A question with an infinite number of varibles will never have a difinitive answer. Even if two or three propellor heads get together in a basement and compare a bunch of cables to prove something they already believe. BTW, swapping components in and out of your system multiple times per day has got to be the worst possible way to evaluate any peice of equipment.
Well, you don't know "it" until you get "it."
Actually, Jack Rosenberg is still alive and no doubt enjoying the megamillions he took in from the suckers.
😉
That could be a reason, it would be interesting to compare notes on what each side listen for and expect from their system. Thinking back on what were said by both sides, it may very well explain the different opinions.
Good point, apart from that I still don't know how some of these differences would be measured or interpreted.
That would be much more constructive, problem is it would take some effort and lower the entertaining value. 🙄
aaaah again "look".
Lets be clear - If audible differences existed between cables, the basic system for confirming this phenomenon, within reasonable parameters, is immaterial. A source that can output a sonically clear signal (pretty much any CD player then), any amp that can amplify that signal with minimal distortion including absolute, intermod et al (a chip amp well constructed will do here), and speakers of suitable range and power. Well actually, headphones would be the best bet as it removes all sort of other error opportunities testing interconnects. Not so hot if testing speaker cable, obviously...
And with such a set-up you can identify WHETHER a sample of people can repeatedly identify different cables. Or not. So the first question is a simple true or false and thats as objective as it gets.
Its complete tosh that a system would need to be "revealing" for this purpose. For a start, no-one can agree on what a "revealing" system actually is, or what measurements (yeah, those pesky fact-based things) it would be capable of.
Now, if (AND ONLY "if") it can be shown that the phenomenon of cable difference can be identified by a reasonable sample group, the focus can shift to WHAT tonal or other qualities may be identified. Then the subjective stuff can begin.
A sample of one would do (I'm assuming by "cable difference," you mean "difference other than from mundane factors").
Anything that doesn't provide a measurable manifestation is indistinguishable from magic. If people want to believe in magic cables they are more then welcome too, I just wish they would call it what it really is, magic. Even a rudimentary understanding of physics and the human auditory system is enough to understand why anecdotal evidence of the subject is no more valid than aliens or big foot sightings. Even if you did imagine a difference you'd have to question your own perception as it's not a reliable method for measuring minor or in this case non-existent changes to a complex amount of information. Add to the mix a complete lack of demonstrable evidence and you're left with an unfounded belief, a faith. The problem with a belief that not only lacks evidence but flies in the face of it, there's unlikely any evidence anyone can provide to change the minds of someone who rejects evidence as a currency of knowledge.
So why argue? Who is the bigger idiot, the moron or the one who argues against him? From my perspective the debate isn't simply about the faithful in question. Misinformation is like a good restaurant, it only takes a couple people and a little word of mouth before everyone's waiting in line. I think everyone's goal should not be to kill the messenger, he's already made up his mind and it's unlikely any rational thought will convince him otherwise, but to prevent the uncontested spread of misinformation. With that said I'm happy I found this thread, I'm not a fan of long lines whatever the reasons might be.
So why argue? Who is the bigger idiot, the moron or the one who argues against him? From my perspective the debate isn't simply about the faithful in question. Misinformation is like a good restaurant, it only takes a couple people and a little word of mouth before everyone's waiting in line. I think everyone's goal should not be to kill the messenger, he's already made up his mind and it's unlikely any rational thought will convince him otherwise, but to prevent the uncontested spread of misinformation. With that said I'm happy I found this thread, I'm not a fan of long lines whatever the reasons might be.
Try again, the measurements are there, the debate is only about what is believed to be audible.
A debate would imply that one side isn't supported exclusively by subjective supposition, and taking measurements out of context to support an ideological prism is proof of nothing more than inability to accurately represent the results. I have yet to read a single publication in any peer reviewed physics journal that lends credence to your claims, but you'd be more then welcome to provide myself with clarification on the subject. Let's hypothesize for a moment that it was possible, going by the many claims I've seen on the subject what measurement results represent a "wider more encompassing sound stage", or "better imaging and celerity"? What measurements represent "fuller sound"? Do minor differences in dielectric capacitance represent "making the performance more musical"? I've never seen a metric for representing a fuller sound stage in speaker cables.
All of the arguments I've seen citing test results are blatant non-sequiturs. Even if you measured a difference between cables, no matter how major or minor, saying that it represents the magic you claim to hear requires it's own burden of proof. This is the evidence you lack, the measurements you're short. You are misrepresenting a rain drops difference in a river of electrons to justify your preconceived notion. I can also provide test results showing that some speaker cable sinks in water faster then others, does this represent having deeper bass? Some speaker cable melts faster, does that represent smoother highs? I won't debate you can brutalize some fundamental aspects of physics to come up with something to wave around in an argument. However proof is only valid when it represents one possible outcome. I have yet to see that reasonable differences in the resistance of various conductors, dielectric insulators, bags of rocks taped to the end of wires... or anything else for that matter represents anything other then an over active imagination and the inability to come to terms with product bias.
