If I use some $5 headphone extension cables to connect my headphones to my PC's sound card, will there be any degradation of sound quality?

Theoretical differences are possible, but that depends on your particular setup.

If the cables and connectors are robust and you don't hear any audible differences nothing else matters. I suppose you are not going to save the output anywhere except to the memory cells in your brain.

Edit: typo

If there are degradations, they should be smaller than the ones introduced by the impedance matching between the headphones and the soundcard.

Here is an example of the impedance effect on an Arcam Diva A85 amplifier and a Marian Marc 2 soundcard, with Senheiser HD600 headphones :

PS : unfortunately, I didn't measure the effect of the extension cord for headphones with the headphones plugged in.

An extension cord adds electrical resistance, so it does affect the signal. But with a reasonable length, (let's say 3m or 10 ft) I don't think you could hear the difference. Assuming the cable is of solid build and the soundcard output is not already at the edge of it's capability with the headphones plugged in.

So go ahead, use it. My 3m cable is undetectable for me with my soundcard (SB Live! 1024) and Koss PortaPro, Shure E3c or Senn PXC250 headphones.

Usually the biggest culprit for impedence comes from the connectors. I can only remember rough numbers for optical couplings right now so... just remember that to make a ten' extension, one 10' extension is better than two 5' extensions.

Cool, so I guess my cheap 3.5m cables shouldn't make any noticeable difference.

You might be able to make out some difference if you are using high end equipment. If you are planning on using $5 cans with your computer soundcard, I doubt if it would make any difference. Surely does not with my El Cheapo cans and SB Live! soundcard

Probably not, unless the conductors/connectors are made out of graphite or something.

Hi Twombly, I meant exactly what you pointed out . Maybe, I should have highlighted the word 'might'.

Probably the best idea would be to plug it in and have a listen - if you still need to ask, then it really isn't a problem

But my audiophile powers tell me there must be a difference!!!


Anyway, I use extension cables in my setup and have no problems (other than the noise generated between my computer and my old amp).

<deleted>

I suggest that you perform a blind test. I was too convinced that my apmlifier headphone output did trash the sound, but after a blind test, I realized that there was no audible difference with my soundcard output. The sound was obviously different to me before the test, now when I compare them, they sound exactly the same.

<deleted>

Sorry, but according to the terms of service of this board (rule 8), the only sonic differences that are so pronounced that a 'blind-test' is unnecessary are differences that have been measured and are way above the human threshold of hearing, or differences that have been proven to be audible, like MP3 at 64 kbps vs original.
Any headphone extention cord should have a very small effect on the sound, usually not audible. Thus a blind test is required to backup such an assumption.

Either you setup something in order to show the difference, blind test as described here, or measurments, either you must stop telling here that you can hear a difference with and without an extension cord, which is unlikely, without proving it.

I mean no offence, that's just how the board works !

Pio2001, hi there and and first of all no offence whatsoever taken.

In any case re



In fact I did not claim that headphone extension cables do make a sonic difference, but rather that they might -



In other words I made exactly the same basic suggestion as many others who have posted on this thread without any blind-test evidence whatsoever (and remember all these were in response to this specific question: :









In any case I have deleted the offending message, all best wishes.

That's a shame, because if you could recreate the phenomenon you find audible contained within an ABX scenario this would indeed be interesting.

Also, you would be among the first to bother doing it
Most claims that are similar to this one always ends in backing down - which is uninteresting.

David Nordin, hi there and re



Assuming (for the sake of argument) that I did have a dodgy extension cable, do you think that ABX results would help or hinder others who have this sort of equipment?

And that simply highlights one of the many, many inherent flaws in the 'blind-test everything' approach to audio reproduction.

Cheers for the interest in any case.

Make that double blindtest even.

It would prove a point, and earn you respect since we stick to science on this board. Or rather statistics and proper methodology - which is what science would be all about in the end.

Another way to view it is that if you can isolate a faulty part of your chain you can then measure the component and try to find out what the reason behind this phenomenon was - that could be interesting in upcoming similar events in the future.

David Nordin, hello again and re



I am afraid I am not sure how an ABX test could identify a faulty component, at least in the situation I was in. Again, in my opinion blind testing has a role in audio-reproduction evaluation, but a relatively limited - and indeed potentially completely misleading - one.

