But still the fact remains that burn-in of a cable cannot be scientifically described. Surely in the day and age where manufacturers routinely parade accurate measurements there seems to be none in this area, apart from cable resistance (usually measured in ohms per kilometre/10kilometre) and capacitance (picofarads)...
Gareth
Edit..also the output stages of amplifiers are inherently tolerant of impedance changes so the effects of cable as seen by the ouptut stage would (i would have thought) be less than negligible,
Gareth
Edit..also the output stages of amplifiers are inherently tolerant of impedance changes so the effects of cable as seen by the ouptut stage would (i would have thought) be less than negligible,
Andre Visser said:
So how does that work then? Sincerely - after a day with my current ICs the bass was way down relative to the treble. It was horrible, I hated it, I didn't want to hear it - I really wanted my new shiny ICs to sound good but they didn't. And now they do.
For me - I'm now curious to see the FR at each point. OK, they may be exactly the same - but if so why is the sound so rubbish at one point and not at another? And if it is purely psychological why am I so irritatingly susceptible to it? Yeah, fine, perhaps the entire explanation is contained in my "really wanted" and I have psychologically granted myself that wish.
I am trying to be open minded here. If I had equivalent unburned ICs I would A/B them (blinded) but I haven't.
Alan Hope said:
Alan ,
Only speculation on my part but since frequency response is measured with steady state tones maybe what we are hearing is a dynamic effect very audible with music? An analogy is witha CD payer modified to improve jitter performance.This always IME changes the bass performance of the player but it wont show up as a change in frequency response.
Regards,
Rob.
Alan Hope said:
Alan, I experience the same changes, unfortunately I don't have the answers to explain what happen because "logically" it should not be that way.
Regarding the psychological theory, it is possible but at the same time, I have free access to experiment with a variety of cables, so I have no preconceived preference to a specific cable, (in fact I would love it if the cheapest one sound best) I'm only interested in what sound good to me.
Don't let me stop you from measuring, I only stated that somehow we can perceive sound differently without changing the FR, I was hoping we could find an explanation because it wasn't my imagination, other people heard the same differences without me telling them anything. How do one measure the difference between loose bass and more controlled punchy bass?
Allen Wright is a highly esteemed member here and he has done some research on cable sound and DIY cable construction. Maybe he can tell us a few things if he will be so kind.
From Allen's Vacuum State website
From Allen's Vacuum State website
And how would one make this comparison? Listen to one cable, change over, listen to the other? That is how these myths get started.analog_sa said:
It is a simple matter of improper testing procedure.salas said:
Perception is the art of hearing things that aren't physically there.analog_sa said:
BTW cables do not produce perceptibly different sound waves. Every time a controlled test has been conducted, the results have been null. Every time someone does an uncontrolled test at home, the myth is reinforced.
A darned good giggle. The one good thing about this particular myth is that acting on it does no obvious harm to the fidelity of one's system. Unlike some other whoppers -- sorry, audio articles of faith.Brett said:
You can perceive it differently, yes, but you cannot make a perceptible *physical* change without changing the FR. This is not a matter of opinion or theory, it has been demonstrated in controlled tests. WRT loose/punchy bass, these are subjective terms, and as usual, any personal opinions arising from uncontrolled tests should not be trusted. The writer is putting the cart before the horse if he wants to start with his personal opinions about sound quality in uncontrolled tests (eg loose or punchy), then ask us to explain it. Better to start with measured accuracy of sound reproduction (eg flat or lumpy FR combined with near ideal or less ideal waterfall), and test them in controlled listening tests for personal preference.Andre Visser said:
tnargs said:
We have had a long thread about ABX blind versus long sited audio tests for all amplifiers sounding the same or not so near. There was strong opinion by John Curl and others, including me, that ABX can be a trap considering the challenge put to right - left brain balance.
I don't say that you are wrong that in controlled tests, wire is transparent, I just say that even $100 SS amps could not be distinguished from Mark Levinson. I am very much afraid of being easily conclusive is all I say. Maybe our controlled approach and tools have flaws, as our personal subjective evaluations have for sure. Just maybe.
I still want to read the opinion and experience of Allen Wright on cable audibility and cable tech, if by chance he watches this thread.
He is very serious and tech inclined and we know his contribution as a member here. He has done down to earth work on cables.
Allen says about his cable cookbook on his site:
"I believe cables are as important as any other system component, and bring you 15 years of my research on the subject."
It's really simple. If a component A cost $$$ and a component B cost $ then it is common to expect that component A should be better then component B. Amplifiers or cables, the final result is the music coming out from your speakers. While it is a bit more complicated with the amplifiers (given the fact of different speakers with jumpy impedance), it is a lot more easier with speaker cables and interconnects.
If you think they make a difference, by all means, go ahead and spend your money, buy the best on the market. But proving the difference in a double blind test is entirely different idea.
Either you hear it or you don't.
