fcserei said:
I hate headphone listening..my comp soundcard has an 11 uSec r-l delay that bugs the heck outta me.
I disagree with you about ideal best as being the starting point.
First, one must determine in anechoic space, what information is actually able to make it to the ear location. I also use point source with spherical expansion for IID info. (ild). Line of sight calcs give 100 usec for a source 100 inches away, 20 to the side..differential ear to ear. The sound does not have to wrap around from one ear to the other, just from a speak.
Once those relations are determined, then one has to determine how far from ideal human hearing is.
We can determine the specifications required to localize ideally to an inch at 10 feet, but that is not useful.. I believe one foot at ten is a more realistic goal.
Gotta go..your killin me..thanks..
Cheers, John
Re: Re: Why speaker cables do sound different .........
To get rid of the tweeter peak from your Wilson MAXX's?
janneman said:
To get rid of the tweeter peak from your Wilson MAXX's?
Wow, what fun, cable wars:
Cables made by different manufacturers using different techniques and materials will measure differently, Ohms inductance, capacitance and dielectric absorbtion will be different. Really they will, but the differences will be small (NOT zero) and may or may not have anything to do with the whole discussion about how cables sound. All of you skeptics stop saying all cables will measure the same, they won't but that might not mean a damn thing. Even if they have the identical capacitance they may not have the same dielectric so if you measure more carefully they'll still be different.
Lumped RLC substitutions vs distributed RLC will measure and act differently, you can not place a single capacitor accross a short cable to make it the same as a long cable. Even if you could, what kind of capacitor would you use? Oil and paper, Ceramic, Mylar (polyester), polystyrene, Teflon, polypropelyne? All those capacitor dielectrics exist, all have slightly different behaviors, that's why they make them all. Cables can use many kinds of insulator materials, as a result they will measure and act differently. Again the problem is that no one has admitted that they can releate any of these measurements exactly to how cables sound. There's even a mil spec on how to measure dieletric absorbtion (MIL-C-19978)
There are sites by test equipment manufacturers warning about getting inaccurate measurements resulting form dielectric absorbtion caused by using the wrong test cable (gasp, a documented difference?). See the bottom of this page
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/conceptd.nsf/webmain/64CA4B715425FA7D86256E0B0071FF1C
Proof does not have to exist before an effect. Our planet orbited around the sun long before scientific proof existed that this was so. The big difference is that no one has currently been arrested by the Vatican inquisition for saying cables sound different.
So debate happily away, stop spouting nonsense like there is no measurable difference, stop saying proof must exist before the effect exisits. Stop saying no one has ever passed a double blind test (there is a valid debate about confidence level because the tests have a finite duration and the number of possible tests per hour is small).
Stick with: is it reproducible? Is it it cost effective? Does it always work? Can I hear it on your system? Can I learn to hear what you claim to hear? Can I visit you and we'll do a test? Stop demanding that only ABX tests lasting days will convince you, no one is willing to spend that amount of time for you.
One last thing; a reduction in name calling might be productive. Agreeing with my opinion does not make you a genius and disagreeing doesn't make you a fool.
Cables made by different manufacturers using different techniques and materials will measure differently, Ohms inductance, capacitance and dielectric absorbtion will be different. Really they will, but the differences will be small (NOT zero) and may or may not have anything to do with the whole discussion about how cables sound. All of you skeptics stop saying all cables will measure the same, they won't but that might not mean a damn thing. Even if they have the identical capacitance they may not have the same dielectric so if you measure more carefully they'll still be different.
Lumped RLC substitutions vs distributed RLC will measure and act differently, you can not place a single capacitor accross a short cable to make it the same as a long cable. Even if you could, what kind of capacitor would you use? Oil and paper, Ceramic, Mylar (polyester), polystyrene, Teflon, polypropelyne? All those capacitor dielectrics exist, all have slightly different behaviors, that's why they make them all. Cables can use many kinds of insulator materials, as a result they will measure and act differently. Again the problem is that no one has admitted that they can releate any of these measurements exactly to how cables sound. There's even a mil spec on how to measure dieletric absorbtion (MIL-C-19978)
There are sites by test equipment manufacturers warning about getting inaccurate measurements resulting form dielectric absorbtion caused by using the wrong test cable (gasp, a documented difference?). See the bottom of this page
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/conceptd.nsf/webmain/64CA4B715425FA7D86256E0B0071FF1C
Proof does not have to exist before an effect. Our planet orbited around the sun long before scientific proof existed that this was so. The big difference is that no one has currently been arrested by the Vatican inquisition for saying cables sound different.
