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

[rdf]

Originally posted by janneman
Why do I have this believe? Because until now all properly controlled blind tests I have seen/read support my believe.

Honestly curious, which tests would that be? I don't recall seeing one using a methodology I couldn't take some issue with. I'ld appreciate any links.

[janneman]

Originally posted by rdf


Honestly curious, which tests would that be? I don't recall seeing one using a methodology I couldn't take some issue with. I'ld appreciate any links.

Well, I don't collect them. When I see any, I read 'm, because I really am curious. The last two I remember, because I discussed them on the forum, are 'Science in the service of Art" by Floyd Toole (google will find it), the other one was the HiFi+ blind test on cable audibility. I don't think this last article is on-line (unless you pay) but I have posted & discussed some excerpts in the thread: "It's official: all cables sound the same". And yes, that is meant ironically. .

And people like Peter Walker of Quad have done tests that probably can be found on the 'net, as well as difference tests by for instance David Haffler of Dynaco, putting the difference of an attenuated amp output signal and the original source on speakers, getting .... total silence. It pops up once in a while on the net, don't have a easy link ready, sorry.

Jan Didden

[pxr5]

back to earth,

i've had all the money i could possibly need for a long time,
just at the moment a lot of resources are focused preciesy at audio fidelity.
if find great analogy between sciense engineering and soul in music, and its very hard, read time consuming, read expensive in the real world to achieve.
what, i'm sure we all want is satisfaction. re previous post.
at present my cheap diy hifi syatem provides this
interconnection cables are an IMPORTANT part.
but only one part

[analog_sa]

trust my ears, and I find it unbelievable that you guys are still discussing if cables make difference?!

Carlos,

You are cursed with ears. Maybe you should only have arguments with similarly cursed folks

[rdf]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy

Let me try an analogy.

You hire a painter to paint a scene from the real world. His goal is to make the painting look as close as possible to the actual scene.

However, he can only see his canvas through a filter. Let's say it's a funhouse mirror.

So he paints the scene on his canvas while looking through the funhouse mirror and when looking through the funhouse mirror, the painting looks exactly like the real scene.

But look at the canvas without looking through the funhouse mirror and you'll see something that's distorted with respect to the real scene.

What I'm trying to get across is that the less-than-objectively-perfect recording equipment is the equivalent of the funhouse mirror. And further, most every recording out there as made using a somewhat different funhouse mirror. And finally, if you listen to these reocordings with an objectively perfect system, i.e. without the funhouse mirror, what you get is ultimately a distorted version of what was intended.

I think this is an excellent analogy and shows we're probably not as far apart in opinion as the funhouse mirror of the Internet would suggest. There's nothing I disagree with here. As you say, our playback systems will always remain 'funhouse mirrors'. However, without going to the extent of using equalizers, noise reduction units, reverbs, DSP and host of other tools to inversely match the 'curvatures of each recording' one by one, our playback systems will generally increase the disparity between not just the original scene before the painter, but the painter's intent on the canvas as well. The painter might not object, or might prefer the listener bringing something to the experience, and the listener might enjoy viewing all the world in one particular funhouse way. There's nothing wrong with that. However, other listeners want to see the original scene as often as possible and there's only one way towards that goal: standardized funhouse curvatures. An example you touched on is the RIAA phono curve, but I think we'ld agree the best posssible curvature to most consistently achieve this goal is optically flat. Ironically this doesn't deny the funhouse mirror fan their preference, admittedly at the expense of having to curve the playback mirror a little more.

That said, I think we'ld also agree perfectly optically flat is an unachievable goal, but there's still a huge range between the photo-realist painters and Jackson Pollock. Eventually we'll run up against the limitation of the media - paintings remain two dimensional - at which point it's time for the next technological jump and a new set funhouse mirrors with their own optical imperfections. Digital recording for example.

/Ducks

[pxr5]

feel as though i'm intruding,
but blind tests strike of democracy.statistics.
i' know i'm right. hence blind test means very little.
from scientific point of view
thesis
anti-thesis
hypothosis
i'll have to be communist republican
you WILL use 100pf/m cables so i can design output/input buffers that compensate for this.
good luck

[pxr5]

rdf,
what sense you say,
but to what it leads

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by rdf
I think this is an excellent analogy and shows we're probably not as far apart in opinion as the funhouse mirror of the Internet would suggest. There's nothing I disagree with here. As you say, our playback systems will always remain 'funhouse mirrors'. However, without going to the extent of using equalizers, noise reduction units, reverbs, DSP and host of other tools to inversely match the 'curvatures of each recording' one by one, our playback systems will generally increase the disparity between not just the original scene before the painter, but the painter's intent on the canvas as well. The painter might not object, or might prefer the listener bringing something to the experience, and the listener might enjoy viewing all the world in one particular funhouse way. There's nothing wrong with that. However, other listeners want to see the original scene as often as possible and there's only one way towards that goal: standardized funhouse curvatures. An example you touched on is the RIAA phono curve, but I think we'ld agree the best posssible curvature to most consistently achieve this goal is optically flat. Ironically this doesn't deny the funhouse mirror fan their preference, admittedly at the expense of having to curve the playback mirror a little more.

Alright! We're finally on the same wavelength!

Thanks for taking the time to try and understand what I was wanting to get across.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not trying to imply that objective perfection isn't a legitimate goal. I'm just saying it's not the only legitimate goal, as some have tried to paint it (not necessarily anyone here).

That said, I think we'ld also agree perfectly optically flat is an unachievable goal, but there's still a huge range between the photo-realist painters and Jackson Pollock. Eventually we'll run up against the limitation of the media - paintings remain two dimensional - at which point it's time for the next technological jump and a new set funhouse mirrors with their own optical imperfections. Digital recording for example.

Certainly.

se

[rcavictim]

Originally posted by janneman


Indeed, because it illustrates the fact that people like you REFUSE TO THINK!

Carlos is right about his "filter" statement. What he and you don't get is that it is completely speculation, unfounded, to conclude that "because it is a filter, it is audible". As I said, hogwash.
Maybe you should try to get your own basic thinking in order before thrying to speculate how other people do it.

Jan Didden

Jan,

You are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER made any such statement concerning the audibility of filters one way or the other. Furthermore as far as my thinkling process, I do think most of the time prefering to come to my own conclusions based on the examination of the facts and my own scientific testing wherever possible. Inotherwords, I do not live in a faith based domain.

As for your last sentence, the existence of billions of religious followers is proof of my statement, so it is NOT merely my own speculation of "how other people do it (think)".

If you have strong 'faith', nothing I say is important to you anyhow, on any subject. I use faith in the broader term because it encompasses so much more than religion, but also inclusive of religion, filters and speaker cables.

Put another way, when you are religiously faithful to a concept, like speaker cables for example, then facts are irrelevant to you.

[carlosfm]

Originally posted by janneman
You may think whatever you want but there are good reasons why those manufacturers do these things. It is because it helps sales.

You are saying exactly the same as me.
Every manufacturer says it's product is the best, so why trust commercial ads?
Why such a surprize that Supra or any other manufacturer can make a really bad cable?
Supra makes a very good cable for digital (SPDIF) connections: Supra Trico.
But the Ply speaker cables are an unfortunate creation, IMHO.