[myinitialsaredac]

Okay, I am writing a research paper for my English 101 course and I am writing about whether or not interconnects impact SQ in an audio chain. As I've seen many of the flame wars going on here, I felt that where would be a better place to get an opinion from the very people buying or nay-saying them.

SQ means Sound Quality and refers to any aspect of the sound your transducer reproduces.

So, in this poll I pose the question - for both the believers and non-believers - of what causes the difference in sound (do you believe) and for the non-believers, what causes the believers to think there is a difference?

I had to keep the options to a minimum so I listed them out as shielding, conductor material, conductor design, dielectric material, the plugs, psychoacoustics, or other.

I set it up to allow each of you to vote on all the factors you believe in, and to keep it honest it is not a private poll.

Shielding pertains to all of the surrounding of the cable, as in the sleeving, techflex, EMI/RFI rejection, etc.

The conductor material is the wire itself, so OFC copper crystallized lattice blah blah, silver, paperclips, etc.

The conductor design, for example, Cardas' golden ratio constant-Q design etc.

The dielectric is the surrounding of the wire, so cotton, teflon, teflon air tubes, etc.

Plugs are fairly straight-forward, the piece that goes into your amp and dac, so Cardas plugs, Canare, etc.

Psychoacoustics refers to any sound difference heard due to desire of performance for any reason, as in socialistic pressures, money spent, time spent, etc.

Other would be anything else you can think of, please dont include cryo treatment in here because it is directly affecting the conductor material.

Please do not argue in this thread, there are plenty of other threads for that.

Please vote in my other poll asking a binary question of whether or not interconnects impact SQ, it is located here - http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/do...9/#post5295931

Thank you for voting,
Dave

 

[Drag0n]

All of the above.

 

[Assorted]

For a physics related research paper, you're going to source Head-fi'er's, who:

- base their "facts" on their personal experience, using it in 50% in their arguments, and using other people's experience in 50% of the rest
- do not use scientific data to elaborate their claims
- ABX LOL


I don't think it's a good idea to write a 100-level essay on this subject, let alone calling it a research paper. You're even confusing some of your audio related topics:

Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif Shielding pertains to all of the surrounding of the cable, as in the sleeving, techflex, etc.

Shielded cable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sleeves and shielding are two different things. A handling of techflex should give you a hint that they're made of something that doesn't conduct (nylon?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pschoacoustics refers to any sound difference heard due to diesire of performance for any reason, as in socialistic pressures, money spent, time spent, etc.

Psychoacoustics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bach making you think that the pipe organ is producing lower than possible notes is psychoaccoustics. Seeing your friends using iBuds and purchasing headphones that cost 100x as much because you're convinced that they sound better is as much marketing as it is peen envy.


Honestly, I believe sitting down in a comfy chair with a copy of Hamlet and a highlighter would be a better choice for your essay.

Stealth edit-- Re:Why do Interconnects effect SQ in an audio chain?

If you're in an English course please consider how the effects of grammatical errors affect our society.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif For a physics related research paper, you're going to source Head-fi'er's, who: - base their "facts" on their personal experience, using it in 50% in their arguments, and using other people's experience in 50% of the rest - do not use scientific data to elaborate their claims - ABX LOL If you're in an English course please consider how the effects of grammatical errors affect our society.

Touche.

My point is I am not stating this to substantiate my claims, merely to get some numbers. Asking head-fi if they believe that interconnects make a difference shows that there are two sides to the argument.

Trying to assess why people believe they sound different allows me to figure out the major points of persuasion. If 90% of people believe its the conductor material, than it will require less work to bring people over the fence than if 10% of people believe its the shielding.

Thought I'm not sure I would quote wikipedia, but I believe I mixed up my terms.

Shielding refers to a metal or conductive piece inside of the outer jacket but around the dielectric?

Wouldn't one argue that adding nylon sleeving or techflex to the outer jacket would be conidered shielding? After all it is protecting the wires is it not? It's not doing too much for EMI/RFI but one has to take into account microphonics, mechanical resonance, mechanical force, static, etc.

As for psychoacoustics, I've heard the word coined in many lights. It is my belief that one definition is no more correct than the other. Wikipedia - in my opinion - is not comprised of audiophiles.

Thank you for the concern and the vote,

Dave

(P.S. The effect of your words has effected a change good sir, thank you for keeping a keen eye to the blissful ignorance of other)

 

[Pars]

I agree with Assorted. I did however vote "Other", with other being impedance mismatches which are what I think makes different cables sound different (somewhat), when they really shouldn't.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif For a physics related research paper, you're going to source Head-fi'er's, who: - base their "facts" on their personal experience, using it in 50% in their arguments, and using other people's experience in 50% of the rest - do not use scientific data to elaborate their claims - ABX LOL

HeadFi does represent a niche community and a highly subjectivist one (with a few exceptions) and one that is regarded by some other audio communities (such as Hydrogen Audio and Rec.Audio.Opinion) as "loonies".

HeadFi therefore does not represent a balanced sample so the above is a legitimate comment. If the Op wants to do a study of dysfunctional group behaviour in an audio community then HeadFi is a good sample

 

[krmathis]

All of the above!

 

[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif My point is I am not stating this to substantiate my claims, merely to get some numbers. Asking head-fi if they believe that interconnects make a difference shows that there are two sides to the argument.

Then it's not a good "research paper". You're just plugging in opinions from our highly skewed forum, which will be of little statistical, scientific and academic value. That is why I suggested picking up some Shakespeare in which you might benefit a lot more from.


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thought I'm not sure I would quote wikipedia, but I believe I mixed up my terms.

Nobody in a respected institution would source Wiki; I linked it so you could give the two articles a quick read and clarify any confusion over the two terms.


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wouldn't one argue that adding nylon sleeving or techflex to the outer jacket would be conidered shielding? After all it is protecting the wires is it not? It's not doing too much for EMI/RFI but one has to take into account microphonics, mechanical resonance, mechanical force, static, etc.

If I were to manufacture and sell cables wrapped in techflex and call it shielding, I would be out of business in the long run.


Quote:

As for psychoacoustics, I've heard the word coined in many lights. It is my belief that one definition is no more correct than the other. Wikipedia - in my opinion - is not comprised of audiophiles.

That is indeed news to me, I'm going to have to research the use of the word psychoacoustic in its sociological context, not in the context of why Bose sounds good in the demo room, or creeping people out with certain frequencies. I would highly appreciate it if you would post an example from the Internets of how the term is used in such manner.


I do see a bright side to writing your paper on this subject however: your marker/TA will have a fun time reading the behaviors of an online community as opposed to why Hamlet procrastinated so much.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then it's not a good "research paper". You're just plugging in opinions from our highly skewed forum, which will be of little statistical, scientific and academic value. That is why I suggested picking up some Shakespeare in which you might benefit a lot more from. Nobody in a respected institution would source Wiki; I linked it so you could give the two articles a quick read and clarify any confusion over the two terms. If I were to manufacture and sell cables wrapped in techflex and call it shielding, I would be out of business in the long run. That is indeed news to me, I'm going to have to research the use of the word psychoacoustic in its sociological context, not in the context of why Bose sounds good in the demo room, or creeping people out with certain frequencies. I would highly appreciate it if you would post an example from the Internets of how the term is used in such manner. I do see a bright side to writing your paper on this subject however: your marker/TA will have a fun time reading the behaviors of an online community as opposed to why Hamlet procrastinated so much.

You still seem under the impression that I am going to be using these numbers as facts to prove some crazy schemed hypothesis. Take my word, this is not the case. I am merely getting some numbers so that I can draw from as many sources as possible when I get down to writing.

These numbers can be used for something like: In head-fi, an audiophile community, sixty percent agree that interconnects can alter the sound reproduction of an audio chain. However, the fourty percent who do not agree would argue that it is caused by blah.

You see the point of my surveys?

I'll reiterate they are not facts to say "Look sixty percent of people on head-fi think interconnects sound different so it must be true!". They are merely another source that I have at my discretion.

I will of course be drawing from various publications, proffesional interviews, etc. etc. so please stop attacking my data gathering methodology. I understand you love Hamlet, more power to you, but unfortunately I do not share the same love of theater, my passion lies in EE and biochemistry.

"If I were to manufacture and sell cables wrapped in techflex and call it shielding, I would be out of business in the long run."

As with any paper one has to determine the audience reading it. I would not write a dissertation on intermolecular forces for fourth graders after all.

"That is indeed news to me, I'm going to have to research the use of the word psychoacoustic in its sociological context, not in the context of why Bose sounds good in the demo room, or creeping people out with certain frequencies. I would highly appreciate it if you would post an example from the Internets of how the term is used in such manner."

Allow me, this is a few seconds of searching head-fi:
"Ah, well, I would attribute “one person's experience” in this case entirely to psychoacoustics. Everyone can decide for themselves how much money and effort they are willing to spend on digital clocks and interconnects, when they're not even syncing multiple digital sources to one another. I would dare anyone interested to try a double-blind comparison, however."

"The ear is at the same time an extremely sophisticated instrument that it has an extraordinarily wide dynamic range and (coupled with processing in the brain) have uncanny capabilities such as picking out a single conversation in a very noisy room. However as a measurement device it is also crude and easily fooled by preconceived notions and psychoacoustics."

"As for the subject of burn-in, well I found the K601 to have a honky/nasal quality at first. It never went completely away, but it did massively reduce after about 300-400 hours. Give the K601 more time and adjust your brain for psychoacoustics and see if you like them later on. And bring 'em to the meet too so you can plug them into high-end amps and sources to hear what they're really made of."

"Simply the expectation of a difference is enough for someone to believe they perceive something, and that is very real subjectively, but it may not mean that physically their ears can detect any difference."

As I said earlier, you will find it used both ways, one of which I do not believe is any truer than the other.

"I do see a bright side to writing your paper on this subject however: your marker/TA will have a fun time reading the behaviors of an online community as opposed to why Hamlet procrastinated so much."

Again, these are not my only sources, they are two of many.

Thanks for your concern,
Dave

 

[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif You still seem under the impression that I am going to be using these numbers as facts to prove some crazy schemed hypothesis. Take my word, this is not the case. I am merely getting some numbers so that I can draw from as many sources as possible when I get down to writing. These numbers can be used for something like: In head-fi, an audiophile community, sixty percent agree that interconnects can alter the sound reproduction of an audio chain. However, the fourty percent who do not agree would argue that it is caused by blah. You see the point of my surveys?

Surveys are not academic research papers, much less so when the sample is taken from a highly biased population. "60% believers vs 40% unbelievers" has as much relevance in arguing your point as "5% of aftermarket headphones vs 95% iPod earbuds".


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif I understand you love Hamlet, more power to you

Hamlet, any classic, or even Atlas Shrugged is an example of good material that does not require extensive technical knowledge outside of what is written in context. Literature is a highly subjective matter where argument can be done without applying statistical or scientific methods.


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif but unfortunately I do not share the same love of theater, my passion lies in EE and biochemistry.

Good for you, the world could use people with as much passion into important fields such as the one's you mention.


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif I will of course be drawing from various publications, proffesional interviews, etc. etc.

Without understanding the difference between shielding and mechanical protection, there is little to intepret from such technical interviews.


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif As with any paper one has to determine the audience reading it. I would not write a dissertation on intermolecular forces for fourth graders after all.

That is not the case at all. Shielding is not colloquially a "protective cotton/techflex/rubber wrapping." Shielding has a specific purpose of protecting the electric signal against interference from outside sources such as broadcast radio and dirty computers.


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif Allow me, this is a few seconds of searching head-fi: "Ah, well, I would attribute “one person's experience” in this case entirely to psychoacoustics. Everyone can decide for themselves how much money and effort they are willing to spend on digital clocks and interconnects, when they're not even syncing multiple digital sources to one another. I would dare anyone interested to try a double-blind comparison, however." "The ear is at the same time an extremely sophisticated instrument that it has an extraordinarily wide dynamic range and (coupled with processing in the brain) have uncanny capabilities such as picking out a single conversation in a very noisy room. However as a measurement device it is also crude and easily fooled by preconceived notions and psychoacoustics."

How do you know that they aren't using the term psychoacoustics in the wrong context? Public/common knowledge does not equate to facts. Is it correct for me to associate the direction of a toilet flush with the Coriolis effect, just because it is mentioned in The Simpsons?


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif "As for the subject of burn-in, well I found the K601 to have a honky/nasal quality at first. It never went completely away, but it did massively reduce after about 300-400 hours. Give the K601 more time and adjust your brain for psychoacoustics and see if you like them later on. And bring 'em to the meet too so you can plug them into high-end amps and sources to hear what they're really made of."

That has nothing to do with extra-psychological effects on your hearing. It is the nature of ears to normalize what we hear over an extended period of time.


Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Simply the expectation of a difference is enough for someone to believe they perceive something, and that is very real subjectively, but it may not mean that physically their ears can detect any difference."

I fail to see the use of the word psychoacoustic in this quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif so please stop attacking my data gathering methodology

Your primary reason of this thread was to extract information from people who engage in flamewars:

Quote:

As I've seen many of the flame wars going on here, I felt that where would be a better place to get an opinion from the very people buying or nay-saying them.

So you're weighing the opinions of this community over the aforementioned "various publications, proffesional interviews"? Maybe that's why I'm criticising your method.

 

[chesebert]

EE/Emag material as a research paper for English 101?? I hope EE is your major and you are taking English 101 as a requirement filler.

 

[csroc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif HeadFi does represent a niche community and a highly subjectivist one (with a few exceptions) and one that is regarded by some other audio communities (such as Hydrogen Audio and Rec.Audio.Opinion) as "loonies". HeadFi therefore does not represent a balanced sample so the above is a legitimate comment. If the Op wants to do a study of dysfunctional group behaviour in an audio community then HeadFi is a good sample

This is probably the most enjoyable comment I've seen in a while.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif Surveys are not academic research papers, much less so when the sample is taken from a highly biased population. "60% believers vs 40% unbelievers" has as much relevance in arguing your point as "5% of aftermarket headphones vs 95% iPod earbuds". Hamlet, any classic, or even Atlas Shrugged is an example of good material that does not require extensive technical knowledge outside of what is written in context. Literature is a highly subjective matter where argument can be done without applying statistical or scientific methods. Without understanding the difference between shielding and mechanical protection, there is little to intepret from such technical interviews. That is not the case at all. Shielding is not colloquially a "protective cotton/techflex/rubber wrapping." Shielding has a specific purpose of protecting the electric signal against interference from outside sources such as broadcast radio and dirty computers. How do you know that they aren't using the term psychoacoustics in the wrong context? Public/common knowledge does not equate to facts. Is it correct for me to associate the direction of a toilet flush with the Coriolis effect, just because it is mentioned in The Simpsons? That has nothing to do with extra-psychological effects on your hearing. It is the nature of ears to normalize what we hear over an extended period of time. So you're weighing the opinions of this community over the aforementioned "various publications, proffesional interviews"? Maybe that's why I'm criticising your method.

Sigh, someone has a lot of time on their hands! Here goes yet another rebuttal for such a simple survey.

"Surveys are not academic research papers, much less so when the sample is taken from a highly biased population. "60% believers vs 40% unbelievers" has as much relevance in arguing your point as "5% of aftermarket headphones vs 95% iPod earbuds". "

Again, who said they were. I am not turning in the results of this survey and saying here it is! It adds a bit of fun fact, and also a bit of insight for the audience.

"Hamlet, any classic, or even Atlas Shrugged is an example of good material that does not require extensive technical knowledge outside of what is written in context. Literature is a highly subjective matter where argument can be done without applying statistical or scientific methods. "

Shakespeare and Rand are great. Literature is indeed highly subjective. I fail to see the point still. I do not wish to write about literature, I want to write about why interconnects sound different. Thank you for providing an alternative.

"Without understanding the difference between shielding and mechanical protection, there is little to intepret from such technical interviews."

Sigh, you have a good point here. The idea behind a research paper is primarily the word "RESEARCH". Someday maybe everyone will have your level of knowledge to interpret these kinds of technical interviews. Continue...

"How do you know that they aren't using the term psychoacoustics in the wrong context? Public/common knowledge does not equate to facts. Is it correct for me to associate the direction of a toilet flush with the Coriolis effect, just because it is mentioned in The Simpsons?"

Remember when gay meant happy? Colloquialisms. The defense rests lol.

"So you're weighing the opinions of this community over the aforementioned "various publications, proffesional interviews"? Maybe that's why I'm criticising your method."

Who said I am? I was given no limit to the sources I am allowed to use, and was actually encouraged to run these surveys by my professor. Please remove the arthropod lodged betwixt your glutes and stop attacking a very simple survey. I do not mean to be harsh but it seems quite frivolous to continue this debate.
(Professionalism is a great thing is it not, especially when professionals criticize your methods!)

You do not need to talk to me about those quotes, they are from others.

Dave

 

[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by csroc /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is probably the most enjoyable comment I've seen in a while.

Hydrogen audio absolutely abhors 320k LAME MP3 and worships VBR V0. It would be interesting to see this thread in their boards.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif EE/Emag material as a research paper for English 101?? I hope EE is your major and you are taking English 101 as a requirement filler.

Hah, im taking english 101/102 as a dual enrollment course as a high school senior. I honestly am writing about interconnects because I like a challenge and am genuinely interested in all things audio related. Could I have written about Simon being a Christ figure and Jack being Hitler, sure and would it have been easier, you bet, but I'm me!

I plan to major in biochem, that is my true passion. I want to become a doctor of research and sit in a lab for days on end!

Cheers,
Dave