Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Cables and Snake Oil - Please read before you are fooled!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cables and Snake Oil - Please read before you are fooled! - Page 5

post #61 of 170

None of this technical talk matters because until someone accurately blind tests a cable, and which kind etc, it can be viewed as non audible - and thus a non issue.

 

The logic is extremely easy to grasp... You cannot logically disagree with it. You can however not like the notion that what you are hearing is all in your head though.

 

One either hears a change, or does not. Volume matched, quick A/Bing is the most logical and scientifically sound method of testing, not to mention it gives the subject the highest theoretical chance of hearing a change. If no change is heard, or if statistically their detection is worthless... well then so is the concept cables effect audio for human ears. You hear with your ears, and nothing else. So why do people get so mad when their ability is scrutinized and asked to be tested? Oh, is it maybe because it hurts their pooowww widdle ego and they fail each time?

 

No detection through a controlled test with no cues other than sound = you can't actually hear it IE it is placebo. End of story.

 

It is a joke that this stuff is huge debate in audio. A huge Fing joke. Read the available data, do testing yourself with the help of a friend, wife ETC... and see the truth for yourself.

post #62 of 170

The worst part too is people get stuck in Low-Fi/Mid-fi wasting their cash on cables, fuses, etc etc when they could actually be buying useful stuff because they are convinced their ears are so sensitive they can hear that which does not (or almost without doubt) exist.

 

Funny how people my parents age or older (50), with worse gear than myself can "hear" these changes but of course refuse to do any real testing... but they do hear it and if you don't well your ears are tin... but done remove their eyes because that is not fair and waaaaaaaaaaaaah causes stress. A tad ironic one might think, and highly amusing.

 

Oh well. My system is as good as it is because I sold off all that cable junk and was honest with myself, and I couldn't be happier. I wouldn't have been able to afford something as high end as what I have had I been frittering my cash away all this time on the useless.

 

I suggest others learn from me and do the same. Be honest, sell your cables, and get stuff that is ACTUALLY good  like amps, headphones, and sources.

post #63 of 170

 

Thats not insulting at all.

post #64 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokolov91 View Post

None of this technical talk matters because until someone accurately blind tests a cable, and which kind etc, it can be viewed as non audible - and thus a non issue.

 

The logic is extremely easy to grasp... You cannot logically disagree with it. You can however not like the notion that what you are hearing is all in your head though.

 

One either hears a change, or does not. Volume matched, quick A/Bing is the most logical and scientifically sound method of testing, not to mention it gives the subject the highest theoretical chance of hearing a change. If no change is heard, or if statistically their detection is worthless... well then so is the concept cables effect audio for human ears. You hear with your ears, and nothing else. So why do people get so mad when their ability is scrutinized and asked to be tested? Oh, is it maybe because it hurts their pooowww widdle ego and they fail each time?

 

No detection through a controlled test with no cues other than sound = you can't actually hear it IE it is placebo. End of story.

 

It is a joke that this stuff is huge debate in audio. A huge Fing joke. Read the available data, do testing yourself with the help of a friend, wife ETC... and see the truth for yourself.

If you frase that as: "As long as people that can hear a difference are not jumping through my DBT hoop I won't believe they can actually hear a difference" I will agree with you, but the way you frase it you are implying you are the owner of True Knowledge and telling the world how things are.

A friend of mine always says: "If you want to know something for sure, ask a 20 year old". He's right.
 

post #65 of 170
Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac View Post

 

Out of phase with the original input. To explain further, the dielectric stores energy as a current passes, the problem is that if the dielectric does not re-release the energy at the same point in the waveform that it absorbed it, the energy will be released from the dielectric at a point that isn't where it was in the original current.

AC doesn't pass through a dielectric. ; only the polarities of the plates are changed every half cycle. If a.c. does pass, it is called dielectric breakdown. However, the dielectric does not respond well with an a.c.; its resistance to the "flow of current" decreases with increase in the frequency of a.c.

