Advice on this Board [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

markw

01-04-2004, 03:33 PM

I DO believe in the difference cables can make to the sound of a system!

We're allowed to have our own beliefs. We cannot, however, expect that everyone share them here. If we did, then this would not be an open forum.

Here however, it seems it's not about giving advice as much as it is in trying to convert believer into non believers or the other way around.

Or, it may that you simply don't agree with those that don't agree with your beliefs. Like it or not, not everyone is a "believer" here. You make it seem like a cult with this "believer" stuff.

Those questioning cables have a right to hear both sides of a story. This is a cable forum where most of what's discussed here is of a scientific nature, where statements can be either proven or disproven.

If you're implying this is a faith based issue, then er're talking cult again.

It's not like one is going into a church, where a certian belief is assumed, and decrying the Pope as a fraud and charlatin, although it IS seen like that on at least one other forum I can think of where cable worship DOES take on a cult relationship... but not here. Disagreement is allowed here.

II say screw them, and let your ears be the judge.

True, but one must be careful that one THINKS they are hearing is actually what one is ACTUALLY hearing. The ears are only one link in the chain. The human mind is easily duped and that's fhe final step in he hearing process.

Witness the tale of these poor, deluded "golden eared audiiophiles" who heard exactly what they were told to expect to hear when in reality, nothing of the kind was physically possible.

http://www.visi.com/~asm/Newsletters/asm_feb_97.PDF

This effect is no revelation to marketing departments. What price must one pay to fool themselves into feeling they are getting something of value?

This kind of thing does shake the faith of hard core "believers" and angers them beyond belief but hey, it's a fact.

Also, only listen to those who have advice, either way, based on their personal experience, and not based on some study they read. As if that makes them knowledgeable!

By following this logic, only females that have given birth are qualified to be Gynecologists. Likewise, all Oncologists must have terminal cancer. Etc...

skeptic

01-04-2004, 03:36 PM

Coming to this board to inquire about experiences others have had with a particular cable or cables, is like going to a board dedicated to sports cars where every visitor is advised to buy a Honda Civic Sedan.

For autos of all types we have tons of specifications and measured data from manufacturers and independent test sources including such diverse testers as Car and Driver magazine, Consumer Reports magazine and the US government (EPA mileage and crash testing.) We also have an understanding of what their meaning and significance is. This allows us to have a good idea of how these products will perform against our needs, in light of their cost, and in light of the legal restrictions for operating them. It does no good to have a car that has a top speed of 140 mph if the legal limit is 65 unless you are reckless or just plain stupid. Even a Honda Civic has a top speed in excess of 65. If the requirement for operating a car is to drive to the supermarket, not only is the added power and handling of the sports car unusable, its small size means you can carry even less groceries than the Civic. We have no comparable information or way to put it in context for audio cables. As an experienced attorney, you knew that your analogy was bogus from the start. Did you think it would go unchallenged?

E-Stat

01-04-2004, 03:58 PM

If the requirement for operating a car is to drive to the supermarket, not only is the added power and handling of the sports car unusable, its small size means you can carry even less groceries than the Civic.

Now I understand your perspective on cables. It has nothing to do with the ultimate performance of cables. It has nothing to do with the audible effects of the best cables on the highest resolution systems with trained listeners on familiar musical content. It is simply what Joe Sixpack can hear (or not hear) while playing his favorite Brittany cut.

:)

rw

FLZapped

01-04-2004, 10:29 PM

Now I understand your perspective on cables. It has nothing to do with the ultimate performance of cables. It has nothing to do with the audible effects of the best cables on the highest resolution systems with trained listeners on familiar musical content. It is simply what Joe Sixpack can hear (or not hear) while playing his favorite Brittany cut.

:)

rw

So just what IS high resolution? How is it measured and quantified? Why is it that audiophiles cannot seem to agree on this concept? (Especially when you get the tube vs SS guys in the same room.)

You also make assumptions that you're test scenario is exclusive in it's ability to find audible differences.

What makes you think that "Joe Sxpack's" hearing is any more deficient than a self-professed golden-ear?

-Bruce

pctower

01-05-2004, 05:04 AM

As an experienced attorney, you knew that your analogy was bogus from the start. Did you think it would go unchallenged?

Not at all; I'm glad it was. Focusing on the problems with an analogy, in my opinion, can lead to better clarity and understanding. Seems like that may have occured here and if it did then I accomplished my purpose.

E-Stat

01-05-2004, 06:34 AM

So just what IS high resolution? How is it measured and quantified? Why is it that audiophiles cannot seem to agree on this concept? (Especially when you get the tube vs SS guys in the same room.)

You also make assumptions that you're test scenario is exclusive in it's ability to find audible differences.

What makes you think that "Joe Sxpack's" hearing is any more deficient than a self-professed golden-ear? -Bruce

Alll of those are good questions, Bruce. I count five, so I'll respond to them by number.

1. This is a question with highly subjective answers. It certainly doesn't equate directly to investment because there is a lot of expensive gear available that doesn't sound good. I'll throw my dart against the wall and suggest that it is any system above your basic receiver with bookshelf speaker setup.

2. Well, unfortunately the measurements we have today (which are better than in the past) still don't provide enough information to be truly relevant. Subtle diferences in cables aside (and they are subtle), even significant audible differences found in amplifiers for example don't easily correlate to published specifications.

3. Well because most of us are lunatics! :) There are so many levels of performance attainment that it is difficult to draw lines between them. Another factor has to do with personal preferences. There are some who are bass freaks. Others like shimmering highs. My preferences have evolved over the years. I will happily give up the Nth degree of performance at the frequency extremes to get the midrange right.

4. I'm not sure how I gave that impression, but it was unintended. I assert that any very good system with "regular" music listeners on familiar and challenging material will work. By challenging, I mean some aspect that contains some subtle or difficult passages that render hearing component differences easier.

5. It is not my contention that there are folks who have inherently superior hearing abilities. I assert that anyone who has an interest in comparative listening with extensive listening experience on a high resolution system is able to resolve differences. The keys are:

1. Interest
2. Access
3. Repetition

Give Joe Sixpack HP's spectacular system for a month and he should be able to hear very fine nuances indeed !

rw

FLZapped

01-05-2004, 07:36 AM

Alll of those are good questions, Bruce. I count five, so I'll respond to them by number.

1. This is a question with highly subjective answers.

My point exactly. It is an opinion without any basis for reliable comparison.

2. Well, unfortunately the measurements we have today (which are better than in the past) still don't provide enough information to be truly relevant. Subtle diferences in cables aside (and they are subtle), even significant audible differences found in amplifiers for example don't easily correlate to published specifications.

Published specifications are a minimum starting point required by the FTC as a guide for shopping comparison. Never said they were the end all and be all. There are lots and lots of tests my company does that are not published and the end user could care less about. For cables, there are no guidelines whatsoever.

3. Well because most of us are lunatics! :) There are so many levels of performance attainment that it is difficult to draw lines between them. Another factor has to do with personal preferences. There are some who are bass freaks. Others like shimmering highs. My preferences have evolved over the years. I will happily give up the Nth degree of performance at the frequency extremes to get the midrange right.

See where you're at? Personal preferences. No standard that can be universally applied, so how can there possibly be any level of performance stratification defined?

4. I'm not sure how I gave that impression, but it was unintended. I assert that any very good system with "regular" music listeners on familiar and challenging material will work. By challenging, I mean some aspect that contains some subtle or difficult passages that render hearing component differences easier.

5. It is not my contention that there are folks who have inherently superior hearing abilities. I assert that anyone who has an interest in comparative listening with extensive listening experience on a high resolution system is able to resolve differences. The keys are:

1. Interest
2. Access
3. Repetition

Give Joe Sixpack HP's spectacular system for a month and he should be able to hear very fine nuances indeed !

rw

Okay, but what IS high resolution? You haven't yet defined that in a reliably repeatable way as yet after all the above. If I remember, it started off as the name of someone's power amplifier.....marketing terms again, like high-current.

-Bruce

bturk667

01-05-2004, 10:59 AM

By following this logic, only females that have given birth are qualified to be Gynecologists. Likewise, all Oncologists must have terminal cancer. Etc...[/QUOT

Only a women who has given birth can tell you what to expect! Why? Because she has experienced it, a male Gynecologist never has! He could only give the experience of others, for what that is worth!