So debate happily away, stop spouting nonsense like there is no measurable difference, stop saying proof must exist before the effect exisits. Stop saying no one has ever passed a double blind test (there is a valid debate about confidence level because the tests have a finite duration and the number of possible tests per hour is small).
Stick with: is it reproducible? Is it it cost effective? Does it always work? Can I hear it on your system? Can I learn to hear what you claim to hear? Can I visit you and we'll do a test? Stop demanding that only ABX tests lasting days will convince you, no one is willing to spend that amount of time for you.
One last thing; a reduction in name calling might be productive. Agreeing with my opinion does not make you a genius and disagreeing doesn't make you a fool.
Hi hermanv,
???? Did I miss something? Everyone seems to be well behaved here.
Proof is just a reproducible test, isn't it?
-Chris
???? Did I miss something? Everyone seems to be well behaved here.
Proof is just a reproducible test, isn't it?
-Chris
I do read more than one of these threads but I thought I saw fool and idiot earlier.
Proof to some means an equation or a studied published article in scientific journals, merely doing it repeatably is too simple for some.
Proof to some means an equation or a studied published article in scientific journals, merely doing it repeatably is too simple for some.
Hi hermanv,
-Chris
😉 They are there for the amusement of others. But everyone has a cherished belief that does not fall easily.
-Chris
Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez Jan
Yikes, what a difference a day at work makes.
Not sure where the sighted stuff applies. Some people make the ugliest CAT5 interconnects and rave about them. If I wanted to be a curmudgeon about it I'ld ask if those results were tested over long periods, or only for the afternoon. If the latter it bears little weight concerning long term satisfaction with a component. I'll see if I can find your earlier posts, if there's one thing that's stood out for me in near fifteen years on line watching these discussions is how very, very rarely real scientific studies of auditory phenomena related to cables are quoted. Most are like Gow's, which I doubt could make peer review in a professional journal.
Hypothesis Under Test: That subtle differences in the metallurgy, chemical composition and construction of speaker cables affect auditory perception.
Test Condition: Terminate DUT with a pile of generic switches, hookup wire and steel teminal strips.
Incidentally, and way off topic, have you ever noticed of Sean Olive's and Kevin Voecks' HK speaker tests that they always stress testing for listener preference and never against a live reference? Inarguably brilliant results for the design of highly respected and popular speakers, but at no point does it reference accuracy.
I said nothing about power cords. About cables the only hypothesis I made related to oddities with my gear, where (to fill in the details) a pair of tightly twisted silver interconnects caused significantly more RF and noise from an amp than a mostly air dielectric tape-type using spaced Litz. It suggested to me that one mechanism by which perceptible differences could occur is the component's reaction at RF frequencies to the cable's reactive load. It's hardly a new idea, early Naim amps were famous for 'outgassing' when connected to high capacitance cables such as the contemporary Polk speaker cable. I hope that many here would agree that a cable which drove a component to self-destructive oscillation could have an audible impact prior to the final magic puff.
Yikes, what a difference a day at work makes.
janneman said:
Not sure where the sighted stuff applies. Some people make the ugliest CAT5 interconnects and rave about them. If I wanted to be a curmudgeon about it I'ld ask if those results were tested over long periods, or only for the afternoon. If the latter it bears little weight concerning long term satisfaction with a component. I'll see if I can find your earlier posts, if there's one thing that's stood out for me in near fifteen years on line watching these discussions is how very, very rarely real scientific studies of auditory phenomena related to cables are quoted. Most are like Gow's, which I doubt could make peer review in a professional journal.
Hypothesis Under Test: That subtle differences in the metallurgy, chemical composition and construction of speaker cables affect auditory perception.
Test Condition: Terminate DUT with a pile of generic switches, hookup wire and steel teminal strips.
Incidentally, and way off topic, have you ever noticed of Sean Olive's and Kevin Voecks' HK speaker tests that they always stress testing for listener preference and never against a live reference? Inarguably brilliant results for the design of highly respected and popular speakers, but at no point does it reference accuracy.
I said nothing about power cords. About cables the only hypothesis I made related to oddities with my gear, where (to fill in the details) a pair of tightly twisted silver interconnects caused significantly more RF and noise from an amp than a mostly air dielectric tape-type using spaced Litz. It suggested to me that one mechanism by which perceptible differences could occur is the component's reaction at RF frequencies to the cable's reactive load. It's hardly a new idea, early Naim amps were famous for 'outgassing' when connected to high capacitance cables such as the contemporary Polk speaker cable. I hope that many here would agree that a cable which drove a component to self-destructive oscillation could have an audible impact prior to the final magic puff.
My oh my. The usual, although the name calling has died down a bit latterly.
A severe reduction of the purportedly objective view is "are you gonna believe me, or your own ears?" (With apologies to G. Marx.) There's a limit as to how universally persuasive that argument will be.
I note with some weariness that the arguments are often simplistic; "I saw a wire that was viciously expensive, and the marketing "explanation" was beyond silly, so all.... etc. "
I also believe that since audio is a hobby about hearing equipment (I distinguish it from music-listening here), those who cannot hear certain phenomena are put on the defensive; hence the the name calling and general high emotion. It's personal.
It's a very difficult issue for several reasons. First, some of the observations are at, and for some, beyond the cleanly observable. Remember poor old Schiavelli (sp?) and the canals of Mars. Cables will asymptotically approach perfection, and where the differences are indistinguishable is inevitably subject to as much human variation as wine tasting, color blindness, or tone deafness.
I'm interested in the causes because now that I've retired I cannot afford the Kimber KCAG, and Wireworld Eclipse III+ Gold and Silver that I have and like. But I need a new set of interconnects. Some of my DIY efforts have yielded pretty good tier II cables; none as good as the best I have. (And one was just plain bad. ) Oh how I wish that it only took my personal involvement to make them sound wonderful to me. {I note that the firm in which Beranek was a principle, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, did the architectural audio consulting on some really bad symphony hall designs.}
Some general observations that are valid for me;
1. Cables don't make an audible difference in older high quality systems, built around speakers such as AR-3a's. Nor in contemporary low resolution systems, although this is an area where speakers have markedly improved. Poor electronics easily mask cable differences.
2. Grain in a cable is much more audible if there is grain in the source material; the ear is very non-linear in response to masking effects. Something like the Sheffield Moscow Sessions makes cables sound less differentiated.
3. I have heard some really bad cables, but barring those, cables don't make "night and day" or earth-shattering differences. You need a pretty decent system for them to make much of a difference at all.
4. Some cable companies, my usual examples are Kimber and Wire World, make cables that start at quite low prices and go up (and up) from there. In every case (not all their models by any means) that I've listened to, the more expensive sounded better. This is not true for all companies I say with wry understatement. KK and WW clearly know something, and you WON'T learn it by reading their ads, or anything else they publish.
5. Learning to be able to dissect and identify the specific differences in speakers, and later in electronics, seems to be the typical path and prerequisites for hearing cable differences. Definitely a learned ability for most, not unlike wine tasting.
6. Something I'm really uncomfortable about, but it works for me. Evaluating cables, or other components without breakin is a pure waste of time and energy. I find the explanations for breakin unconvincing; nonetheless I hear it. Comparisons without it are worse than worthless. Oh, and clean the contacts each comparison session.
7. So far as I find any explanation even partly reasonable, the intermetallic junctions of dissimilar metals and dielectric absorption seem to match my observations so far.
I've been messing with audio for a tad over 50 years; my career was primarily telecommunications cicuit design, with a side track into designing high powered amplifiers (sold to such as Ringling Brothers, race tracks, and the MPAA theaters in LA) and for a while, a speaker company. I did not initially believe in capacitor audible differences, until I heard them, (the Jung/Marsh paper caused me to listen), and I did not believe that cable differences were audible until I heard them. (I have not listened to power cords, nor am I in a hurry to do so.) If my hearing were preconditioned by belief, I NEVER would have heard any differences.
I like the analogy with wine tasting. Before, during and after the meal a wine may be quite different, depending on the conditioning of the taste buds. A good wine is NOT helped by a vinegar dressing, but it's still the same wine. Some cannot taste the differences, some can generally, knowing they like one over the other, but not why, and some make a living because they can tell winemakers where they are and how to proceed from there. Not many call those who can, and do, tell the differences, phools. I feel that the situation with cables is analogous.
