[null_pointer_us]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just to let you know, what you keep pointing out and asserting as true regarding digital cables is clearly not my experience. I have several dacs and awhile back I tried some Blue Jeans digital coax cables. With all the newer jitter rejection technology, improved clocks etc... I didnt expect some vast difference between cables. Furthermore, with all the assertions cables make no difference I constantly read I thought why not give the BJ coax a try. In fact, I ordered two types of BJs digital coax. However, the Enigma Audio coax cable I generally use was definitely better. Better how? Well, the BJ cable made the soundstage cramped and the sound as a whole was compressed and bass heavy. This difference was evident on three diffferent transports (Sacdmods Sony 555ES/9100ES and Eastsound E5) using three different type of dacs ( Zap filter analog output stage modded Zhalou 2.0c/ 2.5c and Opus). The difference between the two cables was the difference between totally enjoying the sound with the Enigma Audio and being bothered by the sound quality flaws with the BJ. I gave the BJ cables away. Maybe there was some other reason but the digital coax cable was the only change. I almost dont want to post this but that is my experience. I didnt even need to look to know what cable was connected. I knew immediately once the music played for a short period of time .... and a quick check would confirm I was correct.

You seem to have become mistaken (again) about what I said regarding digital cables. It is not merely an assertion; it's a statement that what you are claiming contradicts logic. I've explained this in numerous ways in my other posts -- several times in this thread, too, IIRC -- so I won't repeat them here. The short version is that random corruption of digitized waveform information cannot cause the differences you claim to have heard, namely "[cramped soundstage]," "compressed," and "bass heavy." I'm not saying that it's unlikely, or that you need to provide proof, but that it's impossible. You are free to post these "experiences" as much as you like, within the current forum rules, but I am also free to point out that it is false information. You are welcome to continue this elsewhere (via PM or a new thread in the appropriate forum), unless you wish to take it in a direction that's more on-topic.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is it a thread crap when some OP starts a thread about one headphone, and how it was an upgrade to another can, then someone comes in and completely states that it is a complete downgrade from that can? No, it is a differing opinion, and it happens every single day.

I don't know if that situation is analogous. But when someone asks what music people like to use to discern differences in cables in their system, and folks intrude on that thread to state that it doesn't matter because cables all sound the same, that is a thread krap. Is the response somewhat relevant to the thread topic? Arguably it is somewhat relevant, but it is a thread krap nevertheless, because it is clear that the OP in such an instance is not really asking for a discussion about whether cables make a difference. To talk about audible differences in a such a thread really violates the spirit and intent of the initial inquiry.

And this happens all the time in the cable forum. Certain objectivists think any thread remotely about cables is fair game, and no discretion is exercised in staying out of threads that really don't call for the "all cables sound the same" discussion. pabbi1 is right, i.e., "no thread is off limits" to certain folks, and a number of us think something should be done about it.

And I understand that doing something about it is going to continue to be controversial. Why? Because some objectivists (not all) feel compelled to advance their anti-cable agenda in every thread about cables. It is not the case that they just want to have a discussion somewhere. They want the advance their agenda everywhere, for whatever peculiar reasons or motivations they might have.

 

[null_pointer_us]

Do you hit the Report Post button when you see one?

Just out of curiosity, which people are the "certain objectivists" you are talking about?

 

[sacd lover]

That bumblebees can fly contradicts logic too .... but they do. I believe a digital cable can corrupt digital data during the data transfer? So, sorry, but I dont believe what you say. My experience indicates it clearly is possible.


Quote:

Originally Posted by null_pointer_us /img/forum/go_quote.gif You seem to have become mistaken (again) about what I said regarding digital cables. It is not merely an assertion; it's a statement that what you are claiming contradicts logic. I've explained this in numerous ways in my other posts -- several times in this thread, too, IIRC -- so I won't repeat them here. The short version is that random corruption of digitized waveform information cannot cause the differences you claim to have heard, namely "[cramped soundstage]," "compressed," and "bass heavy." I'm not saying that it's unlikely, or that you need to provide proof, but that it's impossible. You are free to post these "experiences" as much as you like, within the current forum rules, but I am also free to point out that it is false information. You are welcome to continue this elsewhere (via PM or a new thread in the appropriate forum), unless you wish to take it in a direction that's more on-topic.

 

[Aimless1]

Pabbi1, your succinct post said what my long tedious posts have been trying to say. Thanks for making the message understandable.

Null, people are simply disagreeing with you. No need to take everything so personally. As a former debater I must disagree when you state something is a logical impossibility. But that part of the discussion really does not apply to the thread topic. We can discuss that in a more appropriate thread if our paths cross again.

PhilS, simply based on what has happened to your well intentioned thread the situation looks hopeless. It appears the two sides are unable to co-exist.

 

[meat01]

It is really quite simple.

