# Radioshack wires....



## sumone

...what's so wrong with them? It seems everyone downplays Radioshack.


----------



## AlanY

There's nothing wrong with them. They actually sound pretty good. I think of them as the poor man's UR7.


----------



## grandenigma1

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sumone* 
_...what's so wrong with them? It seems everyone downplays Radioshack._

 

There is nothing "wrong" with them they are just not all that a cable can be. They will work just fine and degrade and color the sound as much as most. Its like anything else out there. The basic will do if you dont care but, if you do care there are other better options out there. 

 I actually use a pair of their "Fusion" RCA cables every now and then and quite like them... their Gold line and such is pretty nice and does the job it is ment to do... its just does not excell at it.


----------



## Michael G.

OK for starters. They are not bad cables for the money but they are very basic designs with cheap connectors. Consider upgrading to a slightly higher level sometime and then let us know what you think. I always recommend www.bluejeanscables.com and/or www.heartlandcables.com for "the next step up". You'll find reasonable prices, handmade (in the USA) speaker and interconnect cables, worthwhile upgrades for you such as better shielding, teflon dielectric, Neutrik plugs, and Canare "true 75 ohm" or Eichmann Bullet Plug connectors, and more... I've never found better values anywhere.


----------



## bigshot

Radio shack cables don't color the sound at all. They have two quality grades of cables. The better one has very solid connectors, but even the lower grade cables sound fine.

 Spend money on things that really count.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Michael G.* 
_ Consider upgrading to a slightly higher level sometime and then let us know what you think._

 

I like the look of those Heartland cables. In the radioshack price range I like Belkin's PureAV Silver Series interconnects. I think they can be had for $25 a metre some places. They sound OK to me. No magic though. That costs a bit more.

 "hocus pocus"


----------



## sumone

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Radio shack cables don't color the sound at all. They have two quality grades of cables. The better one has very solid connectors, but even the lower grade cables sound fine.

 Spend money on things that really count.

 See ya
 Steve_

 


 Your last comment, that's what I always thought. But in a lot of conversations on here, people seem to recommend another cable brand _over_ a Radioshack, as if Radioshack is a bottom of the line brand. Radioshack is all I know!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *grandenigma1* 
_There is nothing "wrong" with them they are just not all that a cable can be. They will work just fine and degrade and color the sound as much as most. Its like anything else out there. The basic will do if you dont care but, if you do care there are other better options out there. 
_

 

 Well put.


----------



## asmox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sumone* 
_Your last comment, that's what I always thought. But in a lot of conversations on here, people seem to recommend another cable brand over a Radioshack, as if Radioshack is a bottom of the line brand._

 

if you want better sound, buy better headphones, amplifiers, and other such gear. if you want audio jewelry, go ahead and buy cables with pretty sleeving.

 to be fair, Radioshack cables can have cheap connectors.. but as far as sound quality goes - you aren't missing a thing. many people that frequent places like this tend to listen with their eyes.


----------



## grandenigma1

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *asmox* 
_if you want better sound, buy better headphones, amplifiers, and other such gear. if you want audio jewelry, go ahead and buy cables with pretty sleeving.

 to be fair, Radioshack cables can have cheap connectors.. but as far as sound quality goes - you aren't missing a thing. many people that frequent places like this tend to listen with their eyes._

 

Gotta love your pretty Cardas cable


----------



## asmox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *grandenigma1* 
_Gotta love your pretty Cardas cable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

lol, yeah.. you've got me.

 That was actually my first aftermarket cable purchase (for headphones, anyway), and I'm pretty sure it's going to be my last. The sound is a bit different, but not $150 different.. audio jewelry is its own justification though, which is why I'm going to keep it!

 Though for RCA cables, digital cables, speaker wire, and other cables like that - I've never been able to detect any difference in the sound AT ALL, whether with sighted or DBT tests.. and that's why I made my previous comment, since those are probably the sorts of cables you'd be buying at Radioshack, as opposed to headphone replacement cables.

 YMMV


----------



## grandenigma1

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *asmox* 
_lol, yeah.. you've got me.

 That was actually my first aftermarket cable purchase (for headphones, anyway), and I'm pretty sure it's going to be my last. The sound is a bit different, but not $150 different.. audio jewelry is its own justification though, which is why I'm going to keep it!

 Though for RCA cables, digital cables, speaker wire, and other cables like that - I've never been able to detect any difference in the sound AT ALL, whether with sighted or DBT tests.. and that's why I made my previous comment, since those are probably the sorts of cables you'd be buying at Radioshack, as opposed to headphone replacement cables.

 YMMV 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Fair enough lucky one


----------



## AdamWill

eyeteeth: $25/metre is in the Radio Shack price range? Deep pockets you've got there! I paid CAN$50 for 80 feet of 12-gauge from Radio Shack. Let's see, 80 feet is 24.38m, CAN$50 is US$43.12, so I paid $1.77/metre. The Belkin stuff is therefore 14.13x more expensive than Radio Shack bulk 12-gauge. If only I could ignore a 14x price difference like you...


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AdamWill* 
_eyeteeth: $25/metre is in the Radio Shack price range? Deep pockets you've got there! I paid CAN$50 for 80 feet of 12-gauge from Radio Shack. Let's see, 80 feet is 24.38m, CAN$50 is US$43.12, so I paid $1.77/metre. The Belkin stuff is therefore 14.13x more expensive than Radio Shack bulk 12-gauge. If only I could ignore a 14x price difference like you...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I've never had a true mega-bucks cable. The most expensive I've had was a balanced (employing a double run at 2x the cost) pair of Audience Au24 interconnects ($975.00) used at half price of about $500. 
 You do the Belkin comparison math! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I like getting inexpensive cables and hearing how close they come to more expensive. A pair of Signal cables gave the boot to the Au24's and some Nordost Red Dawns. I lost some refinement and linearity but the price differences were far vaster than the performance differences. 

 I'm definitely fascinated with the range out there. Fascinated by the psychoacoustics, the goofy claims, the differences between pro and amateur descriptions, the good designs, the good and bad price/ performance ratios, the objective vs the subjective, the science and or lack of, the real uses and real limitations of blind listening, etc.

 I think I have a cable fetish! 
 I'm picturing a stationary bicycle with multiple 2 metre cables attached to the rear wheel for self-flagellation!


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *asmox* 
_lol, yeah.. you've got me.

 That was actually my first aftermarket cable purchase (for headphones, anyway), and I'm pretty sure it's going to be my last. The sound is a bit different, but not $150 different.. audio jewelry is its own justification though, which is why I'm going to keep it!

 Though for RCA cables, digital cables, speaker wire, and other cables like that - I've never been able to detect any difference in the sound AT ALL, whether with sighted or DBT tests.. and that's why I made my previous comment, since those are probably the sorts of cables you'd be buying at Radioshack, as opposed to headphone replacement cables.

 YMMV 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hmm... interesting that you can hear a difference in your headphone cable but not in IC's or speaker cables. Does that mean you cannot hear the difference in IC's when listening with your 650's or through your Denon receiver and speakers? Also are you only including your current source or others? Just curious


----------



## fewtch

Nothing wrong with the sound of RS's gold series cables. However, build quality is not so hot... I broke tabs off a male RCA connector just pulling it off the jack. They are constructed more cheaply than you might suspect, and are pretty expensive for what you get IMO.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_Hmm... interesting that you can hear a difference in your headphone cable but not in IC's or speaker cables._

 

Fwiw, headphone cables involve higher voltages/current and much lower impedances. Seems likely to me that a headphone cable would make a much bigger difference in sound than line-level interconnects.


----------



## Michael G.

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* 
_I like the look of those Heartland cables. In the radioshack price range I like Belkin's PureAV Silver Series interconnects. I think they can be had for $25 a metre some places. They sound OK to me. No magic though. That costs a bit more.

 "hocus pocus" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

The Heartland Interconnects made up of Belden 89259 and Eichmann bullet plugs are my choice. Being a very stiff cable it would not be the choice for tiny cramped spaces. But, the stiffness can be a plus - instead of having your interconnects drooping down and becoming entangled with each other, the cables tend to suspend themselves in seperate, graceful arcs out the back of your components. This creates some space between the cables and helps to prevent harmful electrical interactions between all seperate pairs. However, you'll need to have about a foot or so of clearance between the back of your components and the wall behind to avoid bending them too sharply...


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fewtch* 
_....Fwiw, headphone cables involve higher voltages/current and much lower impedances. Seems likely to me that a headphone cable would make a much bigger difference in sound than line-level interconnects._

 


 Compared to IC's maybe but not speaker cables. But then again with lower currents wouldn't IC's be more prone to outside influences such as EMI and RF? 

 Also making generalizations concerning headphone cables are not really valid without reference to IC's if you are using an amp. Plus my headphones don't really sound that great unless i use a source, which connects to my headphone amp with IC's. Maybe a systems approach would make more sense? No?


----------



## pabbi1

As a lifelong owner/user of RatShack cables, much of the difference, IMMHO, comes from aspiring to own something better than what is available at the 'company store', but regardless of how I feel about the sound (much debated all around), I definitely feel woefully mismatched using RS cables on my (way) more relatively expensive gear.

  Quote:


 I'm definitely fascinated with the range out there. Fascinated by the psychoacoustics, the goofy claims, the differences between pro and amateur descriptions, the good designs, the good and bad price/ performance ratios, the objective vs the subjective, the science and or lack of, the real uses and real limitations of blind listening, etc. 
 

You forgot the _colors_... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 I think I have a cable fetish! 
 

Don't we all, brother, don't we all... and this is the one fetish my wife has the hardest time dealing with... 'wires' as 'toys'... AND that they ALL don't come from RS.


----------



## no1likesme

i understand the point of replacement cables to a certain extent
 a cable's ONLY job is to transfer the signal from the source to the heaphone/speaker, NOTHING ELSE so how is it possible to have a cable that is worth $100+? is it made out of some magical ultra conductive material?
 copper cable does not cost anywhere near the prices you guys are paying
 gold, silver, and nickel (only materials i know in high end cables do not conduct electricity as well as copper

 placebo effect anyone?

 viva la ratshack!!


----------



## Sovkiller

Radio Shack cables are not bad at all, not my cup of tea, but IMO they could be a good starting point for audiophiles looking for the audio nirvana, cables IMO is a fancy and expensive sport, and mostly you pay at the end for look and better construction instead of better sound....I have heard and even own a few that are considered better cables, and the performance is pretty similar. I do not like the construction though as they are bulky, and I prefer the Canare for flexibility and star-quad configuration...Right now I'm using Rudi's blueshift K-1, silver plated, and I like them better, but they cost the double or more....

 Of course they are not all what a cable can be, but which is??? We are still looking for it, and don't forget that cables depend on the system you have, not everybody can use silver fancy cables in their setups if they tend to be bright and your setup is also on the bright side...and so on....


----------



## AdamWill

eyeteeth: I thought of yet another way to make the point - if I'd bought the Belkin cables instead of Radio Shack for my speaker setup, the cable cost would've been $610 instead of $50, or to put it another way, rather more than the speakers they're connecting.


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *no1likesme* 
_i understand the point of replacement cables to a certain extent
 a cable's ONLY job is to transfer the signal from the source to the heaphone/speaker, NOTHING ELSE so how is it possible to have a cable that is worth $100+? is it made out of some magical ultra conductive material?
 copper cable does not cost anywhere near the prices you guys are paying
 gold, silver, and nickel (only materials i know in high end cables do not conduct electricity as well as copper

 placebo effect anyone?

 viva la ratshack!!_

 

Good point but then again is any headphone really worth $100 or $500 or $1000. I'm sure that many people would look at your Sr-80's and scream "Placebo Effect" as there is no way they could be worth $95 compared to the normal massumer phones, right?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sumone* 
_Your last comment, that's what I always thought. But in a lot of conversations on here, people seem to recommend another cable brand over a Radioshack, as if Radioshack is a bottom of the line brand. Radioshack is all I know!_

 

Radio Shack cables are fine. Before you go spending a lot of money on wires, make sure the rest of your system is top notch first. $500 spent on getting better speakers is going to make a lot more difference to the sound than $500 speaker wire connected to cheaper speakers.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Wodgy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_Good point but then again is any headphone really worth $100 or $500 or $1000. I'm sure that many people would look at your Sr-80's and scream "Placebo Effect" as there is no way they could be worth $95 compared to the normal massumer phones, right? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That's a bit of a straw man comparison. Most of us here have heard Grados versus department store cheapie phones and acknowledge there is a big, audible difference. Most of us here (except for a few "objectivists" speaking out of their a**) have also heard RS cables versus pricier cables, and the difference just isn't as large. There is a much bigger bang for your buck with better headphones. Same thing with speakers. You read online (not so much here, but more on Audioasylum and Audiocircle) about guys trying to tame +7db midrange peaks in their single driver crossoverless speakers by cable rolling with $700 cables. A lot of times no one has the courage to tell them they're nuts (cables make a small difference, but they will never act as a -7dB tone control). Several hundred dollars is almost always better invested in better speakers, at least in my experience. Cables only get you that last 1%, but they tend to cost a heck of a lot more than 1%, making them a relatively poor value.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_ Cables only get you that last 1%, but they tend to cost a heck of a lot more than 1%, making them a relatively poor value._

 

 This varies from person to person. I found that a change in cables in my system made a 7.3 percent difference, but the cost was only 6.2 percent more, making them a very good value, factoring in of course the current interest rate climate and various possible returns on my money.


----------



## Wodgy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_This varies from person to person. I found that a change in cables in my system made a 7.3 percent difference, but the cost was only 6.2 percent more, making them a very good value, factoring in of course the current interest rate climate and various possible returns on my money. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 









 With your calibre of gear, Radio Shack cables would be slumming it.


----------



## asmox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_Hmm... interesting that you can hear a difference in your headphone cable but not in IC's or speaker cables. Does that mean you cannot hear the difference in IC's when listening with your 650's or through your Denon receiver and speakers? Also are you only including your current source or others? Just curious 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I cannot catch any differences with my 650's or my speakers. I've tried RS cables, Zemo's cables (haven't seen him around for a while), AudioQuest cables, and several cables at a recent meet (Grover and grandenigma's, I believe).

 As far as sources, there have been several.. AV-710, EMU-0404, EMU-1212, Music Hall CD25, Dialogue II DAC, Ack! Dack!, various cheap CDP's..

 Whatever the case, there was just no discernable difference to me. 

 From everything I've read, you need some sort of super-resolving system for cables to make a noticeable difference.. and from the prices that I've seen named off for setups like this, they are not likely to be anywhere in my future.


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_That's a bit of a straw man comparison. Most of us here have heard Grados versus department store cheapie phones and acknowledge there is a big, audible difference. Most of us here (except for a few "objectivists" speaking out of their a**) have also heard RS cables versus pricier cables, and the difference just isn't as large. There is a much bigger bang for your buck with better headphones. Same thing with speakers. You read online (not so much here, but more on Audioasylum and Audiocircle) about guys trying to tame +7db midrange peaks in their single driver crossoverless speakers by cable rolling with $700 cables. A lot of times no one has the courage to tell them they're nuts (cables make a small difference, but they will never act as a -7dB tone control). Several hundred dollars is almost always better invested in better speakers, at least in my experience. Cables only get you that last 1%, but they tend to cost a heck of a lot more than 1%, making them a relatively poor value._

 


 A straw man? Not really. I am not trying to say that cables make more difference than transducers, or even that headphone cables make more difference. What I am reacting to are ridiculous assertions such as "cables only carry a signal therfore there cannot possibly be any difference". That is a statement born of ignorance not experience. How much difference any change in a system will make will be dependent upon the totality of the system and more importantly the interactions (or synergy or lack thereof if you will) among the components. When you take all those variables into account it is pretty easy to see that blanket statements about the differences imparted by components are doomed to be wrong from the start.

 The actual value of a cable is also not under debate. Value is an even more subjective criteria, What I consider a good value is probably a lot different than what you think a good value is and extremely different than what Bill Gates thinks is a good value. But, I have said it many times before, as have many others, get the rest of your system in order first then go for the last little bit which will be cables and other tweaks.

 Is that 1% or 10%? I am not so arrogant as to presume to tell someone how much of a difference a cable will make in their system. All I can do is relate my own experiences, but if you feel comfortable making that kind of assertion based upon what you perceive as scientific truth, then go for it. As a scientist I find those kind of "truths" distasteful.


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *asmox* 
_I cannot catch any differences with my 650's or my speakers. I've tried RS cables, Zemo's cables (haven't seen him around for a while), AudioQuest cables, and several cables at a recent meet (Grover and grandenigma's, I believe).

 As far as sources, there have been several.. AV-710, EMU-0404, EMU-1212, Music Hall CD25, Dialogue II DAC, Ack! Dack!, various cheap CDP's..

 Whatever the case, there was just no discernable difference to me. 

 From everything I've read, you need some sort of super-resolving system for cables to make a noticeable difference.. and from the prices that I've seen named off for setups like this, they are not likely to be anywhere in my future._

 

Fair enough. I was not questioning the fact that you heard no difference, I was just trying to put that statement in a context that was a little more meaningful to me.

 As for my own part, I never really heard much difference among components until I started to get a more stable system. Only when I had components in my system for months and years could I reliably (to me) discern differences among components and tweaks. I still do not hear differences among all the cables I have tried, but I have heard some differences.

 As far as the one I did not hear, I would never be some presumptious as to state categorically that they could not hear the difference. the most I could say is that in my system there was no audible difference that I could detect. I always try to keep an open mind about what others hear (or don't hear). 

 Anyway, enjoy the ride and above all, enjoy the music.


----------



## Wodgy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_Is that 1% or 10%? I am not so arrogant as to presume to tell someone how much of a difference a cable will make in their system. All I can do is relate my own experiences, but if you feel comfortable making that kind of assertion based upon what you perceive as scientific truth, then go for it. As a scientist I find those kind of "truths" distasteful._

 

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "you", but just to be clear, I'm not in the objectivist camp. You'll never find a post I've made talking about alleged scientific truths. (Except with respect to the things in this hobby that I believe are obvious, overt satire or intentional jokes, such as Machina Dynamica's products or the Quantum Clip.) I do hear differences between cables. However, I've never heard the huge, Earth-shattering differences many people allege, and I'm not afraid to state that opinion based on my listening experience. If it offends you when I state that I've never been bowled over by any of the cables I've heard, well, I don't know what to say. That's just my experience. I would rather spend money on speakers than cables because I've heard much more significant differences there. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## bigshot

I found that a new couch made 17.6% of an improvement in my listening enjoyment!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## moj0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I found that a new couch made 17.6% of an improvement in my listening enjoyment!

