[manueljenkin]

Some YouTube videos show differences with power cables. Even the spectrogram and audio waveforms look different.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

I was very skeptical that cables make much of a difference in sound quality. After hundreds of hours of doing A/B testing across all combinations of amps/dacs/streamers/headphones/IEMs/ear tips/cables/music source, etc, I have a decent feel for what improves sound and by how much across all of the 4 headphones, 6 amplifiers and 5 IEMs I own. I came in with an open mind and I only trust my own ears. I was a Jazz musician, so I have a pretty good ear.

After that exercise, I can say with some conviction that cable quality absolutely matters and makes a difference in sound quality. Much more than I expected. The biggest improvement was with my current Vision Ear VE8 IEMs. When I did a listening test across all of my demo tracks, I heard sibilance on certain tracks. Then, I read some reviews where other reviewers detected the same thing. For a person who is sensitive to treble, this is a potential showstopper for an audio product. I replaced the stock cable and silver plated cable that the prior owner included with a high end sliver plated copper wire and wow did that make a difference. There was a noticeable reduction in harshness of the highs and the sibilance is gone. The Sound stage increased as did the clarity and tightness of the bass.

So, to answer the question of the OP, there is nothing you can say or do to change what I have experienced with my own ears. Cable quality makes a difference to sound quality. Your opinion and your data does not trump my personal experience.

 

[Kentajalli]

Where did I say absolutely accurately? I'm well aware of the principle of measurement uncertainty. Are you suggesting that the uncertainty in taking standard electromagnetic measurements (i.e. traceable to the SI reference) from a set of different cables is higher than that in the subjective assessment of their audible differences? I'm familiar with the former, not the latter, but I'd find that hard the believe!

as I said, to me cables are cables.
there is no such thing as superior cable, but I do believe in bad and faulty cables.
just my opinion.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I was very skeptical that cables make much of a difference in sound quality. After hundreds of hours of doing A/B testing across all combinations of amps/dacs/streamers/headphones/IEMs/ear tips/cables/music source, etc, I have a decent feel for what improves sound and by how much across all of the 4 headphones, 6 amplifiers and 5 IEMs I own. I came in with an open mind and I only trust my own ears. I was a Jazz musician, so I have a pretty good ear.

After that exercise, I can say with some conviction that cable quality absolutely matters and makes a difference in sound quality. Much more than I expected. The biggest improvement was with my current Vision Ear VE8 IEMs. When I did a listening test across all of my demo tracks, I heard sibilance on certain tracks. Then, I read some reviews where other reviewers detected the same thing. For a person who is sensitive to treble, this is a potential showstopper for an audio product. I replaced the stock cable and silver plated cable that the prior owner included with a high end sliver plated copper wire and wow did that make a difference. There was a noticeable reduction in harshness of the highs and the sibilance is gone. The Sound stage increased as did the clarity and tightness of the bass.

So, to answer the question of the OP, there is nothing you can say or do to change what I have experienced with my own ears. Cable quality makes a difference to sound quality. Your opinion and your data does not trump my personal experience.

Was it double blind? Controlled by a non-interested third party? Would you mind to share your methodology for replication and analysis?

 

[Bernard23]

I'm inclined to agree, but for the reasons I posted. I suspect, but could be wrong as I've not seen any research to prove it either way, that the measurable differences in standard lab conditions are far lower than those which we could correlate to measurable subjective differences, which also probably have a much higher level of uncertainty associated with the data. I'm aware of some research programmes that my institute has conducted around subjective assessments of material characteristics (so not at all audio related unfortunately) where the level of uncertainty rendered the results of limited use.

 

[bigshot]

for the past 50 years, scientists have been sharpening their test equipments and methods, but to claim it is fairly easy, and that we have reached the summit point where we can measure absolutely everything accurately is nothing but an arrogant day dream.

No one is saying that. What we are saying is that we can measure everything HUMAN EARS CAN HEAR. Our testing equipment is more sensitive and accurate than our ears.

It's possible to measure differences between cables, but those differences are probably far below the threshold of hearing.

 

[Kentajalli]

No one is saying that. What we are saying is that we can measure everything HUMAN EARS CAN HEAR. g.

How do you spell a raspberry being blown?
Blurrrrrrrrr....

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

Was it double blind? Controlled by a non-interested third party? Would you mind to share your methodology for replication and analysis?

No, it was a double deaf. In one case, my ears were searing and hurt. In the other, they didn’t.

 

[manueljenkin]

No one is saying that. What we are saying is that we can measure everything HUMAN EARS CAN HEAR. Our testing equipment is more sensitive and accurate than our ears.

It's possible to measure differences between cables, but those differences are probably far below the threshold of hearing.

Go tell that to the thousands of people still trying to solve human cognition limits and bounds using sophisticated equipment. The limits/bounds of hearing perception is still not well defined scientifically yet. You love to speak your personal opinions, and disguise them as if they were facts.

Now if you cannot even determine conclusively what one can hear and what one cannot hear, how can you conclusively attribute parameters of some random measured phenomena, assign weights, and conclude sound quality?

 

[Bernard23]

How do you spell a raspberry being blown?
Blurrrrrrrrr....

Why do you say that? I'm genuinely intrigued as to what measurands we could investigate to characterise human hearing better then we have done so far?

 

[Bernard23]

. The limits/bounds of hearing perception is still not well defined scientifically yet. You love to speak your personal opinions, and disguise them as if they were facts.

You're not proposing a sound alternative though! I ask the same question, what else can we do, other than sit large groups of people in rooms and ask them to listen to things, analyse the data and draw conclusions from that data. What other measurands could we investigate to define "what" and "how much" we hear, that we haven't tried or defined already?

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

Why do you say that? I'm genuinely intrigued as to what measurands we could investigate to characterise human hearing better then we have done so far?

You would not do straight measurements. You would use sound signatures and artificial intelligence matching programs to predict which sound would be preferred by a user based on their stored database of preferences as they relate to other peoples similar preferences. Patterns of preferences will predict quality.

 

[Bernard23]

By the way, I haven't looked for the thread about "what is PRAT" and why humans like harmony, which has often simple mathematical patterns....

 

[Bernard23]

You would not do straight measurements. You would use sound signatures and artificial intelligence matching programs to predict which sound would be preferred by a user based on their stored database of preferences as they relate to other peoples similar preferences. Patterns of preferences will predict quality.

what is a sound signature? and surely we are still in a room full of blindfolded people to define preference?

 

[manueljenkin]

You're not proposing a sound alternative though! I ask the same question, what else can we do, other than sit large groups of people in rooms and ask them to listen to things, analyse the data and draw conclusions from that data. What other measurands could we investigate to define "what" and "how much" we hear, that we haven't tried or defined already?

Well it's not really necessary to do that to show up a hole in your arguments. You're trying to be conclusively dismissive of the possibilities, which is wrong since the limits/weights is not well defined yet. So about "measuring" these changes with cables, I'm not sure, we'll first have to solve cognition first again, get our correlation matrices wrt thresholds and weights right then we can be fairly conclusive of things. For now the only option is to be open to things. No need to accept what some one else says, just be open to the possibilities.