Start a thread on cable impressions. If the thread goes off topic by an objectivist, ignore them or ask them to keep the topic at hand. If that does not work or the thread continues to get derailed, PM a moderator to clean up the thread. If the thread is a "do cables make a difference?", ask a mod that the thread be moved to the science forum.

Believe it or not, I have PMed Wayne numerous times and threads have been moved or cleaned up. Freedom of speech is one thing, but thread craps are another. Name calling and insults just make the situation worse. I would much rather moderate ourselves rather than have strict moderation at head-fi.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pabbi1, your succinct post said what my long tedious posts have been trying to say. Thanks for making the message understandable. Null, people are simply disagreeing with you. No need to take everything so personally. As a former debater I must disagree when you state something is a logical impossibility. But that part of the discussion really does not apply to the thread topic. We can discuss that in a more appropriate thread if our paths cross again. PhilS, simply based on what has happened to your well intentioned thread the situation looks hopeless. It appears the two sides are unable to co-exist.

LOL

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by null_pointer_us /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you hit the Report Post button when you see one? Just out of curiosity, which people are the "certain objectivists" you are talking about?

On occasion I have hit the Report Post button. But I don't like to have to report people all the time, and I suspect others do not also. In addition, it is too much to expect the moderators to have to clean up all the intrusive posts. It happens in too many threads with too much regularity.

If politics was intruding on many, many threads, I suppose we could say that one can just use the Report Post button. But at some point, the problem becomes so pervasive that this is no longer a practical or expedient solution, and I think the cable threads are at that point.

As to who the worst offenders are among the objectivists, I would really prefer not to name names, as I think that will not be productive, and I'm just no comfortable doing that. I don't want to make this personal. It's just a problem that I think could be resolved and would make the forum better.

 

[null_pointer_us]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif That bumblebees can fly contradicts logic too .... but they do.

IIRC, that bumblebees can fly contradicts current scientific understanding of flight, not logic, which becomes no less valid with the passage of time. If critical thinking ever fell out of style with the scientific community, the scientific community would no longer be scientific. Questioning one's own (and others') observations is the foundation of science. Why the pro-(digital)-cable people are using science as a reason to avoid thinking about the subject matter is beyond me.

Quote:

I believe a digital cable can corrupt digital data during the data transfer? So, sorry, but I dont believe what you say.

The corruption is random, affecting any and all bits. Which bits are affected depends purely on the passage of time, i.e. how long you hold the source of interference close enough to the cable to multilate the data stream. There's no way for random digital data corruption to affect just the highs, or the mids, or the lows, or to widen the soundstage, or any other "observations" along these lines. Such observations can never be anything more than delusion.

Quote:

My experience indicates it clearly is possible.

No, but it does indicate that you want very strongly to believe it is possible.

 

[meat01]

Why is digital vs. analog still being discussed in this thread after being asked numerous times to stay on topic

 

[null_pointer_us]

I'd appreciate it if everyone stopped talking about it (here), but they don't, so I keep responding to them. This in answer to the question of why, not necessarily about who's responsible for it.

 

[null_pointer_us]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Null, people are simply disagreeing with you. No need to take everything so personally.

No, they're also misrepresenting me, which annoys me because I look bad if I don't respond. In retrospect, I suppose I look even worse to them, for having responded (in a mostly polite manner), but that's more a function of how they want to see me. I can't change that except by "siding" with them. So it's an impasse.

Quote:

As a former debater I must disagree when you state something is a logical impossibility.

1 + 1 = 3.3489347839

You killed your mother and ate her before you were born.

Any number of logically impossible claims can be made for the sake of argument. It just depends, generally speaking, on how much you want to believe what you're saying, and how little energy you wish to devote to the possibility that you are being absurd. Some people, for whatever reason, do not consider that, even though it's one failing common to all humans.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pabbi1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Justify thread crap any way you like. The case is now perfectly stated that no thread is off limits (defined in advance, asked for, etc) from 'cables don't matter'. Period. Great job! Thus the conversation has grown tiresome, and the issue completely defined. The cable forum is a thread crappers paradise, protected by freedom of expression. Thus, most with anything to actually discuss regarding cables, other than their physical existance, and the _FACT_ that they do not matter, have voted with their feet. Buh-bye.

If you can't even be mature enough to talk about in a thread to discuss the problem, maybe you shouldn't be here in the first place. You are providing a great example as to how "pro-cable" people who get too defensive and emotional about it are just as much a part of the problem.

I see a re-occuring theme from a lot of pro-cable people. It seems a lot of people think that any post with a differing opinion is a thread crap. And not all of them are, and the ones that are thread craps are the ones that need to be dealt with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know if that situation is analogous. But when someone asks what music people like to use to discern differences in cables in their system, and folks intrude on that thread to state that it doesn't matter because cables all sound the same, that is a thread krap. Is the response somewhat relevant to the thread topic?

