiring to pure gold in increase their imagery! 
   
  Sorry, I just have to LOL on this.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> Why?  It's fun seeing people believe a 50 hz signal can travel slower than I can jog. (and I'm not a fast jogger..)


 

 Well well, look what the cat dragged in. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Well well, look what the cat dragged in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  How's life been treating you Steve??  Hope all is well.
  john


----------



## Tilpo

jnjn said:


> steve eddy said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but Hawksford got it wrong. His article has been pretty well debunked by J E for years now. Wish people would stop making reference to it.
> ...




Well, the electrons themselves are moving only with a couple centimeters per second...


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Well, the electrons themselves are moving only with a couple centimeters per second...


 

 Much slower, actually.  Depends on the current density.
   
  Hawksford confused radial penetration of an e/m field with propagation along the t-line axis.  The signals will travel along the wire pair at it's prop velocity.  Half lightspeed is not uncommon.
   
  jn


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> How's life been treating you Steve??  Hope all is well.


 

 Doing great, John! Hope the same for you and yours!
   
  Been much too long since we last talked. Perhaps we can hook up before Christmas? We can continue this in EMail.
   
  se


----------



## Tilpo

jnjn said:


> Much slower, actually.  Depends on the current density.
> 
> Hawksford confused radial penetration of an e/m field with propagation along the t-line axis.  The signals will travel along the wire pair at it's prop velocity.  Half lightspeed is not uncommon.
> 
> jn




I can't wait to start on my physics bachelor next year. I will probably need it to understand what you just said. 

If t-line axis means time, then I might sort of get what your saying...


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I can't wait to start on my physics bachelor next year. I will probably need it to understand what you just said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Ah, sorry.  No.
   
  The electrons actually travel at mm/sec speed if your unlucky. For example, within a 1mm dia wire with 10 amperes of current, the electrons are drifting at 336 centimeters per hour.
   
  If you go to this website:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
   
  Then click on :
   
  electricity and magnetism:
  electric current:
  microscopic view of electric current:
  scroll down to drift velocity of charge carriers.
   
  They have a calculator for how fast the electrons move in a copper wire.
   
  A T-line is a transmission line.  A coax is one, a parallel wire pair is another.
   
  Cheers, jn


----------



## liamstrain

I think the problem people make is assuming electron drift, and signal are the same thing.


----------



## Tilpo

jnjn said:


> tilpo said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait to start on my physics bachelor next year. I will probably need it to understand what you just said.
> ...



I know how to calculate electron drift velocity, that's not the problem. I just remembered it as centimeters per second instead of hour.


----------



## Armaegis

Did I miss something? Who is mister "jnjn"?


----------



## Steve Eddy

.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Did I miss something? Who is mister "jnjn"?


 

 I must have been reading your mind. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> I must have been reading your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 So much for anonymity..


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> So much for anonymity..


 
   
  Dude, I'm sorry. I've deleted the post.
   
  se


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Dude, I'm sorry. I've deleted the post.
> 
> se


 

 No problemo.  I never stated preferences.
   
  Thank you.
   
  Cheers, jn


----------



## wudai_e

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Again, can you feel a pea under ten mattresses? Just as measurements are limited by the resolution of the measuring equipment, so too are cables limited by the resolution of the headphones or speakers. If you're connecting a $50 DVD player to a $150 A/V receiver and some cheap bookshelf speakers, _don't waste any money on cables. _I'd be the first to tell you that. You could spend tens of thousands of dollars on Siltech Royal Signature for that system, and you'd hear no difference. The equipment simply couldn't take advantage of it. It would be the same as strapping a $2K piece of Canon L glass to a cellphone camera. Kind of dumb.
> 
> Though I don't always follow it, generally I think the "20% rule" for cables is sound advice. Spend 20% of the price of the equipment on cables for that piece of equipment. Thousand dollar amp? Spend $200 on interconnects. _Where _you put that $200 of course makes a lot of difference. Signal Cable's $100 Silver Resolution will beat up $200 cables from most of the big brands. One should always spend wisely.
> 
> If you have a $60 MDR-V6 and you follow the rule, that leaves $12 for a headphone cable. So.. don't bother.


