[theater_lover]

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.

[theater_lover]

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.

[77SunsetStrip]

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. 

[Danny Richie]

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.

[theater_lover]

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.

[Edgar77]

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.

[Hobbsmeerkat]

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.

[theater_lover]

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?

[corndog71]

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.

[Edgar77]

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.

[77SunsetStrip]

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.

[Edgar77]

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?

[Hobbsmeerkat]

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.

[sarora9]

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.

[Danny Richie]

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.

[JTF]

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.

[77SunsetStrip]

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. 

[JTF]

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.

[Danny Richie]

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.  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. 

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.

[theater_lover]

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?