Suggestion: ban all cable debates

[gmgraves]

+1

[Jud]

8 minutes ago, SamuelTCogley said:

I've spent lots of time over the years at other audio forums, and this is one of the seamier undersides of high end audio.  In my experience, some forum posters who fancied themselves as the Next Up And Coming Audiophile Social Media Personality would relentlessly flog a particular manufacturer's products (usually cables) and make it a point to be a visible shill at audio shows in an effort to get product either at a significant discount, or even for free.  Then to prime the pump even further, would post lots of pictures of the show in the form of a "report" (a "service" to fellow audiophiles) and be sure to name drop the A-Listers, with copious use of superlatives like, "awesome", "incredible", "mind blowing", etc.

Personally, if someone got a product for free, or at a discount because of their "relationship" with the vendor, their "honest" review of the product is nearly meaningless, if not completely so.

Having to use such methods would suggest very few folks are making money in the audiophile cable business (I grant you, not for lack of trying).  Either that, or substantially fewer folks are successful at getting free/discounted product than attempt to do so by this method.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, Jud said:

Having to use such methods would suggest very few folks are making money in the audiophile cable business (I grant you, not for lack of trying).  Either that, or substantially fewer folks are successful at getting free/discounted product than attempt to do so by this method.

I know of a particular member on another forum that had a LOT of cable and associated gear from a particular manufacturer.  Perhaps this is the exception rather than the rule.  My point is the high profit margin of boutique cables makes this possible.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, SamuelTCogley said:

My point is the high profit margin of boutique cables makes this possible.

1. Set high margin.

2. Profit!

(Just teasing.)

[GUTB]

Also, TOSLink using cheap plastic cables lacks the bandwdith for even 44.1/16, forget about 96 or 192. Cheap LED transmitters, all sorts of internal reflections in the cable, etc, destroys its performance. Super-fine quartz-glass cables with highly polished tips help a great deal by minimizing internal reflections.

ST-Link using expensive AT&T optical transmitters was an effort to implement a high-quality optical connection for audio but that went nowhere.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

Also, TOSLink using cheap plastic cables lacks the bandwdith for even 44.1/16, forget about 96 or 192. Cheap LED transmitters, all sorts of internal reflections in the cable, etc, destroys its performance. Super-fine quartz-glass cables with highly polished tips help a great deal by minimizing internal reflections.

ST-Link using expensive AT&T optical transmitters was an effort to implement a high-quality optical connection for audio but that went nowhere.

I agree that a real fiber optic solution would have set the standard.  But I suspect manufacturers were looking at interface viability at the sub-$200 price point, so we got a red LED and plastic cable.  Glass cable solutions that hit the correct cable diameter specification are almost impossible to find.  As far as I know, any glass TOSLINK cable is out of spec.  Doesn't mean it doesn't perform though.

[Ralf11]

The irony is that a lot of the hideously over-priced cable products are not worth either a significant discount, or even for free...

What about Ethernet?  What are the pitfalls, and engineering needs for high SQ?

And what about WiFi? (mea culpa - I use Apple's Airplay over Wifi to feed my ARC/Sunfire/Maggies and it sounds fine).  Once the bigger, new Maggies get here I may want to address the digital feed.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

The irony is that a lot of the hideously over-priced cable products are not worth either a significant discount, or even for free...

I dunno.  Some of those high end USB cables look pretty sexy.  If they cost $20, and complied with the applicable specification, I would use them exclusively. 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, GUTB said:

Also, TOSLink using cheap plastic cables lacks the bandwdith for even 44.1/16, forget about 96 or 192. Cheap LED transmitters, all sorts of internal reflections in the cable, etc, destroys its performance. Super-fine quartz-glass cables with highly polished tips help a great deal by minimizing internal reflections.

ST-Link using expensive AT&T optical transmitters was an effort to implement a high-quality optical connection for audio but that went nowhere.

