[Head Injury]

Quote:

The difference between silver and copper is not purely in decibel level, it is in sound signature and detail.
 
If you would like a quick easy, extreme, test to relate conductivity to sound difference. Run your signal through a glass of water! You will notice a difference. The statement that conductivity affects resulting audio quality is not something that needs testing, it is a common sense idea.
 
Now, copper to wire is a huge difference, and you can argue the difference between silver and copper is too small to tell. But some people will be able to.

A sound signature is based on relative volume in different frequencies. More bass, more treble, etc. This is exactly what many people describe cables doing, increasing bass or treble. It's not true.
 
Define "detail". Why does more conductivity or whatever increase detail? nick_charles also measured a cymbal crash played through various cables and they showed no difference. Wouldn't one look different if it were more detailed?
 
You're taking your examples to extremes and it doesn't help your case. Prove to me that the differences between cables can make an audible difference, not the difference between a cable and water. The difference between cables is orders of magnitude smaller. Your analogy is akin to me giving you two marbles, both weigh within 1% of each other. I then tell you to decide which is heavier. When you said you can't, I hand you a boulder and say that it weighs more. Of course you can tell that the boulder weighs more. That's not what matters. What matters with cables is the limits of human hearing, just like what matters with the marbles is the limit of sensitivity to weight. Cables do make a difference. The difference is just orders of magnitude beyond audibility.
 
Again, prove me wrong! Don't just dodge the question, or pretend you know why they make a difference. You said you could tell the difference, and that others could as well. Prove it to Sound Science. No one has yet unfortunately.
 
Here's an interesting question: The K702 has been on the market for a long time, and the K701 before it. The little bit of wire that was changed surely didn't cost very much compared to the cost of the rest of the headphone, and the R&D that made it. So surely, if it makes such a huge difference, AKG would have been more than willing to "upgrade" it in each headphone they sell? The improvement in sound would more than make up for the cost to them, in terms of additional sales.

 

[ry_goody]

Quote:

A sound signature is based on relative volume in different frequencies. More bass, more treble, etc. This is exactly what many people describe cables doing, increasing bass or treble. It's not true.
 
Define "detail". Why does more conductivity or whatever increase detail? nick_charles also measured a cymbal crash played through various cables and they showed no difference. Wouldn't one look different if it were more detailed?
 
You're taking your examples to extremes and it doesn't help your case. Prove to me that the differences between cables can make an audible difference, not the difference between a cable and water. The difference between cables is orders of magnitude smaller. Your analogy is akin to me giving you two marbles, both weigh within 1% of each other. I then tell you to decide which is heavier. When you said you can't, I hand you a boulder and say that it weighs more. Of course you can tell that the boulder weighs more. That's not what matters. What matters with cables is the limits of human hearing, just like what matters with the marbles is the limit of sensitivity to weight. Cables do make a difference. The difference is just orders of magnitude beyond audibility.
 
Again, prove me wrong! Don't just dodge the question, or pretend you know why they make a difference. You said you could tell the difference, and that others could as well. Prove it to Sound Science. No one has yet unfortunately.
 
Here's an interesting question: The K702 has been on the market for a long time, and the K701 before it. The little bit of wire that was changed surely didn't cost very much compared to the cost of the rest of the headphone, and the R&D that made it. So surely, if it makes such a huge difference, AKG would have been more than willing to "upgrade" it in each headphone they sell? The improvement in sound would more than make up for the cost to them, in terms of additional sales.

 
I don't think you could 'prove' differences between copper and silver cables with any device other than a human ear itself. A human ear does pick up more information than any scientific instrument can.
 
And detail I would define as how small of a 'tick' or 'bit' of varying sound information a device or setup can reproduce. How not smoothed over something is. Or you could describe it as attack time, how quickly a system can make a signal go from all the way full then all the way back down to silent.
 
I would like to see all of nick_charles expiriments, I searched google and could not find them. But based just on what you've said, I don't think his research can possible prove anything.
 
For example, lets say nick_charles recorded the frequency response out of a $5 sound card, and then recorded the frequency response out of a $300 DAC. I think we could all agree the difference between a $5 sound and a nice $300 DAC is very noticable. Would you expect there to be a frequency response difference between a $5 sound and $300 DAC? There may be, but I am also sure you could find a $5 sound card that has the same frequency response as a $300 DAC. But despite this, I'd bet you the $300 DAC would still sound WAY better. Because that frequency response, although it may have the same balance and prevelance frequencies, it does not give any indicator of how much seperation is maintained between sounds, how wide the sound stage feels, how much detail it has, the attack time of drum hits.... there are many qualities present in an audio signal that a frequency response will not show, only the human ear can percieve them.
 

