[Kirosia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KR... you really are hellbent on getting banned huh? Please stop attacking fellow members and only speak of the topic of this thread.

I'm not trying to attack him. Whatever, I'm out of this thread. Please no one reply to my supposed "attacks". I guess I'm just being an ass. KR, please mind your own business. If I do get banned, it's from my own person idiocy. It's not your problem, after all, I am just a troll right? What's one more on the chopping block.

Sorry rodbac, for bringing this nonesense up. I'll bow out gracefully.

 

[AuroraProject]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac Yeah, I should have qualified that a bit- by "improvement" I'm referring to whether 'more' of the signal coming out of the amp is delivered to the phones, not whether it's modified in a way you happen to like. Myself, I just want whatever my amp is generating to get to my phones cleanly and completely. If the stock cable from Sennheiser can't do that, I think they'd like to hear so. If the stock cable does do that and the phones sound shtty with it, I'll get better phones, not spend $200 on a cable to equalize the shortcomings out. One man's opinion only- if the cable does the right things to the sound for your ears, I'm completely cool with it.

Just curious, have you ever tried your Senns with some of the aftermarket cables, or heard someone elses?

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langrath If you exchange you original cable from for example HD580. Are you really sure that you hear the difference? Has anybody really made a real blind test? I am an unbeliever. Georg .

Hmm. Not a single person has yet stepped up to the plate with a valid double blind test or measurements demonstrating a change within known human detection thresholds.....

If one of these cables really changes the signal to the point that it is audible; this is one very poor(!) cable design.

-Chris

 

[hugz]

slightly on mostly off topic, can anyone show me a link that displays the discrepancies between a normal blind test and a double blind test? i just figure if it's our holy grail of tests, we should be able to see proof of just how superior it is.

i'm not even trying to deny that they dont work.. rather i would have thought a single blind test would do the job perfect, so i was initially supprised to discover the need for a double blind. i just want to see how much better it is.

also, if a blind is insufficient for reasons i wouldn't have previously ever thought of, maybe so is double. just sayin..

 

[WmAx]

Double-blind test reduces variables that can contaminate the test. For example, a subject may pick up on a tone of voice cues or visual cues/actions by the administrator, etc. Single blind is useful for preliminary testing -- but double-blind is needed if the results are too carry weight in this scope(indirect communication).

-Chris

Quote:

Originally Posted by hugz slightly on mostly off topic, can anyone show me a link that displays the discrepancies between a normal blind test and a double blind test? i just figure if it's our holy grail of tests, we should be able to see proof of just how superior it is. i'm not even trying to deny that they dont work.. rather i would have thought a single blind test would do the job perfect, so i was initially supprised to discover the need for a double blind. i just want to see how much better it is. also, if a blind is insufficient for reasons i wouldn't have previously ever thought of, maybe so is double. just sayin..

 

[hugz]

yeh i know what the theoretical difference is, i'm just wondering if anyone's ever done a test to prove that the difference exists

eg: blind test one group of people, and double blind another and see if the results vary. maybe reverse blind test a third (make the administrator think he's giving the test subjects coke when they're really getting pepsi) and see if the results are the oposite to the standard blind

just wondering..

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

Sure, why not? Apparently people can hear the difference between a "burned-in" headphone amplifier and a new headphone amplifier, although I have no idea what exactly you would hear differently after "burn-in" (wires and chips, people? come on...)

Blind test? Pffffttt. Blind tests are for those crazy empiricists!

Remember, people, audiophilia is nine parts superstition and one part science.

Currently listening to: "Punk by the Book" by Anti-flag on my PX-100s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langrath If you exchange you original cable from for example HD580. Are you really sure that you hear the difference? Has anybody really made a real blind test? I am an unbeliever. Georg .

 

[sacd lover]

I have the stock cable, oehlbach cable and a Bayley Audio Diamondback cable. I have two pair of the 650's. After listening to the three cables for several months I have a clear preferance for the Diamondback cable. Compared to the stock cable, the diamondback's bass is more extended and punchy. The midrange is richer and smoother sounding and the treble is more refined with a bigger apparent soundscape. The oehlbach is quite good too but sounds more closed in through the treble with a noticeably smaller soundscape vs the diamonback. The oehlbach doesnt have the same rich tone of the diamonback either but the oehlbach does have excellent bass. The stock cable is ok but mutes the treble and the cable seems thin and grainy in comparison to the other two.There is a band of brightness in the upper mid/ lower treble thats the biggest flaw of the stock cable to my ears.

When I had the gilmore v2-se with its two headphone outputs it was easy to compare the three cables. In fact, since the oehlbach is very similar to the stock cable build wise it was easy to twist the two 650's cables together so I couldnt tell which one was which(especially in the dark). Since each had the identical setup with their own headphone jack I could switch quickly or listen at my leisure. I never failed to pick out the stock cable. The oehlbach's bass response and smooth midrange were to evident. The dull top end and the bright upper mids/ lower treble were equally easy to spot with the stock cable. Because the diamondback is thicker I always know when I am using it. But again, it was easy to tell the diamondback because it more powerful sounding and easily the most enjoyable to me.

