How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference
Nov 6, 2018 at 5:33 PM Post #1,186 of 2,696

Elecroestatico

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Posts
142
Likes
20
Location
USA
Oh no. Don't feel that you are required to correspond with me. We both get to judge each other by our behavior. Rest assured you are being judged. You're making it easy in fact.



That's what you get when one side requires proof to back up statements, and the other side has none. As I've said before, this thread attracts audiophools like moths to a flame. They see the argument and the supporting evidence and just want to thread crap all over it.
Thank you I don't feel like I'm required to anything here but to tell everyone my truth, and unlike you, more importantly for me is the content of what we are discussing in this thread rather than what is each others behaviors, so rest assure you are being judge by me and by your still nonexistent proof of the content we are discussing here
 
Nov 6, 2018 at 6:45 PM Post #1,187 of 2,696

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,296
Likes
4,860
Location
Forests of the Pacific Northwest
That is great. As long as truth is something you've verified in a controlled way and not just a subjective opinion, we are on the same page.

By the way, you might want to read the first post in this thread and go through the links there. It will take several hours at least, but it will give you a good context on what we're discussing there. That post has all of the documentation available right now. You also might want to check out the links in my sig file. There are two good overview seminars from the Audio Engineering Society conducted by Ethan Winer, and an in depth article on high data rate audio.

This thread is about verifying audible differences through controlled listening tests. If you have any controlled listening tests to contribute, we'd be happy to discuss them.
 
Last edited:
Nov 6, 2018 at 10:43 PM Post #1,188 of 2,696

PointyFox

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Posts
2,433
Likes
1,397
HAHAHAHA sure im in the wrong forum where everybody swaps dacs and amps and the opinions of how they change the sound is the true fuel of what drives this website activity, sure I'm in the wrong place hahaha I hope I dont need to explain sarcasm to you but it wouldn't surprise me if I have to do so, since the impression you are leaving me about you.

Currently only about 7% of the world's population aren't under the effects of mass-delusion. It's interesting that being deluded varies directly with the inverse of average IQ of a region.
 
Nov 6, 2018 at 11:18 PM Post #1,189 of 2,696

old tech

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Posts
822
Likes
410
Location
Sydney, Australia
HAHAHAH again with the comedy for audiophiles!! LOL SO this guy wants me to show proof of amps that are different and sound different? hahaha I tell you what... Why don't you show us proof of amps that are different and sound the same hahaha I bet there are a few findings in the thousands and thousands of amps available in this PLANET that sound "almost" the same. Now compare that to the millions of combinations I can give you of "X" amp vs "y" amp that sound different..... do you SEE whats happening here? a big LOL and im not even good at math nor I have a golden tiny calculator with quantifiable graphs !!!
No one here is claiming that all amps sound the same (or DACs, or interconnects etc).

What is being claimed, and trivially supported by objective evidence, is that a transparent amp or DAC (or interconnects that meet minimum standards) do sound the same - transparent is transparent. As far as amps go, this was proved by Carver back in the 1980s with his Carver challenge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

The fact that technological and manufacturing advances mean that a fully transparent amp with well made components can be built for under $2k (including margins for middle-men), and a DAC for around $100 is a problem for the high end industry. They often do make their products less transparent (which by definition means less fidelity) for a 'signature sound' to differentiate their products or rely on marketing to achieve subjective biases in their less informed customers (why do you think a hi res player requires a light or some other indicator to let the listener know it is a hi res track they are listening to? It should not be needed if they could easily hear a difference).

This is well known (particularly in the pro world) and used by many to achieve a better high fidelity system based on the science and at a price that reflects the true cost of producing the equipment.
 
Last edited:
Nov 7, 2018 at 1:42 AM Post #1,191 of 2,696

JaeYoon

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Posts
2,415
Likes
1,897
Location
Singapore
HAHAHAH again with the comedy for audiophiles!! LOL SO this guy wants me to show proof of amps that are different and sound different? hahaha I tell you what... Why don't you show us proof of amps that are different and sound the same hahaha I bet there are a few findings in the thousands and thousands of amps available in this PLANET that sound "almost" the same. Now compare that to the millions of combinations I can give you of "X" amp vs "y" amp that sound different..... do you SEE whats happening here? a big LOL and im not even good at math nor I have a golden tiny calculator with quantifiable graphs !!!
You sound like a mad scientist straight out of a horror film gone wrong.

Castleofargh and others here have already stated there can be differences between amps and other audio equipment but whether the differences should be audible is up for debate, basically solid state amps, audio cables excluding tube amps. (minus headphones/iems as they obviously can easily be shown proof that transducer sound measurements can fluctuate,etc). A good subject brought up long ago was that aftermarket audio cables with varying specs and incredibly sensitive IEMs with wacky impedence/ohms can change it's frequency response.

But that is just one realistic example of how an audio cable can change the sound.

But as I was told, the debate here is whether aftermarket audio cables and (why the heck not, just include solid state amps) really do realistically change for audiophile headphones that live up to the reviews that are put out. "Etc, this silver oxygen purity free cable sold for 2000 makes the punchy bass and the treble sparkle and mids smooth, oh man just listen to the timbre and it makes everything musical and warm".
Now again, this goes psychology and social grouping.

There are popular reviewers who make reviews for various audiophile products and inserts subjective terms such as above not taught by any musician certified with a masters at least where I currently study. Now for instance, take one reviewer who is reviewing audio cables and tells their viewers to buy this name brand over the others.
He/she suggests that this brand of cable has sweeping mids and sings musical with a non heated treble. But provides no recorded graphs or substantial evidence that it is much better than another name brands audio cable.

Naturally, if someone were to criticize that audio review, his fans/her fans will come to rescue due to their social group patting themselves on the back on the belief they have a superior audio cable based on what one person says.

You can actually do this test yourself, purchase some high quality audio cables you can buy on amazon for less than 30 usd. Gregorio and bigshot a long while ago gave some recommendations. Monoprice cable you can buy for affordable price about 17 a foot maybe? On amazon. Go to a headfi meet, find a table where you can hide the cables under a blanket and tell fellow members that it is "insert popular audio cable name" and tell them that the famous reviewers on headfi said so and so that these audio cables make your sound have sweeping mids and musical/warm and sparkly treble, high resolution and detail that snatches all the micro details you can imagine.

The people when they listen to it, the first thing that comes to their mind is that they are already convinced the sound is warm and musical and the treble is sparkly because a popular reviewer has told them this, it spreads. Just don't let anyone see the actual cable underneath.

If you do have golden ears you may be the first into a world record that you have the hearing ability of a bat or a dog far beyond human limitation.

In another post you even went so far as to tell @gregorio that he should just listen to beats then. That makes no sense? What if he has headphones that is well within his means of affordability, well built electrical specs, and other features?
 
Last edited:
Nov 7, 2018 at 1:51 AM Post #1,192 of 2,696

JaeYoon

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Posts
2,415
Likes
1,897
Location
Singapore
Yes, thats why I come here everyday and try to convince everyone that my properly attached 1st gen earpods properly connected to my iphone sound just as amazing as your hugo tt properly attached to some beyers or some focal headphones ULTRA BIG LOL
I know you are being sarcastic. But what if someone showed you that an iphone 6 showed measurements of circuit noise levels well below human hearing? That artifacts were well below human hearing and can perform the same task of audio reproduction as a Chord Hugo?

Now earpods, well that's a different story, and understandable but those are transducers.
 
Nov 7, 2018 at 2:10 AM Post #1,193 of 2,696

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,155
Likes
2,301
1- It has to do a lot, if you dont believe me just look at how you contradict yourself in this number 1 question when at the end of your post you also claim that if I have perfect golden ears I would be able to perceive the truth. This is another incredibly funny thing you just did here.
2- Actually many many audiophiles are aware of differences in perception, ear shape, ear training, experience, age, room acoustics, etc etc,
2a. ... the fact that you think audiophiles don't know this just shows how narrow minded you are in this hobby.
3. And not to be rude but if everything sounds the same to you why bother with this forum ...

1. Why is it funny and why is it a contradiction? If there's some guy who's convinced he has perfect golden eyes which allows him to see fairies, pink elephants and individual molecules, while another guy can't see those things, which one has the better eyes and is better "able to perceive the truth"?
2. That's great! So the obvious questions are: What formal ear training do you have? What experience, what room acoustics?
2a. Your response demonstrates how narrow minded you are, because this isn't ONLY a hobby! Audio is science, technology, engineering and a profession, and has been for over a century for hundreds of thousands of people.
3. What do you mean "not to be rude"? Rude is the ONLY thing you are being! And, the only thing funny here is that you're apparently so desperate to defend your beliefs that you even revert to MAKING-UP COMPLETE NONSENSE! Where did I (or anyone else here) state that "everything sounds the same" to us?

[1] not only that, but my ears can perceive sounds that your tiny calculator cannot even represent
[2] please dont stop, a bigger troll has arrived!
[2a] And I'm here to defend the truth ...

1. What tiny calculator? Don't you even know what sorts of equipment is used for measuring sound/audio, let alone how precisely we can do so? Do you also believe you can perceive things with your eyes that scientific and engineering equipment can't, do you have better eyes than the Hubble space telescope or an electron microscope?

2. Believe me, we've noticed!!
2a. And you do that by being rude, providing no reliable evidence whatsoever and just making-up complete nonsense? You've got an incredibly strange idea of what the "truth" is! BTW, this is not the "defend your belief" forum, this is the Sound Science forum.

