2-Channel Analog Interconnects/Speaker Cables - Page 12

Originally Posted by mcnarus

IOW, reasonableness is a function of one's knowledge of audio. If the only thing you know about cables is that they "transmit a signal and since the signal passes through the cables, it is conceivable that the signal could be altered by them," then it is perfectly reasonable to judge cables subjectively.

True

But if you are better informed, and understand how cables alter the signal, and how much they alter the signal, and you know that the difference between two cables is such that they are no more likely to make an audible difference than two sets of cable lifters, then it is no longer reasonable to compare those cables subjectively. True?

Originally Posted by Gizmologist

"Giz, can you measure what is actually happening to the signal inside the wire?

Unfortunately you have bought into the false concept of active wire. The simplest way to analyze the audio impact any given wire would have is to start with a calibrated sine wave signal on the low end of the audio spectrum. This signal is fed from a power amp in one end and the other end is connected to a lab grade load resistor as a speaker's impedance changes with frequency. Across the load resistor you have a spectrum analyzer, a scope and a DVM reading db. Readings are taken before the sweep is commenced. The sweep is automatic such that human hand interaction with the generator is non-existent. As the sweep progresses, the signal across the resistor is observed and tracked. If there is no decrease in amplitude or increase in THD as the sweep progresses, then the cable passes the test for true linearity.

Guess what, just about any off the shelf cable will meet the specs required for true linearity throughout the audio spectrum and will not begin a rolloff until well into the 40k range.

This is easily available data from any legit cable manufacturer.

Originally Posted by mcnarus

IOW, reasonableness is a function of one's knowledge of audio. If the only thing you know about cables is that they "transmit a signal and since the signal passes through the cables, it is conceivable that the signal could be altered by them," then it is perfectly reasonable to judge cables subjectively.

But if you are better informed, and understand how cables alter the signal, and how much they alter the signal, and you know that the difference between two cables is such that they are no more likely to make an audible difference than two sets of cable lifters, then it is no longer reasonable to compare those cables subjectively. True?

Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski

Now we're talking.

Keep in mind that it took about 25 years for the cable manufacturers to make a low cost cable perform to a level capable of bringing us such digital bandwidth we have today in cable. CAT 3 from the early 80's through CAT 6 and 7 today.

DSL over existing phone lines... Have to be within a few miles of the switch, and it's not very good for speed beyond a mile or so- amazing tribute to great error correction and compression in DSP's for sure, but the only reason it works that far can be attributed to Bell Labs designing their own damn good cable back in the day. I'm quite sure those lines on the poles were made in the USA.

Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles

We could shoot a man TO THE MOON AND BACK, but engineers just couldn't understand how electrons moved on a wire at high frequencies, and apparently still can't for a simple 20khz signal IN THE YEAR 2010.

RCL values are linear approximations to a material's nonlinear response to a varying voltage, and if the wire responded perfectly linearly to a complex signal, then two cables with the same RCL values would necessarily sound the same. But linearity is only an approximation, especially when a metal is not a perfect crystal and has impurities, and is in contact with a dielectric. In this way, it is more than conceivable to me that two cables with identical RCL measurements could sound different when passing a complex and dynamic signal.

And for your reference, I studied physics as an undergraduate.

Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles

Or maybe if you weren't so totally ignorant, you would realize that legacy phone cabling was designed entirely for the task at hand: very limited bandwidth analog audio signals. There was nothing at all wrong with the telephone cabling because there was no need to have higher-bandwidth digital signals on the same line. Spending a ridiculous amount of money controlling the impedance of a twisted pair analog phone line is what persons with brain capacity would call "stupid" or "wasteful." Doing that is entirely pointless, and a complete waste of money, a *LOT* of money for phone companies pulling probably millions of miles of phone cabling all over the country.

Totally ignorant... here goes the name calling again.
I take it you worked for Bell Labs and so you would know what their spec was for the cables they created for phone lines, and why?


I've messed their cable, it's good, really good. Someone took particular care in meeting very tight specs. I'm quite sure at the time they were aware of maintaining a constant impedance for a perfectly balanced line- rem HUM. I do not think (as you do) they were thinking about bandwidth, although they obviously have it if they can max out at 4 Mhz on those SAME lines. Why, because they paid much attention to detail in the specs of their cable. That was MY point.


It has little to do with an inability to figure out how to make a high-bandwidth cable, and everything to do with choosing an appropriate cable for the task. People who understand how electricity works, and how cabling works don't make ignoramus conclusions about cabling because they think that it would have made sense to pull cat6-grade data cabling for analog phone lines back in the 1960s and 70s. Because that is simply ridiculous.

Yes, but a team of engineers would have had to work on the solution for years to do it. It would have taken time to identify exactly what would need to be incorporated for it to effectively work in the field. See the analogy?

Do you have fiber right to your house? Do you have bonded-pair cat6 through your whole house and for your phone lines? Unlikely.
Do you have broadcast-grade solid copper RG-11 coax strung to your house and installed in your house? No. You most certainly do not.


RG-11, you're thinking small. We have 1/2" CATV hardline underground to the house. Guess they were thinking ahead.

Those cables are not used because their added capabilities are NOT usually required, and spending a great deal of money on that is what most businesses would look at as a horrible business decision and a grotesque waste of money.

Cost always will play a part in business decisions. They can always upgrade later.


Or we could just go along with your fantasy-land unicorn-universe where cat 3 was used because engineers couldn't come up with a better because they didn't understand BASIC F**KING ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING.

Ben Franklin was in 1750. You seem to think nobody figured any of this out until what, like the 1980s or something? We could shoot a man TO THE MOON AND BACK, but engineers just couldn't understand how electrons moved on a wire at high frequencies, and apparently still can't for a simple 20khz signal IN THE YEAR 2010. DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT WE HAVE PHONES SMALLER THAN A DECK OF CARDS THAT HAVE THE INTERNET ON THEM!!!! THE INTERNET!? But nobody understands how a speaker cable works. That's just TOTALLY beyond the grasp of current engineering capacity to understant.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

It's not that you are totally ignorant as you so kindly called me, it's just that you do not do THIS for a living, so you do not have the need for the bandwidth in this direction.

Originally Posted by mcnarus

This is true. The rest of us do not rob people blind for a living, so we can't possibly understand where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles

DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT WE HAVE PHONES SMALLER THAN A DECK OF CARDS THAT HAVE THE INTERNET ON THEM!!!! THE INTERNET!? But nobody understands how a speaker cable works. That's just TOTALLY beyond the grasp of current engineering capacity to understant.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

Originally Posted by terry j

You'd at least think that the cable companies who DO know stuff *we* don't would generously donate their knowledge to NASA and the LHC on an understanding that science would not encroach on their particular patch??

You know, for the sake of mankind and all that stuff...

Originally Posted by mjbuoni

Thank you - that's an honest and reasonable answer. I would also argue that those who listen to two reasonably priced cables (easily affordable for the listener) and perceive a difference and make their purchase based on their findings are no less reasonable.

Originally Posted by tesseract67

Have you tried it? If so, list the cables you have auditioned and the components used with them.

Originally Posted by Denophile

everyone is subject to the effect of bias but it is not a REQUISITE phenomenon. It may or may not play a part in any observations and observations are routinely utilized in scientific study. Just because bias MAY be a part of an observation does not make in an invalid observation.

Originally Posted by hd_newbie

This does not mean that the more expensive speaker actually sounded better. It means that I had thought that it sounded better. There is a vast difference between those 2 statements. Will that make me an unreasonable, illogical, and uneducated person? Probably not. There is a vast amount of research out there that shows it is generic human tendency to fall into the traps of subconscious.

That being said, I would never audition cables, not unless they have different gauges. Even then, I find it silly. Cable is an extremely simple mechanism when compared to a speaker, so I don't think it is a good comparison.

I was only trying to establish that someone who applies the same subjective discrimination to cables is not behaving unreasonably.

Originally Posted by Gizmologist

Here is a direct question for which I would like a direct answer. I posted a FR graph for Canare L4E6S Quadstar cable in my last post. Read this carefully now.

This is a yes or no type question.

Do you have the same type of performance graph for ANY cable you sell? If so, please post it. No adjectives, no sales hype, just a FR performance graph.

As I have said ANY LEGIT manufacturer of a quality cable product has these graphs and performance data readily available.

I challenge you here and now to produce this data on any of your products in you next post. Let's stop the delaying tactics, the diversionary comments etc.

Please post the test data HERE for your premier wallet drainer cables.

Originally Posted by geekhd

Once again guys, Joe Skubinski sells boutique cables for living. He pays his bills with it. Do you think he would post anything here that will compromise his cash flow? Think about it.

Originally Posted by mcnarus

Then you are an example of the axiom that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You type about topics you know nothing about on forums,

Originally Posted by mjbuoni

You claimed that additional knowledge of cables and how they transmit signals would render my hypothesis that cables could conceivably alter a signal to be unreasonable.

While I don't claim to be an expert in solid state physics, I do know enough to find it completely reasonable that the simple measurements performed on cables don't physically tell us everything. An audio signal has an enormous dynamic range, and unless the cable has been tested over signals that vary over this same range, how can you be sure that some low-level signal information isn't lost? Also, how about passing a harmonically rich signal through the cable? You don't know for sure if the cable my lose some of the higher order harmonics if they are in the presence of a large magnitude fundamental. This is what I meant by nonlinearity.

Besides, this is nothing more than a thought experiment designed to establish plausibility of difference between cables that aren't evident by the basic measurements. And if it is plausible, then it is perfectly reasonable to be let subjectivity influence one's choice of cables.

Originally Posted by hd_newbie

I would not like to get into a discussion of physics in this area since it is not my area of expertise. However, I would encourage you to consider the following:

1. Recording studios do NOT use exotic cables. They use professional grade cables. So ask yourself: Are these million dollar enterprises really oblivion to the possibilities, which you just stated? Do you really think that is possible? Now for a moment assume that these firms are stupid as rock. Assume that exotic cables really affect the sound. Even so, what difference does it make since the original recording had already been developed with cheap cables? The damage was already done. You can not recover lost information by simply adding a quality source at the end.

There are no speakers that I know of that use any exotic cables in their interiors. Can you guess why? Say speaker manufacturers are also oblivion to this simple fact and dumb as production companies, you will still lose all the benefit of using these exotic cables, as soon as the signal reaches to the speakers.

2. People have tested this double blind and nobody has ever been able to hear the difference among different cables in one of those tests. Miraculously, the difference becomes night and day only and only during sighted comparisons. When you ask cable proponents to conduct the same test blind, they are going to come up with 100 excuses not to. Why? How difficult it is to compare cables without seeing which is which and still be able to hear the difference? Why does the difference always disappear to the level of random luck when comparison is unsighted? The fact that there has been a $1M reward waiting for anyone who can tell this night and day difference without any willing candidates is telling itself. If you owned a cable company, wouldn't you go after that award? Not for the financial sakes, but just for the prestige. Can you imagine the reputation, credibility, and publicity your products would have gained? What are they afraid of?

3. If cables really make a difference, why only in audio? Why don't we get better light if we replace power cord of our lamps with cords from JPS Labs or Nordost? Why don't we get more tasty food when we plug expensive cables in our ovens?

4. This is only for power cords, power comes to your home via cheap power grids. How can anyone think just by adding an expensive cable at the end, they will be able to bring back all that lost fidelity?

There is probably a lot more, but these are what I can think of immediately.

With all these, it is beyond me how people can still continue debating this.

As for studios not using the "exotic" stuff, my guess is b/c it is only subtly better (subjectively)

Originally Posted by mjbuoni

You claimed that additional knowledge of cables and how they transmit signals would render my hypothesis that cables could conceivably alter a signal to be unreasonable.

While I don't claim to be an expert in solid state physics, I do know enough to find it completely reasonable that the simple measurements performed on cables don't physically tell us everything. An audio signal has an enormous dynamic range, and unless the cable has been tested over signals that vary over this same range, how can you be sure that some low-level signal information isn't lost? Also, how about passing a harmonically rich signal through the cable? You don't know for sure if the cable my lose some of the higher order harmonics if they are in the presence of a large magnitude fundamental. This is what I meant by nonlinearity.

Besides, this is nothing more than a thought experiment designed to establish plausibility of difference between cables that aren't evident by the basic measurements. And if it is plausible, then it is perfectly reasonable to be let subjectivity influence one's choice of cables.

An audio signal has an enormous dynamic range

While I don't claim to be an expert in solid state physics,

Originally Posted by mjbuoni

As for studios not using the "exotic" stuff, my guess is b/c it is only subtly better (subjectively) and it would cost too much, i.e. cost/benefit ratio not low enough. That said, are you sure that ALL studios use cheap basic wire?

Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles

And when they do, you don't see absolute crap garbage like Joe's JPL Labs nonsense in any studios, or Audioquest, or Monster, or any other crap. Instead, you find mostly the best cabling on earth, at any price, anywhere.

And in television studios, they often spend enormous amounts to hand-time their analog cabling runs, etc.

Instead, you find mostly the best cabling on earth, at any price, anywhere.