Hi ridikas,
I believe you can hear differences in signal cables - within reason. Mostly with high impedance circuits where radiated noise and distributed capacitance make very real differences. This all follows the rules of physics, no surprises.
The same thing holds for capacitors, again within reason and all explainable. We are there right now. I have a little meter (HP 4263A) that is a good indicator of good and bad capacitors, and sometimes even cables. These things are old hat in my world.
Now power cables are stretching things. As long as equipment has a halfway decent power supply design, you are not going to hear the difference between AC power cables. I've listened to many and the only thing I can attribute various opinions to is ... expectation bias. This explains many informal tests done by audiophiles. That and "follow the leader". No one wants to feel left out.
-Chris
I believe you can hear differences in signal cables - within reason. Mostly with high impedance circuits where radiated noise and distributed capacitance make very real differences. This all follows the rules of physics, no surprises.
The same thing holds for capacitors, again within reason and all explainable. We are there right now. I have a little meter (HP 4263A) that is a good indicator of good and bad capacitors, and sometimes even cables. These things are old hat in my world.
Now power cables are stretching things. As long as equipment has a halfway decent power supply design, you are not going to hear the difference between AC power cables. I've listened to many and the only thing I can attribute various opinions to is ... expectation bias. This explains many informal tests done by audiophiles. That and "follow the leader". No one wants to feel left out.
-Chris
The very minor distortion in input capacitors, namely 3HD, gets a 20-36db boost... not including amp distortion that could be additive.
Anyone seen CH cables for balanced? They have no shield. Yup. Those guys are tech wizards and offer the only feedback adjustable amp I know about; with good figures to boot. Yet they utterly defy all engineering principles and have unshielded balanced cables... Why? It is obvious, the RF creates more "air" and "space" etc... Probably allows feedback to be increased within hurting taste with their own amp.
Anyone seen CH cables for balanced? They have no shield. Yup. Those guys are tech wizards and offer the only feedback adjustable amp I know about; with good figures to boot. Yet they utterly defy all engineering principles and have unshielded balanced cables... Why? It is obvious, the RF creates more "air" and "space" etc... Probably allows feedback to be increased within hurting taste with their own amp.
Ridikas, please don't expect serious answers here. Many who are answering you don't even believe that you hear half of what you are claiming to hear. This is because, to them, what you hear is 'impossible'. Of course, I believe what you, I and many others hear is real, but it difficult to explain or measure why, no matter what our test equipment is. Yes, test equipment has become somewhat cheaper to own, and measures whatever it measures often with a lower residual distortion and testing convenience, but it gives us little or no new understanding of what we hear.
Unfortunately it is difficult to even introduce potentially new areas to explore here, because it just gets shouted down by the critics even before it is fully presented. Look at what Ed Simon is going through at the moment.
This thread is generally at the point where I was at 40 years ago, when I did my research and implemented a number of successful pro and consumer audio designs already. However, I have learned a good deal of subtle detail, (like scraping the leads of passive components before insertion), and many other subtle techniques and decisions that make a good product into a great product, but I am just not able to discuss them fully here, not because I need to hide them from my competitors, (that may have been useful 40 years ago, but now I am an old man) but because my suggestions will be attacked immediately, because their effects are not necessarily easily measured. Some are, like DA and slow power diode switching, but they are dismissed as impossible to hear or to effect the sound in any way. But I still get awards and A ratings from the reviewers of my later designs (from 40 years ago to the present) and as far as I hear, my later designs often sound better than my earlier designs.
For example, the Blowtorch sounds better than the JC-80, which will sound better than the Levinson JC-2. Why? Not slew rate, but because the JC-80 and the Blowtorch are direct coupled, for one reason. The Blowtorch uses and even more superior circuit topology, without global feedback, and the passive parts, wiring, layout, etc that are better, so it will beat the JC-80. But why it should make any audible difference will not be found with typical audio measurements. That is all there is to say about it.
Unfortunately it is difficult to even introduce potentially new areas to explore here, because it just gets shouted down by the critics even before it is fully presented. Look at what Ed Simon is going through at the moment.
This thread is generally at the point where I was at 40 years ago, when I did my research and implemented a number of successful pro and consumer audio designs already. However, I have learned a good deal of subtle detail, (like scraping the leads of passive components before insertion), and many other subtle techniques and decisions that make a good product into a great product, but I am just not able to discuss them fully here, not because I need to hide them from my competitors, (that may have been useful 40 years ago, but now I am an old man) but because my suggestions will be attacked immediately, because their effects are not necessarily easily measured. Some are, like DA and slow power diode switching, but they are dismissed as impossible to hear or to effect the sound in any way. But I still get awards and A ratings from the reviewers of my later designs (from 40 years ago to the present) and as far as I hear, my later designs often sound better than my earlier designs.
For example, the Blowtorch sounds better than the JC-80, which will sound better than the Levinson JC-2. Why? Not slew rate, but because the JC-80 and the Blowtorch are direct coupled, for one reason. The Blowtorch uses and even more superior circuit topology, without global feedback, and the passive parts, wiring, layout, etc that are better, so it will beat the JC-80. But why it should make any audible difference will not be found with typical audio measurements. That is all there is to say about it.
Some of the EMI/RFI entering thru audio cables can be coupled from ac power cords. A low level and a high level (voltage) close together is asking to couple noise. A shielded, twisted wires in power cord helps a lot. Thus, could be "audible".
THx-RNMarsh
Some simply "hear" the price and the visible design and brand. And the authors are extremely sensitive. And of course, the last model is (it must be ...) better than the old one, as predicted by "sustainable development". But this "extraordinary sensitivity" will always disappear in the blind test.
