Why do digital cables sound different?

What amazes me about the cynics' justifications for not hearing differences in digital cables is, when all is said and done, the same things that made the "all (analog) cables sound the same" debate of several years ago. First of all, not everyone's hearing is as developed or sensitive as that of some. So it is possible that some simply can't and never will be able to hear these differences. More interesting however is how reluctant many are to give music, that which all of these toys are trying to reproduce, the proper respect. Music(sound) is so complex, so beautifully subtle. Is it so difficult to imagine that there are still many aspects of sound as it relates to recorded music that have yet to be properly explained or even identified? Not to me. Why do we assume that there has to be an explanation "now". The very things that make us want to listen to certain music, the emotion, the mystery; how on earth can these things be quantified? They can't be. Not yet anyway.

Danielho, again I think it is important to look at these issues from the standpoint of the message not the messenger. There simply is too much information in a musical event to encode and then decode for our existing recording and playback equipment. That is not debatable. It is the reason that even the very best systems still don't sound like the real thing. I believe that there are still many types of distortions, still unidentified, that affect a musical waveform wether in the digital or analog domain. While I realize that it is "simply" ones and zeros involved here, is it not plausible that the "code" needed to carry the information that distinguishes wether say, a saxophonist is playing a Selmer or a Yamaha instrument is so inadequate that any problem or simply difference in the way that code is transmitted would further distort the sound?I assure you those differences can be heard. I think those things would have to include cable materials and all that we don't know about why say, silver can have, generally speaking, a generally identifiable sonic quality. Why is it that I hear a certain family resemblance between the Kimber digital cable(silver) and their KCAG analog interconnect when introduced into my system? There has to be something at work here that we just don't get yet. But my ears tell me so. Happy listening!

Bravo Bruce, precisely my point.

Drubin, you claim to be open minded.I say not open minded enough. Wrap your open minded brain around some of these observations and tell me what you come up with: In none of the posts concerning this subject( with the exception of mine ) is there a single direct reference to a musical observation as it relates to cable effects. I say, do a lot more listening , educate your ears, worry less about understanding the technical issues and more about understanding the beauty and meaning of music, recorded or not. That is what opens one's mind to better understanding the unexplainable, and much of what we are talking about here is unexplainable in my opinion. Concerning what set off your BS detector: I have recently tried various digital cables between my EAD Transport and DAC. I heard without a doubt a very similar change in the sound of my system when I used the Kimber silver digital cable as I do when I use KCAG between pre and amp or between DAC and pre. I don't claim to be able to tell you why that is only that I heard it. To me it is plausible that there is some connection here that we simply can't explain based on our understanding at the present. Obviously the manufacturer has certain design philosophies that carry over from one line of cable (analog) to another (digital); perhaps the materials used (silver)are the issue. I am confortable with the idea that there is something going on here that we just can't document yet. You see, my brand of logic tells me that something that is so often bandied about in so flip and simplistic a manner, such as the idea that "bits is bits" can't possibly do justice to the wonderfull complexity and subtlety of music. Like Karl I feel that the more I know the less I understand. Just friendly comments and hopefully food for thought.

With all due respect, and I respect your 20 year experience as a digital designer, my 25 years as a professional musician tell me very loudly and clearly that I hear these differences. What's more, they aren't all that subtle in many cases. My musical colleagues (those that care about these things )also hear them. Is it not more productive and potentially enlightening to consider as plausible what the ears of those who use them for a living hear. I hate to break your bubble, but I assure you that the subtleties (subtle variations in timbre, pitch, time etc. ) that a musician has to be sensitive to playing in say a Brahms clarinet trio are far more subtle in absolute terms than the oftentimes obvious diifferences that are heard between cables, including digital. By the way, digitally recorded music to many colleagues of mine still does't "swing" the way it should and certainly not as well as good analogue. The groove or "fun factor" is diminished; not catastrophically but diminished none the less. I would like to respectfully encourage all of us to do more listening without focusing on the technical aspects of the sound. "Hearing" is not only what takes place in our ears, but letting that go on to touch us emotionally. Then that in turn frees us to "hear" more, and the cycle continues. There is infinitely more to hear/experience in most good music than most think. I remember that years ago when I first started reading the mags a couple of reviewers were fond of pointing out in their description of the prowess (or lack thereof)of various very expensive components, that these components were somehow to be praised for allowing the listener to "hear that the instrument being played was an English horn and not an oboe". This is almost laughable, I assure you that the difference in timbre between these two instruments is so obvious, that they can be easily heard over the lamest grocery store sound system. Then why bother? Because there is so much more than most imagine. I point all of this out only to encourage the cynics to consider the possibility that they are missing out on a whole lot of fun in their listening by letting technical issues dictate what and how much they should be able to hear. Happy listening.

Why is it so darn difficult for some people to accept the simple fact that some listeners have better hearing ability than others; wether because of physiological differences, experience, or training?

****"Why is it so darn difficult for some people to accept the simple fact that some listeners have better hearing ability than others; wether because of physiological differences, experience, or training? "

ITs not hard to accept that, but knowing who those people are for sure can be a challenge.****

Does it really matter who those people are? Seems to me that if we accept that simple reality, then one can go about the business of trying this cable (or whatever) or that cable to see if we can hear those differences; and if those differences constitute an IMPROVEMENT in our estimation. Bottom line: we accept that differences exist and if someone else wants to kid himself about a particular difference, who cares? The key is to keep an open mind about the possibilities. If we can't hear a difference we should just move on. We spend so much time disputing what someone else claims to hear. Why?

****The irony is that silver is the worst conductor for analog signals (at least to my ear)****

Not quite. Silver is the worst conductor for analog signals because of the way that many audiophiles tune their systems.