G
 
Nov 7, 2018 at 3:49 AM Post #1,194 of 2,696

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
9,521
Likes
4,917
because it always comes down to people discussing gears while having little understanding of how humans or experimentation work, here is a small recap of the previous episodes:
being deluded, ignoring stuff, oversimplifying to a fault, and often sticking with our opinions when faced with contradicting evidence, everybody does it. and here is the revolutionary part: everybody means you guys, and also me. bamboozled!
maybe some don't do all of the above as consistently. and obviously some people know more on a subject than others, and that will have consequences. but we all wrong many times a day. the biggest difference between individuals is when some are also deluded into believing it doesn't happen to them. but that too is completely normal as we are wired to think we're special, and we never really understand ourselves as well as we think we do.


IMO the biggest failure of this hobby is to keep telling people to trust casual impressions. we are told that, because it's a hobby about enjoying stuff. some of those stuff will be sound, some won't. so of course our impressions are relevant in that context as that's how we'll decide if we enjoy something or not.
but here is the logical fallacy: taking that advice as a validation that our casual impressions are reliable and accurately describing the objective behavior of sound, independently of everything else. that's a mistake so big, it's almost equivalent to denying reality.
an uncontrolled experience with unconfirmed impressions and free wheeling interpretation. this describes almost all the experiences audiophiles have with cables. having to waste time switching the cables is only the cherry on the failure cake. whoever decides to call those impressions conclusive about the sound of the gear is at least wrong twice. and that no matter what his impressions and opinions are.




modo transformation, activate!
@Elecroestatico please do something about your tone and the constant trolling. even if you consider that pulling the topic down this low is fun, I don't agree and I don't enjoy one bit having to moderate all those who fall for your taunting.
and to others, I'd like to remind you that insults are not allowed on this forum, no matter why. we don't have to love everybody, I certainly don't. the forum like the world will have cool people, and some not so cool, "but it's like that, and that's the way way it is".
 
Nov 7, 2018 at 6:42 AM Post #1,195 of 2,696

Glmoneydawg

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Posts
779
Likes
211
Location
Canada
No one here is claiming that all amps sound the same (or DACs, or interconnects etc).

What is being claimed, and trivially supported by objective evidence, is that a transparent amp or DAC (or interconnects that meet minimum standards) do sound the same - transparent is transparent. As far as amps go, this was proved by Carver back in the 1980s with his Carver challenge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

The fact that technological and manufacturing advances mean that a fully transparent amp with well made components can be built for under $2k (including margins for middle-men), and a DAC for around $100 is a problem for the high end industry. They often do make their products less transparent (which by definition means less fidelity) for a 'signature sound' to differentiate their products or rely on marketing to achieve subjective biases in their less informed customers (why do you think a hi res player requires a light or some other indicator to let the listener know it is a hi res track they are listening to? It should not be needed if they could easily hear a difference).

This is well known (particularly in the pro world) and used by many to achieve a better high fidelity system based on the science and at a price that reflects the true cost of producing the equipment.
Bob Carvers point was that by changing the transfer function of his ss amps he could duplicate the sound of another amp....not that they all sound the same.
 
Nov 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM Post #1,196 of 2,696

old tech

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Posts
822
Likes
410
Location
Sydney, Australia
objectively.oneydawg, post: 14583853, member: 489563"]Bob Carvers point was that by changing the transfer function of his ss amps he could duplicate the sound of another amp....not that they all sound the same.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. The point I was making there, perhaps obliquely, is that Carver proved that if amps measure the same they sound the same. Not all amps measure the same but on the same token, amps that measure to be audibly transparent will objectively sound the same as any other amp that is audibly transparent.
 
Nov 7, 2018 at 12:17 PM Post #1,197 of 2,696

Glmoneydawg

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Posts
779
Likes
211
Location
Canada
objectively.oneydawg, post: 14583853, member: 489563"]Bob Carvers point was that by changing the transfer function of his ss amps he could duplicate the sound of another amp....not that they all sound the same.
Agreed. The point I was making there, perhaps obliquely, is that Carver proved that if amps measure the same they sound the same. Not all amps measure the same but on the same token, amps that measure to be audibly transparent will objectively sound the same as any other amp that is audibly transparent.[/QUOTE]
fair enough....but Bob will sell you a 35thousand dollar tube amp if you check bobcarvercorp.com
 
Nov 7, 2018 at 12:38 PM Post #1,198 of 2,696

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,296
Likes
4,860
Location
Forests of the Pacific Northwest
Most solid state amps are designed to be audibly transparent, aren't they? I can't seem to find one that isn't. Bob Carver proved that a transparent solid state amp could be modified to sound like a colored tube amp. Now we do that all the time with DSPs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top