Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: I thought expensive cables were bad. (Read 22758 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm

Quote
For A/B comparisons, to test the case without the Clock(s), the Clock(s) must be placed outside the house structure -- i.e., NOT in a drawer, another room, basement, garage or, as it turns out, the family car.


May I say that this impressed me quite a bit, but not in any positive sense whatsoever?

It reads like a send-up, but it appears to be available for purchase for real. 

(I think this is the right forum, in some senses this topic ought to start down in the Recycle Bin)
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #1 –
"...based on concepts and products originally developed by PWB Electronics, England."  For the uninitiated, PWB is the monogram for Peter Belt.  You can read Peter Belt's FAQ here:

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/faq/faq82000.html

The idea of a clock affecting audio performance is not original.  You can read Stereophile's review of George Tice's clock here:

http://www.stereophile.com//accessoryreviews/784/index1.html

Stereophile, instead of calling a spade a spade, prefers to remain "skeptically open-minded."

ff123

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #2 –
I followed the link to the site and read the reviews.  You know, if those folks who buy the clocks are happier and hear things more clearly, good for them.   
Nov schmoz kapop.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #3 –
I Have a Timex digital clock that has makes selectable animal noises (elephants, tigers, et cetera) when the alarm goes off, I wonder if putting it next to my Bose speakears will improve the musicality... Most probably not because it's not a "Machina Dynamica Clever Little Clock" and it didn't cost $149, altho a tiger as an alarm is quite effective.
we was young an' full of beans

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #4 –
Quote
I Have a Timex digital clock that has makes selectable animal noises (elephants, tigers, et cetera) when the alarm goes off, I wonder if putting it next to my Bose speakears will improve the musicality... Most probably not because it's not a "Machina Dynamica Clever Little Clock" and it didn't cost $149, altho a tiger as an alarm is quite effective.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330732"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With bose, everything is possible, as long as the drivers are compatible with....... no wait, i'm mixing up bose and creative labs, sorry.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #5 –
I didn't realize this when Head-Fi had a stupendously long (and interesting) discussion on Rainbow Foil - another one of Peter Belt's innovations - but PWB is apparantly a man of legendary controversy even in the audiophile community. He's been at this for at least 20 years, and even a lot of subjectivists don't trust him. Even many Audio Asylum regulars rag on him.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #6 –
Quote
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm

Quote
For A/B comparisons, to test the case without the Clock(s), the Clock(s) must be placed outside the house structure -- i.e., NOT in a drawer, another room, basement, garage or, as it turns out, the family car.


May I say that this impressed me quite a bit, but not in any positive sense whatsoever?

It reads like a send-up, but it appears to be available for purchase for real. 

(I think this is the right forum, in some senses this topic ought to start down in the Recycle Bin)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330715"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are there any depths these people aren't prepared to plumb? It beggars belief that people can be so gullible, but if they are I can have only limited sympathy, they almost deserve it!

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #7 –
The people which are to be saved are not those who already went through the door or prefered to stay outside, but those who haven't choosen yet.

As they say: Beliefs are stronger than the truth, because beliefs can exist on their own. And it almost always is a waste of energy to try to "convert" people who dont want to be converted. With the amount of energy you spent on trying to convert one of those fools or get angry about him/her, you could have helped 4 others who are open for new ideas or even are requesting more info about it.

Thus, i propose to abandon the sheeps and focus on improving things for those who actually want it. And if it is the case that you feel fatigued from reading the same questions over and over, then either selectively pick those who seem promising, or instead add the repetitive info to the wiki.

Yes, i know i'm an elitist, lol.
- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #8 –
Quote
Thus, i propose to abandon the sheeps and focus on improving things for those who actually want it.

Yes, i know i'm an elitist, lol.
- Lyx
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330755"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sometimes that is the only way.
we was young an' full of beans

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #9 –
Quote
With bose, everything is possible, as long as the drivers are compatible with....... no wait, i'm mixing up bose and creative labs, sorry.


beautifully done couldn't have said it better myself. 
budding I.T professional

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #10 –
Well, expensive cables aren't necessarily bad. You're rarely going to get poorer performance from expensive cables. They're likely made with tighter tolerances and things, improving the physical connection between components. However, buying expensive cables isn't likely to improve a poor-sounding system. It probably will have a negligible impact on sound quality.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #11 –
It is not unknown for some cable manufacturers to either build their cables out of highly capacitive components, or (in the most egregious of cases) physically insert an RLC network in the cable. These cables measure well out of transparency and may possible cause HF rolloff or amplifier oscillation under certain circumstances (that are likely to be more common with audiophile gear).

