# Any prove cables make a difference?



## reano

Does anyone have real proof that cables actually make any real differences (no brainer) I've tried a few and not really heard anything (when being honest). These include stefan audioart, russ andrews, RnB, Cardas, QED, etc, etc.


----------



## Zorander

Then consider yourself lucky that you won't need to spend any money on this whole cable thing. There are many others who can hear a difference and are unfortunately mired in the financial trap this aspect of hobby carries.

 Cheers!


----------



## nelamvr6

If you do a search you'll find dozens, if not hundreds of thread in similar, if not identical veins.

 If you don't want to spend money on cables then don't.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nelamvr6* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you do a search you'll find dozens, if not hundreds of thread in similar, if not identical veins.

 If you don't want to spend money on cables then don't._

 

X2.
 If you don't hear it, don't bother.


----------



## markl

For people just starting out in this hobby (as are most people on this site), it's not surprising that differences can't be heard.

 Starting to hear real differences between headphones is equivalent to being a 1st grader learning how to add and subtract in mathematics. At that stage of auiophile/hearing/brain development and training, trying to hear cable differences is like jumping straight to trigonometry. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Or, if you like, it's like learning a new language. You start out with "see spot run" and you master that. But that doesn't make you qualified/prepared to turn around start reading Proust in the original French. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Of course it doesn't make any sense. Over time and experience, your ability to discern these things develops like a muscle.

 You may just not be ready yet, Grasshopper.


----------



## omendelovitz

search and you'll find tons of threads like this one. You'll find many answers there as well.

 Bottom line: Cables come dead last on any system you plan to put together. I was at a meet in Hamilton where we auditioned Senn 650's with 3 aftermarket cables - the sonic differences were plain to see for all reviewers (3 or 4 of us); HOWEVER!!!! - we were listening through a Meridian G08 and Tyll's top-of-the-line Headroom Max amp (with many simultaneous outputs). We are also more seasoned listeners. 

 IMO/IME, cabling on headphones = noticeable difference based on system resolution (don't expect much if sourcing through an iPod!); IC's - I can't comment as I've only needed them for iPod apps and in cases like that, I heard no discernible differences b/w quality connects (e.g. starquad copper stranded vs. solid core silver).


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nelamvr6* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you do a search you'll find dozens, if not hundreds of thread in similar, if not identical veins.

 If you don't want to spend money on cables then don't._

 

 What he said!


----------



## StevieDvd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone have real proof that cables actually make any real differences (no brainer) I've tried a few and not really heard anything (when being honest). These include stefan audioart, russ andrews, RnB, Cardas, QED, etc, etc._

 

YES.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Remove cables entirely - no sound
 Add cables - sound 

 I like to interpret questions literally


----------



## newguru

Cables are very subjective. If you don't personally hear a different then our input really doesn't matter.


----------



## JaZZ

«Silver Moon Balanced» = balanced Moon Audio Silver Dragon? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## bigshot

Consider the validity of an argument that has to resort to condescention... "Well, if you can't hear a difference, your ears are ignorant." ...to make a point.

 If cables made a real difference, there wouldn't be an argument. There would be clear and convincing evidence. The only evidence I see in the arguments made in the defense of high end cables is that they seem to function as an ego boost of some sort. That's fine for some folks, but my self worth is invested in things other than stereo systems, cars and designer clothing.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

If you want to lose some weight then cables is the way to go. I was fat when I entered this hobby, but then I found Nordost Valhalla cable and lost 15cm from my waist, Valhalla is that good!


----------



## StevieDvd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_«Silver Moon Balanced» = balanced Moon Audio Silver Dragon? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



._

 

Think I confused was when typed this I did.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Consider the validity of an argument that has to resort to condescention... "Well, if you can't hear a difference, your ears are ignorant." ...to make a point.

 If cables made a real difference, there wouldn't be an argument. There would be clear and convincing evidence. The only evidence I see in the arguments made in the defense of high end cables is that they seem to function as an ego boost of some sort. That's fine for some folks, but my self worth is invested in things other than stereo systems, cars and designer clothing._

 

The problem is that there are sonic differences below sound-transducer level, reaching to almost any sublety. Considering the variety of hearing thresholds, below a certain level there will be no unanimity. 

 The ego-boost argument doesn't convince me. In turn the above-mentioned makes a scenario rather likely where people with higher hearing thresholds get defensive and try to trivialize the audiophile hunt for «imagined sonic differences» (not to consider themselves and be considered tin ears).

 I would like to get a «proof» for objective cable differences as well. Not in the form of measurements (there are measuring differences!), but in the form of statistical relevance gained from listening tests. I do hear differences in cables and have passed a blind test with headphone cables, but that's not proof for others. 
.


----------



## FallenAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do hear differences in cables and have passed a blind test with headphone cables, but that's not proof for others._

 

Why isn't that "proof". I agree completely. I can hear differences (quite substantial sometimes) in cables used. Is there really any other "proof" that can ever be provided. Skeptics ask for concrete evidence, but not the electrical measurement kind because of course there are resistance / capacitance differences between cables of different makeup. Not sure how else to really provide proof other than to say "Well, I can hear a difference and I think cable A sounds better than cable B and considering the price/improvement ratio it may or may not be worth the upgrade".

 Simply put, to all the skeptics that blindly don't believe cables make a difference, buy a cable, listen to it, and if you don't think there is a difference, just return it. I'm thinking of offering one of my cables for free soon just to have it float around and see if people like it.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Consider the validity of an argument that has to resort to condescention... "Well, if you can't hear a difference, your ears are ignorant." ...to make a point.

 If cables made a real difference, there wouldn't be an argument. There would be clear and convincing evidence. The only evidence I see in the arguments made in the defense of high end cables is that they seem to function as an ego boost of some sort. That's fine for some folks, but my self worth is invested in things other than stereo systems, cars and designer clothing.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

The only defensive action I see is your vehement action to defend and justify your inability to hear the difference.
 Relax. Nobody is atacking you. 
 Your quest for Ultimate Fidelity is possibly a lot easier than for those who do hear a difference.


----------



## Lord Chaos

The human perceptual system is subject to a lot of faults, and is easy to fool. Just start asking people what "white" is if you want to find out how many different approaches there are.

 A/B testing is pretty good at finding things that sound different. Whether one is better than the other is another question, as we quickly become adapted to whatever the current standard is, and then fatigue sets in.

 Perception is interesting. I learned a lot when I started processing images for display on the Web. I do sand sculpture and usually shoot a series of pictures as I walk around it. You'd think that with the same sun illuminating the same scene, with all photos taken within a few minutes, there'd be no difference between them. Each image was different, though. The color balance varied slightly from one to the next, and in trying to get them all to look the same I basically just ended up confusing myself as to what "white" really was. My eyes got tired.

 Perception is fascinating. You can't pin it down, but somewhere in the gestalt of human experience is an indication of difference. It takes time to develop, or perhaps a surprise. You've listened to one system for a long time so have a good model of what it sounds like, and then you change something. It's different... but better? You have to go with feeling. Does the new item make you want to listen to more music? Does it bring you a sense of wonder that's hard to describe but quite clear to you? Justifying purchase of audio gear is in the ears of the beholder. If you can hear the difference between cables, that's great. Sensitivity is an underappreciated thing in our culture.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lord Chaos* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The human perceptual system is subject to a lot of faults, and is easy to fool. Just start asking people what "white" is if you want to find out how many different approaches there are.

 A/B testing is pretty good at finding things that sound different. Whether one is better than the other is another question, as we quickly become adapted to whatever the current standard is, and then fatigue sets in.

 Perception is interesting. I learned a lot when I started processing images for display on the Web. I do sand sculpture and usually shoot a series of pictures as I walk around it. You'd think that with the same sun illuminating the same scene, with all photos taken within a few minutes, there'd be no difference between them. Each image was different, though. The color balance varied slightly from one to the next, and in trying to get them all to look the same I basically just ended up confusing myself as to what "white" really was. My eyes got tired.

 Perception is fascinating. You can't pin it down, but somewhere in the gestalt of human experience is an indication of difference. It takes time to develop, or perhaps a surprise. You've listened to one system for a long time so have a good model of what it sounds like, and then you change something. It's different... but better? You have to go with feeling. Does the new item make you want to listen to more music? Does it bring you a sense of wonder that's hard to describe but quite clear to you? Justifying purchase of audio gear is in the ears of the beholder. If you can hear the difference between cables, that's great. Sensitivity is an underappreciated thing in our culture._

 

Well said.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 See sig.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lord Chaos* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sensitivity is an underappreciated thing in our culture._

 

Well said! 

 On this background the Head-Fi forum is sort of a reservation for people who give room to their senses instead of worshipping measuring values and only using the left brain half.
.


----------



## mlhm5

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone have real proof that cables actually make any real differences (no brainer) I've tried a few and not really heard anything (when being honest). These include stefan audioart, russ andrews, RnB, Cardas, QED, etc, etc._

 

I think the operative phrase from your question is "real proof". The answer is an unqualified no. None of the sonic superiority advertising claims can be proven.

 Example: One of the finest amplifiers made today, Perreaux, does not come with a fancy power cord. If it made a difference, they would not willfully commit marketing suicide by knowingly degrading the performance of their amplifier by equipping the unit with an inadequate power cord so the customer could have a bad impression straight out of the box.

 Secondly, most recordings made today use interconnects, cables and wiring that an audiophile would consider barely acceptable, if at all.

 Let me also add that unlike the visual rememberences, sonic rememberences are, at best, fleeting and incomplete. 

 You can easily remember and construct every detail of the faces of the people in your life, however when it comes to your favorite song, the same memories just are not there.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If cables made a real difference, there wouldn't be an argument. There would be clear and convincing evidence. The only evidence I see in the arguments made in the defense of high end cables is that they seem to function as an ego boost of some sort. 
_

 

 Man, what a load of hooey. You've outdone yourself with this one.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ILet me also add that unlike the visual rememberences, sonic rememberences are, at best, fleeting and incomplete. 

 You can easily remember and construct every detail of the faces of the people in your life, however when it comes to your favorite song, the same memories just are not there._

 

I disagree with this completely. My experience, frankly, is quite the opposite. Perhaps people have different abilities in this area, like in many areas.


----------



## PhilS

I have a CD changer and a very high end CD player that has been modded. I have a cheap headphone amp and a high end headphone amp made by Singlepower. I have some krappy do it yourself cables and some pretty decent aftermarket cables. I have no scientific "proof" that the modded CD player sounds better than the CD changer, that the SP amp sounds better than the cheap headphone amp, or that the aftermarket cables sound better than the cheap DIY cables.

 However, if you put the components together as a system, you would have to be deaf to think they sound the same. And the high end system sounds better in every aspect. But, again, there is no "proof" of this.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Example: One of the finest amplifiers made today, Perreaux, does not come with a fancy power cord. If it made a difference, they would not willfully commit marketing suicide by knowingly degrading the performance of their amplifier by equipping the unit with an inadequate power cord so the customer could have a bad impression straight out of the box.
_

 

Your logic is not only faulty, it's refuted by many other examples that one can find with other products. For example, why doesn't every automobile come standard with the best possible tires?


----------



## mlhm5

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I disagree with this completely. My experience, frankly, is quite the opposite. Perhaps people have different abilities in this area, like in many areas._

 

I have a friend who builds guitars and can identify any note played or anything that sounds like a note from non musical instruments. Pretty amazing guy and you are light years ahead of him.

Campbell Guitars


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a friend who builds guitars and can identify any note played or anything that sounds like a note from non musical instruments. Pretty amazing guy and you are light years ahead of him.
_

 

No, I'm sure I'm not. But we're talking about apples and oranges.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

If the OP is talking about the differences in cable in terms of end SQ, a dummy-proof way is to have an ALO Bling Bling and ALO Jumbo Cryo.

 It is very obvious how the BB "constricts" the sound, and esp. with metal (Tool), heavy passages on the track sound like a car wreck, but with the Jumbo Cryo, it's like having super-huge bandwidth; there is now enough room and then some for any instrument to be clearly and distinctly heard.

 As for cables being upgraded last...I guess that works. But IMHO it also depends on what the cab;e will be used for. I had an iPod - BB - Hornet - K701, and guess which one was killing my system?

 I'll give you one guess.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *StevieDvd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_YES.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Remove cables entirely - no sound
 Add cables - sound_

 

That reasoning is flawed. The same would apply to the following: Can differences be perceived when playing two identical original CDs?
 Remove CDs entirely - no sound
 Play CDs - sound
 Therefore: Differences between original CDs can be heard.

 With respect to blind testing people need to be skeptic enough about those alleged tests. It is really very difficult to carry out blind tests properly, needless to say double blind tests, with sufficient rigurosity and sufficient samples so as to make the results truly statistically significant and valid.


----------



## jules650

In my relative infancy as an audiophile I've found cables to make a difference in that I noticed a significant tightness to the overall sound when I switched from no-brand interconnects to Blue Jeans Cable.

 I hope I never discover that expensive cables make a difference. For now I'm quite content to upgrade other parts of my system first.


----------



## StevieDvd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That reasoning is flawed. The same would apply to the following: Can differences be perceived when playing two identical original CDs?
 Remove CDs entirely - no sound
 Play CDs - sound
 Therefore: Differences between original CDs can be heard.
 ._

 

????????????


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Over time and experience, your ability to discern these things develops like a muscle._

 

This is my planned path to becoming a ghost whisperer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If cables made a real difference, there wouldn't be an argument._

 

Precisely correct. No one argues about cartridges or headphones and speakers. 

 To reply to the OP, there isn't enough difference for me. I just brought in a bit more than $1,000 selling various no longer in use "high-end" cables (to a variety of newbies?) and sent the money to Acoustic Sciences for a "real" difference.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Precisely correct. No one argues about cartridges or headphones and speakers. 
_

 

Precisely correct? The fact that there is an argument about the validity or existence of a thing necessarily proves it does not exist? It's shocking to hear folks who advance scientific principles and "proof" so strongly embrace and defend such faulty logic.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is my planned path to becoming a ghost whisperer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 Precisely correct. No one argues about cartridges or headphones and speakers._

 

When was the last time you heard someone say "I can't hear a difference between different kinds of speakers."?

 There's no question that speakers sound different from each other. There are plenty of people with "refined" hearing and loads of experience that say that there is no difference between cables. If there is a significant difference, it would be easy to prove. Then the argument would move on to WHAT KIND of a difference.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Precisely correct? The fact that there is an argument about the validity or existence of a thing necessarily proves it does not exist. It's shocking to hear folks who advance scientific principles and "proof" so strongly embrace and defend such faulty logic. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

*X2!*


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 There's no question that speakers sound different from each other._

 

What about amps and CD players? Do they sound different or not? Any proof either way, that is, in terms of listening tests?


----------



## bluenote

I used to think that there was not much difference in cables until I met a vendor who loaned me different cables and showed me you could actually tune the system with different cables. Unfortunate not many of us have access to someone who can give different cables to try. If you did you would see that you can really change the sound.


----------



## bluenote

once again if you have two different CD players and listen to a good recording you can here distinct differences. For intance listing to the ankle bell in the Jimmy Lee Robinson recording from APO with one CD player (and everything else equal) the bell sounded more hollow compared to another player where it sounded flat and tinny. The DAC's and the way jitter is handled makes differences that are clearly audible.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bluenote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_once again if you have two different CD players and listen to a good recording you can here distinct differences._

 

Well, I would agree with you, but bigshot has said that after a basic level of quality all CD players sound the same, so that means he disagrees with you, and since he disagrees with you, that must mean the proposition is not universally accepted (i.e., there is an "argument"), which further means that you (and I) must be wrong -- if I understand the illogic correctly.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's no question that speakers sound different from each other._

 

True.

  Quote:


 _There are plenty of people with "refined" hearing and loads of experience that say that there is no difference between cables._ 
 

Not enough experience, apparently: Otherwise they would content with the statement: «Personally I've never heard sonic differences between cables.» That's the only valid statement one person can make. -- The compulsion to generalization in this case is somewhat reproducible, though (see my previous post): There's the choice between the own inferiority («poor me, why can't I hear what others hear!») and the own superiority («poor idiots, they're so easy to fool!»). 

 BTW, there are plenty of people with «refined» hearing and loads of experience who say that they hear differences between cables.
.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FallenAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why isn't that "proof". I agree completely. I can hear differences (quite substantial sometimes) in cables used. Is there really any other "proof" that can ever be provided. Skeptics ask for concrete evidence, but not the electrical measurement kind because of course there are resistance / capacitance differences between cables of different makeup. ._

 

You can look at current distribution, electron deposition on insulation, IMD, THD, phase shift, and the best part is, all of those specification, along with R, C, are relative to frequency at which the signal is measured at that given moment. The test can be done, but boy is it tedious. And also remember your instrument needs to be at least as sensitive or more sensitive to the micro changes in the difference of those parameters. The ability to look at electron movement and electron deposition within a cable is certainly beyond the capability of many cable makers. Remember electron don't actually move themselves. 

 The design of cable is very much, within an engineering perspective, an applied quantum mechanics problem. 

 Science can explain all those 'I can' or 'I can't' argument, its whether anyone wants to spend the $$ and to such extreme length to explain it. With the barrier of testing sitting at the stratosphere of $$$ needed, most manufacturer relies on their 'golden ear' to determine the sound of one cable. 

 You can very much make an analogy to chocolate taster, one of the most important position, at the major Belgium chocolate manufacturer. Chocolate tasters are by definition, hired to taste, and determine whether the chocolate taste is good or not. It is entirely possible to analysize the composition of the chocolate via good chemical engineering, but it sure is quicker to have the tester tell you, the sample doesn't taste right and need to add few more grams of coco powder to the mix.


----------



## freeone-j

IMHO, and from my experience there's a difference,depending on material. Some ICs' will allow clear and clean highs and other ICs' will tend to allow a better lower end of the frequencies. Also alot of it has to do with your equipment, materials used, and different variables.It also is trial and error, to find that sweet spot that your looking for.


----------



## cotdt

it's usually the EE's that say cables don't make any difference, because all they know are simple classical physics. however, cables are a problem in quantum mechanics because you're dealing with electrons and tunnelling effects. i've taken a year of QM in college and can imagine the complex interactions but don't know enough to put my finger on it and predict what would make the ideal cable.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it's usually the EE's that say cables don't make any difference, because all they know are simple classical physics._

 

It's usually the EEs that came from those 2nd rate programs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Most, not all, EEs tend to ignore 2ndary and tertiary effects (electron deposition and migration would be somewhere in that category). Why.. because it would make circuit analysis impossible and most 'software' cough..yes we are degenerated to using software to analyze circuit these days, do not take any account of those effects. Granted, some custom in-house tools do take into account many of the 2ndary effects like those C, R in wire, but STILL IGNORE the tertiary effects......that is a fact of life, and it would be inefficient to take into account everything anyway. 

 Engineering is about cutting as many corners as you can 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The KISS principle is very widely used by all in this profession


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it's usually the EE's that say cables don't make any difference, because all they know are simple classical physics. however, cables are a problem in quantum mechanics because you're dealing with electrons and tunnelling effects. i've taken a year of QM in college and can imagine the complex interactions but don't know enough to put my finger on it and predict what would make the ideal cable._

 

Exactly! Audio is very complex but the engineers think it is simple. Having incomplete knowledge that is 100% correct doesn't make it correct. But for some reason the engineers still think they are right, they don't even listen to the cables because they have already made up their minds.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Consider the validity of an argument that has to resort to condescention... "Well, if you can't hear a difference, your ears are ignorant." ...to make a point.

 If cables made a real difference, there wouldn't be an argument. There would be clear and convincing evidence. The only evidence I see in the arguments made in the defense of high end cables is that they seem to function as an ego boost of some sort. That's fine for some folks, but my self worth is invested in things other than stereo systems, cars and designer clothing.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

same pointless arguement could be made for amps and cd players as well
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Seems like you have any equally condesending argument as the "if you can't hear a difference" crowd

 Glad to hear things sound great from your lofty vantagepoint

 now after having said that cables are the last item I would change in a system. Headphones and speakers, then source then amp and last cables but they can make a pretty nice difference. BTW my cables are not multi thousand name brand cables just a great cable that a local guy makes that sounded better than most of the cables at my local shop.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_same pointless arguement could be made for amps and cd players as well_

 

There's very little difference between amps and cd players of the same rating. However differences between different speakers and headphones are significant. People would do well to spend the bulk of their attention on those areas and room acoustics, rather than wires.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What about amps and CD players? Do they sound different or not? Any proof either way, that is, in terms of listening tests?_

 

Someone here quoted a listening test where a well known "golden ear" couldn't identify different amps of the same rating. You could probably construct a search to dig it up if you're interested.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bluenote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_once again if you have two different CD players and listen to a good recording you can here distinct differences. For intance listing to the ankle bell in the Jimmy Lee Robinson recording from APO with one CD player (and everything else equal) the bell sounded more hollow compared to another player where it sounded flat and tinny._

 

Assuming that there was an audible difference, what degree of difference would you say that was compared to the difference between two different brands and models of speakers? 1:1000?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_People would do well to spend the bulk of their attention on those areas and room acoustics, rather than wires._

 

Yes, but once finding a satisfactory set of speakers or headphones, people would start looking for the best synergy in the rest of the system of course.

 Where I do think the least significant effect (sound-wise) caused by cables resides is in an AC power cord feeding a regulated DC power supply, in whatever component: DAC, source, amplifier, etc. etc. In spite of that, I've replaced the power cords in my receiver and dvd player with DIY derivatives of the Stereophile recommended "Halloween" Home Depot extension cords


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's very little difference between amps and cd players of the same rating. However differences between different speakers and headphones are significant. People would do well to spend the bulk of their attention on those areas and room acoustics, rather than wires.
_

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the same rating," but if cables make zero difference, and amps and cd players of the "same rating" make "very little difference," then we could put together multiple systems with different cables and different cd players and different amps and they would basically all sound the same --as long as we're using the same headphones -- right?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Assuming that there was an audible difference, what degree of difference would you say that was compared to the difference between two different brands and models of speakers? 1:1000?
_

 

I have heard two different CD players of good quality that sound as different as the AKG 701 and the Senn HD 650.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For people just starting out in this hobby (as are most people on this site), it's not surprising that differences can't be heard.

 Starting to hear real differences between headphones is equivalent to being a 1st grader learning how to add and subtract in mathematics. At that stage of auiophile/hearing/brain development and training, trying to hear cable differences is like jumping straight to trigonometry. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Or, if you like, it's like learning a new language. You start out with "see spot run" and you master that. But that doesn't make you qualified/prepared to turn around start reading Proust in the original French. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Of course it doesn't make any sense. Over time and experience, your ability to discern these things develops like a muscle.

 You may just not be ready yet, Grasshopper. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You really sound strange here tried to give you my background but in case you didn't have it before here goes. I am a professional working in the music. I have my own home studio countless headphones, Grado RS1, Senn HD650, 600, zzz, AKG. Countless amps. Grace 902 plus others I have already upgraded my source, amp, headphones to the last degree, etc (and I mentioned some of the cables) I am actually looking if someone has concrete proof of the cable difference vs hearing test thats all very simple. Do you have it.
 Guess you don't I am 37 years old with countless qualifications play piano (reasonable well haha) my kids, wife all play different instruments. Please please please I know what I'm on about. If you have some proof give it. If you don't go else where 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 hehe. Let the flamming begin


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *StevieDvd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_YES.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Remove cables entirely - no sound
 Add cables - sound 

 I like to interpret questions literally
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hi Steve Im reano from Avforums. Just trying to have a serious post here. This may not be the post for you


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Consider the validity of an argument that has to resort to condescention... "Well, if you can't hear a difference, your ears are ignorant." ...to make a point.

 If cables made a real difference, there wouldn't be an argument. There would be clear and convincing evidence. The only evidence I see in the arguments made in the defense of high end cables is that they seem to function as an ego boost of some sort. That's fine for some folks, but my self worth is invested in things other than stereo systems, cars and designer clothing.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Hallelujah. Steve spot on. Guys, guys and ladies. I'm not trying to ridicule anyone I too have made thousands of pound of investment in cables (most still in use) speakers, RCA, balanced, mini, digital, component, scart, etc because i need to connect things up. No problem. The reason I started my thread low key was I didn't want to spout on about I got Linn Lp12, Origin illustrious, Ortfon Rohnmann, EAR deluxe phono stage blah blah CD this, DVD that SACD, this as source etc because it is just like you want to brag I'm here to challenge. If you have evidence I will be the first to say thank you very much I will go buy that cable.

 I'm just after some facts and figures thats all folks


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The problem is that there are sonic differences below sound-transducer level, reaching to almost any sublety. Considering the variety of hearing thresholds, below a certain level there will be no unanimity. 

 The ego-boost argument doesn't convince me. In turn the above-mentioned makes a scenario rather likely where people with higher hearing thresholds get defensive and try to trivialize the audiophile hunt for «imagined sonic differences» (not to consider themselves and be considered tin ears).

 I would like to get a «proof» for objective cable differences as well. Not in the form of measurements (there are measuring differences!), but in the form of statistical relevance gained from listening tests. I do hear differences in cables and have passed a blind test with headphone cables, but that's not proof for others. 
._

 

Where was this done? I'm all ears really. Would like to know more, etc what cables and what experiment, etc.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FallenAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why isn't that "proof". I agree completely. I can hear differences (quite substantial sometimes) in cables used. Is there really any other "proof" that can ever be provided. Skeptics ask for concrete evidence, but not the electrical measurement kind because of course there are resistance / capacitance differences between cables of different makeup. Not sure how else to really provide proof other than to say "Well, I can hear a difference and I think cable A sounds better than cable B and considering the price/improvement ratio it may or may not be worth the upgrade".

 Simply put, to all the skeptics that blindly don't believe cables make a difference, buy a cable, listen to it, and if you don't think there is a difference, just return it. I'm thinking of offering one of my cables for free soon just to have it float around and see if people like it._

 

Hey this sounds good, how was this done? Who witnessed it and ensured you could spot the cable difference blind? What cable you used. Trust me I really want to know. I'm not bating you. Ta. I will gladly accept a blind test if other independent people witness it no problem whatsoever. Would like to know the cable make etc. Note I'm only talking about interconnects the actual wire not those with other things added like mains conditioners and the like.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the operative phrase from your question is "real proof". The answer is an unqualified no. None of the sonic superiority advertising claims can be proven.

 Example: One of the finest amplifiers made today, Perreaux, does not come with a fancy power cord. If it made a difference, they would not willfully commit marketing suicide by knowingly degrading the performance of their amplifier by equipping the unit with an inadequate power cord so the customer could have a bad impression straight out of the box.

 Secondly, most recordings made today use interconnects, cables and wiring that an audiophile would consider barely acceptable, if at all.

 Let me also add that unlike the visual rememberences, sonic rememberences are, at best, fleeting and incomplete. 

 You can easily remember and construct every detail of the faces of the people in your life, however when it comes to your favorite song, the same memories just are not there._

 


 One of the best responses I've read. remember guys I have all the great kit (look at my signature I'm already in the upgrade cyclone) but I'm looking for some real evidence can be blind tests, measurements, etc and I know that I can tell when something is better 'to me' and you can 'to you' the question is can you consistently tell the difference when a cable is removed/added? Bet you can with a better source, better amp, better speaks (I know I can). Please guys and ladies continue ....


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheMarchingMule* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the OP is talking about the differences in cable in terms of end SQ, a dummy-proof way is to have an ALO Bling Bling and ALO Jumbo Cryo.

 It is very obvious how the BB "constricts" the sound, and esp. with metal (Tool), heavy passages on the track sound like a car wreck, but with the Jumbo Cryo, it's like having super-huge bandwidth; there is now enough room and then some for any instrument to be clearly and distinctly heard.

 As for cables being upgraded last...I guess that works. But IMHO it also depends on what the cab;e will be used for. I had an iPod - BB - Hornet - K701, and guess which one was killing my system?

 I'll give you one guess. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Mule I'm very interested in your response and I'm glad you are giving cable examples this more the type of response I'm looking for. I do like cables really 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 OK have you done a blind test and heard the differences, etc if so I would be very interested in this and I have looked at the ALO cables love the construction, etc and would probably consider buying one for my ipod rig anymore info on this or other guy/gals with experience here?


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That reasoning is flawed. The same would apply to the following: Can differences be perceived when playing two identical original CDs?
 Remove CDs entirely - no sound
 Play CDs - sound
 Therefore: Differences between original CDs can be heard.

 With respect to blind testing people need to be skeptic enough about those alleged tests. It is really very difficult to carry out blind tests properly, needless to say double blind tests, with sufficient rigurosity and sufficient samples so as to make the results truly statistically significant and valid._

 

Hi I understand what you are saying and thanks for your response but I am convinced that if I put my B&W 805s speakers vs my Kef Q1 speakers you would (in a blind test) hear the difference. The same for my linn lp12 vs my Project Xpression turntable. Same with my Grado RS1 vs my Senn HD600. Now what I am saying is if you put say a basic but good interconnect in a system listened then changed that for some exotic £1000+ one could you tell the difference in a blind test. If so I have no problem with that just let me know the cable and how you did it thats all. I work with a lot of artists, sound engineers, blah blah and to be honest the stuff people record on (cables) in most cases is nothing expensive. But I have no problem if cables do make a good discernable difference just let me know. Respond here ...


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is my planned path to becoming a ghost whisperer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 Precisely correct. No one argues about cartridges or headphones and speakers. 

 To reply to the OP, there isn't enough difference for me. I just brought in a bit more than $1,000 selling various no longer in use "high-end" cables (to a variety of newbies?) and sent the money to Acoustic Sciences for a "real" difference._

 

Thankyou eyeteeth I like your response. Keep it up


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Precisely correct? The fact that there is an argument about the validity or existence of a thing necessarily proves it does not exist? It's shocking to hear folks who advance scientific principles and "proof" so strongly embrace and defend such faulty logic. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 


 Phils you have made a lot of contribution to this thread, not sure how useful people find it but as you seem to ridicule a lot of people's logic please enlighten me with your logic. What do you have to say? Can you hear the difference? If so please explain on. Thanks


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bluenote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_once again if you have two different CD players and listen to a good recording you can here distinct differences. For intance listing to the ankle bell in the Jimmy Lee Robinson recording from APO with one CD player (and everything else equal) the bell sounded more hollow compared to another player where it sounded flat and tinny. The DAC's and the way jitter is handled makes differences that are clearly audible._

 

Please let us know more. What cables, etc what were differences you heard from this supplier? Thanks


----------



## tourmaline

here we go again:

 every week a thread about this.

 Yes, there are designs that are proven to be better then standard designs. Especially those with ohno crystal technology. Developed by prof. ohno at the universaty in japan.

 Yet, if you present the proof, about 1/5 better measuring results in all aspects, they still deny the truth and state the differences are small to be heard. Not so in my own practical experience. Also, another independent test shows that there is a variation of about 600% and 800% in the area´s that matter the most in a cable! These variations are for instance a magnitude bigger then between any amp or cd player! yet, these differences ARE recognized!

 If you don´t hear a difference, don´t spend that much on cables, if you do, optimize your system. That simple.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can look at current distribution, electron deposition on insulation, IMD, THD, phase shift, and the best part is, all of those specification, along with R, C, are relative to frequency at which the signal is measured at that given moment. The test can be done, but boy is it tedious. And also remember your instrument needs to be at least as sensitive or more sensitive to the micro changes in the difference of those parameters. The ability to look at electron movement and electron deposition within a cable is certainly beyond the capability of many cable makers. Remember electron don't actually move themselves. 

