[fokta]

Anyone needs proof that cables change sonics for the better. Just buy any Chi fi iems mentioned on the threads, they come with the most basic of cables and most of the time not even close to being optimal for the sound they are going for. Throw on any of the cables mentioned on this thread and if you can't tell the difference.

Don't know what to tell you.

Hahaha... that's when the venom inject and become toxic...

Anyway, his point is try it first...

Firstly, I just want to say I really appreciate all the hard work and advice you've given in objectively measuring good value, affordable cables. Your 'Resistance of Cables' thread is an incredible resource for prospective cable buyers.

You say your change to a 'believer' in cables was 100% scientific. Have you done any blind ABX tests of your cables? Having a large collection of cables with differing physical measurements, properties, materials, and construction, and claiming to be able to discern small differences between them apart from due to resistance, you would be the perfect person to test this claim, and prove that resistance is not the only determinant of sound quality for cables.

This would be a relatively straightforward test to set up. All you would need is an IEM you use for critical listening, a blindfold, a friend, and among the many you’ve already measured, two cables of differing capacitance or material used (e.g. pure copper, pure silver, spc etc) but with as similar, low resistances as you can find. The ABX test would be done like so (your friend needs to read all of this in detail too):

1. Make sure your friend knows how to correctly connect both cable’s pins to your IEM before starting the test, name one of them ‘1’ and the other ‘2’ (make sure they remember which is which), and prepare a high quality test track that you know well (preferably one that covers the whole frequency range).

2. Leave both cables and the IEM in another room with your friend.

3. Go to a different room and put on a thick piece of material for a blindfold that completely covers all of your vision, and tell your friend you're ready to begin the test. From now on there should be minimal, if any, communication between you to, to avoid any unconscious verbal signalling from your friend about what cables are being used.

4. Your friend randomly picks one of the cables (‘1’ or ‘2’) and connects it to your IEM (they should use Google’s random number generator for this – they just need to type ‘random number generator’ into Google, change ‘max’ to 2, and click ‘generate’.) They write down which cable was chosen.

5. Your friend takes the chosen cable and IEM to you and puts it in your ears. The tricky part here is they can’t let you touch any part of the cable, let it rest over your chest etc. as the tiniest difference in weight on your lap or texture of the cable may give away (even subconsciously) which one is being used. They should place the IEM in your ears and loop the cable back over your ears themselves, while holding the jack end so it doesn’t rest on your lap. Then they can guide your hands to the IEM itself for you to get a correct seal in your ears. (If at any point you feel like you’ve touched any part or felt the weight of the cable, the test on that cable must be cancelled, and the test restarted with a new randomly chosen cable. This is very important.)

6. While still holding the cable from the jack in the air to prevent it touching you, your friend plugs it into your source and presses play on your chosen track. Listen for as long as you want to get an idea for how the track sounds with this cable, then ask your friend to disconnect the cable from the source, remove the IEM from your ears, again taking care that at no point does the cable touch you, and cancelling that test if it does.

7. Your friend takes the cable to the other room, then again runs the random number generator. If the number is different to the cable used, they swap the cable, if it’s the same, they should wait a minute or so before coming back into the room with you, so you wouldn’t be able to tell from the lack of delay that there’s been no cable swap. Again this is important.

8. Repeat step 5 with this cable.

9. Your friend asks you if you think the second cable was the same as the first, or a different one. They write down your answer, without telling you the result (again important).

10. Repeat steps 4-9 nine more times, for a total of 10 trials. This is to get a statistically significant result, otherwise a correct guess could just be due to chance.

You can then look at the results and see how many times you guessed which cable you were listening to correctly. I know some of those steps might seem pedantic to people on here, but if you want to be truly 100% scientific and prove that resistance is not the only cable property that can audibly affect sound quality, all variables must be carefully controlled for. Our auditory (and other) perceptions are unfortunately very prone to a whole host of unconscious biases and placebo, so a blind ABX test is the only way to know for sure what is a real, and what is an imagined effect.

I don’t claim to know 100% with absolute certainty that you won’t be able to tell the difference between the cables (maybe you will). I only know that there is currently no known physics or psychoacoustics that could explain an audible difference. In a way, it would be exciting if you proved this wrong, then that might mean we actually have to re-evaluate our theories.

I did this...
even send all my cable collections to a person who is not audio addict like me. Not even tell him the basic technical what the cable is emphasizing.
But his experience in music is more then me, since he is a musician...
his impression also unique and now become a cable believer, more fanatic then me.. hahaha.. this is dangerous...

My point, try it first. Good Source (DAP/music player and IEM) is a must. Dont forget the music File (Flac). So everything is correlate...
And have to admit, Cable on IEM affect more (my own Impression) then on Headphone..

But again, try to be open mind.

Chuck Norris !!!

Chuck Norris can hear song without cable attached to DAP nor IEM.....

 

[warriorpoet]

Hahaha... that's when the venom inject and become toxic...

Anyway, his point is try it first...



I did this...
even send all my cable collections to a person who is not audio addict like me. Not even tell him the basic technical what the cable is emphasizing.
But his experience in music is more then me, since he is a musician...
his impression also unique and now become a cable believer, more fanatic then me.. hahaha.. this is dangerous...

My point, try it first. Good Source (DAP/music player and IEM) is a must. Dont forget the music File (Flac). So everything is correlate...
And have to admit, Cable on IEM affect more (my own Impression) then on Headphone..

But again, try to be open mind.


Chuck Norris can hear song without cable attached to DAP nor IEM.....

Yeah, ear training is an important ingredient here. Those trained in music, degreed or with many years' experience performing, leading, recording or mixing use certain skills that others might not be as familiar with or well developed in.

 

[hakuzen]

Firstly, I just want to say I really appreciate all the hard work and advice you've given in objectively measuring good value, affordable cables. Your 'Resistance of Cables' thread is an incredible resource for prospective cable buyers.

You say your change to a 'believer' in cables was 100% scientific. Have you done any blind ABX tests of your cables? Having a large collection of cables with differing physical measurements, properties, materials, and construction, and claiming to be able to discern small differences between them apart from due to resistance, you would be the perfect person to test this claim, and prove that resistance is not the only determinant of sound quality for cables.

This would be a relatively straightforward test to set up. All you would need is an IEM you use for critical listening, a blindfold, a friend, and among the many you’ve already measured, two cables of differing capacitance or material used (e.g. pure copper, pure silver, spc etc) but with as similar, low resistances as you can find. The ABX test would be done like so (your friend needs to read all of this in detail too):

1. Make sure your friend knows how to correctly connect both cable’s pins to your IEM before starting the test, name one of them ‘1’ and the other ‘2’ (make sure they remember which is which), and prepare a high quality test track that you know well (preferably one that covers the whole frequency range).

2. Leave both cables and the IEM in another room with your friend.

3. Go to a different room and put on a thick piece of material for a blindfold that completely covers all of your vision, and tell your friend you're ready to begin the test. From now on there should be minimal, if any, communication between you to, to avoid any unconscious verbal signalling from your friend about what cables are being used.

4. Your friend randomly picks one of the cables (‘1’ or ‘2’) and connects it to your IEM (they should use Google’s random number generator for this – they just need to type ‘random number generator’ into Google, change ‘max’ to 2, and click ‘generate’.) They write down which cable was chosen.

5. Your friend takes the chosen cable and IEM to you and puts it in your ears. The tricky part here is they can’t let you touch any part of the cable, let it rest over your chest etc. as the tiniest difference in weight on your lap or texture of the cable may give away (even subconsciously) which one is being used. They should place the IEM in your ears and loop the cable back over your ears themselves, while holding the jack end so it doesn’t rest on your lap. Then they can guide your hands to the IEM itself for you to get a correct seal in your ears. (If at any point you feel like you’ve touched any part or felt the weight of the cable, the test on that cable must be cancelled, and the test restarted with a new randomly chosen cable. This is very important.)

6. While still holding the cable from the jack in the air to prevent it touching you, your friend plugs it into your source and presses play on your chosen track. Listen for as long as you want to get an idea for how the track sounds with this cable, then ask your friend to disconnect the cable from the source, remove the IEM from your ears, again taking care that at no point does the cable touch you, and cancelling that test if it does.

7. Your friend takes the cable to the other room, then again runs the random number generator. If the number is different to the cable used, they swap the cable, if it’s the same, they should wait a minute or so before coming back into the room with you, so you wouldn’t be able to tell from the lack of delay that there’s been no cable swap. Again this is important.

8. Repeat step 5 with this cable.

9. Your friend asks you if you think the second cable was the same as the first, or a different one. They write down your answer, without telling you the result (again important).

10. Repeat steps 4-9 nine more times, for a total of 10 trials. This is to get a statistically significant result, otherwise a correct guess could just be due to chance.

You can then look at the results and see how many times you guessed which cable you were listening to correctly. I know some of those steps might seem pedantic to people on here, but if you want to be truly 100% scientific and prove that resistance is not the only cable property that can audibly affect sound quality, all variables must be carefully controlled for. Our auditory (and other) perceptions are unfortunately very prone to a whole host of unconscious biases and placebo, so a blind ABX test is the only way to know for sure what is a real, and what is an imagined effect.

I don’t claim to know 100% with absolute certainty that you won’t be able to tell the difference between the cables (maybe you will). I only know that there is currently no known physics or psychoacoustics that could explain an audible difference. In a way, it would be exciting if you proved this wrong, then that might mean we actually have to re-evaluate our theories.

I knew how to do an ABX test with cables, thanks for the steps guide, it will be useful for any who don't dare to try. And I think these tests are needed.
In fact, I'm waiting for a cable ABX session helped with my brother (I live alone). He is an electronic/hardware and software engineer, music producer, and 100% non-believer in cables (like I was).
We'll both will do the test. I have total confidence to pass the test, at least with very different cables but same resistance (to make the volume match easier, and to "prove" there is something more than resistance).
I'll post the results here.

You haven't read correctly. I didn't say "my change to a 'believer' in cables was 100% scientific" anywhere.
I said "My formation is 100% scientific". And "i became a believer in cables, overwhelmed by the weight of my personal experience", separately.
What it means I became a believer in cables, EVEN after being a person with scientific formation. I'm software engineer.
I started measuring resistance mainly, but after doing patient AB, started to feel there was something more.
Science is ok to explain many things, but it has its limitations (much of brain functioning is still unknown), and doesn't work at all in the area where events relations don't follow cause-effect pattern in time and space coordinates, for example ("Synchronicity - An Acausal Connecting Principle", Carl Jung). I don't want to have a philosophy discussion, and much less a "scientific" discussion. Let's better stay on topic.

 

[bobbooo]

What existed before the big bang?

I know this was a joke intended to expose the limitations of science (and this is off-topic), but I’m actually going to answer this seriously because I studied physics and think it’s a fascinating question

It was initially thought that 'there is no before' the Big Bang, just as there is no 'north of the North Pole', as if we hypothetically rewind the expanding evolution of the universe we observe today back in time, this logically leads to what's known as a spacetime 'singularity', like at the centre of a black hole, in which not only is the density of matter in the universe infinite, but as this is spacetime, all possible events must originate from there, and so there can be no prior events.

However, this view is today considered incorrect, because Einstein’s General Relativity that describes the evolution of the universe is actually incomplete, as it does not take quantum effects into account, which would be relevant at the very small scaling of the universe at the Big Bang.

To explain the rapid expansion of the universe we know happened at the Big Bang, a mechanism called cosmic inflation was proposed, in which tiny random quantum fluctuations at this very early time created bubbles of exponentially expanding space, one of these bubble being our universe, but in reality there are actually an infinite number of these ‘bubble universes’, that have been exploding into existence eternally, including before our Big Bang, creating an infinite ‘multiverse’.

Amazingly, there is actually some scientific evidence for this eternal inflation mechanism, in what’s know as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which is low-level ‘noise’ that pervades the entire observable universe, in the form of microwave radiation (think the noise-floor of the universe – just when you thought this had no relevance to audio!). This CMB is the remnant of the first ever light (the actual let there be light moment) in our universe, as before this photons (light particles) could not travel freely due to the universe consisting of a hot, dense plasma (gaseous mix of electrons, protons and other particles).

Incredibly, when we measure the CMB today, we are also measuring the spectrum of the first light in the universe, just stretched to microwave wavelengths due to the expansion of the universe. And what we see when we look at this spectrum of the first light across our observable universe, is that it’s very close to something called ‘scale-invariant’ i.e. the pattern of the CMB throughout the universe is almost exactly the same at every scale, no matter how much you zoom into it. This is exactly what eternal inflation theory predicts, and so suggests not only that an infinite number of universes will be created forever into the infinite future, but that this has always been happening, going back an infinite amount of time into the past. Essentially then, there is no beginning to the multiverse, as it has always existed. What an incredible tool science is for knowledge!

Here’s a great video on this topic by the amazing PBS Space Time channel, with pretty pictures and everything:

 

[superuser1]

I know this was a joke intended to expose the limitations of science (and this is off-topic), but I’m actually going to answer this seriously because I studied physics and think it’s a fascinating question

It was initially thought that 'there is no before' the Big Bang, just as there is no 'north of the North Pole', as if we hypothetically rewind the expanding evolution of the universe we observe today back in time, this logically leads to what's known as a spacetime 'singularity', like at the centre of a black hole, in which not only is the density of matter in the universe infinite, but as this is spacetime, all possible events must originate from there, and so there can be no prior events.

However, this view is today considered incorrect, because Einstein’s General Relativity that describes the evolution of the universe is actually incomplete, as it does not take quantum effects into account, which would be relevant at the very small scaling of the universe at the Big Bang.

To explain the rapid expansion of the universe we know happened at the Big Bang, a mechanism called inflation was proposed, in which tiny random quantum fluctuations at this very early time created bubbles of exponentially expanding space, one of these bubble being our universe, but in reality there are actually an infinite number of these ‘bubble universes’, that have been exploding into existence eternally, including before our Big Bang, creating an infinite ‘multiverse’.

Amazingly, there is actually some scientific evidence for this eternal inflation mechanism, in what’s know as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which is low-level ‘noise’ that pervades the entire observable universe, in the form of microwave radiation (think the noise-floor of the universe – just when you thought this had no relevance to audio!). This CMB is the remnant of the first ever light (the actual let there be light moment) in our universe, as before this photons (light particles) could not travel freely due to the universe consisting of a hot, dense plasma (gaseous mix of electrons, protons and other particles).

Incredibly, when we measure the CMB today, we are also measuring the spectrum of the first light in the universe, just stretched to microwave wavelengths due to the expansion of the universe. And what we see when we look at this spectrum of the first light across our observable universe, is that it’s very close to something called ‘scale-invariant’ i.e. the pattern of the CMB throughout the universe is almost exactly the same at every scale, no matter how much you zoom into it. This is exactly what eternal inflation theory predicts, and so suggests not only that an infinite number of universes will be created forever into the infinite future, but that this has always been happening, going back an infinite amount of time into the past. Essentially then, there is no beginning to the multiverse, as it has always existed. What an incredible tool science is for knowledge!