The same stimulus, but another feeling. The result of brain processing, also called psychoacoustics. Nothing new.
Everything what is really audible in blind tests, is also reliable measurable.
The same stimulus, but another feeling. The result of brain processing, also called psychoacoustics. Nothing new.
Everything what is really audible in blind tests, is also reliable measurable.
Last edited:
Are you trying to win votes? In what contest? Better speak your mind.
If these people try to convince me that these differences disappear under controlled testing conditions, what conclusion do you want me to draw? It is just not logical, and a lack of logic is pretty much correlated with being, well, you know.
Last edited:
The arrogance of some never ceases to amaze and disappoint me. Everyone has some form of imagination so I find your statement rather pointless and meaningless unless it's purely to antagonize, this is what I suspect.
In a proper design, the signal cables should have high shielding effectiveness and the shields must RF-terminate 360° directly to the metal chassis, on the outside (no pigtails and such). This is the easy part -- although this basic EMC rule is violated in many designs.
Power cables are more diffcult. The only way I managed to keep RF out reliably is using significant amount of ferrites (common mode) and a shielded sub-enclosure for the AC input containing all dirty stuff (inlet with filter, switch, fuse, etc) and using feedtrough capacitors on the lines entering the main chassis, with the ferrites being the last components before the feedthroughs and mounted very close to those. Even better yet is a sub-enclosure for the whole power supply following the same principle.
RF current clamps are your friend to see what's really going on on your cables, both outside and inside the chassis.
I view that as a 'correction' rather than an 'overturning'. You can add relativistic corrections to newtonian calculations and the answer is correct. This then descends into a semantics argument 🙂
And I find a bit of flat earth to still be a vital part of precision machine work!
For those too far removed from things like the ability to make basic measurements, the fundamental standard is gravity.
It allows you to rub two stones together with a bit of extremely fine grit to get a flat surface. This can then be set level using an air bubble in an almost liquid filled tube. Then a plumb bob may be used to get a right angle. So with this flat straight edge and perpendicular you can base pretty much all measurements.
Next we can move on to optical flats for a bit more accuracy.
Now as an excercise left to the reader, how do we get from a flat, a level and a straight edge to a ruler?
Even more importantly how does a round earth affect these things?
For those too far removed from things like the ability to make basic measurements, the fundamental standard is gravity.
It allows you to rub two stones together with a bit of extremely fine grit to get a flat surface. This can then be set level using an air bubble in an almost liquid filled tube. Then a plumb bob may be used to get a right angle. So with this flat straight edge and perpendicular you can base pretty much all measurements.
Next we can move on to optical flats for a bit more accuracy.
Now as an excercise left to the reader, how do we get from a flat, a level and a straight edge to a ruler?
Even more importantly how does a round earth affect these things?
Really ? I cannot imagine-you doing this ;-)
What kind of effect did you expected ?
May-be to can simplify the use of your vacuum cleaner ?
This said, if they are beautiful (I have no idea what they look like) why not ?
About "blind tests", lot of people here are constantly referring to this, you know, Accurate listening is something that has to be learned. And improved years after years.
Not self-influencing oneself (let alone not being by others) is part of that learning process. "Blind" is only needed when it is hard to figure out something.
But then, what the hell, if a difference is so hard to be figured, what the need to take care of it ?
The process induced by blind or double blind tests add stress. And stress reduce your accuracy. Each time I take my blood pressure in an hospital, it is higher than in my home ;-)
The thing is that some would like to forbid others to listen. They only want to 'hear' about measurements. I will not give in. Listening is, for me, the main part of the audio design process, just like watching for a photographer. And, as far as I'm concerned, without this reference to listening, the design loses all its charm and I will lose all my pleasure.
Last, my question is why are they so afraid of snake oil sellers ? Were they abused by one of them in their childhood ? Just a little pinch of logic, understanding, knowledge, feeling an humour is enough to stay safe. ;-)
Last edited:
I don't think that's true. Listen and come to your own conclusions all you want, I do. Measurements are something we can share and look at on equal terms.
Of course.
But let-me give an example. i prefer to use cat6 network cables for signal cables. i will not make measurements to compare them to other cables. I know I will see no difference in the audio bandwidth. But I can hear a difference, most of the time, on many systems. (And I know why).
It is just a tip. They are cheap, good looking enough, easy to weld. And you can separate schield and signal reference.
So I can only say: just try-it ;-)
[edit] Oh, one thing, about 'conclusions'. One thing is dangerous: to generalize. It is not because something works better in a situation that it will be better in all others.
Last edited:
Then I would suggest look beyond the audio bandwidth until you find a difference you can measure and see if that could be the reason you hear a difference.
It seems that when you lose one fan-boy you gain another one.ridikas said:
Tomorrow's sound engineering principles will be based on today's sound science, not the wild imaginations of people who fondly believe that they are beyond today's science when in fact they are still behind yesterday's science.
You need evidence to check whether the new idea is true. In most cases the 'new' idea is not new, and in most cases existing evidence already shows that it is false.
No, you obviously don't understand much physics. Almost all of what physicists knew a century ago is still true, within its domain of applicability. What has happened is that modern physics has modified and extended it in compatible ways. Newtonian physics is entirely compatible with quantum mechanics and relativistic physics, in the sense that it emerges as an appropriate and highly accurate approximation in the low energy medium size domain.
Maybe the measuring method needed and the necessary tools haven't been invented yet? Thankfully someone had the idea to use CAT6 and heard a difference and shared it. That's a great first step.
Now instead of brushing it off, calling that person an idiot, pretending that everything audible can already be measured, maybe someone can invent new tools and new methods for testing cables?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.