Cable Delusions

[JohnMichael]

Well Jim,
It is such an emotive subject and I am certainly no technical expert and am certain that there is a lot of sales patter flying about. All I know is that the Cardas Golden Reference works for me better than any other I have tried.
But is no good me arguing a point for all costs about something that only I have experienced, in my room,etc,etc.
And here is something else that is hard to explain I think. I play once week a "Densen -DeMagic" cd. It's a 3 min long mix of tones and here is what it does:

Quote-"The DeMagic cleans the entire signal path of magnetism which has been build up during playback, due to DC leakage and other influences on all the parts used in the audio components.This magnetism results in magnetic introduced distortion (MID), where the magnetic fields distort the audio signal. By removing the MID with the disc a much clearer, more dynamic, detailed and transparent sound emerges."Quote

It works. And believe me that something that costs me £15 (which does not brake the bank) and does not work would end up in the trash. But this disc really works. Can't tell you more than that and I will continue to use it .

Peace

Bernd

Bernd I would like to recommend the Cardas disc for your turntable. It helps demag the cartridge and other components down stream. It is inexpensive and beneficial. Of course you may already have a cartridge demagnatizer. If not ry the Cardas.

[Bernd]

Bernd I would like to recommend the Cardas disc for your turntable. It helps demag the cartridge and other components down stream. It is inexpensive and beneficial. Of course you may already have a cartridge demagnatizer. If not ry the Cardas.

Thanks John,

There seem to be a conspiracy with me not getting the Cardas disc. I have ordered it twice. The first time it got lost and never turned up and the second time it arrived as Jigsaw.
Maybe it's time to try it for the third time (third time lucky or such nonsense). I will place an order right now and will report back.

Peace

Bernd

[Resident Loser]

Well Jim,
It is such an emotive subject and I am certainly no technical expert and am certain that there is a lot of sales patter flying about. All I know is that the Cardas Golden Reference works for me better than any other I have tried.
But is no good me arguing a point for all costs about something that only I have experienced, in my room,etc,etc.
And here is something else that is hard to explain I think. I play once week a "Densen -DeMagic" cd. It's a 3 min long mix of tones and here is what it does:

Quote-"The DeMagic cleans the entire signal path of magnetism which has been build up during playback, due to DC leakage and other influences on all the parts used in the audio components.This magnetism results in magnetic introduced distortion (MID), where the magnetic fields distort the audio signal. By removing the MID with the disc a much clearer, more dynamic, detailed and transparent sound emerges."Quote

It works. And believe me that something that costs me £15 (which does not brake the bank) and does not work would end up in the trash. But this disc really works. Can't tell you more than that and I will continue to use it .

Peace

Bernd

...can't breathe....BWWAAAHH-HAA-HAa-ha-ha-ha...chuckle, chortle...cough, cough...there...that's better, nearly peed meself...not your post Bernd...I visited the Densen website and read the reviews of De-magic...thanks, I need a good laugh now and again...First, there is a vast difference between a "...powerful test signal..." as they put it and an "...algorithm of signals..." whatever that is...Most sounds from modern synthesizers are mathematical models, i.e. algorithm-based, but just what is an "...algorithm of signals..." and algorithm of alogrithms? and then of course there are the omnipresent, scientifically-vague tests conducted the the University of South Korea that "...definitely proved the theory behind the De-Magic signal..." Can you say psuedo-science factoid?

Proving any theory isn't quite the same as establishing the efficacy of a product or process based on that theory...but golly, it sure sounds like it does don't it? I have a theory that water will put out a fire and I can prove it...in reality however, water can't be used on all fires...depends on the circumstance...sorta' like my IBM story.

And if breaking-in entails getting all of your sonic ducks in a row, by lining up electrons or polarizing micro-diodes, why would you then want to disrupt the order that has been created in that process by blasting your handiwork with the random noise produced by the aforementioned algorithm? Isn't it sorta' like using a cable cooker on cryogenically treated wires?

Again Bernd, nothing personal and I'm happy that you're happy...

jimHJJ(...I have to go now and participate in a distinctly non-DC leakage...)

