[gregorio]

But simply keep in mind that frequency response is only one aspect of how different cables render the musical signal. Other differences can include soundstage, density of image. Items we have little measure for (although phase is relevant here). Quality differences.

Sorry but that makes no sense at all. There is no musical signal, there is only an analogue electrical signal and cables do NOT render anything, they just transport that analogue signal from an output to an input. And if that’s not bad enough, soundstage and density of image are human perceptions, not properties of an analogue signal and as cables don’t have any human perception obviously that cannot be measured when measuring a cable. Obviously you would have to measure someone’s brain for that, not a cable!

Well well well... what do we have here.

Well, well, well indeed! So, you claimed: A massive difference, not just a barely audible difference but a difference so huge it hurt your wife’s ears in the treble/sibilance range. You also claimed that “copper brings out the mids and sounds warmer”, sibilance also covers the mid/treble range (roughly 2kHz - 9kHz) and in addition, your cans have a very strange impedance curve centred around 2kHz. So, all this seems to correlate and provides some food for thought and yet throughout the range from about 600Hz to around 11kHz your measurements indicate pretty much no difference at all, let alone the huge/massive difference you claimed, “Well well well” indeed!!!

Incidentally, the slight difference of 2-3dB between roughly 90Hz - 400Hz is well within the margin of error. As explained when I suggested this simple/easy measurement approach: “This is hardly a very accurate methodology but should be ample to show the huge mid/treble boost you’re claiming.”. Also, the very narrow dips at around 15kHz and 17kHz are indicative of phase cancellations, due to reflections caused by a small change in relative position of earphone to mic.

There's the first pathetic excuse! (as if a 35dB difference would be within the "margin of error of the setup"). Your point is patently stupid.

What really is “patently stupid”, is having no knowledge/understanding of acoustics then coming to a sound science forum and arguing/insulting others about it! Will you never learn?

In the meantime I’m still in awe how some people refuse to believe factual, scientific (albeit crude) evidence that also happens to be backed by the subjective opinion of a person who had no background in the subject matter (therefore blind to bias).

That is indeed awesome. You claimed a huge difference in the mid/treble, measured pretty no difference at all but refuse to believe this factual (albeit crude) evidence on what grounds, that you’re “blind to bias” and therefore not a human being?

I think this and the other threads are great examples of why "measuring cables" (with a microphone or with your ears nonetheless) this way is not a great idea.

Agreed, the differences that exist between cables (of the same type, length, etc.) are tiny compared to the margin of error when trying to measure HPs with a mic, so it’s a pointless/misleading exercise. However, in this case the poster isn’t claiming tiny differences (that he believes he and his wife can hear), he’s claiming “huge differences”, differences so large (in the mid/treble range) they hurt the ears. Such a massive difference should be detectable even with this crude measurement methodology.

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Thanks very much for this. Good work.

It will be amusing to see what silly excuses they all come up with.

@tjkohli

So, so, SO many excuses!

 

[gregorio]

That’s a fair point, however we are relegated to subjective analysis because there seems to be no scientific way to measure resolution, soundstage, and other “feelings of sound.” Probably because we are all different?

As above, that makes no sense. Firstly, there absolutely is a “scientific way to measure resolution”, there has been for nearly a century and if we couldn’t measure resolution then digital audio would not exist, because that’s effectively what digital audio is! Secondly, “soundstage and other feelings of sound” are human perceptions, how do you think we’re going to measure human perceptions by measuring a cable, you think maybe a cable has human perceptions and microphones record/measure human perceptions? If you want to measure human perceptions then surely you need to measure where they’re created, IE. You’d need to measure a human brain, NOT a cable? I can’t see how this is not blatantly obvious.

So, so, SO many excuses!

Name just one of them then.

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Name just one of them then.

G

"there absolutely is a “scientific way to measure resolution”

How?

 

[gregorio]

"there absolutely is a “scientific way to measure resolution”
How?

Do a null test on the input and output of a cable or use a device such as an AP555 to measure the resolution of whatever audio property.

You stated: “So, so, SO many excuses!” but asked to name one and the only thing you can come up with is in fact not an excuse but a historic fact. That’s funny, even by your standards!

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Do a null test on the input and output of a cable or use a device such as an AP555 to measure the resolution of whatever audio property.

You stated: “So, so, SO many excuses!” but asked to name one and the only thing you can come up with is in fact not an excuse but a historic fact. That’s funny, even by your standards!

G

Lol, so your answer is "put a meter on the cable and measure the resolution." That's weak even by your standards.

Newsflash: the AP555 does not have a readout for "resolution".

 

[gregorio]

Lol, so your answer is "put a meter on the cable and measure the resolution." That's weak even by your standards.

lol, so you couldn’t even read/correctly quote my answer and you call my response weak. It just gets funnier (and more embarrassing to witness)!

Newsflash: the AP555 does not have a readout for "resolution".

You mean fake “Newsflash”, lol. Resolution can be expressed as dBr, a percentage or dBFS (and converted into ENOBs), ALL of which the AP555 has a readout for!