 

[Cliff-Samuels]

I think your right, the human ear can be better than any measuring equipment, but I think it can also be led by the brain, thinking of differences that arnt actually there, your brain can be a powerful thing, are you really hearing a difference or thinking you are.

 

[Kwisatz]

Do you people really think that the ear is more precise and resolving than modern technology? I can understand the belief that we can't properly translate all the data that we measure into how it affects what we hear, because that has a lot of truth to it. To believe the ear is actually superior at hearing though?
 
Modern technology can record frequencies above and below what the human ear can detect. It can perceive slight decibel changes that the human ear cannot. It can pick up low volume sound before we're aware of it, and continue to pick it up long after we've blown our ear drums. In what way can the ear actually *hear* better? It's a sound wave, a vibration in the air. A mechanical reaction. We can measure this with ridiculous accuracy.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I don't think you could 'prove' differences between copper and silver cables with any device other than a human ear itself. A human ear does pick up more information than any scientific instrument can.
 
And detail I would define as how small of a 'tick' or 'bit' of varying sound information a device or setup can reproduce. How not smoothed over something is. Or you could describe it as attack time, how quickly a system can make a signal go from all the way full then all the way back down to silent.
 
I would like to see all of nick_charles expiriments, I searched google and could not find them. But based just on what you've said, I don't think his research can possible prove anything.
 
For example, lets say nick_charles recorded the frequency response out of a $5 sound card, and then recorded the frequency response out of a $300 DAC. I think we could all agree the difference between a $5 sound and a nice $300 DAC is very noticable. Would you expect there to be a frequency response difference between a $5 sound and $300 DAC? There may be, but I am also sure you could find a $5 sound card that has the same frequency response as a $300 DAC. But despite this, I'd bet you the $300 DAC would still sound WAY better. Because that frequency response, although it may have the same balance and prevelance frequencies, it does not give any indicator of how much seperation is maintained between sounds, how wide the sound stage feels, how much detail it has, the attack time of drum hits.... there are many qualities present in an audio signal that a frequency response will not show, only the human ear can percieve them.

I can't believe I missed this gem for three days.
 
If what you say is true, that only the human ear can detect differences between cables, then surely there would be a successful blind test in the last 30 years? And surely these cable manufacturers would want to help fund a good one, because of all the potential profit they could gain by proving their cables really are superior? Unfortunately none of that's true.
 
What does a silver cable do (or any cable that makes a difference) that allows the headphone driver to respond faster to the signal? The headphone driver and resonance from the design is the limiting factor when you're talking about this sort of "detail". Does a "cleaner" signal from a better cable improve the driver's response? All a driver is doing is responding to the signal it's fed. If the signals are identical as far as the limits of our hearing are concerned (and they are by far) then the driver isn't responding much different and not audibly. Why can't this be measured, as you claim?
 
Here's nick_charles's cable test. Strange you couldn't find it, it was the first result from a forum search for "nick_charles cable test".
 
No, we can't all agree that a $300 DAC is superior to a $5 sound card. Not without specifications. The price tag means nothing. There is a countless number of crap products out there sold for exuberant prices because they're "musical" or hyped in some other way. Also, there generally isn't a difference in frequency response between DACs of various price ranges, unless one is made to be colored. The differences come in THD, IMD, noise, reconstruction of square waves, etc. Most of these, past the $100 point if you're generalizing based on price, are inaudible. My sound card, for example, cost me $170 and measures well below audibility in all the tests Stereophile put it through. There will be no audible difference between it and the CEntrance DACport, which costs $350. They measure quite similarly, with the DACport earning the win in a couple tests, but both are for all intents and purposes "transparent".
 
Separation between sounds appears to be the result of driver response time, amount of resonance, and distortion and is also affected by sound stage. Sound stage is a function of driver placement relative to the ear and strategically placed peaks and dips in frequency response to simulate reflections in a room. Detail has about the same requirements as separation, and separation is actually part of detail. Everything in audio is quantifiable and measurable. It's just electronics and physics.
 