[bacchanal]

It's probably worth noting that placebos really do work and are regularly used in medicine.

A placebo doesn't do anything in the sense that a standard prescription would, but the effect is felt by the patient.

I don't see any reason the same couldn't be true for audio.

http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

[JohnMichael]

Thanks John,

There seem to be a conspiracy with me not getting the Cardas disc. I have ordered it twice. The first time it got lost and never turned up and the second time it arrived as Jigsaw.
Maybe it's time to try it for the third time (third time lucky or such nonsense). I will place an order right now and will report back.

Peace

Bernd

Well I wish you luck in the third attempet. I will be curious to read your opinion of the record. I must also compliment you on what a gentleman you are. You rise above the cheap shots and keep an even temper.

[Resident Loser]

...You rise above the cheap shots and keep an even temper.

...Was something deleted?...kindly advise as to the location of these cheap shots of which you speak...

jimHJJ(...I'd be keen on reading them...)

[Fergymunster]

An indidvidual from Dedicated Audio told me there flooding the market with bogus Cardas Cables for the Sennheiser HD 600/650.Absolute truth.

[Resident Loser]

An indidvidual from Dedicated Audio told me there flooding the market with bogus Cardas Cables for the Sennheiser HD 600/650.Absolute truth.

...wasn't it Cardas who was selling those mass-produced, Chinese manufactured ICs after removing the "Made In China" tags...that sorta' blurs the line of what is or isn't bogus...

jimHJJ(...but then again, wire IS wire, generally speaking...)

[musicoverall]

This is one of my infrequent messages to this forum. I just like to drop in and let any newcommers who are reading this stuff know that threre are some inconvenient facts that get in the way of the audiophile love fest. Let's look at a few statements from a post in this forum:

"There is lots of methadology concerning double blind testing."
Well, there is lots of methadology concerning any...method. Is this at all sensible?

"There are those who have problems with the concept of double blind testing."
There are those who "have problems" with the Earth being round. Those people do not include scientists and judges, as double blind testing is REQUIRED in many scientific testing protocols and is often required to resolve product claims in a court of law.

"Most of the time double blind testing is used to reinforce the objectivists contention that there is no difference between cables electronics or any thing else."
This statement has it backwards. DBT is used in testing ANY differences in perception and clearly shows that humans can make many subtle audio distinctions (such as in volume level). Objectivists (or rationalists if you prefer) point out that those claiming to hear differences in everything have not demonstrated that they can in a scientific listening test. For example, audible differences in typical home cables have never been demonstrated in a scientifically controlled test. Given how big a difference many posters in this forum claim for cables, you think one of them could actually show that they can hear a difference without know in advance which cable is which. Show us, don't tell us what you hear.

"If anyone hears a difference in wires or cables the onus is not on them to prove it. It is up to those who disbelieve to disprove it."

This is not correct scientifically. The onus is on the person making the claim. I can say "I can jump to the moon" and the onus is not on you to disprove it. Note that one probably can prove scientifically and rationally that I can't jumpt to the moon, just as one can prove, by analysis and measurment, that one cannot possibly hear differences in typical home audio cables.

"If I am wishfully thinking so be it. It is my money and my ears that I have to satisfy. If it sounds better to me then it is. If it is my imagination I don't care."
This is, at last, the crux of the argument. People believe they will hear differences and they will (in their mind). But, when they do not have the cues to help their mind, they cannot. This is a well-established psychological principle which allows high-end sellers to make a lot of money. Another well-established principle is that people will not give up their false beliefs when faced with evidence they are wrong. So, I don't expect the people who regularly post here will change their minds, but some new people may be misled by the major deceptions present in the world of home audio.

Note that many people who post are eager to tell you what component are in their system. THAT is what high end is about--ego and one upsmanship. It is like owning jewelery. Such people are scientifically naive, but they can't help telling other what they should hear.

So, are you a person who wants to pay big money for illustions you make up in your mind, go right ahead-- become a high-end audiophool. If you want accurate home audio at a reasonable price, avoid places like this or any popular audio magazines.