 

But absolute phase is irrelevant. The recoding was done days to years ago and so phase is gone. Only relative phase matters. This is pretty important when a waveform is split up (such as with a crossover), where phase inversions can cause cancelation, or where large phase shifts of part of the signal may cause the sound to break up; but phase shifts of an entire waveform would make no difference at all.

 

Is there a difference on the outbound waveform? Can I see it on an osciliscope?

 

Quote:

He literally is discussing the wire (conductor) vibrating when current moves through it. He put up this nifty little video to help illustrate:

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=49&pagestring=Current+Through+A+Cable+(video)

That's not what I see. What I see is an electromagnet. If running current through a wire didn't make movement, then voicecoils wouldn't work. I don't see anything in the experiment that ties into speaker wire's ability to transmit an electromagnetic wave accurately. Can you tie this back into sound?

 

Quote:
Is solder forming a chemical bond, i.e. is it forming molecular orbitals with whatever it is applied to? I don't actually know the answer to that question but I would say that I think it is more like forging alloys in a sense where there are discreet sections of different materials that form a circuit due to contact rather than forming a new compound.

 

Regardless: though there is a measurable effect of any connection (just like there's a measurable difference between a 2' cable and a 3' cable); there is nothing indicating any impact on the waveform remotely withing the threshold for sound.

 

Quote:

Eddies are impurities or imperfections in the crystal structure. Per the eddy currents, you can take a look here and let me know what you think:

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=42&pagestring=Low+Eddy+Copper

 

Even in his actual description (on thermal conductivity) he indicates that there is only a difference when "the free electron supply dried up and conductivity was phonetic (vibrations directly through the contiguous crystalline structure)."

 

I don't doubt that different forging processes result in different physical properties. What I'm looking for are pertinent electrical properties.

 

Quote:
It makes sense that impurities would change the MOs as I discussed previously. The effect thereby would have to be discussed in terms of how electricity actually passes. Essentially the energy in the current is absorbed by the electrons in the conductance band, the electron rises to the valence band, and then rereleases the energy as it falls into the conductance band. Yes there are multiple bands of different energy levels but that is too much for now. The energy that is rereleased is absorbed by the copper atoms/molecular structure conductance band MO that then repeats the process and the signal passes. Impurities in this crystal structure would alter the MOs thereby altering the way the current is transferred.

 

Ok, but to what effect? If, for example, we are simply slowing propigation, or changing impedance; then you've simply got the "copper vs silver" issue, where the threshold for distortion changes (you can use a slightly lower gauge of silver to get the same fidelity as a slightly higher gauge of copper).

 

Quote:

I may be wrong but wouldn't PCI connectors be digital logic (i.e. 1s and 0s) that are error correcting? I think they also go into a buffer and are clocked out but truth be told I am not a computer expert. 

 

Parallel buses are in danger of failure because of electrons not arriving together. Even in the event that error correction is added; the performance hit would be tremendous. The reason that traces are so precise on high-speed circuits, why distances are so low, and why PCI moved to serial (PCI-E) is because of the very low tolerance for error.

 

Quote:

Answered above to the first question. To the second question I actually have not been provided measurements and am working just off of a chemical explanation of the impact of impurities on the MOs. Though I personally think the superconductor applications are nifty cool.gif

 

I do love me some superconductors (though the first non-super-conductor in the chain might blow because they look like shorts), and I have no trouble believing that there are applications where the difference in the copper wires being discussed matter. Thusfar I don't see an indication that audio is one of those applications.

post #66 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post



Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac View Post

 

Out of phase with the original input. To explain further, the dielectric stores energy as a current passes, the problem is that if the dielectric does not re-release the energy at the same point in the waveform that it absorbed it, the energy will be released from the dielectric at a point that isn't where it was in the original current.

AC doesn't pass through a dielectric. ; only the polarities of the plates are changed every half cycle. If a.c. does pass, it is called dielectric breakdown. However, the dielectric does not respond well with an a.c.; its resistance to the "flow of current" decreases with increase in the frequency of a.c.

 

But absolute phase is irrelevant. The recoding was done days to years ago and so phase is gone. Only relative phase matters. This is pretty important when a waveform is split up (such as with a crossover), where phase inversions can cause cancelation, or where large phase shifts of part of the signal may cause the sound to break up; but phase shifts of an entire waveform would make no difference at all.

 

Is there a difference on the outbound waveform? Can I see it on an osciliscope?

 

Ah, I did some more reading and reread my interview with him, its not necessarily a passing of the current more of a current "lag" that results from the differing impedance of the dielectric. It seems that as current passes it does interact with the surroundings and could probably be explained by looking at the intermolecular dipoles and hysteresis. The magnitude could probably be solved with some nasty flux integrals if you took the time to map a vector field. You are correct in saying that it is only relative phase though I find that to be slightly ambiguous and I hope I clarified enough in the above statements to explain why. I do not know the difference on the outbound waveform, though I would assume if it is a problem it would be visible on a sensitive enough oscilloscope in a quiet enough environment. 

 

Quote:

He literally is discussing the wire (conductor) vibrating when current moves through it. He put up this nifty little video to help illustrate:

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=49&pagestring=Current+Through+A+Cable+(video)

That's not what I see. What I see is an electromagnet. If running current through a wire didn't make movement, then voicecoils wouldn't work. I don't see anything in the experiment that ties into speaker wire's ability to transmit an electromagnetic wave accurately. Can you tie this back into sound?

 

If running a current through a wire causes movement, why would it be different in interconnects? Sorry but I don't understand the question.

 

Quote:
Is solder forming a chemical bond, i.e. is it forming molecular orbitals with whatever it is applied to? I don't actually know the answer to that question but I would say that I think it is more like forging alloys in a sense where there are discreet sections of different materials that form a circuit due to contact rather than forming a new compound.

 

Regardless: though there is a measurable effect of any connection (just like there's a measurable difference between a 2' cable and a 3' cable); there is nothing indicating any impact on the waveform remotely withing the threshold for sound.

 

To this, I can not comment as I have not conducted any experiments to test it, nor have I seen any "good" experiments (any actually) that show this. I have conducted an experiment that showed electrical differences though not restricted in the audio band, as I didn't specifically test in the audio band at that time. 

 

Quote:

Eddies are impurities or imperfections in the crystal structure. Per the eddy currents, you can take a look here and let me know what you think:

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=42&pagestring=Low+Eddy+Copper

 

Even in his actual description (on thermal conductivity) he indicates that there is only a difference when "the free electron supply dried up and conductivity was phonetic (vibrations directly through the contiguous crystalline structure)."

 

I don't doubt that different forging processes result in different physical properties. What I'm looking for are pertinent electrical properties.

 

The electrical properties I would say has to do with MOs...

 

Quote:
It makes sense that impurities would change the MOs as I discussed previously. The effect thereby would have to be discussed in terms of how electricity actually passes. Essentially the energy in the current is absorbed by the electrons in the conductance band, the electron rises to the valence band, and then rereleases the energy as it falls into the conductance band. Yes there are multiple bands of different energy levels but that is too much for now. The energy that is rereleased is absorbed by the copper atoms/molecular structure conductance band MO that then repeats the process and the signal passes. Impurities in this crystal structure would alter the MOs thereby altering the way the current is transferred.

 

Ok, but to what effect? If, for example, we are simply slowing propigation, or changing impedance; then you've simply got the "copper vs silver" issue, where the threshold for distortion changes (you can use a slightly lower gauge of silver to get the same fidelity as a slightly higher gauge of copper).

 

The effect of impurities would vary on their physical properties. Oxygen for example is a terrible conductor, if you had oxygen impurities certain volumes in your cable may not even transfer electricity; albeit small. To what effect that has I actually can not comment, as I have not conducted or seen any studies that demonstrate or test for this. 

 

Quote:

I may be wrong but wouldn't PCI connectors be digital logic (i.e. 1s and 0s) that are error correcting? I think they also go into a buffer and are clocked out but truth be told I am not a computer expert. 

