Re: Respectfully.........
The gray is that changing only the cables and getting a different resultant sound doesn't establish that the different sound (or more accurately, perception) was due to anything that's actually audible.
At least if your changing of the cables was done under sighted/uncontrolled conditions.
se
mrfeedback said:
The gray is that changing only the cables and getting a different resultant sound doesn't establish that the different sound (or more accurately, perception) was due to anything that's actually audible.
At least if your changing of the cables was done under sighted/uncontrolled conditions.
se
I used to refer to a paunchy old custodian with mutton chops and cigarettes rolled up in his sleeve as Elvis. A friend came in one day a little agitated because they had just had an altercation. I asked him what had happened. He said he didn’t know, all he had said was, "Hi Elvis!"
Turns out the guys name was Johny and he didn’t like people making fun of he way he looked. I had never actually told anyone that it was his name, it was just an easy way to make people understand who I was talking about.
Elvis is alive and well and sweeping a parking lot in Arlington Virginia.
Turns out the guys name was Johny and he didn’t like people making fun of he way he looked. I had never actually told anyone that it was his name, it was just an easy way to make people understand who I was talking about.
Elvis is alive and well and sweeping a parking lot in Arlington Virginia.
Hi,
Interesting is also that you use off the shelf resistors, caps, wire and xformers, etc...Or don't you?
You know where this is going, right?
Funny thing is, I won't spend a penny I can't possibly justify on my system...
Different people but so much alike?
Nobody's asking for proof here, Steve...
Cheers,
Interesting is also that you use off the shelf resistors, caps, wire and xformers, etc...Or don't you?
You know where this is going, right?
Funny thing is, I won't spend a penny I can't possibly justify on my system...
Different people but so much alike?
Nobody's asking for proof here, Steve...
Cheers,
This is one reference I was thinking of to battery-biased cables. I think Fred expanded on it in another thread too:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=20813#post20813
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=20813#post20813
Let's Do A Proper Blind Test.......
"All I've said is that no one has yet established actual audible differences under blind/controlled conditions."
There have been plenty of discussions about the validity of blind testing.
So far you state that blind tests indicate negative results, but have you searched for formal blind tests that have indicated positive results ?.
Perhaps the time is ripe for a formal test with a known revealling system, with experienced subjects in a familiar environment - IOW give the test every chance to show positive results and avoid the pitfalls of the negative tests referred to.
Perhaps this could be a DIYaudio project.
Eric.
"All I've said is that no one has yet established actual audible differences under blind/controlled conditions."
There have been plenty of discussions about the validity of blind testing.
So far you state that blind tests indicate negative results, but have you searched for formal blind tests that have indicated positive results ?.
Perhaps the time is ripe for a formal test with a known revealling system, with experienced subjects in a familiar environment - IOW give the test every chance to show positive results and avoid the pitfalls of the negative tests referred to.
Perhaps this could be a DIYaudio project.
Eric.
Re: Let's Do A Proper Blind Test.......
So? Just because one makes arguments that the tests are invalid still doesn't establish actual audibility.
Sure have.
There have been a number of tests done under just such conditions by Tom Noisaine where the tests were done in the listener's own home, with their own systems, over periods as long as months.
The results were null.
Um, hello? What were those wires I made up and sent out all about?
se
mrfeedback said:
So? Just because one makes arguments that the tests are invalid still doesn't establish actual audibility.
Sure have.
There have been a number of tests done under just such conditions by Tom Noisaine where the tests were done in the listener's own home, with their own systems, over periods as long as months.
The results were null.
Um, hello? What were those wires I made up and sent out all about?
se
Let me give you a logical example, though admittedly a reductio ad absurdem. Back in the Stoned Ages (late '70s), the first "high end" cables appeared. They had extremely high capacitance. When substituting these cables for the heavy zip cord most of us used back then, many amps went into full-blown oscillation and self-destructed, often taking speakers down with them. I think even the most hardened skeptic like me would grant that substituting cables made an audible difference. I'll insist on that one
Me neither. Gets in the way of the heroin.
My fault. The ones for Eric were sent out late.