 The design of cable is very much, within an engineering perspective, an applied quantum mechanics problem. 

 Science can explain all those 'I can' or 'I can't' argument, its whether anyone wants to spend the $$ and to such extreme length to explain it. With the barrier of testing sitting at the stratosphere of $$$ needed, most manufacturer relies on their 'golden ear' to determine the sound of one cable. 

 You can very much make an analogy to chocolate taster, one of the most important position, at the major Belgium chocolate manufacturer. Chocolate tasters are by definition, hired to taste, and determine whether the chocolate taste is good or not. It is entirely possible to analysize the composition of the chocolate via good chemical engineering, but it sure is quicker to have the tester tell you, the sample doesn't taste right and need to add few more grams of coco powder to the mix._

 

Thanks for this I'm an engineer (Mechanical engineer) by training and so do understand these things don't get me wrong but people can clearly taste the difference between chocolates we all can (those without disabilities, etc). Again depending on the degree (cadbury's, nestle, etc all good chocolate but very easily discernable tastes). What I am saying here do we have good cables (some with very big difference in price) where there is such a discernable difference. If so no worries just let me know.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeone-j* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_IMHO, and from my experience there's a difference,depending on material. Some ICs' will allow clear and clean highs and other ICs' will tend to allow a better lower end of the frequencies. Also alot of it has to do with your equipment, materials used, and different variables.It also is trial and error, to find that sweet spot that your looking for._

 

Examples being?


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it's usually the EE's that say cables don't make any difference, because all they know are simple classical physics. however, cables are a problem in quantum mechanics because you're dealing with electrons and tunnelling effects. i've taken a year of QM in college and can imagine the complex interactions but don't know enough to put my finger on it and predict what would make the ideal cable._

 

You seem here (correct me if I'm wrong) to be talking more about your own college course than what I have asked. My Full time Job is in Security and Performance for the IT industry and part time recording and video production in the music and film industry. IN IT we are well aware of quantum mechanics especially in it's development use for creating key pairs for online security but back to the point can you hear the difference? If you can please provide examples, etc I'm all ears.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Exactly! Audio is very complex but the engineers think it is simple. Having incomplete knowledge that is 100% correct doesn't make it correct. But for some reason the engineers still think they are right, they don't even listen to the cables because they have already made up their minds._

 

Hi thanks for your response. In this case I am not an electronic, electrical engineer, etc (just in case). I also don't have 100% knowledge of chocolates to reference a previous tread or many things but I can tell the difference. Now to quote "they don't even listen to the cables because they have already made up their minds". Do *you* listen to the cables and do you hear the difference these cables make? If yes please give me some info. I am really interested in finding out. What is the brand of cable, etc?

 Ta


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_same pointless arguement could be made for amps and cd players as well
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Seems like you have any equally condesending argument as the "if you can't hear a difference" crowd

 Glad to hear things sound great from your lofty vantagepoint

 now after having said that cables are the last item I would change in a system. Headphones and speakers, then source then amp and last cables but they can make a pretty nice difference. BTW my cables are not multi thousand name brand cables just a great cable that a local guy makes that sounded better than most of the cables at my local shop._

 

To be honest I don't think Steve was taking that stance (just the way I read it anyway). JP thanks for your response and what is this cable that the 'local shop' makes? What makes you buy it? What sound differences do you hear compared with say another reasonable good cable? Please let me know I really am interested to hear. <--- Really (not a joke either). Also which cable that you have/had made the 'pretty nice' difference? Thanks


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_here we go again:

 every week a thread about this.

 Yes, there are designs that are proven to be better then standard designs. Especially those with ohno crystal technology. Developed by prof. ohno at the universaty in japan.

 Yet, if you present the proof, about 1/5 better measuring results in all aspects, they still deny the truth and state the differences are small to be heard. Not so in my own practical experience. Also, another independent test shows that there is a variation of about 600% and 800% in the area´s that matter the most in a cable! These variations are for instance a magnitude bigger then between any amp or cd player! yet, these differences ARE recognized!

 If you don´t hear a difference, don´t spend that much on cables, if you do, optimize your system. That simple._

 

Hi Tout, thanks for your response. I would say if you don't what to give me the details and how, then best to contribute to another thread. I actually want to know all about this. To quote "Yet, if you present the proof, about 1/5 better measuring results in all aspects, they still deny the truth and state the differences are small to be heard." Can you present this evidence I really would like to hear your valued contribution and how this better measuring results in improved the sound to the listener. I would be more than grateful to go and buy this cable for myself no worries. I have done the various searches on here and am trying to get people to deliver some details and (hope this doesn't offend but probably will) All I read is "you won't believe". I try to explain I have good kit, I've brought many a cable, I can find middle C on a piano and play Beethoven's moonlight sinata, I love music, I have a reasonably good education, etc, zzzz and all I ask is if you have the evidence please let me look. Thats all ....


----------



## DarkAngel

It you must have *proof* before you can just relax and trust what your own ears tell you *Analysis Plus* has it for you........they are engineering group that measures cable performance for various large cable companies using sophisticated analysis gear, they also design and make thier our cables.......check the white paper section.

AP

 Even though they can prove thier cable design passes more complete undistorted music signal that other cable designs, I still prefer the sound of other designs (I have owned many AP cables in the past)

 Regrdless of what they prove only thing that matters is what sounds good to my ears in my system......


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DarkAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It you must have *proof* before you can just relax and trust what your own ears tell you *Analysis Plus* has it for you........they are engineering group that measures cable performance for various large cable companies using sophisticated analysis gear, they also design and make thier our cables.......check the white paper section.

AP

 Even though they can prove thier cable design passes more complete undistorted music signal that other cable designs, I still prefer the sound of other designs (I have owned many AP cables in the past)

 Regrdless of what they prove only thing that matters is what sounds good to my ears in my system......_

 

Hi DarkAngel, You do sound (how shall I say) a bit angry. I am quite relaxed (hoho haha) just really wanting to hear and learn from people like yourself but like I have said I ask for posters to provide (and let me say it clearer) *their* experience and how they were able to proof it was better. Thats all. I will read this document you point me too and see what it brings. Do you have some examples of the cables you use and which ones they sounded better to your ears in your system on. Thanks.

 There seems to be a familiar pattern:-

 1) Some sort of "I can't believe you can't tell"
 2) Then a resignation with a statement like "It sounds good to me", "Don't buy then".

 These are actually quite funny and I guess I must accept this in the end hehe

 Just read some of the whitepapers and thanks for supplying them. They start of with the usual properties of metal, etc. All good stuff then a user reviewing the cable "notes became fuller, bass more evident" or similar.

 Dark you may know the site more than me is there anywhere whey they gave the cables to some able users and then said sit back we are going to test some cables and let your 'ears' be the judge ... and the winner is Analysis plus. I emphasise to state my point. I can't really see it. Don't want to be funny but many a good cable site has the same thing. QED for example. Alot of components in the audio chain have very discernable differences 'speakers' for example. Now I would say there are at least as many cable brands as speakers but can you give me some examples of clear discernable sounds from brands (Say x vs y). I am really interested in digital/optical sound differences too. You may not believe this but I am completely open to your suggestions, etc.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi I understand what you are saying and thanks for your response but I am convinced that if I put my B&W 805s speakers vs my Kef Q1 speakers you would (in a blind test) hear the difference. The same for my linn lp12 vs my Project Xpression turntable. Same with my Grado RS1 vs my Senn HD600._

 

Yes, measurable differences between speakers, headphones, and even sources can be easily shown in their frequency responses, and other data charts and plots.

  Quote:


 Now what I am saying is if you put say a basic but good interconnect in a system listened then changed that for some exotic £1000+ one could you tell the difference in a blind test. 
 

What I'm saying is that I haven't done that. What I did say is that beware of the so called "blind tests" and "double blind tests" because those are really hard to carry out properly. So even if someone shows you some "proof" of X or Y facts with this and that blind test, beware of how properly executed they were. 

  Quote:


 But I have no problem if cables do make a good discernable difference just let me know. Respond here ... 
 

I have no problem either. In fact I believe my Zu cable makes a difference with respect to the stock cable in my Sennheisers. Cables can make measurable differences in some cases (inductance, impedance, capacitance, resistance...), depending on cable length, cable girth, conductors, geometry, insulators, shielding... But that doesn't mean I (or anyone here maybe) can show you any proof they make a difference _that can be heard_, or point you to any research on the matter. At least I don't know of any thorough proper study on the subject. I'm not claiming there are no such studies though, just that I'm not aware of them.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, measurable differences between speakers, headphones, and even sources can be easily shown in their frequency responses, and other data charts and plots.


 What I'm saying is that I haven't done that. What I did say is that beware of the so called "blind tests" and "double blind tests" because those are really hard to carry out properly. So even if someone shows you some "proof" of X or Y facts with this and that blind test, beware of how properly executed they were. 


 I have no problem either. In fact I believe my Zu cable makes a difference with respect to the stock cable in my Sennheisers. Cables can make measurable differences in some cases (inductance, impedance, capacitance, resistance...), but that doesn't mean I (or anyone here maybe) can show you any proof they make a difference that can be heard, or point you to any research on the matter. At least I don't know of any thorough proper study on the subject. I'm not claiming there are no such studies though, just that I'm not aware of them._

 

Rsa thanks a lot you are coming from the same place I am. I have the Russ andrews and Stefan Audioart Senn replacement cable too. Yep that is what I am after the 'heard' difference. Because you can hear the difference on the other components. I too like you am hoping someone can show something. Ok next could it be that we are all deceived and there is no difference to really be heard (don't kill me I'm just asking).. You may say but can we all be wrong yes you can. Many Nazis millions of Nazis thought Jews should die (I'm not a Jew just in case), Many millions thought slavery was a good thing, many millions thought it was fair for women not to vote and so on yes millions can be deceived and truly believe it. Hence why I want to here some good arguments. Like I said the source, the amp, the speakers, blah all have no brainer discernment across the range but can someone convince me with a cable of equal price variance or even more you would get a no brainer improvement.


----------



## rsaavedra

Will put this part in a separate post. I notice it wasn't included in your quote, because I edited my post adding this afterwards.

 If you are serious about this inquiry you should research not just forums online like you are doing. Look for reputable audio engineering and cognitive-related journals, search the internet, go to a library, talk to audio engineers and psychologists, physicians studying audio perception. You would slowly narrow down and find researchers that are either seriously/rigurously working on that precise topic, or that know what has been researched and what is currently known or scientifically accepted about this topic.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 If you are serious about this inquiry you should research not just forums online like you are doing. Look for reputable audio engineering and cognitive-related journals, search the internet, go to a library, talk to audio engineers and psychologists, physicians studying audio perception. You would slowly narrow down and find researchers that are either seriously/rigorously working on that precise topic, or that know what has been researched and what is currently known or scientifically accepted about this topic._

 

Thanks for this I know a lot of audio engineers, engineers, blah blah most I talk to believe there is no discernible difference 'hearing wise'. I have brought expensive cables and so would normally (in various cognitive) tests hear the difference. I have searched the internet "Not just forums", hifi mag's who have an interest more than most, etc so now I come back to my point...... Which is to see if people on _*this *_forum (I also post on others as part of my serious search like avforums) have any thing they can offer as many have said they do indeed hear the difference. Or whether I will get the "Go else where" lol


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for this I know a lot of audio engineers, engineers, blah blah most I talk to believe there is no discernible difference 'hearing wise'. I have brought expensive cables and so would normally (in various cognitive) tests hear the difference. I have searched the internet "Not just forums", hifi mag's who have an interest more than most, etc so now I come back to my point...... Which is to see if people on *this *forum (I also post on others as part of my serious search like avforums) have any thing they can offer as many have said they do indeed hear the difference. Or whether I will get the "Go else where" lol_

 

It seems then that you are not really asking for _proof_, you are just collecting anecdotical experiences/opinions from online communities.


----------



## rsaavedra

Here's a link you might be interested in:
http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p3.htm#interconnects

 And the following are related to a comparison of speaker leads of different topologies (cross coaxial vs. standard zip cord). Have posted them before, but here they go anyway:

http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p2.htm#spkr-leads
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...ZipCord-p1.htm


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It seems then that you are not really asking for proof, you are just collecting anecdotical experiences/opinions from online communities._

 

Hi rsa not sure if you've read my responses but in nearly all responses I ask people for their proof, what makes them know they can hear the difference, etc. If you haven't please read my replies again I have done many. 

 Just in case it isn't clear let me say it again (so that *it seems* becomes IT IS CLEAR. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 lol that if someone says they CAN hear the difference please tell me what makes you know this to be the case. Like repeated blind test (and b4 you repeat it) I know about the difficulty of blind tests, experimentation, etc I don't want to go through my background again 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now rsa can you tell me what makes you know you hear a difference or will it be "I just know I can". If this is all I'm going to get no worries I guess the thread will just close in the end hehe


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now rsa can you tell me what makes you know you hear a difference or will it be "I just know I can"._

 

I already told you in this post the claim I will give you on the subject. (Hint: Notice the word _believe_ in that post). I won't make claims beyond a belief statement on this subject.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's a link you might be interested in:
http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p3.htm#interconnects

 And the following are related to a comparison of speaker leads of different topologies (cross coaxial vs. standard zip cord). Have posted them before, but here they go anyway:

http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p2.htm#spkr-leads
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...ZipCord-p1.htm_

 

rsa these are very good links and I have seen these many times thats why I'm trying to find if people have opposite proof's or experiments they've done to this since so many can hear *their* differences. So even though these links are good I'm actually looking for the opposite people who are not saying "we hear no difference, or there is no difference" but people who can say there is a difference in what I hear and heres why. At present I'm not finding much of the latter. Thats all I'm saying


----------



## KrooLism

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For people just starting out in this hobby (as are most people on this site), it's not surprising that differences can't be heard.

 Starting to hear real differences between headphones is equivalent to being a 1st grader learning how to add and subtract in mathematics. At that stage of auiophile/hearing/brain development and training, trying to hear cable differences is like jumping straight to trigonometry. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Or, if you like, it's like learning a new language. You start out with "see spot run" and you master that. But that doesn't make you qualified/prepared to turn around start reading Proust in the original French. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Of course it doesn't make any sense. Over time and experience, your ability to discern these things develops like a muscle.

 You may just not be ready yet, Grasshopper. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Unless you go deaf first. Don't turn the volume up just to hear the differences.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I already told you in this post the claim I will give you on the subject. (Hint: Notice the word believe in that post). I won't make claims beyond a belief statement on this subject._

 

Thanks rsa and I did respond to this saying you are coming from the same place as me <hint> "it's in the threads"  So I guess your contribution is over (hopefully not) as you've made your 'belief' statements clear already (and I thank you for that and the links too). Do you have any more links like this or ones that say the opposite I can archive them then?


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KrooLism* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Unless you go deaf first. Don't turn the volume up just to hear the differences._

 

Gotta laugh at that one


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you have any more links like this or ones that say the opposite I can archive them then?_

 

I don't, but I know there are several threads here on Headfi describing in detail several comparisons of interconnects, headphone cables, and even power cords, which seems very related to what you are looking for.


----------



## JaZZ

_reano..._

 ...as _rsaavedra_ already stated, you won't get any proof from people on this forum. And to be honest, I doubt your honest interest anyway -- too much bias towards posts from the skeptics corner. And first of all: your post inflation. You're trying too hard to seize this thread with -- as I perceive it -- inquisition-like questions masked with a matey manner. 

 So I renounce to answer your «personal» question, just out of my intuitive lack of sympathy for your kind of self-presentation. Personally I have no proof to offer anyway. My own blind-test success will tell nothing to the matter. 
.


----------



## FallenAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey this sounds good, how was this done? Who witnessed it and ensured you could spot the cable difference blind? What cable you used. Trust me I really want to know. I'm not bating you. Ta. I will gladly accept a blind test if other independent people witness it no problem whatsoever. Would like to know the cable make etc. Note I'm only talking about interconnects the actual wire not those with other things added like mains conditioners and the like._

 

First off, I'd just like to agree with JaZZ below because not many people can offer their own "proof" and I definitely fall in this category.

 On to the questions.

 All tests were done using my personal setup 320Kbps MP3 of original Eagles - Hotel California -> Maxed AlienDAC -> INTERCONNECT -> Maxed SOHA -> HD600 with Cardas cable.

 The INTERCONNECT was switched back and forth and I listened to the same song like 20 times by now, switching cables with every time.

 The testing was not witnessed, so I guess you'll just have to take my word for it that it was done with no bias toward any configuration and all ego set aside.

 I have 3 cables on my desk, all were made by me and all are around the same 40cm length:
 1) Silver Plated Copper 6 x 24AWG (3 signal - 3 ground) in flat braid
 2) Belden 89259 22AWG bare copper with 95% copper sheild
 3) Modified VenHaus using 24AWG 99.99% pure silver with 100% unbleached cotton as dialect instead of teflon tube.

 After listening to these extensively, I had the VenHaus in there for about a month, the Belden for about 2 weeks and I just made the SPC (hasn't burned in yet), I can definitely tell the difference between every cable.

*Just not to start some flame war, this is purely in my oppinion, tested by my ears alone and in my setup.*

 I thouht the Belden 89259 had a very nice sound, slightly warmer than the rest, but the detail was still there and nothing was lost in comparison to the rest. Of course, the cable is much stiffer, but we're talking purely sound quality wise here.

 The VenHaus cable has been my long time favorite (about 2 months or so) and did everything very well. It wasn't as warm as the 89259, but the highs were clearer and I enjoyed the slightly punchier bass hits. Generally a very clean and detailed cable. By "clean" I mean simply that you can really hear the instruments seperately instead of playing together at the same time making a sound that combines both.

 The SPC cable was slightly dissapointing compared to the rest. Still kicks ass compared to the RadioShack brand RCA's that I use for testing new builds in my basement, but really not as good as the other 2. It didn't have all the detail of the other 2 and it's as if you listen to a song, hear all of it, then plug this cable in and all of a sudden, there's just less there. The overall sound was very much in between the 2 others. The bass was ok, the highs were ok, but the mids weren't as smooth. Plus, there was kind of this added presence to the sound that just didn't sit well with me. I'm sorry, I can't describe that last sentence better, it just didn't sound as good.

 I didn't skip the "I will gladly accept a blind test if other independent people witness it no problem whatsoever." sentence, it's just that I never went to any Head-Fi meets and nobody I know is that much into audio to want to spend time listening to different cables. As a result of the testing, I will be getting rid of that SPC interconnect in the for-sale thread, just didn't sound that great to me.

 I can definitely say that between the 3 cables, the differences are not life changing, but are easily noticed when you listen repeatedly to the same song and it's still fresh in your mind that you KNOW what you want it to sound like. I'd say it's the added 10% that really makes you love or just like the music.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_reano...

 ...as rsaavedra already stated, you won't get any proof from people on this forum. And to be honest, I doubt your honest interest anyway -- too much bias towards posts from the skeptics corner. And first of all: your post inflation. You're trying too hard to seize this thread with -- as I perceive it -- inquisition-like questions masked with a matey manner. 

 So I renounce to answer your «personal» question, just out of my intuitive lack of sympathy for your kind of self-presentation. Personally I have no proof to offer anyway. My own blind-test success will tell nothing to the matter. 
._

 

lol then why waste your time posting? If you have no proof to offer anyway? lol. Have to laugh. Like I said this is normally what results. Some have given some interesting links and I'm glad about that. Others just (zzzzz) 

 "So I renounce to answer your «personal» question, just out of my intuitive lack of sympathy for your kind of self-presentation." <-- your post. Then don't answer lol. 

 You don't need to believe my interest. I have the cables, the rig's and asked a genuine question to which I must say is towards (arguments) the skeptics side and thats why I now lean towards there but am willing to be persuaded. What was your blind test what did it entail, what cables, etc?

 My motive I guess is I want to buy some more exotic cables but just want to hear from people if there is a hearing difference so I guess it's kind of a reality check. 

 Are forums for this type of thing? Question, reviews, sharing ideas, etc?


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FallenAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First off, I'd just like to agree with JaZZ below because not many people can offer their own "proof" and I definitely fall in this category.

 On to the questions._

 

At last FallenAngel this is more like it. Do you have a link for the cable that eventually won? So I can see the range may buy for my portable setup if they do and test it.

 No ranting but straight to the point. Of course I would normally say yes you need more independence but ..... it's a good starting point that can be taken further. Any links apprieciated. Ultimately you are right Fallen I will ask for independence or I would just accept anything. Thats why I ask for independent reviews, etc (there are ton's that say the opposite and show that the participants couldn't hear no difference but thats not true for all audio components. Bet you can tell the difference between a hornet and a boostaroo (and the price is maybe $300 difference) the cables can be a lot more, etc.

 I keep saying (zzzzzzzz...) I have brought these fancy cables I have loads for various applications and it doesn't hurt to get a reality check. I'm from UK and I remember a couple of lone voices (in politics) saying out don't go to Iraq there are no mass weapons and people thought they were cranks. Now they swing to the other side and I think they were asking the same question "where's the proof...."


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Phils you have made a lot of contribution to this thread, not sure how useful people find it but as you seem to ridicule a lot of people's logic please enlighten me with your logic. What do you have to say? Can you hear the difference? If so please explain on. Thanks_

 

1. I have criticized the "logic" of saying that "because people argue about whether cables make a difference, that proves they don't make a difference." That's just stupid. 

 2. My own view of whether cables make a difference is not based on logic per se, by on my own listening experiences. These have been detailed in my many prior threads, but to summarize:

 a) I used to be a died-in-the-wool skeptic who criticized others who thought cables made a difference. At one point, however, after my headphone system reached a certain quality, and I had more experience in listening to various components, the differences between CD players, amps, and even cables became noticeable.

 b) My claims that I have heard audbile differences in cables are not based on switching back and forth every few seconds or minutes between different cables, etc., while listening to a musical selection. Instead, there are a number of musical selections that I am intimately familiar with. I have listened to them so many times that know them as well as I know my wife's voice. When I have not changed my system for several weeks, for example, I come to know the nuances and tone of these selections very well. If something then changes in the presentation, such as the change one gets from changing out the source, I can generally notice it after some additional time listening (i.e., more than a few seconds or minutes), and the change is often quite obvious (i.e., it may not be huge in magnitude, but it is definitely there).

 c) At one point in my experience, I changed out some power cables in my system (made my LAT International) replacing some DIY power cables I was using. The was a noticeable difference in the sound, especially in the reduction of sibilance, which I hate and which had been causing me to stop listening to my system after about an hour. I don't know whether I have dirty power or some other issue with interference at my house, but the power cords made a difference.

 d) I tried several interconnects in my system, typically preferring the sound of a relatively cheap copper interconnet made by Better Cables over more expensive interrconnects I tried. At one point, I even found myself in the midst of an "accidental" blind test, in which I had changed out the Better Cables to a silver cable made a company whose name I can't remember (and might not mention anyway), and I really did not like how it changed the sound. I thought something was wrong with my system, and only when I investigated to see what was wrong did I find out I had changed interconnects a week earlier. I eventually ended up with an interconnect from LAT International, which I prefer by a slight margin over the Better Cables interconnect.

 I have had other similar experiences, but this is just a sample.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi Tout, thanks for your response. I would say if you don't what to give me the details and how, then best to contribute to another thread. I actually want to know all about this. To quote "Yet, if you present the proof, about 1/5 better measuring results in all aspects, they still deny the truth and state the differences are small to be heard." Can you present this evidence I really would like to hear your valued contribution and how this better measuring results in improved the sound to the listener. I would be more than grateful to go and buy this cable for myself no worries. I have done the various searches on here and am trying to get people to deliver some details and (hope this doesn't offend but probably will) All I read is "you won't believe". I try to explain I have good kit, I've brought many a cable, I can find middle C on a piano and play Beethoven's moonlight sinata, I love music, I have a reasonably good education, etc, zzzz and all I ask is if you have the evidence please let me look. Thats all ...._

 

Always nice to insult people. 

 the proof is in the "i want to learn about high end cables" thread. Instead of insulting people you don't really know, you should spend more time on the web to actually find the proof for yourself. There IS a website that measured commercial cables and proved the Nordost cables measured considderably better then any other cable. Also there is extensive info on the ohno process of making the single crystal cables and WHY they sound better then any other regular cable. These single crystal cables are usually used in the high end cables. 

 So, maybe, with your reasonably good education are looking in the wrong direction and are looking more into insulting people!

 Your reasonably good education didn't teach you anything about manners!

 sceptics are always ignorant: no matter how much proven or measurable evidence you provide, all they say is: those differences are too small to be heard. Maybe their minds are too small to comprehend.


----------



## FallenAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At last FallenAngel this is more like it. Do you have a link for the cable that eventually won? So I can see the range may buy for my portable setup if they do and test it.

 No ranting but straight to the point. Of course I would normally say yes you need more independence but ..... it's a good starting point that can be taken further. Any links apprieciated. Ultimately you are right Fallen I will ask for independence or I would just accept anything. Thats why I ask for independent reviews, etc (there are ton's that say the opposite and show that the participants couldn't hear no difference but thats not true for all audio components. Bet you can tell the difference between a hornet and a boostaroo (and the price is maybe $300 difference) the cables can be a lot more, etc.

 I keep saying (zzzzzzzz...) I have brought these fancy cables I have loads for various applications and it doesn't hurt to get a reality check. I'm from UK and I remember a couple of lone voices (in politics) saying out don't go to Iraq there are no mass weapons and people thought they were cranks. Now they swing to the other side and I think they were asking the same question "where's the proof...."_

 

Well, without getting into politics, let continue.

 Not sure what you mean by "link for the cable that eventually won", since I made them all myself, but for personal preference, I enjoy the pure silver over cotton VenHaus variant the most with the bass heavy JJ 12AU7 tube in my SOHA and HD600 headphones. It places more emphasis on the highs and has enough detail that I like with the mellow Sennheisers. When I still had my Alessandro MS-2, with the same setup, I the Belden was warmer and was a better match for the Alessandro headphones.

 Also, you mentioned thinking of them for a portable setup, unformtunately with how the cable is made, I don't think it would be possible (well, anything is possible, but it is not reasonably possible) to make this cable in any other configuration other than RCA-RCA. This cable is takes some serious time to build, but materials aren't too expensive. Of course, when I built this cable for others, a good 40% of the price is the work.

 On the Belden 89259 side, HeartLand Cables has a Belden 89259 interconnect with Eichmann Copper Bullets for $55. That is a completely unbelievable price and SUPER worth it considering just the RCA's are $42 / 4. I bought a pair of these and was very happy with them. Then I chopped them in half and made 2 short pairs


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Always nice to insult people. 

 the proof is in the "i want to learn about high end cables" thread. Instead of insulting people you don't really know, you should spend more time on the web to actually find the proof for yourself. There IS a website that measured commercial cables and proved the Nordost cables measured considderably better then any other cable. Also there is extensive info on the ohno process of making the single crystal cables and WHY they sound better then any other regular cable. These single crystal cables are usually used in the high end cables. 

 So, maybe, with your reasonably good education are looking in the wrong direction and are looking more into insulting people!

 Your reasonably good education didn't teach you anything about manners!

 sceptics are always ignorant: no matter how much proven or measurable evidence you provide, all they say is: those differences are too small to be heard. Maybe their minds are too small to comprehend._

 

Tour as before your contribution probably better placed elsewhere


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lol then why waste your time posting? If you have no proof to offer anyway? lol. Have to laugh. Like I said this is normally what results. ... Then don't answer lol._

 

You seem to have clear ideas about what's going on. Nevertheless you ask unanswerable questions, and this in dozens of posts. You can't prove that cables sound different to everybody. You can't even prove that HD 650 and K 701 sound different to everybody. Or a Singlepower Supra vs. a CMOY. 


  Quote:


 _You don't need to believe my interest. I have the cables, the rigs and asked a genuine question to which I must say is towards (arguments) the skeptics side and thats why I now lean towards there but am willing to be persuaded. What was your blind test what did it entail, what cables, etc?_ 
 

It's no secret -- the configuration has been posted some time ago. But if you're looking for proof, it won't help you. There was no advocate present. However, we don't discuss blind tests in this forum (see the forum title). 


  Quote:


 _My motive I guess is I want to buy some more exotic cables but just want to hear from people if there is a hearing difference so I guess it's kind of a reality check. Are forums for this type of thing? Question, reviews, sharing ideas, etc?_ 
 

Exactly! Ask for experiences with different cables! But of course you can also ask cable skeptics who have never seriously occupied themselves with the matter and/or are deaf for sonic subtleties about their ideologic objections against cable sound... Saves you a lot of money and thinking efforts.

 If you want to know if cables or a specific cable makes a difference to _your_ ears, the only way is to try them yourself. That's what I call reality check. Nobody can replace your ears.
.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_1. I have criticized the "logic" of saying that "because people argue about whether cables make a difference, that proves they don't make a difference." That's just stupid. 

 2. My own view of whether cables make a difference is not based on logic per se, by on my own listening experiences. These have been detailed in my many prior threads, but to summarize:

 a) I used to be a died-in-the-wool skeptic who criticized others who thought cables made a difference. At one point, however, after my headphone system reached a certain quality, and I had more experience in listening to various components, the differences between CD players, amps, and even cables became noticeable._

 

People are very touchy around here (not speaking to you Phils) I would like to pick up on your point in section a) <--- Just in case you think I'm criticizing. I keep asking for proof and I try to make my responses as curtious as possible. Where I think someone is just out to vent anger I ask them to kindly contribute elsewhere. Just thought I'd clear that up so if I come across all polite it's on purpose because Ive had this before where people say "you just come on here to hurt our feelings" or similar. I keep stressing I am one of those that have had all these cables in very good kit where cable changes 'should' be "hearable". Maybe I should keep saying this as some are saying this as if I've just come from a background to just slate people. I kindly ask for evidence that where it can be presented and tested by others.
 Let me put it another way. If you get a pair of speakers against another brand, two cars different brand, scissors, alot of things you could design a test and say that charateristic is an improvement or better than that. In this case we are talking about hearing. When it comes to cables .... I'm going to stick my head out here and say no one has provided evidence where they can say take my cable and go and test it with another reasonable quality cable (can be cheap but obvious must function) and you will hear the difference (and even add a few people in the mix too and they'll hear it). Yet you CAN do this with various other audio components. Why is this so offensive to people I really am not criticizing, trying to upset people, etc lol I have to laugh. That is all I'm asking. I promise you if you can give me that cable I will be the first to praise you and buy the cable no problem whatsoever. I don't think I can say fairer than that really. I really have no issue with saying wow your damn right!! I used to love my midi system and thought no need for me to go to 'seperates' till I started on the path of buying seperates 20 years ago. Cables though, is the general concensus they are so subjective you just have to make up your own mind if you like. You can pay hundreds of dollars for them, is this a placebo effect (you hear what you want or no?). I know in advertising like say health tablets, etc you couldn't say if you take this it will stop cancer without some proof, etc.


----------



## grawk

Why do you need proof? Listen, if you hear an improvement, great, enjoy your new cable. If not, great, enjoy saving money!


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 If you want to know if cables or a specific cable makes a difference to your ears, the only way is to try them yourself. That's what I call reality check. Nobody can replace your ears.
._

 


 So Jazz your conclusion is 'you don't know but if it makes you happy go with it, I have no proof to offer?'...


----------



## mlhm5

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_reano...

 ...as rsaavedra already stated, you won't get any proof from people on this forum. And to be honest, I doubt your honest interest anyway -- too much bias towards posts from the skeptics corner. And first of all: your post inflation. You're trying too hard to seize this thread with -- as I perceive it -- inquisition-like questions masked with a matey manner. 

 So I renounce to answer your «personal» question, just out of my intuitive lack of sympathy for your kind of self-presentation. Personally I have no proof to offer anyway. My own blind-test success will tell nothing to the matter. 
._

 

He asked a simple question. Is there any proof? All he got was opinions. There is absolutely no proof that there is any sonic difference between cables. That's the answer.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *grawk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why do you need proof? Listen, if you hear an improvement, great, enjoy your new cable. If not, great, enjoy saving money!_

 

Gawk if you read my responses I have covered this I have said what will happen is people tend to get upset and say

 1) Why you criticizing me
 2) Just go with what you want I can't offer no proof of what I claim.

 I guess you are saying the same right? Just in case (for others) as this is funny no need to respond with this as it doesn't add to the question


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So Jazz your conclusion is 'you don't know but if it makes you happy go with it, I have no proof to offer?'..._

 

Exactly! That's what I was trying to convey you. As well as everybody else who has posted so far. What are you expecting?
.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You seem to have clear ideas about what's going on. Nevertheless you ask unanswerable questions, and this in dozens of posts. You can't prove that cables sound different to everybody. You can't even prove that HD 650 and K 701 sound different to everybody. Or a Singlepower Supra vs. a CMOY. 
._

 

I ask unanswerable question? The answer could be yes or no. If you believe you hear the difference how do you know it's just not placebo effect? If I asked you how do you know your car is faster than that one. You could easily say hey come and drive and see for yourself. Can you do this with the cables? But all of a sudden our hearings are all so grossly different but our other senses pretty similar? You say you can't even prove certain things to 'everybody' Isn't that true with a lot of things. I can drive a Ferrari and say it is faster than a mini. May not 'everyone' will accept it but ..... I don't need to go down that road it's so obvious.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Exactly! That's what I was trying to convey you. As well as everybody else who has posted so far. What are you expecting?
._

 

Jazz we agree on something.

 I'm getting a good reality check it's placebo? If you feel good about it spend the cash even though you don't have any proof it offers any discernable difference to a reasonable good and cheap cable? (Note again I have the cables, I love my RnB cable mini for ipod, Love my Stefan Audioart for Senn HD650. Have my eichmann bullet plugs with solid core for my phono's from my Linn, zzz I'm sleeping ....) but just wanted to ask if people could help me find some provable discernable difference between a good cheap cable and the exotic expensive ones. As I would do for most things I pay extra for or spend time making, etc


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He asked a simple question. Is there any proof? All he got was opinions. There is absolutely no proof that there is any sonic difference between cables. That's the answer._

 

And there's no proof that there isn't. It's an open question at this point, with evidence on both sides of the issue.

 But there is also no "proof" that other components sound different, and yet many seem to accept that they do sound different (e.g., amps, sources). 

 And I think the problem people have -- and I admit they may be overreacting -- is that it is pretty easy to get the impression from the OP's posts that he is not seeking knowledge, but rather he is seeking to advance a particular point of view.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I keep asking for proof and I try to make my responses as curtious as possible._

 

You didn't ask me for proof in your earlier question to me. You asked if I heard a difference and I told you what I heard.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm going to stick my head out here and say no one has provided evidence where they can say take my cable and go and test it with another reasonable quality cable (can be cheap but obvious must function) and you will hear the difference (and even add a few people in the mix too and they'll hear it)._

 

 Why should we be held accountable if you can't hear something. Go buy a cheap Rat Shack cable and compare it to a decent $500 cable (or whatever) in a decent system and if you can't hear the difference, then conclude whatever you want (e.g., cables don't sound different, you have bad ears, whatever). Your personal experience proves nothing regarding the larger issue, and it proves nothing regarding what anybody else can hear, although your personal experience presumably should guide you on what you spend your money on, and it may be relevant (but not conclusive) regarding the larger issue.

 But this insistence on "proof" does seem to be designed just to foster an argument. No offense, but that's the perception that you're creating with your comments.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And there's no proof that there isn't. It's an open question at this point, with evidence on both sides of the issue.

 But there is also no "proof" that other components sound different, and yet many seem to accept that they do sound different (e.g., amps, sources). 

 And I think the problem people have -- and I admit they may be overreacting -- is that it is pretty easy to get the impression from the OP's posts that he is not seeking knowledge, but rather he is seeking to advance a particular point of view._

 

HI Phils to answer your point. There is 'proof' to the contrary. For some examples read through the posts with links. Proof's and is all about reproducibility.

 Who said there is no proof that components don't sound different? I could 'prove' to you that my Linn LP12 sounds better than my project expression turntable by just getting people in a room (and say I'll play on both which sounds better to your ears) Phils do you _really believe components don't sound better?_ I have when starting out thought this (20 years back but I know components make a difference) home this doesn't sound bad but my wife is my ultimate test monkey (hope she doesn't know me from my alias) and say I changed the plasma TV and if she goes hey that looks a lot better (even though I thought it already) it backs me up. I've changed other stuff and it's a completely different reaction (this is an extreme example to illustrate).

 Phils glad you put the last point in. I'm 37 and don't have time for games. I'm asking a serious question. I buy cables, hifi gear, I tweak, I tinker, etc I do all that and like I keep saying I'm after some hard proof but I think the message I'm getting loud and clear is there isn't any. Unlike other components. 

 When I say (to some) "Please don't post here" I really don't want to be rude but to me it seems obvious that you have got the wrong end of where I'm coming from and so this is not the post for you. Best to go cuss someone elsewhere. I HAVE BROUGHT THE CABLES, AND THE STUFF I SHOULD BE DEFENDING IT but I just can't see it....


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you believe you hear the difference how do you know it's just not placebo effect?_

 

Because I trust my ears. Like my other senses.

 If I asked you to prove that two headphones or amps sound different -- how would you try to do this? 


  Quote:


 _If you feel good about it spend the cash even though you don't have any proof it offers any discernable difference to a reasonable good and cheap cable?_ 
 

I can't even prove that I really live. But somehow I feel that I do. And that's enough for me. I don't need any proof with cables, because I get the benefit from good cables (more precisely: synergetic cable characteristics) without it. If I would need proof for every hi-fi component, I wouldn't own a hi-fi setup now. 


  Quote:


 _(Note again I have the cables, I love my RnB cable mini for ipod, Love my Stefan Audioart for Senn HD650. Have my Eichmann bullet plugs with solid core for my phono's from my Linn, zzz I'm sleeping ....) but just wanted to ask if people could help me find some provable discernable difference between a good cheap cable and the exotic expensive ones._ 
 

And I say you won't get what you want. I do you a favor by telling you this, so you don't have to ask any further (...and waste forum space 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). 

 What you need is more self-confidence! Being skeptic is good, but not trusting yourself and your own senses -- for things meant to be judged and appreciated by your senses -- is bad. Get a pair of cables with money-back guarantee! I can't help you any further because I make most of my cables myself, except for headphone cables.
.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ If you believe you hear the difference how do you know it's just not placebo effect?_

 

A partial answer to this is supplied in my post above, where I referenced hearing a difference when I didn't even know I had replaced the cable. Others have had similar experiences, as reported in other threads.

 In addition, preferring the cheaper cable to some extent undercuts the placebo notion. It doesn't absolutely refute it, I know, but typically the "placebo issue" is that people will prefer the more expensive, prettier cable. There are many reported instances of people preferring a cheaper cable to a more expensive one, in addition to my own.

 Also, if you think cables are a waste of time and you don't expect to hear a difference, and you are trying a cable so you can point out to others what BS this whole thing is, and lo and behold, you hear a difference, that also tends to suggest (again it's not conclusive) that maybe it's not all placebo.

 Finally, I'm not an idiot. I'm in a profession where I've been trained for 25 years to be skeptical about what people think they saw, say they heard, and other types of perceptual evidence. And I know the placebo issues. And yet I hear something very clearly. Could I be completely fooled? Perhaps. But I have evaluated what I heard, and given serious consideration to the placebo issue, and I am very confident of hearing the difference.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_HI Phils to answer your point. There is 'proof' to the contrary. For some examples read through the posts with links. Proof's and is all about reproducibility.
_

 

No, there isn't. There is "evidence" to the contrary. There is a difference between "proof" and "evidence," and it's not just semantics.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Why should we be held accountable if you can't hear something. 

 But this insistence on "proof" does seem to be designed just to foster an argument. No offense, but that's the perception that you're creating with your comments. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

I will first just answer the first sentence above. I'm not holding you accountable just don't respond to me. Hope you don't take offense.

 2nd My insisting on proof, why not? What is wrong with that?

 Erm you have a drug that clears cancer erm I'll buy it where's the proof, "erm I got none". "You have some wonder fuel that makes me drive 100 more to the gallon" erm where's the proof? "erm I got none"... you can see where I'm going with this. There is nothing wrong with me asking for proof or is there? Why is it wrong for me to ask for proof?

 I don't want an argument? If someone (and I await, please watch and see) comes and says "here is cable ABC. Here is the report where they got 10 people and they did this blah, blah and it shows that this cable is discernable better than these."

 Thats it end of post, good night, good luck, period. Fullstop. THE END. I'm outta here. No worries to me whatsoever. I WANT THE REPORT. Let me repeat. I WANT IT. and again. I'M AFTER THAT PROOF. Just one more time. I WOULD BE HAPPY IF I GOT THAT EVIDENCE. AND again Eichmann love them cables, RnB love them cables, QED love the stuff. Russ ANdrews bit prices but likeyour mains cables, ALO I'm looking....


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Phils do you really believe components don't sound better?_

 

I do believe they sound different. But where's the "proof," i.e., not just "evidence" based on what people claim to hear, but incontrovertible "proof"?


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, there isn't. There is "evidence" to the contrary. There is a difference between "proof" and "evidence," and it's not just semantics._

 

Phils I'm not going to desend into that I'm not going to pick people up on their use of exact terms, spelling, grammar, what Creek root word means what, etc. You have said your not an idiot and that you have experience, etc. I am assuming you are using it when reading my posts. I'm typing fast to respond. I'm hoping you 'know' what I'm saying. I have repeated things a few times.


----------



## mlhm5

*Dictionary*

 au·di·o·phil·i·a (ô'dē-ə-fĭl'ē-ə)
 n.

 A mystical religion constructed to victimize the benighted.

*Encyclopedia*

 A religion based on one-upsmanship in the expenditure for audio components, much like a tax on ignorance. These components then become objects of supplication for imagined sonic superiority, where the pursuit of sound fidelity is completely disassociated from the love of music.

*Examples*






 Sonoran Plateau Interconnect cables. Single-ended (RCA) terminated, MicroBearing filled. These are the top-of-the-line Sonoran Plateau interconnect cables. All copper conductors, VDH RCA connectors. Proprietary directional shielding, MicroBearing fill, heavy duty construction with excellent strain reliefs. Extremely low noise floor, organic detail, neutral frequency balance, and very musical. Not etched or dry or analytical. A superb cable that competes with many cables costing much more. Get the high-end sound you are looking for, without the high cost. Works great with tube or solid state components. Definitely a "reference grade" cable. * $550 *






 New ultra high performance Purist Audio Design Opis Ferox interconnect in single ended RCA configuration. * $1852.50 *






 New ultra high performance Purist Audio Design Opis Ferox Bi-Wire speaker cable with spade lug terminations. * $3029*


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do believe they sound different. But where's the "proof," i.e., not just "evidence" based on what people claim to hear, but incontrovertible "proof"?_

 

For this as with my previous statement. What would you see as proof for you? A basic mission 32i speaker vs B&W nautilus speaker 800D in a room with what 10 people? What exactly? Erm they bring their own music and see which will sound better? I'm laughing as I write this? Are you just saying this to me to catch me out? Huh if you want the evidence for this and are serious give more address and I'll post some of my hifi reviews (like this) independent, etc different people. Now I am asking for the same can you find me that article, paper or whatever with this for cables? Thats all I'm after where it was proven. PHil if you are going down route of what is proof this is not a legal thesis and you are way above me for this and it would be best that that is examined on a legal forum. I have stated the type of evidence I would accept. Got any? Why am I getting peoples backs up? It's just a simple question really. Some have said I don't have any but I'm happy with my choice and I say good luck to you. No worries but the post was not "who is happy with their choice of cable".


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Dictionary*

 au·di·o·phil·i·a (ô'dē-ə-fĭl'ē-ə)
 n.

 A mystical religion constructed to victimize the benighted.

*Encyclopedia*

 A religion based on one-upsmanship in the expenditure for audio components, much like a tax on ignorance. These components then become objects of supplication for imagined sonic superiority but virtually never for enjoyment of recorded musical performances.

*Examples*

 Sonoran Plateau Interconnect cables. Single-ended (RCA) terminated, MicroBearing filled. These are the top-of-the-line Sonoran Plateau interconnect cables. All copper conductors, VDH RCA connectors. Proprietary directional shielding, MicroBearing fill, heavy duty construction with excellent strain reliefs. Extremely low noise floor, organic detail, neutral frequency balance, and very musical. Not etched or dry or analytical. A superb cable that competes with many cables costing much more. Get the high-end sound you are looking for, without the high cost. Works great with tube or solid state components. Definitely a "reference grade" cable. * $550 *_

 

Don't think you should post that stuff really, it is funny but I can see how some people would find it offensive


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...What would you see as proof for you? A basic mission 32i speaker vs B&W nautilus speaker 800D in a room with what 10 people? What exactly? Erm they bring their own music and see which will sound better?_

 

Wow, I didn't think you would so easily be satisfied. So then: All of my audiophile friends hear differences in cables. 

 I'm glad to have finally been of help for you.
.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, I didn't think you would so easily be satisfied. So then: All of my audiophile friends hear differences in cables. 

 I'm glad to have finally been of help for you.
._

 

Oh Jazz .... Yes your contribution has (shall I say) been entertaining. People get their backs up so easy. Guess you have no more to offer 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 To others just in case you haven't read I'm not here to goad but to see if there are reports, evidence, proof that kind of things like blind tests, etc that show the discernible difference (audible, hearing, musically .... I'm trying to be thorough....) between different cables like interconnects and the like.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To others just in case you haven't read I'm not here to goad but to see if there are reports, evidence, proof that kind of things like blind tests, etc that show the discernible difference (audible, hearing, musically .... I'm trying to be thorough....) between different cables like interconnects and the like._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
Consider the validity of an argument that has to resort to condescention... "Well, if you can't hear a difference, your ears are ignorant." ...to make a point.

 If cables made a real difference, there wouldn't be an argument. There would be clear and convincing evidence. The only evidence I see in the arguments made in the defense of high end cables is that they seem to function as an ego boost of some sort. That's fine for some folks, but my self worth is invested in things other than stereo systems, cars and designer clothing.

 

Hallelujah. Steve spot on._

 

Just to show how consistent you are when it comes to rate off-topic posts...
.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just to show how consistent you are when it comes to rate off-topic posts...
._

 

Thank you for this Jazz ... I bet my spelling isn't always correct to


----------



## rsaavedra

You said you weren't really looking for serious/rigurous proof or research about perceived differences, you just were curious about anecdotical experiences for your own "reality check". Many such anecdotical experiences are documented in these forums already (as well as in many other places online, by many people). Your persistent asking is more of a lazy attitude rather than a true researcher mode of operation. Why do you keep goading (and yes, you are goading like a little kid) choosing to not look for what's already there? Do you seriously think people will want to repeat in this thread of yours what they already wrote in their own threads?


----------



## PhilS

reano, let me see if I can clarify. I am not trying to argue with you or offend you, but we seem to be two ships passing in the night. I offer the following:

 1. As an initial matter, let's assume we are not talking about cables that measure differently to the extent that most would say the differences in the measured parameters should be audible.

 2. I do not have proof (and I don't know of any proof) that cables sound different if by "proof" you mean scientific or other evidence that is of a nature and quantity such that all reasonably objective people would be or should be convinced of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt (let's assume that is the standard for discussion purposes).

 3. There is "evidence" that cables sound different. Such evidence includes the reports of many who have listened to cables and report hearing differences. This may not be persuasive evidence to you or others, and it may not be evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the fact (i.e., "proof"), but it is evidence.

 4. I have evidence that cables sound different in my system. It is based on what I have heard. Is this "proof" to me? Yes, it is, to the extent that I am convinced of the fact and am willing to incur the cost of the cable for the amount of improvement I hear. In other words, the fact is established for me with sufficient proof for me to incur a cost or take an action. Is what I consider "proof" to me sufficient proof for bigshot, mihm5, etc.? No. Is this "proof" of a nature and quantity that all reasonably objective people would be convinced of the fact? No. Will it be proof to you? I don't see how it could be, since what you hear in your system might be entirely different. 

 5. The fact that there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt such that all reasonably objective people would be or should be convinced of the fact is something that I suspect you are fully aware of. Therefore, asking the question "is there proof," seems to be designed to start an argument. But perhaps we have not been fair to you and need to give you the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the answer to the question, again, IMO is that there is no proof such that all reasonably objective people would be or should be convinced of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

 6. The fact that there is currently no "proof" does not mean that the differences do not exist, as you know. Nor does it mean that there might eventually be proof. But if you are looking for proof at this time -- as I have defined it -- I don't think it exists.

 Hope this helps clarify my points and advances the discussion.


----------



## Kees

Just wondering:
 What would proof bring you? You still won't hear the difference.
 Why do you think people would want to convince you or persuade you (with what you call proof) to believe there is a difference to be heard? Especially when you start out by saying you can't hear it anyway, that seems like a lot of wasted effort....


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Dictionary*

 au·di·o·phil·i·a (ô'dē-ə-fĭl'ē-ə)
 n.

 A mystical religion constructed to victimize the benighted.

*Encyclopedia*

 A religion based on one-upsmanship in the expenditure for audio components, much like a tax on ignorance. These components then become objects of supplication for imagined sonic superiority, where the pursuit of sound fidelity is completely disassociated from the love of music.
_

 

Why do you have to go out of your way and take such efforts just to insult people?


----------



## FallenAngel

I'm not understanding something in this thread about proof.

 Reano:
 You want "proof" that 2 cables sound differently. There is measurable proof that copper cables have different resistance to silver cables. There is also measurable proof that different sizes and guages of cables have different capacitance.

 Is this proof that it "sounds" different? If yes, then you have your proof. If no and this scientific measurement does not measure how a cable "sounds", then no other scientific measurement can "prove" that 2 cable "sound" different. I don't know of any device that measures what a cable "sounds" like. There are devices that test for how fast electricity travels, amount of current, things like that, but nothing to test how things "sound".

 The exactly same thing can be said for 2 pairs of headphones or 2 amplifiers. Sure, we have current ratings and voltage swings, but are those actual measurements of "sound", NO! Of course not, so how can you prove that 2 amplifiers "sound" different? You can't in the traditional measurement way. *Don't bother with the whole, well this one has a flat response from 10Hz - 30KHz and the other is 12Hz to 25Khz. You can take the almost any high-end and have VERY similar frequency response graphs.*

 So the main thing I'm trying to get at is a simple: Can you *hear* the difference between 2 pairs of headphones? Can you prove other than saying "Yes, I *hear* a difference"? This is the way I feel about different cables in my system. I can *hear* a difference, and in *hearing*, so I can say that my *"hearing"* is my measuring instrument that proves to me that they *"sound"* different.

 Hope that clarifies how I feel about the subject, and I do believe that everybody should be using this method. How something "sounds" can only be proven using the appropriate method of "hearing", why not try it? If your "hearing" test proves one way or another, you'll have all the proof you need.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You said you weren't really looking for serious/rigurous proof or research about perceived differences, you just were curious about anecdotical experiences for your own "reality check". Many such anecdotical experiences are documented in these forums already (as well as in many other places online, by many people). Your persistent asking is more of a lazy attitude rather than a true researcher mode of operation. Why do you keep goading (and yes, you are goading like a little kid) choosing to not look for what's already there? Do you seriously think people will want to repeat in this thread of yours what they already wrote in their own threads?_

 

You just made this up where I have said anecdotal experience, etc. rsa why respond if i am a little kid (here we go again?) <--------- zzzz always come down to the same.. please don't respond to me RSA I don't want you to now if you could kindly not reply I will be very happy as I can see you have nothing of benefit to say to me.


----------



## eyeteeth

I haven't read all the recent posts in this thread as life is just too short. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thankyou eyeteeth I like your response. Keep it up_

 

Keep what up? I may have similar thoughts to others but I'm not part of any group think nor team sports or posting for the seeming entertainment of an unknown person. Are your pals looking in and having a laugh?
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ If there is a significant difference, it would be easy to prove. Then the argument would move on to WHAT KIND of a difference._

 

I thought the same thing as you quite a while ago; if the differences were of consequence, there'd be no debate.

 Personally, cables are below the threshold of meaningfulness or readily perceivable impact. When argued about, cables take on a worth all out of proportion to their value. 

 I had another demonstration of the significance of cabling last week. This is a bit roundabout. One benefit to selling stuff within a city is the number of guys who can drop by and pick up and of course there's often some minutes of audio small talk. One buyer of some isolation items was older (60?), very nice, said he'd been in the hobby for 30 years, was one of the few who knew of my ATC gear, asked he could come in for a listen and I said "sure". As my turntable was uncovered talk turned to vinyl and he stated the usual about its superiority to which I cued up Classic Records 200 gram Led Zep II and dropped the Barry Diament mastered original CD into the tray, had them play simultaneously and I switched back and forth with the remote. He stated he was confused as to which was which. 

 The point of the anecdote is that he couldn't distinguish vinyl from CD when each were done very well (mastering!) but cables can be very different sounding. (I was once similarly confused by a Clearaudio table/Graham Phantom arm and Simaudio CD player playing simultaneously).

 I could wire up with just about anything and no one could identify what was being used nor would they be able to determine if the loom cost $50, $500 or $5,000. 

 Proof? The proof of the pudding is in the tasting and I've decided I'd rather move beyond cables and put my money and efforts into cake.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FallenAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not understanding something in this thread about proof.

 Reano:
 You want "proof" that 2 cables sound differently. There is measurable proof that copper cables have different resistance to silver cables. There is also measurable proof that different sizes and guages of cables have different capacitance.

 Is this proof that it "sounds" different? If yes, then you have your proof. If no and this scientific measurement does not measure how a cable "sounds", then no other scientific measurement can "prove" that 2 cable "sound" different. I don't know of any device that measures what a cable "sounds" like. There are devices that test for how fast electricity travels, amount of current, things like that, but nothing to test how things "sound".

 The exactly same thing can be said for 2 pairs of headphones or 2 amplifiers. Sure, we have current ratings and voltage swings, but are those actual measurements of "sound", NO! Of course not, so how can you prove that 2 amplifiers "sound" different? You can't in the traditional measurement way. *Don't bother with the whole, well this one has a flat response from 10Hz - 30KHz and the other is 12Hz to 25Khz. You can take the almost any high-end and have VERY similar frequency response graphs.*

 So the main thing I'm trying to get at is a simple: Can you *hear* the difference between 2 pairs of headphones? Can you prove other than saying "Yes, I *hear* a difference"? This is the way I feel about different cables in my system. I can *hear* a difference, and in *hearing*, so I can say that my *"hearing"* is my measuring instrument that proves to me that they *"sound"* different.

 Hope that clarifies how I feel about the subject, and I do believe that everybody should be using this method. How something "sounds" can only be proven using the appropriate method of "hearing", why not try it? If your "hearing" test proves one way or another, you'll have all the proof you need._

 

Fallen please read the threads I know copper, silver blah blah and the properties of metals Im a trained engineer (please read the thread). In fact I'm not going to continue to respond to this as you need to first go back and read what I said already.

 Like I said before I'm now expecting the usual 

 1) Why you ridiculing us, why you goading us (even though I explained this time and again )
 2) Oh can hear it, I have no proof I'm happy but nothing to show.

 THis is all so funny. Some have given some good responses I have stated where and thanks for those. The rest why keep replying. This obviously is thread you don't like. As one says im a little kid another I don't want to be a true researcher, etc then why keep come back. I would truly be glad if you don't respond as I've stated what I'm after just give me one researched test with independent reviewers that could tell the difference in hearing, musically and that type of thing. PLEASE no more oooh there is a difference between copper and silver. Erm please take that to a children forum for science. I know that.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_reano, let me see if I can clarify. I am not trying to argue with you or offend you, but we seem to be two ships passing in the night. I offer the following:

 1. As an initial matter, let's assume we are not talking about cables that measure differently to the extent that most would say the differences in the measured parameters should be audible.

 2. I do not have proof (and I don't know of any proof) that cables sound different if by "proof" you mean scientific or other evidence that is of a nature and quantity such that all reasonably objective people would be or should be convinced of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt (let's assume that is the standard for discussion purposes).

 3. There is "evidence" that cables sound different. Such evidence includes the reports of many who have listened to cables and report hearing differences. This may not be persuasive evidence to you or others, and it may not be evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the fact (i.e., "proof"), but it is evidence.

 4. I have evidence that cables sound different in my system. It is based on what I have heard. Is this "proof" to me? Yes, it is, to the extent that I am convinced of the fact and am willing to incur the cost of the cable for the amount of improvement I hear. In other words, the fact is established for me with sufficient proof for me to incur a cost or take an action. Is what I consider "proof" to me sufficient proof for bigshot, mihm5, etc.? No. Is this "proof" of a nature and quantity that all reasonably objective people would be convinced of the fact? No. Will it be proof to you? I don't see how it could be, since what you hear in your system might be entirely different. 

 5. The fact that there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt such that all reasonably objective people would be or should be convinced of the fact is something that I suspect you are fully aware of. Therefore, asking the question "is there proof," seems to be designed to start an argument. But perhaps we have not been fair to you and need to give you the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the answer to the question, again, IMO is that there is no proof such that all reasonably objective people would be or should be convinced of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

 6. The fact that there is currently no "proof" does not mean that the differences do not exist, as you know. Nor does it mean that there might eventually be proof. But if you are looking for proof at this time -- as I have defined it -- I don't think it exists.

 Hope this helps clarify my points and advances the discussion. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Phils this is better and it clarify's your point and advance the discussion I understand more what you mean. THanks


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ I cued up Classic Records 200 gram Led Zep II and dropped the Barry Diament mastered original CD into the tray,_

 

I was being devilish when I did that and to put the fellas world back on it's former axis I played the Mercury Living Speakers Corner reissue of Janos Starker Bach: 6 Cello Suites. He was a nice guy.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just wondering:
 What would proof bring you? You still won't hear the difference.
 Why do you think people would want to convince you or persuade you (with what you call proof) to believe there is a difference to be heard? Especially when you start out by saying you can't hear it anyway, that seems like a lot of wasted effort....



_

 

Kee's I would say thanks but I really don't know why you think your post would be of any benefit. If you are interested please read my posts where I mention I would want to buy the cables, find out, etc (I am from the camp of cable city, zzzz). Kee's please no more if it's post like the above I would prefer that you argue against with your own links, documents, etc like some have done as at least I will read them, etc. Else like you say it's a lot of wasted effort....


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was being devilish when I did that and to put the fellas world back on it's former axis I played the Mercury Living Speakers Corner reissue of Janos Starker Bach: 6 Cello Suites. He was a nice guy._

 

loler Nice one so you have access to some masters aye hehe. Also thanks for your responses appreciated

 Hey I think I have 50 posts I'm able to go buy some cables in the for sale section lol but anything else you can add please do as I'll save the links etc and no this is not some prank with my mates looking in and laughing at the responses. It is not.....


----------



## FallenAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fallen please read the threads I know copper, silver blah blah and the properties of metals Im a trained engineer (please read the thread). In fact I'm not going to continue to respond to this as you need to first go back and read what I said already.

 Like I said before I'm now expecting the usual 

 1) Why you ridiculing us, why you goading us (even though I explained this time and again )
 2) Oh can hear it, I have no proof I'm happy but nothing to show.

 THis is all so funny. Some have given some good responses I have stated where and thanks for those. The rest why keep replying. This obviously is thread you don't like. As one says im a little kid another I don't want to be a true researcher, etc then why keep come back. I would truly be glad if you don't respond as I've stated what I'm after just give me one researched test with independent reviewers that could tell the difference in hearing, musically and that type of thing. PLEASE no more oooh there is a difference between copper and silver. Erm please take that to a children forum for science. I know that._

 

I'm sorry to see this thread go to such idiocy and without jumping to conclusions, post #129 throws me off (I hope not to see tons of For-Sale threads by you because that would just be asking for suspicion).

 Seriously though, this should be a very simple to answer question.

 AC signals (your "sound" waves) travel differently depending on the medium. Change the properties of the cable (or more precisely, cable pair - signal & ground), you change how the signal travels.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FallenAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm sorry to see this thread go to such idiocy and without jumping to conclusions, post #129 throws me off (I hope not to see tons of For-Sale threads by you because that would just be asking for suspicion).

 Seriously though, this should be a very simple to answer question.

 AC signals (your "sound" waves) travel differently depending on the medium. Change the properties of the cable (or more precisely, cable pair - signal & ground), you change how the signal travels._

 

lol I said the for sale as a joke. I tend to buy more than I sell

 Fallen I understand what you say about Ac signals. Have you heard any though that you could say though this is the one that you can definitely hear the difference with and if so, do you have the name of the brand etc, info like that? This is not being rude or anything just a polite question. (I'm tip toeing here).


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't want you to now if you could kindly not reply I will be very happy as I can see you have nothing of benefit to say to me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I may have something to say of benefit to some other members of the forum. Sorry for the bluntness, but who said I was writing in this particular thread just because I cared whether it would matter to you?

 With respect to my alleged "making it up" of your request for anecdotical experiences related to perceiving differences in cables:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have searched the internet "Not just forums", hifi mag's who have an interest more than most, etc so now I come back to my point...... Which is to see if people on *this *forum (I also post on others as part of my serious search like avforums) have any thing they can offer as many have said they do indeed hear the difference._

 

And I quote that even though you had asked for "proof" (see your first post), then you reworded your request as above. If you don't like your latter version of whatever your request is as a "request for anecdotical experience", then fair enough, I don't mind your not admitting or clarifying whatever your intentions are with this thread.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I may have something to say of benefit to some other members of the forum. Sorry for the bluntness, but who said I was writing in this particular thread just because I cared whether it would matter to you?

 With respect to my alleged "making it up" of your request for anecdotical experiences related to perceiving differences in cables:



 And I quote that even though you had asked for "proof" (see your first post), then you reworded your request as above. If you don't like your latter version of whatever your request is as a "request for anecdotical experience", then fair enough, I don't mind your not admitting or clarifying whatever your intentions are with this thread._

 

OK Hopefully others will get more from your post


----------



## FallenAngel

I already mentioned that from the limited amount of cables that I heard, I really liked the Belden 89259 from HeartLand Cables for a very warm system and after experimenting A LOT with different silver wires, a slightly modified version of the Chris VenHaus fine silver IC using slightly larger guage wire and cotton rope instead of teflon tubing sounded the best simply because the detail in the music was brought out more. This was comparing to a few cheap cables, Monster cables, radioshack brands, and of course lots of silver plated copper, pure copper and pure silver DIY configurations.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the same rating," but if cables make zero difference, and amps and cd players of the "same rating" make "very little difference," then we could put together multiple systems with different cables and different cd players and different amps and they would basically all sound the same --as long as we're using the same headphones -- right?_

 

By same rating, I mean the same power rating for the amp and the same specs. If the line levels were balanced, they would sound very similar, yes.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, but once finding a satisfactory set of speakers or headphones, people would start looking for the best synergy in the rest of the system of course._

 

Assuming you're happy with the features, ease of operation and durability of the rest of your components, and your amp is sufficient to push your speakers, you should attend to room acoustics and listen to music.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By same rating, I mean the same power rating for the amp and the same specs. If the line levels were balanced, they would sound very similar, yes.
_

 

That more or less gets to my point, which is that you can construct an argument from positions taken by various "skeptics," including yourself, that if none of the components/items in the system other than the headphones/speakers make a difference in sound, when you put them all together the various systems one could construct should all sound the same (with the same set of headphones/speakers) -- but they do not.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FallenAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_AC signals (your "sound" waves) travel differently depending on the medium. Change the properties of the cable (or more precisely, cable pair - signal & ground), you change how the signal travels._

 

This is like a religious debate--very contentious and short on conclusive evidence.