...newcomers should also note that it's your own ears that matter, not demands for proof from others. Robot Czar's opinion should not enter into the equation anymore than mine should. It's your own listening that should dictate what you believe. You owe proof to no one but yourself. Your ears are different than mine and, God willing, they are different from Robot Czar's as well.

But I have to say that I LOVED this quote of his: " Note that many people who post are eager to tell you what component are in their system. THAT is what high end is about--ego and one upsmanship. It is like owning jewelery. Such people are scientifically naive, but they can't help telling other what they should hear."

Perhaps we share our systems because this is an audio hobbyist website? And I wonder how he would classify people who can't help telling people what they should NOT hear! LOL!

[E-Stat]

So, are you a person who wants to pay big money for illustions you make up in your mind, go right ahead-- become a high-end audiophool.

Count me in as a music lover who enjoys the "illustions" I hear in the concert hall.

rw

[E-Stat]

My desire is to both educate their customers, and advance this thing called "science"..

I cannot provide the dialogue I had with either. If they had wished, they could do so with my blessings. But I do not divulge private conversations without permission.

Cheers, John

I hope that one of these days you will actually hear something like a Nordost Valhalla in a high rez system to supplement your theoretical foundation.

It was a couple of years ago that I suggested you contact your relative neighbor Harry Pearson on that matter. If you were to hear zip cord speaker wire vs. Valhalla in his system, I suspect you would find yourself going back to the drawing board wondering why it sounded so different.

rw

[superpanavision70mm]

I thought it was TARA LABS that was under investigation regarind the manufacturing.

[Bernd]

...can't breathe....BWWAAAHH-HAA-HAa-ha-ha-ha...chuckle, chortle...cough, cough...there...that's better, nearly peed meself...not your post Bernd...I visited the Densen website and read the reviews of De-magic...thanks, I need a good laugh now and again...First, there is a vast difference between a "...powerful test signal..." as they put it and an "...algorithm of signals..." whatever that is...Most sounds from modern synthesizers are mathematical models, i.e. algorithm-based, but just what is an "...algorithm of signals..." and algorithm of alogrithms? and then of course there are the omnipresent, scientifically-vague tests conducted the the University of South Korea that "...definitely proved the theory behind the De-Magic signal..." Can you say psuedo-science factoid?

Proving any theory isn't quite the same as establishing the efficacy of a product or process based on that theory...but golly, it sure sounds like it does don't it? I have a theory that water will put out a fire and I can prove it...in reality however, water can't be used on all fires...depends on the circumstance...sorta' like my IBM story.

And if breaking-in entails getting all of your sonic ducks in a row, by lining up electrons or polarizing micro-diodes, why would you then want to disrupt the order that has been created in that process by blasting your handiwork with the random noise produced by the aforementioned algorithm? Isn't it sorta' like using a cable cooker on cryogenically treated wires?

Again Bernd, nothing personal and I'm happy that you're happy...

jimHJJ(...I have to go now and participate in a distinctly non-DC leakage...)

Hi Jim,

I don't take any of it personally. So don't worry.
You're right the website reads funny, but what do I care. The DeMagic disc works.
Also a decent laugh is very therapeutic and one feels so much better after it, don't you think?

Take it easy

Bernd

[Bernd]

Well I wish you luck in the third attempet. I will be curious to read your opinion of the record. I must also compliment you on what a gentleman you are. You rise above the cheap shots and keep an even temper.

Thanks for your kind words John. Like my friend Mike Scott said :"If you're not an a**ehole why act like one". A true line if ever I heard one.

The Cardas disc has been ordered and I surely will report back. Looking forward to it.

Peace

Bernd

[Resident Loser]

I thought it was TARA LABS that was under investigation regarind the manufacturing.

...further investigation (after the fact) shows it was Tara Labs and not Cardas...Apologies to them are in order and I didn't mean to single them out...My intent is to indict the whole cottage industry of dubious tweak-dom, whether it be CD lens cleaners, degaussing discs, eutectic solders, et al...

