New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Cable Factor - Page 11  

post #151 of 211
hey kwkarth:
Thanks for the info on the Outlaw cables a while back. What a performance boost for the money. It's very helpful to read from someone that has actually TRIED many cables.
post #152 of 211
Dammit, Ricky, what is your definition of a significant change in sonic character caused by different electrical measurements?

FR--0.01dB down at 20kHz? 0.05dB? 0.1dB? 1dB???
Phase shift--0.05 degree, 0.1 degree, 0.5 degree, 1 degree, 10 degrees???

Or is the standard being 'my crappy radioshack multimeter can't measure any difference between the two cables when connected to my crappy computer so they must be the same down to the 10th significant figure'???

FUBAR:
Did you choose your username based on this thread?
post #153 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bloggs
Dammit, Ricky, what is your definition of a significant change in sonic character caused by different electrical measurements?


The term would be "electrical parameters". Electrical parameters can be measured, and are independent from the type of signal you are passing through them. Electrical parameters are harder to measure than just the effect of the cable over an audio signal. So when I say that I can't measure differences between cables for audio signals, I'm not talking about electrical parameters, but about the measurable effects of the cable over the audio signal.

Quote:

FR--0.01dB down at 20kHz? 0.05dB? 0.1dB? 1dB???
Phase shift--0.05 degree, 0.1 degree, 0.5 degree, 1 degree, 10 degrees???


About effects of equipment or any other kind of device over audio signal, and according to Arny Krueger, a quite knowledgeable person on audio subjects:

"If all forms of nonlinear distortion and noise are > 100 dB down,
frequency response is within < +/- 0.1 dB, there is less than 5
degrees of differential phase shift between the channels, and less
than 45 degrees of total phase shift 20-20 KHz with a phase slope of no more than 22 degrees per octave, then it is quite assured that the equipment has no *sound* at all."

For high frequencies, it is quite difficult for many people to distinguish a lowpassed 16 KHz musical clip from a non-lowpassed one. I'd dare to say that a lowpassed 18 KHz musical clip would be inaudible for nearly everyone. Examples of this at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm

At frecuencies very sensitive for human ear, being 4 KHz the most sensitive one, I think it's agreed that differences over 0.3 dB are not so difficultly perceivable.


Quote:
Or is the standard being 'my crappy radioshack multimeter can't measure any difference between the two cables when connected to my crappy computer so they must be the same down to the 10th significant figure'???


Of course not. To do some significant measurements on audio signals and alterations, it is necessary to use a fairly reasonable quality soundcard, being advisable a 24/96 type, and adequate software. The better the card, the more resolution of measurements. Lots of measurements of audio equpment, including audio hardware used to do the measurements, at www.pcavtech.com.

I know it seems I'm making free propaganda of Arny Krueger's sites, but this guy has lots of useful info at his pages.
post #154 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Nezer

Taking a ****ty sound card and pushing audio through it with different cables to prove your point is, well, downright ****ing idiotic in nature. There's a very good reason that soundcards used by professionals are, by nature, anything *BUT* "non-expensive but decent quality soundcard[s]." Well, what about the power supply and all the other **** inside a PC that produces noise pollution? What soundcard is it? Like I said, there are just too many problems with this loosly-controlled test for it to be considered anything more than laughable.
Let's put aside again your nice comments about me.

I think you are again not getting the point of my test. The fact is that on my test, there's a sound clip that has not been touched at all by my ****ty soundcard, noisy power supply, cheap cables, or other **** inside my PC. It is 100% equal to the original song from the cd, 0 errors, bit after bit being equal.

So, it should be fairly easy for you and others to distinguish it from the other 4 clips, which have been touched by my ****ty soundcard, lousy cable, etc, up to 4 times.
post #155 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryS


It was your choice to interpret my comment as calling you a liar. I think it would be obvious to any reasonable person that I was doubting the capability of your equipment to 100% accurately recreate the original. My implication was that you were mistaken.
If so, please accept my apologies. But in the context of the discussion, it seemed another easy attack against what I was saying, and interpreted as an insinuation of that I wasn't telling the truth, when for me, it was absolutely verifiable and uncontrovertible that I was, in fact, telling the truth.
post #156 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky


Let's put aside again your nice comments about me.

I think you are again not getting the point of my test. The fact is that on my test, there's a sound clip that has not been touched at all by my ****ty soundcard, noisy power supply, cheap cables, or other **** inside my PC. It is 100% equal to the original song from the cd, 0 errors, bit after bit being equal.

So, it should be fairly easy for you and others to distinguish it from the other 4 clips, which have been touched by my ****ty soundcard, lousy cable, etc, up to 4 times.
But, why?? What is this supposed to prove?
post #157 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Nezer

But, why?? What is this supposed to prove?

...I guess you want me to get mad by responding such questions.

That is supposed to prove that the effect of the ****ty equipment and lousy cable is , or is not, easily perceivable just by listening.

I mean, that you can, or cannot, tell a file just ripped with 100% accuracy from a cd, from the same file passed up to 4 times through my ****ty equipment.

I hope you understand it this time, I hope too you were not just pulling my leg.
post #158 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by kwkarth

Ricky,
It is you who need to provide proof of your assertions. I have in another thread shown quite clearly that my arguements are valid and factual. You, however, simply made statements with NO substantiation. Substantiate your assertion.
I said that sometimes there are small differences in the electrical parameters of cables (RLC), but that they are nearly irrelevant from the audio point of view. I said that from this audio point of view, different cables measure very similar, meaning that the measurable effects of the cables over the audio signal are very slight. Physics laws say this too. I have verified this too by doing those measurements. Only relevant differences are related to noise pickup on long and cheap cables. Other differences are nearly unmeasurable for audio signals.

You said that there are substantial measurable differences between cables, but didn't say which were them, or what importance they have over the audio signal. Could you please elaborate which are those differences, and what influence they have on audio signals, so that we can have some kind of useful discussion?
post #159 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Fubar
hey kwkarth:
Thanks for the info on the Outlaw cables a while back. What a performance boost for the money. It's very helpful to read from someone that has actually TRIED many cables.
You're welcome man! I'm enjoying them too! Great bang for the buck!
post #160 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I said that sometimes there are small differences in the electrical parameters of cables (RLC), but that they are nearly irrelevant from the audio point of view. I said that from this audio point of view, different cables measure very similar, meaning that the measurable effects of the cables over the audio signal are very slight. Physics laws say this too. I have verified this too by doing those measurements. Only relevant differences are related to noise pickup on long and cheap cables. Other differences are nearly unmeasurable for audio signals.

You said that there are substantial measurable differences between cables, but didn't say which were them, or what importance they have over the audio signal. Could you please elaborate which are those differences, and what influence they have on audio signals, so that we can have some kind of useful discussion?
Ricky,
You still have not substantiated your claims in any concrete way. Cite some specific examples please. You can go to just about any reputable cable manufacturer's web site and read the published RLC measurements for their cables. They vary considerably from cable model to cable model and company to company.

There are a number of other parameters that also vary from unit to unit that are not as commonly published if at all such as dielectric characteristics. All of these things can affect the quality of the audio transmission through subtle phase shifts, frequency response alteration and other difficult to measure but easy for a trained ear to hear aberrations. Remember that virtually all source to pre-amp-amp interfaces are inherently grossly mismatched with regard to impedance. Typically sub 10k sources driving 100k loads. What do you suppose happens to all the resultant signal reflections that ensue? Different cables by virtue of their dielectric, geometric, and electrical differences interface with differing levels of synergy or anti-synergy if you will. All of this can, and in many cases does, affect the signal in an audible way.

BTW, your quotes from Arny Krueger are patently incorrect in many circumstances. "If all forms of nonlinear distortion and noise are > 100 dB down, frequency response is within < +/- 0.1 dB, there is less than 5 degrees of differential phase shift between the channels, and less than 45 degrees of total phase shift 20-20 KHz with a phase slope of no more than 22 degrees per octave, then it is quite assured that the equipment has no *sound* at all." This is undoubtedly true for much of the population, but certainly untrue for many here on this board.

While your conclusion of "For high frequencies, it is quite difficult for many people to distinguish a lowpassed 16 KHz musical clip from a non-lowpassed one. I'd dare to say that a lowpassed 18 KHz musical clip would be inaudible for nearly everyone." is more true than not, it's not true for everyone.

You need to remember that.

Present on this forum we do not have a uniform sampling of a cross section of the general population. We have in great numbers here a cross section of the golden-eared elect from the world. A collection of folks whose ears are acutely attuned to detect subtle sonic differences that most of the population would not hear even when you pointed them out.

Cheers,
post #161 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky



...I guess you want me to get mad by responding such questions.

That is supposed to prove that the effect of the ****ty equipment and lousy cable is , or is not, easily perceivable just by listening.

I mean, that you can, or cannot, tell a file just ripped with 100% accuracy from a cd, from the same file passed up to 4 times through my ****ty equipment.

I hope you understand it this time, I hope too you were not just pulling my leg.
No I don't want you to get mad... and I'm not pulling your leg...

Now, the next question, who is this test for, the person talking it or for you?
post #162 of 211
Anyone here heard of a snert?
A snert is someone who comes into a chat room and tries to argue their position without any ON HANDS testing. A snert argues his or her position reguardless of what anyone says. They are adamament about their findings and no one can change their minds. A snert will often overlook challenges to his or her statements, and will often answer with a question.
Snerts like arguments. Snerts like to discuss things that they aren't willing to try. Snerts hold a high esteem about themselves.
Their word is gospell and no argument can change their minds.
Snerts usually roam from forum to forum looking for people who will listen to them. Then they will grasp onto the most debated topic and let loose.
Debating is like candy to them. They need it to reassure their place in the world. aka "I am da man"
Snerts may read your posts, but in his or her mind, they just don't know what you are talking about.
Their explanation of things should be more than enough for anybody with intelligence like them to understand.
The often asked question is: I think I have made myself clear. Do you understand?
I hold no degrees...just a degree in online snerts. lol
millerdog clears the band!
post #163 of 211
Did I say something wrong?
hehe....I am anxiously awaiting my Outlaw cables.
md
post #164 of 211
woohoo go the outlaws! (and Korea for world cup!)

wow.. this thread is nearly 10 pages long and we havent made any progress since page 1.
post #165 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Nezer

Now, the next question, who is this test for, the person talking it or for you?
Not for me, but for you, I mean for the person(s) claiming that a cheap cable clearly alters sound and is sonically perceivable. Also the effect of my ****ty equipment should be easily perceivable for you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked