Correct wiring of jumper cables

[BenLaw]

I'll say it again...it is all subject and down to what ONE hears on ONES system. I can hear a difference on mine...but may not be able to hear the same or any on yours (if I could egt a listen to it).

Best approach is to try it and see; asymmetric connection costs nothing to try/you can get a set of four jumpers on e@&# for between £10 - £25 (the higher cositng one seem to be the much spoken about TQ Blue BTW)...so if one wants to try it one can. Simples.

Hi,

OK - so the changes on this forum that i have read - obviously i could not read all.

1. Change in cable

2. Change in speaker jumpers from plate to wire

3. Change in mains cable - or gold plated connections.

4. Change in speaker cable connection orientation on speaker terminals (this thread)

5. In another forum - and publication - the rubber feet on a DAC changed to affect the sound

6. Fuse in plug changed to a "better" ??? fuse to improve the sound.

So individually all these changes are stated to change the sound.

Some specific people have made a selection of the changes listed above.

If each has a significant or appreciable effect to change the sound to be better, then the collection of the changes (which some people have applied) must improve the sound considerably - since each change has a significant or appreciable change on their own.

So the current system must sound very different and much better to the original setup ?

Or is it, that each small change made does not actually affect the sound, but you think it does ?

Do those people who made each change actually think about what they have done up to this point, if they have applied many of the changes above individually ?

Is the sound so much better than before any changes ?

Or is it you have made each change, and confirmed to yourself that each change was for the better, without realising that if taken as a whole - your system really does not sound any different than it did before ALL the changes ?

To quote a person on another forum - audio is the only area where people throw out the physics rule book.

Regards,

Shadders.

Is anyone going to answer this point about aggregating changes? Given that some people describe night and day changes when changing cables, there must be massive differences in sound when three or four of these changes take place. Is this right?

 

[BenLaw]

I was in exactly the same position when listening to both plug setups. How do I know this? Because I was in the same chair with my head back against the headrest and I had not moved the chair or the headrest. And so was my OH when she blind tested the change (after having first noticed it with no prompting from em or information that I had changed anything (she was out shopping whilst I was playing and I had finished by the time she got back).

You're one of many, recently and historically, to cite partner's ability to spot these 'obvious' changes. Thing is, no-one's ever done it in controlled conditions. So either people are blessed with remarkable golden-eared partners or they're getting subconscious cues. I know which I think is more likely.

 

[Baldrick1]

I was in exactly the same position when listening to both plug setups. How do I know this? Because I was in the same chair with my head back against the headrest and I had not moved the chair or the headrest. And so was my OH when she blind tested the change (after having first noticed it with no prompting from em or information that I had changed anything (she was out shopping whilst I was playing and I had finished by the time she got back).

You're one of many, recently and historically, to cite partner's ability to spot these 'obvious' changes. Thing is, no-one's ever done it in controlled conditions. So either people are blessed with remarkable golden-eared partners or they're getting subconscious cues. I know which I think is more likely.

IMHO that is irrelevant and almost on a par, re. its conjecture, what the doubters as conjecture by those who expouse the benefits of the change.

As I have said before...we who believe in the benefits of this change are just informing of what we believe we have found so that others (who want to, and who have an open mind) can try this and see if it has the same effect for them...or not as the case may be. And then decide for themselves.

Do not understand why the above is not understood, for what it is (as stated) and generates so much derision? What is suggested is non destructive/costs no money and is easily tried...and no one is forced to try and/or to adopt. :?

 

[Baldrick1]

...some people describe night and day changes when changing cables...

Do not know where you get that idea from...and perhaps that explains why you have had no answers to your 'supposition'?

I think that most people commenting seem to suggest the changes as noticable/apparent and certainly from my experience that tends to be the case although I would terms them 'subtle' and 'discernable'.

 

[shadders]

...some people describe night and day changes when changing cables...

Do not know where you get that idea from...and perhaps that explains why you have had no answers to your 'supposition'?

I think that most people commenting seem to suggest the changes as noticable/apparent and certainly from my experience that tends to be the case although I would terms them 'subtle' and 'discernable'.

Hi,

Here is a quote from the early pages of the thread :

The sound has improved noticeably, with more clarity, better bass and a bigger soundstage, no idea why it works but I am now rediscovering all my music again.

People are claiming a substantial change.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Baldrick1]

The sound has improved noticeably, with more clarity, better bass and a bigger soundstage, no idea why it works but I am now rediscovering all my music again.

People are claiming a substantial change.

Regards,

Shadders.

To me that is not substantial merely noticeable. In my book substantial would be going from a £500 to a £1K+,. Now that could be termed 'night & day' in terms of difference.

 

[BenLaw]

I was in exactly the same position when listening to both plug setups. How do I know this? Because I was in the same chair with my head back against the headrest and I had not moved the chair or the headrest. And so was my OH when she blind tested the change (after having first noticed it with no prompting from em or information that I had changed anything (she was out shopping whilst I was playing and I had finished by the time she got back).

You're one of many, recently and historically, to cite partner's ability to spot these 'obvious' changes. Thing is, no-one's ever done it in controlled conditions. So either people are blessed with remarkable golden-eared partners or they're getting subconscious cues. I know which I think is more likely.

IMHO that is irrelevant and almost on a par, re. its conjecture, what the doubters as conjecture by those who expouse the benefits of the change.

It's not conjecture. People do give off cues, that is the whole reason why DBTs are necessary. And those in intimate relationships are no doubt better than most at picking up on these cues. In any particular case where I don't know precisely what happened I don't state anything as 100%. But I stand by saying that it is far, far more likely that your partner picked up on cues (if she perceived a difference at all) than that she has golden ears beyond all those who have failed in DBTs before.

As I have said before...we who believe in the benefits of this change are just informing of what we believe we have found so that others (who want to, and who have an open mind) can try this and see if it has the same effect for them...or not as the case may be. And then decide for themselves.

Do not understand why the above is not understood, for what it is (as stated) and generates so much derision? What is suggested is non destructive/costs no money and is easily tried...and no one is forced to try and/or to adopt. :?

And I don't see why people get so riled by someone like me posting a bit of balance to these anti-science, subjective observations. I agree that these observations are less harmful than many, in that they are free and do not line the pocket of cable makers etc. However, they do perpetuate the anti-science mythology of a hardcore of hifi enthusiasts, which misguides some, and leads to general ridicule.

Fwiw, I've used fairly expensive cables, experimented with jumpers and with which binding posts I use and found no effect at all.

 

[BenLaw]

...some people describe night and day changes when changing cables...

Do not know where you get that idea from...and perhaps that explains why you have had no answers to your 'supposition'?

I think that most people commenting seem to suggest the changes as noticable/apparent and certainly from my experience that tends to be the case although I would terms them 'subtle' and 'discernable'.

I wasn't particularly referring to this thread, soryy if that wasn't clear. I don't think anyone has used the phrase night and day on this thread, but it is used very commonly for many if not all of the tweaks that Shadders described. I didn't expect anyone to conisder that each of these tweaks would be a night and day difference. But the aggregation point is still a valid one. If each of these changes makes a noticeable / significant change, just how far away is the sound from where it started when these matters are cumulative? It wasn't a 'supposition' (and it wasn't mine anyway) but it seems a very valid question to me. It also seems straightforward, surely someone can provide an answer? You've been playing with mains cables as well haven't you? And jumpers? What's the answer from your perspective?

 

[Baldrick1]

Disagree that your posts are 'a bit of balance'...seem more like a one-side crusade...judging by the intricacy & detail of the information you provide (but IMHO is no more valid than another information or view that has been contributed to this thread)...but then again...it is a free world and free speech rules.

So we just have to accept that the doubters doubt and the followers are a happy bunch...having got an improvement in their sound for nothing (as far as they are concerned...and finally that is all that matters).

See you around...perhaps on some less contentious (to some) topic or other.

 

[CnoEvil]

Fwiw, I've used fairly expensive cables, experimented with jumpers and with which binding posts I use and found no effect at all.

Ben, what have you tried in the past in the way of m/c, s/c and i/c......and was it with your current kit?

 

[busb]

Anyway - it was a dusk & dawn difference when I changed from plates to jumpers!

 

[BenLaw]

Fwiw, I've used fairly expensive cables, experimented with jumpers and with which binding posts I use and found no effect at all.

Ben, what have you tried in the past in the way of m/c, s/c and i/c......and was it with your current kit?

The most expensive S/C was Ecosse MS2.4, I/C Ecosse The Symphony. I never really bothered with M/C save for one I bought S/H from a forum member, the consituent parts of which I can't now remember but had cannibalised internal silver from something, shielding from something else and an expensive plug, I think furutech. I still have this for convenience sake, but don't find it makes a difference on any components. All with my current kit.

 

[BenLaw]

Disagree that your posts are 'a bit of balance'...seem more like a one-side crusade...judging by the intricacy & detail of the information you provide (but IMHO is no more valid than another information or view that has been contributed to this thread)...but then again...it is a free world and free speech rules.

I wasn't aware that either intricacy or detail made a view a crusade. Actually, they don't.

However calmly or patiently people post about the lack of scientific vindication for all of these tweaks, they always get accused of a variety of things, including degenerating a thread into a 'cable debate'. IMO it is only fair to someone who may google a forum thread such as this that they are aware of these points. They can then do their own research and make up their own mind.

So we just have to accept that the doubters doubt and the followers are a happy bunch...having got an improvement in their sound for nothing (as far as they are concerned...and finally that is all that matters).

You miss out an important third group, which is those who used to experiment with cables etc and have come to realise the folly of this approach and the money that has been lost. These people have come to their views based on experience, fortified by all of the objective material out there. There are several such members on this forum and many more elsewhere.

See you around...perhaps on some less contentious (to some) topic or other.

Sure

 

[CnoEvil]

The most expensive S/C was Ecosse MS2.4, I/C Ecosse The Symphony. I never really bothered with M/C save for one I bought S/H from a forum member, the consituent parts of which I can't now remember but had cannibalised internal silver from something, shielding from something else and an expensive plug, I think furutech. I still have this for convenience sake, but don't find it makes a difference on any components. All with my current kit.

Thank you.

I haven't heard the Ecosse, so can't comment one way or another........but think it's a shame that one experience from one cable company is enough to form a concrete opinion. I know you will answer that science is on your side and so further experimentation is simply a waste of time......though I am fairly certain that there are scientific principles that can (or will in the future) explain why so many people hear a difference (aside from expectation bias).

I have rejected more of these types of things than I've accepted, and if it was down solely to expectation bias, I would have gone with the more expensive solution, which has not proved the case.

You know my position on this, and I yours.........so I will not waste the time of either of us with further fruitless debate.

:cheers:

 

[BenLaw]

Thank you.

I haven't heard the Ecosse, so can't comment one way or another........but think it's a shame that one experience from one cable company is enough to form a concrete opinion.

These are not the only cables I've listened to, although they are the only ones at that elevated price. I have listened to several others at more modest pricing, and heard no differences.

I know you will answer that science is on your side and so further experimentation is simply a waste of time......though I am fairly certain that there are scientific principles that can (or will in the future) explain why so many people hear a difference (aside from expectation bias).

The science behind cables is well known and of extremely long standing. Steve's lengthy recent thread opened with the fact that there can indeed be differences in cables. In particular, flat cables may well sound different, although on a technica level they would be inferior. As far as I am concerned, my generic multi-strand copper cables are state of the art, and allow 'information' through as well as any other cable could hope to. The I/Cs I use are of the type used in studios; that is good enough for me. Your hope to me seems vain and pretty bizarre.

IMO (as everyone will agree is the one that is important in this context) my system sounds mind-blowingly good. I have neither the time nor the inclination to conduct any further cable experiments.

I have rejected more of these types of things than I've accepted, and if it was down solely to expectation bias, I would have gone with the more expensive solution, which has not proved the case.

I read this a lot. It's a lot more complex than that. Although your recent comments on the cable test article you linked to do show that you consider there to be a strong correlation between cost and quality. (Amongst other things, you referred to the most expensive cable as the 'best' cable.)

You know my position on this, and I yours.........so I will not waste the time of either of us with further fruitless debate.

Indeed. I don't post to try and convince you. But just as you say you post to get someone to go and listen for themselves, I post to get someone to think for themselves

 

[CnoEvil]

But just as you say you post to get someone to go and listen for themselves, I post to get someone to think for themselves

So do I.

Where there are two completely opposing approaches, listening for themselves is the only way........and I wholly agree with thinking for themselves, which is why I never take a dogmatic, absolutist approach.

 

[Baldrick1]

You know my position on this, and I yours.........so I will not waste the time of either of us with further fruitless debate.

:cheers:

+1

 

[Vizzage]

But just as you say you post to get someone to go and listen for themselves, I post to get someone to think for themselves

So do I.

Where there are two completely opposing approaches, listening for themselves is the only way........and I wholly agree with thinking for themselves, which is why I never take a dogmatic, absolutist approach.

what, absolutely never ever?? ;-)

 

[CnoEvil]

what, absolutely never ever?? ;-)

:silenced: :shifty:

 

[shadders]

The sound has improved noticeably, with more clarity, better bass and a bigger soundstage, no idea why it works but I am now rediscovering all my music again.

People are claiming a substantial change.

Regards,

Shadders.

To me that is not substantial merely noticeable. In my book substantial would be going from a £500 to a £1K+,. Now that could be termed 'night & day' in terms of difference.

Hi,

I believe that the poster is stating a substantial change - better bass, more clarity - surely this is a substantial change. They have not used the word slightly better, or descriptive words such as this. So for that person, the change was quite significant.

Given that you have stated £500 to a £1k+ system change - how does money assure improvement.

I was going to purchase a CD player in the early 1990's - one auditioned was a philips player modifed with a different op-amp and different transformer. The philips cost approx £200, and the modified player £600 - just for an op-amp and transformer change. Hence - money does not guarantee improvement.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

I was in exactly the same position when listening to both plug setups. How do I know this? Because I was in the same chair with my head back against the headrest and I had not moved the chair or the headrest. And so was my OH when she blind tested the change (after having first noticed it with no prompting from em or information that I had changed anything (she was out shopping whilst I was playing and I had finished by the time she got back).

You're one of many, recently and historically, to cite partner's ability to spot these 'obvious' changes. Thing is, no-one's ever done it in controlled conditions. So either people are blessed with remarkable golden-eared partners or they're getting subconscious cues. I know which I think is more likely.

Hi,

There do seem to be two different groups - people who can hear the change, and people who cannot hear the change.

Science in this area of circuit theory etc., has been documented for 2 centuries at the earliest investigations.

For those that hear a change - there are two possibilities.

1. There is a change

2. That the person is succumbing to the palcebo effect (make a change, expect a change and hear a change)

The people who hear a change claim it is number 1 - and always seem to discount number 2.

For these people, there is a claim from many of them that science cannot measure everything, and the change is real.

If science cannot measure the changes that they hear - then an opposing theory intimated as above - that the other half has somehow received subliminally a cue that something has changed can be true.

That is, if the people claim that science cannot disprove that there is a change heard for speaker connections, and science cannot disprove subconscious telepathy exists, then subconscious telepathy is an equal proposition that the other half knew of a change from the person who changed the cable.

So it is quite possible that the people claiming the change exists are prone to the placebo effect, and intimate this to their other half through subconscious telepathy.

This is equally valid since science cannot prove the change does not exists (the claimants proposition) and science cannot disprove others are aware through subconscious telepathy (my proposition).

There are vast number of people who believe in telepathy, subconscious or not, and hence is their belief as invalid as audio people who believe they hear a change ?

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[busb]

I was in exactly the same position when listening to both plug setups. How do I know this? Because I was in the same chair with my head back against the headrest and I had not moved the chair or the headrest. And so was my OH when she blind tested the change (after having first noticed it with no prompting from em or information that I had changed anything (she was out shopping whilst I was playing and I had finished by the time she got back).

You're one of many, recently and historically, to cite partner's ability to spot these 'obvious' changes. Thing is, no-one's ever done it in controlled conditions. So either people are blessed with remarkable golden-eared partners or they're getting subconscious cues. I know which I think is more likely.

Hi,

There do seem to be two different groups - people who can hear the change, and people who cannot hear the change.

Science in this area of circuit theory etc., has been documented for 2 centuries at the earliest investigations.

For those that hear a change - there are two possibilities.

1. There is a change

2. That the person is succumbing to the palcebo effect (make a change, expect a change and hear a change)

The people who hear a change claim it is number 1 - and always seem to discount number 2.

For these people, there is a claim from many of them that science cannot measure everything, and the change is real.

If science cannot measure the changes that they hear - then an opposing theory intimated as above - that the other half has somehow received subliminally a cue that something has changed can be true.

That is, if the people claim that science cannot disprove that there is a change heard for speaker connections, and science cannot disprove subconscious telepathy exists, then subconscious telepathy is an equal proposition that the other half knew of a change from the person who changed the cable.

So it is quite possible that the people claiming the change exists are prone to the placebo effect, and intimate this to their other half through subconscious telepathy.

This is equally valid since science cannot prove the change does not exists (the claimants proposition) and science cannot disprove others are aware through subconscious telepathy (my proposition).

There are vast number of people who believe in telepathy, subconscious or not, and hence is their belief as invalid as audio people who believe they hear a change ?

Regards,

Shadders.

