Have You Heard Exotic Audio Cables Improve Sound Quality? - Page 7

Any time an electronic signal passes through a conductor, circuit or component, the signal will emerge different on the other end. That is just common sense. Whether the difference is perceivable, measurable, pleasant or unpleasant is something to be determined by the evaluator.

That is not my argument at all. I don't see where it was aceg1's argument either. My argument is that a stereophonic sound field is a complex sensory presentation that requires training and experience in sound localization for proper evaluation. The Bell Laboratories scientists who invented home stereo systems said the same thing. You don't need special golden ears to be able to localize and characterize sound images within a stereo sound stage. People with impaired hearing are quite capable of doing it. You also do not need uber expensive equipment to achieve a satisfying stereophonic sound stage presentation.

Are there snobs who like to feel special because they spent a lot of money on equipment? Sure there are, but there is no justification for painting all audiophiles with the same elitist brush because of some people's ignorance.

Sure, but try to measure in room acoustic response and loudspeaker distortions (just as a start) and compare that with "perceivable, measurable, pleasant or unpleasant " difference cable with sufficient gauge can ever produce in the worst case scenario.

Science is supposed to be about forming a hypothesis, then proving it. Given a sufficient number of papers on a subject, backed by proof and especially whose results are repeated by other scientists, the theories become accepted fact (.e.g plate tectonics.)

Religion is faith based. Many people prey for their loved one to get better, and they die. Most people I know don't assume that's disproved their faith. Bad analogy maybe. But maybe you get my point.

Things like sound localization and sound characterization should not be overwhelmed by the distortions caused by rooms and loudspeakers. If your room and loudspeakers do not allow perceiving such differences, you should not be doing any critical listening with those loudspeakers in that room.

You can spend 14k on speaker cables if you want, but I bet even your 300K set of speakers has all of a couple of bucks worth of low bid cable from the terminals to the crossover to the drivers. JMHO.

Regards,

RTROSE

You must be talking about Logans Dimension X now aaustin. Oh, and there are alligators in the sewers.

Regards,

RTROSE

I'm not arguing whether there is a perceived difference but whether that perceived difference really exists. My argument is that if a difference can't be measured and is only perceived by people observing in an uncontrolled setting, some of whom may be motivated to perceive a difference, then such perception is at best unreliable. Control the observational setting against bias and those perceived differences evaporate.

So is time going backwards or forwards? Or was it side to side?

Who am I kidding, we cannot even perceive what goes on in Dimension X.

Anyway, back on topic.

Now that's right ********. "The vast majority" of people can't tell the difference between SDTV and HDTV, or a blu-ray and a DVD? You're stretching to ridiculous lengths to try and qualify your argument, and it's not making it look any better.

And what would happen to those "highly-trained critical listeners" if you sat them down in a live concert instead of in front of a set of speakers? Their heads would explode. Because it's not accurate reproduction of the studio-recorded music. Course, the whole point of things like tube amps and vinyl in a now-digital world is to actively induce a specific set of distortions to more recreate the concert experience, not the studio experience.

As are (and for the sake of this argument I'll allow that cables do make a difference, although I don't believe they do) swapping all sorts of cables to change the way the music sounds. Unless you were personally present in the studio and listened to the music being recorded, then claims of making the soundstage wider, or the highs more transparent, or whatever other audible magic a power cable is supposed to do, is merely after the goal of actively increasing the distortion of music. Which seems rather counter to the stated goals of "absolute neutrality" I see so many cable guys claim to strive after.

We could run with the concept of behavioral training and resultant expected bias all night. Are there really that many people who take more joy in listening to their gear than their music? I guess when you're willing to spend $5,000 on a power cable, you're less interested in the music than the analysis.

I like using a broad brush on audiophiles because they believe their opinions trump science and physics.

Do you have any source to backup such an absurd claim?

I have seen some people say they are happy with the PQ of DVD even though they admit BR does look better.

Not all DLP's will give you the Rainbow Effect. You could easily setup a blind test of calibrated vs non-calibrated PJ and I could easily bring a Colorimeter.

So you haven't heard of the Expanding Earth theory OR the Helical Model - our Galaxy is a vortex!

Interesting, but fantasy. The Expanding Earth theory isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. And it's unsupported by evidence. In fact, there's evidence against it. Wiki: Phil Plait already tackled the problems with the helical galaxy model.

But in a world where inert cables can add information to a signal I suppose anything is possible...

lol - could dinosaurs live today?

