Cable Happy.

[anon_bb]

Nobody is disputing LCR characteristics affect component interface in an extremely small subset of circumstances (mainly cartridges, passive pre-amps and some speakers) and to a largely very small degree. In most circumstances varying LCR within wide ranges will have no audible or even measurable effect. However this has nothing to do with cable claims being made on this forum where people claim something entirely different. You can get cables with any set of LCR characteristics you like for a few pounds a meter. However cable proponent s claim that if you take a cable costing thousands it can sound better than one costing pence - even if the LCR is matched to be the same. This is clearly nonsense and has never withstood any scientific scrutiny.

The same goes for shielding. Use an unshielded cable from your cartridge and you are sure to get hum! With shielded cable the hum will vanish - so there is an audible effect here but it is accordance with well understood engineering principles and is accordance with known science. Suggestion is important in all auditioning however for cables that is all there is.

There are two completely separate issues here. One for which there is evidence and theory and has nothing to do with the contentious aspects under discussion - and the one under discussion for which there is no evidence whatsoever. There is there is no incomplete understanding of the cable issue - as there are currently no rigorous observations that support the claims of the pro cable argument. When evidence emerges to support the pro cable claims then theory will need to be addressed. Our understanding at this time appears to be complete with no contradictory observations of any kind. Its obvious that the distinction between these two areas is not clear in your mind and has given rise to this confusion.

 

[cooky1257]

Nobody is disputing LCR characteristics affect component interface in an extremely small subset of circumstances (mainly cartridges, passive pre-amps and some speakers) and to a largely very small degree.


Hardly a small subset give most of us use these circumstances.


Suggestion is important in all auditioning however for cables that is all there is.


No there isn't see above.

Its obvious that the distinction between these two areas is not clear in your mind and has given rise to this confusion.

If you really are an academic you would understand they cannot be mutually exclusive.

I have a theory that all this cable malarkey came about because most supplied cables were poorly made/designed and easy to improve upon-an entire snakeoil industry was born out of it.

 

[anon_bb]

prove it. produce some evidence that withstands scientific scrutiny.

Currently they are exclusive. One has evidence the other does not - that is the basis of exclusion in scientific method. until you produce testable repeatable evidence. Thats all you have to do but no-one has ever done it. hence all the silly fairy stories about QM, faith etc to avoid the fact the cable claims have currently failed.

There may be something to that point - poor quality construction especially soldering, or poor quality connections and earthing etc can make a difference but I suspect even the cheap patch cords included with kit would not suffer from this.

 

[DavidF]

What is it with these cables that so intriuges us. Tone control? Neutral link? Synergy? What?


rollo

Does that answer your question Rollo?

 

[cooky1257]

prove it. produce some evidence that withstands scientific scrutiny.

Currently they are exclusive. One has evidence the other does not - that is the basis of exclusion in scientific method. until you produce testable repeatable evidence. Thats all you have to do but no-one has ever done it. hence all the silly fairy stories about QM, faith etc to avoid the fact the cable claims have currently failed.

There may be something to that point - poor quality construction especially soldering, or poor quality connections and earthing etc can make a difference but I suspect even the cheap patch cords included with kit would not suffer from this.

You seem to be misunderstanding me now-see I don't have to prove f*** all, you are the one making all the claims not me-you cannot make the assertions about peoples combinations of equipment-no data see-you don't have the info sorry-so no sweeping statements-for a scientist you are overly fond of them.
I have merely acknowledged the point that SM made about dealer pressure and from real experience recognised this as common to all in store auditioning-the moot point being whether something is sounding 'better' and who stands to gain if you get convinced that it actually does.

 

[ditton]

vaguely amusing to see how a thread called 'Cable Happy' can be so long and yet get so twisted and make folk so grumpy

 

[anon_bb]

Yes you do scientifically speaking if not personally. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim for new science or experimental observations - like it or not.

The dealer stands to gain as they make most of their profit on selling cables to go with the system.

 

[George Sallit]

Cooky,

BBV is right here. What I have been saying is that electrically identical cables sound identical, electrically differing ones might, under certain circumstances, sound slightly different. There is therefore no justification for some of the outlandish claims we see here and elsewhere.

No they don't. There have been no statistically significant ABX tests for differences in cables. Even if you want to entertain that there are measurable differences (which there are subtle ones) they can not make ANY difference to the sound. ABX testing is very strict on this.. Please don't waver

 

[DavidF]

The onus of proof is on the person making the claim for new science or experimental observations - like it or not.
.

The exception to this is Petes cables..

I am quite happy to say his cables made an improvement to my system......and recommend others might like to try.

Isn't that (at least in part) what a forum is for.........to recommend services or products that have worked for you......and might for others??

 

[bottleneck]

The exception to this is Petes cables..

Pete's a nice guy who's helped a lot of people.

He gets too much stick really, in comparison to all of the other cable manufacturers.

He's absolutely not in any way an exception to anything however.

 

[sq225917]

the simple fact is that that nearly all cables differ in LCR and shielding construction, so they all sound different.

and if you doubt that, you can come round to my house, measure my tonearm din to phono stage wire, we can listen to it, i can then zip off the copper shield, that has no effect on LCR whatsoever as it is so far from the signal wires and then while you listen to radio sheffield and radio 4 simultaneously via my rega P5 you can tell me theres no fucking difference.

what a crock .

 

[bottleneck]

well, the difference sonically will depend on the extent of LCR difference, and of course poor construction (e.g. poor soldering, bad shielding etc).

I disagree very strongly that ''they all sound different'', because, well because they don't!

Some sound different to each other.

This doesn't bring a wish to spend a lot of cash from me personally... it makes me ask instead...

1) Why buy something of poor construction?
2) When appropriate LCR levels are known, why buy something that deviates from that, just because it sounds different (I buy no nonsense studio stuff for that reason).

This is the controversial statement - if you have 10 cables and one sounds really different from the rest, you are likely to have a bad apple in the bunch, not 'system matching' or whatever.

 

[George Sallit]

"Yes there is. There is a large body of people who have clearly stated that they can hear differences. Calling people names does not really help your argument. "

There is also a large body of people that believes in Santa Claus and psychic surgery. Irrelevant. Only the evidence matters.

And does calling people's evidence 'imaginary' and calling them 'audiophools' help? Would you do that when you write to colleagues? This is a forum but name calling just polarises the argument.

"Yes I know a little about QM as it happens. I have a PhD in theoretical physics and over 15 years working in research and testing. You are incorrect. Quantum states occur as a probabilistic distribution - a waveform that is collapsed to an observable by a measurement. Said measurement is interaction with any other particle or wave. This occurs at the quantum level and has nothing to do with macro level phenomena."

Wow it was meant to be an analogy, where the sheer act of making measurements/doing the test actually 'interferes' with the observation a la Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle.

This is just misappropriation of a piece of science applied incorrectly and in a misleading way in an attempt to justify a piece of hocus pocus.

It was an attempt to state that in performing an AB/ABX test you may actually impact the phenomena you are trying to measure. And legitmately ask do we need another test?

Hearing is also a test so if you claim to hear a difference then by definition you have found a test that does not destroy the phenomena. If you then repeat under blind conditions for multiple listeners and the effect vanishes it is because it is in your imagination. The effect of the "blind" aspect being to remove the effects of bias or belief. Obviously you will object to that part and concoct a mistaken self rationalization that testing destroys the effect as testing has actually just proved you are incorrect and you are unable to accept the facts.

Correct.

Facts...novel definition in this example.

I agree with your first sentence. If I then change the 'experiment' by repeating the test but under different conditions I can draw two conclusions. The phenomena disappears because of the removal of the visual clues or the blind part of the test causes another change. To jump to the former conclusion and then brand people as phools is an interesting approach.


Many amplifiers do sound similiar - how ever there are measurable differences and where sound differences occur they can be related back to these differences. Big difference.

Measurements I have no problem with, when done properly. the real issue is what measurements correlates with what is heard. Or in reality, the reverse. AB/ABX tests on amplifiers have been very inconclusive, so sound differences have not been proved to 95% certainty. Therefore we should not entertain sound differences for amps with reasonable measurements. Yet I have seen pages of incredibly low distortion data (for Japanese amps) which when heard were boring, flat, undynamic. The wrong thing was being measured, the community changed, the ABX tests were ignored. Things got better.

Yes the brains processing is complex but that also is geared towards survival and communication. A lot of what you perceive with your senses is filled in and isn't actually there. Most of what you see and hear is made up by the brain to cover the visual and aural systems limitations and to a large part the interpolation is dictated by prior belief or experience. A point you have failed to appreciate and which if you consider closely will lead to an understanding of why it is exactly that we must treat sense based beliefs with a great deal of caution.


Good we agree...... I am well aware of the perception of sound and vision. Ensuring that these problems are dealt with is important but not to the exclusion of all information.

I have spent a great deal of time doing research in speech recognition, neural networks and listening test assessments. I am also familiar with kuhn popper feyerahband (sic) et al. I know how science works in practice and in theory.

Good. And I'll have to ask you to accept the same here. I am head of a major science department with a large number of PhDs working for me, including some international experts (but not in audio).

 

[Paul Ranson]

and then while you listen to radio sheffield and radio 4 simultaneously via my rega P5 you can tell me theres no fucking difference.

Well, like, duh.

If you concur that cables with equivalent bulk electrical parameters and adequate shielding for their purpose sound the same then why are you muddying the waters?

The debate is whether cables that measure the same sound the same. For instance Zanash changes the conductor material from copper to silver (or whatever) and claims the sound changes as a property of the material.

