[bigshot]

 

[castleofargh]

so Im confused, so cables don't matter if they are the same connections. So now we are back to everyone gets one cable, the same cable so there is no difference in cables?

ideally that would pretty much be it. a given cable use would follow a standard, so all the cables you'd buy for that use would be about the same, within manufacturing margins.
everybody is happy because then the audio gear designers don't have to worry about nonsense cables with weird electrical characteristics, and they can design their gears in a way fully optimized for the standard we all agreed upon. it is the best solution for everybody.

the exceptions to that are:
-bad cables sold as standard they don't follow, like you buy a certain gauge and material, but under the insulation is a tiny little crap(it does happen).
-and some weird audiophile cables, made very differently for the sole purpose of saying "look I'm different and worth a lot of money". which is likely to create more issues than to solve any, as once again, audio gears are designed expecting standard stuff plugged into them.

if using a given cable consistently improves the output signal in a significant way compared to standard cables, were is the evidence and objective data? if you made a superior cable consistently providing higher fidelity, would you rely on BS marketing and positive subjective terms? I know I would have a page with "those guys measure like this, I completely pwn them with my cable. here is the objective evidence". what better advertising than actually proving we're doing better than the rest.
and yet go visit the webpages of fancy audiophile cable brands. all rhetoric and all the sort of objective arguments have no clear magnitude involved when describing the effects, and most arguments end up with a claim of subjective perception as "evidence" of the objective improvement. typical marketing that cannot get sued for making false objective claim, as the claims are ultimately subjective.


for transmission cables, I go look at video products, never at audiophile products. video stuff often have data rates or such relevant specs. some certify them and that IMO can justify increased price. plus they're video stuff so if they can deal with those bandwidths, audio signal is likely to be a piece of cake.
so I guess I do believe in special cables. I just don't believe in subjective impressions pretending to prove objective superiority. not from the sellers, not from audiophiles fans of their cables.

 

[bigshot]

some weird audiophile cables, made very differently for the sole purpose of saying "look I'm different and worth a lot of money".

Do you know of any specific examples of this?

 

[JaeYoon]

Do you know of any specific examples of this?

Unfortunately, I cannot help to provide measurements on actual cable. But if you have close to 2 grand you can buy a cable that is advertised on the company's website as "Pushing the extremities and limitations of cable design works, *omitted name* was developed for the most discerning audiophile ears and is a perfect fit for professionals alike."

"perfection and redefined new standards for the best of it's class."

Contains advertising of ultra high strand count, ferrite guards, gold plated silver cable, etc.

 

[bigshot]

I can buy a cable that is perfect for professional and audiophiles alike for $5. I'm interested in a cable that sounds different deliberately. My question would be, what design makes it sound different and how much different does it measure?

Actually, I don't think such a thing exists. I think it's another "common knowledge" thing that has no basis in fact like different sounding amps and DACs. I don't think many companies are dumb enough to make products that are defective by design. They'd get raked over the coals in audio reviews if they did.

 

[439598]

2. There is no way for ANYONE to rationally explain it, other than the REPEATEDLY PROVEN claim of a flawed test!!

3. God knows, lots! And, not only lots of hearing studies but actual measurements AND many decades of scientific and engineering knowledge and predictions.
3a. So you don't believe in studies or apparently measurements or science in general. Do you reject all studies, take no medicine or medical treatments? Why are you using a computer to post messages, computers are based on science and engineering aren't they? And, why are you posting to this forum in particular, the forum which specifically exists for what you don't believe in?
3b. There's plenty or arguments, you've used some of them yourself. Of course, there are no rational arguments, just made-up nonsense arguments. Doesn't the fact that there are NO rational arguments tell you something?
3c. There's overwhelming reliable "evidence to support this" and NONE WHATSOEVER to counter it. So clearly, if you are sane/rational, then you CANNOT "know for a fact", you might believe wholeheartedly but this isn't the "What Acke Believes Wholeheartedly" forum, it's the Science forum!!! Again, you are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs but not your own facts!

4. Again, I realise the exact importance of cables, I've tested and measured them.

5. I couldn't hear a difference, ADDITIONALLY the measurable difference was way below audibility. Why are you going on about studies? There is NOT a single reliable study which demonstrates an audible difference and more importantly, there is NOT a single actual measurement which demonstrates there even could be something audible! If you can provide reliable evidence to support your unsupported claim then do so, science 101 remember!!
5a. So prove me wrong and as an added incentive, you'll win the $1million that's been on offer for about 20 years!!
5b. Exactly.
5c. If you can pass a controlled listening test, then why haven't you? Why haven't you changed the world of science and earned yourself an easy $1million in the process?



1. Oh dear, you don't seem to know what the word "inaudible" means. Hint: It doesn't mean "very quiet" but still audible!

