Ahh--sorry--misinterpreted your remarks
10 Audio Cable Myths and Facts
In a sea of audio cable industry snake oil, we’re sure you’re wondering, What really matters when buying cables?Save your money by avoiding overpriced cables with outlandish claims. Below are some common myths to look out for and some important things to consider when buying audio cables.
CABLE MYTHS1. Conductor skin effect
In some applications like power transmission lines, an electric signal tends to travel through the surface of a conductor and avoids traveling through the center of the conductor. Many cable companies claim that their design limits the skin effect and measurably improves your sound.
The TruthWhile skin effect is a very real issue for large scale power transmission, audio signals are in such a low-frequency range that the skin effect is negligible at best. The skin effect is only an issue in high-frequency applications. 20kHz is the highest frequency that humans can hear. If we calculate the skin effect on a 12 AWG speaker cable like Gene from Audioholics does in this article, we find that the skin effect results in a loss of only -.014dB. Your speakers, room acoustics, and the human ear have a much larger effect on your sound than the skin effect.2. Cable break-in
Don’t be fooled - any company that claims this thinks they can trick you into hearing better sound after a month or two. “Break-in” is a commonly used term throughout the industry. It is the idea that the dielectric of a cable changes and aligns itself to the electromagnetic field of the signal traveling through the conductors.
The Truth
There is no scientific evidence to support the idea of cable break-in, but there are still those who claim it improves sonic qualities. We’re not against optimism. We’re just not full of crap. Don’t drink the audio industry kool-aid and save your money for legitimate cables.
Cryogenic treatment is the process of freezing cables to -320 degrees Fahrenheit before use. The claim is that freezing the conductors of the cable at ultra low temperatures aligns the crystalline grain structure of them resulting in desirable improvements.
The Truth
Again there is no scientific data to support this notion. Cryogenic treatment can improve the durability of certain metals, usually steel, by stabilizing impurities. For example, the process is used to create strong tools or car parts.
But, steel is a terrible metal to use for audio cables. It is one of the least conductive metals out there! Copper and silver are the best conductors of electricity and the preferred metals for audio cables.
4. Cable signal direction
You might hear this phrase tossed around quite a bit. It’s the notion that a cable has an established signal direction, the direction in which it was initially used, and that this signal direction should not be reversed.
The Truth
The reality is, assuming the connector ends and terminals are the same, the cable will work in both directions and the performance will be equivalent.
5. Cable elevators, risers, or lifts
The claim is that the cables’ magnetic field can interfere with the surface it is laying on. Essentially, the magnetic field can “reflect” from the surface back into the cable and cause distortions.
The Truth
There is no evidence to support these claims, and these unnecessary devices are merely for looks. They are in no way proven to improve cable performance.
In the modern age, wireless signals are all around us all the time. The rapid growth and spread of technology means that these wireless signals will become more widespread and more likely to cause unwanted interference. Cellphones, wifi, and Bluetooth signals can enter your cables, but shielding can block these signals and preserve your sound quality.
No matter how well a cable is designed, cable length will always impact performance. As the length of a cable goes up, so does the risk of unwanted interference and signal loss. We always recommend keeping your cables as short as possible, but we understand that is not always possible. A well constructed and shielded cable will help combat this issue.
The best conductors to use for audio cables are pure silver or pure copper. Both are valued for their high conductivity, but copper is more widely used due to the high price of silver. Additionally, some variations are constructed with silver-plated copper. However, because the metals have different conductivities, the sound is more likely to travel through only the silver plating and not the copper.
The purity of the conductor will affect performance more than anything. Look for Oxygen-Free High Conductivity (OFHC) conductors. This means that a significant percentage of oxygen and other impurities have been removed from the conductor resulting in high purity.
4. Wire gauge should not be overlookedThe amount of wattage your system is using will determine the total gauge size needed for safe and optimal performance. The standard is 14 gauge wire minimum for the transmission of 250 watts of power. Many electronic devices use much less than this, but some speakers and listening setups may be using more. If your system uses more than 250 Watts, we recommend a higher total gauge cable.
5. Quality connectors matterTruly, the best connectors are no connectors at all. But, if you can’t hardwire your system, gold plated connectors are the industry standard. Gold plating exhibits great corrosion resistance when exposed to oxygen and has good conductive properties. Connectors range from basic to extremely high end and flashy.
