[LoryWiv]

For me it works:

Beautiful photo BTW @Quarzer. What is that handsome cable?

 

[betula]

Otherwise, I am genuinely curious as to the "craziest" cable (in terms of subjective claims or raving reviews) one would recommend to a "non-believer" as something that "must" have obvious night/day differences, happily for $1k or more (though I might rather devote that toward a DCA Stealth; I would love the Effect Audio Cleopatra II if offered with headphone terminations...

Talking about cables is always like playing with a beehive here on the forums. There are many aspects why a cable may or may not alter sound and it is not just the metal used in the wire. Also, don't expect night and day differences, the difference is relatively subtle let's say compared to the difference amplifiers make.
Effect Audio's CODE23 certainly makes a difference to me, so I could recommend that cable to test. This one comes with headphone terminations. Alternatively for a 'brighter' sound try a pure silver cable just for the sake of hearing a difference. There is also an audible difference to my ears between Meze stock cable and Meze silver plated cable.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Talking about cables is always like playing with a beehive here on the forums. There are many aspects why a cable may or may not alter sound and it is not just the metal used in the wire. Also, don't expect night and day differences, the difference is relatively subtle let's say compared to the difference amplifiers make.
Effect Audio's CODE23 certainly makes a difference to me, so I could recommend that cable to test. This one comes with headphone terminations. Alternatively for a 'brighter' sound try a pure silver cable just for the sake of hearing a difference. There is also an audible difference to my ears between Meze stock cable and Meze silver plated cable.

Some folks sure word the differences as though they were night and day. I can say that at least for the HE1000se, I didn't hear any reliable improvements over the stock 3 m XLR cable for a 4.4 mm terminated 1.2 m Lavricables Grand. I had likewise measured virtually identical magnitude and phase responses between those cables (seen within the video at 26:49), the same being the case when playing multitone signals, though the Lavricables Grand was measurably a 0.5 dB louder, whether or not that was mainly a property of its being a shorter cable, but might influence one's perception. My 4.4 mm terminated 1.3 m SPC PCUHD was measurably around 0.3 dB louder than the stock 2.5 m XLR cable, whereby small FR differences less than 0.5 dB were attributable to disturbance of the headphone pad while swapping cables without removing the headphones (I conducted five more trials after that video), whereby greater treble variations are seen if completely removing the headphones when swapping the cables. Again, sure, others may perceive brightness or "more detail" etc. anyways, but my perception is presently consistent with my measurements. Free-field EQ and HRTF-based crossfeed are quite measurable and are what currently give me sonic bliss. At best, I can arbitrarily feel better listening through the nicer cables by merit of their look, feel, build, and reputation, but I personally know for myself that this does not regard the sound.

For reference, what are you hearing with the Effect Audio CODE23?

As for recommendations, I am particularly interested in cables purported to make large tonal changes (at least worded like so) or "smooth out treble peaks", else would be fine investing in fancier topologies for the sake of "hearing" it myself.

Then the question of whether one believes the FiiO K9 Pro ESS DAC/amp (internal wiring, so external interconnects are not a variable, lest one dare vie that the power and USB cables matter for headphone cable audibility) to be sufficient. And my sources are FLAC recordings played through Idagio.

 

[betula]

For reference, what are you hearing with the Effect Audio CODE23?

You can find my CODE23 review on my profile page here. (Head-fi doesn't let me share a link on the mobile app.)
To me the biggest improvement cables can bring is enhanced 'clarity'. Some are also warmer while others brighter. It is not night and day though, that's misleading. Cables should be the last thing you buy for your system after you are happy with all the main components. Unfortunately there is a lot of snake oil going on around cables, but there are some that actually work. You definitely get the least improvement for your money, so whether cables are worth the investment will be highly personal. Any other component (DAC, amp, power management) will have a bigger impact on sound.

 

[Quarzer]

I absolutely love the look of those black Elites. Was that a limited edition release?

I think it was a limited Edition in EU/Germany/Vendor only. I'm not completely sure, bought it second hand.

Beautiful photo BTW @Quarzer. What is that handsome cable?

The cable is from a German manufactor. Its Rotmanns Cables in Germany.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Welp. This cable talk has had me pining for a Holo Audio May and Bliss KTE stack for looks and to sate curiosity (no one's gonna stop me from using Monoprice interconnects ). I really do admire their engineering and build. "It's the money I decided not to spend on a Stax SR-X9000 and Carbon CC." At least at Toronto Audiofest, nothing was obvious when listening through three different Diana MR units through three different amps and DACs/streamers amid cursory volume-matching, but like with headphones or cables, I have felt that at some point, I am still going to make the leap and own something I can more properly assess at home to see if I can bust another myth for myself regarding what is possible for me to perceive, or that should my FiiO K9 Pro ESS (this is my warranty replacement unit) give up the ghost, I would treat myself anyways. How when running short on rare typewriters to collect, I think upon what next fancy investment to occupy myself with. Inherent curiosity and fomo as to whether there could possibly be complex dynamic activity going on in DAC and amp playback not captured by steady state sine sweep or multi-tone measurements. Or like with my chasing yet more excellent headphone distortion performance, it's on chasing those measurable but inaudible improvements purely for the extra "giddiness factor" of feeding perfection to one's ears. Can a DAC or amp really create a grander and more convincing spatial presentation and imaging than what I already hear or can partly summon with DSP? Can it project an already DSP-crossfed sonic image even further?

Anyways, I am scouting out comparisons of the May and Bliss to others in their price range with the ideals being neutrality, transparency, "realism", and immersion. This range feels like the maximum I could ever "reasonably" spend on while having the confidence that it also measures well, and relative to the current range of flagship headphone prices.

 

[Solasuke]

Welp. This cable talk has had me pining for a Holo Audio May and Bliss KTE stack for looks and to sate curiosity (no one's gonna stop me from using Monoprice interconnects ). I really do admire their engineering and build. "It's the money I decided not to spend on a Stax SR-X9000 and Carbon CC." At least at Toronto Audiofest, nothing was obvious when listening through three different Diana MR units through three different amps and DACs/streamers amid cursory volume-matching, but like with headphones or cables, I have felt that at some point, I am still going to make the leap and own something I can more properly assess at home to see if I can bust another myth for myself regarding what is possible for me to perceive, or that should my FiiO K9 Pro ESS (this is my warranty replacement unit) give up the ghost, I would treat myself anyways. How when running short on rare typewriters to collect, I think upon what next fancy investment to occupy myself with. Inherent curiosity and fomo as to whether there could possibly be complex dynamic activity going on in DAC and amp playback not captured by steady state sine sweep or multi-tone measurements. Or like with my chasing yet more excellent headphone distortion performance, it's on chasing those measurable but inaudible improvements purely for the extra "giddiness factor" of feeding perfection to one's ears. Can a DAC or amp really create a grander and more convincing spatial presentation and imaging than what I already hear or can partly summon with DSP? Can it project an already DSP-crossfed sonic image even further?

Anyways, I am scouting out comparisons of the May and Bliss to others in their price range with the ideals being neutrality, transparency, "realism", and immersion. This range feels like the maximum I could ever "reasonably" spend on while having the confidence that it also measures well, and relative to the current range of flagship headphone prices.

I have a Holo May and Bliss KTE and I have found that the incremental upgrades one can implement do make a difference. I purchased an 8 wire fehu cable from Viking Weave cables for my Elite and VC, and the audible upgrade from just a stock ZMF balanced cable was enough to elevate Elite to my preferred headphone of choice over 1266TC and VC (both with stock cables). I heard improved depth of sound, and more microdetails, with a sweeter treble, and a more revealing midrange. I don't claim to know the science to any great degree, but it was a difference that I could consistently hear. I'm not necessarily convinced that it is the material that makes the biggest difference, rather I think it is more in relation to both a geometrical and isolation improvement. The "skin effect" in conductance of signal is an observable phenomenon, and type 6 Litz from what I read appears to do a great deal to mitigate this. I would describe the improvement overall as being one of increased clarity.

I think aesthetics and comfort count for a great deal, and as a complete package of sound, appearance, and wearability, Viking Weave is hard to beat. That being said, if you are interested in trying the pinacle of cable improvement, then DHC Chimera is the holy grail from what I gather. Interconnects should also yield improvement on a similar if slightly smaller scale.

As an aside, I recently acquired a PSM156 power conditioner, and this has yielded a larger step change in improvement than any cable, and it would be my recommendation for a first upgrade to anyone looking for upgrades beyond just Amps, DACs, and Cans.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

I have a Holo May and Bliss KTE and I have found that the incremental upgrades one can implement do make a difference. I purchased an 8 wire fehu cable from Viking Weave cables for my Elite and VC, and the audible upgrade from just a stock ZMF balanced cable was enough to elevate Elite to my preferred headphone of choice over 1266TC and VC (both with stock cables). I heard improved depth of sound, and more microdetails, with a sweeter treble, and a more revealing midrange. I don't claim to know the science to any great degree, but it was a difference that I could consistently hear. I'm not necessarily convinced that it is the material that makes the biggest difference, rather I think it is more in relation to both a geometrical and isolation improvement. The "skin effect" in conductance of signal is an observable phenomenon, and type 6 Litz from what I read appears to do a great deal to mitigate this. I would describe the improvement overall as being one of increased clarity.

I think aesthetics and comfort count for a great deal, and as a complete package of sound, appearance, and wearability, Viking Weave is hard to beat. That being said, if you are interested in trying the pinacle of cable improvement, then DHC Chimera is the holy grail from what I gather. Interconnects should also yield improvement on a similar if slightly smaller scale.

As an aside, I recently acquired a PSM156 power conditioner, and this has yielded a larger step change in improvement than any cable, and it would be my recommendation for a first upgrade to anyone looking for upgrades beyond just Amps, DACs, and Cans.

Regarding Litz, https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...cle-does-audio-cable-skin-effect-matter.7157/ suggests that skin effect should not cause appreciable frequency response differences in the audible band (20 Hz to 20 kHz). Other cable construction related things can certainly measurably decrease capacitance or inductance, but my stance is, what does this matter if these improvements happen to only cause appreciable frequency response differences only well into inaudible radio frequencies? I in post #5,490 shared how the cables in question differed in neither magnitude (the typical "frequency response" graphs you may see published) nor phase response within the audible band, and by not very much even in the ultrasonics up to 96 kHz, subject to errors from these being acoustic measurements on my own head and ears. As such, I consider perceived differences as likely being rather psychological in causality, which is okay so long as it consistently gives you enjoyment you genuinely can't get by other means, just that not everyone will be susceptible to it.

As for my opened curiosity toward DACs and amps if not simply to afford the experience of proving to myself that everything when volume-matched indeed sounds identical to my FiiO K9 Pro ESS, from seeing glowing reviews, I cannot help but feel that the more involved functional dynamics of such gear might be much more susceptible than cables to the idea that lower-end DACs and amps are in fact for complex signals somehow still veiling things. That is, the stance that DACs or amps are not so much "creating" or "introducing" "holography" or improved spatial resolution so much as "revealing" it. The excellently measuring R2R May and Class A Bliss for me would be the most interesting choice for seeing if difference of implementation could possibly yield a different sound from my FiiO K9 Pro ESS's delta-sigma and THX 788+.

As for "sweeter treble" or smoother whatever, beyond EQing matters (which can improve clarity by taming bloated midrange or distracting treble peaks and putting all the content into balance), the greatest differences I have heard were simply from switching between different recordings of the same classical piece. Effectively, the recordings for certain vocals or strings may indeed be capturing certain harmonic patterns or micropeaks (time domain amplitude of the signal) that one can perceive as grating (e.g. shout or chalkboard scratchiness) even at lower volumes or when applying ample negative gain peaking filters to the afflicted frequencies (looking at a spectrum analyzer while listening to the afflicted parts can reveal where the grating sonic energy is situated). Some recordings for my same already bright EQ can sound grating or fatiguing while the next may sound exquisitely clear with smooth but still highly textured strings and even scratches (the kind of difference some describe as hearing between DACs for the same tracks), be it due to the recording mic position or the recording's own distortion. In that regard, my current gear is already providing a magnifying glass into recording quality. I don't want my system to be "forgiving" and sacrifice "fidelity" to make an objectively non-ideal recording sound good. Else one can claim that some "bad-sounding" recordings are actually "great" ones that are merely more "difficult" for "lesser" DACs and amps to render.

Given that, other than auditioning the DCA Stealth or waiting for a new and fancy release, I will probably now prioritize working toward that Holo Audio stack before considering dishing out on listening to and measuring a $2k or $3k cable for the sake of settling a myth for myself. And for that, there is the choice between the DHC Chimera which I personally don't like the looks of (unless they offer other sleeves), something fancy from Danacables, an Eletech flagship, or whatever other flagship for which I would prioritize the one with the most outlandish reputation or the most overengineered construction.

 

[Solasuke]

Regarding Litz, https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...cle-does-audio-cable-skin-effect-matter.7157/ suggests that skin effect should not cause appreciable frequency response differences in the audible band (20 Hz to 20 kHz). Other cable construction related things can certainly measurably decrease capacitance or inductance, but my stance is, what does this matter if these improvements happen to only cause appreciable frequency response differences only well into inaudible radio frequencies? I in post #5,490 shared how the cables in question differed in neither magnitude (the typical "frequency response" graphs you may see published) nor phase response within the audible band, and by not very much even in the ultrasonics up to 96 kHz, subject to errors from these being acoustic measurements on my own head and ears. As such, I consider perceived differences as likely being rather psychological in causality, which is okay so long as it consistently gives you enjoyment you genuinely can't get by other means, just that not everyone will be susceptible to it.

As for my opened curiosity toward DACs and amps if not simply to afford the experience of proving to myself that everything when volume-matched indeed sounds identical to my FiiO K9 Pro ESS, from seeing glowing reviews, I cannot help but feel that the more involved functional dynamics of such gear might be much more susceptible than cables to the idea that lower-end DACs and amps are in fact for complex signals somehow still veiling things. That is, the stance that DACs or amps are not so much "creating" or "introducing" "holography" or improved spatial resolution so much as "revealing" it. The excellently measuring R2R May and Class A Bliss for me would be the most interesting choice for seeing if difference of implementation could possibly yield a different sound from my FiiO K9 Pro ESS's delta-sigma and THX 788+.

As for "sweeter treble" or smoother whatever, beyond EQing matters (which can improve clarity by taming bloated midrange or distracting treble peaks and putting all the content into balance), the greatest differences I have heard were simply from switching between different recordings of the same classical piece. Effectively, the recordings for certain vocals or strings may indeed be capturing certain harmonic patterns or micropeaks (time domain amplitude of the signal) that one can perceive as grating (e.g. shout or chalkboard scratchiness) even at lower volumes or when applying ample negative gain peaking filters to the afflicted frequencies (looking at a spectrum analyzer while listening to the afflicted parts can reveal where the grating sonic energy is situated). Some recordings for my same already bright EQ can sound grating or fatiguing while the next may sound exquisitely clear with smooth but still highly textured strings and even scratches (the kind of difference some describe as hearing between DACs for the same tracks), be it due to the recording mic position or the recording's own distortion. In that regard, my current gear is already providing a magnifying glass into recording quality. I don't want my system to be "forgiving" and sacrifice "fidelity" to make an objectively non-ideal recording sound good. Else one can claim that some "bad-sounding" recordings are actually "great" ones that are merely more "difficult" for "lesser" DACs and amps to render.

