[nick_charles]

Quote:

Has anybody posted any graphs of waveforms using different cables?  I just want to see to verify either for myself.  As to take someone's word that cables makes a different based on, their hearing, no thanks.  Anybody made some measurements, please post the graphs.

Yes, in a rather crude way I did last year, it was by proxy using an AD stage from the analog output from a CD player and a variety of different cables. I also posted samples recorded from different cables.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/405217/my-cable-test-enterprise

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Has anybody posted any graphs of waveforms using different cables?  I just want to see to verify either for myself.  As to take someone's word that cables makes a different based on, their hearing, no thanks.  Anybody made some measurements, please post the graphs.

How about your own hearing?

 

[xnor]

@JaZZ:
That hate is justified. They wrote that they have finally developed a measurement that is evidence for the "sound of cables" in their magazine... and already made mistakes at describing the (as they turned out invalid) results/method, leaving out important details, and so on.
 
 
web translated:
 
Quote:

It would be responsible journalism if you reassured yourselves BEFORE such a publication with people who know a lot about such things.
 
Balance and fairness would order it that you consult, also, such experts who can judge independently.
Or turn to the manufacturerer of your measuring instrument, there someone knows with certainty about MLS and about its borders better than in your measuring lab.
 
And care would order it that one thinks about the sources of error with such a measurement to himself, and also takes seriously suitable tips which there have been abundantly.
 
But nothing of this is recognizable. You play on the trumpet presenting one measuring technology sensation after the other, and make no arrangements to bethink of a serious test method. One has rather the impression that you pay homage to the audiophile megalomania, while here in the thread you're limiting damage after a fashion, in the hope that not all too many do read along here, so that, in the end, the bull**** in the magazine is forced through all arguments.
 
Serious manufacturers as for example Hubert, take the damage of this just like the misled immediate readership. This is unfair and irresponsible.

 
Stereoplay's credability also seems to suffer a lot..

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

How about your own hearing?

What have you been reading this whole thread?

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

What have you been reading this whole thread?

 
Dear Master Head Injury,
 
Did you mean reading or understanding?

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Dear Master Head Injury,
 
Did you mean reading or understanding?

I just find it ridiculous that anyone can, after 47 pages of the same science vs. cables argument over and over, post something as simple as "Trust your ears!" with any slight intention of being taken seriously.

 

[JaZZ]

 

@JaZZ:
That hate is justified.

Hate is never justified. It's always the product of personal inner processes – blocked anger, projected onto an arbitrary scapegoat. Anger is always justified, but sometimes directed at the wrong addressee.  
.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Hate is never justified. It's always the product of personal inner processes – blocked anger, projected to an arbitrary scapegoat. Anger is always justified, but sometimes directed at the wrong addressee.  

My Creative Writing teacher told us that hate is just a different kind of love. I think he was high on something though.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

I just find it ridiculous that anyone can, after 47 pages of the same science vs. cables argument over and over, post something as simple as "Trust your ears!" with any slight intention of being taken seriously.

When you're ready for me to explain what I meant by giving up that misplaced certainty you have about what I meant then I may just try to explain to you.  But I suspect not considering your display here.

 

[High_Q]

Nick, your efforts are very much appreciated.  Keep it up!  People like you in this forum(some reviewers included) that put much thought and time into their write ups makes Head-Fi very much the place to get useful information. 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

When you're ready for me to explain what I meant by giving up that misplaced certainty you have about what I meant then I may just try to explain to you.  But I suspect not considering your display here.

What display is that?
 
I'd be happy for you to explain. That's something you should have done in the post itself, but late is better than never.

 

[JaZZ]

 

My Creative Writing teacher told us that hate is just a different kind of love. I think he was high on something though.

 
That would also be my suspicion.
 
 

I just find it ridiculous that anyone can, after 47 pages of the same science vs. cables argument over and over, post something as simple as "Trust your ears!" with any slight intention of being taken seriously.

 
You seem to be easy to convince. 

Or at least you make it look like it was this thread which gave you the final push. I for one stick happily with my previous conviction that I trust my own ears when it comes to evaluate and judge audio components, and I don't change this practice specifically for cables.
.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

You seem to be easy to convince. 

Or at least you make it look like it was this thread which gave you the final push. I for one stick happily with my previous conviction that I trust my own ears when it comes to evaluate and judge audio components, and I don't change this practice specifically for cables.

I wouldn't call it the final push. I would call it the kick while I was down. Not hearing anything different in my BJC interconnects than I did in my floss-thin no-name ones was what pushed me.
 
And my post was not in argument of your or any believer's position. It was in argument of a one-liner post like the one aimlink made. Your arguments are very constructive, because they're thought out and complex, though I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable and/or handy with Google to judge their validity. Nor did I want to offend aimlink specifically, because he has made several thought-out posts here too. It's just a one-liner like that, "Trust!", that I think defines what is wrong with the general cable public. "We hear it, so it's gotta be real." Nothing is more of an assumption, true or not.

 

[aimlink]

     Quote:

What display is that?
 
I'd be happy for you to explain. That's something you should have done in the post itself, but late is better than never.

 
On such a contentious issue, I'd personally entertain the analysis of only someone who has experienced both sides.  I wonder how many here do hear a damning difference between cables and based on scientific evidence, happily concede that the difference is in his/her mind.  Not many, I'd wager.  It would seem that in the main, we're comprised of two distinct groups:
- Those who haven't heard a difference between HP cables and believe the scientific evidence that supports there not being an audible difference.
- Those who hear a difference between HP cables and choose to doubt the validity and hence, the ultimate truth in the scientific evidence that doesn't support what they're hearing.
 
The first group can be subdivided into those who haven't heard a difference because they haven't seriously tried different cables and those who have seriously tried different cables and failed to hear a difference.
 
On such a contentious issue as this, it's fascinating, for me at least, that one would be willing to make a solid decision without having first tried for him or herself.  The poster to whom my initial comment was directed to, seemed, from what he wrote, not to have tried different cables for himself, hence my querying this.
 
What has been motivating this ENTIRE discussion stems from the disagreement between the two groups.  I'm not at all saying that one should uncompromisingly trust his or her ears.  One should at a minimum understand his or her ears and mind.   Additionally, there's usually a level of trust put in the truth of what one observes.  It's this level of trust that will make one question or choose not to question the validity of experimentation that that claims what they observed to be purely illusory.
 
I'd surely love to be a part of a DBX test but I've already stated in this or maybe another similar thread, my own issues with using my own headphones and cables. 
 
As to your display:
It's pretty flagrant; bullish; authoritarian, blunt.

  I hope that's not how you wish to come across but I advise care. You never know who you're replying to here.  There are all sorts on these boards who may choose to fully or not so fully identify themselves.  An anonymous handle as 'Head Injury', doesn't absolve you of responsibility. 

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

You seem to be easy to convince. 

Or at least you make it look like it was this thread which gave you the final push. I for one stick happily with my previous conviction that I trust my own ears when it comes to evaluate and judge audio components, and I don't change this practice specifically for cables.
.

Yep.  What I have personally observed, makes me very resistant to assuming it's purely illusory and I particularly pay attention to arguments that question the validity of the current evidence.   What I've observed on a couple occasions is just too much for me to throw aside.  Hopefully, those with the knowledge and means to find an explanation haven't given up or stop running the same experiments over and over again as if there's a high chance the results will one day be different.