Cables Need it - Page 2

Hold on now. Are you saying I'm Forest Gump? If so, do you have any proof of this? Did you conduct any AB double blind tests? Do you have any white papers to prove this? Is this some form of advertising BS? Details please!

Let's talk about the importance of interconnects like the Audioquest Diamonbacks and other brands, what makes them so important to improve the sound even more than speaker cables do?

Link please?

I do recall laughing at the idiocy of high-end power cords made out of aluminum.



It was the only evidence you have presented in this entire discussion. And it had no bearing at all on what we were discussing, which was Toslink cables.


Which as I explained is not effected in any way by small changes in 'amplitude.'


Link please? Citation? Evidence?



I'm still waiting for any kind of evidence beyond an un-named article randomly posted on the internet.

You have made a number of claims thus far and have absolutely refused to provide any evidence to bolster them. And they fly in the face of basic physics and practical engineering. If you want to say that the earth is flat, the onus is on YOU to provide the data and evidence.

Your reading and comprehension skills are not great either. I never said you were Forest Gump, but that his quote reflected your behaviour.

JPS speaker wires and interconnects are Alumiloy, (aluminum with other metals). The Aluminata power cord is 8 awg solid core copper with an aluminum particle shield. If the power cord conductors were aluminum it could be quite dangerous and potentially a fire hazard. You don't know this? Laughing.....hmmm.

This link may be helful to you. Enjoy!

http://inspectapedia.com/aluminum/aluminum.htm

Actually the typical order of importance is quality power cords, then interconnects, and a distant 3rd is speaker wire. YMMV as this can be very system dependent.

Only in the Northern hemisphere.

What do you mean "Northern Hemisphere"? I thought the earth was flat.

Busted!

That's why I was laughing at the ridiculousness of making speaker cabling out of aluminum, which is moronic. Aluminum wire handled properly can be safe, which is why it is covered in the NEC. It dates back mainly to WWII when metals were scarce for the war effort, hence very expensive, and copper was needed for other things, so aluminum was a cheap alternative, but the gauge requirements differ because it is such an inferior conductor.

I was asking for a link to this controlled blinded test that you claim to have done.

You have never done such a test.

You also have provided no information or references for any of your other various claims.

Stop changing the subject.

If you think Toslink cables make a difference: PUT UP or shut up.

I await your data and testing methodology.

An excerpt from the blind test posted on avs:

"So, as a result of "some" of the posters, I decided to listen to 4 different xlr cables to the main lfe sub and do a non blind then blind test. One small awg copper stranded Mogami pro-cable, a second large awg stranded JPS cable with alumiloy called Super Q, a third even larger awg JPS called Superconductor 3 with solid core alumiloy, and a much smaller awg stranded copper/silver xlr with zero capacitance active shielding from Synergistic Research. The shield carries a DC current, with a buffer circuit between shield and ground and separate conductors carrying the ground signal, this creates closed circuit.

First round I listened to each cable extensively and took detailed notes. First xlr Mogami: did a fair job at impact, but detail was down and extension was only fair. Certainly a cable that can get you by. The second cable: impact increased by a fair amount and detail and extension were up. Third xlr: impact was up significantly and detail was silmilar, but maybe up a bit from xlr #2. This cable had the best extension, especially at the very bottom end. Fourth: xlr had the impact of xlr #1 (the least), but with much better detail and sound stage than the Mogami. Not here to pick the one I preferred because it is personal preference and seems very sub dependent. The point being they all had unique characteristics.

The next day, I called my brother in for a blind test. He has been into this hobby for over 20 years. He has a dedicated theater but not ultra high end by any means. He knows my system well and has watched many movies in it. His cables are not exotic. He has a good ear and eye, I guess it runs in the family. When he arrived, I had previously put all xlrs behind the sub and Lexicon so he couldn't see which one was connected or changed out. I then played demo material for each xlr. He knows this demo material very well, which I feel is very important for accurate comparisons. He took notes and also discussed his impressions as I swapped out the xlrs. I remained silent and emotionless, but listened to his observations.

At the end we compared and discussed the results in great detail. His results were not only extremely similar to my notes and thoughts, but were almost dead on. What are the odds of this? How could a placebo be at work? The statistics of his notes matching my notes randomly are extremely remote. Not only are his conclusions the same, but he has convinced me that what I thought I heard, the other night, I actually heard. So this was very reassuring for me and I don't feel that I have been scammed by anyone.

Some of you will say that I'm lying and that this test never happened. All I can say is that if you knew me personally and knew my character, you would not question that I'm telling you what really happened. For the purpose of this thread and for argument sake, I encourage posters to assume it happened so we may discuss and try to explain how on this (spherical) earth this could be a placebo? If you merely say "you can't prove it happened" then this posts serves no public purpose, but is still very relevant to me and my brother (which is most important anyway). It is easy to say I am lying, but the facts are it happened. I love this hobby too much to post fictitious test info and if I did, it would be as equally unfulfilling for me as it would be for the readers here.

I have to admit with bass I thought the xlrs would, for the most part, all blend together, but not only is the bass produced distinct with each xlr, the different type/quality of bass has an indirect effect on all ranges of sound. I can only theorise that very high quality bass allows the listener to hear the other ranges of sound better because of less distortion in the low end. Hence, muddy bass clouds the listener from hearing extreme quality of mid and high frequency sound, that has always been there in the first place. Thoughts?

I really hope the skeptics are auditioning interconnects and power cords for themselves, so they can confirm/make their own conclusions.

I commend Gizmologist for his efforts to create the switch box and the subsequent tests to be conducted. I would recommend that the tested cables be at the opposite ends of the spectrum cables, from your typical low priced line to the high end with different, geometries, type of shields and metals, ie alumiloy, copper, silver, silver plated copper, and gold plated copper (which has a very unique sound...super smooth and warm but at the expense of sound stage and detail). Don't like gold in my system, but it was easy to hear the difference between it and other cables. I hope the system it is tested on is of high resolution and that the room is treated well for acoustics. I hope the testers also have open minds and respect both sides. Looking forward to the results, one way or the other."

My post date was May 16, 2010 and note how the stamped photo date is May 15, 2010. This photo was also attached to my original avs post.

Am I still lying?

Busted! X2

But it has two sides.

Where in that is a blinded test that showed any audible difference between the subwoofer cables?

That test didn't even test cable difference audibility at all. What on earth are you talking about?

Did you fail basic science?

No actually. Took many science classes at Boston University, my alma mater, which included quantum and nuclear physics. If you really must know I got "A"s in just about every science course I have ever taken. One of my instructors was a renowned employee of NASA where he worked on satellite orbiting trajectories. Do you want his name and a link? Haven't you taken enough of a beating in one day?

It's interesting that in the distribution networks in Australia, and no doubt many other countries that aluminium conductors, both bare and covered (usually these days with XLPE) and there are very few instances of the conductors breaking down or failing. Similarly with joints made using appropriate connectors whether al/al or cu/al.

Most of that was about heating at joints due to improper termination and / or materials being used. Used correctly aluminium is not a hazard in modern power circuits. Twisted and screwed aluminium is not suitable for multiple connection, eg power outlet daisy chained into the next, but rather should be lugged and bolted through. In a residence the added cost and work would negate the savings by using the less expensive conductor material. I am not aware of any domestic connection gear eg power outlets and light fittings in Australia (and I will assume for much of the rest of the world) that are suitable to use directly connected to aluminium conductors. Al and Cu should not be bonded directly together.

Typically here, the conductors from the network to the POA (service entry) are aluminium and use an appropriate bonding connector to connect to Cu consumers mains.

The beating is only in your own mind.

Look, I would never denigrate your accomplishment in those classes.. seriously, nice job!

However, you do need a refresher course on some of the basics. Critical ones, at that. Specifically, I would challenge you to find a single old professor who would characterize those blind tests of yours as being "well conducted", as you have done here...



Your "well conducted" method of listening for a period of time, "taking detailed notes", then later on, you try really really really hard to remain a blank slate as your brother listens and takes his own notes, to which you then compare to yours, looking for overlapping terminology and expressions? seriously??

This may meet your own personal standard of statistical verification or reasonable proof, but it wouldn't pass muster anywhere else. Sorry, it just wouldn't. And since you did so well in science classes, you yourself should be able to critique your own method and describe at least 3 serious flaws.

"Well conducted" meaning ...for a last minute put together blind test with only two people present in my home. I do agree that it could have been done better, ie. double blind. Nontheless I found the results interesting.

WHAT RESULTS!?

Do you not even understand that your listening test was not even designed to be CAPABLE of discerning whether or not there were audible differences?

All you do is continue to change the subject, and avoid any actual scientific or factual discussion of the question. You claim that you have done a controlled blinded test that found cabling differences, when you in fact have done no such thing. And apparently, you don't even have the cognitive capabilities to understand what it is you did and why it completely fails the most rudimentary 3rd grade science principles. Unbelievable.

This is the kind of garbage that gives AV a bad rap, because there is so much anti-science nonsense and completely ignorant conjecture from people who don't even understand the most straightforward scientific principles.

I'm still waiting for ANY evidence, ANY explanation, ANY data, ANY experiment whatsoever. You can't even INVENT a good bulls**t explanation. The ONLY half-assed load of crap you could even find through googling, WASN'T EVEN RELEVANT, and you quickly rescinded it because it doesn't even remotely apply to Toslink!

I mean, if you're going to continue with this line of self-defeating embarrassment, you could at the VERY least MAKE SOMETHING UP and argue that in a sad attempt at consistence. But you can't even do that!

What a joke.

