Long awaited measurement test of aftermarket cables from InnerFidelity is out - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyll Hertsens 

Next installment is up: Measuring Headphone Cables Wrap-Up

Thank you Tyll! I've been eagerly waiting for this. Very nice article and well said!

I also have a question for you guys.

Let's say you have the measurements of HD800 and LCD2 in front of you. Where can you see that HD800 has better instrument separation or better soundstage, or has more details? In my opinion if a cable changes the freq response of a headphone, it ruins the way the producers meant you to hear it.

Modified for clarity

Anyone out there in the industry who make high end cables able to provide us with some charts please?

The three biggest contributions to headphone cable difference I see in order of importance are:

1.)  Psychological effects from upgrading ( brain filter )

2.)  Impedance ( cable and delta between cable and output of amp )

3.)  Shielding

If I read this post correctly the highest capacitance cable "won" the most?  Anyone else see that?  It also appears that more people prefer a flatter transfer function ( db vs Freq. ).

http://www.stereophile.com/content/minnesota-audio-society-conducts-cable-comparison-tests-0

Perhaps the transfer function is a great place to start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT 

 

I like Tyll's diplomatic approach, leaving some hope for aftermarket cables users.

I have to say that I spent a good chunk of time on the phone with Jon Iverson of Stereophile when coming to conclusions about cableing.

His advice was to be as transparent as possible, meaning to state as clearly as possible what my thoughts were, and then let the chips fall where they may.  It really wasn't about being diplomatic. I simply stated what my opinion was.

What I find a bit hard to take is the people who are so dead set that they're right that they feel the need to infer that I'm being disingenuous...or just stupid.  Sad to me that someone who holds a different opinion simply can't agree to disagree. After all, I provide them the space to respond and put their opinion out there, but they go farther to attack me personally. 

Ah well.

Tyll, I'll echo some of the recent praise for your report: Down to earth, transparent, open minded and enjoyable to read. Some of the rude responses posted on your site seem to have come from escapees from the Sound Science forum. I hadn't realised they were allowed out of there.

Everyone has their own way of trying to identify differences between essentially neutral components like cables. And I suppose that it's possible to be trained to get better in any chosen technique. 

But in my experience, the more variables, the more your mind gets into a tangle (rather like the picture in your report) even with sighted tests. 

I bet that, if you didn't change your system at all for a month, and then just changed one cable once, then the differences would become immediately apparent.

Of course, this isn't very practical a lot of the time, especially in your line of work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyll Hertsens 

 

What I find a bit hard to take is the people who are so dead set that they're right that they feel the need to infer that I'm being disingenuous...or just stupid.  Sad to me that someone who holds a different opinion simply can't agree to disagree. After all, I provide them the space to respond and put their opinion out there, but they go farther to attack me personally. 

 

Ah well.

"Science is The Belief in The Ignorance of Experts." - Richard Feynman

please, be aware of the fact that ~99% of these "skeptics" have never actually tried any of the objects they're so skeptic about. 

I just would like to make a remark about using of the word cables instead of using headphone cables every time, because people will generalize, no doubt, a cable report applying for every cable's, which is not the case. I find headphone cables to have a long way to go before matching the built, quality, and performance of some speaker cables, for example.

thanks for wonderful read. 

It's not an anti-science position. Just anti-rudeness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leogodoy 

I really don't get the anti-science position some people take here.

Tyll, thanks for the text, even though I might understand why "skeptics" as people were are calling them may feel cheated, I mean, after the first part (the one with the actual measurements) everyone was hoping you would put the aftermarket cable nonsense to sleep for ever.

The fact that the right measurement that can prove something with aftermarket cables hasn't been found, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Statistically speaking there is a big chance cable make a difference, considering the big number of people that actually heard some cables and thought them to be better. Other people even did blind tests and proved that cables do make a difference.

Statistics is a part of science too. You just cannot throw it aside. But I can agree with the term of aftermarket cable "nonsense", as sometimes the prices are ridiculous, and the improvements don't justify those prices at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shotgunshane 

Well I'd like to express my thanks for your effort. I find your takes refreshingly transparent and informative. And I love the fact you say I don't know, when you don't know. I've never understood the extremes of the subjective only camp and the measurements only camp. You bridge the gap between the two. I like to make my purchases based on my understanding of science and measurements, AND others ears I've come to trust. Then I make the final decision by what my ears tell me regardless of the above; after all, I do have to live with them.

Well said. Thanks Tyll. I have wondered if why I prefer analog and higher bit rates had something to do with timing.

What type of music did Tyll use ?

With cable testing, we can start by stating what cannot be measured.  This would provide a more realistic expectation on the test.