[castleofargh]

That is what unfortunately may very well put you, " science guys" in the very same category as the cable beleivers.

Here you are - the routine IEM stock wire- 0.8-1 Ohm per wire, two of them in the circuit. They should be flexible, otherwise they become unusable, so the coat hanger wires do not do trick here
Pictures attached below.

True that the trend in designing IEMs with the impedance below 16 Ohm can be viewed critically, especially that the values cited just at 1 kHz, the transducer resonances can give even lower values

Nevertheless, that is how cables matter, matter for the frequency response, and quite appreciably so in many cases.

I agree about what can be found, and also that IEMs are definitely where we'll find the most extreme examples of cables, or really anything influencing everything else. The IEM market is organized chaos. Even without counting the rare cases where the cable is part of the design and gets some atypical specs on purpose(so of course replacing it by some random cable will cause a bigger change), we can still get strangely large impedance values at times. At least large compared to what we should expect when thinking of a basic 1.2m cable.

For those who sort of care, @hakuzen spent a great deal of time and some money to give us those lists of measured resistance:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/resistance-of-cables-pics-comments-and-links.907998/
It's only one side of the electrical game, but it's already a great deal more informative than spamming the same unsubstantiated stuff like a bot. Speaking of which, @InstantSilence is out of the thread for a week.

 

[bigshot]

The reason I ask is that off topic posts like this tend to come in waves. Are you guys congregating in the cable nonsense forum and coordinating “raids” on sound science? I hope not because that would be really lame. We leave your forum alone. None of us care how you spend your money. Feel free to buy jewel encrusted cable props so your cables don’t touch the ground. It’s perfectly fine with us. Just don’t march into our forum with a chip on your shoulder and argue with us about stuff that is the fundamental topic of this forum.

 

[reginalb]

That's why I defer to the likes of of Gordon Rankin on that Darko Audio article

https://darko.audio/2016/05/gordon-rankin-on-why-usb-audio-quality-varies/

As well as on Darko's podcast episode:

https://m.soundcloud.com/johnhdarko/what-is-electrical-noise-and-why-is-it-bad-for-audio-systems

What do you think 1's and 0's are? They're electrical signal that are sent in a time domain fashion, so the accuracy and arrival is very important, and parasitic noise and electricity can still be carried over via the cable into the DAC.

Also, you talk about the science, but how many USB cables have you personally extensively tested? I tested 6 myself, but that's why I also defer to Gordon, Paul McGowan of PS Audio, the Hifi podcast (PS Audio's Senior Analog Design Engineer Darren Myers and The Music Room Testing Technician Duncan Taylor), and other engineers in the industry? Don't you think they've heard dozens if not hundreds of USB cables (and other cables) in their day to day job? For them, it's literally their job to test and test and test, even if it's not to sell that specific component. And when they all say USB cables matter after having heard all of those cables I'll agree with them over you.

Plus, like I said, I've personally heard the difference between USB cables, and it's fine if you can't hear it, but don't make it as if your word is universal facts when so many of us can counter with our own experiences.

USB 2.0 is wild overkill for an audio signal, and a 20-year old standard. 24-bit 192Khz audio, as silly as such a high rate is, equates to ~9.2 Mbps. USB 2.0 is specced for 480 Mbps. So long as you have a cable that is within the ballpark of spec, you're fine.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

I buy aftermarket cables because they look better, feel better, are built better, are less microphonic, and I can choose my preferred length. I have never heard an audible difference except once. And I’m pretty sure it’s because one of my stock cables was defective. Other than that, they all sound the same to me.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I really think it's arrogant for objectivists, who, for some reason aren't objective enough to acknowledge that knowing everything is impossible, debate and even shame subjective impression.

Everyone here can change, but only if relevant evidence is provided and it is repeatable by others. Claiming something by virtue needs to be supported by evidence. It isn't arrogance, is how science works, provide evidence that the null its not right, and we'll change.

 

[megabigeye]

The reason I ask is that off topic posts like this tend to come in waves. Are you guys congregating in the cable nonsense forum and coordinating “raids” on sound science? I hope not because that would be really lame. We leave your forum alone. None of us care how you spend your money. Feel free to buy jewel encrusted cable props so your cables don’t touch the ground. It’s perfectly fine with us. Just don’t march into our forum with a chip on your shoulder and argue with us about stuff that is the fundamental topic of this forum.

I don't want to speak for anyone, but my guess is that people are showing up to this thread because it's trending in the "What's New" menu and the thread title is total click-bait... "Bait" as in it's meant to tease and taunt Head-Fiers that believe in cables. If you look at the bottom of the page, you can see that there are about 35 people looking at the thread right now. I'm hoping this doesn't bode poorly for the future of the thread.