You are rambling now with incoherent nonsense. It was a full blown blind test. I acknowledge that it would have been better if it were double blind and there was more people involved. I did NOT publish the results in a detailed form on AVS or anywhere else, but that does not mean it wasn't a well done test or the "data" doesn't exist.

The test was done primarily for private purposes. Do you really think I'm going to waste an hour or so typing up the results for you to rummage through and displace on? I don't need to prove anything further to you as it's getting a bit repetitious (see above thread). You systematically set yourself up for a fall everytime you post on this thread. Ever heard of a Skinner Box? How many times are you going to pull the lever and receive the painful stimuli?

You have issues and should deal with them oustide of AVS, instead of using this forum as some bizarre form of therapy. 20,000 bitter posts...get a life. Too close to Xmas to deal with you.

No it wasn't. It can't even determine whether there was any difference.

To do that, you need to have a random assortment of unknown stimuli, that you are able to match correctly to known stimuli, or to be able to identify a pattern of difference conclusively and repeatedly with the unknown stimulus pattern.

Your test did not do that at all, and provided NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that ANY of the listeners could actually distinguish between the various unknown stimuli that were presented to them.

Do you not understand how that works? Are you really that bereft?

Again, all you do is resort to ad-hominem attacks, and distractions.

I've asked you repeatedly for sources, evidence, tests, ANYTHING and you have provided absolutely nothing. The ONLY thing you have even remotely provided is a quote describing a test you did that doesn't even provide ANY evidence for what you purport that it does.

And now you have invented a new and adorable excuse to slink off after having provided ZERO information to back your claims.

As far as whether I really think that you're going to waste "an hour!" on your test, YES I absolutely do expect that. I don't think any scientists sit around going: gee, I really want to know if this effect is real or not, but gosh, it's just SO HARD, I'd have to spend a WHOLE HOUR of effort on it!

Objective testing takes time and effort to do properly. The blind speaker cabling test that I helped administer and took part in took a group of people, some thought put into the test design including pre-test measurements, some additional hardware (blindfold, ear muffs), several hours of actual listening, and several hours worth of writing and reflection and further discussion on AVS. And the primary test subject literally had tens of thousands of dollars worth of his own hard-spent money on the line (not counting the hundreds of thousands spent on the system itself).

You designed a test which utterly failed at even being CAPABLE of determining whether a difference was present, and you can't even be bothered to spend any time actually LEARNING about how to do a basic scientific experiment, let alone writing it up online.

Yet you have no problem coming into the forum and starting an inane and completely unsubstantiated argument, and spending an inordinate amount of time calling me names.

Why don't you stop dicking around, and actually do a test? Put up or shut up.

This is square one of basic science: TEST the hypothesis. You have a radical, unprecedented, and unsustainable hypothesis that flies in the face of ALL modern understanding of fiber optics and digital signaling. If you wish to defend this claim, you need to gather legitimate evidence and test actual listeners and take actual measurements to bolster this claim.

Otherwise integrity and rudimentary intellectual honest requires that you admit that you:
1) Have zero secondary references as evidence for your claim
2) Have zero measurement data for your claim
3) Have zero controlled, blinded listening test data for your claim
4) Have no plausible explanation at all that you can come up with to explain your claim
5) Have no idea at all what you're talking about

If you were actually employed in the field of science, or doing actual research, you would be an abject embarrassment to the profession. It is absolutely disgraceful. I even asked you to INVENT your own reasons. You can't even LIE well, you can't even come up with feasible FALSIFIED research data to help you out. And you can't even figure out how to do that, because you don't even understand how to begin going about testing Toslink cable audibility.

Staggering. Truly Staggering.

Going back to the original question...

Nehemoth - what cables did you go with specifically? I just ordered the Energy RC-Micro 5.1 with an Onkyo TX-NR808...

Cheers all,

Wolf

Had to share this review of 'high end audio', from a skeptical audio engineer.

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

5 minute read, nothing challenging, I promise.

And here is a 60 min youtube video from an AES workshop on audio myths.

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

Edit - Wrong link. So sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Thanks, jinjuku

While there are numerous variables, IME glass fiber optic cable is far more flexible and durable than plastic.

+1 for test results comparing plastic/glass Toslink cables... and I mean REAL data that was measured with REAL equipment. Note, ears do not count as "test equipment" in my world. Nothing that can be biased or influenced by outside sources of any kind. Since my ears aren't as good as "yours" anyway, it doesnt matter to me if "you" can hear a difference if I cant.

How about a source, x number of Toslink cables (equal number of plastic and glass), and measurement equipment that can show timing and/or signal degradation at the other end of said cables. Any other measurements "you" want to add in would also be appreciated.

Didn't I hear someone sign up to do this?!?!?

NOTE: I reference "you" in this reply a couple of times. I clearly want to state that I am not referring to ANYONE in particular. I just wanted to insinuate "you", as being the tester - whoever that is

I believe that is not the correct link.