 See ya
 Steve_

 

gheheheheh

 True that!! : ))))


----------



## slwiser

One of the most honest evaluations made in a long time....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 But exactly what were the measurement tolerances?


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I found that a new couch made 17.6% of an improvement in my listening enjoyment!

 See ya
 Steve_


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *slwiser* 
_But exactly what were the measurement tolerances?_

 

My backside is + or - 4%, just like the election predictions on ABC.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_But then again with lower currents wouldn't IC's be more prone to outside influences such as EMI and RF?_

 

This was the only logical _assumption_ I could hold on to when I was recently impressed beyond my jaded expectations. I was shocked actually. (I can no longer type the name without breaking out in a rash such is my enthusiasm for marketing). I also wondered if maybe I had a huge amount of EMI and RF or other electrical contaminants compared to most others and that this better designed contaminant resistant IC was giving me a more dramatic result than I'd had with other ICs. And a more dramatic result than others with a cleaner environment would experience. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *no1likesme* 
_a cable's ONLY job is to transfer the signal from the source to the heaphone/speaker, NOTHING ELSE so how is it possible to have a cable that is worth $100+? is it made out of some magical ultra conductive material?
 copper cable does not cost anywhere near the prices you guys are paying
 gold, silver, and nickel (only materials i know in high end cables do not conduct electricity as well as copper

 placebo effect anyone?_

 

See above. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Blind test yourself with a friend's help.



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AdamWill* 
_eyeteeth: I thought of yet another way to make the point - if I'd bought the Belkin cables instead of Radio Shack for my speaker setup, the cable cost would've been $610 instead of $50, or to put it another way, rather more than the speakers they're connecting. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Huh? You need 600 ft of top of the line Belkin? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_You read online (not so much here, but more on Audioasylum and Audiocircle) about guys trying to tame +7db midrange peaks in their single driver crossoverless speakers by cable rolling with $700 cables. A lot of times no one has the courage to tell them they're nuts (cables make a small difference, but they will never act as a -7dB tone control)._

 

Maybe I should head over? 
 I seem to have the ability to gather the gumption to walk into a cosy cable circle jerk swinging a pool cue. 
 .....It's the return swings that hurt! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Surely they thought of room treatments?
 That's a thing I need to get some of but it looks to have a cable-type boost in pricing, expensive. A big wool blanket temporarily hung in a nasty room corner of mine helps. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Radio Shack cables are fine. Before you go spending a lot of money on wires, make sure the rest of your system is top notch first. $500 spent on getting better speakers is going to make a lot more difference to the sound than $500 speaker wire connected to cheaper speakers._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_Several hundred dollars is almost always better invested in better speakers, at least in my experience. Cables only get you that last 1%, but they tend to cost a heck of a lot more than 1%, making them a relatively poor value._

 

When I first got into better gear and started reading up I'd encounter rough general ratios for budget allocation which would suggest 10-20% for cabling. I thought that reasonable. 

 Just curious what do all you guys think of a percentage ratio for spending on cables? And if you like that idea, what's a percentage that you approve of? I don't think this works in a headphone rig as well as a speaker rig.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_Good point but then again is any headphone really worth $100 or $500 or $1000. I'm sure that many people would look at your Sr-80's and scream "Placebo Effect" as there is no way they could be worth $95 compared to the normal massumer phones, right? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

There is a lot more than a fancy material involved in heaphone production, same as speakers, and as wodgy said, those offer the most drastic changes in a system IMO, but there are also tradition, knowledge, geometry, and the drivers are mechanical devices, and the last step before your ears, they are more prone to introduce anomalies or to sound closer to a signal, depending on how the combination of all of the above, and more, take place. The cables are not the same case at all, it is just a conductive material, covered by a dielectric, that have to conduct electrons, from one point to another, trying to degrade the less posible the signal...once you reach certain level of performance on decent cables, the rest are just little tweaks to make it more to your liking, but IMO they will not make you to love or hate a system....


----------



## moj0

what would be a point of diminishing returns for a cable IC?

 edit: on another note, diminishing returns or not, i guess i'd spend more money on cables if i move on to higher levels($$$) of audio equipment


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *moj0* 
_what would be a point of diminishing returns for a cable IC?
_

 

 It would be the point at which the improvement in sound that you believe you hear is not worth the additional cost. Unfortunately, that is likely to be different for everybody, as it depends on what amount of improvement you hear or think you hear in your system, and what your financial circumstances are. The best way around this is to buy cables on 30 or 60 day return, and then see if the improvement (if there be any to your ears) is worth the $$. That takes the guessing out of it for the most part.


----------



## AdamWill

eyeteeth: oh, sorry, I was going off the $25/meter you quoted. The price on that link does look very reasonable.


----------



## asmox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_As far as the one I did not hear, I would never be some presumptious as to state categorically that they could not hear the difference. the most I could say is that in my system there was no audible difference that I could detect. I always try to keep an open mind about what others hear (or don't hear). _

 

I don't doubt that people hear differences, I just question whether the differences they hear are caused by the cable


----------



## slwiser

Tonight I got myself a mini to 2-way mini splitter from RS and this is awful. This sound was not listenable with lots of distortion. If I wanted only AM radio this would be OK, but not this is not what I expected.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *slwiser* 
_Tonight I got myself a mini to 2-way mini splitter from RS and this is awful. This sound was not listenable with lots of distortion. If I wanted only AM radio this would be OK, but not this is not what I expected._

 

Which is the part number on the box? Maybe you get a mono version??? for such a short distance that should not sound like that, maybe it is defective???


----------



## slwiser

The part number of the RS Y adapter that I got is 42-2570 GoldSeries.

 It was distorting badly on both phones that I used. Pairing the W1000s with the A900LTD.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *slwiser* 
_The part number of the RS Y adapter that I got is 42-2570 GoldSeries.

 It was distorting badly on both phones that I used. Parting the W1000s with the A900LTD._

 

It must be defective, maybe a bad soldering inside or a bad grounding etc....try to replace it, and try another one, I don't think that an splitter will distort so noticeably being so short....one thing is bad sound quality, colored sound, muffled sound, or whatever, and another completelly different is a distortion like that.....


----------



## sumone

It's just so hard for a noob like me to start from somewhere when something as basic as a cable can make a (significant?) difference. If a cable is highly priced, wouldn't that mean that all the conductive material in ALL components need to be on par with that conductive material? Even inside the chips & ICs? As far as I know, copper is used on PCBs...would this copper have to "special"? Or can regular-old-copper on a PCB be used with $500 super-duper-cable-2000?

 My setup is Computer -> Av-710 (using Mr. Wolfson) -> Radioshack male-on-both-ends 1/8" jack cable -> Radioshack 3 female 1/8" to 1 female 1/8" -> Klipsche ProMedia 2.1.

 or, when I use my Rio Karma or iAudio X5, headphone jack -> male-on-both-ends 1/8" jack cable -> Pocket Amp line-in & line out is my headphones (senn hd-280) cable.

 To this noob, it feels like there's no in-between with regards to semi-hi-fi (<$300-ish) & real hi-fi ($300+).


----------



## RnB180

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *no1likesme* 
_i understand the point of replacement cables to a certain extent
 a cable's ONLY job is to transfer the signal from the source to the heaphone/speaker, NOTHING ELSE so how is it possible to have a cable that is worth $100+? is it made out of some magical ultra conductive material?
 copper cable does not cost anywhere near the prices you guys are paying
 gold, silver, and nickel (only materials i know in high end cables do not conduct electricity as well as copper

 placebo effect anyone?

 viva la ratshack!!_

 

silver conducts better then copper. It also conducts better then copper once oxidation sets in. Gold does not conduct better as either but oxidizes slower. Each material will arguably sound different.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *slwiser* 
_It was distorting badly on both phones that I used. Parting the W1000s with the A900LTD._

 

Are you sure it's the splitter and not the amp having troubles with the 20-ohm load (40+40 in parallel)? Have you tried the splitter with just one headphone?
.


----------



## slwiser

I am fairly sure it is not the amp, since when I got it from Headamp directly from Justins hands after we were listening to it with a splitter out of a pair of cans much more difficult than the ATHs I am using now. We had a DT880 and a Grado hooked up to it without any problems. Yes it was also a problem with one can. This problem was not a hiss that could occur with low impedance cans but distortion on certain parts of the music.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Are you sure it's the splitter and not the amp having troubles with the 20-ohm load (40+40 in parallel)? Have you tried the splitter with just one headphone?
._


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "you", but just to be clear, I'm not in the objectivist camp. You'll never find a post I've made talking about alleged scientific truths. (Except with respect to the things in this hobby that I believe are obvious, overt satire or intentional jokes, such as Machina Dynamica's products or the Quantum Clip.) I do hear differences between cables. However, I've never heard the huge, Earth-shattering differences many people allege, and I'm not afraid to state that opinion based on my listening experience. If it offends you when I state that I've never been bowled over by any of the cables I've heard, well, I don't know what to say. That's just my experience. I would rather spend money on speakers than cables because I've heard much more significant differences there. Your mileage may vary._

 

Wasn't singling you out at all, it was the royal you. It does not offend me when you state that you were never bowled over by cable differences. That is your experience and it is valuable in that context. It is when someone takes it to the next level (which you did not, but others in this and other threads have) and states that since they heard no difference or little difference then those differences cannot exist and no one else could here them either.

 I also agree with you 100% as I just bought new speakers and headphones. I have heard differences among cables but I simply choose not to rate it as a percentage difference because I have found that it is too system dependent. Get your electronics and transducers to a level you like and then play around with different cables. But, don't be afraid to try cables (or electronics) you once dismissed when you change other components as the system has to work together.


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_There is a lot more than a fancy material involved in heaphone production, same as speakers, and as wodgy said, those offer the most drastic changes in a system IMO, but there are also tradition, knowledge, geometry, and the drivers are mechanical devices, and the last step before your ears, they are more prone to introduce anomalies or to sound closer to a signal, depending on how the combination of all of the above, and more, take place. The cables are not the same case at all, it is just a conductive material, covered by a dielectric, that have to conduct electrons, from one point to another, trying to degrade the less posible the signal...once you reach certain level of performance on decent cables, the rest are just little tweaks to make it more to your liking, but IMO they will not make you to love or hate a system...._

 


 I also agree with that. the point has to do with determining the relative value of a component as part of your system. Relative value is independent of what the component does and is a seperate issue. Just because someone does not see the value in a $100 (or $1000) interconnect does not mean that someone else may not see the value. The same goes for headphones, amps, sources, etc. Most people I know do not have 13 pairs of headphones and do not see the value of them. I use them for different purposes and I do see the value. Who's right? 

 At my point I am extremely happy with my source, preamp/hedphone amp, spekaer amp, speakers and headphones. The cables are where I can now experiment to get the sound even closer to my ideal. Therefore the value of those cables is a lot more than the cost of materials.

 I already love the sound of my system so I agree with you there. I do not expect the cables to change the basic character of the sound (nor do I want them too). But if a change in cables opens up the soundstage a bit in width and depth I am all for that. At this point that is the change that is of value to me. Tomorrow, who knows ( The new Cary preamp/headphone amp looks very interesting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 )

 As I have said previously you need to get the other components in order first before you worry about cables. I think most people here seem to agree with this.


----------



## slwiser

Quoting myself but to continue this tale:

 I returned the ones I discussed below and got a Monster Cable splitter and it works much better for me. This guy this morning knew quite a bit more about his inventory than the guy last night. I ask for these last night and he did not know anything about them.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *slwiser* 
_The part number of the RS Y adapter that I got is 42-2570 GoldSeries.

 It was distorting badly on both phones that I used. Pairing the W1000s with the A900LTD._


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_I also agree with that. the point has to do with determining the relative value of a component as part of your system. Relative value is independent of what the component does and is a seperate issue. Just because someone does not see the value in a $100 (or $1000) interconnect does not mean that someone else may not see the value. The same goes for headphones, amps, sources, etc. Most people I know do not have 13 pairs of headphones and do not see the value of them. I use them for different purposes and I do see the value. Who's right? 

 At my point I am extremely happy with my source, preamp/hedphone amp, spekaer amp, speakers and headphones. The cables are where I can now experiment to get the sound even closer to my ideal. Therefore the value of those cables is a lot more than the cost of materials.

 I already love the sound of my system so I agree with you there. I do not expect the cables to change the basic character of the sound (nor do I want them too). But if a change in cables opens up the soundstage a bit in width and depth I am all for that. At this point that is the change that is of value to me. Tomorrow, who knows ( The new Cary preamp/headphone amp looks very interesting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

 As I have said previously you need to get the other components in order first before you worry about cables. I think most people here seem to agree with this._

 

Not even if I become a millionaire tomorrow, I will spend more than a couple of hundreds maximum in any interconnect, to pay more IMO is a rip off, there no interconnect that the total cost of parts will be over that, and I know how to solder, so there is nothing innovative on that neither, and over this, the development and research most of the times is done by others, (on in the worst case, it is not even done, and simply they state they did it, but they never show the evidences of these extensive research? anyway who cares?) 

 There is nothing innovative in the last 25 years or more, in cable materials, and construction, most of the times they grab a fancy cable from any other manufacturer or order it OEM, and do the IC's and then sell it for ten times or more the value....

 I would like to see the records of some companies like belden, canare, cardas, etc... to see how things are under the table....

 Simply I like honest manufacturers, as for example, Blue Jeans, they state clearly, we grab this cable from this manufacturer, and this RCA, and do this and that, and their price is reasonable and fair....

 But those other voodoo manufacturers that state that they were doing research for more than 20 years trying to develop the last bit of this cable, made by a secret alloy of metals, with a secret geometry and with a secret isolator.....that is IMO a load of B$....period...

 BTW try to grab the Cable Comparator Disc from Wireworld Cable Technologies I know that some members do not like that method, as they will introduce other factors in the equation, that is true, but the same factors will be for all of the cables tested, and that CD compare 17 or more types of different cables via a recording through them, try to see if you can tell a difference between them, I simply can't, if someone want a copy just PM me, the CD was free from them, but they stopped sending it long time ago....


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Simply I like honest manufacturers, as for example, Blue Jeans, they state clearly, we grab this cable from this manufacturer, and this RCA, and do this and that, and their price is reasonable and fair....

 ..._

 

The problem is some people would consider these boutique cables that are not worth the price. Which is perfectly fine. You consider them good cables at a good price and that is fine. But someone else does not have the right to say that they are no better than cable xyz which costs half as much unless they have compared both cables. They also do not have the right to say that you are obviously deluded by the placebo effect and those cables cannot possibley sound better than xyz cable since cables are cables. 

 Bottom line you are entitled to your own opinoin and can express it as often as you wish. Youa are not entitled to state your opinoin is better for me than my own nor to denegrate me by invoking the placebo effect.

 I also find it amusing that the placebo effect is only invoked when someone hears a difference that someone disagrees with. The placebo effect is just as likely to be responsible for not hearing a difference. There is no implicit directionality in its effect.

 O.K. rant over


----------



## moj0

i'm buying my cables from a jewelry shop next time.


----------



## RnB180

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *moj0* 
_i'm buying my cables from a jewelry shop next time._

 


 ask them if they can build you platinum interconnects 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I wonder how White Gold would sound!


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *moj0* 
_i'm buying my cables from a jewelry shop next time._

 

The Tara Labs 'The Zero' only cost $12,800 a meter. Adamwill you do the math! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They help me get the most outta my multiple $100,000 audio system with Rockport gear.


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* 
_The Tara Labs 'The Zero' only cost $12,800 a meter. Adamwill you do the math! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They help me get the most outta my multiple $100,000 audio system with Rockport gear._

 

Seriously, if you had that kind of money 'The Zero' is a no brainer. Is the use of "no Brainer" here just asking for trouble?


----------



## MikeW

did you just qoute and respond to yourself in the 3rd person? weird


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* 
_Seriously, if you had that kind of money 'The Zero' is a no brainer. Is the use of "no Brainer" here just asking for trouble? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

*eyeteeth you're such a moron!* How can you possibly justify that? Pure excessive waste! Surely an also outrageous $3,000 cable would give you 97% of the $12,800 cable and you'd probably never even hear it most times!


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* 
_*eyeteeth you're such a moron!* How can you possibly justify that? Pure excessive waste! Surely an also outrageous $3,000 cable would give you 97% of the $12,800 cable and you'd probably never even hear it most times!_

 

Whatever. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *MikeW* 
_did you just qoute and respond to yourself in the 3rd person? weird 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

OMG you're right! I must be out of phase.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_someone else does not have the right to say that they are no better than cable xyz which costs half as much unless they have compared both cables._

 

I have never swum in the Gulf of Mexico. Do I have the right to say the water there is salty?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_They also do not have the right to say that you are obviously deluded by the placebo effect and those cables cannot possibley sound better than xyz cable since cables are cables._

 

And if someone hears voices in their head, do I have the right to say that the voices are a product of his imagination?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_ But someone else does not have the right to say that they are no better than cable xyz which costs half as much unless they have compared both cables. They also do not have the right to say that you are obviously deluded by the placebo effect and those cables cannot possibley sound better than xyz cable since cables are cables. 
_

 

 But they will say those things. Over and over and over and over . . . . And no matter how hard you try to convince them to just listen for themselves, they won't do it. Why? They would rather argue . . . and hit you over the head with really lame analogies and other arguments that basically imply you're a complete idiot if you don't agree with their view. Don't mean nothing though. The music is all that matters, and some of us know how to make it better. Who cares what the grinches think.


----------



## RnB180

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* 
_The Tara Labs 'The Zero' only cost $12,800 a meter. Adamwill you do the math! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They help me get the most outta my multiple $100,000 audio system with Rockport gear._

 


 I wanna see what $12,800 interconnects look like 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 link!


----------



## PsychoZX

Wow I think eyeteeth has lost it.


----------



## PsychoZX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RnB180* 
_I wanna see what $12,800 interconnects look like 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 link!_

 

http://www.taralabs.com/home.asp


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I have never swum in the Gulf of Mexico. Do I have the right to say the water there is salty?

