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

[Key]

Originally Posted by Passion

Key,

All measurements are accurate, and the results make electrical sense. Please make sure that you understand what they mean, and how they were performed.

Best,

R

Well I was just trying to say something simple. That I have run some pretty intense tests on ICs since I started visiting this thread and I don't see anything drastic with a difference of cables unless something is clearly wrong with them. I wish I had enough cables to do a simple ADC/DAC line level shoot out that could show you but I don't.

I think the subjectivist side of this argument is constantly trying to pull it into something it isn't. A strawman debate where one side says nothing ever makes a difference and the other side thinks everything makes a difference. Who is actually arguing this?

At a certain point things which are measurable are negligible to human perception. I do not believe that a sound system is so delicate that a difference of .5dB of crosstalk and a .5dB loss of high end @ 40kHz or even 20kHz makes a significant difference.

I truly think that people are looking in the wrong place if they actually think the cables or ICs are the weak link in the chain. Or are trying to get some sort of a soundstage improvement out of a device that is only supposed to pass the signal along unchanged (at best). It is not the role of a cable to make your music sound better and it is my experience that results in this direction are usually because of inaccuracies and not the device being more accurate - pleasurable harmonic distortions and an inaccurate pleasurable FR.

Sure ICs can measure differently but why? Is it some magical parameter which alludes us or is it just plain old LCR with a little bit of voicing tricks thrown in? Beware of voicing tricks they are used on everything in my experience.

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by fdegrove

Hi,



When you're comparing apples and oranges, what do you expect? No difference?

IOW, what people are trying to get across here is that if you do listening tests you'd better know what it is you're evaluating.

Comparing two sets of cables where one shows a higher ohmic resistance per meter than the other is only going to tell you that one may be a little bit louder than the other.
Crank up the volume...

I can think of at least one high-end company manufacturing cables that adds an inordinate amount of series resistance due to the conductor material they use. Can't say it's a bad cable though.

Anyhow, stop this quixotic paranoia and just accept that listening tests without controlled data aren't going to cut it no matter how hard you wished it would.

Just trying to help, you know.

Cheers,

Frank,

I understand your opinion, but this does not change my views one iota. My years of being around very good audio equipment(as well as mid-fi) have allowed me to hear differences in all types of equipment. We will just have to disagree on this one. I also understand that some people do not care about the differences. I simply would like to find out why they exist, so that I have a better understanding and the causes.

[SY]

Andre, given that there's no actual technical definition for "soundstage" and "detail," it can't be measured. Since it's a subjective impression (how well was my brain fooled by two sets of moving diaphragms into thinking there were instruments playing?), it's best judged subjectively. That is not synonymous with "uncontrolled."

[fdegrove]

Hi, (Michael?)

Do you think you're the only one having spent years around the nice goodies?

What I'm saying is that without measurements you're walking blind.
If I repeatedly hear differences between IC A and IC B, I'd like to know why.

Like I said before, there are still way too many things out there I'd like to understand, things I hear as different and can't understand.
As said, I wish I'd measured more, taken more recordings (on my G36 no less).
Nonetheless, I can proudly say I'm one of many that have helped audio to be where it could have been today.
Meaning that from a mere musical perspective I'd rather had seen the appearance of a super Revox G36 than Dolby 5.1 if you see what I'm getting at.

Cheers,

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by fdegrove

Hi, (Michael?)

Do you think you're the only one having spent years around the nice goodies?

What I'm saying is that without measurements you're walking blind.
If I repeatedly hear differences between IC A and IC B, I'd like to know why.

Like I said before, there are still way too many things out there I'd like to understand, things I hear as different and can't understand.
As said, I wish I'd measured more, taken more recordings (on my G36 no less).
Nonetheless, I can proudly say I'm one of many that have helped audio to be where it could have been today.
Meaning that from a mere musical perspective I'd rather had seen the appearance of a super Revox G36 than Dolby 5.1 if you see what I'm getting at.

