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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#1,143
AndrewT said:
I wonder if the feed and terminating resistances were built into the cable, rather than their more usual location, at the source and load/receiver?
Click to expand...


seanzozo said:



Are you a troll? Do you believe it does not matter whether the shield is tied to the source side or not?

I said I was done, but I lied
Click to expand...


No it was a normal shielded both ways coax with no terminating resistances built into it. The manual said it can be connected both ways but it will 'sound' better if the arrow pointed to the D/A. The manual also stated that they give their own digital coax for free with the DAC bcs they wanted to be sure its proper and not just any coax. It was 1991 and the special digital coax cable market was rudimentary anyway. I think journalists only recommended a cheap video cable named 'video Z', by Audioquest in HFN&RR back then.
 
#1,144
Andre Visser said:


This post was quite interesting and informative:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1506340#post1506340

High level signals may only get attenuated, the low level signals can get lost.
Click to expand...
Not really. If it has such audible effects there should be a way to measure it. As it is nothing different to the effects of cap C as has been investigated since the Jung/Marsh articles, it should be able to be measured or proven blind.
Bud has little credibility with me though.
salas said:
No it was a normal shielded both ways coax with no terminating resistances built into it. The manual said it can be connected both ways but it will 'sound' better if the arrow pointed to the D/A. The manual also stated that they give their own digital coax for free with the DAC bcs they wanted to be sure its proper and not just any coax. It was 1991 and the special digital coax cable market was rudimentary anyway. I think journalists only recommended a cheap video cable named 'video Z', by Audioquest in HFN&RR back then. [/B]
Click to expand...
I find that exceptionally difficult to believe. There is no reason why it would be so electronically (I come from an RF background) unless there were some reactive compnents in the connectors or a shild not connected. As I doubt you opened it up, you cannot know if this was the case or not. I have no doubt that for a standard coax, correctly terminated, there will be NO difference in directionality.
 
#1,145
Alan Hope said:
If I can consistently detect the difference between cables (I'll happily do blind tests if you will trust me to report honestly) then why should I have to supply a scientific reason? I have only a hobbyist (hifi plus synthesisers) understanding of audio science.

Of course if I can't consistently detect the difference then for me the case is closed.
Click to expand...
For me to trust the results of such a test I would need to be the one running it or for it to have good, well documented methodology.

I have done far too many tests over the years to trust other people's hearing much at all. Several years ago I built a tube amp into an old Marantz integrated from the 70's. Not one person, not one and I tested this with a number of philes, ever even picked it was a tube amp and it was consistently described how I would expect an old, unrestored 70's SS amp of not great design to be described. So, no one picked something that had a large measurable difference, yet you want me to believe that people can detect tiny (if present) differences when mood, presumptions and other issues will thoroughly drown that? Nope.
 
#1,146
Brett said:
For me to trust the results of such a test I would need to be the one running it or for it to have good, well documented methodology.

I have done far too many tests over the years to trust other people's hearing much at all. Several years ago I built a tube amp into an old Marantz integrated from the 70's. Not one person, not one and I tested this with a number of philes, ever even picked it was a tube amp and it was consistently described how I would expect an old, unrestored 70's SS amp of not great design to be described. So, no one picked something that had a large measurable difference, yet you want me to believe that people can detect tiny (if present) differences when mood, presumptions and other issues will thoroughly drown that? Nope.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - saves me the bother. True, you don't know me.

btw The whole point of the "blinding" is to remove the influence of "mood, presumptions and other issues".

I don't really "want" you to believe anything, it makes no difference to me. I started hifi with a Marantz integrated in the 70s and it was surprisingly musical - perhaps the equal in many ways of my Chinese-made EL34 push/pull tube amp.
 
#1,147
Alan Hope said:
btw The whole point of the "blinding" is to remove the influence of "mood, presumptions and other issues".
Click to expand...
I'm aware. The point of my Marantz example was that the visual stimulus and listener preconception totally swamped the results.

My first piece of hifi kit was a Marantz 2285B reciever. I still have one. Nice piece of kit in terms of build and use. Lots of shiny knobs and buttons too.
 
#1,148
Brett said:
Not really. If it has such audible effects there should be a way to measure it. As it is nothing different to the effects of cap C as has been investigated since the Jung/Marsh articles, it should be able to be measured or proven blind.
Bud has little credibility with me though.
I find that exceptionally difficult to believe. There is no reason why it would be so electronically (I come from an RF background) unless there were some reactive compnents in the connectors or a shild not connected. As I doubt you opened it up, you cannot know if this was the case or not. I have no doubt that for a standard coax, correctly terminated, there will be NO difference in directionality.
Click to expand...

I have given it to my brother in law many years ago and he still uses it. I will give him a call and he may be so kind to open it both ways and take a picture for me to post. The manual stated it could be connected both ways, so I believe this is a strong hint that it is symmetrical.
 
