New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The HDMI Cable Discussion - Page 17

post #241 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

I have an interesting analogous discussion here.

 

How does Headphone Break-In/Burn-In philosophy compare to the HDMI discussion?

 

Is it a myth, is it real, is it Placebo or is it only applied with specific headphones?


I find it real - but also mental, not placebo.

Placebo to me is like trying to believe something is better, but it never was in the first place.

Brain-burn-in or psychological burn-in - exists with anything - including driving a car.

At firs you might think its very hard to drive - 1 month later you find yourself drifting around corners -> just takes getting used to.

 

In actual burn-in - as in not mentally - If you gave me as said above, 2 DD's that iv'e heard, blind testing one being burnt in, the other not - I'm guaranteed I'll find differences.

The fact I use guaranteed is that I'm so sure I'll hear a difference that I don't even have to "explain it"

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

Good one. I don't think anyone who's been in a physics class argues burn-in occurs. Although people like to argue in terms of "burn-in happens or not", that's an oversimplification. The real question should be: can the human audition notice it or not? I believe in most cases it cannot, the differences should be very small. But until someone can explain how a cellulose or some other synthetic polymer diaphragm can suffer pressure shifts in miliseconds for days and not acquire micro-crevices and dents, I think it's safe to assume a driver driver change over time. But like other users have mentioned, our hearing memory is really crappy compared with other amazing stuff the human body has, so it's much easier for us to believe we heard a difference than to actually notice it. And even in high-end models there's enough variation so that a burned-in model and a not burned-in have differences from the beginning that are not related to burn-in, and I think they might even in some cases surpass the differences a driver suffers from burn-in. So it's not at all a black-and-white subject.


I'm no physicist, neither am i that go by science or anything like that.

I believe what I hear/experience.

If I hear the IE8's being rubbish, then that is what I go by, for their range of products. Doesn't mean because of the hype on head-fi i should be lead to believe they are good or bad.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

I don't understand. Are you saying there are differences in analog cable performances? Of course, if you consider like normal copper vs OCC copper, or better yet, vs OCC silver. Can humans perceive those differences in headphones? Definitely not as much as they say, and probably not enough for most to pass double-blind tests even with high-end headphones.

 

Now what puzzles me is the analogy. Are you saying that because there are differences in needles or headphones with different enclosures, there is a comparable number of differences in cables? Because I don't even know where to start.

Well I would love to test or see someone actually telling the difference between a silver and copper cable.

I don't find its THAT much of a difference - even from stock to custom cable.

 

I've still yet to understand people spending hundreds or even thousands on audio cables.

 

Of course length etc matters...but really...for a 1m cable paying over $200?
Then those people say the HDMI guys who buy expensive cables are not smart...

 

 

post #242 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post
As to the initial statement, people think a cable is a cable and that there are no differences in performance. Do they also consider a baseline headphone to be the same as the flagship model using the same driver? Is the basic vinyl needle the same as the flagship model, they are both needles after all. The same analogy people use for cables you wouldn't need to spend any more than a basic headphone or a basic needle to get the same performance as the flagship models.
The statement about a digital cable making an analog adjustment to the sound is rubbish. The signal in the digital realm hasn't been converted yet so I don't see how a digital cable can influence what you hear in your headphones. It can't improve bass extension or unveil the highs.

 

 

So basically you're saying that if there's a difference in headphones or vinyl needles, there must be a difference in digital cables too? That makes absolutely no sense. Just being different or having a different price means nothing inherently unless you understand in what way it's different, or analyze the overall perception with ABX testing. I'm an advocate of actually understanding the technology, but the reality is not many people here will I suppose. I did try to explain my best though so if you actually aren't lazy and are willing to read my posts a few pages back I explain exactly why it's NOT like differing quality headphones, etc.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post
Good one. I don't think anyone who's been in a physics class argues burn-in occurs. Although people like to argue in terms of "burn-in happens or not", that's an oversimplification. 

 

That's a good way of explaining it, and this actually applies to analog cables as well. Any physicist or electrical engineer will tell you that different metals and cable configurations etc. will result in a different effective capacitance and inductance that results from the wire (at least from a very simplified model of how it works). What this means in theory is it does modify the frequency spectrum somewhat (everything has limited bandwidth; nothing is perfect in the analog world), but the question is whether this is even remotely within human hearing range to even begin to matter.

 

As I understand it (and analogue design isn't my specialty), headphone cables should be providing much more than 22khz bandwidth -- I'd suspect gigahertz or more would be more common on a high quality wire (it's not like these wires are miles long) - literally millions of times more than you need. For perspective, even assuming your headphones can respond to 50khz (even though your ears can't), I doubt there's any wire that doesn't easily exceed that anyway.