 And if someone hears voices in their head, do I have the right to say that the voices are a product of his imagination?_

 

Oh man you can do better than that. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RnB180* 
_I wanna see what $12,800 interconnects look like 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 link!_

 






 Turn that little gold screw releasing the vaccum and blow the warranty. Like the dude who can buy it worries about those things.

http://tara-labs-info.com/zero-inter...ite-paper.html


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PsychoZX* 
_Wow I think eyeteeth has lost it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

And I have no intention of finding it again. What did I get out of having it?


----------



## AdamWill

But the important question is, do the $12,800 cables come with a $500 knob?


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I have never swum in the Gulf of Mexico. Do I have the right to say the water there is salty?_

 

Yes you do. But you have no basis to say it's saltier than the Gulf of California. Nor do you have the right to denigrate someone who says it is not very salty because they just went for a dip in the Persian Gulf.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_And if someone hears voices in their head, do I have the right to say that the voices are a product of his imagination?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Yes you do. But without meeting and talking to them you would not have realized that they were simply listening to their ipod. [Hypotheticals go both ways even if the original was lame and not very creative]

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_But they will say those things. Over and over and over and over . . . . And no matter how hard you try to convince them to just listen for themselves, they won't do it. Why? They would rather argue . . . and hit you over the head with really lame analogies and other arguments that basically imply you're a complete idiot if you don't agree with their view. Don't mean nothing though. The music is all that matters, and some of us know how to make it better. Who cares what the grinches think._

 

Don't worry PhilS. I deal with people like that all the time. It bothers me not the least as I know exactly what I am looking for in my system. It does bother me when a member here denigrates someone who has just discovered they are able to hear something they have never heard before and who is just starting their journey into this hobby. They ridicule them and then later bemoan the fact that the ranks of this hobby are ever shrinking. That kind of ignorance does bother me because it does not bode well for the future of this hobby.


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AdamWill* 
_But the important question is, do the $12,800 cables come with a $500 knob? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Not sure but a $6820 knob can be had.

 The Transparent Opus speaker cable is $30,750. Surely it offers more than the $9800 cables. Competitor's site.

 Oh that empty feeling of buyer's remorse!











 For the record I still think I'd be deceiving and short changing myself with $30 cables.


----------



## Wodgy

Eyeteeth, thanks for those pictures. Shocking, but not surprising.

 This is such a strange hobby. Those $30,750 speaker cables will taint the sound worse than any Radio Shack cable ever could (because they shift the speaker's crossover). Yet there will be legions of people ready to jump on the bandwagon badmouthing Radio Shack cables and praising stuff like this.

 The thing that I think is worth emphasizing to newbies is that there isn't anything wrong with Radio Shack cables. You can sometimes get minor performance enhancements by getting more expensive cables, but RS is more than adequate for a basic headphone or speaker rig. There is too much hype out there. Heck, Radio Shack's 12 gauge Megacable is even on Stereophile's Recommended Components list.


----------



## bigshot

It's not difficult to make a cable that sounds different. But different doesn't automatically mean that it's more conductive or less colored. The more difference from Radio Shack cables, the more chance that the cables are coloring the sound.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_It's not difficult to make a cable that sounds different. But different doesn't automatically mean that it's more conductive or less colored. The more difference from Radio Shack cables, the more chance that the cables are coloring the sound.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

The assumption there is that the radio shack cables represent true neutrality. Any data to back up that claim or just another brain fart?


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The more difference from Radio Shack cables, the more chance that the cables are coloring the sound._

 

Or maybe the more they are to the true reproduction, that will alway be an enigma for us, nobody knows how the recording was done, and how it is supposed to sound *for sure* We all have an idea of how it should be, but that idea must match after the one the people who recorded have about the same topic, mics, eqs and mix after, and not always really audiophile ones BTW....maybe we are trying to color the sound to what "how it is supposed to sound" or "our liking", but that doesn't mean we are on the right track neither....

 The ratshack are not a benchmark IMO, but they are pretty decent for the price, you can do better DIY though...

 The speaker cable, megacable, is very good indeed....


----------



## bigshot

The people who say "a cable is a cable" are the ones using regular old cables. The ones who say that "cables make a difference" are referring to experiences with boutique cables. Conductivity of cables at line level isn't rocket science. If a boutique cable sounds different than all the rest, odds are, *it's* the one coloring the sound.

 I read online about an article (I think it was in Stereo Review) on cables. The cables they tested all sounded the same, *except* for one brand. It was consistently described by the test subjects as sounding "warmer" than the others. When they ran a test of the conductivity, they found out that cable was the *least* conductive of the bunch. They concluded that the cable had been designed to deliberately color the sound, assuming that any perceived difference would be thought of as an "improvement" by the listener.

 Differences between cables are argued endlessly in home audio forums like this. But when it comes to professionals in the audio industry, there really isn't any question. Here's an interesting link...

http://www.audiocourses.com/esp/cables.htm

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Wodgy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The people who say "a cable is a cable" are the ones using regular old cables. The ones who say that "cables make a difference" are referring to experiences with boutique cables._

 

That's not necessarily true. Although I used some boutique cables when I started this hobby, I've since moved to various DIY cables of my own. The thing is, there _are_ subtle differences between the various cables I've built. I don't use any secret recipes, strange capacitors or resistors, etc., just conventional construction. There are still subtle differences. They're not Earth-shattering, in fact, they're quite minor, but they're there (to my ears anyway). Don't get me wrong, I still think the value equation for boutique cables is out of whack, there is a huge amount of snakeoil, and the badmouthing Radio Shack cables get is unmerited, but it is worthwhile spending time actually listening to cables before you make blanket statements that they make zero difference.


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The people who say "a cable is a cable" are the ones using regular old cables. The ones who say that "cables make a difference" are referring to experiences with boutique cables. Conductivity of cables at line level isn't rocket science. If a boutique cable sounds different than all the rest, odds are, *it's* the one coloring the sound.

 I read online about an article (I think it was in Stereo Review) on cables. The cables they tested all sounded the same, *except* for one brand. It was consistently described by the test subjects as sounding "warmer" than the others. When they ran a test of the conductivity, they found out that cable was the *least* conductive of the bunch. They concluded that the cable had been designed to deliberately color the sound, assuming that any perceived difference would be thought of as an "improvement" by the listener.

 Differences between cables are argued endlessly in home audio forums like this. But when it comes to professionals in the audio industry, there really isn't any question. Here's an interesting link...

http://www.audiocourses.com/esp/cables.htm

 See ya
 Steve_

 

An interesting link. However, if you had actually followed some of the recent cable discussions they were based upon people actually listening to different cables in their systems and providing their impressions of the differences. 

 No faith involved there, simply listeners sharing their comparisons. Having the numerous comparisons is important and valuable for providing areas of agreement and disagreement about the sonic impact of the cables. But listening impressions only get you so far you have to decide for yourself if the cable a sounds better than cable b in your system. If there is no difference then that is great and that is a fact you can use FOR YOUR SYSTEM. The generalizability of the result beyond your system (or even to someone else listening to your system) is not a fact.

 Blanket statements such as "All cables sound alike" are actually faith-based ststements since they are not based upon data of any kind. So unless you can back up your statements with concrete facts ( i.e what cables and in what system, not web links or vague allusions to past reviews) you are the one relying on your faith that cables cannot sound different.


----------



## philodox

Bravo buddy... I was going to post something very similar, but you saved me the effort.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_An interesting link. However, if you had actually followed some of the recent cable discussions they were based upon people actually listening to different cables in their systems and providing their impressions of the differences. 

 No faith involved there, simply listeners sharing their comparisons. Having the numerous comparisons is important and valuable for providing areas of agreement and disagreement about the sonic impact of the cables. But listening impressions only get you so far you have to decide for yourself if the cable a sounds better than cable b in your system. If there is no difference then that is great and that is a fact you can use FOR YOUR SYSTEM. The generalizability of the result beyond your system (or even to someone else listening to your system) is not a fact.

 Blanket statements such as "All cables sound alike" are actually faith-based ststements since they are not based upon data of any kind. So unless you can back up your statements with concrete facts ( i.e what cables and in what system, not web links or vague allusions to past reviews) you are the one relying on your faith that cables cannot sound different._

 

Well IMHO both of those statements are base on faith in not entirely at least in part, as the opposite is not a fact neither, and it is even harder to prove, till now nobody could be able to do it, so both are based on faith, and OTOH we had seen a lot of people fail miserably while trying to discern between two cables in a trully blind test....yes I know this (a very convenient for the believers) double blind test free forum.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 And please don't misunderstood me, I do belive to a certain degree in cables, but from certain degree on, the differences are harder to notice....if any.....


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Well IMHO both of those statements are base on faith in not entirely at least in part, as the opposite is not a fact neither, and it is even harder to prove, till now nobody could be able to do it, so both are based on faith, and OTOH we had seen a lot of people fail miserably while trying to discern between two cables in a trully blind test....yes I know this (a very convenient for the believers) double blind test free forum.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 And please don't misunderstood me, I do belive to a certain degree in cables, but from certain degree on, the differences are harder to notice....if any....._

 

Actually they are not both based upon faith. The cable differences in those previous threads were based upon observations. Now you may choose not to believe the validity of the observation, but that fact that you choose not to believe it does not make it based upon faith.

 However, making a blanket statement that cables all sound alike is based upon faith that the differences do not exist. The most you can say based upon any tests or observations that you performed is that no differences were observed in those tests. Statistical hypothesis tests are not globally generalizable though if the experiment is well designed and enough sepearte experiments are performed they may generalize to some level below global generalizability. This is basic hypothesis testing from introductory statistics (which I will be teaching next semester 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

 I do agree with you in general. I myself have not heard differences between every cable I have tried in my system and right now I am very interested in relatively inexpensive IC's such as Grover's and Oritek's and speaker cables such as the anti-cables. However, if the oppurtunity arises and I get to try some absurdly expensive cables I certainly will and will do so with what I hope is an open mind.


----------



## Factor

I don't subscribe to any of this cable religion, and I would argue that basing an opinion on physical science has nothing to do with faith, but to argue is irrelevant. There is one very good reason to never, ever buy Radio Shack cables: it requires you to do business with Radio Shack. Radio Shack is gross.

 If you're like me and you approach this stuff with the mind of a scientist, buy Hosa cables from Sweetwater. Huge cable variety, extremely cheap (cheaper than Rat Shack in some cases), generally sturdy build quality, free shipping, and they ship your cables with free candy. Couldn't ask for more.


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Factor* 
_I don't subscribe to any of this cable religion, and I would argue that basing an opinion on physical science has nothing to do with faith, but to argue is irrelevant. ...._

 

Basing an opinion on a theory can be faith based if the basis for the statement does not follow as a logical tenet of the theory. I use faith as defined below, which is just one definition:

 Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 Basing your belief on theory is not faith. But dismissing observations and generalizing beyond the scope of the theory involves faith. As a scientist and statistician I can state that theory is constantly misused. The proper relationship is that observation and experiment challenge theory not vice-versa. That is how science operates. When a theory becomes dogma and unchallengeable it ceases being science and crosses over to the metaphysical.

 Thanks for your suggestion for Hosa cables. There are many relatively inexpensive cables out there that do the job. However, they are all not equally good at conveying the signal in my system and so I cannot subscribe to the theory that all cables sound alike since in my system the observations are inconsistent with that theory.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Factor* 
_I don't subscribe to any of this cable religion . . . ._

 

 Me neither. My belief that some cables may make a difference in some systems is based on what I have heard. Religion has nothing to do with it. I suspect religion has nothing to do with it for most folks who believe cables make a difference. They base their views on actual experience, not a trust or hope based on what they have read somewhere or what others have told them. On the other hand, I don't subscribe to this "science religion" either, i.e., the notion that if science cannot prove something based on the current state of the knowledge, it does not exist. I like to use all my faculties and senses in making a decision on issues like this, as opposed to using only some to the exclusion of others.


----------



## Factor

Comparative observations mean absolutely nothing when you have some notion of what it is you're supposed to be observing beforehand. An observation that's meant to challenge a scientific theory is worthless when it doesn't follow the scientific method, and outlawing double-blind tests, by far the most accurate method of recording someone's unadulterated perceptions when it comes to something as subjective as listening, is not very scientific-method-like. That's a giant red flag for me. If someone tells me in so many words that they'd like to avoid accuracy, I probably won't take anything they say as accurate.

 Sometime after I get rich, I'll buy a bunch of esoteric cables and a bunch of cheapo cables and have someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of hi-fi gear give me a double-blind test. Although when you think about it, that doesn't work because I'll be expecting to hear no difference.

 The only way to do it, really, is single-blind: take one high-grade cable and one cheapo cable, take one person who _does_ believe in high-grade cable superiority, take another person to do repeated playbacks, sometimes swapping cables in between and sometimes using the same one multiple playbacks in a row, and see if the listener can pick which is which with any regularity.


----------



## bigshot

Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Intelligent Design isn't real science!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Intelligent Design isn't real science!

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Of Pandas and Retards


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Factor* 
_Comparative observations mean absolutely nothing when you have some notion of what it is you're supposed to be observing beforehand. An observation that's meant to challenge a scientific theory is worthless when it doesn't follow the scientific method, and outlawing double-blind tests, by far the most accurate method of recording someone's unadulterated perceptions when it comes to something as subjective as listening, is not very scientific-method-like. That's a giant red flag for me. If someone tells me in so many words that they'd like to avoid accuracy, I probably won't take anything they say as accurate.

 Sometime after I get rich, I'll buy a bunch of esoteric cables and a bunch of cheapo cables and have someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of hi-fi gear give me a double-blind test. Although when you think about it, that doesn't work because I'll be expecting to hear no difference.

 The only way to do it, really, is single-blind: take one high-grade cable and one cheapo cable, take one person who does believe in high-grade cable superiority, take another person to do repeated playbacks, sometimes swapping cables in between and sometimes using the same one multiple playbacks in a row, and see if the listener can pick which is which with any regularity._

 


 Exactly how may years have you been a practicing scientist. If it is any more than 0 then I would suggest you ask for your money back wherever you received your degrees because your understanding of how science operates seems to be based upon a cartoon version of science.

 I suggest you look up the difference between inductive and deductive science and then proceed on to the debate between hypothesis testing in the classical sense and multimodelling approachs. Then you can move on to Bayesian versus frequentist arguements.

 Bottom line is that if you think that science can only progress via a dbt then you certainly have a lot to learn. As far as cables go, you are free to believe what anyone says or not at your discretion. It's your choice. Just don't foist your beliefs on others under the guise of science.

 P.S. What about intelligent falling since gravity sucks


----------



## Wodgy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* 
_I suggest you look up the difference between inductive and deductive science and then proceed on to the debate between hypothesis testing in the classical sense and multimodelling approachs. Then you can move on to Bayesian versus frequentist arguements._

 

None of that is relevant.

 What Factor was trying to say is that science proceeds by empirical verification. Disallowing empirical verification is the same thing as making untestable assertions; neither approach is in the realm of science.

 It's fine to question whether science is even useful or appropriate for assessing audio gear, but it's inappropriate to start calling unverifiable subjective assessment "science".


----------



## bobeau

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Factor* 
_Comparative observations mean absolutely nothing when you have some notion of what it is you're supposed to be observing beforehand. ._

 

True story: I had a UR4, got a UR5 in the mail unsolicited. I wasn't reading this forum at the time, had not a clue about it. After listening for an hour or so I sent a message to Grover with "...off the bat it sounds fuller and more 'polite', perhaps a bit less sparkle in the treble." Later that day when checking the forum I saw a big thread where that was the predominant view of the new cable.


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_None of that is relevant.

 What Factor was trying to say is that science proceeds by empirical verification. Disallowing empirical verification is the same thing as making untestable assertions; neither approach is in the realm of science.

 It's fine to question whether science is even useful or appropriate for assessing audio gear, but it's inappropriate to start calling unverifiable subjective assessment "science"._

 


 Well if that is what factor was trying to say, perhaps he should have actually said it. What he actually said was promulgating the false notion that only dbt's are scientific. Depending upon the hypothesis being tested and the actual implementation of a single-blind or double-blind procedure, there is nothing inherently better about any type of experimental design the design is a function of the hypothesis to be tested.

 No one is disallowing empirical verification. the point is that no experimental design, including dbt's ensures empirical verification. For example, if I could indeed detect a difference 100% of the time then it is also easy for me to make sure of a result of no siginificant difference because traditional hypothesis testing is set-up based upon controlling alpha, the type I error rate, not beta, the type II error rate. You then need to replicate the experiment with other listeners who may or may not alsso cheat. 

 My comments about other types of approaches to science is relevant because it is all too common on these and other forums to misrepresent anything other than a dbt as being unscientific. An observation can range from hearing a difference to measuring the a difference. Both are merely observations and both can be validly used in the context of a hypothesis test. You may put more credence in one versus the other or have other reasons to dismiss them, but neither is inherently more scientific than the other. Do not confuse the ability to measure something as the criteria for making a scientific test. The actual way something is measured has implications for the generalization of the hypothesis test (assuming that previous observations have led us to conclude that the type of measurement is valid for our hypothesis test).

 I realize that most people only get exposed to the scientific method in general science courses, but do not assume that you are being taught the full range of how science actually operates in those courses. They are a simplification of the process, at best.

 Oh. and BTW science actually proceeds by empirical falsification not empirical verification and if you don't realize that is much more than a semantic difference then yourscientific credibility is seriously in doubt.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bobeau* 
_True story: I had a UR4, got a UR5 in the mail unsolicited. I wasn't reading this forum at the time, had not a clue about it. After listening for an hour or so I sent a message to Grover with "...off the bat it sounds fuller and more 'polite', perhaps a bit less sparkle in the treble." Later that day when checking the forum I saw a big thread where that was the predominant view of the new cable._

 

Polite? Can a piece of audio equipment sound rude? I guess if you play some gangsta rap it can...

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bobeau

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Polite? Can a piece of audio equipment sound rude? I guess if you play some gangsta rap it can...

 See ya
 Steve_

 

It was a 'polite' way of saying it has less PrAT. 

 I discerned a difference. The difference fit right alongside other's observations. What else needs to be said?

 Look I'm a skeptic myself, and after this little observation above I became a half skeptic. Admittedly the differences are subtle, on the order of tube swapping to these ears. But the Grovers cost less than 5% of my entire system.


----------



## bigshot

PrAT?

 It's good to discern a difference. But it would help if you used terms that described what the difference was.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bobeau

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_PrAT?

