Interconnects: a conductor is a conductor, right?


If you guys remember, a while back i said that i had purchased a computerized audio distortion analyzer. Shortly after that, i posted that we had measured a couple of different interconnects and observed very measurable differences in distortion between these 1 meter length cables. Even though i had shared the fact that John Curl had measured similar distortions using similar equipment, most of the "techno-geeks" told me that i had been ripped off by the guy selling me the test equipment & conducting the "tests". While i knew better than that, those that aren't familiar with the individual that i was dealing with and weren't there to see / experience this type of test could have had their doubts. They were wrong, but they could still have their doubts and are entitled to their opinions though : )

As it turns out, someone else using Audio Precision test equipment has just posted some comparison results between Cardas and another cable manufacturer's interconnects. You can see the test results at Head-Fi. As a side note, the "highly distorted", "highly coloured", "highly lossy" cables were reviewed on an internet based audio webzine. In that article, the reviewer called these cables "the cleanest, least colored cables I've ever had in my system".

As a side note, Steve Eddy also posted a link to this thread over at the General Asylum. For those that don't visit AA all that often, Steve was involved in a "knock down, drag out" fight with John Curl over some of the distortion related measurements that he had taken of some specific interconnects. The fact that Steve posted a link to this sight shows that some of those that believe that "cables are cables, so long as they are properly constructed", can be fair when the evidence is presented to them. The fact that the person doing the testing was using Audio Precision gear, which is what Steve used as a reference to try and dis-prove Curl's results, only makes the results "sweeter" to those of us that supported / believed Curl's initial posts & test results.

Regardless of who says what, i just wanted to show you guys that i'm not a complete crack-pot. A third party with completely different test equipment has verified what i stated here a short while ago and Mr Curl has stated for a long period of time. I'm not trying to take credit for ANY of this, as it is all "old hat" to those that have been around this type of thing for many years. Quite honestly, i myself was pretty amazed at the test results that i saw when we performed these tests just a short while ago. What i am trying to do is make those that think they know all there is to know about electronics & test equipment to reconsider some of their previous comments and keep an open mind. Sometimes, what we don't know CAN hurt us. Especially when we don't know what we don't know : ) Sean
>

Now Listening: John Mayall & Friends "Along For The Ride" on SACD ( this is a hybrid redbook / SACD disc )
sean

Showing 1 response by twl

Sean, that's some good info to present.

Many people realize that there are differences in cables, and that there are real technical reasons for the differences. Perhaps(and probably) we still don't know all the things we need to, but study and testing is helpful.

I think it is far more useful to learn, test, and discover the reasons for what most of us hear in these cable applications, than to just lean on "old info" to "prove" why these differences cannot be real. The scientific method is designed to explain the reasons behind observed phemomena, not to say we cannot be observing these phenomena.

Your testing, and these others' testing, are showing that there are discernible, and measureable differences going on in different cables which can result in audible differences.

Thanks for sharing the info.