3. Why do you think commercial studio systems are "non-believer systems", do all commercial studios have poor equipment and all engineers, producers poor hearing? The reason is, that commercial studio owners and those who work in them are sane and rational. They believe the overwhelming reliable evidence and don't believe any claim to the contrary which has absolutely no supporting reliable evidence whatsoever!!

4. Finally, yes, you do have something to cite or prove. You are making claims, contrary to the science, in the science forum. You are the one who brought up science 101 and now you're pretending it doesn't apply to you, only everyone else!
4a. I have heard the differences and I still don't take you seriously! That's because I verified the differences I heard and through measurement and more controlled testing learned it was my perception playing tricks on me. A process that most/all engineers go through early in their education. This is the science forum, if you want to be your belief to be taken seriously, a belief which is unsupported, irrational and contrary to ALL the known science, then you couldn't have come to a worse place!! Why don't you go to the cables forum, which effectively bans science and the actual facts, while encouraging exactly the sort of irrational beliefs you want taken seriously?

G

mentioning measurements and ''ínaudibility'' over and over again I need to clarify , I am not claiming to hear the inaudible differences that the measurements detect, my hearing is average and I am not special , I am claiming to hear very subtle aspects of the sound that are apparently not measurable with current method/technology and pointing out this problem. your reliance on misleading studies and your stubborness is the reason you failed to discover this. Maybe you have poor hearing but Its more likely you have better/equal hearing to me based on what you're saying, if you spent more time experimenting with an open mind you may be able to detect these differences and pass a blind test

you seem to misintrepret/misread a lot of what I said which is pretty annoying, 3a for example I said I take studies '''with a grain of salt'', please research this phrase


5 a b c so for the first time I delve it a bit deeper into all the things you're referencing, I dont know how long youve posting about this million dollar challenge that's been around for ''about 10* years'' but as you can see it doesnt exist anymore https://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

if it did exist well then I have a couple issues with it, like that it would involve an expensive trip to america and completely goes against all the conditions mentioned in bottom of post 939.
out of those conditions the big one is the cables themselves, there is so little info on the details of test that we can never know but specifications of extremely expensive ''pear anjou'' does not strike as me special at all, in fact from my perspective they are a scam, its a 14 awg stranded copper cable that you could build for a 1% of that money. If the cheap ''monster cables'' also used in the test are of identical construction then there wouldnt be any difference, Im never claimed magical differences between identical cables... the construction and material or the conductor is where the differences lie.

as I said many many many times already I have passed my own blind tests, do you expect me to take part in some official test? how often do these happen? do I need to travel somewhere? there is nothing online about upcoming tests AFAICT. im a busy student and Ive only known about the differences for a few months so im fairly new to this, I would to take part in an oficial test if it was nearby, im 100% confident in what I hear.

Now here is an interesting little piece that was first result when searching 'blind speaker cable test' after you not providing a single link yourself: https://www.stereophile.com/content/minnesota-audio-society-conducts-cable-comparison-tests-0

this tests seems to provide fairly convincing evidence that these average people could detect a difference between cables, contrary to what youve been saying.
unsurprisingly the expensive cables did not get better results because as we both know expensive=/=better.

...

1. another misintrepretation, Oh dear, you don't seem to know what the word "supposedly" means. im implying they arent actually inaudible

3. another misintrepretation even though you quoted the exact line where I said 'definitely not the studios'. non-believers are the people in this thread, their personal systems including your personal system, I know nothing about professional studios and the equipment they use... so just you are clear NOT the studios but personal, consumer grade systems of non believers.

4. I literally have nothing to cite.. I have no proof (that was until the first study I found appears to prove you wrong)! and am I hear to discuss with other believers that is all. I see a lot of expensive and overpriced cables in the cable forum, which goes against what ive been saying, and no real interesting discussion. Perhaps the DIY forum would be a more appropiate place to discuss this, they would at least appreciate a practical approach on top of the theoretical.

 

[439598]

I can buy a cable that is perfect for professional and audiophiles alike for $5. I'm interested in a cable that sounds different deliberately. My question would be, what design makes it sound different and how much different does it measure?

Actually, I don't think such a thing exists. I think it's another "common knowledge" thing that has no basis in fact like different sounding amps and DACs. I don't think many companies are dumb enough to make products that are defective by design. They'd get raked over the coals in audio reviews if they did.

build a solid core silver cable of equal gauge and length to your $5 cable, there will be an audible difference.

edit: not just different but the solid core silver will be superior. if this is because of the lower resistance silver well then you $5 cables are not fit for the task.

Here is some evidence from me, the non-scientist, that shows an audible difference between solid and stranded copper guitar cables:
http://www.evidenceaudio.com/library/mp3-demo

 

[bigshot]

Evidence? MP3 evidence? Can you do lossless so we aren’t wondering what is causing the difference?

