[Jahn]

"Cables don't "sound" like anything- they ONLY transfer a signal. You can discuss how a lot of things "sound", but cables are NOT one of them."

to be literal about it, you are right. headphones transform an electronic signal into a physical pushing and pulling of a diaphram, which move air in a way that produces sound to our ears. they produce sound, so they "sound" like something.

but a cable doesn't really create any "sound" per se. unless it is humming like a mother due to some nasty nasty EM interference or something and the whole cable sleeve is vibrating its irritation.

that being said, i'm sure he meant that the cable INFLUENCES the ultimate sound that comes out of the diaphram, by altering the electronic signal while it is transferring it to the can, before the headphone transforms it into physical sound.

now this, i believe. heck, EM interference into my interconnects created a nasty buzz reaching my ears. shielding the cable helps reduce the kinds of stuff that messes up the signal the cable is transferring - as does the quality of the cable transferring the signal (copper, silver, etc) and the best probably being optical.

so when someone says "my cable sounds warm" don't take it literally - of course they probably meant the signal, while being transferred via cable, picked up some interesting mojo (due to copper? better shielding? hamsters on wheels?) resulting in the signal sent to the headphone being a "warm" signal, evidenced by how it sounded to my ear when the can's diaphrams moved back and forth to create a physical sound."

 

[Kurt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac Kurt, the "test" (term used loosely), as wmax stated, doesn't stand up to the FIRST level of scrutiny. It does no more for the argument for aftermarket cables than any user's opinion.

Yes it was just a blind test with people never heard or seen one or the other cable before and could not verify which was which by eye or weight.

The biggest weakness is, that it is not documented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac Do you think the psychosomatic effect is something new to science?

On the other side there are the people who are too afraid to test for themselves because they would be wackos in their own eyes should they hear a difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac .. it gets under the skin of those who know better.

I know. "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

-Anon

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

that being said, i'm sure he meant that the cable INFLUENCES the ultimate sound that comes out of the diaphram, by altering the electronic signal while it is transferring it to the can, before the headphone transforms it into physical sound.

I know what he was meaning, but it's the real hangup here- many here are assuming the cable can impart something to the end-product, and it can't (not without it being intentional or being badly misdesigned, anyway). They can only deliver an electrical impulse, and the most basic of cables is WAAAY more than adequate to do this for the frequencies and runs we're talking about. So if you hear any difference between your cable and the stock, it's your cable that's attenuating the signal in some way (read: it's not adequate, which is what I mean when I say "adequately designed" (so you don't think, when I say the cable is inadequate, that I'm thinking it's made of caramel or something)).

Quote:

On the other side there are the people who are too afraid to test for themselves because they would be wackos in their own eyes should they hear a difference.

First, I've said umpteen times (that's a lot) that you're not 'wacko' for experiencing this.

Second, if they (or I) did try the cable, and thought we heard a difference, we'd know what to attribute it to (and it wouldn't involve throwing physics out the window). Nobody's "afraid" of anything.

Quote:

I know. "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

I realize it sounds arrogant and condescending, and that's not my intent- the things we're talking about, though, "are not rocket science", to use a tired phrase.

 

[JohnFerrier]

I happen to think it condescending to be made to feel that stock headphone cables are not as good sounding as expensive cables, especially since this absolutely is not the case.

If you don't pay $200 for aftermarket cables, the sound is inferior? That is pure B$.

(That's all for now.)


JF

 

[Len]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier I happen to think it condescending to be made to feel that stock headphone cables are not as good sounding as expensive cables, especially since this absolutely not the case. JF

You've got a real knack to voice conjecture as absolute fact, John. It's a nasty habit.

I see no condescension.

 

[Jahn]

adequate versus attenuation. that's actually a good question.

i think most folk would assume that the cable with the least amount of attenuation is what you want. "adequate" should mean the cable just gets out of the way and transfers the signal as it should be.

the question is - which cable is doing the attenuating - the stock, or the aftermarket?

we can't assume that the stock is the default for adequate transfer of the signal. in fact, the stock cable might be doing the most amount of attenuation, in a nasty way.

the aftermarket, also, we can't assume, is "getting out of the way." in fact, it very well might be intentionally attenuating the signal to sound more "pleasing" in certain frequencies. that's not "adequate" in the sense that it's just serving the supposed intended purpose of the cable - which is, transfer the darn signal lol.

therefore, probably the most accurate response should be this -

"i like how it sounds."

even if its attenuated, and you might be experiencing some signal loss due to the attenuation?

"yep."

even if it's "colored" compared to a cable that just does the job = "adequate" in delivering the signal to the cans?

"yep. because what you call colored, i call a purer sound, and more pleasurable too."

but it's not more "pure" because it's attenuated.

"semantics."

not really...ah forget it.

---

as you see, i think folks are talking past each other, and not communicating what their proper stance is. notice i didn't say what cable was involved in the above conversation - it could have been the stock, it could have been the aftermarket. but regardless, we are going to go in circles if we don't understand each other, eh?

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn adequate versus attenuation. that's actually a good question. i think most folk would assume that the cable with the least amount of attenuation is what you want. "adequate" should mean the cable just gets out of the way and transfers the signal as it should be. the question is - which cable is doing the attenuating - the stock, or the aftermarket? we can't assume that the stock is the default for adequate transfer of the signal. in fact, the stock cable might be doing the most amount of attenuation, in a nasty way. the aftermarket, also, we can't assume, is "getting out of the way." in fact, it very well might be intentionally attenuating the signal to sound more "pleasing" in certain frequencies. that's not "adequate" in the sense that it's just serving the supposed intended purpose of the cable - which is, transfer the darn signal lol. therefore, probably the most accurate response should be this - "i like how it sounds." even if its attenuated, and you might be experiencing some signal loss due to the attenuation? "yep." even if it's "colored" compared to a cable that just does the job = "adequate" in delivering the signal to the cans? "yep. because what you call colored, i call a purer sound, and more pleasurable too." but it's not more "pure" because it's attenuated. "semantics." not really...ah forget it. --- as you see, i think folks are talking past each other, and not communicating what their proper stance is. notice i didn't say what cable was involved in the above conversation - it could have been the stock, it could have been the aftermarket. but regardless, we are going to go in circles if we don't understand each other, eh?

And if you look back to the beginning of this thread, you'll find that I've stated precisely this (well, almost, because of the asterisked paragraph below). If you will admit that it's likely* the aftermarket cable that's just 'mucking' with the sound intentionally (adding capacitance/impedance, et al) in a way that you feel helps the sound your phones put out, so be it. End of argument.

It's ONLY when the claims start morphing into things like Sennheiser doesn't know how or care to get the signal to the phones properly, or that 14gauge copper sounds 'bassier' than 18gauge, that's when the argument starts.

*You could assume that the stock cable is the problem child, except for the fact that it's stupid easy to get the signal there completely unaltered. In fact, for the situation at hand, a cable like that is virtually a short circuit to the phones. It can't help but deliver the signal properly and in full.

In short, Sennheiser would have to be a bunch of boobs to screw up the easiest part (by far) of headphone design, and to contend as much is ludicrous. They have no financial incentive to misdesign their cable (it would cost them more to alter the signal) and it doesn't take a genius to make the cable "adequate" for this appallingly simple application.

[edit]

I'd also like to add that the semantic argument you allude to above will never involve me- you can call the sound anything you want (pure, euphoric, orgasmic, I don't care). It's only when you call the signal "purer" that you're being misleading.

 

[dknightd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac So why don't you tell the class exactly what we're seeing here that science doesn't have a theory to explain.

All I'm "seeing" here is words on a computer display. Science can explain that pretty easily. I thought this thread was about things you could hear, or couldn't hear. Now I'm really confused...

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dknightd All I'm "seeing" here is words on a computer display. Science can explain that pretty easily. I thought this thread was about things you could hear, or couldn't hear. Now I'm really confused...

Another zinger!

 

[Kurt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac I realize it sounds arrogant and condescending, and that's not my intent.

Your self control is at a very, very small place then. You acted incredible arrogant and condescending, especially to people who did not deserve such a treatment. But you are not alone.

And where is your reaction to the blind test? At least you could say: It was just a blind test and no double blind test or ABX. So this proves nothing!!!!!
What’s wrong? Are you tired?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier I happen to think it condescending to be made to feel that stock headphone cables are not as good sounding as expensive cables,

Interesting. Inferiority complexes. Well that explains some.

 

[dknightd]

Maybe this
http://www.wireworldaudio.com/compare.htm
could be adapted for headphone cable comparisons.
It would be nice to determin if the perceived differences in cables are really Placebo-effects or something else.

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Your self control is at a very, very small place then. You acted incredible arrogant and condescending, especially to people who did not deserve such a treatment.

Kurt, if you think my language in this admittedly lively debate has been "incredible arrogant and condescending", you haven't had much experience in debate.

This isn't talking down to you and this isn't an attempt to prop myself up on a pedestal- I'm perfectly willing (as I've shown, I think) to listen to, and objectively analyze, criticism. I have a moderate grasp of the language and am well-versed for the most part, and only once in this thread do I think I was being rude, and I already apologized for it.

Quote:

And where is your reaction to the blind test? At least you could say: It was just a blind test and no double blind test or ABX. So this proves nothing!!!!!... Are you tired?

Well, yes, I am tired (and fast running out of time again), but I have no idea what you're talking about. On what blind test were you looking for a comment from me?

dkknightd- good link.

 

[JohnFerrier]

Can any of you guys that hear a difference project when Sennheiser, AKG, Sony, Acoustic Research, Grado etc. are going to wise up to this? Next year? Ten years from now? Twenty?

Why do headphone companies not have their act together on this? They don't even offer them as an accessory... Geez, I think most of the designs don't even lend themselves to replacement.


JF

 

[Len]

Wise up to what? Cable differences?

Let's see: Senneheiser, Grado Audio Technica, et al. use better quality cables in their higher models. A few headphone manufacturers design their headphones so the cables are interchangable.

I think they're fairly well clued in.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier Can any of you guys that hear a difference project when Sennheiser, AKG, Sony, Acoustic Research, Grado etc. are going to wise up to this? Next year? Ten years from now? Twenty? Why do headphone companies not have their act together on this? They don't even offer them as an accessory...

Actually you could answer your question yourself. Sennheiser sells headphones, not high-quality cables. Not everyone is willing to pay an extra charge of $200 for a better cable. And even cable-sound advocates will admit that $200 spent for improved driver technology would have (even) greater effect than the better cable. That's not to say it does nothing though. I wouldn't want to renounce the Zu Mobius.

You haven't accidentally missed the Sennheiser responsible's comment about upgrade cables making a difference?