SY said:Let me give you a logical example, though admittedly a reductio ad absurdem. Back in the Stoned Ages (late '70s), the first "high end" cables appeared. They had extremely high capacitance. When substituting these cables for the heavy zip cord most of us used back then, many amps went into full-blown oscillation and self-destructed, often taking speakers down with them. I think even the most hardened skeptic like me would grant that substituting cables made an audible difference. I'll insist on that one
Hehehe. And not only an audible difference, but an olfactory difference as well.
se
I quit doing heroin. Gets in the way of the Oxycontin and vodka.
But Frank's had his for weeks now and haven't heard a word from him about it.
se
First off, I would like to respectfully request that both Eric and Steve stick to the matter at hand, responding to the actual issue in a factual and constructive manner, rather than resorting to invalidation by person attack. Whether or not any of you have, or still do, use or abuse narcotic substances is of absolutely no relevance to the matter at hand, nor is it of any interest to me as a reader.
Let's try not to start any flame wars by straying off topic. The topic of cables is flammable enough by itself, and needs no encouragement. This forum survives by virtue of its high signal to noise ratio.
Oh, and, we have an ignore feature that is employed by those with more wisdom than patience.
The cable thing has been discussed to death and back countless times, but rarely does anyone come up with anything new or useful. It would be much more useful to all of us if we could have a serious discussion about why cables might have an effect. (And, to forestall the pro-cables crowd, yes, I perceive a difference, but like Steve tried to point out, I allow for the possibility that this may be my imagination.)
I would prefer even unsubstantiated theories to endless reviews of cables, with attendant arguments over whether or not the conditions of the experience give grounds to determine anything.
So, to put my money where my mouth is, I'll come up with a few points that we can actually try to do something constructive with. Bear in mind that I am going out on a limb with some of these, just for the sake of coming up with 'something' we can examine..
(A) Connectors. This point has been made by Nelson Pass in the past, pointing out that he found the effects of improper termination or improper connection (too lose, not clean, etc.), to be easily audible, while I seem to recall that he was rather vague and inconclusive as to the actual cables themselves. This corresponds with my own experiences, where corroded conductors audibly reduce the quality, while there are mostly subtle differences between the cables themselves. Your mileage may vary, and I would point out that this is in reference to speaker cables, not signal cables- I lack sufficient experience with those to comment.
(B) Microphonics. I have talked with the man behind Renaissance Audio, who emphasises mechanical stability in his cables, and to good effect, subjectively speaking. I have experienced problems with microphonics in certain other high-end cables (about USD 4k per cable, IIRC) when playing at semi-loud levels with the Avantgarde Duo system, which, at 102dB/2.83V/1m, is arguably rather sensitive. The amplifier was a single ended valve construction that I seem to recall having a low damping factor, which is not necessarily a problem for the horns, but might be a problem as far as microphony is concerned.
(C) Dielectric absorption/memory. This is, unless I am mistaken, what the batteries are supposed to try to eliminate. By adding a third conductor, held at a high DC potential, relative to the ground conductor, one hopes to swamp the imperfections of the dielectric by introducing a strong charge between the third conductor and ground. Depending on the characteristics of the dielectric, specifically the hysteresis in the region surrounding the DC offset, this can have an effect. It is kind of like picking the operating point for a valve. You find the most linear point on the curve that falls within the requirements (voltage, etc.) that you can live with. Many components are rather nonlinear near zero potential/power/insert-appropriate-measurement-here. In fact, I believe this may be a large part of why single ended triode amplifiers are lauded, since they typically operate with the core at the most linear point on its magnetization curve. For Lundahl transformers, this would be 0.9 tesla.
(D) Linear capacitance. Any conductors with a positive area and finite distance to each other, will exhibit a certain level of linear capacitance, and the existance of a dielectric raises this capacitance. Nordost Valhalla uses teflon monofilament. Gore-Tex would seem to be a great choice, since it should give a lower dielectric constant than teflon. This criterion is measurable.
(E) Nonlinear capacitance. Semiconductors, which some argue that certain crystal junctions in a cable might be considered to be, have a capacitance which varies with signal. This characteristic is also exhibited by different capacitors, etc.. It can be caused by a number of things, but many of the factors that are relevant to capacitors (e.g. motion due to coloumb forces, leading to a different distance (a second order component to the equation) than the nominal one), are not relevant to cables. It should be possible to get a good overview of what nonlinear capacitances exist.
