[NotoriousBIG_PJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PinkFloyd pure placebo.

ass.

Biggie.

 

[NotoriousBIG_PJ]

I'll give someone $1000 if I can't blind test the difference between any copper or silver ic and my active force gold ic's.

Biggie.

 

[tomek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotoriousBIG_PJ I'll give someone $1000 if I can't blind test the difference between any copper or silver ic and my active force gold ic's. Biggie.

Remember to make my cheque out to 'Tomasz Roszkowski'.

Would you like to do it with your headphones or my speakers, or both?

haha

 

[Dane]

I think that that particular cable (active force gold) also contains resistors and capacitors and even a battery. I would not take this bet.

 

[meat01]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane I think that that particular cable (active force gold) also contains resistors and capacitors and even a battery. I would not take this bet.

Good call!

 

[tomek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 Good call!

He didn't say anything about a bet. He just said he'd pay out if he couldn't tell.

Although I do agree with you, this is not a 'cable' if it contains more than just wire and connectors so I wouldn't even consider this a 'cable' test.

If he claimed that he could hear the difference between two 'cables' I'd be far more impressed.

 

[ampgalore]

I'll take the test between any copper, silver cables, with PASSIVE gold.

Seriously, why would anyone put BATTERIES into cables?

 

[ampgalore]

I have a cable for sale. I am not going to tell you what is in the cable. But be rest assured that this cable will sound EXACTLY like your $1000+ cables.

This month only, this cable is for sale at a FRACTION of its true value, $250!

 

[eric343]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore Seriously, why would anyone put BATTERIES into cables?

The theory is that by storing a charge in the dielectric, it sounds better.

Personally, I have not had a chance to test a biased-dielectric cable, so I can't say for sure whether it works. I suspect, however, that the existence of a DC-potential across the dielectric does not affect the sound at all. Rather, any alteration of the signal would be due to capacitative or inductive coupling of the battery into the complex LCR network that is a cable (most twisted pair cables are even worse in this regard-- and as far as I know, all "active" cables use twinaxial cable that may also suffer from such issues to some degree).

Again, I say this coming strictly from the realm of theory; I have not had the opportunity to try or test such a cable myself.

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane Have you tried the experiment on a speaker system? I feel that something is lost on headphones. I would for example have much more difficulty telling the difference between two sources on my headphones compared to the speaker system. I haven't re-read the thread, so you might already have done this. In that case, forget it.

Here is something I can't tell but you could well be right. But I would imagine the differences to be in speaker cables and not in the interconnects linking the components together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomek Congratulations. Now you have money for other gear. Can I ask you? Prior to this quick switch test, how convinced were you that cables made a difference? In non-blind situations I've sometimes heard what I thought was a dramatic difference. From very grainy to smooth, from harsh to mellow. But in blind situations I've noticed that they sound identical.

It'll save me a couple of thousand dollars on more cables in the class of the Siltechs, but that's no big deal to be honest with you. Money for cables is not the issue (at least as far as I'm concered), it's the cost/benefit in quantifiable terms.


As I wrote, prior to these tests I felt I was hearing a difference, and therefore I was a cable believer. I've A/B'd sources and I've for the vast instance been able to tell a distinct difference in different sources. And of course there are differences in phones. The cable was something that I felt to give a very subtle difference but I've never been able to A/B them, nor had the inclination to to be honest... I just accepted that more expensive cables gave better signal transfer. But it was one of those out of the blue "hey, lets try this test" things that lead to a fundamental re-think about this aspect of audio for me.


Once again as I wrote before, it's only been recently that I've been able to switch very quickly and seamlessly from one set to another (and I will repeat again since people seem to keep pointing this out as a flaw in my evaluation method, as in "A->B and that's it" and not "A<->B") and conducted the tests in anywhere near a controlled fashion. Sources and headphones have stood up to this test with no issues, differences are differences. Cables which do not muck about with the signal in an obvious manner have failed this test.

 

[ampgalore]

I forsee the demise of the ludicrously high end cable industry soon...

Actually I would sell off their stocks right now.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore I forsee the demise of the ludicrously high end cable industry soon... Actually I would sell off their stocks right now.

Naw, there is plenty of money left to be made... just grabbed the following out of another thread in this subforum (name deleted to protect the innocent):

Quote:

I noticed that the DiMarzio HR IC was clean, clear, liquid, warm, and detailed. I used it with the NAD C 541i HDCD, HeadRoom Cosmic (Reference Module) / Cosmic Power Supply Upgrade, and Etymotic ER-4P/S & Grado RS-1. I tried the DiMarzio M-PATH IC and noticed subtle improvements including greater clarity, focus, and speed along with slightly more open dynamics. I now use the Cardas Neutral Reference IC. See my signature. It is by far the best damned IC I have ever used or tried thus far. It is very fast, very detailed, and very transparant with a touch of sweetness in the midrange.

And if these guys are going out of business soon better grab one of these cables ASAP... else you may be have to miss out on the speed, focus, open dynamics, and touch of sweetness in the midrange that is just unavailable with 'standard' cables!

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric343 The theory is that by storing a charge in the dielectric, it sounds better.

The whole point of a dielectric is to *insulate* (i.e. not conduct electricity)... the theory of storing a charge in the dielectric sounds pretty far out to me...

 

[eric343]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch The whole point of a dielectric is to *insulate* (i.e. not conduct electricity)... the theory of storing a charge in the dielectric sounds pretty far out to me...

Actually, that's more or less how capacitors work.

Keep in mind that the idea of storing a charge in the dielectric is my attempt at de-BSing the cable manufacturer's oft-mentioned theories.

 

[fiddler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch The whole point of a dielectric is to *insulate* (i.e. not conduct electricity)... the theory of storing a charge in the dielectric sounds pretty far out to me...

The problem is that we can't use the ideal dielectric in cables (i.e. a vacuum) so we have to work with what we've got. All other materials absorb *some* energy from the signal conductors no matter what, some more than others and some in a non-linear fashion relative to frequency, and so on so forth. This is why some types of capacitors sound better than others, and since all cables end up acting as capacitors, the dielectric quality is indeed very important. Dielectric biasing used in my latest cables (similar design used by Audioquest in their most expensive interconnects) attempts to work around some of the (audible!) problems associated with dielectric absorption.