While I certainly can't point to a frequency response graph and say "Yup, that headphone is detailed", I can reason that there's nothing a cable can do that will improve detail if it measures exactly the same within audible limits. Physics tells us this, graphs and blind tests confirm it. You'll have to supply a lot of good evidence to overturn such a well understood theory, not just "what ifs".

 

[ry_goody]

Quote:

I can't believe I missed this gem for three days.
 
If what you say is true, that only the human ear can detect differences between cables, then surely there would be a successful blind test in the last 30 years? And surely these cable manufacturers would want to help fund a good one, because of all the potential profit they could gain by proving their cables really are superior? Unfortunately none of that's true.
 
What does a silver cable do (or any cable that makes a difference) that allows the headphone driver to respond faster to the signal? The headphone driver and resonance from the design is the limiting factor when you're talking about this sort of "detail". Does a "cleaner" signal from a better cable improve the driver's response? All a driver is doing is responding to the signal it's fed. If the signals are identical as far as the limits of our hearing are concerned (and they are by far) then the driver isn't responding much different and not audibly. Why can't this be measured, as you claim?
 
Here's nick_charles's cable test. Strange you couldn't find it, it was the first result from a forum search for "nick_charles cable test".
 
No, we can't all agree that a $300 DAC is superior to a $5 sound card. Not without specifications. The price tag means nothing. There is a countless number of crap products out there sold for exuberant prices because they're "musical" or hyped in some other way. Also, there generally isn't a difference in frequency response between DACs of various price ranges, unless one is made to be colored. The differences come in THD, IMD, noise, reconstruction of square waves, etc. Most of these, past the $100 point if you're generalizing based on price, are inaudible. My sound card, for example, cost me $170 and measures well below audibility in all the tests Stereophile put it through. There will be no audible difference between it and the CEntrance DACport, which costs $350. They measure quite similarly, with the DACport earning the win in a couple tests, but both are for all intents and purposes "transparent".
 
Separation between sounds appears to be the result of driver response time, amount of resonance, and distortion and is also affected by sound stage. Sound stage is a function of driver placement relative to the ear and strategically placed peaks and dips in frequency response to simulate reflections in a room. Detail has about the same requirements as separation, and separation is actually part of detail. Everything in audio is quantifiable and measurable. It's just electronics and physics.
 
While I certainly can't point to a frequency response graph and say "Yup, that headphone is detailed", I can reason that there's nothing a cable can do that will improve detail if it measures exactly the same within audible limits. Physics tells us this, graphs and blind tests confirm it. You'll have to supply a lot of good evidence to overturn such a well understood theory, not just "what ifs".

Maybe someone with a really high end system and a wide variety of cables, and the time, could video tape some double blind tests. Perhaps I'll do it when I build a system. I currently only have some ath-a500's, a pimeta and an emu1212m, which is not sufficient to tell any big differences. I had to sell all my really hi-fi stuff a year ago because of the recession, I made this thread to start considering components to rebuild my setup.
 
But your demand to have someone 'prove' to you what you should believe I think is really silly. This is a big drawback I find in this whole movement of demanding 'verification through scientific expirimentation'. Because what this movement has turned into is not lots of curious, intellectual minds running expiriments, being actively engaged in research. What it has turned into is a bunch of people sitting around, not doing any active research at all, waiting for someone to come along and preach to them the new 'truth' the new 'dogma' that scientific process has found. If you really want to verify this for yourself, then take it upon yourself to inform yourself and research it yourself. Redo your system with solid core silver cables, give it a listen, spend some time with it, have a friend come over and switch them back and forth without you knowing which is which in order to do a blind test. This is what I did, and I found in systems that have the ability to reproduce extremely high levels of detail, solid core silver does produce a change that can warrant the difference in price for DIY solid core silver cables. I really do not believe you will be able empirically measure sound quality through a cable with scientific instruments, and ultimately any test will be relying on someones perception of a difference. So even if you have someone on video tape succesffuly blind testing out silver cables, the question that will still be a mystery is HOW much of a difference is there? Which that answer will not able to be accurately conveyed to you since a person has to subjectively describe, to know that answer you have to do the test yourself.
 
