Almost everything has some audible effect. There is more about cables that has some audible effect but I can't get into details I learned from work done by someone else. Sorry. Someone else will have to work on it.
Especially for those who have to make a living: a sound engineer use his/her judgement to make the best out of a given set of circumstances.
If it's live, that's IT, you're done, make or break. If it's a recording, there's still a second/third/... chance, as long as somebody's willing to pay for them. Remember: Rupert Neve made his reputation designing a tone control that brought up the guitar, thus avoiding the re-booking of the band and the studio time.
Last edited:
"diyAudio is a place for all members of the DIY audio community to learn, share knowledge, and enjoy interacting with others interested in the design and construction of audio components."
Why are you say stuff about cables here?
🙂
Trying to figure the correlation of what is heard with the appropriate measurement seems the battle.
Last edited:
For once I have to agree with you.
I worked as a live soundengineer (also did some studio jobs) for some decades and had a very trained ear and still have it. 🙂
This is the lounge. People talk about cars, photography, female drummers, speakers, phono, etc.
Most of my audio contributions to the forum are in the Digital Line Level section. I am often the only person, or the first person, to reply to a request for help. If I start then others will usually chime in, but many members don't seem to want to go first.
Last edited:
Oh, ok, it's the lounge, that means it's ok not to share what you know in the spirit of diyAudio, gotcha 🙄
Please don't distort the situation: I can share what I learn on my own, but not proprietary info belonging to others. You should know that.
Which brings me back to my initial question, why say anything at all about something you can't say anything about?
Bill,
When measuring cables, I can very well see differences with my VNA.
That's quite logical, because each cable has different L, C and R properties.
However, what is to be preferred sound wise: the flattest possible FR, the flattest GD, causing an output signal closest to the input signal by what definition, and with what source and termination impedance, or what?
As you may probably remember I once measured the difference with Balanced lines when using One End Only, because chassis connected to Mains Gnd may have different potential leading to (unwanted) equalisation currents when the cable shield interconnects them.
With OEO and balanced connections, the CMRR on the receiving side will cancel these potential differences.
Measurements could very well show said potential differences and the positive effects it had on power supply noise after having converted to OEO.
It's all documented in LA vol 10 / page 25.
Again the question is here, what is the correlation between these measurements and the effects on the perceived sound.
And suppose the sound of one cable is preferred over another in a specific situation, that doesn't automatically mean that the first cable is to be preferred in all similar situations.
So to my opinion your question is not that easy if not impossible to answer, not the least while it depends on many external factors like source / receiver impedance, length, internal cable layout, SE, Balanced or Differential, Shielding, Voltage or Current drive, Signal level, etc, etc.
But if I can do you a pleasure with measurements of several cables, just tell me your preferences.
Hans
In the way I believe you mean 'unreliable', i would say hopefully. Otherwise, we would only listen to our records once.
As-you can be sure that the very faint print was still here the first time you listened to this record, it is just that you did not focused your mind on-it at that time.
Is it like if you change the measurement (ex: HD vs IMD).
Or, with time, your listening "culture" has improved. it is like you got a new more performing AP. See what I mean ?
This is my more philosophical view on things:
1) With out eyes we can see quite a lot. We have camera's to record what we see and the images can be analysed to greater detail.
However no camera can tell the difference between a beautiful person or someone we don't like at all. Why is that, it's all because of emotions that cannot be measured with a camera.
2) With our taste, we can taste all kind of subtle differences. With a mass Spectrometer we can analyse the content of a substance.
However no mass spectrometer can tell the difference between an excellent wine and one we don't like as much, Why, because of our emotions that cannot be measured.
3) With our ears, we can hear all kind of subtle differences. We have audio distortion equipment that can measure until unbelievable depth.
However no audio analyser can tell the difference between an excellent LS and one of equal sophistication we like less, Why, because of our emotions that cannot be measured.
So my question is, why do we think that the audio measurement equipment we have at our disposal, is adequate to tell us the whole story.
Why do we think that when we can't measure a difference, it can't be heard.
Based on what theory do we exclude the possibility that we can hear things that cannot be measured.
What I'm trying to tell is that a robot with perfect sensors will most likely never be able to replace a human, because of lacking emotions.
All measuring devices we have at out our disposal are like perfect robots but they miss a very vital dimension.
Hans
1) With out eyes we can see quite a lot. We have camera's to record what we see and the images can be analysed to greater detail.
However no camera can tell the difference between a beautiful person or someone we don't like at all. Why is that, it's all because of emotions that cannot be measured with a camera.
