# Hi-Fi nonsense



## John-H

A work college sent me this saying we were in the wrong job:



> TORFORB (Too Rich For my Blood) As well as our special Carbon Fiber signal path, TORFORB uses the best possible earth connection - Silver foil plus silver and copper OCC wire with foamed PTFE insulation. Also includes a pair of New Zealand native Rimu "audio blocks" that each hold a Magic Tube. Performance is simply outstanding, with the most extended highs but without any trace of the typical silver 'zing' you often get with silver interconnects, coupled with a stunningly realistic midrange and sumptuous bass. Starts at $1099


http://www.madscientist-audio.com/interconnects.html

Hilarious :lol:

What utter nonsense! The website actually talks about how the extra 40 ohms or so of carbon fibre resistance (compared to copper wire) is "nothing" compared to the 200 ohms (typical) of source impedance (e.g. CD player output) and 50k ohms of amplifier input impedance - which in ratio gives no change in audio level (I'd agree) but also then goes on about the "skin effect" of higher audio frequencies (0.6 mm) causing copper conductors to increase their resistance slightly (but they are <<0.1 ohms!). Whereas carbon fibre "skin depth" is metres (Woopidoo! So 40 ohms at 20Hz is still 40 ohms at 20kHz) - BUT - in ratio makes no difference! So I presume the change of copper from 0.1 ohms to 0.101 ohms is also "nothing"!

The ratio he's talking about is 50,000 : 50,000 +(0.01 or 0 ) approximately, which works out to a difference of 0.000002 dB by his own argument which is utterly inaudible.

I actually made a test facility to amplify only the difference between two different audio interconnects passing the same audio signal to prove this point and it proved to the ears of anyone listening that there is NO audible difference between cheap coax and whatever expensive leads you care to compare. Over the distance of typically 1m of interconnect between typical Hi-Fi components this is an utterly pointless consideration.

But of course the psychology is "Emperor's new clothes" and who am I to argue.


----------



## bluush

And so it has always been!

Been on this planet for +50 years now and the amount of BS I have seen being sold to hi-if purists ( aka [email protected] wits) never fails to amuse/ amaze me.

Best part is by the time most of us have the free liquid cash to spend on this, our hearing is [email protected]

Worked within electronics for all my working life and started off being able to hear just north of 21 kHz, now the top end of my hearing maxes out at 11khz.

Recall almost having a stand up fight with an raf engineering officer ( while a lowly other rank) about using solid silver speaker cables for hi-fi, yeah we can prove silver is a better conductor than copper but only using accurate, calibrated test equipment, mk1 human ears just won't cut it on a BLIND TEST.


----------



## jdn

But it has a Magic Tube!

Must be worth it.

:lol:


----------



## TJS

I don't understand why people pay huge amounts on hi fi hardware when all you have to do is put the cd in the freezer plus coat the outside rim with a black marker pen to dramatically increase the sound quality, which is further enhanced if the speaker stands are filled with sand from a cornish beach.


----------



## leopard

I see this topic has risen it's head again albeit in a slightly different form.

Cables do make a difference to sound quality and it's relatively easy to tell the difference with the right equipment.

Firstly as a practical demonstration make up three sets of interconnects in the simplest configuration ie hot (signal) and return (ground).One with purified lead wire,copper and silver.

Starting with the lead the sound will be heavy thick and slow,the copper will have normally perceived sound and the silver will sound slightly brighter like the treble has been turned up slowly.

Secondly make up a twisted pair like above and then make a high capacitance cable like a "Goertz" configuration which is essentially a two foil layer on top of each other and separated by an insulator,typically Mylar or Teflon.There will be a marked difference again.Naim (the company) even forbid the use of this cable because it could blow their amplifier's up and people that have used it have noted marked differences depending on the amplifier's architectural output stage.

Differences can also be heard depending on what type of amplification is used for example valve or transistor output which equates to low and high output impedance (Z)
and in recording studios balanced lines are used for noise cancellation.This noise plays a part on perceived sound as well.

It's too convenient to state that a cable makes no difference to sound quality because it's cost seems excessively high,when in fact they do and can be proved so in the right environment.

And no,I don't work in a Hifi shop :lol:


----------



## ZephyR2

It'll make bog all difference to me mate. Hearing range reduced due to attending too many rock concerts in my youth.


----------



## leopard

Aaahhh, the joys of tinnitus :lol:


----------



## John-H

Even with 20 Hz to 20 kHz perfect hearing you'll not hear the difference a Hi-Fi interconnect cable makes between a source (e.g. CD player) and amplifier. I can prove this practically and have the time to post this now.

Proving this one way or the other has a number of difficulties. Firstly, simple signal transmission theory is not familiar to everyone and they may chose not to believe it, preferring their ears to be the judge. That's fair enough but then the practicalities of an audio demonstration are not easy either.

The usual method of A-B comparison where one setup (interconnect A) is compared to another (interconnect B) suffers from the difficulty of (1) making sure that the same music signal is used for a valid comparison and (2) _acoustic memory_. The latter is the ability of the brain to remember the quality of the sound long enough - longer than the time it takes to swap the leads over. Even if you were super quick this could easily take 10's of seconds and as I found, if you ask a Hi-Fi shop to demonstrate interconnects it takes them a minute or two to swap, they let the music play through so it changes and they make great play of telling you which leads are connected and pull knowing faces which spoils any hope of objectivity.

No, what was needed was a far better method. I'll take you through this now.

*Signal transmission theory*

The following diagram (for simplicity) represents one channel of a typical CD to amplifier setup with an interconnect cable represented by a simple "lumped" component model. A CD player typically has a 200 ohm output resistance and this is often a real 200 ohm resistor on the circuit board following the buffer amplifier for protection from accidental shorted outputs. This is good enough to drive into a cable which has negligible series resistance and the relatively high amplifier input resistance. The other load to the CD player's output is the capacitance of the coaxial interconnect cable which is typically 100 pF (pico Farads) per metre.









(Click to enlarge)

Simple transmission theory looks at the most significant component equivalent circuit. Considering high frequency effects this is the 200 ohm resistor and 100 pF capacitor. These two components form a potential divider and reduce the signal to the amplifier slightly - more at high frequencies.

A reduction in signal level to 0.707 of the original in terms of voltage is half power or -3dB and generally considered to be the smallest discernable change in sound level (the ears are logarithmic).

The frequency at which -3 dB will occur is given by a simple equation *f = 1 / (2 . PI . R . C) = 7.96 MHz*

This is the frequency of High Frequency radio transmissions. Ears can only hear up to 20 kHz (400 times lower) so are not capable of hearing that. In fact if you back calculate to see how many dB the signal is reduced at 20 kHz by our interconnect model it works out at about -0.02 dB i.e. utterly insignificant.

*The convincing problem*

Now, if you tell this to a Hi-Fi buff they will first tell you that the model is too simple. Ok, so you can chop the cable up into 10 lumped RC sections of 0.01 ohms and 10pF, all interconnected in a series cascade for extra realism. The maths gets far more hairy and you resort to a circuit simulator but it still reports that it won't make any difference. Then they say ah but what about inductance? Ok, so you calculate the tiny amount of inductance, produce 10 RLC lumped sections and show that the inductance is utterly swamped and damped by the resistance and again makes no difference.

Then they say you need to use a real cable as there's obviously something you are missing with simulation. So you go in the lab, construct a CD player output stage feeding into a _real_ coaxial cable and amplifier input and run it through a £20,000 spectrum analyser which tells you ... the frequency response is completely flat up to several MHz like you first calculated. Yes we actually did this.

They are only stumped for a moment and then say, ah but the spectrum analyser only tests with sine waves and real music is all spikey, has squares and triangles and other random looking shapes and squiggles in it so the spectrum analyser is not a proper test for human ears.

You try and tell them that all music can be broken down into multiple sine waves but you'll not convince them. They then start going on about skin effect, oxygen free copper and dendritic crystal growths forming "diodic" semiconductor boundary layers between metallic crystals in leads and dissimilar metals in joints with oxidised cable connections thrown in for good measure because it's something the reviewer in the Hi-Fi magazine spouted on about that sounded convincing. My ears are the ultimate judge they say and remain steadfastly convinced they are correct and there _is a difference to be heard_.

*Brainwave*

To get round this problem what was needed was something to play the difference directly through a real Hi-Fi system with real music into real ears. I've not seen this done before.

I constructed the following using audio grade, low distortion high precision components all running from a low noise battery supply in a screened die cast box with audio phono connectors for the leads exactly as you'd have on Hi-Fi equipment. The CD player (a real one) was buffered into two identical 200 ohm resistors on each channel (only one channel shown). The 200 ohm resistors then feed into the two cables to be compared - just shown here as a simple lumped model but these are real cables. The output of each cable then feeds into an equivalent typical amplifier input (the first 47k resistors in the Pre-Amplifier) which are then buffered by U1 and U2. The output of U1 and U2 faithfully represent the two cable signals. As far as the two cables are concerned they are connecting a CD player to an amplifier and know no different.

Now here's the important bit: Following U1 and U2 is U3 connected as a precision _differential amplifier_ using precision matched resistors. Now, as U3 is a differential amplifier it only passes on the _difference_ between U1 and U2 - if U1 and U2 have the same signal from the two cables then there will be complete cancellation and nothing will be heard. This is what feeds onto the real Hi-Fi amplifier and can be listened to in the normal way - with real music and with real ears!

This is the beauty of this demonstration - it doesn't really matter what goes on before or after - at the heart of it is a direct comparison in balance exercised with real music. No difference between cables - complete signal cancellation.









(Click to enlarge)

*Setup and Results*

Cable 1 and Cable 2 were inserted - initially cheap co-axial leads that might come with your CD player. The first thing to do was to set a comfortable listening level with a full signal. To do this one lead (say Cable 2) was temporarily removed. This causes U1 to have a full signal and U2 to have no signal. The difference produced by U3 is then a full signal. The Hi-Fi amplifier volume was set to a comfortable level in this condition.

Then Cable 2 was plugged back in. There was complete silence because U3 now saw no difference and the signals cancelled. This was as expected because Cable 1 and Cable 2 were identical.

Now the moment of truth: Cable 2 was swapped for an expensive lead donated by a friend. The music was started again .... and again there was complete silence.

*This proves and demonstrates there is no audible difference to be heard between cheap co-axial leads and expensive coaxial interconnect leads by human ears (even good ones) with real music.*

To demonstrate this further, different types of music were tried - all with no audible difference between the cheap and expensive leads. We tried other expensive leads and even tried making some with RF cable - no difference.

I made up a 10 metre long cheap lead to yet prove the point further. This lead was 10 times longer than a normal CD - amplifier interconnect and would have been about 1nF capacitance in total. Simple transmission line theory suggested it would be -3dB at about 800 kHz. This was compared to the expensive lead. Again there was no difference that could be heard - or was there?

To find out I turned the volume up to full and stuck my head near the speaker. I could hear the quietest of sounds - a tiny amount of high pitched treble was being detected as a difference between the leads and being passed through. Back calculating the dB loss at 20 kHz suggested a -0.2dB difference between leads. Of course I was now unrealistically amplifying this signal to maximum. Had I pulled a lead out now the differential signal would have been deafening and may have blown up my speakers. So even this revealed difference would be utterly swamped by the full signal.