 

Let me just make this clear. Saying that some cable cuts off frequencies at frequency X gigahertz does NOT in any way impact the frequencies below like 22 khz. To say otherwise is like saying "WHAT? The speed limit here is 100,000,000,000 miles per hour? This is unfair! Now I can't drive at 55 MPH properly. Don't give me your 'scientific mumbo jumbo' about it not effecting my speed, it's a speed limit therefore it must limit my speed, right! I don't care what science says, I'm gonna find a road with a higher speed limit so I can PROPERLY enjoy driving at 55 MPH." Do you see how silly that sounds?

 

If I was an audiophile scammer/snakeoil company though, I'd do it right: I'd build a cable that contains a tiny little capacitor which would absolutely and measurably change the frequency spectrum. Basically I'd make it act as an analogue equalizer, reducing treble or whatever. Then just make up a big technobabble spiel about scalar waves and the crystal harmonics that induce magic fairy love bubbles into the audio bit stream or something, paint it a unique color, and sell it for $100,000 a piece.


Edited by ac500 - 3/15/12 at 4:46am
post #243 of 338

I use the one I got for free with My PS3 tongue.gif

post #244 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post

A cable that contains a tiny little capacitor. Basically I'd make it act as an analogue equalizer, reducing treble or whatever. Then just make up a big technobabble spiel about scalar waves and the crystal harmonics that induce magic fairy love bubbles into the audio bit stream or something, paint it a unique color, and sell it for $100,000 a piece.



I've been looking for a new cable and this sound exactly like what I want. Where can I get one?

post #245 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post

If I was an audiophile scammer/snakeoil company though, I'd do it right: I'd build a cable that contains a tiny little capacitor which would absolutely and measurably change the frequency spectrum. Basically I'd make it act as an analogue equalizer, reducing treble or whatever. Then just make up a big technobabble spiel about scalar waves and the crystal harmonics that induce magic fairy love bubbles into the audio bit stream or something, paint it a unique color, and sell it for $100,000 a piece.


audioquest_HDMI-Diamond.jpg

 

Make sure it looks this impressive, important, and expensive though.

 

post #246 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post



So basically you're saying that if there's a difference in headphones or vinyl needles, there must be a difference in digital cables too? That makes absolutely no sense.

I am saying that analog cables do have a small but noticeable difference in sound. I use the analogy that basic devices and flagship devices do have some differences in sound so why not analog cables.

Digital cables, on the other hand, will not have an impact on analog sound.
post #247 of 338

Wow...

 

Well, the main reason why I find the HDMI and the Break-In discussions analogous is because that both have the philosophical aspect of it that claims of a difference and effect, while the scientific approach claims otherwise.  Note that there is no scientific backing for Break-in for headphones and is largely regarded as a myth or wishfull perception. Since we've established that headphones sound actually fluctuates from one to another, including in higher end models, such philosophy as Break-In is both hard to prove and disprove all at the same time. 

 

I remember when I initially bought my Sony XB500's, I was asking the salesperson what's the estimated break-in period on these, and he actually stated that all Sony headphones are pre-broken-in.

 

Interesting discussion either way.   I know this much, I have my Shures for almost a year now, and I love them more and more, and could actually swear that they sound better than when I initially got them.. But when I try to actually pin-point at which aspect, I find myself at halt.. simply because there really isn't anything in particular that is better. They are as clear, well defined, balanced and neutral as they used to be at the beginning.. blink.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #248 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

I remember when I initially bought my Sony XB500's, I was asking the salesperson what's the estimated break-in period on these, and he actually stated that all Sony headphones are pre-broken-in.

 

Interesting discussion either way.   I know this much, I have my Shures for almost a year now, and I love them more and more, and could actually swear that they sound better than when I initially got them.. But when I try to actually pin-point at which aspect, I find myself at halt.. simply because there really isn't anything in particular that is better. They are as clear, well defined, balanced and neutral as they used to be at the beginning.. blink.gif

 

 

I could EASILY tell you how my XB700's changed, along with the C710's, the C751's, the TFTA's, the MTPG's - list goes on.
 

 

 

post #249 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post
Note that there is no scientific backing for Break-in for headphones and is largely regarded as a myth or wishfull perception. Since we've established that headphones sound actually fluctuates from one to another, including in higher end models, such philosophy as Break-In is both hard to prove and disprove all at the same time. 

 

No, not only is break-in for headphones scientifically proven (at least loosely, to my satisfaction by Tyll's double-blind tests AND measurements), but it's understood why this would be. Now I'm not a mechanical engineer / physicist, but from the very limited theory I know, there's no reason that a resonating semimechanical mechanism won't change its characteristics over time. In fact I'm pretty sure it's inevitable, and a big problem for production (because they'll want to reduce this). The question is, how good of a job has production done in making sure any "break in" has settled, before shipping? I'm sure it's different for every headphone, but what is no longer argued is that break-in exists (I don't think anyone is arguing against it?) because Tyll has proven it with double-blind testing AND with measurements.