Here’s a great video on this topic by the amazing PBS Space Time channel, with pretty pictures and everything:

What about consciousness?

ex nihilo nihil fit

 

[bobbooo]

I knew how to do an ABX test with cables, thanks for the steps guide, it will be useful for any who don't dare to try. And I think these tests are needed.
In fact, I'm waiting for a cable ABX session helped with my brother (I live alone). He is an electronic/hardware and software engineer, music producer, and 100% non-believer in cables (like I was).
We'll both will do the test. I have total confidence to pass the test, at least with very different cables but same resistance (to make the volume match easier, and to "prove" there is something more than resistance).
I'll post the results here.

You haven't read correctly. I didn't say "my change to a 'believer' in cables was 100% scientific" anywhere.
I said "My formation is 100% scientific". And "i became a believer in cables, overwhelmed by the weight of my personal experience", separately.
What it means I became a believer in cables, EVEN after being a person with scientific formation. I'm software engineer.
I started measuring resistance mainly, but after doing patient AB, started to feel there was something more.
Science is ok to explain many things, but it has its limitations (much of brain functioning is still unknown), and doesn't work at all in the area where events relations don't follow cause-effect pattern in time and space coordinates, for example ("Synchronicity - An Acausal Connecting Principle", Carl Jung). I don't want to have a philosophy discussion, and much less a "scientific" discussion. Let's better stay on topic.

That's brilliant news that you'll be doing some ABX cable testing. I'll look forward to the results, whichever way they go. I thought you might already be familiar with the method, but as you said it's good to have a reference for others to follow now. Just one thing though, I've noticed in the literature the standard minimum number of trials is actually 16, not 10, for a solid level of statistical significance (see 'Sensory Evaluation Techniques' by Meilgaa et el).

Ah yes, I thought you meant your 'formation' into a cable 'believer' was 100% scientific, but I see instead you meant your 'background'. I think it's great that you're willing to test your beliefs using a scientifically valid method - I wish more subjectivists would do the same. And the fact your brother is a 'non-believer' will give a good balance to the test.

As for Jung's synchronicity, I am familiar with the idea, but I find it vague, lacking in explanatory or predictive power, and its questioning of causality fatally incompatible with the foundations of Einstein's Relativity (one of the two most successfully tested theories in physics), in which causality and the causal ordering of events is the basis of all reality, even having primacy over space and time. See here:

 

[LaughMoreDaily]

What do you guys think of Audiosense cables? There are two on Aliexpress.

 

[LaughMoreDaily]

From my own experience buying budget cables I actually found the very cheapest cable to actually perform the best sound wise.... the difference with the cheapest one was marked... I even tried asking friends and family in case I was creating the improvement and all of them agreed.... that cable was the TRN and it cost me £4 from AliExpress..., the others **** Kbear, HiFi Hear, Nicechk etc don’t come close so far...

Which TRN cable are you speaking of? Thanks.

 

[Broquen]

This is false. Please read the article I linked to above. Changes in capacitance will have no audible effect for cables of the length we're talking about. Here is the relevant information from that article:

"Often capacitance and inductance of cables is mentioned as the reason for cables sounding different. Because headphone impedances and output resistances are relatively small the influence of capacitance is extremely small. Large capacitances (long cables, meaning 5m or more) MAY in some cases cause some, not well designed, low output resistance amplifiers to oscillate. Amplifiers with a minimal output resistance of 10 Ohm usually are not afflicted with this problem as the output resistance works as a load for very high frequencies. Even with an output resistance of 120Ω the capacitance of a cable doesn’t cause roll-off at higher frequencies. Low capacitance headphone cables have a capacitance of around 100pF/m, screened cables may reach a value of 250pF in worst case. Exotic cables usually have a low capacitance. So an amplifier with 120Ω output resistance and 5 meter of worse case capacitance (250pF/m) will have a high frequency cut-off of 1MHz (1,000kHz) so capacitance is of no importance for rolled off highs."

Regarding universe expansion you forgot to mention dark energy, which can be the cause of the acceleration of the universe expanding (quicker as time passes as redshift observations demonstrated) and you obviate the superstring theory, nowadays the only one that is able to reconcile classic theory and quantum lasts findings (but this requires a number of extra dimensions, 11 last time of in not bad, which sounds ptetty weird). Talking of, you forgot to mention too that science cannot explain why one particle travels through two grooves when nobody looks at it, and only through one of them when you observe the particle.