 
   

[size=10pt]How can you draw an analogy between cable, headphones, and mattresses is beyond me! I still yet to find any mattress on the market that can transmit AC signal on the mV level, can you point me where to find one? Plus and why everything you post in this discussion sounds so authoritive, or trying to be? Should I take your opinion with a grain of salt? From the way you word everything there is absolutely no room for that. Why? Is it so important to be right on a topic that can't be proven either way? [/size]


----------



## wudai_e

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> .... Let me use YET ANOTHER analogy to see maybe if it seeps in this time. Let's say you're trying to judge differences between pro grade Canon L or Nikkor FX lenses...
> 
> Do you understand what I'm saying here?.


 

  
  No, and please stop coming up with false analogies to prove whatever you are trying to prove. Lens construction vs. Cable making?? Are you serious?? And yes, I'm done quoting you.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I know how to calculate electron drift velocity, that's not the problem. I just remembered it as centimeters per second instead of hour.


 
  Not a problem.  Sorry if it looked like I was dissin you, that was not my intent.  You said you were looking towards starting your physics ScB, so I figured I'd post a link to that site so everybody knew what we were talking about....  That is one really cool site.
   
  In his paper, Hawksford derived the equations for prop velocity of an E/M wave into copper..he wrote at the time that this energy driving in had to come out again, so had this residual thing going.  He put an experiment together, and lo and behold, what he expected to show up....did.
   
  Unfortunately, he was not accurate in the derivations nor design.  Specifically how they applied to the system.  From the paper, he did not appear to have any experience in the correct design of the test setup, it looks like his test was not accurate enough for a low impedance measurement.(and accurate measurements of a low impedance system are a bit...ch).  He also neglected the permeability of the steel wire he used in lieu of copper(John Curl stated that Malcolm told him the wire had a relative permeability of 100).  Bottom line, he mis-interpreted the test results, because the results were consistent with his expected outcome..He thought he found a "residual", but what he found actually, was inductance that was not accounted for in the derivations.
   
  Such is life.  I've read other, more current papers from Malcolm Hawksford on other subjects, and consider him one of the best in what he understands.  .
   
  Cheers, jn


----------



## OPrwtos

has anyone used the stock cable of a headphone, taken the frequency response, then used a really bad cable and then tested the frequency response and then an expensive cable and check the frequency response???


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





oprwtos said:


> has anyone used the stock cable of a headphone, taken the frequency response, then used a really bad cable and then tested the frequency response and then an expensive cable and check the frequency response???


 

 cheapskateaudio did a measurement of stock vs. silver aftermarket cables with his HD650 that showed differences, but he never reciprocated to requests for repeated tests.
   
  "reciprocated to requests for repeated tests" say that 10 times fast.


----------



## OPrwtos

Quote: 





head injury said:


> cheapskateaudio did a measurement of stock vs. silver aftermarket cables with his HD650 that showed differences, but he never reciprocated to requests for repeated tests.
> 
> *"reciprocated to requests for repeated tests" say that 10 times fast.*


 
  lol not so much of a tongue twister really.
   
  Also yeh, i really want people to do proper frequency tests, that would be good. But other than using just the stock and silver after market cable, i want to see someone use a really bad cable just so we can really see how much the cable effects the outcome.
   
  I just saw his tests, but i would have liked it if he used proper equipment other than a mic, also trying various wires. Plus different types of drivers.


----------



## NA Blur

I find it interested that we use the term "high end" when what we really mean is more expensive.  How many times do we claim that a less expensive cable sounds better when our hard earned money is up for grabs.  Just like a more expensive set of headphones we often expect it to be better, but I have had so many poor sounding expensive headphones that I use words like frequency response, harmonic distortion, and square wave response rather than using the words better or high end.
   
  Take a look at the review for the Ultrasone Edition 10:
   
  http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/ultrasone-edition-10
   
  Did high end make it better?  I think not.


