AudioCircle
Industry Circles => GR Research => Topic started by: 77SunsetStrip on 16 Feb 2021, 07:08 pm
-
Watched the first video about cables Danny posted to Youtube.
I know a clean signal path makes a difference. Ears told me there was a problem. Multiple FR measurements alone did not help. After some investigation found a signal path problem between amp and speakers. Resolved that issue and clarity, detail and tone are so much better. Investigated my REW measurements deeper and found before condition nearly 6% THD. After measurements showed 0.6% THD. FR plots before and after revealed nothing. Waterfall and Decay similar enough I can not point to anything.
THD is the only significant change. Eager to see if Danny addresses THD with respect to cables.
-
Not sure I understand -- was the reduction in THD a result of the signal path problem or an improvement due to the cables?
-
Not sure I understand -- was the reduction in THD a result of the signal path problem or an improvement due to the cables?
No change in cables, just eliminated bad connection points in the path. Cables are stranded copper wire, nothing exotic. THD of 0.6% seems like a good number. Maybe someone more expert interpreting measurements can comment.
-
Huge GR fan here, but I really wish the flat earther joke would go away now. It makes no sense. The tube connectors and cables are fine on their own merit and I plan to use both in a future project. No silly analogies or arguments needed.
If I observe the earth is flat it must be true. If I also observe my speakers sound better with tubes and DIY cables it must also be true. Aren't we GR fans the flat earthers?
Sorry, I don't want to start an argument here, but demanding to be right about everything is not productive. There's plenty of room for all viewpoints and opinions in this hobby.
A friend down the street is building a crossoverless full range project with DIY tube amp and I think that's awesome. Another good friend uses a Walmart Bluetooth turntable for her vinyl collection -that's great too. I really don't care how they approach things. No name calling or insults required.
I'm just a newb here and should probably shut up, but this has bothered me for a while.
-
I take the flatearth label as lighthearted humor not intended as personal attack. Yes, we can all be set in our ways, have different experience, and at times resistant to change. Audio Circle is a great place to learn from knowledgeable and respectful people like Danny. Check out some other forums level of respect shown differing approached to the audio hobby.
-
If I observe the earth is flat it must be true.
Just because you observe something doesn't make it true. Just ask any magician. Our interpretations of what we observe are often false.
I agree with you, however, in this regard -- it's a waste of time for Danny to try and convince anyone that cables matter. People only need to realize one thing -- the subjectivity aspect of audio will always outweigh the science because only YOUR ears matter. It becomes very personal to try and convince someone else that their components or cables aren't as good as they think they are, hence the vicious and nonsensical attacks. On the other hand, it may be a great marketing strategy for Danny to poke the pig.
-
I am enjoying the cable video series. Danny is just responding to the critics to his video. I think the flat earth globe is hilarious. While some of these criticisms look good on paper, the main thing is to trust your ears. If you don’t hear a difference, then do what you think is best. For those of us who can hear a difference, again do what you think is best. If you hear a significant difference, then cost vs improvement is the issue. Which is where DIY cables come into focus! A big thank you Danny for what you do.
Barry
-
I am enjoying the cable video series. Danny is just responding to the critics to his video. I think the flat earth globe is hilarious. While some of these criticisms look good on paper, the main thing is to trust your ears. If you don’t hear a difference, then do what you think is best. For those of us who can hear a difference, again do what you think is best. If you hear a significant difference, then cost vs improvement is the issue. Which is where DIY cables come into focus! A big thank you Danny for what you do.
Barry
+1 :thumb:
If I hear a difference between two components in my system, but somebody else does not hear a difference between those same components in their system which one of us is right? If I like Pizza Hut best but someone else thinks Papa Johns is best while a third person says it's Dominos, who's right?
If something can't be quantified does that mean it doesn't exist? What about things we don't how to measure. Do they not exist just because we aren't smart enough at this point in time to know what to measure or how to measure it? Does my Easyracers titanium frame bicycle ride better than a steel frame bike from a big box store? What attribute(s) of the bikes can be measured to tell which one rides better? If you put together some objective, measurable criteria and, if those measurements were the same, would that mean there was no difference between the the two bikes and I only think there is? Even if that's the case, so what? When it comes to me choosing which bike to ride, my perceptions are the only thing that matters.
How does all that relate to cables? Over the years I've compared different cables more than once. Seven years ago I could hear differences between cables up to a point but not beyond. The system I have today is much more revealing and as such, the cables that represented the point where I could no longer hear any differences can no longer make that claim. One thing that happened as my system became more revealing was that I started to hear radio broadcasts in the background from my speakers and I don't have a radio tuner in my system. Changing to cables that better filtered out the RFI reduced the volume of the broadcast. Moving up to balanced components and cables greatly improved the problem.
-
I remember a video I watched a while back mentioned that a rather well known and respected reviewer had a system where their setup would often be playing several radio stations could be heard coming through their setup at any given time, & that's how they reviewed products...
Imagine if they had taken the time to better isolate/shield their setup/room, and reduce issues with RFI..
I'll need to see if I can find it again.
-
I remember a video I watched a while back mentioned that a rather well known and respected reviewer had a system where their setup would often be playing several radio stations could be heard coming through their setup at any given time, & that's how they reviewed products...
Before I read any review, the first thing I want to know is the gear used for the review. If a reviewer is using cheap cables or low end gear, it's an absolute no read for me.
-
Found it!
It was the video of Danny & Tyson talking about reviewers & audioshows, about 17 minutes in:
https://youtu.be/nyiuQCD3sCA
-
Hey guys, thanks for watching the video's.
The whole flat earth deal is really just a little lighthearted humor, and a little bit of a poke with a smile. :lol:
The reason that the label fits is really ironic. It fits the guys that think they are scientist because they measure everything. But in reality nothing they measure answers the question of does it sound differently (or better). And with any real science once must observe any result. They never get that far. They never listen to confirm their theory. So no real science. So they are being likened to the guys that think the world is flat. They have a belief...
And it sure gets them going. I hope they stick around and watch the episodes to come.
-
Whether or not someone can hear a difference between cables is partly a result of system transparency. After all, if your system isn't very transparent, then it's a bottleneck to hearing these types of differences.
In addition, biology plays a factor too. Back when I drank, I was really into Scotch and Bourbon. You put a $20 bourbon up against a $80 bourbon and some people absolutely could not tell the difference. But some people could.
It's the same with audio. Some people can hear differences and some people can't.
-
Whether or not someone can hear a difference between cables is partly a result of system transparency. After all, if your system isn't very transparent, then it's a bottleneck to hearing these types of differences.
Even crappy systems can discern cable differences -- that's how I learned. I think it has more to do with one's belief system. There was a time when I didn't believe it, either. But behind that disbelief lurked my real concern - I didn't want to spend the money on better cables. It's weird, man -- at one point a few years ago, one pair of my interconnects cost the same as my 35 pound preamp. Cables can be a significant investment and some people are apprehensive about going down that road, so they convince themselves that they're using science to support their trepidations.
-
In addition, biology plays a factor too. Back when I drank, I was really into Scotch and Bourbon. You put a $20 bourbon up against a $80 bourbon and some people absolutely could not tell the difference. But some people could.
It's the same with audio. Some people can hear differences and some people can't.
This!
It's a lot to do with experience, just like alcohol, once you learn to get past the burn of alcohol it becomes easy to tell the difference between say a good vodka and a bad one, regardless of price.
Likewise, once you get to a point where you have some experience experience the difference with speakers/cables/hardware, etc and can compare them side by side and easily point out their strengths and weaknesses.
There's a lot that goes into understanding these concepts beyond just textbook definitions, but by actually experiencing them first hand it becomes more than just words in a book, and something to look for.
-
I have a good friend who is a wine consultant, he flys around the country helping folks dial in their wines with chemicals, wood, micro dosing etc. and he has a saying about wine;
how do You do if a wine is good??
If You like it!!
I'm lucky that I get to partake with him every now and then, and every time I do I learn something about different styles and the little subtleties that they possess and I've learned over time to appreciate these differences and except the fact that although I may not prefer one wine over another, it may infact be better to someone who is trained to experience these differences. The moral of this perhaps is that some folks are very content with some average belden cable, but perhaps, just maybe there is better if you have the willingness and system to appreciate the differences that some cables provide.
Unfortunately, most folks in this hobby are very attached to their gear and system ideals, and feel the need to protect them at all costs, at the end of the day, do what ever you think is right for your system and your ears!!
Don
-
Sorry,
How do you know,
Cheers,
Don
-
I have a good friend who is a wine consultant, he flys around the country helping folks dial in their wines with chemicals, wood, micro dosing etc. and he has a saying about wine;
how do You do if a wine is good??
If You like it!!
I'm lucky that I get to partake with him every now and then, and every time I do I learn something about different styles and the little subtleties that they possess and I've learned over time to appreciate these differences and except the fact that although I may not prefer one wine over another, it may infact be better to someone who is trained to experience these differences. The moral of this perhaps is that some folks are very content with some average belden cable, but perhaps, just maybe there is better if you have the willingness and system to appreciate the differences that some cables provide.
Unfortunately, most folks in this hobby are very attached to their gear and system ideals, and feel the need to protect them at all costs, at the end of the day, do what ever you think is right for your system and your ears!!
Don
Single malt too, don't forget the single malt :thumb:
Oh Yeah, Tyson did mention that earlier.
-
Ok, maybe I was being overly sensitive - sounds like I've misinterpreted and its all in good fun. Freezing my butt of here in TX with no power for the past few days has me a little frazzled.
The alcohol analogy is perfect. My friends and I used to debate qualities of our favorite craft beers endlessly, picking out different hop varieties, yeast strains, malts etc, etc. The Bud Light drinkers were my version of Danny's Flat Earthers. Its all just beer, right? Nope! There's a real difference in quality of ingredients used and how they are combined.
-
I'm no expert on the topic, but I'm guessing those that know their wine/bourbon/beer and make it, don't follow an exact formula in their INITIAL production of a product. They add the ingredients that they think will taste good, heat it at a certain temperature, store it in a particular material barrel for a certain length of time, etc... and ultimately...TASTE IT. If the science were exact, you could just trust your initial formula/process, produce thousands of gallons, and ship it out without ever tasting it. In the infamous words of Dana Carvey/George H.W. Bush, "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent." Might there also be variables in our sense of taste and the process of making alcoholic beverages that science has not mastered yet, or can't fully explain?
Now I'm thirsty! :beer:
-
I've been engaging in a back and forth on Danny's YouTube channel of this video. An interesting theme is to insist people who say they can hear differences under some conditions provide data to prove that differences exist while those demanding said proof never provide the same type of proof showing that differences do not exist under any type of circumstances. They insist that something is a "well established fact" or similar assertion without providing any of their illustrious proof themselves. When called out on it they insist they don't need to provide proof for a "well established fact", pivot/redirect to a point that wasn't actually made by the person they are responding to, or a combination of both.
I don't think it is ethical for me to re-post the conversations here but if anyone is interested go to Danny's YouTube channel to read the conversations. I have posted and replied to more than one post so you will need to do some scrolling to see all my comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrjstmjROW8&t=328s
-
You guys can discuss the cable topic here, but don't bring drama from other places here. This isn't the place for a back and forth that gets disrespectful.
-
The reason that the label fits is really ironic. It fits the guys that think they are scientist because they measure everything.
If by "measure" you mean "actually listen with two-ears-and-brain instead of with involving the eyes, mediated by pecuniary interest," then sure.
-
Danny's basic take is that if you aren't taking into account how things "sound", then it isn't science... but it is impossible to measure how things "sound".
Hearing is partially subjective, and like all things human, can be influenced by many factors.
Well done science takes into account why different observers may observe different things. Why does the pitch of a car horn sound different to the driver of the moving car, versus someone standing on the side of the road? A "flat earther" car driver argument would be that the horn always makes the same sound, it outputs the same dB and frequencies every time it is turned on. Danny's "side of the road" take would be "but I hear the pitch going up and down". Both are correct, but both are incomplete evaluations.
What is missing? The science explaining why you hear a difference (in this example the pitch shift is explained with the Doppler Effect), is not explained in Danny's videos. There are explanations as to what it might be, but nothing demonstrating the difference that Danny is saying is ignored by the "flat earthers"... the actual sound.
Why not get a super high quality recorder, high quality microphone(s), and simply play a variety of music samples through your best system in your best room and swap the cables out? Show how the waveform compare? Subtract one recording from the other... any difference? Is it audible? Post the samples online for people to hear themselves.
If there is a difference, most observers should be able to detect something, but as it is subjective, that difference may not be the same.
If your argument is that the differences you are hearing can't be tested with the technology of 2021, then that isn't science in any form. That is faith, or the science of psychoacoustics.... and is seemingly a deviation from Danny's approach to all other matters of speaker building.
-
Danny's basic take is that if you aren't taking into account how things "sound", then it isn't science... but it is impossible to measure how things "sound".
You started with the wrong premise. It is NOT impossible to measure how things sound. The measurement instrument is your ears. Yes, it's subjective, but much of science is subjective. There's many different types of social sciences that rely heavily or solely on subjectivity. (Good luck trying to convince an economist that he/she isn't a scientist.) In fact, measuring subjective data is the domain of science!!
You can easily conduct an experiment with 100 people to measure how things sound, and the results would be considered scientific so long as you approach the process in a scientific manner. BUT....that's not necessary because in audio, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about how something sounds. You don't need a scientific explanation for why you hear a difference.
You will NEVER know if something sounds better if you insist on objective data for a subjective experience without relying on your own ears. Of course, no one functions like that in reality. Everyone on the planet makes judgments about music based on what they hear, not based on what they can prove via objective science.
-
Theater-lover your premise is actually incorrect.
Music played over your system in a room (or headphone) has huge distortions compared to what is on the recording. Room effects are orders of magnitude higher than any measured distortion differences of 0.01% or whatever in the amplifier/dac etc.
I don't believe anybody on this forum says that all dacs/amplifiers sound the same. So somehow our ears are picking up miniscule differences (below 0.01% or whatever) that are orders of magnitude smaller than distortions introduced by the speaker and room. They are somehow important to our ears.
Wouldn't that suggest (but not prove obviously) that the miniscule differences in cables can also be heard, despite not showing up on experiments?
I did a careful comparison of three speaker cables in last couple months to pick one. The winner (Furutech alpha 36) was clearly superior to the runner up (Kimber 8tc). Different enough that if I stopped a Louis Armstrong recording in the middle, and switched cables, my wife (who didn't know which cable was being used, and didn't care either) said within 15 seconds "suddenly the trumpet sounds incredibly real." I was doing a blind A/B test with both cables lying in position and was quickly switching the connection in 30 sec without toggling power at the amp.
I have been down this audiophile rabbit hole for a couple decades now and have finally entered the final hole: cables matter! Before this I felt "a competently made $50 cable like Blue Jeans is good enough." Now I realize cable differences have big effects similar to component upgrades!
I have a computer science PhD and am just flabbergasted that even power cables can change the sound so much. Again, I have the blind A/B to prove this with my loving and patient wife...
-
If you read many comments, you will see that real scientists (like physicists) don't have a problem with the statement that cables sound different. That's because they understand that we don't know everything about electricity if you go down far enough.
On the other hand, if you see comments from engineers, and in particular EE's, THOSE are the people that tend to be in the "if it can't be measured, then there's no difference".
Just an interesting correlation that I've noticed. I think it's because EE's are focused on solving problems using existing scientific discoveries, while scientists are focused more on solving mysteries and are more comfortable with the idea of ambiguity.
-
Totally agree, Tyson. The title "engineer" gets thrown around a lot too. In my aerospace days, guys with tech degrees would use the title engineer. I wonder if some of the "engineers" commenting, have EE degrees or some other engineering degree.
I have an MSEE and I would be the first to admit that there are all kinds of things that I don't know about audio and other fields in the electrical sphere. Your education, unless you specialize in that one particular area in grad school, doesn't begin to cover all the nuances that someone working in that field would know.
-
LoL tyson. I've been in academia v. long and can vouch that utter confidence in face of uncertainty is not limited to any particular discipline.
(Though possibly an electrical engineer may exhibit this more with respect to cables.)
-
I'll go even further -- education doesn't mean a damn thing in audio. Experience is what matters. Rarely do you run across a naysayer who's had a lot of experience with testing cables. They typically have shitty systems where cables don't matter anyway. And they're not audiophiles.
I'm not trying to be disparaging, just stating the obvious. Audiophiles are interested in how every component in their system affects the sound, including cables, which implies they can hear differences. So what's happening here is that audiophiles and non-audiophiles are trying to convince each other to be what they're not. There's nothing wrong with pitching your tent in either camp.
-
Is learning how to listen/training our ears important or valid? After all, if differences are real you shouldn't have to learn how to spot them, right? It should be instinctive, shouldn't it.
To address this I'm going to step back 45 years, leave the field of music reproduction, and take a look at hearing from a different viewpoint. Back then I was an Army ROTC cadet in a Ranger training company with two senior NCO Green Berets (Special Forces) with a minimum of 5 combat tours on A teams in Vietnam each. On the first field training exercise, they took us out in the woods, sat us down and told us to close our eyes and listen. They then had us describe what we heard. Then they brought our attention to things they heard but we didn't. Like the episode in the TV series Cung Fu. They then told us the first thing you did when getting to a new area was sit down and diligently listen to the sounds around you. The reasoning was that by learning what the surroundings sounded like in a normal situation, you would be able to notice when something changed. This is important because when the normal sounds change, something new has been introduced into the are and this could mean danger.
Once you learned this skill, you would realize something had changed in the environment around you even if you weren't consciously aware of what it was. Which is a survival mechanism. These two Green Berets were exceptionally good at it. When I ask one of them how he did it, he replied that when your life depended on it, you learned.
The point is that while the ability to hear differences can be improved and refined through practice. It has nothing to do with "golden ears" (used in derision when subjective attributes are discussed). Just attention to detail.
Back to music reproduction and science.
A scientific experiment is very limited in scope and as such, the conclusions drawn from that experiment are not generalizeable beyond the parameters of that experiment. This means no single experiment can provide definitive answers across a wide range of applications. It takes many experiments, each looking at different parts of the larger question, and even more seeing if previous results can be replicated, before widely generalizeable conclusions can be drawn. One double blind experiment conducted under one set of circumstances is not capable of providing a definitive answer. Especially if people thing they will be able to draw accurate conclusions from a recording of the experiment, transmitted via YouTube and played back on their equipment in their room.
Whether a double blind experiment is the most appropriate design to address the question of perception is another topic altogether. Before anybody starts hollering about a gold standard, while a double blind placebo controlled trial is considered the gold standard for determining cause and effect, it is not the most appropriate design for every type of question.
-
Great points, Mike.
When I first started on my audiophile journey, I heeded the words of the "old heads" on this forum, nearly all of whom said, "cables matter." I began the process of learning to listen. It didn't take long to realize that cables mattered. The first step, however, was listening to people who knew more than me.
-
Totally agree, Tyson. The title "engineer" gets thrown around a lot too. In my aerospace days, guys with tech degrees would use the title engineer. I wonder if some of the "engineers" commenting, have EE degrees or some other engineering degree.
I have an MSEE and I would be the first to admit that there are all kinds of things that I don't know about audio and other fields in the electrical sphere. Your education, unless you specialize in that one particular area in grad school, doesn't begin to cover all the nuances that someone working in that field would know.
Also, experimental design, application, statistical analysis, interpretation, and evaluation are not taught in every discipline, even in grad school. I used to think it was, after all, it was taught to me in both undergraduate and graduate school. However, I found out differently when working in industry and would find myself teaching experimental design and analysis to engineers so they could determine answers to vexing problems.
Never knock somebody for not knowing something you do. I'm sure they know things you don't. You likely have different backgrounds. That's why broad questions/applications are addressed by teams of people from many different backgrounds. But be open minded about it and realize when you are talking apples and oranges (measurements and perception). Then stop arguing about whether an apple can tell you what an orange tastes like.
Both measurements and listening are necessary in achieving a pleasurable music experience. Relying on either without the other is folly.
-
Danny's latest video was a sorely needed dose of common sense.
Be careful what you say about EE's, I are one and a musician and music lover. The EE loves measurements and technical stuff. The musician loves the creative and subjective stuff. Never been all objective or subjective when it comes to audio equipment. My ears are the final judge after measurements narrow the number of choices for audio equipment.
On the subject of measurements, I learned a great deal when involved in Military grade signal processing projects. Some of the best work done in audio research provided a basic starting point, i.e. grade school level. When all said and done, unlimited funds, extremely complex math combined with extremely accurate frequency and time domain measurement techniques. The "science" lauded by audio objectivists is stone age by comparison.
-
I am a newbie with some electronic knowledge. What I find strange in these discussions is that it seems people are strictly on one side.
Some say that if you can't measure a difference then you can't possibly hear it.
And others say "listen" and ignore the measurements.
Can't we work on this together? Personally first I look at the measurements. And if I see no difference in, let's say, 5 different measurements, what does that mean? That means there is no difference in 5 measurements. But there could be 1 or many other measurements which nobody did or which nobody invented until now which could make a difference.
For me that means: Keep an open mind. If the current common measurements don't show a difference does not mean there isn't one.
What confuses me is that Danny in all his videos about the cables measures something, but not an amp with speaker cables and speakers. He shows that cables can be antennas. Yes, sure, nobody will argue with that. He also shows that coils do what coils do and you can transfer audio signals with two coils without contact. Yes, sure, that is also no surprise for anybody with at least a little electronic knowledge. What does he prove with these tests regarding speaker cables? Nothing!
What would it take to convince people that expensive speaker cables make a difference? I think it's obvious: A sound test. Danny has everything in his shop. Amps, various cables, and lots of speakers. And I guess he has enough friends and customers who are proud of their listening skills.
So invite those friends and do the blind tests. Use maybe 3 or 5 different cables and do maybe 10 or 20 listening test. Let someone change the cables, or don't change them, and let the listeners write down what they hear. Test 1: sounds good, Test 2: sounds better, more clarity, Test 3: sounds warmer, Test 4: sounds exactly like Test 1.
Ask the listeners what music or test signals they want to hear. Don't show them the cables. Don't show them in any way if a cable was switched or not. And maybe just for fun use for one speaker an expensive cable and for the 2nd speaker at the same time a "normal" cable. And be fair. Compare the couple of hundred dollar cables with something like 12AWG copper cables with standard gold plated contacts - I guess that is called "nothing fancy" in audiophile terms.
And after all those test compare the notes. Did all listeners think Test 3 was the best? And did Test 3 use those super cables? Or did some think test 4 was so much better which were the cheapest cables? And did all those expert listeners recognize when nothing was changed? I.e. Test 5 and Test 6 without any changes. Did they all write: "it's exactly the same" or did some or all listeners hear lots of differences?
Personally I don't know what the result of those listening tests would be. Maybe some experts would hear consistently a difference and maybe they could clearly point out when the super duper cable was used and when the normal cable was used.
Let's do that test! Then all of us should be happy and see results from human listeners. That would be a way to convince the EE engineers that there is a difference. And maybe that will motivate those EE engineers to develop new tests so that they can measure what the experts hear. Wouldn't that be great?
I don't see any reason against such a blind test, except maybe Covid. I guess all those people who swear they can hear the differences will be delighted to show off their golden ears. And just in case they are not able to show that then I am sure they will have some interesting explanations why in this specific case they couldn't do what they can easily do at home with their system.
Just do it!
-
Edgar, I did do such tests with my wife who is not an audio geek by any means but has good ears. She was able to consistently spot the better cable. It was not subtle at all; the trumpet sounded way more real with one compared to the other. I could too. (The worse one was Kimber 8tc.)
That's what the other people on the thread are saying: once your equipment is good enough you hear such differences.
Also helps to have a reference for how live music sounds, ideally unamplified music. Choirs or symphony orchestras are great. There are 50-100 sources of sound on the stage and you actually hear different parts because they are spatially separated.
-
@sarora9: Great that you and your wife are able to hear the difference. How long did it take? 10 minutes? An hour?
So why does Danny not exactly that? Listen to speakers with different cables and describe the differences.
And is it possible to hear that 100 USD cable with < 1000 USD speakers? And does that 500 USD cable let the 3000 USD speaker sound as good as a 10k USD speaker?
Most of us have limited resources. So if we buy a new system or new component then obviously it makes sense to think about if we should spend those extra dollars maybe on cables, connectors, or maybe amps and speakers?
I will soon buy brand new everything and until now Danny's NX-Oticas and the subs are on my wanted list. I haven't made up my mind about cables. Until now I think about something "simple". Maybe 12AWG copper cables with gold plated connectors. But I have an open mind. If I am convinced 500 USD extra for the cable makes a considerable difference then I will spend that money. But I have to be convinced. Antenna and coil tests don't do that.
And that lots of people think their new expensive gadget makes things so much better is also a well known effect. That is until they find another expensive gadget which makes their perfect system even better.
-
My issue isn't whether different cables can influence the sound... my issue is these bizarre arguments over science and tests.
This isn't string theory... if we just find the right "test" we will demonstrate the existence of a tachyon particle.
Why is it that the difference can not be measured by the exact same tools that determine design for all other aspects of audio design?
Why does this issue only occur in audiophile land?
Someone earlier made the analogy to tasting a difference between bourbons... chemically, those bourbons are not the same... a chemical analysis would show that.
I work in computer graphics. Between my eyes and my training, I can "see" colors better than 99.99% of the population. You know what "sees" better than me or any human? High quality color sensors.
NASA just landed a rover on Mars that cost nearly 3 Billion dollars. It has a microphone on it. Do you think some of the best engineers and scientists in the world looked to audiophile speaker cable "tech" to make sure the signals were captured and transmitted accurately?
Sound is simply pressure changes. Do you really think we don't have recording technology that is far more sensitive and accurate than the human ear?
The tweeter, the woofer, the cabinet, resonance, decay, sensitivity, resistance, on and on and on... all tested with common and trusted tools... but somehow speaker cables are a different animal.
The logic makes no sense to me.
-
Edgar, the difference is apparent within seconds. As I said, it is not subtle.
Change from stock power cords to DIY VH Audio power cord (total cost under $200) on the Dac, same thing. The difference is immediately clear.
Buying good speakers would be a great start indeed.
Most cable manufacturers offer 30 day return privilege (you pay return shipping). So it is $25-30 for a 30-day "rental." Just trust your own ears. Danny can't decide what is "good enough" for you.
System: Bricasti M1SE Dac + streamer ->Folsom 7293 Amp -> Spatial X3.
-
Why does this issue only occur in audiophile land?
It doesn't just occur in audiophile land. It occurs with all types of sensory perception for example it occurs in food science & technology and research published in journals such as the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
Maybe some of the differences stem from a lack of knowledge that the field of sensory research exists, a lack of understanding about the field of sensory research, a bias against "soft" sciences like psychology, or some combination of these.
-
Actually, I believe that the "soft sciences" are the exact correct science to be applied here if there is no "hard science" test that shows a difference.
This isn't magic. If there is a difference (I'm not saying there isn't), you can absolutely record a difference. Might not be the exact perceived difference, but you could absolutely record a difference.
There is no more basic scientific test you can apply... yet for some reason Danny hasn't done that... even though he uses that same method to showcase his designs and crossover improvements.
-
@sarora9: Great that you and your wife are able to hear the difference. How long did it take? 10 minutes? An hour?
So why does Danny not exactly that? Listen to speakers with different cables and describe the differences.
And is it possible to hear that 100 USD cable with < 1000 USD speakers? And does that 500 USD cable let the 3000 USD speaker sound as good as a 10k USD speaker?
Most of us have limited resources. So if we buy a new system or new component then obviously it makes sense to think about if we should spend those extra dollars maybe on cables, connectors, or maybe amps and speakers?