One thing I notice about nick_charles expiriments was he has no mention of solid silver cable. He only mentions use of silver plated cables in his test. From my experience 'silver plated' cable basically means 'fake silver cable', because just having silver plating on the outside is not enough to alter anything, and the resulting signal still sounds like copper. When people talk of 'silver cable' they are reffering to solid core silver cable 99.9% purity, nick_charles did not appear to use this. His tests were basically done with cables that are all primarily composed of copper. Which interestingly, they still had differences... So cable can affect output of an analog audio signal. I do understand how asbolutely TINY the difference is in the results. But it makes me curious to see what results he would get when using a solid core silver cable.
 
The distinction between 'silver plated' and 'solid core silver' also makes me wonder, has there been more people who have confused this? Have there been people buying 'silver' cables which are really 'silver plated', expecting a difference, only to be dissapointed with what is really still primarily a copper cable? There reporting silver makes no difference?
 
There are more flaws with nick_charles expiriments as well. And as I get into this, I don't want anyone, or nick_charles to think I am putting them down. I think the expiriment was a great contibution to the community. But there is room for improvement.
 
For one there is no amount of difference defined for when a change in sound is clearly audible. He produced all these tests from various, primarily copper, cables and in the end said 'this is what the difference is'. And gave the numbers. Without any context these numbers tell us very little. You can say 'they're very small', but still, that tells us very little. To put all the numbers and graphs he gave into context, we need to also produce a number and a graph that does have a difference that is clearly audible. So then we can say "When the numbers and graphs deviate this much, we have determined that the difference is audible to the average human ear". Because it could be that the tiny deviation that nick_charles recorded is actually audible.
 
I remember back when people were doing tests of lossy audio files to prove that lossless is better. If you recorded the frequency response of a lossy track in ogg vorbis format, that you could tell was lossy, and then you recorded the frequency response of a lossless track, you had to zoom way way in on that frequency response to see the difference, and we were talking extremely small differences there as well. Just slightly different angles on the tops of peaks and things like that. But it was enough to change the resulting audio. Those tests led the impression on me that In real life recordings it does not take alot of change in a resulting frequency response to produce an audible difference. So nick_charles expiriments producing "Very small numbers", on primarily copper cables, does not signify to me enough evidence to disregard my experiences that have demonstrated to me solid core silver cables can make a difference.
 
Aside from that I also think nick_charles needs to do his expiriments at a MUCH higher sampling rate, ideally the sampling rate needs to be 4 times the sampling rate of the actual audio file so that you can then pick up any difference a cable might impose on the wave between the samples of the actual audio file. Nick charles said he used 1024 recording samples for a 24 second audio clip. Assuming the clip is CD quality at 44.1 khz, that means the entire audio clip has 44,100 * 24 samples in it! He has only 1024 recording samples to pick up audible differences in over a million samples of audio data. Literally over 90% of the samples from the audio file are not accounted for in his recording. What needs to happen is an audio source needs to be played at 48khz, and then it's data sampled at 192khz through the cable. Because even though the time in between samples at 48khz is REALLY GOD DAMN SMALL (excuse my caps but I understand how small that time gap is). You can STILL hear a difference if there is variation between those 48khz samples. To me, if you play a reverbed saw wave sampled at 48khz, and a reverbed saw wave sampled at 192 khz, the difference is extremely obvious. Even though the frequency response would be --exactly-- the same between the 48khz and 192khz reverbed saw wave. Having more samples in between each 48khz sample produces a clearly audible difference. If your sound card supports 192khz you can actually do that test yourself with a synthesizer program that can output to 192. I say all that note that quite literally, there could be very slight variations happening in the resulting audio signal through a cable that could only be picked up at sampling rates greater than 48khz, and they would still produce a notable audible difference.
 
 
Also:
"Separation between sounds appears to be the result of driver response time, amount of resonance, and distortion and is also affected by sound stage. Sound stage is a function of driver placement relative to the ear and strategically placed peaks and dips in frequency response to simulate reflections in a room. Detail has about the same requirements as separation, and separation is actually part of detail. Everything in audio is quantifiable and measurable. It's just electronics and physics."
While I think that is true. I think the subject of what exactly reproduces sound stage is more complex than that. Sound stage is obviously not dependent on the driver's qualities. It is dependent, even more I think, the sound recording. And in that case, it's qualities to the recording that more accurately reproduce sound. And very slight alterations to the reproduction of that sound recording could alter the way it presents the positions, or depth of sounds.

