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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#10,521
zapnspark said:
Vitality? Don't make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel.
Excerpt from an interview with J. Gordon Holt, Stereophile magazine, Nov. 2007, "45 Years of Stereophile" [/I]

ZAP
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
#10,523
Andre Visser said:
Fact is good cables have less influence on the signal, therefore the only reason not to use the best possible cables is when they start to reveal system flaws. Even then I would vote for the best cables and equipment to match. 😉
Click to expand...

I hear you but that isn't a fact because you have not defined "good". And "best" and "perfect" when you throw "reality" in the mix might actually involve a bit of compromise between the engineer and audience with them meeting half way at an agreeable middle ground. A good reason for me is that there is a possibility that using over engineered cables can actually be pointed to as the cause of errors or flaws in the final product.

Lets for instance say that the best equipment in the world is a 500,000 dollar signal chain with super pure cables and speakers where the box is made out of vacuum panels suspended by opposing magnetic force with a room that is surrounded by a giant flame and an anechoic absorption. Lets say the recording engineer used this as his reference for tracking and mixing. Who would ever be able to afford to hear the mix the way the engineer and band intended it to be heard?
 
Last edited:
#10,527
rdf said:
I dunno. On that premise, is it better to trust someone who lied for thirty years because they're bitter now? Sounds 'pertarded'.
Click to expand...

So, if someone admits error (if indeed he was), that's a bad thing? I don't get that; I thought the ability to reconsider one's beliefs with experience and evidence was "open-mindedness."

You're relying on your (at best) third hand analysis of his state of mind to try to discredit what he was saying, without considering the content. Bad form!
 
#10,528
Simon700, we are talking about current flow in a cable, in this application an amp driving a linear motor. it is the flow of electrons (and holes🙂) that is what will be influenced by anything physical in the cable, and as they pass zero flow reverses.
 
#10,529
Key said:
I hear you but that isn't a fact because you have not defined "good". And "best" and "perfect" when you throw "reality" in the mix might actually involve a bit of compromise between the engineer and audience with them meeting half way at an agreeable middle ground. A good reason for me is that there is a possibility that using over engineered cables can actually be pointed to as the cause of errors or flaws in the final product.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean by over engineered cables, as said the best cables are those that have the least influence on SQ. Cables mostly influence detail, definition and stage focus, so it is not too hard to tell which is better especially if you can reference with real instruments.

Key said:
Lets for instance say that the best equipment in the world is a 500,000 dollar signal chain with super pure cables and speakers where the box is made out of vacuum panels suspended by opposing magnetic force with a room that is surrounded by a giant flame and an anechoic absorption. Lets say the recording engineer used this as his reference for tracking and mixing. Who would ever be able to afford to hear the mix the way the engineer and band intended it to be heard?
Click to expand...

I would use a very good system with flat response from at least 20Hz to 30kHz and realistic SQ (compared to real instruments) in a realistically damped room, that way you can assure recordings with good SQ. It is not the responsibility of a recording engineer to compensate for systems with lacking freq response. Regarding detail and focus, as long as it is realistic, you can't have too much but once it is lost, you can't get it back.

fredex said:
Fact is good cables have no influence on the signal.
Edit. Oh I forgot the "audible"
Click to expand...

Great, I want some of them too. 😉
 
#10,535
Originally Posted by InclinedPlane
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Andre Visser: Enjoy your MP3's.
Click to expand...

Yep. Bitter old experts and psychoacoustic engineers.

Everybody knows that a 128kb/s MP3, with only 10% of it's original data, isn't even distinguishable as the original song, right?

So, obviously differences of exponential factors below the "established" audible threshold, should be completely audible.....right?

@Tubeguy -
I, too, appreciate your participation in this test. It is the only reason to even follow this thread. But, having said that, I feel the need to point out that not elaborating on all the variations of "expectation bias" is NOT equivalent to changing its definition, when applied to other people.

People are people (objectivist or subjectivist). People's perceptions are easily swayed by conscious/subconscious bias. Ears are part of people. Hence, neither people, nor their ears are to be trusted.

Your contention that "controls" or "nocebos" are important to weed out the "objectivist's" bias is well taken though.

Eric
 
#10,536
40 plus years as audiophile, including working as a technical correspondent at Dynaco, ** Physics, worked in several "real stereo stores," Hewlett Packard Service Engineer, owned tons of gear over the years--yes, I know, so what. Listening to stereo is a lot like driving cars. Drive a Chevy, don't notice much; drive a Porsche, you become one with the road (so I've been told). When I worked with stereo gear and in stereo stores and listened to good gear all day long, I could pick out small improvements. Now that I don't listen as much (with 61 yr old ears), I don't notice as much. If you are starting with a really good system to begin with, say $5000 in used gear, I have found from my own experience that one has to spend a lot of money to improve even one piece of that system to notice a significant improvement and maybe not even then. I spent, and spent, and spent, and never was satisfied. After conducting some extensive "physics" tests with tone generators, high-end microphones, etc., I realized that those folks that say "stop buying equipment and do something about your room acoustics" are more than 100% correct. In short (finally), one has to own and listen to a very high-end system a lot to be able to notice small improvements. I would just hook up the system and enjoy some music and forget about all the other stuff. A glass of wine or a beer will make much more of an improvement in the sound than worrying about cables. Enjoyment is what it is about after all.
 
#10,540
malcontent said:
Everybody knows that a 128kb/s MP3, with only 10% of it's original data, isn't even distinguishable as the original song, right?
Click to expand...

I did amend the original comment to include '320 and up' and in fact my mp3s are around 45MB per 4 minute track, but OT.

malcontent said:
People are people (objectivist or subjectivist). People's perceptions are easily swayed by conscious/subconscious bias. Ears are part of people. Hence, neither people, nor their ears are to be trusted.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Applies to a wide area of subjects!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom