steve_1979
Well-known member
Another thing to bare in mind is that if there's any EM interference then you may need to use shielded cables. This is more likely to be a problem for interconnects rather than speaker cables though.
Pete68 said:steve_1979 said:Good analogue cables don't add any noticable distortion so they will all sound the same because they can't make the original signal any better than it already is.
Bad cables that do add phase distortion can make it worse though and I suspect this is what often gets mistaken for an 'improvement' with some of the overpriced audiophile cables.
This hits the nail on the head for me.
Poor cables can hold a system back and good cables will let the signal pass through without fuss or colouration.
So...what consitutes a good cable?
Thompsonuxb said:Whats ironic about these topics is the whole concept of stereo reproduction is based on illiusion
Thompsonuxb said:TRUST YOUR EARS ........!!
Thompsonuxb said:TRUST YOUR EARS ........!!
Thompsonuxb said:Lol.... so what is being said in this thread, there is no such thing as 'burn in' or 'running in' of electrical components/conducters. That any differences heard is an illusion, the ears cannot be trusted, or getting used to...... why do some people even get out of bed? So for the record none of you have heard your kit improved over time (you just got use to it). - and since this kinda boils down to the cable argument all cables sound the same? Do any of you remember that experiment in physics with the metal dust/shreds on a piece of paper and magnets, getting all the individual strands to line up or creating patterns of the magnetic field - it had something to do with the way conducters work and was related to electrical flow (which is related to real world applications) or something like that .... any of you remember and you belittle others education.... head so far up your own ---- (fill in the blank) come to mind. TRUST YOUR EARS ........!! The differences heard are real be it burn in, tempreture, direction of electrons or what ever. Whats ironic about these topics is the whole concept of stereo reproduction is based on illiusion - if 250years ago any of you presented 2 wooden boxes placed a couple of metres apart and generated a 3d audio image between and around them you would have been burnt at the stake
Pete68 said:steve_1979 said:Good analogue cables don't add any noticable distortion so they will all sound the same because they can't make the original signal any better than it already is.
Bad cables that do add phase distortion can make it worse though and I suspect this is what often gets mistaken for an 'improvement' with some of the overpriced audiophile cables.
This hits the nail on the head for me.
Poor cables can hold a system back and good cables will let the signal pass through without fuss or colouration.
So...what consitutes a good cable?
pauln said:Thompsonuxb said:TRUST YOUR EARS ........!!
But what a phool believes ... he hears
No wise man has the power to reason away
- With apologies to The Doobie Brothers
busb said:Thompsonuxb said:Lol.... so what is being said in this thread, there is no such thing as 'burn in' or 'running in' of electrical components/conducters. That any differences heard is an illusion, the ears cannot be trusted, or getting used to...... why do some people even get out of bed? So for the record none of you have heard your kit improved over time (you just got use to it). - and since this kinda boils down to the cable argument all cables sound the same? Do any of you remember that experiment in physics with the metal dust/shreds on a piece of paper and magnets, getting all the individual strands to line up or creating patterns of the magnetic field - it had something to do with the way conducters work and was related to electrical flow (which is related to real world applications) or something like that .... any of you remember and you belittle others education.... head so far up your own ---- (fill in the blank) come to mind. TRUST YOUR EARS ........!! The differences heard are real be it burn in, tempreture, direction of electrons or what ever. Whats ironic about these topics is the whole concept of stereo reproduction is based on illiusion - if 250years ago any of you presented 2 wooden boxes placed a couple of metres apart and generated a 3d audio image between and around them you would have been burnt at the stake
No doubt you've seen those line drawings of optical illusions - they are fairly entertaining & give a glimse into the inner workings of how we process data. At the minimum they show that things are not quite as simple as expected. From this example, I'd suggest that ALL our senses can be fooled to some degree including hearing. Consider a noisy party where many are talking yet we are able to somehow block out much of the extraneous sounds & hold a conversation. Not an example of fooling as such but illustrates the complexities involved.
Most of our perceptions happen not with our sense organs but in our brain where a great deal of filtering of uneeded data allows us to make out our surroundings pretty efficiently. I used to think that my hearing was consistent & the idea it could be fooled - impossible, I now know this is not the case. Many changes we hear are generally pretty subtle - it's not as though we are talking about going from not being able to understand speech to be able to understand it. Reality is experienced as a heavily filtered time-delayed illusion & a damned clever one at that! It feels so real.
