Why do/don't "audiophile" cables improve sound?
Dec 6, 2007 at 11:52 PM Post #16 of 293
Ok, cables do have different inductance, capacitance, and resistance.

But that is not what is being asked to be proven.

Show how those qualities affect audio.

Fact is, the effects can not be measured in the audio range. Despite using instruments many many times more sensitive and accurate than human hearing.

So you have proved cables have different specs. Now prove that actually makes a difference.
 
Dec 6, 2007 at 11:52 PM Post #17 of 293
Quote:

Originally Posted by yotacowboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
don't forget impedance!


Sure. And resistance should be included, as well. I don't have proof (yet) but I think varying resistance accounts for the difference in sound between cables. For the record, I think the believers are sincere about hearing a difference. My rub is that you should not have to spend $350 on exotic materials to achieve that result. Further, that you can produce the identical sound with lamp cord and carefully calculated resistors and other components.

Again, just my opinion so far. It is the only way I can reconcile what people say they hear and what I see as objective reality. Every conductor has resistance, but I do not think the difference between cables is anything more exotic than simple resistance, as well as the other electrical properties mentioned.

The holidays, a cruise and the Zana tapped out my expendable cash for the next month, but I am planning to buy an interconnect, measure the hell out of it, and then build an electrically equivalent clone out of the cheapest parts I can find to see if they sound the same. Might even mail them to other Head-Fi'ers for impressions. Yes, subjective, but I think it would have value.

As for power cables, I've thought about a test where a third party deliberately introduces line noise into a circuit slowly and the listener would indicate when noise or distortion was heard. I believe that a stock power supply would eliminate a surprising amount before any human heard a difference.
 
Dec 6, 2007 at 11:58 PM Post #18 of 293
Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Sure. And resistance should be included, as well. I don't have proof (yet) but I think varying resistance accounts for the difference in sound between cables. For the record, I think the believers are sincere about hearing a difference. My rub is that you should not have to spend $350 on exotic materials to achieve that result. Further, that you can produce the identical sound with lamp cord and carefully calculated resistors and other components.

Again, just my opinion so far. It is the only way I can reconcile what people say they hear and what I see as objective reality. Every conductor has resistance, but I do not think the difference between cables is anything more exotic than simple resistance, as well as the other electrical properties mentioned.

The holidays, a cruise and the Zana tapped out my expendable cash for the next month, but I am planning to buy an interconnect, measure the hell out of it, and then build an electrically equivalent clone out of the cheapest parts I can find to see if they sound the same. Might even mail them to other Head-Fi'ers for impressions. Yes, subjective, but I think it would have value.

As for power cables, I've thought about a test where a third party deliberately introduces line noise into a circuit slowly and the listener would indicate when noise or distortion was heard. I believe that a stock power supply would eliminate a surprising amount before any human heard a difference.



you can try but I doubt you will be successful because most of the fundamental cable characteristics are a function of freq, so your measurement at DC is IMO useless. But you should try anyway just to satisfy your own curiosity
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 12:12 AM Post #20 of 293
Quote:

Originally Posted by tot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
About hearing a difference, someone did a controlled speaker cable test. The interesting thing is that the listener was sure he got all cables right, even though the real result was pretty random.



Someone here also sent around 3 cables for people to test. All different construction, but all looked identical.

Only one person out of about 30 correctly identified the 3 cables. Pure chance alone there was a 1 in 27 chance of getting them right by guessing.

The rest of the results followed exactly what a purely random test would suggest.


Also, our famous Patrick82 posted a video of his own blind test. He failed to properly identify the cable used in the test.

However, he claims it is because it wasn't plugged in just right.

So even here at head-fi, our own members have shown there is no discernible difference between cables.
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 12:21 AM Post #21 of 293
Simple theory on what a makes a cable good or bad.
First I dont care at all about cable theory, it makes my brain bleed.
i do find big differences between some cables and little to none between others.
Anyway, good cables make my system sound good, bad cables dont.
The best BY FAR I have used in my present system have been the silver cables from Audioquest. I use four pair Skys and one pair of the Niagras.
Its not my job to figure out why cables make my system sound the best.......my job is to find them,and pay for them. LOL, My wife just read this and said I need to find a new job.
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 12:24 AM Post #22 of 293
AFAIK skin effect is only noticebable, and a problem, in ultra high frequencies, but not in the audio spectrum see here for more info...