Yes, THAT is a thread crap, because it is not relevant to the topic. I agree 100%, and that should not be allowed at all. That is exactly why I said it depends on how and when it is voiced.

What isn't a thread crap is when someone new asks about a cable recommendation to improve the sound, and others suggest that they could get a better return via another system upgrade. It is completely relevant to the topic, no matter how repeatedly it happens.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan /img/forum/go_quote.gif What isn't a thread crap is when someone new asks about a cable recommendation to improve the sound, and others suggest that they could get a better return via another system upgrade. It is completely relevant to the topic, no matter how repeatedly it happens.

I generally agree with you, although I could give examples where it would be appropriate, and examples where it would not be appropriate, depending on how the initial question is phrased, or what really is the nature of the OP's inquiry.

But the problem is that what you agree is a thread krap is the stuff that is happening over and over.

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan /img/forum/go_quote.gif What isn't a thread crap is when someone new asks about a cable recommendation to improve the sound, and others suggest that they could get a better return via another system upgrade. It is completely relevant to the topic, no matter how repeatedly it happens.

This is a really good point, and I think it can be elucidated with an example:

Say you have someone in a speaker forum, let's call him John. John has a pair of one of those (formerly) trendy Insignia speakers. A well-known problem with those speakers is that they suffer from cabinet resonance. So he asks on a thread which damping material to get. Two people reply:

The first person says that he should invest in dynamat, as it does a really good job.

The second person says that he should save his money and get Peel and Seal (roof flashing) because they're essentially the same thing and Peel and Seal is a good deal cheaper.

Neither person has thread crapped. Both have offered valid advice, and the OP has some information that he can take away from the thread. The two people can also give reasons for why they picked each one, and leave it at that.

The same line of reasoning applies with cables.

Say John goes to head-fi, and asks for a cable recommendation between his DAC and amplifier. Two people reply:

One person recommends a botique audio cable somewhere in the triple digit price range.

The other person says that John should save his money and buy BJC/monoprice cables, as they work just as well, are basically the same, and cost a good deal cheaper.

The second person that posted made a valid recommendation - it was just a recommendation for a cheaper cable. The OP can then inquire further.

The key here is that the recommendations should remain just that - recommendations. If someone says cables don't matter and recommends a cheap cable, what's wrong with that? It's just another cable recommendation. The only difference is that of price.

The point at which it becomes threadcrapping is when someone starts arguing that buying the more expensive cable is BS, or that the person recommending monoprice has tin ears. The turning point is when a debate occurs when it doesn't need to. This is when moderation is necessary.

The original analogy allows us to step out of our beliefs on cables and instead look at it from a more unbiased standpoint: would you really have a problem with someone recommending peel and seal over dynamat? More importantly, how silly would it be to bicker about whether or not dynamat is better than peel and seal/worth the price/etc? It's the same concept - the arguments are useless, but the differing advice is not.

It would really be a disservice to the new members if he unwittingly buys an expensive cable, when he may have bought the cheaper cable and been perfectly happy with it. Without the other person recommending the cheap cable, that new member may think that, by default, cheap cables are terrible things just because nobody recommended them. Of course, the converse also applies: the person might have extra spending money, or be persuaded to go ahead and splurge in the expensive set of cables. The decision isn't as important as the OP having all options laid out for him so he can make a decision for himself.


I don't really mind cable debates, so long as they're restricted to a cable thread (like most people). That being said, I don't think it's threadcrapping to talk about cables not making an audible difference in a cable recommendation thread, because that is a tacit recommendation for a cheaper cable -a recommendation that's no less valid than one for an expensive cable.

The real problem is the incessant arguing, which happens from members of both camps - either a cable skeptic belligerently tries to make the claim that cables don't matter when the OP is already convinced, or the cable believer calls the skeptic tin-eared or says his/her equipment isn't up to spec. That's a problem, because it's the catalyst for a multi-page argument that will only turn off the OP, regardless of how the OP ends up leaning.

The problem isn't relegated to cable believers or cable disbelievers. It's a product of people arguing when those arguments should be limited to specific threads designated for that purpose - and this happens from members of both camps.

Basically, while I'm all for the moderation of debates that spark from innocent threads, I'm not for the removing of the stated opinion that cables don't make a difference. If each camp would just refrain from starting an argument based on that, everything would be fine, i.e.

Poster 1: "I think you should get x cable for 100 dollars"
Poster 2: "I think your money would better be served with a cheap monoprice cable. The differences are pretty much nonexistent, and you'll save a lot of money that you can throw into a new pair of headphone, or a new amp"
3: "I agree with the previous post: I don't really think cables make a difference. The monoprice cables are built really well and won't break the bank"
4: "I swear by that cable the first guy recommended. It's made my system much better in terms of sound quality"

etc.

Basically, all of my rambling aside, I think there's room for cable skeptics, so long as those skeptics (and the believers as well) refrain from arguing outside of that "do cables make a difference?" thread.