Do you really hear differences in cables?

Nov 9, 2004 at 5:13 PM Post #106 of 810
I'll try to make this my last post on this:

There are a number of ways to make a cable sound different. However, it's extremely easy to get a simple audio signal intact across 10 feet of wire- EXTREMELY EASY. Therefore, any audible differences between two wires are either on purpose or a result of extremely bad design.

That leaves us with:

Sennheiser engineers (who designed their cable, with the word "designed" being complete overkill considering a monkey could do it) either (a) have no fcking idea what they're doing and somehow managed to fck up the simplest link in their system, or (b) they purposefully designed their cable to alter the signal.

I find (a) unlikely because this would require a level of incompetence on their part that would be tough to fathom, and (b) unlikely because there are a thousand variables they could change in the design of the phones themselves that would alter the sound more reliably, as well as the fact that I bet they like the way their high-end phones sound.

If anyone thinks that either (a) or (b) are likely, that's fair, and we can argue about that (although, it might be pointless- I have no idea how truly competent Senn. engineers are, nor do I know if they might actually prefer to purposefully alter the sound of their phones with something nuts like the cable).

Also, if anyone wants to argue about the premise that it's no technological marvel to get the signal to the headphones completely intact, we can do so.

SO, assuming the above, I'm left with two plausible possibilities:

(1) There is no sonic difference between a stock Senn cable and an aftermarket cable, and the differences noted are because the person claiming to hear it isn't 'testing' it in a way that would eliminate the well-documented psychosomatic effects.

(2) There is a sonic difference between the cables, and the aftermarket cable manufacturer purposefully designed it to do something to the signal that makes it sound better to most ears ('smooths the highs' or whatever).

And a couple of possiblities that aren't nearly as likely:

(1) Sennheiser doesn't know how to design a cable.

(2) Sennnheiser purposefully designed their cable to mess with the signal.

It should be obvious that none of this requires me to have heard the cable.

Also note that the second "plausible" possibility is NOT an indictment of those claiming to hear the difference- if you like the way it sounds, fine. I'd just prefer that we're clear on what's probably happening, and nobody is tossing around accusations that the Senn cable isn't delivering the proper signal or something else equally as unlikely.
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 5:17 PM Post #107 of 810
Quote:

Originally Posted by WmAx
[size=xx-small]First, as Hirsch has alluded, you can not prove a negative in these tests, at least not one that is universally applicable due to the potential variables.

Second, a very important bit of information that Hirsch chose to leave out of his response: you don't place the burden of proof into a negative position. That in itself defies scientific reason, since all I'm doing is questioning the claims being made that have not had proofs presented. If I'm to take your advice, then I am to assume unmeasurable differences exist(ignoring the fact that this claim has never been substantiated) when even though no such thing has been observed in a controlled situation....

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but this is akin to requiring someone to prove that John Edwards is not speaking to the dead. He is the real deal until a negative is proven? Step back for a moment and observe the logical absurdity of placing burden into this order...-Chris[/size]



Chris, You are twisting my argument. I never suggested to place the burden of proof in the negative position. Indeed, as Hirsch suggested, this requires a different type of statistical analysis than the one that YOU originally suggested.

It is fully possible that unmeasurable differences exist in cable design. You have presented your argument that there is no evidence that this is in fact the case. In this aspect you are correct. I urge you to use your scientific knowledge to assist the community in helping to work toward some sort of verifiable experiment instead of continually nagging a subjectively based group of people that there is no evidence to their claims.
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 5:21 PM Post #108 of 810
Quote:

(who designed their cable, with the word "designed" being complete overkill considering a monkey could do it) either (a) have no fcking idea what they're doing and somehow managed to fck up the simplest link in their system, or (b) they purposefully designed their cable to alter the signal.


It was not "designed" by Senn. They don't make the cable, I can virtually guarantee it. They put it out to contract and their requirements are not: "build me the greatest, most high-quality, technologically advanced cable in the universe". Their requirement spec no doubt read: "make me a cable that I can buy in bulk from you at $.02 a piece, so we can hit our target price for the headphones and keep costs down and margins high." The winning bidder was not the company with the best, most kick-*ss cable, but the one could make it cheapest and in bulk to maximize their margins and still make it worth their while in doing business with Senn.
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 5:25 PM Post #109 of 810
Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac
...(2) There is a sonic difference between the cables, and the aftermarket cable manufacturer purposefully designed it to do something to the signal that makes it sound better to most ears ('smooths the highs' or whatever).

And a couple of possiblities that aren't nearly as likely:

(1) Sennheiser doesn't know how to design a cable.

(2) Sennnheiser purposefully designed their cable to mess with the signal.

It should be obvious that none of this requires me to have heard the cable.



Outch! Why are you so obsessed with the idea that if there is an audible difference at all between stock and aftermarket cable, it's the aftermarket cable which does something wrong? After all Sennheiser isn't specialized in manufacturing cables, and i strongly suspect their cables are manufactured by some subcontractor. So how about the possiblity that Zu Cable knows how to manufacture a good sounding cable when cost is a minor object?

No, you dont' have to have heard the cables in question to say nothing of worth to the subject except for reminding of the placebo effect.

peacesign.gif
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 5:29 PM Post #110 of 810
Quote:

It is fully possible that unmeasurable differences exist in cable design.


Not as far as our ears are concerned. I know many of us want this to be true, but it just isn't.

If two cables are measured to have identical waveforms (within limits), any differences reliably noted are NOT due to any sonic difference, but only to psychological effects. Period.