 

[PhonoPhi]

I agree about what can be found, and also that IEMs are definitely where we'll find the most extreme examples of cables, or really anything influencing everything else. The IEM market is organized chaos. Even without counting the rare cases where the cable is part of the design and gets some atypical specs on purpose(so of course replacing it by some random cable will cause a bigger change), we can still get strangely large impedance values at times. At least large compared to what we should expect when thinking of a basic 1.2m cable.

For those who sort of care, @hakuzen spent a great deal of time and some money to give us those lists of measured resistance:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/resistance-of-cables-pics-comments-and-links.907998/
It's only one side of the electrical game, but it's already a great deal more informative than spamming the same unsubstantiated stuff like a bot. Speaking of which, @InstantSilence is out of the thread for a week.

Absolutely, I am happy to hear that you mention @hakuzen (since I was surprised a bit that people do not beleive in 1.5-2 Ohm cables, quite common stock cables of IEMs).
There is really hardly any evidence that capacitance and inductance can matter, given their small and hardly different values for different cables.

I measure my cables with a simple multimeter, approximating the point contacts, a significant problem, as was duly noted here; +/- 0.15 Ohm uncertainty is still sufficient for ball park estimates for me, and checking proper polarity and odd soldering is instructive.

For myself I use 1/16 and 1/24 points relative to the IEM impedance for "may matter" (more than 1/16) and won't matter (less than 1/24).

I also found cables can improve fit and comfort, and may look nice enhancing enjoyment of music, while $15-25 range is fully sufficient for good balanced IEM cables.

 

[castleofargh]

I really think it's arrogant for objectivists, who, for some reason aren't objective enough to acknowledge that knowing everything is impossible, debate and even shame subjective impression. When there's disjointed subjective and objective arguments, yes, it's possible it's placebo, but on the other hand, maybe we aren't measuring the right way, or don't understand hearing well enough, or we haven't thought to measure in every state.

+1
I personally see all the reasons in the world to be skeptical of sighted subjective impressions, but none of them justify mockery. And just because placebo is a thing, it doesn't mean it explains all atypical experiences.

Now to balance things out a little, I think it's arrogant and/or ignorant for someone who felt as if the sound changed a certain way(a subjective impression) under sighted conditions, to go claim that the sound changed a certain way(an objective claim about sound). Or even worse, to claim to know the cause of that change without having bothered to confirm causality. Sadly those are lines that most people will cross when sharing their personal impressions on the forum. Which is... not great.

I guess my point is that everybody fails at something.

 

[bigshot]

Thanks for the explanation megabigeye. I just have sound science bookmarked so I don’t see the homepage often. I guess that sort of mechanical thread promotion doesn’t attract the best and brightest.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Some people just have nothing better to do than spread ignorance like those people who say burn in isnt real when there's plenty of measurements showing that some headphones change drastically over time. they choose a hill to die on cause theyre bored and should be ignored.

Hey I'm totally on board with the notion of electromechanical systems needing some "break-in". But your amplifier doesn't need break in, and neither do your cables, DAC, or anything else. Systems that are have a changing response over time should be regarded as "crap".

 

[bigshot]

What does break in have to do with cables anyway? I'll be happy when we are off the home page and we don't get these pointless troll posts.

 

[old tech]

Uh oh... Here comes the well worn logical fallacy, “we can’t know everything, so we can’t know anything.”

I’m curious... how did you end up in this forum? Did you stumble into this thread through a search for something else? Were you directed here by a link from elsewhere? I alway wonder how people end up in sound science when they just want to argue that science is wrong.

Note that none of these cablephiles have answered the basic question of why they haven't claimed the Randi prize? I'm not a money hungry person but heck, I wouldn't turn down an easy million dollars by proving I can hear these differences in cables. Says it all actually.

 

[ScareDe2]

"NOT EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE MEASURED COUNTS, AND NOT EVERYTHING THAT COUNTS CAN BE MEASURED."
- ALBERT EINSTEIN.

 

[bfreedma]

"NOT EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE MEASURED COUNTS, AND NOT EVERYTHING THAT COUNTS CAN BE MEASURED."
- ALBERT EINSTEIN.

Einstein published his theories including supporting evidence which was then peer reviewed. Posting that quote as a defense of unsupported claims of unmeasurable yet audible cable improvements is disingenuous.

 

[megabigeye]

Well, actually...

#don'tfeedthetrolls