I will soon buy brand new everything and until now Danny's NX-Oticas and the subs are on my wanted list. I haven't made up my mind about cables. Until now I think about something "simple". Maybe 12AWG copper cables with gold plated connectors. But I have an open mind. If I am convinced 500 USD extra for the cable makes a considerable difference then I will spend that money. But I have to be convinced. Antenna and coil tests don't do that.
And that lots of people think their new expensive gadget makes things so much better is also a well known effect. That is until they find another expensive gadget which makes their perfect system even better.
The issue of how to allocate a budget to get the most for the money is a practical application of the question "What makes a difference in sound quality and by how much? Or put another way "How and where does the concept of diminishing returns come into play"
Would you be surprised if I said there is no consensus on how to allocate funds for a system? To begin with, there seem to be two main camps. One says to start with the best speakers you can afford because without good speakers, you can't hear what the upstream components have to offer or be able to tell difference between components. The other camp says put most of your money into the source because without a good source it doesn't matter how good your speakers are.
I'm in the first camp, get the best speakers you can afford first because it doesn't matter how good the upstream components are if you can't hear what they have to offer.
Of those that say start with the speakers first, some say to work backward through the chain from speakers to power amp to preamp to DAC to source. Some say after the speakers the next most important is the source then preamp then poweramp. Some give set percentages of the budget for each component and others modify the percentage of budget allocated depending on the size of the budget. One breakdown for a $1,000 system but a different mix for a $10,000 system. Bottom line, there is no one correct answer.
The one thing I've found that most of the different camps agree on is that cables, while important, get the smallest piece of the pie. An example of a speaker first budget allocation might look something like 45% for speakers, 25% for the source, 20% for amplification, and 10% for cables. Common sense can be a pretty good guide in this process. For example, which use of $1,500 will give you better sound performance: $1,000 speaker cables with $500 speakers or $1,300 speakers with $200 cables? You don't need experimental evidence to make this decision.
You also don't have to spend a fortune to get a resolving system with a high level of sound quality that gives you a lot of musical enjoyment.
I would start with good well designed cables that fit in the budget then upgrade later on when the cables become the limiting factor. By this I mean when the amount of money you are thinking of spending on the cables will not provide larger gains if spent on other equipment such as a DAC, preamp, phono cartridge, etc.
Here's the rub and it pertains to all audio equipment, not just cables. The only way to know if a given piece of equipment will make a difference for you is to listen to it in your system in your room. No amount of studies can answer this for you. Only putting the component in question into your system and listening to it will tell you if you can hear a difference and whether that difference is big enough to justify the cost, for you. That's where in-home trials come into play and why companies offer them. Try it for yourself. If it makes a big enough difference for you, keep it. If not, return it and get your money back.
I hope this makes sense
-
@sarora9: Great that you and your wife are able to hear the difference. How long did it take? 10 minutes? An hour?
So why does Danny not exactly that? Listen to speakers with different cables and describe the differences.
And is it possible to hear that 100 USD cable with < 1000 USD speakers? And does that 500 USD cable let the 3000 USD speaker sound as good as a 10k USD speaker?
Most of us have limited resources. So if we buy a new system or new component then obviously it makes sense to think about if we should spend those extra dollars maybe on cables, connectors, or maybe amps and speakers?
I will soon buy brand new everything and until now Danny's NX-Oticas and the subs are on my wanted list. I haven't made up my mind about cables. Until now I think about something "simple". Maybe 12AWG copper cables with gold plated connectors. But I have an open mind. If I am convinced 500 USD extra for the cable makes a considerable difference then I will spend that money. But I have to be convinced. Antenna and coil tests don't do that.
And that lots of people think their new expensive gadget makes things so much better is also a well known effect. That is until they find another expensive gadget which makes their perfect system even better.
Buy the speakers and other components first. Then play around with cables after you have your core system set up. In fact I'd go further and say don't even worry about trying out better cables until after you've had your new system in place for at least 6 months. By then you should be VERY familiar with how your system sounds and thus a good base line to determine if a particular cable is better or not.
-
Reading this thread has been extremely interesting. There are the yes there are differences comments, The Who says there are differences comments, the why can't we measure differences comments, the we don't know what to measure comments: valid points on every (not both) side of the discussion.
A couple of things stuck out to me.
One was Mike Lundy relating the Ranger training experience. The Green Beret's observation about becoming familiar with the "noise floor" of the surroundings was right on the money. In a combat situation background sounds are very telling. Having the normal ambience suddenly go silent is enough to make any combat veteran very uneasy. The sudden absence of sound raises the hair on the back of one's neck. Same goes with cables. The absence of background noise is immediately noticeable. Listing that noise reveals things that before went unnoticed. The minutia in the reproduction of recorded material is where the magic that makes things more real-ish.
The other is the skepticism surrounding measurements in general. One of the missing parameters in measuring a musical event is that of relative phase relationships of harmonic content surrounding a recorded event. Standard measurement methods are incapable of delineating complex phase relationships that are aural phenomena that are not captured on a scope or by a microphone. Those relationships are decipherable by the multidimensional ear/brain complex, but not in a plotable 2 dimension form.
-
Same goes with cables. The absence of background noise is immediately noticeable.
Wonderful. If that is immediately noticeable then it must be measurable. Put the amp on max and record with a sensitive microphone the level of background noise. Then switch the cables and look what happens.
I think we all agree that many microphones are a lot more sensitive than human ears. So it should be easy for those microphones to pick up the difference in noise, correct?
And all this can obviously be done without playing any music. Because if the extra noise happens because of the bad cables, and maybe RF noise in those cables, then that will happen with or without the music playing. Please publish your results and show us the extra noise and the immediately noticeable absence of background noise. Thanks.
-
You're allowed do those tests yourself too, ya know, why bother putting the burden of proof on someone else?
-
You're allowed do those tests yourself too, ya know, why bother putting the burden of proof on someone else?
On my current cheap amp, cheap cables and speakers I can put the volume to the max (without playing anything) and I don't hear any noise from the speakers. Obviously I could try better cables but I am pretty sure I would still hear nothing. But then, my ears are not able to hear any RF so I am not really surprised that I don't hear that RF noise.
-
On my current cheap amp, cheap cables and speakers I can put the volume to the max (without playing anything) and I don't hear any noise from the speakers. Obviously I could try better cables but I am pretty sure I would still hear nothing. But then, my ears are not able to hear any RF so I am not really surprised that I don't hear that RF noise.
This doesn't represent a proper understanding of RF noise.
-
I have an electrical engineering background, but spent the first part of my career designing digital electronics and the second part in management and software development so I certainly don't consider myself an audio electronics expert. But I have a basic understanding of the issues.
I believe measurements play an important role in design, and particularly in production where they are very useful to weed out production errors.
But I'm also convinced that we can hear differences in equipment, including cables, which we have not yet been able to correlate with specific measurements. Note that I didn't say we can't measure them, only that we haven't figured out what to look for.
Regarding trying to measure differences in cables by making recordings, I have similar measurement equipment as Danny (although probably not as sensitive). Everytime I make a measurement of my speakers, the measurements are significantly different, particularly in the upper octaves. It's only after doing averaging that the response curves are close from one measurement to the next. Who knows what important information is buried in all those averaged out differences.
Perhaps if measurements were made in a really good anechoic chamber, we might be able to measure something that is correlated to the differences, but then we'd also potentially be blocking much or all the interference that result from RFI and EMI if that is actually what makes one cable sound different than another.
My point is that instead of claiming that if our phenomenally accurate measurement tools can't pick up the differences, surely our ears can't either, the folks that are so into measurements should spend their time trying to figure out what measurements actually correlate to what we are hearing.
-
Tyson and mlundy have (as usual) given great advice. Buy good speakers and a good source first based upon intended budget. (45% for speakers and 20% for source sounds about right, especially at lower end budget). Modern dacs also function as preamps and I am doing that
Amps and cables make less of a difference and should be bought to synergise with the source and speakers. Cables can be essentially tried "on rental." Low-end DIY cable recipes are also solid. Used amps are plentiful.
-
The issue of how to allocate a budget to get the most for the money is a practical application of the question "What makes a difference in sound quality and by how much? Or put another way "How and where does the concept of diminishing returns come into play"
Well said, Mike.
-
Okay, I'll take a shot at answering some of these questions.
But first, so far so good. You guys have discussed a touchy subject and have handled it nicely. It can easily go South or has often gone South many times. And rest assured the moderators are watching this thread. So stay the path and be civil. Shared experiences are good. But a heated debate or name calling will get it shut down pretty quickly.
Okay questions....
What confuses me is that Danny in all his videos about the cables measures something, but not an amp with speaker cables and speakers. He shows that cables can be antennas. Yes, sure, nobody will argue with that. He also shows that coils do what coils do and you can transfer audio signals with two coils without contact. Yes, sure, that is also no surprise for anybody with at least a little electronic knowledge. What does he prove with these tests regarding speaker cables? Nothing!
Five of these video's were recorded before one was released. So I have meant to lay some ground work and show some illustrations to help people understand some basics. I'm not trying to prove anything by the illustrations.
What would it take to convince people that expensive speaker cables make a difference? I think it's obvious: A sound test. Danny has everything in his shop. Amps, various cables, and lots of speakers. And I guess he has enough friends and customers who are proud of their listening skills.
So invite those friends and do the blind tests.
Some video's along those lines are coming.
Personally I don't know what the result of those listening tests would be. Maybe some experts would hear consistently a difference and maybe they could clearly point out when the super duper cable was used and when the normal cable was used.
We've been conducting some listening test at the end of the work day. No experts are needed to hear the differences that a simple speaker cable swap makes on our system here. It's very obvious.
Let's do that test! Then all of us should be happy and see results from human listeners. That would be a way to convince the EE engineers that there is a difference. And maybe that will motivate those EE engineers to develop new tests so that they can measure what the experts hear. Wouldn't that be great?
Actually the differences were so obvious and so clear that we are thinking that the differences are going to show up (can be heard) in the playback of the video that we'll shoot. I think the mic on the camera will be able to pick up some of the differences. We are going to do some tests to see (or hear) if it captures what we hear.
-
I will soon buy brand new everything and until now Danny's NX-Oticas and the subs are on my wanted list. I haven't made up my mind about cables. Until now I think about something "simple". Maybe 12AWG copper cables with gold plated connectors. But I have an open mind.
That is the type of cable we were comparing to our 24 stranded braided cable. We listen for a while after work a few days ago and made back to back comparisons. Afterward Killian decided he had had enough of the straight 12 gauge Copper wire. He said he didn't want to hear it any more. It sounded awful. :lol:
-
My issue isn't whether different cables can influence the sound... my issue is these bizarre arguments over science and tests.
This isn't string theory... if we just find the right "test" we will demonstrate the existence of a tachyon particle.
Why is it that the difference can not be measured by the exact same tools that determine design for all other aspects of audio design?
Why does this issue only occur in audiophile land?
Someone earlier made the analogy to tasting a difference between bourbons... chemically, those bourbons are not the same... a chemical analysis would show that.
I work in computer graphics. Between my eyes and my training, I can "see" colors better than 99.99% of the population. You know what "sees" better than me or any human? High quality color sensors.
NASA just landed a rover on Mars that cost nearly 3 Billion dollars. It has a microphone on it. Do you think some of the best engineers and scientists in the world looked to audiophile speaker cable "tech" to make sure the signals were captured and transmitted accurately?
Sound is simply pressure changes. Do you really think we don't have recording technology that is far more sensitive and accurate than the human ear?
The tweeter, the woofer, the cabinet, resonance, decay, sensitivity, resistance, on and on and on... all tested with common and trusted tools... but somehow speaker cables are a different animal.
The logic makes no sense to me.
A microphone is measuring one point in space. It is like looking at everything with one eye closed. So it is like hearing or seeing in 2D.
We have two ears and our brain takes the sound arrival of those two ears and creates a three dimensional picture.
So we hear layering in the sound stage, placement of instruments, and space around things that microphone doesn't pic up at all. Even the decay of the instruments is very different from one cable to the next. That is one of the easy things that tips everyone off when making the cable swaps. With the good cable we clearly hear instrument decay. Which the cheap cable that decay is smeared and blurred together. That's hard to measure.
-
Actually, I believe that the "soft sciences" are the exact correct science to be applied here if there is no "hard science" test that shows a difference.
This isn't magic. If there is a difference (I'm not saying there isn't), you can absolutely record a difference. Might not be the exact perceived difference, but you could absolutely record a difference.
There is no more basic scientific test you can apply... yet for some reason Danny hasn't done that... even though he uses that same method to showcase his designs and crossover improvements.
Just hold on. We're not done yet.
-
I have an electrical engineering background, but spent the first part of my career designing digital electronics and the second part in management and software development so I certainly don't consider myself an audio electronics expert. But I have a basic understanding of the issues.
I believe measurements play an important role in design, and particularly in production where they are very useful to weed out production errors.
But I'm also convinced that we can hear differences in equipment, including cables, which we have not yet been able to correlate with specific measurements. Note that I didn't say we can't measure them, only that we haven't figured out what to look for.
Regarding trying to measure differences in cables by making recordings, I have similar measurement equipment as Danny (although probably not as sensitive). Everytime I make a measurement of my speakers, the measurements are significantly different, particularly in the upper octaves. It's only after doing averaging that the response curves are close from one measurement to the next. Who knows what important information is buried in all those averaged out differences.
Perhaps if measurements were made in a really good anechoic chamber, we might be able to measure something that is correlated to the differences, but then we'd also potentially be blocking much or all the interference that result from RFI and EMI if that is actually what makes one cable sound different than another.
My point is that instead of claiming that if our phenomenally accurate measurement tools can't pick up the differences, surely our ears can't either, the folks that are so into measurements should spend their time trying to figure out what measurements actually correlate to what we are hearing.
Good post.
There are a lot of differences that we can measure. And there are a lot of variables that are really hard to measure. Differences in dielectric material and skin effect for instance are tough to measure.
The real trick then is how to correlate the measurement to what we hear. For instance what measurement that we can make tells us or correlates to sound stage depth differences that we can clearly hear?
