Audiophiles beware, the other senses are more connected than you think.

[3db]

Brain's visual system also processes sound - Medical News Today (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/277325.php)

[Mr Peabody]

I wonder what happens if you are blind

[Hyfi]

If it sounds good, they must be using High End Cables :)

[Hyfi]

I wonder what happens if you are blind

Not to be rude, but why don't they seek out visually impaired people for auditory challenges? (very PC)

[Mr Peabody]

If it sounds good, they must be using High End Cables :)

Now you are getting it!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not to be rude, but why don't they seek out visually impaired people for auditory challenges? (very PC)

Reading the article goes a long way!

There, the researchers suggested preventing sight for as little as a week may be enough to help the brain process sound more effectively.

This was in the article.

They didn't mention the blind because they already did a study on that as well.

Short stays in darkness can boost hearing, study shows - Medical News Today (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/272262.php)


Reading the entire article helps.......

[3db]

This article presents a solid reason why I think blind listening tests are more accurate than sited listening tests with respect to electronics.

[E-Stat]

This article presents a solid reason why I think blind listening tests are more accurate than sited listening tests with respect to electronics.
Just not the overwhelmingly common bogus type which use switchboxes that combine signal grounds, use extra cabling and other uncontrolled devices and assumptions that are not normally present.

[Hyfi]

People who are blind from birth have extraordinary hearing most times. That is why Double Blind Testing would be better done with Blind people. Nobody can be accurate by being blindfolded for a short time as opposed to normal hearing for life of a blind person because they are not used to it and each time blindfolded the hearing sense change can be a little different.

If they did cable swapping tests with blind for life testers, and they did not hear any changes ever, I may change my mind.

[3db]

People who are blind from birth have extraordinary hearing most times. That is why Double Blind Testing would be better done with Blind people. Nobody can be accurate by being blindfolded for a short time as opposed to normal hearing for life of a blind person because they are not used to it and each time blindfolded the hearing sense change can be a little different.

If they did cable swapping tests with blind for life testers, and they did not hear any changes ever, I may change my mind.

Blind in this case simply means not being able to see the equipment used prior to and during the test. It doesn't mean blindfolded.

[E-Stat]

Blind in this case simply means not being able to see the equipment used prior to and during the test. It doesn't mean blindfolded.
When the term is "double blind", you are mistaken. That means that both the person taking test AND the tester do not know which is which. As for me, I don't have a problem with single blind studies. The "Clever Hans" cueing effect can be eliminated.

Randomizing digital content using the same player works fine. Running gear through extraneous boxes or Y-adapters merely blends electrical characteristics of the devices under test.

[3db]

When the term is "double blind", you are mistaken. That means that both the person taking test AND the tester do not know which is which. As for me, I don't have a problem with single blind studies. The "Clever Hans" cueing effect can be eliminated.

Randomizing digital content using the same player works fine. Running gear through extraneous boxes or Y-adapters merely blends electrical characteristics of the devices under test.

I never mentioned DBT in this thread. :wink5:

[E-Stat]

I never mentioned DBT in this thread.
Yet you directly referenced the quoted term with your response in post # 10.

"Blind in this case..."

Perhaps your comments had nothing to do with the quoted term.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

When the term is "double blind", you are mistaken. That means that both the person taking test AND the tester do not know which is which. As for me, I don't have a problem with single blind studies. The "Clever Hans" cueing effect can be eliminated.

Randomizing digital content using the same player works fine. Running gear through extraneous boxes or Y-adapters merely blends electrical characteristics of the devices under test.

Now they(and I) use computers to do the switching. At AES they use computer controlled ABX testing. Since nobody but the computer is switching, the Clever Hans effect is eliminated.

If you are DBT wires and IC, those are directly interfaced with the multiplexer - and the computer can choose between which input to listen to, single blindly or DB.

I am not sure they make those old standalone ABX comparator boxes anymore. Too many people like me could hear the thing switching, and therefore cheat the system.

[E-Stat]

If you are DBT wires and IC, those are directly interfaced with the multiplexer - and the computer can choose between which input to listen to, single blindly or DB.
How do you eliminate switching transients without sharing grounds? And, if you are comparing interconnects, how do you eliminate the need for a third pigtail?

[Feanor]

Now they(and I) use computers to do the switching. At AES they use computer controlled ABX testing. Since nobody but the computer is switching, the Clever Hans effect is eliminated.

If you are DBT wires and IC, those are directly interfaced with the multiplexer - and the computer can choose between which input to listen to, single blindly or DB.

I am not sure they make those old standalone ABX comparator boxes anymore. Too many people like me could hear the thing switching, and therefore cheat the system.
The whole topic of blind testing, (single or double), is pretty stale.

On the one hand, even the most rigorous DBT cannot prove that there are no differences, ONLY that they can't be heard by a statistically significant portion of people under the conditions of the test -- the latter is a significant caveat (as E-Stat implies).

Recently I listened to a number of (relatively) low cost interconnects and I thought I heard differences which I described in another post. My testing certainly wasn't blind. I wouldn't bet a dime that I could tell the cables apart in bind tests, and what's more, I wouldn't blame the condition for the fact. Unlike some audiophiles I'm willing to admit that some (at least) of the differences I hear are my imagination.

[Hyfi]

Blind in this case simply means not being able to see the equipment used prior to and during the test. It doesn't mean blindfolded.
I know, all I was implying is that Blind people have way better hearing than you and I whether we can't see the cable, are blindfolded or in a dark room.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

How do you eliminate switching transients without sharing grounds?

Use a UPS or power conditioner that has isolated grounding. The ones I have provide isolated quality noise suppression,, surge protection, harmonic noise cancellation, and power(voltage) regulation on each plug.


And, if you are comparing interconnects, how do you eliminate the need for a third pigtail?

The custom computer multiplex interface that I have is connected directly to the computer much like a internal sound card. It accommodates all kinds of audio connections, so you don't need a pigtail connection. You plug the IC directly into the multiplexing interface, and program the computer to switch between the interface connections.

I copied this from one pretty darn effective ABX software based test from AES.



 

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I know, all I was implying is that Blind people have way better hearing than you and I whether we can't see the cable, are blindfolded or in a dark room.

Sorry, but not all blind people have way better hearing than sighted people. Some maybe, but not all.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The whole topic of blind testing, (single or double), is pretty stale.

It is stale because it is too rigorous for the majority to do well, and stand under scrutiny. Sorry, but there is too much evidence that sighted testing introduces too many biases to be reliable.


On the one hand, even the most rigorous DBT cannot prove that there are no differences, ONLY that they can't be heard by a statistically significant portion of people under the conditions of the test -- the latter is a significant caveat (as E-Stat implies).

If it cannot be heard, then there is no differences PERIOD. DBT is about what we actually hear without the biases of a sighted test. If we take the equipment or cable out of sight, then we are listening much like a blind person would....with our ears only.


Recently I listened to a number of (relatively) low cost interconnects and I thought I heard differences which I described in another post. My testing certainly wasn't blind. I wouldn't bet a dime that I could tell the cables apart in bind tests, and what's more, I wouldn't blame the condition for the fact. Unlike some audiophiles I'm willing to admit that some (at least) of the differences I hear are my imagination.

Not only your imagination, but different seat placement which affect what you acoustically hear, the colorations of the speaker you listen too, and the source material itself. As Dr. Floyd Toole and Dr. Peter D'Antonio has proven - move your head a inch or more from the central measured seating position, and what your hear perceptively changes. This is even if you sit your butt in exactly the same place. If you head is not in a measure vice, then you will hear subtle changes in the frequency response, and time arrival of the signals from the speakers(two channel mostly).

There reason IC and speaker wire testing is so hard to do objectively is because

1. The rooms resonances must be completely eliminated at the seating areas. In other words, you have to neutralize the room's effect on the sound.

2. The room has to be quiet enough so that low level details in the mix are easily heard.

3. The speakers MUST have the necessary resolution to make subtleties audible, because the differences in IC are subtle at best.

4. You must level match the sources to within .5db's because any differences above that are judged as perceptively better to the ear.

5. You have to analyze your sources(software) for any inherent characteristics that would affect what you hear.(i.e recording based colorations or errors within the source itself).

Outside of this, subjective comparisons could be made, but not objective ones.

[Mr Peabody]

I asked the question about the blind sort of tongue in cheek, sorry I brought it up. It's difficult for me to believe some one like Sir T can't hear difference in cables when listening and engineering is his business. Those who are convinced there's no difference aren't going to change opinions and those of us who know there is certainly aren't going to change ours. The cables I'm now using took my system up to an entirely better performance level. The DBT thing is ridiculous, average people can't tell the difference between entry to high end with seeing, let alone blind. The persons being tested have to have some experience listening to better gear to hear the benefits. For instance, take your average young adult with four 12 inch woofers in their car, they will certainly like something different from me, the same with a portable mp3 listener. How many go to live Jazz or Classical venues to get a real reference for what the instrument should actually sound like.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I asked the question about the blind sort of tongue in cheek, sorry I brought it up. It's difficult for me to believe some one like Sir T can't hear difference in cables when listening and engineering is his business. Those who are convinced there's no difference aren't going to change opinions and those of us who know there is certainly aren't going to change ours. The cables I'm now using took my system up to an entirely better performance level. The DBT thing is ridiculous, average people can't tell the difference between entry to high end with seeing, let alone blind. The persons being tested have to have some experience listening to better gear to hear the benefits. For instance, take your average young adult with four 12 inch woofers in their car, they will certainly like something different from me, the same with a portable mp3 listener. How many go to live Jazz or Classical venues to get a real reference for what the instrument should actually sound like.

Mr. Peabody, I don't like majoring in minors. I chose a well built cable that sounded neutral to my ears, degraded the signal the least among those I measured, and was reasonably priced. With all of the cables I heard, none had a bright sound or dark sound, just varying degrees of resolution and that is it. The point I am making is it took a NC-20 room, speaker/room interactions corrected to -+1 from 40-20khz, a extremely quiet amp and pre-amp to hear these very subtle difference. I highly doubt that anyone can hear these subtle differences on a less than $5000 dollar two channel system setup in their living room. Most here do not tackle room acoustics(too complicated), don't have the signal chain to reveal these differences, nor do they have a room quiet enough. If a piece of cable is taking your system to a new level, the old cables were probably not up to snuff. The differences between cables are not night and day, but profoundly subtle if they are well made.


The persons being tested have to have some experience listening to better gear to hear the benefits.

Dr. Floyd Toole's listening test done at the Canadian Radio research lab disputes this.


It's difficult for me to believe some one like Sir T can't hear difference in cables when listening and engineering is his business.

Well Mr. P., I am listening to the audio, not the cables. And that is the way I like it.


The DBT thing is ridiculous, average people can't tell the difference between entry to high end with seeing, let alone blind.

And that is exactly the point of DBT, to remove known pre-judgements and biases that come with sighted testing. Read up a little on sighted pre-judgement, and sighted biases. If I tell you a piece of equipment you are going to listen to is entry level, and audiophile will immediately pre-judge that equipment as insufficient.

When I first started at Disney, we did a sighted shootout between a well regarded a Radio Shack portable CD player, and one of Sony top of the line CD players. We first did a sighted listening test, and of course the engineers who are audiophile types panned the sound of the CD player, even though Stereophile mentioned how well the portable sounded when put up against another high end CD player. Once the curtain was thrown up, those same audiophiles preferred the sound of the portable over the high end CD player over and over again. Bias erased, different outcome.

I don't have a problem with the idea that there are subtle differences(and I mean subtle) between cables. My problem is how you guys who THINK you hear differences are carrying out your tests.

1. You guys don't level match your sources. Perceptive tests have proven that if one source is higher in level by just 1db, it will sound BETTER to the listener.

2. None of you have neutralize the sonic signature of your rooms.

3. None of you have mentioned anything about the ambient levels of your room.

4. All testing is sighted which introduces biases.

5. No instantaneous switching. Any idea that you can compare cables on two separate days, two separate hours, or two separate minutes does not understand the deficit of our auditory memory.

6. Since you guys don't really measure or treat your rooms, room resonances are a lot louder than the subtle differences between cables. If you don't put your head in a vice, then any head movements can move your head in and out of a mode or node - which changes the perception of what you hear.

You guys do not address ANY of the variables that can dog a listening test. Testing is done willy nilly, and I am sorry, but if want to HEAR differences objectively, those variables have to be addressed. This is why testing wires and IC's is done so infrequently - it is too difficult to pull off objectively.

AVSforum and AIX records are doing a double blind shootout between three audio files. A redbook 16/44.1khz file, versus a 24/96khz file, versus a upsampled upconverted 16/44.1khz file to 24/96khz. The criteria to participate in this test is so high, I highly doubt anyone here would be able to meet it.

[Mr Peabody]

Mr. Peabody, I don't like majoring in minors. I chose a well built cable that sounded neutral to my ears, degraded the signal the least among those I measured, and was reasonably priced. With all of the cables I heard, none had a bright sound or dark sound, just varying degrees of resolution and that is it. The point I am making is it took a NC-20 room, speaker/room interactions corrected to -+1 from 40-20khz, a extremely quiet amp and pre-amp to hear these very subtle difference. I highly doubt that anyone can hear these subtle differences on a less than $5000 dollar two channel system setup in their living room. Most here do not tackle room acoustics(too complicated), don't have the signal chain to reveal these differences, nor do they have a room quiet enough. If a piece of cable is taking your system to a new level, the old cables were probably not up to snuff. The differences between cables are not night and day, but profoundly subtle if they are well made.

You make a lot of assumptions, "you guys", you have no idea what any one has or has not done. And, in this case most of what you said is just wrong. Don't impress your short comings on the general population. I do agree that my preference in cables would be one not to color but add resolution.

If you look at Analysis Plus website they are one who publishes there measured differences. In is also fact there is audible differences between materials used, the metal or dielectric or lack there of, the configuration of the materials and even quality of the terminals and method of connecting them.

Dr. Floyd Toole's listening test done at the Canadian Radio research lab disputes this.



Well Mr. P., I am listening to the audio, not the cables. And that is the way I like it.



And that is exactly the point of DBT, to remove known pre-judgements and biases that come with sighted testing. Read up a little on sighted pre-judgement, and sighted biases. If I tell you a piece of equipment you are going to listen to is entry level, and audiophile will immediately pre-judge that equipment as insufficient.

When I first started at Disney, we did a sighted shootout between a well regarded a Radio Shack portable CD player, and one of Sony top of the line CD players. We first did a sighted listening test, and of course the engineers who are audiophile types panned the sound of the CD player, even though Stereophile mentioned how well the portable sounded when put up against another high end CD player. Once the curtain was thrown up, those same audiophiles preferred the sound of the portable over the high end CD player over and over again. Bias erased, different outcome.

I don't have a problem with the idea that there are subtle differences(and I mean subtle) between cables. My problem is how you guys who THINK you hear differences are carrying out your tests.

1. You guys don't level match your sources. Perceptive tests have proven that if one source is higher in level by just 1db, it will sound BETTER to the listener.

2. None of you have neutralize the sonic signature of your rooms.

3. None of you have mentioned anything about the ambient levels of your room.

4. All testing is sighted which introduces biases.

5. No instantaneous switching. Any idea that you can compare cables on two separate days, two separate hours, or two separate minutes does not understand the deficit of our auditory memory.

6. Since you guys don't really measure or treat your rooms, room resonances are a lot louder than the subtle differences between cables. If you don't put your head in a vice, then any head movements can move your head in and out of a mode or node - which changes the perception of what you hear.

You guys do not address ANY of the variables that can dog a listening test. Testing is done willy nilly, and I am sorry, but if want to HEAR differences objectively, those variables have to be addressed. This is why testing wires and IC's is done so infrequently - it is too difficult to pull off objectively.

AVSforum and AIX records are doing a double blind shootout between three audio files. A redbook 16/44.1khz file, versus a 24/96khz file, versus a upsampled upconverted 16/44.1khz file to 24/96khz. The criteria to participate in this test is so high, I highly doubt anyone here would be able to meet it.

I listen to music as well but I want the best presentation from my system I can get.

[Feanor]

Mr. Peabody, I don't like majoring in minors. I chose a well built cable that sounded neutral to my ears, degraded the signal the least among those I measured, and was reasonably priced. With all of the cables I heard, none had a bright sound or dark sound, just varying degrees of resolution and that is it. The point I am making is it took a NC-20 room, speaker/room interactions corrected to -+1 from 40-20khz, a extremely quiet amp and pre-amp to hear these very subtle difference. I highly doubt that anyone can hear these subtle differences on a less than $5000 dollar two channel system setup in their living room. Most here do not tackle room acoustics(too complicated), don't have the signal chain to reveal these differences, nor do they have a room quiet enough. If a piece of cable is taking your system to a new level, the old cables were probably not up to snuff. The differences between cables are not night and day, but profoundly subtle if they are well made.
...
So you admit you hear differences on the subjective level, albeit you hear these differences under rigorously controlled conditions. Also you admit that these subjective sound differences are a factor, (along with measurement), in you choice of cable. Can you personally usually correctly identify your chosen vs. rejected cables in blind testing?

I think you do audiophiles here too little credit implying that they are deceiving themselves about sound differences. Carefully controlling listening conditions might ensure more accurate results but certainly various people here have equipment that has the resolution to make differences audible. Furthermore from personal, granted, subjective experience I can hear sound difference anywhere in the audio chain regardless of whether the changes being auditioned at strong or a weak point in the chain.

For my part, I have consistently advised that cable differences are very small and that most people, i.e. those with entry to mid-range equipment, ought to buy reliable, cheap cables, (e.g. Blue Jeans Cable), and spend the difference on improving other components. This is rational advice, but though cables can be overpriced, (they have the highest markups of all components), they are usually cheaper than the components and there is a temptation to look there for improvements.

[JohnMichael]

I am very used to my system in my room and that familiarity helps me determine what cable works best. My system is purist in that there is no signal processing and I listen more near field.

[Mr Peabody]

JM, I think you make a very important point about familiarity, in comparing cables or components in a system I still think we will be able to do that but it is even more evident in our own systems where we are familiar with the responses and character we normally hear each day.

I'm not so sure visual influences as much as it is a distraction. Many of my "audiophile" friends do their main listening in the dark as I do. I also notice that I don't like the TV screen on while I listen. As a teen we used to watch sports on TV with the sound down and listen to the stereo. Unless we rent a movie I seldom watch TV. People can't understand how I can sit and listen to music and not have something else going on at the same time.

[Feanor]

Familiarity is a big factor. I use a range of familiar, high-quality recordings or recordings that have familiar specific attributes. (This is contrary to famous Norwitz/Qvortrup "Are You On The Road To... Audio Hell?" advice: see HERE (http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm). But that's 50% bunkum anyway)

I have often had the following sort of comparative experience. I compare A to B and hear little or no discernible difference; I compare B to C and likewise hear little difference. But comparing A to C I hear a distinct difference.

[Smokey]

For my part, I have consistently advised that cable differences are very small and that most people, i.e. those with entry to mid-range equipment, ought to buy reliable, cheap cables, (e.g. Blue Jeans Cable), and spend the difference on improving other components.

I would say that is a fair statement (albiet changing "cheap" with "quality"). But it also beg the question as what kind of advice would you give to those that have higher end systems regarding cables?

I mean, the function of cable will not change whether we have $100 system or $100,000 system :)

[Hyfi]

I would say that is a fair statement (albiet changing "cheap" with "quality"). But it also beg the question as what kind of advice would you give to those that have higher end systems regarding cables?

I mean, the function of cable will not change whether we have $100 system or $100,000 system :)

Until you actually hear a $100K system, you have no idea, except for what you read. The function itself does not change, but the different HE cables out there allow the owners of HE setups to fine tune the sound to "THEIR" desire, not what someone who has never heard a system like that's opinion.

[3db]

Yet you directly referenced the quoted term with your response in post # 10.

"Blind in this case..."

Perhaps your comments had nothing to do with the quoted term.

Wow!! Really? Where did I type DBT in this thread up until this point?

[bfalls]

It's strange to see comments on ICs and speaker cables ranging from .5m+ From those arguing they may or may not hear a difference, yet in earlier threads state they could hear a difference using cryogenically-treated fuses in a component's power supply. You would think the effects of longer, multi-wire, constructed cables would have more potential for noticeable differences than a .5cm single pierce of wire outside the signal path. "Things that make you go hmmmmmmm."

It's much easier to follow Sir T's methodology. I believe different cables can electronically measure differently. The question is whether the differences can be heard significantly in the audio range.

[blackraven]

Mr. P hit the nail on the head stating the average person can't tell the subtle differences in high end. I think that you need to be a person who listens to music all the time and is in tune with the nuances.

Sir T, I agree that for the most part you need a high end system to be able to tell the differeces between cables. But, my son and I were easily able to tell the difference between a pair of BJC IC's and a pair of AudioQuest Corals in his system which consisted at the time of a Class D Audio CDA254 digital amp, a modded cheap Maverick Audio Tube Magic DAC/Preamp and a pair of PSB B6 speakers. The BJC's was too bright sounding while the AQ's were less bright and more pleasing with out sounding rolled off. The difference was not subtle. That system cost about $1300 and sounded awesome.

By the way. I do all my critical listening in the dark or with the lights down. I am more in tune to the music without visual distractions.

[Smokey]

The function itself does not change, but the different HE cables out there allow the owners of HE setups to fine tune the sound to "THEIR" desire.But fine tuning the sound is not function of cable. That will remain true whether we have low end or high end system :)

[JohnMichael]

But fine tuning the sound is not function of cable. That will remain true whether we have low end or high end system :)


But cables do tune a system. So if you buy a cable that makes your system sound bright you should just live with it? I would find a cable that makes my system sound balanced. Which I call tuning the system. I also find purchasing a new cable if the sound is bright than buying dark sounding amp just to use the much less expensive IC.

[Smokey]

But cables do tune a system. So if you buy a cable that makes your system sound bright you should just live with it? I would find a cable that makes my system sound balanced.

I would say that be a common sense approach assuming that all the audio (and sources) played on that system have same 'audio' quality and EQ biasing.

But since that will not be the case (as even each recordings have different EQ), then we should wonder as how cable is effecting different sound quaity. And we could never could figure that out if we are using cable to tame our system.

So the problem of cable as part of a puzzle to achieve more balance system will never be solved :)

[JohnMichael]

I would say that be a common sense approach assuming that all the audio (and sources) played on that system have same 'audio' quality and EQ biasing.

But since that will not be the case (as even each recordings have different EQ), then we should wonder as how cable is effecting different sound quaity. And we could never could figure that out if we are using cable to tame our system.

So the problem of cable as part of a puzzle to achieve more balance system will never be solved :)



Of course I disagree. With my choice of AQ IC's and speaker cables they let all the music present itself wonderfully with my selection of components and speakers.

[3db]

But cables do tune a system. So if you buy a cable that makes your system sound bright you should just live with it? I would find a cable that makes my system sound balanced. Which I call tuning the system. I also find purchasing a new cable if the sound is bright than buying dark sounding amp just to use the much less expensive IC.

Cables don't tune a system nearly as much as does seating position within the room and the room's acoustics. Most people in gross error try to go to tune using cables and interconnects then to fix the seating position and the room's acoustics. Cables/interconnects are sooo far down the affects list yet so many people in error put so much weight on them. I find this strangely amusing.

[Hyfi]

Cables don't tune a system nearly as much as does seating position within the room and the room's acoustics. Most people in gross error try to go to tune using cables and interconnects then to fix the seating position and the room's acoustics. Cables/interconnects are sooo far down the affects list yet so many people in error put so much weight on them. I find this strangely amusing.

Some people have done all they can do to their rooms and the way seating is setup. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a dedicated listening room where they can set all that up optimally so what is left? Tweaks and Cables.

[3db]

Some people have done all they can do to their rooms and the way seating is setup. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a dedicated listening room where they can set all that up optimally so what is left? Tweaks and Cables.

My point is that the effects of interconnects and cables on sound are so low compared to everything else that one will not get results they are looking for by cables and interconnects. The analogy I draw is one trying to make an oar out of log using 220 grit sandpaper. Its just not going to happen.

[Hyfi]

My point is that the effects of interconnects and cables on sound are so low compared to everything else that one will not get results they are looking for by cables and interconnects. The analogy I draw is one trying to make an oar out of log using 220 grit sandpaper. Its just not going to happen.

Worked fine for me in one application and seems to work for the many I associate with on several other sites. I am not sure what your gear is, or what cables you have rolled, but my gear resolves some cable differences and so does the systems of others in this thread. If I have a known bright system, and I put a know bassy cable in place and I like the sound it gives me, all the theory goes out the window.

[3db]

Worked fine for me in one application and seems to work for the many I associate with on several other sites. I am not sure what your gear is, or what cables you have rolled, but my gear resolves some cable differences and so does the systems of others in this thread. If I have a known bright system, and I put a know bassy cable in place and I like the sound it gives me, all the theory goes out the window.

I can't throw theory aside as its theory that built audio in the first place. I'm also not going down the "your equipment isnt revolving enough to be able to tell differences in cables/interconnects" when I know full well that my room as of yet is not acoustically perfect. I'd rather throw my money on things such as acoustic treatments that will fix the issues based on theory than fixes based on subjective results that can be replicated by theory.

[Hyfi]

I can't throw theory aside as its theory that built audio in the first place. I'm also not going down the "your equipment isnt revolving enough to be able to tell differences in cables/interconnects" when I know full well that my room as of yet is not acoustically perfect. I'd rather throw my money on things such as acoustic treatments that will fix the issues based on theory than fixes based on subjective results that can be replicated by theory.

That is perfectly understood, but I again pose the question as to what do you do if you have exhausted efforts on the former? I cannot put a bunch of absorbers on my living room walls, I don't have a dedicated room I can arrange and treat as desired so I have to work with what I am left with. If a $50 pair of ICs does the trick for me, who is anyone to say it's wrong?

I would love to have a dedicated room built just for sound, but it ain't gonna happen for me unless god forbid I end up a widower at an early age. If you have that room, great, I hope you can tweak it with thousands of dollars of Bass Traps and Panels instead of a cheap pair of ICs.

[3db]

If you have that room, great, I hope you can tweak it with thousands of dollars of Bass Traps and Panels instead of a cheap pair of ICs.

I already have the cheap interconnects :wink5:

[Hyfi]

I already have the cheap interconnects :wink5:

You're all set for life then, carry on.