The thing is, science is good, but has its limits and is limited because of human point of view. We can discuss about it forever, but there's people here that thinks that are in truth possession but don't know their own physical limitations (or have not done quite well described test) and others that follow the hype or their ears say something different. In any case, THIS thread does not seem to be the best one. Here try to help others to get best value cable for their budget/needs (and this includes resistance BTW, as you mentioned when speaking of @hakuzen great work).
And yes, hard science minded guy here, but in this case, my ears seem to be more reliable than certain scientific data (at least, that classical physics based one), until the point that if you come sometime to Barcelona, we can do A/B/C blind testing with copper/SPC/Mixed (MY cables) and bet some good IEM on the results (a beer would be ok too xD).

 

[superuser1]

Regarding universe expansion you forgot to mention dark energy, which can be the cause of the acceleration of the universe expanding (quicker as time passes as redshift observations demonstrated) and you obviate the superstring theory, nowadays the only one that is able to reconcile classic theory and quantum lasts findings (but this requires a number of extra dimensions, 11 last time of in not bad, which sounds ptetty weird). Talking of, you forgot to mention too that science cannot explain why one particle travels through two grooves when nobody looks at it, and only through one of them when you observe the particle.

The thing is, science is good, but has its limits and is limited because of human point of view. We can discuss about it forever, but there's people here that thinks that are in truth possession but don't know their own physical limitations (or have not done quite well described test) and others that follow the hype or their ears say something different. In any case, THIS thread does not seem to be the best one. Here try to help others to get best value cable for their budget/needs (and this includes resistance BTW, as you mentioned when speaking of @hakuzen great work).
And yes, hard science minded guy here, but in this case, my ears seem to be more reliable than certain scientific data (at least, that classical physics based one), until the point that if you come sometime to Barcelona, we can do A/B/C blind testing with copper/SPC/Mixed (MY cables) and bet some good IEM on the results (a beer would be ok too xD).

Beer in Barcelona sounds good to me

 

[Broquen]

Beer in Barcelona sounds good to me

It for sure would be my pleasure

 

[Fishdo]

Which TRN cable are you speaking of? Thanks.

I went to my AliExpress orders and the one I bought isn’t there any more I don’t know why as I was keeping it to add a review after a bit longer...

But I found the same one through a general search but I don’t know if it’s the same seller or even the exact same cable all I can say for certain is it’s the exact same photo... sorry

Here’s the link to that one mate

￡5.04 24％ Off | TRN Earphone Cable 2 Pin MMCX Upgrade With Mic Use For X6 IM2 V80 ZSA ZS6 ZST ZSR BA10 AS10 QT2 RT-1 CCA TFZ KZ Universal Cable
https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/3G4QJZRi

 

[Fishdo]

Regarding the improvement of cables after usage (burning) I understood that this is much more likely with cheaper cables...

The reason being that the process of manufacturing can create various types of contaminants (dust in air etc) within the wiring and or also moisture and for that reason ‘you ‘ should be prepared for an improvement to the cable over time and or at the very least ensure longevity in performance.

Does anyone know if this is true?

I know cables like the Linum G2 BAX are made in controlled environment and the process of manufacture is designed to ensure that all Linum cables perform exactly the same regardless of anything the user may do...

So I assume a lot of that increased cost in a lot of premium cables is in that sort of process and control whereas the cheaper cables don’t ...

WWG1WGA

 

[rr12267]

chuck norris is infinity!

but i am at the stage of "i dondt care.. look how shiny this is" and feels rock solid built.

Chuck Norris counted to infinity, .... twice!

 

[snip3r77]

We might ask the seller to stock 4.4mm sockets

Hi bro, I read your list of measured cables. Pretty extensive work that you've done. But I was confused how to link to the product.
Appreciate your advice. Thanks