I just made 2 sets of interconnects in 99.999 pure silver in Teflon. 22 gage, 2 in 2 return,Heat shrinked, techflexed looking good! I've done double blind listening on my MG3.5 with ribbon tweeter, ProAc2.5 clone with d2010
and my own bookshelves speaker with Hiquphone OW1. Neither me, nor my friend nor my wife were able to differentiate between silver and el-chipo monster cable.
So, I am going to put them on Ebay and see how much I can fetch from deprived audiophiles.
Anybody interested? Make an offer.
If you think they make a difference, by all means, go ahead and spend your money, buy the best on the market. But proving the difference in a double blind test is entirely different idea.
Either you hear it or you don't.
I just made 2 sets of interconnects in 99.999 pure silver in Teflon. 22 gage, 2 in 2 return,Heat shrinked, techflexed looking good! I've done double blind listening on my MG3.5 with ribbon tweeter, ProAc2.5 clone with d2010
and my own bookshelves speaker with Hiquphone OW1. Neither me, nor my friend nor my wife were able to differentiate between silver and el-chipo monster cable.
So, I am going to put them on Ebay and see how much I can fetch from deprived audiophiles.
Anybody interested? Make an offer.
R-Carpenter said:
It is very interesting that you mention all the speakers and none of the sources or preamps. IMO speakers are the least important part of the chain as far as cable audibility goes. Obviously a certain minimum quality is essential but this is easily achieved.
Sources are a completely different issue. The majority of midrange cd players are so horrible and limited in resolution that any cable tests are a waste of time.
Btw, 22AWG is way too thick for interconnects and you don't mention the most important part: how are they terminated?
R-Carpenter said:
If you've just made them - then go on holiday for 2 weeks leaving a CD on a loop and repeat the double blind when you return.
If they still sound the same as the monsters with loud choral music, walking bass lines, piano, upper register strings, the swirling guitars in Garbage's first album, cymbal decays, the resolution of the distant voices in Bach's German Requiem, etc then sell them.
Curious - did you think they sounded better/different BEFORE you did the blinded listening?
Getting interesting.
Hi all, this has gone further than I thought!
I understand that quality of cable differs.
Having worked in a millitary environment mostly with VHF and up into many Gigahertz, where frankly cable composition and geometry really matters.
(Hey, I wonder how wave guides would sound!
)
The main reasons for fancy materials in mil spect equipment was mostly physical. Teflon because it is tough and it could withstand a blowtorch and silver because it could be a bit thinner due to its conductive propperties. (A space saver really) Teflon does have a good dielectric property though.
I wonder if this was where it all started.
I think alot of the 'hype' regarding cables is due to their lack of bells and whistles that the rest of the equipment in the chain posess. Ie not as exciting. So the manufacturers feel the need to glamourise them with all this fancy talk.
From what I've read so far no one has hard evidence to support these strange theories. Am I correct or did I miss something?
As for "burning in" I remain doubtfull.
If this theory is true will our cables wear out or sieze up eventually and need replacing?
(Hope I havent started something here)
Will manufacturures state that their copper is mined in exclusive locations, gently purified and lovingly sent through a blast furnace using a special heating and forming process?
Alot of you will aggree that this could go very far.
We'll have to post this on a mettalurgy forum I propose.
If we can find hard evidence to support this I'm open to changing my mind though.
I'm baffled anyway, but if you like your cables and think they "sound" good then enjoy them, that is why we listen to music anyway.
Cheers,
Dynsdale
Hi all, this has gone further than I thought!
I understand that quality of cable differs.
Having worked in a millitary environment mostly with VHF and up into many Gigahertz, where frankly cable composition and geometry really matters.
(Hey, I wonder how wave guides would sound!
)The main reasons for fancy materials in mil spect equipment was mostly physical. Teflon because it is tough and it could withstand a blowtorch and silver because it could be a bit thinner due to its conductive propperties. (A space saver really) Teflon does have a good dielectric property though.
I wonder if this was where it all started.
I think alot of the 'hype' regarding cables is due to their lack of bells and whistles that the rest of the equipment in the chain posess. Ie not as exciting. So the manufacturers feel the need to glamourise them with all this fancy talk.
From what I've read so far no one has hard evidence to support these strange theories. Am I correct or did I miss something?
As for "burning in" I remain doubtfull.
If this theory is true will our cables wear out or sieze up eventually and need replacing?
(Hope I havent started something here)
Will manufacturures state that their copper is mined in exclusive locations, gently purified and lovingly sent through a blast furnace using a special heating and forming process?
Alot of you will aggree that this could go very far.
We'll have to post this on a mettalurgy forum I propose.
If we can find hard evidence to support this I'm open to changing my mind though.
I'm baffled anyway, but if you like your cables and think they "sound" good then enjoy them, that is why we listen to music anyway.
Cheers,
Dynsdale
analog_sa said:
Could you please be more specific and give a scientific explanation/definition as to "minimum quality" and exactly how this is "easily achieved"? Andre was to tell us how to design "revealingness", but has decided to keep the recipe secret, just like the colonel did.
I seem to have forgotten when this scientific fact was established. Could you refresh my memory with some references? AES articles perhaps?analog_sa said:
Thanks in advance.
cheers,
AJ
- Status
- Not open for further replies.