Interconnect

[TrevC]

My point is If you plug any interconnect cable in and it works on both channels and is not intermittent in any way there is no point in replacing it. The connection is satisfactorily made. The coathanger experiment demonstrated that audible differences were not detected by listeners.

Fair enough, but there's a difference between simple continuity (working without intermittences) and cleanliness, surely? What was the RFI environment for the coat hanger experiment? Some people live beside 132kV bulk feeder stations, others by IGBT drives for elevators. Putting a cable into the signal chain that acts like an aeriel doesn't seem sensible for anyone who doesn't live in a Faraday cage.

God you are hard work. In my experience, which is long, freebies are at least as well screened as any other, regardless of price. The coathanger experiment was just that, an experiment.

 

[TrevC]

Doesn't matter 7 ransoms in God knows what conditions couldn't hear a difference between a coat hanger. That's obviously representative of 50 billion humans or however many there are

It's clueless drooling time yet again. Sigh.

 

[ellisdj]

you posted a link to an article of about 10 words and expect people to draw a conlcusion between cables and coat hangers - Monster cables for that matter.

Its obvious people should be able to hear that one is better than the other - if they even know what their listening for in the first place. I would say the average person wouldnt have the first idea what their listening for and are more likely to go with whatever sounded louder as that is natural to the human.

The louder sound will be the one with the most added to it from rfi and external influences - noise added from vibration, rfi, mains noise etc.

Now if you have never heard this difference in your life and the the effect of removing some of or most of the above mentioned external influences - which is achieved in many ways some as simple as improved power supply then I doubt that you have ever heard truly good sounding hifi.

I have been thinking about this and I bet you have never experienced truly hi quality sound because you have decided nothing is important and that cheap stuff is good enough. So you have stopped trying and experimenting, certainly stopped listening to anyone else suggestions - you make no mention of your point of reference in terms of what you base all your judgements against what is good and bad and what is good and not good.

If you have not experienced what is capable how can you really be making any comments like this doesnt make a difference, especially if you have never even tried it.

 

[TomSawyer]

God you are hard work. In my experience, which is long, freebies are at least as well screened as any other, regardless of price. The coathanger experiment was just that, an experiment.

You're probably right about me being hard work and my views about interconnects are no doubt wrong.

But, for me, someone either knows their subject well enough to explain to me why I'm wrong, or they don't and having told me I'm wrong twice and then insulted me, you're not that man.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I would always use a good quality interconnecter leads I would never use the cheap bell leads that you get with some Hifi components they are crap bin them . But if your got a £50 Hifi from Argos then yes bell cable fine but not when your spending serious money on good Hifi components I not bothered by the people who think bell will do the job just fine they are talking complete rubbish yes they work but not as good as a good quality lead can I can not prove that a good quality lead is better or test a lead if it's better only by what I hear and if I hear an improvement then that's good . A lot of this company's that make this leads and speaker cable do a lot of research into this things just look up audioquest they have videos of the factory and show you what they have to do to make good leads or speaker cable even audioquest makes there own plugs that go on the ends of there leads . I really do hope that one day a company will give proof that will put a stop to debates because know one on here can prove that spending a bit extra on cables makes a difference only by what they hear that's all that matters

 

[BigH]

you posted a link to an article of about 10 words and expect people to draw a conlcusion between cables and coat hangers - Monster cables for that matter.

Its obvious people should be able to hear that one is better than the other - if they even know what their listening for in the first place. I would say the average person wouldnt have the first idea what their listening for and are more likely to go with whatever sounded louder as that is natural to the human.

The louder sound will be the one with the most added to it from rfi and external influences - noise added from vibration, rfi, mains noise etc.

Now if you have never heard this difference in your life and the the effect of removing some of or most of the above mentioned external influences - which is achieved in many ways some as simple as improved power supply then I doubt that you have ever heard truly good sounding hifi.

I have been thinking about this and I bet you have never experienced truly hi quality sound because you have decided nothing is important and that cheap stuff is good enough. So you have stopped trying and experimenting, certainly stopped listening to anyone else suggestions - you make no mention of your point of reference in terms of what you base all your judgements against what is good and bad and what is good and not good.

If you have not experienced what is capable how can you really be making any comments like this doesnt make a difference, especially if you have never even tried it.

You obviously did not read the 10 words then.

 

[MajorFubar]

My point is If you plug any interconnect cable in and it works on both channels and is not intermittent in any way there is no point in replacing it. The connection is satisfactorily made. The coathanger experiment demonstrated that audible differences were not detected by listeners.

Fair enough, but there's a difference between simple continuity (working without intermittences) and cleanliness, surely? What was the RFI environment for the coat hanger experiment? Some people live beside 132kV bulk feeder stations, others by IGBT drives for elevators. Putting a cable into the signal chain that acts like an aeriel doesn't seem sensible for anyone who doesn't live in a Faraday cage.

God you are hard work. In my experience, which is long, freebies are at least as well screened as any other, regardless of price. The coathanger experiment was just that, an experiment.

I'm actually on your side mostly but you'd do your point of view a favour by actually trying to educate the chap, who's freely admitted on post 94 he wants to learn fact from fiction regarding this topic, rather than just telling him he's hard work.

From my experience there can be a lot of difference in analogue cables, but their ability to perform satisfactorily is definied by clearly understood electrical principles and not voodoo. Not too long ago I skipped a cheap-from-China eBay-special 6m phono to jack lead because across its length I encountered signal loss of >3dB and a noticeable treble roll off. All really because it was thin cheap crap. In the end I bought some unterminated cable from Maplins and soldered it to my own plugs. It's miles better. Clearly over shorter lengths like 50cm the problems with the thin cheap stuff may have been inaudible and the length just exacerbated the issue, but the point is, with analogue audio a wire is not just a wire. But just as equally, you don't need to spend a fortune to buy the best you'll ever need, you just need to buy sensibly. Which usually means avoiding boutique hifi manufacturers like the plague.

 

[TrevC]

[Not too long ago I skipped a cheap-from-China eBay-special 6m phono to jack lead because across its length I encountered signal loss of >3dB and a noticeable treble roll off.

I encountered stuff that was made up in your post. Why you are doing it I don't know.

 

[TomSawyer]

..but the point is, with analogue audio a wire is not just a wire. But just as equally, you don't need to spend a fortune to buy the best you'll ever need, you just need to buy sensibly.

This has been my contention throughout.

 

[MajorFubar]

[Not too long ago I skipped a cheap-from-China eBay-special 6m phono to jack lead because across its length I encountered signal loss of >3dB and a noticeable treble roll off.

I encountered stuff that was made up in your post. Why you are doing it I don't know.

It's your privilege to disbelieve me, I won't try to convince you otherwise, but it's just basic science: too high a resistance over a long length. You sound like someone who at least knows how a rheostat works. Though why I got the treble roll off I'm not sure. Rather than skip it in disgust I should probably have kept it and repurposed it for other uses. But that was the mood I was in.

EDIT: Just tried to find the seller in my completed items, but turns out they're no longer an ebay member...strange...is ebay having a cull on chinese sellers...

 

[MajorFubar]

..but the point is, with analogue audio a wire is not just a wire. But just as equally, you don't need to spend a fortune to buy the best you'll ever need, you just need to buy sensibly.

This has been my contention throughout.

Quite. You don't need to spend a fortune to buy the best cable you'll ever need. Beyond a cheaply-achieved minimum standard, there's really nothing to be gained. If you're in danger of being conned otherwise and you don't know what to think, you should try popping the lid on your amp and CD players, and notice that all those components in the audio chain are linked to each other on a circuit board using thin copper traces less than a mm wide and about as thick as a human hair. No one ever suggests they're not up to the job. Yet somehow the external cable which connects an amp's circuit board to an (eg) CD player's circuit board needs to be the thickness of an elephant's todger and sprinkled in fairly dust.