This evidence proved to us that beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no point in buying expensive interconnect between CD player and amplifier. Other cable in different situations such as speaker cable is different because the impedances involved are vastly different but that's a subject for another day.


----------



## IC_HOTT

Re "Other cable in different situations such as speaker cable is different because the impedances involved are vastly different but that's a subject for another day"

Great write up John and totally agree re interconnects and mainly because the distances between units is short.

Look forward to your comments on speaker leads . . .

In addition, it would be useful to hear (excuse pun) your thoughts on which items are more likely to give a noticeable degradation to the final sound and hence should be best quality and most money spent on :wink:

PS - as an audiologist I can confirm that most 'older adults' over 45 cannot hear subtle HF sounds above 8k and with most recorded music they don't need to anyway


----------



## OeTT

Have to agree. It's all nonsense. I buy mine from Alex Cann on eBay. They are as good as my old, knackered ears need.
Great price and his sales pitch is funny!

I HAVE ALWAYS HAD AN INTEREST IN ALL THINGS HI-FI AND LIKE MANY PEOPLE GOT SUCKED INTO TO THE MYTHICAL WORLD SURROUNDING INTERCONNECTS, SPENDING HUNDREDS AND TRYING TO CONVINCE MYSELF THAT IT WAS WORTH IT. IT TOOK ME MANY YEARS TO REALISE BUT GUESS WHAT? TAKE AWAY THE MARKETING, FANCY PACKAGING,AND MEGA MARK UP AND WHAT YOU ARE LEFT WITH (WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS) ARE MEDIOCRE INTERCONNECTS AT STUPID PRICES....................................................................THEREFORE:-

I AM OFFERING FOR SALE MY OWN "CHUNKY CABLES" INTERCONNECT'S. THEY ARE HAND CRAFTED BY ME (AND ONLY ME) AND REPRESENT EXTRAORDINARY VALUE FOR MONEY. I USE AN EXCEPTIONAL, GOOD QUALITY CABLE, ROBUST PHONOS AND SILVER SOLDER THROUGHOUT. THIS REALLY IS A CABLE AS GOOD AS THE SUM OF ITS PARTS. SALES PATTER? LOOK ELSEWHERE! MY FEEDBACK SPEAKS VOLUMES.

THESE ARE NOT HAND WOVEN IN THE URAL MOUNTAINS BY 70 YEAR OLD VIRGINS THEN SHIPPED TO THE UK IN 300 YEAR OLD OAK CASKETS AND DEEP FROZEN TO MINUS 1000 DEGREES! (YOU GET THE IDEA!!). WHAT THEY OFFER IS A GOOD, HONEST INTERCONNECT WHICH GIVES SUPERB VALUE FOR MONEY. THIS IS A RISK FREE PURCHASE AS I OFFER A COMPLETE AND WITHOUT CATCH MONEY BACK GUARANTEE IF NOT COMPLETELY SATISFIED.

MY INTERCONNECTS OFFER A BEAUTIFUL SMOOTH AND UNFATUIGING SOUND. FIRM BASS. EXTENDED HIGHS AND A FANTASTIC SOUND STAGE. IF YOU ARE NOT CONVINCED, SEND THEM BACK TO ME FOR A FULL REFUND. OPINION TELLS ME THAT THESE ARE MUCH, MUCH BETTER THAN THE RUN OF THE MILL QED, IXOS, SONIC LINK, CHORD ETC


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Even with 20 Hz to 20 kHz perfect hearing you'll not hear the difference a Hi-Fi interconnect cable makes between a source (e.g. CD player) and amplifier. I can prove this practically and have the time to post this now.
> 
> I constructed the following using audio grade, low distortion high precision components all running from a low noise battery supply in a screened die cast box with audio phono connectors for the leads exactly as you'd have on Hi-Fi equipment. The CD player (a real one) was buffered into two identical 200 ohm resistors on each channel (only one channel shown). The 200 ohm resistors then feed into the two cables to be compared - just shown here as a simple lumped model but these are real cables. The output of each cable then feeds into an equivalent typical amplifier input (the first 47k resistors in the Pre-Amplifier) which are then buffered by U1 and U2. The output of U1 and U2 faithfully represent the two cable signals. As far as the two cables are concerned they are connecting a CD player to an amplifier and know no different.


Firstly,you've fallen into your own trap John.You've constructed a device using " audio grade " active and passive components, the very antithesis of what you're trying to achieve, ie. To discern the difference between the two cables under a listening test;to see if cables make a difference.

No components are sonically transparent, and the topography of the circuit that you have constructed will attest to this by adding it's own sonic interaction on both cables however small.

Quote :"This proves and demonstrates there is no audible difference to be heard between cheap co-axial leads and expensive coaxial interconnect leads by human ears (even good ones) with real music"

All this proves is the limitation of your own hearing and everybody's is different,take asthmatics for example;their hearing can far exceed the textbook hearing of 20-20 KHZ that you imply,so by definition they will hear more.Likewise it can be argued that age and health have their own implications on hearing as well,so depending where we are on this mortal coil will have influence both on macro and micro sounds,timbre and decibel definition.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even with 20 Hz to 20 kHz perfect hearing you'll not hear the difference a Hi-Fi interconnect cable makes between a source (e.g. CD player) and amplifier. I can prove this practically and have the time to post this now.
> 
> I constructed the following using audio grade, low distortion high precision components all running from a low noise battery supply in a screened die cast box with audio phono connectors for the leads exactly as you'd have on Hi-Fi equipment. The CD player (a real one) was buffered into two identical 200 ohm resistors on each channel (only one channel shown). The 200 ohm resistors then feed into the two cables to be compared - just shown here as a simple lumped model but these are real cables. The output of each cable then feeds into an equivalent typical amplifier input (the first 47k resistors in the Pre-Amplifier) which are then buffered by U1 and U2. The output of U1 and U2 faithfully represent the two cable signals. As far as the two cables are concerned they are connecting a CD player to an amplifier and know no different.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly,you've fallen into your own trap John.You've constructed a device using " audio grade " active and passive components, the very antithesis of what you're trying to achieve, ie. To discern the difference between the two cables under a listening test;to see if cables make a difference.
> 
> No components are sonically transparent, and the topography of the circuit that you have constructed will attest to this by adding it's own sonic interaction on both cables however small.
> 
> Quote :"This proves and demonstrates there is no audible difference to be heard between cheap co-axial leads and expensive coaxial interconnect leads by human ears (even good ones) with real music"
> 
> All this proves is the limitation of your own hearing and everybody's is different,take asthmatics for example;their hearing can far exceed the textbook hearing of 20-20 KHZ that you imply,so by definition they will hear more.Likewise it can be argued that age and health have their own implications on hearing as well,so depending where we are on this mortal coil will have influence both on macro and micro sounds,timbre and decibel definition.
Click to expand...

I disagree that I have fallen into any trap and suggest to you that you have missed the subtle point of this differential technique. As I said it matters not what happens before or after the comparative section, what CD player I have, what speakers I use, what music I play or how good my hearing is. The two cables are being compared in balance at the heart of the technique with a real music signal, recreating exactly the situation of real life listening in each cable simultaneously and identically. They are driven and terminated in exactly the same way with exactly the same signal. The differential technique only passes on the difference between the cables. You can listen to this with ears or measure it with an oscilloscope. Given that there is complete signal cancellation there is evidently _no difference between cables_ QED.

Human hearing can vary of course but the cut off frequencies demonstrated with these cables are orders of magnitude away from the human range and even that of bats. What's more is that there is no difference across the rest of the range at lower frequencies too where there's no debate. There's no mysterious distortion or other unexplained audio effect in the cables because the differential technique would have revealed it. The complete cancellation proves the equality of transmission of each cable.

As for my hearing I can still hear up to 14.8 kHz according to my phone which isn't bad for my age and at the time of the experiment it was better still but as I said it doesn't really matter because the differential technique will show any _difference_ if listened to or if measured as a voltage. Given that there is no remaining signal there is therefore no difference in transmission through the two cables - it's as simple as that.

I picked up on something you quoted earlier regarding materials used in cables; _"Starting with the lead the sound will be heavy thick and slow, the copper will have normally perceived sound and the silver will sound slightly brighter like the treble has been turned up slowly"_.

Forgive me but this sounds like the well known physical properties of these materials - i.e. lead is heavy and anything made out of lead will be more difficult to move - copper is more normal and in the middle somewhere regarding weight and colour - silver is a bright reflective colour. This just sounds like the physical and visual description have been transposed subjectively into an audio description because it slots into an expected pattern. I would suggest that such a subjective description is merely belief as a result of suggestion, expectation and faith - especially when it takes so long to swap leads over and the imagination has time to wander and fall in.

I was struck by the comments of the bloke in the Hi-Fi shop who told me I needed to train my ears to hear the difference. This is just conditioning and brow beating - trying to make the customer feel inadequate and encourage them to see the emperor's new clothes because to stand out and say there is no difference in the church of the Hi-Fi shop is herecy and you will be looked at disapprovingly.

Hi-Fi magazines regurgitate these subjective descriptions and shelter from scrutiny because the church magazine only gets delivered to the faithful. I stopped buying them ages ago when they were obviously getting silly e.g. selling gold plated 13 Amp plugs when the rest of the ring main has not changed, or selling expensive short pieces of Litz wire to go on your cartridge carrier when the wires up the tone arm and back to the amp remained unchanged. They had lost their sense of proportion and allowed exploitative suppliers to milk the customers without restraint.

As for speaker cables blowing up amplifiers, yes entirely possible as the impedances are so low and use of a high capacitance cable could tip a high bandwidth amplifier into instability - your amplifier could be oscillating away at 200 kHz and you might not hear a thing until it stopped working. This has no bearing on interconnect coax however as the impedances, damping and power levels are entirely different.


----------



## leopard

Subjectivity is impossible to prove or disprove,somebody's like of one colour over another is palpable to that person for example.The same can be said of audio and it is even harder to convince a skeptic lol.What one may conceive to be a difference the other will wager that it's all psychoacoustics.One cable sounds better than another etc.

We shall have to agree to disagree as there will always be disciples of skeptics and the open minded 

On a final note when the RoHS compliances came into effect circa 2011,there was a marked difference in sound quality of audio amplification due to the absence of lead In components and solder.A test was made up using interconnects made of Lead,Copper and Silver.Using the copper as the "control"the differences were astonishing and were like I've mentioned in my previous post.There was no relevance to the physical properties of the materials.

It's quite easy to make a bad sounding audio cable,but likewise very hard to make a great sounding one too.

The art of sound is exactly that.


----------



## Spandex

I think you need to read through John's post again, as you might have missed what he did in his test. Although he used 'audio grade' components, it doesn't really matter what he used because the point of the system is to feed both cables through *identical* components, into a differential amp which will output only the difference between the two signals (I.e identical cables should produce silence). This test also doesn't rely on the listeners subjective assessment of sound quality, as you're only listening for *a* sound, not judging the quality of that sound. You could feed it into a meter if you wanted to completely remove human ears from the test.


----------



## John-H

The difference test of cables I've outlined got rid of subjectivity. That was the idea. It showed there was zero difference. You can't really be subjective about zero. What more is there to say?


----------



## leopard

I am fully aware what you're getting at and what test John has done 

To judge a cable's sound quality you need to familiarise yourself with, and listen to it with a system you intend to use it in and with respect to John and yourself not decipher differential noise or any similarities that may/not crop up.

