[Lorentz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif Inexpensive audio interconnect cables usually use a central wire for the signal and outside braid double duty for ground and shield. Better cables have separate wires for the signal and ground, both contained within a shield that is terminated on one end, usually the downstream end. Many inexpensive braid-only cables are not 100% shield - the braid is not tight weave. For 100% it needs to be very tight and often also includes a foil wrap.

That's precisely my point; if shielding alone is what you're looking for in an interconnect cable, and everything else being the same, why are you spending more money for something else when there's an exactly similar build by radioshack?

As you say, more expensive cables do indeed have a seperate wires for signal and ground (that said, shouldn't there be both live and neutral signal cable as well as a ground for absolute best?), and it's indeed understandable those cables cost more. But to me, it's a whole another cable, not merely "just a better quality cable". It's a cable with an extra signal path.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why restrict it simply to there?

Because the wise folks who run this forum have decided that they don't want every sub-forum on Head-Fi to be inundated with the types of acrimonious discussions that occur when people discuss whether cables make an audible difference. And those discussions don't need to be everywhere to be reasonably available to anyone who has any interest in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think anyone new to the sport is going there first to ask "Hey you guys, are those fancy cables worth it?

Still think you need to save everyone from making their own decisions, and newbies are too stupid to find threads that set forth the pros and cons, huh?

The relevant threads can be found all over the Sound Science forum, and elsewhere on Head-Fi, with even the most basic search. Such discussions can also easily be found on Google.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Religious and political discussions have nothing to do with Headphone Hi-Fi.

Fine, but the point is that religious and political discussions end up in fights even if name-calling and flaming is forbidden -- due to the nature of the subject -- and the same problems exists with cable "myths" discussions, as evidenced by some of the posts in this very thread.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif I went to college in Pasadena, and one of my pleasures was visiting GNP Audio just up the street. In the spring of 1991 I had some extra money to spend, having earned it in a economics department experiment. I went to GNP with the hidden plan to buy a set of interconnect cables to go between my cd player and amp. The owner then, Alan, played me their mid level system. Then he said he was going to make a change. All the gear was behind me and I couldn't see what he did. He then played the same music again. I commented, "it sounds better, did you change one of the components?" He replied that he changed the cable between the cd player and preamp. It was a MIT cable, one without the filter box. I think the price was $75 so I decided to buy it.

And yet, the same effect can be brought about even when nothing is changed at all.

I've demonstrated this effect to myself a number of times over the years. Usually at some dealer's showroom. They'd be demoing some system or other and while everyone was nodding in approval, I'd get a quizzical look on my face and say something didn't sound quite right. Something was missing.

I'd go poking around the system for a bit and then say "Ah! Here's the problem. One of the speakers is wired out of phase!"

Then I'd pretend to "fix" the problem, after which everyone agreed that it sounded much better. Much more bass, etc.

This sort of thing is just trivially easy to do. It's like scratching just the right place on a dog's belly that causes their leg to start jerking.

Quote:

Fast forward to December 2002. I'm preparing to exhibit at CES for the first time. A dealer friend arranged one of his favorite cable brands to loan me a complete set of cables for the show. At the time I owned Tara Labs RSC Reference. I swapped out all the interconnect cables and replaced them with the new stuff. I powered up the hi-fi and hit play. To my surprise, it sounded different and better. Do note that I didn't change 1 set of cables but 5.

Given what's been known about human behavior for many decades, I don't see that it should have come as any surprise.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorentz /img/forum/go_quote.gif As you say, more expensive cables do indeed have a seperate wires for signal and ground (that said, shouldn't there be both live and neutral signal cable as well as a ground for absolute best?)...

When you have an unbalanced interface, all you have is "signal" and "ground." There is no third option.

se

 

[Donald North]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Given what's been known about human behavior for many decades, I don't see that it should have come as any surprise.

Why shouldn't it have been a surprise? I wasn't expecting there to be a difference, let alone improvement. I didn't spend any money and was satisfied with what I owned.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why shouldn't it have been a surprise? I wasn't expecting there to be a difference, let alone improvement.

First, you don't have to be consciously expecting any difference.

Second, you had just previously described an experience where you said you did perceive a difference when cables were changed. So given that experience, why wouldn't you have expected a difference with a subsequent change of cables? Did you somehow think that there could only have been a change in that one instance but in no other instance?

Third, what's your explanation for those who purport changes/improvements in the sound of their systems when they place photographs of themselves in their freezers?

se

 

[Donald North]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif First, you don't have to be consciously expecting any difference. Second, you had just previously described an experience where you said you did perceive a difference when cables were changed. So given that experience, why wouldn't you have expected a difference with a subsequent change of cables? Did you somehow think that there could only have been a change in that one instance but in no other instance?

Just because a change is made doesn't mean a difference will be heard. For example, this past weekend a friend brought over some power conditioner products to try in my big system. He's very enthusiastic about them and wanted me to give them a try. I listened with and without and commented that I did not hear a noticeable difference at that time, let alone improvement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Third, what's your explanation for those who purport changes/improvements in the sound of their systems when they place photographs of themselves in their freezers?

Why are you mentioning this? I have never heard of this practice before and don't see how this will affect the sound of one's hi-fi since no changes were made to the hi-fi or listening environment.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just because a change is made doesn't mean a difference will be heard.

No, but that wasn't my point.

You said you weren't expecting a difference. I was simply pointing out that you did have an experience where you did perceive a difference. So you already had it in your mind, even if it weren't at the conscious level, that you had once perceived a difference when cables were changed.

Quote:

Why are you mentioning this?

Because I think it's instructive.

Quote:

I have never heard of this practice before and don't see how this will affect the sound of one's hi-fi since no changes were made to the hi-fi or listening environment.

Exactly.

And yet, people have purported perceiving differences just the same.

It illustrates that our perceptions aren't the unerring reflection of objective reality that we would like to believe they are. And that differences may be perceived even in the absence of any actual audible differences.

In other words, it illustrates that we are simply human.

se

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorentz /img/forum/go_quote.gif "how much it costs to get as close to that ideal cable". Ideal cable here being a thin, wieve shielded stranded copper cable.

I should have added - Quality shielding can be had inexpensively.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif Um, Some of those cables have connectors that are Gold, Silver, Rhodium, Palladium, and what ever else. Are made with pure Silver wire, silver plated copper or sometimes cryo treated.

Eye candy, certainly. Sound influencing? No way.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif From my experiences, if there is a difference to be heard, be it a new amp, dac, etc., it will be most obvious to you when you first introduce the change into a system with which you're intimately familiar.

I think the first event is always the most likely time for the strongest placebo reaction as well. Subsequent samples are more about justifying the initial imagined response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif Inexpensive audio interconnect cables usually use a central wire for the signal and outside braid double duty for ground and shield. Better cables have separate wires for the signal and ground, both contained within a shield that is terminated on one end, usually the downstream end. Many inexpensive braid-only cables are not 100% shield - the braid is not tight weave. For 100% it needs to be very tight and often also includes a foil wrap.

This sounds like the 'poor man's balanced' cable. It isn't effective, and by terminating the shield only on one end, the shield becomes a sort of antenna, exacerbating noise rather than eliminating. Twisting two leads inside a cable is ineffective for unbalanced connections, it is the shield only which provides protection. Both wires need the same signal, opposite polarity in order to make common mode rejection, i.o.w. balancing, work.
Twin opposite polarity signal twisted leads, surrounded by grounded shielding in a balanced system is much more optimal than any unbalanced system for preventing noise, again regardless of how much the cable costs.

For unbalanced connections, a single lead, completely surrounded by the grounded shield is most effective. using foil, as well as a braided supposedly does indeed provide better shielding than either alone. One is good for EMI, and one is better for RF. I believe as long as the braid is fairly consistent, the shielding is effective... Same principle as a Faraday cage - it doesn't need to be solid, only consistent. It only degrades if the cable is bent or twisted so as to move or damage the braiding.
None of these things need be expensive, and as long as noise is not a problem, I.E. a properly shielded cable, none affects the sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorentz /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's precisely my point; if shielding alone is what you're looking for in an interconnect cable, and everything else being the same, why are you spending more money for something else when there's an exactly similar build by radioshack? As you say, more expensive cables do indeed have a seperate wires for signal and ground (that said, shouldn't there be both live and neutral signal cable as well as a ground for absolute best?), and it's indeed understandable those cables cost more. But to me, it's a whole another cable, not merely "just a better quality cable". It's a cable with an extra signal path.

This kind of refers to a balanced connection. - Different animal than single conductor coaxial. Shielding methods and 'sound differences' (or lack thereof) are two different things entirely.


Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Because the wise folks who run this forum have decided that they don't want every sub-forum on Head-Fi to be inundated with the types of acrimonious discussions that occur when people discuss whether cables make an audible difference. And those discussions don't need to be everywhere to be reasonably available to anyone who has any interest in them.

Fair enough. But if one camp is allowed to cite any and all reasons and beliefs, the other shouldn't be hamstrung. The most contentious topics will always be heated, but no advancement will be made if vital components to the debate are forbidden. Mods just have a little more work to do in keeping hotheads like me from spewing vitriol

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Still think you need to save everyone from making their own decisions, and newbies are too stupid to find threads that set forth the pros and cons, huh?

Not at all, but the spread of disinformation or half truths does no one any good.

 

[BIG POPPA]

So oatmeal you are say it is all eyecandy?
I have a set of RCA IC's one pair made with Rhodium connectors with 16AWG silver plated copper and a Set of stock Tartan IC's made by Blue jeans cable. They sound the same? Not even close my friend.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif So oatmeal you are say it is all eyecandy? I have a set of RCA IC's one pair made with Rhodium connectors with 16AWG silver plated copper and a Set of stock Tartan IC's made by Blue jeans cable. They sound the same? Not even close my friend.

How something "sounds" is subjective and involves a lot of psychology. Which is why frozen photographs can cause one's system to "sound" different.

What he's saying is that there's no reason on earth that there should be any actual audible difference between the two.

se

 

[PhilS]

It seems like the difference between the two basic camps of "skeptics" and "believers" could be summarized as follows:

Believer: I heard a difference between cables in my system.
Skeptic: It's all placebo.
Believer: Is not.
Skeptic: Is too.
Believer: Is not.
Skeptic: Is too.
Believer: Is not.
Skeptic: Is too.
Skeptic: Well, there's no scientific basis to believe the proposition that cables sound different.
Believer: But I know what I've heard and the differences are apparent.
Skeptic: Are not.
Believer: Are too.
Skeptic: Are not.
Believer: Are too.
Skeptic: Are not.
Believer: Are too . . . . . .

Is that a fair summary of the two points of view on this thread? Is that a fair summary of the 3,472,349 threads before this one that involve the same subject?

Anyway, carry on. I think a bunch of folks in the respective camps are about to switch sides. No really. I can sense it. Any moment now.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyway, carry on. I think a bunch of folks in the respective camps are about to switch sides. No really. I can sense it. Any moment now.

That simply can't be allowed to happen.

My God, man, just think of all the brick walls and dead horses that would suddenly be out of a job.

Maybe once we're finally out of this recession. But not now.

se

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif My God, man, just think of all the brick walls and dead horses that would suddenly be out of a job.

LOL.

 

[Donald North]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the first event is always the most likely time for the strongest placebo reaction as well. Subsequent samples are more about justifying the initial imagined response.

In my experience, the first listen is critical because you have no prior memory of how the system sounds with the change introduced. It is at this point where you will either have the greatest chance of hearing a difference or none at all.
Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif This sounds like the 'poor man's balanced' cable. It isn't effective, and by terminating the shield only on one end, the shield becomes a sort of antenna, exacerbating noise rather than eliminating.

First, I'll acknowledge I'm not an expert in RF, but it is my understanding that in this arrangement the shield acts like a drain. It is low impedance and shouldn't act as an antenna.