Audible difference between analog interconnects

[CR250]

"*Please note I have no post here that ever said that all cables 'sound the same'. If there is a change then there is a way to measure for it. For you to PROVE there is a change when the technical measurements fail (according to you) then you need to go blind and ears only as a calibration measure."

 

I agree. But what happens if there's a real difference and we don't know how to measure it? Are we supposed to pretend that it doesn’t exist? That's not very scientific. Are you suggesting something like timbre doesn’t exist because we can't measure it?

 

"They don't have to be. But some CHOOSE to be. AudioQuest/Bill Low are perfect examples."

 

CAT6 cables advertised as CAT7 - AQ cables are CAT 7. Check the specs if you don't believe it.

 

"Skin effect at audio frequencies" - Some scientists would agree, and some would disagree.

 

"Dielectric Bias Charging" - It works. I have at least 10 pairs. I disconnected the DBS on 1 pair and let the cable sit for a while, and then compared it to the same exact cable with with the DBS connected. You can easily hear a difference.

 

"Audibility of digital cables" - Its easy to hear the differences in those things.

 

"Directionality of cables as it pertains to how the copper is drawn (especially egregious in HDMI and Ethernet Cables" - Honestly, I'm not sure on that one. Never thought to look into it.

[CR250]

LOL, Hey I saw that one when you quoted him. Pay no attention to CR250, he always falls back to calling someone else emotional or some other insult whenever he's lost an argument. I believe it's the pot calling the kettle black. That's why I put him on my ignore list.

Great posts BTW

 

I meant to thank you for putting me on your list. As to me loosing an argument, you really can't make that claim. Every single time I challenge one of your statements, you run like Forest Gump.

[sandyk]

Every single time I challenge one of your statements, you run like Forest Gump.

 

Nah. He's too old to do that. He more likely revs up his Harley and takes off ?

Before too long, wgscott is likely to need a battery and DC motor assist on his 2 wheeler too ?

[Sal1950]

Nah. He's too old to do that. He more likely revs up his Harley and takes off ?

Before too long, wgscott is likely to need a battery and DC motor assist on his 2 wheeler too ?

 

LOL Just two peas in a pod. If you cant' dazzle em with your brilliance, try to baffle em with your BS.

[sandyk]

LOL Just two peas in a pod. I you cant' dazzle em with your brilliance, try to baffle em with your BS.

 

I am learning from the Central FL master. (grin)

[Jud]

Yes. You can add to that their reaction when called out. I critically mentioned their website's claim that they treated cables by "quantum tunneling" (shooting static charges through them, actually) in the comments section at Audiostream, where one of the Synergistic principals showed up to argue with me. The next time I saw the website, it referred to "a process *we call* quantum tunneling," which makes about as much sense as referring to "a process we call general relativity."

 

I was being serious. I don't like SR cables myself, but I won't bash them for false claims just because everyone else does.

 

Further to the above: The reason I commented on their claim to be altering the sound of cables by treating them with "quantum tunneling," which is what they said occurred when they hooked up the cables to a van der Graaf generator and shot static electricity through them, is because it is utterly and completely false as a matter of physics.

 

Here is what "quantum tunneling" actually is in real physics, which is quantum physics:

 

Let's look at how a very small particle, the electron, behaves in quantum physics versus classical physics.

 

In classical physics, the electron is a tiny billiard ball, a discreet entity, with a particular location.

 

In quantum physics, the location of the electron is a probability wave, i.e., it is more likely you will find it in position a than position b, but you can't be entirely certain.

 

In classical physics, when the electron encounters a barrier, it either has enough energy to get through/around it, or does not.

 

In quantum physics, the greatest likelihood may be by far that the electron will be located on this side of the barrier, but because real physics is quantum and probabilistic, there is always some non-zero finite chance the electron will be found on the other side of the barrier, even if in classical physics the electron would not have enough energy to get through/around the barrier. If you find the electron on the other side of the barrier, though the electron lacked "enough" energy in classical physics to get through/around it, then the electron is said to have "tunneled" through the barrier. There is absolutely no digging or physical tunneling involved; it's just how the unexpected outcome (the electron is on the other side of the barrier) is described in physics.

