It seems to me that there is too little scientific, objective evidence for why cables sound the way they do. When I see discussions on cables, physical attributes are discussed; things like shielding, gauge, material, geometry, etc. and rarely are things like resistance, impedance, inductance, capacitance, etc. Why is this? Why aren’t cables discussed in terms of physical measurements very often?
Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables.
I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
Ok, let me flip this around. As a Pro-Audio guy, cables do/can sound "different". Any audio engineer can tell you the difference a Mogami or Canare cable vs. some low end 100' generic cable.
It is a matter of, method of "TONE CONTROL". Easily explained by physics. *** Cables are the 'new' Tone Control. *** (Poorly if you ask me)
Years ago, our audio gear had tone controls, and remember graphic and parametric 'Equalizers'? Want a boost in the mid's? Bump 1K a hair.
Somehow Audiophiles got so caught up in signal path they took away 'tweeks, and adjustability'. We now are stumbling around swapping cables to hear "clearer mids", "better bass", blah blah blah.
Here is my take on this, and why I have a McIntosh C52 with 8-Band EQ.I use quality cables with good measurements, most of which are the same cables used in the actual recording studio (Mogami, Canare, BJC). And then if I need a little tweak here and there, or to fix a poor recording, I engage the EQ and make it sound how I prefer it. "FLAT" is overrated.
Save yourself the money on esoteric cables, and just bring back tone controls. :-) P.S. The majority of music you listen to was recorded with Mogami/Canare cables, so maybe we all should standardize on that and let the system (speakers, amp, pre, source) speak for themselves.
@cleeds: "It wasn't a valid "test." It was a deception, an illusion, a misdirection intended to produce an invalid result. That's not even remotely a scientific test."
I am confused....There are plenty of folks on these these forums that are VERY knowledgeable about electronics, electricity, and circuits. There is an extremely wide price between the "junk" cables that came with a product and the super, extremely expensive ones that can be had.
I ask this question......how sophisticated must a system be to truly hear the difference in sound from a modestly priced cable and the super expensive ones? Is it just a matter of money?
No it is not just a matter of money. And it doesn't take a very sophisticated system. What it does sometimes take is some fairly sophisticated hearing or listening skills.
Its actually 50 years, half a century, since Julian Hirsch misled a generation with his "wire don't matter" mantra at Stereo Review. Heck, I bet most of the people today who doubt if wire matters don't even have any idea how their skepticism can be traced back to Julian Hirsch.
What's amazing about this is how long its been since his view has been out of date. Sure back in 1970 he could say prove it and nobody had hardly anything that sounded very much different than anything else. By 2000 though it was pretty damn obvious you can do an awful lot better than stock power cords, patch cords, and lamp cords.
The situation today, and which has been the case for many years now, is you can actually totally justify spending more money on speaker cables, interconnects, and power cords than on all your other equipment put together. Read that again. Every word. Because its true.
Here's how I know. Not think. Know. As in been there, done that.
First time was the now retired Stewart Marcantoni had me listen to this one system he put together at Weekend Environments. Sounded fantastic! We played a bunch of stuff, all amazing, and then he told me: the wire and power conditioner in this system cost TWICE AS MUCH as the speakers, CD player, and amps. TWICE!
I'm not saying spend twice as much on cables. I'm saying it has been PROVEN that if you do so it is not a waste. Not at all.
But that was a pretty high end system. What about normal folks?
My father in law, although worth millions was the kind of guy who could never see spending hardly anything on a stereo. So when his died he gave me a budget of only $1200 for the whole thing. With that $1200 budget I got him a CD changer, integrated amp, bookshelf speakers, power cords, interconnect, speaker cable, and cones. Fully tweaked out and budgeted it all came in just under $1200.
Putting it all together at my place to burn in and make sure it all sounds good before delivery I was really surprised at how darn good it sounded. I mean if you are thoughtful and plan it out and don't forget details like power cords and cones. Tweaks beat components. Every. Single. Time.
