Andre Visser said:
Some clowns have shown with their simulator 😱 that there are measureable differences with different cables between different amplifiers and speakers but their verdict was that cables have no influence on the sound.
Other clowns don't bother to account for the measurable effects when testing the cables. It gets down to the general boredom and laziness of both sides. I find controlled listening so tedious I will not participate anymore. I'm satisfied that a casual listen narrows things down to where I bother or not. With cables it is clear to me >FOR ME< the difference is below the "why bother" threshhold, I'm stickin' with #10 zipcord (whatever direction comes first).
Nobel prizes await you not me.
john curl said:
But their influence and use remain unrealized.
These out of historical context references get tiresome.
lineup said:
When I test cables, I test them to see how they sound on my setup, the one I usually use to listen to music – so I test the cables on my setup as it is. I do not test cables separately, by themselves, for I think there is no point in such a test – since the way a certain cable will sound is dependent on the synergy with other components of the setup.
To me, the joke is that many quote that test to prove cables have no influence on SQ. 😀
Scott, perhaps cables are close to splitting hair but I believe their influence depends on what qualities in music is important to us.
Merry Christmas to all!
André
Scott, perhaps cables are close to splitting hair but I believe their influence depends on what qualities in music is important to us.
Merry Christmas to all!
André
Andre Visser said:
Indeed, unless the system, or setup, is decent, differences in cables may not be heard at all.
Also, as I wrote above, there is a point in testing cables only in ones' existing system, or setup.
Jakob2 said:
Definitely – since the way cables sound is also a matter of synergy with the rest of setup.
Andre Visser said:
Of course, in these arguments both sides still need to be RIGHT and so it goes. I think speaker choices tell a lot more. Full range, large panel ESL, horns, what could be more different? Some days I still miss my DQ-10's even with all their flaws (John - I had Dick's ribbons on top).
I think you go too far here, John. My own position (and I would guess that it's also Scott's) is that there's no logical reason why, absent obvious engineering issues, there should be any difference that is audible. The lack of any listening test data to indicate audibility suggests that we spend our limited resources elsewhere. If actual data is ever presented, that's a different story; that's when it's interesting to chase down the variables and systemetize them.
For my own audio work, I would also say that (given that the equipment I design is stable, has low source impedance, and decent RF rejection) any differences in wire are so small compared to rooms, speakers, overload recovery, and headroom, that I'll leave the proof of cable audibility to those sufficiently interested to actually do the work of establishing that anyone can hear a difference.
SY,
I wish you and I were not separated by a full continent's distance... it is fairly trivial to demonstrate, even to your satisfaction... furthermore seemingly insignificant differences in things like dielectric materials (insulation) as well as the usual R,L & C parameters create audible variations...
I would love to hear your system, find it essentially transparent, blameless, natural sounding, and invariant to cable changes.
Have you ever experimented with "silver vs. copper" for example?
I am curious to know.
I have.
I was not happy to hear what I heard on many levels.
I found it confounding quite frankly.
And yes, it would be nice to have the funding necessary to do much better and more controlled testing in this vein... any suggestions as to funding sources (whatever they may be)??
_-_-bear
I wish you and I were not separated by a full continent's distance... it is fairly trivial to demonstrate, even to your satisfaction... furthermore seemingly insignificant differences in things like dielectric materials (insulation) as well as the usual R,L & C parameters create audible variations...
I would love to hear your system, find it essentially transparent, blameless, natural sounding, and invariant to cable changes.
Have you ever experimented with "silver vs. copper" for example?
I am curious to know.
I have.
I was not happy to hear what I heard on many levels.
I found it confounding quite frankly.
And yes, it would be nice to have the funding necessary to do much better and more controlled testing in this vein... any suggestions as to funding sources (whatever they may be)??
_-_-bear
bear said:
I'm afraid you would have a very hard time to raise funds for such tests. That's because it would be very difficult to explain to a board of experts the expected outcome, be it differences between silver and copper or wire directionality.
On the same note, I have little chance to raise funding for testing if the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
Happy Holidays!
Bear, our critics do not make audio for the outside world. They can stay within their own environment and not seriously try new challenges, like cables. You and I have to keep at the cutting edge, since our efforts are compared against other worthy efforts in the audio marketplace, and sometimes we lose, if we just go by measurements.
For example, about 18 years ago I was asked to modify an existing design, that was based on my early complementary fet topology. It was called the HCA-2200. This initial design had a number of compromises that I attempted to address, even if the circuit topology was very close to my normal design parameters. One thing, was the inclusion of an IC at the very input, I think that it was an LF353 that had four 50K resistors set up for unity gain and it could be set for either single ended or differential input. That was its job, to make selection between balanced and unbalanced input easy and user adjustable.
Well, I thought to put the very best IC that I could find for that position. It came down to needing a unity gain stable fet dual IC with reasonable slew rate. It came down to the AD712.
It was an advanced product, I had already changed over to the AD711 for servos in my Vendetta Phono Preamp, and I knew Scott, and trusted the tradeoffs that he might have done in order to make a practical product. So we designed the power amp with the AD712 in the front end. Well, when it came to an initial review, I personally was sent to Santa Fe to talk to 'Stereophile' about the amp, and I had initially personally measured this unit to make sure it was free of any measurable problems. For all my effort, the 'Stereophile' reviewers found the unit 'wanting' and they sent it back without really publishing a review.
I was really in trouble. Here is an excellent measuring amp, that doesn't sound right. I then said, OK, we have to do it the hard way. I insisted that we remove the IC and instead use an open loop jfet follower that was used only when we needed a balanced input. Then we resubmitted the product, as the MK 2 design. Guess what? It didn't measure any better BUT it got a B rating in 'Stereophile'! Thank goodness, it was only the IC.
Now, I didn't advertise this change, but I accidently let it slip when being interviewed by a 'Stereophile' Reviewer, over the phone, after their evaluation. Oh boy, what a mistake! AD had Walt Jung write a strong letter denying that the IC could have made such a difference, and I had been friends with Walt for about 20 years at that point, and we had written a paper together. However, it WAS the IC and I made the mistake of thinking that I could slip an IC in series with an entirely discrete thru-path, and get away with it. I proved this by removing the IC and bypassing it in the MK 1 units that I owned and also one that Carl Thompsen owned. Live and learn, I certainly did.
For example, about 18 years ago I was asked to modify an existing design, that was based on my early complementary fet topology. It was called the HCA-2200. This initial design had a number of compromises that I attempted to address, even if the circuit topology was very close to my normal design parameters. One thing, was the inclusion of an IC at the very input, I think that it was an LF353 that had four 50K resistors set up for unity gain and it could be set for either single ended or differential input. That was its job, to make selection between balanced and unbalanced input easy and user adjustable.
Well, I thought to put the very best IC that I could find for that position. It came down to needing a unity gain stable fet dual IC with reasonable slew rate. It came down to the AD712.
It was an advanced product, I had already changed over to the AD711 for servos in my Vendetta Phono Preamp, and I knew Scott, and trusted the tradeoffs that he might have done in order to make a practical product. So we designed the power amp with the AD712 in the front end. Well, when it came to an initial review, I personally was sent to Santa Fe to talk to 'Stereophile' about the amp, and I had initially personally measured this unit to make sure it was free of any measurable problems. For all my effort, the 'Stereophile' reviewers found the unit 'wanting' and they sent it back without really publishing a review.
I was really in trouble. Here is an excellent measuring amp, that doesn't sound right. I then said, OK, we have to do it the hard way. I insisted that we remove the IC and instead use an open loop jfet follower that was used only when we needed a balanced input. Then we resubmitted the product, as the MK 2 design. Guess what? It didn't measure any better BUT it got a B rating in 'Stereophile'! Thank goodness, it was only the IC.
Now, I didn't advertise this change, but I accidently let it slip when being interviewed by a 'Stereophile' Reviewer, over the phone, after their evaluation. Oh boy, what a mistake! AD had Walt Jung write a strong letter denying that the IC could have made such a difference, and I had been friends with Walt for about 20 years at that point, and we had written a paper together. However, it WAS the IC and I made the mistake of thinking that I could slip an IC in series with an entirely discrete thru-path, and get away with it. I proved this by removing the IC and bypassing it in the MK 1 units that I owned and also one that Carl Thompsen owned. Live and learn, I certainly did.
scott wurcer said:
You know better than this Scott. It's when you take care of all the small details that things of a subtle nature show themselves in stark relief-as they are the last meaningful differentials on the table. So clean up your circuits, your AC, your acoustics and your mechanical construction and execution. And bit-by-bit.. if you are paying attention..then the differences between cables will come out in stark relief. And, the aspect of 'internal design' plays into it here, as well. How is your hearing trained? And how far along in that training-is it?
Remember..an Engineer is pummeled to death in school to utilize an aspect of rote and repeated systematic learning. This is linear thought, black and white, based on prior knowledge.
They are at that school due to that fact that their mental organization favors such methodology and tactics-which is exactly opposite to invention and new.
This the exact wrong tact and tactic to impress the idea of new or 'empirical observation and then theory and prior knowledge applied to form a new basis point in understanding'.
Engineers are merely technicians with better liner notes.
Certainly not the inventive and 'new thinking' type - unless they go out of their way to step out of the enforced mode and mold.
At which time they will then be attacked by their peers for not staying in the middle of the herd and spending their time sniffing the collective butts of the cows in front of them.
SY said:
When you get to 'high end' where logically, ALL factors become important, like the drag characteristics of the Bugatti Verion at max speed....then cables become a major factor.
Dismissing them as unimportant in the world of audio when attempting to speak about the MAXIMUM of quality at the highest end of the high end is stupidity and foolishness at it's finest.
So I wish SY, and Syn and anyone else who wanders into here and gets into such debates -the best- no offenses really meant, how could I? I don't really know you guys face to face.
But, in the end, I gotta tell you-if you think you know what you are talking about in these areas-you don't know poop. You obviously have no idea.
So stop talking poo about stuff you don't know. If you want to know more, then stop sniffing the butts of those cows in front of you. One of those cows being you, obviously...having not escaped the middle of the herd yet.....
How many times do you guys have to be shown that you are ignorant and purposely ignorant and insulting to yourselves--before you 'get it'?
Stop whining when the experiences of 100's of thousands (a conservative #, it's really in the low millions) of audiophiles and music lovers goes against your knowledge base.
It is highly suggestive to anyone who wishes growth in the self--that you guys have some learning to do.
Nelson Pass said:
Shame, i was hoping there'd be some footage of the swimming pool contamination.
Yes. And also silver plated copper, at Frank deGrove's suggestion. My phono preamp has a lot of silver wiring in it in the first stage, but that was more for the quality of the solder joints than for any mystical properties of the material itself.
As for funding, I'd ask the High End trade association, or maybe the cable companies directly. I would suspect that if you propose rigorously controlled tests, you'd get the same answer as if you approached the trade associations for homeopathists, but there's no harm in trying. I'd be delighted if they confounded my expectations and ponied up- if you actually do manage to score a grant, I'll donate some time in test design at no charge.
Without giving too much away in advance, Jan Didden and I put our money where our respective mouths are and have funded a project that will do a good, rigorous comparison between opamps.
You know that I am not, Nelson, but when the guy asked me what I did to change the sound of the amp so drastically, I just admitted to what I did. I didn't think that it would be published and come back to me the way that it did. 😕
By the way, I don't 'suck up' to anyone, especially audio reviewers. In fact, I don't like to get too close to audio reviews, if I can help it. This is your 'invention' Syn08, not reality. Of course, I try not to insult them too often, either, but sometimes I have, on occasion. Just my outrageous personality showing through, once in a while.
Good input KBK, we are all having the last laugh with you, but be careful.
By the way, I don't 'suck up' to anyone, especially audio reviewers. In fact, I don't like to get too close to audio reviews, if I can help it. This is your 'invention' Syn08, not reality. Of course, I try not to insult them too often, either, but sometimes I have, on occasion. Just my outrageous personality showing through, once in a while.
Good input KBK, we are all having the last laugh with you, but be careful.
SY said:
Well, I'll be at my Garland "piano" tomorrow and I have selected a range of biodynamic wines to accompany. Not for the agricultural homeopathy but the practitioners just care more about what they are doing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.