[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaZa /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know internet isnt 100% reliable, far from it. But where was the website again where this very subject had been handled. Telling when people started to turn their attention to cables, both hifi-companies and hifists. The article was very long, handling tests from several hifi-magazines etc... I lost the bookmark after I built my new computer couple of weeks ago, but I guess some of you skeptics still have it? I give you that it isnt THE proof, (quite few of the stuff in internet is) but still a damn good one in comparison to the believers side which I have seen NONE. Untill now perhaps? I ask YOU the same question, do you have a proof that there is NOTHING in the claims skeptics have been saying and prooving tens of years? Have they been mumbling nothing but empty words all this time? I give a big kudos to slwiser so far, he atleast tried something. He PMd me the theory how different materials might affect the travel of different frequencies, the article which he soon posted here too, but was bit brushed aside by skeptics from what I have noticed (tsk tsk...). However, mathematic stuff like that is total hebrew for me, and I sort of hoped someone with bigger knowledge of physics or electricity would have studied it and say if there is any truth in it, or if the difference is in 0.00000000000001 margin. (read, almost unmeasurable and definetly unheardable) HE did try to give me some proof, although it was undecipherable for me (translation and judgement please!)

Again we all know that the difference in cables exist, they are physically different, the parameters sometimes measure different, the materials used are different, and the travel of different freq are different, but the problem is that nobody post an study on why one is better than other, as they all limit the info. The question we always asked for is, to what extend those differences are audible or not, and by whom, maybe a bat can hear them, the problem is not if they are there or not, we know that 0.001ohms and 0.1ohms are 100 times apart, now place a resistor on .001 and another of 0.1 ohms inside a cable, and tell where is which....

Most of the differences they claim, if any, are in freqs far above the audible spectrum...

 

[mbriant]

And the never-ending argument continues .....

 

[yotacowboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaZa /img/forum/go_quote.gif I ask YOU the same question, do you have a proof that there is NOTHING in the claims skeptics have been saying and prooving tens of years? Have they been mumbling nothing but empty words all this time?

I don't have proof either way...

...and actually, I'm quite happy with that predicament. without getting too philosophical, I quite enjoy the idea that there is no universal truth in this matter. What I don't enjoy is when other people make certain universal claims, and blame their beliefs on a perversion of empirical science or a perversion of subjective beauty.

 

[Vul Kuolun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif That sounds the opinions of two out of 66,000 members....posted in one thread out of hundreds of thousands of threads. it's been said again and again ( again, because it's true), every moderator here was and is a member first. They spend hours of their time, as volunteers, helping to keep order. They were chosen as moderators because they've shown they care about the hobby and the site, and have exhibited a certain level of rationality. They are not prohibited to participate in discussions or enjoy themselves as members by being a moderator. They too get angry or frustrated at times, for the same reasons any regular member might get angry or frustrated. Sometimes they take a side on an issue and then the issue turns ugly. If you look through the threads, I'm certain you'll also find more than one poster accusing non-skeptics of being delusional or sheep trying to justify spending money on cables. Just think, once we put an end to this constant head-butting, in an argument that never ends, we won't have to listen to opinions we disagree with .... unless we want to by intentionally reading the appropriate forum.

It's not about what two members say. There are other, far more offending postings to be read. That's not the problem, i can take a joke or to.
It's about the positions your moderators constantly take, and a moderator has a exposed role in these discussions. People will and do watch closely what a moderator says, concluding official positions from their comments. Especially, if the mods are so homogeneously pro subjectivist as here.

You tell me you're unbiased and like to create fair conditions for all sides.
I tell you why i have some doubts.

But at last, you're chief, it's your board. We'll see. I can certainly live with whatever route you take.

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif And the never-ending argument continues .....

Perhaps, but im getting better big-picture all the time, so a bit more patience please.

Quote:

Again we all know that the differecnes in cables exist, they are physically different, the parameters sometimes measure different, the materials used are different, and the travel of different freq are different, but the problem is that nobody post an study on why one is better than other, as they all limit the info. The question we always asked for is, to what extend those differences are audible or not, and by whom, maybe a bat can hear them, the problem is not if they are there or not, we know that 0.001ohms and 0.1ohms are 100 times appart, now place a resistor on .001 and another of 0.1 ohms inside a cable, and tell where is which.... Most of the differences they claim, if any, are in freqs far above the audible spectrum...