Also, YOUR theory of evolution is hogwash.

You have been SCHOOLED for the corporate world - not educated.

To address an above statement, I believe a signal traveling though copper will change. There's a huge spectrum of electromagnetic waves which could be introduced for example. But will it be changed in any way which effects the audio band? I assume there's filters on the inputs. And those same waves could affect any part of the signal chain.

Anyway, I don't worry about analog audio transmission. I am pretty much all digital these days. With digital, you do have the potential issue that the signal degrades enough so that the bits can't be read properly or you have excess jitter. I have yet to see it demonstrated that in practice in a typical home setup, problems are occurring. Seeing how video over HDMI is much more demanding than audio, I would look for video artifacts. If I did not see that, I could guess that the audio is perfect (a guess I admit.)

This is true for any loudspeakers in any room except anechoic chamber. Thing like "localization and sound characterization" depends mostly on the loudspeakers, room acoustics, the listener mood and other if the equipments functions properly. So, yes one shouldn't do any critical listening of the cables with any real loudspeakers, in a real room or with a real listener.
Edited by Victor - 3/5/13 at 10:18am

++^^

Except any thing with a box of electronics in the middle isn't a cable. I thought you knew that DS

Here is my experience: I'll try to be as concise as possible.

My equipment : Integra DHC 80.3 pre amp / Parasound Halo A52 - 5 Ch amp/ Oppo BDP 93/ Elac FS247 - L R C - & Surrounds / Audio Quest 80$ speaker cables (for 2 - 6' cables)/ 60" Pioneer Elite

Local A/V Boutique shop - loans me ( with Credit card deposit) a pair of Nordost Blue Heaven LS - 6' if I recall correctly.

Take them home for 1 week - listen to them playing my CDs & some 2 ch lossless tracks on BDs - both through analog and digital (HDMI ) connections (2 channel) obviously. I played the same music that I have been listening to for years, one track at a time, first with my (Audio Quest 80$ speaker cables) than the Nordost - after switching out my cables several times I came to the conclusion that I could not hear any differences.
I tried really hard to find even a minute difference! NO such luck! I called my wife and my daughter to have a listen, no one over the week period could tell any differences.

But it gets better!!!!

Thinking its a limitation of my equipment I take back the Nordost cables & I also take my cables to the A/V Boutique shop. I take my cds and start to play my music on their 2 Ch McIntosh gear with the Nordost Blue Heaven LS's in place. Yes, the McIntosh sounded warmer than my system and smoother ( I am not an audiophile so excuse the lingo). Than I proceeded to just swap out the Nordost with MY OWN Audio Quest 80$ speaker cables .
GUESS WHAT??? NO DIFFERENCE WHAT SO EVER IN SOUND.

Just my 2 cents.

Paul
Edited by hidefpaul - 3/5/13 at 1:06pm

Round and round we go! If you can hear it that it is great. And some guys on here, aged very nicely but not their hearing. It's a fact that hearing loss is parting of aging. It's a pointless poll because all of us are not at the same point.


Tiny hair cells inside your inner ear help you hear. They pick up sound waves and change them into the nerve signals that the brain interprets as sound. Hearing loss occurs when the tiny hair cells are damaged or die. The hair cells do not regrow, so most hearing loss caused by hair cell damage is permanent.

There is no known single cause of age-related hearing loss. Most commonly, it is caused by changes in the inner ear that occur as you grow older. Your genes and loud noise (such as from rock concerts or music headphones) may play a large role.

The following factors contribute to age-related hearing loss:

Family history (age-related hearing loss tends to run in families)
Repeated exposure to loud noises
Smoking (smokers are more likely to have such hearing loss than nonsmokers)
Certain medical conditions such as diabetes
Certain medicines

So far this is my favorite testimonial. Try before you buy has to be rule #1 when it comes to high-end audio gear of any kind. Did anyone from the HiFi store have any comment about your experience? Also I'd love to know what speakers you use and what speakers were used at the store, that's possibly where the "warmer smoother sound" is coming from.
Edited by imagic - 3/5/13 at 12:45pm

Hi imagic, sorry I forgot the speakers in my post.... I just added them to my original post, but FYI they are Elac's FS247 - L R C - & Surrounds. The AV Boutique store were using McIntosh speakers I do not recall the model. As for their reaction, they were not at all surprised. I believe they already were aware that there was not going to be any difference in sound, at least I did not hear anything on the 6 different tracks (4 diffrent CD's) we tested. The funny thing was, that the speaker wires ran behind some curtain so they actually (at first) were not aware of which cables (mine or theirs) was at "play".