I have had 5 knee surgeries, two of which were major. Now who would rather listen to about what to expect in the way of pain and rehab. A doctor who has never had one or a person who has had five? I'd choose me. But you could choose the doctor. After all it is your choice.

markw

01-05-2004, 11:54 AM

Only a women who has given birth can tell you what to expect! Why? Because she has experienced it, a male Gynecologist never has! He could only give the experience of others, for what that is worth!.

So, when your wife gives birth to your own flesh and blood, who would rather have deliver it? A male doctor who was trained in that field and has successfully delivered numerous other babies or a neighbor who has simply given birth to children?

..uhhh... I'll take the doctor, thank you.

I have had 5 knee surgeries, two of which were major. Now who would rather listen to about what to expect in the way of pain and rehab. A doctor who has never had one or a person who has had five? I'd choose me. But you could choose the doctor. After all it is your choice.

So, you're telling me that the doctor who did your knee surgery had five operations on his knee? ...or are you saying that because you've had knee surgery that you're qualified to preform knee surgery on others?

(BTW, sorry about that knee. Hope all is well. I've got hand problems myself but, you know how it is in this forum...)

Bobby Blacklight

01-05-2004, 12:19 PM

Well if you go to AA Cable Forum it's the other way round. Two very polorized boards. At least hear you can freely talk about them and have strong arguments on both sides and not be censored. So what do you think is better for the new guy. Being told it doesn't really make a diference or tell him it does and have him chasing ghosts. There is a lot that goes into this hobby that experienced guys take for granted. There are so many other more important and relevant issues like speaker placement and room acoustics?? Where would you have him start?? I think he would be better of here. Let him spend some times on basics rather than getting someone new all covered in "Snake Oil"

Rockwell

01-05-2004, 12:51 PM

I DO believe in the difference cables can make to the sound of a system!
Here however, it seems it's not about giving advice as much as it is in trying to convert believer into non believers or the other way around. I say screw them, and let your ears be the judge. Also, only listen to those who have advice, either way, based on their personal experience, and not based on some study they read. As if that makes them knowledgeable!

Not everything in life is about experience, especially when that experience is suspect. Now, if you will excuse me, I am late for a session with my psychic. Not to worry, she is very experienced... ;)

skeptic

01-05-2004, 02:51 PM

Although 1000 feet of generic RG6 may not work well with high definition TV, 6 feet of it may work perfectly for the world's best audio system and in practical terms, indistinguishably from the best measured cable at any price. We have no way to know that because the people who are making and selling the most expensive ones haven't published any specifications or tests to prove one way or another what performace differences exist. Neither has anyone else. It's not that they can't. They just won't. So all we have are non scientific testimonials. That's how they sold snake oil cure all tonics in the traveling medicine shows 125 years ago before there was a legitimate pharmaceutical industry and an FDA to keep them honest. Do you ever wonder why?

E-Stat

01-05-2004, 03:19 PM

We have no way to know that because the people who are making and selling the most expensive ones haven't published any specifications or tests to prove one way or another what performace differences exist.

While I won't attempt to speak for the large number of manufacturers, I will speak for one prominent one that does provide such information. I cite this example because these are the best cables in my experience. Scroll to the bottom to find the specs.

http://nordost.com/products/valhalla.html

It's not that they can't. They just won't.

I will suggest an alternative reason: They cannot afford to or at least it does not make economic sense. The market for all high end stereo equipment is relatively small and the cost of a proper DBT trial series would be considerable for small companies. What we need is a wealthy audiophile benefactor to foot the bill.

rw

bturk667

01-05-2004, 03:23 PM

.....
So, when your wife gives birth to your own flesh and blood, who would rather have deliver it? A male doctor who was trained in that field and has successfully delivered numerous other babies or a neighbor who has simply given birth to children?

..uhhh... I'll take the doctor, thank you.

What I wrote was "Also, only listen to those who have advice, either way, based on their personal experience, and not on some study they read."
So what experience does a male doctor have about giving birth? NONE, why, because they can't!

So, you're telling me that the doctor who did your knee surgery had five operations on his knee? ...or are you saying that because you've had knee surgery that you're qualified to preform knee surgery on others?

What experience does a doctor have about pain and rehab if he never had a knee surgery? NONE, why, because he never had one! I never raised the question an I more qualified to do the surgery, you did, but thanks!

(BTW, sorry about that knee. Hope all is well. I've got hand problems myself but, you know how it is in this forum...)

E-Stat

01-05-2004, 03:32 PM

Okay, but what IS high resolution? You haven't yet defined that in a reliably repeatable way as yet after all the above.-Bruce

High resolution audio components are those that bring the listener closer to the musical truth. Although my musical tastes are varied and include a fair mix of popular synthesized, multitracked, and otherwise processed recordings, they must be excluded from such an evaluation because there is no musical truth to them. Instead, one must rely on unamplifed music - of most any genre, be it classical, jazz, blue grass, choral, etc. While there are certainly differences in the various musical halls, seating positions, etc., an oboe will nevertheless always sound like an oboe. A piano will always sound like a piano.

Of my two systems, my main one can, using the best recordings, begin to truly replicate the sound of a piano. It does so in timbre, image height and width, and in level. I do have some ready reference in this matter as my wife frequently plays her baby grand in the living room. My modest garage system, however, using Large Advents driven by a NAD integrated (using 12 gauge speaker wire and generic cables) never really sounds like a piano. Instead, it sounds like a good hi-fi. It is incapable of creating a convincing artifice of the musical event.

I know that such subjective assertions are not easily reduced to a set of numbers. I would like nothing more than to find a set of numbers that actually is of value.

rw

RobotCzar

01-05-2004, 05:32 PM

Good to see that this board has changed in format (for the worse) but the audio dupes are still the same.

E-stat seems to be the latest of a long line of people who think words and strong beliefs are sufficient to make their point. But, alas, these people simply don't get it. They don't get scientific method, maybe they don't even get logic. Making the same mistatements, spreading the same misinformation, over and over really doesn't change the basic facts:

1. Scientists and engineers know everything there is to know about the characteristics of electrical signals AND sound waves. These things were completely specified long ago and we can analize them to our heart's content. Two signals can be perfectly compared and their differences quantified. Given this and the fact that the limits of human perception have also be studied long ago, we can say that typical cable differences are below the ability of humans to distinguish. We can compare any input signal to the output and see how "wrong" the output is (duh, it is called distortion). There is nothing else to consider. The distortion added by cables is laughably small.

Don't believe the eggheads? Too lazy to seek out and read real information about audio and electronics? Unable to come to grips with your illustions? No problem, we can still resolve this issue. The proof is in the tasting, er, I mean hearing is in the listening. We can simply TEST and see if people can hear cable differences! Guess what?

2. Nobody has demonstrated they can hear cable difference (in typical audio systems and situations). Not even the "trained" listeners with their own "high resolution" systems. Until at least one of them DEMONSTRATES (instead of just saying) that they can hear "huge improvements" or can better appreciate "the truth" in the music then we would be quite gullible in addition to illogical to believe them.

Some of the people of this forum are spitting into the wind of the audio "biz", high end dogma, and faulty belief systems. Given that many audio "professionals" don't want to kill the golden goose, I'm glad somebody is attempting to bring some rationality to the hobby.

mtrycraft

01-05-2004, 11:07 PM

Some might see it as the audio equivalent of http://www.snopes.com

Good one :)

mtrycraft

01-05-2004, 11:10 PM

based on their personal experience, and not based on some study they read. As if that makes them knowledgeable!

Then you don't listen to anyone who doesn't have first hand, personal experience .
I feel for you.

mtrycraft

01-05-2004, 11:11 PM

I DO believe in the difference cables can make to the sound of a system!
!

One believes when they don't have the evidence to know.

mtrycraft

01-05-2004, 11:14 PM

Stock Civics sure, but have you ever seen what some of these kids do to these now?
http://www.badboyztoyzz.com/images/hondab.jpg

You mean all that paint job, expensive at that, will make it perform better? :)

Yes, they are nice indeed:)

mtrycraft

01-05-2004, 11:34 PM

I cite this example because these are the best cables in my experience. Scroll to the bottom to find the specs.

http://nordost.com/products/valhalla.html

I will suggest an alternative reason: They cannot afford to or at least it does not make economic sense. The market for all high end stereo equipment is relatively small and the cost of a proper DBT trial series would be considerable for small companies. What we need is a wealthy audiophile benefactor to foot the bill.

rw

That is good. Besides all the information that is meaningless, the good one is published and some real important ones are not:

capacitance 11.8pF/ft
inductance 0.096uH/ft
DC Resistance 2.6ohms/1000ft/304M =14 ga wire

Freequency response, Loss to skin effect, group delay perhaps for those who are worried about skin effect in the first place.

They don't need a wealthy benefactor. They need the guts to do one. They don't because they know the outcome. Very predictable. Science is good at predicting. And since this is not in the supernatural realm, it is science and predictable outcome. NULL!!!

Their specs are below threshold needs.

E-Stat

01-06-2004, 05:22 AM

Scientists and engineers know everything there is to know about the characteristics of electrical signals AND sound waves.

So we have already achieved audio perfection, have we? There sure are a lot of engineers working on the new high resolution digital sources that apparently haven't spoken with you yet. :)

rw

FLZapped

01-06-2004, 08:54 AM

High resolution audio components are those that bring the listener closer to the musical truth. .... While there are certainly differences in the various musical halls, seating positions, etc., an oboe will nevertheless always sound like an oboe. A piano will always sound like a piano.

Really? If we take a snapshot of the signal we would find significant variations in the frequency volume and phase content from venue to venue, so what then is musical truth? (Even from instrument manufacturer to instument manufacturer.)

Of my two systems, my main one can, using the best recordings, begin to truly replicate the sound of a piano. It does so in timbre, image height and width, and in level. I do have some ready reference in this matter as my wife frequently plays her baby grand in the living room. My modest garage system, however, using Large Advents driven by a NAD integrated (using 12 gauge speaker wire and generic cables) never really sounds like a piano. Instead, it sounds like a good hi-fi. It is incapable of creating a convincing artifice of the musical event.

How do you know it isn't the result of the acoutics in the garage?

I know that such subjective assertions are not easily reduced to a set of numbers. I would like nothing more than to find a set of numbers that actually is of value.

rw

Good luck, the synthiesizer manufacturers are still trying. Take a look around at how many variations of piano sounds they offer as an example....yet, they all sound like piano.

-Bruce

E-Stat

01-06-2004, 09:30 AM

...so what then is musical truth?

We will likely just disagree on this matter. I aver that there are recognizable characteristics of many acoustical instruments that are constant, despite the venue.

How do you know it isn't the result of the acoutics in the garage?

As a followup to the previous question, the room acoustics have nothing to do with the "live" characteristics to which I refer. If you play a cello in my garage, it will sound like a cello. You will still hear the complex timbral composition of the sound from the strings, the rosiny texture of the bow, etc.

Take a look around at how many variations of piano sounds they offer as an example....yet, they all sound like piano.

They all sound like a piano in the context that my clock radio can sound like a piano.

rw

Monstrous Mike

01-06-2004, 09:52 AM

I have had 5 knee surgeries, two of which were major. Now who would rather listen to about what to expect in the way of pain and rehab. A doctor who has never had one or a person who has had five? I'd choose me. But you could choose the doctor. After all it is your choice.
This is an interesting analogy. I myself have had two knee injuries playing hockey, although both were only sprains of the MCL and did not require surgery. I do however have an appreciation for rehab (those knee injuries along with a separated shoulder playing hockey which did require surgery).

Being the scientific type, I prodded the doctors for as much info as I could on knee injuries. As well, my physiotherapist (this is at college) used to work for the Winnipeg Jets (mid 70s) and had many years rehabing all sorts of injuries. I would think that he is one of the best sources of information on this topic although he himself has never had any surgery done to him.

I cannot even come close to pitting my knee and shoulder (ie. actual experience) rehab to his 20 plus years of working in the field, regardless of him not actually going through the process. I suspect the same would apply to you as well.

You see, he has had experience and medical training in a wide range of injuries, not just to the knee but to other body areas. And rehab intensity, extent of pain and speed of recovery all differ from person to person depending on things like age, gender, flexibility and level of fitness prior to the injury.

So directing this back to audio cables, I believe some people put way too much emphasis or trust into personal experiences rather than the global picture. And further, it appears that positive personal experiences with cable testing are more highly regarded than those experiences which report null effects.

In the end, I think some people wish to collect enough evidence to make a conclusion (I know this is my approach and that of many other so-called "naysayers") while others have already made a conclusion (usually based on a personal experience) and are searching for the evidence to support it. I highly doubt anyone with a scientific background endorses the latter approach.

I know that yeasayers right now are saying that some of us have already concluded that cables make no difference. Well, that may be partially true. Based on the evidence today, it seems scientifically logical to conclude that there are either no differences or differences so slight that they are very hard to detect and depend on a great number of factors which probably don't apply to most people. A person reporting some vast improvement when swapping to exotic cables does not change any of that much like my own in-home testing with null results does not affect anything either.

pctower

01-06-2004, 03:20 PM

So directing this back to audio cables, I believe some people put way too much emphasis or trust into personal experiences rather than the global picture. And further, it appears that positive personal experiences with cable testing are more highly regarded than those experiences which report null effects.

In my own sound room for my own purposes, I trust nothing but my own personal, non-scientific experiences in that room. A test report, null or otherwise, means nothing to me for that purpose. Why should it. The former is a tangible personal experience that affects the pleasure center of my brain. The latter affects the linear portion of my brain. I have a sound room and system to stimulate my brain's pleasure center, not its thinking lobes.

In the end, I think some people wish to collect enough evidence to make a conclusion (I know this is my approach and that of many other so-called "naysayers") while others have already made a conclusion (usually based on a personal experience) and are searching for the evidence to support it. I highly doubt anyone with a scientific background endorses the latter approach.

Your capacity to create a yeasayer caricature or a mythical or "hypothetical" yeasayer and then tear him apart (which is rather simple to do when you are the one who created him in the first place) seems unbounded.

The only "evidence" I care about in my soundroom is the effect something has on my pleasure center. I could care less in that venue for "evidence", "conclusions", or "support" for anything. I don't "search" in the privacy of my own soundroom, I "enjoy" without care of disecting what seems to be the cause of that enjoyment. Of course, I have no evidence, but I suspect I am far closer to a typical audiophile or yeasayer than your conveniently constructed straw-man.

A person reporting some vast improvement when swapping to exotic cables does not change any of that much like my own in-home testing with null results does not affect anything either.

Of course his experience doesn't change the "reality" of anything. EARTH TO MIKE: IN ALL LIKLIHOOD HE DOESN'T CARE AT THAT MOMENT ABOUT CHANGING ANYTHING OF A SCIENTIFIC NATURE. HE IS INDULGING THE RIGHT SIDE OF HIS BRAIN.

Monstrous Mike

01-07-2004, 02:39 PM

In my own sound room for my own purposes, I trust nothing but my own personal, non-scientific experiences in that room.
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about people who present their personal experiences as facts that should be added in support of cable sonics.

I am trying to separate the giddy, ecstatic music listener who thinks he has hit the cable jackpot from the people who have method and reason and require a whole lot of evidence before claiming anything either way.

Maybe we should clarify the yeasayer/naysayer definitions:

Yeasayer> A person who has "heard" a difference in a non-scientific listening environment with no real way of knowing if there was <i>actually</i> any change but claims there are positively differences because "I heard them myself".

Naysayer> A person who cannot find any reason scientifically or measurement-wise as to why a cable should sound different and thus claims cable sonics are definitely a myth.

I do not believe either of us fall into those two very extremist and narrow categories.

I am really disappointed I had to point this out to you because I thought you were heading down that path.

pctower

01-07-2004, 02:48 PM

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about people who present their personal experiences as facts that should be added in support of cable sonics.

I am trying to separate the giddy, ecstatic music listener who thinks he has hit the cable jackpot from the people who have method and reason and require a whole lot of evidence before claiming anything either way.

Maybe we should clarify the yeasayer/naysayer definitions:

Yeasayer> A person who has "heard" a difference in a non-scientific listening environment with no real way of knowing if there was <i>actually</i> any change but claims there are positively differences because "I heard them myself".

Naysayer> A person who cannot find any reason scientifically or measurement-wise as to why a cable should sound different and thus claims cable sonics are definitely a myth.

I do not believe either of us fall into those two very extremist and narrow categories.

I am really disappointed I had to point this out to you because I thought you were heading down that path.

We are heading down the same path. It's just been too quiet around here and I couldn't help kicking up a little dust. Forgot to take my medicine this morning.

BTW, using your definitions, I'm much closer to a naysayer than a yeasayer.

skeptic

01-10-2004, 05:56 AM

1. This is a question with highly subjective answers.

2. Well, unfortunately the measurements we have today (which are better than in the past) still don't provide enough information to be truly relevant. .

5. It is not my contention that there are folks who have inherently superior hearing abilities. I assert that anyone who has an interest in comparative listening with extensive listening experience on a high resolution system is able to resolve differences.

The question has to do with the quality of advice given on this board and whether only Philistines can't find a difference between Home Depot cable and $100 a foot gee whiz wire. The bogus analogy was made to automobiles. You don't have to be an automobile mechanic to understand acceleration, braking distance, or trunk capacity. Anyone who drives a car understands it. I'm an electrical engineer and even I don't understand what the cable manufacturers are trying to tell me in their ads or what the magazine reviewers tell me in their advertisers' infomercials disguised as their reviews. I understand power, frequency response, harmonic distortion. I don't understand how the number of strands a wire has or how much oxygen is in the copper relates to what I am going to hear.

You say the results are subjective. Prove it. Show me one published test that demonstrated that anyone could find a subjective difference between one wire and another by listening without knowing which wire he was hearing at any given time.

You say we can't measure the subtle electrical differences. But scientists and mathematicians long ago demonstrated that they could exactly quantify the differences between one complex waveform and another through Fourier and Laplace analysis and we can measure every known parameter regarding their shape from frequency response down to tenths of a decibel and harmonic and intermodulation distortion down to thousandths of a percent. What is there about it can't we measure that one wire improves over another? Or are you just trying to turn scientific fact into magical myth?

Every one of these companies who makes and sells this stuff has found some arcane theory to impress and bewilder those who have no understanding of any of this to intimidate them into believing that if they don't buy some expensive cable or other, they won't be getting the most their other equipment has to offer. But there isn't one demonstrated shred of truth in it. So far it's just a gigantic pack of lies. So the best advice anyone can get here is simple. When you go into a store where they sell this stuff and after you have bought your expensive loudspeakers, amplifier, turntable and they get around to giving you the sales pitch about wires, stuff cotton in your ears, put your hands in your pockets, and grab on tight to your wallet until you make it out the door.

Oh, BTW, some people DO have much better hearing than others. THEY didn't subject themselves to deafening rock music blasted through monster amplifiers and speakers at sports arenas or played at deafening levels in automobiles. (Can you imagine these candidates for a pair of hearing aids telling you they can hear that one cable has a two tenths of a decibel greater rolloff at 20Khz than another?) Some of the fortunate golden ears even like music and so far as anyone knows, they can't hear any differences between one wire an another either.

FLZapped

01-10-2004, 06:21 AM

I have a sound room and system to stimulate my brain's pleasure center, not its thinking lobes.

Good for you. So do I, however, mine is firmly attached to my wallet, which is firmly attached to my pain centers.....

;)

-Bruce

E-Stat

01-10-2004, 07:48 AM

You don't have to be an automobile mechanic to understand acceleration, braking distance, or trunk capacity. Anyone who drives a car understands it.

There is nothing false about my analogy. Consider the Porsche Boxster S, BMW Z4, and the Honda S2000. What does the trunk capacity have to do with any performance metric? I guess that is an engineer's perspective. All three high performance cars have similar skidpad, braking, and acceleration numbers. The specs look identical. Take them out on a track or through a fast progressive rate freeway exit ramp, however, and you will find three individual dynamic characters. Perhaps you don't understand such matters. Your comments, however, are very telling in your approach because you speak of how mechanics view such things. I speak of how drivers view such things. Yes, mechanics understand suspension design. Mechanics have a theoretical understanding of oversteer and understeer and can write reams about it. So why is it despite their superior "we've-known-it-all-for-years" attitude, it is the drivers who tell the mechanics how to set up the suspensions for a given track, hmmm? It is the drivers, not the mechanics, who perceive how those factors interact in the real world of driving a car.

But scientists and mathematicians long ago demonstrated... and we can measure every known parameter regarding their shape from frequency response down to tenths of a decibel and harmonic and intermodulation distortion down to thousandths of a percent.

Long ago we knew everything? You're too modest! :)

I guess that explains why, with our superior long term knowledge, that we are still developing high resolution music formats to replace "perfect sound forever". Sorry, you guys have far from answered all the questions. I was well reminded by that fact while attending the US Figure Skating Championships last night at the Philips Arena in Atlanta. Music reproduced on that "professional" state-of-the-art system was dreadful.

rw

skeptic

01-10-2004, 08:55 AM

What does the trunk capacity have to do with any performance metric?

Take them out on a track or through a fast progressive rate freeway exit ramp, however, and you will find three individual dynamic characters.

Long ago we knew everything? You're too modest! :)

It depends on what you are using a car for. If your purpose for owning a car is to do family grocery shopping, haul kids and their athletic gear around, and get plants from the nursery, trunk space means everything and performance on a race track means nothing. If you are using a cable for audio frequencies, it performance at RF frequencies means nothing.

If you really are an engineer then you would know exactly how the mathematics of periodic and non periodic waveforms exactly describes the electrical performance of audio equipment. This is not a mystery. Only the untrained are awed and bewildered by the techno mumbo jumbo jargon thrown around by people advertising and selling expensive wires use. Audio engineers just laugh at the whole thing.

The performance of a sound system at a skating rink or arena is not designed for accurate music reproduction. It is designed for high intelligibility, maximum gain before feedback, and uniform coverage of the audience. What kind of audiophile would confuse that kind of installation with a high fidelity sound reproduction system in a home?

E-Stat

01-10-2004, 09:40 AM

If you are using a cable for audio frequencies, it performance at RF frequencies means nothing.

I acknowledge your assumption. Kinda sounds like the old canard where performance outside the audible band was assumed to be of no value. That was until, of course the role of IM distortion with difference products was quantified.

Audio engineers just laugh at the whole thing.

That would certainly explain why they continue to go back to the drawing board when they are found to be wrong. My observation is based on historical events and not (yet) applied to cables.

The performance of a sound system at a skating rink or arena is not designed for accurate music reproduction.

I'm glad we agree on that. I have seen comments elsewhere by engineers who assert that pro amps and the like are comparable to high performance musically oriented components.

rw

Geoffcin

01-10-2004, 10:01 AM

It depends on what you are using a car for. If your purpose for owning a car is to do family grocery shopping, haul kids and their athletic gear around, and get plants from the nursery, trunk space means everything and performance on a race track means nothing. If you are using a cable for audio frequencies, it performance at RF frequencies means nothing.

If you really are an engineer then you would know exactly how the mathematics of periodic and non periodic waveforms exactly describes the electrical performance of audio equipment. This is not a mystery. Only the untrained are awed and bewildered by the techno mumbo jumbo jargon thrown around by people advertising and selling expensive wires use. Audio engineers just laugh at the whole thing.

The performance of a sound system at a skating rink or arena is not designed for accurate music reproduction. It is designed for high intelligibility, maximum gain before feedback, and uniform coverage of the audience. What kind of audiophile would confuse that kind of installation with a high fidelity sound reproduction system in a home?
Hi Skeptic,

Just to get off this fruitless tack for a second;

I was just looking at some real serious science done on CD isolation gear and tweaks using a pro sound card hooked up to a computer. The test can be found in Hi-Fi News June 2003. The test was unbiased, and came up with no statistical proof for most of the tweaks, but there were some very unusual results.

One that I find interesting is that the SAME gear, if unplugged, and replugged did not perform the same. The simple act of breaking the power connection destroyed the ability to use the statistics. This was very unexpected by the scientist/tech, and caused him to spend a lot of time to stabilize the whole testing equipment system.

Two was something I found MOST interesting. One of the more "off
the wall" products that was tested was the Statmat, a product designed to reduce CD jitter. This DID produce statistically significant results. The strange thing were they were semi-permanent! Even after the mat was removed, the player displayed changes. Even more interesting is that this product was tested before this statistical test by another separate reviewer by listening and he stated that the product seemed to have a semi-permanent effect.

OK, here's what I'm getting at. I think that we can, and do hear things that are very, very hard to detect. Our ear-brain system was designed to detect complex waveforms, and decern subtle differences between them. It was a matter of life and death while we were evolving. It seems to me that we got very good at it.

Like a race car driver that can detect a subtle change in spring rates, or damping, I think that some audiophiles can detect things that most of us cannot. I am NOT saying in any way shape or form that what they hear is worth chasing, but I don't believe that they are all chasing "wild geese"