[blackraven]

3dB, I see your point but I agree with Hyfi as my listening room is my family room and the WAF is in place. My wife puts up with my Magnepans but if I were to put up room treatments I would be thrown out of the house. So I use IC's to help fine tune my system.

[3db]

3dB, I see your point but I agree with Hyfi as my listening room is my family room and the WAF is in place. My wife puts up with my Magnepans but if I were to put up room treatments I would be thrown out of the house. So I use IC's to help fine tune my system.

The WAF is a common theme unfortunately.

[Hyfi]

So if cables are out of the question as tone controls, are Tone Controls OK to engage?
If yes, what do I do with units that do not have tone controls in the signal the path?

[Mr Peabody]

My point is that the effects of interconnects and cables on sound are so low compared to everything else that one will not get results they are looking for by cables and interconnects. The analogy I draw is one trying to make an oar out of log using 220 grit sandpaper. Its just not going to happen.

Your analogy isn't correct, more like whether you have a Civic or Porsche you can choose to drive on donuts or expensive Michelan, both the donut or Michelan will get the vehicle down the road but one will do a much better job while the other has limitations. Most audiophiles I know with reasonable quality gear who have actually compared cables agree there are not only differences in sound but improvements to be had. And, you do have to compare, there are so many cable companies popping up out of the woodwork these days.

[Mr Peabody]

I've treated my room with curtains & tapestry which help. I have a friend who has spent a lot of money of room treatments and to me his room is too dead sounding, I like the 50/50 approach, not too dead or live. But, even treating a room is subjective unless you have a spectrum analyser and the knowledge to find the correct treatment for the problem that may be found.

I'm not saying any one else's approach is wrong but for me the cables should be an overall improvement in the sound, better resolution, detail etc. I've not purchased any cables with a "fix" to my system in mind. Nay sayers there will always be but these cable companies are able to voice cables, that's why it's possible to use them to tailor your system to sound a bit warmer or extended etc. I like cables who have a rep for being neutral but that's even a moving target as who knows what "neutral" should really be. Audio is like the 60's man, if it feels good, or in the case of audio, sounds good, DO IT :)

[blackraven]

Mr P, I prefer a live room. I like the music hall effect.

Concerning tone controls, I prefer to have them. After playing around with the tone controls on a Mac preamp a few months ago, I am convinced that they would be great to have. For bright music, just turn the treble down a bit and bump up the bass and things sound much better.

[3db]

Your analogy isn't correct, more like whether you have a Civic or Porsche you can choose to drive on donuts or expensive Michelan, both the donut or Michelan will get the vehicle down the road but one will do a much better job while the other has limitations. Most audiophiles I know with reasonable quality gear who have actually compared cables agree there are not only differences in sound but improvements to be had. And, you do have to compare, there are so many cable companies popping up out of the woodwork these days.

If these findings were based in an uncontrolled environment with knowledge of which cables/interconnects were being used, then too much bias from the other senses would have interfered with the listening and skewed the results. Anyone claiming that cables/interconnects has more influence on sound than speakers, room acoustics, and the listening position with respect to room/speakers doesn't should take some time to read Dr Floyd Tool's work in audio and the human perception of hearing and the influence of the other senses on hearing.

[3db]

So if cables are out of the question as tone controls, are Tone Controls OK to engage?
If yes, what do I do with units that do not have tone controls in the signal the path?

If tone controls make the sound more appealing to you, by all means go and do that. :) Audiophile purists poo-poo the idea but who cares what they think. As long as it makes things more palatable for you in your listening environment, then go for it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So you admit you hear differences on the subjective level, albeit you hear these differences under rigorously controlled conditions. Also you admit that these subjective sound differences are a factor, (along with measurement), in you choice of cable. Can you personally usually correctly identify your chosen vs. rejected cables in blind testing?

I would answer this question another way. Could I identify the well made cables from the poorly made ones? Absolutely. Could I distinguish which cables are which amongst the better made ones? Nope. Why, because unlike the yeasayers here, I listen through cables(not to) in a ultra quiet room, with tightly controlled acoustics, ultra clean power going into the system, on a hair north of half a million dollars worth of audio equipment that was designed from the ground up for critical listening(my music mixing studio). Can anyone here say this? So far, no!

The cables I chose sounded as neutral, uncolored, and transparent as a live voice going through a microphone, through the straight wire busses of my mixing board, and out of the speakers. There were other cables I measured and listened to that had similar qualities of the cables I chose, but they cost 10-15 times as much. The difference between the best cables, and the poorly made ones is subtle, but noticeable. However I would highly doubt those difference could be heard over a noisy room, over a system with at best medium resolution, or a room with poor acoustics like most folks living rooms.


I think you do audiophiles here too little credit implying that they are deceiving themselves about sound differences. Carefully controlling listening conditions might ensure more accurate results but certainly various people here have equipment that has the resolution to make differences audible. Furthermore from personal, granted, subjective experience I can hear sound difference anywhere in the audio chain regardless of whether the changes being auditioned at strong or a weak point in the chain.

Subjective differences without measurements are useless. Sorry Bill, but everyone has an opinion based on their own taste. When it comes to cables, I don't want to taste anything. Sorry, but I don't see any real audiophiles here. What I see are casual music listeners, and that is pretty much it.


For my part, I have consistently advised that cable differences are very small and that most people, i.e. those with entry to mid-range equipment, ought to buy reliable, cheap cables, (e.g. Blue Jeans Cable), and spend the difference on improving other components. This is rational advice, but though cables can be overpriced, (they have the highest markups of all components), they are usually cheaper than the components and there is a temptation to look there for improvements.

I think this is great advice...really!

I personally think this whole obsession with cables is stupid as he!!, and majors in minors profoundly. Why? Because the real issues are not wire, but the speaker/room interaction - an area that almost nobody here wants to touch because they don't understand much of anything about it. If you want to really hear the differences in cables(if there are any), then it would require a far more costly infrastructure and equipment than those who claim to hear differences have.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Mr. P hit the nail on the head stating the average person can't tell the subtle differences in high end. I think that you need to be a person who listens to music all the time and is in tune with the nuances.

Then the argument goes back to if the average listener cannot tell between high end, then how can they tell the differences between the cables that tie it together. The system (and room) itself is 98% of the experience, and the cables at best are 2%.


Sir T, I agree that for the most part you need a high end system to be able to tell the differeces between cables. But, my son and I were easily able to tell the difference between a pair of BJC IC's and a pair of AudioQuest Corals in his system which consisted at the time of a Class D Audio CDA254 digital amp, a modded cheap Maverick Audio Tube Magic DAC/Preamp and a pair of PSB B6 speakers. The BJC's was too bright sounding while the AQ's were less bright and more pleasing with out sounding rolled off. The difference was not subtle. That system cost about $1300 and sounded awesome.

This was probably a sighted test with all of the biases that go with it. Subjective listening test are not all that credible. Testing cables requires a much more rigorous listening process, and certainly needs equipment with better resolution than a $1300 dollar system can provide.

I have to say, any test made with equipment with tubes is automatically rejected. Too much seasoning added to the soup makes drastic changes its taste.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But cables do tune a system. So if you buy a cable that makes your system sound bright you should just live with it? I would find a cable that makes my system sound balanced. Which I call tuning the system. I also find purchasing a new cable if the sound is bright than buying dark sounding amp just to use the much less expensive IC.

Cables do not tune a system, and if one understands the function of cables they could not make this claim. If a cable sounds bright, get rid of it. If the cable sounds neutral and revealing, keep it. If you are interested in bright or dark sound(or anything in between), add EQ or add or remove acoustical panels, not cables.

Tuning requires a function of control...cables offer no controls which makes them to crude and unsuitable for tuning. Adapting the speakers to the room requires EQ and acoustical panels which do have controls.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I listen to music as well but I want the best presentation from my system I can get.

Then it would probably be better to pay attention to your room acoustics than to a piece of cable.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Some people have done all they can do to their rooms and the way seating is setup. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a dedicated listening room where they can set all that up optimally so what is left? Tweaks and Cables.

How can anyone possibly hear any differences between anything in a non-optimized room? They can't, hence my skepticism on this topic coming from these sources.

Sometimes all you can do is not always good enough.

[Smokey]

I like cables who have a rep for being neutral but that's even a moving target as who knows what "neutral" should really be.

For those who "listen" to cables might not know what "neutral" cables should be or sound like, but there alot of professionals in audio world that their cables should be neutral or transparent.

Poeple like musicians, studio engineers or record producers (or those who seek "true to source" sound) seek a neutral cables so they can tune or calibrate their equipments. And I let you guess how those poeple choose their cables :)

[Mr Peabody]

Sir T said, "The cables I chose sounded as neutral, uncolored, and transparent as a live voice going through a microphone, through the straight wire busses of my mixing" etc.

I think we'd all be interested in knowing which cables a hotdogger like yourself uses.

You are surprisingly off base on this topic by a long shot.

[3db]

Subjective results are irrefutable to only that listener claiming the results. However, these same results are also non admissible as concrete evidence to the rest of the world because the tests are most likely conducted under sighted conditions. These subjective tests are also flawed based because the tests aren't configured for instantaneous swapping on cables thus relying on audible memory which Dr Floyd Toole prooved to be inaccurate at best and is required to remember the subtle nuances that different cables are purported to produce. I'm sorry buts its all snake oil and the audiophiles are slathering this oil on like sun screen.

[blackraven]

Then the argument goes back to if the average listener cannot tell between high end, then how can they tell the differences between the cables that tie it together. The system (and room) itself is 98% of the experience, and the cables at best are 2%.



This was probably a sighted test with all of the biases that go with it. Subjective listening test are not all that credible. Testing cables requires a much more rigorous listening process, and certainly needs equipment with better resolution than a $1300 dollar system can provide.

I have to say, any test made with equipment with tubes is automatically rejected. Too much seasoning added to the soup makes drastic changes its taste.



I have to disagree with your comment about my son and I being biased. We did this without any preconceived notions about which cable would sound better. In fact, I swapped the cables without my son knowing that I had done so (although he did know that we were going to do the swap as some point). I was listening to the system with music that he was very familiar with and he walked into the room and he immediately said why does it sound so bright. He actually thought I swapped a tube as I had bought a couple of new tubes to try in his preamp.

You don't need a double blind test and a recording studio to be able to tell the difference between the 2 cables that we tested as the difference was not subtle. The BJC's were very fatiguing and bright while the AQ's were pleasing with no fatigue and a warmer sound.

And you should not be so quick to judge a system that you have not heard in person. That $1300 system is detailed with pretty good resolution, in fact it is astounding at how good it sounded. But you don't need excellent detail and resolution to hear the difference of a bright system and warm system and fatigue and non fatigue. Now if you want to listen for other nuances of cable differences then I am in total agreement with you.

It was an eye opening experience for me as I was a skeptic about cables sounding different.

[Feanor]

... The BJC's were very fatiguing and bright while the AQ's were pleasing with no fatigue and a warmer sound.
...
It was an eye opening experience for me as I was a skeptic about cables sounding different.
Curiously I found my BJC's slightly rolled off vs. the Transparent The Link. Mine are the Belden 1505F-based version; are your BJCs the LC-1?

What AudioQuest cables are you using?

[blackraven]

Curiously I found my BJC's slightly rolled off vs. the Transparent The Link. Mine are the Belden 1505F-based version; are your BJCs the LC-1?

What AudioQuest cables are you using?


I have the LC-1's and the Audio Quest cable is the AQ Coral which unfortunately broke. The ground wire broke and it blew out a tweeter in the PSB's which cost $60 to replace.

http://hcmaudio.com/comp.asp?compID=498

The HCM Coral is a little different than the standard AQ Coral. It came free with my Music Hall CD player along with an AQ power cord.

I am thinking about buying another pair as it cut down on sibilance from my Magnepans on sibilant recordings.

By the way, I think that Mr. P's system qualifies as audiophile. Mine is getting there. I need an upgrade of my speakers and DAC. I had a glimpse of what my system can sound like when the Wyred 4 Sound DSDse DAC was in my system.

[Feanor]

I have the LC-1's and the Audio Quest cable is the AQ Coral which unfortunately broke. The ground wire broke and it blew out a tweeter in the PSB's which cost $60 to replace.

http://hcmaudio.com/comp.asp?compID=498

The HCM Coral is a little different than the standard AQ Coral. It came free with my Music Hall CD player along with an AQ power cord.

I am thinking about buying another pair as it cut down on sibilance from my Magnepans or sibilant recordings.

By the way, I think that Mr. P's system qualifies as audiophile. Mine is getting there. I need an upgrade of my speakers and DAC. I had a glimpse of what my system can sound like when the Wyred 4 Sound DSDse DAC was in my system.
Thanks for that info. AudioQuest options have always been confusing to me. Not only are there seemingly too many different models shown on their website but it's possible to find a plethora of discontinued and "retailer exclusive" versions available.

I'd say your system is indeed "audiophile" in the sense that you mean it (as is Mr Peabody's). For my part, an audiophile is a person who seeks the best sound he/she can find within his/her budget, and therefore an audiophile system is really just a system the belongs to an audiophile regardless of price. So even my system is audiophile too, despite that I can think of a number of improvements that could be made to it.

