[JRG1990]

I like these http://www.audiovisualonline.co.uk/dynamic/eshop_products.set/ref/2881/fisual-havana-audio-stereo-phono-cable/display.html , look nice and very flexiable for a thick cable, these are also
good http://markgrantcables.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=43_1&products_id=1 , like the blue jeans just a piece of canare LV61S with a canare rca connecter crimped on the end can't go wrong with them.

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

Heidigger, what on Earth makes you think that human ears are reliable?

There's an inverse relationship between the amount of evidence for cables and the amount of evidence demonstrating human fallibility.

If you're trying to be open-minded, how about considering that you might be experiencing something that doesn't actually exist? Certainly well within the realm of possibility.

How about you demonstrate that humans aren't affected by placebo and expectation? If you could do that, maybe I'd take testimonial evidence seriously.

Until you rule those out, the "differences" you think exist are possibly imagined. An open mind means that you have to consider all of the possibilities. You cannot pick and choose what you are going to test. You have to test everything. If you refuse to rule out imagined differences, you're being intellectually dishonest.

Heidigger, what on Earth makes you think that human ears are reliable? <<<<<<<<< The fact that they helped keep our ancestors safe in the wilderness for so many millions of years, and continue to be successfully used by animals to this day. Obviously or hearing and our other senses can deceive us sometimes, but your argument seems to be that they deceive us all the time, and that I cannot accept. So you see, I don't rule out that perceived differences could be imaged. The question is whether you rule out the possiblity that our hearing could ever be accurate. Now if you are referring to the difference I perceive between the stock Sennheiser cable and the Cardas, everone who has listened to both has told me the same thing: clear difference. What I do think is closed minded is for people to determine that there is no difference between them when they haven't even listened with their own ears. They make up their mind that there simply can't be a difference and therefore they won't even listen to them because of course if they did hear a difference it would just be the placebo effect so why even bother. Now that's being closed minded. The main difference I perceive between my stock and Cardas headphone cables is a sparkle in the sound. Now how do you go about measuring that?
 
  
 

 

[Adu]

 
Quote:

Quote:

DNM Reson -I believe that this cable is the best value for the money in the price range (around 100Euro); this cable have a warm sound (not edgy sound) a sweet midrange and good, deep bass. On the negative side, DNM have a little bit small soundstage than the rivals and maybe not so dynamic.
I have try many cables in this price range and near (Profigold pga3000, Qed gunex3, Qed qunex silver spiral) but believe me, none of this cables have more natural sound signature than DNM.

when you say neutral sound (for a interconnect), and i know its different for headphones, but essentially what you mean by neutral with ICs is that it doesnt add any color to the setup right? couldnt that mean that it just doesnt change anything? ICs  confuse me.

Any IC's add's some "colours" to the sound, it doesn't exist the perfect cable. DNM cables are (in my humble opinion) the perfect value for the money. Of course, some cables  are more detailed  or have much more soundstage than this, but in this price range and above I believe that DNM rules.
 


Quote:

that dnm cable looks an awful lot like a coloured FM aeriel cable that i'm holding here...
 
 
of course, i'm sure it's not.  

 
edit: actually i wonder how fm aerial cable would fare as interconnect wire?  the stuff is incredibly cheap.  you could print your own name on the middle bit and colour the sides and err...uh...yeah.

For me it doesn't counts the looks, it's important the sound. Of course, DNM looks cheap but the sound of it it's GREAT (in my opinion).
 

 

[googleborg]

heidegger, our hearing is not just about our ears, the brain can do all sorts of magic - our ears, or rather our hearing, like all our other senses continuously adjust to the environment and to what they hear.
 
in short, what you hear has little to do with what is there.  All our senses do this, for example our sight (not our eyeballs) literally makes things up!  This is why when i listen to music at night looking at a starry sky, it sounds so much better.  It's the same music, only i have changed.
 
it's pretty funny when people suggest our hearing is a reliably consistent measuring tool that, absurdly, can detect hitherto unmeasurable factors that not even cable designers know how to implement (apart from price, they know how to implement that).
 