 

Parallel buses are in danger of failure because of electrons not arriving together. Even in the event that error correction is added; the performance hit would be tremendous. The reason that traces are so precise on high-speed circuits, why distances are so low, and why PCI moved to serial (PCI-E) is because of the very low tolerance for error.

 

Seems like you are implying length of cable can provide a difference in the transfer of electricity? Thanks for the info though, I don't know much about the bus design but it makes sense.

 

Quote:

Answered above to the first question. To the second question I actually have not been provided measurements and am working just off of a chemical explanation of the impact of impurities on the MOs. Though I personally think the superconductor applications are nifty cool.gif

 

I do love me some superconductors (though the first non-super-conductor in the chain might blow because they look like shorts), and I have no trouble believing that there are applications where the difference in the copper wires being discussed matter. Thusfar I don't see an indication that audio is one of those applications.

 

The only differences I would say would be if the impurities cause differences to audio waveforms (explainable by MOs) and/or if the resonance of the cable itself affected the energy (imparted its own mechanical energy into electrical energy and caused its own sound), and/or if the dielectric lagging had an effect on the waveform. 

 

To my knowledge none of the phenomena have really been tested for. I would venture to say that it would be a difficult experiment to conduct, and for the debate of whether or not cables make a difference there are far easier experiments to conduct that could lend decent conviction either way. 

 

As before, I answered in bold.

 

Dave
 

post #67 of 170

If I've not mentioned it: thanks for taking the time to answer.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac View Post

Ah, I did some more reading and reread my interview with him, its not necessarily a passing of the current more of a current "lag" that results from the differing impedance of the dielectric. It seems that as current passes it does interact with the surroundings and could probably be explained by looking at the intermolecular dipoles and hysteresis. The magnitude could probably be solved with some nasty flux integrals if you took the time to map a vector field. You are correct in saying that it is only relative phase though I find that to be slightly ambiguous and I hope I clarified enough in the above statements to explain why. I do not know the difference on the outbound waveform, though I would assume if it is a problem it would be visible on a sensitive enough oscilloscope in a quiet enough environment.

 

But a lag which affected the entire waveform would have no impact on sound. Is there any alteration of the waveform itself, or just a delay?

 

Quote:
If running a current through a wire causes movement, why would it be different in interconnects? Sorry but I don't understand the question.

I suppose my point was that it's not vibration. In the case of AC current running through a speaker cable: you just don't get that kind of interaction. Even though the power is much higher than the lantern battery he is using: notice that speaker cables don't bounce around. Power lines don't either.

 

Interconnects are actually lower in power than the battery. You generally don't loop them, they are farther apart. They are thicker. They have shielding (as they are prone to RF interference).

 

Quote:
To this, I can not comment as I have not conducted any experiments to test it, nor have I seen any "good" experiments (any actually) that show this. I have conducted an experiment that showed electrical differences though not restricted in the audio band, as I didn't specifically test in the audio band at that time. 

 

There are certainly measurable electrical differences between any two pieces of metal. Impedance, as a simple example, will be different.

 

If a wire's impedance exceeds about 5% of the speakers minimum impedance then we do indeed risk audio distortion. This (and not melting your wires) is why there's a minimum correct gauge of wire for a given speaker / wire length.

 

There are also going to be amplitude losses, which means a reduction in cone travel and so volume. Again, these can be quantified and we can put a limit on them. Even then though, the actual sound is not changed except for volume... and by the time we are discussing runs long enough for that to matter, we have some other real issues to deal with (when we are discussing 1000'+ speaker cable runs there are more factors than normal runs).

 

Quote:
The effect of impurities would vary on their physical properties. Oxygen for example is a terrible conductor, if you had oxygen impurities certain volumes in your cable may not even transfer electricity; albeit small. To what effect that has I actually can not comment, as I have not conducted or seen any studies that demonstrate or test for this.

I agree that oxidized copper presents a different conductance than non-oxidized. The wave does, however, just flow around it.

 

Quote:
Seems like you are implying length of cable can provide a difference in the transfer of electricity? Thanks for the info though, I don't know much about the bus design but it makes sense.