Given that, other than auditioning the DCA Stealth or waiting for a new and fancy release, I will probably now prioritize working toward that Holo Audio stack before considering dishing out on listening to and measuring a $2k or $3k cable for the sake of settling a myth for myself. And for that, there is the choice between the DHC Chimera which I personally don't like the looks of (unless they offer other sleeves), something fancy from Danacables, an Eletech flagship, or whatever other flagship for which I would prioritize the one with the most outlandish reputation or the most overengineered construction.

Right I didn’t realise that was the angle you were coming from. If and when you do get a Holo May + Bliss stack, or indeed any stack of comparable value or higher, the differences will be much more apparent. There is a certain sameness to the sound of chifi DACs sub 1k, and while I don’t mean to sound elitist, when you get to upper mid-fi, and hi-fi gear, the sound pallet will really open up and you will find there are certain presentations you prefer over others. I wouldn’t worry about cables at this stage, that is one of the last things one should address.

You’ve clearly paid a lot of attention to theory; my advice would be to leave that to one side for now, and trust your ears. If you don’t find any appreciable improvement, congratulations, you’ve saved yourself a lot of money!

 

[NJoyzAudio]

Right I didn’t realise that was the angle you were coming from. If and when you do get a Holo May + Bliss stack, or indeed any stack of comparable value or higher, the differences will be much more apparent. There is a certain sameness to the sound of chifi DACs sub 1k, and while I don’t mean to sound elitist, when you get to upper mid-fi, and hi-fi gear, the sound pallet will really open up and you will find there are certain presentations you prefer over others. I wouldn’t worry about cables at this stage, that is one of the last things one should address.

You’ve clearly paid a lot of attention to theory; my advice would be to leave that to one side for now, and trust your ears. If you don’t find any appreciable improvement, congratulations, you’ve saved yourself a lot of money!

tl;dr: Can you convince me that fancy cables could possibly add anything to the sonic bliss I am already experiencing with DSP?

I will preface that my current stance regarding cable sound is best covered in my video below, where I am skeptical of the cables actually altering the signal significantly, but acknowledge people's subjective experiences as extant, just potentially differing in causality:



Without straying into Sound Science forum territory, after reading cable reviews like this, I simply want to better understand as one who does not hear cable differences even in critical, sighted, volume-matched A/Bing (any slight differences I notice disappear upon closer inspection rather than being reinforced by assumption) what exactly folks are hearing. Now, I suppose we can for the sake of discussion roughly divide the audiophile goals between (a) achieving absolute fidelity or transparency to the recording, particularly in service of perceiving maximum "realness", "vividness", or "immersion" ("you are there" sound), and (b) achieving the most pleasant presentation of one's music, be it through subjective tone controls or maximization of some purported performance metric or "technicalities". I am of school (a) (which I vie the Meze Elite without EQ at least for classical music tonally does not follow), which is the objective I will focus on for now.

Firstly, how familiar are those of you who appreciate objective (a) with the sound of live music? I am personally most acquainted with live orchestral performances from various seats and venues (some combinations can sound amazing while others can fall flat, sound unengagingly quiet, else harsh), and just some amplified music. I associate the live orchestral or string quartet sound with "vividness" and clarity, accurate tonality, and particularly proper imaging where sounds are located convincingly in front of you some distance away. As for amplified music, most of the time, it is simply the kind of bloomy or distorted (at least lost clarity due to room reflections) sound I do not want to hear through headphones, though sometimes it can be done very well like with the piano in the two Hiromi Uehara concerts I've attended.

• For the aim of perfecting imaging, I went through the process of acquiring a kit from https://www.earfish.eu/ to measure my HRTF, that is, the frequency response of my ears to neutral speakers from all directions. I then load this HRTF into the REAPER SPARTA AmbiBIN renderer which takes the ambisonic data from AmbiRoomSim which I use to configure the virtual stereo field to EQ a more convincing stereo crossfeed; regular crossfeed tends to have higher-frequency content image closer to my ears and some things image even above my head (even without crossfeed). This software has given me an imaging experience I can only call "unreal". Sounds are pinpoint in front of me throughout the stereo field set between the virtual speakers rather than fairly close around my head, or for good recordings, strings image along a line as expected, and with head-tracking, I can literally rotate my head toward individual sound sources mind direct my gaze toward individual sounds. I can even "widen" the soundstage at will using AmbiRoomSim or make sounds come from a meter to the left and right of my ears like I unrealistically expected the Arya Stealth and Sennheiser HD 800 S to sound when people raved about "wide soundstage".
• Then in service of perfecting tonality, I again use my in-ear microphones and take measurements of my headphones' frequency response, my then using Equalizer APO to apply a bunch of parametric EQ shelf and peaking filters to match that measurement to that of my left and right neutral (not colouring the music's spectral content) speakers, whereby I can then add more lower-Q filters if I want to tame a strident recording or add fullness to a thin recording. I've already demonstrated that minimum-phase EQ does not itself introduce harmonic distortions, and any phase distortions may rather be corrective. The result has been exquisite vividness, clarity, "details" (for me, simply a consequence of tonal balance as actually measured for your ears with in-ear mics, not a test rig's), texture, tactility, and dynamics for excellent recordings and the occasional concert experience where what I heard live uncannily matched my memory of my favourite recordings whence all I could do was sit and smile.