 

One thing to note is that there is definitely an additional psychological component to many things, which means that even though break-in is real, there's an additional placebo effect on top of that. That's just the way the human brain works. I wish some of you people would stop trying to say placebo doesn't effect you, sorry to say it's just not true.


Edited by ac500 - 3/16/12 at 6:16am
post #250 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post

 

No, not only is break-in for headphones scientifically proven (at least loosely, to my satisfaction by Tyll's double-blind tests AND measurements), but it's understood why this would be. Now I'm not a mechanical engineer / physicist, but from the very limited theory I know, there's no reason that a resonating semimechanical mechanism won't change its characteristics over time. In fact I'm pretty sure it's inevitable, and a big problem for production (because they'll want to reduce this). The question is, how good of a job has production done in making sure any "break in" has settled, before shipping? I'm sure it's different for every headphone, but what is no longer argued is that break-in exists (I don't think anyone is arguing against it?) because Tyll has proven it with double-blind testing AND with measurements.

 

One thing to note is that there is definitely an additional psychological component to many things, which means that even though break-in is real, there's an additional placebo effect on top of that. That's just the way the human brain works. I wish some of you people would stop trying to say placebo doesn't effect you, sorry to say it's just not true.

 


pla·ce·bo/pləˈsēbō/

 
Noun:
  1. A harmless pill, medicine, or procedure prescribed more for the psychological benefit to the patient than for any physiological effect.
  2. A substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs.

 

Placebo is not the same as brain-burn in and getting used to.

I got confused of you guys constantly using the term, that I even though it meant something else.

Looked it up again just to be sure.

 

having you getting used to the sound sig - is vastly different than me saying: "these should be good, thus they are"

post #251 of 338

I'm pretty sure the general principle is the same, but that's true that placebo is generally used in a medical concept. "Confirmation bias" as an alternate for example doesn't fully explain it though, but it's related to both that and placebo. The effect described here we see in many things, and it's very real, particularly in audio. The point is more about communicating this concept than making sure our usage of the term "placebo" is 100% correct, and I think it's pretty well understood what is meant when "placebo" is said here.

post #252 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post

I'm pretty sure the general principle is the same, but that's true that placebo is generally used in a medical concept. "Confirmation bias" as an alternate for example doesn't fully explain it though, but it's related to both that and placebo. The effect described here we see in many things, and it's very real, particularly in audio. The point is more about communicating this concept than making sure our usage of the term "placebo" is 100% correct, and I think it's pretty well understood what is meant when "placebo" is said here.


ok :)
I'm just stating that brain-burn in, is difference from placebo that you would get from feeling you ahve a better cable, because u paid more for it.

 

So:
Placebo being: I bought £500 earphones, they have to sound better, and they do!!!
When in fact they are just £50 drivers with a £500 price-tag -> monster

 

Cable:
I bought this Monster cable £100 wire - it has to be better than that £4 amazon one.

When in fact it isn't (as we have been discussing)

 

 

HOWEVER:
Burn-in, has nothing to do with placebo.

People who don't believe in it will say:
You just got used to the sound signature, nothing has changed physically, no coils have changed etc

 

People who believe in burn-in:
I feel that the coils etc after being used, have been now getting used to the music I play, and thus sound different.

 

using placebo for burn-in is wrong - at least I feel that way.

post #253 of 338

When  I buy HDMI cable, I go to the big supermarkets and buy the most inexpensive one most probably made in China. Never pay more or else you're a jackass.

One more thing - HDMI cables will work with HDMI version 1.3, 1.4 etc. so no need to look for something that states 1.4 to use in your 1.4 devices - got the idea yes? Not applicable for example to USB 2 and 3 - only HDMI.

Thumbs up if you feel the same way about HDMI cables!


Edited by moj0 - 3/16/12 at 7:01am
post #254 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moj0 View Post

When  I buy HDMI cable, I go to the big supermarkets and buy the most inexpensive one most probably made in China. Never pay more or else you're a jackass.

One more thing - HDMI cables will work with HDMI version 1.3, 1.4 etc. so no need to look for something that states 1.4 to use in your 1.4 devices - got the idea yes? Not applicable to USB 2 and 3 - only HDMI.


that's a little misleading/false

 

1.4 HDMI transfers a 3D signal.

I don't think 1.3 transfers a 3D signal.

 

And paying a little more for a nicely "braided cable" + gold jack isn't bad - as in £10 worth of cable, but agreed nothing more than that.

 

 

post #255 of 338

@ Totally Dubbed, you are correct. TVs and Bluray players have specs such as 1.3, 1.4 etc. If you upgrade your TV and Bluray player from 1.3 to 1.4 for example, you could still use your "old" HDMI cable you used with your HDMI 1.3 TV and player and have 1.4 goodies like 3D etc. That's what I was saying - about the cable. So next time you see an HDMI cable having Bluray 3D stickers and a bigger price you know you're not going to be fooled.


Edited by moj0 - 3/16/12 at 7:21am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: