New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Cable Factor - Page 12  

post #166 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by millerdog
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.



This could apply to many of you people here, the only difference is that you are numerically superior to me.

I think I've addressed some of these challenges, while you have addresed none I have suggested, even when I have a very clear and real one for you.

Quote:

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.


Just plainly wrong man . Again soooo easy and cheap talk with the only intention to discredit me with no valuable argumentation at all. This is so easy to rebate, quite fun for me, man

I hold on some other forums aside from this. In these other forums I have no need to discuss over cables. This is the only forum I'm having a serious discussion over the cable factor. At other forums where cable discussions are hold from time to time, it's others but my who defend positions similar to mine here.

The fact that you live in your little bubble as to what concerns to cables, is no proof of anything, of course.
post #167 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by kwkarth


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.
How do they affect the acoustical output of a signal? If they are difficult (or even impossible) to measure, how do we know we are dealing with frequency response alterations or subtle phase shifts?

Quote:
Originally posted by kwkarth

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.

This is a rather bold factual statement. Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

Regards,

L.
post #168 of 211
post #169 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Leporello How do they affect the acoustical output of a signal? If they are difficult (or even impossible) to measure, how do we know we are dealing with frequency response alterations or subtle phase shifts?
This is a rather bold factual statement. Do you have any evidence to back this claim?
Regards,
L.
Leporello,
As I said, the signal is affected in terms of phase shifts, both linear AND non linear, minor frequency response aberrations, and thirdly, reflections of the signal which alter neither the frequency response nor the phase accuracy of the original signal, but rather add to the original causing an obfuscation of the original. These distortions may be challenging but not impossible to measure. The fact that it isn't common knowledge is probably more responsible for why it hasn't been done in wider circles. About a year ago there was a very good article published in I believe Stereophile about this. It was one of the better written articles that I've read on the subject. When I worked at Tektronix years ago and had access to good instrumentation, we used to be able to chase this stuff down, but alas I no longer have access to that sort of instrumentation.

On the other front however, I do have my ears. Being an engineer, I used to strongly believe one could not hear cable differences and indeed in my equipment of the day, I coudn't hear differences between one cable and another.

When I bought my first headphone amp I was absolutely amazed by the purity and resolution of the sound. On a lark I ran out and borrowed some expensive interconnects from a local Audio Shop. I about fell of my chair when I discovered for the first time in my life that I *could* hear differences between the cables! I didn't want to hear differences. I was going to really lay into the couple people I knew that claimed that there were audible differences and show them up that there were no differences that were large enough to be audible. Keep in mind that I had been an audio engineer for many years and had trained my ears be able to discern subtle differences in audio environments, but had never believed the human ear was sensitive enough to hear differences between cables.

I was really chagrinned to be hearing these differences. They were difficult to characterize at first but I continued to explore. I found that some $40 cables were sonically superior to $300 cables, etc. Some high zoot cables didn't sound any better than some of the cheap $5 cables I had. I found a pair of cables for $125 at a second audio shop that sounded better to my ears than all the other cables that I had tested and I actually bought them. I was embarrassed that I actually was hearing differences. I kept thinking “This is nuts! I can’t believe I’m spending $125 on a 1 meter length of copper wire!” I told no one. I continued to test and explore. I found that I could not detect differences using my big rig. I only seemed to be able to reliably hear the differences with a very simple system consisting of a CDP, the headphone amp, and the headphones.

As time went by, I stumbled across this headphone forum one day and subsequently “stepped” up my headphone habit. I found that as I improved the quality of my source, my headphone amp, and or my headphones, I was able to more clearly discern and characterize differences between one cable and another.

So to summarize, your sound reproduction chain needs to be very high quality to be able to resolve or expose these differences. This does not necessarily mean expensive, but the quality must be there. Another discovery that many of us have made here is that a given cable may sound wonderful between two pieces of gear, and when it’s put in service between another pair of components, it may or may not work as well in the new set up. This is the “synergy” phenomenon you’ve seen discussed here. When I tried to understand what that was all about I was not able to offer a plausible explanation other than this idea of different cables reacting differently in the adverse environment of gross impedance mismatch in which reflections would be very much in existence.

The article published in Stereophile was an articulation of suspicions that I had held for quite some time but no longer had equipment to be able to verify. It helped clarify and focus the observations and suspicions that I had. In effect, it posited that if you were to properly match the source and load impedance, a $5 cable could indeed sound as good as a $500 one. One day if I ever get the time, I plan to follow up on that theory to test it. Until then I have my ears and with 100% certainty and repeatability, I hear distinct differences between one cable and another and with little respect to price, choose that which sounds the best to my ears.