[Hyfi]

So why do people feel that differences cannot be heard now unless the room is optimized. First we had "There cannot be any difference" then we get "I can hear subtle differences" and then "nobody can hear differences unless the room is treated".

I know a well treated room sounds better than a non-treated room, but if the only thing being changed in the system is the cable, and whatever room it is stays static, then there is no reason the same or similar differences cannot be heard in a non-treated room. If the room was treated, the differences may be more profound and easier to hear, but I disagree that one needs a fully treated room to notice a difference in some cables, maybe not all.

[Mr Peabody]

My experience with BJC was the same as Feanor's.

Hyfi, I hope I've been consistent as my mind hasn't changed on anything. I also agree with you that once you hear a system, no matter where it's at, then if something is switched out whether cable or component that one should be able to hear the difference in that same set up and room. That's provided the change makes enough difference to detect. There may, or may not, be much difference between similar priced or constructed cables, or one $299.00 CDP vs. another. I am confident I'm fully capable of using my ears to judge. A living room may not be as optimum as a studio but it doesn't mean differences don't exist nor does it mean they can't be detected.

If what Sir T says is true he wouldn't even need speakers, just a bank of test equipment. Who needs to hear to be an AUDIO engineer, we just measure. The bottomline no matter what they say they still use their ears at some point for subjective listening. And subjective listening is just as effective in a studio as in a living room as on the beach tunig an acoustic guitar.

According to 3dB Eddie Van Halen can't tune his guitar by ear as good as Stevie Wonder because Eddie can see. Eddie would need to be blind folded in order to approach the tuning ability of Stevie. For every professional with an opinion there's a hundred more with an opposing opinion, so just because it's written by a doctor certainly don't make it a definite.

The cable industry has blown up so either there's something there or the good doctor better starting writing about mass hysteria.

[Smokey]

These subjective tests are also flawed based because the tests aren't configured for instantaneous swapping on cables thus relying on audible memory which Dr Floyd Toole prooved to be inaccurate at best and is required to remember the subtle nuances that different cables are purported to produce.

I'm not familiar with Dr Floyd's writings, but I agree. For valid results that everybody can agree on, the memory factor have to be taken out of equation.

With memory factor out, then it doesn't matter if test (instantaneous swapping) is sighted or unsighted. The results will be the same :)

[JohnMichael]

I made an important discovery this morning. My stereo is much more musical and enjoyable with cables than it is without. It seems cables in a system makes it more communicative. I did not need to DBT this since it was so readily apparent.

[Mr Peabody]

No kidding, there's no way I could go back to generic cables, if the disbelievers couldn't hear that difference there should be an appointment made to check hearing.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T said, "The cables I chose sounded as neutral, uncolored, and transparent as a live voice going through a microphone, through the straight wire busses of my mixing" etc.

I think we'd all be interested in knowing which cables a hotdogger like yourself uses.

Sorry, not a hotdogger. I hate hot dogs.


You are surprisingly off base on this topic by a long shot.

Right, and you are on base. The claims you make have yet to be proven, and your subjective experience just doesn't cut it as proof. Sorry......

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If what Sir T says is true he wouldn't even need speakers, just a bank of test equipment. Who needs to hear to be an AUDIO engineer, we just measure. The bottomline no matter what they say they still use their ears at some point for subjective listening. And subjective listening is just as effective in a studio as in a living room as on the beach tunig an acoustic guitar.

Mr. Peabody, either you cannot read, or you have not been reading what I post. I said pretty clearly that I listen first, and then correlate what I hear to what I measure. There is no point in measuring if you don't listen to WHAT you measure. Much like there is no point in just listening subjectively without measurements to correlate what you hear.

Any claim that listening in a living room contaminated with high ambient noise levels and poor acoustics is as good as listening in a studio with tightly controlled acoustics and NO audible ambient noise has obviously never been in a quality studio in their life.
Pretty hard to make that claim with no reference whatsoever.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So why do people feel that differences cannot be heard now unless the room is optimized. First we had "There cannot be any difference" then we get "I can hear subtle differences" and then "nobody can hear differences unless the room is treated".

Since I alway knew you could not read, I expected this kind of response. I never said there could not be any difference, I said that the differences ARE TOO SMALL to make such a big deal. I also said with all of the noise of a typical living room(ambient level) it would be pretty damn difficult to hear the differences, and when you combine that with poor acoustics, you really cannot be sure what you are hearing.

Going into the "science" of why I think your claims are bogus would be futile. Since I can see you know nothing about the science of anything(my ears tell me everything mentality), then going into detail about why I think you are hearing things would be a waste of breath.


I know a well treated room sounds better than a non-treated room, but if the only thing being changed in the system is the cable, and whatever room it is stays static, then there is no reason the same or similar differences cannot be heard in a non-treated room. If the room was treated, the differences may be more profound and easier to hear, but I disagree that one needs a fully treated room to notice a difference in some cables, maybe not all.

Thank you for making my point about your lack of scientific knowledge - especially when it comes to audio. It is not just about treating the room, that is another layer of performance enhancement. It is also about eliminating ambient noise so you can truly detect subtleties and nuances which make up the differences between good cable designs, and the lesser designs. Cables should never sound "dark" or "bright" as some of you insist. Cables should be neutral of any sonic character, and the best cables are very revealing of nuances and subtleties - things that cannot be heard on a mediocre system, in a room with resonance and modal ringing, and with ambient levels so high it buries the those details.

Sighted tests are useless, and this link tells exactly why I believe this;

Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html)

This might be too much science for you, but give it a try. You just(and I mean JUST) might learn something for a change.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have to disagree with your comment about my son and I being biased. We did this without any preconceived notions about which cable would sound better. In fact, I swapped the cables without my son knowing that I had done so (although he did know that we were going to do the swap as some point). I was listening to the system with music that he was very familiar with and he walked into the room and he immediately said why does it sound so bright. He actually thought I swapped a tube as I had bought a couple of new tubes to try in his preamp.

It took time for you to swap that cable. During the time it took you to do so, your auditory memory was either dulled or erased in that time. The only way to do a cable test, a speaker test, an amp test, or any other test is to have instantaneous switching to provide an instantaneous comparison.

If your son step into the room and asked "why does it sound so bright?", then your son could have walked in on a bass node(suck out) that changed the perceived spectral content of what you are listening to. When you do a cable test(even if it is a useless subjective one), then one has to sit in the same place, make sure ALL of the source material is of equal level(level matching because louder sounds better to the ears than softer), and a whole host of other things or your results are contaminated.


You don't need a double blind test and a recording studio to be able to tell the difference between the 2 cables that we tested as the difference was not subtle. The BJC's were very fatiguing and bright while the AQ's were pleasing with no fatigue and a warmer sound.

If the difference was not subtle, then one of the cables(or both) are not well made. Bright and fatiguing would mean an excess of upper treble energy, and this is measurable. If I measured that cable, and the response was flat across the board, then I would say your are hearing things. If a cable sounds "warmer"(which is quite frankly a non-term when evaluating cables and wire) then that wire would have excessive mid-bass, which is also measurable. The deviation from a flat frequency response would have to be more than 3db's before the ear would hear it, as anything less would be masked. I have never measured a cable(even cheap ones) that had a 3db deviation at any frequency audible to the human ear. Some poorly made cables had a slight roll off near or above 20khz, but our hearing is so insensitive at that frequency we would not even notice it. I have never measured a cable that had a mid-bass bump of 3db(or more) as that would be a frequency shaping device, not a piece of passive wire.


And you should not be so quick to judge a system that you have not heard in person. That $1300 system is detailed with pretty good resolution, in fact it is astounding at how good it sounded. But you don't need excellent detail and resolution to hear the difference of a bright system and warm system and fatigue and non fatigue. Now if you want to listen for other nuances of cable differences then I am in total agreement with you.

I don't think I wrote anything that could be passed as a judgement against your son's system - I have not heard it. However, it would take a system with more resolution than just "good" to reveal the differences between cables. If the "system" is bright, you don't change the cable, you change the room acoustics. A warm system is not accurate, and unfit as a reference to judge cables.


It was an eye opening experience for me as I was a skeptic about cables sounding different.

Now try it DBT and watch how closed eyed you get from your eye opening experience.

What you guys are telling me here is that you guys have figured out a way to make a silicon chip in a dirty room. Since I know this is not possible, my suspension of belief is torn to shreds.

[Mr Peabody]

I borrowed this from TAS, this is from report of T.H.E. audio show. Notice the last sentence and then my sig. Those cables seem modest in company of such gear.

"Picking up where it left off at CES was the peerless Focal Grande Utopia EM ($195k). It was a personal highlight of the show it was playing in the company of two other Focal Utopia speaker, the slightly smaller Maestro (pictured above) and Stella (D’Agostino power). The Maestro was powered by McIntosh gear while the Grande U was driven by an all Boulder “semi-mega” setup (the flagship Boulder gear is another discussion altogether) which included the 1021 Network Player streaming via UPnP 2110 Preamp ($54k) 2150 Mono Amps ($98k). My hosts cued up Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean” track in high res on both systems. My best prediction was that the Maestro would own the speed and transient departments while the big Grande would overwhelm with dynamic and low end energy but sputter a bit trying to maintain the pace and jump of this iconic dance track. Once again my prediction was stone-wrong. The square-shouldered Grande U sounded both bigger, weighter yet more sensitive to low level detail and delicate micro-dynamics than the McIntosh powered Maestro. Room setup, amplifier character? The unshakable grip and inner detail of the Boulder gear? Is there anything the Subzero-scale Focals won’t do? Yes-they won’t fit in my room. Anchored by XTC racks (all prices custom) and all Clarus Crimson cabling."

[blackraven]

It took time for you to swap that cable. During the time it took you to do so, your auditory memory was either dulled or erased in that time. The only way to do a cable test, a speaker test, an amp test, or any other test is to have instantaneous switching to provide an instantaneous comparison.

If your son step into the room and asked "why does it sound so bright?", then your son could have walked in on a bass node(suck out) that changed the perceived spectral content of what you are listening to. When you do a cable test(even if it is a useless subjective one), then one has to sit in the same place, make sure ALL of the source material is of equal level(level matching because louder sounds better to the ears than softer), and a whole host of other things or your results are contaminated.



If the difference was not subtle, then one of the cables(or both) are not well made. Bright and fatiguing would mean an excess of upper treble energy, and this is measurable. If I measured that cable, and the response was flat across the board, then I would say your are hearing things. If a cable sounds "warmer"(which is quite frankly a non-term when evaluating cables and wire) then that wire would have excessive mid-bass, which is also measurable. The deviation from a flat frequency response would have to be more than 3db's before the ear would hear it, as anything less would be masked. I have never measured a cable(even cheap ones) that had a 3db deviation at any frequency audible to the human ear. Some poorly made cables had a slight roll off near or above 20khz, but our hearing is so insensitive at that frequency we would not even notice it. I have never measured a cable that had a mid-bass bump of 3db(or more) as that would be a frequency shaping device, not a piece of passive wire.



I don't think I wrote anything that could be passed as a judgement against your son's system - I have not heard it. However, it would take a system with more resolution than just "good" to reveal the differences between cables. If the "system" is bright, you don't change the cable, you change the room acoustics. A warm system is not accurate, and unfit as a reference to judge cables.



Now try it DBT and watch how closed eyed you get from your eye opening experience.

What you guys are telling me here is that you guys have figured out a way to make a silicon chip in a dirty room. Since I know this is not possible, my suspension of belief is torn to shreds.


You are so off base here and are making suppositions with out even being present to hear the differences. I guess we are not able to tell the differece between speakers, preamps and amps. I said the difference was night and day, not I think we can hear a difference. Its easy to be an arm chair quarterback from your perspective. I guess we were imagining listening fatigue and brightness. I was also imagining the decrease in sibilant's with the AQ cable vs the BJC.

[3db]

The BJC's were very fatiguing and bright while the AQ's were pleasing with no fatigue and a warmer sound.

And you should not be so quick to judge a system that you have not heard in person. That $1300 system is detailed with pretty good resolution, in fact it is astounding at how good it sounded. But you don't need excellent detail and resolution to hear the difference of a bright system and warm system and fatigue and non fatigue. Now if you want to listen for other nuances of cable differences then I am in total agreement with you.

It was an eye opening experience for me as I was a skeptic about cables sounding different.


Curiously I found my BJC's slightly rolled off vs. the Transparent The Link. Mine are the Belden 1505F-based version; are your BJCs the LC-1?

What AudioQuest cables are you using?

Here we see two very subjective results based on their hearing. (Not critizing your hearing) and based on sight bias. This is the kind of thing that would be eliminated under controlled listening tests without knowledge which cable is being used during the test. Controlled tests also eliminates relying on one's acoustic memory which as been demonstrated time and time again to be unreliable with respect to nuances that come into play.

[Feanor]

Here we see two very subjective results based on their hearing. (Not critizing your hearing) and based on sight bias. This is the kind of thing that would be eliminated under controlled listening tests without knowledge which cable is being used during the test. Controlled tests also eliminates relying on one's acoustic memory which as been demonstrated time and time again to be unreliable with respect to nuances that come into play.
I can only agree.

[blackraven]

First of all, Feanor and I were using 2 different BJ cables. The LC-1's have ultra low capacitance which tends to favor the higher frequencies.

Secondly, the difference was not subtle, it was night and day. I can understand a bias if the differences were subtle. And in this case my son did not know that I had changed the cables to the BJ's from the AQ's. He walked into the room and immediately heard a difference. Listener fatigue was also clearly evident after about 15-20 minutes. Brighter sounding music which was listenable with the AQ's was not with the BJ's in his system. I guess we were imagining that. You don't need acoustic memory to experience fatigue.

I also feel that I have excellent acoustic memory. I have been tube rolling and op amp swapping for years and can pick out the subtle differences between my tubes (and op amps) to the point that I could tell you which tubes were in my Van Alstine gear.

(by the way, I am not saying that I can always hear differences among cables. I guy on the forum sent my some Synergistic cables to try and I could not really tell a difference with them)

I guess all you poor souls that have no acoustic memory can't tell the difference between speakers, preamps, DAC's etc. Acoustic memory is involved with here as well. It makes me wonder how you were able to pick out your gear.

I am done with this subject because it is futile as you naysayers have your minds made up because you were not there to hear the BIG differences between the 2 cables

[3db]

I have to disagree with your comment about my son and I being biased. We did this without any preconceived notions about which cable would sound better. In fact, I swapped the cables without my son knowing that I had done so (although he did know that we were going to do the swap as some point). I was listening to the system with music that he was very familiar with and he walked into the room and he immediately said why does it sound so bright. He actually thought I swapped a tube as I had bought a couple of new tubes to try in his preamp.

You don't need a double blind test and a recording studio to be able to tell the difference between the 2 cables that we tested as the difference was not subtle. The BJC's were very fatiguing and bright while the AQ's were pleasing with no fatigue and a warmer sound.

And you should not be so quick to judge a system that you have not heard in person. That $1300 system is detailed with pretty good resolution, in fact it is astounding at how good it sounded. But you don't need excellent detail and resolution to hear the difference of a bright system and warm system and fatigue and non fatigue. Now if you want to listen for other nuances of cable differences then I am in total agreement with you.

It was an eye opening experience for me as I was a skeptic about cables sounding different.


First of all, Feanor and I were using 2 different BJ cables. The LC-1's have ultra low capacitance which tends to favor the higher frequencies.

Secondly, the difference was not subtle, it was night and day. I can understand a bias if the differences were subtle. And in this case my son did not know that I had changed the cables to the BJ's from the AQ's. He walked into the room and immediately heard a difference. Listener fatigue was also clearly evident after about 15-20 minutes. Brighter sounding music which was listenable with the AQ's was not with the BJ's in his system. I guess we were imagining that. You don't need acoustic memory to experience fatigue.

I also feel that I have excellent acoustic memory. I have been tube rolling and op amp swapping for years and can pick out the subtle differences between my tubes (and op amps) to the point that I could tell you which tubes were in my Van Alstine gear.

(by the way, I am not saying that I can always hear differences among cables. I guy on the forum sent my some Synergistic cables to try and I could not really tell a difference with them)

I guess all you poor souls that have no acoustic memory can't tell the difference between speakers, preamps, DAC's etc. Acoustic memory is involved with here as well. It makes me wonder how you were able to pick out your gear.

I am done with this subject because it is futile as you naysayers have your minds made up because you were not there to hear the BIG differences between the 2 cables

Accurate acoustic memory is a phallacy and has been demonstrated by Dr. Floyd Toole in his extensive works in acoustics. Its only human. Making such claims put syou into the X-Men class of super humans. :p Subjective claims cannot be used as proof for the general populous. It only works for the listener claiming the results. I bet you dollar to donuts that your subjective claims would fall away under controlled listening tests.

The rest of us mere mortals rely on controlled tests and good book keeping to keep our auditions straight.

[Feanor]

First of all, Feanor and I were using 2 different BJ cables. The LC-1's have ultra low capacitance which tends to favor the higher frequencies.

Secondly, the difference was not subtle, it was night and day. I can understand a bias if the differences were subtle. And in this case my son did not know that I had changed the cables to the BJ's from the AQ's. He walked into the room and immediately heard a difference. Listener fatigue was also clearly evident after about 15-20 minutes. Brighter sounding music which was listenable with the AQ's was not with the BJ's in his system. I guess we were imagining that. You don't need acoustic memory to experience fatigue.

I also feel that I have excellent acoustic memory. I have been tube rolling and op amp swapping for years and can pick out the subtle differences between my tubes (and op amps) to the point that I could tell you which tubes were in my Van Alstine gear.

(by the way, I am not saying that I can always hear differences among cables. I guy on the forum sent my some Synergistic cables to try and I could not really tell a difference with them)

I guess all you poor souls that have no acoustic memory can't tell the difference between speakers, preamps, DAC's etc. Acoustic memory is involved with here as well. It makes me wonder how you were able to pick out your gear.

I am done with this subject because it is futile as you naysayers have your minds made up because you were not there to hear the BIG differences between the 2 cables
Since in my recent comparison I used BJC Belden 1505F cables, (which I made clear at the time), I can't dispute your LC-1 findings.

In the broader debate, I too have heard differences between cables, tubes, and opamps. I suggest that the differences are relatively small vs. other components. Also I suggest that if you listen in sequence to two samples that happen to be very similar to each other you might hear no discernible difference, BUT if you listen sequentially to two samples that happen to be relatively different, then the difference can be quite obvious.

OTOH, I can't refute those who say the blind testing would prove that my personal listening judgements are wrong. To me it is clear that SOME audiophiles at least SOME of the time hear things that are their imagination, or at least attributable to things other than the components in question. However in any given instance they CAN'T PROVE that I'm not hearing real differences with out conducting rigorous blind testing any more than I can prove that I am hearing them.

[JohnMichael]

I guess all you poor souls that have no acoustic memory can't tell the difference between speakers, preamps, DAC's etc. Acoustic memory is involved with here as well. It makes me wonder how you were able to pick out your gear.

I am done with this subject because it is futile as you naysayers have your minds made up because you were not there to hear the BIG differences between the 2 cables


Do you ever wonder why the naysayers seem so defensive of their point of view. It becomes quite tedious when those of us that can hear differences would like to discuss cables. Oh and then Floyd is brought into the argument. Is he the only one who has written a book or do we not agree with others who might disagree. I am with you that no other person can tell me I did not hear what I have heard. Oh and the more paragraphs they type the less I read.

[3db]

Do you ever wonder why the naysayers seem so defensive of their point of view.

Yep, I get very tired of hearing all of these subjective claims and the unwillingness of the naysayers to put these subjective claims through an unsighted and repeatable test. :)


It becomes quite tedious when those of us that can hear differences would like to discuss cables. Oh and then Floyd is brought into the argument. Is he the only one who has written a book or do we not agree with others who might disagree. I am with you that no other person can tell me I did not hear what I have heard. Oh and the more paragraphs they type the less I read.

It must be very difficult to refute something based on scientific principles were many experiments were conducted on the populous with inexperienced and trained listeners alike and reaching the same conclusions on non sighted tests.

I don't know about you but I rather get prescription drugs thru a pharmacist then an alchemist. Just sayin.

[JohnMichael]

Yep, I get very tired of hearing all of these subjective claims and the unwillingness of the naysayers to put these subjective claims through an unsighted and repeatable test. :)


I don't know about you but I rather get prescription drugs thru a pharmacist then an alchemist. Just sayin.


If you are so tired maybe you should take a break.

I prefer an apothecary.

[Hyfi]

I heard some chatter about ambient noise in the room that prevents anyone from hearing a difference. I don't know where everyone lives, but in the winter when there is 3 feet of snow on the ground, and I turn my heater off, the only ambient noise in my room is the ticking of a clock, which is not picked up with my meter. So that one is out of here also. If the room stays the same, and the only thing that is changed is the cable, if there was ambient noise, it would be there with both cables and the difference will also be there if there is any.

[Feanor]

I heard some chatter about ambient noise in the room that prevents anyone from hearing a difference. I don't know where everyone lives, but in the winter when there is 3 feet of snow on the ground, and I turn my heater off, the only ambient noise in my room is the ticking of a clock, which is not picked up with my meter. So that one is out of here also. If the room stays the same, and the only thing that is changed is the cable, if there was ambient noise, it would be there with both cables and the difference will also be there if there is any.
I've always felt (subjectively) that the sound of one component generally doesn't mask the sound of another, e.g. though speakers typically make more difference to the sound than other components and though they usually have the higest distortion it is still possible to hear the difference of, say, amplifiers through them. Likewise ambient noise will not render differences inaudible under typical conditions.

[Mr Peabody]

Now I'm confused, first I thought you were saying there's no audible difference, but here you say there is we just need to keep good record of it as proof. Whether controlled or not, a difference is a difference. It exists or not. So if it exists under controlled it's not that far of a stretch to say some one can hear it on there own. It's like saying a medicine worked during the study but it won't work as prescribed because you are no longer in the study. .


Accurate acoustic memory is a phallacy and has been demonstrated by Dr. Floyd Toole in his extensive works in acoustics. Its only human. Making such claims put syou into the X-Men class of super humans. :p Subjective claims cannot be used as proof for the general populous. It only works for the listener claiming the results. I bet you dollar to donuts that your subjective claims would fall away under controlled listening tests.

The rest of us mere mortals rely on controlled tests and good book keeping to keep our auditions straight.

[3db]

Now I'm confused, first I thought you were saying there's no audible difference, but here you say there is we just need to keep good record of it as proof. Whether controlled or not, a difference is a difference. It exists or not. So if it exists under controlled it's not that far of a stretch to say some one can hear it on there own. It's like saying a medicine worked during the study but it won't work as prescribed because you are no longer in the study. .

Let me help your confusion. Cables don't impart a sonic signature on a system. My record keeping notes is a response to blackraven's question about being able to pick out systems, systems pertaining to electronic components and speakers, definately not cables/interconnects. Why would I keep records on cables/interconnects when I know they don't impart a sonic signature? That would be a total waste of my time and the time of the salesman.

A controlled test will establish whether or not the difference exists. It will also reduce or eliminate all together the weighting of sighted subjective tests. Controlled tests are repeatable and eliminate subjective bias which is inherent in all people, even audiophiles.

Food for thought, why is it that markup on cable/interconnect prices is by far the highest of all the audio components?

[Hyfi]

Food for thought, why is it that markup on cable/interconnect prices is by far the highest of all the audio components?

I don't know, do you really think there is more than a few thousand bucks in an $80K amplifier? I doubt there is less than $10K worth of parts and labor. Is there really more than 20K worth of cabinet and drivers in a $180K pair of speakers?

Cables are not the only thing way marked up.

[Mr Peabody]

I was in the industry doing sales and trust me there's nothing unusual about the margins on cables. Have you seen the mark up on cartridges or other parts? Electronics are slim margins unless very expensive, follow the same margins as autos, the more expensive the more mark up, but it's accessories of ALL kinds where the margins are made. To single out cables in this respect is incorrect.

Cables can make a difference in sound, it can be proven, this shows your ignorance and inexperience on the topic. As an example science can prove the dielectric that goes around the wire itself can make an real audible difference depending on material used, dielectric even has ratings. It's also fact that stranded wire has a more adverse electronic effect on signal flow opposed to other construction. Perhaps some more research is required on your part.

[3db]

I was in the industry doing sales and trust me there's nothing unusual about the margins on cables. Have you seen the mark up on cartridges or other parts? Electronics are slim margins unless very expensive, follow the same margins as autos, the more expensive the more mark up, but it's accessories of ALL kinds where the margins are made. To single out cables in this respect is incorrect.

I have seen the markups on other components. Display's have the least markup, speakers and AVRs are close but cables are in another league of their own. I forgot about cartridges.. my bad.




Cables can make a difference in sound, it can be proven, this shows your ignorance and inexperience on the topic. As an example science can prove the dielectric that goes around the wire itself can make an real audible difference depending on material used, dielectric even has ratings. It's also fact that stranded wire has a more adverse electronic effect on signal flow opposed to other construction. Perhaps some more research is required on your part.

Show me the science that dielectrics can make a difference in sound. Do you even know what a dielectric is? Please show me the science about single conductor verses multiple strand conductors because everything I read tells a different story. Just so we are very clear on the subject of science: Science is not the words printed in glossy advertisements.

My ignorance is based on science and not subjective sighted testes based on speculative conjecture that you seem to toss out here and there.

[JohnMichael]

How can you have an opinion on cables if you are not able to hear the effect on a system?

[3db]

How can you have an opinion on cables if you are not able to hear the effect on a system?

Because cables are nothing more than a transmission medium wrapped up in a dielectric. At the frequency range that they are used in, the inductance, capacitance and resistance exhibited by these cables won't cause signal degradation if one adhere's to the recommended diameter verses distance recommendations ( to rule out resistive losses which would be applied equally across the entire frequency spectrum anyway )

[Hyfi]

Because cables are nothing more than a transmission medium wrapped up in a dielectric. At the frequency range that they are used in, the inductance, capacitance and resistance exhibited by these cables won't cause signal degradation if one adhere's to the recommended diameter verses distance recommendations ( to rule out resistive losses which would be applied equally across the entire frequency spectrum anyway )

What about cables from manufacturers that specifically alter the signal in a way that and end user can tailor a system to/with.

The problem with the whole discussion is that Naysayers base the whole argument on the assumption that ALL Cable MFGs make the cables to Identical Specs with same materials.

They don't. And many MFGs intentionally do something to alter the sound which will be great in one system and not in another. And the differences can be heard by many many people who test and buy them. This is not the site to find that info because of most of our pay scales, but I know of other sites where it is very common.

[3db]

What about cables from manufacturers that specifically alter the signal in a way that and end user can tailor a system to/with.

The problem with the whole discussion is that Naysayers base the whole argument on the assumption that ALL Cable MFGs make the cables to Identical Specs with same materials.

They don't. And many MFGs intentionally do something to alter the sound which will be great in one system and not in another. And the differences can be heard by many many people who test and buy them. This is not the site to find that info because of most of our pay scales, but I know of other sites where it is very common.

You may believe what you want. I refer you back to my original post that started this friendly debate. :) If a system sounds to bright at nominal listening levels in one's room, than either change the speakers or alter the speaker/room interaction with acoustic tweeks to the room. I personally won't buy any component that imparts its own sonic signature with speakers being the sole exception. That's just bad systems engineering.

[blackraven]

You may believe what you want. I refer you back to my original post that started this friendly debate. :) If a system sounds to bright at nominal listening levels in one's room, than either change the speakers or alter the speaker/room interaction with acoustic tweeks to the room. I personally won't buy any component that imparts its own sonic signature with speakers being the sole exception. That's just bad systems engineering.


All amps, preamps, DAC's have a sonic personality. My Pass X250, Parasound A21, Class D Audio CDA254 and Dayton DTA-100a amps all sound different.

All 5 of my preamps sound different and 4 of my AVR's sound different.

All of my DAC's and CDP's sound different.

[Hyfi]

You may believe what you want. I refer you back to my original post that started this friendly debate. :) If a system sounds to bright at nominal listening levels in one's room, than either change the speakers or alter the speaker/room interaction with acoustic tweeks to the room. I personally won't buy any component that imparts its own sonic signature with speakers being the sole exception. That's just bad systems engineering.

That is a good idea, BUT, without spending a dime, I took a system with known bright speakers (JM Lab) and tamed them with a Known Bassy cable that I had lying around and it solved my problem and made the system enjoyable.

Who is anyone to tell me that I am wrong for doing that? If it was your money I was spending, sure I would have bought a new pair of speakers that are not bright, like all my Dynaudio speakers.

[3db]

If it was your money I was spending, sure I would have bought a new pair of speakers that are not bright, like all my Dynaudio speakers.

Just speakers ?? :lol:

[Hyfi]

I just found this interesting info from an MFG posted on another HE site. Note the last paragraph

"some general recommendations from the goldmund/Job people for cabling, electrical issues, etc...

The Goldmund Ultra-fast Electronics Idiosyncrasies
In order to reproduce the transients and the dynamics in music with a lifelike quality, the Goldmund electronics uses extremely wide bandwidth in their circuitry, with literally zero phase error and time error. This is the main difference in the way they are designed.
However, this extreme bandwidth in the circuitry is making the Goldmund electronics more susceptible to be affected by incorrect installation and cabling. When proper care is not applied to the cabling, the grounding and the AC power connection of a Goldmund system, severe RF problems may be created, with danger for the speakers and power amplifiers, as well as serious sonic degradation.
The following information must be reviewed carefully and applied properly for the system to be immune of these problems.
The best sounding grounding schemes
The most difficult and important connection in a top quality system is the ground connection.
If not properly made, hum, distortion and instability may be induced. As for balanced connection, that Goldmund strongly disapprove, a bad grounding connection may literally ruin the lifelike dynamics that any really up-to-date system may reproduce.
The schematics recommended by Goldmund is known as the "Star System" as used in top measurement laboratories working on small signal levels.
In a Star System, only one central component (usually the preamplifier or multi-channel processor) is connected to the building ground (through the AC line connection or directly to an earthing post), and all other components are not.The ground connection is then properly made by the signal ground and if good quality coaxial is used for interconnecting the components (as the Goldmund interconnects and Lineal cables), the full system is totally shielded. For a top Goldmund system, the use of such high quality coaxial cable is mandatory for sound quality, perfect shielding and speed of transfer.
By simply lifting the AC wire ground connection of all other components, the star system is immediately built. However, for safety reasons as well as local regulation application, it is even better to link each component to the central unit by an additional very thick ground wire, connected to the yellow earth binding post of the components. On the central unit (preamplifier, ...), the black (signal ground) and yellow (earth) post may then be linkedIf the AC line ground is of the highest quality, the grounding system will improve sound and noise floor. If not, a real building earthing post must be used to connect the yellow post and the AC line ground must be lifted from the AC line too. Be careful that this type of installation must be made and controlled by a qualified technician to provide the perfect safety and quality.
The AC line polarity
From country to country, and even building to building, the AC line polarity may vary. The effect on sound of a wrong AC polarity is not common knowledge and this specific problem is usually neglected.
On a fast system like a full Goldmund system, the sonic effect of reversing the polarity of the electronic components may be far from negligible.
To properly adjust the polarity of each components, there are two different methods : the experimental approach, and the scientific approach.
To detect the proper polarity using the experiemental approach, the full system must be compared in sound quality with successively each component reversed. Usually, the sound is immediately more dynamic and open when the polarity is correct. To test a full system is a tedious and very long process, each component acting with the others and the number of combination being very high. Be patient. In a top sounding system, the result may be dramatic.
If you prefer to use the scientific approach, read our AC Polarity Measurement page. You need to have a very good high impedance AC voltmeter with high sensitibility. In some areas, small accessories may be acuired to help you detect by a simple measurement which polarity is the best. But we will recommend the full approach
To invert each component's polarity, a quite practical solution is provided by the Goldmund AC-Curator which has a separate polarity switch for each low-level output makes the choice very easy, even if the near-perfect isolation provided makes it far less critical. For components directly connected to a wall plug, the use of a special adapter may be necessary.
The Cabling problems
Choice of cables in an audio system has been very much pushed as a way to improve any system in the press during the last decades. No need to come back on the fact that cables sound different. But what seems less understood is that the sound of a cable is very dependent of the connected components. There is no such thing as the absolute best cable for any type of connection.
In a Goldmund system where the speed of the signal is mandatory and kept very high throughout, coaxial is the only reasonable solution. It is not only the best solution for digital cables, or for interconnect, but is also the best solution for speaker cables.
In addition to the speed that coaxial may help to maintain, the perfect shielding that the best ones may provide is mandatory to avoid oscillations.
But there are also some additional tricks.
To insure a perfect stability in a system, the input cables (interconnects) of an amplifier must absolutely be kept apart from the output cables (speaker cables). Otherwise the high frequency antenna created by the shielding ground of the speaker cable may, if the system is imperfectly earthed, radiate to the ground of the input cable and create a high frequency loop, inducing oscillation of the power amplifier. Run the cables separate or cross them at right angles and your system will be totally immune to this effect.
More, when you use long interconnects to a stereo or multi-channel power amplifier, run them close together, to avoid creating ground loop which will induce hum or buzz if you are in a bad RF area.
And finally, when the choice exist, and you are using Goldmund interconnects and Speaker cables, choose to run longer Speaker cables and shorter interconnects rather than the opposite. Loss of quality is faster in long interconnects than in long Goldmund Speaker cables because the carried impedance is higher.

[Feanor]

I just found this interesting info from an MFG posted on another HE site. Note the last paragraph

"some general recommendations from the goldmund/Job people for cabling, electrical issues, etc...

...
The Cabling problems
Choice of cables in an audio system has been very much pushed as a way to improve any system in the press during the last decades. No need to come back on the fact that cables sound different. But what seems less understood is that the sound of a cable is very dependent of the connected components. There is no such thing as the absolute best cable for any type of connection.
In a Goldmund system where the speed of the signal is mandatory and kept very high throughout, coaxial is the only reasonable solution. It is not only the best solution for digital cables, or for interconnect, but is also the best solution for speaker cables.
In addition to the speed that coaxial may help to maintain, the perfect shielding that the best ones may provide is mandatory to avoid oscillations.
But there are also some additional tricks.
To insure a perfect stability in a system, the input cables (interconnects) of an amplifier must absolutely be kept apart from the output cables (speaker cables). Otherwise the high frequency antenna created by the shielding ground of the speaker cable may, if the system is imperfectly earthed, radiate to the ground of the input cable and create a high frequency loop, inducing oscillation of the power amplifier. Run the cables separate or cross them at right angles and your system will be totally immune to this effect.
More, when you use long interconnects to a stereo or multi-channel power amplifier, run them close together, to avoid creating ground loop which will induce hum or buzz if you are in a bad RF area.
And finally, when the choice exist, and you are using Goldmund interconnects and Speaker cables, choose to run longer Speaker cables and shorter interconnects rather than the opposite. Loss of quality is faster in long interconnects than in long Goldmund Speaker cables because the carried impedance is higher.
I certainly believe the part about the cable, input, and output being an interdependent system.

I also note the recommendation that interconnects be kept relatively short at the price, if necessary, of speaker cables being longer.

[Hyfi]

I certainly believe the part about the cable, input, and output being an interdependent system.

I also note the recommendation that interconnects be kept relatively short at the price, if necessary, of speaker cables being longer.

Yeah, the last one baffled me a bit because I have mostly observed people with mono blocks placing them next to the speakers with short speaker cables and longer ICs.

[JohnMichael]

The Cabling problems
Choice of cables in an audio system has been very much pushed as a way to improve any system in the press during the last decades. No need to come back on the fact that cables sound different. But what seems less understood is that the sound of a cable is very dependent of the connected components. There is no such thing as the absolute best cable for any type of connection.
In a Goldmund system where the speed of the signal is mandatory and kept very high throughout, coaxial is the only reasonable solution. It is not only the best solution for digital cables, or for interconnect, but is also the best solution for speaker cables.
In addition to the speed that coaxial may help to maintain, the perfect shielding that the best ones may provide is mandatory to avoid oscillations.



Nordost is another cable manufacturer that is concerned about the speed of the cable. Early MIT and Monster cables used multiple bundles of different gauges also due to signal time. Audioquest used to state that 20 gauge solid core was the perfect size for the frequencies to travel at the same speed. Their speaker cables use multiple individually insulated solid core wires in their cables.

Interesting that I have never tried a coaxial cable. Wireworld and Crystal Cable are coax cables. Analysis Plus may also be considered since they have a center braid and an outer braid both conducting the signal.

I agree that there is no perfect cable for every application. Each designer focuses on what is important to them. Goertz cables are designed to match the loudspeakers impedance with the amp and reduce the EMF from travelling back from the speaker to the amp. Cables with networks can also be designed to block EMF from returning to the amp.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You are so off base here and are making suppositions with out even being present to hear the differences.

Unlike you, I would not just want to HEAR the differences you speak about, but I would want to measure it. It would be far easier to tell you to your face that you are hearing things if I was. Here is the problem with your rather silly assessment of your listening experience.

1. You did not normalize the volume between songs, or between the different pieces of software you listen to. There is no way you can with a $1300 dollar system and no measuring equipment.

2. No controls on the acoustics of the listening area, and from what you described people moving about the room listening to the source. Have EVER heard of ROOM ACOUSTICS?

3. If you ignorantly used the terms "bright" and "warm" then you are using the wrong terms to describe cables. Cables are "resolution" and more "resolution" not bright or warm. If they are bright, measurements would show a tipped up treble balance, and that would NOT be a properly functioning cable. If it is warm, that would mean a tipped up mid-bass and lower midrange frequency response. That would also be a improperly functioning cable. IF you have had ANY experience at measure cables you would understand that even some of the most poorly made cables don't have frequency variances(more than 3db) that support that description. Poorly made cables will lack the resolution of a quality cable, and if it is not properly shielded is opening to all kinds of signal contamination that will affect the amount of resolution hear. The worst that happens to the frequency response is it is slightly rolled off at the frequency EXTREMES, not where our hearing is the most sensitive. If what you are hearing is warm and bright, then that is coming from the source, not the wire. IC are to pass the electrical signal from one component to another, not shape the frequency response of the electrical signal passing through it.


I guess we are not able to tell the differece between speakers, preamps and amps.

Not any of these are passive devices. You are going to have a far easier time hearing differences between these than through a passive piece of wire. You will have a much easier time hearing differences between speakers than you would amps and preamps.


I said the difference was night and day, not I think we can hear a difference.

If it was night and day difference, then one of the cables was not properly designed. There are no night and day differences between two well designed cables. It all about nuance and subtlety at that point.


Its easy to be an arm chair quarterback from your perspective.

It is even easier to listen to your own BS in an echo chamber.


I guess we were imagining listening fatigue and brightness. I was also imagining the decrease in sibilant's with the AQ cable vs the BJC.

Fatigue and brightness could have come from the difference in volume that you listened to the recording. Since you didn't normalize(or even try to) the volume between songs or software, you don't know if it was in the source, or coming from anywhere in the chain. Fatigue and brightness are not synonymous with each other. Fatigue can come from listening too loud for too long a period without the audio being bright at all. Fatigue can come from listening actively for too long(that why we have breaks when doing DBT's).

The decrease in sibilants could mean you didn't listen to one cable as loud as you listened to the other. Sibilance comes from the source, not from the cable. If you turned up the audio, the sibilance is easier to hear. Turn down the volume, and the sibilance becomes more difficult to hear. This is why you MUST normalize your sources, so the volume is the same. 100% of the time the sibilance comes from the source, not the wire. Sibilance come from the interaction between the voice and the microphone, not from the IC. Wires don't make up what is not there in the first place.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Do you ever wonder why the naysayers seem so defensive of their point of view.

