I guess I belong to an opposite camp: if something is not measureable then I won't believe I will ever be able to hear it.
I don't believe cables can make any difference, and I don't even believe boutique capacitors can make a difference either. I did buy these capacitors in the past, but only because they looked cool and I liked to try them out. Capacitor induced distortions are real but the levels are so low that I have a hard time to believe they can make any audible difference (using the wrong capacitance that causes frequency roll off is a different issue). I think I've seen some measurements that the harmonics generated in some "bad" capacitors are still at least 80-120 dB down. I just find it hard to believe that these are audible. I use PP capacitors whenever possible but even electrolytics for coupling are acceptable as long as there is a large enough DC bias across. I don't like electrolytics only because they have lower reliability.
If there are parameters that cannot be measured then the product is simply not possible to manufacture. There is just no way to know if it is functioning as expected or not. I doubt any audio equipment manufacturer hires an army of golden ear technicians to listen to every piece of equipment that rolls out of its doors to assure it meets the sonic goals.
I listen only to tube amps because the differences are (mostly) audible and definitely measureable, and that tube amps have characters of their own, even though these "characters" are not necessarily technically superior. With that said, I still prefer to drive stick shift cars even though my neighbors are all driving Teslas.
I don't believe cables can make any difference, and I don't even believe boutique capacitors can make a difference either. I did buy these capacitors in the past, but only because they looked cool and I liked to try them out. Capacitor induced distortions are real but the levels are so low that I have a hard time to believe they can make any audible difference (using the wrong capacitance that causes frequency roll off is a different issue). I think I've seen some measurements that the harmonics generated in some "bad" capacitors are still at least 80-120 dB down. I just find it hard to believe that these are audible. I use PP capacitors whenever possible but even electrolytics for coupling are acceptable as long as there is a large enough DC bias across. I don't like electrolytics only because they have lower reliability.
If there are parameters that cannot be measured then the product is simply not possible to manufacture. There is just no way to know if it is functioning as expected or not. I doubt any audio equipment manufacturer hires an army of golden ear technicians to listen to every piece of equipment that rolls out of its doors to assure it meets the sonic goals.
I listen only to tube amps because the differences are (mostly) audible and definitely measureable, and that tube amps have characters of their own, even though these "characters" are not necessarily technically superior. With that said, I still prefer to drive stick shift cars even though my neighbors are all driving Teslas.
Here is part of your problem. You can't build a room that does not affect you speakers performance. This is just pure fact for normal rooms. So somewhere you are at fault with your theory.
What type of microphone - mono/omni/stereo...??
After you record something with a microphone - you process the information - just like your ears and brain - but still different. Hopefully you understand this.
Clearly you do not understand everything about what you write about your own subject - since you ask everyone else
I do not mean i have misunderstood anything, but you may have, the music producer do not know where your speakers stand.
You must have the same feeling as a listener, the speakers might as well have been a piece of furniture a potted plant in the living room.
You must have a feeling as a listener of looking into another room with a completely different acoustics than the one you are sitting in.
A bubble forms in the living room with the reproducing soundscape.
It's about getting bass to breathe freely in this artificial space without the influence of the space the listener sides in,
Here, DSP can definitely help, but only help. Because Bass affects treble and vice versa, Plus DSP can bring the speaker into situations that were not intended for correction of space and frequency response and phase. Maybe it was better to do this right from the start instead of correcting. Which has always been possible by choosing the right solutions.
To make all this go up in a right unit with proper timbre and precision in the soundscape, perfect reproduction of large and small perspective after the nature of the recorded event.
It is required that what feeds the speaker has both the necessary precision and true-to-life sound,
These two variables are formed by the construction of the devices plus the components with which the construction is realized, it is the latter we discuss the significance of.
As I see it, there is general agreement that the construction / diagram can affect the sound.
Whether the microphone is a kidney omni , whether it is placed in XY AB Decca matters, but overall, the reproduction of believable sound and perspective means much more
Last edited:
And this is great
Honest writing about your preference even though you still understand the difference in precision, efficiency, technical advancement and maybe also ease of use.I remember how my childhood friend was super surprised when I bought a Volvo. When we were children, my father had a Toyota and his father a Volvo. Funny thing about memory, is that it apparently seems to stick to our brain a bit more, when we're young. So even at an adult age, we dig into early memories that was build upon strong feelings - and bring them quickly forth to the present. I never wanted a Volvo - but had to admit that it is a great car, that also fits well to my slim tall build. Further, my technical geek - deep inside of me - likes many of the design features because they fit well with my upbringing - old school. Also, it's easy to maintain - perfect for curious fingers.
All of this help to form my memories and preference - like lovely worn shoes vs new. Audio equipment is different - it rarely gets worn out. But we do
Recordings are usually done with more than one mic. That's one problem.
Simon and Garfunkle tried separate mics recording their voices. They never got it to sound as good as when they shared one mic.
Why do you think you should be able to hear the exact same sound as the mic recording the audio in the studio does in your room? Too many variables.
Simon and Garfunkle tried separate mics recording their voices. They never got it to sound as good as when they shared one mic.
Why do you think you should be able to hear the exact same sound as the mic recording the audio in the studio does in your room? Too many variables.
thor2, you are looking for ambrosia on earth.
There is a difference between :
1. a true to life faithful reproduction of an original acoustic event which I think does not yet exist on earth and
2. a reproduction with gives rise to believable illusion which mimic some aspect attributed to an original acoustic event.
I have in fact wasted some time learning about this dry subject. Have you? Maybe you think that what I say is like cursing in church, a blasphemous and heretic disrepect of science.
You are a wise man. Any metric can be constructed and anything can be measured mathematically regardless of the degree of abstraction. Although a metric is merely a mental model, because it is constructed, the outcome will always be true. You have no reason in the world not to believe in it. You can safely assimilate specified with measurable and measurable with observable. That`s the beauty of the metric in a nutshell.
You are too philosophical, really many measurements are a selection of a whole, but the Null test is unfortunately in my opinion as close to being as complete as possible.
Its weakness is that it only tells if there is a difference, but not in which direction the difference points, here there is still a need for ear and brain.
Let’s consider for a moment what thor2 is saying true, that perceptible differences are being heard between cables (that appear to measure the same). Since there isn’t any scientific evidence to back it up currently, is it possible that the current measurements, are just the wrong way to measure? Is it possible that something else becomes exaggerated between the loudspeakers output, the acoustic space, the ears and time?
Ethan Winer's video demonstrated that interconnects (not speaker cables) sound the same, although I don't have doubt that the same applies to speaker cables also.
He did not just use a sine wave in his demonstration. He used music. If you can null out the electrical signal of the music that goes into your amps, what else would there be left that could possibly make its way to your ears and brain? This is an elegant way to prove that cables do not make a difference and avoid the need to create any metrics to quantify the "sonic signature". The results simply proved that cables do not have any sonic signature.
He used some cheap speakers and perhaps someone could argue that those speakers would not be able to resolve the minute details of the sound. I think an improved experiment would be to digitize the null signal and demonstrate that there is no electrical output after nulling, independent of whatever cable used. Then everyone would agree that seeing is believing, as opposed to "hearing" is believing.
He did not just use a sine wave in his demonstration. He used music. If you can null out the electrical signal of the music that goes into your amps, what else would there be left that could possibly make its way to your ears and brain? This is an elegant way to prove that cables do not make a difference and avoid the need to create any metrics to quantify the "sonic signature". The results simply proved that cables do not have any sonic signature.
He used some cheap speakers and perhaps someone could argue that those speakers would not be able to resolve the minute details of the sound. I think an improved experiment would be to digitize the null signal and demonstrate that there is no electrical output after nulling, independent of whatever cable used. Then everyone would agree that seeing is believing, as opposed to "hearing" is believing.
He proved that the cables measured nearly identical to each other. Nothing more.
I’m not advocating for expensive cables and pseudoscience, I’m just wondering if something else is not being considered.
Still, I doubt you’d ever find someone grabbing cables randomly out a box to hook up a bunch of components with no matching left/right interconnects.
I’m not advocating for expensive cables and pseudoscience, I’m just wondering if something else is not being considered.
Still, I doubt you’d ever find someone grabbing cables randomly out a box to hook up a bunch of components with no matching left/right interconnects.
Yes I do, the tip he gives in this video:The best DIY interconnect - YouTube
regarding a simple diy line cable is not stupid at all.
I would put masking tape double around two uninsulated solid core conductors which could be fine silver,which may be dips in linseed oil or shellac.
But you can catch him in a mistake around 2.44-2.45 he says the principle reduce induction, no it does the opposite.
The interesting thing is that most people prefer the sound of more induction rather than capacity also with speaker cables, although it makes the cable technically worse.
Possibly the explanation is that it is easier to make a good coil rather than a good capacity.
Induction in the cable is determined by the conductor and geometry.
But clearly, both R L and C should be of the highest quality in a audio cable.
Only those who do not take hi-fi seriously would choose poor sounding conductor , capacity and "coil".
Last edited:
Yes, objective listening test. Not by Ethan but by others who contradict him on audio cable sound.
How do you know most people or some people? Did you do a survey?
What are the brand, model number / name of poor sounding conductors and how do you determine that?
Ethan Winer's test explains , he uses a $ 3 cable with bad PVC as the dialectric, a conductor that is probably is remelted old bike racks from China, connectors made in the cheapest way, maybe even magnetic.
It's being tested against a $ 300 cable which one must assume has a dialectric like Teflon or similar, a conductor of oxygen-free completely pure annealed copper or silver, connectors of the best possible quality pure metal, gold plated and again maybe Teflon as insulation.
It should be like driving a Fiat and a Rolls from A to B, which they both can, but the difference is great behind the steering wheel
Last edited:
The guess is probably not entirely wild for the cheap cable, you have to calculate that the manufacturer of the cable may only earn 1/10 of the price you give, here 3 $.
I do not know the expensive cable. But will think it is as I say, a significantly higher quality also in terms of sound.
It would have been a more interesting thread if there was a supporting evidence cited by you along with your speculation.
I know somebody who can make custom HTS and LTS wire, very high quality and very expensive. He make coils used in superconducting magnets for LHC and ITER. Would you agree that superconducting wires sounds better? Then if you really seek the best there is money no object, forget the commercial types made to fool consumers, your so called expensive cables are actually cheap junk in comparison.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.