G

Edit: Still waiting for just one of those “So, so, SO many excuses!”

 

[FunkyBassMan]

lol, so you couldn’t even read/correctly quote my answer and you call my response weak. It just gets funnier (and more embarrassing to witness)!

You mean fake “Newsflash”, lol. Resolution can be expressed as dBr, a percentage or dBFS (and converted into ENOBs), ALL of which the AP555 has a readout for!

G

Edit: Still waiting for just one of those “So, so, SO many excuses!”

Of course lol, so you admit to lying about measuring "resolution" and claim as your excuse that the AP555 can measure other things (like signal level).

Yes we know it can measure other things that are not resolution.

 

[Riccioli30]

Lol, so your answer is "put a meter on the cable and measure the resolution." That's weak even by your standards.

Newsflash: the AP555 does not have a readout for "resolution".

no no no. the best way is: place your ear on the tweeter (if you are over 30 and listen with speakers) and appreciate the difference in resolution, in all its glory. Then sit in your favorite armchair and appreciate the difference in sound stage, midrange, nuances, airiness, harmonic breakdown, micro contrast, feeling...etc in all its - unmistakable - glory. Then choose. Forget about spectrum analyzers, oscilloscopes, magnetic field meters. Ignore capacitance and inductance. don't care about the characteristic impedance and the geometry of the cable. Don't think about solder connections and the skin effect. Don't book an ENT visit. But listen to the phenomenological evidence.

 

[gregorio]

Of course lol, so you admit to lying about measuring "resolution"

Thanks for perfectly proving my point that you can’t “even read/correctly quote my answer”. Don’t let that stop you though, you’re on a roll, lol!

and claim as your excuse that the AP555 can measure other things (like signal level).

Hang on, so you’re saying that something like signal level doesn’t have any resolution? That’s great, it means we can have perfect digital audio using 0 bits per second, that should speed up downloads considerably, lol. You’re a funny guy.

G

And still waiting for just one of those “so, so, so many excuses”, just more BS!

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Hang on, so you’re saying that something like signal level doesn’t have any resolution?

G

Ahh the old, "you're saying..." + [something no one ever said]. Your favorite attempt to distract tactic when you get proven wrong.

 

[gregorio]

Ahh the old, "you're saying..." + [something no one ever said]. Your favorite weak attempt to distract tactic when you get proven wrong.

And yet again, apparently you can’t even read a question mark! That’s some roll you’re on! lol.

It’s a simple question, if signal level does have resolution and the AP555 measures signal level then it is measuring resolution. If signal level does not have resolution then we can have perfect digital audio using 0 bits per second. So which is it?

G

So you can’t give just one example of the “so, so, so many excuses”. Thanks for proving your own assertion was BS. Don’t let that stop you from embarrassing yourself further though, it’s entertaining, lol!

 

[FunkyBassMan]

And yet again, apparently you can’t even read a question mark!

Hiding behind punctuation???

I think that's a new low. I'm not sure how much more pathetic your responses can get; now all I feel is pity.

Have a nice day.

 

[gregorio]

Hiding behind punctuation???

Nope, a question mark indicates a question is being asked, didn’t you know that? lol!

I think that's a new low. I'm not sure how much more pathetic it can get; now all I feel is pity.

Oh dear. And you can’t answer that question nor provide a single example of the “so, so, so many excuses” you claimed, your only response is this ad hominem attack, which is indeed as pathetic as it can get!

Have a nice day.

I’m already having a nice (and entertaining) day! Lol

G

 

[KinGensai]

We have literally no way to measure perceived differences in resolution, soundstage, and other factors beyond frequency response.

How else can I convince someone that they sound different? I had literally the same experience as OP.

I don't think that is strictly true, the Harman IE target is, if not directly, then tangentially related to a measurement of what human beings perceive as pleasing, if not somewhat accurate to what they expect to hear in reality.

This is of course stepping past just acoustics and getting into psychoacoustics/cognitive psychology, a much younger science than acoustics. I think we know a little bit about what is involved, but the brain is regrettably still far too much of a mystery to know for sure.

For the time being, the most compelling evidence is going to be hard evidence, whether it be measurements of the effect to the headphone in question or an analysis/breakdown of the cable itself to see what's really going on.

As I said before, my hypothesis is a slight impedance difference, the FR change you recorded is not very drastic.

That’s a fair point, however we are relegated to subjective analysis because there seems to be no scientific way to measure resolution, soundstage, and other “feelings of sound.” Probably because we are all different?

Resolution is measurable, if the sound is lower in distortion and the drivers have a short impulse response (your Liric apparently has a <=0.5% THD at 94 dB, pretty darn good), I think it's safe to say it has good resolution. That's why I think Electrostatics are the undisputed best.

Soundstage is far more subjective, thus is appropriate for a subjective analysis. I believe some objectively measurable factors play a part in it (HRTF, recording and audio engineering techniques, accuracy of your equipment, etc), but too much is dependent on as yet unknown cognitive factors to quantify for sure.