My only remaining discontent is want of improved HRTF measurements and rendering software for a yet more accurate simulation of stereo listening in an anechoic chamber (absolute clarity thanks to the lack of reflections or comb filtering, effectively theoretically more ideal or "resolving" than a heavily treated mixing studio) and more convincing projection of the sonic image out into the distance. If you could hear the vivid bliss I am currently enjoying through the DSP-augmented Meze Elite for https://app.idagio.com/recordings/16842254. Beyond refinement of my DSP, the greatest improvements are perceived simply from finding a better recording, which probably applies more to classical music where you can have many tens of different recordings of the exact same piece, all with objectively differing quality and character; I graduate from evaluating the gear to evaluating the recording. After that, I do not see what more I could want other than better distortion performance to feel giddy about, or improved comfort or the feeling of not wearing headphones at all. This is not achieved with fancy DACs, amps, or cables, but with a 250 Euro kit (sure, I went overkill and got Genelec 8341As to take the measurements, but that really isn't necessary), free to inexpensive (REAPER for $60) software, and lots of measuring and EQing patience.

Given the above, what could a cable such as the Purgatorio even by subjective happenstance possibly add on top of my "SPC PCUHD" which I keep for beauty, feel, and a 4.4 mm termination? If I want "extended highs", I can EQ it in and that is very much what I will hear. If I want to "tame the treble", I can also EQ it or target specific peaks heard through sine sweeps or pink noise or seen in my in-ear mic measurements. If I want a clearer midrange for an overly saturated recording, I apply a negative gain low-Q peaking filter to taste. Subjective transient quality is the one place where headphones may still differ at least at the extremes even when EQed to a very similar magnitude and phase response (post #1,137). Will a cable correct the HRTF software's shortcomings or make my setup sound more real?

Otherwise, I am genuinely curious as to the "craziest" cable (in terms of subjective claims or raving reviews) one would recommend to a "non-believer" as something that "must" have obvious night/day differences, happily for $1k or more (though I might rather devote that toward a DCA Stealth; I would love the Effect Audio Cleopatra II if offered with headphone terminations, purely for looks). Now, the problem is with those cables where the company or reviewers already describe the cable as "not altering the sound" (as though lower-end cables could be objectively demonstrated as altering the sound), effectively admitting that they should measure as neutral as any other cable, but somehow still possess improved technicalities or clarity (sure, a headphone cable can be engineered to exhibit exceptional electrical properties but have no differences in transfer function from simpler cables within the audible band). On the other hand, if common subjective claims describe tonal differences I would associate with peaking or shelf filters exceeding 5 dB in gain, I would like to see if I could measure or hear more than 1 dB of variation out of said cable.

I suppose I cannot help but attempt to talk some sense, though it may fall on golden ears. Perhaps the only thing left to be said is "ignorance is bliss", which goes for both sides relative to the other's experiences. I can accept that the "collective audio lore" and other influences are really weaving amazing experiences for all of you despite the likelihood of the signals being measurably unaltered, but to me, it feels like deriving one's happiness solely from drugs or being content with the shadows in Plato's Cave. I am in no business to tell others how to enjoy their audio, but at least want to try shedding some light.

MrHaelscheir

Let me start by saying the great thing about this hobby is it is "personal" audio and we all hear things a little differently and prefer a sound signature that is unique to each of us and that is what makes it "Personal". Having said that...
I think we may have to just agree to disagree as perhaps we attack the same issue from different angles.
Personally I prefer not having to create and EQ (Parametric or Graphic) when I do not have to.
Also I see you like Silver Platted Copper (SPC) by mentioning the Meze Cable
I agree that cable is big step up from the stock cable, but I've found other cables can sound to me better than the Upgrade SPC cable as I really don't like the sound from SPC cables (again just a personal preference and many do like SPC, but also many do not). I even mention in what I wrote, many may not hear a diference or choose to go beyond that and for them that's great (acknowledging what I wrote some will not agree with or choose to spend their money there, but will invest in other areas to get to the sound signature they are chasing).
You mentioned your coming from a stance of spending time in live venues.
I've spent time behind mixing boards in a studio and at live events helping a friend who owns a business providing sound for bands (Jazz, Rock, Classical and ethnic intsruments, as well as vocal ensembles)
In that environment YES you have to EQ, to adjust for the venue's idiosyncrasies. But there too, I have to mix to what the artists want, not what sounds good to me. I can make suggestions but in the end it is what the artist wants. Hope this explains some of my thoughts.
As to EQ, I do EQ when I have to (IE listening for something specific or something is really missing and I would not enjoy the music without it) but choose to NOT use EQ wherever possible as I want to hear what the artist and sound engineer agreed upon as my base.