@Adu, indeed, my ICs are all out of view so i don't care much for looks either

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

1. in short, what you hear has little to do with what is there.  
 
2. All our senses do this, for example our sight (not our eyeballs) literally makes things up!  
 
3. it's pretty funny when people suggest our hearing is a reliably consistent measuring tool that, absurdly, can detect hitherto unmeasurable factors that not even cable designers know how to implement (apart from price, they know how to implement that).
 
 

1. What we hear has little to do with what is there? Surely that is a bit of an exageration on your part.
 
2. Our sight can deceive us sometimes, but most of the time it serves us quite well. It is nothing short of absurd to claim that we perpetually go about in a fantasy world created by our senses.
 
3. That is pretty funny. Unfortunately, I never stated such a thing nor do I hold that position. My position is, contrary to the view of seemingly the majority of people on this forum, that our senses are not deceiving us all the time. Sometimes and very often in fact they do reveal phenomena that are not chimerical. But I've never held that "hearing is a reliably consistent measuring tool," which are of course your words not mine.
 
Finally, if you have not personally compared the stock Sennheiser cable with the Cardas, hold your peace as you know not of what you speak. The difference is obvious. The Cardas noticeably brightens the sound. Anybody with even below average hearing can spot the difference a mile a way. Literally everyone who has listened to both cables here has heard it. When you change back to the stock cable much of the luster and sparkle is gone. That is a fact. Sorry if it so inconveniences your preconceived notions about things of which you are in no position to judge.

 

[googleborg]

oddly enough i almost had to replace my hd555's cable just 'cos my iron nearly melted through it >_<
 
1) yes, i did exaggerate a bit but hearing is a sense that happens inside the brain, and is affected (thankfully, else it would be useless to us) by tons of other things, probably even the colour of the walls...it is emotion afterall...
 
2) no really, whenever you look at something, you see a pinpoint bit in actual full detail, the rest of your vision will be unfocused - your brain is just 'filling it in' with what you expect to be there coupled with what the eyeball 'reports', only focusing on movement (again, this is very useful to us, making the most out of our eyeballs, sensitivity and full detail where needed)
 
3) never said you did, but you made out like hearing was some amazing thing that has served us for millions of years...indeed it has, but nothing to do with hearing differences (hearing, is to do with the brain, not just the ear...) in cables, that's not what it's for nor remotely capable at.
 
so barring stray soldering irons and my lax attention, why would i replace my headphones cable when nobody can tell me why or how the cables affect the sound....i'd have to be quite gullible to 'buy them to see for myself' (i would only trust ABX as i am fallible like everyone else) considering i've ran a battery of my own tests on seeing how bad i can make a cable before i hear a change (it took a single tiny thread of grubby copper wire as an interconnect before things sounded kinda 'off', and digital cables either worked or didn't.....)
 
 
perhaps the cardas does brighten the sound, such would be easily measurable by a machine.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

The fact that they helped keep our ancestors safe in the wilderness for so many millions of years, and continue to be successfully used by animals to this day. 

 
A rather bad example which actually defeats your argument.
 
Evolution gave humans brains which are actually wired to overdetect. Better that you should run from the predator you thought you heard than be eaten by the one you didn't.
 
In other words, mother nature erred on the side of caution.
 
A great tool for surviving in the wild. Not so great when it comes to the reliability of our senses.
 
Quote:

Obviously or hearing and our other senses can deceive us sometimes, but your argument seems to be that they deceive us all the time, and that I cannot accept.

 
The argument is that until you adequately control for the fallibility of human subjective perception (beyond ego, vanity and blind faith), you don't know whether you're being fooled or not.
 
Quote:

So you see, I don't rule out that perceived differences could be imaged. The question is whether you rule out the possiblity that our hearing could ever be accurate.

 
The possibility can't be unequivocally ruled out. But it's rather moot until such time as someone can convincingly show that it is.
 
