[Riku540]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emon That's because video signals operate in the MHz range where cables are much more significant. I'm talking only about low-frequency (audio) signals over short runs, as in a home setup. Not video and not 300 foot balanced line-level runs. Not transmission lines in the GHz range. Just short runs of audio.

You're missing the point. My post was not specified only to you and you alone and what you deem as practical. My only intent was to suggest a different method perception to others. This is just to show that cables can potentially make a difference; weather it is sufficient or not is up to them. Personally, I feel that every fraction of a percent is worthwhile. That is why I choose to invest in cables.

 

[Emon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riku540 You're missing the point. My post was not specified only to you and you alone and what you deem as practical. My only intent was to suggest a different method perception to others. This is just to show that cables can potentially make a difference; weather it is sufficient or not is up to them. Personally, I feel that every fraction of a percent is worthwhile. That is why I choose to invest in cables.

I know it wasn't directed at me at all. You say it is to show that cables can potentially make a difference, and I pointed out that the effects of cabling on a video signal can't be applied to audio since video works on a MUCH higher frequency band than audio. I understand what you're saying, but I find it a terribly poor way to say it.

 

[kin0kin]

Emon's argument is that the differences you could see on TV due to whatever reasons is not feasible when it comes to audio purposes. Thus, your method of seeing the difference on TV as an alternative method to perceive the differences may be misleading if applied on audio purposes eventhough there is a difference. He never said anything about cable not making a difference anyway.

Imho, cables are all about coloration after specific gauges with specific material. I wonder why recording studio never bothers about it as much as audio geeks

(they also run a length much more longer than a typical IC)

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill ...it's actually quite easy to make a cable that changes the sound of a pair of headphones: you just build it in such a way that it's intentionally broken. You can build a cable, intentionally, in such a way that it will roll off certain areas of the frequency spectrum, and this will of course change how the headphone sounds.

If it's so easy, I'm sure you can tell me how to increase the upper treble or how to attenuate the upper bass by «intentionally breaking» a cable -- and this without additional electrical components such as capacitors and inductors.

Quote:

...it's not that Expensive Aftermarket Cable is doing a better job of transmitting the sound than Cheap OEM Cable, but that Expensive Aftermarket Cable is basically doing equalisation on the signal in a way that complements the phone's characteristics.

How do you know that stock cables are so «perfect» and aftermarket cables so «equalized»? Even if that were the case, what speaks against choosing a synergetic cable?

Quote:

To take a theoretical example, if you built a cable that rolled off high mids, attached it to a pair of Grados and gave it to someone who doesn't like Grados because they're bright, they may well consider the cable to be 'better' than the stock one, because it's "broken on purpose".

If you follow cable recommendations, you'll notice that it's rarely about absolute ratings, rather about synergetic effects.

But now please tell me which Sennheiser cable is the least «broken»!

.

 

[RnB180]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbloudg20 The way I view cables, is they should be as transparent as possible. Ideally we would want a direct connection from the source to the amp to the can... no cable is a good cable. Since this is not possible, I just look for the cleanest signal transfer I can get from point A to point B.

I agree. A reference cable is one that is transparent as possible. The problem is its difficult for a cable NOT to color sound in some way or another

 

[Michael G.]

High quality cables often have better connectors and nicer soldered joints than cheap cables, so that means a bit more of the electrical signal is likely to be passed relatively undistorted on down to your ears. Effective shielding and/or cable designs that reject RFI/EMI effectively can make things more listenable. Cables can also act as "tone controls" - different kinds of cable designs can alter the tonal balance of the music you hear more or less to your liking. But in the end there is no right way to pass an electrical signal on to your ears. The bottom line is whether or not you like what you hear. Satisfaction might come from $10,000 unobtanium cables or $10 Ratshack cables. You just have to listen and find out for yourself what is what, and then spend whatever you feel like spending for your own purposes. There is no other honest way to go about it.

 

[halcyon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riku540 A tip for non-believers: If you can’t hear it, see it! Cables don’t only affect headphones. Try different cables on your television with your DVD player. For some people, it is easier to see a difference than hear. I personally am confident that I have a good ear, but I will always tell you that my eye is sharper.

I don't think it's as black and white as believers vs non-believers.

It's a continuum between the two.

I've tried PLENTY of cables under blind testing conditions. Have heard very little differences under blind conditions.

And I have Cardas cables for my HD-650.

All in all I'm not a strong believer in cables making a HUGE sound difference for myself.

Sure, when you can see them being changed and know their supposed characteristics, you can hear differences.

But try doing it blind. I have. It's much more difficult.

Still, I don't want to say that they don't absolutely exist.

I just don't believe the changes are "night and day", like some feel.

But everybody should honour their own perception. That's what counts. It's the only road to nirvana.

 

[Mastergill]

We (almost) all know what a good cable can do for some nice dynamic phones like HD-600 or 650. Like with a good speaker setup this should/can be the last upgrade one makes, when everything else is top-notch. A good cable does not 'add' anything but prevent degradation of the delicate and precious electrical audio signal. A general rule of thumb is to spend no more than 10-20% of the setup value into cables.

Now the $5,000 question is: Do you think electrostat and in particular the mighty HE-90 would benefit from a cable upgrade? Is there any Head-fier out there who have done experiment with upgrading electrostatic headphone cable? Personally i would not be happy with the stock lamp cord used with the HE-90. Of course the bias voltage supply doesn't need a good cable but what about the cables which carry the audio signal? Does the high voltage audio signal would benefit from a good cable?

What da ya think?

 

[Riku540]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halcyon I don't think it's as black and white as believers vs non-believers. It's a continuum between the two. I've tried PLENTY of cables under blind testing conditions. Have heard very little differences under blind conditions. And I have Cardas cables for my HD-650. All in all I'm not a strong believer in cables making a HUGE sound difference for myself. Sure, when you can see them being changed and know their supposed characteristics, you can hear differences. But try doing it blind. I have. It's much more difficult. Still, I don't want to say that they don't absolutely exist. I just don't believe the changes are "night and day", like some feel. But everybody should honour their own perception. That's what counts. It's the only road to nirvana.

I realize that completely. If you read my other post, I said something like "Every fraction of a percent matters to me." And that should have indicated that I was NOT talking about huge differences. To me, if there is any difference at all, I want the better of the two.

 

[halcyon]

My apologies if you felt I was misrepresenting your opinion. That was not my purpose

 

[lan]

A believe in cable differences but I don't believe in changing headphone cables only for the mere fact they are so far down the chain. You're better off concentrating you $ on other things further upstream IMO like the source or power cords

.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan A believe in cable differences but I don't believe in changing headphone cables only for the mere fact they are so far down the chain. You're better off concentrating you $ on other things further upstream IMO like the source or power cords .

Look at the lower impedances involved though... headphone cables have more power flowing through them than line-level interconnects (but less than AC power cords, of course

).

 

[Riku540]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan A believe in cable differences but I don't believe in changing headphone cables only for the mere fact they are so far down the chain. You're better off concentrating you $ on other things further upstream IMO like the source or power cords .

Yeah, but eventually you'll have all that. Cables are just fine tuning.