I'm far from being an objectivist - if was, I would have spent a fraction on Hi Fi equipment but having a technical background does mean a degree of understanding of was is probable & what isn't. This allows me to concentrate on proven concepts before exploring the more left-field ones without dismissing them utterly as some seem to. Ultimately, it's my ears I listen with. Looking at measured data is a chore, not a pleasure, despite understanding much of that data & knowing how it was obtained. It's not as though looking through measurements gives much of an insight on how something will sound - not to me anyway. I invite you to rethink the idea that your hearing can't be fooled - I say if it wasn't capable of being fooled, music would be meaningless.
Thompsonuxb said:To expand you listen to your system (its fixed) one track - you notice a triangle left of centre its clarity striking, you hear a hand clap outside of the right speaker only, it sounds like a hand clap - you change nothing more than a cable suddenly that triangle does not sound so sharp, the hand clap sounds more like a slap on a table, distinctly different than what you heard a few moments before....you must dismis that down to your ears fooling you?....seriously?
People accept it, have faith in your ability to differentiate changes in sound....... it does not make you a wizard or a witch and no one will be knocking at your door to burn you at the stake.
Thompsonuxb said:pauln said:Thompsonuxb said:TRUST YOUR EARS ........!!
But what a phool believes ... he hears
No wise man has the power to reason away
- With apologies to The Doobie Brothers
and the ignorant just try to hide their ignorance with really really weak sarcasm...no its not even that, I have challenged you and others to prove my points and have also been willing to make a wager. Wise men....prrrft!
Thompsonuxb said:and the ignorant just try to hide their ignorance with really really weak sarcasm...no its not even that, I have challenged you and others to prove my points and have also been willing to make a wager. Wise men....prrrft!
Thompsonuxb said:busb said:Thompsonuxb said:Lol.... so what is being said in this thread, there is no such thing as 'burn in' or 'running in' of electrical components/conducters. That any differences heard is an illusion, the ears cannot be trusted, or getting used to...... why do some people even get out of bed? So for the record none of you have heard your kit improved over time (you just got use to it). - and since this kinda boils down to the cable argument all cables sound the same? Do any of you remember that experiment in physics with the metal dust/shreds on a piece of paper and magnets, getting all the individual strands to line up or creating patterns of the magnetic field - it had something to do with the way conducters work and was related to electrical flow (which is related to real world applications) or something like that .... any of you remember and you belittle others education.... head so far up your own ---- (fill in the blank) come to mind. TRUST YOUR EARS ........!! The differences heard are real be it burn in, tempreture, direction of electrons or what ever. Whats ironic about these topics is the whole concept of stereo reproduction is based on illiusion - if 250years ago any of you presented 2 wooden boxes placed a couple of metres apart and generated a 3d audio image between and around them you would have been burnt at the stake
No doubt you've seen those line drawings of optical illusions - they are fairly entertaining & give a glimse into the inner workings of how we process data. At the minimum they show that things are not quite as simple as expected. From this example, I'd suggest that ALL our senses can be fooled to some degree including hearing. Consider a noisy party where many are talking yet we are able to somehow block out much of the extraneous sounds & hold a conversation. Not an example of fooling as such but illustrates the complexities involved.
Most of our perceptions happen not with our sense organs but in our brain where a great deal of filtering of uneeded data allows us to make out our surroundings pretty efficiently. I used to think that my hearing was consistent & the idea it could be fooled - impossible, I now know this is not the case. Many changes we hear are generally pretty subtle - it's not as though we are talking about going from not being able to understand speech to be able to understand it. Reality is experienced as a heavily filtered time-delayed illusion & a damned clever one at that! It feels so real.
I'm far from being an objectivist - if was, I would have spent a fraction on Hi Fi equipment but having a technical background does mean a degree of understanding of was is probable & what isn't. This allows me to concentrate on proven concepts before exploring the more left-field ones without dismissing them utterly as some seem to. Ultimately, it's my ears I listen with. Looking at measured data is a chore, not a pleasure, despite understanding much of that data & knowing how it was obtained. It's not as though looking through measurements gives much of an insight on how something will sound - not to me anyway. I invite you to rethink the idea that your hearing can't be fooled - I say if it wasn't capable of being fooled, music would be meaningless.
busb, I read you - but consider this - you have a system on it you play the same track over and over again - as the system warms the sound changes, subtle changes maybe. But from cold you hear the bass becoming fuller, vocals more projected instruments becoming more realistic with a fuller tone. Are we to believe this is not real, we the listener are only fooling ourselves - creating our own illusions.
