[kelly]

Phreon
Typically, I agree with this--your money goes further toward improving the sound with components than it does with cables in general. Or, another way to say it might be: Cables are like on tiny part of a component.

However: cables can definitely represent a bottleneck in high end systems and they definitely can make an audible difference. I have what I consider to be pretty well built power cables--twisted pair design, shielded, hospital grade connectors and yet, I've heard cables that sounded better in my system from JPS Labs.

There are a dozen theories for why power cables matter. The one I like the most is the one suggesting that the power supplies from the components generate noise that enters the power cable outside the component. Power supplies that emit less interference woudl therefore force cables into greater irrelevance. This may be one reason why some CD players and amps benefit more from cables than others (and if you search AA you'll find correlations and judging by how much they argue I don't think we can chalk it up to peer pressure). Of course, you can't tell by the brand of the unit, it's on a model by model basis which could support the idea that it's specific to the transformer used. Again, just one theory. There are others.

Similar to this is the theory with digital cables. Digital cables shouldn't matter. Those of us with any logical function left in our brains want to believe that no difference would be gained from switching digital cables. Once again, I've heard the difference myself. It's there. It's somewhat alarming, actually, because it's so obvious between some cables that it's impossible to dismiss out of hand. The theory here is that the DAC isn't doing a proper job of filtering and reclocking so the jitter is being passed in. Again, this would offer an explanation for why digital cables matter more on some DACs than others (and on transports).

Sorry--the point is that cables do matter and that things aren't as simple as they appear. But *in general* I agree, worry about your components first and foremost.

 

[Phreon]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly However: cables can definitely represent a bottleneck in high end systems and they definitely can make an audible difference. I have what I consider to be pretty well built power cables--twisted pair design, shielded, hospital grade connectors and yet, I've heard cables that sounded better in my system from JPS Labs. There are a dozen theories for why power cables matter. The one I like the most is the one suggesting that the power supplies from the components generate noise that enters the power cable outside the component. Power supplies that emit less interference woudl therefore force cables into greater irrelevance. This may be one reason why some CD players and amps benefit more from cables than others (and if you search AA you'll find correlations and judging by how much they argue I don't think we can chalk it up to peer pressure). Of course, you can't tell by the brand of the unit, it's on a model by model basis which could support the idea that it's specific to the transformer used. Again, just one theory. There are others.

Being that I'm of a scientific bent, the fact that there are dozens of unproven, unverified, untested theories really throws up a red flag in my mind.The problem I have with these theories is that if there is such a difference in sound, there should be measurable improvements in the cable. I'm just not convinced that manufacturing a conductor to .00009% physical tolerances makes any difference whatsoever, other than to really impress the consumer with useless numbers. I generally consider marketing brochures to be just slightly less useful than a quadriplegic horse.

If the power supply in your amp is anything approaching "quality", it will have filter capacitors, chokes, etc. included in it's design that will be much more effective at cleaning up the power than a sheath of ferrous "pixie dust" around the cable ever could hope to be. Wrapping a power cable around a ferrite toriod is moderately effective because of a simple "choke" effect to put it simply, but encasing the cord in a granulated ferrite material should have in infinitesimally smaller effect in comparison. I can't see how the sheath of ANY cable can effect the signal passing through it beyond shielding it from RFI/EMI and subtly effecting the capacitance (which should make no difference at such low frequencies). We're not talking about microwave transmission line here; it's 120v/60Hz power cable. Even if you could build a cable that's perfectly shielded, attaching that expensive 3 foot cord to the hundreds of feet of unshilded cable between it and the power transformer for your neighborhood renders the effort useless. Building a $900 cable that "tries" to filter noise is just plain silly when there are more effective and less costly ways to do it. $900 will buy you a very, very nice power conditioner.

I have a feeling expesive power cables improve the sound of an amplifier because they A) are built better and can deliver the power (less resistance) better than a stock one and B) They look better and cost an arm and a leg, so they MUST sound better. I would be willing to wager that beyond a certain level of quality, say $100, in a blind test, even the best "golden ears" audiophile couldn't tell the difference between power cables at a rate exceeding random chance.

Please read the comments at this site: http://home.new.rr.com/zaph/audio/johndunlavyonwire.htm

At the above mentioned site, the author performed subjected tests using self proclaimed audiophiles to see if there was a detectable dfference in the sound of several brands of high end speaker cable. When the subjects knew what cable was being used, they always picked the most impressive looking cable as sounding the best. Later, the subjects were again asked to evaluate cables, only in a blind test, and they could not differentiate between a high end cable and good quality #20 zip cord!

I propose that if in blind tests, audio transmission cables cannot be discerned, then the difference between power cables should be even less detectable. I think that when we reach the point where we're purchasing components with such a ridiculously terrible price to performance ratio, human psychology explains the "soundstage" of a power cable much more than science. It's the placebo effect, plain and simple.

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly Similar to this is the theory with digital cables. Digital cables shouldn't matter. Those of us with any logical function left in our brains want to believe that no difference would be gained from switching digital cables. Once again, I've heard the difference myself. It's there. It's somewhat alarming, actually, because it's so obvious between some cables that it's impossible to dismiss out of hand. The theory here is that the DAC isn't doing a proper job of filtering and reclocking so the jitter is being passed in. Again, this would offer an explanation for why digital cables matter more on some DACs than others (and on transports). Sorry--the point is that cables do matter and that things aren't as simple as they appear. But *in general* I agree, worry about your components first and foremost.

The difference between (optical) digital cables should be quite easy to quantify. The idea that an optical cable can effect jitter is junk science. If your CDP is producing bad/jittery data , the world's best cable will not correct it. Jitter is a problem with data in the time domain. Unless we're talking about lengths of cable where the speed of light becomes an issue, any cable with quality level above "crap" will have no effect at all. Even at continental distances, jitter is not a problem because the time delay is a constant. At lengths and data transmission rates of an order of magnitued higher than what is commonly seen in a hi-fi system, cable induced data loss (other than from a physical defect) is rarely a problem and jitter unrelated to data loss *never* is. A packet of data will always take the same time to travel the length of a cable, period. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity proves this.

I concede that the quality of a fiber optic cable could cause the optical tranceiver of a cheap deck to drop packets and have a definite and measurable effect on the sound. However, beyond the shape of the connector, the functional difference between a $50 data quality fiber optic and $200 "audiophile" quality cable exists entirely in the psychological domain.

Of course the quality of your cables can have a dramatic effect on the sound quality of your systems, but beyond a certain level, the listener's satisfaction has more to do with the "warm fuzzy" of having bought the "best" equipment, not any measurable advantage. If you can't measure the difference, it doesn't exist.


Phreon


All typos,spelling and grammatical errors are due to defects in your monitor.

 

[kelly]

Phreon
It's great that you've made your decision about cables without listening for yourself. This will inevitably save you a lot of time and money. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't participate in threads discussing specific cables if you're against the notion that they matter at all. Other users have been outright banned for repetitive, obnoxious posts in every thread about the subject and the "DBT-free" label is a testament to the general atmosphere here. I'm not a moderator and I'm not telling you what to do--just a friendly suggestion.

Science is not measuring the world and then only after you can prove it on paper sticking your head out the window to verify it's there. Science is observing the world with your own senses and then trying to find reasonable explanation for what has been observed. It's clear that your view is that all of our observations are pyschologically induced nonsense, but again, to debate that over and over again is not the purpose of this forum.

 

[DarkAngel]

The ghost of Ricky has come back to haunt us this halloween
boooooooooooooo.........

 

[Zin_Ramu]

I'm actually glad that Phreon posted. I've been reading a long post double blind testing on AVSforum and have recently done some tests myself which have shown that I have fallen pray to my own psychological despositions.

Yet I understand Kelly's point that continuosly debating that whether observations are pyschologically induced nonsense is not the purpose of this forum.

What I personally would like to see is just a quick mention of whether a test was done blind or not whenever a review is made, so that those who do consider this important are aware of the circumstances.

Sorry to go further OT on this thread, but it seems to have strayed long ago

 

[pigmode]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zin_Ramu I'm actually glad that Phreon posted. I've been reading a long post double blind testing on AVSforum and have recently done some tests myself which have shown that I have fallen pray to my own psychological despositions.

Personally, the only tests, impressions, and reviews that I consider valid are the ones I conduct in my own system.

 

[Phreon]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly Phreon It's great that you've made your decision about cables without listening for yourself. This will inevitably save you a lot of time and money. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't participate in threads discussing specific cables if you're against the notion that they matter at all. Other users have been outright banned for repetitive, obnoxious posts in every thread about the subject and the "DBT-free" label is a testament to the general atmosphere here. I'm not a moderator and I'm not telling you what to do--just a friendly suggestion.

I'll admit I have never had the opportunity or desire to audition power cables of such rarified status. You're also right about staying on topic; I should start a new thread. However, I defy you to provide the quote where I stated that cables don't matter at all.

I've bumped into this issue in various forums on various subjects, and not one single time has anyone ever been able to provide even the tiniest shred of objective evidence to back up their emotional claims. I want to believe that there is a real benefit in buying exceedingly expensive cables, but when neither the manufacturer or the consumer is able to provide any real scientifc reason that theirs are better, I remain skeptical.

At one time, I had "silver" ears (not quite golden) and was able to hear leaky vacuum lines in cars and the squeal of just about every computer monitor in a 15 foot radius, but now I concede that my hearing has degenerated to the point that I may never hear the difference. However; using your digital cable example, if the data exiting both a cheap and expensive cables is measured to match the input data, the perceived sound difference between the two must be attributed to other factors.

It behooves the customer to seek out why their expensive cables perform the way they do; there are only a few outcomes possible. Using a $500 power cable for example:

A) Tests will prove that there is a measurable benefit in the design of said cable and the price is justified

B)Tests will prove that there is a measurable benefit in the design of said cable, but the cost is not justified considering materials and techniques used.

C)Tests will prove there is no measurable benefit and the cost is not justified under any circumstance.

Certainly there is someone out there with the resources to shed some light on the subject





Quote:

Originally posted by kelly Science is not measuring the world and then only after you can prove it on paper sticking your head out the window to verify it's there. Science is observing the world with your own senses and then trying to find reasonable explanation for what has been observed. It's clear that your view is that all of our observations are pyschologically induced nonsense, but again, to debate that over and over again is not the purpose of this forum.

I certainly do not believe that all of your observations are psychologically induced or are nonesense. I just want a verified explanation as to why super expensive power cables can effect the soundstage of an amp. I'm playing the part of Devil's Advocate to stimulate someone, anyone, into providing me with the tiniest shred of objective evidence.

Science is not observing the world and then trying to find a reasonable explanation; that's religion and is why Galileo was tried as a heretic for proving that Earth is not the center of the solar system.

Science is:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

The problem is that when arguing the virtues of high end power cables, Leica Glass or SACD for example, most people stop at number two. Formulating a hypothesis and then accepting it as fact is not science, it's religion.

Let me reiterate that I WANT to believe. I learned through personal observation and then the study of other's experiments and data that yes, vinyl does produce better sound under the right conditions because of it's lack of digital artifacts, vintage analog synthesizers do have a special sound again because of their lack of (measurable) digital artifacts and great dynamic range and tube amplifiers do sound warmer/cleaner because of (the measurable) way they produce even order harmonics compared to solid state equipment. Even though common wisdom said that all three tenets above were false, through observation and measurment, they were proven correct. We always knew that tube amps sound better; it was the corperations who tried to convice us otherwise and scientific reasoning vindicated us and proved what we knew all along. The same corperations who's best interest is to convince you that their $900 cable is worth the money you paid for it.

I did not realize this is a debate free forum and I apologize; I will advance no further comments on the subject (in this thread) unless solicited. Overall, a fascinating discussion, none the less. Head-Fi seems to attract people and spawn discussions (in most threads) that are a cut above the normal internet chatter and I do not wish to cause any change in that status.


Phreon

Any typographical or grammatical errors displayed are due to physical defects in your monitor.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phreon Science is not observing the world and then trying to find a reasonable explanation; Science is: 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

You listed "observing" and then listed the steps of finding a reasonable explanation. My point was that step 1 is observation. By insisting on there being no difference between cables because you don't know how to measure it, you are bypassing step 1. I do not consider this more "scientific."

Quote:

Let me reiterate that I WANT to believe.

I don't. I don't own any stock in any cable producing company. Believing there is a difference only stands to cost me more money. I ONLY believe there are differences because I have heard them. My bias is against things that cost me money. However, I am not prone to ignoring my senses or writing them off as influenced by my imagination simply because my means were not scientific enough.

Quote:

I did not realize this is a debate free forum and I apologize

It is hardly a debate free forum and for some reason I find that amusing. It is a "DBT-free" forum or "double-blind testing free" meaning that the experience herein are subjective and crapping someone's subjective observations because they didn't use a double-blind method of testing is unappreciated. I don't know that there is a policy and I'm not a moderator regardless--I'm only trying to explain the sentiment.

 

[aeberbach]

Quote:

designed to replace typical stock cord and to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power cords

...to compete with the VALUE OF the most popular $500 power cords...

Does this mean that VD don't believe in cables either? Is this their subtle way of cautioning those who read between the lines?

time I ducked

 

[Phreon]

You solicited this response....

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly You listed "observing" and then listed the steps of finding a reasonable explanation. My point was that step 1 is observation. By insisting on there being no difference between cables because you don't know how to measure it, you are bypassing step 1. I do not consider this more "scientific."

I have not insisted there is no difference between cables; I have only insisted that there has not been any objective explanation put forth. It is not a matter of weather I or anyone else knows how to measure what we are discussing. It is extremely rare to see any measurements at all. If you tested two cables (designed to carry analog signals) using all the methods known, found them to be electrically identical and still insisted that one of them sounds better, I would conclude that there is no known difference, concede that you in fact could be hearing a benefit, but would conclude that it's unlikely, there is no way to prove it and would agree to disagree. This is where I stand on the testing of analog circuits.

Due to the nature of digital data however, if the data coming from both cable A and B is identical, there can be no difference in sound quality. Any EE from freshman to PhD level will tell you that. In that scenario, the advantage is in the observers head.

In itself, step one, "Observation", is useless and no different than fantasy and random conjecture if not followed up with the rest of the steps commonly known as the "Scientific Method". There is no such thing as "more scientific". Like being pregnant, it either is or it isn't. Skipping any of the four steps is bad science at best.

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly [ It is hardly a debate free forum and for some reason I find that amusing. It is a "DBT-free" forum or "double-blind testing free" meaning that the experience herein are subjective and crapping someone's subjective observations because they didn't use a double-blind method of testing is unappreciated. I don't know that there is a policy and I'm not a moderator regardless--I'm only trying to explain the sentiment.

If I knew this was a double blind free forum, I would never have posted my seed comment. How can anyone have an intelligent discussion about a phenomenon while at the same time purposely rendering their assertions unprovable? The very idea of avoiding double blind testing strikes me as being of a "head in the sand" attitude, much like that of the flat earthers or fake moon mission believers. Since we know that the placebo effect is real, most people try to eliminate it in an effort to provide valid, uncolored, objective information.

Of course you'll not take my message seriously. But consider how you would feel and if it would change your opinion if 15 of the most respected audiophiles in the world, including people you personally know and trust, were unable to differentiate between your favorite hi-buck cable and the Radio Shack version in a double blind test. Would you still ignore their results and live on a flat Earth?


Phreon

Any typographical or grammatical errors you detect are caused solely by geomagnetic variences effecting your monitor's accuracy quotient.

 

[kelly]

Phreon
"Head in the sand" would imply ignoring new information or evidence. The fact is that everything you've just posted we've all seen before--countless times before, enough so that we've not only gotten tired and bored of the argument but actually tried to avoid it by titling the forum as such. Whatever you may think, you simply have not introduced any new arguments. There are countless rebuttles as well, but rather than wasting more time restating them, I suggest the search feature here, at Audio Asylum and nearly any other discussion area of the internet where cables are discussed. While there, also seek out the term "flame bait."

 

[Phreon]

I'll look up the term "Flame Bait" if you'll do a google search for the definitions of the words "rational", "rationalization" and "scientific".

I'm not trying to be judgemental, it's just that some of us (like me) couldn't imagine spending such a huge clump of cash with out any evidence other than people's impressions. I'm of the opinion that there are so many subjective opinions out there that objective facts are the only ones you can truely rely on. Gimme the information and I'll make the decision for myself. And if I swore something to be true, but data from multiple sources proved it to be otherwise, I'd seriously consider if my impressions are biased.


Some people live by their emotions and others by their minds; the twain shall never meet.


Phreon

 

[Phreon]

Quote:

Originally posted by pigmode Personally, the only tests, impressions, and reviews that I consider valid are the ones I conduct in my own system.

I agree. But wouldn't you be cheating yourself if you tested items with preconcieved notions about them? Wouldn't having a friend help you perform a simple blind test produce more valid, unbiased results?

Phreon

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phreon I'm of the opinion that there are so many subjective opinions out there that objective facts are the only ones you can truely rely on. Gimme the information and I'll make the decision for myself. And if I swore something to be true, but data from multiple sources proved it to be otherwise, I'd seriously consider if my impressions are biased.

You can't have an objective measurement if you don't know what to measure. Therein lies the rub. I believe that at some point, many of the electrical and mechanical phenomena that affect audio reproduction will be much better understood than they are now. However, I'm not about to wait for this to occur before enjoying the best sound I can. In the end, the goal is subjective enjoyment of the music, by whatever means you get there.

 

[pigmode]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phreon I agree. But wouldn't you be cheating yourself if you tested items with preconcieved notions about them? Wouldn't having a friend help you perform a simple blind test produce more valid, unbiased results? Phreon

In a theoretical sense I might agree, but my direct experience has already provided the answers I need. The sonic implications of my cable swaps were clearly recognizable.