#1,151
fredex said:
Any studies been done into the type of persons that become an objectivist or a subjectivist?
I think we are all born subjectivists but learn to become objectivists 🙂
Click to expand...


Studies? I doubt it but here is my story. I was half way through university (physics), had an excellent system and had completely lost interest in diying when a good friend demoed the difference between amps. Soon i learned to become a subjectivist 🙂

The way my hearing is going these days it won't be surprising if i re-learn to be an objectivist again.
 
#1,153
MartinQ said:
The Wire and Cable Scene: Facts, Fictions, and Frauds

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Back_Issues/


Part II in Issue 16, page 51
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf


Part III in Issue 17, page 50
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf
Click to expand...

Hmmm - do these help us here? One of these articles begins as follows ...

"The endemic idiocy of the tweako/loony subculture within the audio community is the desire to improve whatever needs no improvement -"

Great to see them, as good scientists, starting with no preconceived notions! 😉

Fine they have plenty of ammo from the snake-oil industry to feed their purple prose, but they may have simply thrown baby cable out with Tice bathwater. "O sancta simplicitas" indeed!

😀

However the objectivist case is very clearly made here. No attempt at balance, but they don't try to hide their bias.

And the bottom line is also clear - without DBT the debate can't even begin. Given the nature of this that is fair enough.

So I will DBT my ICs (and describe my methodology, Brett). They claim that the RLC differences in ICs are so negligible in audio terms that you would need many metres of IC just to produce detectable top-end roll-off. So I will not post again here until I have done that.
 
#1,154
salas said:
....I spotted that wee little arrow on that digi coax. It was hooked up the ''wrong'' way around. I said to myself, what the hell, put back as it always was. Bye bye harshness! Finito! Zero! Caput!
Click to expand...

Pleased to hear you later ditched that faulty cable that was built totally symmetrically but sounded different when reversed, simply by the act of painting an arrow on it. That would be a cool test of golden eared brigade to prove to them that it's all in their heads.

You forgot to mention that because you rewired the amps, your subconscious (low level) awareness would definitely have noticed the arrow and quietly nagged you about it (something's wrong, something's wrong, something's wrong...) until you found it and fixed it.
 
#1,156
Alan Hope said:
.... No attempt at balance, but they don't try to hide their bias.
Click to expand...

People like to claim that their point of view is the middle ground, and therefore somehow balanced. Did I read the comment "I'm unbiased, neither subjectivist or objectivist"? That is the same as saying one doesn't accept good science or bad science. It suggests someone is too dumb or uninformed to know the difference. Is that "balanced"? Of course not.

Don't waste your time with a home-made DBT. It's all been done much better than you will ever manage. The result is null (no differences). Either accept it or don't. It's clear that if you don't, you will be in plenteous and eloquent company.
 
#1,157
Andy Graddon said:
yes. the Audio Critic is a fraud !

why not listen with your ears ? not with your computer and text book !!!
Click to expand...

Are you freaking serious? Unlike tweako idiots reviewers in stereophile, Peter actually knows and understands the subject and very technical about it. Look who's backing him up.


"The Audio Critic…shines by an absence of the typical technical nonsense that I find in all the other audio magazines. On top of that the tone of presentation makes it so much more readable…"—SIEGFRIED LINKWITZ*
Linkwitz Lab, Corte Madera, CA
*of Linkwitz-Riley crossover fame

"…‘Accountability in audio journalism' and your no-nonsense, rational approach to product reviews are a refreshing change and a source of continuing entertainment for me."—JOSEPH D'APPOLITO, Ph.D.*
Andover, MA
*of D'Appolito speaker geometry fame










Alan Hope said:


So I will DBT my ICs (and describe my methodology, Brett). They claim that the RLC differences in ICs are so negligible in audio terms that you would need many metres of IC just to produce detectable top-end roll-off. So I will not post again here until I have done that.
Click to expand...


Join the club.
 
#1,158
Yo guys, Gormet, 2,000 dollar power cords are the REAL, new frontier in all of this rampent silliness! Can you imagine if you applied the same flacid scientific rigor to describe other phenomena?.................."After I replaced the power cord on my microwave oven, I noticed my popcorn had a greater depth of flavor. The aromatic overtones were more distinct and layered.............Butter overtones displayed a wheightier presentation............etc. Give me a break!
 
#1,160
Hello Zapnspark, Please, Oh God,Please, tell me thats a spoof! I was laughing so hard that I sprayed coffee all over my monitor! Once again, the emperor reines supreme in his vestment of vapor! Thanks for making my day with that little gem. It sort of makes the Smart chip cd harmonizer or those little tinkerbell acoustic resonators seem like paradigms of technical veracity!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom