[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif KW, would you be willing to share with us, what you heard (it would be great if you could go into some detail so we could get a feel for your process) the cables you tested how they differed from each other what your expectations were as you went into the test USG

USG,
I would love to, but it was long, long ago and far, far away, and I don't know where my notes are, but there must be a thread or two in the archives. Feel free to search. I don't mind taking a fresh approach to this.

BTW, as I recall, Jude posted an awesome review on cables too.
This is an excellent review by Jude:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f22/re...connects-8908/

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... I found, overall, I got more difference just from how I arranged the cable spacially than I did from changing cables (e.g. wrapping it around my arm sometimes gave me 2dB better THD+N). The reason is probably mostly noise, although sometimes harmonic amplitudes changed a bit....

Btw, welcome to the forum Filburt, and thank you for posting here.....

We need all the scientific information we can get......

USG

 

[digger945]

Filburt, what are the time divisions on the 2722 software, or what is the smallest amount of time that can be viewed on the screen at one time?...to get the most distance between waves.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif USG, I would love to, but it was long, long ago and far, far away, and I don't know where my notes are, but there must be a thread or two in the archives. Feel free to search. I don't mind taking a fresh approach to this. BTW, as I recall, Jude posted an awesome review on cables too. This is an excellent review by Jude: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f22/re...connects-8908/

I read the review and the conversation and am less convinced than ever before.

Cardas makes good cable and RCA plugs. OK.

We're going to have to get an ABX box to test these things at the meets. A few of us are working on this. No meet will be complete without an ABX box to test cables and amps. I listened to Ray's switch box on more than one occasion and the more I think about what I heard during those short listening sessions, the more I understand that there is little difference to hear.

One of the cables I'd like to test against is this one, from one of the meets. Two solid silver strands wrapped over paper, which is the antithesis's of that review.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I read the review and the conversation and am less convinced than ever before. Cardas makes good cable and RCA plugs. OK. We're going to have to get an ABX box to test these things at the meets. A few of us are working on this. No meet will be complete without an ABX box to test cables and amps. I listened to Ray's switch box on more than one occasion and the more I think about what I heard during those short listening sessions, the more I understand that there is little difference to hear. One of the cables I'd like to test against is this one, from one of the meets. Two solid silver strands wrapped over paper, which is the antithesis's of that review.

I would be leery of any ABX box and its probable deleterious or obfuscatory effects on the sound.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would be leery of any ABX box and its probable deleterious or obfuscatory effects on the sound.

Well first of all you'd want to ABX the ABX box to see
if you can tell a difference....

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JadeEast /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well first of all you'd want to ABX the ABX box to see if you can tell a difference....

Of course!

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JadeEast /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well first of all you'd want to ABX the ABX box to see if you can tell a difference....

LOL, and then ABX the ABX that's ABXing the ABXs.......

Or just switch the leads around a few times ...... see if you get the same results.

USG

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL, and then ABX the ABX that's ABXing the ABXs....... Or just switch the leads around a few times ...... see if you get the same results. USG

I like the way you think USG!

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JadeEast /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well first of all you'd want to ABX the ABX box to see if you can tell a difference....

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would be leery of any ABX box and its probable deleterious or obfuscatory effects on the sound.

Hi KW

Well, at least you're offering up the "party line" of excuses, but how would you feel if the cables pictured above actually sounded no different to you, in an ABX test, than the cables you're using now? You'd want the leads switched around and try it again. Now suppose there was no difference a second time?

It is not enough to Pooh Pooh the ABX box.

The magic cables have to work, each time and every time or they are not magic cables.

If what you're hearing is not verifiable and reproducible, to others, I'm afraid it might just be the placebo effect.

Outlandish claims that support outlandish prices will have to be proven. Until then, all good cables, made from good wire and good end plugs, sound the same.

It is also interesting that no one, in the thousands tested by Clark, over many years, have been able to win his amp challenge.

USG

 

[scompton]

I can't believe I missed this thread. I have a few comments on some posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif I must say I disagree with this statement. Even comparing a chemical sense like taste to one like hearing, two senses with different detection mechanisms and very, very different modes of perception is disingenuous in my opinion. Taste (especially in conjunction with smell) is a much more concrete type of perception than hearing. It is more "real". Taste and smell are caused by the presence of real chemicals on the tongue and in the nose, chemicals that activate specific receptors in specific ways. Anyone who tries hard enough can will themselves into hearing anything they want in a piece of audio equipment. It isn't so easy to alter your taste or smell perception. I would even say that out of all the senses, hearing is the least accurate and most fallible. (This isn't to say that other perceptions can't be affected by internal biases or feelings, hence the need for DBT tests, but in my experience, hearing is especially prone to this.)