Just Dropbox me the files and I’ll host them for you.

 

[439598]

Evidence? MP3 evidence? Can you do lossless so we aren’t wondering what is causing the difference?

Just Dropbox me the files and I’ll host them for you.

I didnt make this test and if you cant already hear the clear distinction between the cables you will not hear it over FLAC.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I didnt make this test and if you cant already hear the clear distinction between the cables you will not hear it over FLAC.

Again, more hair-splitting. Differences in the CONTENT will far outweigh any *perceived* differences between cables.

Just the act of listening to something via cable set A, then changing to cable set B and listening again, can lead one to *perceive* a difference.

Replacing the headphones on your ears slightly differently, or, sitting in your previous listening position HALF A CENTIMETER to one side of where you previously sat can make more of a difference than changing from $5/foot to $50/foot.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I am claiming to hear very subtle aspects of the sound that are apparently not measurable with current method/technology and pointing out this problem.
[2] your reliance on misleading studies and your stubborness [2a] is the reason you failed to discover this.
[3] ... if you spent more time experimenting with an open mind you may be able to detect these differences and pass a blind test

1. We can only record and reproduce what we can measure, if we can't measure it then we can't record or reproduce it. There are only two properties of digital audio: time and amplitude, both of which we can measure at least 1,000+ times more accurately than you (or any human) can hear. If there were something else besides time and amplitude, that according to you is "apparently not measurable", is therefore NOT part of the sound that's either been recorded or can then be reproduced. This isn't even science school 101, the fundamental basics of audio are taught to 11 year old's (in the UK curriculum). The ONLY aspects of the entire audio chain (inc. the listener) we can't measure accurately or at all, are those aspects which ONLY exist in your perception!!

2. What, not satisfied with just making-up nonsense arguments, you're now going to try outright lying as a tactic, in this forum?? I have told you more than once that I am NOT relying on scientific studies, I'm ALSO using: Actual measurements, the very well established and understood science and engineering of cables, my own controlled listening tests and the controlled listening tests of countless other trained engineers. The reason I'm stubborn is because of the sheer amount and variety of reliable evidence and the complete lack of any reliable evidence to the contrary. It's exactly the same reason I'm stubborn about the Earth not being flat and gravity existing! Are you not stubborn about the Earth not being flat? If not, why not?
2a. And again, I have NOT "failed to discover this", most likely I discovered it long before you did. The difference between us is that (again!) I explain it with the demonstrated science, my own and my professional peers controlled tests and even the evidence of audiophile "cable believers" themselves (when reliably tested), While you explain it with some undiscovered, magical property of sound which cannot be measured, recorded, reproduced, reliably tested for or even explained by those arguing it exists! And you call me stubborn? How much more ridiculous is this going to get?!!!

3. I've spent decades experimenting and that's partly why I do no longer have "an open mind" about cables! Just how hypocritical are you trying to be? You want me to have "an open mind" towards some magical property which cannot exist but you refuse to have an open mind towards the actual demonstrated, reliable evidence/science.

if it did exist well then I have a couple issues with it, like that it would involve an expensive trip to america

Huh? How expensive can a trip to America be? So expensive that winning $1million wouldn't be worth it? I didn't realise the challenge is now over, was a decade too short a time for any audiophile to win $1m?

as I said many many many times already I have passed my own blind tests, do you expect me to take part in some official test? how often do these happen?

And as I have said many, many times already, this is the science forum, if you're going to try to contradict such well established science then you'll need some reliable evidence to even stand a chance of not being ridiculed. And, you'll need some truly exceptional evidence to be taken seriously. Your own blind test doesn't even qualify as reliable evidence, let alone exceptional!

[1] I would to take part in an oficial test if it was nearby,
[2] im 100% confident in what I hear.

1. The science, engineering and pro audio communities don't run controlled cable listening tests any more, as far as I'm aware. Such tests cost time and money and there's no point when there's already been hundreds of controlled listening tests, all with the same result and all of which confirm the scientific and engineering predictions. The matter was settled many years ago and since then there's been no hint of reliable evidence to question it. Hence why James Randi was willing to put up $1m, he knew he couldn't loose it, and he didn't!

2. Then it can easily be demonstrated that your 100% deluded. BTW, flat earthers are 100% confident in what they see. Does that mean the earth is flat, do you at least have an open mind about it?

G

 

[castleofargh]

build a solid core silver cable of equal gauge and length to your $5 cable, there will be an audible difference.

edit: not just different but the solid core silver will be superior. if this is because of the lower resistance silver well then you $5 cables are not fit for the task.