 It's good to discern a difference. But it would help if you used terms that described what the difference was.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I did. It's a common term. PRaT = Pace, Rhythm, and Timing. Essentially if it lacks, the listening experience is less exciting. More 'polite'.


----------



## bigshot

No wonder I didn't understand... You're talking about the music, not the reproduction of it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bobeau

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_No wonder I didn't understand... You're talking about the music, not the reproduction of it.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

No, once again this is my evaluation of comparing these cables. I found the experience of listening with the UR4 more exciting with the same music. PRaT may be an 'audiofool' term to some (I first heard it when a fellow musician used it to explain a band playing tight - strong rhythm section, guitarist playing in the pocket, vocalist on key) but it makes sense to me in quantifying what I hear in this case. Speed, more clarity, less congestion, decay, etc - it sounds tighter. Whether or not you like the way I attempt to convey this please appreciate that I do hear a distinct difference between two cables I became intimately familiar within a system I'm intimitately familiar playing music I'm intimately familiar with.


----------



## euclid

its as simple as putting your money where your mouth is.

 buy a few sets of competing cables, give each a fair amount of time in your system and after all is said and done (if you still cant hear a difference) tell everyone else here how stupid we are for wasting our time... 

 then we'll let you know how sorry we feel for your broken ears. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 the main argument being placebo is powerfull enough to make us hear differences in cables that actually dont exist, isnt it just as likely placebo could make you ignore differences that actually do exist? maybe youre skeptic haters by nature, dont confuse that thinking with objective science. in this case objectivity is ignoring all the trolling "scientists" on this forum and listening for yourself.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bobeau* 
_No, once again this is my evaluation of comparing these cables. I found the experience of listening with the UR4 more exciting with the same music. PRaT may be an 'audiofool' term to some (I first heard it when a fellow musician used it to explain a band playing tight - strong rhythm section, guitarist playing in the pocket, vocalist on key) but it makes sense to me in quantifying what I hear in this case._

 

It may make sense to you, but it doesn't do a good job of describing what you are hearing to anyone else. "Excitement" comes from performance. Your musician friend used the term correctly to describe music making. Cables don't make the music... they carry a signal from one component to another. Cables don't change the rhythm in a song or make the tempo peppier. They don't add excitement or make you tap your foot and hum along. Those are all things you should credit to the performers, not the equipment.

 If you want to describe recorded sound, describe recorded sound... talk about frequency response, dynamics, phase cancellation, transient smearing, clipping, signal to noise or harmonic distortion. Then I'll know what you're talking about. If you use glittering generalities like "excitement" or "pace" to describe sound, it may sound good to you, but you really aren't communicating anything concrete.

 The reason people conclude that you are hearing a placebo effect is because you aren't describing what you hear in concrete terms. You're describing *feelings* not sounds. If you can describe what you hear well, then you can come up with a theory as to why it sounds that way and be able to test it to see if your theory is right.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bobeau

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_It may make sense to you, but it doesn't do a good job of describing what you are hearing to anyone else._

 

PRaT is a commonly used term on this site when evaluating equipment. Do a search. I'm within the Head-fi lexicon bounds. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_"Excitement" comes from performance...They don't add excitement or make you tap your foot and hum along. Those are all things you should credit to the performers, not the equipment._

 

So you say there is no difference in 'excitement' between listening to a particular piece of music on an Ipod w/ Ipod buds vs. a full out system like an Orpheus. Is that your claim? 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If you want to describe recorded sound, describe recorded sound... talk about frequency response, dynamics, phase cancellation, transient smearing, clipping, signal to noise or harmonic distortion._

 

Phase cancellation, signal to noise... you listen to a system and talk to people in these terms? Really? Don't see people speak like this in the meet impressions section. Not in relation to an actual _listening_ experience. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If you can describe what you hear well, then you can come up with a theory as to why it sounds that way and be able to test it to see if your theory is right.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I don't have a theory. I have an observation. An observation which gels with comments others made with a particular cable.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bobeau* 
_Phase cancellation, signal to noise... you listen to a system and talk to people in these terms? Really? Don't see people speak like this in the meet impressions section. Not in relation to an actual _listening_ experience._

 

Yeah, that's because a lot of technophobic luddites will immediately go for the throat if you talk about anything remotely like SCIENCE! Honestly, talking about measurable differences makes me feel like an atheist in a particularly zealous, fringe church.


----------



## bobeau

Happy news to report, courtesy of godaddy.com - 

 This domain name IS AVAILABLE: 
 SKEPTIC-FI.COM $8.95*/yr 







 FWIW Mr. Morphsci is a 49 yo geneticist. According to his profile - I mean I haven't tracked him down and followed to work to prove it.


----------



## AlanY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bobeau* 
_PRaT is a commonly used term on this site when evaluating equipment. Do a search. I'm within the Head-fi lexicon bounds._

 

Just my humble opinion, but PRaT is one of the worst audiophile terms because it's so vague. Everyone has a slightly different interpretation of what PRaT refers to. It's not like bright/dark, rolled off, etc., where it's pretty easy to tell what a person means.

 I'm not sure I agree with you about your definition of "polite" either. Usually I interpret that as the opposite of "aggressive" (which usually implies somewhat forward upper mids/highs). I would have never thought to think of "polite" as the opposite of PRaT. The Stereophile audio glossary seems to agree with me here. (They define "polite" as "laid-back.")


----------



## JaZZ

PRaT is a term I have troubles with, too. It can be caused by so many different components and rather describes the feelings while listening than the perceived sonic characteristic. On the other hand I've experienced myself and still do how hard it is to describe the sonic characteristics in the case of cables: It's not just about dark and bright, smooth and rough, transparent and intransparent, etc. You're virtually doomed to typical «audiophile» terms if you want to portray exactly what you hear. 

 In any event, there's no need to respect criticisms who want to depreciate your opinion in the first instance and aren't really interested in the subject. 
.


----------



## Trogdor

Bottom line (as many EE's will state), with all the REST of your equipment, i.e. amps, headphones, and sources, there are variations in the equipment that can be measured that directly correlate to the sonic signature of the equipment (I make no pretense here of what sounds better).

 With cables, there is nothing really quantifiable (in the real sense of the word) that describes people's ongoing perception that there are big differences in cables. Frankly, it is a faith based argument.

 If you take two pair of cables and measure the input signal and the output signals and compare, you will find no difference (its been done a THOUSAND times by various critics of the cable industry). None! If you ask any one of those high-end cable companies why they believe their cables are the best, they will ALL tell you its based on experience and what sounds good to them. You will NOT get any scientific reason of why their cables are different from anyone elses (they can't for legal reasons). 

 What I look for in a cable is quality construction, proper shielding, and high-end connectors. That's it. There are various cable makers (my fav is Moon Audio) that do an impeccable job of providing these services for reasonable prices.

 Please don't get me started on power chords...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Trogdor* 
_Bottom line (as many EE's will state), with all the REST of your equipment, i.e. amps, headphones, and sources, there are variations in the equipment that can be measured that directly correlate to the sonic signature of the equipment..._

 

Not exactly. You won't find a clear correlation between the tiny measurement deviations in _amps_ (almost linear frequency response 20 Hz to 20 kHz; minimal harmonic distortion almost disappearing in the noise floor...) and the clear sonic differences. You could also count digital source devices in. Only sound transducers with their obvious differences offer passably reproduceable correlations between measurements and sonic results.


  Quote:


 _...With cables, there is nothing really quantifiable (in the real sense of the word) that describes people's ongoing perception that there are big differences in cables. Frankly, it is a faith based argument._ 
 

Not exactly. It's an experience/perception-based argument. 


  Quote:


 _If you take two pair of cables and measure the input signal and the output signals and compare, you will find no difference (its been done a THOUSAND times by various critics of the cable industry). None!_ 
 

That's not exactly true. You can measure _huge_ (in electrical terms) parameter differences -- they're just not clearly attributable to sonic characteristics, at least not with all criteria. 


  Quote:


 _If you ask any one of those high-end cable companies why they believe their cables are the best, they will ALL tell you its based on experience and what sounds good to them. You will NOT get any scientific reason of why their cables are different from anyone elses..._ 
 

That's the reason why this dispute goes on and there are still a number of skeptics left -- those who primarily listen with data sheets in mind. 


  Quote:


 _Please don't get me started on power chords... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_ 
 

Isn't this a term from the heavy-metal scene? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## Wodgy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Trogdor* 
_Bottom line (as many EE's will state), with all the REST of your equipment, i.e. amps, headphones, and sources, there are variations in the equipment that can be measured
 ...
 With cables, there is nothing really quantifiable (in the real sense of the word) that describes people's ongoing perception that there are big differences in cables. Frankly, it is a faith based argument.
 ...
 If you take two pair of cables and measure the input signal and the output signals and compare, you will find no difference (its been done a THOUSAND times by various critics of the cable industry). None!_

 

That's just not true. Part of the reason many "objectivists" get tiresome is because they make broad statements like this without any support. You're just stating faith-based beliefs in much the same way that the "subjectivists" do.

 It's not hard to see that cables can have a measurable impact on an audio signal by simply looking at real-world cable measurements. Here is the measured frequency response for 100m of Canare Star Quad, for example:




http://www.canare.com/images/L-4E_Freq2.jpg

 "You will find no difference", huh? 

 Certainly, measurable differences will _always_ exist for long lengths of cable. The only relevant question is: at what point do these differences become inaudible? 500m? 100m? 50m? 3m? 1cm? Where is the threshold? Some threshold of inaudibility must exist. However, we don't get any closer to determining where such a threshold might be by having people just beat the drum like you're doing, denying any possible threshold. That's not very scientific. (The subjectivists aren't very scientific either, don't get me wrong.)


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Trogdor* 
_Bottom line (as many EE's will state), with all the REST of your equipment, i.e. amps, headphones, and sources, there are variations in the equipment that can be measured that directly correlate to the sonic signature of the equipment (I make no pretense here of what sounds better).

 With cables, there is nothing really quantifiable (in the real sense of the word) that describes people's ongoing perception that there are big differences in cables. Frankly, it is a faith based argument.

 If you take two pair of cables and measure the input signal and the output signals and compare, you will find no difference (its been done a THOUSAND times by various critics of the cable industry). None! If you ask any one of those high-end cable companies why they believe their cables are the best, they will ALL tell you its based on experience and what sounds good to them. You will NOT get any scientific reason of why their cables are different from anyone elses (they can't for legal reasons)._

 

*Not correct*........not sure where you get your info, but a quick look at Analysis Plus cable tests/measurements show exactly the measurable differences you say do not exist. This company was started to do scientific measurements and analysis of cable designs for other companies in the audio industry, they took thier knowledge of cable design to make thier own product.

http://www.analysis-plus.com/Pages/thedesign.htm


----------



## Trogdor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Not exactly. You won't find a clear correlation between the tiny measurement deviations in amps (almost linear frequency response 20 Hz to 20 kHz; minimal harmonic distortion almost disappearing in the noise floor...) and the clear sonic differences. You could also count digital source devices in. Only sound transducers with their obvious differences offer passably reproduceable correlations between measurements and sonic results._

 

Your moving the argument into the slight differences between two circuits and the sonic nuiances that occur between them (given the same set of measureable characteristics). That's not my point at all. There are measureable variables to any circuit as well as the parts used, design, etc. Taken as a whole, you can determine roll off distortion, frequency response, rise time, etc. I'm not saying that you can tell what amp is "better" than the other, but your sure as hell can measure differences in the amp and the effect they have on the output (good and bad). Moreover, if I change a variable in this setup, I can characterize the change in sonic signature and even prove it in a A/B test. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *=JaZZ* 
_Not exactly. It's an experience/perception-based argument. _

 

Right, faith. You (in general, not you JaZZ. not trying to pick on you!), can't prove it, you can't probably even A/B two cables, you can't even prove me to that the differnce that you hear will be the same someone else hear, i.e. I have to take your word for it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_That's not exactly true. You can measure huge (in electrical terms) parameter differences -- they're just not clearly attributable to sonic characteristics, at least not with all criteria. _

 

Your proving my point. And those parameter differences will be there in every single cable (even identical ones from the same manufacture) but as you said, there is no correleation they have anything to do with any audible differences.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_That's the reason why this dispute goes on and there are still a number of skeptics left -- those who primarily listen with data sheets in mind. _

 

You got it. Mysticism pushes us backwards not forwards.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Isn't this a term from the heavy-metal scene? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



._

 

Indeed. Good catch.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_Certainly, measurable differences will always exist for long lengths of cable. The only relevant question is: at what point do these differences become inaudible? _

 

Stop right here. Your taking my point and twisting it. Clearly, there are some physical limitations to an IC based on its construction and length, but that's obvious.

 Wodgy: Take two cables, 3m long. Measure the input and output signals of the same source reference. Show me the difference between the input and output of each cable and better yet, prove me to you can hear the difference.

 As many EE's have stated to me time and time again, cables at the end of the day, really don't matter that much. Proper construction and shielding is key as well as good quality connectors.

 Until someone can prove to me why cable X is better than cable Y because of the following characterics and that these characteristics are clearly audible (which you can also measure), I don't believe you (and neither does overwhelming engineering community out there).

 But heck, if you are more comfortable with one cable over another, more power to ya!


----------



## Wodgy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Trogdor* 
_Stop right here. Your taking my point and twisting it. Clearly, there are some physical limitations to an IC based on its construction and length, but that's obvious.

 Wodgy: Take two cables, 3m long. Measure the input and output signals of the same source reference. Show me the difference between the input and output of each cable and better yet, prove me to you can hear the difference._

 






 Go back and read your post. I'm not twisting what you said at all. What I was doing was a thought-experiment to show that the following contention was not accurate:
_"If you take two pair of cables and measure the input signal and the output signals and compare, you will find no difference (its been done a THOUSAND times by various critics of the cable industry). None!"_

 The measurable difference is not "None!" With reference to the inductive roll-off illustrated in my post, the difference in measurements between the pictured 100m cable and a 1m interconnect will be roughly -40dB. As you probably know, that's well within the measurement tolerance of a piece of lab gear.

 I'm under no obligation to "prove ... to you [that I] can hear the difference" because I'm not the one making categorical assertions under the guise of "science". You are. You've made up your mind at the outset that the differences measurable on a piece of test equipment aren't audible, but you have no evidence for this position. You've just taken it as an axiomatic article of faith and are trying to beat your belief over people's heads.

 The only "scientific" way to know if differences between cables are audible is through empirical testing.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bobeau* 
_So you say there is no difference in 'excitement' between listening to a particular piece of music on an Ipod w/ Ipod buds vs. a full out system like an Orpheus. Is that your claim?_

 

I have 78s that I play with a steel needle on my Victrola that are exciting. Excitement is a response in the listener to the quality and expressiveness of the peformance. It has nothing to do with the fidelity of the reproduction.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bobeau* 
_Phase cancellation, signal to noise... you listen to a system and talk to people in these terms? Really?_

 

uh... yeah. Those are terms that should be familiar to most hifi nuts.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bobeau* 
_I don't have a theory. I have an observation._

 

An observation without any sort of thought about why it's the way it is, is just an anecdote.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_"You will find no difference", huh?_

 

That chart looks pretty doggone flat from 20 to 20 to me. Is there something I'm missing?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_An observation without any sort of thought about why it's the way it is, is just an anecdote.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

 No, it's not an anecdote. It is an observation, that has some probative, evidentiary value regarding the phenomenon, regardless of whether one engages is some analysis of the reasons why they observed what they did. It may not be persuasive evidence to you or others (or even to me), but to say it is "an anecdote" is absurd.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Factor* 
_Comparative observations mean absolutely nothing when you have some notion of what it is you're supposed to be observing beforehand._

 

Another completely absurd statement. The may not amount to scientific "proof," or it may not be as persuasive to some or many as other evidence, but to say such observations are of no value whatsover is silly. How do you function in the real world if you don't value any comparative observation you make any time you have some "notion" of what it is you're supposed to be observing beforehand? 

 On other hand, maybe that's the heart of the problem. Some of us listen to music for what it sounds like and the enjoyment it gives us, and we trust our senses while recognizing that we may not be perfect scientific instruments, while others don't seem to enjoy the music unless they can analyze and undertand at the most fundamental level why it is they like it and/or what it looks like on a piece of test equipment. To each his own, I guess.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Trogdor* 
_
 Right, faith. You (in general, not you JaZZ. not trying to pick on you!), can't prove it, you can't probably even A/B two cables, you can't even prove me to that the differnce that you hear will be the same someone else hear, i.e. I have to take your word for it.
_

 

 No, you don't have to take his word for it. You can listen for yourself. Once you do, it will no longer be a matter of "faith" for you, as you will have your own firsthand experience to support your "belief," regardles of whether the belief you have based on the experience is that there is a difference or there isn't one.


----------



## Trogdor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_





 Go back and read your post. I'm not twisting what you said at all. What I was doing was a thought-experiment to show that the following contention was not accurate:
"If you take two pair of cables and measure the input signal and the output signals and compare, you will find no difference (its been done a THOUSAND times by various critics of the cable industry). None!"_

 

Actually you didn't. In your case your two 100m cables will exhibit the same rolloff. What you did do is apply my logic in its absolute form. Congrats. 

 My contention remains the same Wodgy:

 If you take two pairs of cables, measure the reference signal and push that signal through each cable and measure their outputs, you will find within certain critieria (in my example I further stated 3m's of length and I will now add of reasonable quality), the outputs will be the same. Furthermore, the differences that some will cite will not have any correlation whatsoever to any audible difference. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_I'm under no obligation to "prove ... to you [that I] can hear the difference" because I'm not the one making categorical assertions under the guise of "science". You are._

 

If you can please cite me some science that will explain why one cable sounds different than another and back that up with some A/B comparos, I'll start believing you.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_You've made up your mind at the outset that the differences measurable on a piece of test equipment aren't audible, but you have no evidence for this position. You've just taken it as an axiomatic article of faith and are trying to beat your belief over people's heads._

 

I'm not trying to beat my belief over people's heads nor am I going to make this a dissertation on cables. If you can hear differences, again, more power to ya.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_The only "scientific" way to know if differences between cables are audible is through empirical testing._

 

Wow! Well if you can reliable A/B test cables I guess so. Betcha you can't?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Trogdor* 
_Your moving the argument into the slight differences between two circuits and the sonic nuances that occur between them (given the same set of measurable characteristics). That's not my point at all. There are measureable variables to any circuit as well as the parts used, design, etc. Taken as a whole, you can determine roll off distortion, frequency response, rise time, etc. I'm not saying that you can tell what amp is "better" than the other, but you sure as hell can measure differences in the amp and the effect they have on the output (good and bad)._

 

No, you can't. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Imagine distortions in the range of 0.01 to 0.05%, with different spectra, but all in all not much difference in quantity. And imagine 20-20,000 Hz with less than 0.3 dB deviation from a straight line. That's the real world of (at least solid-state) amplifiers. Now you really think you can tell which amp sounds how? The one with 0.15 dB drop-off at 20 kHz will sound brighter and livelier and the one with 0.25 dB drop-off more laid-back? That's not how it works. In fact there's about the same likelihood that it's the other way round. The same applies to distortion: An amp with 0.05% THD can sound cleaner and more transparent than one with 0.01%. Add to this that they will behave differently at different frequencies and different levels (that's how the different spectra come into play). You can't measure the sonic characteristic. There may be a certain correlation between organic sound and a harmonic drop-off with higher-order harmonics, though. 


  Quote:


 _Moreover, if I change a variable in this setup, I can characterize the change in sonic signature and even prove it in a A/B test._ 
 

Certainly not within the frame of 0-0.3 dB drop-off and 0.005-0.05% harmonic distortion. Or give me an example of amps whose sonic signature you could identify by means of measurements! 


  Quote:


 _Right, faith. You (in general, not you JaZZ. not trying to pick on you!), can't prove it, you can't probably even A/B two cables, you can't even prove me to that the difference that you hear will be the same someone else hear, i.e. I have to take your word for it._ 
 

Indeed. Like with every other component I or someone else review(s). It's not restricted to cables. 


  Quote:


 _Your proving my point. And those parameter differences will be there in every single cable (even identical ones from the same manufacture)..._ 
 

No, that's not the case, except for small tolerances. The measuring differences are the result of different designs.


  Quote:


 _...but as you said, there is no correleation they have anything to do with any audible differences._ 
 

Yes, but that wasn't your point. Moreover the same applies to almost every other audio component except for sound transducers (see above!). And BTW, I said that some cable parameters absolutely correlate with the sonic impressions: With interconnects, a higher capacitance (which doesn't have to be excessive -- just relative!) normally will result in a smoother treble presentation. I know what I'm talking about, I build cables myself.


  Quote:


 _You got it. Mysticism pushes us backwards not forwards._ 
 

Where's the mysticism you're talking about? I don't think there's anything supernatural involved or a tendency to esoterism with people who refuse to deny the differences they hear in cables. 
.


----------



## Wodgy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Trogdor* 
_If you take two pairs of cables, measure the reference signal and push that signal through each cable and measure their outputs, you will find within certain critieria (in my example I further stated 3m's of length and I will now add of reasonable quality), the outputs will be the same._

 

Why do you keep repeating this? The outputs will not be the same. The rolloff in the example cable I gave will be much shallower, but it will still be measurable.

 If you want to believe things like this aren't measurable, I don't know what to say. You're just ignoring the physics.

 The only question is whether these measurements correlate to audible differences. You cannot make this determination by just looking at the scope. Empirical testing involving actual human listeners is necessary.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_No, it's not an anecdote. It is an observation, that has some probative, evidentiary value regarding the phenomenon, regardless of whether one engages is some analysis of the reasons why they observed what they did. It may not be persuasive evidence to you or others (or even to me), but to say it is "an anecdote" is absurd._

 

When "Son of Sam" observed that his neighbor's dog was telling him to kill people, was that an observation with some probative, evidentiary value regarding the phenomenon, or was it a subjective anecdote?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_On other hand, maybe that's the heart of the problem. Some of us listen to music for what it sounds like and the enjoyment it gives us, and we trust our senses while recognizing that we may not be perfect scientific instruments, while others don't seem to enjoy the music unless they can analyze and undertand at the most fundamental level why it is they like it and/or what it looks like on a piece of test equipment. To each his own, I guess. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

We aren't talking about music. We're talking about sound reproduction. You're making the same mistake the guy with the prat made. I'm happy to talk about music, but that's a different subject.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Imagine distortions in the range of 0.01 to 0.05%, with different spectra, but all in all not much difference in quantity. And imagine 20-20,000 Hz with less than 0.3 dB deviation from a straight line. That's the real world of (at least solid-state) amplifiers. Now you really think you can tell which amp sounds how? The one with 0.15 dB drop-off at 20 kHz will sound brighter and livelier and the one with 0.25 dB drop-off more laid-back? That's not how it works. In fact there's about the same likelihood that it's the other way round. The same applies to distortion: An amp with 0.05% THD can sound cleaner and more transparent than one with 0.01%._

 

Five bucks says they both sound the same.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* 
_The only question is whether these measurements correlate to audible differences. You cannot make this determination by just looking at the scope. Empirical testing involving actual human listeners is necessary._

 

I can look at the scope and see if it makes a difference to bats. That's a lot easier than trying to put the tiny little blindfolds on them for the DBTs.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Maybe if people didn't immediately take the "I'm right, you're wrong" stance we might actually get somewhere with these discussions? It's possible I suppose, but not very likely that we would be able to keep it up for long.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_When "Son of Sam" observed that his neighbor's dog was telling him to kill people, was that an observation with some probative, evidentiary value regarding the phenomenon, or was it a subjective anecdote?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

 It's an observation with some probative, evidentiary value regarding the phenomenon that is completely refuted by other evidence such that we know that the observation was completely incorrect and the result of some psychosis. It is _not _an anecdote.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_We aren't talking about music. We're talking about sound reproduction. 

 See ya
 Steve_

 

 You're playing your semantic games again. You always try to define away the weaknesses or flaws in your position (not that there are not weaknesses or flaws on both sides).


----------



## bigshot

I have to define terms because people use imprecise language to dance around having to actually say something concrete, or because they just don't know the proper words to say what they're trying to say. My definitions make no difference to the former, and they assist the latter.

 These two concepts shouldn't be that controversial...

 Music making is the organization of sounds and expression through sound. It is what it is, whether it's recorded in SACD or wax cylinder. Qualities of music making are generally described as emotions and technique of performance style... brisk tempi, flexible rubato, sinewy expressiveness, angry staccato sharpness, veiled transparency, crispness of attack, romantic fervor, etc.

 Music reproduction is the more or less faithful duplication of sound. It has nothing to do with the way the sound is organized or the emotional expressiveness of it. It's a continuum of accuracy (or lack of it) on a variety of aspects... volume, tone (ie: frequency), dynamics, transients, distortion, etc. You can call sound reproduction dull (meaning slurred transients and muffled high frequencies) or harsh (attentuated upper mids) or grainy (distortion), or smooth (even response with rounded off transients), etc.

 These are two completely different things. Crediting your cables for presenting an emotional impact in music is like complementing the paperboy for the quality of the writing on the editorial page.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I have to define terms because people use imprecise language to dance around having to actually say something concrete, or because they just don't know the proper words to say what they're trying to say. My definitions make no difference to the former, and they assist the latter.

 These two concepts shouldn't be that controversial...

 Music making is the organization of sounds and expression through sound. It is what it is, whether it's recorded in SACD or wax cylinder. Qualities of music making are generally described as emotions and technique of performance style... brisk tempi, flexible rubato, sinewy expressiveness, angry staccato sharpness, veiled transparency, crispness of attack, romantic fervor, etc.

 Music reproduction is the more or less faithful duplication of sound. It has nothing to do with the way the sound is organized or the emotional expressiveness of it. It's a continuum of accuracy (or lack of it) on a variety of aspects... volume, tone (ie: frequency), dynamics, transients, distortion, etc. You can call sound reproduction dull (meaning slurred transients and muffled high frequencies) or harsh (attentuated upper mids) or grainy (distortion), or smooth (even response with rounded off transients), etc.

 These are two completely different things. Crediting your cables for presenting an emotional impact in music is like complementing the paperboy for the quality of the writing on the editorial page._

 


 Bravo, champ. Bravo.

 Except his comeback would be, within your own analogy, that the paperboy stays up late and draws pictures in each paper, adding that special touch that makes the enjoyment of the reader (or lack thereof) enhanced.

 And it would be ridiculous, but there you go.


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bobeau* 
_....FWIW Mr. Morphsci is a 49 yo geneticist. According to his profile - I mean I haven't tracked him down and followed to work to prove it._

 


 Egads I'm 49 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 When did I get so old. Anyway I do not consider myself a technophobic luddite (In fact my wife constantly calls me a techie and she's only 35)

 Measurements are good but don't forget that they have to be interpreted and put into context. That is where the arguements come in because data can be interpreted in more than one way. If it couldn't then what fun would we have in science. 

 I am not anti measurement nor am I anti-dbt. I am only anti-narrow viewpoints that limit science to only this or that way of thinking. The mark of a trully great scientist is their ability to step beyond current thinking and theory and embrace the possibilities their data is telling them.

 But in reality science is my vocation so I do not tend to make it very important in my hobbies. I have no need to do a dbt to check out cables or any other component in my system. I trust my ears to tell me what I like. If that offends some peoples sensibilities, then so be it. Do whatever you like with your system and if you want to do dbt's I think that is great. 

 Personally I think we should have a forum on here devoted to scientific testing of components (including dbt's) but I do not run this place. The reason I think this would be a good thing is that more people would come to realize how difficult it is to design a good dbt from both a statistical and technical viewpoint.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_These are two completely different things. Crediting your cables for presenting an emotional impact in music is like complementing the paperboy for the quality of the writing on the editorial page._

 

I'm not crediting my cables for presenting an emotional impact in music, and I never said any such thing. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm crediting the cables for making a more faithful reproduction of the sound, and my point is that if the music is "more faithfully reproduced" to my ears and thus I enjoy it more (IMO, enjoyment being the primary purpose of this hobby as opposed to the abstract pursuit of scientific principles), then I don't care whether it shows up on a some graph or mesauring device as an improvement that the current state of the science has confirmed is audible (while for others this seems to be their predominant focus.) 

 Can you deal with _that_?! - Ben Stiller (Meet The Parents)


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Except his comeback would be, within your own analogy, that the paperboy stays up late and draws pictures in each paper, adding that special touch that makes the enjoyment of the reader (or lack thereof) enhanced._

 

If the paperboy alters the content of the paper he is delivering, I won't be happy. It's not his job to alter things. He is just supposed to deliver. The same goes for cables.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If the paperboy alters the content of the paper he is delivering, I won't be happy. It's not his job to alter things. He is just supposed to deliver. The same goes for cables.
_

 

 Which, of course, begs the question.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I'm not crediting my cables for presenting an emotional impact in music, and I never said any such thing._

 

You said that defining the difference between music and reproduction was a semantic argument that had no meaning. Several posts back, you divided the world into two groups... people who listen to music for enjoyment and people who listen to music by monitoring how it looks on test equipment. A previous poster described a certain quality of sound reproduction in a cable as being "exciting". There certainly does seem to be some blurring of the lines between the emotional impact of music and the way equipment reproduces it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_if the music is "more faithfully reproduced" to my ears and thus I enjoy it more (IMO, enjoyment being the primary purpose of this hobby as opposed to the abstract pursuit of scientific principles), then I don't care whether it shows up on a some graph or mesauring device as an improvement that the current state of the science has confirmed is audible_

 

It's great if the problem is as simple as "choose A or B" where one of the choices is "faithfully reproduced" and one isn't. But putting together a great sounding system is rarely that simple. The sound can be affected by everything from the dirt on the record you're playing to the shape of your room. If you don't apply some sort of measurement and analysis to figuring out how each stage in your system works, you'll just end up getting random quality, because there are just too many variables. You'll certainly never be able to accurately recommend to someone else what really does make a significant difference and what doesn't because your purely subjective reaction doesn't apply to anyone else.

 Solipsism is great for me... YMMV

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_You said that defining the difference between music and reproduction was a semantic argument that had no meaning._

 

 My point was not that there is not a difference between music and sound reproduction. My point was that you were trying to obscure what I said and set up a straw man by introducing these terms into the argument, and turning the focus onto their associated definitions. A neat debaters trick. But no matter.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_ If you don't apply some sort of measurement and analysis to figuring out how each stage in your system works, you'll just end up getting random quality, because there are just too many variables. You'll certainly never be able to accurately recommend to someone else what really does make a significant difference and what doesn't because your purely subjective reaction doesn't apply to anyone else.
_

 

 With all due respect, IMO that's just pure hogwash. But I respect your right to build your system your way. For many of us, however, while there may not be perfect certainty, there is frequently agreement on Head-Fi about how certain amps, cables, components, etc. sound. So the excahnge of information about what I hear and what others hear IMO is valuable in and of itself and I don't think (and many others don't think) it is as worthless as you would make it.

 But I guess there's no point to this and we must just agree to disagree.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_My point was not that there is not a difference between music and sound reproduction. My point was that you were trying to obscure what I said and set up a straw man by introducing these terms into the argument, and turning the focus onto their associated definitions._

 

Perhaps you were talking about something entirely different. I was talking about how difficult it is to figure out why something sounds the way it does when you describe sound using terms that describe subjective emotional states, rather than words that describe what you are actually hearing. Do you have any opinion on that subject?

 We were discussing "prat" and I have to admit, even after it was explained to me, I still have no idea what "prat" sounds like. It was supposedly a common term here in this discussion board too. But the people who seem to know what "prat" is didn't even agree among themselves on its meaning. You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to know that terms like that aren't very good if we're all trying to communicate effectively.

 See ya
 Steve

 NotJB- Next time, you might want to use the example of people who believe in UFOs or ghosts or leprechauns instead of the analogy you used.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Perhaps you were talking about something entirely different. I was talking about how difficult it is to figure out why something sounds the way it does when you describe sound using terms that describe subjective emotional states, rather than words that describe what you are actually hearing. Do you have any opinion on that subject?

 We were discussing "prat" and I have to admit, even after it was explained to me, I still have no idea what "prat" sounds like. It was supposedly a common term here in this discussion board too. But the people who seem to know what "prat" is didn't even agree among themselves on its meaning. You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to know that terms like that aren't very good if we're all trying to communicate effectively._

 

 I understand your points, and I agree with much of what you say. In particular, I agree that it is often difficult to describe to another what you hear, even when you are not trying to describe subjective emotional responses to sound or music, but are just trying to describe what something actually sounds like. I also agree that the term "prat" can be confusing and can mean different things to different people. But I also think that there are many observations by people on this forum that don't merely amount to describing their emotional response to cables or to music or sound reproduction in general. I think people on this site often describe what they are actually hearing, but the disagreement is whether they actually are hearing what they say they are hearing. I thought that is the issue we were talking about, but instead we seem to have gotten focused on something else. At least I think that's the case. But maybe not. What was the question again? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_NotJB- Next time, you might want to use the example of people who believe in UFOs or ghosts or leprechauns instead of the analogy you used._

 

 NotJB, would you mind editing your previous post? I find it offensive, and I'm sure you didn't mean it to be. Then I'll respond to your argument, which I think is misplaced.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I think people on this site often describe what they are actually hearing, but the disagreement is whether they actually are hearing what they say they are hearing._

 

I would be very interested in getting a precise description. If you've heard a difference, can you describe what it is using terms that relate to sounds we all know? (ie: frequency, dynamics, phase, reverberation, signal to noise, distortion, etc.) I'd be particularly interested in hearing a comparison of the differences between Radio Shack's best cable and a high end cable that sounds very different. It would also be interesting to find out where the widest range of differences lie... between various inexpensive cables or between various high end cables. Once the differences are clearly defined, then we can start trying to figure out what's causing the differences. This isn't science... it's just horse sense.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bobeau

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_When "Son of Sam" observed that his neighbor's dog was telling him to kill people, was that an observation with some probative, evidentiary value regarding the phenomenon, or was it a subjective anecdote?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Proof this thread should no longer continue. We're either crazy or hallucinatory. Why bother.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I would be very interested in getting a precise description. If you've heard a difference, can you describe what it is using terms that relate to sounds we all know? (ie: frequency, dynamics, phase, reverberation, signal to noise, distortion, etc.) I'd be particularly interested in hearing a comparison of the differences between Radio Shack's best cable and a high end cable that sounds very different. It would also be interesting to find out where the widest range of differences lie... between various inexpensive cables or between various high end cables. Once the differences are clearly defined, then we can start trying to figure out what's causing the differences. This isn't science... it's just horse sense.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

 Here's just a few examples, although not pertaining specifically to Radio Shack cables. Also, my comments are not limited exclusively to interconnects. If the brand name of the cable is important to you, I can probably look it up or make an effort to recall it, as I have the information somewhere. In any event, I found that a silver interconnect in my system made the sound more bright than a fairly basic copper cable (made by BetterCables, I think) that I had been using previously and that I liked very much, and the silver cable also added some sibilance that I did not like. I first really noticed the phenomenon when I had forgotten that I had switched out the copper cable. I preferred the copper cable, which was about 40% of the price of the silver cable. So I switched back. The difference was very noticeable to me, to the point that I was concerned that something was broken in my system, or that someone had tampered with it. Only upon inspection did I realize that I had switched to the silver interconnect the previous week or so.

 I later switched to a interconnect that was sort of a copper/silver fuse. I found that it did not have any of the brightness or sibliance of the silver conductor, but was definitely more revealing in the highs than the copper cable, which was my previous favorite. I also concluded that the dynamics were better, although this difference was somewhat subtle.

 With respect to power cords (which I think are also relevant since some of the same issues apply), I found that switching out the stock power cords in my system in favor of some aftermarket power cords significantly reduced sibliance, added fuller bass, improved dynamics, and also significantly improved signal to noise ratio (or at least it reduced the noise floor). These changes were fairly substantial, and surprising, since I previously thought changing out power cords could not possibly make a difference. I only tried it because I got one of the cords from a friend, and the others I bought on 30-day return.

 With respect to Radio Shack cables in particular, I would have to reconstruct which cables I compared them with and in what systems. I'm not sure this is necessary at this point, however. 

 Let me know if this is the type of information you were asking for or if it was something else.


----------



## bigshot

Those are great descriptions... We're taking the standard copper cables as our baseline then. Radio Shack cables are straight copper, so they should be comparable.

 So it sounds like the silver cable attentuated the upper mids... somewhere around 8-9 kHz?

 The silver/copper fused cable had better highs... I'm guessing with that, you're talking about 10-12 kHz. If it was clearly audible at that frequency, it would have to be a pretty significant jump in level.