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #12 –
Quote
"...based on concepts and products originally developed by PWB Electronics, England."  For the uninitiated, PWB is the monogram for Peter Belt.  You can read Peter Belt's FAQ here:

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/faq/faq82000.html

The idea of a clock affecting audio performance is not original.  You can read Stereophile's review of George Tice's clock here:

http://www.stereophile.com//accessoryreviews/784/index1.html

Stereophile, instead of calling a spade a spade, prefers to remain "skeptically open-minded."
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330729"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Wow. That stereophile article was enlightening, to say the least. I honestly did not truly understand how people can embrace ignorance.

My favorite line:
Quote
I would never discount a product merely because I don't accept the explanation offered for its operation.

Why in the hell not? If the thing doesn't make sense, then it's quite likely that it's bullshit and worth discounting.

I am absolutely shocked that grown men could be so gullible.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #13 –
Quote
I am absolutely shocked that grown men could be so gullible.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330795"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Umm... you've heard about that stuff they call religion, haven't you?
They killed some guy 2000 years ago and he got all alive again & if you fly a plane into a building you'll get to have 42 virgins to yourself and so on. No sillier than this clock... and much less dangerous to believe

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #14 –
Quote
Umm... you've heard about that stuff they call religion, haven't you?
They killed some guy 2000 years ago and he got all alive again & if you fly a plane into a building you'll get to have 42 virgins to yourself and so on. No sillier than this clock... and much less dangerous to believe
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330800"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Being frank beats being politically correct any given day. I was thinking something along the same lines.

But wait a second. Religion is tolerated because it is supposed to be about understanding. Maybe we don't understand and get to appreciate all aspects of the  unique connection between someone's equipment and himself. That's why all this bigotry in HA 
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #15 –
Quote
Umm... you've heard about that stuff they call religion, haven't you?
They killed some guy 2000 years ago and he got all alive again & if you fly a plane into a building you'll get to have 42 virgins to yourself and so on. No sillier than this clock... and much less dangerous to believe
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330800"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, but there's a difference between paying some religion lip service and actual religious fanaticism. I am of the opinion that most "religious" people don't really believe in what they profess to believe in. Mainly because theirs actions usually don't agree with their words.

Lying to oneself is very easy, after all.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #16 –
Otto42     Yesterday, 11:59 PM    Post #13

   
>>>>"""""......QUOTE(ff123 @ Sep 30 2005, 05:07 PM)

"...based on concepts and products originally developed by PWB Electronics, England."  For the uninitiated, PWB is the monogram for Peter Belt.  You can read Peter Belt's FAQ here:

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/faq/faq82000.html

The idea of a clock affecting audio performance is not original.  You can read Stereophile's review of George Tice's clock here:

http://www.stereophile.com//accessoryreviews/784/index1.html

Stereophile, instead of calling a spade a spade, prefers to remain "skeptically open-minded."


Wow. That stereophile article was enlightening, to say the least. I honestly did not truly understand how people can embrace ignorance.

My favorite line:

QUOTE
I would never discount a product merely because I don't accept the explanation offered for its operation.

Why in the hell not? If the thing doesn't make sense, then it's quite likely that it's bullshit and worth discounting.

I am absolutely shocked that grown men could be so gullible........."""

______________________________
______________________________



_____WaveFilers RESPONSE=  When I read the first link of this thead,  I thought for sure it was a gag page by a member of HA having some fun.

Then ....."What the !!......"    /// ^ ? ^ \\\



However,  the Stereophile writers ended his review with this>>

>>> """...... Now stop complaining that we never review anything from  Radio Shack.---—Thomas J. Norton....."""


So I can assume he didn't "Buy the review unit" himself !!


HOWEVER,
Getting moderately more serious now,

    I will also gladly OWN  stereophiles statement and editorial test policy very easily that>>>


>> """....."QUOTE
I would never discount a product merely because I don't accept the explanation offered for its operation.......""



Under what condition would I not discount  a product for this parameter?

1---------If an audio unit or cable  sounded fantastic to me.



I think I've got my priority's straight.  I'm looking for improved sound,  and find that always going thru life DISPROVING the existence of improved sound to be a messy waste of my energy.

The universe is remarkably undefinable by monkeys in the end.  If my Radio Shack Clock radio (The generic brand of this Peter Belt designed Clock)  makes the sound better,  bring it on.

HOWEVER,  Tempering this goal with the precisely measured depth of my financial pockets is NOT a waste of energy !!


It's been my subjective experience that at  least half of the people who claim that "Audio cables don't make any difference" decided this without ever  turning their stereo on.  They often learned their surprising conclusions from somebody else,  and liked how certain it feels to have their beliefs all figured out.


They are lost in particle physics (or some such obsession....???) ,  and can't seem to  trust their own ears,  instincts and senses.


OR

1----------They have tenaciously latched onto a singular  intellectual aspect
      of cable design,    usually surrouding electrical science,  or some festering piece of physics knowledge,  then means to them "It can't possibly improve the sound"

EG=    "My superstition is better than your superstition !!"


In accordance with the PRIME DIRECTIVE  HA TOS #  8 >>>

Trying to "prove"  anything about  cables for practical applications,  is VERY hard,  and I am trying to be sensitive to the majority's desire on the HA formu,  to not get into the circular logic inherent in this  topic.


My point just now,  is that scientific progress has been hindered in the past by ENGINEERING Circular logic,  just as much as superstition,  and total ignorance of the scientific method.


JUST ONE EXAMPLE= For decades,  most "audiophile" Speaker cable designs concentrated quite a bit on creating a low capacitance measurement.  Presumably to prevent upper bandwidth roll-off in longer runs.  In simple practical terms,    a common speaker wire from the 1950's starts to loose treble at the speaker if the run is really long,  like from one end of a living room to the other,  or in LIVE sound, with 100's of feet of speaker wire being utilized.

I'm new to the Forum  here    (and might be falling on the sword of folly already!! ) but I just query-ed up this excellent treatment of high frequency losses in regards to loudspeaker wire length from this HA thread>>

HERE=  Tigre says=

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=20864&hl=



In the "golden Age" of D.I.Y.  audio, many even seperated  the positive and negetive leads of each individual speakers runs,  to keep the capacitance as low as possible. 

DISCLAIMER= If this older technique works effectively  for you,  "praise the lord and pass the  LP,  I'll put it on the  platter immediately.." 


Unfortunately,  separating the plus  and  minus speaker leads like this  tends to result in a higher  inductance measurement.  But twisting the two leads tightly together lowers the Inductance,  and we have this very colorful fellow name Nicola Tesla to thank for discovering that one. 


But  low inductance was of no concern to most prominant designers all the way thru the 1960's.  There seems to be a lot of data indicating CURMUDGEON-ISM at work sefely scewing the conclusions.......

  Yet put a square wave thru a low inductance cable,  and look at it on an O-- scope.

"MMMmm....The leading edge of the wave,    ain't all round like before....??".

Distortion of leading edge transients in particular are less compromised when the inductance is lowered. 


If you put flat foil conductor  leads just mm apart in a sandwich,  then you get a wire that is a remarkably neutral load between amp and speaker.


There are numerous other benefits,  (such as superb RF rejection from  tremendous amounts of CMR (Common Mode rejection) {thanks again Mr Tesla}  but I'm mostly discussing this one electrical aspect,  to illustrate how obsession with ONE spec,  can lead to designs errors putting us all in  "The dark" for immense amounts of time. 


Just think for a moment=  This is all mostly just OHMS LAW, and Tesla's fundamentals being fully realized,  50 years late in our audio tool basic element,  the hookup wire.          What a waste.........


Two major audio cable makers (that I chose here mostly because they can provide actual measurements to back their claims)  latched onto these new realizations in the late 1970;s ---- KIMBER KABLE,  and Alpha Core GOERTZ.

Alpha Core's day job,  is wiring up commercial and military Aircraft.


Goertz MI 2:  10 AWG  OFC Copper  750 x .010"
Dialectic=      Teflon/ Polyester Terepthalate/ Polycarbonate  0.8 x 0.04"
Resistance     0.0022 ohms/ft
Inductance=      6nH/ft  ----------- note that's NANO Henrys !
Impedance      ~ 2.5 ohms
Capacitance.    0.95nF/ft

If you explore this link,  be sure to go scroll down past the "hype", and see the SCOPE READOUT,  and tech justifications

ALPHA--CORE
http://www.alphacore.com/mispeaker.html



KIMBER KABLE uses an intertwining  braid rather than a foil sandwich.  This is theoretically worse,  from the tendancy to propagate "Strand microphony".compared to flat foil,  ....but I like how it makes my clock radio keep better time anyway.


Their Teflon sheathed speaker cable 8-TC is used as a theoretical reference point by AES.    I've observed it in active  use in an audio evaluation test facility at Microsoft.  It's been my own reference point for 10 years as well.  (maybe a "plug",  but I've used it in proffessional recording,  and thus,  is hopefully not seen as pure heresy...HEY,  ....AES is pretty official....right???)


Basic Electrical Specifications
DUT: 8TC    2.5m bare wire ends.

(Cp) parallel capacitance    821.0 pF @ 20 kHz
• (Ls) series inductance:      0.345 H @ 20 kHz   
• (Rdc) dc loop resistance:    0.018 Ohms
• (Xt) total reactance:            0.044  Ohms  @ 20 kHz
• Frequency response ± 0.5 dB  dc - 300 kHz

KIMBER CABLE=
http://www.kimber.com/Products/LoudSpeaker...C/8TC_Spec.aspx


CONDENSED SUBJECTIVE DATA=  It's ironic,  but on paper,  these two cables specs look impressive. But it's both companys line level interconnects that have tested better in actual use for my recording studio  purposes. Once again, the eyes and brain led me astray,  and then I turned the stereo on,  and discovered evidence closer to the truth I sought. Typically,  unbalanced line level signals rarely change there basic electrical measurements between different common types.


But DISCLAIMER= "Your mileage will most certainly vary",  and all audio equipment  reacts different to different wire specs.  It changes the LOAD,  so it measures different, and amps and speakers are ALL designed and spec'd differently. 


Think about that=  Every single different interconnect measures electrically different.  Every single speaker and amplifier handles  the load differently.


THUS,  for the life of me,  I can't understand why anybody would believe any results from a strict A/B==X type test regiment for WIRE evaluation.    How do I A/B---x  two totally different Electrical LOADS from each other? 

A'B--Xing cable seems to usually just prove that monkeys have fallable perception.

Or make the monkeys all hopping mad on a very scientifically focussed online  forum. 



Clearly to me,  as effective,  no,  as TREMENDOUSLY EFFECTIVE as A/B--X testing has been on HA for CODEC evaluation,  we need a fundamentally different test protocol entirely,    for WIRE evaluation.


I'm not sure I'm up to this task,........but wish to try,  over a long period of time,    because awesome audio cable makes me feel all squishy inside.  And I'm tired of all my smart and annoyingly hard to sway freinds not  joining me in this joy of the perfect interface technology........... and so I invite all audio listeners with no "AudioPhelia Nervosa" medical issues to join me in trying to ----quantify---a test protocol for this  MF'er.   


Well,  did I violate PRIME DIRECTIVE HA--TOS # 8 here?    Sincerely, please let me know this,  if I did.  And in particular,  what other methods  I can utilize to discuss  such theoretical scientific concepts of wire design and implimentation  responsibly.


This is NOT the audioAsylum.com.



It is SOooooeasy to  miss the forest for the trees.  Or compare apples and oranges to Hambergers,    without tasting any of the fruit,  when you realize that you are actually a breatharian at heart.


BEWARE my fine sceptical friends,  because both the physiological disorders present in ALL Cable evaluation >>>


---CRUMUDGIONISM
and
---AUDIOPHELIA  NERVOSA

are  just as silly to watch occuring as superstition gone wild. ...........

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #17 –
Quote
My point just now, is that scientific progress has been hindered in the past by ENGINEERING Circular logic, just as much as superstition, and total ignorance of the scientific method.

I don't know if you are merely a very verbose troll or just somebody who feels the need to share their stream-of-consciousness ramblings with others on the internet in a futile attempt to communicate, but I do feel that you would have a more productive time getting your views across if they were written and formatted in a more conventional manner.