2) With our taste, we can taste all kind of subtle differences. With a mass Spectrometer we can analyse the content of a substance.
However no mass spectrometer can tell the difference between an excellent wine and one we don't like as much, Why, because of our emotions that cannot be measured.
3) With our ears, we can hear all kind of subtle differences. We have audio distortion equipment that can measure until unbelievable depth.
However no audio analyser can tell the difference between an excellent LS and one of equal sophistication we like less, Why, because of our emotions that cannot be measured.
So my question is, why do we think that the audio measurement equipment we have at our disposal, is adequate to tell us the whole story.
Why do we think that when we can't measure a difference, it can't be heard.
Based on what theory do we exclude the possibility that we can hear things that cannot be measured.
What I'm trying to tell is that a robot with perfect sensors will most likely never be able to replace a human, because of lacking emotions.
All measuring devices we have at out our disposal are like perfect robots but they miss a very vital dimension.
Hans
I explained that in the first post in this thread on the subject. At the time happy to leave it at that for this thread.
However, I also mentioned it in the ES9038Q2M thread where I used to blog. Thought readers still there might find it interesting.
Evenharmonics then quoted that post in this thread as supposed evidence for his imaginary theories. That is when multiple people got very excited about it (to put it nicely).
Since then, in response to some of the things that were said by others, I have continued to make the point from time to time that cables can indeed sound different.
That includes all the cable samples that I listened to, which ranged from cheap mic cable to the latest Mogami Gold Star-Quad to Jam's design. They all sound different, have different shielding effectiveness, etc.
Last edited:
All this is about preference. We are all different. You and I will like different music. That doesn't mean what I like is better than your likes. Or that it can even by definition be measured, because we are all different!
No one ever has a problem with someone saying "I like this one better".
Some of us do have a problem with those that say "I like this better, and I am right, you are wrong".
Another factor....
Our senses do not sense "reality". They filter a lot out, and process to suit various needs.
Our nose is in our visual field. We learn to not see it. We could train ourselves to see it again - for "improved accuracy" - but what would be the point, unless for some reason we preferred that.
Same with audio.
We can teach ourselves to hear things that are not there (voices in noise) or perhaps to sense differences in, for example, DACs. I say sense, as our senses collaborate. So we may learn to like the "sound" of one device over another - as a result of our entire sensorium.
Nothing wrong there - we *like* the nett effect.
But that doesn't make it *right*, it's a preference.
Now, you can probably teach someone to sense the same difference - as you could teach them to see their nose all the time.
Personally, that is not my preference. I'd rather learn to enjoy music and learn to ignore even measurable deficiencies.
That makes sense to me - makes life better. But perhaps not so for others; again that's fine as long as no one confuses preference with truth.
Another example - years ago I did a lot of work on video compression algorithms.
After some time, I found I could see the frame rate of movies. That helped the work, but not watching movies for pleasure. I had to work to lose that "golden eye" function....
Our senses do not sense "reality". They filter a lot out, and process to suit various needs.
Our nose is in our visual field. We learn to not see it. We could train ourselves to see it again - for "improved accuracy" - but what would be the point, unless for some reason we preferred that.
Same with audio.
We can teach ourselves to hear things that are not there (voices in noise) or perhaps to sense differences in, for example, DACs. I say sense, as our senses collaborate. So we may learn to like the "sound" of one device over another - as a result of our entire sensorium.
Nothing wrong there - we *like* the nett effect.
But that doesn't make it *right*, it's a preference.
Now, you can probably teach someone to sense the same difference - as you could teach them to see their nose all the time.
Personally, that is not my preference. I'd rather learn to enjoy music and learn to ignore even measurable deficiencies.
That makes sense to me - makes life better. But perhaps not so for others; again that's fine as long as no one confuses preference with truth.
Another example - years ago I did a lot of work on video compression algorithms.
After some time, I found I could see the frame rate of movies. That helped the work, but not watching movies for pleasure. I had to work to lose that "golden eye" function....
Regarding preference, it does not seem to entirely random from person to person. Just as there are biases that all humans have, there are also preferences many people have for the same art, or same music, same food, etc. For example, not every artist will have anywhere close to all possible fans, but they may have many of them.
It means some people's preference happens to align well with many other people's preference. In that sense something can be described as good, or as better. In saying so it is never presumed that the something is 'better' to all humans on earth.
It means some people's preference happens to align well with many other people's preference. In that sense something can be described as good, or as better. In saying so it is never presumed that the something is 'better' to all humans on earth.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.