 Both of those observations should be easily testable by running some test tones in the proper frequency range through the cables. Anyone have a good capture card and a set of these cables they can run some tones through?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_NotJB, would you mind editing your previous post? I find it offensive, and I'm sure you didn't mean it to be. Then I'll respond to your argument, which I think is misplaced._

 

An administrator took enough offense to delete it.

 I'll restate it in a more PC manner.

 You can find support for literally anything on the internet, regardless of factual veracity or merit. Look at forums with many, many users who discuss very seriously their magical abilities (psi-vampires, etc.) despite the unfortunate-for-them truth that they do not posess any magical powers.

 As much as I'd like to say Head-Fi is immune to delusion, I am again reminded of a particularly poignant study to the contrary. None of us are safe, even me, after all 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 And I sincerely apologize to anyone offended by my earlier argument, as that was expressly the opposite of my intent. Very, very sorry.


----------



## maarek99

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Both of those observations should be easily testable by running some test tones in the proper frequency range through the cables. Anyone have a good capture card and a set of these cables they can run some tones through?_

 

No...they won't be. I had almost the same results with Headphiles silver cable as PhilS. The treble was extended, but I also felt that there was some tightness to the sound. Maybe a bit too much, and the bass also seemed to go down. I didn't like the sound compared to my other copper cables.

 I did some tests with RMAA and it showed...absolutely nothing. Headphile had a slightly worse noise reading, but other than that everything was within testing limits. Strangely the frequency response was completely the same.

 Headphile :

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/movies/rmaa/RM...0headphile.htm

 Standard breakout:

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/movies/rmaa/RM...rd%20cable.htm

 There's no difference. Strangely after modding the 0404 (better opamp, bypassed caps, removed buffers) the measures were almost exactly the same eventhough sound did indeed improve. There was a 0.3 db increase in the bass area, but I don't think that contributes to anything.

 Here's a test of the Elite Pro soundcard. Excellent in all regards as you can see.

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/movies/rmaa/SB...oop%202496.htm

 Here's a test of my ****** receiver. And strangely I really like its sound. It's just...more natural. So these tests amount to nothing for me as I listen with my ears, not with test measurements.

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/movies/rmaa/Kenwood%202496.htm


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_...I sincerely apologize to anyone offended by my earlier argument, as that was expressly the opposite of my intent. Very, very sorry._

 

Great gesture! It means acknowledging the discussion partner as human being instead of seeing him as an ennemy. Now the next step would be to accept him as a serious partner in a communication on the same level -- instead of a misguided dumbhead who's to be taught about reality. Look at the «subjectivist» posters reporting sonic differences in cables: do they give the impression to lack intelligence, experience or seriousness? I don't think so. Quite the opposite. Most of them have in- and extensively occupied themselves with cables and their effects in the audio chain -- count myself in. And I'm sure all of them are aware of the potential of delusions -- after having experienced them themselves and considering the subtlety of the effects. Therefore considering their observations and reviews «useless anecdotes» and dismissing their opinions borders on offense, IMO. The more so if the opposing arguments have a mere theoretical background and an ideological bias. So my suggestion is to gain some own experience with the subject, with an open mind. I'm sure the new insights are worth the loss of mental superiority. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -- Just an idea for a new approach and a new year...


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Both of those observations should be easily testable by running some test tones in the proper frequency range through the cables._

 

As maarek99 has posted, that's not the case: all reasonably designed cables have a (virtually) perfectly linear transfer function, roughly spoken, just as most electronics components -- at least from an objectivist perspective. The only audio components offering passable correlations between measurements and sonic characteristics are sound transducers. Sorry for the bad news! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## philodox

Well done Jazz, that sounds to me like how a discussion of this nature should play out.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Great gesture! It means acknowledging the discussion partner as human being instead of seeing him as an ennemy.


 all reasonably designed cables have a (virtually) perfectly linear transfer function, roughly spoken, just as most electronics components -- at least from an objectivist perspective. The only audio components offering passable correlations between measurements and sonic characteristics are sound transducers. Sorry for the bad news! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



._

 

As to the first point, I found it difficult to see through the obfuscatingly thick layer of sarcasm and condescension.

 The second, however - so, you're saying that although they sound the same, they sound different?

 I suppose this really is a pointless discussion. You're obviously not willing to give any ground at all, and when I suggest that you might be misled by your senses (as was the case in many of the aforelinked cases) you take it as an attack on your character. I don't really understand, but it's not that big of a deal; spend your money where it makes you happiest. You can't take it with you when you're dead and gone, I guess.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_As to the first point, I found it difficult to see through the obfuscatingly thick layer of sarcasm and condescension._

 

Good excuse! But honestly, many of your own posts are full of it, and you just notice it with others?


  Quote:


 _The second, however - so, you're saying that although they sound the same, they sound different?_ 
 

Where did I say that?


  Quote:


 _I suppose this really is a pointless discussion. You're obviously not willing to give any ground at all..._ 
 

Most of these kinds of discussions are indeed pointless and just a demonstration of the own standpoint. And I'm indeed not willing to give ground -- I have no reason to. 


  Quote:


 _...and when I suggest that you might be misled by your senses (as was the case in many of the aforelinked cases) you take it as an attack on your character. I don't really understand, but it's not that big of a deal; spend your money where it makes you happiest. You can't take it with you when you're dead and gone, I guess._ 
 

It must be hard for you to understand that someone who's experienced something you have no access to can be right nonetheless. I'll give you an example. Myself I can't clearly distinguish LAME -V 0 (320 kb/s) from Wave files, but I don't doubt that other people can. I haven't seriously tried it and not on my main setup so far, though, but I have no reason to learn it, since I use MP3s just for my portable players, for which they're fine. 

 I've suggested you to dedicate to the subject with an open mind, without your now ideologic ballast. You don't seem to be ready for that. You keep on insisting that I (and others who share my experience) must be a victim of delusion, while your view is the only valid one and even scientifically certified -- which is nonsense, of course. Your argumentation isn't even based on personal experience, as it seems, but solely on ideology. Which you use to put other people's real experiences down. 

 On the other hand you don't seem to negate sonic differences with amps -- obviously because they are more complex than cables and thus more trustworthy in this respect. But considering their virtually perfect and identical measuring data they won't serve you any better than cables in view of the correlation between them and the sonic impressions. What is there to be learned? 
.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

It's nearly New Years, I have nothing to gain by continuing this discussion, nor do you - forget it.

 Nothing said here is meant as a personal attack, though you seem to think it so.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_It's nearly New Years, I have nothing to gain by continuing this discussion, nor do you - forget it.

 Nothing said here is meant as a personal attack, though you seem to think it so._

 

I have to concede that my last post was prone to condescendence (your now edited reproach). Sorry! Consider it an unconscious, overcompensating defensive reflex! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Happy new year anyway!
.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I have to concede that my last post was prone to condescendence (your now edited reproach). Sorry! Consider it an unconscious, overcompensating defensive reflex! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Happy new year anyway!
._

 

And to you, as well. Cables and all


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_And to you, as well. Cables and all 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

...and frequency responses... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A pity you're not Jeff Buckley! I would have liked a few more albums from him.
.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_...and frequency responses... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A pity you're not Jeff Buckley! I would have liked a few more albums from him.
._

 

You're not the only one. Grace - what an amazing freshman effort; I can only imagine how awesome consecutive albums would have been.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *maarek99* 
_I did some tests with RMAA and it showed...absolutely nothing. Headphile had a slightly worse noise reading, but other than that everything was within testing limits. Strangely the frequency response was completely the same._

 

Do you have any theory about what it was that you were hearing if it wasn't frequency response? Are you able to quantify the amount of difference you heard? Was it obvious or subtle? It seems to me if we can measure atomic weight and the distance from here to the sun, we can certainly measure the difference between two cables if there is a difference. We just need to figure out what to measure.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Do you have any theory about what it was that you were hearing if it wasn't frequency response? Are you able to quantify the amount of difference you heard? Was it obvious or subtle? It seems to me if we can measure atomic weight and the distance from here to the sun, we can certainly measure the difference between two cables if there is a difference. We just need to figure out what to measure.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

What really baffles me is the significance given to the difference. You hear people talk about their amp (okay, I can understand that; differing impedances, variable resistances within the amp, different, but still measurable op-amp characteristics within a circuit at a given voltage, capacitor behavior, etc.) as being a HUGE DIFFERENCE... NIGHT AND DAY

 Then you hear them talk about their headphone cable (and this is where science abandons them) being a HUGE DIFFERENCE... NIGHT AND DAY (at least the more honest ones say it's subtle, as opposed to the flamboyant ones who claim vast differences)...

 And then you hear them talk about their interconnects as being a HUGE DIFFERENCE... NIGHT AND DAY (once again, honest ones say it's subtle, and I can appreciate that degree of disclosure at least)



 And yet out of any setup I've ever tried, my own or others', the only things that have ever made a HUGE DIFFERENCE... NIGHT AND DAY are putting on different headphones; and, they say that since the frequencies measure the same, it would have to be something else. And yet for any difference to be HUGE and/or NIGHT AND DAY, it would absolutely _have_ to have some measurement, right? I mean, even if it's as small as a .05dB difference, our instruments are perfectly capable of picking it up. And yet nothing at all?

 If they say changes the sound, then don't measure the cable - measure the headphone's output with a mounted mic for consistancy.

 I don't want cable measurements, I want headphone output measurements. If I can look at the waveform recorded between cable changes and it's different enough to warrant even minor perceptions of difference, I'll cede this argument completely. AND eat my shorts.

 No double blinds, or even single blinds involved - just let a quality microphone tell the truth of the matter.


----------



## Aman

I don't know about you guys, but I put myself to the ultimate test in this situation. I had my roomate (also interested in this stuff) re-wire my stereo system in different and random orders (sometimes he never even changed anything!) and I was able to tell when the signal sounded better, worse, and even the same. Of course, in all cases, my $100 interconnects were the 'better' sounding cable. I never EVER got it wrong - every single time I was on the mark. Sure, the difference is not, as you put it, 'night and day', but it's there and it's obvious enough to me. 

 The reason that the front end (headphones/speakers) sound most radically different to you is because these units are the ones responsible most for coloration of sound. I'd bet you that if you took a bunch of average nobodies and put them into a room, and had two different stereo speaker systems, one with much more accuracy, and one with much less accuracy, yet both of them had the same sound hump and colloration, that nobody would really be able to tell which was the better-sounding speaker other than by the looks of the build design and such. The unit responsible for the most radical change in actual QUALITY of the sound is definitely source. Speakers/headphones merely color the sound to the listener's liking.

 And, don't doubt how much amps can make a difference - the amount of power a speaker/headphone receives can make a RADICAL change in accuracy and imagery. It's like putting a watermill under the Niagra Falls vs. your backyard pond -- both will in some form or another move the mill, but one of them will move it and make it work dramatically more efficient.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_And then you hear them talk about their interconnects as being a HUGE DIFFERENCE... NIGHT AND DAY (once again, honest ones say it's subtle, and I can appreciate that degree of disclosure at least)
_

 

 If a change in an interconnect has no effect other than to substantially reduce (or elminate in some instances) some sibilance you hear on various recordings, would you consider that a subtle difference or a huge difference?


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_If a change in an interconnect has no effect other than to substantially reduce (or elminate in some instances) some sibilance you hear on various recordings, would you consider that a subtle difference or a huge difference?_

 

If I heard a difference I would consider it a difference, and worth talking about. I thought that came through in my parentheses, if not I apologize.

 I'm not saying you're wrong, anymore - I've opened my mind enough that I am willing to consider evidence, easily-gotten evidence for the pro-cable case, as described.

 Is anyone willing to mount a stationary mic to their headphones and record some regular cable / expensive cable playback? If you hear it, it obviously comes through the transducers; if it is audibly different, it can be picked up by a good microphone, correct? Even if it is subtle, it is audible, and if it is audible it can be recorded, and will play back differently regardless of anything introduced by the microphone when A/B recorded.

 So, who has the equipment and the willingness to help a seeker find what he seeks?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_If I heard a difference I would consider it a difference, and worth talking about. I thought that came through in my parentheses, if not I apologize.
_

 

No need to apologize, I was just trying to point out, or at least leading up to point out, that what is a subtle difference for some may be significant for others. I agree with you that folks do tend to go overboard sometimes (maybe often) when describing differences from changes in equipment. Part of it may be the excitement in hearing an improvement in one's system. But if one is really pleased with one's system, and one likes the sound it produces, and then one manages to improve it even just a little, the extra little sweetness may in one's mind seem rather huge.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Aman* 
_I'd bet you that if you took a bunch of average nobodies and put them into a room, and had two different stereo speaker systems, one with much more accuracy, and one with much less accuracy, yet both of them had the same sound hump and colloration, that nobody would really be able to tell which was the better-sounding speaker_

 

How can a speaker be "accurate" and have frequency humps that add coloration to the sound? Again, I'm getting totally lost by the way words are being used... that sentence seems to contradict itself.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_If a change in an interconnect has no effect other than to substantially reduce (or elminate in some instances) some sibilance you hear on various recordings, would you consider that a subtle difference or a huge difference?_

 

That depends on how much sibilance there was before it was eliminated. Can you describe the difference in the frequency range it occupies and the +/- db of the magnitude of the difference please? Assuming the average recording has a dynamic range of about 35 db at normal listening level, how much of a difference is it? 1db? 10db?

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Is anyone willing to mount a stationary mic to their headphones and record some regular cable / expensive cable playback? If you hear it, it obviously comes through the transducers; if it is audibly different, it can be picked up by a good microphone, correct?_

 

I'm guessing that the amount of error in a microphone and headphone would be of a magnitude greater than the error in the cable. All you would be measuring with that would be the headphones and mike.

 A better test would be to try to compound the error through multiple generations. Assuming one could get a really good sound card that had as accurate an A/D converter as possible... you could do two multi-generational tests... one with a radio shack cable transferring the sound from player to recorder through a loop ten or twenty generations... and high end cables for the same number of generations. If there is a difference between the two, it should double with each generation in the radio shack cable. Even a subtle inaccuracy should become painfully obvious after 20 generations.

 Has anyone tried this?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_But if one is really pleased with one's system, and one likes the sound it produces, and then one manages to improve it even just a little, the extra little sweetness may in one's mind seem rather huge._

 

Be careful! You're treading dangerously close to that slippery slope! The next step is to consider that the ever so slight improvement might be a product of the imagination too.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_yadda yadda yadda... as being a HUGE DIFFERENCE... NIGHT AND DAY

 And yet out of any setup I've ever tried, my own or others', the only things that have ever made a HUGE DIFFERENCE... NIGHT AND DAY are putting on different headphones_

 

People tend to get overenthusiastic on here, I must admit. I've fallen into that trap myself in the past. However your comment is just the other extreme 'blanket dismissal' side of the equation.

 Obviously changing headphones will generally make the biggest difference. The transducer is what is producing the sound. However, _depending on your system_, other components can make a fairly huge difference as well.

 Examples:

 Headphone Cable ---> If your headphone uses a steel cable by default a recable to copper or silver is likely to make a rather huge difference.

 Interconnects ---> If your system is on the bright side and you switch to copper or vice versa the difference can be rather startling. If you have problem with interference on your lines moving to shielded cables can make a big impact.

 Amp ---> If your headphones are very hard to drive [K340/K1000/etc], an amp upgrade can actually be *more* impactful than a headphone change... with those particular headphones.

 I wont get into the source as I would hope that any audiophile, skeptic or dreamer, would know that the CD player/DAC or turntable is essential. Garbage in; garbage out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now imagine that someone with limited overall audio knowledge has one of these experiences. He becomes very excited and writes a glowing thread. Others, also with limited experience, follow his lead and some find there to be no difference because their system is not exactly the same as the original posters. At this point a skeptic will come along and say TOLD YOU SO!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_ Can you describe the difference in the frequency range it occupies and the +/- db of the magnitude of the difference please? Assuming the average recording has a dynamic range of about 35 db at normal listening level, how much of a difference is it? 1db? 10db?
_

 

 Here's all that I can really tell you. S's sounded like Ssssssssss. It was pretty annoying on certain recordings. It was hard to listen to much of my collection for more than an hour, as the sibilance grew fatiguing. When it was reduced, S's sounded like S's. I could listen to my recordings for hours on end. I did not analyze the +/- db magnitude or the dynamic range, as that reflects a level of detail that did not and does not concern me, although I understand it may be of interest to you and others.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Be careful! You're treading dangerously close to that slippery slope! The next step is to consider that the ever so slight improvement might be a product of the imagination too.
_

 

 Steve, it's not really a slippery slope. The issue of quantifying differences or describing them, assuming they exist, is an entirely different issue from whether the differences actually exist. We were talking about the former, not the latter, and that's all we were really talking about.


----------



## edstrelow

I suggest that a modification to an existing system which improves the quality, whether it is more detail, a smoother frequency response,a drop in sibilance or whatever, such that one is hearing something good, which one had not been able to hear before from the system will seem like a huge difference when first heard. Basically because one is hearing something one did not realize was there in the source. I have heard this numerous times with various upgrades I have tried.

 Now after you have had this for some time and compare back to the earlier set-up, by for example, reinserting the old equipment, cable or whatever, you may notice only the difference, not that the last "improvement" is such.
 However, if the effect is significant enough you will be very upset if you lose that improvement.

 This happened to me some while ago when my 5 year old CEC TL5100z cd player. died. Even though I was just using it as a transport to a dac, I could not get the sound right with replacement palyers, so I plunked down a fair bit of dough to fix the player. 

 I have had things go the other way too, where a perceived improvment did not hold up over repeated listening and was later abandoned. This was true with some cd disc attachments. Anybody want a "blacklight?"

 As regards measurements of cables etc. , I doubt that anything will be seen when measuring resistance. Any cables I have tested show no resistance, at least as measured by my vintage analog meter. Most of the design features I see are in sheilding, which is easily seen, if not measured. Also some cable stranding techniques can supposedly lead to cancellation of some noise. I also see a certain amount of sonic influence claimed for capacitance, something which I believe is not easily measured, but which will certainly have an impact on frequency response and will tend to smooth out transients.

 I have just now made some measurements of 2 cables which do in fact show some differences, and possible even a warm-up effect but I will put this on a new thread.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I did not analyze the +/- db magnitude or the dynamic range, as that reflects a level of detail that did not and does not concern me, although I understand it may be of interest to you and others._

 

It communicates to others the degree of improvement. I guess you're not able to express the amount of difference in concrete terms. That tends to make me think the difference may be extremely subtle (+/- 2db).