But then I thought, like the OP, what would happen if..... so I took one of the $500 interconnects from my system and... damn! Totally transformed that little budget stereo! What if I try this $600 power cord? Boom! Same thing! $500 speaker cable? Now well over twice as much money in cables as components and I could hardly believe how good this thing sounded.
People will dispute. People will argue. These will all be people who have never done this. I have actually done it. It works. Its true. And this was years ago, and the developments since have only made it even more true.
Quality cables are essential to every system regardless of budget. They call it a system for a reason. Everything matters.
The real science of "cables" is too difficult for most audiophiles to understand. Don't believe me? Try reading this book ... If
you get through Chapter 8 and solve the problems in it (I have), then
you can claim the moral right to talk about the science of "cables".
Pardon me, but no one here needs to fulfill any requirement specified by you in order to acquire a "moral right" to talk about cables.
How
does it prove nothing when subjects reported substantial differences,
which, according to the test, could not have been there?
It wasn't a valid "test." It was a deception, an illusion, a misdirection intended to produce an invalid result. That's not even remotely a scientific test.
@jhills, "Not sure how gallium, indium and tin, a semi liquid goop, 1/15th the conductivity of oxygen free copper, is somehow superior to pure grade, oxygen free copper as a conductor for cables. I guess whatever makes a great sales pitch and you can stick the highest $$$ to.
While there are a lot of bogus claims of all kinds of miracle insulative coatings and shieldings for audio conductors, in reality, the best material, as an insulator for either data or audio signal conductors, is either PTFE (Teflon) or polyethylene, with as little shielding and protective covers as necessary, for a particular situation."
Thanks for putting it as clear as it possibly can be as of 2019.
....and give us your ideas about what all the hub-bub is about.
I cant even figure out what the OP is saying. he doesn't provide schematics (step 1 IMO), nor define which "IC", nor define the characteristics of those ICs.. or does he mean "interconnect", at which point its just less resistance and more capacitance and I'll stay out of relative subjective judgement-land. But if we don't know the characteristics of the source, media and termination we don;t know much. Sounds like a very expensive tone control to me. G
While I largely agree with the direction of Dunlavy's post, I will give slight shelter to two claims:
For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that
slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the
signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals
propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.
Any properly shielded wire can be directional. A Faraday shield should typically be grounded ONLY at the source. And dialectic do absorb and release charge non-linearly. It is called dialectic absorption (closely related to dissipation factor) and can be read in any good data sheet. The larger the physical form factor the less this is a meaningful concern, since the capacitance goes way down. Not really defending the position of many cable claims, but there is a hint of truth in there if you look closely.... G
@taras22 Not sure how gallium, indium and tin, a semi liquid goop, 1/15th the conductivity of oxygen free copper, is somehow superior to pure grade, oxygen free copper as a conductor for cables. I guess whatever makes a great sales pitch and you can stick the highest $$$ to.
While there are a lot of bogus claims of all kinds of miracle insulative coatings and shieldings for audio conductors, in reality, the best material, as an insulator for either data or audio signal conductors, is either PTFE (Teflon) or polyethylene, with as little shielding and protective covers as necessary, for a particular situation.
For audio cables and most everything else, I believe in sticking to the standards of proven technology and performance and the motto of KISS, JMO.......Jim
Basically, I pulled my post and left this instead...as this is just an entrenched position thread, where we each lob bombs over the hedge without regard to the damage we do to each other, as we feel threatened in our expression fundamentals. We feel threatened at our core.
The only end point in such things... is where the thread is overly moderated and then shut down.
I'd like to bring the tone down, not tensioned and ratcheted up.
How does it prove nothing when subjects reported substantial differences, which, according to the test, could not have been there? One cannot prove a negative, we we cannot prove there are not differences, (except maybe the null test), but that suggests that the mind is having a major influence on reported results. I KNOW this is true of me which is why i am very careful to listen multiple times under multiple circumstances before i come to a concision.... headache? I hate it. Good wine? I love it. Just sayin' better to invest in wine maybe
I'm not getting into the technical melee here, but if anyone is interested in measurements - including one that can ID differences ***when we don't know precisely what to measure***, look up a youtube video of an AES talk by Evan Winer on his Null Tester. OK he;s a techie, but if more mastering engineers has his commitment, we'd probably like more recordings and even like digital masters.
