best interconnect for the bang? (better than bluejean)

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well that started off sounding nice, and then you had to go and ruin it with a snobby comment. Why do you guys seem to forget that I was of the same opinion as ALL of you skeptics. Go back and read some of my old posts. I only discovered that cables and power cords made a difference after I listened to them in MY system with my own ears. There's a reason Stereophile and Absolute Sound give reviews of amps and CD players with high end cables. I'm not talking about the reviews of the cables where they could be biased due to the advertising of the manufacturers. I'm talking about the reviews of the amps and CD players. If they made no difference, surely one of the reviewers after all these years would let the cat out of the bag on the internet or by telling one of their friends.

Stereophile do my laundry, man, they advertise what they are paid for, it is a business, period, also do not forget that reviewers are like you and me, a common person, and trust me that most of the times with more luck than ears, and get paid to do them. Of course they know how to write a bunch of words very nicely put together, but that if you analyze closely, most of the times say nothing, something like: creamy mids, liquid sound, chocolaty highs, dark backgrounds, tight bass, etc....all of them say the same, more or less...same verbiage all the time.

IMO to get paid to do a review do not make them more qualified than any of us, BTW some of the members here, have been involved in audio more the 20-30 years...so what? Are they better?

Do you think that I have not tried myself more expensive cables, recently I sold my last high-end cable, you know why, I needed the money to fund the LISA, and they sounded exactly the same as one that cost me $15.00...so it makes no sense for me to keep it.

If you still do not believe me, I have here the WireWorld cable comparator CD, I can send you a copy if you like, in which they recorded the same track using 17 different types of cables, it was the same track using the same machines in an studio, 24 bits pro machines, if the cables made a difference this difference should be recorded, and I'm not saying brighter, warmer or better, just different, you should hear those differences, sorry but I do not, and none of the ones who have heard it that I know of have been able neither...
I encourage you to find the differences between the cables, in the CD, and they use from Monster to Valhalla's, all prices of cables, so if any, should be there, OK?

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotchaforce /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah its too bad those stereophile reviewers werent offered something ridiculous like $1,000,000 to find the difference between cables and backed off. I mean how ridiculous would that be if a reveiwer from stereophile, someone who HAS to have a "golden ear", would turn down the chance for a million dollars and all they have to do is identify the better cable!?!? I can only imagine what that would say about the golden ears of our industry and their faith in cables...

That bogus contest was touched upon so many times on the net and here in this forum. The contest was just as bogus as the cable company (Pear) that volunteered for it.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you still do not believe me, I have here the WireWorld cable comparator CD, I can send you a copy if you like, in which they recorded the same track using 17 different types of cables, it was the same track using the same machines in an studio, 24 bits pro machines, if the cables made a difference this difference should be recorded, and I'm not saying brighter, warmer or better, just different, you should hear those differences, sorry but I do not, and none of the ones who have heard it that I know of have been able neither... I encourage you to find the differences between the cables, in the CD, and they use from Monster to Valhalla's, all prices of cables, so if any, should be there, OK?

Are they testing for a reduction in jitter? Are they checking to make sure the clock signal is timed properly between the bits?

If jitter and a poorly timed clock signal plague your system, it has no bearing on how many bits will be transmitted and received. Bits are not the problem. Jitter and clock signal (which is analog) will have a dramatic effect on what you hear, and noise contributes to those problems. The difference between a collapsed soundstage and the ability to hear decay in the notes could be the difference of 10 picoseconds (or less) of jitter.

These things might be harder to discern with a speaker system because you have the speakers aimed at you, get crossfeed between the two, and hopefully the drivers are time aligned. Headphone listening is unnatural for the human brain, so all these minor upgrades in sonics wind up making a huge difference in how we perceive the music; how much more natural and like real life it sounds.

I don't have enough experience with high-end analog interconnects to know how much they affect the sound. I know I have a pair of Cobalt analog interconnects which sound better than my stock interconnects, but they don't have nearly the impact that the upgraded digital cable has.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif That bogus contest was touched upon so many times on the net and here in this forum. The contest was just as bogus as the cable company (Pear) that volunteered for it.

The contest may have been bogus. Randi may be a big jerk.

But neither is a reason not to go through with an ABX test. If Stereophile wanted to make a point, they should have done a test on their own. I'm sure they could have found a university willing to lend a few credible engineers and psychology Ph.D.s to set up and correctly administer the test.

Had they done that, they could have proven Randi wrong. They could have proven the skeptics wrong.

But they didn't. Nothing stops them from testing cables. Except for the possibility the results might put them on a 100% crow diet and destroy a large part of their advertising revenue.

 

[IPodPJ]

I am all for the testing. I think new methods should be undertaken that can test for things like jitter potential, actual jitter determined by X cable, differences in clock signal -- time of departure and time of arrival, clock signal accuracy from point A to point B, noise levels reduced by X cable, etc.

But lets say you do all of that testing on one or two systems. That's great, but the results in someone elses system will be completely different. So how would you establish a benchmark?

 

[Tokenganjaclan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif anything other than this is a waste of money.

I Like The Gold Tips Better

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Obviously that's B.S. Just because you can't hear a difference (with your ears or your system) doesn't mean there aren't any. If there was no difference, people wouldn't spend money on better cables.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomjtx /img/forum/go_quote.gif there are so many logical fallacies in your post that the best response to it would be to recommend you take a course in logic at your local university

IpodPJ is not completely wrong here....correct me if I am wrong.

The next step from 'Just because you can't hear a difference doesn't mean there aren't any.' is to put it in the right format: 'you can't hear a difference != no difference'

Even if you can't draw any conclusions from that, you can draw some useful inferences. As in 'If there is no difference then you can't hear a difference' and 'If you can hear a difference then there must be a difference'

What follows from that is 'well, if there is really no difference, which means you can't hear a difference, why are you spending money on the no difference? The converse (from preceding paragraph) is if you can hear a difference, then there must be a difference, and it suddenly make sense why people spend money on the difference - cuz they can hear it!

 

[TempleOfEar]

that was ridiculous. i just read thru the last 4 pages of my thread and there was nothing but rant and arguing. this thread outlived its usefulness after someone mentioned silver resolution. im gonna go order them right now.

 

[Manny Calavera]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TempleOfEar /img/forum/go_quote.gif that was ridiculous. i just read thru the last 4 pages of my thread and there was nothing but rant and arguing. this thread outlived its usefulness after someone mentioned silver resolution. im gonna go order them right now.

I disagree,I think this was one of the better threads where this topic has been debated on here over the years.

 

[Chronos]

I'm kinda new to head-fi but I know among musicians especially guitarists, good cables cost top $ and they truly make a difference. I've tested them myself and it isn't so subtle that its a placebo effect. There is a night and day difference between cables. Like stock buds vs Super5Pros (what I have as an analogy)

Wouldn't this be true among audiophiles too?

 

[gotchaforce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm kinda new to head-fi but I know among musicians especially guitarists, good cables cost top $ and they truly make a difference. I've tested them myself and it isn't so subtle that its a placebo effect. There is a night and day difference between cables. Like stock buds vs Super5Pros (what I have as an analogy) Wouldn't this be true among audiophiles too?

the good cables cost a lot of money and probably look nice too (monster or such)... not placebo effect at all eh??

 

[meat01]

Quote:

There is a night and day difference between cables.

Most people here, (skeptics and pro cable people) believe that cables do not contribute more than 5% of the overall sound quality and that the changes are subtle.

That is the reason they are so heavily debated

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are they testing for a reduction in jitter? Are they checking to make sure the clock signal is timed properly between the bits? If jitter and a poorly timed clock signal plague your system, it has no bearing on how many bits will be transmitted and received. Bits are not the problem. Jitter and clock signal (which is analog) will have a dramatic effect on what you hear, and noise contributes to those problems. The difference between a collapsed soundstage and the ability to hear decay in the notes could be the difference of 10 picoseconds (or less) of jitter. These things might be harder to discern with a speaker system because you have the speakers aimed at you, get crossfeed between the two, and hopefully the drivers are time aligned. Headphone listening is unnatural for the human brain, so all these minor upgrades in sonics wind up making a huge difference in how we perceive the music; how much more natural and like real life it sounds. I don't have enough experience with high-end analog interconnects to know how much they affect the sound. I know I have a pair of Cobalt analog interconnects which sound better than my stock interconnects, but they don't have nearly the impact that the upgraded digital cable has.

Impact in digital cables? OMG, what will be next!!!

They were testing analog cables, of course, not digital. In digital cables it is IMO completely absurd to speak of any difference, that is one of the advantages of the digital domain, there no degradation on the signal transmission, no degradation from one copy to the other, simply the signal is the same all the time, one and zero can not be improved or degraded, it is either conducting, or it is not...if you hear a difference one of them must be defective...period!!!


Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most people here, (skeptics and pro cable people) believe that cables do not contribute more than 5% of the overall sound quality and that the changes are subtle. That is the reason they are so heavily debated

What about ot reduce the impact even more, to 1-2% maybe....

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Impact in digital cables? OMG, what will be next!!! They were testing analog cables, of course, not digital. In digital cables it is IMO completely absurd to speak of any difference, that is one of the advantages of the digital domain, there no degradation on the signal transmission, no degradation from one copy to the other, simply the signal is the same all the time, one and zero can not be improved or degraded, it is either conducting, or it is not...if you hear a difference one of them must be defective...period!!! What about ot reduce the impact even more, to 1-2% maybe....

You cant understand how cables can make a difference so you declare they dont. But, you can go on and on, endlessly, about the need for burn in.

Myself, if there were ever something I would attribute to placebo .... it would be burn in. I remember when I disliked those totally weird sounding Ultrasone 2500's. I was told they need 300,400 or whatever hours of burn in and the presentaion will be transformed. Well a few weeks ago ... I heard a well burnt in pair (600 hour estimate) and the 2500's sounded just as awful as the first time I heard them .... and this was out of three different setups. So much for burn in.

I have also tried a brand new 701 vs a 701 with well over 500 hours burn in. I twisted the cords out of two completely identical setups and I could not tell them apart. The only hint they were different was the feel of the pads. But, if I ignored the feel of the pads and concentrated on the music I just could not tell them apart. Burn in, IMO, seems to be claim put forth to make people keep a product they dont really like in hopes their ears will finally come to accept the products aversive presentation.

Furthermore, back to your original statement, I have a couple different digital cables I am using right now with three Zhalou dacs and there is an unmistakeable difference. One, cable I like and one I dont. As soon as I put the non-preferred cable in the dynamics compress and the sound seems closed in and canned. I dont know how such a difference could be any easier to distinguish. Why? No clue .... but I have repeated the same preferance atleast six times.

The moral of the story? Skip the preconceived notions and theories and to take the time to listen.

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif You cant understand how cables can make a difference so you declare they dont. But, you can go on and on, endlessly, about the need for burn in. Myself, if there were ever something I would attribute to placebo .... it would be burn in. I remember when I disliked those totally weird sounding Ultrasone 2500's. I was told they need 300,400 or whatever hours of burn in and the presentaion will be transformed. Well a few weeks ago ... I heard a well burnt in pair (600 hour estimate) and the 2500's sounded just as awful as the first time I heard them .... and this was out of three different setups. So much for burn in. I have also tried a brand new 701 vs a 701 with well over 500 hours burn in. I twisted the cords out of two completely identical setups and I could not tell them apart. The only hint they were different was the feel of the pads. But, if I ignored the feel of the pads and concentrated on the music I just could not tell them apart. Burn in, IMO, seems to be claim put forth to make people keep a product they dont really like in hopes their ears will finally come to accept the products aversive presentation.

I completely agree with you. I think burn-in is the most damaging aspect of audiophoolia, simply because it can take you past the return period so you can't return whatever in case you don't like it.