The bottom line is:
Choose connectors based on your personal needs and the type of connection being made. Overall, always choose quality connectors.
We hope these myths and facts will help you choose quality, reasonably priced cables to complete your listening room, studio, or whatever your setup may be.
210 responses Add your response
A major problem for my friend is the snobbery among high end audiophiles. He loses more sales due to price than any other factor (60 day trial included). Snobs refuse to try a cable not priced in the multiple four or five digit range. They contact him, he prices the cable(s) and they say the usual that they can't be an elite sounding cable at that price. As to directionality, I am non-committal. My supposition (rather than knowing it to be true) is that directionality can be altered by reversing the cable and breaking it in over time in the alternate direction. I can hear very significant differences even on my video system's audio using a Yamaha CR620 receiver (1978) with speaker and IC cabling by GroverHuffman. I use his Empress cables on the video systems and the Pharoahs for the two main audio systems. |
fleschler A major problem for my friend is the snobbery among high end audiophiles. He loses more sales due to price than any other factor (60 day trial included). Snobs refuse to try a cable not priced in the multiple four or five digit range. >>>>Well, I wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole if they weren’t priced in the multiple four or five digit range. Peee- ewwww! |
Just dropped in real quick to scan through and confirm once again that here we have a thread specifically posted by someone with something to sell and bragging about how great it is. In other words a bona fide genuine shill. And not one comment from georgehifi who never misses an opportunity to throw that term around. Nowhere to be found. Huh. There was however one good post that caught my eye: As to directionality, I am non-committal. My supposition (rather than knowing it to be true) Rare indeed for one to admit so openly they have no idea what they're talking about. Oh well keep hanging out with these guys you will learn to be even less clear and relevant. They teach by example. |
Well, guess I figured right on a fair percentage of this crowd. It's a shame bad apples spoil the barrel as it were. As for me, I'll stick with actual engineers and people who have spent a lifetime steeped in the science than a group of cultists. And I thought that kenjit guy was an outlier. So long, it's been fun, enjoy the magic kool-aid. |
I have had the experience of moving and reinstalling cables, with one pair misdirected. After a few weeks of allowing the system to settle in, I really couldn't determine if there was a difference in sound quality. I redirected them and found they were off sounding for a few days. I conclude, possibly wrongly, that cables can learn new directionality over time. Are there studies to dispute that possibility? So many are sure that wire is directional or non-directional, but concerning learning directionality through use is apparently not a discussed subject. As to not auditioning cabling costing in the $100s ($300 to $900) and not the $1,000s-$10,000s, that is foolish and I consider snobbery. Many consider my 25 year old speakers antiquated. Good high end speakers of that period are better than most $5,000-$10,000 currently made. The reason could be in the tuning of them using the best technology at the time to sound musical, not just reproducing sound. My speakers are still being used in sound studios, including some high end ones in New York and L.A. They are not SOTA but are a real bargain for those building a high end sound system, sold around $2,500 (efficient, full frequency range, wide soundstage and gets the timing of music correct). |
I parted ways on the opening shot. Most people's hearing cuts off around 20,000 kHz, and that doesn't mean higher frequencies don't color those below them. I have heard a super tweeter change the character of the overall sound regardless of whether or not I could hear its contributions a capella. Skin effect: Just because other factors can influence the sound more doesn't null and void the smaller things. Whether or not it's plugged in will affect an amplifier's performance. Plugging it in doesn't negate the need for a decent preamp, however. My experience with cables has been that good ones (upper end Nordost, for example) are a waste of money-unless used in a system of commensurate quality. Those same cables, which do make a difference in very good gear, will do nothing for lower end equipment. Every field has charlatans and snake oil salesmen. Too often the audio arena gets naysayers because their experience says it's impossible for everyone, or their budget makes them wish nobody else could get better sound than they do. |