(F) Inductance. Any signal current induces a magnetic field, which in turn affects the rest of the signal at a different time. When conductors lie inside this magnetic field, a current is induced in them. This is basically the same thing; a magnetic field producing a time-delayed effect on an electron mass, whether in motion or not. These principles are beneficial in a inductor or transformer, but not so in a speaker cable.
(G) Resistance. Should be too small to affect anything.
(H) Harmonic or intermodulation distortion. I am not familiar with mechanisms that should give rise to such distortion in a cable, but then again, neither am I familiar with the mechanism for distortion in a resistor, and I seem to recall that Lars Clausen has measured several kinds of resistors, and found a varying degree of harmonic distortion in them. It figures cables could have nonlinear transfer characteristics as well.
(I) Shielding. This obviously effects the ability to emit or pick up noise from the environment. There are ongoing debates about whether the benefits of shutting noise out are worth the cost of keeping noise in.
(J) Geometry. Fancy geometries bring us beyond the point of simple transmission line models. Myself, I am rather partial to the idea of using solid-core silver or copper, with air, teflon or Gore-Tex dielectric, and no braiding. The cable must of course be cast in its intended shape, not bent, to avoid discontinuities within the cable. Then again, I am also partial to simple circuits.
(K) Reflections. These may be caused by imperfections in the material, discontinuities in the dielectric (causing a part of the cable to have a different capacitance than the rest of the cable), geometry (varying inductive and capacitive relation between conductors/strands). If you have the necessary equipment for time-domain reflectometry, you can easily see the effects of e.g. bending the cable.
(L) Velocity of propagation. No cable acheives the speed of light. Telephone wires range between 60% and 72%, special purpose scientific/measurement wires range between 70% and 95%, network wire ranges between 60% and 90%. All these numbers are from a technical surveilance countermeasures site, in their section on time-domain reflectometry. This particular issue, I seem to recall, is the foundation upon which the Borbely Quantum Purifiers are based. Supposedly, they align the motion of the electrons a bit, with a piece of wire that has a higher velocity of propagation than the rest, effectively ramming the electrons through the remainder of the cable more efficiently, by initially allowing a higher velocity. Mind you, I am not claiming to know anything about the Quantum Purifiers, how they work, and if they work.
(M) Skin effect.
(N) Amplifier feedback loop and other unintended signal paths. One of the most obvious sources of cable differences, would be interactions with the feedback loop of an amplifier employing global negative feedback. The cable provides a nice antenna, and the previously mentioned reflections also enter into the amplifier through this path. And unlike the high frequency noise (which can cause slew limiting, etc.), the reflections cannot be as easily filtered. In fact, a low impedance without time delay is the most sensible way to deal with them. Something you get by using a massive idle current.
(O) Interactions with crossover network. While the parasitics of the cable should be limited, compared to the crossover, it might be possible that certain cables could provide just that extra nudge that gets a deviation of phase to become annoying, or whatever.
I'm sure someone more creative than me can come up with others, and that someone more knowledgeable can provide the first constructive reply.
Keep going. =)
Let's try not to start any flame wars by straying off topic. The topic of cables is flammable enough by itself, and needs no encouragement. This forum survives by virtue of its high signal to noise ratio.
Oh, and, we have an ignore feature that is employed by those with more wisdom than patience.
The cable thing has been discussed to death and back countless times, but rarely does anyone come up with anything new or useful. It would be much more useful to all of us if we could have a serious discussion about why cables might have an effect. (And, to forestall the pro-cables crowd, yes, I perceive a difference, but like Steve tried to point out, I allow for the possibility that this may be my imagination.)
I would prefer even unsubstantiated theories to endless reviews of cables, with attendant arguments over whether or not the conditions of the experience give grounds to determine anything.
So, to put my money where my mouth is, I'll come up with a few points that we can actually try to do something constructive with. Bear in mind that I am going out on a limb with some of these, just for the sake of coming up with 'something' we can examine..
