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

[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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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. 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.

[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. 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!