I’ll probably catch a lot of flak about this. But, IMHO if you buy .999 OFC copper with quality gold-plated RCA, or regular balanced XLR to 1/4” phone plug cables; paying over $250 for a pair of twenty footers is just wasted money. If it’s no object (boy, do I wish that were the case for me!), then get four nines fine silver instead. You can get a twenty foot pair of stereo speaker cables with solid silver RCAs for $7,095 plus tax and shipping from Tempo Electric. |
The quote is "One bad apple, spoils the whole barrel" One, not 75%, (and growing) with an edigicated HiFi community. The naysayers are in the vast minority not majority.. I agree with one thing. Cable prices do VARY, and so does quality.. Second Kool-aid refers to a sweet drink with poison in it.. Jonestown. The only poison here is the misinformation. Magic Mushroom, different story.. No magic Kool-aid! Poison kool-aid. Magic mushroom. Mushroom, maybe. Kool-aid, NO! "I don't know. so You CAN'T be right... Head in the sand group, I'm deaf group, Basshead group, all the same group..Can't hear, don't want to hear, it's all BS.. Crack me up! Rule # 1 your only as smart as the technical information you have access to. Lots of hype in the cable world, on both sides. I haven't heard of one maker of cables say, EVERYONE else is wrong, but, not only wrong, but "Myths". Roll another one, Dude!!!Calie rules! yea! Empty beer can smashed on forehead, WIND!!!, yea back to work man..How long was that, ahh DUNO!!! 3, 30, or 300 foot, seems a little long, exhale! Dude were out of # 16...Belch!!! Respectfully and with some regard |
C’mon guys! Use a little common sense here: how can speaker cables possibly be directional (aside from stuff like MIT and others used to make, or perhaps still do; with those highly questionable “sound enhancing” potted circuitry. I say “highly questionable” as I had some from MIT that came with my used ProAc Studio 2 speakers (great speakers, too!). One channel quit on me after a couple years, so after cutting a few inches off the ends, and checking continuity (no good), I sawed open the potted block. Wanna guess what I found? A 45 pf ceramic disk bypass cap between signal to ground. That’s it! |
bobedwards101 I meant to include what should be obvious with just a couple seconds reflection: audio signals are AC, not DC. So current flows in both directions, eh? “Holy freakin’ fraud”, as Robin might say to Batman! Report this >>>>Only worry about the direction toward the speakers. The other direction doesn’t affect the sound. In other words, put your best foot forward. 🤗 |
Tweak1: You're mistaken about how wire is made. Rods can be extruded; but much more often are either die cast or rotary hammer forged or swaged from copper ingots. Wire, of course, does begin as a rod. However, the wire itself is never extruded; instead, it’s drawn mechanically through a series of dies (generally tungsten carbide) of increasingly smaller and smaller diameter until the desired wire size is achieved. Along the way, after each two or three draws; it’s furnace annealed, in an inert atmosphere, to take out the induced hardness from drawing and make the wire soft and malleable once more. |
bobedwards10147 posts04-06-2020 11:04pm That .47 picofarad bypass cap could only start affecting high frequency roll-off at well over 100 KZ. Which means it has zero effects on audible sounds! A question, where did you come up with the numbers? 1000 pf starts a roll of at 18000. and stops at 22000, 6db roll off @ 8 ohms. .47pf, the . is in the wrong place, ay? I think it's 470pf , or .47uf not pf .47 pf is a little less than 1/2 a pf. I might be wrong, could you double check. The roll off then would be a 30-35 khz @ 8 ohms , unless there is an inductor/resistor before the cap.. Once again as the numbers (ohms) rise, the values DROP.. So if it's increased by a factor of 2 (inductor and or resistor before the cap, puts it right in place, at about 25 khz. So a 6db first order roll off would be from 22-27khz. The values in the network would have an effect. 1000pf or double (close) the value from 470, to 1000pf @ 4 (not 8) ohms. That stops the HF that kill, some folks ears, including MINE, the dog and the rabbit's. My speakers specks are 20hz to 25khz -0/+3, They are cut by me with "the cable", now. Before it was cut by an OXO. I wanted the OXO out of the signal path from 400hz up. "The cable" was the answer. It's not all snake oil, but not having to deal with HF ear bleeding, NOISE is all good with me..It's a blessing and a curse... The question is, "what would you do for better sound", "say it doesn't work", or give it a try... You had or still have MIT, great place to start...and finish, If you can't do your own... You say the cable failed?. Hook it up backwards, neg/pos reverse. That would cause the small network to fail, it becomes a LP filter with no chops (not big enough).. Resistor/cap HP. Cap/resistor LP filter.. Just a thought.. Regards |
The quote is "One bad apple, spoils the whole barrel" One, not 75%, (and growing) with an edigicated HiFi community. The naysayers are in the vast minority not majority.. I agree with one thing. Cable prices do VARY, and so does quality.. You might try posting when sober, next time. Just a thought........ |
Human beings who care. Blow away the meters every time. All day long. Ah, the siren call of the Golden Ear. "My powers of perception transcend your puny meters and science!" How self-satisfying that must feel to believe. How hard it must be to even consider giving up those magical powers ;-) Science and technology, double-blind and all that, we use these things to understand the human experience. Not to tell the human he didn’t have an experience. To be clear: It all depends on the nature of the claim. If you say "I experienced seeing a perpetual motion machine in my neighbor’s garage" then, sorry, science can investigate that claim and conclude you didn’t have that experience (for one, it can base the skepticism on known evidence and theory such a claim is unlikely, but also could investigate the alleged perpetual motion machine to determine it’s not doing what you think it is). Of course science doesn’t deny that people "have experiences." The problem arises in how people try to EXPLAIN those experiences - the way we can so easily go wrong in our inferences and causal explanations. So if you say "Today at a show I witnessed a man saw a woman in half and put her back together alive!" then, ok, we can take it you had an experience that left you with that impression. But the question arises as to what CAUSED that experience/impression: whether, in fact, a woman was sawed in half in front of you. Upon investigation it turns out it was a magic trick that left you with that impression, not a "true" instance of a woman being sawed in half. You should be open to amending your belief about how you ended up "believing" a woman was sawed in half IF you are at all interested in careful empirical reasoning. And this is the issue with Golden Eared purely subjective audiophiles (like Millercarbon) who esteem their own subjective experience and perception above all else. They presume "I heard a sonic change with X tweak" is one and the same as "the sonic tweak DID objectively change the sound, and that is what I perceived." Subjective experience and objective claim meshed as one. This is the paradigm behind every tweak any audiophile ever thought he heard. It’s how you arrive at audiophile positions (as it seems to be with Millercarbon) that "everything makes a difference" in the hi fi chain. Because, fact is, the way human minds work, one can imagine a difference at any time, for anything you change. Challenging this paradigm is like being an atheist in a church. You are challenging a very personally held belief system, and the intensely subjective nature makes it wrapped up in someone’s own sense of self.So even challenging the idea with "it’s possible you imagined the difference" is taken as a personal affront. "how DARE you say I may not be hearing what I KNOW I’m hearing! I was there! YOU weren’t! " To someone thinking in a more scientific mindset, you wouldn’t react this way. It’s obvious, well known, that we can fool ourselves in numerous ways, which is why science is essentially a systematized method of countering our biases. As the great Feynman said of doing science: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” Golden Ears simply haven’t taken this to heart. They don’t think, or can’t admit, that they may have fooled themselves. It strikes at the heart of their entire paradigm, and also sense of self. After all, if I claim that when I switch in my new fancy cables I can hear angels singing behind the trumpet section on a recording, so long as I refuse to submit my claim to any controlled test - e.g. "lets see if you can reliably identify the angels singing when you don’t know if the new cables are used or not - my claim can go unchallenged forever. "But you can see if other people hear the angels" you might say. Nope. Because I always leave myself the move of proclaiming "If YOU don’t hear the angels then the problem isn’t there are no angels - the problems are with YOUR ears. They clearly are not as refined as My Golden Ears because I can surely hear the angels!" So the Golden Ear has the self-satisfaction of making his claim unfalsifiable, while being a position to denigrate anyone who "can’t hear what we Golden Ears hear!" And round and round we go.... |
BTW, While some of the claims made in the OP seem reasonable, given what I've seen other engineers (who aren't selling cables!) say on the subject: 1. The "points" made against "cable myths" in the OP still tend to constitute mere counter claims with little or no supporting evidence.And if you aren't giving any better evidence than those for cable myths, how are the counter claims to be taken as more justified? 2. Looking at the OP's website doesn't exactly inspire confidence that this company has eschewed all the "cable myths" themselves. There seem to be some level of the same type of claims made for audiophile cables. |