Like the proverbial tip-of-the-iceberg or if you see a roach it's probably too late, Tara's the one we know about...

jimHJJ(...mea culpa...)

[Resident Loser]

I suspect you would find yourself going back to the drawing board wondering why it sounded so different.

rw

...the misdirection, if you will, that keeps popping up in these threads...

I really can't recall anyone saying wire couldn't sound different...nearly any wire with or without benefit of a network can be made to sound different...if that weren't so, why would they bother to make them at all...What would be the selling point, if not to inject doubt and a hope for betterment in the prospective buyers mind? It's the old carrot-and-stick ploy. The question is: is it closer to the reality of the performance that was recorded?

Given the fact that most folks don't have access to the masters, nor have systems that are exactly like those used to finalize the mix, we have nothing but anecdotal accolades championing the high-priced spread...Couple that with the fact (generally speaking) that the disc that's spinning is purely a product of multi-tracking and other signal manipulations which skew reality for the sake of convenience and expediency, how is it possible for anyone to say what is the right and proper representation? And then you use it (a thorughly flawed test signal) and your ears ( a thoroughly flawed piece of test equipment) to somehow determine accuracy?

jimHJJ(...just because you like something, doesn't make it right...for you maybe, but that's about it...)

[Resident Loser]

Count me in as a music lover who enjoys the "illustions" I hear in the concert hall.

rw

...Everything you hear in a concert hall is real physics, pure and simple, measurable, definable...from a vibrating string or column of air, straight to your tympanic membrane and dem bones, dem bones, dem ear-bones...

jimHJJ(...hot-chaa...)

[jneutron]

I hope that one of these days you will actually hear something like a Nordost Valhalla in a high rez system to supplement your theoretical foundation.

It was a couple of years ago that I suggested you contact your relative neighbor Harry Pearson on that matter. If you were to hear zip cord speaker wire vs. Valhalla in his system, I suspect you would find yourself going back to the drawing board wondering why it sounded so different.

rw

Initial contact with Harry elicited NADA.. It would appear that I am inconsequential.

The differences in cable parameters does not require my going back to the drawing board, that stuff is the easy part.

I went "back to the drawing board years ago, when I first had Ted Smith test a cable set of mine. His feedback included some excellent descriptors which included a variance of image depth vs power level, and a general image depth alteration.

That feedback was very intelligent, and immediately sent me scurrying for the chalk. After all, it a description of localization parameters in 2-D space, which is inconsistent with all the "high end audio" explanation sillyness, as well as outside the boundaries of the engineering (or "anti-cable" group as some with an agenda would have us believe), as it entails parameters which are not considered in the world of engineering.

In other words, fertile ground for true groundbreaking research.

You seem to be of the opinion that "if only jneutron heard what we are talking about", that I'd be, what, swayed?? That I'd, um, start thinking about localization??

I'm taking localization considerations far beyond anything that has been considered previously in the field or in the research...what is the purpose of me listening to anything?? Convince me of, what exactly??

Cheers, John

[musicoverall]

...the misdirection, if you will, that keeps popping up in these threads...

I really can't recall anyone saying wire couldn't sound different...nearly any wire with or without benefit of a network can be made to sound different...if that weren't so, why would they bother to make them at all...What would be the selling point, if not to inject doubt and a hope for betterment in the prospective buyers mind? It's the old carrot-and-stick ploy. The question is: is it closer to the reality of the performance that was recorded?

Given the fact that most folks don't have access to the masters, nor have systems that are exactly like those used to finalize the mix, we have nothing but anecdotal accolades championing the high-priced spread...Couple that with the fact (generally speaking) that the disc that's spinning is purely a product of multi-tracking and other signal manipulations which skew reality for the sake of convenience and expediency, how is it possible for anyone to say what is the right and proper representation? And then you use it (a thorughly flawed test signal) and your ears ( a thoroughly flawed piece of test equipment) to somehow determine accuracy?

jimHJJ(...just because you like something, doesn't make it right...for you maybe, but that's about it...)

