Advice on this Board

[mtrycraft]

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

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

[mtrycraft]

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

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

[mtrycraft]

Stock Civics sure, but have you ever seen what some of these kids do to these now?

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

Yes, they are nice indeed

[mtrycraft]

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

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



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

rw

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

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


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

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

Their specs are below threshold needs.

[E-Stat]

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

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

rw

[FLZapped]

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

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

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

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

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

rw

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

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

...so what then is musical truth?

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

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

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

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

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

rw

[Monstrous Mike]

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

This is an interesting analogy. I myself have had two knee injuries playing hockey, although both were only sprains of the MCL and did not require surgery. I do however have an appreciation for rehab (those knee injuries along with a separated shoulder playing hockey which did require surgery).

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pctower]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Monstrous Mike]

In my own sound room for my own purposes, I trust nothing but my own personal, non-scientific experiences in that room.

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

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

Maybe we should clarify the yeasayer/naysayer definitions:

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

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

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

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

[pctower]

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

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

Maybe we should clarify the yeasayer/naysayer definitions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[skeptic]

1. This is a question with highly subjective answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FLZapped]

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

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



-Bruce

[E-Stat]

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

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

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

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

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

rw

[skeptic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

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

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

Audio engineers just laugh at the whole thing.

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

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

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

rw

[Geoffcin]

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

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

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

Hi Skeptic,

Just to get off this fruitless tack for a second;

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

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

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

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

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