I've tried a few tweaks that fooled me into thinking they made my audio system improved. After some time, I realized that they also created negative effects. Some were too obvious, e.g. the SR Blackbox which cut off the highs no matter where in the room they were located or Magico's isolation feet which killed the performance (sluggish and dark sounding) no matter which piece of equipment I placed them under. I don't want to mention several other mistakes which I corrected because I ended up with other products using the same technology in different applications. I am not a Golden Ear but do know live acoustical sound from performing and recording performances for 4 decades. My friend who only listens/buys stereo recordings still appreciates the wonderful 78s and mono LP sound when played in my audio system. He just doesn't have the room for more than his 12,000+ LPs and 5,000+ CDs. |
I’ve said before, I’ll say it again. Any speaker or interconnect cables over $250-300 in copper are a total waste of good money, unless you wanna go to solid silver, roughly $7,000 for 20’ pair of speaker cables; $2,000 for 6’ RCA interconnects. Easiest upgrade on both, though is to use pro quality balanced XLRs. |
So the Golden Ear has the self-satisfaction of making his claim unfalsifiable, while being a position to denigrate anyone who "can’t hear what we Golden Ears hear!" And round and round we go.... Well at least you got that part right..You can't hear it, so I can't possibly hear it. So your right and someone else is wrong... You took long time to say it, and not very clearly I might add. Golden ears? You mean hear thing well, concentrate, understand how to change something you can or can't hear into something you can or cannot CHANGE. Yea, I've met a few, that were taught the art, but some learn on their own quite well I might add.. Some just can't hear the problems, simple.. I've done 100s of tweaks maybe 1000s. If it works it stays, if not it goes. Works, goes in the "use it again pile" or not work and off to the neighbor I go. If I can talk him into it, he gets the tweak that doesn't work. Cable risers... I started using them to make it easier to vacuum. Better risers make it even easier to vacuum. Then I notice a difference, a BIG difference, I WAS getting the floor a lot cleaner.. LOL I use LPs some... Vibration control and a lot of the LP tweaks are different, depends on the set up. I'm tired of saying regards, I'll say it anyways, it's po----lite, Regards |
@tweak1 You are mistaken about wire manufacturing. Copper or silver rods may be extruded; but they are more often die-cast or poured molten into an oiled steel wire mold. Then the metal rod is mechanically drawn in a powered wire drawing machine or on a draw bench; through successively smaller tungsten carbide or synthetic diamond or sapphire dies; until the desired gauge is achieved. Every two or three passes the wire is furnace annealed in an inert atmosphere such as nitrogen, to undo the work hardening from the drawing process and return it to a soft, workable state once more. |
the cable debate is a fun topic bc some people get really worked up, generally more so in the there’s no difference camp. that’s fine. don’t we all wish it were so? however it’s not by a long shot. unfortunately(for me) i’ve been a cable guy for a very long time thinking of cables as perhaps the glue of the system. the wrong choice can absolutely destroy a good system. a great example of fundamental differences can be found in the AQ lineup where two models are identical except that one uses silver and one copper. The sound difference is dramatic to anyone that can hear. seriously this isn’t an opinion. it just is what it is. kimber has the same kind of conductor material difference as AQ in their select series. to put it to rest have the cable company or a dealer come up with two pairs of identical cables as described above and give each a good listen. use the recordings that you know best and have fun with it bc audio is fun. i truly wish some doubters would try this and report back. cables are a quandary in that they are grossly overpriced and hyped but they have a profound role in a system and can definitely break a high end system; 40+ years have taught me that. sorry for the verbosity! |
@oldhvymec
Nowhere did I argue "I don't hear it so you can't possibly hear it."That's obviously fallacious, which is why it doesn't appear anywhere in what I wrote. You've pulled that from your own imagination. (Fancy that!). What I explained is that, by taking their subjective impressions over the evidence of measurements, and by a refusal to take the subject of sighted bias seriously, by not giving credence to tests controlling for such bias, the Golden Ear makes his claims unfalsifiable. If measurements show a signal to be exactly the same, the Golden Ear can always make the claim "But I hear it anyway." And if other people don't hear a difference, the reply can always come (as it does from you and Millercarbon) "that's because you don't have my skills of perception." And since the Golden Ear eschews *actually* putting his perception to the test...for instance blind testing where you aren't peeking at the equipment knowing what you are listening to...the Golden Ear keeps his claim unchallenged. And your posts run along these lines, from what I've seen thus far. (Hence your fairly haughty talk of people who just can't hear things that you and other Golden Ears can hear. If you'd really like to compare experience with audio, we could do that ;-)) Though I'm certainly open to being wrong and would like to be corrected if that's the case. Questions: 1. If introducing a tweak (or comparing, say two cables) produced the same measurable results - e.g. no deviations in frequency response or other areas known to be audible - would you still default to "If I heard a difference, it's real, measurements be damned?" 2. How much do you know about the realm of human bias? Do you accept that sighted biases (there are various) can cause people to think they hear differences when there are none to be heard (no actual change in the sound waves)? and from that: 3. For the tweaks that you think made an audible difference....could you be wrong? Is it possible you imagined the difference via a perceptual bias? Please note: NOTHING in the above claims you are not hearing real sonic changes with whatever tweak. Rather, this has to do with the type of evidence and methods we are using to place confidence in our conclusions. |
Cable debates have been going on for decades, and it would be easy to dismiss this just as another one in a seemingly endless line. However this one is different in that this is a rare (first ever?) occurrence of a cable manufacturer pointing out some of the obvious myths surrounding cable performance. Talk about giving the game away! I applaud their honesty but also fear that Shielded Audio will probably now miss out on an invitation to the annual cable makers convention bash. https://shieldedaudio.com/ |
prof"Golden Ear can always make the claim "But I hear it anyway." " And the Lead Head can say, "No you don't I have numbers to prove it take a double blind test and proof you're claims." That is what the Lead Heads do. |
clearthink, What you have failed to think clearly about is this: The point is the Golden Ear makes his claim UNfalsifiable. He protects himself from ever being shown to be wrong. In contrast the "Lead Head" (as you call them) who doubts the claim of the Golden Ear OFFERS a way of being proven wrong. If the Golden Ear successfully identifies a tweak under blind conditions controlling for sighted bias, that counts as evidence against the claim "these differences are not audible." So...would you like to try again? How, for instance, would the Golden Ear who is convinced he heard a difference going to test whether he is mistaken or not? |
Cable debates. You’re gonna miss em when they’re gone. You mean when we finally (presumably) move to fully wireless systems in the future? It won't make the inherent debate go away. One may have thought we'd have moved on when we moved to digital cables over analog for some of the system. But purely subjectivist audiophiles still insist "I hear a difference!" You can bet it will be the same for whatever method of transmission we come up with. The nature of subjective inference is, so long as you change something, anything, someone can become convinced "it made a difference to the sound!" We'll have a cottage industry of "best sounding wireless transmitters!" :-) |
prof"
In contrast the "Lead Head" (as you call them) who doubts the claim of the Golden Ear OFFERS a way of being proven wrong. " Well here you assume that a blind test is absolute, incontrovertible, undeniable, unfalsifiable proof which is an error but even accepting you at this representation for the pure purpose of discussion why don't you arrange for some blind testing auditions and we can see what the result is this has been suggested many time's hear but Lead Heads like you fail to offer such a test and instead demand it is the burden, obligation, and duty of others to conduct such tests for the benefit of your satisfaction, enjoyment, and entertainment. |
prof "purely subjectivist audiophiles still insist "I hear a difference!" ’ May be that is something you should analyze, study, and assess instead of demanding others who you call "Golden Ears" conduct such tests for the satisfaction, enjoyment, and entertainment of Lead Heads such as your self. |
Slooow dooowwn clearthink.... Well here you assume that a blind test is absolute, incontrovertible, undeniable, unfalsifiable proof which is an error No, I never said any such thing. I have been very careful over many posts on these subjects to point out I am NOT making any such claim and that blind tests or the scientific method do NOT make such incontrovertible claims. It’s about affording levels of confidence, not "Absolute Proof" and tests are one way of raising (justified) confidence levels in a proposition. That’s why I very carefully phrased a test as providing evidence for or against a claim. (For the moment, putting off caveats about the null hypothesis). It doesn’t count as "absolute proof" but simply "some evidence for" a claim. And, of course, nowhere have I claimed bind testing to be an obligation of any audiophile. It’s up to you if you want to play around with strawmen, or actually respond to what I write. Would you like to answer the question: What test can a Golden Ear take that could falisfie his belief that a tweak objectively changed the sound? (That is, for instance, that could distinguish between his having imagined or misperceived that the sound had changed?) Cheers. |