Just because two cables are silent it doesn't mean that they will sound the same with musical content.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> I am fully aware what you're getting at and what test John has done
> 
> To judge a cable's sound quality you need to familiarise yourself with, and listen to it with a system you intend to use it in and with respect to John and yourself not decipher differential noise or any similarities that may/not crop up.
> 
> Just because two cables are silent it doesn't mean that they will sound the same with musical content.


But the test *did* use musical content and the signal at the end of both cheap and expensive cables was measurably identical.

I think we all accept that if you do back to back listening tests with a group of people, they will all hear things differently. By definition, this means that some of the people must have heard differences that don't exist. So, why is it difficult to accept that you are also hearing differences that don't exist?

That's not supposed to be an attack on you.. I'm sure if you put me in a room and did back to back listening tests of interconnects I'd also hear differences - even though I know there are none.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> I think we all accept that if you do back to back listening tests with a group of people, they will all hear things differently. By definition, this means that some of the people must have heard differences that don't exist. So, why is it difficult to accept that you are also hearing differences that don't exist?
> 
> That's not supposed to be an attack on you.. I'm sure if you put me in a room and did back to back listening tests of interconnects I'd also hear differences - even though I know there are none.


This partly is true,it's called psychoacoustics and the terminology is called Pattern Identification.In other words if you hear differences but know it doesn't exist,you've conditioned yourself on a conscious level that a difference may exist,but you're not too sure why.Some may see this as a positive and worth paying "the entrance fee" for when it comes to purchasing an expensive cable !

On the other hand you can condition yourself to deny that a cable can make a difference like the op's topic would imply " Hifi Nonsense " and hear no difference at all.

It doesn't all fall on the shoulders of Psychoacoustics however and there's no substitute for sound engineering principles when it comes to cable design.Like I've stated in my previous post materials alone have a sonic signature and two cables made of different materials although sounding differently would show as having no noise on John's test bench as well.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> two cables made of different materials although sounding differently would show as having no noise on John's test bench as well.


You do realise that Johns bench test, by definition, makes a 'noise' *only* when two cables sound different? That's the whole point. What you describe above is physically impossible.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> two cables made of different materials although sounding differently would show as having no noise on John's test bench as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realise that Johns bench test, by definition, makes a 'noise' *only* when two cables sound different? That's the whole point. What you describe above is physically impossible.
Click to expand...

What I do realise is that John's test is not infallible.You can sweep a cable made from different materials on an oscilloscope from dc to 100 Mhz and they will measure the same whilst sounding different.
To state that it's impossible for two sets of cables to sound differently because they don't show any noise differentiation is absurd.Why do you think Abbey Road Studios changed over their cables a few years ago ?(because they look pretty perhaps)

If you don't think audio cables make a difference (which incidently is fine by me  ),what's your opinion on mains cable making a difference :lol: ?


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> two cables made of different materials although sounding differently would show as having no noise on John's test bench as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realise that Johns bench test, by definition, makes a 'noise' *only* when two cables sound different? That's the whole point. What you describe above is physically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> To state that it's impossible for two sets of cables to sound differently because they don't show any noise differentiation is absurd.
> ...
Click to expand...

It's absurd to suggest that two cables sound different when they demonstrably produce the same electrical signal. Don't you realise that you are claiming your sound difference is not represented or carried by the electrical signal?

How then does the amplifier know what sound difference to produce in the speakers without the information being present in the electrical signal?


----------



## Spandex

Johns test is _possibly_ fallible (like any test), but you've not given any explaination for what he might have done wrong. Human ears/brain on the other hand are known to be completely inaccurate and this is well documented. So, you have to ask yourself why you believe the test which is guaranteed to be innacurate to some degree over the one which might possibly be if it's been set up wrong.

Cables used in a studio environment have to deal with physical and electrical extremes that go beyond anything you'll find in a domestic install. This means you need cables of a certain physical quality to start with, and it means you probably need to change those cables out every so often as they wear (because unlike in a home, studio cables are regularly plugged/unplugged). You raise an interesting point though - why do you think the professional market isn't plagued with expensive interconnects like the consumer market is? These are people who judge sound quality for a living, yet they don't spend hundreds of pounds on a short bit of wire...

Mains cables? I've not seen any data. My gut feel is that it's nonesense, but I wouldn't make a judgement until I saw something other than listening tests to back up the manufacturer claims.


----------



## leopard

The same definition could be argued thus:

We have two amplifiers producing 50W rms into 8 ohms and they double output with every reduction in input impedance,frequency response is the same and they produce a perfect squarewave @ 10 KHZ using the same defined amount of negative feedback.

The difference being that a different circuit has been used to achieve this.

Does this mean that the amplifier's will sound the same because they measure the same?.......of course not.

Or..

2 Vodkas, one supermarket brand and the other high end Russian,nothing added and the specific gravity is the same...taste different though why ? etc etc.


----------



## barry_m2

I love threads like this. The age old 'FLAC v 320kbps' ones crack me up too! :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> The same definition could be argued thus:
> 
> We have two amplifiers producing 50W rms into 8 ohms and they double output with every reduction in input impedance,frequency response is the same and they produce a perfect squarewave @ 10 KHZ using the same defined amount of negative feedback.
> 
> The difference being that a different circuit has been used to achieve this.
> 
> Does this mean that the amplifier's will sound the same because they measure the same?.......of course not.


If exactly the same electrical signal (voltage current and phase) is measured at the same speaker then the same sound would be produced. I could set up the same differential test at an amplifier output just as easy.



leopard said:


> two cables made of different materials although sounding differently would show as having no noise on John's test bench as well.


You've not answered my question:

How then does the amplifier know what sound difference to produce in the speakers without the information being present in the electrical signal?


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> The same definition could be argued thus:
> 
> We have two amplifiers producing 50W rms into 8 ohms and they double output with every reduction in input impedance,frequency response is the same and they produce a perfect squarewave @ 10 KHZ using the same defined amount of negative feedback.
> 
> The difference being that a different circuit has been used to achieve this.
> 
> Does this mean that the amplifier's will sound the same because they measure the same?.......of course not.
> 
> Or..
> 
> 2 Vodkas, one supermarket brand and the other high end Russian,nothing added and the specific gravity is the same...taste different though why ? etc etc.


Of course two different amplifier designs can sound different, even if they do happen to have the same response for a 10Khz square wave. That's not really relevant to what we're discussing though, because John's test uses actual music as a single source and compares the electrical signal at the end of the two cables. It does not rely on one arbitrary metric to define the entire frequency response (like you do in your amplifier example). So, as John says, if the signal through both cables is demonstrated to be electrically identical, where can your perceived difference in sound quality come from?


----------



## leopard

The perceived difference like I've said comes from the materials used,for example Silver will sound different to Copper not because it is a better conductor, although marginally it is but it's sonic signature is different.Crystal structure and purity of the element itself has been mused by various people.The way the material has been refined and worked.Insulators and their dialectic constants and of course electrical constants.

My final word being that if you can't tell the difference between the cables that come in the box to an aftermarket pair then that's great because you've saved yourself money that can be spent elsewhere.


----------



## John-H

With these different cable materials you describe how does the amplifier correspondingly know to drive the speakers differently?

What tells the amplifier to produce a different sound?

By what means is the amplifier controlled and driven?

Is it (1) The electrical signal? or (2) Something else?


----------



## leopard

I've just done a search and this is the first that cropped up,I am no way associated with this by the way.Have a wade through(25 pages),different people's thoughts and experiences 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/42667/audible- ... ver-cables.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> The perceived difference like I've said comes from the materials used,for example Silver will sound different to Copper not because it is a better conductor, although marginally it is but it's sonic signature is different.Crystal structure and purity of the element itself has been mused by various people.The way the material has been refined and worked.Insulators and their dialectic constants and of course electrical constants.
> 
> My final word being that if you can't tell the difference between the cables that come in the box to an aftermarket pair then that's great because you've saved yourself money that can be spent elsewhere.


I didn't mean what physical properties have you been told make cables sound different. I meant if the signal at the amp end of the interconnect is identical with two different cables (and it can be proved it is), what could cause the difference you hear? There are only two possible explanations:

1. You are imagining the difference.
2. The sound is affected by some mysterious, unmeasurable factor which has nothing to do with the electrical signal.



leopard said:


> I've just done a search and this is the first that cropped up,I am no way associated with this by the way.Have a wade through(25 pages),different people's thoughts and experiences
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/42667/audible- ... ver-cables.


I skimmed a few pages, and no one seemed to have actually tested any cables properly. I don't need evidence that lots of people believe they can hear a difference - the existence of the huge hi fi interconnect market is evidence enough of that - I want to see actual evidence of an electrical difference in the signal. Speculation and pseudoscience don't really help.


----------



## ZephyR2

Haven't much idea about any of this stuff but it seems that the advantages of silver cables cannot be proved empirically only by the user's perception. I guess if I'd paid 200 quid for some cables I'd probably manage to convince myself that they sounded better too. A bit like the guy filling up with V-power for the first time and immediately "feeling" that extra power as he drives out of the garage.
But if you think and believe that the silver cables sound better (whether they do or not) .... what is the difference between that and them actually sounding better? The perceived audio improvement is the same to the user. So money well spent perhaps.


----------



## John-H

That is true of many things in life - where someone believes something without any real and demonstrable evidence. That's their choice and their belief. In isolation it only affects that individual - if they are happy then fine. Not a problem for anyone else.

When, however, a supplier to the public advertises and makes claims about a product to convince others to buy it, they are open to challenge and should be able to prove their claims otherwise they could be open to a charge of misrepresentation or even fraud. Surely they should not be allowed to get away with a con?

The creation of a band of followers of a particular belief by an industry working in collaboration (suppliers and magazine reviewers) is even worse and more akin to an exploitative cult religion where faith denies proof and many people are taken advantage of by the hierarchy working in cahoots. They could of course all be fooling each other. Whichever way, this seems to be the case with Hi-Fi interconnects and many other things Hi-Fi.

If anyone wants to test the interconnect issue for themselves they can do so with their existing equipment and a bit of reconection. All you need to do is the following:

(1) (a) Find a MONO CD track to use as a mono music source. This has to be truly mono and not ambient enhanced - left and right must be identical. If you can't find one or to be more convincing anyway, (b) make up a junction box or short section of spliced cable so both left and right channel cores are shorted together and yet have two outputs. This creates a mono source point so left and right are identical. You can do this externally or if you are brave, inside the CD player by soldering a temporary wire between left and right output sockets.
(2) From this mono point connect your normal left and right interconnect leads to your amp.
(3) Play the CD and adjust the volume level to a comfortable listening level.
(4) Stop the music then disconnect both speaker negative (-ve, black) leads from the back of the amp and join the two negative disconnected speaker wires together temporarily.

You should now have the speakers connected in series between the two positive amplifier outputs.The amplifier negative terminals are now unused.

This is a _differential_ connection often used with a third speaker in a surround sound mode. You can also use one speaker between the two positive amplifier outputs - whichever is easiest. If both right and left are the same there will be cancellation. If there is a difference you'll hear it. (By the way it's great for getting rid of the singer in the middle of a stereo track leaving only the left and right music!)

(5) So, now start the music again and adjust the amplifier balance control to achieve a null - the quietest level. Due to imbalances between amplifier left and right volume and tone controls this may not be perfect - you may need to adjust or disable bass and treble and readjust the volume and balance slightly. It won't be as good a balance as the box I made but should still prove the point.
(6) Having achieved the best null point be careful not to disturb the levels (don't disturb any!) and after noting the sound level stop the music.
(7) Now replace either the one left or right lead between CD (your mono point) and amp with another lead of different quality. You should now have cheap lead right and expensive lead left or vice versa - doesn't matter which - it's the difference we are after.
(8) Start the music again and compare the null. Is the null level about the same as noted in (6)? 
(9) Satisfy yourself that this null level is still insignificant to the full signal by pulling one of the two CD/Amp interconnects out so there is a full difference signal between left and right.

If (8 and (9) are true, you have just proved that the leads between CD player and amp make no difference using your own equipment, music and ears.

This works in the same way as the test box I made by achieving a cancellation balance between left and right from a mono source (only I did it very accurately and in stereo). Any subsequent disturbance or change between left and right will upset the cancellation balance and you'll hear it. If you don't hear a difference there is none. Try it :wink:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> That is true of many things in life - where someone believes something without any real and demonstrable evidence. That's their choice and their belief. In isolation it only affects that individual - if they are happy then fine. Not a problem for anyone else.
> 
> When, however, a supplier to the public advertises and makes claims about a product to convince others to buy it, they are open to challenge and should be able to prove their claims otherwise they could be open to a charge of misrepresentation or even fraud. Surely they should not be allowed to get away with a con?
> 
> The creation of a band of followers of a particular belief by an industry working in collaboration (suppliers and magazine reviewers) is even worse and more akin to an exploitative cult religion where faith denies proof and many people are taken advantage of by the hierarchy working in cahoots. They could of course all be fooling each other. Whichever way, this seems to be the case with Hi-Fi interconnects and many other things Hi-Fi.
> 
> If anyone wants to test the interconnect issue for themselves they can do so with their existing equipment and a bit of reconection. All you need to do is the following:
> 
> (1) (a) Find a MONO CD track to use as a mono music source. This has to be truly mono and not ambient enhanced - left and right must be identical. If you can't find one or to be more convincing anyway, (b) make up a junction box or short section of spliced cable so both left and right channel cores are shorted together and yet have two outputs. This creates a mono source point so left and right are identical. You can do this externally or if you are brave, inside the CD player by soldering a temporary wire between left and right output sockets.
> (2) From this mono point connect your normal left and right interconnect leads to your amp.
> (3) Play the CD and adjust the volume level to a comfortable listening level.
> (4) Stop the music then disconnect both speaker negative (-ve, black) leads from the back of the amp and join the two negative disconnected speaker wires together temporarily.
> 
> You should now have the speakers connected in series between the two positive amplifier outputs.The amplifier negative terminals are now unused.
> 
> This is a _differential_ connection often used with a third speaker in a surround sound mode. You can also use one speaker between the two positive amplifier outputs - whichever is easiest. If both right and left are the same there will be cancellation. If there is a difference you'll hear it. (By the way it's great for getting rid of the singer in the middle of a stereo track leaving only the left and right music!)
> 
> (5) So, now start the music again and adjust the amplifier balance control to achieve a null - the quietest level. Due to imbalances between amplifier left and right volume and tone controls this may not be perfect - you may need to adjust or disable bass and treble and readjust the volume and balance slightly. It won't be as good a balance as the box I made but should still prove the point.
> (6) Having achieved the best null point be careful not to disturb the levels (don't disturb any!) and after noting the sound level stop the music.
> (7) Now replace either the one left or right lead between CD (your mono point) and amp with another lead of different quality. You should now have cheap lead right and expensive lead left or vice versa - doesn't matter which - it's the difference we are after.
> (8) Start the music again and compare the null. Is the null level about the same as noted in (6)?
> (9) Satisfy yourself that this null level is still insignificant to the full signal by pulling one of the two CD/Amp interconnects out so there is a full difference signal between left and right.
> 
> If (8 and (9) are true, you have just proved that the leads between CD player and amp make no difference using your own equipment, music and ears.
> 
> This works in the same way as the test box I made by achieving a cancellation balance between left and right from a mono source (only I did it very accurately and in stereo). Any subsequent disturbance or change between left and right will upset the cancellation balance and you'll hear it. If you don't hear a difference there is none. Try it :wink:


So am I right in saying that to the small percentage of people who may be interested in this topic on a personal level that after making a formal buying decision based on their own listening experience that they should trust your test and not their own ears,because to do so makes them exploited which is akin to a religious cult ?

In other words,rather than listen to music to evaluate a cable based on what one has heard, is to listen to no music to evaluate it instead ?


----------



## John-H

No, if someone makes a decision for whatever reason that they are happy with that's fine for them.

It's when suppliers make exaggerated claims for a product, charge a very high price and try to convince new customers to buy it by getting others such as magazine reviewers to repeat the claims, when dubious or no evidence it works exists, it should at least be questioned. How acceptance of these ideas comes about and generates such convinced opinion is remarkable. There are laws regarding advertising claims to protect people however.

If demonstrable physical evidence comes to light that shows their claims to be false it should be presented at least to serve as a warning to others and so that people can make an informed choice. It would be wrong to suppress such evidence.

Using a nulling method to show one thing is the same as another is only the same principal as a set of scales. When the weights are the same, the balance shows zero and there is no apparent weight indication (a zero null) - other than the prior knowledge that weights were previously placed on the scales. The zero doesn't mean the weights have changed or disappeared it just means they are the same. Removing one weight shows the other is still there.

I suppose someone with an expensive cable is in a better position to test against a cheap cable, rather than someone who only has cheap cables. Whether they do this or not and accept it is entirely up to them.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> So am I right in saying that to the small percentage of people who may be interested in this topic on a personal level that after making a formal buying decision based on their own listening experience that they should trust your test and not their own ears,because to do so makes them exploited which is akin to a religious cult ?
> 
> In other words,rather than listen to music to evaluate a cable based on what one has heard, is to listen to no music to evaluate it instead ?


I hate to bring up such a tired old meme, but just because I see a white and gold dress doesn't mean the dress actually is white and gold. There's nothing wrong with accepting that your eyes/ears/brain rarely perceive the world as it actually is. When your own senses are all you have to go on then fair enough, you trust what you experience, but when something is scientifically proven to be contrary to your experiences then you really need to question them.

To use John's excellent analogy, this is like refusing to accept that two objects weigh the same, even though the scales confirm they do, because you're convinced they "feel" different weights.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> So am I right in saying that to the small percentage of people who may be interested in this topic on a personal level that after making a formal buying decision based on their own listening experience that they should trust your test and not their own ears,because to do so makes them exploited which is akin to a religious cult ?
> 
> In other words,rather than listen to music to evaluate a cable based on what one has heard, is to listen to no music to evaluate it instead ?
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to bring up such a tired old meme, but just because I see a white and gold dress doesn't mean the dress actually is white and gold. There's nothing wrong with accepting that your eyes/ears/brain rarely perceive the world as it actually is. When your own senses are all you have to go on then fair enough, you trust what you experience, but when something is scientifically proven to be contrary to your experiences then you really need to question them.
> 
> To use John's excellent analogy, this is like refusing to accept that two objects weigh the same, even though the scales confirm they do, because you're convinced they "feel" different weights.
Click to expand...

What exactly has been " scientifically proven " ?


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> What exactly has been " scientifically proven " ?


Well, quite. But that line of thought just brings us back to a question I asked before. Why do you trust your senses which you know are almost guaranteed to be innacurate to some degree, over a test which might be innacurate only if it's run incorrectly?

The thing is, so far you've not made any attempt to explain why John's test is innacurate, you've simply discounted it purely because it contradicts your beliefs.


----------



## John-H

There is another method of testing and this time whilst listening with the full music being hard if that's more acceptable - a double blind experiment.

Get someone else to swap cheap and expensive cables at random without the listener being able to see or otherwise tell which is in use other than by the sound of the music being played.

Sat in an armchair well blindfolded should work and playing the same music passage each time. Do 20 tests to be statistically valid (the more the better) with the listener's choice recorded for each playing and see if the score at the end is anything other than 50:50 correct.

Great care needs to be taken to ensure no bias creeps in - no secret coughs obviously and no unintended clues like the sound of disconnection or of the unused leads being placed on a table or not or time taken to change etc.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> There is another method of testing and this time whilst listening with the full music being hard if that's more acceptable - a double blind experiment.
> 
> Get someone else to swap cheap and expensive cables at random without the listener being able to see or otherwise tell which is in use other than by the sound of the music being played.
> 
> Sat in an armchair well blindfolded should work and playing the same music passage each time. Do 20 tests to be statistically valid (the more the better) with the listener's choice recorded for each playing and see if the score at the end is anything other than 50:50 correct.
> 
> Great care needs to be taken to ensure no bias creeps in - no secret coughs obviously and no unintended clues like the sound of disconnection or of the unused leads being placed on a table or not or time taken to change etc.


This is more like it,but doesn't this go against the very essence of your original post and reasoning ?

In doing so the system would have to display " Pace, Rythm,Timing and transparency" and not display excessive harmonic warmth or Mosfet blur.

The cable would have to be singled ended rca type and not balanced and be sufficiently different in construction of materials.

The test would ensure that the music would be known to the person under test and acclimatisation of the listening environment would first be conducted.


----------



## Spandex

Back to back listening tests are very difficult to run to genuinely scientific standards. Even the fact the listener knows something might have changed is enough to influence their opinion of the sound (and it would be hard to change seamlessly).


----------



## Spandex

An interesting post here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing ... -and-myths

Not necessarily that scientific, but it's clear that people's ability to identify the 'high quality' components reduces dramatically as soon as the equipment is hidden from them for some reason :wink:

FYI one of the tests (2005) was between interconnects and the result was that no one could reliably tell the difference.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another method of testing and this time whilst listening with the full music being hard if that's more acceptable - a double blind experiment.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> This is more like it, but doesn't this go against the very essence of your original post and reasoning ?
> ....
Click to expand...

It departs by not being an instant comparison and revelation of the answer but should arrive at the same result eventually if done properly so ultimately should be supportive.



Spandex said:


> An interesting post here:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing ... -and-myths
> 
> Not necessarily that scientific, but it's clear that people's ability to identify the 'high quality' components reduces dramatically as soon as the equipment is hidden from them for some reason :wink:
> 
> FYI one of the tests (2005) was between interconnects and the result was that no one could reliably tell the difference.


An interesting find and looks like it's already been done.

I saw mention in that link also of loudspeaker cable "directionality" and blind testing showing complete random results. I remember when I wired up my speakers the cable had arrows printed on it - but it's an AC signal so I know the arrows are meaningless, yet when wiring them up there is still this power of suggestion niggling in the back of the mind telling me to follow the arrows. I ignored them. Reminds me of being told not to walk under ladders as a child to avoid bad luck - do you deliberately walk under one to prove them wrong or is that still allowing yourself to be influenced :wink:


----------



## Spandex

Lots of info here:
http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm

And a bit of ABX blind testing data here:
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_data.htm

Both with refreshingly old skool web design. M$ Notepad FTW...


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> Lots of info here:
> http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm
> 
> And a bit of ABX blind testing data here:
> http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_data.htm
> 
> Both with refreshingly old skool web design. M$ Notepad FTW...


"Interconnects might sound different, but only if they use odd construction techniques. Generally speaking, all properly (sensibly) designed and well made interconnects will sound the same - excluding noise pickup which is common with unshielded designs."

Sound familiar


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> "Interconnects might sound different, but only if they use odd construction techniques. Generally speaking, all properly (sensibly) designed and well made interconnects will sound the same - excluding noise pickup which is common with unshielded designs."
> 
> Sound familiar


I'm guessing you're trying to imply something, but I have no idea what. Need more info.


----------



## leopard

I'm quoting an excerpt from the link that you supplied in your previous post.

http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> I'm quoting an excerpt from the link that you supplied in your previous post.
> 
> http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm


I was quite impressed with that link. The writer clearly knows what they are talking about. Regarding interconnectes he starts by saying:



> All well designed interconnects will sound the same. This is a contentious claim, but is regrettably true - regrettable for those who have paid vast sums of money for theirs, at least.


He goes onto make some very sound engineering points and clearly has a sense of proportion.



> The use of silver wire is a complete waste, since the only benefit of silver is its lower resistance. Since this will make a few micro-ohms difference for a typical 1m length, the difference in signal amplitude is immeasurably small with typical pre and power amp impedances. On the down side, silver tarnishes easily (especially in areas where there is hydrogen sulphide pollution in the atmosphere), and this can become an insulator if thick enough. I have heard of some audiophiles who don't like the sound of silver wire, and others who claim that solid conductors sound better than stranded. Make of this what you will


The introduction is excellent and sounds very familiar:



> "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
> 
> The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
> 
> The above could just as easily be re-phrased - for example ...
> 
> "I refuse to prove that my cables will make your system sound better", says the snake oil vendor, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, you will hear nothing."
> 
> The tenets of faith are an absolute requirement for many of the claims that are made for many (probably most) of the 'esoteric' hi-fi additions that you will find everywhere on the web. There is no real information, technical, scientific or otherwise, and the only terms you will hear will be of a subjective nature - for example "solid, sparkling, sweet, musical" will be contrasted with "muffled, veiled, grainy, harsh" - the very selection of the words is designed to sway you to their position, preferably subconsciously.
> 
> The marketing is often very subtle, extremely persuasive, and there is no confusing techno-talk in there to confuse the non technical reader. While it may seem like Nirvana, the claims are nearly all completely false.
> 
> Faith (in the religious sense) is based on the premise that faith is God's proof that God's existence is truth and does not rely on facts. Indeed, if facts were available, then faith is not required - so in a sense, faith can be seen to be based on an absence of evidence - a fiction.
> 
> Believers may also qualify faith as either representing truth or they will represent it as being above and beyond our understanding. Truth becomes a consequence of faith which is the believer's recognition of the absence of evidence. Truth is therefore defined according to a circular perception.
> 
> I am not about to dispute the religious beliefs of anyone - these are sacrosanct, and belong to the individual alone. When the same arguments are used for audio, this is a different matter. Audio (unlike religious beliefs) is based on science. Without the efforts of scientific work and studies over many years by a great many people, we would not have audio as we know it. Now, we have charlatans and thieves claiming that science is ruining audio, and that we have to get back to the basics to enable real enjoyment.
> 
> You need, nay! must have! the latest shiny rock on top of your CD player, lest the sound be harsh, grainy, and lacking bass authority, and without the latest cables at only US$200 per foot, you are missing out on half of the music. But ... you must believe, for the magic will surely be dissipated instantly should you attempt even the most rudimentary scientific test, or even request any technical information.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> I was quite impressed with that link. The writer clearly knows what they are talking about. Regarding interconnectes he starts by saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All well designed interconnects will sound the same. This is a contentious claim, but is regrettably true - regrettable for those who have paid vast sums of money for theirs, at least.
> 
> 
> 
> He goes onto make some very sound engineering points and clearly has a sense of proportion.
Click to expand...

I'm not letting you get off that lightly as he also states:

Quote:

"Interconnects might sound different, but only if they use odd construction techniques. Generally speaking, all properly (sensibly) designed and well made interconnects will sound the same - excluding noise pickup which is common with unshielded designs."

Which is what I've recently previously posted and was conveniently omitted by yourself


Also this is one opinion by many self opinionated experts on the Web so although he talks some sense,he doesn't necessarily talk complete sense.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> I'm not letting you get off that lightly as he also states:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> "Interconnects might sound different, but only if they use odd construction techniques. Generally speaking, all properly (sensibly) designed and well made interconnects will sound the same - excluding noise pickup which is common with unshielded designs."
> 
> Which is what I've recently previously posted and was conveniently omitted by yourself
> 
> 
> Also this is one opinion by many self opinionated experts on the Web so although he talks some sense,he doesn't necessarily talk complete sense.


Ahh, you were implying that he agrees with you. No, I don't think he does. You need to read the whole of his article to understand what he means by that quote. His definition of "sensibly designed" and "well made" basically means using shielded cables, properly terminating them and not being completely crack handed when you make them. He's advocating that you simply make up your own leads for very little money. He doesn't recommend using silver, gold, 123% OFC, wizards beard hairs, or any other exotic material.

This quote is not in agreement with your claims.


----------



## Spandex

And just to be clear... When that guy states that you can make cables sound different, he means you can make them sound worse. The basic DIY construction standard he describes is effectively the optimum, and anything else you do will either have no effect, or will degrade the sound.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> His definition of "sensibly designed" and "well made" basically means using shielded cables, properly terminating them and not being completely crack handed when you make them.
> 
> This quote is not in agreement with your claims.


 :lol:

Never said it was but it's part recognition of what I've been saying all along.It's easy to make a bad sounding cable but very hard to make a great sounding one.This is at odds with " all cables sound the same "drool.

Not all commercially made interconnects are shielded either (look it up) as they tend to not sound as open


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> it's part recognition of what I've been saying all along.It's easy to make a bad sounding cable but very hard to make a great sounding one.This is at odds with " all cables sound the same "drool.
> 
> Not all commercially made interconnects are shielded either (look it up) as they tend to not sound as open


Have you read his article?? He's saying it's really easy to make a really great sounding cable. He's saying you just stick to some very very simple minimum requirements that cost very little. You don't need to worry about what the cable is made from. You don't need this or that insulation. Your connectors just have to be made well enough that they won't fall apart after a bit of use. He is absolutely *not* saying that it's very hard to make great sounding cables.

Shielding can make the music sound closed in and less 'open'? And silver wire makes it sound 'brighter'? Have you noticed how the cable manufacturer claims always seem to use a slightly poetic musical simile of the cables physical properties? They rely on this nonesense to reinforce their claims because it resonates (no pun intended) in the minds of buyers when you tell them shiney silver sounds brighter than dull old copper. Or that enclosing a wire in shielding creates a 'closed in' sound.


----------



## leopard

Of course.I'm just offering a counterpoint to your interpretation of this guy's opinions.

Namely:

Spandex wrote:
" His definition of "sensibly designed" and "well made" basically means using shielded cables, properly terminating them and not being completely crack handed when you make them. "

Nothing more,nothing less.


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not letting you get off that lightly as he also states:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> "Interconnects might sound different, but only if they use odd construction techniques. Generally speaking, all properly (sensibly) designed and well made interconnects will sound the same - excluding noise pickup which is common with unshielded designs."
> 
> Which is what I've recently previously posted and was conveniently omitted by yourself
> 
> 
> Also this is one opinion by many self opinionated experts on the Web so although he talks some sense,he doesn't necessarily talk complete sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you were implying that he agrees with you. No, I don't think he does. You need to read the whole of his article to understand what he means by that quote. His definition of "sensibly designed" and "well made" basically means using shielded cables, properly terminating them and not being completely crack handed when you make them. He's advocating that you simply make up your own leads for very little money. He doesn't recommend using silver, gold, 123% OFC, wizards beard hairs, or any other exotic material.
> 
> This quote is not in agreement with your claims.
Click to expand...

Quite. I'd not "conveniently" missed that quote out because it had only just been quoted and importantly was misleadingly used way out of context with the general thrust of the article - more of which I did quote to illustrate this.

The writer makes a great point about engineering science and electrical measurements being used to design the equipment (CD players, amplifiers etc.) - you don't design complex circuitry or the tracks on the PCB by ear - but when it comes to the bit of wire joining up the CD player to the amplifier, the snake oil salesman and his flock of followers throwing money into his collection bowl, all suddenly start claiming that their ears know better and you can't use scientific measurements to measure what they say they can hear. If it wasn't for the science there would be no Hi-Fi - the ungrateful lot!

He makes another great point about how your ears and the brain psychology can be very mislead and suggests people should appreciate this by reducing one frequency band on a flat set graphic equaliser to as low as it will go and listen to music for 15 minutes. You'll get used to it. Then set the band back to flat again and for quite some time it will sound like there is a horrible ringing peak in the music - until you get used to it again and your perception of sound balance re-adjusts. This just proves the point that your ears are demonstrably unreliable. Had you used a signal generator and oscilloscope or spectrum analyser to test frequency response it would have told you the truth instantly.

This highlights an omission. Earlier it was stated:



leopard said:


> two cables made of different materials although sounding differently would show as having no noise on John's test bench as well.


So they would "sound different" but when fed with the same real music electrical signal in a carefully balanced test set up and the same electrical signal is shown to be present at the end of each cable so there is demonstrably no electrical signal difference between the two cables ....

With these different material cables you describe as "sounding different" that give the same electrical signal, how then does the amplifier correspondingly know to drive the speakers differently?

What tells the amplifier to produce a different sound to feed into the speakers that you claim you can hear?

By what means is the amplifier controlled and driven?

Is it (1) The electrical signal? or (2) your imagination?


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> The writer makes a great point about engineering science and electrical measurements being used to design the equipment (CD players, amplifiers etc.) - you don't design complex circuitry or the tracks on the PCB by ear - but when it comes to the bit of wire joining up the CD player to the amplifier, the snake oil salesman and his flock of followers throwing money into his collection bowl, all suddenly start claiming that their ears know better and you can't use scientific measurements to measure what they say they can hear. If it wasn't for the science there would be no Hi-Fi - the ungrateful lot!
> 
> What tells the amplifier to produce a different sound to feed into the speakers that you claim you can hear?
> 
> By what means is the amplifier controlled and driven?
> 
> Is it (1) The electrical signal? or (2) your imagination?


Firstly you can and do design audio equipment by ear as it's the ear that will make sense of the electrical engineering and measurement to start with.Its the ear that makes the buyer choose or refuse.It's the ear that is fundamentally the most important aspect in audio whether you want to believe it's real or imagined.

Take for example 70's Japanese audio amplification.Huge feedback to create the perfect electrical measurement that you respect. Result....sounded awful.Electrical measurement thankfully is not the be all and end all when it comes to music.

You may want to keep your engineering hat on,but I'm quite willing to take mine off occasionally, in doing so the world thankfully isn't so black and white as it could be.


----------



## John-H

You didn't answer the question again :roll:


----------



## leopard

No need for a roll of the eyes John.

Of course its the electrical waveform or more notably the peak to peak ac waveform and it's interaction with the make up of various cable geometries and materials that can affect the sound.

Are you expecting me to be browbeaten to your way of thinking ?


