A probably provacative question about "re-cabling"

[Peter Pinna]

Ultrapaul,
Do the developers of Ultrasone Headphones, including the main developer, Florian Koenig, believe, in their professional opinion, that there is any improvement in sound to be gained by "re-cabling" Ultrasone Headphones?

[BIG POPPA]

I would say yes but at the price point probably not. If it was profitable to add that option everybody would be doing it!

[rei_yano]

disregard my last post. I suck.

[Wmcmanus]

Wouldn't the fact that they use detachable and therefore replaceable cables on all of their products suggest that the answer to your question is yes?

But more to the point, why would it matter to you what they think? This is not an unanswerable question for all of the ages. It's a question that can be most easily answered in the one and only way: by doing cable comparisons using Ultrasone headphones and your own two ears. Simple as that.

[Peter Pinna]

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus

Wouldn't the fact that they use detachable and therefore replaceable cables on all of their products suggest that the answer to your question is yes?

But more to the point, why would it matter to you what they think? This is not an unanswerable question for all of the ages. It's a question that can be most easily answered in the one and only way: by doing cable comparisons using Ultrasone headphones and your own two ears. Simple as that.

Yes, I would tend to agree. However, in speaking with audio techs I know, there is tremendous disagreement among these pros regarding the issue of re-cabling. Some take the adamant stance that it is completely invalid and that there is no way (in their opinion) that re-cabling would improve the sound given that there is an adequate stock cable, initially. While others insist that re-cabling is valid and indeed does improve the sound. Since these professionals can't agree, I thought I would ask the opinions of manufacturers including Ultrasone. If Beyerdynamic and AKG had forums on here, I would ask them too. The way I think, who better to ask than the developers of the headphones?
We can form our own opinions, based on the way we hear, as to which sounds better to our ears. But, some pros have said that this "improvement" in the sound with re-cabling is very much imagined on the part of the listener.

[chzplz]

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

We can form our own opinions, based on the way we hear, as to which sounds better to our ears. But, some pros have said that this "improvement" in the sound with re-cabling is very much imagined on the part of the listener.

I think those who've heard good recabled phones like Senns or Darths (notwithstanding effects of woodying) can say for pretty darn sure that recabling *can* make a huge difference in SQ. That said, it doesn't mean that any phones *need* recabling, or that *all* phones can benefit significantly from recabling.

[wfranklin]

One thing to keep in mind is that all phones are produced to a certain price point using compromises in design that allow a certain profit margin for the manufacturer. Obviously, you can't build a $500 phone with $250 worth of cabling/connector and still make a profit. A recable is a simple way of upgrading the most accessible component of the 'phones, provided it is done properly (by someone who has experience doing that sort of thing). Recabling phones with existing disconnects is less risky (and should be relatively cheap), unless you are replacing the disconnects with a hard-wired recable.

[Currawong]

Keep in mind also, it depends what the phones are plugged into. If the source is crap, spending money on fancy new cables is rather pointless.

[Golden Ears]

I heard the Edition 9's with APS V3 cable..and assuming that both headphones were completely broken in... and that there is not much variance between headphones in the production line....

You might have thought you were listening to a different model of headphone. For me it was at the very least equal to a jump in quality from the Sennheiser 555 model to the 595 model. Except that the highs of the titanium driver of the edition 9 (glare) were more properly attenuated with the V3. Listening to the control of the bass frequencies (by removing the bloat of the stock cable- the V3 gave the impression that the bass extended lower and had more impact) and the high frequencies also seemed better with more dimensionality and clarity in low level signals and details- I would say even a non audiophile could easily hear the difference between the two if told what to listen for. This was heard with both the ibasso and Millett amplifiers using a stock ipod with alo cryo dock cable. I have been listening to audio for a long time. (for years I was a skeptic about cables- mostly because I initially bought monster cable...which can sometimes sound worse than cheapo Radio Shack #16 guage speaker cable.- I have heard other cables that make a difference like the Audioquest line of interconnects..though I never was that impressed with the MIT cables...blah blah blah I could go on forever..in many cases I think you would get better results if you spent more on the other components than wire....) ... this was one of the biggest cabling differences I have ever heard it is not subtle at all. Certainly worth the cash without a doubt. You could easily spend $250 on something else that would not give you nearly the sonic benefit- including spending $250 more on a higher end model of headphone amplifier.

[Covenant]

Originally Posted by Golden Ears

You might have thought you were listening to a different model of headphone.

Certainly worth the cash without a doubt. You could easily spend $250 on something else that would not give you nearly the sonic benefit- including spending $250 more on a higher end model of headphone amplifier.

Those are big statements Golden Ears. Even a cable "believer" like me wouldnt have thought the APS recable would make *that* significant a change.

[Uncle Erik]

Originally Posted by wfranklin

One thing to keep in mind is that all phones are produced to a certain price point using compromises in design that allow a certain profit margin for the manufacturer. Obviously, you can't build a $500 phone with $250 worth of cabling/connector and still make a profit. A recable is a simple way of upgrading the most accessible component of the 'phones, provided it is done properly (by someone who has experience doing that sort of thing). Recabling phones with existing disconnects is less risky (and should be relatively cheap), unless you are replacing the disconnects with a hard-wired recable.

Bear in mind that retail costs for cabling vary wildly from manufacturing costs. Even the most expensive designs rarely have more than a few dollars of parts per foot, save for precious metals. Even in that case, you can look up daily commodity values. Extras like cryo cost about as much as a Big Mac combo if you call the industrial shops that treat tools.

Sure, you can go back and forth on electrical phenomena, dielectric effects, validity of various means of testing, and so on. However, even the five figure cables rarely have more than two or three figures of materials, manufacturing and overhead in them.

If a manufacturer wanted to use a "premium" cable on a $500 headphone, actual costs would likely be well under $10.

[Sovkiller]

The cable was designed and custom made by Oelbach, and different not always means better...the best way of answering the question is trying one for yourself to see if you like it, to be honest, I do not need any upgrade till now....Anyway I have an spare stock just in case one broke....

[Peter Pinna]

I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no opinion on this matter. The reason for this is simply because the only headphone cables I've ever used (in some 30 years of headphone listening), have been the stock cables (AFAIK). Once again, it truly astounds me that when speaking to pro audio techs about this subject (I can only imagine the disagreements based on subjective listening by non-professionals) there is such strong differences of opinion where one side of the argument states that re-cabling does make a lot of difference in the sound, and the other believes there can possibly be no difference supposedly based on such things as speed, current, volume, etc. when comparing a stock cable of a high quality pair of headphones to an after market cable. And, in their opinion, any perceived improvement in sound via an after market cable is purely imaginary on the part of the listener.
This is the reason I brought forth this subject. I really wanted to know if the manufacturers (not just Ultrasone, but any other manufacturers who would care to answer this question) have ever done any testing themselves on these cables and how and why they chose the particular stock cables used with their headphones. Did they find (initially) a difference in the sound from a thicker or thinner cable and / or one made from different materials? Was the reason for their choice mostly financially based?
Yes, I could listen to after market cables and decide for myself and so could you. However, there is the previously mentioned idea that we could be imagining this improvement in sound. I would be doubtful of this in my case because I have a very discerning ear. On the other hand, supposedly, the audio techs who are in disagreement about this subject, also have very discerning ears.
As a man much wiser than I am once said, "Go figure."

[Sovkiller]

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no opinion on this matter. The reason for this is simply because the only headphone cables I've ever used (in some 30 years of headphone listening), have been the stock cables (AFAIK). Once again, it truly astounds me that when speaking to pro audio techs about this subject (I can only imagine the disagreements based on subjective listening by non-professionals) there is such strong differences of opinion where one side of the argument states that re-cabling does make a lot of difference in the sound, and the other believes there can possibly be no difference supposedly based on such things as speed, current, volume, etc. when comparing a stock cable of a high quality pair of headphones to an after market cable. And, in their opinion, any perceived improvement in sound via an after market cable is purely imaginary on the part of the listener.
This is the reason I brought forth this subject. I really wanted to know if the manufacturers (not just Ultrasone, but any other manufacturers who would care to answer this question) have ever done any testing themselves on these cables and how and why they chose the particular stock cables used with their headphones. Did they find (initially) a difference in the sound from a thicker or thinner cable and / or one made from different materials? Was the reason for their choice mostly financially based?
Yes, I could listen to after market cables and decide for myself and so could you. However, there is the previously mentioned idea that we could be imagining this improvement in sound. I would be doubtful of this in my case because I have a very discerning ear. On the other hand, supposedly, the audio techs who are in disagreement about this subject, also have very discerning ears.
As a man much wiser than I am once said, "Go figure."

Peter in all audio forums the debates between cable believers and non believers always end in a real bloody battle. To give you a short answer, there is no clear answer to the topic. Nobody can tell you or not, if there is any difference. There is absolutely no statistical scientific evidence of the differences at all, and you can not to prove a negative, so the only things left are the personal anecdotal experiences, or your personal experience...other than that, who tell you the opposite is lying...

My personal experience, I have not heard any really noticeable difference in cables yet, as people claim them to be. Also I have the CD comparator from Wireworld, a cable company, in which they recorded 17 different types of cables, from all prices, they recorded the same track using the same gear associated, just changing the cables with top notch studio pro gear, if there is a difference, that difference should be recorded, to me all 17 tracks sound identical...(a few months later they stopped distributing the CD, not sure why, but IMO they shoot themselves on the foot with it...)

[chzplz]

Originally Posted by Sovkiller

Peter in all audio forums the debates between cable believers and non believers always end in a real bloody battle.

Alberto hit the nail on the head. That's no doubt why the Overlords of H-F have singled out this otherwise legitimate discussion as one of the few things that are verboten to even mention on this site:

"We do not engage in the discussion of double-blind testing (DBT) of cables on this site. We do this not because DBT is or is not an legitimate means for decision-making. Rather, in our experience we find that these discussions repeatedly break down rather quickly into nasty circular arguments by competing camps of true believers. We've come to the conclusion that there's no particularly worthwhile end to be served by this line of discussion, and as such we're asking that the membership not engage in it."

But, I can say with absolute certainty that anyone who says that the benefits of recabling are just mythology is an absolute... wait a minute, I better not finish that sentence.

Ira