[eucariote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif I enjoy music alot. I pick new music usually once a week. I like tweeking my rig... To me this hobby is fun..

x2

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you can't handle spending the money or trying something new it is OK..

I've spent over $4000 on headphone gear alone

But only $140 was on cables.

 

[d.g]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif If they are good enough for you great? For me I like to tweek the sound of my rig. Have the means to do so at my leisure. It is just a hobby Right?

That it is, a nice by product of enjoying music too!

I prefer not to change the sound of my equipment with cables following on from being sold some expensive cable a good few years back, I went to my local hifi store with an issue with my system in that it was too forward in the treble and higher volumes I found harsh, straight away they recommended a fantastic cable that would do the job, made by a British loudspeaker company, it was a solid core and would tame my treble as treble frequencies tend to travel down the outside of conductors....I don't think the cable changed anything, what was at fault were the loudspeakers, changing them a few months later brought a huge improvement! The point about the cable was that it was effectively solid core mains cable in a fancy rubberised sleeving, for which I paid maybe 4-5 times too much.

I'm not an advocate of the cheapest will do, I buy cables now to suit specific tasks and seek out the best conductors I can at the best value price.



I think where some people go wrong is by simply not being able to admit they like cables as they are expensive luxury items to lavish on their systems, take expensive watches as another example - they wont tell the time that much better than a cheaper type of watch but people who buy them don't get criticized for spending thousands on them as generally speaking they don't buy them stating to everyone else that they purchased said watch because it tells the time more accurately than a cheaper type.

If people could do that with cables then this discussion perhaps wouldn't even need to take place.

No side will ever win nor convince the other side that they are right/wrong, and just remember, while you are listening to cables you are not listening to the music, which is surely what its all about, isn't it?

 

[BIG POPPA]

Hey Head Injury, right now I an very satisfied with my amps, sources, headphones. I have a lot of gear. Enjoy it everyday. To worry about scientific method to justify a piece of equipment is cumbersome. Do not know any audiophiles personally who use the scientific method to buy any equipment. And I know a lot of audiophiles.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey Head Injury, right now I an very satisfied with my amps, sources, headphones. I have a lot of gear. Enjoy it everyday. To worry about scientific method to justify a piece of equipment is cumbersome. Do not know any audiophiles personally who use the scientific method to buy any equipment. And I know a lot of audiophiles.

I didn't say you should go do it immediately. I said that's the best and simplest way to go about upgrading. Which is what you asked.

I'm glad you're satisfied. I am too, and I don't even buy $100 cables!

To worry about price and placebo to justify a piece of equipment is just as cumbersome.

I imagine if more audiophiles used the scientific method not to buy but to justify buying, many of our wallets would be a lot heavier, and unfortunately many companies would be out of business.

Also, please do not tie the term "audiophile" directly to those who don't listen to science, thereby barring those who do from fitting under the term. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

 

[pyo2004]

Low-Inductance DIY Speaker Cables

Thought I'd share.

 

[ipm]

The fun idea is right if you ask me, but it still does not get at the question of how does one convince someone that cables do not make a differnece.

No matter how irrelevant it may seem, hard evidence is difficult to obtain but it can be convincing.

I would like to see a head-to-head comparison of some kind that uses various cables on a fixed rig, and that produces results that are quantifiable, measureable, and repeatable.

Has anyone seen test results of this kind published?

Beyond that, I guess it’s completely subjective.

 

[BIG POPPA]

No Worries Head Injury. If some of us head-fiers want to learn and make it a science project to learn more great.

 

[waterlogic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif You may not know it, but there are «facts» beyond science, if there is such a thing like certainty at all. However, the scientific facts you're speaking of are none. Cables are still allowed to alter the sound without violating any physical law. .

Yes, there is a relatively new quantum theory about the holographic universe (see David Bohm). If this holds (future will tell) everything will have to be revised and also new technologies of recording and reproducing music will be necessary. Until then talking about "facts" beyond science is wishful thinking/talking as long as they can not be identified in other words for everything that can not be understood there is always a last resort - god.
But we are talking about cables/wire ...

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ipm /img/forum/go_quote.gif The fun idea is right if you ask me, but it still does not get at the question of how does one convince someone that cables do not make a differnece. No matter how irrelevant it may seem, hard evidence is difficult to obtain but it can be convincing. I would like to see a head-to-head comparison of some kind that uses various cables on a fixed rig, and that produces results that are quantifiable, measureable, and repeatable. Has anyone seen test results of this kind published? Beyond that, I guess it’s completely subjective.

nick_charles did it.

He humbly admits that it's rough, and his equipment was far from the best, but it's a great test. I read through it last night, and it removed most if not all of my doubt. Now nothing short of strong evidence supporting differences will sway me.

pyo2004, what do the numbers tell us? That project says inductance is most important. Blue Jeans Cable says capacitance is. And their LC-1 cable handily beats all of the examples in the chart with regards to capacitance. Of course, they're hardly to be trusted more since they're selling cables. Has there been any solid studies of what capacitance, inductance, and resistance do to the sound? Specifically, the audible range?

