Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › HIGH END CABLES - The truth revealed! (personal opinion only)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HIGH END CABLES - The truth revealed! (personal opinion only) - Page 4  

post #46 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRESCENDOPOWER View Post
Why would they care about someone who isn’t going to buy their products anyway?
i think that any cable manufacturer would jump at the chance to have scientific evidence of the benefits of their cable. if there was such evidence i would buy that cable.

also the thing that bothers me the most:
a cable can't transmit a higher amplitude than is coming from the source (otherwise it would be an amp), so if one cable has more bass or more highs, that implies that the lesser cable was rolling of the high or low frequencies
the thing i find hard to believe is that the rolloff in cheap cables always falls exactly at the extremes of the audible band
whats so special about the middle of the audiable band of frequencies that its always so easy to transmit compared to the frequencies either side?
these frequencies are harder to create with speakers, but even cheap cables are plenty capable of transmitting signals that are in the mhz

i know that frequency respons is not the only thing people talk about when comparing cables, but its something that has been bugging me for a while...
post #47 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by naamanf View Post
Not exactly the case. The return or neutral side actually goes to earth ground. So half of that circuit is the earth it self.
AFAIK, in the US we have a ground cable as well connected to the box, and ground, that is not connected to the neutral in the outlet, both cable return and live are routed to the pole outside the house....if neutral is conected to the ground you have no much difference in stating that it is the central portion anyway...
post #48 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
i think that any cable manufacturer would jump at the chance to have scientific evidence of the benefits of their cable. if there was such evidence i would buy that cable.

also the thing that bothers me the most:
a cable can't transmit a higher amplitude than is coming from the source (otherwise it would be an amp), so if one cable has more bass or more highs, that implies that the lesser cable was rolling of the high or low frequencies
the thing i find hard to believe is that the rolloff in cheap cables always falls exactly at the extremes of the audible band
whats so special about the middle of the audiable band of frequencies that its always so easy to transmit compared to the frequencies either side?
these frequencies are harder to create with speakers, but even cheap cables are plenty capable of transmitting signals that are in the mhz

i know that frequency respons is not the only thing people talk about when comparing cables, but its something that has been bugging me for a while...

Just listen to a good cable and a cheap cable and you'll hear what is missing!
post #49 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
Just listen to a good cable and a cheap cable and you'll hear what is missing!
-What about the ones that have done it nad have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?

-Oh no, sorry they have no properly trained ears... (or a defective hearing what is worst)...
post #50 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller View Post
-What about the ones that have done it nad have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?

-Oh no, sorry they have no properly trained ears... (or a defective hearing what is worst)...
Whats wrong? The answer is simple: your system is not revealing enough (a much nicer way to say your system is not good enough to take advantage of the cable).

Every component imparts its own sonic distortion to the audio landscape. Whether you can hear is a subjective test. On the other hand, whether you can measure it is an objective test. Granted, not everything can be measured accurately and not everything can be measured economically. For the most part, you can rely on some basic solid cable engineering to weed out the lessor quality. e.g. vacuum is the best dielectric, single extruded copper has better electron uniformity, shorter is better than longer, colder is better than warmer, etc.

It is important to make a clarification. You would probably be better off upgrading your power cable, power source, instead of putting more money into IC. The answer is very simple: clean power effects every component in how they make the sound. IC, on the other hand, serves only as a conductor to transmit the signal from one box to another.

I am quite concerned about some members' prejudice against whether cable can alter sound and whether high priced cable is better the low priced ones. Although there is no correlation between price and performance, and I even concede that some lower priced cables may be more synergistic with your system than the higher priced ones, the very fact that cable makes a difference cannot be denied, regardless of their prices.

I can safely make the following statement: I know enough to know that I don't know everything there is to know about the effects of cable on signal transmission. Therefore, I keep an open mind and I test everything. Before you start poking holes at "I know enough", keep in mind I did not waste 4 years of my life in the lab at Ann Arbor, nor did I waste 2 years of my life designing circuits for certain CPU maker (not those 2, well not exactly anyway).
post #51 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post
Alright, I've taken some marketing classes in connection with an accounting degree. I don't agree with your analogy.

There's a ton of stuff on the market that's just a barely tarted up version of the basic example. Consider another one of my hobbies: fountain pens. You can usually buy a basic version in a plastic/resin housing with an excellent feed, nib and ink storage system. Or you can buy the limited edition, say Abraham Lincoln Commerative Pen, made of 925 sterling with rubies and sapphires set into the body. One is $300, the other is $4,500. Both write the same. Or with cars. You know a $30k car doesn't cost all that much more to build than a $15k car. Do they really spend $15k more in materials? No. Most of the cost is in the overhead, stuff like the factory, tooling, labor, pensions, etc. You get the idea.

And it's no different with cables. Call in an order to China, have them braid it in a funny way, tart up the sheathing, and use cast silver (or whatever) connectors at the end. Then you mark it up 20,000% and brand it as "luxury" or "audiophile." That's where you really make the margin. If you look at the bare materials of a Nordost Valhalla, objectively, there's no way the sum of the parts adds up to cost. If you think the rest is tied up in R&D, you're wrong. As we've seen from the endless DBT, etc. testing that's been done, no one really knows how cables work.

If you want to throw around terms like "skin effect," etc., that's disingenuous. Sure, skin effect is real. It's demonstrable in the lab. So are a lot of other things. The disingenuous part is when there's no causal link between the described effect and what the end result is. This is a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. It's just like arguing that water causes cancer. After all, 100% of people with cancer drank a glass of water at one time. However, it just does not follow that water causes cancer without empirical evidence.

So when you see the cable manufacturers throwing out all sorts of electronic exotica, stop and ask yourself how the described effect affects the cable. Further, do you see any results of testing? Of course not.

If there was a way to adequately test the cables, the manufacturers would do so. They are not naive. They know people call their products snake oil. So why not prove the nay-sayers wrong? Why don't they do that? Why don't they nail down and prove their products excellent? Why do they only describe their products in vague terms, just barely skirting the issue of false advertising? Also, why don't they want to prove their products superior to the competition? Pick up any car magazine and you'll get tons of copy about the differences between models. But not with cables. They don't do it because they can't.
I understand the points you make and some (or many) may be valid, but I don't see how your statement is at all responsive to my point, which is on a totally different issue, i.e., whether one can say that an aftermarket improvement offers no benefits to product performance because otherwise the manufacturer would have included it as a standard item.
post #52 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
i think that any cable manufacturer would jump at the chance to have scientific evidence of the benefits of their cable. if there was such evidence i would buy that cable.
There are zillions of other products where comparative adverstising is not done and claims regarding the products benefits are not supported by scientific evidence. There is nothing unique in this regard about the audio or cable industry.
post #53 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
Believe it or not, the rules of this "Cables" forum actually prohibit discussing double-blind tests. Hence the "DBT-free forum" designation.
You're pulling my leg, right? I didn't see a smiley face like you're kidding..
post #54 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by geardoc View Post
You're pulling my leg, right? I didn't see a smiley face like you're kidding..
No, he's not pulling your leg, or any other appendage. See post #28 in this thread for a brief explanation.
post #55 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller View Post
-What about the ones that have done it nad have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?

-Oh no, sorry they have no properly trained ears... (or a defective hearing what is worst)...

That would be me. I have bought all sorts of high end equipment and cables. IMO, properly constructed cables all sound the same to me. Some higher end cables can sound different, but only because they aren't providing the transparency a properly constructed cable should. Generally, I think poeople don't do enough critical level matching before drawing a conclusion on differences in components and accessories. It leads to Fletcher-Munson type level dependent issues that most people simply don't care to understand.

All that being said, I'm not one to say differences don't exist. I just think that a properly constructed cable that provides transparency doesn't require cryogenic treatments or other cost intensive methods to manufacture. I also feel that if cables are making a fundamental change in the way a system sounds, perhaps one should think about the underlying components first.
post #56 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller View Post
-What about the ones that have done it and have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?
Nobody is wrong. They haven't heard a difference, and that's certainly right. There are different possible reasons, among them that their system isn't revealing enough or their ears aren't trained or sensitive enough, or they are prejudiced since cables can't make a difference anyway.

Many people can't distinguish high-bitrate MP3s from uncompressed (I freely admit I can't as well), some even can't distinguish low-bitrate MP3s from uncompressed (which I can). Does this mean that (all) people who pretend to hear the difference imagine them and others who say there's no difference to be heard are right? No.
.
post #57 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller View Post
-What about the ones that have done it nad have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?

-Oh no, sorry they have no properly trained ears... (or a defective hearing what is worst)...

Why does anyone have to wrong? And why does anyone have to be right?

This hobby is about listening to music and playing with different components.

There are "generally" two camps on these threads.

The ones that have tried different cables and heard a difference
The nay sayers who have not tried cables, but just know they do not make a difference, because the "numbers" do not show a difference.

And to a lesser degree the camp that has tried cables and have not heard a difference.

Instead of debating what we know, or feel, must be true, why not debate practical and actual experience?
post #58 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleestack View Post
Some higher end cables can sound different, but only because they aren't providing the transparency a properly constructed cable should.
That's not my experience. In most cases «high-end» cables sound more transparent to my ears. However, they may still measure the same (roughly spoken), so there's no reason to think they alter the signal, whereas more «normal» cables leave it intact.


Quote:
Generally, I think poople don't do enough critical level matching before drawing a conclusion on differences in components and accessories. It leads to Fletcher-Munson type level dependent issues that most people simply don't care to understand.
I would highly recommend not to do level matching when comparing cables -- their resistance is so low that it isn't responsible for possible sonic differences and certainly not for measurable level differences.
.
post #59 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
That's not my experience. In most cases «high-end» cables sound more transparent to my ears.
Well, keep in mind we are talking about sleekstack's experience here: his high-end cable is probably like $5,000 and his low end is probably $999 Joking aside, all things are relative.
post #60 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
That's not my experience. In most cases «high-end» cables sound more transparent to my ears. However, they may still measure the same (roughly spoken), so there's no reason to think they alter the signal, whereas more «normal» cables leave it intact. ]
Great. But that's not my experience. I just don't think there is any magic to transparency when it comes to cables.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
I would highly recommend not to do level matching when comparing cables -- their resistance is so low that it isn't responsible for possible sonic differences and certainly not for measurable level differences.
.
Why would you ever recommend not level matching? It would make sense to say that it is usually not necessary when comparing cables of the same type, but it can certainly do no harm. If significant level changes are found it would give someone a reason to look further into the construction of a particular cable. Furthermore, if someone is comparing balanced to single ended, optical to SPDIF, etc., it is usually necessary.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › HIGH END CABLES - The truth revealed! (personal opinion only)