Indeed. There is a difference between what is possible & what is plausible. IIRC, there's no scientific explanation for acupuncture but its benefits aren't doubted by many scientists. Oil companies employ dousers - no scientific reason to do so apart from hedging their bets. Science is more than capable of denying the existence of anything lacking "prove". Many scientists believe in God. My world isn't in black & white nor are most peoples.

There are some forum objectivists who believe that all amps adhering to a certain specification by definition sound the same & that all modern DACs sound identical. Many of these folk don't always practice what they preach: their list of equipment is often the give-away in their sigs.

There are some safeguarding reality checks anyone experimenting should carry out such being sceptical as the default, realising that we are easily fooled & always undoing "improvements" should undo the perceived benefits. I rarely hear perceived improvements straight after doing them but may well do days later - one reason I'm sceptical of DB ABX relying on short-term memory.

 

[CnoEvil]

Indeed. There is a difference between what is possible & what is plausible. IIRC, there's no scientific explanation for acupuncture but its benefits aren't doubted by many scientists. Oil companies employ dousers - no scientific reason to do so apart from hedging their bets. Science is more than capable of denying the existence of anything lacking "prove". Many scientists believe in God. My world isn't in black & white nor are most peoples.

There are some forum objectivists who believe that all amps adhering to a certain specification by definition sound the same & that all modern DACs sound identical. Many of these folk don't always practice what they preach: their list of equipment is often the give-away in their sigs.

There are some safeguarding reality checks anyone experimenting should carry out such being sceptical as the default, realising that we are easily fooled & always undoing "improvements" should undo the perceived benefits. I rarely hear perceived improvements straight after doing them but may well do days later - one reason I'm sceptical of DB ABX relying on short-term memory.

This is an interesting slant.

I have had a fair amount of Acupuncture, mostly without much long term success - though I thought science was coming to grips with how it worked.

My father used a well known local Douser to find a couple of wells on their property.........not only did he pin-point 2 wells, but was accurately able to determin the depth (by walking away from the position of the well, and measuring back to this, from the point where the rods jumped back towards his chest).

 

[shadders]

Indeed. There is a difference between what is possible & what is plausible. IIRC, there's no scientific explanation for acupuncture but its benefits aren't doubted by many scientists. Oil companies employ dousers - no scientific reason to do so apart from hedging their bets. Science is more than capable of denying the existence of anything lacking "prove". Many scientists believe in God. My world isn't in black & white nor are most peoples.

There are some forum objectivists who believe that all amps adhering to a certain specification by definition sound the same & that all modern DACs sound identical. Many of these folk don't always practice what they preach: their list of equipment is often the give-away in their sigs.

There are some safeguarding reality checks anyone experimenting should carry out such being sceptical as the default, realising that we are easily fooled & always undoing "improvements" should undo the perceived benefits. I rarely hear perceived improvements straight after doing them but may well do days later - one reason I'm sceptical of DB ABX relying on short-term memory.

Hi,

My proposal is possible and probable - equally to the people who claim there is a difference and their other half stating what has changed.

My post was to highlight that people are prone to the placebo affect, and if the other half recognised this, that the recoginition could be due to subconscious effects.

There are reports of twins knowing what the other is thinking in specific circumstances, or aware that an event has happened to the other person, people knowing what someone is going to say before they state it, and people knowing that someone is about to telephone them and then receive that call.

As with some of the examples you have provided - there is no scientific proof - but the placebo effect is provable, and is scientifically recognised.

The topolgy of an amplifier can vary - there are so many combinations of resistors, capacitors and semiconductors that constitute an amplifier - so similar measured performance does not guarantee that they will sound the same, but the hifi reviews i do read - especially a group test, in some circumstances, the changes do not seem too great for similar amplifiers - power houses - with multiple output devices as an example.

With speaker connections - not the cable, just the connection - a hard wired piece of metal less than 2 inches connecting either top to bottom, or vice versa at the speaker terminals - to produce the changes as stated by some people - would have to be discussed.

Regards,

Shadders

 

[CnoEvil]

That is, if the people claim that science cannot disprove that there is a change heard for speaker connections, and science cannot disprove subconscious telepathy exists, then subconscious telepathy is an equal proposition that the other half knew of a change from the person who changed the cable.

So it is quite possible that the people claiming the change exists are prone to the placebo effect, and intimate this to their other half through subconscious telepathy.

Regards,

Shadders.

It's really no wonder we can't win an argument, if telepathy is a more likely hypothesis than "we actually heard it".