----------



## John-H

Thanks for answering they were kindly rolling eyes with a friendly smile by the way.

You are retracting your previous statement I quoted as I understand. So, if the electrical signal must be different for there to be a _different_ sound then given that the electrical signal was the same for the cheap and expensive cables I tested in comparison, then you must logically agree that the two cables sound the same. Indeed that all cables that produce the same electrical signal in this _differential_ test that I described must also sound the same.


----------



## leopard

In answer

No I'm not retracting my statement that cables do not sound the same because somehow by your definition and according to your experiment they do,however sleight of hand it may have come over.

What I will say there is more than your test to "skin the cable cat" with more results than your negative bias test.

Have you even considered "Current dependant Phase Shifts" and the test for this.At least this gives a variation of data to muse over than" nothing=nothing"


----------



## John-H

You are standing by this then?



leopard said:


> two cables made of different materials although sounding differently would show as having no noise on John's test bench as well.


I think we are going round in a circle of impossibility now. If the voltages at the ends of the two cables, when fed by identical impedances and terminated by identical impedances are identical, then the electrical signals are both identical in voltage, current, phase and timing. There is then no electrical difference which could allow for any physical sound difference other than that of the subjects perception and that clearly has got nothing to do with the electrical properties of the cables even if the subject thinks it has.


----------



## Spandex

The problem is that the cable manufacturers have spent a great deal of time, effort and marketing budget on promoting the idea that it is not possible to measure the electrical properties which affect sound quality because sound quality is subjective. They explain that because sound quality can't be defined, the properties that govern sound quality equally can't be defined, so how can you analyse your measurements. This is logically sound, except it misses one crucial point - namely that if it can be shown that there is no measurable electrical difference at the amplifier end of two interconnects then it really doesn't matter how 'quality' is defined because electrically identical signals = musically identical signals.


----------



## leopard

Have a read of this:

http://www.qed.co.uk/qed-academy/report ... tm?lang=de


----------



## leopard

.....or this

http://www.co-bw.com/Audio_Cables.htm


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Have a read of this:
> http://www.qed.co.uk/qed-academy/report ... tm?lang=de


That is about speaker cables not interconnects, which we're discussing here. The current/voltage levels and cable lengths involved are very different.


leopard said:


> .....or this
> http://www.co-bw.com/Audio_Cables.htm


This isn't really anything other than an attempt to explain differences in sound that they believe they've heard, using scientific terminology. If they've done any actual testing, they don't mention it there. Amusingly, they do devote a great deal of space (and reference back to it in subsequent sections) to the skin effect, which even the QED article admits has no discernible effect at audio frequencies.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> That is about speaker cables not interconnects, which we're discussing here. The current/voltage levels and cable lengths involved are very different.


Yes you're quite right,but it could be argued that it's all relative with regard to I/V levels and an interconnect requires a ground per channel which is different to a speaker cable which can have it's own set of problems to contend with.

Incidently do I detect a hint of acknowledgement regarding speaker cables because if so that's a step in the right direction


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Yes you're quite right,but it could be argued that it's all relative with regard to I/V levels and an interconnect requires a ground per channel which is different to a speaker cable which can have it's own set of problems to contend with.


The current to voltage ratio is completely different, the levels are completely different, the typical cable lengths are completely different and the sink device is completely different. So yes, it is all relative, and relative to interconnects they're completely different. Read into that what you will.


leopard said:


> Incidently do I detect a hint of acknowledgement regarding speaker cables because if so that's a step in the right direction


Acknowledgement of what? You seem to think I have some fundamental belief that materials/design/manufacture of cables can't affect sound quality - I really don't. I just accept scientific testing over obviously flawed listening tests. If John ran his test and concluded that interconnects all deliver significantly different signals and expensive ones really were much better then I'd be absolutely fine with that. I have no horse in this race.


----------



## leopard

Cable lengths can be what you want them to be,so no, interconnects can be as long as speaker cables,for example when using active speakers and no amplifier is required.
Guitar leads are interconnects also and studios run long lengths from console to console.

I have absolutely no idea what a sink device is in analogue audio though.

I'm calling it a day on this one,anyhow all the best 

Edit: (Conclusion from my perspective)

If anybody has been able to keep awake after reading 5 pages of "Hi-Fi Nonsense" and are serious about audio,find yourself a good dealer.They will lend you cables to evaluate in your own time at home, and remember if you hear a difference,then there is a difference.If there isn't walk away,you're under no obligation to buy.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Cable lengths can be what you want them to be,so no interconnects can be as long as speaker cables,for example when using active speakers and no amplifier is required.
> Guitar leads are interconnects also and studios run long lengths from console to console.


Yes, there surely are exceptions to the norm when it comes to cable length. Not sure what relevance that has here though.


leopard said:


> What is a sink device and what part does it it play in analogue ?


Sorry, 'source' and 'sink' are terms used to describe the device that's playing an audio/video signal and the device that's receiving it. I get so used to talking like that in work I forget it makes no sense to anyone else. In this case the sink is the speaker. 


leopard said:


> Am I also right in saying whatever John says, is correct in your eyes ?


I think I've argued with John enough times on here for everyone to know that's definitely not true :lol: . In this case though, it is clear that his test method is a very elegant way of bypassing all of the subjective issues surrounding listening tests because it focuses on a fundamental point - that in order for someone to hear a difference in sound quality there must be a difference in the electrical signal. It makes no attempt to determine whether the difference equals better or worse (or neither) sound quality to human ears, it just looks for that difference.


----------



## John-H

:lol: Yes I have had many an interesting argument/debate over various issues with Spandex and I've always thought his approach is very well researched, logical and analytical making for an enjoyable and challenging debate.



Spandex said:


> ... in order for someone to hear a difference in sound quality there must be a difference in the electrical signal. ...


Yes, that is exactly the point. To repeat something so it isn't missed ...



leopard said:


> Have you even considered "Current dependant Phase Shifts" and the test for this. At least this gives a variation of data to muse over than" nothing=nothing"


Yes. If, in my test, one of the cables had a significantly different impedance it would cause such a phase shift between applied voltage and current but importantly this would cause a voltage change in the terminating resistance used in the test. If the voltages at the ends of the two cables, when fed by identical signals/
impedances and terminated by identical impedances are identical, then the electrical signals are both identical in voltage, current, phase and timing. There is then no difference in sound between the cables.



leopard said:


> Incidently do I detect a hint of acknowledgement regarding speaker cables because if so that's a step in the right direction


I'd agree with you saying that speaker cables can make a difference. Loudspeaker cables are connecting two impedances - amplifier output (typ. <<0.1 ohms) and speaker (typ. 8 ohms) which are far lower than the source and load impedances of interconnects between CD player (typ. 200 ohms) and amplifier input (typ. 47k ohms). The voltages are much higher too (typ. 20V) at the speaker as opposed to amplifier input (typ. 100mV). So the speaker cable current is much higher (typ. 2.5 Amps) as opposed to interconnects (typ. 2 micro Amps) - so we are talking over a million times difference in current.

It's not surprising therefore that a thin speaker cable with high resistance can lose power but input interconnects don't feature. Due to the longer length and low input output impedances, impedance of the speaker cable is more significant.

There is also the consideration of mechanical inertia of the speaker cone and control or "damping" of its resonance. Try tapping the cone of a loudspeaker with its terminals (1) shorted and (2) open circuit - this will tell you if "damping" of resonance is a significant issue.


----------



## TJS

http://clearaudio.de/en/products/turnta ... vation.php

Looks interesting.


----------



## leopard

https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... start=1125



John-H said:


> Reminds me of the debate over Hi-Fi interconnect cables where despite scientific and practical proof that they make no difference to the sound, faith and belief of a particular doctrine for some is the important factor, overcoming I'd say the most obvious logic and even the physical reality of a practical demonstration.
> 
> In the case of Hi-Fi interconnects you are quite wrong Mr Leopard. That's not just an opinion but a physically demonstrable fact that can be repeated any time. Just say the word but I know you won't do that because you "believe" otherwise with an insurmountable faith. Ok it's a free cosmos.


Where is the scientific and practical proof that cables make no difference outside the realms of your fantasy world and say so ?...Absolute nonsense just because you or others can't or refuse to hear a difference.

I take it your lash up can measure Maxwell,phase and skin effect...most definitely not.

You'll be telling us next that all water tastes the same because it's H20,digital either works or it doesn't so there is no sound difference and God doesn't exist because you can't proove that he does :roll:

Edit:

For sh*ts and giggles






Oh,Abbey Road Studios

https://www.audiomediainternational.com ... amme-cable

Why the need to upgrade ? I take it they are wasting money and could just use cooker flex :lol:

And another... :lol:

STUDIO CONNECTIONS - what the users say

"I was really impressed with this cable. The new digital cable blew every other digital cable out the water. I am currently using the Abbey Road ' Reference' speaker cable at Olympic Studios; it has excellent imagery and natural clarity across a wide range of production styles that gives a sense of truth to the sound. It is an amazingly accurate cable."

Cenzo Townshend

Mix Engineer: New Order, Kaiser Chiefs, U2, The Cranberries, Snow Patrol, Hothouse Flowers, Echo And The Bunnymen, Skin, The Webb Brothers, Lloyd Cole, Athlete, The Lightning Seeds, Bloc Party, The Editors, Baby Shambles, Klaxons, Reverend And The Makers

"I have always been a skeptic when it comes to the benefits of using specialist 'boutique' speaker cables. However, I changed my mind pretty quickly after plugging in my new set of abbey road cables. The difference was definitely audible, I'm getting way more detail out of my monitoring environment. I was very surprised that speaker cable could deliver such differing results. They are not all created equal. I am now a believer and will be using these cables across the board in my studio. Great build quality and designed to last."

Gareth Johnson

Co-Producer / Co-Writer / Engineering / Guitar / Bass / Keys / Programming: Natalie Imbruglia, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. 5.1 mixes: Razorlight, The Who, Noel Gallagher, Kaiser Chiefs Kasabian, , Jade Ewen, Paul Weller, Razorlight, The Coral, Bloc Party, Goldfrapp

"I use Abbey Road reference speaker cable in my mixing room and it sounds fantastic. The clarity, dynamics, and sense of space you achieve from these cables is nothing short of astounding. I always want to use the best equipment possible and this cable was the obvious choice."

Jez Coad

Producer and co writer of Simple Minds Black and White 050505, mix engineer/producer Andrew Strong (The Commitments), The Gutter Brothers, Skamp, The Surfing Brides and Prodigy [live mixes].

"Abbey Road cable sounds amazing. Its stereo imaging is second to none Who would have thought that cable could make such a difference!"

Bill Padley

Writer/producer Atomic Kitten, Ronan Keating, Shayne Ward.

"...the violins have just become brittle which is just as I recorded them... "

Arne Akselberg

Classical Mastering Engineer, Abbey Road, listening to the 96Khz master recording

of Ravel's Daphnis et Chlo‚ Suite recorded with the Berlin Philharmonic in Berlin.

Blue paper lit - time to stand back...


----------



## John-H

It must be the hot weather :lol:

I'm really sorry that my differential amplifier refuses to amplify the difference between two Hi-Fi input interconnect co-ax cables for you. Do you think I had a chat with it before hand and told it to ignore the difference in electrical signals between expensive and cheap leads. Do you think it does what I say or have you considered the possibility that there is no difference to amplify? Which do you think is more likely?