 

There's no doubt that trace length has an effect. In the case of a parallel bus, the issue is simply one of travel time. Electric waves propigate through copper at just below the speed of light. Many pieces of computer hardware operate in such small time slices that very little differences in lengths (and therefor travel time) can cause failure.

 

Quote:

The only differences I would say would be if the impurities cause differences to audio waveforms (explainable by MOs) and/or if the resonance of the cable itself affected the energy (imparted its own mechanical energy into electrical energy and caused its own sound), and/or if the dielectric lagging had an effect on the waveform. 

 

To my knowledge none of the phenomena have really been tested for. I would venture to say that it would be a difficult experiment to conduct, and for the debate of whether or not cables make a difference there are far easier experiments to conduct that could lend decent conviction either way. 

 

Agreed. Experimentation of the results trumps the analysis of the expected outcome. That said: a cable designer not simply trying things at random must have a theory as to *why* to design the way he designs. The proof my be in the results, but one cannot design from "well, they should sound good" because that's not helpful in choosing specifications.


Edited by JerryLove - 1/3/11 at 6:57pm
post #68 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

If I've not mentioned it: thanks for taking the time to answer.

 

You're welcome, thanks for the questions, they are a good source for furthering an understanding. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac View Post

Ah, I did some more reading and reread my interview with him, its not necessarily a passing of the current more of a current "lag" that results from the differing impedance of the dielectric. It seems that as current passes it does interact with the surroundings and could probably be explained by looking at the intermolecular dipoles and hysteresis. The magnitude could probably be solved with some nasty flux integrals if you took the time to map a vector field. You are correct in saying that it is only relative phase though I find that to be slightly ambiguous and I hope I clarified enough in the above statements to explain why. I do not know the difference on the outbound waveform, though I would assume if it is a problem it would be visible on a sensitive enough oscilloscope in a quiet enough environment.

 

But a lag which affected the entire waveform would have no impact on sound. Is there any alteration of the waveform itself, or just a delay?

 

It was explained to me more in the sense of wake and the hull of a boat, in the scenario of a cable, the wake is due to the different impedance of the dielectric and the hull is akin to the conductor. The issue has to be looked at in a 3d sense, because the conductor center is not touching the dielectric directly, it will have no interaction with the dielectric while the outside will. Therefore the current on the outside directly adjacent to the dielectric will have to deal with absorption and release with the dielectric (could probably be an interesting topic for Frontier Molecular Orbital Theory applications...).

 

Quote:
If running a current through a wire causes movement, why would it be different in interconnects? Sorry but I don't understand the question.

I suppose my point was that it's not vibration. In the case of AC current running through a speaker cable: you just don't get that kind of interaction. Even though the power is much higher than the lantern battery he is using: notice that speaker cables don't bounce around. Power lines don't either.

 

I think perhaps he is saying that the cable may resonate on some small level that is countered by it being surrounded by the cables rubber skin or other sources of inertia. I am not sure that I can comment further but if this is the case I would suggest that maybe it is either the inertia preventing the resonances or the different resonant frequencies of the materials surrounding it. 

 

Interconnects are actually lower in power than the battery. You generally don't loop them, they are farther apart. They are thicker. They have shielding (as they are prone to RF interference).

 

I think this fits into the above, the magnitude of the force for the resonance would be lower, the inertia greater, so maybe the vibrations are just unnoticeable beyond an electrical level, or perhaps they are non existent. I can't comment...

 

Quote:
To this, I can not comment as I have not conducted any experiments to test it, nor have I seen any "good" experiments (any actually) that show this. I have conducted an experiment that showed electrical differences though not restricted in the audio band, as I didn't specifically test in the audio band at that time. 

 

There are certainly measurable electrical differences between any two pieces of metal. Impedance, as a simple example, will be different.

 

If a wire's impedance exceeds about 5% of the speakers minimum impedance then we do indeed risk audio distortion. This (and not melting your wires) is why there's a minimum correct gauge of wire for a given speaker / wire length.

