I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[Passion]

Originally Posted by SY

With source and driving impedances, we can back into the DCR and equivalent inductance, then figure out what the actual frequency response variations at the termination will be. It won't be 20dB and I'll be surprised if it's 0.2dB.

Hi again,

I believe there is some confusion here. If you look at the graph in my original post (#5695), the top curve (cheap cable) show losses which are some 93db below the input signal of 2V.

For the bottom curve (expensive cable) losse are 112bB below the same input signal. We can truthfully say that losses are almost 20dB higher in the low-cost cable.

Please do not think that the input-to-output losses are 20 dB for the cheap cable...

Best,

R

[SY]

Thanks for that info. Let's do a quick reality check. You have for the Interlink cable at midband a -102dB reading. That would seem to correspond to about 80 milliohms of series resistance. Then the Magic Link at -111dB would correspond to a series resistance of 22 milliohms.

Plug these back in. With a 10k load, the loss from the Interlink is 0.00007dB. The loss from the Magic Link is 0.000035 dB. The frequency response variations are likewise well below any conceivable threshold.

I think the way you present your data makes a very trivial effect look a lot larger.

[Passion]

Originally Posted by texaslonghorn

Hi Passion. Thank you very much for your efforts here. I personally believe that ICs/Cabling do make a difference and have for several years based on my own personal listening experience. But I am curious - your chart appears to indicate a 20dB delta between cables across the frequency spectrum??? That seems pretty massive to me and not something that I have personally experienced. Can you help me understand more about how the 20dB could be for real? Again, keep in mind I am NOT a skeptic and I am very supportive of your work in this regard. I just want to make sure I am understanding what the data seems to be showing. Thank you very much.

Hi and thanks for your words,

The chart simply shows that the losses for the low-cost cable (top trace) are 93dB below the input signal, while the ones for the expensive cable are 112dB below the input signal (so, losses are much lower for the expensive cable).

Losses are pretty small in both cases... but nonetheless, there is a 19dB difference between them. Losses in the low-cost cable are almost ten times as large.

Please let me know if you need any further clarification.

Best,

Ricardo

[Passion]

Originally Posted by SY

Thanks for that info. Let's do a quick reality check. You have for the Interlink cable at midband a -102dB reading. That would seem to correspond to about 80 milliohms of series resistance. Then the Magic Link at -111dB would correspond to a series resistance of 22 milliohms.

Plug these back in. With a 10k load, the loss from the Interlink is 0.00007dB. The loss from the Magic Link is 0.000035 dB. The frequency response variations are likewise well below any conceivable threshold.

I think the way you present your data makes a very trivial effect look a lot larger.

I think losses of -93dB vs losses of -112dB is not trivial at all...

[SY]

In the context you're presenting them, they are indeed trivial. These correspond to level/frequency response changes of less than a thousandth of a decibel. How is that not trivial?

[texaslonghorn]

Please keep in mind that I ain't too smart, so think of my mental capacity being equal to mud pie (which it is). The way I read the graph, it seems that if I used the best cable you tested between my source and pre, the signal going into my pre with that cable would be 19dB BETTER than the crappy cable between my source and signal, meaning that the signal loss of the good cable is 19dB LESS than the crappy one. Is that correct? And that the Magic Link experiences MORE signal loss as the frequency nears/exceed 20khz? If a cable was to test perfectly in your system - i.e., Zero loss - where would that line plot - right on top of your reference line or way at the bottom (I think at the bottom, correct?)

Maybe it is the reference signal that is confusing me. Did you create the red reference signal line to be pretty silent (ie -95dB), then see how "silent" the ICs are in comparison? I think that may be getting to the voltage question raised earlier???

I don't know - I am so confused. But I know for a fact that I have another beer in the refrigerator.

[derwhalfisch]

It seems to me that we're conceding now that there are tiny differences between interconnects, yes? But that they are negligibly small? Do we know that humans can't hear those tiny losses?

[Key]

Originally Posted by rdf

Not to pick on you in particular but that's classic unable to see the forest for the trees. A full A/D-D/A cycle through a sound card full of wires and capacitors modifies a signal less than a wire or capacitor?

Well in my testing I have actually found that yes a simple resistor or capacitor is actually more detrimental to the audio than the DAC/ADC chain - at least my soundcard. I think it is a matter of "passive loss".

The real question isn't about that at all though. And I am not even sure what specifics we are talking about here. But what delivery format that has been invented can do better than a modern DAC/ADC? I can't think of anything that benchmarks better.

[Gyuri]

I try to interpret my feelings only actually.
I know that these feelings do not interest many people.
But this thread for me early morning, without a beer, directly frightening.

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by derwhalfisch

It seems to me that we're conceding now that there are tiny differences between interconnects, yes? But that they are negligibly small? Do we know that humans can't hear those tiny losses?

I have no idea what the losses equate to on an purely electrical level. When I test cables they are allow to stay in my system for at least one week of listening, with a set of specific recordings that I am very familiar with from past listening. After this time I change back to what I was previously using. If I hear no changes in the sound of the music, I move on.

If I believe that I may hear a positive improvement from the test cables, I go back to the previous cables and give them a more extended listen. This cycle then repeats. Over this period I can discern if the cabling has made a positive or negative impact on "my" system. Scientific, no not in the eyes of many. Does it work. It does for me.

I listen to music and look for an emotional connection with it. It is the quality of the recorded performance that I look for in my personal listening tastes. This does not mean that all of my recordings are single mic, audiophile type recordings either.
Does this make the scientific crowd happy. I doubt it, but this is my system that I am trying to make it better, not theirs or anyone else's. I allow my brain to tell me if a majority of my recordings have improved with a cable change over a period of time, and checking my results bu putting back my known cabling, not a spectrum analyzer or LCR meter. My brain knows what recordings it prefers to listen to without the need for test equipment, so I trust it to tell me if I have improved the sound of these recordings, according to my perception of what real unamplified instruments sound like to me. I do admit to a personal bias toward tube equipment. Solid state has never thrilled me or moved me personally. I appreciate that the best is stellar, but it has never fit my listening style with my music.

This is not a slap at anyone that does not believe as I do. It is what works for me personally, based upon many years of critical listening. Do I think that I am special in any way? Absolutely not! I have many friends that use similar methods to tune their systems. Maybe we are all delusional, as many here deem. It is funny as someone speculated that marketing has brainwashed everyone in audio. I was never able to sell cabling (or any equipment) to anyone in my 20+ years of sales that did not listen intently to what they were considering, in their own systems, in their homes. They had the choice to return it and go on their merry way, which some did. I have never twisted anyone's arm in an effort to brainwash or influence them. If something did not offer value, to me it was not something that we wanted to offer our customers. It was never rocket science to me.

This debate will go on for ever between those that do not believe that people hear anything and those that feel that they do. Is either right or wrong? It is not my worry or nor do I care what anyone believes or does not believe. I am only interested in listening to my music. I am not a scientist trying to explain why or why not about everything in life. Personally I don't care. I do appreciate all of the effort invested by many that have allowed me the opportunity to enjoy what I have in my life. All that I care about in terms of stereo, is what I hear and whether I have improved my system and what I call a more musical connection with the performances. Nothing more and nothing less.