 

[TomSawyer]

.... thin copper traces less than a mm wide and about as thick as a human hair. No one ever suggests they're not up to the job. Yet somehow the external cable ... needs to be the thickness of an elephant's todger

Ive always assumed that a large part of the thickness of an interconnect down to separation of the screen rather than conductor size whereas, presumably, the PCB tracks are screened by the enclosure?

10mm ish dia RCA cables have always seemed instinctively OK to me because aerial coax is a similar size. I've never understood speaker cable of this sort of size though. You see some beautiful systems in the magazines but they look like they've been cabled up by London Underground.

 

[MajorFubar]

.... thin copper traces less than a mm wide and about as thick as a human hair. No one ever suggests they're not up to the job. Yet somehow the external cable ... needs to be the thickness of an elephant's todger

Ive always assumed that a large part of the thickness of an interconnect down to separation of the screen rather than conductor size whereas, presumably, the PCB tracks are screened by the enclosure?

10mm ish dia RCA cables have always seemed instinctively OK to me because aerial coax is a similar size. I've never understood speaker cable of this sort of size though. You see some beautiful systems in the magazines but they look like they've been cabled up by London Underground.

I think in both cases they're just purposefully over-engineered to give the impression of increased VFM and increase the bling factor. Except with turntables, stereo RCA sockets on sources and amps share a common earth whereby the L and R RCA sockets have continuity between their sleeve (ground) connections. So theoretically on an unbalanced cable you only need three wires: signal left, signal right, and ground. If that wasn't the case then DIN plugs wouldn't work, or stereo jack plugs, because they only have one earth terminal. Separate cables for L and R with their own individual screen or ground have no practical purpose beyond making it easier to solder up individual RCA plugs on each end.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

..but the point is, with analogue audio a wire is not just a wire. But just as equally, you don't need to spend a fortune to buy the best you'll ever need, you just need to buy sensibly. 

This has been my contention throughout. 

Quite. You don't need to spend a fortune to buy the best cable you'll ever need. Beyond a cheaply-achieved minimum standard, there's really nothing to be gained. If you're in danger of being conned otherwise and you don't know what to think, you should try popping the lid on your amp and CD players, and notice that all those components in the audio chain are linked to each other on a circuit board using thin copper traces less than a mm wide and about as thick as a human hair. No one ever suggests they're not up to the job. Yet somehow the external cable which connects an amp's circuit board to an (eg) CD player's circuit board needs to be the thickness of an elephant's todger and sprinkled in fairly dust.

There's an experiment for you - take a strand of wire (strip it from a multi strand cable) and terminate it with some RCA connectors and use them as interconnects - tell us your findings.

 

[TomSawyer]

There's an experiment for you - take a strand of wire (strip it from a multi strand cable) and terminate it with some RCA connectors and use them as interconnects - tell us your findings.

I might give that a go. I've got an old Denon mini system in the loft I could setup in the garage and I could use the welding set to create a raft of RFI and see how each cable copes. I also have an ADC so if I do I'll try to record the results rather than just describe them. It may take a few weeks to set up though free time is rare with three kids and two jobs.

 

[davedotco]

Perspective.

it is all about perspective. We all know that an analogue music signal is alternating current but in the spectrum of used electronic frequencies it is practically DC. This allows us to use Ohms Law and other simple equations derived for the use in direct current circuits to calculate wattage and current with minimal error.

It is important because many of the (scientific) effects used by cable manufacturers to promote their products are only really important at frequencies orders of magnitude higher than audio.

RF issues, surface effect, grain structure etc are all real but of minimal effect at audio frequencies, for example, RFI interference has such a tiny effect on interconnects that companies like Nordost, XLO and DNM routinely make and sell cables that are entirely unshielded.

In reality cables can and are designed differently but unless they are deliberately engineered to sound different by measurably altering their electrical characteristics they will sound pretty much the same.

