The "truth" about different speaker cables - Page 4

I was so intrigued by this idea that I downloaded the entire test sample CD image, burned it and extracted the samples from it. Some of which I had to trim because they were not all the same length. There are response differences between the samples often quite large i.e
a few 10ths of a db at some frequencies but no real pattern to the differences between samples as far s I can see so far.

Ok...?

Most of the interactions I was alluding to with re to wire transmission complexity are small. But simple they are not. The issue at the heart of this whole thing, it seems to me, is whether all or any of those small effects (known or unknown) can cause non-negligible effects. I have no idea - my position on cables is that of suspended judgement at this point. I'm leaning a little toward the idea that it's psychosomatic, likely caused by people comparing different speakers (with slightly different responses due to manufacturing process imperfections) with different cables and ascribing the small but inherent differences in the two otherwise identical speakers to differences caused by the different cables.

What I certainly disagree with is the "oh, its all so simple. sceince has discovared all. the end. look a rainbow!" mentality. That kind of nonsense won't help this discussion one iota.

Also re bumble bees, it's not a "myth" - the model used does show that the bumble bee should not fly. The problem, ofcourse, was that the model was too simple to take into account the fact that the bees use a kind of vortex to help them fly (this has recently been shown in simulations). This is yet another example that simply invoking "science" without an appreciation of the fact that science deals in models, and that every model has a specific and limited domain in which it is valid, can and does lead to mistakes.

....Anyone of you have ever opened up your headphone amplifier/mp3 player?

They are made of tons of solderings and inside wires. And a lot of them are really tiny in width.

Audio signals, after escaping from those tiny copper lines on PCB, resistors and capacitors on DAC goes though amplification section again, where they meet yet another jungle of resistors, transistors, capacitors and sometimes transformers (for tube amplifier's case)

And most of time, their leads are remarkably small (thus giving hard time to solder them properly)

And most of time, the length of that jungle is painfully long, look at an amplifier designed and developed by Kan, Beta22.

The β22 Stereo Amplifier

And the audio signal finally passes zobel networks, jumps between contacts between jack and plug, and arrives at the beginning of the headphones' cable.




Hmmmm, I mean the audio signal, as describled by cable believers, is already utterly destroyed by these much inferior (and most of time those are not copper... they are lead (sometimes with a little bit silver). So how about we care about those problems before spending $$$$ (yes, currently we have four digits custom cable for HD800) on cable.

I mean at least cable is copper, right? while other paths are made of cheap lead.



See, a bottleneck(s) of audio signal cannot be headphones cable; it is already located on inside and there is no way to eliminate it.




I hope this brings some sanity.

That's indeed interesting. And sorry for the additional effort I've caused!
.

I think what makes them relatively harmless in terms of audible signal degradation is the fact that they're tiny also with respect to over-all signal-path length.

You even forgot to mention the possible non-audiophile components used for the recording.

I see it that way: Even with the sonic ideal of minimal signal degradation and maximal accuracy and neutrality it's not necessarily a question of preserved original signal shape, but rather of compensatory/synergetic effects. Hence there's no «best» cable, just an optimal cable in a specific system.


Such attempts have always failed so far. As well-intended as they may be...
.

Doesn't that suggest that an outboard amp or different headphones or speakers will not change the sound, because the "bottleneck" is also before those components?

P.S. When one suggests their argument is on the only "sane" one, that generally indicates that there is a reasonable basis for dispute. As a wise old judge once told me, "Whenever I read a brief from a lawyer that says something is 'clearly the case,' it's almost always a matter of some doubt."

Hey, I have a pretty fast protocol for this and if I do not have to do the recording the analysis and stats is trivial.

When I looked at it today I discovered that Herr Garbor has been able to defy the laws of physics.

That is to say according to the samples he supplied his device, a passive box with different shaped brass pieces when placed inline (in series) is apparently capable of significantly amplifying several frequencies and by up to 1.1497db in one case, by over 0.5db for 57 different frequencies, and for 47.29% of the frequency bands it exceeds 0.1db. This is impressive.

@ Jazz : They are not tiny at all, especially in balanced setup. I estimate the total signal path length of my balanced beta22 as about 1m. That's not tiny length.

Your thoughts on this are interesting to hear.


@phils : No, what I mean 'bottleneck' is that the effect from those paths are so great that you can just ignore other lesser aspects, like headphone cables which inherently benefit from superior shielding by design/environment and thickness.