I soon put the stock cables away for months, but I got them out recently just to see what I thought. I was quite suprised how dead the stock cable made the 650 sound. The sound was to dark but still had that annoying band of brightness that I didnt like from the beginning. The bass was still strong but slow sounding and lacking punch. I listened for a few days to see if I adjusted. I could still enjoy the 650's but the sound always seemed congested and made me painfully aware I had headphones on. That dark, dead top end especially wore on me. I regularly forget I have my headphones on with the other two cables and it spawned some long listening sessions once I got the diamonback back on that 2nd pair.

Are the upgrade cables an improvement? They certainly are to me.

They are no doubt atleast different. IMO, I would expect anyone that took the time to listen to them in my system would easily hear their differences. I would also expect both of the upgrade cables to be favored over the stock cable by most people. Finally, I would expect the diamondback to be the clear favorite.

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Sorry rodbac, for bringing this nonesense up. I'll bow out gracefully.

No need to on my account- I was serious when I said I took no offense. If anyone thinks I'm being preachy, or anything else you don't think I should be doing, by all means call me on it. I will not take it personally and if I feel it was unwarranted, I'll say so.

Quote:

Just curious, have you ever tried your Senns with some of the aftermarket cables, or heard someone elses?

Absolutely not, and I hope I didn't imply that I had.

I'm speaking purely theoretically and based on what I've read from others about their experiences (and the conclusions I drew from that).

In short, I have faith that Sennheiser knows enough about cabling their phones not to saddle their high-end stuff with a cable that's incapable of delivering the signal IN FULL.

However, I believe that those who claim to hear a difference aren't lying, AND I know that it's quite easy to alter the signal audibly with a cable. Therefore, I, personally, believe that aftermarket cables that make an audible difference are simply doing just that- altering the signal.

Those who choose to buy the cables happen to like the alteration and choose to have the sound permanently altered, while I choose to leave that to my source, amplifier, and/or equalizer (in case anyone cares what I do, Kiro

). I feel that way, if I ever get an amp where the sound isn't so ****** out of my 650s that I need a cable that "recesses the forward midrange", I won't have to switch cables again.

I'll say again, though, that if someone prefers the way that cable alters the signal, by all means go for it. I have no problem with those who have the means pursuing their own perfection.

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WmAx Hmm. Not a single person has yet stepped up to the plate with a valid double blind test or measurements demonstrating a change within known human detection thresholds..... -Chris

One of the reasons why is because, in this particular case, the change is so obvious.

If one listened to the stock cable and then the Zu Mobius cable over time and couldn't tell the difference, I'd recommend a hearing test, something is amiss. You don't need bat or audiophile ears to hear this particular difference, it's substantial.

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

One of the reasons why is because, in this particular case, the change is so obvious.

I believe this is true- there's no point DBT'ing a Zu (et al) against a stock cable because there's UNDOUBTEDLY a difference- huge numbers of reasonable people have reported as much and, as I said, it's trivial to design a cable that audibly messes with the signal to some degree.

 

[IstariAsuka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac In short, I have faith that Sennheiser knows enough about cabling their phones not to saddle their high-end stuff with a cable that's incapable of delivering the signal IN FULL. However, I believe that those who claim to hear a difference aren't lying, AND I know that it's quite easy to alter the signal audibly with a cable. Therefore, I, personally, believe that aftermarket cables that make an audible difference are simply doing just that- altering the signal.

If cables are easily capable of altering the signal, who's to say the the stock cable doesn't alter the signal in a particular way, which the Senn people happened to like, but most others find inferior? Maybe the aftermarket cables actually alter the signal less? I'm just not following your reasoning as to why cables altering the signal implies that the stock cable is probably the cleanest.

And no, I've not heard anything other than the stock cable, in case anyone's wondering.

 

[Blitzula]

"as I said, it's trivial to design a cable that audibly messes with the signal to some degree."

Well, it's kind of an interesting thing to discuss. Your implication is that the headphone with the stock cable shows the "true" signal. Maybe the Zu cable isn't messing with the signal, perhaps the stock cable is bad and the Zu shows a truer and more accurate signal.

For that matter, who knows if the headphones themselves show a true signal.

So many variables, heh.

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac I believe this is true- there's no point DBT'ing a Zu (et al) against a stock cable because there's UNDOUBTEDLY a difference- huge numbers of reasonable people have reported as much and, as I said, it's trivial to design a cable that audibly messes with the signal to some degree.

But they also (in most all cases) find the Zu a big improvement. Is the Zu messing with the signal or just processing it much better? Remember sennheiser is selling to a pricepoint. They could build a better cable but that raises the price of the headphone.

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula One of the reasons why is because, in this particular case, the change is so obvious. If one listened to the stock cable and then the Zu Mobius cable over time and couldn't tell the difference, I'd recommend a hearing test, something is amiss. You don't need bat or audiophile ears to hear this particular difference, it's substantial.

Obvious? Just like a stick is obviously bent when it's half-submerged into water?

Problem with observations is that's all they are...and in themself are not attempting to find the factual cause for the difference(s).

What you hear has ALOT to do with how your brain processes the signal picked up by your ears -- psychological factors come into play. If this Zu cable is so craptacular(if it's really changing the signal audibly this is the only conclusion I can come to), then where are the measurements demonstrating such? It's not rational do occlude psychological effects unless proper testing demonstrates the Zu cable really is distorting the signal.....

-Chris