 

[ry_goody]

Quote:

Do you people really think that the ear is more precise and resolving than modern technology? I can understand the belief that we can't properly translate all the data that we measure into how it affects what we hear, because that has a lot of truth to it. To believe the ear is actually superior at hearing though?
 
Modern technology can record frequencies above and below what the human ear can detect. It can perceive slight decibel changes that the human ear cannot. It can pick up low volume sound before we're aware of it, and continue to pick it up long after we've blown our ear drums. In what way can the ear actually *hear* better? It's a sound wave, a vibration in the air. A mechanical reaction. We can measure this with ridiculous accuracy.

but it takes a human ear to bring a sound recording into context.
 
You can measure the audio sample of a drum hit being played to 384khz, and have an immense amount of data, to an extremely high level of accuracy produced off that audio sample. But only a human, listening to that sample, will be able to say "It sounds 10 feet away and 30 degrees to my right".

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

but it takes a human ear to bring a sound recording into context.
 
You can measure the audio sample of a drum hit being played to 384khz, and have an immense amount of data, to an extremely high level of accuracy produced off that audio sample. But only a human, listening to that sample, will be able to say "It sounds 10 feet away and 30 degrees to my right".

Now that's not true at all! We detect direction with varying frequency response and phase shifts between ears. That's very measurable. Otherwise effects like Dolby Headphone, CMSS-3D, or any other headphone-based HRTF would be extremely hit or miss. Binaural recordings are actually based on the concept, and are recorded using a dummy head that simulates our outer ears and what they do to the sound from different directions. Obviously you would have to know how to read the data, but it's all going to be laid out in the numbers.
 
Also, 384kHz?

 

[Kwisatz]

Quote:

but it takes a human ear to bring a sound recording into context.
 
You can measure the audio sample of a drum hit being played to 384khz, and have an immense amount of data, to an extremely high level of accuracy produced off that audio sample. But only a human, listening to that sample, will be able to say "It sounds 10 feet away and 30 degrees to my right".

Triangulating sound is totally possible, and we've even created devices that can triangulate the position of where a gun was shot, and even *what* gun it was. Ignoring the specific example, and going more on the theme - that's analyzing the recorded information. I already covered that with "we can't properly translate all the data that we measure into how it affects what we hear".  Correlation of numbers and math to the subtle intricacies of hearing isn't a perfect science.
 
My question stemmed from the fact that some people seem to believe that the ear can somehow be better than the measuring equipment. (Nevermind the fact that the very stuff they're listening to has been recorded by that same equipment.) While getting data and analyzing it are two different things, if the measuring equipment can't detect any significant difference in the waveform that makes up the sound, then analysis of that information isn't that important. If the raw data is the same, then regardless of how you want to interpret it, the end results should be the same.

 

[ry_goody]

Quote:

My question stemmed from the fact that some people seem to believe that the ear can somehow be better than the measuring equipment. (Nevermind the fact that the very stuff they're listening to has been recorded by that same equipment.) While getting data and analyzing it are two different things, if the measuring equipment can't detect any significant difference in the waveform that makes up the sound, then analysis of that information isn't that important. If the raw data is the same, then regardless of how you want to interpret it, the end results should be the same.

I would agree with that statement.
 
But when it comes to comparing cables, there has not been sufficient evidence produced to discount the difference between solid core silver cables and copper cables. And what what little inadequate research there is, it does show that cables can affect measurable output in some way, and that empirically speaking, the possibility does exist that solid core silver cables could potentially make a recognizable difference.
 
Now could I reasonably say, yes solid core silver cables are better than copper from an empirical standpoint? No I could not. I can however say from what trials I've done in my experience, yes there is a difference.
 
So until some small group of people wants to front potentially $1000 and a good week of time to do a thorough examination with all the proper equipment. I think this movement to 'call out silver cables' is really just silly and the result of being bored... and maybe a bit of penis envy towards people who have 5k setups? (not accusing you directly of this, but I suspect this hatred of silver cables may stem from that in some people)
 
Although, maybe we here on head-fi could organize 'the ultimate cable research project'. Maybe in one city where 5-10 head-fi members are, everyone on the forum would donate $10 to some respectable member, to reach $1000 (or however much it costs). With that that would buy the proper equipment, go through the proper tests, publish there results. And then maybe raffle off the equipment at the end? I think this is a good idea actually...

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I would agree with that statement.
 
But when it comes to comparing cables, there has not been sufficient evidence produced to discount the difference between solid core silver cables and copper cables. And what what little inadequate research there is, it does show that cables can affect measurable output in some way, and that empirically speaking, the possibility does exist that solid core silver cables could potentially make a recognizable difference.
 
Now could I reasonably say, yes solid core silver cables are better than copper from an empirical standpoint? No I could not. I can however say from what trials I've done in my experience, yes there is a difference.
 
So until some small group of people wants to front potentially $1000 and a good week of time to do a thorough examination with all the proper equipment. I think this movement to 'call out silver cables' is really just silly and the result of being bored... and maybe a bit of penis envy towards people who have 5k setups? (not accusing you directly of this, but I suspect this hatred of silver cables may stem from that in some people)
 
Although, maybe we here on head-fi could organize 'the ultimate cable research project'. Maybe in one city where 5-10 head-fi members are, everyone on the forum would donate $10 to some respectable member, to reach $1000 (or however much it costs). With that that would buy the proper equipment, go through the proper tests, publish there results. And then maybe raffle off the equipment at the end? I think this is a good idea actually...

Compared to the complete lack of evidence to support an audible difference, I'd say the evidence we have is pretty significant.
 
There's already been listening tests between cables, in addition to measurements. Not headphone cables specifically, but interconnects definitely and lots of power cables. The principle is the same for the most part. Look around in the Sound Science forum.
 
Why not just have someone help you with your own blind test, if you're sure you heard a difference?

 

[ry_goody]

Quote:

Now that's not true at all! We detect direction with varying frequency response and phase shifts between ears. That's very measurable. Otherwise effects like Dolby Headphone, CMSS-3D, or any other headphone-based HRTF would be extremely hit or miss. Binaural recordings are actually based on the concept, and are recorded using a dummy head that simulates our outer ears and what they do to the sound from different directions. Obviously you would have to know how to read the data, but it's all going to be laid out in the numbers.
 
Also, 384kHz?

Well yes I guess this would be true. But even with the ability to triangulate sounds, still so many qualities to representation of a sound that could not be empirically tested.
 
I mean, as an extreme example, take this as far as the statement "Empirically prove bheetoven's symphony 9 is a good piece of music". And actually I know there are algorithms that can examine songs and produce reasonable estimates of how well they'll do in the market. But obviously, there is a level of perception there that only an actual human can discern.
 
You can triangulate the existence of a position of a sound in binaural 3D space. But does it sound like it's in a hallway, does it sound like its in a brick room? Does it sound like it's in an auditorium? Does there sound like there is alot of humidity? I imagine you could probably even get an algorithm to reasonably guess the 'size' and certain qualities of a space based on reverb in a recording. But still, an algorithm will only be able to discern a notable difference to a certain level, and from there only subjective perception can go farther. Only when we're dealing with systems that don't rely on human subjective perception as the result can we completely remove it from the equation. Like for example, a digital signal. We sent these 0 and 1's on this end, they came out the same on the other end, it is the exact same. However, analog audio signals, that require subjective perception of the aesthtetic of the audio cannot have the human subjectivity component removed. We can perhaps get ALOT of humans and have them go into a test room and be like "which clip sounds better" and have them push a button denoting and maybe after sampling a few thousand humans we can empirically conclude some results about the 'average human ear', and off of that data they create Beat by Dre. But still that is only the average. Even if an average says something 'empirically' this does not remove the possibly that a certain someone 'beyond average' can pick up something more.
 
384 is an exageration.

 

[koolkat]

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=3411355
 
900 dollar cables. Ridiculous. 
 

 

[Kwisatz]

 
Quote:

I would agree with that statement.
 
But when it comes to comparing cables, there has not been sufficient evidence produced to discount the difference between solid core silver cables and copper cables. And what what little inadequate research there is, it does show that cables can affect measurable output in some way, and that empirically speaking, the possibility does exist that solid core silver cables could potentially make a recognizable difference.
 
Now could I reasonably say, yes solid core silver cables are better than copper from an empirical standpoint? No I could not. I can however say from what trials I've done in my experience, yes there is a difference.
 
So until some small group of people wants to front potentially $1000 and a good week of time to do a thorough examination with all the proper equipment. I think this movement to 'call out silver cables' is really just silly and the result of being bored... and maybe a bit of penis envy towards people who have 5k setups? (not accusing you directly of this, but I suspect this hatred of silver cables may stem from that in some people)
 
Although, maybe we here on head-fi could organize 'the ultimate cable research project'. Maybe in one city where 5-10 head-fi members are, everyone on the forum would donate $10 to some respectable member, to reach $1000 (or however much it costs). With that that would buy the proper equipment, go through the proper tests, publish there results. And then maybe raffle off the equipment at the end? I think this is a good idea actually...

I actually wasn't really focusing on the cable argument. I just saw comments like "the human ear can be better than any measuring equipment", and I have seen that viewpoint echoed a number of times by various people on differing threads. My curiosity finally got the better of me, and I had to ask why people think such a thing is possible. Given the rock solid scientific understanding of the propagation of sound waves, it just baffled me.
 
As for the actual silver vs copper cables bit, I'm not aware of any real statistically significant tests, at least in regards to headphone listening. One aspect is the measurement of the electrical aspects of the cable. Another would require measurement of the headphones to see if anything could be detected through the actual transducer creating the sound.  Finally, a double blind, or in the very least a basic blind test done with people listening would be needed to convince people that don't trust machines. The last test would require some funky custom cables being made that had separate silver and copper paths down to a custom switch box that'd be able to relay from one to the other instantly. Taking the headphones off and switching cables would take too long and compromise the blind aspect of it. You'd also need enough people to have a decent sample size - of which a good chunk need to be people that claim they can hear a difference.
 
Somehow I think the cost of all this would exceed $1000 by a good margin... 

 Not to mention the logistics issues. It *would* be very interesting though.

 

[ry_goody]

Quote:

Compared to the complete lack of evidence to support an audible difference, I'd say the evidence we have is pretty significant.
 
There's already been listening tests between cables, in addition to measurements. Not headphone cables specifically, but interconnects definitely and lots of power cables. The principle is the same for the most part. Look around in the Sound Science forum.
 
Why not just have someone help you with your own blind test, if you're sure you heard a difference?

I would completely disagree with the notion a POWER cable makes a difference.
 
I completely disregard that power cables, or cables that carry digital signals can make any difference. 
 
I also completely disregard that varying qualities of copper cables, or varying 'platings' on copper cables can make a difference.
 
It does not surprise me that when dealing with power cables, USB cables, varying degrees of copper cables, the difference is negligable.
 
I am on the edge that simply changing an interconnect to solid core silver would make a difference. I would say I've heard a difference myself from just different interconnects but not in all systems. Only systems that are powered by a DAC that could be described as 'harshly detailed', do I think just an interconnect could make a difference.
 
However the test I would expect someone to notice a difference fairly readily is a test where someone had a 'highly detailed' DAC at atleast the expected quality of $200, something comparable to the AKG k701's and a TUBE amp  that could properly power them. Then they had all $20 copper cables, and then had solid core 99.9 silver interconnects and head phone cable they could switch to. If they could not tell the difference between $20 copper interconnect and headphone cable, vs solid core silver interconnect and headphone cable in that system, I would be very very surprised.
 
Does a test exist that has those conditions? Or atleast somewhat close to those conditions? I have not seen them published.
 
I have done them on my own and have found a difference.
 
If you want to go around stating that you "know" something as truth, then you need to take it upon yourself to do a thorough enough investigation to state such a thing. Because thus far what you've presented is not enough evidence to say you actually know anything with certainty. You could say based on this inadequate research, and (I assume) lack of first-hand experience, I SUSPECT this is true. But to declare it as actually true? No, you are not that far along. And pleading with other people to do research for you to satisfy your interest in the subject is silly, and lazy. No one has any obligation to keep a camcorder and 'third party witnesses' on standby for everything they do in order to prove everything they say to you. Unless your willing to front some money to pay for them to produce that research for you.
 
Buy yourself an adequate system, then get copper interconnects and a copper headphone cable, then get solid core silver interconnects and solid core silver headphone cable. Spend some time with them, then get someone to come in and do a blind test for you. Actually get maybe 5-10 people to do a blind test on the same system just in case you don't notice a difference. Record it on videotape if you want. Release if you want. But until then stop pretending you have an opinion more substantial than it really is.
 
And until then I am going to go along relying on what first hand experience I've had with this subject. However don't get me wrong here, if I piece together a system in which I cannot tell any difference between switching to all solid core silver in a blind test, I would be the first to admit it myself, and not be buying solid core silver any more.