Is it worth hundreds of dollars for upgraded headphone cables?
Sep 25, 2010 at 8:04 AM Post #166 of 287
 
Has anyone ever noticed that cable arguments are the most fun threads on the forum? They degenerate into almost 4chan like banter/worthlessness.

 
one side w/ the "magical thinking" placebo ppl(that need to be saved) and the other w/ the tone deaf ppl that know better and need to convince the other side no matter what...pick yours 
biggrin.gif

 
Sep 25, 2010 at 9:30 AM Post #167 of 287
leeperry wrote:
 
one side w/ the "magical thinking" placebo ppl(that need to be saved)
 
You know you're an addict when you don't want to be saved.
 
rolleyes.gif

 
 
Sep 25, 2010 at 10:04 AM Post #168 of 287

 
Quote:
I have honestly reviewed again and again this subject.  I work with these materials.
The lies are in the "MAGIC CABLE THAT MAKES ANYTHING BETTER!!!11!" marketing.  Headphone cable replacement isn't about replacing good cables with "better" ones, it's about replacing bad cables with good ones.  You can afford not to get new headphone cables if you have most headphones, because these stock cables are of reasonable material quality
 
There are times when it would make a significant difference to buy a replacement headphone cable.  This is not because the headphone cables are magically better than normal cables.  It's usually because the stock cables are bad and could benefit from being replaced with literally almost anything.
 
In conclusion, if you have, say, an AKG k702, you won't stand to gain much except some resolved crosstalk issues, but the HD800 demands cable replacement because the cable that comes with it is just so terrible.


In what way is the HD800 cable so terrible?
 
Sep 25, 2010 at 10:22 AM Post #169 of 287

 
Quote:
..........
 
Actually, there's no empirical proof cables don't work but if you want to think it's magic, that's on you.  As far as it being demonstrated, there's been no valid demonstrations, just a bunch of invalid test's, based on pseudo science, designed to create fail which faithfully serve the test giver's bias.  This is all well known but hey, you got your tests and I'm happy for you.  If dumping on another person's parade makes one happy, have at it.  In fact I'm happy for all the people who like dumping on other people's happiness.
 
L3000.gif


The above repeatedly made assertion is wrong. There are tests which do not fail. If such tests were designed to fail they would fail with everything. In fact they fail with cables but tend to pass with amplifiers, speakers and codecs. So that leads to the conclusion there is no difference with cables that is audible, but there is with amps etc, all-be-it a smaller one than many would expect. Examples here -
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results#post_6951431
 
 
Sep 25, 2010 at 10:55 AM Post #171 of 287
Sep 25, 2010 at 11:25 AM Post #173 of 287


Quote:
It’s fairly common for people who are over 25 years of age to not be able to hear above 15kHz, so this will help you find out where your high frequency hearing cuts off -> http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/
 
For some it may be of importance -> http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/skin-effect-relevance-in-speaker-cables
 
How much is another matter of concern.


I am typical over 25 as hearing goes. Hence the Mosquito, a product designed to deter teenagers hanging about by fitting a device that emits high frequency noise that they can hear, but the rest of us cannot. The idea being it annoys the teenagers, who then move off elsewhere.
 
Sep 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM Post #175 of 287


Quote:
Because 0.01 is a hundred times larger than 0.0001 ... which is not even close IMO.  Unless you think the Empire State Building is more or less the same size as your house.
 


I meant you said the difference was not even close and then you said between amps it is 0.01 and cables at 0.0001 which is in real world in-audible. That was why I did not understand why you would say not even close. Not the difference between 0.01 and 0.0001.
 
Sep 25, 2010 at 12:06 PM Post #176 of 287


Quote:
I meant you said the difference was not even close and then you said between amps it is 0.01 and cables at 0.0001 which is in real world in-audible. That was why I did not understand why you would say not even close. Not the difference between 0.01 and 0.0001.

 
PRM, sorry, I must not have been clear.  I said technically the captured bitstreams between cables were arithmetically dissimilar (to the point of being "not even close") but those dissimilarities carried very little audible consequence.
 
The 0.01 and 0.0001 stuff was a way of trying to set a context ... the difference between "identical" amp samples might be ten thousand times smaller than the difference between an XB700 and an HD800.  The difference between cables might be a million times smaller.  Obviously, placing number values on things is ridiculous - agreed - but I hope you get my point, which was that once you have broadly decided on an amp, say, or a headphone, your time would be better spent auditioning identical samples of that chosen gear, not cables.
 
One minor note about DBT ... while being very enthusiastic about the principle, audio DBTing carries a corrupting factor, which is that the testee is put on the spot in ways that are psychologically stressful.  In a medical DBT, for a blood pressure drug, say, the testee doesn't know what he's getting and the tester doesn't know what he's giving, but the results are calculated later, often by a dispassionate third party.  The testee isn't questioned live: "Well?  Well??  How does your blood pressure feel now?  That buzzing in your head?  Is it quieter or louder?  Come on - answer me, damn it!!"
 
Not that some of the bolder audibility claims don't deserve some stress, but hey.  In my experience, real audio improvements - especially the high-end to higher-end transitions - are very subtle and almost subliminal, in that you suddenly realize you've been listening two hours longer than usual, or that you're even more relaxed than usual, etc.  Very hard to quantify, and very hard to talk about.
 
 
Sep 25, 2010 at 12:16 PM Post #177 of 287
Thanks Inner Space for clearing that up for me. Great posts
beerchug.gif

 
Sep 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM Post #178 of 287
I'm totally digging the recent posts but let's go to the other side for a second...
 
If there's a possibility that not all stock cables are of sufficient quality...
 
Perhaps we could identify those instances and be able to help those who wonder if a cable upgrade is practical.
 
That could actually be a service to these forums.
 
Just a thought. 
smile.gif

 
Sep 25, 2010 at 3:17 PM Post #179 of 287
It would be a little difficult to label something practical if everybody has different budgets for this hobby. To one person a 400.00 headphone cable is not doable for them, to another it may be how many can I buy?
 
Quote:
If there's a possibility that not all stock cables are of sufficient quality...
 
Perhaps we could identify those instances and be able to help those who wonder if a cable upgrade is practical.
 




 
Sep 25, 2010 at 3:40 PM Post #180 of 287
 
Quote:
Perhaps we could identify those instances and be able to help those who wonder if a cable upgrade is practical.
 
That could actually be a service to these forums.
 
Just a thought. 
smile.gif

.. and a really good one, the cost of not being DIY and relaying on a technician to do the soldering don't cost anything, as the exchange of information in between in most cases is enough.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top