That maybe we are just getting into the music or is the reality that performance does change and the system does change the presentation of the music its playing as it gets to its optimum tempreture?
Maybe it depends on the quality of your speakers - maybe with poorly designed speakers you really cannot hear any difference or maybe the listener really needs to get a match and give his/her ears a clean.
To expand you listen to your system (its fixed) one track - you notice a triangle left of centre its clarity striking, you hear a hand clap outside of the right speaker only, it sounds like a hand clap - you change nothing more than a cable suddenly that triangle does not sound so sharp, the hand clap sounds more like a slap on a table, distinctly different than what you heard a few moments before....you must dismis that down to your ears fooling you?....seriously?
People accept it, have faith in your ability to differentiate changes in sound....... it does not make you a wizard or a witch and no one will be knocking at your door to burn you at the stake.
Thompsonuxb said:Pete68 said:steve_1979 said:Good analogue cables don't add any noticable distortion so they will all sound the same because they can't make the original signal any better than it already is.
Bad cables that do add phase distortion can make it worse though and I suspect this is what often gets mistaken for an 'improvement' with some of the overpriced audiophile cables.
This hits the nail on the head for me.
Poor cables can hold a system back and good cables will let the signal pass through without fuss or colouration.
So...what consitutes a good cable?
Thats the thing, is it cost or construction?
andyjm said:As for 'Trust your ears', human perception is extremely unreliable, and subject to all kinds of bias. The last thing to do is trust your ears, they really are not trustworthy. Have a google around on the extreme lengths that go into reliable human testing - double blind being a good example.
andyjm said:It is also noticeable that when tests are conducted to remove bias (ABX or similar) most of the differences disappear. One can only guess why the HiFi press shy away from such testing.
matt49 said:andyjm said:As for 'Trust your ears', human perception is extremely unreliable, and subject to all kinds of bias. The last thing to do is trust your ears, they really are not trustworthy. Have a google around on the extreme lengths that go into reliable human testing - double blind being a good example.
In the interests of balance it's worth pointing out that your hearing is both less consistent than you think and also more sensitive than you think. Our ability to pick up seemingly inaudible sound is remarkable.
andyjm said:It is also noticeable that when tests are conducted to remove bias (ABX or similar) most of the differences disappear. One can only guess why the HiFi press shy away from such testing.
One can certainly speculate on why the hi-fi press doesn't do (much) blind testing. But I can give you one good reason, and it's the same reason why drug companies do as little blind testing as the regulatory authorities will let them get away with: scientifically robust blind testing is time-consuming and expensive.
Matt
TrevC said:matt49 said:scientifically robust blind testing is time-consuming and expensive.
http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
matt49 said:I expressed myself quite carefully: "scientifically robust blind testing". Without knowing more about how these tests were conducted, it's impossible to say how robust they were. Judging by the pictures, the Spanish test looks pretty amateurish. Certainly it wouldn't be publishable in any of the psychology journals I'm familiar with.
matt49 said:TrevC said:matt49 said:scientifically robust blind testing is time-consuming and expensive.
http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
I expressed myself quite carefully: "scientifically robust blind testing". Without knowing more about how these tests were conducted, it's impossible to say how robust they were. Judging by the pictures, the Spanish test looks pretty amateurish. Certainly it wouldn't be publishable in any of the psychology journals I'm familiar with.
Ben K. said:I don't want to get involved in these endless debates on whether cables can or can't make a difference but I can't help but wonder why people keep referring to science? I'm a biologist which does not qualify me to comment either way in this debate however I have yet to see someone produce an article that has been published in a scientific journal supporting either side of the argument. Links to websites and things found on google are not credible in the world of science I'm afraid. I know some people are in engineering and I respect your views from that point of view but could other people stop referring to science unless they can produce published articles.
Ben K. said:I don't want to get involved in these endless debates on whether cables can or can't make a difference but I can't help but wonder why people keep referring to science? I'm a biologist which does not qualify me to comment either way in this debate however I have yet to see someone produce an article that has been published in a scientific journal supporting either side of the argument. Links to websites and things found on google are not credible in the world of science I'm afraid. I know some people are in engineering and I respect your views from that point of view but could other people stop referring to science unless they can produce published articles.
TrevC said:For speakers, thick conductors work best.. Lots of strands make it flexible.
The phase distortion stuff is more balderdash!