Latest Thread Images

OFC vs. OCC wire
Apr 25, 2017 at 5:58 AM Post #53 of 66


this little guy measures amazing. it's better than my headphone or IEM cables(really is!), but somehow I decided not to use this for my IEMs or my hd650. I guess I just don't like music, making those weak decisions about comfort and practical use all the time.
redface.gif

 
Apr 25, 2017 at 8:34 AM Post #54 of 66
Most quality conductors (not just hi-fi cables, but all types of wire) is made with 'ETP' grade copper that's 3 nines purity.  The difference in resistance between 3 nines and 6 nines copper is about 1.5 %.  It's highly unlikely that two wires of different purity, will have the same cross section area with 1.5 %.
 
May 21, 2018 at 1:09 AM Post #58 of 66
tangent said:
Then you should be able to prove it with a reproducible test.

Science is hard, but we've had several hundred years of practice doing it well, so we have a whole list of things required to pull off a good test of this sort:


  • Specify the products to be tested precisely, so that others can build or buy identical replacements, within a reasonable amount of measurement error. Specify those measurement bounds. Example: Cable A shall be made of 6.0 feet of such-and-such cable with a Brand X Type Y outer jacket, soldered to a thus-and-so connector with type Whatsit solder, having 0.0032 Ω of resistance and 123 pF of capacitance +/- 0.1% as measured on a calibrated 5 ½ digit HP 34401 DMM. Cable B shall be identical to Cable A except that it uses 6.0 feet of this other inner cable type, giving 0.0033 Ω of resistance and 234 pF of capacitance. Test to be done with a Brand Q Model P headphone amplifier with the Bizzabong upgrade.
  • An adequate sample size. "I made my aunt listen to both cables, and she liked the pink one better" is not good enough.
  • A double-blinded test. This means you cannot experiment on yourself!
  • Publish your data. "My buddies all sat around the amp smoking unspecified herbal products and decided cable A sounded better than cable B" is not "published data." How many participants did you use? How many separate tests did you subject each participant to? What music did you use? What was the volume level of the amplifier? (Which must be given in some reproducible measure, such as Vac RMS of a full-scale test signal at the test amp's volume setting.) Most importantly, what were each participant's responses? Without the raw data, we cannot know the data's p value.
  • Select and specify a randomization method. For a psychoacoustic test such as this, I'd suggest ABX testing. If you like some other method better, specify it, and be prepared to defend your choice rationally.
  • Independently replicate the test multiple times. If two groups come up with different results after following the test protocol you get from following the above points precisely, the test is not reproducible, and is therefore scientifically invalid. There are many reasons this can happen, all of which mean the original test did not prove what it claims to have done.
  • Should you manage to get completely through that gauntlet and still have an independently reproducible test difference, vary one detail of the test, then go back to step 2. For instance, if the difference disappears when you don't use the Bizzabong headphone amplifier upgrade, that suggests some interaction between the three items under test (one amplifier upgrade, plus two cables) which is responsible for the difference, which calls into question the difference in the cable being the reason for the difference in the test results.

I'm probably missing something important here which someone with expertise designing scientific test methodologies could point out. The important thing here is not to make the test pointlessly difficult, but to increase its statistical power sufficiently to overcome the psychoacoustic difficulties inherent in the test. With insufficient statistical power, we must disregard the test results.

On point 3: If your only aim is to please yourself, that's perfectly fine. I am a committed DIYer, which means I cannot honorably rail against any person who decides that they need to build a $500 headphone cable in order to achieve happiness. Just don't try to make me believe, should that cable indeed induce happiness, that your "test result" is a scientifically-useful data point. Go ye forth and listen to your headphone cable. I sincerely wish you all the enjoyment you can squeeze out of it.
Click to expand...
Oh gosh!! I just love when people try to use stats or any scientific method when they're trying to tell someone they hear everything just like everyone else. I really love when people actually take the time to use statistical terms; terms that actually contradict everything they're saying!!!!

So you ask @JWolf to provide data to support his claim? I can use data but common sense is more than adequate in this case.

First, there are billions of people on the planet. Ears are like fingerprints, they're unique to every person. So you have billions of samples for this analysis.

Show me just 1 test conducted on human ears with a statistically significant sample size....... In conclusion, none of your points are valid.

Also, it's extremely arrogant and ridiculous to believe we know everything about every person's ear to tell them when they can or cannot hear a difference with 100% certainty;... especially when we know everyone's ear is unique.
 
Last edited:
Jun 9, 2018 at 11:25 AM Post #59 of 66
saw a report years ago, tester use hime iron (not even cooper) wires todo a/b blind test vs. best loudspeaker wires, the result is even. 6n, 7n, occ... are pure Ads to me.

to me, especially when diy inears, soft, braided, 5n ofc, with > 16 strings are key factors.
 
Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 PM Post #60 of 66
Since the early days of newsgroups and even before, the conversation has followed the same path:

Person 1: Cables don't make a difference.
Person 2: Cables do make a difference.
Person 1: Positive claims require proof.
Person 3: Don't worry Person 2, I'm sure all cables sound the same to "them." We who have spent ludicrous amounts of money on cables hear the truth.
Repeat.

It's always entertaining, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top