Quote:

Now if you are referring to the difference I perceive between the stock Sennheiser cable and the Cardas, everone who has listened to both has told me the same thing: clear difference.

 
Which does not, in and of itself, prove anything.
 
Quote:

What I do think is closed minded is for people to determine that there is no difference between them when they haven't even listened with their own ears.

 
And how exactly does that change anything? Their listening with their own ears proves nothing more than your listening with your own ears.
 
So what's your point?
 
Quote:

The main difference I perceive between my stock and Cardas headphone cables is a sparkle in the sound. Now how do you go about measuring that?

 
You don't.
 
You've got your cart before your horse.
 
First you establish that there is in fact an actual audible difference. Then you know you've got something to actually look for. Otherwise, you can waste a lot of time chasing a phantom.
 
se
 
 
 

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Any IC's add's some "colours" to the sound, it doesn't exist the perfect cable.

 
The perfect cable doesn't have to exist as our hearing itself is hardly perfect.
 
In order for a cable to effectively be "perfect," all it has to do is keep from altering the signal to such a degree that our limited sense of hearing is able to detect it.
 
And the evidence so far (or perhaps more to the point the lack of any convincing evidence) indicates that this is rather trivially easy to do.
 
se
 

 

[Steve Eddy]

 
Quote:

Finally, if you have not personally compared the stock Sennheiser cable with the Cardas, hold your peace as you know not of what you speak. The difference is obvious. The Cardas noticeably brightens the sound. Anybody with even below average hearing can spot the difference a mile a way. Literally everyone who has listened to both cables here has heard it. When you change back to the stock cable much of the luster and sparkle is gone. That is a fact.

I'm sure it's a fact that that's what you subjectively perceive. But that doesn't establish as fact that there's necessarily any actual audible difference between the two cables. However if it's truly a "mile away" difference, then it should be trivially easy to demonstrate its audibility.
 
se
 
 

 

[Adu]

Quote:

Quote:

Any IC's add's some "colours" to the sound, it doesn't exist the perfect cable.

 
The perfect cable doesn't have to exist as our hearing itself is hardly perfect.
 
 
 

Yes, what you say is right.
 

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

 

1. "Evolution gave humans brains which are actually wired to overdetect. Better that you should run from the predator you thought you heard than be eaten by the one you didn't." 
 
You're only looking at one side of it. Hearing is adequately used in hunting and other applications to an almost unbelievable degree of exactness and precision.
 
2. "Which does not, in and of itself, prove anything."
 
That implies that my intention was to prove something. "Proof" implies a totally different context of scientific rigor and exactness that is meant for the laboratory or for logical argumentation. I was discussing my personal subjective experience with the two cables. You can take it with a grain of salt or wipe your tush with it, it makes no difference to me. I do know that you will be missing out on a big improvement in sound, but that is your problem and your loss, not mine.
 
3. "First you establish that there is in fact an actual audible difference." 
 
That is established first of itself since I have actually heard the cables.  The difference in sound jumps out at you. It's not a borderline difference maybe I hear it, maybe I don't, I'm not too sure kind of situation.  But of course, I've actually heard the two cables and know of what I speak. Obviously you have never heard them and therefore cannot know what is actually the case. You're just speaking theoretically and in general. In fact, you might as well be telling me that I don't really see this computer monitor that's in front of me because our senses are notoriously untrustworthy. My reply to which is bollocks. You have no idea how absurd your statements are in the face of the shining, self-evident situation. But of course it is not self-evident to you because you have never actually heard the Cardas headphone cable in comparison with the Sennheiser. Since you really have no idea what you are talking about you can only offer theoretical truisms about what should be the case, not what is in fact actually the case. You are the one who is putting the cart in front of the horse by putting theory before reality.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

 
You're only looking at one side of it. Hearing is adequately used in hunting and other applications to an almost unbelievable degree of exactness and precision.
 

I was looking at the side that's germane to this discussion.
 
Quote:

That implies that my intention was to prove something. "Proof" implies a totally different context of scientific rigor and exactness that is meant for the laboratory or for logical argumentation. I was discussing my personal subjective experience with the two cables.