Regarding the community we have here on Head-Fi, there are no doubt folks here who buy fancy equipment to keep up with the Jonses, but there are a significant number of folks here who for whatever reason are able to hear differences in equipment and for whom realism in reproduced sound is very important. There are many of us who even though we can't afford to run out and drop lots of dough on fancy gear, are compelled by our love for music and accurately reproduced sound to take the hobby as far as we can.

So this is a rarified population sample of people for whom sound means a great deal. Good sound means more to most of us here than it does to most of the rest of the world. That's just the way we're wired I guess!

Happy listening!
post #170 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky


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.
Again, my points above stand. Why would you want to convince me of something I already know? It makes no sense. I've done my own tests in better-controleld circumstances and I have heard the differenc with my own ears.

For all we know you simply took the same sample and did nothing to it except change maybe a few bits around so they will fail checksum tests.

Perhaps if you were doing this test for your benefit I could understand it and in that case I was going to take it and sumbit you my results so you can collect your data. But now... It's just a waste of my time.

I know of *no*scientific test like this where the test was for the benefit of the subject taking it. It's skewed all to hell and, well, a waste of everyones time, especially yours.

If you wish to remain skeptical, fine. But why do you have the need to prove to me something I know is false?

This is why I think your arrogant and and idiot. Had this test been so you could collect data and post the results of how many people could tell the differences, that would have some value. but this... Well, it's stupid and it's *very* arrogant of you to shove this down my throat. HOW DARE YOU!!

And I have to take issue with your statement that 'cheap' cable alters sound... *ALL* cables alter sound. *ANYTHING* the signal passes through colors the sound to some extent and this will be the case until superconducters are perfected and used in our gear.
post #171 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Nezer




This is why I think your arrogant and and idiot. Had this test been so you could collect data and post the results of how many people could tell the differences, that would have some value. but this... Well, it's stupid and it's *very* arrogant of you to shove this down my throat. HOW DARE YOU!!

Aren't you taking this waaaay too seriously? Right or wrong, If Ricky has a point to make or a theory to propound then it's his right to do so. Seems that he's been pretty civil all along, but a few Head-Fiers are stuck in feeding-frenzy mode. If you feel so strongly that he is that far off base, then why keep beating a dead horse?
post #172 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by pigmode


Aren't you taking this waaaay too seriously? Right or wrong, If Ricky has a point to make or a theory to propound then it's his right to do so. Seems that he's been pretty civil all along, but a few Head-Fiers are stuck in feeding-frenzy mode. If you feel so strongly that he is that far off base, then why keep beating a dead horse?
Perhaps but I really started inquiring thinking maybe I misunderstood the whole thing and had previously over-reacted. Now, I don't feel bad about it. Sure it's his right to waste his own time but telling me something isn't true that I know is becasue I can hear it myself is a waste of his breath and that's the only thing I'm trying to point-out.

If he were colelcting this data to satisfy his own curiousity or maybe see what percentage of people can accuratly identify this, then that would make sense. But to ask me to take a test to prove his point with no scientific evidence, is ,well, arrogant.

Now that I see the farce for what it is I will no longer listen to Ricky and will certainly not dignify his ignorance with any futher responses.
post #173 of 211
Yeah and after all, this is a discussion forum, and who knows where discussions may lead?

cheers
post #174 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by pigmode
Yeah and after all, this is a discussion forum, and who knows where discussions may lead?

cheers
This thread? Straight to hell in a cheap handbasket (which works just as well as a vehicle to hell as the more ornate, expensive models).
post #175 of 211

I'm confused

Ricky, Leporello, I am confused. I think I've seen you post both ways, and I am not "answering a question with a question", nor am I asking you to "lay your cards on the table", but I am really asking for clarification.

By both ways, I mean that there are two assertions:

- Two cables will sound the same if they measure the same, but will sound different if they measure different.

- Two cables will sound the same even if they measure differently, as long as those measurements are not wildly outside of some "tolerance".

(Just to alay confusion, please answer for yourselves only.)

Okay, the rest of this is indeed, continuing arguing with a brick wall:

I guess the point I am reaching on my own is, I haven't paid too much attention to the electrical measurements that my cables have, only how they sound. For all I know, they do measure differently. But I don't care, I only go by how they sound.

I suspect you both will claim the second assertion. If so:

- What measurements?
- What "tolerance" on those measurements?

If the first, then we are arguing semantics. I think all of us agree that cables will sound different if they...no, stop there. I think all of us agree that cables sound different. It's just a question of whether or not spending US$500+ is worth the return. As I've said before -- we argue that all the time. To someone who doesn't have US$500, the answer would be no.

So I guess there's a third assertion -- Two cables will sound the same even if they cost differently.

Notice I am saying "...will sound the same...", not "...will sound more or less the same..." or "...will sound the same to most people..." It seems to me that you are making the issue too "black and white", when if you allow for the fact that it is not "two cables sound the same" or that "two cables sound differently", but rather "two cables sound similar" by such-and-such criteria, within these parameters (be them scientifical or just audiophile listening adjectives like "musical"), and then compare them to cost, you will see that there are several "grey level" scales -- cost, sound, measurements.
post #176 of 211

Re: I'm confused

Quote:
Originally posted by Dusty Chalk

I suspect you both will claim the second assertion. If so:

- What measurements?
- What "tolerance" on those measurements?

So I guess there's a third assertion -- Two cables will sound the same even if they cost differently.

Notice I am saying "...will sound the same...", not "...will sound more or less the same..." or "...will sound the same to most people..." It seems to me that you are making the issue too "black and white", when if you allow for the fact that it is not "two cables sound the same" or that "two cables sound differently", but rather "two cables sound similar" by such-and-
Yes, I claim the second assertion. The measurements I'm talking about are measurements of the effect of cable over the audio signal that passes through it.

About tolerances, I will quote again Arny Krueger, who has lots of years of experience and knowledge over this issues.

"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."

Note that, in any non-defective interconnect, there is no distortion. In a typical setup, with a cheap short interconnect connecting a cd player to an amp, the noise can be quite easily 100 dB down the signal, from 20 Hz to 20 KHz the frequency response rolloff is below 0.01 dB , and the phase shift is below 1 degree.

I just measured these parameters this evening on the interconnect used at my test at www.kikeg.arrakis.es.

So, quite far below audibility for nearly all of the parameters. And that means that the cheap short interconnect will sound "exactly" the same than any better quality interconnect.

And, as opposed to what kwkarth said in a previous post, there are no transmission line effects at all for audio frequencies in audio cables. For transmission line effects in cables to happen, the length of the cable has to be near the wavelength of the signal carried. Note that, for a 20 KHz signal on a cable, the wavelength is several kilometers (or miles) long.
post #177 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by kwkarth

Ricky,
You still have not substantiated your claims in any concrete way. Cite some specific examples please.


I think I've done it at my previous post. Note too that the measured values are in total accordance with what physics or electronics say, if you want some calculations I can give you them in another post.

Quote:

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.


The only effect that a dielectric may have on a cable is on its capacitance. Noise rejection, which is not a "classical" electrical parameter, is published at good standard cable manufacturer catalogs, such as Belden ones.

Quote:

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?


As I noted in my previous post, there are no signal reflections (transmission line effects) at audio frequencies.

Quote:

BTW, your quotes from Arny Krueger are patently incorrect in many circumstances. ... This is undoubtedly true for much of the population, but certainly untrue for many here on this board.


How do you know?

Quote:

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.


Again, how do you know? Have you or the other golden ears done any tests to check that this is not true for you? I don't know if I could be considered a golden-eared person, but I ve tested this for myself. And I know that many people has too.
post #178 of 211

Re: Re: I'm confused

Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
About tolerances, I will quote again Arny Krueger, who has lots of years of experience and knowledge over this issues.

"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."

Note that, in any non-defective interconnect, there is no distortion. In a typical setup, with a cheap short interconnect connecting a cd player to an amp, the noise can be quite easily 100 dB down the signal, from 20 Hz to 20 KHz the frequency response rolloff is below 0.01 dB , and the phase shift is below 1 degree.
While I do appreciate your mapping AK's criteria to how it applies to an interconnect, aren't these more criteria of a system, rather than just an interconnect?

I am not sure I concur with his assertions on phase, though...
post #179 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricky


I think I've done it at my previous post. Note too that the measured values are in total accordance with what physics or electronics say, if you want some calculations I can give you them in another post.
Ricky, I do not recall any substantiation, please give me specific reference.


Quote:
The only effect that a dielectric may have on a cable is on its capacitance.
You're wrong. Prove your assertion.

Quote:
As I noted in my previous post, there are no signal reflections (transmission line effects) at audio frequencies.
You're wrong. Any time you have an impedance mismatch between source and load, you have signal energy reflected back.
Quote:
How do you know?
Read my post. I explain it there.


Quote:
Again, how do you know? Have you or the other golden ears done any tests to check that this is not true for you? I don't know if I could be considered a golden-eared person, but I’ve tested this for myself. And I know that many people has too. [/B]
C’mon Ricky, didn't you read my posts? Read them again, you might learn something.

Quote:
And, as opposed to what kwkarth said in a previous post, there are no transmission line effects at all for audio frequencies in audio cables. For transmission line effects in cables to happen, the length of the cable has to be near the wavelength of the signal carried. Note that, for a 20 KHz signal on a cable, the wavelength is several kilometers (or miles) long.
Ricky, Ricky, Ricky... Wrong again. Cable length has nothing to do with the impedance mismatch problem causing reflections. BTW, propagation velocity in typical cables is about 60% of C so the wavelength of a 20kHz sine in a cable will be just under 30kft, or about five and a half miles, but again, the length of the transmission line has nothing to do with the reflected energy, other than to re-absorb some of the standing wave due to RLC loading. In the case of typical 1m interconnects, virtually none.

You still seem to laboring under the misconception that if you don't know how to measure it, it doesn't exist/can't be heard. That's a false concept. Start thinking with your mind and listening with your ears. You might be surprised what you find.

Again, getting back to the bottom line, we can, with 100% repeatability, hear and identify differences between cables. I really don't care much what it measures if I can hear it. If I can hear it reliably, I will use what sounds best in my system within my budget.

God gave you two ears and only one mouth. Start listening twice as much as you speak, you might learn something.

Happy Listening!
post #180 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by kwkarth
Ricky, I do not recall any substantiation, please give me specific reference.
Could be helpful if you explained what "substantiation" means for you. "Hard" numbers extracted from measurements or calculations seem not "substantiation" enough for you?? What about you making some "substantiations", instead of wild ranting?

Also, you ask for references, but you give none solid.


Quote:

You're wrong. Prove your assertion.
You're the one that said first that the dielectric might have some "unknown" effect over the signal, so please you *prove* your initial assertion instead of disqualifying mine without any valid argumentation.

Quote:

You're wrong. Any time you have an impedance mismatch between source and load, you have signal energy reflected back.
Read my post. I explain it there.
You explain nothing, sorry. You just keep repeating again and again the same thing, that there are reflections due to impedance mismatch, but nothing more. No explanations over the effect produced by that reflections.

Quote:

C’mon Ricky, didn't you read my posts? Read them again, you might learn something.
Sorry to repeat, but I don't see any useful infomation in your posts, just ranting and sometimes beautifully talking about unmeasurable phenomena and non-tested and non substatiated claims about hearing abilities. Maybe if you repeat that information that I have not noticed, it could be of some help.

Quote:

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky... Wrong again. Cable length has nothing to do with the impedance mismatch problem causing reflections.
That might be true, but these reflections importance is NULL at audio frequencies for normal cable lenghts, has no effect. The only effect of reflections in a signal cable is to cause standing waves to appear. This leads to frequency response and transient response variations, somehow due to wavelength "matching" effects at the load sides. But again, this effect happens *only* when the signal wavelength is comparable to the cable lenght.

From the cable/load/reflections point of view, audio signal is just as DC signal, because its wavelenght is thousands of times greater than the cable length.

So, transmission line effect has *everything* to do with the reflections at the load side. And cable length has *everything* to do with transmission line effect. If you don't agree, I believe you should read any technical literature about transmission line effects, instead of continuous wild ranting. Maybe if you could explain the misterious effect of those reflections at audio frequencies, that nobody has been able to detect.

There are tons of references on transmission line effects at the web, just do a Google search. Just one example at :

http://hibp.ecse.rpi.edu/~crowley/ja.../transinfo.htm

Quote:

BTW, propagation velocity in typical cables is about 60% of C so the wavelength of a 20kHz sine in a cable will be just under 30kft, or about five and a half miles


Isn't that what I said?

Quote:

but again, the length of the transmission line has nothing to do with the reflected energy, other than to re-absorb some of the standing wave due to RLC loading. In the case of typical 1m interconnects, virtually none.


But has everything to do with the actual effect of the reflection. Again, there are no standing waves (transmission line effect) at audio frequencies, and there are no measurable "reflections" at audio frequencies..

Quote:

You still seem to laboring under the misconception that if you don't know how to measure it, it doesn't exist/can't be heard.


Not me, nor anybody. If you don't agree, please show me some specific references.

Quote:

That's a false concept. Start thinking with your mind and listening with your ears. You might be surprised what you find.

Again, getting back to the bottom line, we can, with 100% repeatability, hear and identify differences between cables. I really don't care much what it measures if I can hear it. If I can hear it reliably, I will use what sounds best in my system within my budget.


So, I thought we were talking about physical measurable or describable effects, and now you forget those, and simply rely on you ears. That doesn't sound very scientific.

You could easily prove your golden eared claims trying my little test, which has everything to do with hearing abilities and measurements.

On the other side, placebo effect is a very verifiable phenomena, doesn't matter if the subject likes to think's he's not prone to it.

Quote:

God gave you two ears and only one mouth. Start listening twice as much as you speak, you might learn something.


Useless advice, I think you should re-read some of your engineering books instead of talking about weird, unexplainable, unmeasurable phenomena.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked