[Spyro]

I bought a Twag cable for my JH5 and it definitely sharpened up the treble.  Very obvious difference but I thought it made things a bit too sharp almost bordering harsh.
 
Then I was told I needed to burn in the cable for 200-300 hours to smooth the treble out and then I knew upgrading cables (like adding amps) just wasn't for me.

 

[Sinue]

  I know how you can speed up the process, put it in the oven for a few hours.  It's unreal some of the stuff people come up with and believe....  People, please use some common sense when it is obvious you can.
 
Quote:

 
Then I was told I needed to burn in the cable for 200-300 hours to smooth the treble out and then I knew upgrading cables (like adding amps) just wasn't for me.

 

 

[AngryBaconGod]

The problem with metallic cables is that the vibrations from the drivers in the IEMs cause the electrons to jump metal fibres, causing almost unbearable screeching distortions.

That's why I only use wooden cables.

 

[Sinue]

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Quote:

The problem with metallic cables is that the vibrations from the drivers in the IEMs cause the electrons to jump metal fibres, causing almost unbearable screeching distortions.

That's why I only use wooden cables.

 

 

[goodvibes]

 
Quote:

That's a particularly poor path to learning or understanding anything at all.  Have fun in your imaginary world of magic.


There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start or whether it deserves the "Implied Facepalm" or "Fractal Wrongness".  In case you haven't noticed we can measure gravity very precisely.  Measuring audio beyond the acuity of human hearing is hardly "everything".  You've completely left out properly controlled listing test which find no difference either.  Not attempting to objectively verify something especially prone to cognitive bias is a ticket to believing also sorts of crazy woo if you actually applied those standards of evidence to other things in your life.  You can't ever prove anything outside of mathematics.  In the real world its all about what's probable and supported by evidence.  You seem to be misunderstanding a lot of jurisprudence and due process as well.
 
Of the top of my head, I also notice strawmen, special pleading, and false dichotomies.

Use them all. It won't make you right. I responded to 'isolate how it happens' with the gravity comment. If you can tell me same as opposed to measuring it's artifacts, I'm good. Changing context is poor play. I'm assuming that you actually read the post I responded to. One test does not preclude others that may show a difference. The it didn't happen here so it never happens isn't a strong enough position to dispell every instance. I understand a lot. I'm just not close minded enough to think that I know everything nor am I willing to be bullied into submission with demands of a type of proof that is unavailable. I don't care who believes what but I also don't care for someone telling another what he is or is not hearing.  

 I think Spyro's example a good one and I've mentioned this to Cliff in a privately. I think copper is great and that some of what is going on with the twag and some others that many are hearing is more about tonal matching than absolutes of better or worse. May partially depend on the original cable. Generally find plated wire too bright. I'm not into the snake oil at all. I just happen to notice. As for LODs, I'd never bother going overboard there. Seems way over the top considering the source. I'm quite happy with my L9.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

That's a particularly poor path to learning or understanding anything at all.  Have fun in your imaginary world of magic.


There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start or whether it deserves the "Implied Facepalm" or "Fractal Wrongness".  In case you haven't noticed we can measure gravity very precisely.  Measuring audio beyond the acuity of human hearing is hardly "everything".  You've completely left out properly controlled listing test which find no difference either.  Not attempting to objectively verify something especially prone to cognitive bias is a ticket to believing also sorts of crazy woo if you actually applied those standards of evidence to other things in your life.  You can't ever prove anything outside of mathematics.  In the real world its all about what's probable and supported by evidence.  You seem to be misunderstanding a lot of jurisprudence and due process as well.
 
Of the top of my head, I also notice strawmen, special pleading, and false dichotomies.

I have a lot to say about this post alone...  The funny thing about your whole post is that we weren't always able to measure gravity very precisely, yet, it was still proven it was there.  Actually, Newton found out about gravity before units were even invented.  He had now way to measure time (neither did Galileo; Galileo had to use his musical talents to measure his own time...  This is a story for another time). 
 
We've proven many things without mathematics.  Gravity would be one, objects falling at the same rate another.  You don't need math to prove something is true.  Evidence doesn't have to be math based...  Just generalized.  If you look at Newton's first law of motion, it has absolutely nothing to do with math at all...  And yet, we find it to be true since it is supported by evidence that doesn't include one single number at all!  Not one.  Does dark energy exist?  Of course it does, we've seen it, but there is not math basis on how we can calculate its strength/properties or even know what it's shaped like.  Yet we know it's there.  You don't need to prove anything through math at all to prove it exists.
 
I'm not going to argue about cables here, but the matter is that if someone finds a change in sound, you can either be ignorant and just say it's a placebo effect...  The guy's crazy and isn't qualified, etc...  Or you can go off, buy the equipment he used and test it for yourself.  If he says it  needs thousands of hours of burn in and that you'll only hear the difference if you don't listen to the headphones during burnin (IE just beginning and end)...  Do you know how you prove him wrong?  You test it thoroughly, that is real science.  Science is about finding the truth and making sure the truth is what it seems.  Science is being able to admit you're wrong and move on knowing the truth, that is what science is. 
 
As for you pointing out his fallacies, I'm going to point out yours: you use a strawman as well, insults, red harrings (multiple), argument from fallacy, argument verbosium, cherry picking...  Shall I go on?
 

 

[Sinue]

^Can you explain how gravity is measured?

 

[JamesMcProgger]

I just recable my HD25, from the standard steel cable to mogami 2893, with the new cable my HD25 suddenly gain more soundstage than the K601 and the bass roll off at -10 Hz and the highs reach peaks at 48 KHz with the mids of the most expensive denon and they also grew red velour pads.
 
Snakeoil

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Use them all. It won't make you right. I responded to 'isolate how it happens' with the gravity comment. If you can tell me same as opposed to measuring it's artifacts, I'm good. Changing context is poor play. I'm assume you actually read the post I responded to. One test does not preclude others that may show a difference. The it didn't happen here so it never happens isn't a strong enough position to dispell every instance. I understand a lot. I'm just not close minded enough to think that I know everything nor am willing to be bullied into submission with demands of a type of proof that is unavailable. I don't care who believes what but I also don't care for someone telling another what he is or is not hearing.  

 I think Spyro's example a good one and I've mentioned this to Cliff in a privately. I think copper is great and that some of what is going on with the twag and some others that many are hearing is more about tonal matching than absolutes of better or worse. May partially depend on the original cable. Generally find plated wire too bright. I'm not into the snake oil at all. I just happen to notice. As for LODs, I'd never bother going overboard there. Seems way over the top considering the source. I'm quite happy with my L9.

For the vast majority of applications it does not matter that the mechanism behind gravity has not been fully explained because outside of a quantum scale we can measure and predict it so accurately.  The same is true of magic cables.  You aren't just suggesting some unknown property of electric circuits, you're suggesting an unknown property of electric circuits that has large interactions with known properties of electric circuits and we can sure measure those known properties very, very precisely so even if we didn't know why there was a difference we should still be able to measure it.  Even if it wasn't measurable then it should be audible in blind testing.  If its neither measurable or audible under controlled conditions then what business does anyone have saying the difference exists outside of their mind when we're trudging through such a subjective field?
 
Would you not tell someone that no, they most likely weren't actually abducted by aliens just to spare their feelings?  Is that more important than the truth?
 
Also, did you miss the part where I said that nothing in the real world can ever be proven the way you're asking for, the way math is?  Obviously any number of test with identical results will never prove anything in that manner because the next one could always be different.  Unfortunately that's the best we'll ever have from within the reference frame of this reality.  The reason you should believe something is because it has positive evidence in favor of it, not because it hasn't been absolutely disproven.  Nothing in our reality can be absolutely proven or disproven so if you hold that standard of evidence consistently you'd have to believe anything and if you don't hold it consistently then you are engaged in special pleading.  There is massive amounts of positive evidence in favor of the idea that boutique cables do nothing to improve sound quality and nothing but anecdotes and pseudoscience in favor of the idea that they do improve SQ.  All that evidence could turn out to be flawed and mistaken and cables could actually make a difference but until that evidence in favor of cables comes along there is no good reason to believe those cables do anything useful besides look pretty.
 
The corollary of this is that cable believers still have to prove their case on their own with positive evidence in favor of their proposition.  Trying to poke holes in real science with vague criticisms of methodology or appeals to "science doesn't know everything" (no $#!%, nobody knows everything!) doesn't prove their own case.  Its still not worth believing until they come up with positive evidence of their own.
 
