Well,I said from the beginning that this is my "guess". The only fact i'm sure of is that i can hear difference in cables and and don't actually like it - i want the predictability in sound so i came up with a few practical rules which always worked for me.
As for resistance - I was trying to say that it affect cable construction which then have different characteristics as the result, but poorly constructed the sentence, sorry (my english got rusty over the years)
As for multi-stranded - all i know is what i hear and then logically try to pinpoint the biggest difference in construction. Logic suggests that if oxidised surface matters then multi-stranded has much higher percentage of it's overall mass in contact with air and more oxidised surface\conductor mass as result.
As for jitter - i just think that because it is possible to observe effect of jitter in digital cable then same factors could apply to analog signal. But jitter is another, much more complex topic i guess and i know not all factors that affect jitter (like limited bandwidth or reflections) are important for audio signal...
I always have a few cables for demonstration purposes which don't have any visible or measureable defects, yet cause severe changes in sound. It's not the improvements that quickly convince people, but how cables can ruin the sound. Seeing flat frequency response, fairly low resistance etc. caused a lot of people to think something is amiss here
But i can definately see that conductors are no way a pure copper so that must be the reason, otherwise they are fine.
Last edited:
I always have a few cables for demonstration purposes which totaly destroy the sound without having any visible or measureable defects, yet which cause severe changes in sound. It's not the improvements that quickly convince people, but how cables can ruin the sound that work best. Seeing flat frequency response, fairly low resistance etc. caused a lot of people to think something is amiss here
My experience is completely the opposite. Only a cable that is broken will change the sound. One's anecdotal evidence being as good as another's, this sort of brings the balance back, so please look at real evidence, such as:
- Pano's mud test on this site.
- Pear Cable Chickens Out of $1,000,000 Challenge, We Search For Answers.
Too bad real life test isn't possible, i wouldn't chicken out if i were allowed to pick cables for comparison
But maybe there's easy way - record sound at interconnect's end by just plugging it into a decent ADC. Then people can listen and compare sound with different cables, at least interconnects, source power cables, SPDif, USB.
The final sound will be a sum of both recorded and playback systems, but differences should be noticeable. Easy for testing of what was discussed here like insulation, multi-stranded vs solid etc. Also easy FR, THD, noise etc. measurement Hmm, i guess i'll try it at weekend
But maybe there's easy way - record sound at interconnect's end by just plugging it into a decent ADC. Then people can listen and compare sound with different cables, at least interconnects, source power cables, SPDif, USB.
The final sound will be a sum of both recorded and playback systems, but differences should be noticeable. Easy for testing of what was discussed here like insulation, multi-stranded vs solid etc. Also easy FR, THD, noise etc. measurement Hmm, i guess i'll try it at weekend
Last edited:
Digital cable is the one where a difference in signal can be shown when tested . British mags. did some good test this year showing how poor some of the cable where in passing signal in the digital field.
links references please...
its digital and looking at how bad the digital wave is gives NO indication of what the sound will be like...
If a digital cable does not pass the signal well, you will get drop outs and notice the problem, they will not be subtle differences, though I have seen threads where they have tried to correlate what the digital waveform looks like with the resultant audio output.....
its digital and looking at how bad the digital wave is gives NO indication of what the sound will be like...
If a digital cable does not pass the signal well, you will get drop outs and notice the problem, they will not be subtle differences, though I have seen threads where they have tried to correlate what the digital waveform looks like with the resultant audio output.....
CaBling
Has anyone tried the wireworld cable comparator?
I did, years ago, when my hearing was doubtlessly better than now.
I couldn't hear any differences with something called a black orpheous headphone rig.
The salesman told me I needed to start buying Polaris cable and work my way up as my hearing became more refined.
Now I just worry about adequate gauge, use twisted pairs, and use gp wire to address tarnishing issues.
I am guilty of using high copper content plugs and jacks, solderless, to maintain high conductivity.
Couldn't one make several recordings with different source cables, and analyze the play back of each sample?
Has anyone tried the wireworld cable comparator?
I did, years ago, when my hearing was doubtlessly better than now.
I couldn't hear any differences with something called a black orpheous headphone rig.
The salesman told me I needed to start buying Polaris cable and work my way up as my hearing became more refined.
Now I just worry about adequate gauge, use twisted pairs, and use gp wire to address tarnishing issues.
I am guilty of using high copper content plugs and jacks, solderless, to maintain high conductivity.
Couldn't one make several recordings with different source cables, and analyze the play back of each sample?
For example: The Sound of a Digital Cable: Bandwidth and Jitter
and maybe this as well to see how it actually sounds:
The sound of Jitter
I'll try to do it - just two WAV files (or FLAC) recorded with different interconnects and post them as well as photos of the setup, should be fun!
Last edited:
Hifi Chose earlier this year have to go back thru the copies to see which one. Regards
I wish people would stop recommending defective software ...
In what way is it defective?
I guess it's too much to expect given the nature of this thread that people would actually provide evidence for their claims, but I'd be remiss if I didn't again insist that people stop making factual claims without posting anything but their opinion.
The results didn't support some wild claim or other. Like the "instantly audible" difference between copper and a potato that vanished when peeking wasn't allowed.
It seems obvious you haven't actually tried using this effort - I have, on two separate occasions, and that means trying to get it do something real, useful - rather than just play with the demos. Basically, a miserable failure - as an example of software it is probably the most excrutiatingly bad piece of work I've come across in ages; unless it is fed in exactly the way it expects to be fed it either crashes, or comes up with meaningless error messages - zero robustness, reliability; I spent hours once trying to get it to compare 2 versions of a track, trying every combination and permutation I could think of to make it actually do something - I gave up in the end ...
When it does actually manage to do something, the slightest trivial variation between the files completely fools it - deliberately injecting a defect in one version of the track made it vomit up vast amounts of difference that weren't there at all.
The first rule of a tool is that it should work, in some fashion - a failure at that level does not give one much confidence ...
When it does actually manage to do something, the slightest trivial variation between the files completely fools it - deliberately injecting a defect in one version of the track made it vomit up vast amounts of difference that weren't there at all.
The first rule of a tool is that it should work, in some fashion - a failure at that level does not give one much confidence ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.