Here is some evidence from me, the non-scientist, that shows an audible difference between solid and stranded copper guitar cables:
http://www.evidenceaudio.com/library/mp3-demo

and that type of demonstration is why this business has zero credibility. there isn't one thing that's not faked in this demo.

so here is what I experienced in order:
I downloaded the first 2 tracks and went straight to abx them in foobar like a curious little kitten. after a few secs I feel like there is a difference in loudness(not a surprise with analog cables of different impedance), and in pitch sometimes????? what the smurf?
so because I'm lazy I scan the tracks with replay gain as a first measure to match gain(as the abx comparator allows to apply replay gain I don't even have to get out of foobar, procrastinators unite!). replaygain suggests to make one almost exactly 0.5dB louder. so already I'm pissed because that webpage tried to take me for a turnip. while loudness variations are perfectly normal, there isn't a listening test that should be proposed without first properly matching levels so that we can focus on what else is changing instead of being fooled subjectively by the difference in gain.

I go open the track in audacity to really look up the levels and the weird impressions of pitch change and whatever else I get, and boom! another obvious problem. the tracks aren't aligned in time. I'm not even surprised, it's the second oldest trick in the book for snake oil sellers. we record 2 tracks, we have to align them before testing, duh. not doing it only suggests dishonesty or utter ignorance(never a good sign for professionals trying to convince you of something).
man this is going great. I was going to align the starting point, but I notice that the end of the track doesn't show the same delay... those signals aren't even of same duration!!! lol, what is this Candid Camera? Just For Laugh? come on guys you can come out now, you got me good!

on some passages I can't tell the bass slap from the other track(once level matched!), but at other moments like around 7seconds, the guy basically hits a different note... that test is the dishonest piece of crap that keeps on giving. Evidence audio, great name!

 

[439598]

and that type of demonstration is why this business has zero credibility. there isn't one thing that's not faked in this demo.

so here is what I experienced in order:
I downloaded the first 2 tracks and went straight to abx them in foobar like a curious little kitten. after a few secs I feel like there is a difference in loudness(not a surprise with analog cables of different impedance), and in pitch sometimes????? what the smurf?
so because I'm lazy I scan the tracks with replay gain as a first measure to match gain(as the abx comparator allows to apply replay gain I don't even have to get out of foobar, procrastinators unite!). replaygain suggests to make one almost exactly 0.5dB louder. so already I'm pissed because that webpage tried to take me for a turnip. while loudness variations are perfectly normal, there isn't a listening test that should be proposed without first properly matching levels so that we can focus on what else is changing instead of being fooled subjectively by the difference in gain.

I go open the track in audacity to really look up the levels and the weird impressions of pitch change and whatever else I get, and boom! another obvious problem. the tracks aren't aligned in time. I'm not even surprised, it's the second oldest trick in the book for snake oil sellers. we record 2 tracks, we have to align them before testing, duh. not doing it only suggests dishonesty or utter ignorance(never a good sign for professionals trying to convince you of something).
man this is going great. I was going to align the starting point, but I notice that the end of the track doesn't show the same delay... those signals aren't even of same duration!!! lol, what is this Candid Camera? Just For Laugh? come on guys you can come out now, you got me good!

on some passages I can't tell the bass slap from the other track(once level matched!), but at other moments like around 7seconds, the guy basically hits a different note... that test is the dishonest piece of **** that keeps on giving. Evidence audio, great name!

Im pretty sure it was two seperate recordings of someone playing the bass in real time. its not reliable at all just interesting to hear actual recordings, . The quality of recording and performance is pretty awful, I would be interesting in a good recording between measurably perfect stranded copper vs solid silver cable with good ADC using well recorded music , volume matched etc. it would certaintly be a useful tool for challenging people like me to provide ABX results, I dont understand why it hasnt been done before.

 

[Speedskater]

edit: not just different but the solid core silver will be superior. if this is because of the lower resistance silver well then you $5 cables are not fit for the task.

Why would you think that the 'solid core silver wire' would have lower resistance than an ordinary copper wire? Unless the cross-section area of both wires and the lengths are exactly the same, then the copper wire could have a lower resistance.
And if any small resistance differences changed the sound, then a 10 foot and an 11 foot speaker cable (of the same construction) would sound different.

 

[439598]

Again, more hair-splitting. Differences in the CONTENT will far outweigh any *perceived* differences between cables.

Just the act of listening to something via cable set A, then changing to cable set B and listening again, can lead one to *perceive* a difference.

Replacing the headphones on your ears slightly differently, or, sitting in your previous listening position HALF A CENTIMETER to one side of where you previously sat can make more of a difference than changing from $5/foot to $50/foot.

it will outweigh them but not eliminate them. it's a terrible example, for sure.
I agree all the things you mention can make huge differences, your mood and hearing depending on the day can make the same system sound completely different.