Is there a believer in the southern part of the country who would like to explore the matter?

Paul

 

[rollo]

Does that answer your question Rollo?


I posted the question to find out what you all think. I.m certainly not asking the question to determine my verdict one way or the other. Been in this game for some 30 years. I know that cables sound different. Why? Don't know and don't care.
I believe that cables have different capacitance, inductance and impedance. With that in mind they should sound different as they react with each component.
Secondly, I feel if we really knew what to measure we could put the cable debate to rest one way or the other.
Without insulting anyone and sounding like a pompus arse, maybe the naysayers kits just are not transparent enough to tell a difference. Granted the cost of some of the cables is just over the top. Are they worth it? To me NO. To some yes. I say live and let live.
I mean if someone hears a difference, great, if you don't thats fine. I believe that the issue of all the cable debates started when the prices just went out of control. If all cables were priced within reach of most the debate would not exist. At least not as much.


rollo

 

[cooky1257]

Hey Rollo,
Wise words IMO.

I notice you are across the pond and yet correctly use the word 'arse' with all its rich anglo-saxon resonance-top man
F

 

[JCL]

brizonbiovizor, why do you not use bell wire as your IC? Whilst your cabling is cheap, is it a step up from the free wire you are handed with basic equipment. £ 50 each, isnt the cheapest you can purchase surely? Is it the screening you are paying for? and if so, is this not similar to employing a more expensive cable that makes ficticious claims about sound? just curious. JCL...what is your slant on this? Might be useful to add your thoughts, rather than simply lavish praise upon briz at the end of a post. Is there something you wish to add, or is your tongue too firmly up his A****? Others, who have a different POV from Briz have posted sensibly, whilst you have just jumped in with a winking smiley face. Who says its too much logic? Im taking on board Brizs views and trying to make my mind up based on the evidence that I have come across personally. Logic means reasonong correctly. Whilst I do think briz believes what he says, Im not convinced that he is necessarily correct in his reasoning. To state that there is no difference in wires is a contradiction should he have more expensive wires than is absolutely necessary and have , for example- different wires. They would all be the same, and of the cheapest variety. unless there was need for a specific requirement, such as visual pleasure of the outer sheathing. Are your wires all the same Briz, and why did you choose the ones you have? I think we would all like to know your reasons. Would you be happy with red and white freebies? IE if I offered you a few pairs of red and white as a swap for your current wires, would you take me up on the offer?

I couldn't put forward the argument remotely as eloquently so I didn't bother.

 

[DavidF]

Pete's a nice guy who's helped a lot of people.

He gets too much stick really, in comparison to all of the other cable manufacturers.

He's absolutely not in any way an exception to anything however.

BN, I guess what I meant was that Pete doesn't involve himself in heavy advertising, or to my knowledge, hard sell. He relize on word of mouth for his sales.

I thnk that was how I meant my comment.

When I fist started posting here a few years ago I asked generally about cables as I wanted to have an experiment; some body put me in touch with "Zanash" as a recomendation of soemone who produces cables which are good at their price point.

I haven' t got a problem with that.


edit

I don't think hes making any claims for "new science".

+I'm happy with his personal observations........ its taken my kit a hell of a long way.

No ifs or buts about it.

 

[anon_bb]

No they don't in general. Produce some evidence.

As has already been stated a cartridge is a passive device like a passive preamp and therefore capacitance is of important when driving a phono stage input. This is well understood and backed up by science. I have no problem with this fact and indeed noted it myself before anyone else mentioned it. Low cap cable can be bought for a few pounds a meter and there is no benefit other than going to this level. Likewise shielding is of benefit for low level signals and is likewise well understood and backed up by theory. The claims of cable fanatics go way beyond this and are not supported by evidence or theory. They claim identically shielded cables with identical LCR can differ in performance to such an instance that an expense of hundreds or in some cases tens of thousands of pounds per cable can be justified in terms of improvement in system performance over cable thats costs a few pounds. This is the only crock. Do you really think if it was as you say then it wouldn't have already been proved by now?

the simple fact is that that nearly all cables differ in LCR and shielding construction, so they all sound different.

and if you doubt that, you can come round to my house, measure my tonearm din to phono stage wire, we can listen to it, i can then zip off the copper shield, that has no effect on LCR whatsoever as it is so far from the signal wires and then while you listen to radio sheffield and radio 4 simultaneously via my rega P5 you can tell me theres no fucking difference.

what a crock .

 

[Stereo Mic]

B
I don't think hes making any claims for "new science".

+I'm happy with his personal observations........ its taken my kit a hell of a long way.

No ifs or buts about it.

Yes he is and you are (if you don't mind me saying so) beginning to sound as if you are on commission!

Why not put your convictions to the test. Two of his cables, electrically matched, controlled enviroment. Neutral observers. Results posted on the forum.

Of course it's statistically insignificant but you may well do better than the Russ Andrews guy.