[BIG POPPA]

Head Injury no worries, I make my own cables, buy a few cables, try a few cables on my rig. At least my opinions are by my own experience. Some people will always be split on anything. That is what makes this hobby fun.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif But think of amps: The signal differences among them are minuscule, below any accepted hearing threshold, yet there are significant differences not even disputed by many objectivists (after all sonic differences caused by amps are more plausible than those from cables).

Jazz, I am afraid your premise is very wrong.

If you look in any respectable Hi Fi mag, Im sure you have some around your home, when they test an amp they will include a frequency response plot (amplitude vs frequency). Do you notice how this is not a perfectly straight horizontal line?
Notice how they don't include this graph when they test cables, the reason for this is it is a flat line. (eg The cable does nothing to the signal)

With amps there is always a roll off at the high and low frequencies, this occurs at different frequencies for different amps, this is measurable (you can see it in the amplitude vs frequency plot) and audible.

When you purchase an amp it has this thing called a specification. This normally includes the frequency value of the roll off at the high and low frequencies and is called 'frequency response', you can see when this happens on the frequency response plot. Again, you do not generally find this information with a cable, have you ever wandered why this should be the case?

If you are interested in Hi Fi you must know this stuff, it is so basic and essential.

Perhaps this is the definitive argument to convince that audio cables don't make a difference eh? Somehow I doubt it!

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Jazz, I am afraid your premise is very wrong. If you look in any respectable Hi Fi mag, Im sure you have some around your home, when they test an amp they will include a frequency response plot (amplitude vs frequency). Notice how they don't include this graph when they test cables, the reason for this is it is a flat line. (eg The cable does nothing to the signal) For some amps, you will see that this curve is not flat. Also there is always roll off at the high and low frequencies, this occurs at different frequencies for different amps, this is measurable (you can see it in the amplitude vs frequency plot) and audible. When you purchase an amp it has this thing called a specification. This normally includes the frequency value of the roll off at the high and low frequencies and is called 'frequency response', you can see when this happens on the frequency response plot. Again, you do not generally find this information with a cable, have you ever wandered why this should be the case? If you are interested in Hi Fi you must know this stuff, it is so basic and essential.

I have access to a lot of measurements in hi-fi magazines. There was a time a was very interested in them – it was when I was into speakers.

When you're talking of roll-offs: what dB values do you have in mind? And what values do you consider relevant for audibility? As mentioned, with most modern amps the measured values are so close to perfection that they're not considered responsible for audible differences according to the established hearing threshold. We're talking of roll-offs like 0.1 dB at 20 Hz and 20 kHz, or at best double that value. Even a 1-dB drop-off doesn't necessarily mean to be audible or relevant if it is limited to 0.25 or 0.4 dB at 25 Hz and 16 kHz. THD is usually below 0.02% or even 0.002% and the like at normal listening levels. Noise is rarely audible at all or masked by the one on the recordings.

So there's in fact no reason to expect sonic differences from modern solid-state amps. If you don't believe me, read the specs on HeadRoom's amplifier line-up. According to them you could buy their cheapest amp and have the sound quality of the most expensive.
.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Jazz,

Do you agree that cable frequency response is effectively flat across ALL frequencies from 0 HZ (DC) to at least 100KHz, and for amps this not the case. This point is extreamly significant as it is why cables are so controversial when a claim of a sound 'signature' is claimed for a cable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif 'When you're talking of roll-offs: what dB values do you have in mind? And what values do you consider relevant for audibility? '

I'm sure you know this is a huge thread subject in itself, you are a difficult man to tie down, are you a politician by any chance?

To answer you the threshold this becomes audible can be shown in an ABX test. This threshold may differ slightly from person to person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif So there's in fact no reason to expect sonic differences from modern solid-state amps. If you don't believe me, read the specs on HeadRoom's amplifier line-up. According to them you could buy their cheapest amp and have the sound quality of the most expensive.

No there is no reason to expect difference in two well made amps with similar characteristics and power output..

As you were into speakers you will know there is a big relationship between an amplifiers cost and max rated power output. You should include this parameter when you make this statement.

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury /img/forum/go_quote.gif I really should duck out of this thread. I don't have the scientific background that can truly support the "anti-cablers" and sway "pro-science" "pro-cablers", and I don't have the experience that will convince (or help to convince) "anti-science" "pro-cablers". Also, I feel dirty.

All you have to know is that no differences has been proven by rigorous test.
Until such a time comes, it's all up to 'them' to convince 'us'.
We can continue to do DBX tests and prove that these exact cables in this exact situation with these exact people do not show a difference, but this information is only relevant under these exact circumstanses and can't be generalized. On the other hand, if just in one instance it is shown in a DBX test that there is a difference, our claim that 'no cables within reasonable physical parameters show a sonic difference' will have been debunked.
No need to feel dirty, it's all in their hands.

 

[JxK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury I really should duck out of this thread. I don't have the scientific background that can truly support the "anti-cablers" and sway "pro-science" "pro-cablers", and I don't have the experience that will convince (or help to convince) "anti-science" "pro-cablers". Also, I feel dirty.

You don't need science to figure this out. A little logic, common sense, and a rational dose of cynicism is enough. I made one argument like this above. Here is another:

Take a look at the recording industry. The world's top studios - studios like Abbey Road, Airstudios, and the like - spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on their equipment. They use the best monitoring equipment found in the world.

If these boutique cables really made real difference, do you honestly think these studios would balk at spending a few extra dollars to purchase them? You will find that these studios use regular everyday cables, none of that silver-cryo-oxygen free nonsense.

If professionals whose livelihood depends upon accurate sound reproduction don't bother with these cables, what does it say about their efficacy? Hell, they don't even bother buying them 'just in case'. What do you think it says?

Logic, common sense, and rational cynicism.

 

[d.g]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JxK /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't need science to figure this out. A little logic, common sense, and a rational dose of cynicism is enough. I made one argument like this above. Here is another: Take a look at the recording industry. The world's top studios - studios like Abbey Road, Airstudios, and the like - spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on their equipment. They use the best monitoring equipment found in the world. If these boutique cables really made real difference, do you honestly think these studios would balk at spending a few extra dollars to purchase them? You will find that these studios use regular everyday cables, none of that silver-cryo-oxygen free nonsense. If professionals whose livelihood depends upon accurate sound reproduction don't bother with these cables, what does it say about their efficacy? Hell, they don't even bother buying them 'just in case'. What do you think it says? Logic, common sense, and rational cynicism.

A very good point well made - studios and professionals quite often use something like Van Damme cables which are very well made and specified for individual purposes.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you agree that cable frequency response is effectively flat across ALL frequencies from 0 HZ (DC) to at least 100KHz, and for amps this not the case. This point is extreamly significant as it is why cables are so controversial when a claim of a sound 'signature' is claimed for a cable.

Can you tell me why exactly the curves below and above the audible spectrum are extremely significant?

Quote:

I'm sure you know this is a huge thread subject in itself, you are a difficult man to tie down, are you a politician by any chance?

No – I just don't want to be tied down.

Quote:

To answer you the threshold this becomes audible can be shown in an ABX test. This threshold may differ slightly from person to person.

Apart from that, there are officially accepted thresholds.

Quote:

No there is no reason to expect difference in two well made amps with similar characteristics and power output..

Isn't this a contradiction to the above-mentioned «nonlinearity» issue? To simplify matters I have left out the power; there are cases where it's insufficient, but under normal circumstances even cheap speaker amps can drive the speakers way below maximum output power, thus without increased distortion. And most headphone amps have enough power to drive any headphone without problems (K 1000 excluded) – at normal listening levels.

Personally I heard a difference before and after a modification making for even higher HF extension on my Metaxas Solitaire speaker amp. But the measuring difference is effectively limited to the ultrasonic range, hence shouldn't matter according to the official doctrine. If you think it does, we're not far from cable frequency-response issues.