A severe reduction of the purportedly objective view is "are you gonna believe me, or your own ears?" (With apologies to G. Marx.) There's a limit as to how universally persuasive that argument will be.
I note with some weariness that the arguments are often simplistic; "I saw a wire that was viciously expensive, and the marketing "explanation" was beyond silly, so all.... etc. "
I also believe that since audio is a hobby about hearing equipment (I distinguish it from music-listening here), those who cannot hear certain phenomena are put on the defensive; hence the the name calling and general high emotion. It's personal.
It's a very difficult issue for several reasons. First, some of the observations are at, and for some, beyond the cleanly observable. Remember poor old Schiavelli (sp?) and the canals of Mars. Cables will asymptotically approach perfection, and where the differences are indistinguishable is inevitably subject to as much human variation as wine tasting, color blindness, or tone deafness.
I'm interested in the causes because now that I've retired I cannot afford the Kimber KCAG, and Wireworld Eclipse III+ Gold and Silver that I have and like. But I need a new set of interconnects. Some of my DIY efforts have yielded pretty good tier II cables; none as good as the best I have. (And one was just plain bad. ) Oh how I wish that it only took my personal involvement to make them sound wonderful to me. {I note that the firm in which Beranek was a principle, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, did the architectural audio consulting on some really bad symphony hall designs.}
Some general observations that are valid for me;
1. Cables don't make an audible difference in older high quality systems, built around speakers such as AR-3a's. Nor in contemporary low resolution systems, although this is an area where speakers have markedly improved. Poor electronics easily mask cable differences.
2. Grain in a cable is much more audible if there is grain in the source material; the ear is very non-linear in response to masking effects. Something like the Sheffield Moscow Sessions makes cables sound less differentiated.
3. I have heard some really bad cables, but barring those, cables don't make "night and day" or earth-shattering differences. You need a pretty decent system for them to make much of a difference at all.
4. Some cable companies, my usual examples are Kimber and Wire World, make cables that start at quite low prices and go up (and up) from there. In every case (not all their models by any means) that I've listened to, the more expensive sounded better. This is not true for all companies I say with wry understatement. KK and WW clearly know something, and you WON'T learn it by reading their ads, or anything else they publish.
5. Learning to be able to dissect and identify the specific differences in speakers, and later in electronics, seems to be the typical path and prerequisites for hearing cable differences. Definitely a learned ability for most, not unlike wine tasting.
6. Something I'm really uncomfortable about, but it works for me. Evaluating cables, or other components without breakin is a pure waste of time and energy. I find the explanations for breakin unconvincing; nonetheless I hear it. Comparisons without it are worse than worthless. Oh, and clean the contacts each comparison session.
7. So far as I find any explanation even partly reasonable, the intermetallic junctions of dissimilar metals and dielectric absorption seem to match my observations so far.
I've been messing with audio for a tad over 50 years; my career was primarily telecommunications cicuit design, with a side track into designing high powered amplifiers (sold to such as Ringling Brothers, race tracks, and the MPAA theaters in LA) and for a while, a speaker company. I did not initially believe in capacitor audible differences, until I heard them, (the Jung/Marsh paper caused me to listen), and I did not believe that cable differences were audible until I heard them. (I have not listened to power cords, nor am I in a hurry to do so.) If my hearing were preconditioned by belief, I NEVER would have heard any differences.
I like the analogy with wine tasting. Before, during and after the meal a wine may be quite different, depending on the conditioning of the taste buds. A good wine is NOT helped by a vinegar dressing, but it's still the same wine. Some cannot taste the differences, some can generally, knowing they like one over the other, but not why, and some make a living because they can tell winemakers where they are and how to proceed from there. Not many call those who can, and do, tell the differences, phools. I feel that the situation with cables is analogous.
here it is
Silver is a better conductor than copper; if I have one cable that uses silver, and another that uses a copper conductor of equal resistance, can I hear a difference? This is an example; there are similar questions that I could ask, but the point is made- can I hear an improvement...? And if so... how much of an improvement? Is the improvement negligible...?
Uh, oh...
I probably shouldn't have said that on this forum...