On the other hand I fully understand that we all agree to adhere to the rules of any internet sites we sign up to, hence my post deletion.

All best wishes.

You can try to ABX your headphones with the extention cord (A), and without (B). If the test is successful, you have confirmed that your extension cord is faulty.



One can misinterpret some ABX results, we can't prevent it, however, blind tests are far less misleading than other listening tests. Example of flaw in common ones : http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/...les/23down.html

Pio2001, hello again and re



I am afraid I am not sure why you are now making the assertion that headphone extension cables definitely cannot degrade subjective sound quality, therefore any ABX'd differences would 'prove' that the individual cable itself was faulty.

Furthermore, how does this new assertion that headphone extension cables definitely do not / cannot degrade subjective sound quality unless they are actually broken fit in with the very rule you directed me to in the first place (and I attempted to adhere to by deleting my initial post):



In any case as I have said throughout, blind-testing has a limited role to play in audio-reproduction evaluation - but if the results are taken as somehow conclusive and 'scientific', a potentially completely misleading and harmful one (re the possibility of technical problems with any individual components etc. etc.)

Many thanks again for the interest, and all best wishes.

Why can't the results be taken as conclusive and scientific?

Do we use mumbo-jumbo to evaluate and analyse what is essentially vibrations passing through the air? Granted, such vibrations can, for some, create pleasure greater than that derived from sex.

And if someone has successfully proven or disproven a point using blind- or double blind-testing, why wouldn't anybody trust his findings? Because he is an inveterate liar? I would like to point out that many such 'liars' have greatly assisted the improvements in quality of the different lossy codecs we have today. If anyone declares himself anti-ABX, then I declare to him, better use only lossless codecs, WAV files, or stick to vinyl and laser discs. Or maybe use WMA.



I can say with absolute certainty that ABX would help....

Wait, only YOU are having a problem with the extension cable, how else would it help anybody else, unless the whole batch of cables was faulty?

What the others can do to help the guy with the 'faulty' cable is to provide their own ABX results to confirm if it is an isolated case, or otherwise.


On a nearly unrelated note, it's funny seeing people with exceptional equipment, those that are able to reproduce signals transparently (pure tones, music, or otherwise), come up with lots of flowery descriptors in audio hardware comparison, and yet fail simple blind tests. These people then declare their lack of belief/respect/recognition in/for the methodology of ABX.

Sld, many thanks for that, and I'll try and explain my underlying point in greater detail and clarity.

ABX / double-blind etc testing is claimed to produce at least relatively scientific, objective and definitive reports re comparative audio quality and / or whether there are any genuinely audible differences in the first place (e.g. whether there are any genuine audible differences between hardware and software upsampling).

A 'with and without' ABX / double-blind test on a headphone extension cable might therefore produce a report 'objectively proving' that this piece of equipment introduces a substantial difference to the final audio quality / substantially degrades it.

However the specific cable used could have been faulty all the time, with no possible way for the tester to have known this;

But the resultant 'scientific', 'objective' and 'conclusive' ABX / double-blind test might then circulate rapidly across the Internet resulting in entire mountain ranges of needlessly discarded headphone extension cables, and several company liquidations!

That general principle obviously applies to all equipment, software etc tested via ABX / double-blind tests - and is just one out of many flaws in relying on this procedure in some sort of conclusive or scientific sense.

Hope that explained my position on this, best wishes in any case.

A single ABX test can't prove all cables sound the same. It will prove if *you* hear a difference or not, with *your* cable. Just that. I don't think anyone can do any kind of generalization from the result of a single test.

Sadly, the opposite, such as generalization about every cable sounding different and similar things, is much more common across internet and "specialized" press.

Yup, and i'd add: a successful DBT does not automatically prove the claim of the person(i.e. the test may be invalid because of a faulty equipment-part, etc.) - it just shows that with high probability the person(s) were indeed able to notice a difference which did not just exist in their head. It is the entry-ticket to be taken serious and to show others "this deserves further investigation".

Substitute "audible" for "substantial" and this statement is exactly correct. There's no need for the qualifying quotation marks.

So if you accept this as you stated it, what flaws are you saying exist in ABX methodology?

Are you trying to argue that because ABX results can be "ran with" by careless observers and applied to questions beyond their scope, that makes them useless for analyzing things that are within their scope? Clearly illogical.