(A) Connectors. This point has been made by Nelson Pass in the past, pointing out that he found the effects of improper termination or improper connection (too lose, not clean, etc.), to be easily audible, while I seem to recall that he was rather vague and inconclusive as to the actual cables themselves. This corresponds with my own experiences, where corroded conductors audibly reduce the quality, while there are mostly subtle differences between the cables themselves. Your mileage may vary, and I would point out that this is in reference to speaker cables, not signal cables- I lack sufficient experience with those to comment.
(B) Microphonics. I have talked with the man behind Renaissance Audio, who emphasises mechanical stability in his cables, and to good effect, subjectively speaking. I have experienced problems with microphonics in certain other high-end cables (about USD 4k per cable, IIRC) when playing at semi-loud levels with the Avantgarde Duo system, which, at 102dB/2.83V/1m, is arguably rather sensitive. The amplifier was a single ended valve construction that I seem to recall having a low damping factor, which is not necessarily a problem for the horns, but might be a problem as far as microphony is concerned.
(C) Dielectric absorption/memory. This is, unless I am mistaken, what the batteries are supposed to try to eliminate. By adding a third conductor, held at a high DC potential, relative to the ground conductor, one hopes to swamp the imperfections of the dielectric by introducing a strong charge between the third conductor and ground. Depending on the characteristics of the dielectric, specifically the hysteresis in the region surrounding the DC offset, this can have an effect. It is kind of like picking the operating point for a valve. You find the most linear point on the curve that falls within the requirements (voltage, etc.) that you can live with. Many components are rather nonlinear near zero potential/power/insert-appropriate-measurement-here. In fact, I believe this may be a large part of why single ended triode amplifiers are lauded, since they typically operate with the core at the most linear point on its magnetization curve. For Lundahl transformers, this would be 0.9 tesla.
(D) Linear capacitance. Any conductors with a positive area and finite distance to each other, will exhibit a certain level of linear capacitance, and the existance of a dielectric raises this capacitance. Nordost Valhalla uses teflon monofilament. Gore-Tex would seem to be a great choice, since it should give a lower dielectric constant than teflon. This criterion is measurable.
(E) Nonlinear capacitance. Semiconductors, which some argue that certain crystal junctions in a cable might be considered to be, have a capacitance which varies with signal. This characteristic is also exhibited by different capacitors, etc.. It can be caused by a number of things, but many of the factors that are relevant to capacitors (e.g. motion due to coloumb forces, leading to a different distance (a second order component to the equation) than the nominal one), are not relevant to cables. It should be possible to get a good overview of what nonlinear capacitances exist.
(F) Inductance. Any signal current induces a magnetic field, which in turn affects the rest of the signal at a different time. When conductors lie inside this magnetic field, a current is induced in them. This is basically the same thing; a magnetic field producing a time-delayed effect on an electron mass, whether in motion or not. These principles are beneficial in a inductor or transformer, but not so in a speaker cable.
(G) Resistance. Should be too small to affect anything.
(H) Harmonic or intermodulation distortion. I am not familiar with mechanisms that should give rise to such distortion in a cable, but then again, neither am I familiar with the mechanism for distortion in a resistor, and I seem to recall that Lars Clausen has measured several kinds of resistors, and found a varying degree of harmonic distortion in them. It figures cables could have nonlinear transfer characteristics as well.
(I) Shielding. This obviously effects the ability to emit or pick up noise from the environment. There are ongoing debates about whether the benefits of shutting noise out are worth the cost of keeping noise in.
(J) Geometry. Fancy geometries bring us beyond the point of simple transmission line models. Myself, I am rather partial to the idea of using solid-core silver or copper, with air, teflon or Gore-Tex dielectric, and no braiding. The cable must of course be cast in its intended shape, not bent, to avoid discontinuities within the cable. Then again, I am also partial to simple circuits.
(K) Reflections. These may be caused by imperfections in the material, discontinuities in the dielectric (causing a part of the cable to have a different capacitance than the rest of the cable), geometry (varying inductive and capacitive relation between conductors/strands). If you have the necessary equipment for time-domain reflectometry, you can easily see the effects of e.g. bending the cable.