All that I wrote orginally was IMO.
I wrote as I do come from a different direction than others on Head-fi and just wanted to express my opinion.
I do know you write from a very scientific approach (as I assume from your posts) to how you adjust sound and have provided us all with graphs and numbers and that is something I am not equipped to do, or debate from. Just my own 2 ears, and what I hear is what I can offer.

I hope we can agree to disagree as respect you and what you write and have enjoyed reading your posts.
But having worked in the performance automotive field previously and now working with designing end user computer systems as a whole (not just the PC), I can tell you sometimes things like dynamometers for engines or even scope traces of electrical HW doesn't always show the end user "usability" or differences.
For a car, while the dyno shows numbers in undisputable/repeatable clarity and 2 different setups look identical with nothing indicating they should be different, sometime when that car gets on the track, its a totally different story, and the drivability of one setup is head and shoulders easier to drive, or delivers better performance and each pro racing driver has slightly different techniques in how they drive (be it cutting a starting light in the 1/4 mile or how they heel and toe into a series of corners for a road racer) which will take advantage of one tune over the other.
I feel audio is the same way.
While specs (or what in the computer industry we will call speeds and feeds) look the same, and might even spec the same on measuring HW and SW, it's those little things that "mesh" with the end driver/user/listener, that will make all the difference, and as we all hear differently this is why I believe there is such a difference to some, and not to others, and why I personally believe we have such a difference in audio gear to choose from.
I always like to tell the user anything I write is IMO (in my opinion) and YMMV (your milage may vary)

But as you stand behind your thoughts cable will not make a difference, I will stick to my thoughts it does, and I know I can't convince you otherwise and I do not think you can convince me otherwie also, so again I hope we can agree to disagree....

As Solasuke kindly ended his post by stating:

If you don’t find any appreciable improvement, congratulations, you’ve saved yourself a lot of money!

I agree with him whole heartedly and will add it will allow you to invest your $'s into the Holo HW you were looking at and that is a good thing.

I hope my comments don't offend you, and again respect what you have written and know it's your opinion and it's based on very scientific measurements via some great gear and SW you have invested in. I'm a strong believer in numbers help you narrow down the field and are useful, but I also believe that numbers can lie/or be made to lie, and in the end its your personal taste and choices that make the difference, albeit guided by "numbers".

Again all I write above is IMO, YMMV.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

MrHaelscheir

Let me start by saying the great thing about this hobby is it is "personal" audio and we all hear things a little differently and prefer a sound signature that is unique to each of us and that is what makes it "Personal". Having said that...
I think we may have to just agree to disagree as perhaps we attack the same issue from different angles.
Personally I prefer not having to create and EQ (Parametric or Graphic) when I do not have to.
Also I see you like Silver Platted Copper (SPC) by mentioning the Meze Cable
I agree that cable is big step up from the stock cable, but I've found other cables can sound to me better than the Upgrade SPC cable as I really don't like the sound from SPC cables (again just a personal preference and many do like SPC, but also many do not). I even mention in what I wrote, many may not hear a diference or choose to go beyond that and for them that's great (acknowledging what I wrote some will not agree with or choose to spend their money there, but will invest in other areas to get to the sound signature they are chasing).
You mentioned your coming from a stance of spending time in live venues.
I've spent time behind mixing boards in a studio and at live events helping a friend who owns a business providing sound for bands (Jazz, Rock, Classical and ethnic intsruments, as well as vocal ensembles)
In that environment YES you have to EQ, to adjust for the venue's idiosyncrasies. But there too, I have to mix to what the artists want, not what sounds good to me. I can make suggestions but in the end it is what the artist wants. Hope this explains some of my thoughts.
As to EQ, I do EQ when I have to (IE listening for something specific or something is really missing and I would not enjoy the music without it) but choose to NOT use EQ wherever possible as I want to hear what the artist and sound engineer agreed upon as my base.

All that I wrote orginally was IMO.
I wrote as I do come from a different direction than others on Head-fi and just wanted to express my opinion.
I do know you write from a very scientific approach (as I assume from your posts) to how you adjust sound and have provided us all with graphs and numbers and that is something I am not equipped to do, or debate from. Just my own 2 ears, and what I hear is what I can offer.

