New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Cable Factor - Page 8  

post #106 of 211
6/19/02 at 5:26pm
-From the above linked page
Quote:
The M-Audio Audiophile card introduces a slight rolloff at low and high frequencies,[snip]The cable has no effect on this frequency response, because the slight capacitance presented by the cable has no significant effect at audio frequencies. This was verified repeating the measurement with a much lower capacitance interconnects, and the measured response was identical.
I think MacDEF has show very well that because it can't be measured does not mean it can not be heard.

Also, assuming that the cables produce "no signifigant effect" defeats the whole purpose of the test. The point was to test IF THE GOD DAMN CABLES HAD ANY EFFECT!!!!!! Jeeze and christmas, sometimes I get all riled up.

[takes deep breath]

Feeling better now.

Ricky, my man, please please give it up, or come with something intelligent, or interesting, or something. This is getting old. Fast.
post #107 of 211
6/19/02 at 5:36pm
grancasa:

The funny thing is...Ricky has intentionally compensated for the actual measurable differences of the soundcard + cable. Then asks people if they can hear a difference leading people to think these are just samples looped through his soundcard multiple times i.e. they assume a test methodology that would actually test his hypothesis as opposed to a test methodology that entirely skirts it.

This is my hypothesis: the equalization removes tonal differences of the soundcard + cable factor. The normalization minimizes the effects of signal loss.

How do I test it? Well run the test correctly maybe without digital touch ups.
post #108 of 211
6/19/02 at 5:51pm
Tim D-

Exactly. I know very little about actual acoustic science, but equalizing and normalizing the sample of course is going to make major changes to its sonic structure.

I just looked back to see what started this whole thread, and all it was was flame bait, pure and simple. There was no question, just a statement meant to inflame and get the juices going. The post was even ended with "Peace", but not in the sense of calm and tranquility. In the sense of "I just dropped this napalm in the middle of your little group, and now I'm outta here". Let the madness end. No more posting for me to anything by Ricky or Czilla9000.
post #109 of 211
6/19/02 at 6:39pm
I thought this forum was supposed to be DBT free to keep **** like this from happening....

Joe Blogs, you wanted a flame ware, here you go.

My personal opinion is the mods should shut-down this thread immediatly as it's not going to change anyone's mind.
post #110 of 211
6/19/02 at 6:45pm
This debate has been going on for near 20 years. There have been NO conclusion what so ever. Here's a recent archive bashing both sides.

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?602

There are a lot of emotional response and that creates a lot of ill feeling. I like to put some logic here.

If a cable measure different, then it will sound different.

So, if it sounds different it must measure different. Right!

If it is a horse, it must have four legs and a tail.

So, if it has four legs and a tail, it must be a horse.

There is also a lot of snake oil in the cable business. If some technology is so great, why wouldn't the technology be deployed in the telecom application. We are constantly looking for better cable in broadband access. The market is certainly much larger than audio cable.

Okay, I managed to offens both side. IMO, cable is a personal choice. Debating cable is not fruitful unless new idea and new data is found.
post #111 of 211
6/19/02 at 6:47pm
One more thing, I think we should all chip-in and buy Ricky a pair of Outlaws. I'll throw-in the worst POS pair of ICs I can possibly make (using copper seeing how he is so in love with copper). If he can't hear a difference than he is clearly deaf
post #112 of 211
6/19/02 at 11:23pm
cables do sound different . Then again so can using tone controls. There must be some middle ground
post #113 of 211
6/19/02 at 11:31pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Nezer
One more thing, I think we should all chip-in and buy Ricky a pair of Outlaws. I'll throw-in the worst POS pair of ICs I can possibly make (using copper seeing how he is so in love with copper). If he can't hear a difference than he is clearly deaf
if Ricky can't or "does not want" to hear the difference than that is fine with me. knowledge needs to be seeked not taught.

i much rather spend a pair of outlaws on someone who might appreciate it than a skeptic.
post #114 of 211
6/19/02 at 11:36pm
Quote:
Originally posted by taoster


if Ricky can't or "does not want" to hear the difference than that is fine with me. knowledge needs to be seeked not taught.
True, no one should know that more than I.

In that case I change my statement to "We should all pitch-in for a pair of Outlaw's for me." ;-)

Hopefully in another few weeks that will be *another* pair of Outlaws.
post #115 of 211
6/20/02 at 3:49am
Thread Starter 
The fact that this post of mine is still around amazes me.
post #116 of 211
6/20/02 at 3:58am
I'll say it again: the direct knowledge of the sonic differences in cable is an expensive and personal undertaking.

I enjoy reading and sharing experiences with like minded individuals, but have no desire to convince skeptics nor engage in academic discussions with those whose cable experience is purely theoretical. Well, unless I'm absolutely bored out of my brain, but in those cases my time is better spent heading over to the strip club.
post #117 of 211
6/20/02 at 9:56am
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky


1 - Regular standard non-expensive non-broken cables don't measure very different from neutral expensive cables, from the audio point of view. The only noticeable difference is their ability to reject electromagnetic noise. With short interconnects, this rejection is quite good even on standard cheap cables, I'd say not audible under normal listening conditions.

2 - Even though there can be differences in the electrical parameters of cables, most of the times these differences are irrelevant at audio levels and frequencies. To be significant, there must be quite gross diferences in these electrical parameters. When I measure a cable, I measure its effect on the audio signal, not their electrical parameters.

3- If two cables objectively sound different, there must be easy to measure differences between the cables at audio levels and frequencies.

4- Got it now?
1- WRONG! There are substantial, measurable differences between cables.
2- WRONG! By the way, you've just contradicted your statement #1.
3- WRONG again. Gee Ricky, you're batting 1000!
4- Well, apparently, Ricky still doesn't get it.
post #118 of 211
6/20/02 at 10:09am
Quote:
Originally posted by pigmode
I enjoy reading and sharing experiences with like minded individuals, but have no desire to convince skeptics nor engage in academic discussions with those whose cable experience is purely theoretical. Well, unless I'm absolutely bored out of my brain, but in those cases my time is better spent heading over to the strip club.
I've got some thoughts I want to post later. In the meantime, I'm going to grab a roll of bills and join pigmode
post #119 of 211
6/20/02 at 10:36am
There's just one thing I really don't get about anti-cable people. The thing is that they fully think everyone who buys cables is biased toward them because they spent money on them and whatever. Yet, somehow, they don't think the NON cable buying person is biased.

See, I speak from experience here, because I'm a non-cable buying person. I'm a skeptic. I'm the kind of person who takes every one of these whacko voodoo audiophile tweaks and thinks "yeah right, how does that matter." And I'm pretty much reluctant to try them. Moreover, I'm really reluctant to want to spend any money on them.

So it was only a matter of time before I had to listen to some cables. Being someone who'd rather hang on to my money and having not actually spent the money on cables yet, I was armed and ready to discredit them. And yet, despite what I consider here to be an overwhelming anti-cable bias, the differences were there and they weren't even subtle.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm sure even in that setup there'd be one or two people who couldn't hear the difference from the general population, but I'd be willing to bet anyone from THIS forum could have heard a difference--gagged, blindfolded, whatever. It was just that apparent.

It just makes me think the other cable skeptics haven't tried it. I don't care what you've read or logically figured or calculated--that's really just another bias. If you've listened to very differently designed cables in a high end rig, you don't have to employ your imagination to hear the difference.

Keep in mind, this is coming from me--voodoo skeptic and cheapass among us. The last thing I want to do is spend money let alone spend money on something that doesn't do anything.
post #120 of 211
6/20/02 at 10:54am
By Tim D:
Quote:
After listening to all 5 files...I can conclude the following. Your ability to digitally remaster audio files to compensate for degradation of the EXACT variables you are trying to test for, outweighs your ability to set up conclusive tests.
Still and all, could you tell which was the original and which was the 4 times re-recorded + remastered wav? If he could make *that* sound indistinguishable from the original, this is still a major triumph for Team EQ, and he may be the one to come up with the Cary 300SEI EQ for Sony D-EJ625 discmans! Yipee
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked