Inductance and capacitance are not buzz words. They are real characteristics of conductors, and they can affect the signal enough to be audible. It is trivially easy to design a cable that is audibly distinguishable from generic copper wire. Whether one would want to do so is another matter, which may explain your friends' skepticism on the matter. I hope they're more informed than you, however. |
Trelja: I've seen similar measurements, but they don't, by themselves, prove what you think they prove. Just because a difference is measurable (and every cable will measure differently) doesn't mean it's audible. Whether we can hear a frequency response anomaly depends on how big it is, how braod a band it covers, and whether it's a dip or a peak. That said, some cables do affect frequency response enough to be audible. Most of those roll off the high end, which some audiophiles seem to like even though they insist they're looking for something that sounds like "real music." Go figure. |
Paulwp: I agree that a boost is implausible, but I've seen frequency response plots for cables with HF rolloffs down several dB at 20kHz. Also, I think you're talking about someone's measurement with a consumer-grade SPL meter, which is not a tool designed for frequency response tests. That seems the most likely explanation for the "boost," to me at least.
The rest of my post was meant to try to square what you thought you heard with what cables might actually be doing to the signal (though we're talking hypotheticals here). My point was that cable measurements might very well correlate with at least some of what you think you hear, which would be solid evidence that you were not simply imagining it. That's a good thing. |
Redkiwi: Your ignorance is astounding. Scientific theory never said digital was perfect. Marketing guys said digital was perfect. Nor does science claim that all cables sound the same--quite the opposite (despite what the equally ignorant original poster here believes). Science does say that transistors have lower distortion than SETs. I'd love to see your evidence to the contrary. (And, no, the fact that you like their sound better does not make them lower in distortion.) Get your facts straight. |
Dirty pool, Steve, you've changed the question. Go back and read your original post. You asked for evidence that "speaker wires sound different." Now you've added the "same size" qualifier. That makes all the difference, and you know it, you troll. |
Redkiwi: For my own edification, would you explain what is wrong with the digital standard, and how Nyquist's theory falls short? |
Redkiwi: Either you've now stated your position more clearly, or I misunderstood the point you were trying to make earlier (or, probably, a little of both). From my perspective, of course, it's not the scientists who are closed-minded. They'll consider any evidence available. It's the subjectivists who seem closed-minded, because they refuse to consider any evidence that conflicts with their own observations (including, particularly, evidence suggesting that their own observations may be unreliable). |
I take it, Redkiwi, that you cannot answer the question. |
First of all, thanks to my defenders. Apologies heartily accepted, JD, and don't stay out of it. We all cross over the line occasionally, because it's inevitable in forums like this. I am, however, growing tired of this thread. |
Paulwp: A wire really can affect frequency response. In fact, the scientists would tell you that's about the only thing it can affect--although a RatShak SPL meter is not an appropriate test tool here. Sean's right about 18 vs 12 gauge (although his side-by-side mono test is not the right way to find out)--assuming the cables are long enough the difference will be audible. (18-gauge has pretty high resistance.) As for the effects you say you hear, sibilance is plausible--high-frequency roll-off is a common effect. Imaging is dominated by source material and speaker-room interaction (which is frequency-dependent, so who knows?) Clarity is in the ear of the beholder. |
Kasboot: I believe Stereo Review did just such a test many years ago. Don't have the issue date, but if you check the ABX page (see the address in teh Blind Listening Test thread), it'll be listed on the publications page. No, as a true believer, you will certainly be able to find a zillion things "wrong" with that little experiment, and I'll grant you it's not definitive. But ask yourself this: Why don't the peddlers of cables do such tests, in order to demonstrate that their products are indeed distinguishable from plain old 12 gauge copper? (Surely, some of them are.) Reason: 'cause many of them aren't. |
Detlof: "I began to wonder, if any member of the 'honorable opposition' ever went to live concerts" is what is known as an ad hominem attack. It's also quite false. The last time I went to Carnegie Hall, I didn't hear any of the effects of out-of-phase rumble, nor did I notice an excessive amount of inner groove distortion. Those two effects, among others, are endemic to vinyl reproduction. By the way, they are not endemic to analog, since they aren't evident on analog master tapes. That's why it's known as distortion. Some audiophiles may like the sound of that distortion, just as they may like the way a SET amp clips or the way a cable rolls off the high end. But that's not because it's "closer to real music." It's just closer to what you like. And it's perfectly okay to like it (hell, I like some of it myself), but let's not make of it more than it is. |
Redkiwi: You try out a new set of cables that sound different than your old set, and you report that here. A scientist sees your post and says, well, there are two possible explanations:
1) The new cable does something to the electrical signal passing through it that affects the sound in an audible way.
2) The new cable's impact on the signal is minimal, but you have imagined such a change in sound anyway.
Both explanations are possible (and well-documented). If the first is true, then we might expect that others will notice the same effect. If the second is true, however, then your experience won't be generalizable (except to the extent that their expectations and perceptions are influenced by the same non-sonic factors that influenced yours). How does a reader know which is the case? Well, one possible clue might lie in whether there's a sound scientific explanation for why such a cable would sound that way. If you switched from 12- to 18-gauge cables and reported that this improved the treble, I'd say you were imagining things. If you said it diminished the treble, then I'd be much more likely to agree that you heard a physical change in the sound.
Now, you might reply that, well, the best way for others to find out if I'm right is to try the new cable themselves. That's true, assuming they can do so without being influenced by non-sonic factors (which include your post suggesting to them what they should expect). But none of us have time to test everything. So what should we test, of the hundreds of products mentioned on Audiogon each week? I'd suggest concentrating on the ones whose claims are the most plausible. But to do that, you need to understand something about the science that underlies the electronics. And that's why some of us waste our breath on discussions like these. |