 

There are also going to be amplitude losses, which means a reduction in cone travel and so volume. Again, these can be quantified and we can put a limit on them. Even then though, the actual sound is not changed except for volume... and by the time we are discussing runs long enough for that to matter, we have some other real issues to deal with (when we are discussing 1000'+ speaker cable runs there are more factors than normal runs).

 

Quote:
The effect of impurities would vary on their physical properties. Oxygen for example is a terrible conductor, if you had oxygen impurities certain volumes in your cable may not even transfer electricity; albeit small. To what effect that has I actually can not comment, as I have not conducted or seen any studies that demonstrate or test for this.

I agree that oxidized copper presents a different conductance than non-oxidized. The wave does, however, just flow around it.

 

Any idea if this causes any issues in waves in general? Thinking of current movement as photon emission/absorption/emission patterns I would assume some of the current would hit the impurities and behave differently...

 

I would think something would happen, whether or not this has impact on audio is a different question. 

 

Quote:
Seems like you are implying length of cable can provide a difference in the transfer of electricity? Thanks for the info though, I don't know much about the bus design but it makes sense.

 

There's no doubt that trace length has an effect. In the case of a parallel bus, the issue is simply one of travel time. Electric waves propigate through copper at just below the speed of light. Many pieces of computer hardware operate in such small time slices that very little differences in lengths (and therefor travel time) can cause failure.

 

Quote:

The only differences I would say would be if the impurities cause differences to audio waveforms (explainable by MOs) and/or if the resonance of the cable itself affected the energy (imparted its own mechanical energy into electrical energy and caused its own sound), and/or if the dielectric lagging had an effect on the waveform. 

 

To my knowledge none of the phenomena have really been tested for. I would venture to say that it would be a difficult experiment to conduct, and for the debate of whether or not cables make a difference there are far easier experiments to conduct that could lend decent conviction either way. 

 

Agreed. Experimentation of the results trumps the analysis of the expected outcome. That said: a cable designer not simply trying things at random must have a theory as to *why* to design the way he designs. The proof my be in the results, but one cannot design from "well, they should sound good" because that's not helpful in choosing specifications.

 

You are correct, though I would say that even with a goal, the results need to be quantified. To that end I think there is not enough good data.

 

 

Dave
 

post #69 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by sokolov91 View Post

None of this technical talk matters because until someone accurately blind tests a cable, and which kind etc, it can be viewed as non audible - and thus a non issue.

 

The logic is extremely easy to grasp... You cannot logically disagree with it. You can however not like the notion that what you are hearing is all in your head though.

 

One either hears a change, or does not. Volume matched, quick A/Bing is the most logical and scientifically sound method of testing, not to mention it gives the subject the highest theoretical chance of hearing a change. If no change is heard, or if statistically their detection is worthless... well then so is the concept cables effect audio for human ears. You hear with your ears, and nothing else. So why do people get so mad when their ability is scrutinized and asked to be tested? Oh, is it maybe because it hurts their pooowww widdle ego and they fail each time?

 

No detection through a controlled test with no cues other than sound = you can't actually hear it IE it is placebo. End of story.

 

It is a joke that this stuff is huge debate in audio. A huge Fing joke. Read the available data, do testing yourself with the help of a friend, wife ETC... and see the truth for yourself.

If you frase that as: "As long as people that can hear a difference are not jumping through my DBT hoop I won't believe they can actually hear a difference" I will agree with you, but the way you frase it you are implying you are the owner of True Knowledge and telling the world how things are.

A friend of mine always says: "If you want to know something for sure, ask a 20 year old". He's right.
 


right, and old farts that are stuck in their ways are any better than a perhaps ignorant 20 year old? Didn't think so. :P (just teasing so please don't "blow a fuse" ;)"

 

 

The point is that there is no way to verify that the people actually are  hearing these changes.... I can post anything I want here... anything...well almost.

