[MrHaelscheir]

I agree, it seems that pointless debate is exactly what he is trying to encourage.

I find it otherwise hard to imagine that anyone could be so utterly full of sh..t.

It's the same kind of jeerleading one gets when trying to argue with flat earthers on YouTube.

 

[gregorio]

However, your comment above exhibits the same type of hubris. Our ability to detect effects electronically is not what determines if they actually exist.

Obviously that assertion cannot be true. If we can electronically record whatever effects you are talking about, then by definition we can detect them. If there were some hypothetical effect that we cannot electronically detect, then by definition we cannot electronically record it and therefore it cannot exist in an electronic reproduction of a recording. Ergo, our “ability to detect effects electronically” absolutely must be what determines if they actually exist in the electronic (analogue audio) signal we’re trying to reproduce!

If it did, that would mean, for example, a rolled-off treble didn't exist before we invented electronics capable of detecting that. And that's clearly not true.

Contrary to your assertion, that clearly is and must be true! Firstly, your example doesn’t make sense, because if the treble is rolled-off then by definition it does not exist and it didn’t exist before or after we invented electronics to detect that. Secondly, if by “rolled-off treble” you just mean “reduced a little” (IE. There is still some treble) then that brings us back the first point above; if we can’t detect something then by definition we can’t record it and therefore it cannot exist in the analogue signal being reproduced.

What we can say with confidence is that a perceived difference either (1) is measurable; (2) is not measurable with our current ability to measure but might be later; or (3) is wholly or partly subjective/psychological.

As this assertion is a sequitur from the above two assertions, which were false, then this assertion is also false. In fact, there’s just two options: (A) The difference is objectively measurable, therefore it actually exists and might be audible if it’s of sufficient magnitude or (B) The difference is not measurable, therefore cannot be recorded, does not exist in the analogue signal being reproduced (and obviously therefore cannot be audible) and therefore if a difference is perceived, it must be due to a perceptual error/bias.

Unless you're in category (1), you can't definitively discount the possibility that either (2) or (3) could be true.

This further sequitur is also therefore false. Either you’re in category (A), in which case the difference is real and may or may not be audible or you’re in category (B), in which case the difference cannot be real and must be psychological. Your option (2) absolutely MUST be “definitively discounted” because again, the current recording technology ONLY allows for the reproduction of audio properties that are measurable!

Even suggesting (3) is more likely than (2) strikes me as dangerous since we have no reason to believe we've invented the ability to electronically measure all relevant effects that people perceive.

This assertion is also false, it’s a strawman argument because it’s irrelevant whether “we’ve invented the ability to electronically measure all effects that people perceive”, what‘s relevant is that we’ve invented the ability to create, measure/record and reproduce an audio signal. Let’s say hypothetically that there is some real property of an analogue audio signal (or of sound) that we can perceive but not measure (although there’s no reliable evidence that even hints that there might be), still this makes zero difference because again, if we can’t detect/measure it then we cannot record it and therefore obviously it cannot be in the analogue audio signal (or sound) that you’re reproducing. In other words, if such a hypothetical property did exist, we would first have to invent some way of detecting/quantifying it and then some new technology to record and reproduce it, because the current technology cannot! IE. Something other than analogue audio signals and digital audio.

G

 

[KinGensai]

@gregorio
Accusation in the mirror may have been most famously implemented as a propaganda strategy in modern history by Goebbels and Lenin, but it did not start as a deliberate cointel strategy. It's far more primal, rooted in humanity's tribalistic origins. To question the self in those times is to question the tribe, and through reinforcement, punishment is internalized into the individual's shadow.

We believe this tendency passes down through generations [1]. Through what mechanism is unclear, but the phenomenon is noted. Milgram and subsequent replications show that vulnerability to such traits is very widespread.

[1] Davey GC, Forster L, Mayhew G. Familial resemblances in disgust sensitivity and animal phobias. Behav Res Ther. 1993 Jan;31(1):41-50. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(93)90041-r. PMID: 8417727.

 

[castleofargh]

Quasi-modo color:
I pretend to do something with my life for more than a day, and the posts have reached the bottom of the internet. I got 2 billions reports (subjective estimation).
Please leave the insults, sarcasm, religion, Hitler and Celine Dion out of your posts.

This specific message was proposed by "do what I say, not what I do".

 

[geoffkait]

I'm not sure that a listening test that is conducted with bias and loose controls is better than no test at all. A sloppy test can be used to argue a point that isn't true. No test at all proves nothing.

