azbrd
@geoffkait
@hifiman51 A few years ago i replaced my existing cables with some slightly longer ones of the EXACT same brand and gauge. The existing cables had >1000 hours of use the new ones had none and I could NOT hear ANY difference between the 2 sets. I had a few friends over so I could swap the 2 sets for them, Back and forth we went and none of us could hear any difference between the sets.
I guess my system is missing "dynamic swing?" so I was unable to hear what a "broken" in cable sounds like. Also, please define what "dynamic swing" is????
>>>>There are a whole bunch of reasons why cable comparisons oft fail. Many of these reasons explain why almost any test of any audio thing fails.
1. Unplugging a cable destroys the delicate electrical/mechanical connection that took a long time to establish. So, going back and forth between cables proves nothing.
I thought you were pushing "contact enhancers" to fix this? Or maybe it was Machina Dynamica’s Brilliant Pebbles? I can’t remember.
>>>>>>>Try to keep up with the conversation. I do not push my products but I’m always happy to see someone else mention them.
2. The new cables were not properly broken in so you can’t really expect them to sound too good.
If the new cables where NOT broken in then we all should have been able to hear a huge difference between the new cables and the 1000 hour cables according to you. NONE of us heard ANY differences, no matter which direction we ran the cables!
>>>>You’re not following what I’m saying. It’s not black and white.
3. One or both cables were not connected in the correct direction.
4. As has been pointed out many times cables don’t get fully broken in without resorting to a burn in track on a test CD or a burn in device. Playing music through cables, even for years, is not sufficient.
5. Both cables in the test are not sufficient quality to reveal differences that might be there.
I’m using 10g wires with excellent resistance/capacitance/inductance specks. Please document what constitutes sufficient quality other than those metrics.
>>>>>I’m not saying all of those reasons apply to your test. But the more you talk the more I’m inclined to think most of then probably do apply.
6. The system used for the test is not of sufficient quality to reveal differences.
So now you are calling me out on the quality of my system???
>>>>>Maybe I am. It is one of the reasons why a test can go awry. You might be taking this just a tad too personally.
Well, you show me yours if I show you mine.
>>>>It’s not about me, it’s about you.
7. There are errors in the system.
What type of errors in a AC circuit
>>>>Errors can be anywhere in the system.
8. The test subjects’ hearing is not all it’s cracked up to be.
Two of use (sic) are engineers and one is a professional musician who has also mastered many CDs.
>>>>>That is an Appeal to Authority. One of the worst sounding systems I ever heard belonged to a musician. The second worst sounding system I ever heard belonged to an engineer. I am actually nit a big fan of mastering engineers, you know, due to all the dynamic range compression. If it were not a false argument then any engineer or musician in town could automatically win any argument by declaring, I’m an engineer or musician so therefore I am correct. Better luck next time.
9. Differences were masked by “outside conditions” - weather, time of day, unknown causes.
Yep, i checked. it was a high sun spot day!
>>>>>Funny. I figured you probably wouldn’t know what I was referring to. Especially unknown causes.
10. Test subjects were drunk.
you have got to be kidding????
>>>>I don’t know. Am I?