 Here's a theory based on my experience... I find that I can listen to the same recording on different days and get that same effect- even if I haven't changed anything in my stereo system. My theory is that our ears aren't always the same, especially with the upper mids/low highs that you are describing. A little bit of congestion in your sinuses and ear canal or ear wax in a particular spot can create a slight muffling effect... listen on a clearer day and it can sound sharper. This would put the difference in your ears, not your cables.

 In order to disprove this particular theory, we'll have to find some way to measure the effect; do A/B testing with little time between; or prove it exists through compounding it in multi-generational dubbing.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* 
_I suggest that a modification to an existing system which improves the quality, whether it is more detail, a smoother frequency response,a drop in sibilance or whatever, such that one is hearing something good, which one had not been able to hear before from the system will seem like a huge difference when first heard. Basically because one is hearing something one did not realize was there in the source. I have heard this numerous times with various upgrades I have tried._

 

As I just posted, I've had that experience even when I haven't changed anything in my system. It might be something with my ears as I theorized, or it may be that my attention is just focused on a different part of the music. It's not uncommon for me to have a reaction like that. I suspect it has to do with the way I'm perceiving, not the sound itself.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_It communicates to others the degree of improvement. I guess you're not able to express the amount of difference in concrete terms._

 

 I think I am able to express the amount of the difference in concrete terms, and I have done so. I just can't comunicate it in the terms you like.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_That tends to make me think the difference may be extremely subtle (+/- 2db)._

 

 You will think whatever you want, of course, and we all know you are not the easiest person to convince of anything 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 but I don't see how you can make a judgment that the difference was extremely subtle if I couldn't stand listening to the music for more than an hour previously and after the change I experienced no listener fatique. That's hardly a subtle difference. But perhaps the problem again is you are talking about db's, and I am talking about something else. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Here's a theory based on my experience... I find that I can listen to the same recording on different days and get that same effect- even if I haven't changed anything in my stereo system. My theory is that our ears aren't always the same, especially with the upper mids/low highs that you are describing. A little bit of congestion in your sinuses and ear canal or ear wax in a particular spot can create a slight muffling effect... listen on a clearer day and it can sound sharper. This would put the difference in your ears, not your cables._

 

 I understand this phenomenon, but the "before" and "after" periods each consisted of periods of weeks, perhaps even months. Where my ears congested for months and then they cleared up for months at the exact time when I switched out my cables? I have also had two colds since the change and not experienced any difference that was audible to me, and I maintain very clean ear canals, as I listen to IEM's very frequently. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_In order to disprove this particular theory, we'll have to find some way to measure the effect; do A/B testing with little time between; or prove it exists through compounding it in multi-generational dubbing.
_

 

I've "disproven" it for my purposes, as the notion that the difference was due to sinus congestion or ear wax is not logical based on all the evidence. I'm sure nothing I say will "disprove" anything for you, however, as you are interested only in certain types of evidence, and I can't provide you with those types of evidence. That's your perogative, of course, but others, having experienced the same thing have reached the same determinations I have, which is further evidence (albeit not conclusive evidence) of their validity (at least to all except those who demand absolute scientific proof).


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* 
_I suggest that a modification to an existing system which improves the quality, whether it is more detail, a smoother frequency response,a drop in sibilance or whatever, such that one is hearing something good, which one had not been able to hear before from the system will seem like a huge difference when first heard. Basically because one is hearing something one did not realize was there in the source. I have heard this numerous times with various upgrades I have tried.

 Now after you have had this for some time and compare back to the earlier set-up, by for example, reinserting the old equipment, cable or whatever, you may notice only the difference, not that the last "improvement" is such.
 However, if the effect is significant enough you will be very upset if you lose that improvement.

 This happened to me some while ago when my 5 year old CEC TL5100z cd player. died. Even though I was just using it as a transport to a dac, I could not get the sound right with replacement palyers, so I plunked down a fair bit of dough to fix the player. 

 I have had things go the other way too, where a perceived improvment did not hold up over repeated listening and was later abandoned. This was true with some cd disc attachments. Anybody want a "blacklight?"
_

 

 All good points. I think many of us have similar experiences.


----------



## Albatross05

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sumone* 
_Your last comment, that's what I always thought. But in a lot of conversations on here, people seem to recommend another cable brand over a Radioshack, as if Radioshack is a bottom of the line brand. Radioshack is all I know!_

 

 I don't know about their speaker cables but the problem I have with Radio Shack is that a good deal of the stuff I've bought from them was junk. Bought a set of A/V cables from them a few years ago and although they looked like they were of decent quality, I had nothing but problems with them. It seemed either the audio or the video was always cutting out. I tried tightening the RCA plugs, cleaning them, reseating them....all to no avail. After that (and a couple of other incidents), I was afraid to buy anything there that had the Radio Shack brand name on it. 

 For bargain speaker wire, I bought Accoustic Research. May not be as good as wire costing a lot more but for my system specs, I doubt I'd hear any improvement no matter how much I spent on wire. You MIGHT hear a difference if you have a great system in the first place but I remain unconvinced that the average audio setup benefits from expensive wire.


----------



## edstrelow

"As I just posted, I've had that experience even when I haven't changed anything in my system. It might be something with my ears as I theorized, or it may be that my attention is just focused on a different part of the music. It's not uncommon for me to have a reaction like that. I suspect it has to do with the way I'm perceiving, not the sound itself." Bigshot

 Could be but this doesn't explain differences you notice over a long period of listening.

 From your comments I would have to conclude you have never upgraded anything in your life. 

 Often when I see comments in these forums I want to know what the commentator has at home to give me some idea of what his/her actual and regular listening experience is. Since you list no equipment in your profile, I have no idea if you even have any substantial personal knowledge of what good equipment sounds like.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I've "disproven" it for my purposes_

 

Why do you get angry whenever I try to get you to clarify something using precise language? I throw out a theory to see how it flies, and you get angry at me and announce your final and irrevokable conclusion. That's not how you figure things out...

 If it can't be measured as frequency response and it isn't an individual perceptual thing, what theory do you suggest to explain what you hear and how can it be objectively verified?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* 
_Often when I see comments in these forums I want to know what the commentator has at home to give me some idea of what his/her actual and regular listening experience is._

 

I've worked the past 20 years in television production. I started out as a film sound engineer and worked my way up to the position of producer. I've produced and supervised the post production of television series, prime time specials, commercials and rock videos. I've been in charge of recording both vo and music for broadcast. I've supervised sound mixes for television, CD and DVD release. I've edited and mixed dial and m&e using ProTools, and I engineered and digitally restored over a dozen CDs full of vintage classical music, opera and jazz. Hope this helps put my comments in perspective for you.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## RnB180

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I've worked the past 20 years in television production. I started out as a film sound engineer and worked my way up to the position of producer. I've produced and supervised the post production of television series, prime time specials, commercials and rock videos. I've been in charge of recording both vo and music for broadcast. I've supervised sound mixes for television, CD and DVD release. I've edited and mixed dial and m&e using ProTools, and I engineered and digitally restored over a dozen CDs full of vintage classical music, opera and jazz. Hope this helps put my comments in perspective for you.

 See ya
 Steve_

 


 hey thats awesome! what films and cds did you work with?


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I've worked the past 20 years in television production. I started out as a film sound engineer and worked my way up to the position of producer. I've produced and supervised the post production of television series, prime time specials, commercials and rock videos. I've been in charge of recording both vo and music for broadcast. I've supervised sound mixes for television, CD and DVD release. I've edited and mixed dial and m&e using ProTools, and I engineered and digitally restored over a dozen CDs full of vintage classical music, opera and jazz. Hope this helps put my comments in perspective for you._

 

Sounds like a fun job. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What do you listen to music on though? Source, amp, headphones/speakers?


----------



## bigshot

Most recently I worked on the Spike TV Ren & Stimpy show, which is coming out on DVD in the Spring. I also produced a rock video for Bjork. My CDs are at my VIP Records website.

 At home in my listening rig, I have a Phillips DVD/SACD/CD player and a high end Sony A/V receiver. My speakers are JBLs supplemented with some custom bass speakers that were made for me back in the late 70s and Altec Lansing surrounds. I have a dual processor 1.25gHz G4 Mac with a Formac DV/TV that I use as my digitizing station for sound restoration. That rig has my Thorens and Dual turntables, a variety of stylii and cartridges, laserdisc player, vhs, beta, Burwen NR units and a Pioneer dynamic peak expander. At work I have a G5 dual 2.8 based digitizing station. My headphones are Sennheiser HD-590s.

 But you can't judge how well someone hears by just looking at their equipment. I've known people who might as well be deaf with obscenely expensive systems that sounded awful, and people with very good ears with low end systems that were balanced perfectly. Equipment doesn't make systems sound good, careful component matching and equalizing does.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Why do you get angry whenever I try to get you to clarify something using precise language? I throw out a theory to see how it flies, and you get angry at me and announce your final and irrevokable conclusion. That's not how you figure things out..._

 

 Whoa, dude. I was just responding to your suggestion about the need to "prove" that the effect I heard was not attributable to sinus congestion, etc. I'm saying that I have sufficient "proof" for my purposes, based on the difference I perceived, the time over which I perceived the differences, and the other relevant circumstances. I'm not angry that you may want proof, and I wasn't angry about anything in your post. I may disagree with you, but I'm not angry, although I concede maybe you've made me numb by this point. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If it can't be measured as frequency response and it isn't an individual perceptual thing, what theory do you suggest to explain what you hear and how can it be objectively verified?
_

 

 I don't know have a theory, or know how it can be objectively verified. I only know what I hear. (Just like the blind man said: "One thing I do know, I was blind but now I see." John 9:25. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_But you can't judge how well someone hears by just looking at their equipment._

 

No, but it gives a good idea of their experience with various types of gear. If I see someone with a sony/panasonic dvd player that is going on about how the source doesn't matter I will tune out pretty damn quick. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The same goes for cables in my mind...


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_No, but it gives a good idea of their experience with various types of gear. If I see someone with a sony/panasonic dvd player that is going on about how the source doesn't matter I will tune out pretty damn quick. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The same goes for cables in my mind..._

 

Doesn't that limit the discussion to people with a relatively high monetary investment, and thus more likely to perceive improvements regardless of veracity? Seems if you were interested in an actual two-way discussion you'd want to hear from all sides, including those who have _tried_ other cables and found them no different so spent accordingly.

 The DVD player isn't a 1:1 analogy at all, though; there are measurably quantifiable differences in the output of a cheap player with cheap parts and a good player with good parts.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Doesn't that limit the discussion to people with a relatively high monetary investment, and thus more likely to perceive improvements regardless of veracity? Seems if you were interested in an actual two-way discussion you'd want to hear from all sides, including those who have tried other cables and found them no different so spent accordingly.
_

 

 Several comments. 1. Yes, it does limit the discussion in that it may exclude certain people, but do we really want to hear an opinion on what a cruise is like from someone who has only been on a row boat? Do you want to get advice about how to have a long and successful marriage from someone who has never been married? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (I realize that these are very imperfect analogies.)

 2. You assume that those you spend more money are "more likely to perceive improvements." That could be true. In fact, it probably does explain some alleged improvements. But there may be improvements nevertheless. Sometimes more money actually does buy higher quality. Moreover, some of us have heard differences between cables and preferred the cheaper cable, or preffered the cheaper component. So spending more money doesn't always induce one to favor the more expensive cable or component. Also, many of us buy cables and other components on 30 to 60-day return; thus, there is not yet an "investment" that one feels obligated to justify by hearing improvements that are not there. 

 3. I think we are interested in hearing from those who have tried cables and heard no difference. (We don't typically hear from many of these folks though, either because those who have tried different cables have heard a difference, or because those who claim no difference argue based on the "science" and actually refuse to encumber their analysis with actual experience.) Of course, if someone claims to hear a difference has a system that is of relatively low quality, I would think you would have to agree that this should be taken into account in evaluating their opinion. It shouldn't necessarily exclude their comments and experience from consideration, but you want to take all factors into account in drawing your conclusions, right? In other words, if you consider the fact that the guy might be hearing a placebo effect because he spend $500 on a cable and can't return it, should you not include the fact that a person's system might not resolve enough detail to hear a difference that might exist in a better system?


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Doesn't that limit the discussion to people with a relatively high monetary investment, and thus more likely to perceive improvements regardless of veracity? Seems if you were interested in an actual two-way discussion you'd want to hear from all sides, including those who have tried other cables and found them no different so spent accordingly._

 

No, it limits the discussion to people that have experience with what they are talking about. I could debate the finer points of Russian poetry with you, but it would get old pretty quick because I don't know a damn thing about Russian poetry. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The point is that a lot of the comments on the skeptic side of this and other threads come from people that have not tried other cables [or whatever they happen to be discussing]. It is true that audio equipment costs money and those with more of it will be able to more freely explore what the world has to offer... that is not a truism of audiophile equipment but of life. However it is also quite possible to build a very nice setup from cheap components with enough perseverance by finding good deals and synergy between components. I am most definitely not rich, but through the various incarnations that my home rig has taken over the years, friends equipment, head-fi meets, etc, I have been able to sample quite a bit even though my paycheck might not allow it. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_If I see someone with a sony/panasonic dvd player that is going on about how the source doesn't matter I will tune out pretty damn quick._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_The DVD player isn't a 1:1 analogy at all, though; there are measurably quantifiable differences in the output of a cheap player with cheap parts and a good player with good parts._

 

It is a 1:1 analogy in the way that I used it as I have had people who use a DVD player as their primary source say this to me in the past... and I perceive it in the same way as I do the cable comments that are based on science and not experience.

 Let me put it this way: Using science to explain an experience is better than using science to disprove someone else’s experience.

 I have no problem with people that try to quantify and explain things that they have observed... I do have a problem with people who try to use science as a weapon to prove others wrong based on their own guesswork.

 PS. Did you see my reply to your 'Night and Day' post?


----------



## bigshot

Price is a better determiner of status than it is of sound. I've heard a $200 Yamaha CD player that sounded and performed great. To me, an audiophile is someone who is able to combine components to create a great performing system at just about any price point. That takes a keen ear, a good head for how elements will work together and the ability to think outside the box. Just throwing money at the problem doesn't take any brains at all. A chimp with a fat wallet can walk into an audiophile boutique and come out with an expensive system.

 Someone who says, "I don't know much about art but I know what I like." isn't the one you want to go to for advice on building a good collection of art. All they can tell you is what *they* like. It's the same for audio. If someone can't be bothered to understand how and why their system works the way it does, how can they offer any worthwhile advice to others?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_Let me put it this way: Using science to explain an experience is better than using science to disprove someone else’s experience.

 I have no problem with people that try to quantify and explain things that they have observed... I do have a problem with people who try to use science as a weapon to prove others wrong based on their own guesswork.

 PS. Did you see my reply to your 'Night and Day' post?_

 

Yes, I did, and I appreciate the disclosure. It's good to know that not everyone here is a fanatic (though I did not suspect such, or else I wouldn't have bothered posting in the first place).

 As to the question of science - I hate to use the word science as an abstract, nearly mystical term, because doing so undermines the authority of using tested, explained physical principles to speak about subjects. The truth of the matter, though, is that many of the subjective observations spoken of in this thread and others have no physical basis, no "scientific" merit if you will, and yet it is the science that is scoffed at, the physical reality that is said to be incorrect. Subjectivity in audio is near-absolute, given the nature of adaptive hearing, psychoacoustic differences, the untrustworthiness of sense data, and the truism that there is literally no way to account for taste differences.

 And so it goes. Why are physical principles that explain frequency response adequate and firmly accepted when it supports a claim (for example, inductance and resistance, output capacitance and amplifier principles) but horribly inadequate when it refutes flawed observations?

 If the difference between the cable hound and myself is one of faith, then yes, I am an atheist - if he experiences miracles that I just can't measure or reproduce, it is not a failure on my part but rather something radical on his. But I am the one that is derided.

 Please understand that none of my comments are made in aggression. If they do not foster debate in the eyes of a believer, forgive me my nonbelief, but please don't think that I'm personally attacking you or anyone else.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Price is a better determiner of status than it is of sound. I've heard a $200 Yamaha CD player that sounded and performed great. To me, an audiophile is someone who is able to combine components to create a great performing system at just about any price point. That takes a keen ear, a good head for how elements will work together and the ability to think outside the box. Just throwing money at the problem doesn't take any brains at all. A chimp with a fat wallet can walk into an audiophile boutique and come out with an expensive system._

 

 I would agree with you that relatively inexpensive components can be combined to create an excellent sounding system. I would also agree that money spent is not a conclusive determinant of a good sounding system, and that lack of money spent is not conclusive of a bad system, but there is certainly some correlation between money spent and the sound quality of a system. Indeed, the statement that it takes skill to select an inexpensive system that sounds good is an admission that the expenditure of money can substitute to some extent for the skill. In other words, money doesn't guarantee performance, but it certainly can help a great deal. And if putting together an inexpensive good sounding system takes skill, this also indicates that there are likely to be inexpensive systems out there that may not be sufficiently resolving to yield the types of differences we are talking about (assuming arguendo that they exist, which I understand you don't concede).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Someone who says, "I don't know much about art but I know what I like." isn't the one you want to go to for advice on building a good collection of art. All they can tell you is what *they* like. It's the same for audio. If someone can't be bothered to understand how and why their system works the way it does, how can they offer any worthwhile advice to others?
_

 

 IMO, art is entirely different from audio, as the appreciation of art is entirely more subjective, and the range of tastes in art is much greater than the range of sounds that people would find pleasing in terms of the reproduction of a given piece of music, again IMO. And if I say that I found silver cables from X manufacturer to be bright in my system, and 25 other folks on this board say the same thing, but none of us can specifiy the db's involved or demonstrate it by measurements, I still think that is useful information to the next person who wonders whether he should try such a cable in his or her system, or should try something else. Also, while I appreciate your standards and approaches to audio, if we apply them to the discussions on this board, we will decide that 80 percent of the threads (or maybe 90 to 95 percent, or more) are not worthwhile. I think that is a rather extreme judgment to make.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_And so it goes. Why are physical principles that explain frequency response adequate and firmly accepted when it supports a claim (for example, inductance and resistance, output capacitance and amplifier principles) but horribly inadequate when it refutes flawed observations?
_

 

 If I stick a thermometer into a bucket of water that is very hot when I put my finger in it, and the thermometer reads 120 degrees, I will accept, everything else being equal, that the temperature of the water is 120 degrees and the thermometer is working correctly. If it stick the thermometer in the very hot water and it reads 35 degrees, by first thought is that the thermometer is not capable of measuring the water accurately, not that the water is really 35 degrees and it just feels very hot to me. I suppose one could say my observations about the water are flawed, but if you stick your finger in the water right after I do, you will probably find it to be very hot. Of course, you could refuse to do it and state that the thermometer says the water is 35 degrees, and that that is the end of it.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_If I stick a thermometer into a bucket of water that is very hot when I put my finger in it, and the thermometer reads 120 degrees, I will accept, everything else being equal, that the temperature of the water is 120 degrees and the thermometer is working correctly. If it stick the thermometer in the very hot water and it reads 35 degrees, by first thought is that the thermometer is not capable of measuring the water accurately, not that the water is really 35 degrees and it just feels very hot to me. I suppose one could say my observations about the water are flawed, but if you stick your finger in the water right after I do, you will probably find it to be very hot. Of course, you could refuse to do it and state that the thermometer says the water is 35 degrees, and that that is the end of it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

And if it were water we were discussing, and ineffective thermometers, we would end it right here and I'd go do something productive like plant radishes.