I disagree with this. It's very easy to alter your taste/smell perception. That's why some things are considered an acquired taste. The sense of smell is more wired to memory than any other sense, and that can greatly effect taste.

There are also cultural differences with taste/smell. People in South East Asia love durian. Most westerners can't get it past their nose. And vice versa with blue cheese.

My wife has a strong bias against anything that tastes bitter. Even the slightest bitter taste and she has a knee jerk reaction that what ever it is tastes bad.


Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Another gem by jonathanjong. Can you think of any other parts of the ear that are able to contribute to receiving sound, that we might be leaving out? Can you think of any other information that can be transmitted over a wire that the ear can receive? Is it safe to say that without vibration of the tympanic membrane, you would hear (in the full sense of the word) nothing? You see why we have to do it this way, don't you? USG

The answer to 1, from my understanding is that the most important part of your ear for hearing is the Cochlea. I worked with a deaf person who lost his hearing in a motorcycle accident in his 20s. He had a cochlear implant and his hearing was very near normal. The Cochlea is also why you hear bone conduction. It has nothing to do with the tympanic membrane, which answers 3.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi KW Well, at least you're offering up the "party line" of excuses, but how would you feel if the cables pictured above actually sounded no different to you, in an ABX test, than the cables you're using now? You'd want the leads switched around and try it again. Now suppose there was no difference a second time? It is not enough to Pooh Pooh the ABX box. The magic cables have to work, each time and every time or they are not magic cables. If what you're hearing is not verifiable and reproducible, to others, I'm afraid it might just be the placebo effect. Outlandish claims that support outlandish prices will have to be proven. Until then, all good cables, made from good wire and good end plugs, sound the same. It is also interesting that no one, in the thousands tested by Clark, over many years, have been able to win his amp challenge. USG

"Party line?" I have no party line, and I offer no excuses.

"Magic" cables? What's magic about them, or am I missing something intended to be funny?

I can't disagree with the gist of what you've said in this post, however your bias seems to be hanging out. I have no bias. I can either a difference or I can't. If I can't demonstrate the repeatability of what I hear, then I don't really hear it. It's pretty much that cut and dried. I've done enough simple single blind testing to know without a shadow of a doubt that given the right conditions, cable differences are quite discernible. If the ABX box had no impact on the sound, I would have no objection to it being present in a test.
I'll be the first in line to agree with you that good does not have to equate to expensive and vice versa.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

I disagree with this. It's very easy to alter your taste/smell perception. That's why some things are considered an acquired taste. The sense of smell is more wired to memory than any other sense, and that can greatly effect taste.

I disagree with your disagreement. Instead of responding to the whole thing, let me give you an example of what I am talking about.

Let's say I recable someone's pair of HD650s (or whatever) with a new silver cable. I give these headphones to a person and explain to them all of the advantages of the new cable, how much clearer the sound will be, the improved transient response, and whatever else you can think of. Chances are, unless the person is a skeptic already, they will "hear" at least some of the properties that I described to them.

Now, let's say I present your wife with a food that she knows to be bitter. I also present to her a special powder which I claim can reduce the bitterness of the food to manageable levels while not affecting any of the other subtle nuances of its taste (Of course, the powder does nothing). Let's assume that my presentation is very convincing and that she believes me completely.

Unless she is very open to the power of suggestion indeed, chances are that when she takes her first bite, the food will still taste unbearably bitter, even if she expected that it wouldn't.

Of course, taste perception is not completely immune to these effects. If it was, wine that people thought was more high-end wouldn't tend to taste better than other equivalent wines that people thought were low end. Even so, I still maintain that hearing is far more vulnerable to expectancy effects than any other sense.

 

[Know Talent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif How can something be both commonly observed and difficult to describe?

addressing this clippet...

If you hold a convention for paranormal paranoids and bring up discussions on UFO sightings and alien abduction the result will be much the same I would guess?

Would the real Bigfoot please step forward!

 

[digger945]

USG & KW,
This is a post just for ideas...
... how I first discovered the difference between mp3's of various bitrate and lossless was by ripping a cd into different formats and just clicking on one after the other(very quickly over and over) in iTunes to hear the difference in the first few seconds of my favorite tune.