Note the subtlety here - I disagree that we cannot measure audible artifacts. The problem is that a) we dont know what to measure and b) we don't know how to weight consonant vs dissonant distortions. There is a difference between "sounds nice" and "is accurate". IN fact, distortions make great pianos and violins - but ah what distortions they are... (rich resonances that are primarily low-order, even harmonics). Measuring cables is complex. I tried one with nearly $1m worth of lab gear (not mine) and failed miserably. but it was fun.
Some people seem to be under the impression that conductivity is everything. If that was true we’d all be using silver cables. There are obviously many parameters involved in cable design. You don’t have to be a brain 🧠 surgeon to figure that out.
”If I could explain it to the average person they wouldn’t have given me the Nobel prize.”
What "tarnished beyond repair" HEA was the lack of listening, and an industry that way over charged the public for their experiments and theories.
I don’t know about any other listening experts, but blind testing is only as good as a system’s ability to settle in between changes and a listener's ability to reset.
... when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
That proves nothing. It’s not a scientific evaluation, but a parlor trick.
... I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled ...
There are many people who do not accept the results of scientifically controlled, double-blind testing for audio purposes.
Here is an interesting post from 1996 from John Dunlavy_
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:08:50 -0500 From: 102365.2026@compuserve.com (Dunlavy Audio Labs) To: bass@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu (bass group) Subject: Cable Nonsense (Long)
Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.
To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophile applications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.
The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.
Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).
While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) --- Caveat Emptor!
For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.
Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier - not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect - which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe - if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest!
Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist - if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc.
Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!)
So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve - in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize.
Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.
I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.
To claim "TEO’s Liquid Cable interconnect cables are best characterized by their absence of character. … etc." strains credibility.
If the cables are not in fact a flowing material, then the "Liquid" moniker is just more marketing malarkey
A couple of things.
First the cables in fact use a liquid metal as a conductor, an eutectic alloy of gallium, indium and tin, which neatly undercuts your claim that the only metal that is liquid at room temperature is mercury. And btw it does not behave at all like that mercury based straw-man fabulation you just created, so we can throw that bit of nonsense out the window as well.
And two, if you haven’t actually heard the cables you most certainly have no credibility in making judgement about our cables, strained, diced, mashed or otherwise.
My cables are similar with a few treatments applied. I have mine made in bulk single rolls and then do my baking, cracking the seal, baking again and curing, then spinning, and more curing. A few steps kind of tricky to get my sound. But, if I were a DIYer I would do exactly what you are talking about. I’d get me a box of that stuff and start playing around till I got the sound I wanted and be done with it. I’ve compare the Plenum Cat 5e against mine doing the same treatment on it that I do and was pretty please with it’s performance. It’s not quite the performance I look for because it’s made spun but with a little work and a few very slow back and forward spins it almost relaxed enough to start from scratch. That stuff did however beat up on a lot of wire out there, most I would say. It’s fun designing wire but for the guy not going over board and wanting a wire that out does the big bucks guys, there you go.
I know you don't need my indorsement but nice job!
1. The real science of "cables" is too difficult for most audiophiles to understand. Don't believe me? Try reading this book https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Electrodynamics-Third-David-Jackson/dp/047130932X If you get through Chapter 8 and solve the problems in it (I have), then you can claim the moral right to talk about the science of "cables". Otherwise, please show a bit of humility.
2. If you do the above, you will understand that the audiophile babble about "cables" is mostly stupidity, spewed by dumb or uneducated people who want to sound knowledgeable.
3. And finally, at audio frequencies, cables don't matter. If they make a difference in you system, you have a crappy amplifier.
Good info in many directions. When I developed the Proclaim Audioworks Dmt-100 I contacted many speaker cable manufacturers to get samples to try. I had a unique problem though, crosstalk between bass, midrange, and high. I put the crossover external to take the caps and coils out of the tubulance happening inside the speaker enclosure, thus calling the components to sing. What I found for the best cable in numerous hours of experimenting, Teflon coated, plenum cat 5e solid conductor, 5 of them braided. 2 for the woofer, 2 for the mid and one for the tweet. It jumped out! In all aspects of the listening criteria. So experimenting and the technical are both needed in my opinion:)
I think your general premise is flawed. If millions upon millions can be easily taken in by fad diet claims that make billions of dollars from a concept that’s easily solved by the age-old knowledge of eat less and/or exercise more, what makes you think any other subject is any different?
Film?!?!?! go away! <vbg> Z-curve? Bleccchhh. I effing hated doing music for films and TV! Great music buried for a door slam or tire squeal. What a waste!
Very sorry to hear that your experience with the great sausage making machine was such a bummer. For me it was for the most part awesome, the crews were great, the problems were wild and crazy which forced you to do what I sometimes call "acoustic trauma surgery" ( like whatever it takes, just save the scene ).
@taras22 I'm sure you and Ken are justifiably proud of your cables.
The problem I have is the hyperbole.
Most metals' conductivity decreases when liquid. If there are any voids in the 'fill', conductivity drops like a stone.
The only natural metal liquid at room temperature is mercury which has 1/60 Cu conductivity. The DCR could be overcome by making the wire 60 times as large, but then L would decrease by a factor of about 6. C could be kept the same by changing dielectric.
So if one keeps R and C constant, changing L by a factor of 6, one has created a new filter and one that is probably quite audible. Depending on source and destination response, the new filter may be a plus and maybe not.
To claim "TEO’s Liquid Cable interconnect cables are best characterized by their absence of character. … etc." strains credibility.
If the cables are not in fact a flowing material, then the "Liquid" moniker is just more marketing malarkey.
@boxer12 Some of us have been hearing cable differences for more than half a century. We then used science and numbers to determine how that could be, given the prevailing wisdom that everything sounds the same. cf Stereo Review
@chrissain Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Regardless of the cable, it is quite possible to assemble systems where Brand X beats the pants off the Gold Standard. There is no universal best and COST DOES NOT CORRELATE TO SOUND QUALITY
@taras22 Film?!?!?! go away! <vbg> Z-curve? Bleccchhh. I effing hated doing music for films and TV! Great music buried for a door slam or tire squeal. What a waste!
@kalali Exactly. So much of the attraction is bling. And the names!! If it keeps up there will be Chocolate fudge, Caramel swirl...
@cd318 Perhaps it would be instructive to model the Naim output, the cable and their loudspeakers. While Ivor could often be off the beam, often he was spot on.
HEA sold a bag of tricks about looks. Pretty funny when you think about it. Here's a hobby based on looking at the recorded soundstage and the magazines sold massive looking things actually robbing the soundstage from appearing. Pretty strange hobby we had there for a while. I'm glad to see listeners using their space for space again.
@kalali, yes me too. I've become quite fond of those transparent high grade OFC speaker cables recently.
I shudder to recall those days of the ridiculously thick and unwieldy Naim NAC5 cables which they insisted were designed for their amps.
I loved the impressive construction and reliability of their amplifiers but shame on Naim for that particular piece of opportunism. Not even stylish or pretty, just thick and crude.
You have no idea what you are saying and this is just lame regurgitation of some nonsensical mumbo jumbo speak that you read in some quasi-science comic book.
Funny, I distinctly remember it as a graduate program at a university.
And I will leave you with the following to contemplate.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
@taras22: "You may want to go take a peak at this thing called proof theory, which talks about what numbers can and can’t do. One of the things it says is that numbers are an abstract concept that relate most perfectly to themselves and only tangentially to the reality around us. And btw was a key development in the movement that led to the "quantum" revolution that has defined physics over the last century or so, which introduced us to the concept of curved space. So relativity you are much closer to flat earth than you may want to admit."
What a bunch of goobledeegook. You didn’t say anything nor did you make one single, coherent point.
