Audio Engineering Society and cables

Well if all cables sound the same then God probably did something wrong.  

@thynamei



I will admit, it is hard for me to understand how there can still be a controversy after all these decades. I got my first high quality interconnect about 45 years ago. I had relatively cheap equipment and it just pass more of the poor signal through instead of limiting some of it… so no change. But the second cable I bought so completely changed the sound I was astounded… sounded like someone took the component out and brought in a new and better one. From that instance on, after every upgrade I would carefully choose and upgrade my cables and interconnects. Each time they have provided a very significant contribution to the overall sound quality. Btw, I pulled out that old first set of interconnects a few years ago… the ones that didn’t do anything… they made a profound impact on my contemporary system in a good way… my audio guy had steered me in the right way… only my equipment was not good enough to be improved by them.

Well, maybe I answered my own question. If you have a relatively poor signal to start with, passing through a cleaner version of the signal is probably not noticeable.

Also, some folks are under the incorrect impression that something like sound reproduction can be fully characterized by a few scientific measurements. I was trained as a scientist and worked as a scientist and engineer for over a decade and very quickly abandoned the idea that I could characterize the performance if audio equipment with a few simple variables and used listening and professional reviews as my evaluation criteria.

Thought the following interesting.........

The temporal discriminability  of the human auditory system is much finer than one might infer from the upper audibility limit of fmax <18 kHz [44], and not directly related to it. Previous experiments [45]–[46] set an upper bound of ~ 5 s. But it should be noted that those listening trials used an SSC protocol with a very simple form of stimulus (7 kHz square wave tone) and therefore may have overestimated . The experience of the present work suggests repeating those experiments with music, rather than a tone, and following an EMP approach to determine a more accurate (and probably shorter) estimate of . Similarly, the theoretical value for which was estimated to be as low as 2 s from neurophysiological modeling [45], was also based on SSC and is potentially an overestimate. Furthermore, there may be possible exotic time-domain effects that prolong the decay beyond the nominal decay times calculated here, which are based on idealized reactive behavior. These questions are worth revisiting in future.

Hearing a difference is not always an improvement, and there is little correlation between improvement and price.

😂😂😂🙄🙄 Of course 🙄🙄

Cable haters will remain haters. No matter what. It does not matter what kind of proof is shown.