I'll say this tho, I'm not closed minded to the idea. I'd love for it to be true, but truth to me is a measurable manifestation of reality that can be readily verified or falsified by your peers. Otherwise you really can claim anything. How do you disprove a fantasy? How do you measure a hallucination? If you meet the substantial burden of proof I'll be the first one to shake your hand.
All of the arguments I've seen citing test results are blatant non-sequiturs. Even if you measured a difference between cables, no matter how major or minor, saying that it represents the magic you claim to hear requires it's own burden of proof. This is the evidence you lack, the measurements you're short. You are misrepresenting a rain drops difference in a river of electrons to justify your preconceived notion. I can also provide test results showing that some speaker cable sinks in water faster then others, does this represent having deeper bass? Some speaker cable melts faster, does that represent smoother highs? I won't debate you can brutalize some fundamental aspects of physics to come up with something to wave around in an argument. However proof is only valid when it represents one possible outcome. I have yet to see that reasonable differences in the resistance of various conductors, dielectric insulators, bags of rocks taped to the end of wires... or anything else for that matter represents anything other then an over active imagination and the inability to come to terms with product bias.
I'll say this tho, I'm not closed minded to the idea. I'd love for it to be true, but truth to me is a measurable manifestation of reality that can be readily verified or falsified by your peers. Otherwise you really can claim anything. How do you disprove a fantasy? How do you measure a hallucination? If you meet the substantial burden of proof I'll be the first one to shake your hand.
Last edited:
I was just in the lab today, and someone tried to do EMC measurements on the power line of an active speaker. Measurements in standby mode showed really good data. Then a test of it being driven with a 1KHz signal was conducted using a signal generator to inject the signal. Conduction noise went up, and we were scratching out heads; lowered the input signal, still the same level of conduction noise; turned the signal generator off, still the same level of conduction noise; unplug the signal cable, clean performance; connect signal cable and unpluged the power cable from the signal generator, clean performance.😀
Since we were only looking at 50KHz ~ 30MHz, we could only guess what might be happening at the lower frequencies, but this is a typical example of noise flowing through the ground via interconnect. When such noise is mainly in the ground connection, cable structure will influence how the signal conductor reacts.
Since we were only looking at 50KHz ~ 30MHz, we could only guess what might be happening at the lower frequencies, but this is a typical example of noise flowing through the ground via interconnect. When such noise is mainly in the ground connection, cable structure will influence how the signal conductor reacts.
Last edited:
Yes, everything sounds so much better if it's switched off. But maybe the right cable would have helped? 🙂
I've listened to a lot of those systems, you do get some that sounds better when switched on though. 😀
To Sum up for the oldstereosters ..
Cable = Connector
Connector = Connection [+/-..x]
Connection = Material
Material = Level of Purity
Level of Purity = Electron Counter
Electron Counter?>?...where do I get one of those !
Remember it is easier to excite our electrons than it is to keep them happy.
When they begin to develop a preference for what seems like the most extravagant luxuries, remind them they are your cables, and they have always been loved.
Then...secretly evaluate them.
Cable = Connector
Connector = Connection [+/-..x]
Connection = Material
Material = Level of Purity
Level of Purity = Electron Counter
Electron Counter?>?...where do I get one of those !
Remember it is easier to excite our electrons than it is to keep them happy.
When they begin to develop a preference for what seems like the most extravagant luxuries, remind them they are your cables, and they have always been loved.
Then...secretly evaluate them.
aardvark~,
Hey I don't really disagree. But we much maligned "subjectivists" need a heck of a lot more from the objectivist guys than just LRC.
For starters - we could really use a repeatable objective measurement of "soundstage width and depth".
btw - I've done my own DBTs (silver ICs versus VDH carbon thingys) and can hear the difference (statistically significant - though not 100%).
(Sorry Kareface, just read your post - there is some overlap in concepts presented). My gut feeling is that certain extremely low-level components in the sound can make a difference in perceived soundstage, and that some systems (as a whole) preserve these components better than others.
Just a hunch - but I'm not the only one dispensing hunches in this thread!)
Last edited:
Just to make it clear, I have no interest in trying to proof anything to anybody, if that were the case, I would have worn a white coat and work in a lab. I do like to share my experience with others that are also interested in the subject to try and learn something from it.
Regarding your question about interpreting measurement results, that is exactly why it is so difficult to proof the differences that we hear. Perhaps if we can do measurements that simulate our TWO EARS AND BRAIN, the differences may show up easier. It is similar to looking at a 2D picture and trying to understand 3D.
Is it always the same electrons that flow around in a circle between the amp and the speaker? Or do fresh ones come in from the power supply?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.