You have this profoundly twisted. It is the yeasayers that are so defensive, because naysayers are asking them for proof, and they are unable to produce it. The defensive walls go up with the words "I know what I heard".


It becomes quite tedious when those of us that can hear differences would like to discuss cables.

Since we know people can imagine things, I am just asking for some proof that collaborates your hearing to a measurement. That is all.


Oh and then Floyd is brought into the argument. Is he the only one who has written a book or do we not agree with others who might disagree.

His book is based on his white papers submitted to AES for peer review. It passed peer review(in other words he had proof), and most folks who understand the science of audio reproduction agree with him. So what you can do is submit a white paper to AES or any audio society that disproves anything that he states in his book, and people will stop bringing proven facts to the argument(as opposed to myths and unproven facts).


I am with you that no other person can tell me I did not hear what I have heard. Oh and the more paragraphs they type the less I read.

Up goes the defensive wall. Thanks for making my point.

I guess the reason some people have so little audio education is because they shut their minds down because it is just easier to do that than to actually learn. I am not addressing this to anyone in particular, so there is no need for the censors to pull out their scissors.

[JohnMichael]

Sir T thanks for your analysis of me. Mine of you is not as favorable.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Since in my recent comparison I used BJC Belden 1505F cables, (which I made clear at the time), I can't dispute your LC-1 findings.

In the broader debate, I too have heard differences between cables, tubes, and opamps. I suggest that the differences are relatively small vs. other components. Also I suggest that if you listen in sequence to two samples that happen to be very similar to each other you might hear no discernible difference, BUT if you listen sequentially to two samples that happen to be relatively different, then the difference can be quite obvious.

In order to do this, you need to make sure any volume biases don't exist, or the louder source will always be perceived as better. This is why we had the loudness war of the 90's. The samples must be level matched, or the louder has the advantage.


OTOH, I can't refute those who say the blind testing would prove that my personal listening judgements are wrong. To me it is clear that SOME audiophiles at least SOME of the time hear things that are their imagination, or at least attributable to things other than the components in question. However in any given instance they CAN'T PROVE that I'm not hearing real differences with out conducting rigorous blind testing any more than I can prove that I am hearing them.

The object of the test is not to tell you what you can or can't hear. The test is designed to remove biases(and pre-formed biases) that prove you truly are hearing what you are hearing.

This reminds me so much of the Dolby Digital versus DTS war. Everyone claimed Dts sounded "night and day" better than DD, but for all the wrong reasons. DD dialog normalization was lowering the volume based on the encoded value on the disc(usually 3-4db based on Dolby encoder default), and Dts did not do this. So what folks really heard was the difference in the encoding volume rather than details in the soundtrack itself. When you match the volume of the soundtracks encoded on the disc(which is pretty difficult in somebody house), those supposed "night and day" differences disappeared, and what comes out is much more subtle and nuanced. Dts was just better at encoding small details that DD would discard to reduce the bitrate.

The only "night and day" differences you will hear in audio is the difference between a $200 boom box, and a $200,000 audio system. Aside from that, the only "night and day" occurs over 24 hours of our days.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T thanks for your analysis of me. Mine of you is not as favorable.

Who cares? I don't.......you should know this by now.

[JohnMichael]

When I choose a component, speaker or cable I select which is the most musical to my ears. I do not select based on anyone's opinion. I do not try to tell anyone they should buy what I chose. I am not going to test anything other than does it bring me closer to the music. I find talk of testing a bore. When I enjoy a meal or a wine there is no testing involved. When I buy art I am only concerned with how it effects me. Yes my world is very subjective and I make decisions based on my enjoyment. I do not need a test to tell me what I am experiencing. I enjoy sharing my experiences with my stereo as much as I do with friends when we share food or wine. Or when we attend a gallery opening or a museum. The best things in life are subjective.

[3db]

I just found this interesting info from an MFG posted on another HE site. Note the last paragraph

"some general recommendations from the goldmund/Job people for cabling, electrical issues, etc...

The Goldmund Ultra-fast Electronics Idiosyncrasies
In order to reproduce the transients and the dynamics in music with a lifelike quality, the Goldmund electronics uses extremely wide bandwidth in their circuitry, with literally zero phase error and time error. This is the main difference in the way they are designed.
However, this extreme bandwidth in the circuitry is making the Goldmund electronics more susceptible to be affected by incorrect installation and cabling. When proper care is not applied to the cabling, the grounding and the AC power connection of a Goldmund system, severe RF problems may be created, with danger for the speakers and power amplifiers, as well as serious sonic degradation.
The following information must be reviewed carefully and applied properly for the system to be immune of these problems.
The best sounding grounding schemes
The most difficult and important connection in a top quality system is the ground connection.
If not properly made, hum, distortion and instability may be induced. As for balanced connection, that Goldmund strongly disapprove, a bad grounding connection may literally ruin the lifelike dynamics that any really up-to-date system may reproduce.
The schematics recommended by Goldmund is known as the "Star System" as used in top measurement laboratories working on small signal levels.
In a Star System, only one central component (usually the preamplifier or multi-channel processor) is connected to the building ground (through the AC line connection or directly to an earthing post), and all other components are not.The ground connection is then properly made by the signal ground and if good quality coaxial is used for interconnecting the components (as the Goldmund interconnects and Lineal cables), the full system is totally shielded. For a top Goldmund system, the use of such high quality coaxial cable is mandatory for sound quality, perfect shielding and speed of transfer.
By simply lifting the AC wire ground connection of all other components, the star system is immediately built. However, for safety reasons as well as local regulation application, it is even better to link each component to the central unit by an additional very thick ground wire, connected to the yellow earth binding post of the components. On the central unit (preamplifier, ...), the black (signal ground) and yellow (earth) post may then be linkedIf the AC line ground is of the highest quality, the grounding system will improve sound and noise floor. If not, a real building earthing post must be used to connect the yellow post and the AC line ground must be lifted from the AC line too. Be careful that this type of installation must be made and controlled by a qualified technician to provide the perfect safety and quality.
The AC line polarity
From country to country, and even building to building, the AC line polarity may vary. The effect on sound of a wrong AC polarity is not common knowledge and this specific problem is usually neglected.
On a fast system like a full Goldmund system, the sonic effect of reversing the polarity of the electronic components may be far from negligible.
To properly adjust the polarity of each components, there are two different methods : the experimental approach, and the scientific approach.
To detect the proper polarity using the experiemental approach, the full system must be compared in sound quality with successively each component reversed. Usually, the sound is immediately more dynamic and open when the polarity is correct. To test a full system is a tedious and very long process, each component acting with the others and the number of combination being very high. Be patient. In a top sounding system, the result may be dramatic.
If you prefer to use the scientific approach, read our AC Polarity Measurement page. You need to have a very good high impedance AC voltmeter with high sensitibility. In some areas, small accessories may be acuired to help you detect by a simple measurement which polarity is the best. But we will recommend the full approach
To invert each component's polarity, a quite practical solution is provided by the Goldmund AC-Curator which has a separate polarity switch for each low-level output makes the choice very easy, even if the near-perfect isolation provided makes it far less critical. For components directly connected to a wall plug, the use of a special adapter may be necessary.
The Cabling problems
Choice of cables in an audio system has been very much pushed as a way to improve any system in the press during the last decades. No need to come back on the fact that cables sound different. But what seems less understood is that the sound of a cable is very dependent of the connected components. There is no such thing as the absolute best cable for any type of connection.
In a Goldmund system where the speed of the signal is mandatory and kept very high throughout, coaxial is the only reasonable solution. It is not only the best solution for digital cables, or for interconnect, but is also the best solution for speaker cables.
In addition to the speed that coaxial may help to maintain, the perfect shielding that the best ones may provide is mandatory to avoid oscillations.
But there are also some additional tricks.
To insure a perfect stability in a system, the input cables (interconnects) of an amplifier must absolutely be kept apart from the output cables (speaker cables). Otherwise the high frequency antenna created by the shielding ground of the speaker cable may, if the system is imperfectly earthed, radiate to the ground of the input cable and create a high frequency loop, inducing oscillation of the power amplifier. Run the cables separate or cross them at right angles and your system will be totally immune to this effect.
More, when you use long interconnects to a stereo or multi-channel power amplifier, run them close together, to avoid creating ground loop which will induce hum or buzz if you are in a bad RF area.
And finally, when the choice exist, and you are using Goldmund interconnects and Speaker cables, choose to run longer Speaker cables and shorter interconnects rather than the opposite. Loss of quality is faster in long interconnects than in long Goldmund Speaker cables because the carried impedance is higher.

The problem with the above is that comes from a company who has a horse in the race. Its an advertising glossy with pseudo science to fool the laymen into believing there is actual science behind the article. I wouldnt be surprised if they "goldmund" took course in advertisement from Bose, another market machine that tosses pseudo science words around in fooling the laymen that there is real science behind this. :skep: I would put as much value in this glossy as I would a politician trying to get my vote.

[3db]

Have any of you read the article about sight bias and the influence of other senses on our hearing? I'm with Mr Terrible on this one. Not one ounce of proof has been given by any of you yeahsayers, not one. Its sad that so much snake oil still resides in the world of audio.

[JohnMichael]

Have any of you read the article about sight bias and the influence of other senses on our hearing? I'm with Mr Terrible on this one. Not one ounce of proof has been given by any of you yeahsayers, not one. Its sad that so much snake oil still resides in the world of audio.


What we hear is proof enough for us. I doubt if anyone is interested in proving anything to you. We are just sharing our experiences. Most of what you post matters little to those who disagree.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What we hear is proof enough for us. I doubt if anyone is interested in proving anything to you. We are just sharing our experiences. Most of what you post matters little to those who disagree.

This is a perfect example of the defensive wall going up. Once again, my point is made.

[JohnMichael]

This is a perfect example of the defensive wall going up. Once again, my point is made.


You make no point but just repeat the same tired argument.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Choice of cables in an audio system has been very much pushed as a way to improve any system in the press during the last decades. No need to come back on the fact that cables sound different. But what seems less understood is that the sound of a cable is very dependent of the connected components. There is no such thing as the absolute best cable for any type of connection.

I am going to point out the shallowness of how some interpret this comment in red. This company sells components that are quite frankly dressed up in couture, but are average in the guts.

What they are actually saying does not support the yeasayers perspective at all. They are saying the the components themselves define how the cable will sound in the end. If the component itself is designed for euphoric sound, the cable will transmit that. If the the component is is well designed with a neutral sound character(if neutral has a sound character), then the wire will transmit a no character at all - much like the component itself.

The party that posted this wanted to believe this comment in red supported their position. But in fact, careful scrutiny shows it does not. This manufacturer is pointing their efforts towards over priced components rather than over priced and much hyped wire.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You make no point but just repeat the same tired argument.

Careful scrutiny would make you guilty of this as well.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Have any of you read the article about sight bias and the influence of other senses on our hearing? I'm with Mr Terrible on this one. Not one ounce of proof has been given by any of you yeahsayers, not one. Its sad that so much snake oil still resides in the world of audio.

Of course they didn't. Who wants to see their beliefs blown to bits.

This is why J Gordon Holt stated that the high end market has deceived its own clientele, and why it is in decline.

[Hyfi]

Have any of you read the article about sight bias and the influence of other senses on our hearing? I'm with Mr Terrible on this one. Not one ounce of proof has been given by any of you yeahsayers, not one. Its sad that so much snake oil still resides in the world of audio.

That said, I have never spent more than $75 on a pair of ICs and I think my 10' Tara Labs Prism Bi-Wire cables bought new were under $150.

I do own "snake oil cables" but paid next to nothing for them. (Synergistic Research)

And the Naysayers have rarely specified the brand and model cables we all should be using. Specifically the ones they use and exactly why.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And the Naysayers have rarely specified the brand and model cables we all should be using. Specifically the ones they use and exactly why.

I guess we naysayers should tell you when to go to the restroom, when to clean your face, when to wash your hands, and what umbrella to choose when it rains. Or how about choose your house, your kids, your wife, or any other thing that is personal. Its not our job.

I don't own your equipment, your ears, or your room - and I don't control your spending habits or ask why you spent your money in the first place. That is your own decision, much like it is your own decision not to educate yourself on the function of IC's, room acoustics, or any other scientific side of audio reproduction.

Some things you must do on your own.

[blackraven]

Unlike you, I would not just want to HEAR the differences you speak about, but I would want to measure it. It would be far easier to tell you to your face that you are hearing things if I was. Here is the problem with your rather silly assessment of your listening experience.

1. You did not normalize the volume between songs, or between the different pieces of software you listen to. There is no way you can with a $1300 dollar system and no measuring equipment.

2. No controls on the acoustics of the listening area, and from what you described people moving about the room listening to the source. Have EVER heard of ROOM ACOUSTICS?

