Dilemma: Should I not believe any reviewers who talk about cables or just ignore that section of... - Page 100

The difference between 1 meter and 2 meters makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Unless you're planning on putting your stereo at opposite ends of your 5 bedroom house, you don't have any reason to worry about the length.

Strapping ingots of 24 carat gold...

All that weight insures they cannot blow away. Great selling point, as worth the money as any audio claim.
Edited by Clarkmc2 - 8/12/12 at 4:46pm

Agreed, but this is a particular case and my suspicion was raised about the test because of the claim of making a 2 meter stereo pair out of 4 coat hangers. Nothing to do with the plausibility of the cables sounding great, just that the numbers didn't add up as described in the post. Honestly, I'd love for it to be a rock solid test and was disappointed that it wasn't documented better. 

 

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html

Why would anyone worry about the testing methodology behind using coathangers as audio cables? The fact that they work at all is the point.

Because I would have loved to have the test be well documented and bullet proof as a solid example of how little cable performance effects performance; however, I try not to accept things as true just because I like the conclusion.

 

I care about the argument and it's validity, and I care about the way people make claims and arguments. For me, it would be disingenuous to dismiss the error I saw in the report just because I- personally -like the conclusion.

 

This particular test has come up many times online and I see a big flashing red neon sign saying, "somethings not quite right." I'm not going to ignore it or dismiss it with a wave of a hand. I care because I see a big hole in something I would like to be able to point to and say, "there's your proof dude" but I can't- there's a big flashing neon sign sitting on top of the anecdote.

There are lots of rigorous tests comparing high end cables to Radio Shack. Ultimately that's a lot more relevant than how well coat hnagers perform. The fact that a reasonably good signal came through at all tells you what you need to know about that.

It happened again..  While reading about sonic comparisons of two very expensive headphones to help me with a purchase decision, the very well-respected and prolific head-fi author makes an aside about how silver cables provide more fluid mids and highs.  Ag.  

Your profile pic makes me think of the Angel episode "Smile Time"; silver cables make me think of anti-werewolf conspiracy (it makes more sense than "more fluid mids"); and you end your post with a pun nerdy enough for Willow Rosenberg. This seems to much for coincidence - maybe we should all be buying anti-werewolf garrottes?

There are definitely differences in audio cables, but can we hear these differences?  The test should be easy enough.

 

Tyll Hertsens over at InnerFidelity.com is working on something regarding cables so keep your ears open.

 

As for measurements these tests can also be done.  Many cables I see in the market have claims, but the only measurements I have seen that make sense are the instantaneous current draw curves.  Different cables differ by up to 50 microseconds, but I have no idea whether I would hear that or not.  The simplest test is to to the cable swap yourself or record something through each cable and see if you can hear the difference in playback.  Better yet do the old inverse polarity trick and add the two together.

 

Most gear I have tested sounds very similar especially DAC units.  I have had a few amps that sound different, but I expect that from an amp more than a DAC.  The amp controls the speaker after all and impedance becomes such an important roll at that point.

 

There are honest people out there that say they can hear the difference which means we should be able to as well.  There is no doubt that the standard cable upgrade is one of the easiest ways to increase profit and I hear people doing it at audio outlets all of the time who have no right to say it.  I usually go with a well built cable and leave it at that.  Take my PBJ RCA cables.  They cost $100 or so for an RCA cable, but to me it was worth it because I have had so many poorly made RCA cables that are noisy or have poor connectors.  Now spending more than that depends upon budget.  You can look at it another way.  If we had unlimited funds which cable would you buy knowing nothing about actual sound quality?  You would tend towards the more expensive because you assume some of that cost goes into labor and components.  In the end we all buy what we can afford and what we like.

 

Sound quality is more of hobby for many of us and in the long run it is more about the journey than the results in the end.

 

 

Yep, I wonder if this cable nonsense started in stores..... "that guy works for an audio store, he must be like...an audio genius or engineer!"

 

Reminds me of the Lens protectors debate in Cameras. Stores push lens protection filters becuase of insane Profit margin.

 

Pros and smarter amatuers point out the stupidity of putting a $25-$100 piece of glass to put over a $500-$1000+ piece of glass to "protect" it.

 

Meanwhile, the included Lens hoods(actually improves Image quality and protection) get chucked out by amatuers who argue online about the dangers of not have lens "protection" filters.

 

[Mod Edit: Moved the reply outside of the quote.]

 

Not true at all. Pro's I've known have always used a UV filter. You have to understand that a $1000 len will have, oh, 9 elements. Some of them will be *very* complex grinds and they have to be held in precise alignment relative to each other. The filter otoh is just a flat piece of glass! Delivering flat pieces of glass is easy; grinding multi element aspherical fluoride lenses (although these are more like a $2000 cost I think) is hard. So it is quite possible to have a $25-ish filter that won't reduce image quality:

 

http://www.lenstip.com/113.15-article-UV_filters_test_Hoya_72_mm_HMC_UV-0.html

 

Oh - and the protective benefit of a UV filter is not in case of severe impact, but to prevent damage to the coating and possibly microscopic scratches, so the argument that a filter is a poor shock absorber is not a good one.

Edited by scuttle - 2/7/13 at 3:09am

Lol you learn something every day. Regarding reviewers, absolutely if you find you agree with them about some components then why not take what they say about cables seriously. A lot of good reviewers wont put their neck out about cables, mostly not to have to deal with backlash from positivist minds. Best advice though is to not believe any reviews or opinions. Just because someone else hears something doesn't mean you will.

FYI this thread has been shut down soooo many times, I wonder how long it will last this time :P

 

I assume it was no coincidence you decided to exclaim "Ag" regarding silver?

 

No pros I know (nor will I - and I'm a pro) will use a UV filter unless they are shooting in the mountains or aerially. A lens hood is better protection and doesn't induce flare the way even the best multi-coated flat pieces of glass do. 

I know pros who use the filter and pros that don't.  Mostly it's situational.  If the physical size of a hood is a problem and they don't want to fiddle with a cap the filter is a good compromise if protection is needed.  Otherwise, there is a small optical advantage to using not filter.  Small, and again, situational.  

 

Here's the thing.  For non-pro shooters a lens is an investment, not a tool or piece of business equipment.  It's probably not insured, or underinsured.  Sometimes increasing the physical protection at the very slight, often immeasurable, loss of image quality is a way if avoiding a very expensive repair.  A pro, on the other hand, should have an annual equipment budget that covers wear, repair, and replacement as part of his business model.  He's being paid for his work, so make no compromises would be important.  

 

Or, just go filter-less, and take the damage as an upgrade opportunity.