[71 dB]

1. Double blind tests can be flawed,
2. Your arguments don't change my view about the best audiophile cables compared to cheap cables.
3. I would suggest you research and listen to the better WireWorld cables.
4. They have a design rooted in science.
5. I base my view on clearly hearing the better natural timbre of acoustic instruments using Wireworld Silver Eclipse IC vs. a cheap cable.
6. My musically trained ears (I have a BA in Music) tell me this is not an imaginary placebo effect.

1. How exactly?
2. Why say that? Shouldn't it be up to the strength of the argument whether it makes you change your mind or not?
3. I can research (if I feel there is a need and there isn't*), but I won't buy expensive cables just to try them out.
4. In that case it should be easy to explain scientifically why the cables are better.
5. How does the signals always know the price tag of the cable?
6. My scientifically trained head tells me pricy cables are for the most part placebo so why hand over my money to snake oil sellers when the cheap cables work just fine? Better use the money where it counts more, or save the money altogether. Cables are not a problem in audio (so snake oil sellers need to make it a problem). Room acoustics and transducers (speakers/headphones) are the real problem in audio: Default rooms don't have ideal acoustics and cheap speakers/headphones don't generally perform that well.
_______________________
*My "cheap" cables manage to do what they are supposed to do - transmit the signal transparently enough. Wireworldcable has a quick comparison table for their cables. This table includes column named "fidelity", which is a subjective term. Things rooted in science tend to be objective. How do they define "design effiency" and "material quality"? Why do they think these two are common methods for addressing sound quality so that they can simply sum these to illustrate overall "fidelity"? See, a scientific mind pays attention to things like this in seconds and a "snake oil seller alarm" starts to ring in my head! Hair products are sold to women with similar tactics: 73 % more gloss! It's about mental images and people keep falling for it so products are being marketed using mental images.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I find this tread to be laughable--some people must have tin ears! [1a] If your equipment is good enough, high quality audiophile cables matter.
[2] It is generally accepted by a large majority of audiophiles that a difference can be heard between cheap cables and high quality audiophile cables [2a] due to more signal losses, etc. in the cheap cables.
[3] Everything in the signal chain matters!

1. Yes, some people do have tin ears. Even more "laughable" though, are people who must have un-obtainium ears, as they apparently can hear the inaudible.
1a. If your equipment is good enough, audiophile cables do NOT matter. So either your equipment is not "good enough", you have un-obtainium ears or you're suffering from some placebo effect, these are the ONLY options!

2. And it's generally accepted by pretty much the entirety of the rest of the audio world that a difference CANNOT be heard and additionally, this entirely agrees with the actual science, which dictates that any differences are way below audibility. Your "appeal to authority" is not only a fallacy but false anyway because your "large majority" is in fact a large majority of a tiny niche and is therefore actually a tiny minority! And, if that's not already bad enough, this tiny minority is one that highly values "impressions", reviews and marketing, while eschewing the actual facts/science?
2a. What cheap cables and what signal losses?

3. Yes it does, including the cables! That's why I use top quality cables. The disagreement is where on the cost scale we reach "top quality cables". If you take a $1,000 audiophile cable, there's a chance (under certain circumstances) that you might hear a difference in comparison with a $2 cable. If you take a well made top quality cable (costing say $15 or so) and compare that with the $1,000 audiophile cable, then there is no chance whatsoever of hearing a difference. The science tells us this, the experience of trained and untrained listeners tells us this and even the audiophile cable believers themselves tell us this (albeit inadvertently). Why is it, after decades of audiophile cables and a very significant financial reward, that not a single member of your "large majority" has ever reliably demonstrated they could hear this supposed difference?

[1] Double blind tests can be flawed, and [1a] your arguments don't change my view about the best audiophile cables compared to cheap cables.
[2] I would suggest you research and listen to the better WireWorld cables. [2a] They have a design rooted in science.
[3] I base my view on clearly hearing the better natural timbre of acoustic instruments using Wireworld Silver Eclipse IC vs. a cheap cable. My musically trained ears (I have a BA in Music) tell me this is not an imaginary placebo effect.

1. Yes they can, pretty much all tests of human judgement and perception can be flawed. With that as a given, what provides the best evidence, the testing method with the most flaws or the one with the least? You appear to be arguing contrary to the whole point of the audiophile world! Would you buy the cheapest most flawed headphones because all headphones (even the most expensive audiophile ones) are flawed or would you aim for the least flawed? If so, how does that make you an audiophile?
1a. This forum doesn't exist to change your view, just to disseminate the actual facts/science. You are of course, like everyone else, entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts!

2. Why would you suggest we research cables when obviously you have not? I'm not familiar with WireWorld cables but how are they significantly different from top quality cables or other audiophile cables? Do they somehow change the laws of physics? And, even if they did, would that change be audible?
2a. So do top quality $15 cables! So what else apart from science do they have: pseudo-science, magic, marketing designed to influence your (most flawed) testing method?

3. How can your musically trained ears possibly tell you "this is not an imaginary placebo effect"? Placebo effect occurs AFTER your ears! You seem very fond of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. A "large majority" which is in fact the opposite. "Good enough" equipment, when it's a safe bet my equipment is significantly better than yours. Your "musically trained hearing", which most likely are not as musically trained as mine, I studied at one of the top London music conservatoires for 4 years and was then a professional orchestral musician for several years. Contrary to my expectations, my highly musically trained listening didn't count for a great deal when I became a sound/music engineer. There were whole swathes of audio which even the highest level musical training didn't even mention, let alone train. It took me several years of further listening training to gain what I needed and in some of those areas I started as no better than an average member of the public.

Furthermore, if you have a Music BA, how is it possible that didn't you study traditional harmony? Didn't you cover implied harmony, the perception of notes/harmony that aren't actually there? Didn't you learn that music is entirely based on manipulating perception: The perception of what is or can be consonance and dissonance, their juxtaposition and the expectation of resolution? Did you not study the post WWII composers who specifically explored the nature of music and demonstrated that it's effectively ALL a "placebo effect"? Did you not learn any of this or not "join the dots" from your education to realise just how extraordinarily malleable our perception of hearing is, how dissociated it is from from our ears and that if it wasn't, then there would be no such thing as music in the first place?

G

 

[gregorio]

@gregorio or @bigshot I forgot who it was. It was one of you two that posted a long time ago that one of you worked at a big record studio. The cables connected to the singer and the band members was a cheap audio able you can buy for cheap, that costed a few bucks per foot.

I believe bigshot has worked extensively in studios but I don't know his full history. I have worked in a number of the world's top studios over the years, both AV studios and music recording studios, originally as a musician in the 1980s and since the early 1990's as an engineer/producer.

We have to be careful about the term "cheap cables", you can get ridiculously cheap cable and connectors, we don't use those cables in commercial recording studios, we only use very high quality cables. Many/Most cables are made in-house (by the support staff or the original specialist system installers), we buy cable in 100m reels and connectors in batches of 50 or so. Cable is usually a fairly random mix of Klotz, Van Damme, Mogami or similar and costs around $150 per 100m reel, which is more than double the cost of the really cheap cable. Connectors are almost always Neutrik (XLR), they're about $4 each if buying 50 or more, which is about 4 times the price of the really cheap connectors. A 6ft cable is therefore about $10 but obviously that's buying in small bulk quantities and making them yourself.

For the record: In a big commercial studio, you're looking at probably a 10m cable connecting the singer's mic to the stage box. Probably another 20m from the stage box to the mic-preamps (in the control room) and then maybe another 10-20m from the pre-amps to the machine room, where the ADCs will be. Of course it varies from studio to studio but typically we're talking of 40m or more of this "cheap" cabling. BTW, from the stage box onwards, it's all done by multi-core rather than individual XLR cables. 40m or so is nothing though, I believe in theory you can run such cables for about 10 kilometres before there's significant signal loss. I've run these cables in big live gigs for about 400m or so, with no signal loss and I know others who've run up to a kilometre.

G

 

[bigshot]

I’m not sure, but I think the spindle he showed me was Belden. They probably just buy whatever is the best deal in their area. This was in Hollywood. There are lots of good quality cables available at prices that aren’t even in the same universe as boutique labels.

Edit: Googled logos and I think it was Belden

 

[Arpiben]

In Telecom industry same rule as above is applied when dealing with BNC , coaxial, RJ45 cables as well as fibers.
The choice is driven by utilisation. Manufacturers do provide the relevant caracteristics.

 

[steady339]

gregorio, thanks for your lengthy response to my posts--you make some interesting points that are worthy of pondering. I would certainly agree with you that there is far too much snake oil in the marketing of audiophile cables and other audiophile products. Audiophile cables have gotten ridiculously expensive compared to the manufacturer's bill of materials costs, and so many people have jumped on the bandwagon to make a buck off well-heeled audiophiles. It's my understanding that MIT Cables was responsible for starting this grossly inflated trend.

Good to hear that you agree that everything in the signal path matters! I do consider Mogami a good cable and owned some Mogami cables years ago. I don't make the argument that all audiophile cables sound better than some of the standard cables used in studios. But I still find it hard to believe that I am simply experiencing an "imaginary placebo effect" with my Wireworld cables. I would still say I hear a difference in the SQ in comparison with some more conventional cables I own between my DAC and headphone amp. It's not about un-obtainium ears. In my experience, at least the best WireWorld cables do deliver a superior sounding product. You knock WireWorld, but yet admit you have never heard their cables.

Since this forum is about headphone listening I am also puzzled that you seem to hint that there could not be some significant signal looses in cables in the headphone circuit. After all, isn't it generally a good electrical design principle to keep circuit wiring as short as possible? I assume to avoid signal losses as well as other undesirable audible effects. Couldn't listening to music with headphones, with drivers pressed up against our ears, reveal small harmonic differences in cables?

It sounds Iike you received an excellent music education in London and know a lot about recording studios--my hat is off to you I assure you I have a BA in Music Education, from California State University, Fresno. I grew up in a musical family and played the violin in orchestras and have attended numerous concerts. I feel I can rightly say I have a musical ear, and have earned the right to say I know something about the accuracy of orchestral instrument timbre I hear with audio equipment.

S

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

Gregorio: “40m or so is nothing though, I believe in theory you can run such cables for about 10 kilometres before there's significant signal loss. I've run these cables in big live gigs for about 400m or so, with no signal loss and I know others who've run up to a kilometre.”

It’d be somewhat surprising if headphones need more power than sound equipment for gigs.
Try something just for fun: have your missus wrap your cables in tinfoil or some such thing so as to remove any visual trademarks. Then try having her swap cables on you and see if you still hear a difference.
Chances are if you’re hearing differences you’ve wound up with a faulty cable.

 

[gregorio]

[1] But I still find it hard to believe that I am simply experiencing an "imaginary placebo effect" with my Wireworld cables.
[2] You knock WireWorld, but yet admit you have never heard their cables.
[3] Since this forum is about headphone listening I am also puzzled that you seem to hint that there could not be some significant signal looses in cables in the headphone circuit. After all, isn't it generally a good electrical design principle to keep circuit wiring as short as possible? I assume to avoid signal losses as well as other undesirable audible effects. Couldn't listening to music with headphones, with drivers pressed up against our ears, reveal small harmonic differences in cables?
[4] It sounds Iike you received an excellent music education in London and know a lot about recording studios--my hat is off to you I assure you I have a BA in Music Education, from California State University, Fresno. I feel I can rightly say I have a musical ear, and have earned the right to say I know something about the accuracy of orchestral instrument timbre I hear with audio equipment.

1. Unfortunately, there really is no alternative. There is no science or engineering beyond that already employed in the manufacture of standard (high quality) cables which could make a difference anywhere even near to audible levels.
2. That's irrelevant. Human perception of sound is fallible/fool-able, the very existence of music relies on this fact. Objective measurements on the other hand are NOT fallible. Let's say, for argument sake, WireWorld has managed to break the laws of physics and achieved the impossible, a literally perfect cable with zero distortion or signal loss. Even given this this impossible, hypothetical situation, still there would be no audible difference with a standard high quality cable, because the difference between the losses/distortion of a standard cable and no loss/distortion whatsoever, is too small to be audible. Whether I've heard WireWorld cables is therefore utterly irrelevant!
3. I'm not hinting that. Within a circuit you have extremely close proximity of numerous electronic components each of which causes interference, plus numerous unshielded connections right next this interference. Keeping a wire as short as possible within circuit design is therefore wise/essential. With unbalanced analogue connections it's also wise to keep your cables as short as possible but unless you live next to an industrial magnet factory, then losses/distortion with a standard high quality cable are going to be negligible (inaudible).

4. I was not so much questioning your assertion of having a Music BA but more questioning how you're employing that experience/education. For example, you must know that there is a significant difference between what a violin sounds like when you're playing it (or sitting right next to it) and what it sounds like from 20m away in the audience of a concert hall. This is because from 20m away we've got significant distortion and signal loss. The question though is: Which one is the "accurate orchestral instrument timbre"? In practice of course it's not just two choices, it's an almost infinite amount. If for example you hear Joshua Bell playing his Strad in one concert hall it's going to be different from Joshua Bell in another concert hall, even if it's the same piece, same Strad and identical interpretation. Which one is the correct timbre? As musicians we're effectively basing our performance on a guess, on what we think and would like the audience to hear/perceive. One of the surprising things I discovered when I became an engineer is how many musicians, even world class concert soloists, don't have an accurate idea of what they actually sound like, they only have an accurate idea of what they want/expect to sound like. However, I noticed that experienced concert soloists are not surprised by this fact, indeed they're very familiar with it. They're familiar with the fact that it sometimes seems like the audience (including other highly experienced musicians, critics, etc.) heard a different performance from the one they've just given! Obviously, this places us firmly in the realm of personal subjective preferences and significant differences in perception, even amongst the most experienced/skilled listeners. From a musician's perspective though, it typically appears to be objective observation, because formal music education and experience teaches us the knowledge and acceptance of the expert consensus of what is considered good, great, poor, correct, etc.

Furthermore, as a formally educated musician, I presume you learned at a technical/scientific level what causes differences in timbre, although most music courses don't go much beyond the simplest basics? Almost beyond question, your appreciation of many of the fine details of timbre is superior to the average member of the public and even most audiophiles, you simply need to "join all the dots" of your education/experience and include a few "dots" not available to you. The most important of those unavailable "dots" is the actual performance of these audiophile grade cables. The manufacturers never publish them (even though it's trivially easy) because it they did, it would be easy to see the difference between them and far cheaper high quality cables. With the other "dots" of your education you would clearly see that any performance differences are way too small to affect an audible change in (what causes) timbre, even for the most sharply-eared, experienced of professional musicians. So, the ONLY explanation for a perceived difference between such cables is the individual's perception itself. And, this is unequivocally supported by the fact that if we take away those things which can influence/alter an individual's perception, then that perceived difference can no longer be perceived, as demonstrated by EVERYONE, including even the most fervent of audiophile cable believers!

G

 

[gregorio]

It’d be somewhat surprising if headphones need more power than sound equipment for gigs.

Actually headphones need way more power! Sure, we've got thousands of times more speaker output wattage but the signals we're sending along the cables are "mic level" signals, which are probably 100+ times lower than the signal level required by headphones and "line level" signals which are about the same or slightly lower than the level required by HPs.

Your response indicates that you've maybe misunderstood my post. I was talking of the difference between cheap and high quality cables in terms of say a $2 cable and a $10 cable, not super expensive audiophile cables which provide no benefit above a high quality (EG. $10) cable.

G

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

Sorry G, you're right. I'll be over in the corner

Well at least I am completely fine with being wrong on a subject I don't know jack about.
Maybe I should infect some others in here with this very rare disease?

 

[sonitus mirus]

Apparently Cookie Marenco, a renown audio engineer affiliated with Blue Coast Records that seems to share an eerily similar perspective as @analogsurviver with regards to DSD and hires recording, has put together a brief guide today for identifying differences between such things as cables and even FLAC vs WAV files.

https://dsd-guide.com/how-do-comparative-listening-test

I find it annoying that she commonly refers to blind testing as literally being blindfolded. And while supposedly all of this rigorous testing is being conducted, we are never provided with anything other then anecdotal references that suggest differences are being heard with any statistical significance. It is difficult to trust a source that has a business rooted in all of these extraordinary claims being believable.

 

[analogsurviver]

Apparently Cookie Marenco, a renown audio engineer affiliated with Blue Coast Records that seems to share an eerily similar perspective as @analogsurviver with regards to DSD and hires recording, has put together a brief guide today for identifying differences between such things as cables and even FLAC vs WAV files.

https://dsd-guide.com/how-do-comparative-listening-test

I find it annoying that she commonly refers to blind testing as literally being blindfolded. And while supposedly all of this rigorous testing is being conducted, we are never provided with anything other then anecdotal references that suggest differences are being heard with any statistical significance. It is difficult to trust a source that has a business rooted in all of these extraordinary claims being believable.

I am not surprised at all - since I know - even if just a bit of snippets - her work from well before the hires became commercially available. Cookie Marenco has been one of the producers for the Windham Hill records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windham_Hill_Records . I think of Windham Hill as an easy(er) listening jazz/crossover label than say ECM - but paying at least equally high emphasis on the sound quality. I only managed to get hold on two samplers, original US pressing, at least one of them being analog record mastered/cut by Bernie Grundman. And I do use these LPs sometimes when the differences in phono cartridge/tonearm/turntable combinations are really small and lower in magnitude than more commonly produced records can provide.

Most of the current Blue Coast DSD downloads have actually started their life as analog tape initial recordings - many times mastering was also analog tape, only the final product being transfered into digital as DSD. She has simply adopted DSD as the best way of delivery in digital age.

Even the best analog starts to loose its ground at DSD128 - and by the DSD256 and above, the game is over. And, yes, certainly, a live DSD256 initial recording ( no nothing whatsover being done to the live mike feed, other than recording it to DSD256 ) would provide the best foundation for testing of various differences in audio chain - cables included.

I do not know when she did say or write that the blind testing being literally blindfolded. It is a bit on the extreme side of putting it, but I can perfectly understand where she is coming from - and I concur. After a period of - say - about two years after the initial contacting the artist, after test recordings, after coaching the artists accustomed to the usual studio work different game that places more demand and stress on them too, after having to try different studios or venues, after doing whatever in one's power to make as good a recording as possible, after investing both time and money into it, it is hard NOT to be annoyed by the blind testing AB crowd. Because, although valid, DBT AB simply glances over the finer aspects of the sound quality - which, generally, are too small to be perceived in 30 or so second switching sequences.

And she did a really good job by eloquently describing what to listen for in order to differentiate among various resolutions of digital and their audible (d)effects. Pre requisite here is a decent unprocessed recording (aka initial recording ) to begin with - and not - say - Kind of Blue, etc.

 

[gregorio]

Apparently Cookie Marenco, a renown audio engineer affiliated with Blue Coast Records that seems to share an eerily similar perspective as @analogsurviver with regards to DSD and hires recording

We have to be a bit careful here, we don't know for sure that she does actually share an eerily similar perspective to analogsurviver. The community of pro music engineers and producers, like all communities, contains all kinds of different people. They achieve their position/reputation for their end results and, due to the workflow, it's not always necessary to have an in-depth understanding of how digital audio works in order to achieve successful end results, especially in the case of music producers. Plus, we have the added complication that some/most of the most famous have endorsement deals. In other words, she might share an "eerily similar perspective" or she may fully appreciate the actual facts but is somewhat misrepresenting them for business reasons. The latter is by far the most likely but I've certainly come across the occasional famous music producer who is shockingly ignorant/misinformed of how digital audio actually works.

Most of what she stated is true, at least sometimes. The only really obvious place she's misleading is with DSD and sample rates, bit rates yes but not sample rates. For example, "If you prefer the wider image with full frequency and dynamic response that DSD offers -- wonderful." - I assume in reality she actually knows that in practice DSD has both a lower frequency response and a smaller dynamic range than PCM and I'm sure she also knows that most DSD recordings have to be converted to PCM at some stage anyway. However, these factual/technical weaknesses of DSD are inaudible.

[1] I can perfectly understand where she is coming from - and I concur.
[2] After a period of - say - about two years after the initial contacting the artist, after test recordings, after coaching the artists accustomed to the usual studio work different game that places more demand and stress on them too, after having to try different studios or venues, after doing whatever in one's power to make as good a recording as possible, after investing both time and money into it, it is hard NOT to be annoyed by the blind testing AB crowd.
[2a] Because, although valid, DBT AB simply glances over the finer aspects of the sound quality ...

1. Why am I NOT surprised that you "concur" with marketing hype and misrepresented/incorrect facts? Clearly your understanding is based on marketing hype and therefore of course you'd "concur".

2. Being mislead by and regurgitating marketing hype as fact is one thing but where I really object is when you just completely make-up lies! You have admitted that you have zero experience of world class commercial studios and only passing contact or no contact at all with high class artists. Where then does all these assertions of "coaching the artists", "more demand and stress on them", "trying different studios or venues", etc., come from if you have no actual experience or knowledge? It comes from your imagination, from your desire to support your argument with whatever you can think of and possibly, from your limited experience working with amateur or inexperienced recording artists. No wonder you are annoyed by the actual facts, the most accurate testing methods and those with long term professional experience with world class artists, world class studios and the actual world of commercial recording!
[2a] It's even more objectionable when you make up more lies to cover up the lack of any real experience and the lies you've already made up. Careful DBT actually exposes the very finest aspects of sound quality, more so than any other testing method. So, your assertion is in fact the EXACT OPPOSITE of the actual facts and is a sad demonstration of delusion, ignorance or trolling which is unfortunately all too common in your posts/responses.

Many of the other points in your post have already been demonstrated as nonsense ad nauseam in numerous other threads and there's no need to refute them yet again, just to feed your trolling.

G

 

[colonelkernel8]

I am not surprised at all - since I know - even if just a bit of snippets - her work from well before the hires became commercially available. Cookie Marenco has been one of the producers for the Windham Hill records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windham_Hill_Records . I think of Windham Hill as an easy(er) listening jazz/crossover label than say ECM - but paying at least equally high emphasis on the sound quality. I only managed to get hold on two samplers, original US pressing, at least one of them being analog record mastered/cut by Bernie Grundman. And I do use these LPs sometimes when the differences in phono cartridge/tonearm/turntable combinations are really small and lower in magnitude than more commonly produced records can provide.

Most of the current Blue Coast DSD downloads have actually started their life as analog tape initial recordings - many times mastering was also analog tape, only the final product being transfered into digital as DSD. She has simply adopted DSD as the best way of delivery in digital age.

Even the best analog starts to loose its ground at DSD128 - and by the DSD256 and above, the game is over. And, yes, certainly, a live DSD256 initial recording ( no nothing whatsover being done to the live mike feed, other than recording it to DSD256 ) would provide the best foundation for testing of various differences in audio chain - cables included.

I do not know when she did say or write that the blind testing being literally blindfolded. It is a bit on the extreme side of putting it, but I can perfectly understand where she is coming from - and I concur. After a period of - say - about two years after the initial contacting the artist, after test recordings, after coaching the artists accustomed to the usual studio work different game that places more demand and stress on them too, after having to try different studios or venues, after doing whatever in one's power to make as good a recording as possible, after investing both time and money into it, it is hard NOT to be annoyed by the blind testing AB crowd. Because, although valid, DBT AB simply glances over the finer aspects of the sound quality - which, generally, are too small to be perceived in 30 or so second switching sequences.

And she did a really good job by eloquently describing what to listen for in order to differentiate among various resolutions of digital and their audible (d)effects. Pre requisite here is a decent unprocessed recording (aka initial recording ) to begin with - and not - say - Kind of Blue, etc.

Aw yeah, here it is. AS dropping his nonsense into the ring.

 

[bigshot]

Now we get a few weeks of pointless back and forth