Believe me: I have auditioned a lot of amps – speaker and headphone. The sonic differences I heard had nothing to do with frequency response (where they didn't differ significantly) and rarely with power reserve. If anything, it's rather placebo effect.
.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JxK /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't need science to figure this out. A little logic, common sense, and a rational dose of cynicism is enough. I made one argument like this above. Here is another: Take a look at the recording industry. The world's top studios - studios like Abbey Road, Airstudios, and the like - spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on their equipment. They use the best monitoring equipment found in the world. If these boutique cables really made real difference, do you honestly think these studios would balk at spending a few extra dollars to purchase them? You will find that these studios use regular everyday cables, none of that silver-cryo-oxygen free nonsense. If professionals whose livelihood depends upon accurate sound reproduction don't bother with these cables, what does it say about their efficacy? Hell, they don't even bother buying them 'just in case'. What do you think it says? Logic, common sense, and rational cynicism.

Just for your information: recording studio's typically use many miles of cables, so your "few extra dollars" is way off the mark. It would more likely mean millions of extra dollars. And production costs are a very real consideration for recording studios.

By the way, I don't think the livelihood of these professionals depends on accurate sound reproduction. It depends on producing a recording that is good enough to be accepted by the masses for as little money as possible.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JxK /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't need science to figure this out. A little logic, common sense, and a rational dose of cynicism is enough. I made one argument like this above. Here is another: Take a look at the recording industry. The world's top studios - studios like Abbey Road, Airstudios, and the like - spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on their equipment. They use the best monitoring equipment found in the world. If these boutique cables really made real difference, do you honestly think these studios would balk at spending a few extra dollars to purchase them? You will find that these studios use regular everyday cables, none of that silver-cryo-oxygen free nonsense. If professionals whose livelihood depends upon accurate sound reproduction don't bother with these cables, what does it say about their efficacy? Hell, they don't even bother buying them 'just in case'. What do you think it says? Logic, common sense, and rational cynicism.

And to add some more info: studios that do care about sound quality (unlike the big companies that supply us with mainly junk) actually use quality cabling. Like for instance OTR.
Quote:

Currently, we have our proprietary silver cable through out the recording rooms providing the clarity of sound that an audiophile requires

 

[883dave]

As this is a science forum...

Could those people refering to ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc

Please provide links to these tests

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JxK /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't need science to figure this out. A little logic, common sense, and a rational dose of cynicism is enough. I made one argument like this above. Here is another: Take a look at the recording industry. The world's top studios - studios like Abbey Road, Airstudios, and the like - spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on their equipment. They use the best monitoring equipment found in the world. If these boutique cables really made real difference, do you honestly think these studios would balk at spending a few extra dollars to purchase them? You will find that these studios use regular everyday cables, none of that silver-cryo-oxygen free nonsense. If professionals whose livelihood depends upon accurate sound reproduction don't bother with these cables, what does it say about their efficacy? Hell, they don't even bother buying them 'just in case'. What do you think it says? Logic, common sense, and rational cynicism.

I wonder what Bob Ludwig and Steve Hoffman would say to this?

 

[d.g]

The point is that studios do use high quality cables, but perhaps don't rely on the really esoteric types available on the market for bank busting sums...

 

[robb01]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif As this is a science forum... Could those people refering to ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc Please provide links to these tests

that would be most helpful

 

[eucariote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif As this is a science forum... Could those people refering to ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc Please provide links to these tests

Here ya go.

This lays out standard experimental theory, design, testing and statistical methods quite nicely.

If you don't have the patience for a 1400 page book, the simplest statistical test is the t-test (to assess if two effects are the 'same' or 'different') but the standard is the F-test, i.e. the analysis of variance (ANOVA) that can be used for any number of groups and variables. If there is a significant effect you then have to conduct a subsequent test of multiple comparisons to see what it was.