> I take it your lash up can measure Maxwell,phase and skin effect...most definitely not.


It simply amplifies the difference. If the effects you speak of caused a difference between cable signals it would be amplified and there would be a signal to see and hear. It doesn't know fancy names, it doesn't need to do anything clever, it just amplifies any difference presented to it however it might be caused.

Given there is no signal output from the differential amplifier then there is clearly complete cancellation between the cheap and the expensive cables used in the test and no difference to amplify. The signals passed by cheap and expensive cables used in the test are therefore the same QED.

As I say, if you want to bring along your expensive leads and try and generate a different signal than my cheap cables when connected to the same source then you are welcome to try.

*You must accept that for there to be a difference in sound then there must be a correspondingly different electrical signal. If the electrical signals are identical then so therefore must be the sound. It's as simple as that. *

How can there be a difference in sound when the electrical signals are identical? Telepathy? How, if there is a difference in electrical signal can a differential amplifier ignore it?

And don't try to confuse and obfuscate the issue with speaker cables. I already explained three posts back in 2016 that speaker cables work with vastly different impedance and current and can have a noticeable effect particularly with damping.

This thread was started regarding typical signal co-ax leads as connected to amplifier inputs - not the speaker outputs. The two things are very different.

Keep clutching at those straws :wink:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> It must be the hot weather :lol:
> 
> I'm really sorry that my differential amplifier refuses to amplify the difference between two Hi-Fi input interconnect co-ax cables for you. Do you think I had a chat with it before hand and told it to ignore the difference in electrical signals between expensive and cheap leads. Do you think it does what I say or have you considered the possibility that there is no difference to amplify? Which do you think is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it your lash up can measure Maxwell,phase and skin effect...most definitely not.
> 
> 
> 
> It simply amplifies the difference. If the effects you speak of caused a difference between cable signals it would be amplified and there would be a signal to see and hear. It doesn't know fancy names, it doesn't need to do anything clever, it just amplifies any difference presented to it however it might be caused.
> 
> Given there is no signal output from the differential amplifier then there is clearly complete cancellation between the cheap and the expensive cables used in the test and no difference to amplify. The signals passed by cheap and expensive cables used in the test are therefore the same QED.
> 
> As I say, if you want to bring along your expensive leads and try and generate a different signal than my cheap cables when connected to the same source then you are welcome to try.
> 
> You must accept that for there to be a difference in sound then there must be a correspondingly different electrical signal. If the electrical signals are identical them so therefore must be the sound. It's as simple as that.
> 
> How can there be a difference in sound when the electrical signals are identical? How, if there is a difference in electrical signal can a differential amplifier ignore it?
> 
> And don't try to confuse and obfuscate the issue with speaker cables. I already explained three posts back in 2016 that speaker cables work with vastly different impedance and current and can have a noticeable effect particularly with damping.
> 
> This thread was started regarding typical signal co-ax leads connected to amplifier inputs - not the speaker outputs. The two things are very different.
> 
> Keep clutching at those straws :wink:
Click to expand...

There's no straw that needs to be clutched.

You started this thread with big headed ridicule that the cable you sorted to single out was basically snake oil by definition of the manufacturer's claims and asking price and disproving this by subsequently going out of your way by concocting a differential amplifier to somehow disprove this.

Firstly by definition this test was to demystify that interconnects hold no merit in differing sound quality because the rig that you constructed showed no difference.

Your accusation and conclusion in respect of the negative finding is Null Hypothesis by it's very nature as you haven't tested every configuration available and as such should not be taken seriously...which it isn't,it's lazy,misinformed and bad practice.You also haven't explained the relationship of L,C,R on a delicate signal.

You haven't even commented on balanced vs unbalanced geometry which in an electrical noisy environment can have a dramatic,even profound effect on sound quality.You have also chosen to ignore why Abbey Road " upgraded " their cables and testimonials from well respected producers.

I also know that I needn't have to bring my cables to your test set up :lol: because the proof is in the listening on a quality set up.

It's also telling that you have to acknowledge that there is a sonic difference regarding speaker cables,because after all they are just cables with the sole intention of carrying an ac waveform- really John ,not forgetting that loudspeakers can be active or passive using conventional speaker cable or a much longer interconnect,there is similarity just a different topography.


----------



## John-H

Keep swallowing the comforting snake oil Mr Leopard. I'm sorry you don't understand the crucial point - or refuse to accept it in the face of reality because it doesn't suit your beliefs. You are not being very scientific

You have to explain to yourself why -when there is no difference in electrical signal between the outputs of two different coaxial input cables (a cheap and an expensive one) when simultaneously connected to the same source - you still believe you can hear one.


----------



## leopard

:lol:

The same source being your test set up is hardly the last word in sophistication or science lol.It relies on 
op amps that introduce a myriad of problems in their own right and are foggy at best...let me guess you're using something along the lines of an N5532/34,LM 741- the list is endless :roll: That's why you're getting the results you want to see,not to mention that the cable you set out to ridicule has been no where near you,in fact you'll see the same results for any geometry of cable design until a noise source is introduced and then you might see the benefits of a balanced cable,hard to tell with this lash up though.

There's no belief system going on here either,I guess if you can't hear a difference, your listening enviroment/system isn't up to snuff or you've got brass ears,simple


----------



## Spandex

Seriously.. 5 pages in and you still don't understand what John's test does.

I mean, you keep _saying_ you understand, but then you write stuff that makes it clear that you don't, because what you write is meaningless in relation to this particular test rig.

Let's make this as simple as possible:

It doesn't matter what amp John's system uses because it uses the same electrical path for both cables being compared *and* because it's not a listening test.
If his system introduces anything 'unwanted', again it doesn't matter because it introduces it identically on both cables.
His system is 'self calibrating' in that if his system introduced something on one cable and not the other, you would see that at the output.

This test shows any difference in signal at the end of two cables. That's it. It doesn't test for anything else. Instead of trying to waffle around the issue, why not address it - Explain what exactly is wrong with the test design, or accept the design but explain how a cable can sound different if the electrical signal is identical.


----------



## leopard

Rofl

Seriously,I sort of want to speak with the Organ Grinder and not his monkey... :lol:


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Rofl
> 
> Seriously,I sort of want to speak with the Organ Grinder and not his monkey... :lol:


Even the monkey understands it and you're struggling... [smiley=bigcry.gif]



leopard said:


> your listening enviroment/system isn't up to snuff or you've got brass ears


Love this by the way. You genuinely still have no idea how his test works.


----------



## John-H

If you are claiming that cheap input leads distort the signal and therefore the sound but expensive ones don't distort the signal then you are claiming that there is a difference in signal between the outputs of the two leads connected simultaneously to the same source.

It doesn't matter what source you use if you use a full audio bandwidth signal. You can change the music, use a cheap CD player, an expensive one, a high sample rate digital recording or a signal generator. If one cable modifies the signal at all and the other doesn't it should be easy to see and hear the difference.

If you claim the cables make a difference then you should easily be able to measure the difference and hear the difference when using any differential amplifier with enough bandwidth which any op-amp could manage when set to a gain of x1. It's not rocket science.

The fact that the differential amplifier produces NO AUDIBLE OUTPUT demonstrates that the signals are the same.

Explain that.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> If you are claiming that cheap input leads distort the signal and therefore the sound but expensive ones don't distort the signal then you are claiming that there is a difference in signal between the outputs of the two leads connected simultaneously to the same source.
> 
> It doesn't matter what source you use if you use a full audio bandwidth signal. You can change the music, use a cheap CD player, an expensive one, a high sample rate digital recording or a signal generator. If one cable modifies the signal at all and the other doesn't it should be easy to see and hear the difference.
> 
> If you claim the cables make a difference then you should easily be able to measure the difference and hear the difference when using any differential amplifier with enough bandwidth which any op-amp could manage when set to a gain of x1. It's not rocket science.
> 
> The fact that the differential amplifier produces NO AUDIBLE OUTPUT demonstrates that the signals are the same.
> 
> Explain that.


Where have I mentioned that cheap leads distort the signal and expensive one's don't,there's no chance of 
anything being measured under the noise floor of an op amp.

Even wet string will have the same outcome on your effort 

What I have mentioned is that your measuring technique isn't credible which lends itself to the misled belief that interconnects have no influence on sound quality.

Cables can be measured according to Ohms Law,if you can't grasp that then you really are more of a deluded amateur than I first thought :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are claiming that cheap input leads distort the signal and therefore the sound but expensive ones don't distort the signal then you are claiming that there is a difference in signal between the outputs of the two leads connected simultaneously to the same source.
> 
> It doesn't matter what source you use if you use a full audio bandwidth signal. You can change the music, use a cheap CD player, an expensive one, a high sample rate digital recording or a signal generator. If one cable modifies the signal at all and the other doesn't it should be easy to see and hear the difference.
> 
> If you claim the cables make a difference then you should easily be able to measure the difference and hear the difference when using any differential amplifier with enough bandwidth which any op-amp could manage when set to a gain of x1. It's not rocket science.
> 
> The fact that the differential amplifier produces NO AUDIBLE OUTPUT demonstrates that the signals are the same.
> 
> Explain that.
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I mentioned that cheap leads distort the signal and expensive one's don't,there's no chance of
> anything being measured under the noise floor of an op amp.
> 
> Even wet string will have the same outcome on your effort
> 
> What I have mentioned is that your measuring technique isn't credible which lends itself to the misled belief that interconnects have no influence on sound quality.
> 
> Cables can be measured according to Ohms Law,if you can't grasp that then you really are more of a deluded amateur than I first thought :lol:
Click to expand...

If there is no distortion of the signal by one cable then the signals are the same. Duh! :roll:

In a x1 configuration the noise floor of the op-amp is completely insignificant compared to the source signal. Anything as small as the straws you are clutching at would be completely swamped by the full signal. The dynamic range would be bigger than the gap in appreciation we are trying to close here :lol:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are claiming that cheap input leads distort the signal and therefore the sound but expensive ones don't distort the signal then you are claiming that there is a difference in signal between the outputs of the two leads connected simultaneously to the same source.
> 
> It doesn't matter what source you use if you use a full audio bandwidth signal. You can change the music, use a cheap CD player, an expensive one, a high sample rate digital recording or a signal generator. If one cable modifies the signal at all and the other doesn't it should be easy to see and hear the difference.
> 
> If you claim the cables make a difference then you should easily be able to measure the difference and hear the difference when using any differential amplifier with enough bandwidth which any op-amp could manage when set to a gain of x1. It's not rocket science.
> 
> The fact that the differential amplifier produces NO AUDIBLE OUTPUT demonstrates that the signals are the same.
> 
> Explain that.
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I mentioned that cheap leads distort the signal and expensive one's don't,there's no chance of
> anything being measured under the noise floor of an op amp.
> 
> Even wet string will have the same outcome on your effort
> 
> What I have mentioned is that your measuring technique isn't credible which lends itself to the misled belief that interconnects have no influence on sound quality.
> 
> Cables can be measured according to Ohms Law,if you can't grasp that then you really are more of a deluded amateur than I first thought :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is no distortion of the signal by one cable then the signals are the same. Duh! :roll:
> 
> In a x1 configuration the noise floor of the op-amp is completely insignificant compared to the source signal. Anything as small as the straws you are clutching at would be completely swamped by the full signal. The dynamic range would be bigger than the gap in appreciation we are trying to close here :lol:
Click to expand...