Subjectivists will tell you to trust your ears as differences between cables are easy to hear, and yes, most of us have heard these differences. However these are sighted tests only, when such tests are carried out blind, the differences effectively disappear.

There is plenty of evidence of this if you care to look and very little to show that the differences can be reliably heard. Subjectivists will point out that such test conditions are compromised, different system, different room, stress on the listener etc, etc, such that the differences become harder to hear.

That is the argument, you decide for yourself which side you are on.

 

[keeper of the quays]

Perspective.

it is all about perspective. We all know that an analogue music signal is alternating current but in the spectrum of used electronic frequencies it is practically DC. This allows us to use Ohms Law and other simple equations derived for the use in direct current circuits to calculate wattage and current with minimal error.

It is important because many of the (scientific) effects used by cable manufacturers to promote their products are only really important at frequencies orders of magnitude higher than audio.

RF issues, surface effect, grain structure etc are all real but of minimal effect at audio frequencies, for example, RFI interference has such a tiny effect on interconnects that companies like Nordost, XLO and DNM routinely make and sell cables that are entirely unshielded.

In reality cables can and are designed differently but unless they are deliberately engineered to sound different by measurably altering their electrical characteristics they will sound pretty much the same.

Subjectivists will tell you to trust your ears as differences between cables are easy to hear, and yes, most of us have heard these differences. However these are sighted tests only, when such tests are carried out blind, the differences effectively disappear.

There is plenty of evidence of this if you care to look and very little to show that the differences can be reliably heard. Subjectivists will point out that such test conditions are compromised, different system, different room, stress on the listener etc, etc, such that the differences become harder to hear.

That is the argument, you decide for yourself which side you are on.

 

 

re your point about subjective observation..that we can hear a difference between cables/interconnects? You then ask us to accept your premise that on blind testing? That no difference could be heard? Sorry I don't accept your premise..Ps you present your premise as if it's a fact? It isn't! Then ask to make up our own minds? Based on what? Spurious facts? When I write my drivel I always try to say 'in my opinion'
Or 'in my view' makes me sound less full of bluster! Less 'know all' I'm am subjective..i listen with my ears..in my view people with high quality equipment who use cheap cables /interconnects are foolish...

 

[BigH]

Perspective.

it is all about perspective. We all know that an analogue music signal is alternating current but in the spectrum of used electronic frequencies it is practically DC. This allows us to use Ohms Law and other simple equations derived for the use in direct current circuits to calculate wattage and current with minimal error.

It is important because many of the (scientific) effects used by cable manufacturers to promote their products are only really important at frequencies orders of magnitude higher than audio.

RF issues, surface effect, grain structure etc are all real but of minimal effect at audio frequencies, for example, RFI interference has such a tiny effect on interconnects that companies like Nordost, XLO and DNM routinely make and sell cables that are entirely unshielded.

In reality cables can and are designed differently but unless they are deliberately engineered to sound different by measurably altering their electrical characteristics they will sound pretty much the same.

Subjectivists will tell you to trust your ears as differences between cables are easy to hear, and yes, most of us have heard these differences. However these are sighted tests only, when such tests are carried out blind, the differences effectively disappear.

There is plenty of evidence of this if you care to look and very little to show that the differences can be reliably heard. Subjectivists will point out that such test conditions are compromised, different system, different room, stress on the listener etc, etc, such that the differences become harder to hear.

That is the argument, you decide for yourself which side you are on.

re your point about subjective observation..that we can hear a difference between cables/interconnects? You then ask us to accept your premise that on blind testing? That no difference could be heard? Sorry I don't accept your premise..Ps you present your premise as if it's a fact? It isn't! Then ask to make up our own minds? Based on what? Spurious facts? When I write my drivel I always try to say 'in my opinion' Or 'in my view' makes me sound less full of bluster! Less 'know all' I'm am subjective..i listen with my ears..in my view people with high quality equipment who use cheap cables /interconnects are foolish...

Actually there is quite a lot of evidence to support what Dave has said, maybe he should have added in his experience as he has done such tests. So its not just his view or opinion. You also state your opinion as fact?

A lot of these big fat cables are for show, appeal to the american audiophile market, look my cables are bigger than yours.

 

[BigH]

.... thin copper traces less than a mm wide and about as thick as a human hair. No one ever suggests they're not up to the job. Yet somehow the external cable ... needs to be the thickness of an elephant's todger

Ive always assumed that a large part of the thickness of an interconnect down to separation of the screen rather than conductor size whereas, presumably, the PCB tracks are screened by the enclosure?

10mm ish dia RCA cables have always seemed instinctively OK to me because aerial coax is a similar size. I've never understood speaker cable of this sort of size though. You see some beautiful systems in the magazines but they look like they've been cabled up by London Underground.

I think in both cases they're just purposefully over-engineered to give the impression of increased VFM and increase the bling factor. Except with turntables, stereo RCA sockets on sources and amps share a common earth whereby the L and R RCA sockets have continuity between their sleeve (ground) connections. So theoretically on an unbalanced cable you only need three wires: signal left, signal right, and ground. If that wasn't the case then DIN plugs wouldn't work, or stereo jack plugs, because they only have one earth terminal. Separate cables for L and R with their own individual screen or ground have no practical purpose beyond making it easier to solder up individual RCA plugs on each end.

I agree a lot of it is to do with marketing to a certain audiophile audience.

 

[keeper of the quays]

Perspective.

it is all about perspective. We all know that an analogue music signal is alternating current but in the spectrum of used electronic frequencies it is practically DC. This allows us to use Ohms Law and other simple equations derived for the use in direct current circuits to calculate wattage and current with minimal error.

It is important because many of the (scientific) effects used by cable manufacturers to promote their products are only really important at frequencies orders of magnitude higher than audio.

RF issues, surface effect, grain structure etc are all real but of minimal effect at audio frequencies, for example, RFI interference has such a tiny effect on interconnects that companies like Nordost, XLO and DNM routinely make and sell cables that are entirely unshielded.

In reality cables can and are designed differently but unless they are deliberately engineered to sound different by measurably altering their electrical characteristics they will sound pretty much the same.

Subjectivists will tell you to trust your ears as differences between cables are easy to hear, and yes, most of us have heard these differences. However these are sighted tests only, when such tests are carried out blind, the differences effectively disappear.

There is plenty of evidence of this if you care to look and very little to show that the differences can be reliably heard. Subjectivists will point out that such test conditions are compromised, different system, different room, stress on the listener etc, etc, such that the differences become harder to hear.

That is the argument, you decide for yourself which side you are on.

 

 

re your point about subjective observation..that we can hear a difference between cables/interconnects? You then ask us to accept your premise that on blind testing? That no difference could be heard? Sorry I don't accept your premise..Ps you present your premise as if it's a fact? It isn't! Then ask to make up our own minds? Based on what? Spurious facts? When I write my drivel I always try to say 'in my opinion' Or 'in my view' makes me sound less full of bluster! Less 'know all' I'm am subjective..i listen with my ears..in my view people with high quality equipment who use cheap cables /interconnects are foolish...

Actually there is quite a lot of evidence to support what Dave has said, maybe he should have added in his experience as he has done such tests. So its not just his view or opinion. You also state your opinion as fact?

A lot of these big fat cables are for show, appeal to the american audiophile market, look my cables are bigger than yours. 

I certainly hope I don't state my opinions as facts! I usually preface with in my opinion or in my view..i certainly don't offer a premise as a given? Thus supporting a argument..this type of device is used a lot on forums...

 

[BigH]

Perspective.

it is all about perspective. We all know that an analogue music signal is alternating current but in the spectrum of used electronic frequencies it is practically DC. This allows us to use Ohms Law and other simple equations derived for the use in direct current circuits to calculate wattage and current with minimal error.

It is important because many of the (scientific) effects used by cable manufacturers to promote their products are only really important at frequencies orders of magnitude higher than audio.

RF issues, surface effect, grain structure etc are all real but of minimal effect at audio frequencies, for example, RFI interference has such a tiny effect on interconnects that companies like Nordost, XLO and DNM routinely make and sell cables that are entirely unshielded.

In reality cables can and are designed differently but unless they are deliberately engineered to sound different by measurably altering their electrical characteristics they will sound pretty much the same.

Subjectivists will tell you to trust your ears as differences between cables are easy to hear, and yes, most of us have heard these differences. However these are sighted tests only, when such tests are carried out blind, the differences effectively disappear.

There is plenty of evidence of this if you care to look and very little to show that the differences can be reliably heard. Subjectivists will point out that such test conditions are compromised, different system, different room, stress on the listener etc, etc, such that the differences become harder to hear.

That is the argument, you decide for yourself which side you are on.

re your point about subjective observation..that we can hear a difference between cables/interconnects? You then ask us to accept your premise that on blind testing? That no difference could be heard? Sorry I don't accept your premise..Ps you present your premise as if it's a fact? It isn't! Then ask to make up our own minds? Based on what? Spurious facts? When I write my drivel I always try to say 'in my opinion' Or 'in my view' makes me sound less full of bluster! Less 'know all' I'm am subjective..i listen with my ears..in my view people with high quality equipment who use cheap cables /interconnects are foolish...

Actually there is quite a lot of evidence to support what Dave has said, maybe he should have added in his experience as he has done such tests. So its not just his view or opinion. You also state your opinion as fact?

A lot of these big fat cables are for show, appeal to the american audiophile market, look my cables are bigger than yours.

I certainly hope I don't state my opinions as facts! I usually preface with in my opinion or in my view..i certainly don't offer a premise as a given? Thus supporting a argument..this type of device is used a lot on forums...

Yes you do, you better look back at some comments about changing cables. Here is one "Listen to my kit..then ill remove my lfd top of range two inch thick interconnects between power amp and pre amp..then ill put my vdh the name interconnects between said amp and pre? And you listen..if the difference isnt night and day? The name interconnect is a good one too! Then im a dutchman!" This one is even better "so my post is aimed at the oafs who think all cables sound the same..it bloody not the case!!!!"

Hmmm does not sound like just an opinion to me. Calling people oafs does not really help your case and just inflames these sort of debates.

 

[keeper of the quays]

Perspective.

it is all about perspective. We all know that an analogue music signal is alternating current but in the spectrum of used electronic frequencies it is practically DC. This allows us to use Ohms Law and other simple equations derived for the use in direct current circuits to calculate wattage and current with minimal error.

It is important because many of the (scientific) effects used by cable manufacturers to promote their products are only really important at frequencies orders of magnitude higher than audio.

RF issues, surface effect, grain structure etc are all real but of minimal effect at audio frequencies, for example, RFI interference has such a tiny effect on interconnects that companies like Nordost, XLO and DNM routinely make and sell cables that are entirely unshielded.

In reality cables can and are designed differently but unless they are deliberately engineered to sound different by measurably altering their electrical characteristics they will sound pretty much the same.

Subjectivists will tell you to trust your ears as differences between cables are easy to hear, and yes, most of us have heard these differences. However these are sighted tests only, when such tests are carried out blind, the differences effectively disappear.

There is plenty of evidence of this if you care to look and very little to show that the differences can be reliably heard. Subjectivists will point out that such test conditions are compromised, different system, different room, stress on the listener etc, etc, such that the differences become harder to hear.

That is the argument, you decide for yourself which side you are on.

 

 

re your point about subjective observation..that we can hear a difference between cables/interconnects? You then ask us to accept your premise that on blind testing? That no difference could be heard? Sorry I don't accept your premise..Ps you present your premise as if it's a fact? It isn't! Then ask to make up our own minds? Based on what? Spurious facts? When I write my drivel I always try to say 'in my opinion' Or 'in my view' makes me sound less full of bluster! Less 'know all' I'm am subjective..i listen with my ears..in my view people with high quality equipment who use cheap cables /interconnects are foolish...