The original poster claims we need DBT's to distinguish cables and that we are unable to do so. By so stating, he's in effect saying that cables sound the same. Otherwise, why bother with a blind listening test?

As for the rest of your post, you are so right. IMHO, no matter how much we crow about neutrality on this site, what we really mean is that the component meshes with our system in a way we find sonically pleasing. The trick is to find those components that do the best job with what we believe are our best recordings. Even so, I would not be surprised to learn that audiophiles actually prefer certain distortions for the most part. And as a music lover first and audiophile second, I'm fine with whatever serves the way my ear/brain determines is correct.

On the other hand, some of the systems I've heard that measure as totally transparent show that one of two things is true: Either measurements don't give us enough of the sonic picture or CD's really DO sound like hammered dogsh*t and it's a flawed medium.
Most of them sound decent-to-excellent on my system. Consequently, I don't chase the numbers.

[Resident Loser]

The original poster claims we need DBT's to distinguish cables and that we are unable to do so. By so stating, he's in effect saying that cables sound the same. Otherwise, why bother with a blind listening test?.

...I don't quite get that interpretation...I see it simply as sighted vs. non-sighted and DBTs as an aid to remove potential bias sources...there are other factors involved, but a re-hash is wearisome for all involved...soooo since I am double-blind as to his specific intent, I'll just shut up...

jimHJJ(...at least as far as that's concerned...)

[E-Stat]

.The question is: is it closer to the reality of the performance that was recorded?

Agreed.

Couple that with the fact (generally speaking) that the disc that's spinning is purely a product of multi-tracking and other signal manipulations which skew reality for the sake of convenience and expediency, how is it possible for anyone to say what is the right and proper representation?

Use better minimally miked recordings that reveal more of the spatial cues from the venue. I participated at one of the ASO's Telarc Recordings. I know the hall and I have the recording.

And then you use it (a thorughly flawed test signal) and your ears ( a thoroughly flawed piece of test equipment) to somehow determine accuracy?

In the absence of relevant objective metrics, observationalist use what is left on largely unflawed recordings: our listening skills.

rw

[E-Stat]

...Everything you hear in a concert hall is real physics, pure and simple, measurable, definable...from a vibrating string or column of air, straight to your tympanic membrane and dem bones, dem bones, dem ear-bones..

It's certainly a shame that we are unable to quantify those aspects in absolute terms.

rw

[Resident Loser]

Use better minimally miked recordings that reveal more of the spatial cues from the venue. I participated at one of the ASO's Telarc Recordings. I know the hall and I have the recording.

In the absence of relevant objective metrics, observationalist use what is left on largely unflawed recordings: our listening skills.

...such minimalist recordings seem to be the exception rather than the rule...and if one seeks out only such pristine examples of the recording art it would seem to pare down the number of usable choices...if it's anything like the old D-to-D vinyl, the A&R choices further narrows the field (or expands in directions I might night want to travel) insofar as the styles of music available...

jimHJJ(...give me test tones and measuring equipment any day...even if it ends up as some sort of reasonable compromise, I'll then listen to what I prefer...)

[Resident Loser]

It's certainly a shame that we are unable to quantify those aspects in absolute terms.

rw

...a string or column of air vibrates at a specific frequency...the instrument has specific overtones that further identify it...it travels through space bouncing hither and tither in the hall...the ear hears the sound, the separate arrival times are translated by the brain which localizes the source reasonably well and voila!...applause. Quite quantifiable and measureable in one manner or another, even if biology enters the equation at the end, it too is understood to some degree...charts, graphs, numbers...nothing really vague about it...

jimHJJ(...it's them wires that confuse the issue...)

[E-Stat]

...such minimalist recordings seem to be the exception rather than the rule...and if one seeks out only such pristine examples of the recording art it would seem to pare down the number of usable choices..

Don't take my comments of only using exceptional recordings for evaluating subtle differences as any indication as to what I listen to in general. They are indeed a minority in my record/CD collection and merely provide a basis for comparisons.

rw