 Unfortunately, we're dealing with quite refined instruments that _aren't_ wrong in their reports of capacitance/frequency, inductance, resistance, and lots of other ugly science words that no one likes (least of all me). And, given that not only the theory (as in Theory of Evolution or Theory of Gravity, not as in "I have a theory that if you look at a tree long enough it turns into a goat") but also the measurements reflect, in no uncertain way, that certain described differences simply don't occur, I am left to fault the observer rather than the amalgamated scientific knowledge against which he rages.




 I maintain that if the differences are ear-observable, *and especially (as your analogy seems to suggest) night and day*, they ought to be at least recordable by recording the transducer output in very closely controlled settings. Vibration-controlled static mounts for both condensor microphone and transducer in a acoustically controlled room with an easy a/b cable configuration and enough recordings ought to be perfectly illuminate any audible differences, especially the "big ones" you read about here at Head-Fi and other self-professed audiophile forums. Do you contend this notion, aside from any (and I'm using the words that have been thrown at me by the framers of this debate) "ideological" differences we might have regarding cable effects?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_And if I say that I found silver cables from X manufacturer to be bright in my system, and 25 other folks on this board say the same thing, but none of us can specifiy the db's involved or demonstrate it by measurements, I still think that is useful information to the next person who wonders whether he should try such a cable in his or her system, or should try something else._

 

And if 50 other people say that cables make no difference whatsoever?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Also, while I appreciate your standards and approaches to audio, if we apply them to the discussions on this board, we will decide that 80 percent of the threads (or maybe 90 to 95 percent, or more) are not worthwhile. I think that is a rather extreme judgment to make._

 

I don't know 'bout that... I'd say 80 to 95% of what one reads on the internet is pretty pointless, wouldn't you? The idea is to sift out the tiny bit of wheat buried under the mountain of chafe.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_If I stick a thermometer into a bucket of water that is very hot when I put my finger in it, and the thermometer reads 120 degrees, I will accept, everything else being equal, that the temperature of the water is 120 degrees and the thermometer is working correctly. If it stick the thermometer in the very hot water and it reads 35 degrees, by first thought is that the thermometer is not capable of measuring the water accurately, not that the water is really 35 degrees and it just feels very hot to me._

 

We aren't talking about a difference of that magnitude. The difference between cables is more like sticking your finger in water that feels like 116 degrees to you, but the thermometer reads 120. In that case, it's perfectly possible that it's just a subjective reaction on your part and the thermometer is correct.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Price is a better determiner of status than it is of sound. I've heard a $200 Yamaha CD player that sounded and performed great. To me, an audiophile is someone who is able to combine components to create a great performing system at just about any price point. That takes a keen ear, a good head for how elements will work together and the ability to think outside the box. Just throwing money at the problem doesn't take any brains at all. A chimp with a fat wallet can walk into an audiophile boutique and come out with an expensive system._

 

If you read my post again you will see this is exactly what I am saying... who are you arguing with? Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Why are physical principles that explain frequency response adequate and firmly accepted when it supports a claim (for example, inductance and resistance, output capacitance and amplifier principles) but horribly inadequate when it refutes flawed observations?_

 

Personally I don't hold much stock in frequency response graphs either way. I've seen the graphs that Headroom has for various headphones... and I've heard those headphones first hand. In most cases the expected sound and what you actually hear does not match up. This is one of the reasons why I tend to trust my ears over measurements. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_If the difference between the cable hound and myself is one of faith, then yes, I am an atheist - if he experiences miracles that I just can't measure or reproduce, it is not a failure on my part but rather something radical on his. But I am the one that is derided._

 

But you havent tried them... or measured them... or attempted to reproduce the situation. This is my point. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_Please understand that none of my comments are made in aggression. If they do not foster debate in the eyes of a believer, forgive me my nonbelief, but please don't think that I'm personally attacking you or anyone else._

 

I appreciate that, though it wasn't really necissary. I can tell from your posts that your not just trying to stir up a hornets nest.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_But you havent tried them... or measured them... or attempted to reproduce the situation._

 

I'm trying now to get someone to show me the light, as it were, by means of the recordings I spoke of earlier. If there is such a difference, then it would be apparent on recordings taken according to the method I described above.


----------



## philodox

Not sure what recordings you are referring to, maybe I missed that post?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_And if 50 other people say that cables make no difference whatsoever?_

 

 But they don't. That is, 50 other people _who have tried the cables _don't say that, and that's what is likely to be important to the person considering buying the silver cable vs. the other.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I don't know 'bout that... I'd say 80 to 95% of what one reads on the internet is pretty pointless, wouldn't you? The idea is to sift out the tiny bit of wheat buried under the mountain of chafe.
_

 

 I'm not talking about the internet; I'm talking specifically about this forum. If you think 80 to 95% of what you read on Head-Fi is pretty pointless, I guess that explains some of our differences, as we may have a different view of people in general, the membership of this forum, as well as the value of their observations and opinions, and what they have to offer to us.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_We aren't talking about a difference of that magnitude. The difference between cables is more like sticking your finger in water that feels like 116 degrees to you, but the thermometer reads 120. In that case, it's perfectly possible that it's just a subjective reaction on your part and the thermometer is correct.
_

 

 Agreed, but that was not my point, which merely responded to NJB's point about trusting measurements that deviate from observations vs. vice-versa.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_Not sure what recordings you are referring to, maybe I missed that post?_

 

I'll repost it, no worries:


 I maintain that if the differences are ear-observable, and especially (as PhilS' analogy seems to suggest) night and day, they ought to be at least recordable by recording the transducer output in very closely controlled settings. Vibration-controlled static mounts for both condensor microphone and transducer in a acoustically controlled room with an easy a/b cable configuration and enough recordings ought to be perfectly illuminate any audible differences, especially the "big ones" you read about here at Head-Fi and other self-professed audiophile forums. Do you contend this notion, aside from any (and I'm using the words that have been thrown at me by the framers of this debate) "ideological" differences we might have regarding cable effects?

 I'm hoping PhilS will answer the question - does he think it's just something magical with the cables and the ears (unlikely) or does he think it actually alters transducer output? If the latter, it would inevitably be recordable. You trust good microphones to record the music in the first place, and they do so remarkably well, so trust one now to record the differences you hear to show me.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_I'll repost it, no worries:


 I maintain that if the differences are ear-observable, and especially (as PhilS' analogy seems to suggest) night and day, they ought to be at least recordable by recording the transducer output in very closely controlled settings. Vibration-controlled static mounts for both condensor microphone and transducer in a acoustically controlled room with an easy a/b cable configuration and enough recordings ought to be perfectly illuminate any audible differences, especially the "big ones" you read about here at Head-Fi and other self-professed audiophile forums. Do you contend this notion, aside from any (and I'm using the words that have been thrown at me by the framers of this debate) "ideological" differences we might have regarding cable effects?

 I'm hoping PhilS will answer the question - does he think it's just something magical with the cables and the ears (unlikely) or does he think it actually alters transducer output? If the latter, it would inevitably be recordable. You trust good microphones to record the music in the first place, and they do so remarkably well, so trust one now to record the differences you hear to show me._

 

 I don't know enough about condensor microphones and transducer output to answer this question. I'm hoping someone else does, as I'd like to know the answer also.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I don't know enough about condensor microphones and transducer output to answer this question. I'm hoping someone else does, as I'd like to know the answer also._

 

Condensor microphones are very accurate microphones with a high dynamic range that can record linearly across a wide frequency band. Just a very good, sensitive microphone.

 Transducer output is just what you hear - your headphone/speaker drivers are transducers.

 To rephrase for clarity, if it actually alters the sound you hear, do you believe it can be recorded with a very good, sensitive microphone?


----------



## JaZZ

You don't need (condenser) microphones. I digitalized a vinyl record with my modded E-MU 1212M using two different IC cables (Zu Gede and Silver Dragon), with slightly different sonic results, just as expected from the sonic signatures experienced in my main setup. 
.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_You don't need (condenser) microphones. I digitalized a vinyl record with my modded E-MU 1212M using two different IC cables (Zu Gede and Silver Dragon), with slightly different sonic results, just as expected from the sonic signatures experienced in my main setup. 
._

 

Mind uploading a few tracks for comparison?


----------



## JaZZ

It's just one track, but it's almost 40 MB -- and I have no website. The best I could do is make an exerpts of each version and encode it to Lame -V 1 or the like. And send it to someone via e-mail.
.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_You don't need (condenser) microphones. I digitalized a vinyl record with my modded E-MU 1212M using two different IC cables (Zu Gede and Silver Dragon), with slightly different sonic results, just as expected from the sonic signatures experienced in my main setup. 
._

 

The test that would clearly show the differences would be to take a CD and digitize it using two different cables, then redigitize each one for 10 generations. Then compare the three files- if the two multigeneration files sound about the same, but are different than the original, you can be sure you are hearing the affect of the sound card- If all three tracks sound very different, the cables are making the difference.

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The test that would clearly show the differences would be to take a CD and digitize it using two different cables, then redigitize each one for 10 generations. Then compare the three files- if the two multigeneration files sound about the same, but are different than the original, you can be sure you are hearing the affect of the sound card- If all three tracks sound very different, the cables are making the difference.

 Thanks
 Steve_

 

What you say would work would not work. The CD is already a digital medium, and the input/output hashes of a copy ought to be the same because it is just that - a copy. Further, I don't know how you'd put the audio cables somewhere in the transmission stream... Wait, do you mean vinyl? Sorry if I've just gone on about a typo.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_It's just one track, but it's almost 40 MB -- and I have no website. The best I could do is make an exerpts of each version and encode it to Lame -V 1 or the like. And send it to someone via e-mail.
. _

 

Hrm, could you instead make it into a multi-part RAR with section sizes under 7MB? You can send attachments that big with GMail, and the RAR would recompile the full wav instead of a lossy compressed one when all was sent.

 Please PM me and we'll work it out if you don't know how, or if you don't have a gmail account I'll be happy to supply an invite.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_To rephrase for clarity, if it actually alters the sound you hear, do you believe it can be recorded with a very good, sensitive microphone?_

 

 I'm not sure, but I would think so. But if the microphone is not used with my sources and related equipment, won't that undermine the results, either way?


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I'm not sure, but I would think so. But if the microphone is not used with my sources and related equipment, won't that undermine the results, either way?_

 

If it makes a difference, why would it only make a difference with your sources and related equipment? It's not a subjective difference, right, but an objective one?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_If it makes a difference, why would it only make a difference with your sources and related equipment? It's not a subjective difference, right, but an objective one?_

 

 We're trying to find out if it is subjective or objective, and I believe it is objective, but the phenomenon I experienced in MY system was sibilance. I had it more with one cable (the silver cable) than another (the copper cable). If the test is conducted with a system that is not as "resolving" as mine, or not as "sibilant" or "bright" (if you prefer that nomenclature), is it possible that the cable differences would not be heard by either by the ears or the microphone or that the magnitude of the difference would be much less? To put it another way, are you suggesting that if one claims to hear a difference between a silver and copper cable on a very high quality system that one should also hear the difference, and the same magnitude of difference, on a system with a $50 cheapo DVD player as the source and with a cmoy as the amp?


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_We're trying to find out if it is subjective or objective, and I believe it is objective, but the phenomenon I experienced in MY system was sibilance. I had it more with one cable (the silver cable) than another (the copper cable). If the test is conducted with a system that is not as "resolving" as mine, or not as "sibilant" or "bright" (if you prefer that nomenclature), is it possible that the cable differences would not be heard by either by the ears or the microphone or that the magnitude of the difference would be much less? To put it another way, are you suggesting that if one claims to hear a difference between a silver and copper cable on a very high quality system that one should also hear the difference, and the same magnitude of difference, on a system with a $50 cheapo DVD player as the source and with a cmoy as the amp?_

 


 Perhaps not to that magnitude, but the difference would be of a similar nature. If a cable has properties which, for whatever reason, make the treble louder, for example, or quieter (if it reduces sibilance), it should exhibit that regardless of system used. Obviously it would be best to use one that wouldn't introduce too many anomolies (well shielded, no transmission issues), but on any quality system an A/B with cables said to have "bright" and "dark" would show that difference notably.

 And, if we can hear it, so can a microphone, so a recording ought to show it, which would then allow anyone to hear the difference. You might say, "but they're not using my equipment!" Right, but they'll still be hearing the same magnitude of difference in playing back the two samples, just on their equipment.


----------



## PhilS

Gotcha. So the next question, I guess, is whether Jazz can send you the test results he mentioned previously. Because I don't have the cable at issue anymore (since I returned it on 30-day return), or a condensor microphone. But I assume if Jazz's test results show what he says they show, that will resolve the issue, right?


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Gotcha. So the next question, I guess, is whether Jazz can send you the test results he mentioned previously. Because I don't have the cable at issue anymore (since I returned it on 30-day return), or a condensor microphone. But I assume if Jazz's test results show what he says they show, that will resolve the issue, right?_

 

Yes, presenting evidence of a phenomenon does tend to resolve disagreements about its existance.

 I look forward to hearing it - I worry that if I hear nothing I will simply be called tin-ears, but hopefully that won't be necessary. I gather from the comments on this subforum that interconnects make a large perceived difference in many cases, and hopefully it will be large enough that I can perceive it.

 If anyone disagrees with this informal test methodology, let me know, and I'll try to address it.

 JaZZ, would you be interested in re-recording some tracks for difference analysis? It would be easier to see a trend or pattern given multiple samples.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_ I gather from the comments on this subforum that interconnects make a large perceived difference in many cases, and hopefully it will be large enough that I can perceive it._

 

I don't think it is accurate to say the most of the "believers" perceived a "large" difference with interconnects in "many" cases. I know that, for me, the differences were NOT large in most instances. I generally have found interconnect differences to be subtle, although noticeable with careful listening, except for the difference with the silver cable mentioned previously, which was very clearly audible. I have found the difference from switching out power cords in my system to also be very noticeable, not subtle. But I wouldn't put yourself under an expectation that you will percieve a large difference. Let's just see if you hear any difference when you get around to it, and then go from there.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* 
_I look forward to hearing it - I worry that if I hear nothing I will simply be called tin-ears, but hopefully that won't be necessary. I gather from the comments on this subforum that interconnects make a large perceived difference in many cases, and hopefully it will be large enough that I can perceive it._

 

I wouldn't call the differences large at all, they're rather subtle compared to sound transducers, but can be decisive nonetheless, for the over-all coherence and my listening pleasure. And certainly I wouldn't call anybody's ears tin ears, as you most likely need some training for hearing the specific kind of differences caused by cables. Just as it's the case with MP3s -- I have to admit that to my ears 320 kb/s sound the same as Wave, as I haven't learned to listen to the specific artifacts, nor do I intend to learn it. 

 The real issue I have at the moment is that I can't hear a difference myself between the two recording versions (anymore), so I guess if there is one it's too subtle to serve as example. Maybe I'm just too tired -- and I really am, from my first day at a new employment and not enough sleep --, but I still can hear the difference between said two ICs in my main setup; live, so to speak, without digitalization. Two other things may be decisive: Maybe I have never compared the two recordings side by side, just perceived the difference while monitoring during the recording -- thus before digitalization! The second factor is that the turntable's internal cable (from the headshell to the terminal) still made about 50% of the signal path, beside the Zu Gede and the Silver Dragon. So the cable effect is somewhat diluted anyway. 

 I'm a bit puzzled about the effect. But another theory is that digitalization could indeed be responsible for the equalization of the difference. On the one hand by effective decrease of resolution due to limited ADC quality (E-MU 1212M) and the digital format itself, on the other hand due to the sharp 21-kHz low-pass filter. If the cable effect has to do with something like higher-order harmonics reaching into the ultrasonic range -- for instance --, they are indeed cut off by the digitalization process. That's not to say ultrasonics are audible directly and isolatedly, but maybe they could nevertheless be missed, as some experiments seem to have shown. 

 However, I will try the test again tomorrow, if I'm in a better state. 
.


----------



## Jeff Wong

By saying a difference was "large", I think what might be in fact be intended is "meaningful" - I have heard changes caused by power cords and interconnects that allowed me to hear more subtle cues like rear wall reflections, harmonic overtones, decay trails... nuances, really, but, significant in the sense that the portrayal of the music was that much more realistic or convincing, hence, a "large" difference.


----------



## philodox

NotJeffBuckley - Ah, that does sound like an interesting test... if only I had all of the equipment to do it. Talk about a monetary investment. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Jeff Wong - Exactly how I look at those types of posts.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_NotJeffBuckley - Ah, that does sound like an interesting test... if only I had all of the equipment to do it. Talk about a monetary investment. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Jeff Wong - Exactly how I look at those types of posts. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You can get a sub-$100 mic preamp that would be perfectly suitable for these purposes.

 Oh, hell, wait!

 Just run an interconnect from a good, low-noise soundcard's output into its line-in!

 A/B 5 small (say, 30-second) recordings a piece (to account for unknown variables) and you ought to have your answer. That should bring out any differences the cable makes, if they're noticable enough to remark on.


----------