So, the cables do alter the signal. Some frequencies are slowed down by cable material. But if they might be audible in theory, then why spend money on uber-expensive cables? Why not shorten them as short as possible, (or go as far as no cable at all as I proposed earlier) so they have least amount of time to be hindered? So copper has different characteristics in different frequencies and silver has different characteristics in other frequencies than copper. But copper is a copper and silver is a silver then, a label nor pricetag difference on cable doesnt mean a rats arse, the same characteristic is shared by all cables of same material of same purity?

Quote:

I don't have proof either way... ...and actually, I'm quite happy with that predicament. without getting too philosophical, I quite enjoy the idea that there is no universal truth in this matter. What I don't enjoy is when other people make certain universal claims, and blame their beliefs on a perversion of empirical science or a perversion of subjective beauty.

Perhaps there is? Thats why im asking questions here and trying to learn as much as possible to find which side holds more water, which side is more likeably to be true. Well see.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....... but the problem is that nobody post an study on why one is better than other, as they all limit the info............

Yes, I did and was promptly told that it was tread crapping. So don't ask for technical information when none is desired or truly wanted.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I did and was promptly told that it was tread crapping. So don't ask for technical information when none is desired or truly wanted.

Did I told you that is was thread crapping? I'm getting senile then...I do want it, that is exactly all I was looking for, the funny thing is that if this info exists, why it was never used before and was ignored for so long, is it good enough, I mean does it really answers what we are trying to clear?

Sorry if I was not clear enough, I was referring to the cable manufacturers while I said nobody, the ones who charge the big bucks, they at least should provide some kind of elements instead fo relying of third party homework for that...anyway if you have it, just post it, that will at least be an starting point....

 

[Lazarus Short]

As some of you may already know, I am a member of the "wire-is-wire" camp, but why am I called a "cable hater"? I don't hate cable, I have a stash of them, from cheap to expensive to home-made in a fairly large carrying case. I even sold a very sexy optical Bluetooth mouse, because it was wireless. When I set up my audio gear, I try to use the "better" cables before the cheapies.

There is ONE person on Head-Fi who is qualified to end this debate: Billinkansas. I don't mean to single him out, but he made a device which can instantly switch from one source or wire to another. He had me A/B a vintage Fisher tube receiver vs a newer SS receiver. I listened, switched back & forth, and soon noted that one had a hotter top end. I thought, Oh, the one with the rolled-off highs must the one with tubes! I guessed - wrong!! This thread has piqued my interest, and when Bill and I meet again, I am going to want to try out his switcher on my cables. I hope to take notes and report back in this forum...

BTW, did anyone else note how early the OP dropped out of the thread??

Laz

 

[mbriant]

slwiser: Thank you for quickly editing and removing the last part of your sentence which originally read "... when none is desired or truly wanted by the head in the sand crowd". That must mean that at least someone is starting to realize the sort of flippant, non-productive insults that get thrown about during these sort of discussions.

I'd be interested in seeing the thread ( and the OP's original topic heading) where your info was called thread crapping.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif As some of you may already know, I am a member of the "wire-is-wire" camp, but why am I called a "cable hater"? I don't hate cable, I have a stash of them, from cheap to expensive to home-made in a fairly large carrying case. I even sold a very sexy optical Bluetooth mouse, because it was wireless. When I set up my audio gear, I try to use the "better" cables before the cheapies. There is ONE person on Head-Fi who is qualified to end this debate: Billinkansas. I don't mean to single him out, but he made a device which can instantly switch from one source or wire to another. He had me A/B a vintage Fisher tube receiver vs a newer SS receiver. I listened, switched back & forth, and soon noted that one had a hotter top end. I thought, Oh, the one with the rolled-off highs must the one with tubes! I guessed - wrong!! This thread has piqued my interest, and when Bill and I meet again, I am going to want to try out his switcher on my cables. I hope to take notes and report back in this forum.

I agree with you on the "hating" part. I've got the special Grado wire on my HP-2s and had my tonearm rewired with Cardas. I don't think the wire adds or detracts from the headphones, and the tonearm sounds about the same. The reason I had it rewired was so it would have a proper ground - I didn't like the way Rega runs ground on the left channel. But the Cardas works fine. Again, I just don't notice a difference. It's not hate. Cardas had the right wire for the job and I've had zero problems with it. I am happy with it and think well of the product, but don't hear the wire making a sonic difference.

I think the testing device sounds like a great idea. I'd love to see the results from a test.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaZa /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, the cables do alter the signal. Some frequencies are slowed down by cable material. But if they might be audible in theory, then why spend money on uber-expensive cables? Why not shorten them as short as possible, (or go as far as no cable at all as I proposed earlier) so they have least amount of time to be hindered? So copper has different characteristics in different frequencies and silver has different characteristics in other frequencies than copper. But copper is a copper and silver is a silver then, a label nor pricetag difference on cable doesnt mean a rats arse, the same characteristic is shared by all cables of same material of same purity? Perhaps there is? Thats why im asking questions here and trying to learn as much as possible to find which side holds more water, which side is more likeably to be true. Well see.

I have always agreed with this standpoint. The ideal solution would be to combine all your equipment into a one-box solution.

Think of cables and power cords as an audiophile's method of tone control. Equalizers are taboo because they distort the sound. Mid-tier and top-tier equipment have no bass/treble/equalizer controls.

Let's say you own and love a certain CD player but just wish it had the tiniest bit more warmth. You don't want to shop all over for a different CD player because you love everything about it from its sonics to its wealth of features. You can contour the sound more to your liking by using different cables and power cords (just as your CD player contours the sound by using different buffers and output stages). The benefits aren't only in the realm of tone control, but offer more detail as well by using higher gauge conductors and more layers of shielding to block out EMI.

When quantum physicists say they don't exactly understand the behavior of electrons, I strongly doubt certain people that frequent this forum do either. We know cables will yield different sonic traits in one system than another. We just don't really know why. But the more that certain cable companies spew out loads of marketing-driven psychobabble, the more it taints the opinions of those who, A) are looking for a way to enhance their audio system, and B) already know their products can stand on their own merit.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry if I was not clear enough, I was referring to the cable manufacturers while I said nobody, the ones who charge the big bucks, they at least should provide some kind of elements instead fo relying of third party homework for that...anyway if you have it, just post it, that will at least be an starting point....

No you did not say that my posting the link to the paper was tread crapping but noUseName did.

Just check in post 347 on page 18 to get to the link.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by UseName /img/forum/go_quote.gif Frustrating isn't it? This is the same type of thing believers are going through. If someone compares cable A and Cable B, I could argue that the essential issue that should be answered first is whether cables make a difference. So please stop derailing this thread with your thread crapping.

Highlighting is mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif slwiser: Thank you for quickly editing and removing the last part of your sentence which originally read "... when none is desired or truly wanted by the head in the sand crowd". That must mean that at least someone is starting to realize the sort of flippant, non-productive insults that get thrown about during these sort of discussions. I'd be interested in seeing the thread ( and the OP's original topic heading) where your info was called thread crapping.

Here you go with the post that I was referring too.

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif No you did not say that my posting the link to the paper was tread crapping but noUseName did. Just check in post 347 on page 18 to get to the link.

Here it is again, for easier access.
http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/...es_1985%29.pdf

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vul Kuolun /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm talking about markl talking about the sceptics beeing a bunch od unexperienced youngsters, whose motivation for participating here is their wish to justify their inadequate finacial capabilites, and Wmcmanus applauding to it.

Must not be in this thread. I've replied to markl's comments twice in this thread: post #60 and post #64, neither of which had to do with a kiddy pool. My comments in both of these posts were specifically related to the exchange between markl's and Sovkiller. I was basically saying that I agreed with markl. If his reviews of headphones and amps and so forth are credible, then why would his reviews of cables not be credible? That was the context.