 

So, if I told you I had an entire Mark Levingston set up at 20 years and have a Phd in astrophysics as well as 3 smoking hot wives... you might ask me for a photo if you didn't believe me... right? Now if I actually did have such things, producing a photo with evidence, certificates and documents would do nothing than give me a sense of satisfaction as you "read em and wept"... but if I didn't actually have it, I might say you can't prove that I do not... which you can't really... So I do not show you any photos, and call you names for not believing me... yet somehow you are the ignorant one... catch my drift?

 

Calling someone ignorant because they don't believe improbably rantings of crazed hobbyists is retarded. I am not ignorant, but I am highly skeptical.

 

Now, stating you can hear differences, then refusing to do DBT, and stating DBT is for people with tin ears and science freaks ETC is a an ad hominem tactic and does not actually change the fact you have yet to prove anything you say is something other than complete conjecture. DBT is not a flawed way of measuring. In fact it is near perfect. If no detection is made, humans need not worry about cables... which so far is very much the case.

 

If you really can here these differences, you should be open to DBT and pass them with great accuracy... now if you can't actually hear them... I can see why you are so opposed to it and it causes you distress and anger... I mean... HOW DARE I question anyone and ask for some proof to their  outlandish claims... how ignorant to seek understanding and proof...

 

You are right, I will not believe anyone until they have passed a controlled experiment because then it is the facts that speak, not some crazy audiophile. I can tell you I hear the difference between a dusty system and a clean one. one cable or another, one house or another, one power cable or another, a fuse... the list goes on and gets increasingly ludicrous... but until someone sits down and proves it, you might as well be blow hot air out your... well you get the picture.

 

I am not ignorant, I just don't believe things for no reason.

 

 

People thinking they can hear cables pleases their ego, and gives them a reason to waste money... having that taken from them is indeed a blow but one that needs to be served. Imagine what the average head-fier could afford were it not wasted on cables and the likes? I am a perfect example of having a stellar system at a young age because it was well placed in things that matter.

 

I have nothing to lose because my dignity is not at stake... can't say the same for others.

 

No I am not the owner of absolute knowledge and I am offering nothing other than my logic with regards to the situation. This has nothing to do with me as a person. I openly state I cannot detect cables whilst blind and am only trying to help the head-fiers that are not past the "cable event horizon".

 

If I sound at all pompous it is merely because I am trying to make a strong argument. nothing is meant as personal towards anyone including myself.


Edited by sokolov91 - 1/3/11 at 10:51pm
post #70 of 170
Thread Starter 

 

100x100px-LS-94dc337f_niglet.gif

@sokolov91:

 

I completely agree with you. I am very new (almost nothing compared to some others here) to the audiophile world, and I have yet to get my first amp and headphones. However, what I do have is both an analog engineering doctorate (for example, I know fully what terms like "negative feedback" and the other high flying terms being bandied around here mean - and by some posters who have no clue of what such things mean) and an extensive background in electromagnetics.There is so much  misinformation out there on the Internet, and people are happy throwing away cash on utter nonsense.

 

Please don't get me wrong - cables _do_ make a difference - but only at RF frequencies - not audio frequencies. For all others, there is absolutely no engineering evidence to believe that it changes any audio or ultrasonic frequencies at all. In fact, distortion to all harmonics is so low, that it is almost impossible to measure with the most advanced oscilloscopes sitting in my laboratory right now. Lamp wire is a good example of a great audio/speaker cable.

 

As for the people who like expensive cables - please continue to buy them in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I am sure the cable dudes are laughing all the way to the bank thanks to us "audiophiles".


Edited by akart - 1/3/11 at 11:13pm
post #71 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by akart View Post

 

100x100px-LS-94dc337f_niglet.gif

@sokolov91:

 

I completely agree with you. I am very new (almost nothing compared to some others here) to the audiophile world, and I have yet to get my first amp and headphones. However, what I do have is both an analog engineering doctorate (for example, I know fully what terms like "negative feedback" and the other high flying terms being bandied around here mean - and by some posters who have no clue of what such things mean) and an extensive background in electromagnetics.There is so much  misinformation out there on the Internet, and people are happy throwing away cash on utter nonsense.