3. If you ignorantly used the terms "bright" and "warm" then you are using the wrong terms to describe cables. Cables are "resolution" and more "resolution" not bright or warm. If they are bright, measurements would show a tipped up treble balance, and that would NOT be a properly functioning cable. If it is warm, that would mean a tipped up mid-bass and lower midrange frequency response. That would also be a improperly functioning cable. IF you have had ANY experience at measure cables you would understand that even some of the most poorly made cables don't have frequency variances(more than 3db) that support that description. Poorly made cables will lack the resolution of a quality cable, and if it is not properly shielded is opening to all kinds of signal contamination that will affect the amount of resolution hear. The worst that happens to the frequency response is it is slightly rolled off at the frequency EXTREMES, not where our hearing is the most sensitive. If what you are hearing is warm and bright, then that is coming from the source, not the wire. IC are to pass the electrical signal from one component to another, not shape the frequency response of the electrical signal passing through it.



Not any of these are passive devices. You are going to have a far easier time hearing differences between these than through a passive piece of wire. You will have a much easier time hearing differences between speakers than you would amps and preamps.



If it was night and day difference, then one of the cables was not properly designed. There are no night and day differences between two well designed cables. It all about nuance and subtlety at that point.



It is even easier to listen to your own BS in an echo chamber.



Fatigue and brightness could have come from the difference in volume that you listened to the recording. Since you didn't normalize(or even try to) the volume between songs or software, you don't know if it was in the source, or coming from anywhere in the chain. Fatigue and brightness are not synonymous with each other. Fatigue can come from listening too loud for too long a period without the audio being bright at all. Fatigue can come from listening actively for too long(that why we have breaks when doing DBT's).

The decrease in sibilants could mean you didn't listen to one cable as loud as you listened to the other. Sibilance comes from the source, not from the cable. If you turned up the audio, the sibilance is easier to hear. Turn down the volume, and the sibilance becomes more difficult to hear. This is why you MUST normalize your sources, so the volume is the same. 100% of the time the sibilance comes from the source, not the wire. Sibilance come from the interaction between the voice and the microphone, not from the IC. Wires don't make up what is not there in the first place.

Boy you sure have answers for everything and you know all this how? You spout BS with the best of them. How do you know that there would be no differences between 2 well designed cables. Have you tested every cable?

About the sibilance, I agree it is my source but some cables cut down on it. The volumes remain the same. But I guess you are implying that in some way the IC's are attenuating the volume.

Concerning fatigue, you are applying your own bias to what causes listener fatigue for you. For me it is brightness and too much high frequency. Here you are assuming that I am blasting my ears with loud music. I test my gear a normal listening levels and at low volumes.



Please show me the data to back up your claims and I will shut the fk up!

When you give me a load of BS to try and explain the night and day difference that we heard you lose all credibility! I would be more apt to side with you if the differences were subtle. I was a naysayer about cable differences when I first joined the forum. But after experimenting with cables I have changed my mind after hearing differences for myself.

I guess you are one of the people who believe that we never landed on the moon!

[Hyfi]

I guess we naysayers should tell you when to go to the restroom, when to clean your face, when to wash your hands, and what umbrella to choose when it rains. Or how about choose your house, your kids, your wife, or any other thing that is personal. Its not our job.

I don't own your equipment, your ears, or your room - and I don't control your spending habits or ask why you spent your money in the first place. That is your own decision, much like it is your own decision not to educate yourself on the function of IC's, room acoustics, or any other scientific side of audio reproduction.

Some things you must do on your own.

If the gear doesn't matter, because any cable works perfectly with any gear, what does it matter if you have my gear?
If there is no difference, why would you need my ears? You would not need my ears to tell me what cable you use which you deem the best for any application, because there is no difference.
You don't need my money to tell me what you think the best cable to use in any system is, including your own.

I have read plenty on the suggested topics and since I can not further treat my current rooms, I have to work with what I have.

So if a cable, that you claim is defective without hearing it, helps a specific set of components sound better to me and I can not treat my room further, who are you to tell me it's wrong, and what are you trying to save me from?

[Mr Peabody]

LOL, looks like some one else is throwing up a wall.

There is plenty of info about what makes sound differences in cables if one would look and transporting that to this conversation would be pointless as no matter what it was it would be dismissed by your wall. As manufacturers of cables have progressed and gained more experience in constructing the cables there's probably more difference now than ever. In fact, Cardas particularly comes to mind as being one who actually has different lines that of different character. Since not all cables have the same synergy they are trying to meet as many needs as possible, grabbing as much market as possible :)


I guess we naysayers should tell you when to go to the restroom, when to clean your face, when to wash your hands, and what umbrella to choose when it rains. Or how about choose your house, your kids, your wife, or any other thing that is personal. Its not our job.

I don't own your equipment, your ears, or your room - and I don't control your spending habits or ask why you spent your money in the first place. That is your own decision, much like it is your own decision not to educate yourself on the function of IC's, room acoustics, or any other scientific side of audio reproduction.

Some things you must do on your own.

[3db]

LOL, looks like some one else is throwing up a wall.

There is plenty of info about what makes sound differences in cables if one would look and transporting that to this conversation would be pointless as no matter what it was it would be dismissed by your wall. As manufacturers of cables have progressed and gained more experience in constructing the cables there's probably more difference now than ever. In fact, Cardas particularly comes to mind as being one who actually has different lines that of different character. Since not all cables have the same synergy they are trying to meet as many needs as possible, grabbing as much market as possible :)

Please show us the evidence. We would be happy to read it. However, proof is not manufacturer's glossy advertisement. If it were, Bose would be reign surpreme. Proof is independent labs testing the cables with no interest in the outcome. Show me this and then we'll talk.

[3db]

What we hear is proof enough for us. I doubt if anyone is interested in proving anything to you. We are just sharing our experiences. Most of what you post matters little to those who disagree.

Unfortunately what you say is true. The close minded attitude towards science and the uber Xmen hearing abilities that can magically isolate the other senses from influencing what one hears exhibited by Audiophools is a joke at best. But hey, whom I am to tell you to stop buying tanker trucks full of water for your water front property.

[Hyfi]

But hey, whom I am to tell you to stop buying tanker trucks full of water for your water front property.

Not all water is the right water for every application. Salt Water mainly found near waterfront properties is not really the best water to use when watering plants and lawns.

But until you tell us what cables you use, and think everyone should use so we can try them for ourselves, we can do this all day, all month, all year.....

[JohnMichael]

Unfortunately what you say is true. The close minded attitude towards science and the uber Xmen hearing abilities that can magically isolate the other senses from influencing what one hears exhibited by Audiophools is a joke at best. But hey, whom I am to tell you to stop buying tanker trucks full of water for your water front property.


In an earlier post someone asked you naysayers what cables you use. Still no answers but more insults. As those of us who are open to science we also know that science is progressing but yet can not answer all of our questions. I am open to the fact that there are not yet enough measures to quantify a cable like there are not enough to fully quantify a loudspeaker's sound quality.

So what cables are you using? What have you found that works in all systems? Oh and please tell us the cables you have tried that have helped you reach your opinions.

[3db]

Not all water is the right water for every application. Salt Water mainly found near waterfront properties is not really the best water to use when watering plants and lawns.

But until you tell us what cables you use, and think everyone should use so we can try them for ourselves, we can do this all day, all month, all year.....

Use any cables you want that make your system "look" good.

[JohnMichael]

But until you tell us what cables you use, and think everyone should use so we can try them for ourselves, we can do this all day, all month, all year.....

Actually we will not do this much longer. I made a post similar to your post and we need answers or some will need to shut up.

[Hyfi]

Use any cables you want that make your system "look" good.

I don't look at or see the cables. They are hidden behind the system. But as JM pointed out above, just more snide insults insinuating that I buy cables because they look good.

The $2k worth of Synergistic cables I have came with a my system in my sig (minus the Rotel) and I paid $300 for all that plus other pcs I sold. Cost me another $300 to fix the amp and retube the pre. Yeah thats right, I got close to $20K worth of gear for $300. By the way, I think the Synergistic cables are quite ugly, but they work.

You can make all the silly uneducated comments as to why I have what I have, but you have provided us with nothing but white papers, no personal experience. No recommended cables for us to try so we can prove to ourselves that what you use is indeed the best for all applications. If you can recommend your cheap cable for me to try against what I currently use, and it makes my system sound better or at least the same, I could sell my Synergistics and re-cable my whole house with what you use and still have money left over.

This same exact thing went on here 20 years ago with Mtrycraft, all talk but never mentioning what gear and cables the conclusions come from. I guess some people believe everything they read and have no need for personal experiences. Boring life and world that makes.

[3db]

In an earlier post someone asked you naysayers what cables you use. Still no answers but more insults. As those of us who are open to science we also know that science is progressing but yet can not answer all of our questions. I am open to the fact that there are not yet enough measures to quantify a cable like there are not enough to fully quantify a loudspeaker's sound quality.

So what cables are you using? What have you found that works in all systems? Oh and please tell us the cables you have tried that have helped you reach your opinions.

I answered HiFi's question while you were posting your remarks. Since fiber optics, there hasn't been anything new in transmission line theory which , the same science principles that govern transmission of audio signals in cables and ICs.

My interconnects come from Radio Shack and my speaker wire comes from Philips sold at Walmart. They don't look pretty and are hidden from view but they get the job done. All of my friends who are impressed with Bose realize how junky Bose is when they hear my system. My other friends who are interested in audio and have systems of their own keep telling me how good my system sounds. I'm very happy with my system now that I've upgraded my sub a year ago.

[Hyfi]

Oh yeah, Bose is what we all compare our systems to. The true Measuring Stick of Audio. And they all sound better. Just about any mass market receiver sounds as good as a Bose system. Most cheaper speakers sound better than current Bose speakers.

You are comparing Caviar to Mrs Pauls Fish Sticks no matter what if your system is other than a Bose.

[Hyfi]

By the way, I use Radio Shack ICs between my bedroom tv and the ZVOX unit, but my main rig deserves a little better than that.

[JohnMichael]

I answered HiFi's question while you were posting your remarks. Since fiber optics, there hasn't been anything new in transmission line theory which , the same science principles that govern transmission of audio signals in cables and ICs.

My interconnects come from Radio Shack and my speaker wire comes from Philips sold at Walmart. They don't look pretty and are hidden from view but they get the job done. All of my friends who are impressed with Bose realize how junky Bose is when they hear my system. My other friends who are interested in audio and have systems of their own keep telling me how good my system sounds. I'm very happy with my system now that I've upgraded my sub a year ago.


Good basic cables and very similar to what I started with and was available for my first serious system. My first system was a pair of Small Advents, a massive JVC receiver and a marble based Kenwood turntable. Did not need IC's and the store gave me a 10 ft. pair of bare ended 18 gauge speaker cables.

They satisfied me for awhile until I began to read about larger gauge cables having less resistance and some claiming better bass. My first specialty cable was from Hartley and it was an 8 gauge cable sold by the local audio shop. Then I began reading about the benefits of solid core cables and now I have all Audioquest. I have found improvements along the way. I am sure your system sounds good but if given the opportunity to try cables do not miss out on a chance that it could sound even better.

[Feanor]

Actually we will not do this much longer. I made a post similar to your post and we need answers or some will need to shut up.
IMO, This thread has become a "desultory polemic" and could be closed any time now.

[3db]

I don't look at or see the cables. They are hidden behind the system. But as JM pointed out above, just more snide insults insinuating that I buy cables because they look good.

You asked me what cables to buy and I answered your question. I never told you that you buy cables based on looks. WTF?



You can make all the silly uneducated comments as to why I have what I have, but you have provided us with nothing but white papers, no personal experience. No recommended cables for us to try so we can prove to ourselves that what you use is indeed the best for all applications. If you can recommend your cheap cable for me to try against what I currently use, and it makes my system sound better or at least the same, I could sell my Synergistics and re-cable my whole house with what you use and still have money left over.

Again WTF? Where in this thread did I ever address specifically what you purchased and put down these specific purchases? I'm afraid you are the one getting personal.


This same exact thing went on here 20 years ago with Mtrycraft, all talk but never mentioning what gear and cables the conclusions come from. I guess some people believe everything they read and have no need for personal experiences. Boring life and world that makes.

You're absolutely right. Life is better looking through rose colored glasses

[Hyfi]

Quote Originally Posted by 3db View Post
Use any cables you want that make your system "look" good.

why would you imply to buy cables that 'Look' good if it was not a snide remark. otherwise the suggestion would have been a 'well constructed' cable.

We can read between the lines so no need to back pedal.


"Again WTF? Where in this thread did I ever address specifically what you purchased and put down these specific purchases? I'm afraid you are the one getting personal."

Again, you implied that I buy cables on how they "Look"

[3db]

Quote Originally Posted by 3db View Post
Use any cables you want that make your system "look" good.

why would you imply to buy cables that 'Look' good if it was not a snide remark. otherwise the suggestion would have been a 'well constructed' cable.

We can read between the lines so no need to back pedal.


"Again WTF? Where in this thread did I ever address specifically what you purchased and put down these specific purchases? I'm afraid you are the one getting personal."

Again, you implied that I buy cables on how they "Look"

I'm afraid that the implied is all of your doing not mine. Instead of assuming an implication, why not simply just "what do you mean by that" instead of getting personal about things that are unclear to you. Assumptions are bad. asking for clarifications are good.

So why would I recommend buying cables that look good? Because I've of the mindset that cables/IC make no difference in the sound. That is why I recommend based on looks. Now do you understand where I'm coming from and how it does NOT relate to anything you have purchased?

[JohnMichael]

Another cable thread ending up like all the others.