I have found that it is more a question of the quality of the two optical couplers than it is the cable itself. Some TOSLINK transducers have enough bandwidth to successfully and reliably transfer 24/192, many will only do 24/96 and the very cheapest are only good for 16/44.1. Often, when people complain about optical cable performance, it's not the cable at fault, it's one or both of the optical couplers. 

[esldude]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I have found that it is more a question of the quality of the two optical couplers than it is the cable itself. Some TOSLINK transducers have enough bandwidth to successfully and reliably transfer 24/192, many will only do 24/96 and the very cheapest are only good for 16/44.1. Often, when people complain about optical cable performance, it's not the cable at fault, it's one or both of the optical couplers. 

I think you are correct about this.  I have some of the 'nicer' Monoprice toslink.  Less than $14 for 50 ft.  You really aren't supposed to use toslink that long.  I have tested it with some okay gear and it causes no jitter beyond coax with that gear.  Not even at 96 khz.  I have used a Pioneer DVD that had bad jitter on toslink, but not coax.  And seen the jitter measurement from a couple apple products over toslink be pretty horrible.  I don't think the basic plastic optical cable is a big impediment anymore.

[Danaudio]

So guys who buy really expensive cables are imagining things and are dummies because scientifically it can't be proven, but it is ok to use software such as Audio Optimizer or debate USB vs hdmi etc. even though none of this can also be proven to help or be better than the other.

The same principle should apply. If one buys more expensive cables and hears a difference than on his system there is a difference. Just like if one of you add on AO and hear a difference then there is most likely a difference. Amazing how some of you think you know what others can and cannot hear.

[wgscott]

20 minutes ago, Danaudio said:

So guys who buy really expensive cables are imagining things and are dummies because scientifically it can't be proven, but it is ok to use software such as Audio Optimizer or debate USB vs hdmi etc. even though none of this can also be proven to help or be better than the other.

The same principle should apply. If one buys more expensive cables and hears a difference than on his system there is a difference. Just like if one of you add on AO and hear a difference then there is most likely a difference. Amazing how some of you think you know what others can and cannot hear.

 

I think those who suggest there is no audible difference with expensive cables also suggest there is no audible difference for many of the other things you list.

 

It is very easy for anyone to fool one's self with expectation bias, especially if one has made an investment in expensive cables.  But if one really can reliably hear differences under conditions that control for expectation bias (eg: double-blind tests), then, yes, those differences must really exist, ipso facto. Strangely, no one seems to be able to produce that kind of result.  If they did, most of us skeptics would shut up and go away.

 

This has nothing to do with arrogance.  Quite the opposite; it is about intellectual humility. In other words, one should be able to clearly and simply state under what conditions they would accept that they have been proven wrong.  The cable believers never do that.

[Ralf11]

Well, there is nothing amazing how some know what others can and cannot hear.

 

Scientists know what bats, dolphins and elephants can and cannot hear.

 

But back to cables... it is very simple really.  You do not have to rewrite the laws of physics.  Just do a blind test and if a statistically valid result emerges you have established something.

 

Otherwise, you have only established that you THINK you hear a difference.  As because confirmation bias is known to be extremely powerful, you may well be throwing away your money.  Do it often enough and you have moved beyond audiophile status and become a placebophile.

 

Now, if you really, really enjoy looking at phat cables that have been sprayed with a groovey graphene pattern on them -- that's fine.  If you want to spend money on them, that is also fine.  It is after all, the esthetic experience that one is trying to capture.  For myself, I have a listening room that has large glass picture windows in it and I refuse to put in drapes (which retain allergens and there are a lot of those where I live).  So I am sacrificing some SQ to get a nice view of the valley out my windows.

 

The problem comes when someone makes misleading statements in a public place.  Statements that can entrap someone into sacrificing their money for something that does not matter.  Granted, the side-effects are less damaging than with many patent medicines, and the people who read something and throw away their money at least have some money.  But I don't like it.

[Solid-State]

if everyone would have the same philosofy as some here
that things can not be changed
then we would be left in the Stone Age,

[STC]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

... Quite the opposite; it is about intellectual humility. In other words, one should be able to clearly and simply state under what conditions they would accept that they have been proven wrong.  The cable believers never do that.

 

Do you think they want to be proven wrong?

[GUTB]

Let your ears decide. Most of my cable upgrades have represented a noticeable improvement. One stand-out exception was a $600 pair of interconnects from AntiCables (6.2 ABSOLUTE Signature), which, after a lengthy burn-in process and multiple head-to-head tests with an old set of no-name cables made from pro cable stock I had lying in the basement for over 10 years, I couldn't detect ANY difference between them. I started a thread on Audiogon about it, and lots of people came forward to defend the AntiCables, but I just couldn't hear the difference. So I ended up just returning them for a refund.

 

But my other cable upgrades have been successes to varying degrees:

 

LessLoss Original ($600) - significant improvement to both of my DACs. In fact, I consider it a mandatory component of a DAC now. 

 

Audio Sensibility Testament power cable ($300) - huge improvement both my old headphone amp and DAC in my old home, but in my new home it doesn't make nearly as large of an impact.

 

Audio Sensibility Testament speaker cables ($400) - significant improvement over some inexpensive OFC cables from Amazon. I have actually ordered a set of Blue Jeans 10-gauge cables to perform a head-to-head test against quality pro cables.

 

Audio Sensibility Statement SE XLR cables ($300) - minor but noticeable improvement over a set of Cables Matters XLRs (cheap, OFC 16 gauge).

 

I also just a pair of Maze Audio (eBay seller) 4-conductor braided 8 gauge cables with el-cheapo clone Oyaide plugs. $100 a piece. They are burning in now, I will compare them with my other cables.

 

I also have a set of World's Best Cables interconnects (Belden stock, decent plugs, directional control) that I've been meaning to test against my old no-names.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

Let your ears decide. Most of my cable upgrades have represented a noticeable improvement. One stand-out exception was a $600 pair of interconnects from AntiCables (6.2 ABSOLUTE Signature), which, after a lengthy burn-in process and multiple head-to-head tests with an old set of no-name cables made from pro cable stock I had lying in the basement for over 10 years, I couldn't detect ANY difference between them. I started a thread on Audiogon about it, and lots of people came forward to defend the AntiCables, but I just couldn't hear the difference. So I ended up just returning them for a refund.

 

But my other cable upgrades have been successes to varying degrees:

 

LessLoss Original ($600) - significant improvement to both of my DACs. In fact, I consider it a mandatory component of a DAC now. 

 

Audio Sensibility Testament power cable ($300) - huge improvement both my old headphone amp and DAC in my old home, but in my new home it doesn't make nearly as large of an impact.

 

Audio Sensibility Testament speaker cables ($400) - significant improvement over some inexpensive OFC cables from Amazon. I have actually ordered a set of Blue Jeans 10-gauge cables to perform a head-to-head test against quality pro cables.

 

Audio Sensibility Statement SE XLR cables ($300) - minor but noticeable improvement over a set of Cables Matters XLRs (cheap, OFC 16 gauge).

 

I also just a pair of Maze Audio (eBay seller) 4-conductor braided 8 gauge cables with el-cheapo clone Oyaide plugs. $100 a piece. They are burning in now, I will compare them with my other cables.

 

I also have a set of World's Best Cables interconnects (Belden stock, decent plugs, directional control) that I've been meaning to test against my old no-names.

I'm telling you man, your ears are liars.  Big time deceivers.  Like little Lucifers on each side of your brain.  The left Lucifer and the right Lucifer with your brain stuck right in the middle.  Don't take your eyes off of them.  They'll spin you a tale every time.

[mansr]

6 hours ago, Danaudio said:

So guys who buy really expensive cables are imagining things and are dummies because scientifically it can't be proven, but it is ok to use software such as Audio Optimizer or debate USB vs hdmi etc. even though none of this can also be proven to help or be better than the other.

The same principle should apply. If one buys more expensive cables and hears a difference than on his system there is a difference. Just like if one of you add on AO and hear a difference then there is most likely a difference. Amazing how some of you think you know what others can and cannot hear.