 

Please don't get me wrong - cables _do_ make a difference - but only at RF frequencies - not audio frequencies. For all others, there is absolutely no engineering evidence to believe that it changes any audio or ultrasonic frequencies at all. In fact, distortion to all harmonics is so low, that it is almost impossible to measure with the most advanced oscilloscopes sitting in my laboratory right now. Lamp wire is a good example of a great audio/speaker cable.

 

As for the people who like expensive cables - please continue to buy them in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I am sure the cable dudes are laughing all the way to the bank thanks to us "audiophiles".



Funny thing is, despite your apparent doctorate, people will say you don't "listen to the music" or you "don't hear the soul"... basically they will invent any number of terms and situations in which you are somehow suffering from not having "high end cables". It is sad and pathetic really in some cases, but usually it is just genuine mistakes on most people. Most of the members I respect here the most believe in cables, but I do not blame them for it. The ones I do blame are the ones who go around perpetuating BS and causing other people to waste their money as they have.

 

As far as I am concerned, all talk of cables should be banned on head-fi, and not DBT. Too bad cable distributors can give so much cash to head-fi due to their retarded high profit margins... makes it very hard for the staff to make a stand due to financial reasons.

 

It is a damned shame you see so many new head-fiers wanting to "get the most" out of that 300$ amp with a 250$ cable... if only they had bought a 550$ amp instead where their money is actually being used... even if with increasingly diminishing returns.

 

But alas it is a free country and people are free to believe in whatever wizardry they want and exercise that right to its fullest.

post #72 of 170

@akart

 

You mention overwhelming evidence towards the contrary, could you provide some for me?  I have not been able to find any that lends significant conviction in either direction. 

 

@sokolov91

 

I see you like DBT from some of your previous posts. Would you mind listing some of the DBTs that have been well conducted that you seem to be basing your view on so that I can read through and gain a better understanding of your view.

 

 

Dave


Edited by myinitialsaredac - 1/3/11 at 11:36pm
post #73 of 170

There are a load of blind tests here

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

 

For me, the overwhelming evidence is the lack of any sort of connection between cable construction and sound.

 

1 - blind testing shows no link

 

2 - actual construction eg silver vs copper shows no link

 

3 - any apparent link is a weak one and is based on finding differences in cables such as eddy currants and then suggesting that they cause sound differences. Other reasons such as placebo are ignored in reaching such conclusions.

 


Edited by Prog Rock Man - 1/4/11 at 3:08am
post #74 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

There are a load of blind tests here

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

 

For me, the overwhelming evidence is the lack of any sort of connection between cable construction and sound.

 

1 - blind testing shows no link

 

I read through the links you posted in your thread. Thank you for taking the time to put that together.

It may just be me but I did not find any of the blind tests pertinent to cables to be well conducted, for example this one:

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/190566/blind-cable-taste-test-results

 

If someone had never heard different cables before or was only working off of preconceptions how is this in any way yielding pertinent results? As one of the people in the experiment noted, he developed preferences consistently for each of the cables. The other issue in general for these is the sample size. 

 

2 - actual construction eg silver vs copper shows no link

 

Perhaps the handling of current of different highly conductive metals is not different? From an MO (molecular orbital) perspective I don't think that would be far fetched. I would say impurities would have more effect if there is a difference, which to my knowledge has not been answered (at least for me). 

 

3 - any apparent link is a weak one and is based on finding differences in cables such as eddy currants and then suggesting that they cause sound differences. Other reasons such as placebo are ignored in reaching such conclusions.

 

I feel that you are implying that eddy currents are a made up phenomena? It is apparent that eddy currents exist (they have to as long as there are impurities), however the question is if they are audible. Placebo is not ignored, but if someone is looking for an explanation it seems that using placebo effect as an explanation would be one of the last steps.

 


Answered in bold above.

 

Dave

post #75 of 170

Or one could prescribe to the free-electron theory for metals rather than deal with orbitals (and metals don't really have "molecules" per se, unless you're counting grain structures but those are a bit larger in scale than molecules).

 

*shrug*

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Cables and Snake Oil - Please read before you are fooled!