2. the distortions that im hearing in blind tests and that many others can hear but cant back up
3. ''in general audiophiles tend to'' < based on your language it doesnt sound like this one mysterious study that conveniently works in your favour provides very solid evidence that audiophile have the worst hearing. studies can produce inaccurate findings of course, there is so much to question about that study but its totally irrelevant since I already mentioned the blind tests.
4. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other after all, to be clear what do you deem important when it comes to cables?
5. maybe the question the was badly worded. can you just give provide some details of these systems youve listened to that contain very high quality (but not necessarily expensive) audio cables?
5a. did you compare with any of your own cables to confirm there was no difference?
5b. ... more crazy examples of things like audiophile USB cable and power cords will also contribute to the quality of signal passing through the audio cable ...
5c. you dont believe in this stuff but you telling that you listened to a system like this to confirm no difference in audio cables is what I'm expecting to hear.
2. Again, what distortions? We can measure voltage and current variations in an electrical signal extremely accurately, far more accurately than anything we can hear when that electrical signal is converted into sound and, we've been able to do this for many decades. Furthermore, we can compare two electrical signals (say from two different cables) using a Null Test, which eliminates everything in common between the two signals, just leaving the difference and again, this standard test has been around many decades. Measured differences/distortions are in the range of hundredths or thousandths of a dB, way outside audibility. If you really could hear those distortions, then by definition you would be "way outside" being a member of the homo sapiens species. The ridiculousness of effectively making such a claim is enough by itself but we have even more compelling evidence: Firstly, the distortions which do exist are entirely within scientific/engineering predictions and secondly, in every single case of an audiophile claiming to hear these "distortions", when reliably tested they ALWAYS fail, without exception! In other words, what you and "many others" think you are hearing is NOT what you are actually hearing, you are perceiving a difference NOT hearing a difference. These "distortions that you're hearing" is simply a myth that's been invented by audiophiles because they are ignorant of, or simply cannot accept, the proven fact that what they think they're hearing is significantly different to what they're actually hearing. Obviously and demonstrably, this is the reason why audiophiles can NEVER "back up" the claim of these audible "distortions", because they are a myth which do not exist!
3. No, I am not referring to "one mysterious study". There have been countless studies during the last 40 years or so, not specifically testing audiophile vs. others' differentiation abilities but testing the audibility of various aspects of audio recording and reproduction. Many of these studies have used trained/professional listeners, general members of the public and audiophiles. In those studies which present their results broken down into these groups, audiophiles either perform the same as the two other groups or less well, depending on what the study is specifically testing. I know of no reliable, published studies where audiophiles out performed both of the other groups, do you?
4. That they can perform the role for which they were designed without any audible distortion, even in those cases where the signal (including any distortions/interference) they are transferring has to be amplified many times. I do not "deem important" the number of strands, what those strands are made of, the insulation or any other property of the cable, provided they perform as just described. The only addition to this, which is specific to my personal circumstances, is a higher level of physical robustness in certain of my cables than the typical consumer would need. This is because in a studio/professional situation some of the cables we use are subject to far more severe, long term physical abuse.
5. Not briefly or easily. I've worked in probably 200 commercial studios over a period of 35 years or so. All of them had high quality but not expensive cables, all of them had very good, excellent or world leading systems/listening environments. I've never encountered an audiophile system which could compare. The best I've heard I would categorise as "good" and several, even very expensive ones ($100k+) were really quite poor.
5a. Only a couple of times in other commercial studios but in my own, quite a few times. Stock OEM cables, standard pro audio cables and some audiophile cables. And, by "compare" I mean blind testing, measurements and null tests.
5b. Assuming you haven't got a faulty/extremely poorly designed unit, then the signal coming out of the unit will in no way be affected by an audiophile USB or power cable. Again, it's simple to test this for yourself, a quick loop-back recording using two different cables and some free software. ... This is the science forum, you cannot make claims/assertions like the one quoted which contradict the actual facts, without reliable evidence!
5c. No, that is NOT what I'm "telling you"! What I'm telling you is that having higher or even the highest quality system and very highly trained hearing does NOT somehow make distortions which are hundreds/thousands of times below audibility suddenly audible, for anyone (including audiophile cable believers). However, while it's obvious that you cannot hear something so far below the threshold of audibility, I do not know for certain what you are "expecting to hear" or how that is affecting your personal perception. All I can say with certainty is that as the distortions are way below audibility then the ONLY remaining, rational explanation for your perception of a difference is your perception itself!
section 2:
[1] what is a listening environment and why does this matter for headphones?
[2] I listen through headphones in a very quiet location, all of my system is DIY or heavily modified, a lot of care and time has been put into to achieve the most realistic sound, this doesnt involve money..
[3] I think your systems could be exceptionally good (better than mine even) in certain areas but lacking in other seemingly unimportant areas where as mine is consistently good in every single area. [3a] this is general statement but should apply to most, [3b] getting into specifics wouldnt be worth it.
1. Do you honestly not know?
2. Trying to "achieve the most realistic sound" is doomed to failure and futile, how did you manage to miss this fact with all your "research, experimentation and dedication"? As virtually all commercial music is produced primarily for speakers, you're never going to achieve "realistic sound" with headphones, no matter how good or expensive they are. If the goal is to "achieve the most realistic sound" then you need to be looking at a speaker based system, not headphones. This isn't to say of course that one can't have a very enjoyable experience listening with headphones but then we're talking about personal tastes and preferences, not accuracy/realism!
3. What do you mean "I think", don't you know? And, if you don't know, then why make such an assertion at all, let alone here in the science forum? In what "areas" are the world class systems I've used lacking? And, by virtue of the fact that you are using headphones, there are at least a couple of areas where your system MUST be severely lacking! Stereo imaging (width, separation,depth/positioning) and bass response for example.
3a. You just made-up the previous sentence, you have little or no actual experience or knowledge of world class commercial studio systems, you even admit that you only "think" rather than "know". So, how can you then say that your made-up sentence "should apply to most"?
3b. Why not? Is it because "getting into specifics" would clearly indicate that you're just making up nonsense? How do you arrive at the conclusion that your amateur DIY efforts are superior to nearly a century of commercial studio design innovation and the multi-million dollar budgets commercial studios spend to implement them? If you really had designed such a "consistently good in every single area" system for a few grand or even several tens of thousands, then what are you doing here? You'd be too swamped by demand from countless thousands of studios all over the globe!
So cables do matter ? Confused.
Huh? Of course cables matter, have you ever tried swapping a USB cable for a power cord? How did you get the connectors to fit or any signal from it? How can it not be obvious that when we're talking about no audible difference between cables, we're talking about no audible difference between cables designed for the same task?
still no link to the ridiculous (and irrelevant) study, science school 101- cite your references.
You are the one making the claim that we can't hear differences due to poor equipment and/or hearing and that the supposed cable induced distortions are audible, where are YOUR references? Are you admitting you haven't yet reached the level of science school 101 or are you just being astonishingly hypocritical?
G