The "movement that led to the ’quantum’ revolution that has defined physics..." You have no idea what you are saying and this is just lame regurgitation of some nonsensical mumbo jumbo speak that you read in some quasi-science comic book.
One thing that is missing in all these discussions is the esthetic value of the cable. It applies to speaker cables, interconnect cables, and power cords. In most other components in the system, people are willing to pay more, sometimes a lot more, for something that is more pleasing to the eyes. Cables are no different. The question is how much is the esthetic value worth to an individual. I’m willing to bet most everyone will pick the prettier “cable” all else being equal.
Is this related to the fact that when you are in a large, noisy crowd you can “tune in” to your conversation and clearly hear the person you’re talking to? There is some sort of highly advanced filtration going on in the brain in that scenario. A microphone cannot do that. It’s just a vibrating membrane - it can’t selectively hear what it wants.
Exactamondo....very well stated....and that ability is even much more pronounced in rooms that are acoustically correct ( in fact that is one of characteristics of a "good" room ).
Btw a neat little bit of theatre that we sometimes do for clients is to record our conversation and then play it back. What you hear on playback is a conversation in a very noisy/echo laden room, something that was definitely not apparent in the original conversation because our ear/brains had done an effective job of editing the noise out by, uhhh, actively ignoring the noise. And this has proved a very effective sales tool cause after the shock wears off we usually get the contract.
So when time and budget allows film acoustics involves creating an environment around the set that not doesn't have the sound of the huge studio volume and is tuned to actually sound like what the set looks like. And all of this done with the strengths ( its really sensitive and picks up everything ) and weaknesses ( its really sensitive and picks up everything ) of the microphone first and foremost on the agenda.
Btw this is also a pretty neat way of evaluating a listening space since it kinda short circuits that editing function and it very effectively deals with the low frequency issues that all rooms have.
Your post nicely nailed that. Now if I could add something. The reason that the formulas are lacking and the ear/brain has a marked advantage is the ability of the ear/brain to hear into noise floors/ceiling which as I mentioned earlier is a serious limitation for measurement systems. And this is especially important in the room generated lower frequencies ( room "lift" is a big issue below 500hz and it generally gets quite dramatic at around 125hz ) where we can be pretty successful hearing thru the reverberation artifacts and microphones not so much ( actually their issue is they pick up everything and can't separate the wheat from the chaff the way our ear brain has evolved to do...and while we can do that trick it is much more enjoyable not to have to, which is where successful room acoustics comes into play ).
And speaking of the experience issue mentioned above "my day job" is in the film industry were "we" provide/build good acoustic environments in which microphones can more efficiently capture sync sound off the floor. "We" have been doing this for over 35 years and have contributed to over 65 major film and television projects. We have successfully worked in tiny rooms and in rooms as large as 15 million cu ft, This is why I sometimes "lose my mind" and blather on about microphones and acoustics because this is what I have done, and if the repeat business is any indication, quite successfully, read, I would like to think I can speak from experience and a reasonable understanding of the underlying theory.
Earlier rotarius stated that cable manufacturers used the same bulk cable supplied by the same sources. Even if this were true, and it is for many cable manufacturers but certainly not all, he is making the assumption that the conductor is all that truly matters. This is an erroneous assumption. The solution to this entire debate is very simple as it applies to the individual. Of course if you truly "know" as does rotarius and a few others, no need to experiment. But if you allow for the possibility, order a few different types of cables with return guarantees and experiment.
The reason that the formulas are lacking and the ear/brain has a marked advantage is the ability of the ear/brain to hear into noise floors/ceiling which as I mentioned earlier is a serious limitation for measurement systems.
Is this related to the fact that when you are in a large, noisy crowd you can “tune in” to your conversation and clearly hear the person you’re talking to? There is some sort of highly advanced filtration going on in the brain in that scenario. A microphone cannot do that. It’s just a vibrating membrane - it can’t selectively hear what it wants.
Great post....yeah cables are in some weird way the audiophile's version of Keat's idea of negative capability ( or at least my most probably wrong understanding of same ).
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