Cheers,

Frank I am not against measuring anything. No I know a great many people that have been involved in high end audio. I have been to many CES's and meet a great many engineers from all of the upper end companies. They all have reasons why things sound different and I am sure that they fully understand why their designs sound the way they do. I am try to learn. I want to know what makes the differences. That is what I would like to find out from measurements. These have not been found or we would know the reason by now. Passion at least may have a viable clue with his testing.

[BudP]

Originally Posted by andy_c

The important thing to realize is that, for a cable consisting of perfect conductors, the energy that gets transferred from the source to the load is conveyed in a wave that is confined to the dielectric of the cable and surrounding air if any. In this case, Maxwell's equations dictate that no energy is transferred from the source to the load via the conductors (really!). When imperfect conductors are considered, one must think of the problem in terms of the sum of two waves. The first of these waves travels from the source to the load, and for a coax cable or other type of cable for which the mode of propagation is TEM (transverse electromagnetic), this wave travels at the speed of light divided by the square root of the relative dielectric constant (epsilon) of the dielectric material. For solid teflon, for example, epsilon is about 2.2. For the foamed teflon found in coax, it's less than 2. This is the wave that gives you the desired signal at the load, and it travels at just slightly less than the speed of light. The second of these waves is the so-called "loss wave", which is the wave that heats up the conductors. It conveys no energy from the source to the load. It propagates inside the conductors. IOW, it's the wave associated with the energy that never gets to the load, but is lost as heat. It is this wave that has the slow propagation velocity. So Hawksford's statements are somewhat misleading for this reason.

For more info on this, and a critique of the Hawksford article, see this issue of The Audio Critic (PDF) (somewhat humorously referred to as "The Essex Yecch-o") .

Michael,

The above is the truth. All sonic differences lie in the dielectric components used in a cable. Ultimately all tonal and transient differences come down to losses, unless a serious mistake has been made with respect to materials and a resonance has been introduced in the audible frequency response. This is a difficult thing to do.

There are amplifiers with instabilities that require a certain combination of LCR to make them perform properly. Sy likely can name a few, but for the bulk of any differences you must look into dielectric materials.

May I suggest that you invest some money in some Litz wire and various woven tubes, available in craft stores in the decorative sewing departments. They will have cotton paired with, Rayon, Orlon, Nylon, Lycra (whatever that actually is), and likely others. The % mix is on the package. Use these as coverings for otherwise bare Litz wire cables and find out which "sound" the best to you. Then you might be able to begin to understand how these materials alter what you hear.

Bud

[Panicos K]

BudP,do you think metal purity plays any role to the final "sound" ?

[fdegrove]

Hi,

Originally Posted by BudP

Michael,

The above is the truth. All sonic differences lie in the dielectric components used in a cable. Ultimately all tonal and transient differences come down to losses, unless a serious mistake has been made with respect to materials and a resonance has been introduced in the audible frequency response. This is a difficult thing to do.

There are amplifiers with instabilities that require a certain combination of LCR to make them perform properly. Sy likely can name a few, but for the bulk of any differences you must look into dielectric materials.

May I suggest that you invest some money in some Litz wire and various woven tubes, available in craft stores in the decorative sewing departments. They will have cotton paired with, Rayon, Orlon, Nylon, Lycra (whatever that actually is), and likely others. The % mix is on the package. Use these as coverings for otherwise bare Litz wire cables and find out which "sound" the best to you. Then you might be able to begin to understand how these materials alter what you hear.

Bud

Tried Gore-Tex* yet?

Cheers,

*Expensive, I know.

[fdegrove]

Hi,

Originally Posted by Panicos K

BudP,do you think metal purity plays any role to the final "sound" ?

Not BudP but I know I do. Not just the purity either.

Cheers and ducking for the bombs,

[Panicos K]

Originally Posted by fdegrove

Hi,



Not BudP but I know I do. Not just the purity either.

Cheers and ducking for the bombs,

I "believe" I'm immune to bombs.