And it is really hard to move some of those guys, that claim cables make no difference, into trying to figure out what measurements correlate to what we hear, because they have yet to sit down in front of a system that allows them to hear the differences.
-
That is the type of cable we were comparing to our 24 stranded braided cable. We listen for a while after work a few days ago and made back to back comparisons. Afterward Killian decided he had had enough of the straight 12 gauge Copper wire. He said he didn't want to hear it any more. It sounded awful. :lol:
That how I feel when I occasionally use my 10-12 gague zipcord.. :lol:
Tho it's moreso noticable when I listen in the living room, than at my desk. (The speakers are about 1-2" from the wall and surrounded by PC monitors and a window curtain behind one of them.)
With the cheap zipcord, the soundstage flattens considerably, especially in depth, as well as separation.
I can live with it, but the overall experience I get from the 16-braid is just better, and is something I'm more likely to look for.
I'm sure if I had a more revealing system, the difference would be even more noticeable, but for the time being, my little Sprout 100 has a lot to offer, as do my XLS. I have one of Danny's new power cords on the way and im interested to see what sort of difference it makes, cuz i honestly don't know what to expect, but I haven't been mislead yet.
-
Since audio playback is a system, errors introduced by the components and wiring are cumulative. So upgrading a component removes some of the errors and gives you better sound. Same with cables. Putting in better cables is not magic, you're simply removing another source of errors.
Also, if someone hears a difference, the reasonable thing to do is ask what explains it. The unreasonable thing to do is deny a difference exists. Sometimes we don't know why. And that's OK. Life is full of ambiguity, best to get comfortable with not always having all the answers.
-
I’m looking forward to the segment on power cables. I am wondering if Danny is going to offer DIY power cords. I have a Furman power sequencer in my rack. Some short power cords would help keep my rack neat. A few cords in the 18” range would be helpful! Power amps would go directly to the main outlet on the wall!
Barry
-
You're in luck, cuz he does! I should have one coming next week. :wink:
https://www.gr-research.com/power-cords.html
-
A microphone is measuring one point in space. It is like looking at everything with one eye closed. So it is like hearing or seeing in 2D.
We have two ears and our brain takes the sound arrival of those two ears and creates a three dimensional picture.
So we hear layering in the sound stage, placement of instruments, and space around things that microphone doesn't pic up at all. Even the decay of the instruments is very different from one cable to the next. That is one of the easy things that tips everyone off when making the cable swaps. With the good cable we clearly hear instrument decay. Which the cheap cable that decay is smeared and blurred together. That's hard to measure.
Not denying that a single microphone can not record how our entire hearing system works, but it will still detect changes in pressure. That pressure change may not be how we hear, but it will record a change if there is one. If you are saying that a microphone/recorder can not detect a change, then my argument back to you would be you just need a higher quality microphone and recorder (same argument as needing better gear and room treatments in order to hear the influence of a cable change).
Secondly, you could record with a binaural rig... again, not exact, but if you are saying a difference in pressure between the ears is important, this would record that.
Does anyone here believe that audio reproduction is more than creating pressure changes? Does anyone here believe the human ear is better at detecting pressure change than the microphone and recording tech of today? Not that we can record exactly how we hear and perceive sound... just detect there is a change in what is coming out of those speakers.
-
Just an additional note... such a test should be done multiple times, with an averaging of the results (share the unaveraged as well). You will want to remove room noise (or any noise) as being "the difference recorded". If it is real, then it is repeatable.
-
Dr. Floyd Toole, considered an audio authority by many, certainly by the strict objectivists said the following, "Two ears and a brain respond very differently to a complex sound field — and are much more analytical — than an omni-directional mic and analyzer."
A microphone converts air pressure changes into an electrical signal. Converting the electrical signals to a convenient visual format, typically a frequency response (FR) curve, is done with math. Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is the de facto math. The Fast part of FFT means accuracy is sacrificed to obtain a result in a reasonably short period of time. A FR curve created by the FFT process only yields gross indications of peaks, dips, or tilts. When you add smoothing that can be done to artificially smooth a FR curve, accuracy is further degraded. In addition, FFT creation of a FR curve provides information only in the frequency domain. There is no time domain information in a FR curve.
A FR curve provides useful information, just not every bit of information required to tell us how a speaker, amplifier, cable, etc. contribute to the sound quality of a system. Our ears and brain are the best tools to make the final assessment of quality.
-
Not denying that a single microphone can not record how our entire hearing system works, but it will still detect changes in pressure. That pressure change may not be how we hear, but it will record a change if there is one. If you are saying that a microphone/recorder can not detect a change, then my argument back to you would be you just need a higher quality microphone and recorder (same argument as needing better gear and room treatments in order to hear the influence of a cable change).
Detecting a change in pressure is easy. That will just create a response curve that is based on a graph of amplitude over frequency. That doesn't tell you much other than how loud it is at a give frequency.
Secondly, you could record with a binaural rig... again, not exact, but if you are saying a difference in pressure between the ears is important, this would record that.
There is some testing going on with that right now. Ron is experimenting with it now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoXn6KFC-8
Does anyone here believe that audio reproduction is more than creating pressure changes? Does anyone here believe the human ear is better at detecting pressure change than the microphone and recording tech of today? Not that we can record exactly how we hear and perceive sound... just detect there is a change in what is coming out of those speakers.
We hear much more than pressure changes.
We hear direction, placement, and time arrival differences.
Another example is stored energy or ringing. It is lost in an amplitude measurement but easy to hear.
-
Detecting a change in pressure is easy. That will just create a response curve that is based on a graph of amplitude over frequency. That doesn't tell you much other than how loud it is at a give frequency.
There is some testing going on with that right now. Ron is experimenting with it now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoXn6KFC-8
We hear much more than pressure changes.
We hear direction, placement, and time arrival differences.
Another example is stored energy or ringing. It is lost in an amplitude measurement but easy to hear.
Everything you mention here is how our brains interpret pressure differences between our two ears, and the way those "waves" interact with our inner and outer ear. The source of those pressure differences is still the same set of speakers, and the reflections off the same room... so the only theoretical difference can properly be measured as amplitude over frequency. Swapping cables does nothing to change the source of the pressure changes, only the possibility that those sources are emitting different pressures with the same input on the front end.
Cables may very well reduce noise and interference (among other things), and that change may improve the quality of the listening experience by having cleaner/smoother pressure changes... but that is all it is. A well done recording test would at minimum illustrate some of that change if it is there.
-
Interesting replies. No flat earther comments anymore. Good.
I like Danny's reply about the soundstage. Yes, that is obviously something our brain "creates" from the signals the ears receive.
I think an important point is that ears are not just working like microphones. Ears can detect a lot more than pressure level changes.
I am not sure if this is the correct term here. Some time ago I read about dummy head microphone recordings. It's amazing how much additional information the brain can analyze out of what the ear receives.
This is an interesting video about the ears and the brain: https://youtu.be/Oai7HUqncAA
I will continue to watch Danny's videos and I try to keep an open mind.
-
While you can record a setup with a pair of good quality microphones/binural & recording gear, (like Ron does in his channel) it's never going to be an exact 1:1 representation, and those variations are going to change depending on how you listen or analyze to those recordings, the room they're being recorded in, etc.
The reality however, is that while measurements & graphs are a decent indicator of a products overall quality/potential, you can't rely on them alone, especially when everything about your setup is wildly different from those of the testing conditions, and will vary depending on room size, shape, layout, placement, furniture, treatment, types of wall/flooring, etc.
It's not particularly easy to graph & chart an experience, you can try to explain it with words, but not everyone has the same definitions, understanding or even the vocabulary to explain it effectively. And to top that off, not everyone will experience something in the same way. One persons excitement may be another's horror.
It's something you have to be open to messing around with, & if you have a chance, go visit Danny or talk to someone in your area that is willing to let you visit to try out different cables on their system, and see if your experience changes. And possibly even bring your current system with you since you're more familiar with it's sound, but at a minimum, bring music you like or are most familiar with.
-
Correct, but what our ears/brains do is entirely based on pressure wave "input". The two ears, combined with how our outer ear creates subtle reflections, can give our brains enough information to determine quite a lot about the sounds around us.
However, all a speaker can do is create pressure wave "output". Doesn't matter its shape, how many drivers it has, how the crossover is built, how dead the box is, if it is sealed or open baffle... all a speaker can do is change pressure from a fixed point in space. That pressure change makes its way around the room and arrives at our ears.
All a speaker cable can possibly influence is how that speaker creates that pressure based on the signal presented to it.
Fundamental questions I would like to see recorded proof to answer:
1) Does a speaker cable change the signal that arrives at a speaker, and in turn, create a different output?
2) Is that change greater than the noise floor and/or does it lower the noise floor?
3) Is that change audible? Even subtly?
-
Fundamental questions I would like to see recorded proof to answer:
1) Does a speaker cable change the signal that arrives at a speaker, and in turn, create a different output?
2) Is that change greater than the noise floor and/or does it lower the noise floor?
3) Is that change audible? Even subtly?
Simple 2-wire zip cord was never the best design. It was cheap to manufacture and practical for the average person. Good enough. Right? Designed for maximum fidelity? Nope.
95% of people have no idea how good music can sound. Most people who have speakers have them jammed up against a wall, in a corner, in a cabinet, mounted to a wall, or mounted in the walls. Nowadays many have Bluetooth speakers that will never accurately reproduce the music fully no matter where you put them. They literally do not know what they are missing.
The best stereos I’ve heard had the speakers well away from the walls. The best stereos can take a 60 year old recording and make it sound like you’re right there in the room with the singer. We know recordings vary. So too do playback systems. Sadly room aesthetics usually beats best speaker placement. If a stereo isn’t optimized to the room then you will never hear every detail in the recording. That’s just physics.
The first “audiophile cable” was Monster cable. It took advantage of the easiest modification to the sound that can be accomplished. They made the wires bigger. The lower resistance helped ease the load of the amplifier. The net effect is that at the same volume setting the lower resistance cable sounded louder. You didn’t have to turn the volume up as much and there was less distortion at higher volumes.
Now if you volume match and compare 18awg zip cord and 12awg zip cord they will likely sound the same. Also note with the same wire geometry the inductance and capacitance will likely be similar. This is exactly what so many early cable comparisons did. They compared apples to apples. The only advantage of the monster cable was the lower resistance. Did it change the sound? Absolutely. Did it improve the sound? Not really. And if your test removes the one advantage of the cable being compared then of course you won’t hear a difference.
Kimber did things differently. They braided multiple smaller wires and proved they did a better job of rejecting noise picked up by the speaker cables. The signal is now split and as Danny explained in the video the wires no longer run parallel. This changes the inductance and capacitance greatly compared to zip cord. Whenever I’ve compared zip cord to Kimber cable I found the braided cables sound less muffled. It’s subtle but I made several comparisons with other brands of cables (anecdotal, I know) but the effect was similar. I’ve been using Kimber 4TC and 4VS for over 20 years and have been happy with them.
I know some people say powered speakers are the answer. But just like a cheap crossover can be hidden inside of a speaker so can cheap electronics. Active speakers are not a panacea. At least not inexpensively. They also tend to be designed for near-field listening. My musician friend got some nice studio monitors and when you sit 3’ away from them they sound quite good with lots of detail. As soon as you stand up details vanish. He can turn them up and fill the room with sound but it’s not the same. There’s no sound staging, less detail, less bass, etc. They’re just not optimized for the room. Vanatoo makes some nice active speakers and they can fill a room and sound pretty damn good. Can they be beaten with better speakers? (which require speaker cables) Definitely.
Ultimately, price will always be a factor. More often than not you get what you pay for. For most people who will never optimize their music playback the utility of zip cord beats anything better sounding. Common sense.
Are there cable scams out there? Absolutely! All they do is take average cables and dress them up. Unfortunately, the scams have completely made a mockery of the reality that cables can change the sound and we’re still learning why and how.
-
Kimber did things differently. They braided multiple smaller wires and proved they did a better job of rejecting noise picked up by the speaker cables. The signal is now split and as Danny explained in the video the wires no longer run parallel. This changes the inductance and capacitance greatly compared to zip cord.
I think nobody doubts that any cable can pick up noise. But which noise (RF?) and how much of it?
I am not sure how much we are allowed here to link critical videos. On the 23rd February someone with a lot of technical knowledge, top measurement equipment and trained ears checked how much noise speaker cables pick up. Very very very little. Less than the best trained human ears can detect.
-
Most of us live in a sea of electromagnetic noise. Whether the specific noise frequency picked up on a cable/wire can be heard is the wrong issue to investigate. How does noise affect the entire system is the correct question? A speaker cable is not a one way street directing noise only to speakers. Noise can and will travel throughout a system finding any and all pathways polluting the desired signals.
-
Most of us live in a sea of electromagnetic noise. Whether the specific noise frequency picked up on a cable/wire can be heard is the wrong issue to investigate. How does noise affect the entire system is the correct question? A speaker cable is not a one way street directing noise only to speakers. Noise can and will travel throughout a system finding any and all pathways polluting the desired signals.
And what will make a bigger difference? Making sure that the inputs and input cables before the amplifier don't let any RF in, or concentrate on the cables at the amplifier outputs?
-
And what will make a bigger difference? Making sure that the inputs and input cables before the amplifier don't let any RF in, or concentrate on the cables at the amplifier outputs?
IMO, I would start with speaker cables first. They're the most difficult to shield without negative effects to the signal, and will make each change up stream easier to notice.
Next would be interconnects, followed by USB & Power as needed.
Ideally, running your equipment off-grid via batteries would remove the most noise, but will likely reqire modifications to your gear, namely source/DAC & preamp. Which not everyone is interested or capable of.
I'm currently only using a Sprout100, so I can't really make use of interconnects, but I can still experiment with USB & power cables.
I have one of Danny's new power cables coming soon that I'm excited to try, then I'll start looking into the differences between USB cables, & what aspects I should be looking for when it comes to audio quality.
-
I am not sure that noise rejection is the only property that makes speaker cables good. For instance ribbon cables are chosen because current flows differently in them.