 

None of those things are likely to make a difference.

[4est]

59 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

None of those things are likely to make a difference.

Why wouldn't USB vs HDMI not make a difference? Are you claiming that the digital signal integrity doesn't matter? Analog cables aside, changes within the digital realm have given me some very solid differences(pro and con)- even on DACs that resample/upsample.

[mansr]

36 minutes ago, 4est said:

Why wouldn't USB vs HDMI not make a difference? Are you claiming that the digital signal integrity doesn't matter? Analog cables aside, changes within the digital realm have given me some very solid differences(pro and con)- even on DACs that resample/upsample.

 

USB and HDMI have somewhat different capabilities, so any comparison must be restricted to formats both are able to carry. Within this subset, both provide bit-perfect transfer of data. The only difference is how clocking is handled. With async adaptive USB (what most DACs use), the local DAC clock is the master. HDMI is synchronous, meaning the upstream device has the master clock and the DAC must lock onto it somehow, just like with S/PDIF. An HDMI receiver with poor jitter suppression combined with a low quality source could conceivably sound inferior to a USB device with a good local clock. On the other hand, a high quality HDMI source with a decent receiver could just as well be superior to a poor USB DAC. In other words, the quality of the implementation matters much more than the type of digital connection.

[plissken]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

I'm telling you man, your ears are liars.  Big time deceivers.  Like little Lucifers on each side of your brain.  The left Lucifer and the right Lucifer with your brain stuck right in the middle.  Don't take your eyes off of them.  They'll spin you a tale every time.

 

Actually it's the eyeballs :-)

[mansr]

24 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Actually it's the eyeballs :-)

 

Can't trust eyes or ears. I always rely on my nose, and I've found many expensive cables to have a distinct farmyard aroma.

[elcorso]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

 

Can't trust eyes or ears. I always rely on my nose, and I've found many expensive cables to have a distinct farmyard aroma.

 

Please get a medical check for sinusitis!

 

Modern farmyards have I nice aroma to my nose, contrary to the Metro (Subway) and a lot of Cabs (Taxis)...

 

As you can see everything is a matter of taste.

 

For one example:

 

From another side I'm scare of some member hallucinations... Or is him visited by Lucifer?

 

I wonder each time somebody talks about audio cable differences the 5 to 7 members than can't discern chime with ferocity.

 

C'mon guys live and let live, and don't worry for other people money, is their money, not yours

 

Roch

[wwaldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, elcorso said:

C'mon guys live and let live, and don't worry for other people money, is their money, not yours

 

Roch

Part of the reason to come here is to share experiences, and help each other cut through a lot of the BS that pervades this industry.

My parents used to think that if they read something in the newspaper, it must be true. Some people new to this hobby may be led to believe that a $500 cable is going to perform better than a $50 cable. 10x better? 2x better? I think I hear a difference after burning it in for 150 hours?

Only way to know without spending the cash is to try to draw a consensus from others who express opinions based on their own experiences. That info costs nothing, a good thing.

[Jud]

26 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

Part of the reason to come here is to share experiences, and help each other cut through a lot of the BS that pervades this industry.

My parents used to think that if they read something in the newspaper, it must be true. Some people new to this hobby may be led to believe that a $500 cable is going to perform better than a $50 cable. 10x better? 2x better? I think I hear a difference after burning it in for 150 hours?

Only way to know without spending the cash is to try to draw a consensus from others who express opinions based on their own experiences. That info costs nothing, a good thing.

 

We need to recognize it is not necessarily a way to *know*.  Our eyes and ears may indeed be fooling us, and we simply need to be OK with that.

 

On the other hand, I have not seen  research that proves the efficacy of double blind testing in the case of audio cables, and I have seen research (and have provided a few citations here on the forums) that makes me think there could be a problem of false negatives.  So unless there's research proving efficacy that someone can point out to me, we should be OK with skepticism on that point.

 

As long as everyone's OK with due skepticism and doesn't treat his own view as conclusively proven, I think we're OK here.  Pace.