You also seem, to imply that I'm out to rain on people's parades.  I'm not.  Somebody started a thread and asked a question.  I gave my opinion and gave the reasons I hold it.  I don't troll the cable sub-forum and tell people they're wrong.  I'd actually like it to to be true that cables could improve SQ.  I'd like to be able to make my headphones sound better with something as simple as a recable and making a few ICs from premium materials.  The only problem is I don't see any evidence to indicate that its true.
 
Finally, if you're wondering why I would prefer to just post humorous pictures which summarize what you've said, this is why.  One person who doesn't know or care what they're talking about can in several minutes write something which takes several hours to debunk.  I've already spent more than 20 minutes writing, proofing, and revising this one post and its still not nearly a full refutation of everything you've said.  Its way easier to make crap up than to check your facts and make a decent argument.

 

[goodvibes]

Opinion is fine but improperly paraphrasing me is not. The original quote was to the mechanics of wire difference as the response was relative to the mechanics of gravity and not it's effects. It's been addressed yet you can't let it go and talk about it's effects. The idea that an observation is not worth anything without some scientific proof is not something I can't agree with. That you twist it as having to be considered imaginary until it has quantified proof beyond physical observation is not sound. Those that hear a difference aren't trying to prove anything. Those that don't often demand it. So be it but anybody that has an issue with 'listen for yourself', which is all I've ever advocated, is insisting their will.
 
Look, I'm the first to call out the gobbley goop new physics that some wire companies seemingly propagate every year. I also hate that crap and understand the backlash from it but it doesn't stop me from listening for myself. I'm done as I never wanted to go this far but the attacks needed addressing and the thread is probably ready for closing as most of this type are.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I have a lot to say about this post alone...  The funny thing about your whole post is that we weren't always able to measure gravity very precisely, yet, it was still proven it was there.  Actually, Newton found out about gravity before units were even invented.  He had now way to measure time (neither did Galileo; Galileo had to use his musical talents to measure his own time...  This is a story for another time). 
 
We've proven many things without mathematics.  Gravity would be one, objects falling at the same rate another.  You don't need math to prove something is true.  Evidence doesn't have to be math based...  Just generalized.  If you look at Newton's first law of motion, it has absolutely nothing to do with math at all...  And yet, we find it to be true since it is supported by evidence that doesn't include one single number at all!  Not one.  Does dark energy exist?  Of course it does, we've seen it, but there is not math basis on how we can calculate its strength/properties or even know what it's shaped like.  Yet we know it's there.  You don't need to prove anything through math at all to prove it exists.
 
I'm not going to argue about cables here, but the matter is that if someone finds a change in sound, you can either be ignorant and just say it's a placebo effect...  The guy's crazy and isn't qualified, etc...  Or you can go off, buy the equipment he used and test it for yourself.  If he says it  needs thousands of hours of burn in and that you'll only hear the difference if you don't listen to the headphones during burnin (IE just beginning and end)...  Do you know how you prove him wrong?  You test it thoroughly, that is real science.  Science is about finding the truth and making sure the truth is what it seems.  Science is being able to admit you're wrong and move on knowing the truth, that is what science is. 
 
As for you pointing out his fallacies, I'm going to point out yours: you use a strawman as well, insults, red harrings (multiple), argument from fallacy, argument verbosium, cherry picking...  Shall I go on?

It depends what you mean by "proven".  Math is a self contained logical system.  Its premises are assumed to be basically true and a valid syllogism based on sound premises is always true.  The premises of physics are based on our observations of reality and are subject to change with those observations.  Its not terribly likely, but if things started falling upwards tomorrow would we tell the universe that its wrong because we've already "proved" gravity and what we just observed and verified was impossible or get to work revising our theory of gravity?
 
The reason that's important is because he seemed (to me anyway) to be saying that because is hasn't been absolutely proven that cables don't make a difference that he's free to believe they do. I was merely pointing out that a similar argument can be used to justify anything.
 
I mentioned that we could measure gravity very precisely despite not having a full understanding of it because he was trying to use the unknown as an excuse to believe in things that don't have their own supporting evidence as if believing in boutique cables was somehow on the same level as believing that gravity exists.  Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything.  Of course once again I have to point out that gravity has never been "proven".  It has just been observed and defined.
 
Fallacies?  Strawman - I'll concede if you point out where I may have misunderstood him.  Insult - an insult is not an ad hominem and not a fallacy.  Red herring - where?  From Fallacy - Yep its not really relevant but I threw it in their because I was in a bad mood but it hardly the main point of my argument.  I'm human too.  Cherry picking - What didn't I address?  Verbosium - That was a pretty short post actually.  What was difficult to understand?

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Opinion is fine but improperly paraphrasing me is not. The original quote was to the mechanics of wire difference as the response was relative to the mechanics of gravity and not it's effects. It's been addressed yet you can't let it go and talk about it's effects. The idea that an observation is not worth anything without some scientific proof is not something I can't agree with. That you twist it as having to be considered imaginary until it has quantified proof beyond physical observation is not sound. Those that hear a difference aren't trying to prove anything. Those that don't often demand it. So be it but anybody that has an issue with 'listen for yourself', which is all I've ever advocated, is insisting their will.
 
Look, I'm the first to call out some of the gobbley goop new physics that some wire companies seemingly propagate every year. I also hate that crap and understand the backlash from it but it doesn't stop me from listening for myself.

I apologize if I misunderstood you then.
 
Relating to the first paragraph, I'd say that a subjective observation is what should prompt investigation and experimentation but if after extensive work has been done on the issue there still isn't any evidence then you should assume that your subjective observation is in error.
 
I almost completely agree with the second paragraph though.

 

[mrspeakers]

Fact: all cables have complex impedance, so do all loads, though orthos are very close to ideal loads.  
 
Anytime you have a complex impedance transmission line feeding a complex impedance load, you effectively have a filter inline.  This can alter frequency response, it can also create ringing, introduce a notch filter, or worst case, drive the source amp into oscillation (yes, I have seen high capacitance cables trigger oscillations in consumer amps).  
 
I spent a LOT of time measuring and testing cables to use inside my speakers and came up with a few observations:
 
1) I could easily measure differences in cables.  
2)  Better cables were usually more capacitivie and lower inductance.  I ended up really liking the Goertz cables, they were really the least "intrusive" in the signal because they were virtually a RC filter with a very high rolloff.
3) There was no correlation between price and performance.  Many pricey cables tested like crap, and I learned to easily hear the ringing as "hash" or "grain" layering false-detail in the high frequencies.  
4) Most of the cable manufacturers had utterly outrageous and unprovable claims about why their cable had some magic.  Besides bottled water, I can't think of any worse-case of snakes-manship that I've seen.  There were "magic" copper crystals that somehow (and through means totally unknown, undefined and unmeasurable) allowed more music to pass through, exotic windings of multiple gauges to ensure signals "arrived time coherently" (sorry, that was the worst case of silly marketing I've ever seen, and as I also am in marketing, that's saying something!)
 
The bottom line with cables is this: they absolutely and measurably do change the signal.  HOW they change the sound is totally dependent on the load and can not be predicted (I'm talking speaker cables and headphone cables, etc.  Line level is another topic because the loads usually are simpler to drive and less cable dependent in impedance interactions).  
 
So I really do believe people hear a difference, but I also believe that it's going to be hard for many people to isolate "grain" from "extra detail," and further to dissociate themselves from bias due to price.
 
Just remember, price is NO indicator of performance, and for phones and speakers wires need to be auditioned in your individual systems....  
 
At least that's my POV... 
 
EDIT: said inductance can create oscillation, should have read capacitance.  Don't drink and type.
 

 

[Sinue]

^post your measurements.  I want to see results on differences as you say.

  Please do expand on how complex impedance is affected.  how significant it is compared to complex impedance of the load and the source.

 

[goodvibes]

Doesn't the Goertz have a lot of capacitance. A solid state amp without some inductance already at it's output is likely to ring. I'm sure it's great for some but probably not all that may actually prefer some inductance. I actually think inductance is generally freindlier overall and don't understand why you think it equates to cheap. It just needs to be correct for the purpose. I'm sure that the goertz is great as you use it, as speaker wire for some amps and probably very nice with tube amps. When it comes to interconnect, most are unaware of how poor most RCA connectors are compared to impedance matched BNC, XLR or even DIN when it comes to reflections and impedance. I'm back as this is a different discussion.