IIRC the main parameters that are studied and really offer relevance in the majority of the audio signals transmissions are: the capacitance, the inductance and the impedance...see here , here, here, hope this clear some concepts for some members...

Please before going with the same usual numbo-jumbo that "this company is trying to sell you this and that, etc..." Please read these whole articles, and later on, take a deep breath and think with a fresh brain. Take into consideration the final cost of the cables that this company sell, the cost of materials involved (that can be easily calculated) the labor with ultraexpensive swiss crimping press machines (that could be estimated) and how much profit is left for them after offering 30 days money back warranty "no questions asked" on their cables for any size/type of cable....Then see if you can find any info, on any website of those exotic boutique cables manufacturers that can tell you what they are actually selling you, OK???...with table, graphs, technical data, etc...or anything ot back their claims...

One more time I have an original factory pressed CD offered some time ago, free of charge, by Wireworld, in which they compare several cables with their own cables, using the same track, and same recording, machine and gear associated, in a recording studio, the recording of this track using different cables, should reveal the differences, if any, among them. Some of the cables they used for the test, were from well known manufacturers, Nordost, Cardas, Monster, BJC, etc...
Please notice that I said "should reveal the differences", and I'm not quantifying/qualifying that difference, just that there should be one.

I know that If you beleive that the difference exist, as a result you have to admit that it will be colored also by your setup, but even colored, there shlould still be one specially if your system is so revealing that reveals difference in other cables...

Sorry but IMO there is none, and if there is one, it is so minuscule, that if you ask me, I don't care about it a little bit, as I do not hear it...if any member wants a copy of the CD, just PM me overed the cost of media and shipping, and I gladly will copy it. Unfortunatelly it is no longer offered, and in part I believe that this CD was a boomerang, as it could be easily used to demonstrate the opposite of what they intended to do, and they simply stop offering it...
wink.gif
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 12:28 AM Post #23 of 293
6 Ns.
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 12:40 AM Post #24 of 293
Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Show how those qualities affect audio.


You ready?

First, we need to realize that yes, indeed, bits are bits, and it's unlikely that a cable will cause any bits to drop. BUT, digital noise which is certainly at frequencies within human hearing range can be caused by timing errors introduced by the cable, if it is presenting an impedance mis-match between either the transport or the DAC. take a deep breath (this was gleaned from another audio board, and may be viewed as "unsubstantiated"... as posted by an audiogon member) but it covers the topic quite well:

"Let's talk about jitter. Jitter is not a harmonic distortion. It is a clock timing error that introduces an effect called phase noise either when a signal is sampled (at the A/D) or the reconstruction of a signal (at the D/A), or both.

Think of it this way: a sine wave goes through 360 degrees of phase over a single cycle. Suppose we were to sample a sine wave whose frequency was exactly 11.025 kHz. This means that with a 44.1 kHz sample rate we would take exactly four samples of the sine wave every cycle. The digital samples would each represent an advance in the sine wave's phase by 90 degrees (1/4 of a cycle). The DAC clock is also supposed to run at 44.1 kHz; think of this as a "strobe" that occurs every 22.676 nanoseconds (millionths of a second) that tells the DAC when to create an analog voltage corresponding to the digital word currently in the DAC's input register. In the case of our sine wave, this creates a stairstep approximation to the sinewave, four steps per cycle. Shannon's theorem says that by applying a perfect low pass filter to the stairsteps, we can recover the original sinewave (let's set aside quantization error for the moment... that's a different issue). Jitter means that these strobes don't come exactly when scheduled, but a little early or late, in random fashion. We still have a stairstep approximation to the sine wave, and the levels of the stair step are right, but the "risers" between steps are a little early or late -- they aren't exatly 22.676 microseconds apart.

When this stairtep is lowpass filtered, you get something that looks like a sine wave, but if you look very close at segments of the sine wave, you will discover that they don't correspond to a sinewave of at exactly 11.025 kHz but sometimes to a sinewave at a tiny bit higher frequency, and sometimes to a sinewave at tiny bit lower frequency. Frequency is a measure of how fast phase changes. When the stairstep risers which corresponds to 45 degrees of phase of the sinewave in our example, comes a little early, we get an analog signal that looks like a bit of a sine wave at slightly above 11.025 kHz.

Conversely, if the stairstep riser is a bit late, it's as if our sine wave took a bit longer to go through 1/4 of a cycle, as if it has a frequency slightly less than 11.025 kHz. You can think of this as a sort of unwanted frequency modulation, introducing a broadband noise in the audio. If the jitter is uncorrelated with the signal, most of the energy is centered around the true tone frequency, falling off with at lower and higher frequencies. If the jitter is correlated with the signal, peaks in the noise spectrum can occur at discrete frequencies. Of the two effects, I'd bet the latter is more noticeable and objectionable.

Where does jitter come from? It can come if one tries to construct the DAC clock from the SPDIF signal itself. The data rate of the SPDIF signal is 2.8224 Mb/sec = 64 bits x 44,100 samples/sec (the extra bits are used for header info). The waveforms used to represent ones and zeroes are designed so that there is always a transition from high to low or low to high from bit to bit, with a "zero" having a constant level and a "one" having within it a transition from high to low or low to high (depending on whether the previous symbol ended with a "high" or a "low"). Writing down an analysis of this situation requires advanced mathematics, so suffice it to say that if one does a spectrum analysis of this signal (comprising a sequence of square pulses), there will be a very strong peak at 5.6448 MHz (=128 x 44.1 kHz). A phase locked loop can be used to lock onto this spectrum peak in attempt to recover a 5.6448 MHz clock signal, and if we square up the sine wave and use a simple 128:1 countdown divider would produce a 44.1 kHz clock. Simple, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the bit stream is not a steady pattern of ones and zeroes; instead it's an unpredictable mix of ones and zeros. So if we look closely at the spectrum of the SPDIF waveform we don't find a perfect tone at 5.6448 MHz, but a very high peak that falls off rapidly with frequency. It has the spectrum of a jittered sine wave! This means the clock recovered from the SPDIF data stream is jittered.

The jitter is there due to the fundamental randomness of the data stream, not because of imperfections in transmitting the data from transport to DAC, or cable mismatch, or dropped bits or anything else. In other words, even if you assume PERFECT data, PERFECT cable, PERFECT transport, and PERFECT DAC, you still get jitter IF you recover the clock from the SPIF data stream. (You won't do better using IMPERFECT components, by the way). The way out of the problem is not to recover the DAC clock from the data stream. Use other means. For example, instead of direct clock recovery, use indirect clock recovery. That is, stuff the data into a FIFO buffer, and reclock it out at 44.1 kHz, USING YOUR OWN VERY STABLE (low-jitter) CLOCK -- not one derived from the SPIF bitstream. Watch the buffer, and if it's starting to fill up, bump up the DAC clock rate a bit and start emptying the buffer faster. If the FIFO buffer is emptying out, back off the clock rate a bit. If the transport is doing it's job right, data will be coming in at constant rate, and ideally, that rate is exactly 44,100 samples per seconds (per channel). In reality, it may be a bit off the ideal and wander around a bit (this partly explains why different transports can "sound different" -- these errors make the pitch may be a bit off, or wander around a tiny bit).

Note that recovering the DAC clock from the SPDIF data stream allows the DAC clock to follow these errors in the transport data clock rate -- an advantage of direct clock recovery. But use a big enough buffer so that the changes to DAC clock rate don't have to happen very often or be very big, and even these errors are overcome.

Thus indirect clock recovery avoids jitter, and overcomes transport-induced data rate errors (instead of just repeating them). Better audio DACs, such as the Levinson 360S use this FIFO buffering and reclocking idea to avoid jitter. In principle, a DAC that uses this kind of indirect clock recovery will be impervious to the electrical nuances of different digital cables meeting SPDIF interface specifications."

So by this estimation, not only can errors occur as a result of signal carrying cables (being that they're not perfectly impedance matched and may be affected by EM, i.e., poor shielding, especially at SPDIF's transmission frequency... go read some transmission line theory type stuff to see that less than optimal impedance matching can introduce standing waves within the cable, causing timing errors, or jitter, yada yada), but by introducing jitter, they alter the frequency of the original signal (what we hear as pitch or tone), and potentially introduce spurious noise and at frequencies which directly correlate to the audio band which most of us can actually hear).

But, the flipside is that bits are bits...

regardless, my bits is music.

-reference thread, there's MUCH more worth reading here:

AudiogoN Forums: Why do digital cables sound different?
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 12:49 AM Post #25 of 293
Quote:

Originally Posted by yotacowboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You ready?

First, we need to realize that yes, indeed, bits are bits, and it's unlikely that a cable will cause any bits to drop. BUT, digital noise which is certainly at frequencies within human hearing range can be caused by timing errors introduced by the cable, if it is presenting an impedance mis-match between either the transport or the DAC. take a deep breath (this was gleaned from another audio board, and may be viewed as "unsubstantiated"... as posted by an audiogon member) but it covers the topic quite well:

"Let's talk about jitter. Jitter is not a harmonic distortion. It is a clock timing error that introduces an effect called phase noise either when a signal is sampled (at the A/D) or the reconstruction of a signal (at the D/A), or both.

Think of it this way: a sine wave goes through 360 degrees of phase over a single cycle. Suppose we were to sample a sine wave whose frequency was exactly 11.025 kHz. This means that with a 44.1 kHz sample rate we would take exactly four samples of the sine wave every cycle. The digital samples would each represent an advance in the sine wave's phase by 90 degrees (1/4 of a cycle). The DAC clock is also supposed to run at 44.1 kHz; think of this as a "strobe" that occurs every 22.676 nanoseconds (millionths of a second) that tells the DAC when to create an analog voltage corresponding to the digital word currently in the DAC's input register. In the case of our sine wave, this creates a stairstep approximation to the sinewave, four steps per cycle. Shannon's theorem says that by applying a perfect low pass filter to the stairsteps, we can recover the original sinewave (let's set aside quantization error for the moment... that's a different issue). Jitter means that these strobes don't come exactly when scheduled, but a little early or late, in random fashion. We still have a stairstep approximation to the sine wave, and the levels of the stair step are right, but the "risers" between steps are a little early or late -- they aren't exatly 22.676 microseconds apart.

When this stairtep is lowpass filtered, you get something that looks like a sine wave, but if you look very close at segments of the sine wave, you will discover that they don't correspond to a sinewave of at exactly 11.025 kHz but sometimes to a sinewave at a tiny bit higher frequency, and sometimes to a sinewave at tiny bit lower frequency. Frequency is a measure of how fast phase changes. When the stairstep risers which corresponds to 45 degrees of phase of the sinewave in our example, comes a little early, we get an analog signal that looks like a bit of a sine wave at slightly above 11.025 kHz.

Conversely, if the stairstep riser is a bit late, it's as if our sine wave took a bit longer to go through 1/4 of a cycle, as if it has a frequency slightly less than 11.025 kHz. You can think of this as a sort of unwanted frequency modulation, introducing a broadband noise in the audio. If the jitter is uncorrelated with the signal, most of the energy is centered around the true tone frequency, falling off with at lower and higher frequencies. If the jitter is correlated with the signal, peaks in the noise spectrum can occur at discrete frequencies. Of the two effects, I'd bet the latter is more noticeable and objectionable.

Where does jitter come from? It can come if one tries to construct the DAC clock from the SPDIF signal itself. The data rate of the SPDIF signal is 2.8224 Mb/sec = 64 bits x 44,100 samples/sec (the extra bits are used for header info). The waveforms used to represent ones and zeroes are designed so that there is always a transition from high to low or low to high from bit to bit, with a "zero" having a constant level and a "one" having within it a transition from high to low or low to high (depending on whether the previous symbol ended with a "high" or a "low"). Writing down an analysis of this situation requires advanced mathematics, so suffice it to say that if one does a spectrum analysis of this signal (comprising a sequence of square pulses), there will be a very strong peak at 5.6448 MHz (=128 x 44.1 kHz). A phase locked loop can be used to lock onto this spectrum peak in attempt to recover a 5.6448 MHz clock signal, and if we square up the sine wave and use a simple 128:1 countdown divider would produce a 44.1 kHz clock. Simple, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the bit stream is not a steady pattern of ones and zeroes; instead it's an unpredictable mix of ones and zeros. So if we look closely at the spectrum of the SPDIF waveform we don't find a perfect tone at 5.6448 MHz, but a very high peak that falls off rapidly with frequency. It has the spectrum of a jittered sine wave! This means the clock recovered from the SPDIF data stream is jittered.

The jitter is there due to the fundamental randomness of the data stream, not because of imperfections in transmitting the data from transport to DAC, or cable mismatch, or dropped bits or anything else. In other words, even if you assume PERFECT data, PERFECT cable, PERFECT transport, and PERFECT DAC, you still get jitter IF you recover the clock from the SPIF data stream. (You won't do better using IMPERFECT components, by the way). The way out of the problem is not to recover the DAC clock from the data stream. Use other means. For example, instead of direct clock recovery, use indirect clock recovery. That is, stuff the data into a FIFO buffer, and reclock it out at 44.1 kHz, USING YOUR OWN VERY STABLE (low-jitter) CLOCK -- not one derived from the SPIF bitstream. Watch the buffer, and if it's starting to fill up, bump up the DAC clock rate a bit and start emptying the buffer faster. If the FIFO buffer is emptying out, back off the clock rate a bit. If the transport is doing it's job right, data will be coming in at constant rate, and ideally, that rate is exactly 44,100 samples per seconds (per channel). In reality, it may be a bit off the ideal and wander around a bit (this partly explains why different transports can "sound different" -- these errors make the pitch may be a bit off, or wander around a tiny bit).

Note that recovering the DAC clock from the SPDIF data stream allows the DAC clock to follow these errors in the transport data clock rate -- an advantage of direct clock recovery. But use a big enough buffer so that the changes to DAC clock rate don't have to happen very often or be very big, and even these errors are overcome.

Thus indirect clock recovery avoids jitter, and overcomes transport-induced data rate errors (instead of just repeating them). Better audio DACs, such as the Levinson 360S use this FIFO buffering and reclocking idea to avoid jitter. In principle, a DAC that uses this kind of indirect clock recovery will be impervious to the electrical nuances of different digital cables meeting SPDIF interface specifications."

So by this estimation, not only can errors occur as a result of signal carrying cables (being that they're not perfectly impedance matched and may be affected by EM, i.e., poor shielding, especially at SPDIF's transmission frequency... go read some transmission line theory type stuff to see that less than optimal impedance matching can introduce standing waves within the cable, causing timing errors, or jitter, yada yada), but by introducing jitter, they alter the frequency of the original signal (what we hear as pitch or tone), and potentially introduce spurious noise (specifically, at around 11kHz, a frequency which most of us can actually hear).

But, the flipside is that bits are bits...

regardless, my bits is music.

-reference thread, there's MUCH more worth reading here:

AudiogoN Forums: Why do digital cables sound different?



If you read that, and understand it, it does not even come close to explaining it at all.


In fact, that isn't even on topic. That excerpt is about jitter, not cables.
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 1:04 AM Post #26 of 293
Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you read that, and understand it, it does not even come close to explaining it at all.


In fact, that isn't even on topic. That excerpt is about jitter, not cables.



here's the short of it:

impedance mis-match can cause standing waves in a digital cable carrying SPDIF signal.

Standing waves can cause timing errors when the bits are converted to an audio signal.

Timing errors (jitter) can create noise in the audio signal.

This noise occurs at frequencies which we can hear. in other words, this shows how impedance can affect audio.
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 1:05 AM Post #27 of 293
I think that the real challenge is not ot prove that cables measure different, we all know that...and indeed the big cable manufacturers (mass cable manufacturers not the voodooish ones) publish those specs and update them while needed. The real challenge is to prove or demonstrate to what extent, those measurable differences in these parameters of the cable, will have a noticeable effect in what we actually hear or not...also consider that the audio is a mixture of frequencies, real complex, we have also distortion that are not inherent to the cable, that is introduced in the equation, at different harmonics, by the sources, amps, recordings, etc...and at the end the limitations of our hearing also, and the difference between the hearing in different individuals...It is not an easy task at all IMO...
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 2:47 AM Post #28 of 293
Quote:

Originally Posted by yotacowboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
here's the short of it:

impedance mis-match can cause standing waves in a digital cable carrying SPDIF signal.

Standing waves can cause timing errors when the bits are converted to an audio signal.

Timing errors (jitter) can create noise in the audio signal.

This noise occurs at frequencies which we can hear. in other words, this shows how impedance can affect audio.




That isn't what your article said. Cite your sources so I can look them over please.

But realize, there is two parts to this, first we have to prove this is actually happening in the slow speeds which is the audio range, and then we have to prove it actually makes an audible effect.
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 5:55 AM Post #29 of 293
You have to explain why explaining why explains why.
 
Dec 7, 2007 at 6:14 AM Post #30 of 293
Quote:

Originally Posted by viggen /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You have to explain why explaining why explains why.


Yes.

Its all about process.

If cables measuring differently is A, and those differences making an audible change is B.

Then first, you have to prove A is true. But then you have to prove than B is true. Because A can be true without B being true.


Cables measuring differently is a well known fact. However, even partially controlled studies have shown they don't make an audible difference.

So when people say there is no difference between cables, they actually mean there is no audible difference.


You must realize that the audio band is very narrow, and very slow. It is not very demanding in the slightest.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top