I am pretty sure that the headphones are indeed ultimate bottleneck.

I guess what I'm not understanding is this. Is the effect from "those paths" in a MP3 player such that we can ignore the lesser aspects like outboard amps? Or to put it another way, if the first component in the chain, i.e., the source, has the inferior paths, doesn't that limit the benefit of anything after that part, whether it be amp, cable, or headphone? If the "audio signal is utterly destroyed" in the source, or even in the amp, but different amps sound different, and different headphones sound different, why can't different headphone cables sound different?

No, as I said headphones/speakers are ultimate bottleneck (including room treatment for speaker's case).

Whether outboard amps/DAC are sucking so hard is not really concern if headphones/speakers are unable to deliever the remaining quality at all! Yes, 200$ amp/DAC combo is inferior to 1000$ combo. But this comparison is does not matter if all you have is i-bud or 20$ speakers from Radio Shack.

Let me clear on this: ALL components on audio signal path from recording do some effects and degradition until the singal reaches our ears. Probably my word choice 'bottleneck' is not good one. What I intended to say is more of emphasis.

1.) Those internal wiring, which you have no control, has probably has at least same or more damaging affects on audio signal. If we say external cables and internal cables' length ratio is somewhere 70:30~50:50 then the effiency of spending money on cable is very bad idea because you only got 50%~70% of the money you spend (if such improvements exist) You can't completely change ALL cables in your system while you can with speakers, amplifiers and sources (thus getting 100% of the money spent)

2.) Headphones, speakers and room treatment themselves affect the signal the most, and compared to these the affect of cable is (if it really exists) so small that can be easily ignored. The affect of cable, at best, is much less than getting better amplifiers.


In pure objective view the whole audiophile cable industry is indeed snake oil. But even in economic view, buying expensive cable does not make sense because there are other components you can invest and can get better results.

I don't agree with that, and I don't think anything you've said establishes that, but I don't want to argue it here, as there are too many threads on this issue already.

This is the more interesting point to me, and the logic is just faulty. (Although it's unclear what you mean by "better results." I assume you mean a sound that is more preferable to the listener.) There is not an infinite number of each type of component making available an infinite variety of sound options (and even if there was, switching out a $2500 amp for another $2500 amp is not as easy as buying a $100 cable), so assuming arguendo that a silver cable is brighter than a copper cable (for example), the most economically efficient way to spend $100 and add some brightness to a system one already likes may to purchase a silver cable.

I hope to be able to test the Silver "brightness" proposition in the next few weeks.

Fair enough.

I don't know, about this paragraph actually proves my claim. You said it is not easy to swap 2500$ amplifier to another than buying 200$ cable (where is 100 bucks silver cable?? That's steal! ) Yes that's true.

And that's true ONLY when a person reaches the end of the food chains on other components. A 2500$ headphone amplifier, for example, is pretty much extreme high-end, and at that point diminishing returns make investiment on cables more efficient than further spending on amplifiers (well, again, assuming cables do make some differences.)

No one in head-fi, as far as I know, has recommended to get 200~300 bucks silver cable for HD650 to whom only has crappy portable amplifier to remove veil, for instance. So far everyone recommends to get better amplification/source first.

Spending 300 bucks on silver cable or 300 bucks on amplifier/source, few has claimed that former one is better.

That I would agree with. I would never say that the first choice or the next choice should always be a cable upgrade. I would just say that one cannot say that a cable upgrade is never the economical choice (especially when you can buy on return).

Are you sure you're not calculating the parallel signal paths as if they were in series? However, my own IC cables are indeed shorter than the signal paths in my Stax SRM-727II -- namely < 20 cm; I consider signal paths as short as possible beneficial, shorter cables sound more accurate to my ears.

I'm quoting this because it seems adequate in the context of the above issue.

The signal degradation caused by sound transducers is many magnitudes greater than that of any other component in an audio setup. Under this premise it's in fact astonishing that the human hearing can detect minor upstream flaws at all, some of them still significant enough to be of importance for the over-all sound quality. It can also detect ultra-fine nuances in a recording, which makes it a bit less unbelievable after all.

With this in mind, it's not too absurd to postulate a similar scenario in the case of signal-path degradation. So a specific degradation in a certain area doesn't mask another one, even if it's less pronounced.
.