prof"Would you like to answer the question: What test can a Golden Ear take that could falisfie his belief that a tweak objectively changed the sound? (That is, for instance, that could distinguish between his having imagined or misperceived that the sound had changed?)" It could be any test that is designed, organized, and conducted by a Lead Head such as your self and at that time the test and its results can be considered, assessed, and analyzed to determine their worth, value, and suitability for collaborating or reinforcing any such claim. |
So, clearthink, you accept the in-principle validity of blind testing? Good. If that's the case, then you personally would not fit the profile of the pure subjectivist I'm referencing. Note that many purely subjectivist "golden ears" reject it. In many of these threads they have said essentially "I am fully confident in my ability to use my ears to determine questions of audible differences." |
Yeah, blind testing has some validity but not the way non believers think it does. A single blind test has zero validity, like any other single test. If it did then every yahoo in town would be declaring victory. In fact they don’t even have to perform the blind test. They apparently already know the results. “Betcha can’t prove it in a blind test.” |
What's with all the psycho, jarga? Differences in cable sound, for crying out loud.. Myths or NOT.... Do we have to perform blind test? Not really. This is a forum for discovery, through trial and error, through personal experiences, from shared knowledge. I hope someone else did the work, so I can save some time.. I just want a ballpark of opinions, (including deleted ones) to form my own informed decision. Psychology and honesty go hand in hand.. 'To thine own self be true". Your saying a lot of folks are full of it. Ok your right.. Most have a propensity, to embellish the facts, truth, the finding... That does not negate A CHANGE in perceived sound, just how much of a change, and what kind of change is the issue. That's what most want to know.. The biggest problem, is being able to break it down in layman's terms, so I CAN UNDERSTAND.. Words matter, what we say, type, and think are ALL different... The most important thing to me is "The Sound", communicating to others how I got there, seems to be one of he biggest problems on these forums. My ability to say what I mean, and others understand what I said....That's TOUGH.. From a background in very expensive maintenance. I never talked myself into believing, "THAT NOISE" went away. When it didn't. Same thing, I didn't walk up and immagine noise either. One thing I did notice through all the years, some people just can't hear, some people won't hear, some don't pay enough attention to hear. Then there are those, that hear EVERYTHING, including the neighbors snoring at night, in the house next door, through how many walls?? Golden Ears? or Gladys Kravitz, DUNO...It still boils down to training yourself to discern the difference... Not easy, not subjective, it's a skillset...Much like any other... Interesting conversation, BUT the claims, just crack me up, pro and con.. What is a Lead Head? Heavy for sure... Respectfully and with regard |
A few years ago I was on the cables don't matter boat. I refused to believe the obscene costs warranted the performance. My system at that time was not what it is now. At the time my speakers were Dali Rubicon 6s' amps were Rogue M100 monoblocks if memory serves me correctly. I was using a "budget brand" of speaker cables called River Cables that seemed to be well built with a nice fit and finish. My local dealer that I have a good relationship with let me barrow a pair of Nordost speaker cables. They were not Blue Heaven nor were they Valhalla they were somewhere in-between. I will not mention the series. I listened to them for almost a month. I said yeah I don't hear it I'm not going spend the money. I put my budget speaker cables back in and said OMG! They sound like S#!T! I can't explain the science design or anything else regarding cable, but they do make a difference. Happy Listening Mark |
Many, if not most, of those blind tests have a large group of people sitting throughout a room, none of them in the perfect sweet spot, listening to a combination of gear they likely have never listened to before and potentially listening to short pieces of music they are not intimately familiar with. Yet they are being asked to notice differences that may be subtle at best. |
When I purchased my separate DAC, I also purchased an all silver 75 ohm cable. I experimented with a Pharoah IC cable. There wasn't as much difference that I expected. It is possible that digital cabling is not as critical for SPDIF as other forms of digital cabling such as USB or Toslink and especially analog cabling. Anyone experiment with SPDIF cabling? |