(L) Velocity of propagation. No cable acheives the speed of light. Telephone wires range between 60% and 72%, special purpose scientific/measurement wires range between 70% and 95%, network wire ranges between 60% and 90%. All these numbers are from a technical surveilance countermeasures site, in their section on time-domain reflectometry. This particular issue, I seem to recall, is the foundation upon which the Borbely Quantum Purifiers are based. Supposedly, they align the motion of the electrons a bit, with a piece of wire that has a higher velocity of propagation than the rest, effectively ramming the electrons through the remainder of the cable more efficiently, by initially allowing a higher velocity. Mind you, I am not claiming to know anything about the Quantum Purifiers, how they work, and if they work.
(M) Skin effect.
(N) Amplifier feedback loop and other unintended signal paths. One of the most obvious sources of cable differences, would be interactions with the feedback loop of an amplifier employing global negative feedback. The cable provides a nice antenna, and the previously mentioned reflections also enter into the amplifier through this path. And unlike the high frequency noise (which can cause slew limiting, etc.), the reflections cannot be as easily filtered. In fact, a low impedance without time delay is the most sensible way to deal with them. Something you get by using a massive idle current.
(O) Interactions with crossover network. While the parasitics of the cable should be limited, compared to the crossover, it might be possible that certain cables could provide just that extra nudge that gets a deviation of phase to become annoying, or whatever.
I'm sure someone more creative than me can come up with others, and that someone more knowledgeable can provide the first constructive reply.
Keep going. =)
Factual And Constructive Should Be The Vibe..........
"The cable thing has been discussed to death and back countless times, but rarely does anyone come up with anything new or useful. It would be much more useful to all of us if we could have a serious discussion about why cables might have an effect. (And, to forestall the pro-cables crowd, yes, I perceive a difference, but like Steve tried to point out, I allow for the possibility that this may be my imagination.)"
There are plenty of us here who have done enough comparisons to eliminate imagination effects.
When one first does cable A/B experiments, the results can well be self delusion or self doubt, however with much practice, one learns to clearly and reliably differentiate changes.
This is a product of learning how to listen I have found.
I have made comment several times in the past about listening for subtle patterns in the reproduced sound - these are one of the clues to listen out for in addition to other variables.
In my experience it is perfectly possible to 100% reliably detect which of five interconnects was in use in blind testing with my flatmate doing the cable swaps, and I dare say that I am not the only one here with this ability.
As I see it, the task is to provide suitable experimental conditions that allow this high level of discrimination, and previous blind tests fall short of this - what are all the conditions of the Tom Noisanne tests ?.
Angel, I fully agree with all the points that you raise - given this spread of cable parameters I would be very surprised if all cables did sound the same to my ear.
One very large but usually ignored point in this discussion is that NO interconnect drive or recieving circuits, or amplifier outputs are perfectly ideal, so I see it, it is to be expected that cables will cause second order effects that are audible.
The task is to flesh out the degree and nature of the effects of the individual physical causes.
SY and JC are hopefully working on this regarding cable distortion.
Frank and I are subjects in a directionality test when I get the cables concerned - Stuart, thanks for sending them but they are not here quite yet.
So far any threads attempting to determine proper answers have been derailed by derisive mention of frozen photographs, and dismissal of clear and unequivocal observations as 'amusing anecdotes'.
This time I feel that heed should be taken of listener experiences in order to find correlations, and further hence the individual physical reasons and mechanisms.
Eric / - I have no troubles hearing cable differences - hell I can even audibly change cables on the fly.
"The cable thing has been discussed to death and back countless times, but rarely does anyone come up with anything new or useful. It would be much more useful to all of us if we could have a serious discussion about why cables might have an effect. (And, to forestall the pro-cables crowd, yes, I perceive a difference, but like Steve tried to point out, I allow for the possibility that this may be my imagination.)"
There are plenty of us here who have done enough comparisons to eliminate imagination effects.
When one first does cable A/B experiments, the results can well be self delusion or self doubt, however with much practice, one learns to clearly and reliably differentiate changes.
This is a product of learning how to listen I have found.
I have made comment several times in the past about listening for subtle patterns in the reproduced sound - these are one of the clues to listen out for in addition to other variables.