 

[pyo2004]

To be honest, I don't know what's more important in audio cables, but if anyone wants very sexy cables, I guess you can just make them yourself is my point. Since after all, they're just cables. It's not like you buying something that requires expertise beyond braiding and buying quality materials.
My thoughts though, no matter which cables you choose from that list, the capacitance, inductance, resistance are all approximately zero.

*Edit. I actually teach a lab class to undergrad physicsts. One of their labs was on transmission lines. In order to see the effects of distortion in a transmission line, we had to use 100 feet of gauge 16 cable. The company which manufactures the cable has a data sheet showing that even at 100 feet, the attenuation at 1Mhz is 0.26db, at 10Mhz is about 0.98 db. So in the concert A of 440 Hz, even at a length of 100 feet, there is negligible attenuation while using 16 gauge wire. Attenuation really starts to affect the cable around the gigahertz range.
Here's the data sheet.
http://www.generalcable.com/NR/rdonl...4_095_RG8U.pdf
I'm sure you can find data sheets on other generic audio cables.
Anyways, these are all numbers. The truth is, there is no physical difference in sound using different wires especially when it's say 10 feet long around the audible range. However if music was only about science, then none of us would be moved by it.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterlogic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, there is a relatively new quantum theory about the holographic universe (see David Bohm). If this holds (future will tell) everything will have to be revised and also new technologies of recording and reproducing music will be necessary. Until then talking about "facts" beyond science is wishful thinking...

I hold David Bohm's hypothesis in high esteem. It would indeed be more than a scientific revolution if it turned out to be true. And it's not impossible, like Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic field. In front of this background the anti-cable-sound hysteria looks like a relict from a stubborn age where people believed that all «facts» were laying on the table and reality is a consistent continuum.

But by «facts beyond science» I actually meant simple things from our everyday life, such as the transience of humans, the consistent day-and-night rhythm, the emotional symbiosis between mother and child... things of that kind known as facts independent of science.
.

 

[BIG POPPA]

It is like trying to use scientific method to prove "why my wife is my best friend"? With this hobby there are emotions involved and stimulating of the senses. You can't use science for that?

 

[JohnFerrier]

Looks like Patrick is going to hold on to his "$50,000" power cord.

Reserve not met at $1275.00 on AudiogoN (just ended).

 

[Chef]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is like trying to use scientific method to prove "why my wife is my best friend"? With this hobby there are emotions involved and stimulating of the senses. You can't use science for that?

That question is more like "Why do I enjoy music?" than it is "does my audio reproduction equipment maintain fidelity?" The former is a question that involved a lot of personal history, chemical reactions in the brain, and is incredibly expensive to test... The latter is basically trying to see if the signals we know the brain can read match those of the intended production, which by comparison is a lot easier to test. Sure, it's theoretically possible that there are signals we don't know about and therefore aren't testing, but it's also theoretically possible everything is the product of one's imagination and that one is the god of his or her own universe. What does a rationale person do with theories that can't be tested, proven, or even show themselves to be remotely more probably than any other random theory?

You act like science is something mechanical and cold that can't explain emotions... Which is kind of ignorant when you consider science has come far enough that we can produce drugs to induce specific emotions. I'd say there's a pretty clear cause and effect relationship to any romantic feelings.

It's not wrong at all to suggest something might contradict previously held beliefs, just please put up some reasonable reason for other people to believe so. I'm by no means 'anti-cable' which is a word getting tossed around in this thread like we're somehow a religious faction. I just have a lot of reason to believe the basic standard cables have the most fidelity in terms of music reproduction... Mainly because, as I posted the study earlier in this thread, very expensive cables test equal in short lengths, and fail in long lengths. It doesn't get simpler than that.

 

[JxK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...It's not wrong at all to suggest something might contradict previously held beliefs, just please put up some reasonable reason for other people to believe so. I'm by no means 'anti-cable' which is a word getting tossed around in this thread like we're somehow a religious faction. I just have a lot of reason to believe the basic standard cables have the most fidelity in terms of music reproduction... Mainly because, as I posted the study earlier in this thread, very expensive cables test equal in short lengths, and fail in long lengths. It doesn't get simpler than that.

x2. Scientific Method 101. We assume something doesn't exist until it is proven otherwise. Until/Unless someone manages to actually demonstrate quantitatively, measurably, and repeatedly that boutique cables make a difference, wasting money on cables is just silly.

Edit: Think of the cable question this way. I can spend $3000 on something that maybe-possibly-but unlikely will make a marginal difference in my system. Or I can spend those same dollars on new CDs for instance, which will absolutely and without doubt benefit me. It's not even much of a "question" in my book.