Please, do not chafe at the use of the words "improvement" and "negligible" in the same sentence. You may very well have the right to wonder what someone who just uttered these words is doing on a forum like this... a forum where any improvement of any kind is valued. Well here's why-
I may be an audiophile, but I'm an audiophile for the music; not the sound (Everyone here is, but I there is a limit to how far I will go). I want the best sound that I can get out of my system; not the best sound that is possible by all physical laws of the universe(Sorry, I'm getting onto a rant here, bear with me for a moment...).
I am saying these things because I want to get my point across- I didn't start this thread to start an arguement over who is right and who is wrong; or over my beliefs in cables versus yours. I started it becuase it is my opinion that high end cable manufacturers do not provide a product worthy of their price(note that I did not say they make "bad" products; their cables may very well be good, but are they worth it to me? definitely not). And out of that I wanted to see if anyone on this forum had some suggestions on home-making cables(I did get soem great info, by the way); this is, afterall, a DIY forum.
Ok, I'm done now.
This is pretty much what I had in mind when I started this thread; I had no idea that in five days what I started would become an "uber-thread"; one of only six in this forum with more than 2000 views, and the only other one with more than 100 posts. But, cotinuing with my thought, I agree with what hermanv just said; can I hear a difference? That is the only question that should bear any "real" importance.hermanv said:
Silver is a better conductor than copper; if I have one cable that uses silver, and another that uses a copper conductor of equal resistance, can I hear a difference? This is an example; there are similar questions that I could ask, but the point is made- can I hear an improvement...? And if so... how much of an improvement? Is the improvement negligible...?
Uh, oh...
I probably shouldn't have said that on this forum...
Please, do not chafe at the use of the words "improvement" and "negligible" in the same sentence. You may very well have the right to wonder what someone who just uttered these words is doing on a forum like this... a forum where any improvement of any kind is valued. Well here's why-
I may be an audiophile, but I'm an audiophile for the music; not the sound (Everyone here is, but I there is a limit to how far I will go). I want the best sound that I can get out of my system; not the best sound that is possible by all physical laws of the universe(Sorry, I'm getting onto a rant here, bear with me for a moment...).
I am saying these things because I want to get my point across- I didn't start this thread to start an arguement over who is right and who is wrong; or over my beliefs in cables versus yours. I started it becuase it is my opinion that high end cable manufacturers do not provide a product worthy of their price(note that I did not say they make "bad" products; their cables may very well be good, but are they worth it to me? definitely not). And out of that I wanted to see if anyone on this forum had some suggestions on home-making cables(I did get soem great info, by the way); this is, afterall, a DIY forum.
Ok, I'm done now.
I've done this before... except for the raving part... Results were good; better than the RCA cables that came along with device...rdf said:
By now it should be clear to you (as if it wasn't before) that only your own ears can answer this question. And FWIW it silver cables sound very different depending upon purity and other factors. Hearing one is pretty much meaningless. And IMO CAT5 is incomparable to real wire.
It's not even vaguely analogous. In the wine world, blind tasting to determine claimed differences is routinely done. We have no internet forums that ban the discussion of blind tasting with moderators protecting the delicate sensibilities of people who can't support their claims with proper tasting tests.
This is another "round and round we go," but it should be said that there are so many straw men here, there's a fire hazard. To summarize:
NO ONE claims that "there are no differences between cables." What IS incontrovertable is that there is, at present, no evidence from controlled listening tests that factors other than L, C, R, RF screening, amplifier stability, and similar well-established engineering principles can be shown to be audible.
My own rule of thumb is that if a difference can be reliably heard between decently constructed cables, the designer(s) of the equipment being interconnected has/have done an incompetent job.
This thread has a replies to views ratio of 3.81%, ranking it one of the highest in the forum .....dear oh dear.
quasi said:
what prompted such a calculation?anyways,good observation
is it u quasi(in your avatar?)
sagarverma said:
what prompted such a calculation?anyways,good observation
is it u quasi(in your avatar?)
It is....
fancy cables and components threads stretch too long.😱
arent there other meaningful topics.some people come here to show their literary skills.......😡
arent there other meaningful topics.some people come here to show their literary skills.......😡
sagarverma said:
Well, if you classify the attempt to clearly express what you mean as "literary skills" then perhaps your standards are too low...?😀
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.