I hope we can agree to disagree as respect you and what you write and have enjoyed reading your posts.
But having worked in the performance automotive field previously and now working with designing end user computer systems as a whole (not just the PC), I can tell you sometimes things like dynamometers for engines or even scope traces of electrical HW doesn't always show the end user "usability" or differences.
For a car, while the dyno shows numbers in undisputable/repeatable clarity and 2 different setups look identical with nothing indicating they should be different, sometime when that car gets on the track, its a totally different story, and the drivability of one setup is head and shoulders easier to drive, or delivers better performance and each pro racing driver has slightly different techniques in how they drive (be it cutting a starting light in the 1/4 mile or how they heel and toe into a series of corners for a road racer) which will take advantage of one tune over the other.
I feel audio is the same way.
While specs (or what in the computer industry we will call speeds and feeds) look the same, and might even spec the same on measuring HW and SW, it's those little things that "mesh" with the end driver/user/listener, that will make all the difference, and as we all hear differently this is why I believe there is such a difference to some, and not to others, and why I personally believe we have such a difference in audio gear to choose from.
I always like to tell the user anything I write is IMO (in my opinion) and YMMV (your milage may vary)

But as you stand behind your thoughts cable will not make a difference, I will stick to my thoughts it does, and I know I can't convince you otherwise and I do not think you can convince me otherwie also, so again I hope we can agree to disagree....

As Solasuke kindly ended his post by stating:

I agree with him whole heartedly and will add it will allow you to invest your $'s into the Holo HW you were looking at and that is a good thing.

I hope my comments don't offend you, and again respect what you have written and know it's your opinion and it's based on very scientific measurements via some great gear and SW you have invested in. I'm a strong believer in numbers help you narrow down the field and are useful, but I also believe that numbers can lie/or be made to lie, and in the end its your personal taste and choices that make the difference, albeit guided by "numbers".

Again all I write above is IMO, YMMV.

I did take the "YMMV" to heart, but what spurred me was that this was "very distant mileage" we were talking about to the point of feeling disconcerted by the rift in audio epistemologies and approaches. I would also say that my stance is not that "cables will not make a difference" so much as that there exist sighted listening methods that can make those perceived differences disappear. One phenomenon was that of A/Bing the HE1000se with the Arya Stealth where switching to the latter was happening to incur a sense of increased clarity, and then the exact same thing happened again upon switching back to the former, and so on until I had fully applied a mental compensation to greatly attenuate that perceptual drift. And yes, of course, even if we had a test that showed two pieces of gear as outputting identical audio signals for the same input where indisputably the physical/electrical/acoustic sound is the same (this includes the case of an HE1000se and Arya Stealth having identical pads and very similar FRs, impulse responses, and distortion performance when volume-matched, whereby I do not perceive exaggerated improvements if any at all), of course, humans may come to perceive the sounds as different anyways, whereby I am not trying to force people to not hear the differences so much as encourage acknowledgement of the high likelihood of their being psychological rather than physical in nature, the consequences of that knowledge possibly pointing one to objective methods of sound manipulation such as DSP. I suppose it is like a red pill / blue pill choice between tempering one's perception versus going with the flow and letting them take you for a ride, like Plato's Chariot. I cannot tell people which pill they should take, but can at least shed light on the existence of the other pill.

One point about EQ is that to avoid it in order "to hear the artist's and sound engineer's intent" (when listening to headphones; if you are listening through a monitoring system or reasonable speaker setup, then anything beyond room EQ is of course just for taste), that should imply that the headphones' frequency response for your ears is already close to emulating the speaker response of the original monitoring system or a known reference or average such as the HRTF of neutral speakers. Thus in theory, EQing toward a neutral target be it Harman or diffuse-field or your speaker response measured with in-ear microphones would have a greater chance of coming close to the original mixing environment's tonality (considering how much speaker and room responses may vary) than leaving a coloured headphone unEQed. But yes, the Meze Elite is most probably not chosen by most for the goal of neutrality, and indeed, some stuff can sound quite nice through that stock sound.

 

[Toonartist]

Thus in theory, EQing toward a neutral target be it Harman or diffuse-field or your speaker response measured with in-ear microphones would have a greater chance of coming close to the original mixing environment's tonality (considering how much speaker and room responses may vary) than leaving a coloured headphone unEQed

Only if the artist / producer did the same originally. You could also be moving further away from what it sounded like

As a visual artist, I change the colours to create a style that I want to put over. I have a feeling musicians will do the same. So changing the sound to make it sound, "Like how it was intended" is really a pointless concept. As we'll never know how it sounded in the studio. It's better to change it to something you enjoy. That maybe the Harman Curve but equally it may not be.

Don't forget that the Harman Curve is what most people liked (out of a large group). Effectively it was a sound that found approval from the most people (an average as such). It might not have been their favourite sound, just the best out of what was presented. Also, I could ask a 1000 people what their favourite ice-cream is. The consensus maybe chocolate or vanilla... personally I like rum and raisin. Music like all things is a personal choice.

So the way I see it, there's no point trying to change something to a "Curve" with the belief that's how it's supposed to sound. It's about what you like. Harman would have created it to try and find a sound that was acceptable to as many people as possible so as to sell more hardware. For me, I want more than acceptable... I want perfection (for me).

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Only if the artist / producer did the same originally. You could also be moving further away from what it sounded like

As a visual artist, I change the colours to create a style that I want to put over. I have a feeling musicians will do the same. So changing the sound to make it sound, "Like how it was intended" is really a pointless concept. As we'll never know how it sounded in the studio. It's better to change it to something you enjoy. That maybe the Harman Curve but equally it may not be.

