[xand]

AHEM!
You people have the burden of proof. Post proof or this is considered placebo.

I don't think anyone who buys cables REALLY WANTS anyone else to buy cables.

It's more like.. Eh, so you like this TOTL headphone and you're happy, in combination with this TOTL amp.. consider cables.

or...

Eh, the cables of that headphone are quite uncomfortable (physically), you can consider XXX.

 

[71 dB]

Do differences matter?

Or should we ask how much do differences matter?

Let's assume cables A and B sound different.
Now, if we only used cable A or B and never compared them do we get used to the sound of that cable and just enjoy music without thinking about the sound of the cable? If you always need the "best" to enjoy music you screwed. The second somewhere in the World someone creates something better you must stop enjoying music.

Now, I am not against someone spending $200 on a headphone cable if that cable gives placebo-driven good feeling and looks cool, but this is not an audio hobby. It is something else, something halfway between collecting action figures and audio*. A part of audio hobby is rational balance of how money is spend.

* Action figures have no other purpose than looking cool and people feel better unless you buy them to be sold years later on eBay for profit.

 

[bfreedma]

Shh. Let these wannabe scientists think everyone else is delusional. What's most amazing is that their ignorance could be easily cured if they just listened to the cables themselves rather than simply trying to tell everyone else that their minds are playing tricks on them.

I'm quite sure I’m as susceptible to placebo as anyone else including you. At some point, people who “believe” in cables are going to have to show hard evidence. Imagine how many cables a vendor would sell if they could actually publish said hard evidence. I wonder why they don’t.....?

 

[Marutks]

someone posted a link to this https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-audio-premium-headphone-cable-review.22457/

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/zmf-verite-closed-new-closed-back-zmf-flagship.911505/page-371

 

[Koei]

I'm quite sure I’m as susceptible to placebo as anyone else including you. At some point, people who “believe” in cables are going to have to show hard evidence. Imagine how many cables a vendor would sell if they could actually publish said hard evidence. I wonder why they don’t.....?

This the argument I've been making for years. If you figure out what that "unmeasurable" thing is that makes certain cables sound so good you can make so much money. And think about the prestige, you will most certainly win an AES award for your publications if you can prove you have figured it out. There is even a chance you find some particle that has been unknown to conventional physics. Might net you a Nobel prize. Unfortunately subjectivists have zero interest in pushing sound reproduction to the next level.

 

[xand]

someone posted a link to this https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-audio-premium-headphone-cable-review.22457/

Haha this is a good answer to the question posed by OP.

 

[Northern]

I love slick looking custom cables as well. I need to make a couple for my K371's, stock ones are annoyingly microphonic. Just haven't had the time and energy to source affordable 3-pin mini-XLR connectors yet.
I haven't seen any evidence to suggest there's any audible difference between two well built and well designed cables. Some people claim they can clearly hear a difference, and I believe them. Reflective autosuggestion is real, and it works.

 

[Koei]

Haha this is a good answer to the question posed by OP.

This is the cable for which a user stated he could hear differences in the frequency response. So this is not an answer to the question posed by OP.

 

[xand]

This the argument I've been making for years. If you figure out what that "unmeasurable" thing is that makes certain cables sound so good you can make so much money.

This is kinda a bad argument - audio is a hobby, most people don't want to make their hobby become their work.

There is even a chance you find some particle that has been unknown to conventional physics.

Why would you think the difference is due to some physical particle? Surely it's far more likely that the answer lies in a breakthrough in psychoacoustics? A Nobel possibly, but in Physiology/Medicine not physics.

e.g. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1961/bekesy/facts/

 

[Northern]

Why would you think the difference is due to some physical particle? Surely it's far more likely that the answer lies in a breakthrough in psychoacoustics?

Because audio cables does not transmit sound.

 

[Koei]

This is kinda a bad argument - audio is a hobby, most people don't want to make their hobby become their work.

There are hundreds of cable manufacturers. Are you saying none of these have any interest in proving their cables actually do make a difference by publishing peer reviewed articles at AES?

Why would you think the difference is due to some physical particle? Surely it's far more likely that the answer lies in a breakthrough in psychoacoustics? A Nobel possibly, but in Physiology/Medicine not physics.

e.g. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1961/bekesy/facts/

I don't think that, but that is was certain subjectivists want us to believe. Because they are stating it cannot be measured in the electrical signal running over the cable. The differences that people hear can be easily explained by psychoacoustics. But that is not an acceptable answer to subjectivists. Its like people who believe in homeopathy. The entire body of medical and psychological knowledge shows that the effect its purely placebo. Yet, that is not accepted by people who believe in homeopathy. Subjectivists are in the same boat. So if it cannot be a psychological effect it has to be a physical effect. The burden of proof of that is on them. That's the beauty of science, the entire point is that anybody can prove anyone wrong.

 

[xand]

There are hundreds of cable manufacturers. Are you saying none of these have any interest in proving their cables actually do make a difference by publishing peer reviewed articles at AES?

Ah, I thought you were referring to people on headfi.

The cable manufacturers absolutely would have no interest, because of subjectivists they already get the sales they want, and if indeed there is some physical process/difference it's probably better kept as a trade secret - not as a patent (which is public and expires), and certainly not as an academic paper/AES.

What I do think has been interesting from a cable perspective is that many IEM manufacturers have started including "better" cables as stock. This of course might also be just a user demand thing. *shrug*.

I don't think that, but that is was certain subjectivists want us to believe. Because they are stating it cannot be measured in the electrical signal running over the cable. The differences that people hear can be easily explained by psychoacoustics. But that is not an acceptable answer to subjectivists.

Ah, okay. I don't see why the "subjectivists" won't accept that it's psychoacoustics - they'd probably add that it's a presently unknown part of psychoacoustics though.

Its like people who believe in homeopathy. The entire body of medical and psychological knowledge shows that the effect its purely placebo. Yet, that is not accepted by people who believe in homeopathy. Subjectivists are in the same boat. So if it cannot be a psychological effect it has to be a physical effect. The burden of proof of that is on them. That's the beauty of science, the entire point is that anybody can prove anyone wrong.

The market size of homeopathic products is .. scary.

 

[Koei]

Ah, I thought you were referring to people on headfi.

The cable manufacturers absolutely would have no interest, because of subjectivists they already get the sales they want, and if indeed there is some physical process/difference it's probably better kept as a trade secret - not as a patent (which is public and expires), and certainly not as an academic paper/AES.

What I do think has been interesting from a cable perspective is that many IEM manufacturers have started including "better" cables as stock. This of course might also be just a user demand thing. *shrug*.

I understand they have vested interest in keeping the status quo. Your argument about patents make no sense though, there are fields where proving you are the best does hold real value: pro audio.

Ah, okay. I don't see why the "subjectivists" won't accept that it's psychoacoustics - they'd probably add that it's a presently unknown part of psychoacoustics though.

Are you really saying cognitive bias is an unknown part of psychoacoustics? Its probably one of the best understood psychological effects in the world. A big reason to why they won't accept this is because it makes them admit their are fallible. Not everybody can accept that they are fallible and influenced by bias and existing preconceptions.

The market size of homeopathic products is .. scary.

Just like the market of audiophile snake oil.

 

[xand]

I understand they have vested interest in keeping the status quo. Your argument about patents make no sense though, there are fields where proving you are the best does hold real value: pro audio.

It only has value for the time that you, and only you, can make the best products.

However, if you protect something as a patent, this lasts only for the duration of the patent protection.

Accordingly, trade secrets are an appropriate route for protection if it is difficult/impossible for the competition to figure out what you did. For other fields patents are king because reverse engineering is easy/possible.

Are you really saying cognitive bias a an unknown part of psychoacoustics? Its probably one of the best understood psychological effects in the world. A big reason to why they won't accept this is because it makes them admit their are fallible. Not everybody can accept that they are fallible and influenced by bias and existing preconceptions.

Nah, I have no idea why cables sound different. Sure it could be cognitive bias.. *shrug*.

Just like the market of audiophile snake oil.

Oh is that really huge? I expect it's maybe 1b/year max, given that the entire audio market is only about 25b/year. - homeopathy is anywhere from 5-20 b/year.

 

[Koei]

It only has value for the time that you, and only you, can make the best products.

However, if you protect something as a patent, this lasts only for the duration of the patent protection.

Accordingly, trade secrets are an appropriate route for protection if it is difficult/impossible for the competition to figure out what you did. For other fields patents are king because reverse engineering is easy/possible.

In that case the government should step in. False advertising is not allowed in many countries.

Nah, I have no idea why cables sound different. Sure it could be cognitive bias.. *shrug*.

Cognitive bias is the only explanation since measurements and DBT's already have shown there is no difference otherwise.

Oh is that really huge? I expect it's maybe 1b/year max, given that the entire audio market is only about 25b/year. - homeopathy is anywhere from 5-20 b/year.

You forget about the impact it has on the hobby. It kills the reputation with the general public.