----------



## pcf

Quote: 





na blur said:


> I find it interested that we use the term "high end" when what we really mean is more expensive.


 

  
  There has been enough discussion about that already but the term "high end" still make me think of good, expensive stuff, not cheap giant killers.


----------



## bmiamihk

Better material does help and so better material will cost you more then yarn.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Better material does help and so better material will cost you more then yarn.


 

 How does it help?


----------



## bmiamihk

Read in this web site. I myself have bought many earphones ranging from $150 to a little over $1,000 dollars and when I replaced the stock earphones it did make an improvement. Also there are some users on here who has spent over $8,000 Dollars of just In earphones who have also tried the better material (Silver) cables and they also agreed.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Read in this web site. I myself have bought many earphones ranging from $150 to a little over $1,000 dollars and when I replaced the stock earphones it did make an improvement. Also there are some users on here who has spent over $8,000 Dollars of just In earphones who have also tried the better material (Silver) cables and they also agreed.


 

 So it doesn't help the signal, just makes you feel better?


----------



## bmiamihk

I guess by your "trying to feel your are smarter then others" remark you are saying that what ever I believe or feel better means that using any material makes no difference? Well I did not only think it I bought it after trying it out for free from a store and a friend. If it didnt improve I would just use a portable amp. We learn more by doing then thinking.


----------



## bmiamihk

Here is a review on the improved cables for you to read and learn boy.
   
http://www.head-fi.org/t/564978/13-custom-iem-tf10-cables-reviewed-uber-muzik-v5f-added-1-03-2012


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> I guess by your "trying to feel your are smarter then others" remark you are saying that what ever I believe or feel better means that using any material makes no difference? Well I did not only think it I bought it after trying it out for free from a store and a friend. If it didnt improve I would just use a portable amp. We learn more by doing then thinking.


 

      Quote:


bmiamihk said:


> Here is a review on the improved cables for you to read and learn boy.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/564978/13-custom-iem-tf10-cables-reviewed-uber-muzik-v5f-added-1-03-2012


 

 Sorry, but I see no correlation there between price, material, and all of the reviewed aspects. One of the best cables from an ergonomic perspective was a stock $40 cable. Buying a cable for ergonomics makes _perfect sense_, but as the review shows price does not always guarantee ergonomics! And no one has ever shown a _real_ audible difference that matters and correlates with material (ignoring resistance, etc. which can be countered with a larger or smaller gauge) construction, or price.
   
  (should probably clarify that resistance doesn't matter for what we hear either, unless in very specific conditions)


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Here is a review on the improved cables for you to read and learn boy.


 

 Take the "boy" schiit someplace else.
   
  se


----------



## bmiamihk

Ok I mean dude then.


----------



## Tilpo

bmiamihk said:


> Here is a review on the improved cables for you to read and learn boy.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/564978/13-custom-iem-tf10-cables-reviewed-uber-muzik-v5f-added-1-03-2012




I think this has been said before, but: this is the sound science forum. We do not care for anecdotal evidence to support a claim.


----------



## Willakan

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I think this has been said before, but: this is the sound science forum. We do not care for anecdotal evidence to support a claim.


 


+1. @bmiamihk: Why do you bother?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





willakan said:


> +1. @bmiamihk: Why do you bother?


 


  Congrats on your 1000th post.
   
  Yeah we shouldn't bother about others' experience. Not here at least.
   
  We listen by interpreting graphs and charts. =)


----------



## bmiamihk

so users here look and then rrepeat what another found out?


----------



## Willakan

Heh, I'm quite happy for people to hear differences between cables/amps/DACs just as long as it's under controlled conditions.
  When it is under completely uncontrolled conditions...it doesn't really show anything of use.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





uelover said:


> We listen by interpreting graphs and charts. =)


 

 No. We listen with our ears. And here we _interpret_ with graphs, charts, and common sense, because we know how fallible the lump of meat in our skulls is.