Don't forget that the Harman Curve is what most people liked (out of a large group). Effectively it was a sound that found approval from the most people (an average as such). It might not have been their favourite sound, just the best out of what was presented. Also, I could ask a 1000 people what their favourite ice-cream is. The consensus maybe chocolate or vanilla... personally I like rum and raisin. Music like all things is a personal choice.

So the way I see it, there's no point trying to change something to a "Curve" with the belief that's how it's supposed to sound. It's about what you like. Harman would have created it to try and find a sound that was acceptable to as many people as possible so as to sell more hardware. For me, I want more than acceptable... I want perfection (for me).

Of course, the Circle of Confusion regarding frequency responses for mixing environments is a large barrier likely only to be surmounted by standardization of the frequency responses of said environments and maybe the recording microphones (I suppose at best have properly neutral speakers with which to evaluate the use of microphones as tone controls). I would separate considerations of the mixing environment's frequency response from the tone controls the sound engineer and artist applied in response to that frequency response. That is, if another playback system matches the speaker and room (or headphone) response within, say, +-3 dB of a general neutral trend, the recording's tone controls may still be decently conveyed.

While individual at-eardrum frequency responses to neutral speakers may differ by a few dB here and there (as they would for the same live sound), there are still clear standards for neutral pass-through of frequency content (and hence tone controls within the recording) for speakers. I would consider Harman for speakers as revealing a general preference for neutral sound I suppose for well-mixed music, and as such, Harman for headphones strives to best emulate that neutrality (at least the relation of 1 kHz to 5 kHz "ear gain" to the midrange) in the absence of crossfeed or full-body subwoofer tactility, though EQing based on test heads may still have errors relative to an individual's actual in-ear speaker response. A dislike of Harman playback for a given track may either be an error in the Harman EQ or headphone HRTF for the individual (hence my present use of in-ear mics to measure my actual speaker response), else the individual's having differing preferences from the sound engineer or artist or potentially even the live sound ("high fidelity"; e.g. I can find some venue and seat combinations too bright for my liking), which is fine, whereby they can adjust to taste. As such, at least for classical music or studios that don't use hugely coloured speakers (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ers-are-the-classical-music-pros-using.12225/ is an interesting thread; I forget which paper showed the huge variations in mixing environment frequency responses, though maybe not a distribution curve for such), using neutral headphones or EQing to such would probably get you within a few dB of the original mixing environment's tonality. Undershooting the ear gain region like with the LCD-4 on the other hand would probably put you far off from typical in-ear variations between mixing speakers (see https://www.spinorama.org/).

The other matter is of using EQ to correct any sharp peaks or boosts that would never occur when listening through speakers (aside from happenstance comb filtering if you have your head in a vice) in order to clean up the sound. Of course, I would be skeptical of any claims that anything other than actual tone controls were physically (as opposed to psychologically) performing the equivalent of negative gain peaking filters on all the perceived treble peaks. Likewise, it could be beneficial to smooth out the FR of headphones that have more lower-Q (compared to the typical tone controls applied for taste) dips in the upper midrange and treble than usual so as to restore "details" that have been objectively relaxed by said headphones. Else sure, maybe that unevenness does create a preferable sound for some.

Otherwise, yes, striving for perfection of reproduction of the live sound (which certainly also depends on the matching of one's setup with the given recording and how it was mixed) versus perfection of one's preferred sound are differing goals that can both be respected.

 

[TheMiddleSky]

Only if the artist / producer did the same originally. You could also be moving further away from what it sounded like

As a visual artist, I change the colours to create a style that I want to put over. I have a feeling musicians will do the same. So changing the sound to make it sound, "Like how it was intended" is really a pointless concept. As we'll never know how it sounded in the studio. It's better to change it to something you enjoy. That maybe the Harman Curve but equally it may not be.

Don't forget that the Harman Curve is what most people liked (out of a large group). Effectively it was a sound that found approval from the most people (an average as such). It might not have been their favourite sound, just the best out of what was presented. Also, I could ask a 1000 people what their favourite ice-cream is. The consensus maybe chocolate or vanilla... personally I like rum and raisin. Music like all things is a personal choice.

So the way I see it, there's no point trying to change something to a "Curve" with the belief that's how it's supposed to sound. It's about what you like. Harman would have created it to try and find a sound that was acceptable to as many people as possible so as to sell more hardware. For me, I want more than acceptable... I want perfection (for me).

Your analogy about harman target and chocolate ice cream is really a great example!

p.s: I love dark chocolate ice cream but not so much with harman

 

[Wladimir]

Hey brothers, someone in EU willing to part with the Hybrid pads ? I would like to try them with my Empys.

Btw I see there was Code23 discussed and I can add from my experience that this cable has the best subbass I ever heard from my Empys. It's also a fairly resolving cable (especially for a pure copper one), just a tad less than my Lavri Grand. One thing the Code23 lacks is some more treble energy, but that is a matter of personal preference / system synergy anyways.