If you are a troll, and I can't follow your argument well enough to tell whether you are, please do not feel the need to share your views with the Hydrogenaudio community in future.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #18 –
Quote
THUS, for the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would believe any results from a strict A/B==X type test regiment for WIRE evaluation. How do I A/B---x two totally different Electrical LOADS from each other?

A'B--Xing cable seems to usually just prove that monkeys have fallable perception.

Or make the monkeys all hopping mad on a very scientifically focussed online forum.



Clearly to me, as effective, no, as TREMENDOUSLY EFFECTIVE as A/B--X testing has been on HA for CODEC evaluation, we need a fundamentally different test protocol entirely, for WIRE evaluation.


Why?, a few paragraphs before you said that people don't trust their ears.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #19 –
Quote
Quote
My point just now, is that scientific progress has been hindered in the past by ENGINEERING Circular logic, just as much as superstition, and total ignorance of the scientific method.

I don't know if you are merely a very verbose troll or just somebody who feels the need to share their stream-of-consciousness ramblings with others on the internet in a futile attempt to communicate, but I do feel that you would have a more productive time getting your views across if they were written and formatted in a more conventional manner.

If you are a troll, and I can't follow your argument well enough to tell whether you are, please do not feel the need to share your views with the Hydrogenaudio community in future.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330870"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



I'm sorry cabbagerat,  the quote you pulled from my post is very troll like.  And the formatting is not very productive.  I'm used to cutitng and pasting text,  but have discovered the forums QUOTE Button.  And I need to focus better here.

Let me attempt the reframe my premise in a  readers digest version,  and then go from their. >>


The name of this thread is  "I thought expensive cables were bad."


A LINK about a  magical time piece that is preported to enchance audio without any direct connection to ones audio equipment was introduced in the first post. We all laughed about it.  Certainly difficult to prove or conclude  anything about it !


Then I responded with words to the effect of= ,  "Expensive cables are bad because they are expensive.  And many cables are indeed bad.  But if they actually sound good,  then HA forum members should not be afraid of finding out this might be true " 

I'm sorry.  this was a troll like statement.  Apologies.  I'm fleeing the AudioAsylum forum,  and I guess I haven't recovered quite  yet.


It is my understanding that this is not a subjective opinion audio forum.  Instead,  all claims of technologys worthyness are to be supported with more than just conjecture.  and wire electrical measurements may be helpful,  but are not going to be enough.  I wish to participate.


So far almost all dismissing of bad cables I can find on any of these postings here doesn't use very much scientific data  to back up it's claims that any particular cables are bad.  That's a gross generalization,  but the codec testng area definately does back up ALL  it's claims very rigorously. 

I'm trying to determine how to accomplish less subjective results that have some value,  but somehow,  not come up against the common pitfalls of analog and digital cable evaluation.  That damn Circular logic..... 


As a start in my post,
I tried to support my claim of good cable sound with some measurement results of these 2  cables,  and I sited my sources.  And then,  some opinions about  why I think these measurements make them signifigant.  And I believe the charactoristic of their very low inductance is a valuable specification to pursue.  It was verbose,  but I think the cable  data itself is still useful.


Why these 2 cables?=  Examples of LOW impedence
The  data is  for 2  mainsteam 25 year old low inductance speaker cables designs that I feel are useful for improving sound,  but are not  tremendously expensive,  (so are less likely to be immediately dismissed) ,  and they appear to be technologys nobody here has mentioned in previous postings.

   
Going  from here now,
let me also state I have participated in Codec testing in a commercial setting in the past. And I have participated in audio cable testing using a passive switching box designed for this purpose by another member of the Pacific NorthWest Audio Society.  Illiminating all the variables was almost impossible !    Each unbalanced type interconnect behaved in a reactive manner that was difficult to control.  And my exploration of this type of testing has me concluding that is is almost futile, if you demand it be executed with a total blindfold methodology.



The problem I see with A/B-xing in the convential manner,  is that we don''t have the luxery of everybody starting with exactly the same audio test files,  as with codecs.    The conceptual parallel would be trying to  test an 192 kps MP3  file against a 64 kps altrac  file. and then a FLAC lossless,  against a 32 kps WMA file,  etc.  as all brands of cable are practically different "Species" of animal.   

Every fruit from a different tree.... 


ONE OPTION=  Such physical testing and cable comparisons could be done on the ground, and then the data intered on to the forum,  for refinement,  and discussion. This data could come from any of us,  following a set protocol. 




***  But I see another way to conduct cable tests now>>>


This would be to test cables,  as has been done with MICROPHONES

In the "Allen Sides Microphone Closet" comparison CD (I can't seem to google it easily...I will post this link soon in a subsequent post) .




Perhaps I could assemble a large amount of cables in one place.  And then run audio thru the cables in a methodically structured manner to a calibrated Digital Audio Workstation.  Then these FILES of the sound of each cable become quantifiable data in and of themselves.  I can interprit them one way,  and so can everybody else on the forum.    Assumeing the files are prepared correctly. 


SOME HURDLES,  AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO MAKE THIS WORK

1------Still one of the biggest problem in making tring to make the data useful,  is matching each cable to an amplifier uniformly,  before the analog sources are encoded into the DAW.

There are Pre-amps that allow you to change the input inpedence,  and calibrated resisters could be used to match the levels more closely.

We could use just ONE input ampifier for line level signals, or we could test EVERY cable thru several different types of preamps.  I think that more than one type is useful,  and perhaps essential.  Some recording engineers prefer all class A biased pre amp designs,  and others hate IC's,  and others use only desrceet topologys,  etc,  so more than one is a must.

This will cause some matching issues,  but one can still look at only all the data for just ONE type of pre amp,  if you desire,  and draw conlusion from just this one set of data,  if the diffferent pre never quite match 100%


2-------It seems clear that a specific set of audio files for each set of tests,  needs to be assembled,  and sent thru every different cable to be evaluated.

THEN,  this set of encodes,  should be archived as A WHOLE,    for use any further test at a future time.    Both source files,  and the files for each cable together.  Without the RAW source file to compare to,  all the files are  useless. 

This way,  the results of old tests can be directly compared to the results of future tests as well. . 

3--------Audio Cables all behaive differently at different audio levels.  So this needs to be standardized,  and documented. 

4--------WHAT FAMILYS OF CABLE??

Speaker wire looks the most problematic.  And is less of an issue across the board anyway,  in my experience.  I suggest these can be tested last

Interconnects,  unbalanced and 3 pin Balanced will be easier to test,  and tremendously useful.  I have some $70 interconnects I feel might beat most $1000 ones.

SP/DIF and AES interconnects are an obvious option for testing as well,  and many are sure to be surprised at these results.  The SP/DIF protocol for instance,  is full of unsolvable, intractable  issues in the spec itself (it was made for consumer CD players),  and better cabling gives large improvements.



I know thats ahrd to swallow....and now must eventually PROVE it !!

but for now,  The basic reason this is so,  is that the audio is not sent in stable packets with SP/DIF.  THUS,  analog cable losses change  the digital outcome.     

A good model, is to think of SP.DIF as a 'glorified 56K  modem"  Digital information,is sent  down an analog line.  The wires THD, changes ones,  into zeres. So they tend to all sound different. 




Any thoughts on this cable TEST MODEL rough proposal??

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #20 –
WaveFlier, you have touched on something like 6 different major forum topics in that single post , all of which have occupied hundreds of posts on HA  For now, all I can say is that while a lot of people here may not have experienced extreme hi-end sound, but many actually have, and were nonplussed. Just one example: I went to a Head-Fi meet a few months ago and listened to Ray Samuel's personal setup: A Meridian CD player (507 IIRC), a complete MIT Transparent Cable set, an Emmeline Raptor and all manner of excellent headphones. The CD+cable+amp set was good but I felt it was nothing to write home about.

Pio2001 did some measurements on different cables and came up with some pretty weird results - like the same cable measured differently over the period of 20 minutes or so. I don't have the link on me but it should be searchable. I think the leading hypothesis on the behavior was not burn-in, but merely temperature changes resulting from handling the cables, plus perhaps capacitive effects from different cable positioning. Those sorts of things are really important when you're testing impedances down to the milliohm.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #21 –
Quote
Quote
THUS, for the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would believe any results from a strict A/B==X type test regiment for WIRE evaluation. How do I A/B---x two totally different Electrical LOADS from each other?

A'B--Xing cable seems to usually just prove that monkeys have fallable perception.

Or make the monkeys all hopping mad on a very scientifically focussed online forum.



Clearly to me, as effective, no, as TREMENDOUSLY EFFECTIVE as A/B--X testing has been on HA for CODEC evaluation, we need a fundamentally different test protocol entirely, for WIRE evaluation.


Why?, a few paragraphs before you said that people don't trust their ears.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330882"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Gosh, your right Legg.  If nobody is around that trusts their ears,  that isn't much of a foundation for audio testing is it!!

I stand corrected.  Your further feedback  is  definately welcome by me.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #22 –
Quote
WaveFlier, you have touched on something like 6 different major forum topics in that single post , all of which have occupied hundreds of posts on HA  For now, all I can say is that while a lot of people here may not have experienced extreme hi-end sound, but many actually have, and were nonplussed. Just one example: I went to a Head-Fi meet a few months ago and listened to Ray Samuel's personal setup: A Meridian CD player (507 IIRC), a complete MIT Transparent Cable set, an Emmeline Raptor and all manner of excellent headphones. The CD+cable+amp set was good but I felt it was nothing to write home about.

Pio2001 did some measurements on different cables and came up with some pretty weird results - like the same cable measured differently over the period of 20 minutes or so. I don't have the link on me but it should be searchable. I think the leading hypothesis on the behavior was not burn-in, but merely temperature changes resulting from handling the cables, plus perhaps capacitive effects from different cable positioning. Those sorts of things are really important when you're testing impedances down to the milliohm.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330907"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Points well taken.  I did some Querying of past cable threads,  but I will now do more research in the HA archives.  People I seen so far,  seem to be measuring, and discussing,  but not rigorous listening tests. Perhaps you are right;;  they don't see the basic utility of it.  But a good test is my main goal,  not "selling cable"

Both Hi-Fi shows and recording studio are often clueless. Both usually have terrible acoustics.  This forum has more audio talent than most records are made with. 

I am not interested in electrical measurements of cables,  although that can be useful to point the way to the best ones to start listening to.  And anybodys data of this kind will be supportive.  But logical cable evaluation is almost unheard of anywhere.  Nobody  here seems to realize there IS NO MODEL for cable  testing  that gets statisically signifigant data.  If 90% of the people participating in a cable test can barely hear any diffference,  this is just a stupid test,  IMHO. 

I have found that CHILDREN make outstanding cable testers.  They work fast,  and get it done pretty easily,  just by being intuitive.

The audiophile crowd tends to have more money than sense,  but give them a good long time,  and they eventually,  they sort it out.  There is no need for any of this  to be so painful.

If I can produce an  audio file test set that allows anyone  to jump back and forth QUICKLY between two cables/files,  this will solve quite a few problems. The human ear acts like the iris in the eye;;  it reacts,  and adjusts to the changes in sound continuously.    Swapping cables manually takes just too long to hear any difference in the physical world.  It's rediculously clumbsy,  yet that is how everybody does it.

With this method,  we can take the sounds of 100's of different cables,  and drop it right into the entire CODEC testing model !

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #23 –
Quote
With this method,   we can take the sounds of 100's of different cables,  and drop it right into the entire CODEC testing model !
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330915"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Some tests of this kind have been already done, giving the same expected results. One example is at my web page.

As to
Quote
3--------Audio Cables all behaive differently at different audio levels.

I'm afraid that's simply not true. Unless a cable is defective and/or has some kind of induced nonlinearity (that a regular cheap cable doesn't have at all), cables behave the same at all audio levels, because that's what a linear device does, and cables are very very linear devices. If you are talking about EMI background noise on cables, that's a different issue.

As to science vs. engineering etc etc... the best engineers are, among other things, the ones that best know about science, despite what some people (that in fact know quite less about science) want to believe.

I thought expensive cables were bad.

Reply #24 –
Quote
As to science vs. engineering etc etc... the best engineers are, among other things, the ones that best know about science, despite what some people (that in fact know quite less about science) want to believe.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331095"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes.

At the very least, an engineer cannot properly judge the progress he is making, without understanding the scientific method (which entails understading about hypothesis testing etc...).