I'm assuming that if someone makes cables for a living, they understand the basics of how they work. If they understand how cables work and argue something different, I think it's pretty safe to say that the reason they are saying that is bias. I have bias, you have bias, the pope has bias. But a biased person can say the truth, or can speak untruths. If they are speaking untruths, there must be a reason. In this case, bias is the only reason I can think of. Can you think of a better one?

I'm not accusing him of bias because he makes cables. I'm accusing him of saying things I believe he knows are wrong. We used to have a cable maker here in Sound Science, Steve Eddy. He got booted out of here for pointing out that the Machina Dynamica dongle was snake oil. He made fancy cables with beautiful cloth insulation and well made connectors. He never made any claims about how his cables "sounded" and he never argued against scientific facts. He just said that his cables looked and felt nice, and they were well made. I never had any quarrel with him. He was a good friend. We could use people like him here today. He didn't put up with bulloney.

When one of The Amazing Randi’s droogies threatened to kick my rear end in a jujitsu fight on Randi’s yacht in the Bahamas where they were having their retreat I demurred, suggested they contact Steve Eddy, who would go in my place.

 

[bigshot]

“I knew Steve Eddy. Steve Eddy was a friend of mine. You’re no Steve Eddy.”

 

[Vamp898]

Hi Floks!

Today, I received a high-purity, balanced copper cable handmade in Poland. I decided to compare it with my existing silver-plated cable as a fun activity with my daughter. She thoroughly enjoyed the process, and the results were quite surprising.

We used the same equipment, maintained the same volume, and played the same 15-second song clip. My daughter wore a mask throughout the experiment.

The equipment we used included an iBasso DC04 Pro connected to an iPhone, a Meze 109pro playing a song on Tidal. Both cables were terminated with Pentacon 4.4 connectors. One was the original Meze silver-plated cable, and the other was the pure copper cable from Poland.

I took great care to minimize noise when changing the cables. I also ensured that she couldn’t touch or feel either cable. I am 100% confident that she couldn’t identify which cable was in use at any given time.

I set up a random test using a die. The sequence of cables used was: C - S - S - S - C - S (C represents the Copper wire and S represents the silver-plated wire).

She correctly identified the cable each time, all while maintaining a smile on her face. She noted that the differences were subtle and that it was a challenging test. According to her, the silver wire produced more pronounced vocals and cymbals, while the copper wire enhanced the boom-boom (she is six years old ).

I was quite surprised by the outcome. While I think I can discern the subtle differences, I’m not sure if I could pass this test as flawlessly as she did.

Have you ever tried a similar game with your young children?

Silver has lower impedance which means more bass.

Silver sounds warmer and bassier, not clearer. So one of the cables clearly did something it should not aka was broken. If the copper sounded bassier, than the copper is right.

Its a common myth that silver sounds clearer that comes from the visual appearance.

So your silver cable is garbage, request your money back

 

[icnaiwhimor1975]

there is a difference between silver and copper
and I'm sure I'll pass the blind test too

 

[MrHaelscheir]

there is a difference between silver and copper
and I'm sure I'll pass the blind test too

Time to refer folks back to the following video where I in detail document the process of measuring headphone cables acoustically (to prove that the headphone load itself at least for these flat impedance planars does not have an effect, for those objecting against measuring just the wire).



The frequency responses were identical, likewise with multi-tone signals, and my personal subjective findings were commensurate with that. This doesn't discount your subjective experience. The only problem regards what you mean when you say "there is a difference between silver and copper". If you mean "there is a difference in your perception of silver and copper", that is inherently true if you believe it. The problem is when folks force attribution of immeasurable and hence likely psychologically founded sound percepts to the physical reality of the audio signal (as it is before it hits the eardrums). Evidence points to cables having no physical effect on the audio signal. "Evidence" also points to a sample size of people nonetheless perceiving differences based on faulty sighted comparison methods (or flawed blind tests) and expectation or perceptual biases from a social history of belief in cable sound. They do hear what they hear, whereby that is fine so long as it is understood that what is most likely happening is that they are receiving the same physical audio signal (or at a slightly different volume) while it is the extra-sonic percepts like sight or internal knowledge of which cable is which that are molding the subjective perception of that signal. As such, one should not claim physical reality as a guarantee that everyone with working ears is supposed to hear the differences.

 

[theveterans]

Silver has lower impedance which means more bass.

Silver sounds warmer and bassier, not clearer. So one of the cables clearly did something it should not aka was broken. If the copper sounded bassier, than the copper is right.

Its a common myth that silver sounds clearer that comes from the visual appearance.

