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

[Andre Visser]

fredex said brain, not ears. And he was right. Subjeckylandhydetevists are having a little trouble with this. Every time someone says the brain is doing it they say "see! see! I told you the ears are incredible!"

I can't see how the two can be separated, they function as one.

In fact, I believe our ears detect much more than the brain normally "reveal" to us (hope it make sense). Eg. a blind person with "abnormal" hearing abilities still have the same ears, it is the brain (through training) that process more of the information.

 

[tnargs]

I like the measurements....
http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

I dare the subjectivists to try and wriggle out of this one

I don't qualify to respond to your challenge, but I have an issue with Winer using 3 speakers (2 compact monitors and a sub) running concurrently in different locations to take his measurements. I would have preferred to see a single full range monitor used. I suspect that his variations would then have been less.

I would still argue that the mind games in sighted listening will outweigh the effect Winer has measured. I have witnessed listeners seated all over the room (me too) "hear" the same changes in sighted tests.

 

[tnargs]

Getting back to the original question, I've found that cables can be quite different whether they are speaker cables or interconnects. Cables form part of the overall system and should be viewed as such. It's been my observation that the higher the quality of the partnering equipment, the easier it is to spot changes in most instances.

I don't have to prove this as like most people have been blessed with 5 senses (some have even more) that I trust and use daily. I do not need someone behind a keyboard to tell me or others what I can or can't hear and leave the guys alone that can. If you can't hear a difference, that's fine. No member here has the right to be audio police laying down the law on other members and their beliefs and ridiculing them for it. Some of the comments have been disturbing and thankfully not common in the loudspeaker forum.

When someone alters the colour balance on the TV, do I need an instrument to tell me?

If a seafood meal is off and tastes like crap, do I need and instrument to tell me?

If the meal is too hot, do I need an instrument to tell me?

If the dog farts in the room, do I need an instrument to tell me?

Of course I don't as these senses have been honed over the years and it's no different with hearing. If I can't rely on my hearing to make judgements then I need another hobby or am not utilising a sense to it's capabilities.

When voicing a speaker it's all about adjustments to the LCR components in the crossover and it's the same with cables as the LCR variations will have an effect, though not on the same scale. This is noticeable with some amplifiers but can have little effect on other amplifiers and I'm sure is dependant on the amplifier design.

None of my speaker cables are expensive even though I've tried a few more expensive ones over the years. The preferred cable of choice is about A$8 per metre so doesn't rate as exotic just sensible engineering.

Measurements are fine and good luck to those that rely on them. Just don't go forcing it down the throat of others as I'm sick of reading it.

Let me mention Andy at this point. I won't go on about his academic achievements or qualifications but I'll tell you he knows a thing or two about music and sound. I'm fortunate to live in the same city and unlike most on this forum I get to hear his creations which are all voiced by ear. I usually get an invitation at the final tweaking stage for an opinion. He has the ability due to a fine ear and years of experience to pick up on a problem and instantly convert a fix into L / C / R values. He's very passionate about his music and loudspeakers which is very infectious. In addition he mixes for live gigs so knows what music should sound like.

Time for me to get out of this thread and listen to tunes.

Back to your regular program. 😉

All your issues were dealt with much earlier in the thread. Not sure why you are repeating mantras that have been dealt with? Did you read? Do you want to deal with any specific earlier points?

You also point out that you don't want to hear the opinions of others. "I do not need someone behind a keyboard to tell me or others what I can or can't hear". I suspect that's exactly what you do need. You don't seem to understand what is going on -- nor want to. Read the thread if you are interested in this topic. If not, why are you here? Just don't ask us to start over again, here and now, just for you.

Re "Andy", I know a number of guys with his "abilities". They all voice by ear -- sighted. Unsighted, their abilities are useless, like their creations.

 

[jneutron]

Claiming I don't understand does not make it true.

Actually, what I am saying is that your comments and statements show that you have not grasped the specifics of what I have stated. Having taught both basic understandings as well as high level concepts to a range of people from 12 year olds to university profs, I have quite a bit of experience in spotting questions which indicate a lack of grasping such concepts.

Claiming that a test you have never actually performed will prove something does not make it true.

I did not state that my test will prove anything. I stated that my test regime will measure the human capability of differential localization, and will provide specifications with which to define the overall system response required to not alter localization parameters at the level humans can hear.

btw, who said I've never performed it?

Claiming that I am being aggressive does not make it true, and I would argue that you are being aggressive. You are attacking me while I am only stating the irrelevance of your test.

I am trying to get you to understand the concepts and how they apply to the problem, and look at your responses...I have not attacked you, but have pointed out where you either misunderstand, or simply do not.

We are not talking about localization,

um, yes we are. We are discussing the impact cables have on the entire presentation of a soundstage, and localization is HOW we perceive that soundstage.

if we were I might engage you on your test idea, I don't think it is scientifically complete but a good start.

A statement which displays "lack of grasp". Please learn the concepts first...

We are talking about cables, so if you want to recommend a test that will prove or disprove the audibility of cables then I will gladly work with you, and you will hear nothing but constructive criticism, or praise-whichever is appropriate.

From your history of posting on this thread, it would seem rather far fetched that you would work with anybody. But if so, that would be great.

I am not a prick!

Given your history of posts within this thread, I can see why you are in a position to try to convince others that you are not..

You guys are making claims that we feel are unsubstantiated, you think we should just agree with you? Take your word for it? What knowledge or data have you shown us that would make us abandon all of our knowledge, data and experiences and believe you?

Are you talking to me??? What claims have I made which cannot be substantiated???

When you repeatedly avoid the cable discussion and use distractions about localization testing, you are feeding the stereotype that subjectivists avoid fact by changing the topic.

No. The claim is audibility. Audibility of what? Not frequency response, not distortion, but soundstage and perceived imagery.

I am defining what is responsible for perceived imagery.

You can't perform a rigorous test if you do not know what you are testing, and you do not know what entities will present as confounders.

If you honestly feel that your test can further the topic of the audibility of cables then please explain to us how.

Go back and re-read. I explained quite clearly.

Don't think you can rattle me by calling me dumb and saying I should reread your posts and ask questions of you about your expertise.

Please point out exactly where I called anybody dumb..

You are becoming "rattled" because you believe I am both a subjectivist and a non-scientific type.. and you must counter all I say.

You are incorrect on both counts.

Wait a minute, who are you? What is your expertise? Are you an engineer or physicist or something? And why the assumption that you are the only one who can create a test?

I am "jneutron"...I post at diyaudio... I am engaging a discussion of audibility at the base level in order to prescribe the specific set of test signals which would be required to determine alteration of a soundstage image as a result of any system modifications.

Do you feel that tossing credentials around is of any use here?

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Another twisted argument

Actually, his statement about some amplifiers becoming unstable as a result of the cables is factually correct.

When amplifier speed and slew rate were all the "rage", some amplifiers were so "hot" bandwidth wise, that putting too high a capacitive load on the output terminals resulted in either unstable operation, or flat out oscillation.

For constrained cables, the relationship LC = 1034 DC holds. DC being the relative dielectric constant. Many people were trying to lower the inductance, and of course the capacitance rose as a result. As the capacitance rose, the amps responded poorly to the load.

One can also look at it as a transmission line with reflections as well...where the output system really starts to have problems when the load impedance rises above the cable impedance, as that does indeed present a capacitive effect to the output.. Zip cord of course, does not have this problem since it's impedance is typically 100 or so ohms.

Hello John!

You stated the copper tracks on the PC board can play a significant role in the amplifiers ability to be accurate.

Show me any audio amplifier pc board design layout, and I will explain exactly where the poor design is, and why there is no control over where the current goes, why there is lots of mag field splaying about within the design. Coupled with wiring layout off the board, and you have the spaghetti syndrome..
============================================
I agree with you 100% the copper tracks and the layout of the parts is extremely critical to a components final sound! So much so in fact that when John Curl ---{who I believe is an outstanding audio component designer}--- set out to make the world's "best" preamp, after he created the circuit design he decided to give the task of component layout to Carl Thompson.

John believed that circuit layout was crucial to obtaining the best sound from his circuit design. Mr Curl didn't even stop there giving the task of final assembly/burnin/voicing to Bob Crump. It amazes me when I see many people proclaiming if it was a "fact" that properly-designed amps, preamps, etc have no sound of their own. Yet when a highly trained engineer was seeking the very best from the circuit he designed he gave component layout to someone else! I may be mistaken but it appears that just component layout itself can greatly influence the sound of an audio component, no?

I believe John is a physicist by degree, but liked circuits and audio enough to persue the path he did.

He does tend to work the circuits by "sound" as it were..change something, listen, iteration of that sort..and unfortunately, that is a procedure that I have constantly "argued" with him over, as I do not consider that to be "engineering"...but more a "hunt and peck" approach which does not lend towards accumulation of engineering knowledge.

His capacitor testing was the same way...he identified a "difference", but there was no rigor in the testing or analysis which could be used to define new criteria for others. As I told him, I absolutely praised his effort and direction, and wished to bring the analysis a bit further..

He does mean well however, and I've heard others who own his equipment praise his work no end..

Many issues that are caused by unfortunate pc board layout are ones that do not cause harmonic distortion, but rather, far more complex problems that cannot be easily tested for. Things like EMI susceptibility, ground loop sensitivity, etc.

Cheers, John

 

[rabbitz]

tnargs

Read the topic title.... I'm voicing an opinion. You own this thread and site? If not, stop being so hostile and let others post in peace. Lighten up.

 

[jneutron]

But jneutron is trying to enlighten about the small differences needed to get a different localization for an acoustical point source in reality.

Totally..

That, and an appreciation of what the system has to maintain fidelity of in order to keep the small differences in check.

As posted before, the case of the impact of listener movement on localization issues has been studied before, the current state is that small movements of the listener improve the localization ability.

Nordmark (JASA, 1976, page 873, fig 3.) detailed how jittering the stimulus brought "lateralization"sensitivity thresholds DOWN from a min of 6 uSec to a base of 1.5 uSec discrimination in the frequency range of 2 to 8 Khz.(graph attached) This helps define the baseline human response capability a tad further....and this screams "single driver effects" and cone excursion..

There is a lot of literature/papers available in this field and i think you´d be amazed to find out about all the things that are still not really known about our hearing ability.

I lament the lack of direct application of localization theory to the electronics' transfer function criteria.


Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

This is where you and I differ. I think the tests are perfect now. You think they are not perfect. I assume it is because the results don't support your personal experience. They don't support my experience either. It is bizarre.

I like the tests, but I take issue with the stimulus. It uses only half the information we are hardwired to use, so forces us to adapt.

Cheers, John

 

[terry j]

I think that these things, if they exist, will be very whole system oriented.. certainly if you want to "test" if someone did or didn't hear a difference, you should not change anything but the item under test. that is the only objective way to proceed.

As for visiting, sure, welcome to come and hear some of my creations anytime, but this place isn't the best sort of place for that sort of test. The only stable system is very awkward to change wires on. When I have time, I could try throwing some wires at a few of the other speakers and systems to see if I can hear anything worth investigating.

The guy with the system (mentioned above) I actually experienced "the difference" on would almost certainly not be amenable to that sort of thing, he does his own thing, and couldn't care what anyone else thinks !! 😀

thanks for that, I'll certainly bear in mind that your open for a visit...I'd love to at some stage.

I agree with your point, it's a no brainer that we only change one thing, the DUT. All else must remain a constant, including volume level.

pity we (or anyone else involved in this discussion on whatever continent) don't seem able to move this past the constant tawking stage. I'm more than happy to travel a few hours to help out. the brains trust we have here is surely sufficient to cobble an agreed upon test and act upon it.

could meet rabbitz too whilst I was there!

with enough hands we can do manual switching of cables and bypass completely the contentious issue of transparent mechanical switching (tho I believe that is misdirection, if the '''huge''' claimed differences are real they are unlikely to be swamped by a mere set of contacts)

Anyone else up to actually putting their beliefs/ideas/ears where their mouth is?? (that includes me BTW, for all I know I may be stunned that I DO hear differences!)

either here in Aus, or in other parts of the world where there are a few members in this thread in closish proximity??

I'm surprised that (to my recall) no-one has linked to Mike Lavignes interesting preparation for the million dollar challenge, $38 000 Opus Transparent speaker cables vs $150 monster cable. Despite the sighted tests which proved to him the overwhelming and obvious differences between the two (esp on the superior 'dark blackness' of the opus heh heh heh), well you can fill in the rest.

Even more interesting as a lark after he couldn't tell the two apart they tried lopping the end off an extension cord and use them, with no obvious audible differences either!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184


sorry for the delay in posting my perceptions.....i must admit to at least a bit of reluctance in discussing what happened......as the result was clearly much different than i expected. i do not feel bad about doing the test or the results (other than a slightly bruised ego) since i do feel it is the truth......at least the truth as to the protocol we used.

in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it..

 

[nickmckinney]

I generally stay out of cable discussions as they never go anywhere but I have observed the following over my short lifetime:


Nobody I have heard of has ever found a difference in a blind test. If they see the cables they hear a difference, but not the other way around.

Spending $150+ on 10 foot of wire to connect to a $5 voice coil with 100 foot of wire, forget about any inductors in series inside the cabinet. Figure on at least 4 solder or crimp joints internally per driver you have to take the signal across, I guess those don't make a difference.

and finally -

Every driver designer I know (and thats a few) believes all cables sound the same. You just don't get this talk from the people designing the drivers you are listening to these differences through.

 

[jneutron]

Every driver designer I know (and thats a few) believes all cables sound the same. You just don't get this talk from the people designing the drivers you are listening to these differences through.

Please have some of them contact me if they are interested.

I would like to discuss magnetic design asymmetries and issues in their drivers, as I have some interesting concerns...I work with magnets a bit..😉

Cheers, John

 

[nigelwright7557]

and finally -

Every driver designer I know (and thats a few) believes all cables sound the same. You just don't get this talk from the people designing the drivers you are listening to these differences through.

This because compared to a speaker the cable is simply irrelevant.
Speakers have massive changes of impedance and speaker output over their frequency range. A cable does not by any stretch of the imagination compared to a speaker.

I personally think this waffle about cables is audio snobbery and a complete waste of forum space.

Its a bit like buying a Rolls Royce and then complaining about the cost of petrol ! Completely irrelevant.

 

[jneutron]

This because compared to a speaker the cable is simply irrelevant.
Speakers have massive changes of impedance and speaker output over their frequency range. A cable does not by any stretch of the imagination compared to a speaker.

With those "massive changes", why is it I can still image something in the center where there is no driver.

Why can I image something that is off axis by 10 or 20 inches?? Do you have any idea how tight the system response has to be?

A point source 10 feet away, 20 inches off axis will have about 90 uSec ear to ear diff(ITD) and .08 dB IID. (graphs attached).

1. How the heck do we hear .08dB ear to ear difference??? The 90 uSec is easy enough to understand...but pan pots don't alter ITD..

2. How would we measure .08dB change in one channel with uncorrelated music running also?

The disparity lies within how we test and specify the equipment vs how we actually hear. We currently are far more sensitive to localization errors than the equipment.

Unless you or anybody else are aware of equipment which is capable of duplicating our ability to discern synthetic images in a soundfield..?.

I personally think this waffle about cables is audio snobbery and a complete waste of forum space.

All are allowed their opinion.. If you think it a waste, why post?

I certainly do agree that there is a lot of snobbery involved for some. I don't fall within that category.

Cheers, John

ps. This graph is for a point source, with intensity falling off as 1/r^2. The numbers go down if a line source is used, and they go away essentially for planar sources near field. Is this not confusing???😕 😕

 

[jneutron]

ah, one pic per post...ok

Here's the ITD graph

John

 

[nickmckinney]

Please have some of them contact me if they are interested.

I would like to discuss magnetic design asymmetries and issues in their drivers, as I have some interesting concerns...I work with magnets a bit..😉

Cheers, John

Shoot talk to me about it, I am always looking to make my drivers better.

 

[thetubeguy1954]

A couple weeks ago, when I went to a triamped system. Two new cables, two new interconnects. {{{SNIP}}}

On my main system, its probably a year or so ago, can't remember exactly . changed from QED silver to some cat5e braids I made from a broken net cable, because the QED weren't long enough to let me put the tube amps properly in the cabinet. {{{SNIP}}}

I changed my ICs a few weeks back when my friend Mike R who's a fellow member of the Central Florida Audio Society called and said he's just created the worlds ugliest IC and he wanted me to hear it in my system. When he arrived not only was his creation ugly he said it was cheap to make as well! So we pulled out my $1800 gold/silver/copper alloy ICs and replaced them with Mike's ugly, cheap, plain copper ICs and damn if I didn't actually prefer his creation! They've been in my system ever since ---{ so much for the accuracy of this example: For example, if you know that a $4 cable has been replaced with a cable costing $1,000, it's not unreasonable to expect the sound to improve with the more expensive brand. Likewise with any other expensive audio component. After all, how could a $15,000 power amplifier not sound better than one costing only $150? that was used at this site. http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html}---

More than once I've prefered the cheaper or uglier audio component. I believe if one goes into a purchasing decision with a fixed purchasing plan ---{like I do}--- then things like expectation bias don't have the amount of influence objectivists like to believe they have. When I'm prepared to make a purchase my criteria is #1) price (there's a point I won't go above and it fixed) #2) sound quality (this is based on my subjective opinion of what live, unamplifed instruments sound like) and finally #3) visual aesthetics. In addition to that I do NOT expect more expensive or prettier to automatically sound better either. Why? Because I realize it would be very easy for a manufactuer to make a beautifiul box, place a cheap transistor radio circuit inside that box and then charge BIG BUCKS simply because it looked pretty! That of course doesn't mean a more expensive or prettier component won't sound better, it just means I don't automatically expect them to.

So I go in and won't spend over X amount of dollars. Then I audtion the components that fall into that financial X catagory. Of those components I attempt to select the 2 or 3 I believe come the closest to replicating the sound of live, unamplifed instruments. Finally if it comes down to 1 or 2 that IMO sound about the same at replicating the sound of live, unamplifed instruments ---{even though they'd most likely have different sonic strengths & weaknesses}--- it's ONLY at that time that I'd allow visual aesthetics to play a part in my decision making. Afterall there's nothing wrong with liking how your audio components look provided that's not your primary reason for selecting them but, rather visual aesthetics should/could be used as a tie-breaker between 2 components that otherwise sound about equal in their ability to replicate the sound of live, unamplifed instruments to me.

 

[nigelwright7557]

After all, how could a $15,000 power amplifier not sound better than one costing only $150? that was used at this site. [/I]http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html}---
[/B]

But this is one of the biggest cons of all time !

Sellers up the price to make people think it is better than everyone elses.

I sell software and put on a price of £20 and no one bought it.
I kept getting emails about how the software must be poor for that price. So I then advertised it at £100 and I sold loads !

So if your theory is correct how about I build a £150 amp and sell it to you for £50,000. From your point of view my amp must be better coz I am charging more............

I have seen valve amps for sale for thousands of pounds.
I can put a pre amp together for less than £100 using all the best parts money can buy. So yet another con to make you think cost ==== value.

They might fool the rich public but they dont fool an electronics engineer like myself.

 

[jneutron]

Shoot talk to me about it, I am always looking to make my drivers better.

Do you design the drivers?

Underhung or overhung?

How do you control the permeability and resistivity of the components used in the magnetic circuit?

Do you measure the inductance and BL product across the active band, as well as across the full range of Xmax?

Is the BL product at the upper end of the band the same as the DC value?

Cheers, John

ps. I like your website...

 

[Alan Hope]

But this is one of the biggest cons of all time !

Sellers up the price to make people think it is better than everyone elses.

I sell software and put on a price of £20 and no one bought it.
I kept getting emails about how the software must be poor for that price. So I then advertised it at £100 and I sold loads !

So if your theory is correct how about I build a £150 amp and sell it to you for £50,000. From your point of view my amp must be better coz I am charging more............

I have seen valve amps for sale for thousands of pounds.
I can put a pre amp together for less than £100 using all the best parts money can buy. So yet another con to make you think cost ==== value.

They might fool the rich public but they dont fool an electronics engineer like myself.

... or an audiophile. My beautifully crafted valve amp (UK£600) was trashed sonically by the current crop of T-Amps. (UK£30 - 100). So I'm selling it. Sound quality MUST rule irrespective of cost /appearance /hype or you are not an audiophile.

You must also accept that comparing DIY parts prices to commercial amp prices should not be described as a con - unless the mark-up is completely ridiculous. The time / effort / skill / danger (valve amps!) required to build a commercial-quality amp is considerable. I like my home-built Charlize amp - but it looks, ah, home built.

 

[nigelwright7557]

... or an audiophile. My beautifully crafted valve amp (UK£600) was trashed sonically by the current crop of T-Amps. (UK£30 - 100). So I'm selling it. Sound quality MUST rule irrespective of cost /appearance /hype or you are not an audiophile.

You must also accept that comparing DIY parts prices to commercial amp prices should not be described as a con - unless the mark-up is completely ridiculous. The time / effort / skill / danger (valve amps!) required to build a commercial-quality amp is considerable. I like my home-built Charlize amp - but it looks, ah, home built.

I would certainly suggest I was an audiophile but one who doesnt need an amp to work to zero distortion or a speaker lead that is exactly zero ohms that is made of 100% pure copper.

I dont think the price difference is worth it and I certainly cant hear the difference. But thats maybe because of 30 years of bashing my ears with guitar and disco music !