 
No, you weren't simply discussing your personal subjective experience. You went well beyond that. To wit:
 
The difference is obvious. The Cardas noticeably brightens the sound. Anybody with even below average hearing can spot the difference a mile a way.
 
Here you're making the decidedly objective claim of actual audibility. And claims such as this come with the burden of proof.
 
Quote:

That is established first of itself since I have actually heard the cables.

 
I'm sorry, but your subjective experience in and of itself does not establish actual audibility.
 
Quote:

The difference in sound jumps out at you. It's not a borderline difference maybe I hear it, maybe I don't, I'm not too sure kind of situation.

 
So? People have said much the same thing about all sorts of silly things such as photographs in their freezers, magic crystals on their speaker terminals, etc.
 
Quote:

But of course, I've actually heard the two cables and know of what I speak.

 
All you know of is your own subjective experience. Which we know isn't always the unerring reflection of reality that we'd like to believe.
 
 
Quote:

Obviously you have never heard them and therefore cannot know what is actually the case.

 
I never made any claim to know what is actually the case. You are the one who has done that. All I have claimed is that your subjective experience alone does not establish actual audibility as per your claim.
 
Quote:

You are the one who is putting the cart in front of the horse by putting theory before reality.

 
What I speak of is reality. The reality that human beings are prone to subjectively perceiving differences even when there are no actual physical differences. The reality that subjective experience alone does not establish actual audibility.
 
That's the reality. And until it is adequately controlled for beyond ego, vanity and denial, you are left with ambiguity. And as long as there is ambiguity, you can't come to any firm conclusions one way or the other.
 
se

 

[Uncle Erik]

I've owned the Cardas Sennheiser cable. There was no difference. I left it on for a couple of years to make sure.

The standard reply is that there's something wrong with my hearing. I doubt it. I've spent a few thousand hours playing music and have very good relative pitch. I can tell when my instrument goes sharp or flat and can tune myself nicely compared to electronic tuners.

But the cables did nothing. My oscilloscope and DMM agreed.

Are you saying that you're completely immune to things like optical illusions? They get me every time. Seem to fool everyone else, as well. What you think you're hearing is the result of expectation and placebo. This is well-illustrated by numerous tests of wine. People taste what they expect to taste. Tell them that it is an expensive wine and they think they're tasting an expensive wine. This is a normal human reaction. You're not a bad person and there's nothing wrong with you. You're simply hearing what you expect to hear.

This is why cable "differences" vanish when a person doesn't know what cable they're listening to. Take away the expectation and the difference disappears. You'll probably launch into a complicated explanation of why the listening tests are "invalid," but the simple truth is that they negate expectation and placebo biases. Without those, cables all sound the same. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

And if your ears are so golden, please tell us about the channel imbalances in your gear. If you've ever worked with electronics, you'll know that there is a tolerance in every cap and resistor. Usually 10% or so, but the very best can be 1%. I strongly doubt your equipment is at 1% or better. That takes buying a quantity of each component and carefully matching them between channels. That's very expensive and I don't know of any manufacturer that precisely matches channels. Meaning that there is probably a 10% or so difference between the left and right channels in your gear.

Can you tell me which channel is stronger than the other in your rig?

Now, it'd be a simple matter to take a DMM and measure the difference between R1, etc. in your left and right channels. This could be done with a wide variety of test gear, all producing the same numbers. And there will be differences between channels in 20-40 components in your gear.

How can you hear unmeasurable differences in cables when you cannot hear the measurable differences between left and right? If your ears are that sensitive, then you should be hopping mad that your left and right channels don't sound precisely the same. It'd be quite easy to prove, without question, that your left and right channels have different output.

So which channel is stronger than the other in your amp?

 

[Happy Camper]

Spoken like a professional lawyer.

 

[Rdr. Seraphim]

Spoken like a professional lawyer? Then there's some profit in it somewhere! Why else be a lawyer?