 Different cables do have measurable differences. These differences are completely irrelevant to a listener unless the differences can be heard. We only measure the capacitance, inductance, AC resistance etc as a way to empirically and quantifiably measure factors that relate to the way the cables will transmit an audio signal; however, electronically measurable differences do not necessarily entail audible differences. So, the fact that high tech measurements of a cables' specs are different doesn't automatically mean that you can hear a difference. Even if you can hear a difference that doesn't mean that one is necessarily universally "better" than the other unless you can show a strong statistical preference among many people. Even then the question of "better" is potentially still open. Is Coke "better" than Pepsi? Or is it a personal preference? (I'm speaking of near threshold of detection differences here, not, say, whether a system has 1k-5k response vs 20-20k and such.)

 The only thing that matters is that you can hear a difference and that you like the difference--but the human mind is easily fooled especially near threshold of detection. So, it makes sense to make sure that the audible difference is real and repeatable by testing in a manner that takes the known psychology of human judgment and perception into account.

 If the difference between two cables can't be differentiated in a properly designed ABX test then the the difference doesn't exist or it is so small as to be inaudible or irrelevant. Different doesn't have to mean better or worse but inaudible is irrelevant.

 People should use whatever the heck they like but they shouldn't be offended if they advocate their preference and are asked for sound reasons why. People take skepticism of their subjective opinions as a personal affront even when the skepticism is principled rather than personal.

 Subjective impressions are evidence and so are anecdotes (in spite of the common phrase to the contrary), they just aren't solid or conclusive evidence. They definitely aren't proof.

 The high end audio market lives on threshold of detection improvements and is ripe with known frauds. It seems entirely reasonable to wish to examine claims in a systematic manner that accounts for human factors given the **huge** amounts of money involved and the logarithmic increments of cash required for incremental sound improvements. It is up to claimants to prove their claims not the other way around. Anecdotes and personal opinions are not proof.

 Cable guru Bruce Brisson (Monster Cable and MIT) said he was going to huge test in 2000 but I've not heard that this was ever done.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is up to claimants to prove their claims not the other way around._

 

Not always. That is the case only if the "claimant" wants to convince somebody else about such claim, wants those other people to share the same conviction/belief. If the claimant doesn't care about other people not being convinced about their convictions, there is no obligation anywhere to "prove" any claim. Now if the claimant doesn't care about supporting/proving the claim, the challenger is free to simply ignore it. Of course, the challenger is also free to point out that an unsupported claim has been advocated. But if the challenger wants to disqualify that claim, or rather, is truly interested in its validity, given the claimant's indiference about it then it is on the challenger's shoulders to find either support for that claim (researching the matter properly and actually finding existing support/evidence), or support against the claim, counter examples to strongly disqualify or weaken it. So the challenger, if truly interested, would do a bit more than just being a lazy nail annoyingly and repeteadly asking for proof that is known not to exist, or asking for anecdotal references/opinions that are already known to exist, easily available and documented. This all imho of course


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not always. That is the case only if the claimants wants to convince somebody else about such claim, wants those other people to share the same conviction/belief. If the claimant doesn't care about other people not being convinced about their convictions, there is no obligation anywhere to "prove" any claim._

 

Agreed. You aren't obligated to prove something just because you have mentioned it or believe it. However, if you mention your claim and belief it can be assumed to some extent that you'd like people to believe you. And if you _advocate_ your positive claim then it is entirely reasonable for people to ask you to justify your claim and not merely credulously accept it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ But if s/he wants to disqualify that claim, or is interested about its validity, then it is on the challenger's shoulders to find out about the support for that claim, either researching the matter properly and actually finding existing support/evidence, or find proper counter examples to strongly disqualify the claim._

 

No, it is up to people who make a positive claim to prove it if they wish to advocate it. Just as in court cases and in science the burden of proof is on the positive claimant.

 If your position was accurate I could say that spraying your interconnect cables with my $3000 neodymium infused quantum nano coating will increase the openness and transparency of your system. If you can't hear the difference it is because your system is inadequate, you don't have golden ears and your negative energy is causing a quantum dampening field that increases the "harshness" of the pre-amplified signal. Now, based on your contention, *you* must research this and find proper counter examples to disqualify the claim.

 Clearly my example is absurd, but even so *based on your position *is that it is now *your problem to disprove* my claim or you have to accept it based merely on my assertion. The more reasonable position is to require me to provide proof that my "nano coating" creates not only an audible difference but an _improvement_ and that proof should be in the form of a systematic test that compensates for the psychology of judgment and perception. I have little doubt that I could create a subjective listening test that could convince people they hear a difference between two identical set ups. There are already many psychology tests of that sort including a _cable test_ where people were certain they heard the improvement fancy cables made even though _no cables were actually changed_--the testers only pretended to change them.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So the challenger, if truly interested, would do a bit more than just being a lazy nail annoyingly and repeteadly asking for proof that is known not to exist,_

 

It makes no sense to give claims a free pass because proof is explicitly lacking!!!

 "My $10,000 cables will double the frequency range of any sound system!"

 "Is there any proof?"

 "No!"

 "Oh, well then it _must be true _and I shouldn't ask for proof!"

 The above example isn't meant to be entirely flippant but is an argument by example. The example shows more clearly than I could explain by other means that lack of proof is not sufficient reason to _stop questioning_ a positive claim. That being said, that doesn't mean I necessarily support beating one's own head against a brick wall.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, it is up to people who make a positive claim to prove it if they wish to advocate it. Just as in court cases and in science the burden of proof is on the positive claimant._

 

Wrong SoundEdit, precisely because of what you are mentioning: this forum is neither a court, nor a scientific journal where claims have to be rigurously supported to be accepted for publication. Online forums are also places were people share thoughts, impressions, non-rigurously supported claims, and also completely unsupported claims 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 Clearly my example is absurd, but even so based on your position is that it is now your problem to disprove my claim or you have to accept it based merely on my assertion. 
 

Also wrong. It is not your problem unless you want it to be your problem. As I said, you can simply ignore the claim, or statement of belief, whatever you want to call it. You don't have to accept an unsupported claim. Some people actually choose to reject even well supported claims after all 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


 "Is there any proof?"

 "No!"

 "Oh, well then it must be true and I shouldn't ask for proof!" 
 

Well, I must say this again: wrong. Saying after the no "It must be true and I shouldn't ask for proof" is what you are choosing to say only if you want. That's not the only option. After the "No" you could also choose to say, "Ok, I will put on hold that claim as unsupported", or also "Ok, I definitely won't trust this claim because it contradicts some of the beliefs/knowledge I already have", or also ... etc. etc. etc.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wrong SoundEdit, precisely because of what you are mentioning: this forum is neither a court, nor a scientific journal where claims have to be rigurously supported to be accepted for publication. Online forums are also places were people share thoughts, impressions, and unsupported claims 
_

 

Yes, it is a hobbyist's forum -- a place to have fun and commune with others who enjoy audio and headphone related stuff -- notwithstanding the fact that some folks seem hell bent to take a lot of the fun out of the hobby.


----------



## grawk

Look for the results of Edwood's blind cable test. It was admittedly a single blind test and most people didn't do a good job of determining which cable was which. BUT, one person did. The person with the best gear of the participants, ayt999. The problem with looking for proof about something like cables is that it'd be a really difficult study to perform, because you'd have so many variables and it would be a logistical nightmare to do a good double blind study. It's much harder than running an abx program on a computer, for example.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wrong SoundEdit, precisely because of what you are mentioning: this forum is neither a court, nor a scientific journal where claims have to be rigurously supported to be accepted. Online forums are also places were people share thoughts, impressions, and unsupported claims 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'm not trying to say discussions are wrong or that you need to prove _everything_ you say. But in the "I'm right" and "You're wrong" "*it-for-tat" discussion in this thread people are making positive claims. Nobody is going to get anywhere close to the truth if they deliberately avoid methods for finding it. This may not be a court of law but if people are really interested in actual phenomena and actually wish to separate what is true from what appears to be true then it is up to people making positive claims to prove their position. You seem to be arguing the contrary because you have a position you strongly believe in but can't prove. The claims seem to be of an almost religious nature in the sense that nobody thinks their position should be questioned or contradicted even though they are making a positive, testable ("falsifyable") claim. 

 You may be right. You may be wrong. Wether an discernible audio phenomena exists or not is a testable fact. Whether it is true or not is and the desire to put that to the test _is not_ an attack on any individual as a person.

 Given the fact that most people have a limited amount of time and cash I have a hard time understanding why people would object so vociferously to using the best method of separating what appears to be from what is--the scientific method.

 There is just too much cash at stake to have credulity as the default position.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 If the difference between two cables can't be differentiated in a properly designed ABX test then the the difference doesn't exist or it is so small as to be inaudible or irrelevant. _

 

 This is a DBT-free forum.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You seem to be arguing the contrary because you have a position you strongly believe in but can't prove._

 

I'm not arguing the contrary to anything. Really my last posts have little to do about audio or cables. I'm only trying to clarify things about _argumentation_ itself.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's very little difference between amps and cd players of the same rating. However differences between different speakers and headphones are significant. People would do well to spend the bulk of their attention on those areas and room acoustics, rather than wires.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

granted room acoustics count for speakers yes and I have addressed my room acoustics. The amp question is actualy kind of funny as there are countless implementations of amps, multiple variations of tube amps, very different SS designs, so maybe you could clarify what you mean. There are clearly differences in cdps IMHO, even if all dacs were created equal (and they're not) there is the output stage? 

 Of course speakers are vastly different from each other I don't think there is a person here who does not think the greatest variance in sound comes from speakers/headphones. After you have identified the speaker/headphone source and amp still loom large with cables able to create differences. 
 I can respect those that say they can not identify a difference in cables, amps and cdps that's cool, take your 50 watt panasonic rack systems from 1988 and rock out with your bad self but please don't tell others what they do and do not hear.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ This may not be a court of law but if people are really interested in actual phenomena and actually wish to separate what is true from what appears to be true then it is up to people making positive claims to prove their position._

 

First, it is primarily the skeptics who are obsessed with proving what is true and not true. The rest of us are listening, sharing what we've heard, asking others about what they've heard, etc. These lengthy debates typically only start because (1) someone with an agenda starts a thread with an apparently sincere question about whether cables make a difference, but it is basically designed to start and argument, or (2) someone asks a question about a particular cable and a "skeptic" pipes in about cables being "snake oil," etc., and off we go. So to say those who are having fun listening to their cables need to prove something really misses the context of this debate. We wouldn't even have these debates if certain people would just leave us alone. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Second, undertaking postive proof in a manner that would satisfy you and other "skeptics" (assuming it could be done) is really not within the scope of this forum, given the forum rules.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, it is a hobbyist's forum -- a place to have fun and commune with others who enjoy audio and headphone related stuff -- notwithstanding the fact that some folks seem hell bent to take a lot of the fun out of the hobby. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It all depends on what part of the hobby is fun for you. I like to spend my money reasonably wisely. I like to be able to separate reality from hokum and to get good gear at fair price. To get the stuff that matters and skip the cr*p that doesn't. For me, that is fun. That is part of the hobby.

 I also, frankly, like debates with smart people. I'll put up a strong fight based on what knowledge I have and maybe I'll learn something. I already have learned some things from this thread especially from some of the links. I expect people who strongly advocate claims to be willing to support their position. I try to be respectful and fact-based but I don't claim to be infallible or to know everything--and I can be wrong and not know it. But we all have different ways of "knowing." Many people are very intuitive and their subjective impressions are everything to them. My style is more empirical. 

 What I don't find fun is getting ripped off, paying money for things that don't make a factual difference. That's why I'm here, to learn--but I want to learn more facts than hokum and I want to try and separate the two.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You really sound strange here tried to give you my background but in case you didn't have it before here goes. I am a professional working in the music. I have my own home studio countless headphones, Grado RS1, Senn HD650, 600, zzz, AKG. Countless amps. Grace 902 plus others I have already upgraded my source, amp, headphones to the last degree, etc (and I mentioned some of the cables) I am actually looking if someone has concrete proof of the cable difference vs hearing test thats all very simple. Do you have it.
 Guess you don't I am 37 years old with countless qualifications play piano (reasonable well haha) my kids, wife all play different instruments. Please please please I know what I'm on about. If you have some proof give it. If you don't go else where 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 hehe. Let the flamming begin_

 

never mind


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is a DBT-free forum. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Sorry, the other forums I'm on have a prominent "Debate Free" tag in the debate free forums (yes, really). I read the entire 7 page thread before posting presumed based on the huge "deb*ate" in this thread that "deb*ate" was acceptable.

 Please accept my apologies if I have erred and tell me about acceptable use in this thread.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It all depends on what part of the hobby is fun for you. I like to spend my money reasonably wisely. I like to be able to separate reality from hokum and to get good gear at fair price. To get the stuff that matters and skip the cr*p that doesn't. For me, that is fun. That is part of the hobby.

 I also, frankly, like debates with smart people. I'll put up a strong fight based on what knowledge I have and maybe I'll learn something. I already have learned some things from this thread especially from some of the links. I expect people who strongly advocate claims to be willing to support their position. I try to be respectful and fact-based but I don't claim to be infallible or to know everything--and I can be wrong and not know it. But we all have different ways of "knowing." Many people are very intuitive and their subjective impressions are everything to them. My style is more empirical. 
_

 

You make two very good points, and I respect your position. And a debate on these issues is fun from time to time. And I've learned also from folks who I disagree with. But if you hang around here long enough, you'll see why "we" get frustrated by constant thread krapping from certain people (a few of which have appeared in this thread), whose purpose seems not to engage in a fun debate or learn from others, but to advance a dogmatic position in a manner designed to offend people. When it pops up in every thread whenever someone asks about cables, you get sick of it.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Second, undertaking postive proof in a manner that would satisfy you and other "skeptics" (assuming it could be done) is really not within the scope of this forum, given the forum rules._

 

I don't expect positive proof, frankly. I'd like it but I know it is hard to come by. What I do expect is that people will qualify their claims when they are not proven so that I can correctly categorize claims in my own mind.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To be honest I don't think Steve was taking that stance (just the way I read it anyway). JP thanks for your response and what is this cable that the 'local shop' makes? What makes you buy it? What sound differences do you hear compared with say another reasonable good cable? Please let me know I really am interested to hear. <--- Really (not a joke either). Also which cable that you have/had made the 'pretty nice' difference? Thanks_

 

if you were actually interested you probably would not have slighted some really solid and long time members of thius board

 peace enjoy your stay here


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't expect positive proof, frankly. I'd like it but I know it is hard to come by. What I do expect is that people will qualify their claims when they are not proven so that I can correctly categorize claims in my own mind._

 

That is a fair point. Personally, I try to stay away from saying what "must be true" or what others "must" be able to hear. I try to frame my comments with respect to cables in terms of what "I have heard."


----------



## jp11801

.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not arguing the contrary to anything. Really my last posts have little to do about audio or cables. I'm only trying to clarify things about argumentation itself._

 

You are arguing to the contrary of me!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The "contrary" I was referring to was your claim that the burden proof of is not on the positive claimant. To the contrary, the burden of proof _is_ on the positive claimant. I have already conceded that not every belief need be argued but your claim as to the burden of proof in "argumentation"--if one is too choose to argue--is incorrect. You can argue that one need not argue but you can't successfully argue that the positive claimant doesn't have the burden of proof. If I say I can "psychically" improve sound output of an amplifier with my mind is the burden of proof on me or should it be on someone who says that's impossible? It isn't possible to prove an unrestricted negative so the burden of proof is on the positive claimant.

 I wouldn't argue the point but you and I disagree and we both want the last word. I takes only one person to disagree but two to argue.


----------



## FallenAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is like a religious debate--very contentious and short on conclusive evidence.

 Different cables do have measurable differences. These differences are completely irrelevant to a listener unless the differences can be heard. We only measure the capacitance, inductance, AC resistance etc as a way to empirically and quantifiably measure factors that relate to the way the cables will transmit an audio signal; however, electronically measurable differences do not necessarily entail audible differences. So, the fact that high tech measurements of a cables' specs are different doesn't automatically mean that you can hear a difference. Even if you can hear a difference that doesn't mean that one is necessarily universally "better" than the other unless you can show a strong statistical preference among many people. Even then the question of "better" is potentially still open. Is Coke "better" than Pepsi? Or is it a personal preference? (I'm speaking of near threshold of detection differences here, not, say, whether a system has 1k-5k response vs 20-20k and such.)

 The only thing that matters is that you can hear a difference and that you like the difference--but the human mind is easily fooled especially near threshold of detection. So, it makes sense to make sure that the audible difference is real and repeatable by testing in a manner that takes the known psychology of human judgment and perception into account.

 If the difference between two cables can't be differentiated in a properly designed ABX test then the the difference doesn't exist or it is so small as to be inaudible or irrelevant. Different doesn't have to mean better or worse but inaudible is irrelevant.

 People should use whatever the heck they like but they shouldn't be offended if they advocate their preference and are asked for sound reasons why. People take skepticism of their subjective opinions as a personal affront even when the skepticism is principled rather than personal.

 Subjective impressions are evidence and so are anecdotes (in spite of the common phrase to the contrary), they just aren't solid or conclusive evidence. They definitely aren't proof.

 The high end audio market lives on threshold of detection improvements and is ripe with known frauds. It seems entirely reasonable to wish to examine claims in a systematic manner that accounts for human factors given the **huge** amounts of money involved and the logarithmic increments of cash required for incremental sound improvements. It is up to claimants to prove their claims not the other way around. Anecdotes and personal opinions are not proof.

 Cable guru Bruce Brisson (Monster Cable and MIT) said he was going to huge test in 2000 but I've not heard that this was ever done._

 

Buddy, I would have to agree with you completely and would like to have this argument conclusive. There ARE measurable differences among different cables, but there are no devices that can tell how a cable would "sound" so measuring anything about it is completely useless. Therefore, since there is no way to measure how a cable sounds, it's also completely useless to debate on proof of a cable sounding different.

 It seems like the only real way to measure that a cable *sounds* different is to hear it. I've said this before.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FallenAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Therefore, since there is no way to measure how a cable sounds, it's also completely useless to debate on proof of a cable sounding different._

 

Well, useless to debate proof of sounding different in a DBT-free forum anyway


----------



## cotdt

We can put this to rest once and for all. If someone is interested and lives in southern california, we can all get together and do a blind test. There will be a very high-end cable made out of exotic materials. Then there will be two other cables that look exactly the same: another one of the high-end cable and the other is a cheap RatShack cable. And you have to say whether cable A or cable B matches the high-end cable. this would be done on what is my opinion a very hi-end DAC, amp, and headphone (or speakers). i'm sure many of us can score 16/16 on this.


----------



## edstrelow

I actually did a test comparing cables using measuring techniques and found measured differences in signal levels and frequency response. I do not contend this is the last word on the topic, since I only took a crude measure of frequency response and there could be many other sonic features differentiating cables, which could be harder to measure. 

 The point is - some differences are real and not just in your head.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=155351

 I would have thought these differences would have been very difficult to detect on listening tests. Although as I note, if you had three sets of cables in a system showing the same effects you would get a larger difference.

 The effects of many such things may be very subtle, not easily detected in a simple A/B comparison. But with careful listening you may detect them and decide that you prefer one set-up over another.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We can put this to rest once and for all. If someone is interested and lives in southern california, we can all get together and do a blind test. There will be a very high-end cable made out of exotic materials. Then there will be two other cables that look exactly the same: another one of the high-end cable and the other is a cheap RatShack cable. And you have to say whether cable A or cable B matches the high-end cable. this would be done on what is my opinion a very hi-end DAC, amp, and headphone (or speakers). i'm sure many of us can score 16/16 on this._

 

Hmm, in what forum can such things be discussed. Perhaps if it was SBT it could be discussed?


----------



## cotdt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, in what forum can such things be discussed. Perhaps if it was SBT it could be discussed?_

 

It's a single blind test, so we can discuss it!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We can put this to rest once and for all. If someone is interested and lives in southern california, we can all get together and do a blind test. There will be a very high-end cable made out of exotic materials. Then there will be two other cables that look exactly the same: another one of the high-end cable and the other is a cheap RatShack cable. And you have to say whether cable A or cable B matches the high-end cable. this would be done on what is my opinion a very hi-end DAC, amp, and headphone (or speakers). i'm sure many of us can score 16/16 on this._

 

There's already an extensive thread discussing a possible test or series of tests regarding cables, i.e., how to construct a test that might shed some light on the issue. It more or less got nowhere, because of differences over testing methodolgy, what exactly should be tested, etc. The test you're proposing has a number of problems, of course, including, but not limited to, the fact that listening on unfamiliar equipment is not very useful.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's already an extensive thread discussing a possible test or series of tests regarding cables, i.e., how to construct a test that might shed some light on the issue. It more or less got nowhere, because of differences over testing methodolgy, what exactly should be tested, etc. The test you're proposing has a number of problems, of course, including, but not limited to, the fact that listening on unfamiliar equipment is not very useful._

 

Pretty ironic, though I'd disagree with the "unfamiliar equipment" part. If the stuff wasn't so esoteric and expensive you'd think such parties would be like a wine tasting party for audio hobbyists and happen every week. However, some of the way esoteric device makers are actually invited to apply to the randi.org prize until the rule change goes into effect--but that should be a subject for a different forum...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Pretty ironic, though I'd disagree with the "unfamiliar equipment" part._

 

I'm not sure why. If you mess with my daughter's vocal chords, I bet I can discern some pretty minor differences. If you let me listen for 1 minute to a voice I've never heard before, and then change it, it may be very hard for me to pick it up -- putting aside the other artificial test conditions. It's not a perfect analogy, of course, but you get the point.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure why. If you mess with my daughter's vocal chords, I bet I can discern some pretty minor differences. If you let me listen for 1 minute to a voice I've never heard before, and then change it, it may be very hard for me to pick it up -- putting aside the other artificial test conditions. It's not a perfect analogy, of course, but you get the point._

 

Hmm...interesting point. Hey! I bet it could be tested


----------



## cotdt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's already an extensive thread discussing a possible test or series of tests regarding cables, i.e., how to construct a test that might shed some light on the issue. It more or less got nowhere, because of differences over testing methodolgy, what exactly should be tested, etc. The test you're proposing has a number of problems, of course, including, but not limited to, the fact that listening on unfamiliar equipment is not very useful._

 

my test is only to prove that different cables can sound different. it's not meant to prove that more expensive cables preserve the audio signal better, hell i don't even beleive that. i don't see any problems with my test to prove specifically that not all cables sound the same. and oh i know some cable-making techniques that will make damn sure that a cable sounds different. it will be so obvious that even on an ipod there will be an audible difference that's easy to tell.

 and it's a mini-meet, so people can bring their own equipment.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not always. That is the case only if the "claimant" wants to convince somebody else about such claim, wants those other people to share the same conviction/belief. If the claimant doesn't care about other people not being convinced about their convictions, there is no obligation anywhere to "prove" any claim. Now if the claimant doesn't care about supporting/proving the claim, the challenger is free to simply ignore it. Of course, the challenger is also free to point out that an unsupported claim has been advocated. But if the challenger wants to disqualify that claim, or rather, is truly interested in its validity, given the claimant's indiference about it then it is on the challenger's shoulders to find either support for that claim (researching the matter properly and actually finding existing support/evidence), or support against the claim, counter examples to strongly disqualify or weaken it. So the challenger, if truly interested, would do a bit more than just being a lazy nail annoyingly and repeteadly asking for proof that is known not to exist, or asking for anecdotal references/opinions that are already known to exist, easily available and documented. This all imho of course 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

RSA who are you speaking about here? Just interested to know? In this thread itself you will find links and documents that show tests where people have tried to hear the difference and couldn't. I keep saying this you CAN HEAR the difference in other components like speakers which are far more complex than cables (so all this it's complex to hear...) could also mean there isn't nothing to hear. How much more times must I say all I'm after is a report or similiar (I say this to capture a range of documentation, etc) that shows a test where people go along with their cables put it in a high end system, listen to the music with their ears and statistical most of the people are able to say yep. I can tell that, that cable X or Y is there. Let me make it easier. Not even that the sound is 'better' but I can detect when the cable is changed so I can hear the difference with my ears <--- easier again. Now some have said but so difficult to detect with the ears? Well why is this? Because you can do the same test (and I have categorically stated) that you could tell the difference between my 'quality' and basic speakers. I am in UK not sure who in here is from it but I challenge right now and I promise you can come to my house in my studio and we do the test and you can come back on here and see if you could tell the difference. Easy and simple. I ask the same could you do the same for your own cables. I could highlight this again with other audio components using the same test device (yep your own ears that many on here so frequently suggest) I CAN DO IT for those components. So anyone in the UK who wants to test my seriousness then please accept this. And you bring your cables and your own music with the passages you know really well and show me your claims of hearing the difference. Is that serious enough?


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, it is a hobbyist's forum -- a place to have fun and commune with others who enjoy audio and headphone related stuff -- notwithstanding the fact that some folks seem hell bent to take a lot of the fun out of the hobby. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Who is this? hehe

 I don't know what else to say except this. Not sure who in UK here but I say this now I promise you can come to my house and test my basic speakers vs my quality ones A/B with your own ears and own music with the music you know really well and you bring along your cables and we do the same. I could also do this with other components in the audio change. Using our ears and our music as this is the best test equipment right? As many agree here yes?

 Now for the biggy and in bold for future reference

*IF YOU OR ME ARE ABLE TO DETECT WHICH CABLES ARE BEING CHANGED I WILL COME BACK ON HERE AND SAY LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THIS IS THE CABLE AND THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND OUT*

 No worries no problem at all I want this to work <--- Let me say that again I WANT IT TO WORK. <--- I WANT TO SHUT THESE SKEPTICS UP and again ..... you get where I'm coming from. Now if anyone in the UK let me know I will even pay your train fair (within reason) and pick you up from the train station, make sure your well fed and comfortable and drop you back off. Bring the cables and your own music. Now I can detect it well enough in my reasonable good set up for other audio components is someone now going to say they can only detect if the equipment is £100,000? Or in fact bring your portable rig if thats where you hear the sound difference.

 Now I can't be more fair than that ... about my seriousness I have searched the web, looked in Journals and if I had found that report, that document, that evidence I would bring it here but there simply isn't any that I can find but there are plenty (and before you ask) just read the links in the thread. Thats show it couldn't be detected by the ears......YET, YET, YET you CAN, CAN, CAN detect other audio components differences with YOUR EARS, EARS, EARS.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You make two very good points, and I respect your position. And a debate on these issues is fun from time to time. And I've learned also from folks who I disagree with. But if you hang around here long enough, you'll see why "we" get frustrated by constant thread krapping from certain people (a few of which have appeared in this thread), whose purpose seems not to engage in a fun debate or learn from others, but to advance a dogmatic position in a manner designed to offend people. When it pops up in every thread whenever someone asks about cables, you get sick of it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hopefully from my thread above you can see my seriousness in willing to pay for the transport and food cost of the person (UK based of course) who can bring their cables and show me they can detect the difference using the very thing they say tells them the difference 'THEIR EARS' using the thing they know real well 'THEIR MUSIC' I am very serious and want somewhere for this to be shown. I have various cables and what to see some evidence of the discernible difference in sound. I'm not sure how I can make this more clear than saying I will pay for someone to come and demo it and I will. I want to learn from others and will pay for the privilege to see this demonstrated.

 Phils is this fair enough or no?


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FallenAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Buddy, I would have to agree with you completely and would like to have this argument conclusive. There ARE measurable differences among different cables, but there are no devices that can tell how a cable would "sound" so measuring anything about it is completely useless. Therefore, since there is no way to measure how a cable sounds, it's also completely useless to debate on proof of a cable sounding different.

 It seems like the only real way to measure that a cable *sounds* different is to hear it. I've said this before._

 

Hi Fallen as per my thread above I agree and want someone to show me they hear it? I will pay for them to come and show me it? Is this fair enough? As you said if they say they can hear it then whats wrong with them using their ears to show they can hear it? Thats the cable I want!!!


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We can put this to rest once and for all. If someone is interested and lives in southern california, we can all get together and do a blind test. There will be a very high-end cable made out of exotic materials. Then there will be two other cables that look exactly the same: another one of the high-end cable and the other is a cheap RatShack cable. And you have to say whether cable A or cable B matches the high-end cable. this would be done on what is my opinion a very hi-end DAC, amp, and headphone (or speakers). i'm sure many of us can score 16/16 on this._

 

So here is a challenge for those in California and here is one from me for those in the UK (train travel). The only test equipment you need to bring is your ears. Or we could look at meeting up with a portable rig of some kind. I could bring my Grace m902, and RS1's someone could bring there own CD player and music and we just have the cables as the difference. Like I said earlier if it were speakers you could tell the difference with your ears.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_my test is only to prove that different cables can sound different. it's not meant to prove that more expensive cables preserve the audio signal better, hell i don't even beleive that. i don't see any problems with my test to prove specifically that not all cables sound the same. and oh i know some cable-making techniques that will make damn sure that a cable sounds different. it will be so obvious that even on an ipod there will be an audible difference that's easy to tell.

 and it's a mini-meet, so people can bring their own equipment._

 

I codt Im hoping you wouldn't make the cables defective in some way like I said in previous post you want a reasonable quality/basic cable vs the one someone else likes or even the ones they own themselves where they say that cable is warm and that silver is bright, etc. That brings out the bass, this separates the instruments. Cotdt I will be very interested in the results of the test and how it was done. Please update me even privately and especially the cables used for a mini rig (always on the look out).

 People say they are able to detect these differences between their cable why not go and do it. I tell you what if you do it this would be something we should put as a sticky!!!


----------



## cotdt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I codt Im hoping you wouldn't make the cables defective in some way like I said in previous post you want a reasonable quality/basic cable vs the one someone else likes or even the ones they own themselves where they say that cable is warm and that silver is bright, etc. That brings out the bass, this separates the instruments. Cotdt I will be very interested in the results of the test and how it was done. Please update me even privately and especially the cables used for a mini rig (always on the look out).

 People say they are able to detect these differences between their cable why not go and do it. I tell you what if you do it this would be something we should put as a sticky!!!_

 

yes i am also very curious to see the result of such a test. i can put together some exotic vacuum-contained silver cables or maybe try to borrow one from someone. they have very low inductance but high capacitance. unfortunately, people say my test is flawed and have their own proposals, but nobody can agree on a test proposal so these meetings are impossible to organize. if i can just obtain these exotic cables and hear a difference for myself, i can send them over to you for you to try.


----------



## Black Stuart

reano,
 or should I say anal because that's what all your posts are as well as being offensive to virtually everyone who has posted on this thread.

 I'd worked out you were an English 'wind-up merchant' long before you finally 'came out' two posts ago.

 On no forum before have I encountered anyone who has so dis-respected and insulted the handles/monikas of other posters.

 You referred to Tourmaline as a 'tout'. Tout is not an abbreviation of his handle as you well know being English - so, it was a direct and purposefully meant insult.

 For all those who don't know - a 'tout' in English is - a low life creep who buy tickets at face value for sporting, musical or other events and then sells them at a huge mark up to those who genuinely want to see the match, musical event etc.

 I have advised Tourmaline to contact the moderators to have you removed from this forum.

 As you spend so much time on this thread, it can be safe to say that you have few friends, which does'nt surprise me at all.

 You and others like you are pollutants. you are not interested in discussing ideas, thoughts or opinions on cables and you really need to get a life. If you actually have a wife and kids I feel sorry for them.

 Jazz/PhilS/Fallen Angel and all the others - if you keep replying to his wind-ups he will keep posting. Just ignore him and the dark fairy will go away.

 To all those with a genuine interest in all things audio - would'nt it be terrible if we all agreed on everything. By listening to other opinions, results of others experiences, those with open minds can gain a lot.

 Here's my take on the whole cable thing - until 7 months ago I did'nt 'believe' that there was much to gain, if at all from buying, making other I/C or PC cables. All this changed when I made and used a homebrew design for a PC to use with my new h/amp - it was a shock, a revelation.

 There are many who say that yes they can hear a difference with cables but it ai'nt much. Well that true for them but for me it was a huge difference, which set me on the road of experimenting with different metals - copper/silver/plated copper and the final frontier (for me) CCC - continuous cast copper. This last wire should be with me within a week or so. I have to say that the difference at the moment using mil. spec. silver/plated wire is incredible. CD is now really enjoyable to listen to. I have a clear opinion on the damage that using sheilding does to the audio signal, the only exception being phono lead-outs from a TT. 

 How do I come to try CCC because a particular Head-fier kept banging on about it. Having an open mind I have to try it, it's as simple as that.

 When I have found out what is best for me - I will then buy a pair of Grover Huffman's I/Cs to compare. It may mean a rude awakening I don't know as living in rural Spain, there is simply no other audiophiles(music lovers) here. I am considered to be something from outer space as I make and use valve amps.

 So to get positive - has anyone (dark fairies excepted) tried CCC - loved it, hated it, all genuine opinions welcome. Also have others experimented with using/not using sheilding on cables.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yes i am also very curious to see the result of such a test. i can put together some exotic vacuum-contained silver cables or maybe try to borrow one from someone. they have very low inductance but high capacitance. unfortunately, people say my test is flawed and have their own proposals, but nobody can agree on a test proposal so these meetings are impossible to organize. if i can just obtain these exotic cables and hear a difference for myself, i can send them over to you for you to try._

 

Cotdt do that then send (i'll pay postage). We can go from there I have enough cables to try with too. Great and as the original poster lets continue in this vain. This is a good positive way forward. Can anyone get to Cot meet?


----------



## gotchaforce

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...**+water&hl=en

 I posted this in general discussion but i stumbled upon this thread and it seems to fit...

 Look at all these perceived differences these people have when the water suddenly has a nice label on it. Its almost like theyre brains are MAKING ALL OF IT UP! 

 Oh my-that cant be!






 Edit: Oh and another thing, they use words to describe the water that dont make sense!

 "This cable makes things sound chalky and the highs tend to be edgy and sharp like the fine tip of a knife, the mids are a bit suffocated like theyre being drowned underwater or possibly in some type of fabric of some sort... Overrall the cable tended to be crunchy!"

 I dont know how to take most cable reviews seriously when they use such silly language (although a lot of people use this type of language when theyre reviewing ANY audio product... not just cables)


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Black Stuart* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This last wire should be with me within a week or so. I have to say that the difference at the moment using mil. spec. silver/plated wire is incredible._

 

Hi Black Stuart, I do enjoy your posts.

 I also have some mil. spec. silver/plated 10 gauge wire en route to me. I've been trying various bargain priced cables lately with my substituting Belden 5T00UP with, received in the mail yesterday, Anti-cables. (Having sold three pair of PS Audio speaker cables I was mighty impressed with the Belden bare wire at 50 cents a foot but now the anti-cable seems expensive at $5 a foot-haha).

 This solid-core copper wire is certainly different sounding based only on my 30 minute old memory of the Belden. Different enough to seem both quite superior in clarity yet a bit weird in being a little disorienting. No proof but some numbers, which unfortunately are Greek to me. I guess I need another thread.

5T00UP
 * 2 mohm/ft loop resistance
 * 0.16uH/ft Inductance
 * 25pf/ft Capacitance

Anti-cable
 * Resistance = 0.00318 Ohms/foot run
 * Inductance = 0.82uH/foot run
 * Capacitance = 0.002nF/foot run


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gotchaforce* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...**+water&hl=en

 I posted this in general discussion but i stumbled upon this thread and it seems to fit...

 Look at all these perceived differences these people have when the water suddenly has a nice label on it. Its almost like theyre brains are MAKING ALL OF IT UP! 

 Oh my-that cant be!




_

 

No time to look yet but the event as you describe it is so true.

 I like water in blue bottles myself.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gotchaforce* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...**+water&hl=en

 I posted this in general discussion but i stumbled upon this thread and it seems to fit...

 Look at all these perceived differences these people have when the water suddenly has a nice label on it. Its almost like theyre brains are MAKING ALL OF IT UP! 

 Oh my-that cant be!







 Edit: Oh and another thing, they use words to describe the water that dont make sense!

 "This cable makes things sound chalky and the highs tend to be edgy and sharp like the fine tip of a knife, the mids are a bit suffocated like theyre being drowned underwater or possibly in some type of fabric of some sort... Overrall the cable tended to be crunchy!"

 Most cable reviews can actually be modified a bit to describe something else, like food._

 

Just watched it and laughing my socks off!!! I better not call names here cause I'm sure someone will go mad but if others call me names hmm thats ok loler boy they could taste the difference couldn't they (and all exactly the same water).


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To the contrary, the burden of proof is on the positive claimant._

 

It seems you didn't read my explanations, but let me give some extra feedback if you are willing to read. My arguing is related to your claim above being all too categorical, as if *always* and in absolutely *all cases* the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. This I'm saying is *not always* the case. There are exceptions. I agree in specific contexts the burden of proof is on the claimant, in general scientific argumentation, presentation of new theories etc, it is. But in certain circumstances and contexts it is not. For instance, in a criminal court the burden of proof is always on the prosecutor (in some countries at least). The defendant can say "I am innocent", and he doesn't have the burden of proof on that positive claim. It is on the prosecutor side to support an *opposing positive claim*: that the defendant is guilty. Even outside courts of criminal law, not in all cases the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. For example, just because the claimant lacks interest in having his claim accepted by the challenger, then he ignores the argumentative obligation to support his claim. Let the challenger find out on his own if he cares to do so. Otherwise, the challenger might as well reject the claim, and the claimant wouldn't care, because he stopped advocating that claim for acceptance by that challenger. That was my point.

 The latter situation happens even in scientific contexts. Supporters of opposing theories bring their arguments forth, the opposing arguments collide, each side attacks the opponent's arguments and premises, and some times they don't reach agreement. Each side remains seeing stronger support on their side, and remains advocating it. This happens even in papers in scientific journals over years. Two opposing (or alternative) theories remaining under consideration. Agreement is not reached, so they put on hold the argumentation, they stop trying to support their claims further, at least till more conclusive evidence is found. At least momentarily, in some way they agree to not care about the opponent not accepting their claims immediately. They stop that "obligation" to keep supporting their respective claims for the other to get convinced. If some guy out of context then meets one of those scientists and asks him for proof of his theory, that scientist might very well ignore completely the request. Let that guy on his own find out and go through all the arguments and battles that have already been held. He doesn't have to assume the responsibility to support his claims all the time for all requests that are presented to him.

 So who has the burden of proof in practical terms may depend on context, motivation, circumstances, and history.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_RSA who are you speaking about here? Just interested to know?_

 

Well I was being a bit too sarcastic, apologies if it was too rude. Cheers!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who is this? hehe
_

 

 I was not referring to you. Posting only in this thread doesn't put one in the category of folks I was referring to. I was referring to the died-in-the-wool thread krappers. They know who they are.


----------



## dura

Sometimes I wonder if these 'if you can't measure it it ain't there' types also haunt red wine forums.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hopefully from my thread above you can see my seriousness in willing to pay for the transport and food cost of the person (UK based of course) who can bring their cables and show me they can detect the difference using the very thing they say tells them the difference 'THEIR EARS' using the thing they know real well 'THEIR MUSIC' I am very serious and want somewhere for this to be shown. I have various cables and what to see some evidence of the discernible difference in sound. I'm not sure how I can make this more clear than saying I will pay for someone to come and demo it and I will. I want to learn from others and will pay for the privilege to see this demonstrated.

 Phils is this fair enough or no?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So here is a challenge for those in California and here is one from me for those in the UK (train travel). The only test equipment you need to bring is your ears. Or we could look at meeting up with a portable rig of some kind. I could bring my Grace m902, and RS1's someone could bring there own CD player and music and we just have the cables as the difference. Like I said earlier if it were speakers you could tell the difference with your ears._

 

I've tried to make this point several times, but maybe not directly, or maybe not very well. I don't claim to be able to hear differences between cables on a Grace m902. I have never heard a Grace m902. I hear the differences on *my *system, using *my *music, under the conditions *under which I listen*.

 I also don't claim *you *will hear the difference on *your *system with *my *cables, or that you will hear it on a system you have never heard before. I have no idea under what conditions you might hear differences, or whether you will hear them under any conditions. 

 Therefore, neither your proposed tests, and none of the others briefly described on this thread, seem likely to prove anything one way or the other. Not that they might not be fun (even just to get together), but I don't think we've yet come close to identifying a methodology that will prove anything.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gotchaforce* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...**+water&hl=en

 I posted this in general discussion but i stumbled upon this thread and it seems to fit...

 Look at all these perceived differences these people have when the water suddenly has a nice label on it. Its almost like theyre brains are MAKING ALL OF IT UP! 

 Oh my-that cant be!






 Edit: Oh and another thing, they use words to describe the water that dont make sense!

 "This cable makes things sound chalky and the highs tend to be edgy and sharp like the fine tip of a knife, the mids are a bit suffocated like theyre being drowned underwater or possibly in some type of fabric of some sort... Overrall the cable tended to be crunchy!"

 I dont know how to take most cable reviews seriously when they use such silly language (although a lot of people use this type of language when theyre reviewing ANY audio product... not just cables)_

 

Yes, people can be fooled, and people often beleive what they want to believe, and people are often duped by marketing (see, e.g., Bose), but the fact is not all water tastes the same. So you could not conclude from the fact that people were duped into thinking tapped water was bottled water or that bottled water tastes better than tap water that all water tastes the same.

 Also, the voice over leads me to beleive this was a Penn & Teller deal, and those guys are a bunch of fools with a number of questionable agendas, so who even knows if the folks sitting at the table were in on it or not. 

 Again, not that people aren't easily duped, and there have been other similar reports of tests involving bottled water, but the analogy to cables is not a very good one -- although people are of course fooled by marketing claims with cables and other audio stuff too.


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, people can be fooled, and people often beleive what they want to believe, and people are often duped by marketing (see, e.g., Bose), but the fact is not all water tastes the same. So you could not conclude from the fact that people were duped into thinking tapped water was bottled water or that bottled water tastes better than tap water that all water tastes the same.

 Also, the voice over leads me to beleive this was a Penn & Teller deal, and those guys are a bunch of idiots with a number of questionable agendas, so who even knows if the folks sitting at the table were in on it or not. 

 Again, not that people aren't easily duped, and there have been other similar reports of tests involving bottled water, but the analogy to cables is not a very good one -- although people are of course fooled by marketing claims with cables and other audio stuff too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

did you even watch it? The guy filled all the water bottles with tap water from the hose in the back of the restaurant. The people then somehow were able to find differences in the water *when there was NONE*. They were sure as **** that these waters were different from one another and had their own "unique" taste. 

 and I dont see how penn and teller are idiots. First of all, teller does not even speak, so how you came to the conclusion that he is an idiot is obviously a false one. I would love to know why you think penn is an idiot though, also what their "questionable agendas" are.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've tried to make this point several times, but maybe not directly, or maybe not very well. I don't claim to be able to hear differences between cables on a Grace m902. I have never heard a Grace m902. I hear the differences on *my *system, using *my *music, under the conditions *under which I listen*.

 I also don't claim *you *will hear the difference on *your *system with *my *cables, or that you will hear it on a system you have never heard before. I have no idea under what conditions you might hear differences, or whether you will hear them under any conditions. 

 Therefore, neither your proposed tests, and none of the others briefly described on this thread, seem likely to prove anything one way or the other. Not that they might not be fun (even just to get together), but I don't think we've yet come close to identifying a methodology that will prove anything. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Great so are you willing to proof this by allowing someone to come and change the cable on YOUR system and YOU tell them what the difference is with YOUR music? Under YOUR conditions? (maybe you can help contribute in this way?) and let us stop all this fuss 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . Just enquiring since you can hear it right? Now remember I also said you can hear the difference on speakers and the like without some 'absolute' test just some basic changing of the speakers around, etc will do. Could it be that the cables don't make any audible difference? Thats why there is no proof? Just asking the question again. <--- And I ask it politely. Since it can be demonstrated for other audio components. If it can why not use your own conditions and let someone witness it independently? This is all I'm saying nothing more really for that level that would then add to the side that cables DO make an audible (benefical as some of the marketing would say) difference. 

 My question is why is it that if with a blind test of say a basic Kef speaker and say a higher end B&W nautilus I would be willing to wager that you could do a blind test with most reasonable systems with many people and they would be able to hear the difference easily. No fancy controlled experiment. Just get some one to switch the speaker cable from one to the other and ask the listener to listen to some music they know well and see if they hear the difference with their ears. Why not the same with cable? Even with price ranges that are a whole lot greater in some cases?

 Or if people can hear it under their own conditions why not test it under those very same conditions independently?


----------



## Kees

@op:
 As I asked before:
 I keep wondering why you keep pressing and bullying people into proving things you can't even hear for yourself?
 What could you possibly get out of that? An inferiority complex because you can't hear what other people can?
 Why would people want to do that to you? It won't make anybody happy...


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dura* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sometimes I wonder if these 'if you can't measure it it ain't there' types also haunt red wine forums._

 

Is this what you wander? Well thanks for sharing it with us. I often wander if I will win the Lottery (just thought I'd share that).


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gotchaforce* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_did you even watch it? The guy filled all the water bottles with tap water from the hose in the back of the restaurant. ._

 

Yes, I did watch it. The *film *showed a guy filling water bottles with tap water. I can show you a *film *that shows aliens blowing up the white house.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gotchaforce* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_and I dont see how penn and teller are idiots. First of all, teller does not even speak, so how you came to the conclusion that he is an idiot is obviously a false one. I would love to know why you think penn is an idiot though, also what their "questionable agendas" are._

 

I don't want to divert the thread, and perhaps my previous comment about them already did that. But I have watched and read a number of things that they (i.e., including Teller) have produced or have been behind, and they have a particular social and political agenda, and also some beliefs or opinions that are rather foolish and misguided. In addition, my read on many things they have done is that they wish to prove that the average person is a fool. Now I don't want to debate that point here, but I happen to have come to know how they have done at least one other project, and I don't trust their motives (they are in the entertainment business remember) and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw Penn. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But that's just my opinion. I understand others may have a different opinion of them, and that's ok.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Great so are you willing to proof this by allowing someone to come and change the cable on YOUR system and YOU tell them what the difference is with YOUR music? Under YOUR conditions? (maybe you can help contribute in this way?) and let us stop all this fuss 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . Just enquiring since you can hear it right? Now remember I also said you can hear the difference on speakers and the like without some 'absolute' test just some basic changing of the speakers around, etc will do. Could it be that the cables don't make any audible difference? Thats why there is no proof? Just asking the question again. <--- And I ask it politely. Since it can be demonstrated for other audio components. If it can why not use your own conditions and let someone witness it independently? This is all I'm saying nothing more really for that level that would then add to the side that cables DO make an audible (benefical as some of the marketing would say) difference. 

 My question is why is it that if with a blind test of say a basic Kef speaker and say a higher end B&W nautilus I would be willing to wager that you could do a blind test with most reasonable systems with many people and they would be able to hear the difference easily. No fancy controlled experiment. Just get some one to switch the speaker cable from one to the other and ask the listener to listen to some music they know well and see if they hear the difference with their ears. Why not the same with cable? Even with price ranges that are a whole lot greater in some cases?

 Or if people can hear it under their own conditions why not test it under those very same conditions independently?_

 

No offense, but I'm having some trouble following your comments due to the structure of your sentences and paragraphs. Perhaps you could take a little more time to compose your thoughts. 

 As best as I can determine, you seem to be emphasizing something about speakers. My experience is with headphone systems, and I don't really do any audiophile listening through speakers.

 You also seem to be upset that I don't want to do some test that you want, or you're bothered by my comments regarding the conditions under which I have heard differences in cables. I don't understand what your complaint is -- if indeed you have one. It's as if you believe I am somehow obligated (along with others) to prove something to you. Maybe I missed your point.

 In terms of someone coming into my house to do a test, assuming that's what you're proposing, I am guessing that nobody would consider that a valid test. I would need time to become acclimated to the first cable, before switching to the second cable, and then switching back, etc., which would make the test impossible to conduct over a very short period of time (I don't think my wife will let someone move in) and if the person leaves between the switching, I'm sure the "skeptics" will accuse me of peeking.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, I did watch it. The *film *showed a guy filling water bottles with tap water. I can show you a *film *that shows aliens blowing up the white house._

 

Are you really saying that the test was faked? I'd say that is highly unlikely since there was no need to fake it. If you are going to pick apart Penn & Teller you need to do so on a factual basis and the water show probably isn't going to be the one.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't want to divert the thread, and perhaps my previous comment about them already did that. But I have watched and read a number of things that they (i.e., including Teller) have produced or have been behind, and they have a particular social and political agenda, and also some beliefs or opinions that are rather foolish and misguided. In addition, my read on many things they have done is that they wish to prove that the average person is a fool. Now I don't want to debate that point here, but I happen to have come to know how they have done at least one other project, and I don't trust their motives (they are in the entertainment business remember) and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw Penn. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But that's just my opinion. I understand others may have a different opinion of them, and that's ok._

 

The definitely do have an agenda. There show has a Libertarian bent and they don't hide their agenda. And the point of their show is that people should think critically so they might actually approve of your not merely accepting the show on faith. However, the psychological phenomena of suggestibility is well established. We even know it has specifically been done with audio cables. 

 Calling Penn & Teller potentially biased is one thing but calling them "bunch of idiots" is patently false. Even making such an accusation when it is demonstrably false shows that you are no longer arguing on the merits of the specific show. They are many things but stupid is not one of them.

 If they have been deceptive in the past, it does give you reason to be suspicious of them in the future--heck, magicians are _professional liars_--but that doesn't give you a basis for dismissing a show that is based on well established psychology.

 I do have some respect for Penn & Teller but I also find their dogmatic Libertarian leaning a little suspect. If you are aware of some dodgy subterfuge on their part please PM me


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No offense, but I'm having some trouble following your comments due to the structure of your sentences and paragraphs. Perhaps you could take a little more time to compose your thoughts. 

 As best as I can determine, you seem to be emphasizing something about speakers. My experience is with headphone systems, and I don't really do any audiophile listening through speakers.

 You also seem to be upset that I don't want to do some test that you want, or you're bothered by my comments regarding the conditions under which I have heard differences in cables. I don't understand what your complaint is -- if indeed you have one. It's as if you believe I am somehow obligated (along with others) to prove something to you. Maybe I missed your point.

 In terms of someone coming into my house to do a test, assuming that's what you're proposing, I am guessing that nobody would consider that a valid test. I would need time to become acclimated to the first cable, before switching to the second cable, and then switching back, etc., which would make the test impossible to conduct over a very short period of time (I don't think my wife will let someone move in) and if the person leaves between the switching, I'm sure the "skeptics" will accuse me of peeking._

 

LOL again and again lets go to headphones then (geez) I am telling you that there is easy tests for headphones that can demonstrate they have different audible sound and other audio components but not cables. Say whatever reasons you want for not doing the tests

 Even use the age old grammar, spelling (as I mentioned before would happen) but to restate.

 After a while those who can't or won't demonstrate they can hear the difference they claim (and note I am saying I am willing to demonstrate for other components and if you looked at the words, phrases, English, etc zzz (sidetrack) you would read I only state speakers as an example, <--- an example of an audio component with clear and easy difference). Just an example thats all ... eventually say

 1) Oh I can't demonstrate it for x, y, z reason. I know I can hear it on my kit but I can't show you.
 2) Why you ridicule me .. you mock us ..
 3) Revert to name calling and just general chit chat
 4) Talk about spelling, grammar (and many other off subject matters)
 5) And probably most important don't deliver the proof

 Your not obligated to prove anything to me, thats a fact. I'm saying I bet you can't!!! Hehe but if you can please do I will be the first to say at last conclusive proof for cables. I say again you can do this for other components in the audio chain (better not say speakers again.... so I give another EXAMPLE) like headphones you seem more comfortable with those. Here's a simple test Grado RS1 vs my sennheiser 201 (or some other headphone like this) and no need to get use to it, etc you will hear the difference. (Wow Im so convinced) I'm willing to put money (vs someone else's money) people would hear the difference.

 I started the thread asking a simple question. Our ears are the best tests you say, you can hear the difference. Well use your ears to prove it. But like you say your not obligated too, no worries and neither is anyone else on this thread. I'm just asking the question.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gotchaforce* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_and I dont see how penn and teller are idiots._

 

I just got the fourth season on DVD. Great show. Even if I don't agree with them, I still think they know what they're talking about and are intellectually honest. That's more than I can say for Michael Moore.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you really saying that the test was faked? I'd say that is highly unlikely since there was no need to fake it. If you are going to pick apart Penn & Teller you need to do so on a factual basis and the water show probably isn't going to be the one.



 The definitely do have an agenda. There show has a Libertarian bent and they don't hide their agenda. And the point of their show is that people should think critically so they might actually approve of your not merely accepting the show on faith. However, the psychological phenomena of suggestibility is well established. We even know it has specifically been done with audio cables. 

 Calling Penn & Teller potentially biased is one thing but calling them "bunch of idiots" is patently false. Even making such an accusation when it is demonstrably false shows that you are no longer arguing on the merits of the specific show. They are many things but stupid is not one of them.

 If they have been deceptive in the past, it does give you reason to be suspicious of them in the future--heck, magicians are professional liars--but that doesn't give you a basis for dismissing a show that is based on well established psychology.

 I do have some respect for Penn & Teller but I also find their dogmatic Libertarian leaning a little suspect. If you are aware of some dodgy subterfuge on their part please PM me_

 

Perhaps "idiots" is too strong a word. "Fools" is probably a better one, and I've edited my previous comment accordingly. You may not agree with that comment either, but that's my opinion. 

 Anyway, back to the original topic.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL again and again lets go to headphones then (geez) I am telling you that there is easy tests for headphones that can demonstrate they have different audible sound and other audio components but not cables. Say whatever reasons you want for not doing the tests

 Even use the age old grammar, spelling (as I mentioned before would happen) but to restate.

 After a while those who can't or won't demonstrate they can hear the difference they claim (and note I am saying I am willing to demonstrate for other components and if you looked at the words, phrases, English, etc zzz (sidetrack) you would read I only state speakers as an example, <--- an example of an audio component with clear and easy difference). Just an example thats all ... eventually say

 1) Oh I can't demonstrate it for x, y, z reason. I know I can hear it on my kit but I can't show you.
 2) Why you ridicule me .. you mock us ..
 3) Revert to name calling and just general chit chat
 4) Talk about spelling, grammar (and many other off subject matters)
 5) And probably most important don't deliver the proof

 Your not obligated to prove anything to me, thats a fact. I'm saying I bet you can't!!! Hehe but if you can please do I will be the first to say at last conclusive proof for cables. I say again you can do this for other components in the audio chain (better not say speakers again.... so I give another EXAMPLE) like headphones you seem more comfortable with those. Here's a simple test Grado RS1 vs my sennheiser 201 (or some other headphone like this) and no need to get use to it, etc you will hear the difference. (Wow Im so convinced) I'm willing to put money (vs someone else's money) people would hear the difference.

 I started the thread asking a simple question. Our ears are the best tests you say, you can hear the difference. Well use your ears to prove it. But like you say your not obligated too, no worries and neither is anyone else on this thread. I'm just asking the question._

 

You're still very hard to follow, but in any event, I'm growing weary of our dialogue. How about if I say that you win and I cannot prove anything to you, and you can declare victory.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That more or less gets to my point, which is that you can construct an argument from positions taken by various "skeptics," including yourself, that if none of the components/items in the system other than the headphones/speakers make a difference in sound, when you put them all together the various systems one could construct should all sound the same (with the same set of headphones/speakers) -- but they do not._

 

Same speakers... same room. Same basic sound. I proved this to an audiophile by patching my diskman into his system and playing the same CD he was playing on his 300 pound gorilla of a CD player. When I switched back and forth and asked him which was which, he couldn't tell the difference between it and his fancy player. Just like you, he didn't like the results.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My arguing is related to your claim above being all too categorical, as if *always* and in absolutely *all cases* the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. This I'm saying is *not always* the case. There are exceptions. I agree in specific contexts the burden of proof is on the claimant, in general scientific argumentation, presentation of new theories etc, it is. But in certain circumstances and contexts it is not._

 

What you say here is reasonable and yet your application of it has not been. When I gave clear examples of positive claims that would require positive proof your rejoinder was always "wrong." 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For instance, in a criminal court the burden of proof is always on the prosecutor (in some countries at least). The defendant can say "I am innocent", and he doesn't have the burden of proof on that positive claim. It is on the prosecutor side to support an *opposing positive claim*: that the defendant is guilty. Even outside courts of criminal law, not in all cases the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim._

 

Yes, in the case of criminal court in the US the _default_ assumption is innocence. It is up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a) that a crime took place b) that the defendant committed that crime. Court cases often hinge on evidence known through university studies to be un-reliable, like photo line ups.

 Many of the errors in perception that can affect criminal trials can affect subjective audio claims, including the suggestibility of witnesses and the mutability of memory.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For example, just because the claimant lacks interest in having his claim accepted by the challenger, then he ignores the argumentative obligation to support his claim._

 

Er? Here you've just admitted that the claimant has an _"argumentative obligation'_ which he may choose to ignore if he isn't interested in people believing him.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let the challenger find out on his own if he cares to do so. Otherwise, the challenger might as well reject the claim, and the claimant wouldn't care, because he stopped advocating that claim for acceptance by that challenger._

 

This simply isn't possible in many cases. If I, as the claimant, say my "quantum super-conducting tri-axial nano cables" improve the openness of any sound system it isn't possible for challengers to get my $10,000 dollar cables and disprove my claim. This is just one reason why positive claims are the responsibility of the claimant to prove. Your "argument from apathy" is not a sound basis for the reversal of this standard of argumentation and proof.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The latter situation happens even in scientific contexts. Supporters of opposing theories bring their arguments forth, the opposing arguments collide, each side attacks the opponent's arguments and premises, and some times they don't reach agreement._

 

This is the wrong path to go down if you want to argue that positive claimants don't have to provide proof. In science the default position is that you have to not only provide proof but that your theory must be testable and repeatable--not "I heard a difference"

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Each side remains seeing stronger support on their side, and remains advocating it. This happens even in papers in scientific journals over years. Two opposing (or alternative) theories remaining under consideration. ...If some guy out of context then meets one of those scientists and asks him for proof of his theory, that scientist might very well ignore completely the request._

 

Yes, because the proof exist _already_ in the form of a well argued, peer reviewed scientific paper with testable, repeatable findings!!!!! The burden of proof is still on the positive claimant! In your example, the positive claimant had _already provided_ positive support for his claim and the scientist could refer "some guy" to his detailed, well reasoned, peer-reviewed, testable paper. Your whole argument has been a shaggy dog story of a contrived situation that, in the end, actually contradicts the point you were trying to make.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So who has the burden of proof in practical terms may depend on context, motivation, circumstances, and history._

 

A vague statement anyone can make because it says nothing and yet have you have fully failed to prove it.

 Your point about absolutes being to rigid was correct but your attempt to disprove that the burden of proof rests with the positive claimant is wholly insufficient and, ironically, does not meet the burden of proof.


----------



## reano

I may try and speed up the demise of my thread.

 I have used this thread to check a couple of concerns I had regarding cables and their apparent audible, very discernible, quality as advertised in various marketing literature.

 I love to listen to music invest in as much kit as I can afford and do the odd experiment here and there. Have found I really like the Shure e500, Grado RS1, AKG701, HD650 and the Audio Technica c7 for headphones for various applications. I have various rigs as per some of the signatures I see on here and loads of cables, sources, zzzzz.

 As the original poster I now believe the thread has given me the right input I needed to make decisions regarding my future Cable purchases. So for me (the one who asked the question in the first place) it has been good and useful.

 Thanks to those who constructed their arguments well from both the 'cable makes a difference camp' and from the 'cable skeptics' (yes it's a mass generalisation but you can get over it). There were others who were just here for the ride (my opinion).

 I don't necessarily see anyone moving from their position but for me as a cable (or shall I say different quality cable buyer) it has been of great use.

 Thanks all this was not a mock up, prank or whatever. Just some investigation. I will continue to contribute as/if responses come in but with several pages of responses (including some contributors with a lot of post counts) I have gained a lot.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're still very hard to follow, but in any event, I'm growing weary of our dialogue. How about if I say that you win and I cannot prove anything to you, and you can declare victory. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Thanks, I was very certain you would say something similar to this. As per the post above your feedback has helped me a lot more than you know.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If I, as the claimant, say my "quantum super-conducting tri-axial nano cables" improve the openness of any sound system it isn't possible for challengers to get my $10,000 dollar cables and disprove my claim._

 

Right, but it is perfectly possible for them to simply not buy those cables, can't they? Of course they can also choose to write in forums and argue endlessly on a subject that hasn't been settled yet. It's all about choices.

  Quote:


 Your point about absolutes being to rigid was correct but your attempt to disprove that the burden of proof rests with the positive claimant is wholly insufficient and, ironically, does not meet the burden of proof. 
 

Well, I disagree and will say something similar: your attempt to convince me of your point of view / claims has been whole insufficient too.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No offense, but I'm having some trouble following your comments due to the structure of your sentences and paragraphs. Perhaps you could take a little more time to compose your thoughts.._

 

Indeed, your more recent posts, reano, have been at least a little bit easier to follow thanks to the use of separate paragraphs.

 Generally one learns to ignore huge rambling swaths of text that do not have paragraph breaks. People who write that way haven't organized their thoughts well which makes their point, if any, hard to follow.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Right, but it is perfectly possible for them to simply not buy those cables, can't they? Of course they can also choose to write in forums and argue endlessly on a subject that hasn't been settled yet. It's all about choices._

 

Indeed, there are many choices to be made. But as to merely "not buying" products with untested claims...making false claims about a product is, in many circumstances, called "fraud." It is legally up to the seller not to make fraudulent claims, not up to the buyer to have to spot them. "Buyer Beware" is a practical saying, not a legal philosophy.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ your attempt to convince me of your point of view / claims has been whole insufficient too._

 

Well, there is something we can agree on!


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Er? Here you've just admitted that the claimant has an "argumentative obligation' which he may choose to ignore if he isn't interested in people believing him._

 

Nope, read my words twice, he may choose to ignore if he isn't interested in _that_ challenger accepting his claims or agreeing with him.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, read my words twice, he may choose to ignore if he isn't interested in that challenger accepting his claims or agreeing with him._

 

I read your words once. That was enough. JK. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Actually I did read your words several times. Your writing wasn't especially clear and couldn't believe, at first, the huge gap in your logic and the opening you gave me. I understood the "argument from apathy," that a claimant may "choose" not to advocate to specific people. However, you also chose to refer to the positive claimants obligation as "the argumentative obligation to support his claim" which he can choose to ignore. Ignoring it doesn't remove the obligation, it just means the obligation is being ignored. You are the one who chose to acknowledge the obligation by calling it such.

 You may regret your choice of words and say you didn't mean them but you can't legitimately argue that they support your position.


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, I did watch it. The *film *showed a guy filling water bottles with tap water. I can show you a *film *that shows aliens blowing up the white house.


 I don't want to divert the thread, and perhaps my previous comment about them already did that. But I have watched and read a number of things that they (i.e., including Teller) have produced or have been behind, and they have a particular social and political agenda, and also some beliefs or opinions that are rather foolish and misguided. In addition, my read on many things they have done is that they wish to prove that the average person is a fool. Now I don't want to debate that point here, but I happen to have come to know how they have done at least one other project, and I don't trust their motives (they are in the entertainment business remember) and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw Penn. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But that's just my opinion. I understand others may have a different opinion of them, and that's ok._

 

Boy i never in my wildest dreams could have thought of "well its obviously a fake, they put different kinds of water in the bottles, but showed him using all the same water! FAKE FAKE!!!". I was thinking something along the lines of "well clearly the water was in the bottles longer that were served later, so the taste of the water bottle interfered with the taste of the water! INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE!". 

 I bet it was their personal agenda to try and rob the water companies of all their money! people will stop buying bottled water once they produced this show that was a mockery of bottled water! They obviously had something to gain out of showing that people were easily swayed by the pretty bottles.

 Its not like penn and teller have had dozens and dozens of credible people on their shows, we all know they have always hired fake actors to support their claims! 

 To say it is a fake is a substantial claim and im surprised you had the gall to say it when it is so false.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You may regret your choice of words and say you didn't mean them but you can't legitimately argue that they support your position._

 

No I don't regret my choice of words. You seem to have also overlooked the fact that I agreed that, in general, the claimant is certainly obliged to provide support for his claim, precisely for example in scientific contexts or even in legal courts situations. My whole point hasn't been to prove anything, just to show exceptions to your dogmatical "Claimant must (always) hold the burden of proof". I simply elaborated on the fact that such "obligation to support a claim" in practice can be ignored or overriden with very reasonable causes.

 One other point I could argue about is the fact that you mention theories have to be "repeatable":
  Quote:


 In science the default position is that you have to not only provide proof but that your theory must be testable and repeatable--not "I heard a difference" 
 

Theories are not to be repeatable, it's the experiments in support of theories the ones that should to be repeatable, the tests, not the theories.

 One other thing, theories are not necessarily "proved". The words "proof" and "to prove" has been used quite carelessly in this thread, even by you, in spite of your attempts to appear careful in your arguments. Proofs within science apply mostly to mathematics. In most other scientific domains it is rare to find proof of explanations to phenomena, mostly it's experiments or models or findings that are _consistent with_ the theory, or that _explain it better_ than previous attempts. That doesn't mean such experiments "prove" the theory, just make it stronger.

 Anyway, we seem to enjoy the sport of prolonging an argument for the sake of it, but it's also a choice to continue arguing or not when things start getting pointless.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dura* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sometimes I wonder if these 'if you can't measure it it ain't there' types also haunt red wine forums._

 

Maybe they should? It is a matter of "measure" it or it ain't there but "detect" with your senses it in a way that compensates for the psychology of human judgement and perception or it ain't there.

 If the wine forums were all about magnetic flavor improvers and $3,000 "wine-conditioning" crystal glasses that reduce the "harshness" of the wine then such questions might well be legitimate. I, personally, like to put my money where it makes the most difference so I have an interest in separating what is from what seems like it is.

 There was a fun test where a tv program gave fancy wine and 2 Buck Chuck (Charles Shaw) wine to culinary arts students. The 2 Buck Chuck earned high marks and they were surprised to find that out. Like sound, trained pallets can tell more than untrained ones--professional wine tasters didn't give the 2 Buck Chuck marks that were quite as high. However, all people are still subject to the same perceptual and judgement errors as ordinary people at near threshold of detection.

 High end audio and high end wine have a lot in common. They are both expensive and subjective. The primary difference is that sound and the electrical signals that generate sound are electronically measurable and quantifiable in ways that flavor isn't. On the other hand, both wine and sound can be systematically tested subjectively by actual people in a way that compensates for the psychology of human judgment and perception. Both wine drinkers and audiophiles benefit from knowing what they can and can't actually tell the difference from.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One other point I could argue about is the fact that you mention theories have to be "repeatable":


 Theories are not to be repeatable, it's the experiments in support of theories the ones that should to be repeatable, the tests, not the theories._

 

Hmm...but unlike you I will acknowledge where I've made an error. Indeed, it is the experiments that prove the theories that must be repeatable. See how easy that was  Now I'm right again. Yea.

 You, on the other hand, are intractable even when faced with your own words arguing against your own untenable position.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My whole point hasn't been to prove anything, simply to elaborate on the fact that such "obligation to support a claim" in practice can be ignored or overriden with reasonable causes._

 

That is your point now. I really don't buy that you aren't out to prove anything. If you weren't you wouldn't be so argumentative. I think you do want to prove your point and your continued arguments to contrary ring hollow.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyway, we seem to enjoy the sport of prolonging an argument for the sake of it, but it's also a choice to continue arguing or not when things start getting pointless._

 

Well, I can't entirely disagree with you there.

 Cheers!


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You, on the other hand, are intractable even when faced with your own words arguing against your own untenable position._

 

Hmm... hey, sounds like something I could have told _you_






 Something positive about this whole thread is at least the focus on proper argumentation that has emerged. That is really an important topic, and despite what you SoundEdit might seem to try to suggest, I'm very much interested in Critical Thinking. In fact, I have a whole library of texts on the topic. At one time I had a formal academic interest on Critical Thinking and argumentation from a Cognitive Science/Educational perspective. I'm not claiming anything with that, i.e., this is not any appeal to authority in case you might want to respond with that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Here's a list of books on the topic of critical thinking and other related things that I created quite a while ago on Amazon. Except for "Broca's Brain", I own all these books and some others on Critical Thinking. I still have to read lots from them though:

http://www.amazon.com/A-Critical-Thi...948148-9002518


 With respect to Critical Thinking and Education in general, one important book (btw not in my list on Amazon) is Richard Paul's "Critical Thinking - What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world". All of the above are highly recommended.


----------



## paulllaser

I recently re entered the world of high quality audio and was very skeptical about a lot of things. Cables seemed to be an area of high profit margins and little substance. They still may wind up being highly remunerative to the producer but proof of audible differences? I joined a local audio society (New Jersey Audio Society) to help me understand what exactly was out there. Luckily, one of the first few meetings I attended was a demonstration of various IC's and of all things power fuses. Same vinyl recording, same system, same room acoustics, different IC's or fuses at various times. The differences were very real. Though we compared stock $2 fuses with $32 German fuses (yes there was a very audible difference), the IC's were $300 -$1100 offerings. Each one different from the others. What would have helped woulf have been to compare garden variety IC's with the rest to see the differences there. To me, this was the proof I sought to understand that composition of cables can make a big difference.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm... hey, sounds like something I could have told you





 Something positive about this whole thread is at least the focus on proper argumentation that has emerged. That is really an important topic, and despite what you SoundEdit might seem to try to suggest, I'm very much interested in Critical Thinking. In fact, I have a whole library of texts on the topic. I'm not claiming anything with that, i.e., this is not any appeal to authority in case you might want to respond with that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Here's a list of books on the topic of critical thinking and other related things that I created quite a while ago on Amazon. Except for "Broca's Brain", I own all these books and some others on Critical Thinking. I still have to read lots from them though:

http://www.amazon.com/A-Critical-Thi...948148-9002518_

 


 Good list. I own at least 6 of them. I'd add:





> "The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making" by Scott Plous
> 
> "Inevitable illusions: How mistakes of reason rule our minds" by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini
> 
> ...


Ok, your library vs. mine at six paces. We can let them finish the argument.

 I would point out, of course, that one of the fundamental points in Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" is that proof is the responsibility of the positive claimant and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The chaper titled "The dragon in my garage" is especially relevant.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, your library vs. mine at six paces. We can let them finish the argument._

 

Ok agreed 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Nice books those ones too, don't have any of those, even though I almost purchased "Why flip a coin" once.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Same speakers... same room. Same basic sound. I proved this to an audiophile by patching my diskman into his system and playing the same CD he was playing on his 300 pound gorilla of a CD player. When I switched back and forth and asked him which was which, he couldn't tell the difference between it and his fancy player. Just like you, he didn't like the results.
_

 

Yes, thank you for proving my point. According to some of "you guys," there's no proof an ipod sounds different from a high quality system. So it's not just that cables don't make a difference, nothing makes a difference except speakers (and maybe turntables.) That's as questionable a proposition as almost anything the "believers" say about cables (putting aside some of Patrick's opinions).

 So . . . , while those who are searching for answers (or even just intelligent dialogue) on the issue at hand should consider with care claims by cable proponents that $5,000 cables make a huge difference in sound (just to pick an example), folks should also consider with care anti-cable propositions advanced by folks who think ipods sound as good as high-quality audiophile systems.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, thank you for proving my point. According to some of "you guys," there's no proof an ipod sounds different from a high quality system. So it's not just that cables don't make a difference, nothing makes a difference except speakers (and maybe turntables.) That's as questionable a proposition as almost anything the "believers" say about cables (putting aside some of Patrick's opinions).

 So . . . , while those who are searching for answers (or even just intelligent dialogue) on the issue at hand should consider with care claims by cable proponents that $5,000 cables make a huge difference in sound (just to pick an example), folks should also consider with care anti-cable propositions advanced by folks who think ipods sound as good as high-quality audiophile systems. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Well, I don't know if "bigshot" is one of "those guys" or not. But his point is a valid one at least in that specific instance--which was that sometimes two components can sound indistinguishable from each-other even when one costs more than the other. I certainly wouldn't try and make the claim that this is always the case or even usually the case, only that it can be the case and that the smart money says it is a good idea to look in to it.

 I assume that any device that is analog can sound different from another but I also assume that sufficiently well designed devices can be indistinguishable from one another. I can't make a blanket statement either way.

 However, my assumption is also that acquiring high quality electronics and transducers should make more difference than the difference between good cables and Super-Ultra-Premium cables--if any. I admit it will take a lot of evidence to budge me from this position, but I am open to adapting to the evidence--solid, testable (even if by human ears), repeatable evidence which takes the psychology of human judgement and perception into account.

 It really all depends on your style of "how you know". I trust my senses, but I know they can be fooled so I trust sound science in areas where I'm likely to be fooled. Many people are "intuitive" and trust their intuition over any "sound" science. Their experience has proven the value of their strong intuition. Intuition is a very powerful part of the human mind, but its ability to make quick judgments that are right in most circumstances also comes with built-in blind spots that intuition cannot correct for. But the intuitive person gets to make his or her mind up much faster than I can. I'm left withholding judgement until I get more evidence--less satisfying in the short term.

 In the psychology of persuasion Robert Cialdini notes that if we lack sound factors to help us decide the worth of something we assume that more expensive is better--because broadly this is true. It seems like high end audio falls squarely into that trap. Generally more expensive systems are better--generally but not always. People also apply that general principle to Super Ultra Premium cables, assuming that you must get _something_ for that extreme price. It is also very hard to believe that someone could sell something that was a blatant fraud and get away with it, so we may also tend to assume that the fact that someone can charge $3000 and get away with it must mean something positive. We also tend to trust people who are likable. I've heard a number of people defend their cables based on the fact that the maker "is a nice guy," ergo the cables must work.

 Another basic psychological principle is that once we have decided on something, say purchasing Super Ultra Premium cables, we tend to automatically justify our decision to ourselves. So, someone who has bought Super Ultra Premium cables can have a "post decisional dissonance" and a tendency to defend his or her decision against any evidence that it was not a good decision. This can mean that in some cases no amount of actual, sound evidence will can ever convince them that their Super Ultra Premium cables don't fulfill the makers claims. Obviously, we sometimes regret our decisions, so this tendency is not absolute.

 Of course, psychology in general isn't absolute, either, but it is an area that does have a great deal of applicability in the are of High End sound where so much money is spend on such subtly.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You seem to have clear ideas about what's going on. Nevertheless you ask unanswerable questions, and this in dozens of posts. You can't even prove that ... Singlepower Supra vs. a CMOY._

 

You are probably right on the last one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Its even conceivable that the CMOY or Hornet *may* have better measured performance than Supra.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 oh..how should one choose? and that's not even looking at system synergy, now there is a can of warm you don't want to touch. There is no std of measurement and everything is subjective 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 woohoo. *Does this hobby sound like a good bowl of raymen noddle? or a good cup of coffee? or a good bottle of wine? 

 Want of proof for a subjective sense with objective means is futile. *
 (can I get this quote put on my custom title 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ... THANKS JUDE!


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Want of proof for a subjective sense with objective means is futile._

 

That would be true by the rules of this DBT-free forum, but not true otherwise.

 But, I'll grant you that _nobody_ gets to tell you what you have to like. We all have different hearing and different tastes, so we may all like different takes on sound. That part of your subjective taste is immune to any concept of proof other than your own taste. My issue of "proof" is to determine factually that, first, there is actually an audible difference. Once that is established, it is up to you to decide if you like that difference or not. If there is no audible difference then your preference for one or another thing is illusory no matter how strong that illusion may hold in one's psyche. As it is currently, many people display a strong preference for one thing or another even in cases where there may be no audible difference. We know for a fact that this can happen and not to acknowledge that fact is to risk opening a giant hole in your wallet for no benefit. 

 I realize you weren't addressing me in your post, but I don't think our philosophies necessarily have to be contradictory.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I don't know if "bigshot" is one of "those guys" or not. But his point is a valid one at least in that specific instance--which was that sometimes two components can sound indistinguishable from each-other even when one costs more than the other. I certainly wouldn't try and make the claim that this is always the case or even usually the case, only that it can be the case and that the smart money says it is a good idea to look in to it.
_

 

I think you missed my point. My point was that a segment of cable naysayers would also say all amps sound the same and all digital sources sound the same (to oversimplify a bit.) They are _not _just saying that on occasion two particular components might be indistinguishable. Thus, my point is that the position advanced by this group would lead one to believe that all systems of a certain quality (using the same transducers) sound the same, and we know that is not the case. To put in another way, while there is much noise being made on this thread about how no one can "prove" cables sound different, there is not a lot of proof for a number of propositions that are generally accepted, such as the not all amps sound the same, and not all digital sources sound the same, and not all high quality systems sound the same. Indeed, we advance certain tests and proof as the be all and end all, but I wonder sometimes whether many of us could "prove" different tubes sound different, and if there is one thing of which I am certain, it is that different tubes generally do not sound the same. But again, there is no "proof," at least in terms of what some folks on this thread define as "proof."

 As to the rest of your post and pschological influences, the argument is not new, but it fails do deal with the experiences of many in this forum who have rejected the super premium cable or the newly-purchased cable for the current cheap cable that they use in their system.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you missed my point. My point was that a segment of cable naysayers would also say all amps sound the same and all digital sources sound the same (to oversimplify a bit.) They are not just saying that on occasion two particular components might be indistinguishable. Thus, my point is that the position advanced by this group would lead one to believe that all systems of a certain quality (using the same transducers) sound the same, and we know that is not the case. To put in another way, while there is much noise being made on this thread about how no one can "prove" cables sound different, there is not a lot of proof for a number of propositions that are generally accepted, such as the not all amps sound the same, and not all digital sources sound the same, and not all high quality systems sound the same. Indeed, we advance certain tests and proof as the be all and end all, but I wonder sometimes whether many of us could "prove" different tubes sound different, and if there is one thing of which I am certain, it is that different tubes generally do not sound the same. But again, there is no "proof," at least in terms of what some folks on this thread define as "proof."

 As to the rest of your post and pschological influences, the argument is not new, but it fails do deal with the experiences of many in this forum who have rejected the super premium cable or the newly-purchased cable for the current cheap cable that they use in their system._

 

I think we are talking across each-other at this point. I don't think I missed your point, I was merely pointing out that 1) it wasn't evident to me that "bigshot" was necessarily one of those absolutists. 2) you didn't address his point directly about 2 CD players allegedly sounding the same, but rather you moved to your larger complaint about absolutists.

 I'm not sure why you are taking issue with me. My response was clearly a measured one and not an absolutist one. And, of course, the psychological principles I mentioned have come up before. They are entirely relevant and real--but even so, I never claimed that they were absolute. In fact, I even mentioned _twice_ that they weren't. I've gone out of my way not to make absolute claims in my last post.

 I think you issues are with someone other than me and you may wish to address them directly.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, thank you for proving my point. According to some of "you guys," there's no proof an ipod sounds different from a high quality system._

 

I did an A/B test on that too. I loaded an AIFF file onto my iPod and ran the line out through a simple preamp with a volume control. Then I put the CD that the AIFF was ripped from in a good quality midrange CD player. I balanced the line levels and did an A/B comparison between the two... No difference. With an iPod, sound quality is much more dependent on the compression codec and setting you use than it is on the hardware.

 Electronics is easy. There are a lot of good reasonably priced CD players and amps out there. Acoustic components are much more complicated. It's a lot more costly and difficult to choose good quality speakers than it is to go out and get a good quality CD player. This should be obvious to everyone who ever had to go shopping for speakers.

 This is all about relative degrees of improvement. You can spend $5000 more for a CD player that offers you a barely perceptable improvement, or you can put that same $5000 into really high quality speakers and get a tremendous improvement in sound quality. It's silly to argue that a difference that you only claim to be able to hear after weeks of careful listening and training your ears is more important than obvious differences that everyone can hear immediately without difficulty.

 If money is no object, go crazy. Buy gold plated everything. But spending a lot of money on fancy fabric wrapped cables isn't what being an audiophile is all about.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Black Stuart

Eyeteeth,
 when you've come to some conclusions about speaker cable, it maybe a good idea to start another thread. I've used the TNT-Audio, Twisted twins, Cat 5 cables for some time now.

 I don't know if you bi-wire but as my speakers - Heybrook Sextets Mk4 have Tonigen ribbon tweeters, I've been reluctant to try just silver with them.

 Having done a lot of experiments using both solid core and stranded, for me, stranded work well in PCs but definately not for I/Cs, nor for speaker cables.

 This 10AWG sounds good for bass but will you try much smaller gauges for mid and treble? Do make sure that you don't handle raw (unvarnished) copper with your bare hands and protect it with something proprietory or more cheaply with clear nail varnish. Copper oxidizes very easily and unlike silver oxides, seriously interferes with signal flow, once this has happened

 I've found that with I/Cs, the needs of vinyl are very different to CD/Tuner etc. I use one signal wire for vinyl and two for CD/Tuner. I've wasted money buying 'good looking' well made commercial I/Cs that all used sheilding, why - it just blurs the signal. 

 I'm surprised that there has been no response on this sheilding issue. Maybe if your rig is part of a computer system then it may well be nec. In fact Thorsten made a really big point in his articles on TNT about removing the 'acne' of copper braid because of how it interfered with the signal.

 I now have a healthy disregard for 'received wisdom' within the audio field and first hand trials are the way for me to go. Weaving signal wires is nec. for I/Cs - really, that's not what I have found.

 Others on this thread have touched on this point but I'm putting it bluntly - I could'nt give a monkeys how a cable or wire measures - it's only how it sounds that counts for me - after all, it's me who listens to the cables, not any measuring device.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tour as before your contribution probably better placed elsewhere 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Don't you tour me, you don't know me at all! You insult me and tell me to go elsewhere. I think i have to make legal steps to remove you from this forum!

 Ignorant fool!

 Your stupid remarks are better placed elsewhere! A different forum!

 Beying a topic starter doesn't give you any rights to insult people or to tell them to go elsewhere afterwards, if you don't like any comments!
 There are forum rules and you crossed them quite by a mile!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I did an A/B test on that too. I loaded an AIFF file onto my iPod and ran the line out through a simple preamp with a volume control. Then I put the CD that the AIFF was ripped from in a good quality midrange CD player. I balanced the line levels and did an A/B comparison between the two... No difference. With an iPod, sound quality is much more dependent on the compression codec and setting you use than it is on the hardware.

 Electronics is easy. There are a lot of good reasonably priced CD players and amps out there. Acoustic components are much more complicated. It's a lot more costly and difficult to choose good quality speakers than it is to go out and get a good quality CD player. This should be obvious to everyone who ever had to go shopping for speakers.

 This is all about relative degrees of improvement. You can spend $5000 more for a CD player that offers you a barely perceptable improvement, or you can put that same $5000 into really high quality speakers and get a tremendous improvement in sound quality. It's silly to argue that a difference that you only claim to be able to hear after weeks of careful listening and training your ears is more important than obvious differences that everyone can hear immediately without difficulty.

 If money is no object, go crazy. Buy gold plated everything. But spending a lot of money on fancy fabric wrapped cables isn't what being an audiophile is all about.

 See ya
 Steve_

 


 Bigshot, to some people high end cables ARE obvious upgrades and can be heard immediatly.

 I will never argue with you that good speakers are simply better, they are. But in a pricerange, the speakers are also very close...you are willing to compare 500 dollar speakers with 5000 dollar speakers and speak of a difference. 

 In my own experience this goes for high end cables as well.

 As you never heard any high end cables, wich is obvious since i can read that in your other posts, you are not eligible to judge.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 This is all about relative degrees of improvement. You can spend $5000 more for a CD player that offers you a barely perceptable improvement, or you can put that same $5000 into really high quality speakers and get a tremendous improvement in sound quality. It's silly to argue that a difference that you only claim to be able to hear after weeks of careful listening and training your ears is more important than obvious differences that everyone can hear immediately without difficulty.
_

 

I never said any such thing, and I don't see that any one on this thread said any such thing. And you keep talking about speakers, but this is a headphone forum, for one thing, and I am not talking about speakers, but experiences I have had with headphones. If we talk headphones, what phones should I buy for $5,000 more as opposed to upgrading my CD player?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think we are talking across each-other at this point. I don't think I missed your point, I was merely pointing out that 1) it wasn't evident to me that "bigshot" was necessarily one of those absolutists. 2) you didn't address his point directly about 2 CD players allegedly sounding the same, but rather you moved to your larger complaint about absolutists.

 I'm not sure why you are taking issue with me. My response was clearly a measured one and not an absolutist one. And, of course, the psychological principles I mentioned have come up before. They are entirely relevant and real--but even so, I never claimed that they were absolute. In fact, I even mentioned twice that they weren't. I've gone out of my way not to make absolute claims in my last post.

 I think you issues are with someone other than me and you may wish to address them directly._

 

Yeah, sounds like I did not understand your point, or we're talking across each-other. And I was not accusing you of being an absolutist. As to bigshot's point about "2 CD players allegedly sounding the same," I'm not sure what his precise point was. I don't deny that it is possible to find two CD players that sound essentially the same. I just don't think they all sound essentially the same, and that what he has implied or stated ont this and other threads (if I read him correctly).


----------



## rsaavedra

It can certainly be measured that not all CDs have the same frequency response. For instance, here's Stereophile's FR graph of the Ah Njoe Tjoeb CD player. It is clearly not flat, and many other CD players (in fact even inexpensive ones) have flatter frequency responses. Some other CD players, particularly with tube output stages as the Njoe Tjoeb, might have even less flat freq. responses:






http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers...eb/index4.html


 Compare to the Rega Planet for example:




http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcom...34/index7.html


 Now, FR is not all there is to say about how a component sounds. But in the context of this thread, it would be problematic if you don't believe in being able to "hear differences" when there are significant differences in frequency responses. Very small differences in FR and balance can usually be perceived and corroborated by most people.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now, FR is not all there is to say about how a component sounds. But in the context of this thread, it would be problematic if you don't believe in being able to "hear differences" when there are significant differences in frequency responses._

 

I agree, but what intrigues me is whether there is any "proof" from the type of listening tests that the objectivists like to conduct that people can distinguish CD players with different FR measurements. If we see CD players with different measurements and pepole generally acknowledge they should sound different, but people can't pick them out more than random chance, this may say something about the usefulness of the testing methodology. Jazz has made a similar point many times vis-a-vis amps, and I've never seen a thorough response or explanation.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but people can't pick them out more than random chance_

 

Are you sure that is the case? I haven't seen any study showing that people are unable to consistently pick correctly CD players that have clearly different frequency responses.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you sure that is the case? I haven't seen any study showing that people are unable to consistently pick correctly CD players that have clearly different frequency responses._

 

I don't know. My "if" at the start of the sentence applied to the whole sentence. So I don't know one way or the other how people have fared in such "tests," be we do know that there are amp "tests" that are often touted as showing people can't distinguish between amps.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So I don't know one way or the other how people have fared in such "tests," be we do know that there are amp "tests" that are often touted as showing people can't distinguish between amps._

 

Some people can't distinguish between DVD players either. Yet some people easily can distinguish them, their eyes have been trained to look for certain aspects of the image that are easy to overlook if you are not aware of them, or haven't trained your eyes to notice them. Doesn't mean the same would apply to our hearing, but I believe it is certainly very possible that hearing acuteness can be different among people. Some people pay most attention to overall balance, some others to attack speed of drum notes, some others to decay, some others to soundstage, some others to naturalness of voices, some others to the richness and naturalness of cymbals, etc. etc. Some maybe pay attention to all of that and more. Our brains can be trained with various degrees of expertise to classify and recognize widely different inputs.

 I think it was Stereophile staff who once claimed that some tests might be misleading because the only variable is not the difference in components but also possible differences in people's hearing. They do have a point in that with respect to finding differences in components. A double blind test would work to find out if a specific person might be able to consistently identify that there are differences between components. Tests to "statistically" find out if two components sound different in general, or for most people, would be misleading because of differences/variability in people's hearing. I think that was their point.


----------



## JaZZ

While CD players do have different frequency responses, I wouldn't reduce sonic differences among them to frequency-response variations, though. Many show passably straight lines from 20 Hz to 18 kHz and in this respect approach amps. And as we know (at least a majority on Head-Fi) amps can sound considerably different, despite little measuring differences. An important criterion with CD players and DACs is convertor linearity (amplitude-related). Cheap DACs show higher deviations there and consequentially have higher harmonic distortion depending on the signal amplitude. Furthermore filter algorithms can influence the sound. 
.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_While CD players do have different frequency responses, I wouldn't reduce sonic differences among them to frequency-response variations, though._

 

Certainly I wouldn't either. Not only for CD players but pretty much any other audio component. As a simple example: subwoofers. Two subwoofers (or speakers in general) with identical frequency response may sound very different if their drivers take different times to go back to repose after a note. A faster one would sound more precise and clean, the slower one would provide a blurred bass.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I did an A/B test on that too. I loaded an AIFF file onto my iPod and ran the line out through a simple preamp with a volume control. Then I put the CD that the AIFF was ripped from in a good quality midrange CD player. I balanced the line levels and did an A/B comparison between the two... No difference. With an iPod, sound quality is much more dependent on the compression codec and setting you use than it is on the hardware._

 

That's what I would call objective and scientific reasoning: You hear no difference, hence CD players and electronics generally all sound the same. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You may be aware of the fact that only few people on Head-Fi share your radical view. So you're saying all other people are wrong, misguided and hallucinating, just to feel better about your personal insensitivity, and only _your_ ears count? 


  Quote:


 _Electronics is easy. There are a lot of good reasonably priced CD players and amps out there. Acoustic components are much more complicated. It's a lot more costly and difficult to choose good quality speakers than it is to go out and get a good quality CD player. This should be obvious to everyone who ever had to go shopping for speakers.

 This is all about relative degrees of improvement. You can spend $5000 more for a CD player that offers you a barely perceptable improvement, or you can put that same $5000 into really high quality speakers and get a tremendous improvement in sound quality. It's silly to argue that a difference that you only claim to be able to hear after weeks of careful listening and training your ears is more important than obvious differences that everyone can hear immediately without difficulty._ 
 

Phil has a good argument here: If you're into headphones, you can't spend any more than say $1000 on a top sound transducer. So why be cheap with the rest of your money if it can provide you higher listening pleasure! Because to many people high-end CDPs and amps offer a lot more in terms of realism, transparency and atmosphere for a more touching musical experience. Note: contrary to what you may have learned high sound quality is not just about frequency response. But of course you're free to stick with your inexpensive equipment as long as it serves your demands. 
.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's what I would call objective and scientific reasoning: You hear no difference, hence CD players and electronics generally all sound the same. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You may be aware of the fact that only few people on Head-Fi share your radical view. So you're saying all other people are wrong, misguided and hallucinating, just to feel better about your personal insensitivity, and only your ears count? _

 

*Oh, good grief!*_ You are both wrong_, in this instance.

 There must be some more central ground somewhere. I'm sympathetic to the idea that electronics _can_ be in-distinguishable from one-another but I also realize that some people have far better hearing than average. In this sense, "bigshot"s claim of not hearing is just an overarching counter to some people's claim of being able to hear things which may be impossible to hear.

 Obviously, the standard of proof can't be that "bigshot" must be able to hear the difference but that people who claim they can hear a difference be able to do so under controlled conditions that account for the psychology of human judgment and psychology.

 As to your rhetorical question of whether "bigshot" is claiming that "all other people are wrong, misguided and hallucinating," are you claiming the contrary? --that _nobody_ on this forum could be wrong or imagining the difference they hear? Clearly _both_ positions as absolutes are untenable but _both_ are likely to be at least *partially right.*

 People have way too "personal investment" (both financial and emotional) in these discussions. We are talking about reality and reality can be tested. And we can be fooled about what seems to be real if we don't test properly.

 As to people who claim to be "objectivists." That is a stupid term to use. "Objectivism" is a term that Ayn Rand used for her own peculiar philosophy so the term is loaded with baggage as well as presumption. Scientists and researchers don't call themselves "objectivists," they call themselves scientists and researchers.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Obviously, the standard of proof can't be that "bigshot" must be able to hear the difference but that people who claim they can hear a difference be able to do so under controlled conditions that account for the psychology of human judgment and psychology._

 

You are wrong! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 People who claim to hear a difference are free to do so, without being obliged to prove their «ability». And of course Bigshot doesn't have to be able to hear the difference -- I never implied that.

 Oh, and you're free to not take people seriously who make claims without proofs...
.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are wrong! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 People who claim to hear a difference are free to do so, without being obliged to prove their «ability». And of course Bigshot doesn't have to be able to hear the difference -- I never implied that.

 Oh, and you're free to not take people seriously who make claims without proofs...
._

 

[size=xx-small]HURRAH![/size]


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are wrong! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 People who claim to hear a difference are free to do so, without being obliged to prove their «ability». And of course Bigshot doesn't have to be able to hear the difference -- I never implied that.
._

 

Let's see...when I said "you are both wrong" I was trying to shoot down two absolutist positions by being temperate. By saying I'm wrong you are arguing for an absolutist position, absolutely credulous. Me, I think it is silly to be completely credulous or to be completely incredulous and it seems odd that a smart person such as yourself would try and argue in apparent favor of complete credulity.

 Yes, people are free to claim they can hear a difference. And, I am free to ignore them And I'm free to say "Hmmmmm...If you can that's amazing. I'd like to know more. I'd really like proof because if it is true then it is all the more amazing."

 Hearing the differences in tonality between AC power cords on a sound system is like someone saying they can see bacteria with their naked eye. If they can, it would be amazing. Who wouldn't want to show off to the world that they really can do amazing things. Tell me how it is different? Both power cord tonality claims and seeing bacteria involve extremely small differences that seem like they should be beyond the threshold of detection of the human senses. The main difference that comes to mind is that there is a large body of people who claim to hear the differences in AC cables. While that does make me want to know more since it could be a real phenomena, science isn't a democracy and phenomena don't become real by popular vote. Plenty of people believe horoscopes, but that doesn't mean that 1/12th of the world "should avoid shellfish and the color blue" today.

 If I claimed I can spot different types of bacteria with my eyes, would you defend my right to make that claim and not offer up any kind of proof? As you say you are "free to ignore" the claim but would you really let such an amazing claim stand without saying, "That seems rather unlikely, can you prove it?" If you would let such an amazing claim stand without question then I'd have to admit you are logically consistent in your position on proof. But, of course, I'd also have to consider you to be rather credulous.

 I didn't say in the post you cited that people _have to prove_ their ability, I only proposed a _standard of proof_. I can see that having a standard of proof might imply that people ought to live up to such a standard, but I understand that that is not a practical position for every conversation or claim.

 I also never implied that you implied that Bigshot had to be able to hear the difference, especially since that would be the opposite of your point that Bigshot's inability to hear a difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

 I'm trying to be somewhat moderate and not absolute but like being a political centrist, one tends to get run over by both sides and even by other moderates.

 You left, unanswered, my proposition that even though it would be very wrong to say that everyone on this forum is "wrong" or "misguided" that it is not unlikely that at least a few people are wrong. In fact, it is a sure thing that some people are wrong on this forum since people often argue opposite things and they probably can't both be right.


----------



## JaZZ

_SoundEdit..._

 ...I have nothing against you nor against your arguing style per se, but you're apparently in the wrong forum. Head-Fi is meant for people who like to share their experiences and certainly not for making scientific proofs. 

 You arbitrarily claim proof for reviews about certain equipment categories such as CD players and amps, not so (at least now and here) for headphones and speakers. I can understand that it takes higher (e.g. trainded) skill, more effort and more familiarity with a given setup to detect the more subtle differences among electronics devices, not to speakof cables. Nevertheless I don't see a need for a different approach here, since to most people the differences are still clear enough and above all consistent to not question the own perception in the long run. 

 Of course there may be people imagining differences while in fact just following the herd or marketing claims. But I consider this the exception.

 Again: This is just a nice hobby, although it may be more than this to some. Still it isn't science, though.
.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hearing the differences in tonality between AC power cords on a sound system is like someone saying they can see bacteria with their naked eye. If they can, it would be amazing. Who wouldn't want to show off to the world that they really can do amazing things. Tell me how it is different?_

 

Why would they want to "show off to the world"? That assumes there is outstanding accomplishment involved in hearing differences among power cords (which doesn't seem to be the case given that many claim to hear it), or that the person who hears it has a need to receive some accolade because of the fact that they hear it (and I assume that most simply care that they have heard something that may improve the sound of their system). Of course, people who hear it do share their thoughts on this forum, as it is a hobbyists forum and it's fun to discuss with others what you have heard, and to exhange ideas about how to improve the sound of one's system. But I don't know any "believer" who has come on this forum with his chest thrust out feeling a need to demonstrate some amazing acute ability to hear power cord differences. And it's only amazing to some -- it's not amazing to many of us.

 Furthermore, even if you could find someone who was so inclined (i.e., to "show off'), you still have the problem of identifying a testing methodology that is acceptable -- that is, a testing methodology that someone who wants to "show off" will say: "Yes, I can prove to you that under those test conditions I can demonstrate I hear power cord differences.'


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_SoundEdit...

 ...I have nothing against you nor against your arguing style per se, but you're apparently in the wrong forum. Head-Fi is meant for people who like to share their experiences and certainly not for making scientific proofs._

 

Indeed. I didn't come to Head-Fi for science. And I didn't come to question people's judgement. I came for opinions on headphones and IEMs. There seemed to be a lot of experienced and knowledgeable people in the forums and I knew I'd come to a place where I could learn about the things I'm interested in. Then I found how popular some very expensive, very questionable things are in these forums and it made me less confident the the reliability of people's opinions.

 What you call my "arbitrary claims for proof" are perhaps less about claims for proof than trying to find out if people in the forums have the observational and critical thinking skills to be reliable sources of information not only about questionable things but about more mundane items.

 While I am very questioning of many claims I've tried not to categorically rule them out but neither do I believe them. They are, in my mind, unlikely and unproven in spite of the many anecdotes that they are real, but perhaps possible--I don't know everything so I have to keep an open mind. Ironically, "believers" can be very intolerant. They are not even remotely open to the possibility that there might not be an audible difference. And yet, it is generally those proponents who claim that those who are interested in proof are the closed minded ones. I believe that personal experience can be mistaken--including mine. Cognitive and perceptual psychology back me up. But many "true believers" do not believe they can be mistaken.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You arbitrarily claim proof for reviews about certain equipment categories such as CD players and amps, not so (at least now and here) for headphones and speakers. _

 

I don't think of my standard for proof as being arbitrary but I do understand your position, at least partly. I've not stated a position about what categories of equipment should be tested and how. Audio is very subjective and for the most part I've limited my remarks to the obvious where no understanding of nuance is needed: that for some claims one should prove that an effect is audible before claiming it is desirable or worth buying a piece of equipment for. Not all classes of equipment fall into the category where people might say the differences are inaudible--speakers and microphones certainly do not fall into that category.

 Your statement that I'm in the wrong forum may well be right, though I note that people will argue for the "intutive" approach vs. all comers, so I'm not entirely convinced I'm the source of all argument since you are generally willing you argue your case. But, I also see that to a certain extent the argument becomes for its own sake.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can understand that it takes higher (e.g. trainded) skill, more effort and more familiarity with a given setup to detect the more subtle differences among electronics devices, not to speakof cables._

 

..and yet I don't see it that way. Audio is about hearing. You don't need fancy training or science background to say "I can hear a difference." There we agree completely, I think. I just like to take that one little step further and see if you can _really_ hear the difference. In that respect audio is a very accessible kind of science. You don't have to know anything about the quantum physics of A/C current or about circuit design to test whether you can really hear a difference! It is amazing that you and I can be soooo close and yet soooo far.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of course there may be people imagining differences while in fact just following the herd or marketing claims. But I consider this the exception._

 

It may well be. I don't know for certain, either.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Again: This is just a nice hobby, although it may be more than this to some. Still it isn't science, though._

 

Why can't it be both a nice hobby and science? The two aren't mutually exclusive (well, unless science says stuff people don't like to hear...).

 Thank you for the response.

 BTW,
 Would you question it, at least in your mind, if someone claimed "I can see bacteria with my naked eyes?"


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ironically, "believers" can be very intolerant. They are not even remotely open to the possibility that there might not be an audible difference._

 

This is clearly an overgeneralization. I acknowledge the possibility -- at least in certain respects -- and some others do also. Fact is, there are, as you may have pointed out already, absolutists in both camps.

 On the other hand, in my experience, it is the "naysayers" if you will, or at least a certain core group of them, who generally start these arguments. Just read the many threads on this subject. The vast majority start out with someone posting a comment about a cable they like or someone asking what would be a good cable for their system, and some naysaying thread crapper pops in and says: "Cable are all snake oil and there's no proof any of them make an audible difference, and it's all placebo, and it's too bad pepole are such suckers." That kind of stuff not surprisingly tends to polarize even some open-minded believers.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why would they want to "show off to the world"?_

 

Why do people go on "American Idol?" Or "Blind Date?" But perhaps "show off" is too strong a phrase.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Furthermore, even if you could find someone who was so inclined (i.e., to "show off'), you still have the problem of identifying a testing methodology that is acceptable -- that is, a testing methodology that someone who wants to "show off" will say: "Yes, I can prove to you that under those test conditions I can demonstrate I hear power cord differences.'_

 

Given the "large" numbers of people who can do this you'd think that someone would be willing if for no other reason than shutting people up. If someone can't define the circumstances under which they can detect these "highly audible" differences then, yes, we have a problem. But it isn't a testing problem, its a subject problem.

 BTW,
 If I say I can see bacteria with my naked eye, will you believe me? I noticed you skipped that one...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Originally Posted by SoundEdit 
 "Ironically, "believers" can be very intolerant. They are not even remotely open to the possibility that there might not be an audible difference."
 This is clearly an overgeneralization. I acknowledge the possibility -- at least in certain respects -- and some others do also. Fact is, there are, as you may have pointed out already, absolutists in both camps._

 

Yes, I meant to qualify my statement to be that "many" are not even remotely open to the possibility that there might not be an audible difference. I think you'll find that I generally try not to make absolute statements. But I also think that many dogmatic "believers" don't even realize or acknowledge that they are close-minded, instead thinking of themselves as being the besieged ones, open to all possibilities--er, except the negative.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...and yet I don't see it that way. Audio is about hearing. You don't need fancy training or science background to say "I can hear a difference." There we agree completely, I think. I just like to take that one little step further and see if you can really hear the difference. In that respect audio is a very accessible kind of science. You don't have to know anything about the quantum physics of A/C current or about circuit design to test whether you can really hear a difference! It is amazing that you and I can be soooo close and yet soooo far._

 

In fact I have tested it once with two friends. And I have passed the test, so to speak, with 9 right guesses out of 12. It was about headphone cables. And it was harder than I thought, but primarily because of the unfamiliar and uncomfortable test conditions (the cloth we used for blinding partly covered the ears and thus gave a strange feeling and possibly changed the sound a bit, too). Actually I had expected 12 right guesses and didn't feel so great. Indeed after that I was a bit unsure if the sonic differences couldn't be just imaginary. Nevertheless, I'm perfectly recovered now. And I also know how important familar circumstances are, up to the optical environment. 

 So I couldn't tell if the same DAC/headamp (Opera) with the same headphone (K 701 or HD 650/Zu) sounds any different when connected with my computer (which is in my living-room) from when connected to my McCormack UDP-1 (which is in my bedroom). The two configurations sound definitely different to me, but the same applies to different environments when I'm on the move with my portable mini-setup (iAudio U2/U3 + Etymotic ER-4). At night and with wet streets the sound is especially impressive.

 But let's talk about consistency: On my familiar listening seat I consistently perceive distinct sonic characteristics with my three headhone amps, and the same applies to cables, particularly headphone cables.


  Quote:


 _Why can't it be both a nice hobby and science? The two aren't mutually exclusive (well, unless science says stuff people don't like to hear...)._ 
 

Well, I simply ignore the latter part. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Of course it could be both. But to be honest, my hobby as it is works so perfectly for me: I can rely on my senses in that I can reliably chose my equipment by ears -- it provides me the same sonic characteristic every day --, and I can change one or the other component, which results in a foreseeable change of sonic characteristic. 

 So, although I would be really interested in scientific explanations for the phenomena (not so much in the context of electronics, though -- where I think it would be possible on the basis of today's knowledge --, rather with cables, where measuring values show no hint of perception-relevant characteristics so far), I see no need to contribute to any research, the more so as I'm no scientist. Furthermore, from my experience I don't doubt cable, amplifier and source-devices sound as little as sonic differences among sound transducers.


  Quote:


 _...Would you question it, at least in your mind, if someone claimed "I can see bacteria with my naked eyes?"_ 
 

Yes, of course -- maybe I would even tell him he's a liar. If there were thousands of such people, on the other hand... maybe I would begin to ponder if the world is about to change its physical laws. 
.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Would you question it, at least in your mind, if someone claimed "I can see bacteria with my naked eyes?"_

 

Hey once in New Orleans there was a guy with huge a telescope on the streets, if front of Cafe du Monde downtown. His telescope was aiming at Saturn, you gave him a dollar and could see Saturn and its rings pretty nicely on his telescope. A lady next to him was looking at the sky and she was saying she could see the rings with her naked eye, without that telescope 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But let's see, how different is not trusting someone claiming they can see bacteria or Saturn's rings with their naked eyes, compared to not trusting someone claiming they can distinguish this or that wine, scotch or rum?

 I bring back my point, you always have a very inexpensive choice of simply not believing them, or suspending belief until further evidence is provided. You don't necessarily have to start asking for proof. Anyway, won't repeat this again...


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"Quote:
 Originally Posted by SoundEdit 
 Would you question it, at least in your mind, if someone claimed "I can see bacteria with my naked eyes?""

 Yes, of course -- maybe I would even tell him he's a lier. If there were thousands of such people, on the other hand... maybe I would begin to ponder if the world is about to change its physical laws. 
._

 

Well, contrary to what you might have though I would say, I actually can see bacteria with my naked eyes. And I can provide incontrovertible (for those who accept science) proof. It is actually possible to see bacteria with our naked eyes, as when they make a visible colony in a petri dish. There is also a very rare and very large bacterium called _Thiomargarita namibiensis_ than can grow large enough to be seen by the naked eye.

 It is actually critical to phrase the question right. The seeming presumption in the question was the ability to see individual, ordinary bacteria but the question does not, in fact, entail that interpretation.

 The point is that we need to be careful in our assumptions. What we are sure to be true may not be. What we know may have extraordinary exceptions, but those exceptions may have no bearing in ordinary life. We also need to be careful in what we accept as the standard for what we believe is true. If we use a careless standard, we can easily come to believe many untrue things and never knowing of our accidental ignorance.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I will never argue with you that good speakers are simply better, they are. But in a pricerange, the speakers are also very close...you are willing to compare 500 dollar speakers with 5000 dollar speakers and speak of a difference._

 

The difference between the sound of a $250 a side set of speakers and a $2500 a side set is immense. The difference between cables in the same proportion of price (say for instance $10 vs $100) is so minute it's barely measurable, much less audible.

 For the vast majority of the people reading this forum, advising them to put the bulk of their budget into their speakers and room treatment is much better advice than to recommend high end cables to them.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ A lady next to him was looking at the sky and she was saying she could see the rings with her naked eye, without that telescope 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But let's see, how different is not trusting someone claiming they can see bacteria or Saturn's rings with their naked eyes, compared to not trusting someone claiming they can distinguish this or that wine, scotch or rum?

 I bring back my point, you always have a very inexpensive choice of simply not believing them, or suspending belief until further evidence is provided. You don't necessarily have to start asking for proof. Anyway, won't repeat this again..._

 

Well, considering that Saturn's Rings were first noticed by Galileo Galilei using the telescope he invented it is a pretty safe bet that the woman couldn't see the rings of saturn with her naked eye, especially with the city lights polluting the sky. However, your analogy of a taste test of different kinds of distilled spirits isn't analogous to the near threshold of detection audio differences that are the hallmark of this forum. Perhaps a better analogy would be tasting the difference between identical rum poured from (not stored in or aged in) different kinds of bottles. That would be much more analogous.

 Do I _always_ have the inexpensive choice of "not believing"? Given that you don't think I should, apparently, ever ask for proof of any kind in regards to audio equipment, it seems I should live in ignorance unless I do my own research at my own expense. And if I do find evidence that is negative, it is implied that such evidence is beyond unwelcome and nearly heretical here. Since I'm seemingly required to do my own research (anyone want to loan me 10K of AC cables?), I only have the inexpensive "choice" of not believing if I also never buy any audio gear ever since those who advocate it have not responsibility to advocate it based on facts.

 I had thought that the forums would be a place to "research" the value of gear. I'm sure they are, to a certain extent, but not as much as I had assumed. I never really was one for group think. I like to accurate information. When I tell people things I have learned I don't want to lead them astray because I was too lazy to learn accurate facts. I don't just hate being wrong I hate having inaccurate information.

 Clearly we are at an impasse. The forum reminds me a little of being at a party and having someone tell me that they are psychic--this has happened a number of times. I don't believe that psychic phenomena are real, or if they are real they are so weak a phenomena as to be indistinguishable from not existing. And yet, for social conventions, I do not challenge this person. I merely nod and let them tell me about their psychic ability. I believe they are sincere and have had experiences that prove to them beyond a doubt that they are psychic, yet I know the overwhelming scientific record is that there is no proof of psychic phenomena under controlled circumstances. I'm not not going to challenge this person for proof because there is no practical value to it. But audio isn't like that, in audio the fringes of detection have real phenomena that deserve to be delineated. There really are subtle sonic differences near the threshold of detection. It only makes sense to try and separate those differences so we can concentrate on buying the devices that really make a difference.

 However, it seems I've found that "proof" is for the "close minded." That wasn't what I expected to find here. I expected hobbyists eager for facts rather than murk. I had dismissed the tales I had heard of "audiophiles" being obsessed with questionable devices as being out of proportion to reality. Now I'm less sure.

 I appreciate your replies and I think I generally understand your positions. The fact is you all could be right even if your standard of proof is "anecdote." But I don't currently think so even though I think you've done a patient job at trying to explain your positions. It is clear that, at least for the moment, I'm going to have to disagree with you. I might be convinced at a later date. I doubt it, but it is possible because my beliefs follow the best available scientific evidence. Because of this, I always have to keep my mind open, even if only a little. I hope you can say the same of your position.

 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I never said any such thing, and I don't see that any one on this thread said any such thing. And you keep talking about speakers, but this is a headphone forum, for one thing, and I am not talking about speakers, but experiences I have had with headphones. If we talk headphones, what phones should I buy for $5,000 more as opposed to upgrading my CD player?_

 

1.) Many have spoken in the past about being unable to determine a difference between cables in simple A/B comparison. They said the the difference "revealed" itself only after months of careful listening.

 2.) This forum is not about headphones. It's the Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories forum.

 3.) The same holds true for headphones as speakers, just at a lower basic price point. You can spend say $500 on a set of headphones and get a lot more sound quality improvement than spending a lot of money on CD players or cables.

 However, you aren't going to be able to get as natural a presentation with even the best headphones as you are high quality speakers. The upgrade I would recommend to you is to get a good pair of speakers.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It can certainly be measured that not all CDs have the same frequency response._

 

Hence the qualifier "of the same rating and specifications".

 You're quite correct that price is no determiner of quality.

 I am curious about one thing though... Did the manufacturer of that CD player advertise its specs as being far from flat? If not, could it have just been a poorly engineered CD player that didn't meet the manufacturer's specifications?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree, but what intrigues me is whether there is any "proof" from the type of listening tests that the objectivists like to conduct that people can distinguish CD players with different FR measurements._

 

Frequencies are wgat we hear. Significant differences would ba apparent. Would we be able to hear +/-.1 db? Probably not. Would we be able to hear +/-20 db? You betcha.

 The important thing isn't that there's error... whether in time or frequency response or distortion or dynamics or anything else... It's whether the degree of error is great enough to be perceived. Without a sense of relative scale, you'll never be able to address the problems in a way that guarantees improvement.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You may be aware of the fact that only few people on Head-Fi share your radical view._

 

I wouldn't equate the number of posts on a particular subject as a show of hands. Around here, the most prolific posters aren't necessarily the best informed. I'm sure there are plenty of people just sitting back shaking their heads and waiting for the next amusing set of photos or YouTube video in the ERS paper thread,

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ 2.) This forum is not about headphones. It's the Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories forum._

 

I was talking about Head-Fi.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ 3.) The same holds true for headphones as speakers, just at a lower basic price point. You can spend say $500 on a set of headphones and get a lot more sound quality improvement than spending a lot of money on CD players or cables._

 

But manyof the folks dealing with these types of cable issues on this sub-forum already have decent headphones in the $500 range. If you've already got the AKG 701, for example, where do you go from there -- vs. improving your source, for example.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ However, you aren't going to be able to get as natural a presentation with even the best headphones as you are high quality speakers._

 

 Thanks, that's completely nonresponsive and irrelevant.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it is a pretty safe bet that the woman couldn't see the rings of saturn with her naked eye, especially with the city lights polluting the sky._

 

Wrong wrong, see, this lady made up the bacteria example. Did you miss the fact that she just said she could see _the rings_ with her naked eye, without the telescope? She was talking, of course, about the rings in her hands, and also, about the rings in a jewelry store nearby called "Saturn". Incontrovertible "proof" of her claim she could certainly provide. Her comment in fact did not entail the interpretation that she was talking about the rings of the planet Saturn, that people were looking at through that telescope.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do I always have the inexpensive choice of "not believing"? Given that you don't think I should, apparently, ever ask for proof of any kind in regards to audio equipment, it seems I should live in ignorance unless I do my own research at my own expense. And if I do find evidence that is negative, it is implied that such evidence is beyond unwelcome and nearly heretical here. Since I'm seemingly required to do my own research (anyone want to loan me 10K of AC cables?), I only have the inexpensive "choice" of not believing if I also never buy any audio gear ever since those who advocate it have not responsibility to advocate it based on facts._

 

Audio phenomena have nothing to do with «believing». They're simply about hearing them and trusting your own senses if the perceived effect is consistent -- so it definitely serves its purpose. If you don't hear the audio phenomena in question, there's no need for you to follow the issue any further. The same applies to «believers» (as you name them, which is definitely wrong), just the other way round. That's the (sad?) truth...

 That said, of course I'd like to see physical explanations as well as metrological and statistical evidence. Although I consider it obsolete in the case of electronics components and only a real challenge in the case of cables.
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't equate the number of posts on a particular subject as a show of hands. Around here, the most prolific posters aren't necessarily the best informed._

 

You don't need to be informed to have a sensitive hearing.
.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't equate the number of posts on a particular subject as a show of hands. Around here, the most prolific posters aren't necessarily the best informed. I'm sure there are plenty of people just sitting back shaking their heads and waiting for the next amusing set of photos or YouTube video in the ERS paper thread,

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Well, I have to sort of agree. I'm not commenting about anyone in this thread so far, of course, but in general it can be much easier and faster to just make stuff up then to actually only make true claims. People can toss out claims way faster than people can responsibly investigate them, so clearly number of posts doesn't necessarily denote knowledge or competence. I've got quite a few posts for just having been here a few days, but I doubt anyone is going say that my high rate of postings per day means I'm more competent than someone with a lower rate. If anything, it is a sign that work is slow 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_You don't need to be informed to have a sensitive hearing._

 

And you don't need to be educated to be smart. But but being informed and educated can help put your sensitive hearing and smarts to use. But my answer, like yours, doesn't actually advance or prove anything in the thread.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Audio phenomena have nothing to do with «believing». They're simply about hearing them and trusting your own senses if the perceived effect is consistent -- so it definitely serves its purpose. If you don't hear the audio phenomena in question, there's no need for you to follow the issue any further. The same applies to «believers» (as you name them, which is definitely wrong), just the other way round. That's the (sad?) truth..._

 

Objectively it is true that phenomena exist independent of our belief in them, but it is false to say that belief in them has nothing to do with "belief." That is patently false, or at the very least, equivocal. What you, perhaps, mean is that belief in these phenomena is not based on "faith" but in actual, audible differences.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_If you don't hear the audio phenomena in question, there's no need for you to follow the issue any further._

 

No need? Define "need." Does anybody "need" a super-high quality sound system? Probably not. If true need were the standard of this forum, the entire server and all of the messages on it would disappear in a puff of logic. So please pardon me if I ignore your imperative as being self-contradictory.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_The same applies to «believers» (as you name them, which is definitely wrong), just the other way round. That's the (sad?) truth..._

 

I used the term "believers" because it seemed more neutral and less judgmental than, say, "the credulous." They certainly _are_ believers if they believe that a device works. There really is no better word for it. "Believer" is not a pejorative. I'm a "believer" in keeping an open mind, though not so open that it falls out... I'm not sure why you object so vehemently to the word in question--it is certainly not because I've used it incorrectly or pejoratively.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I have to sort of agree._

 

You have to see, though, that Bigshot has used the quote out of context. I haven't implied that reality be «democratic», but it is just as little «aristocratic» or «dictatorial» as claimed by him.


  Quote:


 _But being informed and educated can help put your sensitive hearing ... to use._ 
 

That's self-evident. It's just not so easily acceptable when stated by a stubborn ignorant. 


  Quote:


 _Objectively it is true that phenomena exist independent of our belief in them, but it is false to say that belief in them has nothing to do with "belief." That is patently false, or at the very least, equivocal. What you, perhaps, mean is that belief in these phenomena is not based on "faith" but in actual, audible differences. I used the term "believers" because it seemed more neutral and less judgmental than, say, "the credulous." They certainly are believers if they believe that a device works. There really is no better word for it. "Believer" is not a pejorative. I'm a "believer" in keeping an open mind, though not so open that it falls out... I'm not sure why you object so vehemently to the word in question--it is certainly not because I've used it incorrectly or pejoratively._ 
 

Sorry! So I gave a wrong impression. It's not that I'm particularly sensitive to how _you_ use it, I'm just generally opposed to a denomination that could be misleading or deliberately used for discrediting a group of generally open-minded and absolutely (self-)critical people who just have discovered that they reliably and consistently hear audio phenomena which are (still) hard to explain and/or suspect to others -- without any implicated/preconditioned ideologic belief, maybe even thanks to the lack thereof.

  Quote:


 _No need? Define "need." Does anybody "need" a super-high quality sound system? Probably not. If true need were the standard of this forum, the entire server and all of the messages on it would disappear in a puff of logic. So please pardon me if I ignore your imperative as being self-contradictory._ 
 

Again, a slight inaccuracy from my part. I wanted to state two things: If you do hear said phenomena, you most likely would have a different approach to the matter, maybe in the form of «now I want to know what it is that I hear!». If you can't hear them, you probably see no worth in following the subject any further, and objectively that would even be the case, strictly related to the phenomena themselves. Whereas audiophiles with an intuitive approach who experience the reality of said phenomena see no need for systematic tests. 
.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 {Quoting SoundEdit}:
 "But being informed and educated can help put your sensitive hearing ... to use."

 That's self-evident. It's just not so easily acceptable when stated by a stubborn ignorant. 

._

 

That's quite the dangling modifier. Since you are responding to my quote, I'm wondering who, if anyone, you might be referring to as "a stubborn ignorant?"


----------



## K2Grey

IIRC, from what I've heard, oenophiles have actually been able to prove in double blind tests etc. that they can distinguish between different wines (not sure of the exact circumstances). The same cannot be said of cables. The problem is that many people have great trust in their senses, but it is known that senses are affected by for example psychological factors, so for one to hear differences between two cables does not necessarily mean that what is coming out of the headphones is different.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *K2Grey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_IIRC, from what I've heard, oenophiles have actually been able to prove in double blind tests etc. that they can distinguish between different wines (not sure of the exact circumstances). The same cannot be said of cables. The problem is that many people have great trust in their senses, but it is known that senses are affected by for example psychological factors, so for one to hear differences between two cables does not necessarily mean that what is coming out of the headphones is different._

 

Indeed, such are a regular feature of wine judging but would seemingly be beyond the strictures of this forum's "DBT"-free dictum to get into in too much detail.

 Besides, wine is more analogous to the music we play rather than the cables we use. A closer analogy to interconnect cables would be the carafe the wine is served from. Clearly a carafe _could_ easily affect the flavor of the wine but one would hope a properly designed carafe would not, except for the amount of air it exposes the wine to. The super ultra premium AC cables are less like wine carafe but more like the ice bucket used for champagne. 

 I wish there was a "DBT-only" forum as a balance, though I think such would not be to tastes of the forum's proprietor. If there was such, "naughty" discussion threads could be sent there to the "Château d'If"* of forums instead of being locked.


 *Or perhaps more like the Manhattan prison in "Escape from New York"


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was talking about Head-Fi._

 

You're soaking in it!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But manyof the folks dealing with these types of cable issues on this sub-forum already have decent headphones in the $500 range. If you've already got the AKG 701, for example, where do you go from there -- vs. improving your source, for example._

 

From there, you can equalize if necessary, expand your music collection and save up for a good speaker system. Headphones can never match the natural presentation of speakers.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You don't need to be informed to have a sensitive hearing._

 

It helps to be informed to understand the realistic limits of one's perception. It also helps to discern the relative merits of one improvement over another. I think being informed is a good thing.

 But even assuming that you actually *can* hear things only bats and dogs can hear... How does that qualify you to give advice on stereo equipment to people with normal human hearing? Freakish hearing ability is no more of a thing to be proud of as extra toes on one foot or multiple nipples. There really isn't anything musical to hear in superaudible frequencies. And there's no advantage to being extra sensitive to artifacts and noise in the signal. In fact, that's a detriment to enjoyment of recorded music.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There really isn't anything musical to hear in superaudible frequencies._

 

Your statement suggests that you are assuming people that claim to hear differences claim also to have some especial power or extreme hability in their senses over regular/normal people. Where are you making that assumption from? People who can distinguish difference in performance on DVDs, for example, by just looking at their images on a CRT TV, don't have and don't claim to have any Superman sight or see "Superviewable" frequencies of light. It is a different reason why they detect things most people don't, they have trained their eyesight to spot some things that are usually overlooked if you are not aware of what to look for that can help you distinguish some things from some others. While there can be accuracy differences in our senses, perception can also be improved by training.


----------



## reano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your statement suggests that you are assuming people that claim to hear differences claim also to have some especial power or extreme hability in their senses over regular/normal people. Where are you making that assumption from? People who can distinguish difference in performance on DVDs, for example, by just looking at their images on a CRT TV, don't have and don't claim to have any Superman sight or see "Superviewable" frequencies of light. It is a different reason why they detect things most people don't, they have trained their eyesight to spot some things that are usually overlooked if you are not aware of what to look for that can help you distinguish some things from some others. While there can be accuracy differences in our senses, perception can also be improved by training._

 

Just to be clear are you saying by this statement above (as an analogy) that due to the use of that person's ears, on their equipment, etc they have trained themselves to be able to distinguish between different cables also? E.g. when you mention senses. 

 Or do you believe you cannot train yourself to distinguish between the different quality cables?

 Or just none of the above (do I sense that)....


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_People who can distinguish difference in performance on DVDs, for example, by just looking at their images on a CRT TV, don't have and don't claim to have any Superman sight or see "Superviewable" frequencies of light._

 

This isn't an "Apples to Apples" comparison. A TV produces a _smaller_ range of colors and contrasts than a human can see, unlike high quality sound systems which can reproduce frequencies well above the range of human hearing. No current TV, even 1080i, will be mistaken for reality--except, perhaps, out of the corner of your eye. Video quality is nowhere near the fidelity and threshold of detection level of differences that audio is at. In addition, Video is heavily compressed, unlike CD audio, which produces more artifacts to notice and compare. A DVD player has to do a lot more to convert the data to an analog system than a CD player does to convert audio, especially if it is a progressive scan DVD player with multi-field predictive de-interlacing. The algorithms used in DVD players can make a huge difference.