Paul

In post #161 of this thread I quoted from a Bell Laboratories study with trained listeners under controlled conditions. Perhaps you do not have any confidence in the integrity and competence of the Bell Labs scientists who invented and developed the first home stereo systems.

What do you consider to be the best published example of a stereophonic audio system test under controlled conditions?

What were the results of the study?  Your quote just mentions how they chose experienced listeners, nothing about the test or the results.  And I didn't want to pay for the paper but looks like a good read.  :-)

Edited by primetimeguy - 3/5/13 at 2:31pm

I am a highly trained critical listener, and a musician, and a scientist, and an audiophile. I frequently attend live concerts as well as perform. My head has not exploded yet, nor have the heads of any of my musician colleagues who are also audiophiles.

This is true of some people.

Actually, the goal of high performance power cables is to reduce the amount of power line noise, and their attendant distortions, in the power signal.

Of course there are gear heads in every hobby. There are golfers who enjoy shopping for, and handling, exotic golf clubs more than they enjoy perfecting their swing.

Do you also apply this broad brush to the audiophiles at Bell Laboratories who invented and developed home stereo in the 1950's and 1960's? If you search the archives of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, you can also find many papers by audiophile scientists and engineers. In fact the term "sound stage" was introduced into the peer-reviewed technical literature in 1959 in a paper presented to the British Institute of Electrical Engineers Convention on Stereophonic Sound Recording, Reproduction and Broadcasting by British Broadcasting Corporation engineer T. Somerville:

"Sound Stage-It is proposed to use this term to describe the region between the loudspeakers in which the stereophonic images appear. The term "sound field" is deprecated because "field" has other connotations."

[Citation: Somerville, T., "Survey of Stereophony", Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, Convention on Stereophonic Sound Recording, Reproduction and Broadcasting, London, March 1959, pp. 201-208.]

Briefly...

a. That's a great combination of passions, hobbies and knowledge
b. If you are that smart, you should know better than to think a power cable could possibly do any of that on its own

Here is your quote: What does that have to do with whether expensive cables make a discernible difference improvement in performance?

You are citing a single reference from 1961 when stereophonics was quite new to the home and extremely problematic (both in effective recording and playback). I don't think many believe the science has failed to advance since then.

Further, what did this fifty-two year old paper have to say regarding wire composition that you found so revelatory and still relevant?

There are an extremely limited number of parameters and environmental factors (crosstalk/interference) that can impact the signal through a conductor. If these parameters are within range and environmental factors are mitigated, an audible difference is impossible. If wires are tested using the most sophisticated test equipment available, and there is no measurable difference in signal quality at any frequency near audible, how do you suppose it's possible that a difference could be heard?

Unless perhaps the speakers are just "happier" when connected to fancy cables, and perform better as a result?

Non-ABX listening tests are just anecdotal. ABX listening tests are preferable, but still subjective.

If the oscilloscope can't see the difference, it doesn't exist. The 'scope is much less likely to lie than your ears.

This is from page 19 in the "Basic Equipment and Listening Conditions" section:

"Commercially available equipment of high quality was used for reproducing the stereo signals and program material. Specifically, an Ampex 350-2P two-channel tape recorder, a Rek-O-Kut transcription turntable, a Grado stereo cartridge, a Scott stereo preamplifier, a pair of 30-w McIntosh power amplifiers, and a pair of KLH loudspeakers were used."

"Systems were checked out for balance and frequency response with standard test tapes and test records obtained from Ampex, ECA, and Westrex. The frequency response from either the tape or the disc system was reasonably flat from 30 cps to 15 kc."

"At first, listening was done in an anechoic chamber to avoid room effects which might obscure some of the more subtle spatial characteristics. Later, listening was done briefly in a small auditorium and then finally in a laboratory acoustically treated to have absorption characteristics similar to a living room. All of the stereo spatial effects observed in the anechoic chamber were still noticeable in the other locations but seemed somewhat less pronounced."

From the results section, pages 25-28:

"If good center images are to be retained, the time difference between the two direct paths from the loudspeaker to the listener is also critical. A 2-in. displacement of one loudspeaker forward or back calls for a readjustment of loudspeaker or listener positions.

"A center listener generally needs to confine his sidewise movement to about +/- 4 in. to preserve center images for the loudspeaker-listener geometry used here."

I am attaching a copy of the author bios copied from the paper.

When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.