 

This "quantum tunneling" has been measured precisely and found to occur with exactly the frequency the probabilities say it will. Even though it is unlikely (since by definition a particle/wave which does this lacks "enough" energy to do so in classical physics), the fairly close to infinite number of particle/wave interactions going on at any moment everywhere means that quantum tunneling is occurring a mind-bogglingly huge number of times in you, me, cables, and every corner of the universe every tiny fraction of a second.

 

Since quantum tunneling results from the laws of probability, and there is no physical digging, tunneling, etc., i.e., no physical force being applied, running a static charge or any other energy/force though a cable *cannot* cause quantum tunneling. And since it occurs a practically uncountable number of times in every cable in the universe every fraction of a second, whether any energy is running through the cable or not, to claim to induce quantum tunneling in a cable by the momentary application of a static electric charge is like claiming you made a rock on the bottom of the ocean wet by spitting at it once a while back.

 

So that is a claim SR made on their website that was patently false and absurd, and when called on it, the way they chose to deal with it was to add a couple of words, so the website subsequently said they treated their cables by "a process *we call* quantum tunneling." Except it isn't quantum tunneling at all, as we've seen. It's kind of like the local homeopathic practitioner saying they prevent illness by "a process *we call* vaccination" - except it isn't.

[plissken]

 

I agree. But what happens if there's a real difference and we don't know how to measure it? Are we supposed to pretend that it doesn’t exist? That's not very scientific. Are you suggesting something like timbre doesn’t exist because we can't measure it?

 

You find me that scenario, backed by bias controlled evaluation, then there indeed WILL be something to talk about.

 

CAT6 cables advertised as CAT7 - AQ cables are CAT 7. Check the specs if you don't believe it.

 

I did indeed check the specs: The Telegartner terminations are 6a only. Period/End of Story/Game Over.

 

 

"Skin effect at audio frequencies" - Some scientists would agree, and some would disagree.

 

Find me the 'Scientists' that disagree.

 

Understanding Skin Effect and Frequency

 

Skin Effect Relevance in Speaker Cables | Audioholics

 

 

 

"Dielectric Bias Charging" - It works. I have at least 10 pairs. I disconnected the DBS on 1 pair and let the cable sit for a while, and then compared it to the same exact cable with with the DBS connected. You can easily hear a difference."

 

Then it will be measurable.

 

 

"Audibility of digital cables" - Its easy to hear the differences in those things.

 

I have $$ says you can't tell the difference with a Quality DAC, Computer, Display and affordable USB(Belkin), Ethernet(BJC), HDMI (BJC) when you don't know what is in circuit.

[Jud]

 

I have $$ says you can't tell the difference with a Quality DAC, Computer, Display and affordable USB(Belkin), Ethernet(BJC), HDMI (BJC) when you don't know what is in circuit.

 

I agree that you won't be able to do so with an ABX blind test, and disagree this necessarily means there is no audible difference.

 

It would be great if you could work up some sort of test jig that works like the capacitor comparison I did in my DAC: Semi-Customized DAC, Part V: Rollin', rollin', rollin'... - Blogs - Computer Audiophile

 

I'd be quite ready to believe the results of similar testing with cables, whether it showed differences or not.

[beautox]

I'm an electronic design engineer, have been for 35+ years in various guises, both analog and digital. I used to believe that cables basically sounded the same. But when I had more time and was able to spend some significant amount of time training my ears, and this involved around 3-4 hours per day, 7 days a week of analytical listening and testing (this is in addition to normal 'for pleasure' listening) for about 2 years, I found that I could hear things that I had trouble believing.

 

So I resorted to blind testing to see what was happening, and it turns out the blind tests showed that I was correct - there were things I could reliably hear that I had trouble explaining from a technical standpoint.

 

A good example is cable direction. I pooh-poohed this idea for years. But now I am able, for example, to take some wire, make a bunch of identical interconnects, keeping note of the wire direction. Then, blind, I can determine which is the 'better' direction for each of these interconnects. And it turns out that I am correct pretty much 100% of the time. By this I mean, when the actual wire direction, as cut from the reel, is compared to my preferred direction, they both match. Also if I perform the same test a week or a month later, I get the same results.

 

The trick with this is learning what to listen for. With cable direction, the easiest way is to have a recording that has image height (somehow) as well as depth, and you can (well, I can) hear the subtle differences in the way this is portrayed. Somehow the image is more focussed one way round than the other, and I prefer the more focussed way.

 

I have in the past demonstrated this to non-believers in blind tests, but I'm somewhat bored with proving this. Blind tests are a huge hassle to set up and conduct. I know some other people with similar abilities, and the key is not golden ears, but hard work when it comes to analytical listening. I've surreptitiously tested a few self-proclaimed golden ears and found them wanting. (Funnily enough the person I know who has the best 'ears' for this is also an engineer, of the mechanical variety, but he knows enough electronics to design and build amps, etc).

 

I admit I don't have a clue how this works, and I've thought about it a lot. I suspect it might even be a mechanical effect as much as an electrical effect.

 

So, as you can imagine, I can quite also pick various RCA plugs connected to identical wires, as well as simple differences between different types of interconnect.

 

I should stress that in most cases, these differences are pretty subtle and hard to hear, and often are only detectable on certain recordings.

 

IMHO

[sandyk]

You must have a very transparent system.

Did you design most of the electronics yourself, or are you using some very well regarded commercial equipment ?

[esldude]

I agree that you won't be able to do so with an ABX blind test, and disagree this necessarily means there is no audible difference.

 

It would be great if you could work up some sort of test jig that works like the capacitor comparison I did in my DAC: Semi-Customized DAC, Part V: Rollin', rollin', rollin'... - Blogs - Computer Audiophile

 

I'd be quite ready to believe the results of similar testing with cables, whether it showed differences or not.

 

It would seem easy enough to do. Two different cables one on each channel or sometimes matching cables. You don't know the cable in use, and you see if channels are matched or not matched.

 

Alternatively two different cables one in each channel at all times. You pick the 'good' channel as the channels are randomly swapped.

 

BTW, from nulling tests even high quality DACs differ between channels quite a bit more than just about any two cables you can grab and compare. So channel to channel differences swamp cable differences. Funny, haven't seen the spate of golden ears telling us which of their channels is good and which is bad. How there is a night and day difference left to right. Or perhaps deciding to use the good channel from each of a pair of DACs in order to raise stereo performance by leaps and nights and days and bounds.

[esldude]

Don't read too much into my response. I know they are an honest company and have a good reputation. My point was, people that don't like high end cables, for whatever reason, seem to buy from BJC for emotional reasons in addition to having good cables at a low price. I just see no reason why a company that sells more expensive cables has to be dishonest in some way, just because of price. We all have to make our own decisions. You can spend your money any way you wish, and its no ones business but your own.

 

I'll tell you what I think audiophile cable companies added worthwhile to the audio world. Excellent connection and termination at least in analog cables of various types. Excellent, sturdy, well made RCA's and usually sturdy well put together cable assembly. And make no mistake they are all ordering from real wire makers and doing assembly.

 

What Blue Jeans provides at a quite reasonable markup is excellent quality cables from Belden, Mogami, Canare etc. Excellent termination with excellent pieces of terminal hardware. Excellent specs to work with and the ability to get almost any length you might wish for a really neat installation.

 

So you have genuine good quality cables, with the bits of audiophile jewelry and robust construction. The best of all worlds in an attractive package and not at all unreasonable prices. The kind of cabling a real connoisseur would use indicating he knows the differences, believes in excellent cable, and yet wasn't taken in by goofy snake oil exuberance.

[CR250]

"And make no mistake they are all ordering from real wire makers and doing assembly."

 

That's not true. There's plenty of designs that must be made in house. Here's a few.

 

Nordost Flatline - They had to custom build machines and start from scratch.

 

TARA RSC - You can't go out and buy rsc conductors.

 

JPS - The aluminum alloy they use is custom.

 

Cerious Technology - Custom made liquid ceramic conductors

 

Cardas

 

Siltech/Crystal - copper, silver, gold alloy

 

Harmonic Tech - custom silver/copper alloy.

 

I Can list more if you want. Also, I'm not recommending these cables. They're just factual examples.

[beautox]

Well it can get better, but it's not bad. I've got a bunch of self-designed electronics (amps, dacs) and also I use some quite good (but not silly) commercial stuff, eg Audio-GD master11 dac, Job (goldmund) amp, a very revealing amp. Speakers are magnepans with ribbons. I mix the components around a lot. I also use Acourate room correction.

[semente]

"Dielectric Bias Charging" - It works. I have at least 10 pairs. I disconnected the DBS on 1 pair and let the cable sit for a while, and then compared it to the same exact cable with with the DBS connected. You can easily hear a difference.

Then it will be measurable.

 

'What' would you measure and how do you know if those measurements are spanning all possible audible effects?

 

R

[mansr]

Are you suggesting something like timbre doesn’t exist because we can't measure it?

 

People keep trotting out that line as if it were true. In actual fact, timbre is nothing but a particular combination of frequencies, and it is readily measured.

[plissken]

I agree that you won't be able to do so with an ABX blind test, and disagree this necessarily means there is no audible difference.

 

The claim is with DBS "easily hear the difference". That can certainly survive a bias controlled test.

[plissken]

'What' would you measure and how do you know if those measurements are spanning all possible audible effects?

 

R

 

 

 

From what AQ says you would measure the C of the cable. The DBS system purports to alter the time domain of energy release in the conductor.

[Paul R]

While there is a lot of good information here, some folks insist on cherry picking only the information that supports their personal side of the argment.

 

Anyone here got a rigorous test setup that will measure and enable them to exactly predict how someone will hear a musical performance? And to step fractionally closer to audiophile reality, one that can be made to work with any system?

 

I personally do not know of any, but I don't know everything, despite Alex' claims to the contrary. However, if someone does not have that, then really hard and fast statements are limited to very specific details. Not to the gestalt that people actually perceive.

 

For example, listening to cables in some isolated test setup that does not control all the variables is an exercise in futility. The same cables may or may not sound different in you home setup. Yep, follow the logic.

 

Home setup is not instrumented or controlled, change one component, even a cable, and the sound may change. Change two or more components at the same tume, and the reasons the sound may change multiply, and the ability to determine what caused the change is vastly reduced.

 

Obviously, in conditions like this anyone with any sense is going to revert to "trusting their ears." And rightly so, as the purpose most audiophiles have in changing or upgrading components is to get sound that is better - to them. Those who are ranting on about "proving" this or that - well it is an interesting concept. I personally love it.

 

But I just do not believe anyone has proven that, for instance, cables do not sound different. I say that as a person who does not hear differences in analog interconnects, but I do with, among other things, speaker cables and in some cases, USB cables. Can not always explain it, but none the less, I do hear those differences and I am able to identify them reliably.

 

Shrug- same as with the old Logitec Touch- monkeying around with the Linux scheduling and task priority made a reliable and repeatable difference. And my hearing is nothing special, but like anyone else, when I know what to listen for, I can hear it - if it is there.

[Jud]

The claim is with DBS "easily hear the difference". That can certainly survive a bias controlled test.

 

I would not be certain unless the difference is in loudness. If it is in virtually any other audible quality, I would be doubtful. And yes, even where people feel they can easily hear the difference - unless, like beautox, they've done long, intensive training regarding exactly what to listen for.

[Jud]

People keep trotting out that line as if it were true. In actual fact, timbre is nothing but a particular combination of frequencies, and it is readily measured.

 

"Official" definitions of timbre take in far more than that (harmonics). I've seen up to 20+ audible qualities listed. At a minimum, together with harmonics, attack, sustain and release envelope is virtually always included.

[esldude]

"Official" definitions of timbre take in far more than that (harmonics). I've seen up to 20+ audible qualities listed. At a minimum, together with harmonics, attack, sustain and release envelope is virtually always included.

 

Those attack sustain and release envelopes are well within the envelope of our electronics performance.

[mansr]

"Official" definitions of timbre take in far more than that (harmonics). I've seen up to 20+ audible qualities listed. At a minimum, together with harmonics, attack, sustain and release envelope is virtually always included.

 

Also easily measured.

[YashN]

People keep trotting out that line as if it were true. In actual fact, timbre is nothing but a particular combination of frequencies, and it is readily measured.

 

You can have all the frequencies you like, but when the attack transients are chopped, people do not even recognise the instrument. I've tried this several times with various people with my synth, A Kurzweil K2500.

[mansr]

You can have all the frequencies you like, but when the attack transients are chopped, people do not even recognise the instrument. I've tried this several times with various people with my synth, A Kurzweil K2500.

 

Attack and release can also be described as frequencies. It's called Fourier transform.