 You are making an implied comparison of the differences in DVD players to the differences in _audio cables_--the lack of analogy is staggering. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_While there can be accuracy differences in our senses, perception can also be improved by training._

 

True, but not in excess of our physical limitations. I can't be "trained" to hear frequencies below my threshold of hearing.

 Your statement of is very general, and thus says very little as to how this would potentially affect the ability to hear the differences in ICs: Maybe people can learn maybe they can't--it would suggest. But none of that addresses if the difference is there to hear in the first place, in which case no amount of talent or training would help. In some cases, "training" might just help people "hear things" and do the opposite of helping to hear real differences.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A closer analogy to interconnect cables would be the carafe the wine is served from. Clearly a carafe could easily affect the flavor of the wine but one would hope a properly designed carafe would not, except for the amount of air it exposes the wine to. The super ultra premium AC cables are less like wine carafe but more like the ice bucket used for champagne._

 

Nordost Valhalla is a bucket that is cold on top and warm at the bottom. When you pour liquid into the bucket it gives fake dynamics. It separates the liquid so it tastes different at different depths of the bucket. It makes everything more distinct even when it's the same liquid. Same with audio cables, same liquid but different taste at the other end.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are making an implied comparison of the differences in DVD players to the differences in audio cables--the lack of analogy is staggering._

 

I wasn't comparing the technologies per se obviously. Audio is audio and video is video, no one is claiming otherwise. The fact is, many people can't see a difference between DVDs played by some inexpensive players with known artifacts vs. better ones that reproduce the images without those artifacts. The ability to identify the differences in video reproduction is not trivial, requires in many cases some skill. That was my point, similar skills might apply equally well to perception of some subtleties in audio, despite the differences in media and technologies. Your impossibility to understand this simple analogy (with respect to our cognitive perception and limitations vs. abilities, not with respect to technologies) is what is staggering.

  Quote:


 I can't be "trained" to hear frequencies below my threshold of hearing. 
 

My analogy was not directed towards you but towards bigshot. However, you also seem to imply assumptions about perceiving things beyond thresholds of the senses. No one that I know has claimed to hear frequencies beyond normal thresholds, where are you guys getting that assumption from? That was precisely the reason for my analogy, to attack that assumption, if you didn't notice.

 What people do with respect to DVDs is identify things that are perfectly within the normal threshold of vision, but that might go unnoticed without the skill to spot them. In audio the same might happen. (And that goes for your question too Reano). I'm sure you SoundEdit might keep having difficulties with this analogy though.


----------



## JaZZ

Add MP3s to this. I'm not even trying to learn to spot the artifacts, though, as overhearing them is an advantage for the intended purpose.
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It helps to be informed to understand the realistic limits of one's perception. It also helps to discern the relative merits of one improvement over another. I think being informed is a good thing._

 

Sure. But it doesn't replace a sensitive hearing when it comes to hear or not hear subtleties beyond sound-transducer level. 


  Quote:


 _But even assuming that you actually *can* hear things only bats and dogs can hear... How does that qualify you to give advice on stereo equipment to people with normal human hearing?_ 
 

Within the standards of Head-Fi and people with audiophile demands my hearing is absolutely normal. See the equipment forums crowded by people who all believe to hear the things that «only bats and dogs can hear». In turn your apparent relative insensitivity seems to disqualify _you_ according to this very same standard.


  Quote:


 _Freakish hearing ability is no more of a thing to be proud of as extra toes on one foot or multiple nipples. There really isn't anything musical to hear in superaudible frequencies. And there's no advantage to being extra sensitive to artifacts and noise in the signal. In fact, that's a detriment to enjoyment of recorded music._ 
 

Maybe. Nevertheless, this seems to be an inevitable «side-effect» of intensive occupation with sound and high-end equipment. The hearing threshold expands further and further. It's not just a burden, because unveiled subtleties in audio reproduction also serve for a more intimate and touching musical experience. And a less «technical» characteristic by removing corresponding artifacts in less sophisticated equipment also helps. Finally, exploring the sonic level within the music can also be fun: As enjoying a well-prepared dinner with all its nuances is more fun than just reading the recipe.
.


----------



## eyeteeth

Is there some reason why cables resist measurements? I see amps, speakers, CDPs get measured in Stereophile. I only recall the Harmonic Technology cyberlight getting measured and being declared operating as if broken. I'll read here that someone got more bass from their speakers with a new power cord and I suppose it's possible if a more appropriate gauge were used but a sound level meter and a Stereophile test CD should sort out in quick order if the bass is real or imaginary.


----------



## tourmaline

*reano:*

 Don't you tour me, you don't know me at all! You insult me and tell me to go elsewhere. I think i have to make legal steps to remove you from this forum!

 Ignorant fool!

 Your stupid remarks are better placed elsewhere! A different forum!

 Beying a topic starter doesn't give you any rights to insult people or to tell them to go elsewhere afterwards, if you don't like any comments!
 There are forum rules and you crossed them quite by a mile!

 For your info:

*hi tout*: this is a direct *insult* to my person!

 Since i am not a native english speaking person i didn't know what it ment but an english speaking person pointed it out to me!

 A tout is a dubious person that is buying stuff really cheap and then selling them way out of proportion for 3-4 the normal price!

 Since i am not affiliated with any cable factory or whatsoever nor am i selling cables, this is a direct insult to me personally, you either *remove* the post stating *hi tout* or you *apologize!*

 If you don't do either of these two steps, I'll have you *removed* from this forum!


----------



## meat01

tourmaline, I really think you should just let it go. You are making more of a big deal of it than anyone else was or is. He was just shortening your nickname from Tourmaline to Tour. Since when has this been against the rules or necessary to take legal action? A tour is also a vacation that you take with a bunch of people. Maybe he was calling you a vacation? You are blowing this way out of proportion and taking it out of context. You can call him rea if it makes you feel better. Please lighten up and enjoy your hobby!


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_tourmaline, I really think you should just let it go. You are making more of a big deal of it than anyone else was or is. He was just shortening your nickname from Tourmaline to Tour. Since when has this been against the rules or necessary to take legal action?_

 

I have to correct you. He said «Tout». I think we agree that he's not the friendliest person, so I'm not sure if he deserves the benefit of the doubt in that it could have been a misspelling.
.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_tourmaline, I really think you should just let it go. You are making more of a big deal of it than anyone else was or is. He was just shortening your nickname from Tourmaline to Tour. Since when has this been against the rules or necessary to take legal action? A tour is also a vacation that you take with a bunch of people. Maybe he was calling you a vacation? You are blowing this way out of proportion and taking it out of context. You can call him rea if it makes you feel better. Please lighten up and enjoy your hobby! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'm also not a native speaker, and I didn't get the intention of reano's post until someone described the meaning of "tout" which I hadn't looked up. So I understand Tourmaline's request. Had I been addressed that way I would have been offended as well, and whether Reano is or is not a native speaker doesn't matter. The request to remove/modify the post and or apologize publicly makes sense and is not unreasonable at all, since it does not require any effort to fulfilll it, just some courtesy. I'm guessing Tourmaline also might have contacted the mods to first ask for the public apology from reano, and/or for the removal of said post.


----------



## darkless

I've just read and re-read reano's post. It seems obvious to me, given the capital 'T' in 'Tout' that he accidentally hit the wrong button while trying to shorten the nickname, not an uncommon thing around here at all. 'R' sits right next to 'T'.

 If you ignore that single word and read the post in its entirety he comes off as being rather polite (stuff in <> are my edits/comments):

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi <Tour>, thanks for your response. I would say if you don't what<another typo> to give me the details and how, then best to contribute to another thread. I actually want to know all about this._

 

The above seems to me like a valid way to ask someone to contribute what they know. At least I've seen far worse cases of people telling others to bugger off without everyone going crazy on them.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_<snip>Can you present this evidence I really would like to hear your valued contribution and how this better measuring results in improved the sound to the listener. I would be more than grateful to go and buy this cable for myself no worries. I have done the various searches on here and am trying to get people to deliver some details and (hope this doesn't offend but probably will) All I read is "you won't believe".<snip> and all I ask is if you have the evidence please let me look. Thats all ...._

 

Again, I see no insults here, hinted or not. Quite the contrary, actually.

 Anyone who doesn't forgive reano's small and unintended typo after reading this should take a healthy dose of the following:


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nordost Valhalla is a bucket that is cold on top and warm at the bottom. When you pour liquid into the bucket it gives fake dynamics. It separates the liquid so it tastes different at different depths of the bucket. It makes everything more distinct even when it's the same liquid. Same with audio cables, same liquid but different taste at the other end._

 

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? But is it OK if I pass on tasting the liquid at the other end?

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm also not a native speaker, and I didn't get the intention of reano's post until someone described the meaning of "tout" which I hadn't looked up. So I understand Tourmaline's request. Had I been addressed that way I would have been offended as well, and whether Reano is or is not a native speaker doesn't matter._

 

Why? I don't see why anyone is getting their knickers in a bunch over the word Tout. Are we talking about a language other than English?

 In any case, I think the only solution to this is epees at sunset.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*reano:*

 Don't you tour me, you don't know me at all! You insult me and tell me to go elsewhere. I think i have to make legal steps to remove you from this forum!

 Ignorant fool!

 Your stupid remarks are better placed elsewhere! A different forum!

 If you don't do either of these two steps, I'll have you *removed* from this forum!_

 

"Tout", if reano even meant to write it, can mean "ticket scalper." Hardly a devastating insult, er, unlike calling someone an "Ignorant Fool."

 Take legal steps? There are no "legal steps" to take because you haven't cited anything against the law, but you are implying that he has by saying you'll take "legal steps" to get him removed.

 If insulting people gets them tossed, then you'll go out with the bath water.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ I'm sure you SoundEdit might keep having difficulties with this analogy though._

 

rsaavedra, you seem to be getting testy. Combine that with JaZZ trying to link me to being a "stubborn ignorant" I'd say you are both starting to get to the point where your emotions are starting to get the better of your logic. Add tourmaline to the mix as he/she is getting mightily huffy over a perceived insult to the point of making even bigger insults without realizing he/she just pegged the HypocriteOMeter by doing so.

 This thread has now, I think, devolved to the point where people are no longer thinking rationally or being polite and their is little hope of reasonable discourse. And it isn't certainly because of any mentions of "DBT." But, it may be because people get testy when their preconceptions are challenged in a way they can't or are unwilling to justify. Or it could be that people resort to name calling when they run out of ideas or start loosing an argument. Whatever the case, it is time to leave before the collateral damage gets to great.


----------



## rsaavedra

Your understanding of people getting testy may also be motivated by proper rebuttals against your attacks to some arguments. However valid your position might be SoundEdit from certain stand points, it seems to me that you have been attacking arguments and analogies against your position carelessly or impulsively before properly understanding them.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Combine that with JaZZ trying to link me to being a "stubborn ignorant"..._

 

No, these attributes weren't addressed to you.

 If you check back, you'll see that they were addressed to nobody directly anyway -- it was just a description of a mental mechanism within myself. In my opinion a salutation like «Hi stubborn ignorant» would be something entirely different-- given the issue at hand was intentional, which I'm not pretending.
.


----------



## Flea Bag

Woah! Long time no post! I'll try to go direct into the original topic.

 But first, I'm curious: reano, did you hear any difference between your stock Sennheiser Headphone cable and your aftermarket ones? The thread was so long that I gave up trying to find if you'd been asked and have answered that question. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 With regards to proof, I'm pretty sure it exists somewhere. We just have to have the right connections (pun!?) with the right people in the right industry. I'm sure there's a lot of marketing rubbish with a lot of cables out there but I'm also sure that not all of it is rubbish. There are some people out there who are trying to make a living and do have a conscience at the same time. Anyway, let's not open another can of worms on human morality et cetera! I think most of us can agree that if something subjective pops up in this thread, there's a high chance that a sub-arguement will come of it -So let's just try to find 'proof'!

 There's some maths here for you to crunch here: 
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/
 and here:
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/84/

 Honestly, I don't know what to think about all that, but if have the time, I hope you're willing to go through the maths. It looks daunting but let us know what you think! We're all in the persuit of truth I believe!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"Tout", if reano even meant to write it, can mean "ticket scalper."_

 

It's not a ticket scalper, it's a guy who stands outside the racetrack selling lists of recommended bets and analysis of the performance of the various horses.

 Not at all an insult.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, these attributes weren't addressed to you.

 If you check back, you'll see that they were addressed to nobody directly anyway -- it was just a description of a mental mechanism within myself.
._

 

I did check. I _asked you_, which is more than many here would do. Frankly, I took the fact that you are sill posting in this thread combined with your lack of response to my inquiry be an affirmation. Now you say something, much later.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* 
_Your understanding of people getting testy may also be motivated by proper rebuttals against your attacks to some arguments. However valid your position might be SoundEdit from certain stand points, it seems to me that you have been attacking arguments and analogies against your position carelessly or impulsively before properly understanding them._

 

You haven't said that my impression that people are getting testy is incorrect, though, you've only tried to imply that other people's testiness may "all be in my head"--an amusingly ironic position to try on me, and one to which I would turn to your "standard of proof" which is that I'm not obligate to "prove" anything: {you} "Let the challenger find out on his own if he cares to do so. Otherwise, the challenger might as well reject the claim, and the claimant wouldn't care, because he stopped advocating that claim for acceptance by that challenger." Granted, that isn't my standard but since it is yours, why not use it here?

 Now, as to my "not understanding" arguments and analogies before criticizing them, I think that you may misunderstand my disagreement with lack of understanding--with the presumption being that anyone who would argue with you wouldn't do so if they "understood" your points. This presupposes that your points are flawless, a standard that is very high, indeed.

 Whatever the case, we have moved from arguing about standards and ways of knowing to arguing small things. I do not think much stands to be accomplished if one were to extend the trend. As much as I enjoy rhetorical devices, I would prefer a discussion based on the merits. But no such agreement can be reached here.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Flea Bag* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 With regards to proof, I'm pretty sure it exists somewhere._

 

That pretty much sums up the situation--the presumption that there must be proof somewhere because such an assumption seems reasonable. However, if there was sound proof I think it is likely that the veritable army of audiophiles would tout it. (No insult meant by the use of the word "tout"  )

 In fact, as much as I'd like to be able to dismiss Interconnect Cable claims out of hand, there can't be generic "proof" that no cable can make an audible difference since we know for fact that high quality cables do exhibit measurable differences in inductance, capacitance, ect.. The only thing we can test are _specific_ cables when someone makes a positive claim. This is just one of the many reasons why the burden of proof is on the positive claimant.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I did check. I asked you, which is more than many here would do. Frankly, I took the fact that you are sill posting in this thread combined with your lack of response to my inquiry be an affirmation. Now you say something, much later._

 

Yeah, sorry about that. I was going to sleep (--> CET) and somehow missed your post.
.


----------



## lini

reano: Just try two interconnects with rather different capacity between a turntable with a magnetic cartridge and a phono stage. If you still can't hear a difference, you might already suffer from hearing loss.

 Greetings from Munich!

 Manfred / lini


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You haven't said that my impression that people are getting testy is incorrect_

 

Well I might have been testy. Don't think was too big a deal though, compared to other heated things in this thread, and don't feel at all bad to admit it. 

 When someone argues against someone else's position without _respecting the limits of what the opponent had literally written_, by carelessly transforming the ideas presented, that might certainly induce testiness, at least on some. In political debates tactics like that (simply misrepresenting or deforming the opponent's arguments) are frequently used just to simply annoy the heck out of the opponents, or to simply confuse the "jury" or audience on what the opponent is trying to say.


  Quote:


 Now, as to my "not understanding" arguments and analogies before criticizing them, I think that you may misunderstand my disagreement with lack of understanding--with the presumption being that anyone who would argue with you wouldn't do so if they "understood" your points. 
 

Honestly I don't think that was the case here. To pretend that anyone who disagrees with me did not understand me would be magnanimously foolish. In my view you are too eager to simply push forward your own point of view, and you disregard the true scope of what your opponents truly say/write, which suggests lack of interest in true communication.

 You seem too confident that your first read of anything will pretty much always be correct and faithful to what the writer intended to convey. But let me tell you, in several ocassions in this thread you have made me wonder if I had written what I thought I had written; or whether someone else wrote something else afterwards from which you responded. That or else, that I'm not writing clearly enough, that's certainly another possibility; or else, that you simply didn't read correctly what I had said; or also, that maybe you intentionally perverted what I had said. I went back on a couple of times and read my posts again, then the following posts, then your responses, and no, I keep seeing no clear reason for your argumentative misinterpretations/transgressions of what I had written. Hence testiness.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


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



			Quote:
 Originally Posted by SoundEdit 
 "I did check. I asked you, which is more than many here would do. Frankly, I took the fact that you are sill posting in this thread combined with your lack of response to my inquiry be an affirmation. Now you say something, much later."
		
Click to expand...

Well I might have been testy. Don't think was too big a deal though, compared to other heated things in this thread, and don't feel at all bad to admit it. 

 When someone argues against someone else's position without respecting the limits of what the opponent had literally written, by carelessly transforming the ideas presented, that might certainly induce testiness, at least on some._

 

Ahem...perhaps by carelessly quoting the _wrong quote_ and responding with a complete and total non sequitur?

 As you are probably aware, the quote of mine you included was a communication to Jazz that literally has nothing to do with anything you or I have discussed. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just being "careless" and not clueless in this instance.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In political debates tactics like that (simply misrepresenting or deforming the opponent's arguments) are frequently used just to simply annoy the heck out of the opponents, or to simply confuse the "jury" or audience on what the opponent is trying to say._

 

Indeed, misstating someone's argument and then attacking that misstatement is called a straw argument. However, that isn't what I did. What I pointed out was that your analogy wasn't, IMO, analogous and I pointed out many factors to support my case. You can argue that it was but that in no way means that I mis-represented your argument. Once again, I think that you are confusing legitimate argument with logical fallacy.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ In my view you are too eager to simply push forward your own point of view, and you disregard the true scope of what your opponents truly say/write, which suggests lack of interest in true communication._

 

...said the kettle to the pot. You really aren't going to get anywhere by trying and argue--post after post--that _other people_ are too argumentative. But I will give you--who has never budged from his position--rhetoric points for having the gumption of accusing me of being "too eager to simply push forward your own point of view." You can't use this sort of rhetorical method and then, the same post, claim to eschew tactics that "simply confuse the "jury" or audience on what the opponent is trying to say."


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As you are probably aware, the quote of mine you included was a communication to Jazz that literally has nothing to do with anything you or I have discussed._

 

Corrected, that was a typo of mine.


----------



## tyrion

Guys, it's just cables. How about keeping the personalities out of it and discuss the issues, whatever they might have been.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ However, that isn't what I did. What I pointed out was that your analogy wasn't, IMO, analogous and I pointed out many factors to support my case._

 

To support your case you started saying that my analogy was a comparison of not "apples and apples", and took off describing differences between video and audio technology which had nothing to do with my point, or even with the discussion under consideration in the thread in fact.

 The analogy I made clearly had to do with *perception* of video and audio inputs within the human thresholds, while still some details/artifacts within those thresholds might escape the untrained human. Not only the original post shows that scope, also the subsequent elaboration. Yet, your response to my analogy had nothing to do with that, and you keep pretending that you understood my point, but that you just "disagree" with it.

 Your response also claimed that I was _"making an implied comparison of the differences in DVD players to the differences in audio cables"_ which is absolutely *not the case*. And yes, go back and read again to convince yourself. [size=xx-small](Had I implied a comparison it would have been between the non-trivialness of detecting video artifacts or differences with the non-trivialness of detecting audio artifacts or differences. Nothing more, and a very different thing.[/size])

 You keep making a stronger case of simply not reading and/or not communicating. It is really pointless to try to argue constructively in these conditions.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To support your case you started saying that my analogy was a comparison of not "apples and apples", and took off describing differences between video and audio technology which had nothing to do with my point, or even with the discussion under consideration in the thread in fact.

 The analogy I made clearly had to do with *perception* of video and audio inputs within the human thresholds, while still some details/artifacts within those thresholds might escape the untrained human._

 

Au contraire, my criticisim of your analogy had _everything_ to do with perception. My point  was that your criticism of Bigshot by way of analogy was flawed. Your argument was that "superhuman" hearing was not required to hear the differences in audio cables. You analogized that people could tell the difference between DVD players without needing to "see "Superviewable" frequencies of light." However, I pointed out that ability to see the differences between different DVD players and to hear the difference between audio-cables was not analogous because the two kinds of differences are an order of magnitude apart. The technology and visible gamut of TV vs reality make the differences between DVD players within the normal physical abilities of people, where as high quality audio technology has a gamut that _exceeds_ human physical perceptions (know anyone who can hear 30K??). Thus your analogy was not analogous. No straw argument needed or used.

 If you are going to persist in dogmatically accusing me of being wrong without a sound basis for your accusation you risk being the thing you accuse me of. I think thou dost protest too much.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tyrion* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Guys, it's just cables. How about keeping the personalities out of it and discuss the issues, whatever they might have been._

 

Pesky voice of reason...

 No, the topic starter bailed a while ago, but not, I think, because of any argument. It was never clear to me what he really wanted to know or prove or disprove.

 By now this is really a "Just Us Chickens Here" thread about generalities and the argumentation of such. Only people who want to be here are here and the thread was titled "Any {proof} cables make a difference," so it seems reasonable to discuss the matter. 

 It really isn't possible to come to any sound conclusions without data and part of the argument is about whether one has a right to even ask for sound data. And even if we had sound data it would probably only apply to a specific cable or two--still allowing/demanding an argument to continue on general principle.

 As for removing personalities--well that would be impossible because while the facts about the issues may be independent of our belief in them, what we _believe_ the facts are, and the way come to that belief is integral to our personalities. Often, "Intuitive" vs. "Empirical."

 If we really wanted to advance this thread we could perhaps state clearly in a bulleted list what we believe, why we believe it and what it would take to change our minds (and be honest about whether our minds are, in fact, open to change.)


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You analogized that people could tell the difference between DVD players without needing to "see "Superviewable" frequencies of light."_

 

Actually the clue is rather that many people can't tell the difference between DVD players, although it wouldn't take supersenses to do so. -- I fully understand rsaavedra's argument, while for some reason you don't. It's an adequate analogy to show that not all people have the same seeing/hearing abilities and training may absolutely have an impact. 
.


----------



## tyrion

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Pesky voice of reason...

 No, the topic starter bailed a while ago. It was never clear to me what he really wanted to know or prove or disprove.

 By now this is really a "Just Us Chickens Here" thread about generalities and the argumentation of such. It really isn't possible to come to any sound conclusions without data and part of the argument is about whether one has a right to even ask for sound data. And even if we had sound data it would probably only apply to a specific cable or two--still allowing/demanding an argument to continue on general principle._

 

Just your friendly neighborhood moderator trying to lower the volume a bit.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually the clue is rather that many people can't tell the difference between DVD players, although it wouldn't take supersenses to do so. -- I fully understand rsaavedra's argument, while for some reason you don't.
._

 

Just when I thought I was successful...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tyrion* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just when I thought I was successful...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hey, was that too loud? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## tyrion

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey, was that too loud? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



._

 

It was fine. I just wanted to steer it away from a continuation of the same argument. No problem.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually the clue is rather that many people can't tell the difference between DVD players, although it wouldn't take supersenses to do so. -- I fully understand rsaavedra's argument, while for some reason you don't.
._

 

There is a difference between understanding someone's argument and agreeing with it. The former does not entail the latter.


----------



## jp11801

why oh why does this thread continue, if you don't think cables make a difference great if you do great. Please kick back and enjoy the music be it with rat shack cables or 5K Nordst cables. Rock on


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is a difference between understanding someone's argument and agreeing with it. The former does not entail the latter._

 

Well, your reasoning shows that you don't understand it. (BTW, for this reason I have completed my former post. I hope it helps.)
.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_why oh why does this thread continue, if you don't think cables make a difference great if you do great. Please kick back and enjoy the music be it with rat shack cables or 5K Nordst cables. Rock on_

 

Because people care!

 I care, you care (in your own way, though not about this thread specifically). It is interesting (to those in the thread), it is money, it is enjoyment, it is social.

 If it was all about the music, most of the forum would disappear since so much of it involves talking about stuff.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually the clue is rather that many people can't tell the difference between DVD players, although it wouldn't take supersenses to do so. -- I fully understand rsaavedra's argument, while for some reason you don't. It's an adequate analogy to show that not all people have the same seeing/hearing abilities and training may absolutely have an impact. 
._

 

Thanks Jazz. Gee I was starting to think that I had to seriously revisit my English writing skills. Maybe I still have to anyway, but at least I know the point got across.


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, your reasoning shows that you don't understand it. (BTW, for this reason I have completed my former post. I hope it helps.)
._

 

Sigh...

 When you get to the point of merely saying the opposing side is "uncomprehending" rather than trying to address their argument I think it is further evidence that the discussion is no longer on the merits...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sigh...

 When you get to the point of merely saying the opposing side is "uncomprehending" rather than trying to address their argument I think it is further evidence that the discussion is no longer on the merits..._

 

Your arguments are much too complicated. It's not about the degree of perfection of an equipment category. It's simply about different sensitivity with different people. While it's harder to prove this point with audio (where some sonic or measuring criteria are disputed), it's easier to make a video analogy. Your implication that the variations of perception thresholds among different people (e.g. with different degrees of experience) are fundamentally different for video and for audio is arbitrary. Moreover to think that audio reproduction be perfect, in contrast to video reproduction, is arbitrary as well. Your only criterion (IIRC) seems to be the high (enough) bandwidth. Now audio isn't just about frequency response -- there are other criteria, such as harmonic and intermodulation distortion, transient and phase response -- where audio reproduction is far from perfection. But in fact these points don't really matter in the context of rsaavedra's analogy. Just take the video analogy as example for how different people have different perception thresholds. And take it easy! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Moreover to think that audio reproduction be perfect, in contrast to video reproduction, is arbitrary as well._

 

Bingo, and I didn't even attack that part (and I won't Mike, don't worry 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Because people care!

 I care, you care (in your own way, though not about this thread specifically). It is interesting (to those in the thread), it is money, it is enjoyment, it is social._

 

I really don't care all that much as this horse was beat dead pages ago
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 People in these "discussions" are typically deeply entrenched in their point of view to the point of distraction. Most of these threads tend to be more about winding folks up.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If it was all about the music, most of the forum would disappear since so much of it involves talking about stuff._

 

Shame it's not more about the community and the music as well


----------



## SoundEdit

Ahhh, something I can acutally respond to 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your arguments are much too complicated._

 

I have many arguments, some simple and some complicated. But complicated doesn't mean wrong.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's not about the degree of perfection of an equipment category._

 

You need to define the "it" we are talking about. When I talked about the possible fidelity of a DVD player's video signal vs. the fidelity of a high end audio system it was to point out that the higher fidelity of audio systems means that the can have more near threshold of detection differences. Whereas the lower fidelitiy of DVD systems put their differences primarily within the range of human physical sensitivity because of the lower visual resolution and color gamut.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's simply about different sensitivity with different people._

 

Again, you need to define what the "it" is in this argument. We can go back and forth over and over and not get anywhere because we are both talking about a different, undefined "it."

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_While it's harder to prove this point with audio (where some sonic or measuring criteria are disputed),_

 

Yes, it is. The audio differences--if they exist--may or may not be within the physical range of hearing of an individual and _separately_ may or may not be within their ability to psychologically perceive.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it's easier to make a video analogy._

 

Yes, it is easier to make the analogy. But to what end?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your implication that the variations of perception thresholds among different people (e.g. with different degrees of experience) are fundamentally different for video and for audio is arbitrary._

 

I only mentioned _physical range of perception_ not psychological range of perception--which can be trained. One of my points was that the differences in DVD signals were all within the _physical range_ of average human perception which implies that, perhaps, almost anyone could learn to see the differences since they are within the range of our senses. In high end audio the differences can be within the range of _average human physical perception, above average human physical perception, or entirely beyond human physical perception. _ This means that in some cases ordinary people can learn to hear the differences, in some cases only extraordinary people can learn to hear the differences, and in some cases no human can learn to hear the difference. Thus, the difference I posit is that generally differences in DVD player visual artifacts are within the normal _physical range of perception_ but at least some of the audio differences are beyond normal _physical perception_ and some are beyond all human perception. In _that sense_ the the two phenomena are different. You can argue that the analogy is right in some other nuance, perhaps, but my argument with your position does not, I think, result from a fundamental misunderstanding of your argument but a disagreement with it. When you use analogy you can gain from its strengths but you also lose from its weaknesses.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Moreover to think that audio reproduction be perfect, in contrast to video reproduction, is arbitrary as well._

 

I don't think that audio reproduction is perfect, nor can you point to _anywhere_ that I have said so. (This may be the reason that rsaavedra didn't think to argue a point I never made.) I was, however, presuming high quality consumer systems. For instance I mentioned the phrase "high quality sound systems." I didn't think I needed to expand on that but clearly I was wrong. It is merely factual, not arbitrary, that technology allows for higher relative fidelity in audio reproduction than video production. The physics and data required are dramatically different. There is no such thing as an un-compressed consumer playback format, for instance. And even "un-compressed" video can still have "compression" in the form of color sub-sampling and less than adequate color-space.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your only criterion (IIRC) seems to be the high (enough) bandwidth._

 

Not my only criterion. It just happened to be one that made my explanation obvious.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now audio isn't just about frequency response -- there are other criteria, such as harmonic and intermodulation distortion, transient and phase response -- where audio reproduction is far from perfection. But in fact these points don't really matter in the context of rsaavedra's analogy._

 

Then there is no point for you to mention them.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just take the video analogy as example for how different people have different perception thresholds._

 

Here is where you are, perhaps, inadvertently oversimplifying. Perception has at least two fundamental components. The _physical_ range of our senses and our _psychological_ ability to interpret that physical perception. You can not train your psychological ability to exceed the physical potential of your eyes or ears. The video analogy does show how people can be more or less observant in their psychological perception but it ignores the fact that audio differences can exceed our physical limits. This is important because we can train people to see the differences in DVD playback and hear certain differences in audio. But with audio, people will always be able to claim that even a trained person may not be able to hear the difference because their physical hearing ability isn't up to the task. This complicates testing cables because in makes "falsification" harder to do because you can never be sure if the difference might be audible to _someone_. In such a case, you test with people who claim to hear a difference and you have to make conclusions from that. Science is always open to new data, albeit slowly.

 It could just be that we were thinking about different parts of the analogy for different reasons.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And take it easy! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



._

 

 Always


----------



## SoundEdit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_People in these "discussions" are typically deeply entrenched in their point of view to the point of distraction. Most of these threads tend to be more about winding folks up._

 

I do wish I could disagree more, but there is a certain element of truth to that. However, this has long since ceased being a general interest thread--if, indeed, it ever was. But not every thread can be of interest to everybody nor should they be.

 On the other hand, you felt a desire to have your two cents worth even if it was only to add your disapproval, so you can't claim to be entirely above such.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoundEdit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do wish I could disagree more, but there is a certain element of truth to that. However, this has long since ceased being a general interest thread--if, indeed, it ever was. But not every thread can be of interest to everybody nor should they be.

 On the other hand, you felt a desire to have your two cents worth even if it was only to add your disapproval, so you can't claim to be entirely above such._

 

guilty as charged but even I grow tired of the sound of my own voice after time, which is why midway through I deleted and retired, as I knew I would not agree to the nill effect idea and the no effect folks would never conceed there was any difference at all

 enjoy talking the ears off a brass monkey


----------



## tyrion

Sorry guys, fun time is over.


----------