----------



## liamstrain

welcome to the sound science subforum bmiamihk...
   
  unfortunately, Head Injury is right. There has not been shown to be any audible or measurable difference between properly made headphone cables, regardless of whether silver, occ copper, or regular copper, etc. Better material can contribute to psycho-acoustical differences (just like good packaging does). But in blind testing, no actual audible difference has yet been shown to exist.


----------



## bmiamihk

Ok I understand the graphs that you fancy is telling you with picture graphs and words that the material used in a cable  that connects a receiver/amp to the speakers (earphones) makes no difference with the sound or volume. So you are telling me to spend extra on a so called upgrade material is a waste of money due to what you found on the internet and that stock cables are good enough. Ok got you. Thanks scientists.


----------



## Pepsi

Yet businesses are selling headphone cables for 200+ a pop, and claiming a lot of BS. I understand this hobby is overpriced, but for some cables? seriously? There's no gain besides cosmetics imho. And I do admit, that is the only reason why i "upgraded" my cables, there was absolutely no difference between my stock ones and my Cardas.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Ok I understand the graphs that you fancy is telling you with picture graphs and words that the material used in a cable  that connects a receiver/amp to the speakers (earphones) makes no difference with the sound or volume. So you are telling me to spend extra on a so called upgrade material is a waste of money due to what you found on the internet and that stock cables are good enough. Ok got you. Thanks scientists.


 


  This thread is located at science forum (sadly it wasn't initially but got moved here because the 'scientists' just swamped in and took control of it).
   
  At other forums in head-fi, you are welcome to share your personal anecdote but not over here.
   
  Thus, if it makes you feel better, you can share your experience at other threads in other sub-forums and treat this thread as some sort of sterile laboratory.


----------



## bmiamihk

So you do not share anything you think? You just view something and then infform what you read without any personal input?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> So you do not share anything you think? You just view something and then infform what you read without any personal input?


 


  Sorry if I did not make this clear.
   
  This thread is located at science forum. To make a claim, you will need to support it with evidences. i.e., if you say that you saw an UFO, prove it to us.
   
  If you want to share things that you personally feel is true and wants to share that experience with other people, _don't_ come to a science department and yell at the scientists.
  There are other plenty of forums within head-fi that allow you to do that.


----------



## liamstrain

No. In this forum, users try to support their words with actual, measurable, repeatable, testable evidence, or at the very least good inductive and deductive reasons using applied scientific theories which *could* be tested. But thanks for playing. Please enjoy the rest of the website.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





uelover said:


> This thread is located at science forum (sadly it wasn't initially but got moved here because the 'scientists' just swamped in and took control of it).
> 
> At other forums in head-fi, you are welcome to share your personal anecdote but not over here.
> 
> Thus, if it makes you feel better, you can share your experience at other threads in other sub-forums and treat this thread as some sort of sterile laboratory.


 

 I don't recall anyone, ever, making these rules. There is no requirement, anywhere in the Terms of Service, Posting Guidelines or elsewhere stating any requirement for the types of discussion permitted in this forum.
   
  That being said, this particular forum is for the discussion of science. It is not for the railroading of opinions by people or groups with a particular belief. I say this to everyone, not just you.
  
  Quote: 





willakan said:


> Heh, I'm quite happy for people to hear differences between cables/amps/DACs just as long as it's under controlled conditions.
> When it is under completely uncontrolled conditions...it doesn't really show anything of use.


 

 Whose thread was this originally? Are you the arbiter of the rules here? I don't think so. If that was not the intent of your post, it sure seems like it was.
   
   
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Again, this rule doesn't exist, anywhere.
   
  This was the original post: 
   
   
  Quote: 





shure530 said:


> I was doing a little research on the net and so far i've gotten mixed reviews.
> There was one experiment where the test subject couldn't tell the difference between a monster cable and a cheap wire.
> 
> I'm using the SR71B + Algorhythm Solo + Audeze LCD2 + iPad.
> ...






  Indeed, it wasn't made in this forum. As the discussion has moved away from the original topic, I'm closing this thread.


----------