Do you honestly believe that there are principles that somehow affect what is heard, while not affecting the readings shown on ANY test instrument ever connected to an audio chain? Cmon.
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 5:34 PM Post #111 of 810
Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac
Do you honestly believe that there are principles that somehow affect what is heard, while not affecting the readings shown on ANY test instrument ever connected to an audio chain? Cmon.


Can I hear differences with cables with a sine wave as test tone? Certainly not. The fact that a measuring device is unable to measure any significant difference with a sine wave doesn't prove that there is nothing to be measured. Unfortunately measuring devices don't understand music.

peacesign.gif
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 5:34 PM Post #112 of 810
Quote:

It was not "designed" by Senn. They don't make the cable, I can virtually guarantee it. They put it out to contract and their requirements are not: "build me the greatest, most high-quality, technologically advanced cable in the universe". Their requirement spec no doubt read: "make me a cable that I can buy in bulk from you at $.02 a piece, so we can hit our target price for the headphones and keep costs down and margins high." The winning bidder was not the company with the best, most kick-*ss cable, but the one could make it cheapest and in bulk to maximize their margins and still make it worth their while in doing business with Senn.


OK, then- the contractor would have to be a bunch of boobs AND Sennheiser would have to be too stupid to test them.

Quote:

Outch! Why are you so obsessed with the idea that if there is an audible difference at all between stock and aftermarket cable, it's the aftermarket cable which does something wrong?


Dude, I said it as clearly as I know how.

Quote:

After all Sennheiser isn't specialized in manufacturing cables... blah


Pardon my yelling, but THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE. It's stupid-easy to get the signal to the phones intact!

Quote:

No, you dont' have to have heard the cables in question to say nothing of worth to the subject except for reminding of the placebo effect.


If that's all you think I've brought to the table, I apologize for wasting your time. I hope others might have gleaned something from my posts besides that, though.
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 5:39 PM Post #113 of 810
Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac
[size=xx-small]Not as far as our ears are concerned. I know many of us want this to be true, but it just isn't.

If two cables are measured to have identical waveforms (within limits), any differences reliably noted are NOT due to any sonic difference, but only to psychological effects. Period.

Do you honestly believe that there are principles that somehow affect what is heard, while not affecting the readings shown on ANY test instrument ever connected to an audio chain? Cmon[/size].



Lets be rational here. Are you suggesting that scientifically we have taken measurement of the audio signal as far as it can go? That no further advancements in understanding can be achieved? You could make a strong argument that the claim isn't likely, but to suggest that our methods of understanding an audio signal is complete is not a rational thought and is against any form of sensible argument.
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 5:42 PM Post #114 of 810
Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac
It's stupid-easy to get the signal to the phones intact!


Really? Can you give us some more insight into your corresponding studies?
wink.gif


peacesign.gif
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 5:55 PM Post #115 of 810
No studies needed. Borrowed from one of the 200 discussions I've had on the subject:

"Transmission line effects are a function of the wavelength of the signals being transmitted. Electrically, a long line is defined as one in which the length equals, or exceeds, the shortest wavelength of the transmitted signal. For 20 kHz audio signals, 6.5 miles is a long line; for 1 kHz tones, 130 miles is a long line. From a transmission line viewpoint, telephone engineers deal with long lines; sound contractors (and home listeners) do not.

The resistance of the line is not important because it is completely and utterly swamped by the load resistance, that being many tens of thousands of times greater.

Capacitance IS a concern in pro sound applications where you are dealing with comparatively long lines (several hundred feet) and, possibly, output stages of relatively high impedance. Neither is the case in the home; although it's theoretically true that the cable capacitance + output impedance will conspire to roll off your highs, in practice (in the home) the effects are WAY above the audible band."

No offense, but if you need more, go talk to an EE (he'll find the conversation laughable) or do some reading. It isn't rocket science.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be an *sshole. I've said my piece and that's all I can do. If you like them, buy them. Out.
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 6:09 PM Post #116 of 810
Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac
No offense, but if you need more, go talk to an EE (he'll find the conversation laughable) or do some reading. It isn't rocket science.


There are many electrical engineers who believe that audio cables make a difference. One of them on this board is a good friend of mine. There happen to be many electrical engineers working in the field of high end audio.

Again, your arguments are irrational.
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 6:11 PM Post #117 of 810
rodbac...

...no offense meant, but this is one opinion of many, one on the line of a traditionalist/fundamentalist electrician that accidentally fits you own perspective -- and makes it unnecessary to listen for yourself. But one time it is the time to accept that objects heavier than air can fly.

peacesign.gif
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 6:19 PM Post #118 of 810
It just seems like an analogy is someone who spends the money to wire their house with fiber-optics, yet has copper going to the house. Just because you have fiber in your house doesn't mean you can go faster than the copper going to the house...

And I think the burden of proof lies on the people that believe Loch Ness exists...
loch_ness_foto_del_dentista.jpg



JF
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 6:36 PM Post #119 of 810
This whole business is an illusion. Again, if the illusion isn't good enough, it's because of the end points...microphones and speakers (headphones). The electronics are completely an intermediate form of audio...


JF
 
Nov 9, 2004 at 6:41 PM Post #120 of 810
Quote:

It's stupid-easy to get the signal to the phones intact!


this seems like one of the best joke I've heard , if you'd like to explain what means "intact"

Do you think there would be a cable world market and research for doing something like thousands of different cables for audio trasmission.
btw..from music recording and music reproduction it's quite all about getting the signal intact from point a to point b

If it's stupid easy to do and you'd like to enlight me
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top