In my experience it is perfectly possible to 100% reliably detect which of five interconnects was in use in blind testing with my flatmate doing the cable swaps, and I dare say that I am not the only one here with this ability.
As I see it, the task is to provide suitable experimental conditions that allow this high level of discrimination, and previous blind tests fall short of this - what are all the conditions of the Tom Noisanne tests ?.
Angel, I fully agree with all the points that you raise - given this spread of cable parameters I would be very surprised if all cables did sound the same to my ear.
One very large but usually ignored point in this discussion is that NO interconnect drive or recieving circuits, or amplifier outputs are perfectly ideal, so I see it, it is to be expected that cables will cause second order effects that are audible.
The task is to flesh out the degree and nature of the effects of the individual physical causes.
SY and JC are hopefully working on this regarding cable distortion.
Frank and I are subjects in a directionality test when I get the cables concerned - Stuart, thanks for sending them but they are not here quite yet.
So far any threads attempting to determine proper answers have been derailed by derisive mention of frozen photographs, and dismissal of clear and unequivocal observations as 'amusing anecdotes'.
This time I feel that heed should be taken of listener experiences in order to find correlations, and further hence the individual physical reasons and mechanisms.
Eric / - I have no troubles hearing cable differences - hell I can even audibly change cables on the fly.
Steve Eddy said:
Oh go suck a cod. You're no fun!
Seriously, though. This topic really is flammable enough already. I realize the two of you might have a friendship offboard, and be joking with eachother. However, to me, or any other reader with no context, it could easily be viewed as insulting. Which, in turn, could get someone else's hackles up, causing them to post in defence of one person or the other, and then we're all set for another flamewar. Bear in mind that not everyone on this forum has English as their native tongue (I, for one, do not), nor does everyone on this forum have the cultural context to read the nuances that distinguish a joking tone from biting sarcasm or outright hostility.
I'll get off my soapbox now, if you don't mind.BTW, what is a cod? As noted, I'm not a native speaker. And, in case I mucked up the tone of my reply, offense obviously not taken.
By the list, I intended to throw out some ideas as to topics for debate in the context of the potential audibility of cables. It is much more interesting to develop a coherent theory that might actually aid people in developing cables and matching them to equipment, than to discuss who thinks they've heard what.
By 'examining' them, I am referring to people coming up with theses (or at least rudimentary ideas) pertaining to the potential effects of some aspect of the cable that can be reasoned about, and then having others pick their thesis to bits with a blowtorch, er,, I mean, constructively debate the merits of said thesis.
Hopefully, such debate could culminate in at least some light being shed on the topic, and maybe even some consensus being reached on some of the mechanisms are involved; whether they are real, how significant they are, and possibly even what their mechanics are, and how these relate to the perceived sound.
People get touchy when placebo is suggested, even though it is arguably a larger factor than any other in most setups, provided there are no gross defects, like corroded or loose contacts.
Therefore, debating the merit of potential mechanisms by which a cable might influence the sound, by itself or in concert with the attached amp and speaker, would seem a viable approach to uncovering knowledge without needing to sift through the asbestos dust remaining after the flame war which, inevitably, results when one tries to take the shortcut of suggesting that someone perform a double-blind test of subjective parameters in a familiar environment (which would settle the if of the matter to my mind, provided we could all agree on who should do the actual test).
So, to sum up, what I am hoping, is that you, and others, will come up with ideas that might help some enterprising soul devise measurable criteria, or at least semiplausible theories, that correlate with subjective experience.
Hope I'm not boring you to death with overly long posts.
Re: Factual And Constructive Should Be The Vibe..........
There are plenty of us here who have done enough comparisons to eliminate imagination effects.
I consider myself one such, however, as far as actually getting both camps to work together on uncovering truth that can be agreed upon, I would say that we cannot leave it at that. We must treat it as potentially real differences, and use these perceived differences as clues to induce a working theory of what does and does not affect the sound, if anything.
To reiterate, I am sold on the idea that cables, counting second order effects, can have a subtle but real impact on the sound, but not everyone agrees on this, and for the sake of going somewhere, rather than having people camp on their own side on the fence, we need to throw the absoluteness of any such assertions out the window.