Actually there is quite a lot of evidence to support what Dave has said, maybe he should have added in his experience as he has done such tests. So its not just his view or opinion. You also state your opinion as fact?

A lot of these big fat cables are for show, appeal to the american audiophile market, look my cables are bigger than yours. 

I certainly hope I don't state my opinions as facts! I usually preface with in my opinion or in my view..i certainly don't offer a premise as a given? Thus supporting a argument..this type of device is used a lot on forums...

Yes you do, you better look back at some comments about changing cables. Here is one "Listen to my kit..then ill remove my lfd top of range two inch thick interconnects between power amp and pre amp..then ill put my vdh the name interconnects between said amp and pre? And you listen..if the difference isnt night and day? The name interconnect is a good one too! Then im a dutchman!" This one is even better "so my post is aimed at the oafs who think all cables sound the same..it bloody not the case!!!!" 

Hmmm does not sound like just an opinion to me. Calling people oafs does not really help your case and just inflames these sort of debates.

it's called a sense of humour..im sorry you appear not to have one? However you stick with cooker cable! Or coat hangers or freebie interconnects/cables..that is fine...but don't expect me to take anything you say seriously.

 

[davedotco]

Perspective.

it is all about perspective. We all know that an analogue music signal is alternating current but in the spectrum of used electronic frequencies it is practically DC. This allows us to use Ohms Law and other simple equations derived for the use in direct current circuits to calculate wattage and current with minimal error.

It is important because many of the (scientific) effects used by cable manufacturers to promote their products are only really important at frequencies orders of magnitude higher than audio.

RF issues, surface effect, grain structure etc are all real but of minimal effect at audio frequencies, for example, RFI interference has such a tiny effect on interconnects that companies like Nordost, XLO and DNM routinely make and sell cables that are entirely unshielded.

In reality cables can and are designed differently but unless they are deliberately engineered to sound different by measurably altering their electrical characteristics they will sound pretty much the same.

Subjectivists will tell you to trust your ears as differences between cables are easy to hear, and yes, most of us have heard these differences. However these are sighted tests only, when such tests are carried out blind, the differences effectively disappear.

There is plenty of evidence of this if you care to look and very little to show that the differences can be reliably heard. Subjectivists will point out that such test conditions are compromised, different system, different room, stress on the listener etc, etc, such that the differences become harder to hear.

That is the argument, you decide for yourself which side you are on.

re your point about subjective observation..that we can hear a difference between cables/interconnects? You then ask us to accept your premise that on blind testing? That no difference could be heard? Sorry I don't accept your premise..Ps you present your premise as if it's a fact? It isn't! Then ask to make up our own minds? Based on what? Spurious facts? When I write my drivel I always try to say 'in my opinion' Or 'in my view' makes me sound less full of bluster! Less 'know all' I'm am subjective..i listen with my ears..in my view people with high quality equipment who use cheap cables /interconnects are foolish...

As this is hardly the first cable thread on this forum, I had rather assumed that contributers had a rudumentary understanding of the subject, Ie understood the differences between sighted and unsighted tests. Clearly not so, so my apologies.

There is plenty of evidence that supports my 'premise', so much so that that I took it for granted that most hi-fi enthusiasts would be aware of it, clearly an error on my part.

I did not qualify this 'premise' for the simple reason that it is not an opinion, but a fact supported by a quite substantial body of experimental evidence. There is no comparable data that shows that listeners can reliably tell the difference between competent interconnects, or for that matter speaker or power cables.

As a starting point for learning about this subject I suggest the following thread which gives several examples of blind testing of cables (and other components). There are plenty of further references to be found within the thread.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

[keeper of the quays]

Perspective.

it is all about perspective. We all know that an analogue music signal is alternating current but in the spectrum of used electronic frequencies it is practically DC. This allows us to use Ohms Law and other simple equations derived for the use in direct current circuits to calculate wattage and current with minimal error.

It is important because many of the (scientific) effects used by cable manufacturers to promote their products are only really important at frequencies orders of magnitude higher than audio.

RF issues, surface effect, grain structure etc are all real but of minimal effect at audio frequencies, for example, RFI interference has such a tiny effect on interconnects that companies like Nordost, XLO and DNM routinely make and sell cables that are entirely unshielded.

In reality cables can and are designed differently but unless they are deliberately engineered to sound different by measurably altering their electrical characteristics they will sound pretty much the same.

Subjectivists will tell you to trust your ears as differences between cables are easy to hear, and yes, most of us have heard these differences. However these are sighted tests only, when such tests are carried out blind, the differences effectively disappear.

There is plenty of evidence of this if you care to look and very little to show that the differences can be reliably heard. Subjectivists will point out that such test conditions are compromised, different system, different room, stress on the listener etc, etc, such that the differences become harder to hear.

That is the argument, you decide for yourself which side you are on.

 

 

re your point about subjective observation..that we can hear a difference between cables/interconnects? You then ask us to accept your premise that on blind testing? That no difference could be heard? Sorry I don't accept your premise..Ps you present your premise as if it's a fact? It isn't! Then ask to make up our own minds? Based on what? Spurious facts? When I write my drivel I always try to say 'in my opinion' Or 'in my view' makes me sound less full of bluster! Less 'know all' I'm am subjective..i listen with my ears..in my view people with high quality equipment who use cheap cables /interconnects are foolish...

As this is hardly the first cable thread on this forum, I had rather assumed that contributers had a rudumentary understanding of the subject, Ie understood the differences between sighted and unsighted tests. Clearly not so, so my apologies.

There is plenty of evidence that supports my 'premise', so much so that that I took it for granted that most hi-fi enthusiasts would be aware of it, clearly an error on my part.

I did not qualify this 'premise' for the simple reason that it is not an opinion, but a fact supported by a quite substantial body of experimental evidence. There is no comparable data that shows that listeners can reliably tell the difference between competent interconnects, or for that matter speaker or power cables.

As a starting point for learning about this subject I suggest the following thread which gives several examples of blind testing of cables (and other components). There are plenty of further references to be found within the thread.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

I'm sorry I listen with my ears and don't rely on graphs and measurements..perhaps a bit less patronising might be a idea..and yet again your purporting a myth! A substantial body of experimental evidence!! That makes it a truth? All reviewers are charlatans..and you and a couple of other forum members are going to save us from our own pitiful ignorance? Thanks...ill just get shot of all my interconnects,cables and replace them with fuse wire..coat hangers..cooker cable!..hang on! Whilst I'm at it..do you think I should dump my equipment too? Maybe a Goodman's mini system? I'm sure some geuius has written a paper that all hifi sounds the same and us audiofools are deceived by expectation bias?

 

[TomSawyer]

I've only been using the forum for about a week and so far a discussion about the merits of LPs vs CDs and one about interconnects had resulted in quite bitter exchanges. It seems quite a hostile place for people with a shared interest.

Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I'm keen to do some testing. My thinking is to rig a Denon f100 CD player up to an ADL GT40 and then in turn via USB to a laptop running Audacity. If I place it on my bench, next to the welding set, which can be used to generate some RFI, I can record the CD noise floor via three RCA cables: a home made bell-wire one, a freebie that came with the Denon originally and a £40 Chord one that came in a bundle with a streamer and amp. Both the sound files and the wave forms can then be checked for differences.

i have a mains conditioner that was actually designed for telephone exchanges rather than hifi but it might be an idea to plug the CD and the ADC and repeat.

Assuming that this is the kind of thing that would be of interest on here I'll post the results. IIRC, someone said earlier, I need to decide which side I'm on. I'm not on any side, just genuinely interested in finding things out.