So your silver cable is garbage, request your money back

LOL. It has to do with the wire gauge rather than the material itself. a 12awg solid core cable will have more rolled-off treble than a multi-sized enamel stranded litz wire: https://www.hflitzwire.com/frequency-as-per-awg-size/

 

[castleofargh]

Silver has lower impedance which means more bass.

Silver sounds warmer and bassier, not clearer. So one of the cables clearly did something it should not aka was broken. If the copper sounded bassier, than the copper is right.

Its a common myth that silver sounds clearer that comes from the visual appearance.

So your silver cable is garbage, request your money back

OP’s headphone seems to have an impedance bump centered at 70Hz so the higher impedance cable will ”increase” that area(lower everything else more).
But yes, silver sounding clearer was never a rule.

 

[BS5711]

How much of an amplifier/cable impedance change is needed to audibly change the frequency response ?

What is the impedance difference between a silver cable and a copper cable ?

What is impedance difference between typical wire gauges used in headphone and IEM cables ?

 

[The Jester]

Wouldn’t that depend on the impedance of the headphone ?
I’d think that high impedance ones that are 300 to 600 ohms would be less susceptible than those at 20 to 30 ohms …
When you look at some braided or woven headphone cables the way they are constructed can make more difference than the wire itself, capacitance and inductance can both be influenced by cable geometry …

 

[castleofargh]

How much of an amplifier/cable impedance change is needed to audibly change the frequency response ?

What is the impedance difference between a silver cable and a copper cable ?

What is impedance difference between typical wire gauges used in headphone and IEM cables ?

It gets a little bit complicated(more like a PITA than a math challenge) because even a simple estimate will rely on calculating the voltage at the transducer for both cables at various frequencies(the easiest estimation would be to use the formulas for voltage divider stuff, Vout= R2/(R1+R2)*Vin where the cable's resistance at a given frequency would be added to that of the amp)
and then calculate the actual FR change between the 2 with 20log(V1/V2)= ....dB. That gives you the FR deviation between 2 cables at one frequency.

Given how we usually don't even have the impedance curve of the amp( it's not strictly flat at all frequencies even if we're used to only see one number that's implied as being for 1kHz), and impedance graphs we have for headphones are with a cable already, You might get where my opinion of PITA comes from. You'd sooner just go and measure the change. It takes minutes, including setting everything up, and you get the actual impact on your system instead of some prediction with a bunch of assumptions about the real values.


And of course there is no mysterious physical variable that science has yet to find, or electrons that are more audiophile in silver. Once we have the right data, it's not that hard to predict the right results. The issue is again that it's faster to just measure the change than go measure all the data needed to calculate it^_^.


Now to actually answer your questions.

How much of an amplifier/cable impedance change is needed to audibly change the frequency response ?

Because it's a matter of ratio between the source and the load(determining the voltage/SPL), and the cable is just a portion of the source in this situation(not intuitive maybe, but the cable should count as part of the amp), you can't just have a number for what counts or doesn't. It is always a matter of what's on both sides of the cable. And that's in essence what makes the generic claims about the sound of a cable so silly, and the sound of a metal even sillier. Plug them into something else with different impedance, and you'll have a different impact, in magnitude and in tuning.
When it becomes audible is another story. We tend to ask for gain match within 0.1dB for listening tests, but that's a global gain change, and not all situations with cable swap will just be a global gain change. When only a small area of the FR is altered, our sensitivity to it will also be different.

What is the impedance difference between a silver cable and a copper cable ?

You have the difference in conductivity between both metals, often given as 6 or 7% better for silver. But that is never ever transferable as is for an entire cable because the wire only accounts for a small portion of the total impedance of a cable. The plugs end up being a good deal more significant somehow, at least in our hobby, with our usual cable lengths.

What is impedance difference between typical wire gauges used in headphone and IEM cables ?

You can get almost anything. For IEMs where it's going to probably count more because the transducer usually has chaotic impedance (very low but reaching fairly high somewhere), I'd say somewhere from 0.5 to 3ohm would be the most common. But you do find much higher on occasion, usually on purpose as a default cable for a given IEM.
For headphone, the cable's impedance will tend to have less impact (again, it's the relative difference between the parts that matters). So you are likely to find a bigger range of values for cable simply because the maker didn't see the need to bother getting super low impedance cable for his headphone.

 

[BS5711]

If I piece all that together correctly the upshot is that for the most part cables don't make an audible difference but there are specific cases where for example an IEM that is particularly sensitive to FR response versus OI where the change between very different resistance cables can alter the combined amp and cable OI enough to audibly change the sound.

However, these are generally outlier cases and not the rule.