This is a product of learning how to listen I have found.
I agree. Learning how to listen is one of the fundamentals of becoming an audiophile. Note that I am not necessarily referring to critical listening, I'm far to fond of music to analyze it on a regular basis, but rather the appreciation of what is there. All of it.
Angel, I fully agree with all the points that you raise - given this spread of cable parameters I would be very surprised if all cables did sound the same to my ear.
I would point out that I did not argue all those points as valid. I merely pointed out the things that I could think of that might conceivably have some effects, whether first order or not. In fact, I mixed explicitly second order effects into the list.
A large part of the work is going to involve determining which points are valid, and which are not. Then one must move on to establishing models that describe the relation between objective and subjective performance.
One very large but usually ignored point in this discussion is that NO interconnect drive or recieving circuits, or amplifier outputs are perfectly ideal, so I see it, it is to be expected that cables will cause second order effects that are audible.
My personal theory is that first order effects of cable characteristics are virtually inaudible, as long as none of the parameters are way out there.
The task is to flesh out the degree and nature of the effects of the individual physical causes.
Exactly. And I am eagerly awaiting the results of the mentioned tests. One test I have not seen mentioned, however, which I think has been overlooked for too long, is comparing the time-domain reflectometry results.
So far any threads attempting to determine proper answers have been derailed by derisive mention of frozen photographs, and dismissal of clear and unequivocal observations as 'amusing anecdotes'.
Hence my perhaps somewhat dry and exacting comments about staying on track, rather than bringing more fuel to the fire.
This time I feel that heed should be taken of listener experiences in order to find correlations, and further hence the individual physical reasons and mechanisms.
As long as these experiences are to form the basis for hypotheses, not conclusions, I agree. Fumbling in the dark is less productive than fumbling with the lights on.
There are plenty of us here who have done enough comparisons to eliminate imagination effects.
I consider myself one such, however, as far as actually getting both camps to work together on uncovering truth that can be agreed upon, I would say that we cannot leave it at that. We must treat it as potentially real differences, and use these perceived differences as clues to induce a working theory of what does and does not affect the sound, if anything.
To reiterate, I am sold on the idea that cables, counting second order effects, can have a subtle but real impact on the sound, but not everyone agrees on this, and for the sake of going somewhere, rather than having people camp on their own side on the fence, we need to throw the absoluteness of any such assertions out the window.
This is a product of learning how to listen I have found.
I agree. Learning how to listen is one of the fundamentals of becoming an audiophile. Note that I am not necessarily referring to critical listening, I'm far to fond of music to analyze it on a regular basis, but rather the appreciation of what is there. All of it.
Angel, I fully agree with all the points that you raise - given this spread of cable parameters I would be very surprised if all cables did sound the same to my ear.
I would point out that I did not argue all those points as valid. I merely pointed out the things that I could think of that might conceivably have some effects, whether first order or not. In fact, I mixed explicitly second order effects into the list.
A large part of the work is going to involve determining which points are valid, and which are not. Then one must move on to establishing models that describe the relation between objective and subjective performance.
One very large but usually ignored point in this discussion is that NO interconnect drive or recieving circuits, or amplifier outputs are perfectly ideal, so I see it, it is to be expected that cables will cause second order effects that are audible.
My personal theory is that first order effects of cable characteristics are virtually inaudible, as long as none of the parameters are way out there.
The task is to flesh out the degree and nature of the effects of the individual physical causes.
Exactly. And I am eagerly awaiting the results of the mentioned tests. One test I have not seen mentioned, however, which I think has been overlooked for too long, is comparing the time-domain reflectometry results.
So far any threads attempting to determine proper answers have been derailed by derisive mention of frozen photographs, and dismissal of clear and unequivocal observations as 'amusing anecdotes'.
Hence my perhaps somewhat dry and exacting comments about staying on track, rather than bringing more fuel to the fire.
This time I feel that heed should be taken of listener experiences in order to find correlations, and further hence the individual physical reasons and mechanisms.
As long as these experiences are to form the basis for hypotheses, not conclusions, I agree. Fumbling in the dark is less productive than fumbling with the lights on.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.