-
I am not sure that noise rejection is the only property that makes speaker cables good. For instance ribbon cables are chosen because current flows differently in them.
You are correct. The noise rejection element is just one of the many areas of differences.
-
I am not sure how much we are allowed here to link critical videos. On the 23rd February someone with a lot of technical knowledge, top measurement equipment and trained ears checked how much noise speaker cables pick up. Very very very little. Less than the best trained human ears can detect.
Why would linking these be a problem? Post em up, I'd like to see it.
-
Google or search Youtube you will find several videos on the topic. Not sure sharing specific links here follows the spirit of Audio Circle. Remain respectful of other viewpoints without potentially starting a tit for tat exchange.
-
Ok... welp I found the mystery videos.
I watched them and I'm posting these for a couple reasons. One, the creator of the videos says they are in response, at least partially to Danny's series on cables, which makes it relevant and adds to this conversation. Two, he conducts his own little experiments or demonstrations, he's not simply asserting a contrary point of view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL4O_Do2PuQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVCmPrDthlE&t=2s
He's got a few more, but I haven't watched those yet, so I'll leave them out.
-
Ok... welp I found the mystery videos.
I watched them and I'm posting these for a couple reasons. One, the creator of the videos says they are in response, at least partially to Danny's series on cables, which makes it relevant and adds to this conversation. Two, he conducts his own little experiments or demonstrations, he's not simply asserting a contrary point of view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL4O_Do2PuQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVCmPrDthlE&t=2s
He's got a few more, but I haven't watched those yet, so I'll leave them out.
I've watched them. Those were funny.
On the first one he showed FRI all over a standard zip cord style speaker cable. So he not only confirmed what I was saying, but he took it a step further and showed it full bandwidth. He then plugged it into a load and it dropped about half of it out. That's typical. Almost every piece of gear out there has some form of RF filter in it. My DAC even has adjustable filter settings for it. So if the RF is not a problem then why does almost every piece of gear out there address it?
But then he measured the voltage levels of the RF noise and of coarse it was very low. If it amounted to any real power levels we'd call it wireless transmission of power and be using to do things. :roll: So I am with him on all of that. But then he jumped to a conclusion and really just theorized that we can't hear it or its effects.
I'm with him on the measurements, just not jumping to an unfounded conclusion.
The second one was in response to the idea that cables pick up EMI (electromagnetic interference). So he used the same zip cord type speaker cable and was taking a measurement on it. Then he twisted it around a power cable that he said was plugged in to the wall and he showed little to no EMI transferring to the speaker cable. But he never plugged the power cable into anything. So there was no currently flowing through that cable. So of coarse there will be little to nothing picked up from it.
He then theorizes another conclusion that it would have no audible effect. :roll:
I question everything myself and like to see measured differences in any way that gives me useful information. So I measure everything I can in designing speakers. I am a measurement guy. So I don't knock those guys wanting to measure everything.
However, in the end the only way to answer if a cable makes an audible difference or not requires listening. It is the only way to confirm any hypothesis formed. So I don't believe you're really using any science buy jumping to a conclusion that is untested and unverified.
I'd glad those guys are watching though. I hope they keep watching. And boy would I LOVE to have some of those guys over for listening comparisons.
-
However, in the end the only way to answer if a cable makes an audible difference or not requires listening.
A subjective difference, true (X sounds better than Y), but audible difference?
A high quality recording could not detect any difference?
-
A subjective difference, true (X sounds better than Y), but audible difference?
A high quality recording could not detect any difference?
Using a stereo mic with our video camera I made some sound clip recordings this weekend.
Live and in person the big differences in my system are in the spatial cues. With my speaker cables the sound stage is huge, open, and deep. And there is more space between instruments. You can also hear differences in decay that other cables cover up. With the good cable the decay of each instrument is really clear. And there is a difference in detail levels as well. And the vocals are a little deeper in the sound stage.
With a straight 12 gauge zip cord style cable the sound stage falls apart and is more two dimensional. Depth is just not there. The decay is gone too. It is just smeared away and gone. Details levels are no longer as clear and the whole presentation is not as musical.
Live and in person the differences are super easy to hear and even an inexperienced listener can hear them pretty quickly.
Now on the video recording you loose about 75% of what you hear in person. You loose the sound stage differences and the layering and depth. All of that instrument separation is gone in the recording. However, the difference in the decay of instruments and detail levels are clearly different. So the recording does capture some of that. I'm going to do some more experimenting. I might have to try some different mics.
-
With a straight 12 gauge zip cord style cable the sound stage falls apart and is more two dimensional. Depth is just not there. The decay is gone too. It is just smeared away and gone. Details levels are no longer as clear and the whole presentation is not as musical.
I still listen and try to learn but I have to admit statements like the one from Danny above don't make the situation any better.
"the sound stage falls apart", "Depth is just not there", "just smeared away and gone"
Sometime I wonder how people could every enjoy music before someone invented hundred dollar speaker cables.
Now we have the full spectrum of people who say there is no difference at all, then people who say you hear a little difference if your system is already top of the range. And now "the sound stage falls apart". It seems we live in different worlds.
-
I mean, if you've never direcly experienced it before, it's not something you'll even know to look for. Dannys personal rig is so far beyond anything I'd ever heard, that I didn't have words to describe what I was hearing.
Tho I can experience the same things Danny is talking about on my little system by swapping the speaker cables from his kit cable to my zipcord..
My zip cord with Tube connectors still sound great in terms of clarity & such, but they lack the depth & layering within the soundstage. Of course, I can still tell where things are in a left/right sense, but i can't tell how far forward or backwards they are, and the scale of the room.
It's really a matter of perspective and perception. Like that drawing that can be seen as a duck or a rabbit, or the spinning silhouette. Is she spinning to the left or right? Laurel vs Yanny? Is the dress Black & Blue or White and Gold? Etc. Heck, even tests for colorblindness.
Not perfect analogies, of course, but if you know what details or cues you need to be looking look for it makes those details easier to understand and pick out when they are present.
-
Danny is not saying every system can be audibly improved by the addition of better quality speaker cables. It is clearly presented as information to help each individual make their own choice. Don't gloss over how much Danny talked about the listening room and quality of the entire system.
The opposing view in question claims that NOBODY can benefit from better quality speaker cables. Do you want to be free to make your own choice or be told what to do?
If anyone wants an excellent in depth presentation of the science behind a no holds barred best possible conductor, a retired Belden engineer has a video out there. For speaker cables, expensive and not for most of us. However, there is much to learn from the pure science presented.
-
Hey!
Man! Danny really opened a big can of cables here. Anyway, I can't believe that it is now 2021 and audiophiles still arguing about cables!
For me personally, I don't have an uber fancy expensive system compare to many people here, but I can hear differences with each cables, connectors and etc swaps. Back when the NY group was active years ago, I had members over and sometime they would bring over stuffs like DAC, amps and of course cables and we all could hear differences between each cables.
So, my take is... if like and think your system sound great now and you spend money on "audiophile" cables, put them in your system and you can't hear any differences compare to the free cables that came with the components then consider yourself lucky. You just saved yourself a lot of time and money!
Anyway, beside that I do enjoy watching Danny's videos on speaker designs... the "Acoustic Center" really confirmed what I've been hearing over the years. Well, I'll catch up with the new episode.
Buddy
PS
By the way, a little complaint... your flat earth model is a cube earth. I thought flat earth people believe is more like a disc floating in space.... just pulling your cable here :lol:
-
Just as the full old saying goes “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”, in this case the proof of the cable is in the listening.
Just like some people will like the taste of the pudding while others won’t, some will hear differences they feel are worth the cost while others won’t. Guess what, there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s like the way Rex and Daniel of the whisky tribe answer the question “Whar’s the right way to drink whisky?” Answer... “However you like it”.
-
I still listen and try to learn but I have to admit statements like the one from Danny above don't make the situation any better.
"the sound stage falls apart", "Depth is just not there", "just smeared away and gone"
Sometime I wonder how people could every enjoy music before someone invented hundred dollar speaker cables.
Now we have the full spectrum of people who say there is no difference at all, then people who say you hear a little difference if your system is already top of the range. And now "the sound stage falls apart". It seems we live in different worlds.
Well, just logically it makes no sense to mess around with cables until you have a good system in place. Otherwise it's like putting racing tires on a Honda Accord. It might make a difference, but it would be small and really what you need is a higher performance car, not better tires.
Once you have a better car, now messing around with better tires makes sense.
It's the same with high end cables, IME. Don't worry about them until you have a great system in place. Can they make a difference on a mid/low system? Sure, but you're money and focus is best spent elsewhere. I'm a big believer in buying the very best speakers you can, then building the rest of the system around them. Worries about cables should come dead last.
In fact, I recommend getting a the full system set up and in place, and then living with it for at least 6 months before you even think about playing around with cables. If there's a difference, you'll hear it. If not, then you won't.
-
[
-
Fixed it for you. :wink:
‘60s VW van? 🤗
-
‘60s VW van? 🤗
VW Busses, esp campers, actually reqire reinforced tires for proper handling. I only know that cuz my Dad owns two from mid 70s. One Westy camper, one hard top.
-
[
-
So basically you are saying Tyson's tire analogy was bad. :)
No, his analogy works for most typical cars having racing tires will make no difference since most standard tires are rarely pushed to their limits where a different sort of tire would be necessary or even useful. (Tho low profile tires that were popular 10 years ago were notorious for wearing out quickly and having a terrible ride.)
Just pointing out that a heavy VW Bus/van does have particular needs that say a VW Bug wouldn't. :P
-
Back to speaker wire........
-
Speaking of analogies, Danny provided a good one on his most recent YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNKRWvbIwUw
Starts at 1:30 minutes and ends at 2:30.
-
Speaking of analogies, Danny provided a good one on his most recent YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNKRWvbIwUw
Starts at 1:30 minutes and ends at 2:30.
I found it interesting when he started talking about a system that can become too filtered it constrains the sound. It seems that it might filter out some of the subtle sounds and frequencies that we use psycho-acoustically as cues to give us a sense of the size of the room (recording room, not listening room). When those frequencies get lost, the room collapses to the size of the listening space or even the space between the speakers. Is that a correct understanding? I'm still trying to get my head around this stuff.
Sounds kind of like when people talk about over treating a room with absorption, it deadens it and makes the room lifeless. Anechoic chambers may be "accurate", but they're probably no fun to listen to music in.
-
I've watched them. Those were funny.
On the first one he showed FRI all over a standard zip cord style speaker cable. So he not only confirmed what I was saying, but he took it a step further and showed it full bandwidth. He then plugged it into a load and it dropped about half of it out. That's typical. Almost every piece of gear out there has some form of RF filter in it. My DAC even has adjustable filter settings for it. So if the RF is not a problem then why does almost every piece of gear out there address it?
But then he measured the voltage levels of the RF noise and of coarse it was very low. If it amounted to any real power levels we'd call it wireless transmission of power and be using to do things. :roll: So I am with him on all of that. But then he jumped to a conclusion and really just theorized that we can't hear it or its effects.
I'm with him on the measurements, just not jumping to an unfounded conclusion.
The second one was in response to the idea that cables pick up EMI (electromagnetic interference). So he used the same zip cord type speaker cable and was taking a measurement on it. Then he twisted it around a power cable that he said was plugged in to the wall and he showed little to no EMI transferring to the speaker cable. But he never plugged the power cable into anything. So there was no currently flowing through that cable. So of coarse there will be little to nothing picked up from it.
He then theorizes another conclusion that it would have no audible effect. :roll:
To be fair, audio science guy had an update in the description of the EMI video showing results with the power cable plugged into an amp. He does also mention in one of his videos (maybe that one titled "fancy audio cables") that he listened and heard no difference between cables. He even invites his audience to do their own listening tests, as you do.
However, in the end the only way to answer if a cable makes an audible difference or not requires listening.
Haha, it's funny how this sounds like something a 'flat-earther' would say, like "I looked out my window and I can see that the earth is flat." It reminds me of a guy I worked with back when I was in college. I worked construction during the summers, one summer I worked for a builder, we were framing out a custom home. It was me, another guy my age, his name is Kyle and our boss, Steve. One afternoon I was taking a water break and chatting to Steve, while we both watched Kyle secure a partition wall without checking it for level or plumb. Steve waited till Kyle was finished then asked him if the wall was plumb, to which he replied "Yeah, it looks straight!"
Anyway, the latest video on power cables seemed like 20mins of anecdote and hyperbole. I look forward to getting past all this to the final video(s) that document the listening test or provide sound clips that demonstrate the huge differences you're hearing in your system.
-
I look forward to getting past all this to the final video(s) that document the listening test or provide sound clips that demonstrate the huge differences you're hearing in your system.
Sound clips?? Seriously? That's like asking Stevie Wonder to take an eye exam. If you can't see, a vision test will only confirm that you're blind.
Danny is doing precisely what you're asking him to do -- he's documenting his listening experiences with cables over the course of 30 years. His experiences mirror mine and many, many other audiophiles. If that's not enough, note that the naysayers cannot more sufficiently document nor prove that they don't hear differences between cables.
-
Sound clips?? Seriously? That's like asking Stevie Wonder to take an eye exam. If you can't see, a vision test will only confirm that you're blind.
Danny is doing precisely what you're asking him to do -- he's documenting his listening experiences with cables over the course of 30 years. His experiences mirror mine and many, many other audiophiles. If that's not enough, note that the naysayers cannot more sufficiently document nor prove that they don't hear differences between cables.
This
-
Sound clips?? Seriously? That's like asking Stevie Wonder to take an eye exam. If you can't see, a vision test will only confirm that you're blind.
Danny is doing precisely what you're asking him to do -- he's documenting his listening experiences with cables over the course of 30 years. His experiences mirror mine and many, many other audiophiles. If that's not enough, note that the naysayers cannot more sufficiently document nor prove that they don't hear differences between cables.
I'm not asking for that.
I am asking Danny to apply the same logic, tools and methods to his speaker cables as he applies to his other products.
I'm also not asking for "sound clips", but detailed waveforms of averaged clips taken under optimal circumstances, with high quality gear.
I am open to the idea that different cables could present a different sound for a number of reasons, but anyone who says that modern recording tech can not capture any difference, but their ears can, is not being honest with themselves or others.
It would either be that you do not want to show what that difference is, or, you don't want to admit that you can't actually hear a difference, or you want to be able to hear a difference. Who doesn't want things to be better?
At some point you have to admit that an argument lacks merit if you aren't willing to use logical methods to prove or disprove it.
-
I found it interesting when he started talking about a system that can become too filtered it constrains the sound. It seems that it might filter out some of the subtle sounds and frequencies that we use psycho-acoustically as cues to give us a sense of the size of the room (recording room, not listening room). When those frequencies get lost, the room collapses to the size of the listening space or even the space between the speakers. Is that a correct understanding? I'm still trying to get my head around this stuff.
Sounds kind of like when people talk about over treating a room with absorption, it deadens it and makes the room lifeless. Anechoic chambers may be "accurate", but they're probably no fun to listen to music in.
When I understood Danny correct in his last video he spoke about filtering a power cable too much. What exactly could be filtered too much in a power cable? Could the RF be filtered too much? Or the AC 50 or 60Hz filtered too much?
I accept that speaker cable with the audio signal can make a difference. And obviously that audio signal should not be filtered (too much). But how can anything filter mains power too much so that it changes the sound?
-
Sound clips?? Seriously? That's like asking Stevie Wonder to take an eye exam. If you can't see, a vision test will only confirm that you're blind.
Danny is doing precisely what you're asking him to do -- he's documenting his listening experiences with cables over the course of 30 years. His experiences mirror mine and many, many other audiophiles. If that's not enough, note that the naysayers cannot more sufficiently document nor prove that they don't hear differences between cables.
It's not an outlandish idea, and I get that conveying something like this may be frustrating. If the goal is to spread the word that cables matter, and numbers don't back it up, then try and demonstrate it. Can't really blame people for not taking the word of audiophiles.
As far as sound clips go, it's worth trying. I've heard differences in amps in YouTube clips, and if a cable swap is significant then there's a good chance you'll be able to hear something in a good recording. If that doesn't work, try something else, below is an example. I just think, if you're gonna roll 5 videos deep into a controversial topic, stories about personal experiences probably aren't going to cut it for a lot of people. And as far as 'many other audiophiles' corroborating it, there are plenty of recent examples of large groups of people believing things, that aren't necessarily true :D
-
I just think, if you're gonna roll 5 videos deep into a controversial topic, stories about personal experiences probably aren't going to cut it for a lot of people. And as far as 'many other audiophiles' corroborating it, there are plenty of recent examples of large groups of people believing things, that aren't necessarily true :D
If it were that easy someone would’ve done it by now. Nothing beats direct experience.
-
I'm not asking for that.
I am asking Danny to apply the same logic, tools and methods to his speaker cables as he applies to his other products.
I'm also not asking for "sound clips", but detailed waveforms of averaged clips taken under optimal circumstances, with high quality gear.
I am open to the idea that different cables could present a different sound for a number of reasons, but anyone who says that modern recording tech can not capture any difference, but their ears can, is not being honest with themselves or others.
It would either be that you do not want to show what that difference is, or, you don't want to admit that you can't actually hear a difference, or you want to be able to hear a difference. Who doesn't want things to be better?
At some point you have to admit that an argument lacks merit if you aren't willing to use logical methods to prove or disprove it.
I agree with you.
What confuses me is that Danny shows all these test with a cable as an antenna, two coils, and at least for me it seems like he wants to show us how easy it is to measure things. But then there are no measurements for the only important thing: What comes out of the speakers.
I would be more open to accept if Danny would just tell us something like: You can only hear the differences life on a very good system. You won't be able to hear it over YouTube. And (maybe) I am not able to measure the difference but I hear it.
I think that would be fair enough.
But then he has these technical explanations which, at least for me with some technical background, are not convincing.
-
How about this marketing approach to promote an audio product?
We have spared no expense to produce the most perfectly measuring _________ (fill in the blank). Our product measures so perfectly, we do not waste time listening. Instead, we rush _________ (fill in the blank) to the marketplace so consumers can enjoy their own copies of perfection - beautiful charts and graphs. After all, every _______ (fill in the blank) sounds the same.
Those of us with decades of experience know measurements are valuable, but listening is the most important part of the process. Do you believe a person with years and years of designing and manufacturing products? Or do you believe a person acting as a critic with no requisite design and manufacturing experience? I choose the first. Not only based on faith, but because of my own verification and validation.
-
If it were that easy someone would’ve done it by now. Nothing beats direct experience.
One video, 3 different good cable, 3 people, and a blind test maybe switching between cables 10 times.
And then showing the results that at least 2 or the 3 people can listen and know which cable is which with high accuracy.
What do you need for this? 3 listeners, one person who switches the cables, 3 cables a good amp and good speakers. It would be easy for Danny to make such a video - if he wants to.
-
If it were that easy someone would’ve done it by now. Nothing beats direct experience.
It’s one of those things where once you actually sit in front of something like NX-Treme which are simply the best speakers in the world at any price IMO. You go “Oh I see”. Thats why Danny keeps telling people to stop by and listen.
-
Imagine a cable-loving audiophile insisting that a naysayer prove that he cannot hear differences in cables by providing measurements and sound tests. It's a silly request, isn't it? Naysayers demand scientific proof that they know isn't possible for anyone to provide. It's like insisting that your wife provide you with objective, scientific proof that she loves you because your experiences with her aren't sufficient evidence.
-
How about this marketing approach to promote an audio product?
We have spared no expense to produce the most perfectly measuring _________ (fill in the blank). Our product measures so perfectly, we do not waste time listening. Instead, we rush _________ (fill in the blank) to the marketplace so consumers can enjoy their own copies of perfection - beautiful charts and graphs. After all, every _______ (fill in the blank) sounds the same.
Those of us with decades of experience know measurements are valuable, but listening is the most important part of the process. Do you believe a person with years and years of designing and manufacturing products? Or do you believe a person acting as a critic with no requisite design and manufacturing experience? I choose the first. Not only based on faith, but because of my own verification and validation.
Amir, the author of the "answer"-video has technical education, many years of work in that field, his ears are trained (he can hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit), and he has top measuring equipment and knows how to use it. Apart from that he also has a very good reputation.
I don't say he is always 100% right. But for sure it does not hurt to listen to what he has to say.
-
Imagine a cable-loving audiophile insisting that a naysayer prove that he cannot hear differences in cables by providing measurements and sound tests. It's a silly request, isn't it? Naysayers demand scientific proof that they know isn't possible for anyone to provide. It's like insisting that your wife provide you with objective, scientific proof that she loves you because your experiences with her aren't sufficient evidence.
Let's forget about the wife.
Why do "naysayers" know it "isn't possible for anyone to provide" proof? Many scientific measurements are way better than what humans can hear, see, etc.
The point of the doubters is that it should be measurable because measurements are (mostly) more accurate than humans.
-
Imagine a cable-loving audiophile insisting that a naysayer prove that he cannot hear differences in cables by providing measurements and sound tests. It's a silly request, isn't it? Naysayers demand scientific proof that they know isn't possible for anyone to provide. It's like insisting that your wife provide you with objective, scientific proof that she loves you because your experiences with her aren't sufficient evidence.
It's a little different, isn't it? The naysayer probably isn't trying to sell me a cable for starters. A lot of people in the YouTube comments are asking for an a/b test, you could ask the naysayer to provide the same things if you don't find their measurements convincing, an a/b or sound clip would work either way wouldn't it?
Here's that example I mentioned in my last post but forgot to paste in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJGw8zwx-6g&t=1993s
-
I agree with you.
What confuses me is that Danny shows all these test with a cable as an antenna, two coils, and at least for me it seems like he wants to show us how easy it is to measure things.
Those measurements were just illustrations to show cable differences. And only differences in one aspect (FRI and EMI filtering), and that is just part of what's going on and may not even account for the majority of the differences. But it was something to see and understand from the illustrations.
But then there are no measurements for the only important thing: What comes out of the speakers.
There isn't any way I can measure a speaker that will show the differences that are made form the cables. And neither can anyone else that I know of.
I would be more open to accept if Danny would just tell us something like: You can only hear the differences life on a very good system.
I lot of the differences are things that you will only hear with a good system. I dedicated episode 4 completely to talking about the importance of system set up.
You won't be able to hear it over YouTube.
I'm pretty sure that's possible.
And (maybe) I am not able to measure the difference but I hear it.
There are too many areas that the cables effect that are impossible to measure.
I think that would be fair enough. But then he has these technical explanations which, at least for me with some technical background, are not convincing.
Convincing people that cables matter is easy. All they have to do is show up and listen. No one has ever walked away from my system thinking cables don't matter. Convincing someone over the Internet, is pretty tough.
-
One video, 3 different good cable, 3 people, and a blind test maybe switching between cables 10 times.
And then showing the results that at least 2 or the 3 people can listen and know which cable is which with high accuracy.
What do you need for this? 3 listeners, one person who switches the cables, 3 cables a good amp and good speakers. It would be easy for Danny to make such a video - if he wants to.
We are going to shot some video's, don't worry. Just hang on. Right now there isn't enough hours in the day. We shipped out 57 orders Monday and 41 today. And we have over 130 orders in house to get out. Those are going to come first.
And I'll be in here at the office until 11:00 or later just answering emails.
Anyone looking for a job in the audio industry and want to move to Texas?
-
Amir, the author of the "answer"-video has technical education, many years of work in that field, his ears are trained (he can hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit), and he has top measuring equipment and knows how to use it. Apart from that he also has a very good reputation.
I don't say he is always 100% right. But for sure it does not hurt to listen to what he has to say.
Frankly, wish Danny and Amir had not started this dueling videos drama. To a large degree both are preaching to the choir. Personally, I find many of Amir's measurements to be valuable data. His conclusions and interpretations, not so much.
Everything positive you say about Amir can also be said about Danny. What Danny is trying to convey will resonate strongly with me because been there, done that long before ever heard of Danny. No problem considering the measurement data Amir provides. Conclusions or claims of "scientific" proof provided by Amir, sorry but NO.
-
Anyone looking for a job in the audio industry and want to move to Texas?
Sure you can’t outsource some work to Chicago? :lol:
-
Danny you were hoping this thread stays clean but it seems the trolls got in.
Folks, as I reported earlier in the thread I did an A/B test with power, speaker and interconnects in recent months Upgraded from full loom of blue jeans cables to full loom of VH Audio (a reasonable entry level DIY audiophile loom; not too expensive) in 3 steps over 3 months. The tester was my wife, a careful listener, who couldn't see the cables being used (and doesn't care either; she is not an audio geek). Switched with 30-40 sec change time.
She *clearly* heard the difference and her preferences aligned with VH Audio stuff easily and *within seconds.* It is not subtle at all. (We listen primarily to classical music + some jazz and are very used to hearing unamplified live music from attending about half a dozen concerts a year.)
I am completely flabbergasted that power cables can make a huge difference. I have a computer science phd and had been an audiophile ---blue jeans/Amir type---for two decades. Another phenomenon I have no explanation for is long break-in. Lasting weeks!
System is Roon -> Bricasti M1 SE + streamer -> Folsom 7293 DIY amp -> Spatial X3
-
We are going to shot some video's, don't worry. Just hang on. Right now there isn't enough hours in the day. We shipped out 57 orders Monday and 41 today. And we have over 130 orders in house to get out. Those are going to come first.
And I'll be in here at the office until 11:00 or later just answering emails.
Anyone looking for a job in the audio industry and want to move to Texas?
I've actually considered moving to Texas many times tbh, esp since I have several friends in the Dallas area..
Only thing is, I'm not quite in the position, financially to move yet.
That said, learning new things, applying that information, and working with my hands is what I enjoy most.
I'd just need to figure out a living space, and the process of lisence/address changes etc, and make sure I have some cash on hand to give myself a safety net.
But it's a truely tempting offer...
-
Frankly, wish Danny and Amir had not started this dueling videos drama.
I started the video's on cables because customers asked for it quite a bit. I never asked for the drama but it wasn't unexpected.
To a large degree both are preaching to the choir.
Yes, a lot of people share my same experiences with cables. A lot of people share his beliefs.
Personally, I find many of Amir's measurements to be valuable data. His conclusions and interpretations, not so much.
Agreed. And man, I'd love to have him over for a day.
Everything positive you say about Amir can also be said about Danny. What Danny is trying to convey will resonate strongly with me because been there, done that long before ever heard of Danny. No problem considering the measurement data Amir provides. Conclusions or claims of "scientific" proof provided by Amir, sorry but NO.
Agreed.
-
The naysayer probably isn't trying to sell me a cable for starters.
No one on this forum is trying to sell you any cables.
The naysayer doesn't believe cables make a significant sonic difference or any difference at all. That's OK. Most audiophiles began their journey as cable disbelievers. However, the vast majority of seasoned audiophiles aren't using stock power cords and entry level interconnects for one simple reason -- good cables sound better. You can conduct a scientifically valid survey with audiophiles to confirm this. Of course, no naysayer would dare do that because the outcome would prove them wrong. As an audiophile, I would LOVE to be proven wrong. It would save me a lot of money. I got a boatload of brand new stock power cords eager to get in the game!!
-
What's amazing to me is just how 2nd hand all the arguments of the naysayers is. It's along the lines of "well person X tried different cables and measured them and found no difference, so there must not be a difference".
A much better approach is to try out the cables yourself, in your own system, and see if you hear a difference. If you have, and you didn't hear a difference, that's way more meaningful because it comes from your direct experience.
-
No one on this forum is trying to sell you any cables.
Comment was an allusion to the context of this thread, Danny's cable videos. Based on some of his comments above, it sounds like he thinks a YouTube demonstration of the sonic differences will work. I look forward to that.
-
I really don't care if speaker cables make a difference, but these arguments are just silly and the logic is backwards.
No one here has presented any reason why some of the sonic differences presented by swapping cables could not be recorded. It is just "it can't be done".
Let's flip this around a bit.
If Amir demonstrated that a cable swap did make a difference, and I believe he would share such a result, all the "believers" here would absolutely point to it as proof.
Likewise, as I have been trying to get Danny to do, if even some difference was noted in a well done recording evaluation, I would give that the benefit of the doubt that some people with some systems might find reward in a different cable and that the actual listening experience would surpass the differences able to be recorded with the limitations of microphones (versus the way we hear in room).
Let's say for instance that cables don't make any difference and that the benefits observed by some are all in their head. There is literally no way to convince such a person this is the truth. They "observe" the difference, therefore it is real. Your tests don't show what I hear, so the tests are meaningless. They only have validity if they support what I observe. This, by any definition, is "flat earth" thinking.
In turn, the "believers" are only offering their observations and no tests as proof. Not only no tests, but "you can't test it". You can't find fault in tests that don't exist. "Just come and listen to my system" is not a test... that is what should be tested.
The two arguments are not equal and should not be treated as such.
-
Theater Lover,
I just posted about this on page 5: https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=175006.msg1847882#msg1847882
-
Theater Lover,
I just posted about this on page 5: https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=175006.msg1847882#msg1847882
I am sure we are all interested in what you may present, but some better mics/recorder may be in order than what is on your camera.
My hope is that it will be as direct and substantive as any of your "upgrade" videos, and less on the periphery.
So you understand... if you did a test as I am proposing, and it had results indicating what you have been describing in other, less direct ways, I will absolutely applaud it.
Here is another question for you...
If cables do make a difference in a high quality system/room, do you use such cables on your speaker design profiling tools? Both feeding the drivers, and from the mic? If not, why not? Wouldn't that mean that all of the deficits of "normal" cables are being baked into your profiling? Couldn't your system illustrate the differences?
Thanks.
-
theater_lover - if you tried out some different cables in your system and you heard a difference, would you discount your own experience?
-
Bascom H King, who is probably the most experienced amp designer/reviewer alive says this. "These circuits pass the information of the sound through them in a way that is absolutely unrelated to the intellectual aspects that you can measure so far. They pass the vibe if you will. I don't know the answer, I just know what I hear and go with it." He was talking about tubes, but he applies the same argument to cables in another video. Maybe Amir at Audiosciencereview should put his money where his mouth is and design an amplifier that sounds better than Bascom Kings amps. I doubt he will succeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTofAZO3DkI
-
Out of curiosity, i remember Paul Mcgowan mentioning something called a "Hafler circuit" that only plays the difference between the positive ends of each channel.
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=221524)
Could a similar setup, playing a mono signal, be a means to reveal the difference between cables? With a mono signal, identical cables should mean no difference as they will cancel out, but using different cables could reveal a different between the two?
-
Cables... the perpetual circular discussion. I'm reminded of lyrics from a Neil Young song.
"Round and round and round we spin, to weave a wall to hem us in..."
-
Cables... the perpetual circular discussion. I'm reminded of lyrics from a Neil Young song.
"Round and round and round we spin, to weave a wall to hem us in..."
It would probably not be as big a deal if there weren't prima donna's on Youtube like Gene DellaSala attacking businesses and people's livelihoods because be believes something to the contrary.
-
Maybe Amir at Audiosciencereview should put his money where his mouth is and design an amplifier that sounds better than Bascom Kings amps. I doubt he will succeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTofAZO3DkI
Well, the naysayers could define the problem away by saying that if the amps measured the same then clearly the people who claim to hear a difference are mistaken and **would not** be able to spot the difference in a double blind setting.
-
That's the beauty of the naysayer's logic. If they say that cables that measure the same cannot sound different, then they are forced to conclude that amps or DACs that measure the same must also sound the same. So you might as well build your system out of a cheap receiver and zip cord for wire. I mean, if it measures the same, it must sound the same, right?
-
That's the beauty of the naysayer's logic. If they say that cables that measure the same cannot sound different, then they are forced to conclude that amps or DACs that measure the same must also sound the same. So you might as well build your system out of a cheap receiver and zip cord for wire. I mean, if it measures the same, it must sound the same, right?
That is exactly what they believe.
-
theater_lover - if you tried out some different cables in your system and you heard a difference, would you discount your own experience?
I have never said cables can't make a difference, that isn't my argument at all.
I'm simply saying that if I heard a difference I know I could record some of that difference, if it were real, and to rule out that possibility means that you don't want to find out if it is real. Secondly, one perspective is ruling out the validity of the other's tests because they don't subscribe to their subjective experience, and then (half jokingly) calling them flat earthers... when it is really they who should be given the nickname because they only believe what they observe.
I also know that I, like everybody, could trick myself into hearing a difference.
Simple example. I sit down and listen to a song I know well, but I haven't heard recently. Cable swap. Listen to the track again. I would absolutely "hear" new things, more detail, etc. Why? I would hear new things without a cable swap. It is simply a function of short term memory and the mind's way of processing information. On the second listen the mind would pay less attention to things it "knows" and try to find new information... so it does. This holds true for anything done more than once. Food sampling, reading, looking at a picture, watching a movie. The more you concentrate on something, the more you absorb its finer properties.
Now, add to that any bias on my end to want a new cable to sound better. If I am swapping parts of a system out it is because I want it to sound better. There is inherent motivation for me to like the new thing more, and we all know we are guilty of choosing the new and shiny thing because it is new and shiny.
I also believe that there is a little bit of ego going on here. If one person says that they can hear something, another will want to be able to hear it as well, and could trick themselves into hearing it. "Listen to how everything opens up as I switch to this cable" "Oh, yeah, I hear it". Or, "Audiophiles can hear differences in cables. I want to be an audiophile, so I want to hear the difference too." Maybe it did make a difference, or maybe you are convincing yourself it is.
Lastly, nobody wants to admit they are tricking themselves, but for some reason we all tend to find that our year old speakers don't sound quite as good as we remember them sounding, and maybe we should start looking for something different. The speakers haven't changed. Your perception of them has.
-
nobody wants to admit they are tricking themselves, but for some reason we all tend to find that our year old speakers don't sound quite as good as we remember them sounding, and maybe we should start looking for something different. The speakers haven't changed. Your perception of them has.
That's the result of a poor speaker. I experienced that with every speaker I ever owned until Danny's NX-Oticas which I listen to at least 2 hours a day on weekdays and many more on the weekends for the past year and it never sounds poor at all. Why, because the designer listened to it to make it sound good while developing it.
-
"Simple example. I sit down and listen to a song I know well, but I haven't heard recently. Cable swap. Listen to the track again. I would absolutely "hear" new things, more detail, etc. Why? I would hear new things without a cable swap. It is simply a function of short term memory and the mind's way of processing information. On the second listen the mind would pay less attention to things it "knows" and try to find new information... so it does. This holds true for anything done more than once. Food sampling, reading, looking at a picture, watching a movie. The more you concentrate on something, the more you absorb its finer properties."
It's for that reason that you should go back to the first cable and listen again. Can you hear the new information from the second cable and see if it's there.
I use a pair of Cardas single male to dual female so I can change back and forth instantly through my pre. I've also gone to listening through my headphones cause it's a lot easier to catch detail.
"Lastly, nobody wants to admit they are tricking themselves, but for some reason we all tend to find that our year old speakers don't sound quite as good as we remember them sounding, and maybe we should start looking for something different. The speakers haven't changed. Your perception of them has."
Or just maybe the connections need cleaning.
Just me
Don
-
Simple example. I sit down and listen to a song I know well, but I haven't heard recently. Cable swap. Listen to the track again. I would absolutely "hear" new things, more detail, etc. Why? I would hear new things without a cable swap. It is simply a function of short term memory and the mind's way of processing information. On the second listen the mind would pay less attention to things it "knows" and try to find new information... so it does. This holds true for anything done more than once. Food sampling, reading, looking at a picture, watching a movie. The more you concentrate on something, the more you absorb its finer properties.
The differences are much more easily heard doing it the other way around. I let people hear the system as is and enjoy and learn what is being brought to the table. Then play an intro a few times and let them really learn it. Then switch the the more generic cable without telling them anything about what I may or may not have switched. Expectation is zero. And they response with, what just happened to the music?
Or I could build up a big expectation that I am about to switch over to the newest latest greatest cable and everything is going to go off the charts. And then switch the generic cable and there is no fooling anyone. When that sound stage falls apart and resolution goes away it's pretty obvious. And it doesn't matter how much they concentrate on it. You can't hear more from something that gives you less.
-
That's the beauty of the naysayer's logic. If they say that cables that measure the same cannot sound different, then they are forced to conclude that amps or DACs that measure the same must also sound the same. So you might as well build your system out of a cheap receiver and zip cord for wire. I mean, if it measures the same, it must sound the same, right?
I think most people here are arguing the opposite. Differences can be measured. A tube amp sounding different than a solid state... if fully evaluated, they will not measure the same. An $80 receiver won't measure the same as a $3000 one. Room acoustics? Tweeter frequency range? Cabinet resonance? Subwoofer speed? Upgraded crossover? Can all be measured.
But not cables... they are special. You can only hear those.
-
I think some of the noise in the debate comes from the type of music used for evaluation. With popular music (rock, hip hop etc.) there is no ground truth to compare to and tastes can differ about what sounds "good." (I note that Amir likes to test with popular music at high volumes.) With classical music there is a ground truth: the live experience, with no amplification.
For cable tests I have used classical music combining vocal and large ensembles (many good recordngs exist). Then you can compare the size and resolution of the soundstage and the timbre of instruments. Human voice and woodwinds are a great test; the reverberation and decay is key part of the timbre.
At the same time, there is no denying that inexpensive systems sound good too. Given the quality of bluetooth speakers costing a few hundred, I can see how for most people they are "good enough." They are probably much better than the bose roommate speakers I had in college and kept for a decade, hooked up to a CD walkman. https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/90EAAOSwxAFfv~tH/s-l300.jpg
-
"Simple example. I sit down and listen to a song I know well, but I haven't heard recently. Cable swap. Listen to the track again. I would absolutely "hear" new things, more detail, etc. Why? I would hear new things without a cable swap. It is simply a function of short term memory and the mind's way of processing information.
That's not how your brain works. Musical memory doesn't function the same way as language memory. Can you remember song lyrics and melodies from 20 years ago? Of course you can. Can a guitarist play a song that he hasn't played in decades? Of course he can. That ain't short term memory.
If music was a function of short term memory, then there would be no audiophiles!!! And we wouldn't be having this cable debate because ummm....what was I saying???
-
The differences are much more easily heard doing it the other way around. I let people hear the system as is and enjoy and learn what is being brought to the table. Then play an intro a few times and let them really learn it. Then switch the the more generic cable without telling them anything about what I may or may not have switched. Expectation is zero. And they response with, what just happened to the music?
Or I could build up a big expectation that I am about to switch over to the newest latest greatest cable and everything is going to go off the charts. And then switch the generic cable and there is no fooling anyone. When that sound stage falls apart and resolution goes away it's pretty obvious. And it doesn't matter how much they concentrate on it. You can't hear more from something that gives you less.
If it is that obvious, it can be recorded.
"You can't hear more from something that gives you less."
Happens all the time. You can certainly hear more from the same, if you want to.
I'm not an expert in A/B testing and psychology, but I do know that it isn't hard to influence people during demonstration.
I would think a good test would be to not tell anyone anything, never show that anything is getting switched, never ask them about any changes and see if anyone notices.
-
If it is that obvious, it can be recorded.
I did that last weekend and pointed you to a whole post I made about it.
-
If it is that obvious, it can be recorded.
No it can't. It's part of a 3d sound field being reproduced in the room. That cannot show up in a recording. Even Audioholics proved that in a video.
-
That's not how your brain works. Musical memory doesn't function the same way as language memory. Can you remember song lyrics and melodies from 20 years ago? Of course you can. Can a guitarist play a song that he hasn't played in decades? Of course he can. That ain't short term memory.
Of course you can remember songs, but every time you listen to it you will "hear" new things, even if you have heard it a thousand times before.
-
No it can't. It's part of a 3d sound field being reproduced in the room. That cannot show up in a recording. Even Audioholics proved that in a video.
Read my earlier responses in this thread. I address this.
-
If it is that obvious, it can be recorded.
If it's so obvious to you, then record cable improvements yourself, post them here, grab some popcorn, and watch the fireworks as both naysayers and audiophiles pile on about how flawed and foolish your experiment is.
-
Of course you can remember songs, but every time you listen to it you will "hear" new things, even if you have heard it a thousand times before.
That's not true at all.
-
I also believe that there is a little bit of ego going on here. If one person says that they can hear something, another will want to be able to hear it as well, and could trick themselves into hearing it. "Listen to how everything opens up as I switch to this cable" "Oh, yeah, I hear it". Or, "Audiophiles can hear differences in cables. I want to be an audiophile, so I want to hear the difference too." Maybe it did make a difference, or maybe you are convincing yourself it is.
I agree with what you're saying theater lover. Part of what you wrote here is called priming, it's a classic concept often used in marketing.
-
If it's so obvious to you, then record cable improvements yourself, post them here, grab some popcorn, and watch the fireworks as both naysayers and audiophiles pile on about how flawed and foolish your experiment is.
I don't know if it is obvious. Danny does.
-
If it's so obvious to you, then record cable improvements yourself, post them here, grab some popcorn, and watch the fireworks as both naysayers and audiophiles pile on about how flawed and foolish your experiment is.
I think the burden of proof falls to Danny (and Amir, and Gene, etc.) at this point. You can't make claims in a video and post it for millions to see and then tell them all to go prove it to themselves.
-
That's not true at all.
It may not be something notable, like a breath or a guitar player bending a note or the third chair violinist plucking a string. Our hearing changes as we age, our understanding of music, our listening environments, our gear, the humidity, an extra pillow on the couch, our mood, how tired we are... it will always be different.
-
I also know that I, like everybody, could trick myself into hearing a difference.
I have been evaluating cables for a couple of months (it's a Covid thing since I don't go out much). The first round included the new Hapa interconnects.
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=173888.0 (https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=173888.0)
The second round includes 3 Zenwave interconnects: the D3, DSR and the latest version of the D4, "a UPOCC silver/gold alloy cable with just enough gold added to achieve proper tone and realistic timbre"
I still have a couple of Hapa cables and there is a lot of cable switching (sometimes too much), listening to the same song multiple times on multiple cables and so on until I get bored and switch to watching a movie. The thing is, overnight I forget which of the 5 cables is being used. I turn on the stereo and tuner, the excellent Sony FDR-X1HD, and try to guess what cable is in the mix, so far I have guessed correctly every time. This morning it was the Zenwave D4.
I happily used the Schiit USB (rebranded Staightwire) for years then switched to a JMaxwell USB (https://www.jmaxwellusb.com/). Once, when I was troubleshooting my music server I switched USB cables from the JMaxwell back to the Schiit, when everything was working again the music still didn't sound right, it was flat with attenuated bass, then I remembered the Schiit was still in the loop, after replacing the USB with the JMaxwell the magic was back. That was a totally blind test and I passed.
The ability to notice cable differences can take a long time and a quick A-B test is not reliable. I took the Hapa cables on a min-tour to friends houses and over an afternoon the differences we heard were minimal and confusing. After my evaluation time was over members in our audiophile group got the cables for an additional 2 week evaluation. They ended up buying the Hapa cables, so did I.
My speaker cables are Kimber, very similar to what Danny is selling. I have listened to other speaker cables and nothing comes close for the money.
-
And for what it's worth, I'm also not saying cables don't make a difference. I'm not against Danny on this, but I'm not gonna just go along with it either, especially when there's large groups and "evidence" piled up on both sides. I know what my own experiences with this are, and they don't match up with some of the over the top claims, which is why I'm asking for something more substantive.
-
EDIT: 15 responses were written while I wrote this, some of which were making the some of the same points I'm trying to make.
tl;dr: We may not have access to the tools to measure what constitutes soundstage, and in the end it's a subjective hobby anyway. Also, you can't prove a negative, that's a fundamental principle of logic.
As much as this circular conversation can be...tiresome, I think there's an important point to make.
Now, I've never owned, nor do I plan to own a system where a $500+ interconnect makes a noticeable difference in soundstage. However, I fully believe that people have experienced a difference. I'm also very new to this stuff, so bear with my relative ignorance.
That said, it sounds to me like this is a "you know it when you hear it" thing that is perhaps a little outside our current ability to measure it.
There are plenty of instances in the scientific world where we haven't been able to prove "what seems right" until we've had access to the means to measure them (higgs boson, neutrinos, gravitational waves, etc). In those cases, it was the math and observation of phenomena that led us to those conclusions and the testing backed it up once we had the tools. I can fully believe that somewhere in the din of sound waves reaching our ears (much of it subconscious) our brains are able to create an auditory picture that our current tools can't measure. Of course, I will admit there are plenty of instances of "what seems right" being dead wrong as well. The point I'm making is that just because we can't currently measure it doesn't mean it's not there, and those digging their heels in on this are venturing into the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative.
Now, does this phenomena tend to lead this industry towards the snake oil realm? Absolutely, and I think it's what turns a lot of people off to the idea of audiophiles. It's crazy to think of people spending that much money on increasingly diminishing returns that at some point venture well into the realm of placebo affect and bias confirmation.
Perhaps at some point down the line we'll have sophisticated enough systems to tease out the differences that our brains are hearing, but the brain has vast processing power that we still don't fully understand. We certainly know what the ear is capable of, but that is the simplest part of our auditory system, and our brains are capable of doing a lot with what seems like minimal sensory input. Our brains constantly fill in missing information in our experiences and memories based on the most trivial sensory cues that could easily get lost in the underlying noise in the data.
So, is there a difference between a $5 power cable and a $500 one? Probably, and I'd be interested to hear what that difference is. What about $500 vs a $5000? Harder to believe and probably harder to hear, but not out of the realm of possibility on a sufficiently revealing system with a trained ear. Are they measurable with the tools available to the average American (or even a highly experienced one)? I don't know.
Finally, if someone fully believes that their $5000 interconnect lets them place the hi hat a little more accurately in a jazz piece that they thoroughly enjoy, then who are we to criticize that? In the end, this is a subjective hobby. If you don't feel they will make a difference for you, don't buy it.
-
JWCoffman,
Totally agree with you. That point of diminishing returns is exactly why I recommend spending the most time/effort on getting the very best speakers you can because that's where the biggest bang for the buck is. Then build the system around your speakers (amps and DAC). And only at the very end of it worry about cables. Because cables make a difference but it's a much smaller difference than any other component in the system.
Actually that's not quite true. IMO, the BIGGEST bang for the buck is doing room treatments along with placing your speakers well away from walls. Room treatments are fairly inexpensive, especially if you DIY them. And speaker placement is free! Can't get any better bang for your buck than that.
-
Actually that's not quite true. IMO, the BIGGEST bang for the buck is doing room treatments along with placing your speakers well away from walls. Room treatments are fairly inexpensive, especially if you DIY them. And speaker placement is free! Can't get any better bang for your buck than that.
[/quote]
Tyson, I think you nailed it.
-
It really comes down to how much you care about what you hear and how much money and effort you want to put into it. Most people don’t care about high fidelity. If you’re not going to bother making your playback system sound as good as possible then don’t bother with fancy cables. It’s that simple.
-
It really comes down to how much you care about what you hear and how much money and effort you want to put into it. Most people don’t care about high fidelity. If you’re not going to bother making your playback system sound as good as possible then don’t bother with fancy cables. It’s that simple.
There also comes a point beyond which no matter how much difference you hear, you can't go there because your funds aren't unlimited. But then this holds true for everything unless you're one of the few that do have unlimited funds. I can either be jealous of those who can afford things I can't, cry sour grapes, or be happy with what I can have.
Would I like to have the next level up for my interconnects, Douglas Connection Alpha series vs the Bravo series I have? Yes I would. I've heard the Alpha series interconnects in my system and preferred them over the Bravos but I can't afford the Alphas so I will keep, and be happy with, the Bravos.
-
Wow, I can't believe there is already 8 pages of thoughts, opinion, debate, doubts and convictions stirring on this forum before danny has even finished this cable series LOL. Personally, I would love to see what he covers by the final video. Judging by his YouTube responses it feels like he's only got warmed up. No matter how compelling their objection is he usually just says "stay tuned." If his finale is anything like his earlier cable video from months ago he'll demonstrate his arguments and give everyone something finite to really chew on. I don't have any expectations since I have no bets on either side of the big debate on cables. :nono: All I can do is judge for myself what I hear or don't hear when I try different cables in my system (once it's finished). If anyone is in Texas they can go over to Danny's and obviously hear what he's been saying and judge for themselves. Just interesting to see how serious everyone takes it. It's truly admirable on one end....at times corrosive and divisive also, but heck it's sure interesting to see the 2 teams of thought. Who will win before all is said and done? " Stay tuned!" :wink:
-
I have never said cables can't make a difference, that isn't my argument at all.
I'm simply saying that if I heard a difference I know I could record some of that difference, if it were real, and to rule out that possibility means that you don't want to find out if it is real. Secondly, one perspective is ruling out the validity of the other's tests because they don't subscribe to their subjective experience, and then (half jokingly) calling them flat earthers... when it is really they who should be given the nickname because they only believe what they observe.
I also know that I, like everybody, could trick myself into hearing a difference.
Simple example. I sit down and listen to a song I know well, but I haven't heard recently. Cable swap. Listen to the track again. I would absolutely "hear" new things, more detail, etc. Why? I would hear new things without a cable swap. It is simply a function of short term memory and the mind's way of processing information. On the second listen the mind would pay less attention to things it "knows" and try to find new information... so it does. This holds true for anything done more than once. Food sampling, reading, looking at a picture, watching a movie. The more you concentrate on something, the more you absorb its finer properties.
Now, add to that any bias on my end to want a new cable to sound better. If I am swapping parts of a system out it is because I want it to sound better. There is inherent motivation for me to like the new thing more, and we all know we are guilty of choosing the new and shiny thing because it is new and shiny.
I also believe that there is a little bit of ego going on here. If one person says that they can hear something, another will want to be able to hear it as well, and could trick themselves into hearing it. "Listen to how everything opens up as I switch to this cable" "Oh, yeah, I hear it". Or, "Audiophiles can hear differences in cables. I want to be an audiophile, so I want to hear the difference too." Maybe it did make a difference, or maybe you are convincing yourself it is.
Lastly, nobody wants to admit they are tricking themselves, but for some reason we all tend to find that our year old speakers don't sound quite as good as we remember them sounding, and maybe we should start looking for something different. The speakers haven't changed. Your perception of them has.
Your logic and caution are sound. Fooling ourselves is very easy. I think I did that too, back in the beginning, and it wasn't limited to cables, it included other components as well. I think what was happening was that in the back of my mind I was saying something along the lines of "well this DAC cost 2X how much my last DAC cost, so it MUST be better". Sometimes that was true about the new component, but sometimes it wasn't. The times where it wasn't true (ie, things got worse), I'd notice over time that I was listening to music less often. And enjoying music less. So I learned that snap judgements are not to be trusted. That was an expensive lesson!
Nowadays, I put something in my system and I live with it for a while before I decide if I'm going to keep it or not. I've also noticed that price is not always correlated with performance. This includes cables too. I recently had some cables in my system that cost 3x what my current cables cost. And it turns out I really disliked them. So out they went, and the extra $$ just stayed in my pocket.
This is a long, rambling way of saying that if you notice that EVERY TIME you try out a more expensive cable, that you prefer it, and there's NEVER a time were you don't, then there's a good chance you are fooling yourself. On the other hand, if you have times where you actually don't like the change, then you are far less likely to be fooling yourself. Especially if you allow yourself to live with the change over time. Snap judgements are (IME), not very reliable.
-
Any which way you believe about cables, all of this is about pursuing something that is unobtainable. There are limitations and flaws throughout the entire process of audio presentation.
At some point you have to be happy with what you have.
If you can't, and money is burning a hole in your pocket, give it to charity.
You still won't be happy about your system, but maybe you will feel better by helping someone else.
-
Sometimes that was true about the new component, but sometimes it wasn't. The times where it wasn't true (ie, things got worse), I'd notice over time that I was listening to music less often. And enjoying music less. So I learned that snap judgements are not to be trusted. That was an expensive lesson!
Nowadays, I put something in my system and I live with it for a while before I decide if I'm going to keep it or not. I've also noticed that price is not always correlated with performance. This includes cables too. I recently had some cables in my system that cost 3x what my current cables cost. And it turns out I really disliked them. So out they went, and the extra $$ just stayed in my pocket.
This is a long, rambling way of saying that if you notice that EVERY TIME you try out a more expensive cable, that you prefer it, and there's NEVER a time were you don't, then there's a good chance you are fooling yourself. On the other hand, if you have times where you actually don't like the change, then you are far less likely to be fooling yourself. Especially if you allow yourself to live with the change over time. Snap judgements are (IME), not very reliable.
These have happened to me too. I’ve tried multiple times with cables and components and tweaks. I’ve ridden that audiophile merry go round for years. I spent a lot of money on things that didn’t pan out.
“Listening to music less.” Bingo! That’s exactly how it feels when my stereo isn’t working. And it’s the exact opposite when it is. I have to tear myself away from my stereo even while listening to music I should be tired of by now.
My most recent purchase that’s added to my enjoyment is the Schiit Modi Multibit dac. It is a freaking steal at $250 and makes me want to save up for their bigger dac. Last fall I tried out Iconoclast BAV rca interconnects and immediately heard a difference over my homemade and Kimber PBJ interconnects. I ended up replacing all of the interconnects in my main rig with them. I’d love to try the Iconoclast cables too but right now I’m happy with what I have. And that’s the point, right?
-
Any which way you believe about cables, all of this is about pursuing something that is unobtainable. There are limitations and flaws throughout the entire process of audio presentation.
At some point you have to be happy with what you have.
If you can't, and money is burning a hole in your pocket, give it to charity.
You still won't be happy about your system, but maybe you will feel better by helping someone else.
You're absolutely right. Speaking for myself, one nice thing about having gone to RMAF for the past 12 years is I've gotten to hear some of the very best gear in the world, year after year after year. And what I learned very quickly is that there is an upper limit to how good hifi can actually get.
Which is nice, because now I have a solid reference for any other speakers/electronics/wire that I put into my system. I can say that you can get 80% of the way there for a moderate investment and you can get 90% there with a much more substantial investment. To get 100% there requires stupid money. Money that I, personally, am not willing to spend.
And that's why I initially started to DIY stuff. I realized I could get to the 90% level of performance for less than the cost of the 80% retail gear.
-
Tyson,
What is your dollar definition of moderate investment?
-
Tyson,
What is your dollar definition of moderate investment?
Retail? $10k gets you to the 80% mark, if you shop wisely. $20k gets you to the 90% level. And $100k gets you as good as it gets you to the 100%, at least IME. That's retail. If you're willing to DIY or buy used, you can cut those price points in half.
-
I am watching Danny’s videos, I’m very interested! I do have a question. In my rack I have a Furman power sequencer model PS-8R series II. Would it be beneficial to upgrade the power inlet cord to the Furman and make short power cords for my preamp and peripheral devices? I am just thinking ahead not planning on anything immediately. Seems to me the power amps and preamp are first concern for power cord upgrades!
Thanks
Barry
-
Just in case the magic power cable is not good enough...
https://youtu.be/XJJy6VJvSCk
-
I bought a pair of Danny’s garage sale power cords, very happy with the quality. Too soon to evaluate the sound difference! I also purchased a speaker cable kit, very nice cable, I can’t wait til the weekend when I can work on them!
Barry
-
Just in case the magic power cable is not good enough...
https://youtu.be/XJJy6VJvSCk
A more realistic solution for most people are power regenerators like those by PS Audio https://www.psaudio.com/product-category/power-regenerators/
Or going off grid like Danny's system.
-
Wow those guys are dedicated for sure!