No John,we understand you've got to save face by peddling your nonsense on here.A sort of King of the sh*ts mentality but let's face you're still Sh*ts of the King in the real world :lol:

The reason there isn't any distortion is because a cable is purely a passive component,there would only be distortion if there was an electrical short ...Duh :roll:

Like I said earlier a complete amateur,keep it coming,it's entertaining but cringeworthy at the same time :lol:


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> The reason there isn't any distortion is because a cable is purely a passive component,there would only be distortion if there was an electrical short


Well at least he's admitted there's no difference in the signal.

Admittedly he's done it by accident because he doesn't know what 'distortion' means... :lol:


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason there isn't any distortion is because a cable is purely a passive component,there would only be distortion if there was an electrical short
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least he's admitted there's no difference in the signal.
> 
> Admittedly he's done it by accident because he doesn't know what 'distortion' means... :lol:
Click to expand...









:lol:


----------



## Spandex

Idiot reopens 2 year old thread. Idiot tries to patronise people for responding to thread he reopened.

Maybe you should just explain why you're upset with me. Come on Leotard, it might help. Let it all out, petal. Was it the thing about your boss buying you a fan? You went a bit weird after that.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> Idiot reopens 2 year old thread. Idiot tries to patronise people for responding to thread he reopened.


You've really got it in for your master

https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... start=1125








:lol:


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> That's very disrespectful towards John
> 
> https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... start=1125
> 
> :lol:


Christ, that wasn't far off the playground classic "talking about yourself, are you?"

Seriously, if you want to edit that to be something a bit better I'll delete the quote from this post so no one will get to see it. I'm all for a bit of banter, but I'd feel bad if I didn't give you the opportunity to sort that.


----------



## leopard

Woof


----------



## John-H

Why do you feel the need to be insulting? Is that an compensatory indication of how you feel about the strength of your argument?

A distorted waveform is one that's changed shape (voltage vs. time) on an oscilloscope. It would sound different if visibly different in the audio bandwidth frequency domain. If you are now saying the signals have the same shape you are also saying they sound the same. You now appear to be arguing with yourself as you previously said the cables sounded different. How can they sound different if the signal shape is identical?

For your information a passive element can readily change the shape of a waveform and therefore distort it. A square wave run through a simple RC filter for example would strip off the higher harmonics leaving more of the fundamental components. The square wave would appear to have the leading corners rounded off - distorted.

The reason coaxial input leads don't do this to any perceivable extent is because the output resistance of a CD player is typically 200 ohms and the coaxial cable will be something much less than 0.1 ohms with a capacitance of typically 50pF terminated into a 47k ohm amplifier input. The resistances attenuate the signal by 47k/(47k+0.1+200) = x0.9957 (-0.036dB) which is too small an attenuation to perceive. The capacitance is frequency selective and basically has a -3dB point (x0.707 half power just perceivable on a logarithmic scale according to the formula f = 1/(2.PI.R.C) so f = 1/(2.PI.200.50E-12) = 15.915 MHz.

If you think you can hear sound up in the Short Wave radio frequency band then you are much better than a bat and never need to buy a radio.

But how much difference does it make at 20kHz I hear you ask? Well the reactance if 50pF at 20kHz is Z = 2.PI.f.C = 2.PI.20E3.50E-12 = 159,154 ohms. So doing the potential divider calculation as before that's a factor of 159k/(159k+200)= x0.9987 (-0.01dB) - utterly imperceptible.

There you go, I used Ohms law which you previously said is all that's needed when considering cables.

So for a normal human being with hearing limited to below 20kHz there's no difference to be perceived - So all coaxial Hi-Fi input interconnects sound the same to humans. Thank you. You are arguing with yourself again :lol: This is fun.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Why do you feel the need to be insulting? Is that an compensatory indication of how you feel about the strength of your argument?
> 
> A distorted waveform is one that's changed shape (voltage vs. time) on an oscilloscope. It would sound different if visibly different in the audio bandwidth frequency domain. If you are now saying the signals have the same shape you are also saying they sound the same. You now appear to be arguing with yourself as you previously said the cables sounded different. How can they sound different if the signal shape is identical?
> 
> For your information a passive element can readily change the shape of a waveform and therefore distort it. A square wave run through a simple RC filter for example would strip off the higher harmonics leaving more of the fundamental components. The square wave would appear to have the leading corners rounded off - distorted.
> 
> The reason coaxial input leads don't do this is because the output resistance of a CD player is typically 200 ohms and the coaxial cable will be something much less than 0.1 ohms with a capacitance of typically 50pF terminated into a 47k ohm amplifier input. The resistances attenuate the signal by 47k/(47k+0.1+200) = x0.9957 (-0.036dB) which is too small an attenuation to perceive. The capacitance is frequency selective and basically has a -3dB point (x0.707 half power just perceivable on a logarithmic scale according to the formula f = 1/(2.PI.R.C) so f = 1/(2.PI.200.50E-12) = 15.915 MHz.
> 
> If you think you can hear sound up in the short wave radio frequency band then you are much better than a bat and never need to buy a radio.
> 
> But how much difference does it make at 20kHz I hear you ask. Well the reactance if 50pF at 20kHz is Z = 2.PI.f.C = 2.PI.20E3.50E-12 = 159,154 ohms. So doing the potential divider calculation as before that's a factor of 159k/(159k+200)= x0.9987 (-0.01dB - utterly imperceptible).
> 
> There you go, I used Ohms law which you previously said is all that's needed when considering cables.
> 
> So for a normal human being with hearing limited to below 20kHz there's no difference to be perceived - So all coaxial Hi-Fi input interconnects sound the same to humans. Thank you. You are arguing with yourself again :lol: This is fun.


Insulting lol,I suggest you look at your Pal's posts :roll: I'll only engage in a structured argument if you stop playing ping pong with each other,else I'm off out of here...

I don't need the lesson in basic electrical physics thanks all the same.

The Resistor Capacitor network is designed to roll off or roll up frequency,but a cable is open circuit.Your argument is invalid in these circumstances because of your test is not showing distortion,which it wouldn't when just testing a cable in isolation.You have also assumed that a cable is used between a low output impedance into a high one,not taking into account that a pre-amplifier can have an R out = >100K.

You've now used Ohms Law and found that there is a way of measuring something quantative however small,although previously you refused to accept that measurements could be made.You also keep referring to coaxial cables ?

Like I've hinted at before there is more than one way of constructing a cable.

Come back when you've worked it out for all topographical combinations,like you said fun...

Edit:

Hint:-

You may want to look at the effects of unbalanced cables and their interaction in a working circuit where the conductor that earths the chassis is also at reference to the desired signal hence carrying a voltage drop,something balanced cables don't do...


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> I'll only engage in a structured argument if you stop playing ping pong with each other,else I'm off out of here...


If we don't stop 'playing ping pong', you'll stop posting in the 2 year old thread you just restarted? Sounds fair enough. Where's my bat...


----------



## leopard

Yep,that's about the strength of it to save the EU thread.

*MOD EDIT: OBSCENE PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED*

Bye.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to be insulting? Is that an compensatory indication of how you feel about the strength of your argument?
> 
> A distorted waveform is one that's changed shape (voltage vs. time) on an oscilloscope. It would sound different if visibly different in the audio bandwidth frequency domain. If you are now saying the signals have the same shape you are also saying they sound the same. You now appear to be arguing with yourself as you previously said the cables sounded different. How can they sound different if the signal shape is identical?
> 
> For your information a passive element can readily change the shape of a waveform and therefore distort it. A square wave run through a simple RC filter for example would strip off the higher harmonics leaving more of the fundamental components. The square wave would appear to have the leading corners rounded off - distorted.
> 
> The reason coaxial input leads don't do this is because the output resistance of a CD player is typically 200 ohms and the coaxial cable will be something much less than 0.1 ohms with a capacitance of typically 50pF terminated into a 47k ohm amplifier input. The resistances attenuate the signal by 47k/(47k+0.1+200) = x0.9957 (-0.036dB) which is too small an attenuation to perceive. The capacitance is frequency selective and basically has a -3dB point (x0.707 half power just perceivable on a logarithmic scale according to the formula f = 1/(2.PI.R.C) so f = 1/(2.PI.200.50E-12) = 15.915 MHz.
> 
> If you think you can hear sound up in the short wave radio frequency band then you are much better than a bat and never need to buy a radio.
> 
> But how much difference does it make at 20kHz I hear you ask. Well the reactance if 50pF at 20kHz is Z = 2.PI.f.C = 2.PI.20E3.50E-12 = 159,154 ohms. So doing the potential divider calculation as before that's a factor of 159k/(159k+200)= x0.9987 (-0.01dB - utterly imperceptible).
> 
> There you go, I used Ohms law which you previously said is all that's needed when considering cables.
> 
> So for a normal human being with hearing limited to below 20kHz there's no difference to be perceived - So all coaxial Hi-Fi input interconnects sound the same to humans. Thank you. You are arguing with yourself again :lol: This is fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insulting lol,I suggest you look at your Pal's posts :roll: I'll only engage in a structured argument if you stop playing ping pong with each other,else I'm off out of here...
Click to expand...




leopard said:


> I don't need the lesson in basic electrical physics thanks all the same.


Well, you keep making basic errors on this subject. For example ....



leopard said:


> The Resistor Capacitor network is designed to roll off or roll up frequency,but a cable is open circuit.


No it isn't. The coaxial cable has a characteristic impedance e.g. RG58 is 50 ohms i.e. when terminated with input and output impedance of 50 ohms it appears as 50 ohms resistive to those input/output ports. This cancels out the reactive components of the transmission line.

When terminated with vastly different impedance however, such as an amplifier's 47k ohm input, it reverts to a largely capacitive load on a typical CD player 200 ohm output.



leopard said:


> Your argument is invalid in these circumstances because of your test is not showing distortion,which it wouldn't when just testing a cable in isolation.


You are again arguing against yourself. You initially claimed these coaxial cables "sounded" different but that requires for there to be a difference in electrical signal. The capacitive loading is one way a cable could sound different but I have explained that it only has an effect at radio frequencies well behind your hearing range. You seem to now be claiming that there is no difference but also previously that there is a difference. Your arguments are contradictory.

My test is designed to highlight any difference between these cables not in isolation but on a real system with real music. It demonstrates no audible difference between cables and proves that any belief that these cables sound different is pure imagination.



leopard said:


> You have also assumed that a cable is used between a low output impedance into a high one,not taking into account that a pre-amplifier can have an R out = >100K.


Sure, you can poorly design a pre amplifier so it has a problem with cable capacitance but even your example with a 50pF cable only had a problem at 31kHz well above your hearing range. I could change the 200 ohm source to 100k to demonstrate any effect but it's not typical.



leopard said:


> You've now used Ohms Law and found that there is a way of measuring something quantative however small,although previously you refused to accept that measurements could be made.You also keep referring to coaxial cables ?


No, I always said that if there was a difference it could be measured and demonstrated but as I showed it's negligible. The mathematical proof is just a theoretical way of doing the same thing.



leopard said:


> Like I've hinted at before there is more than one way of constructing a cable.
> 
> Come back when you've worked it out for all topographical combinations,like you said fun...


Are you trying to confuse the situation again? This thread was about coaxial input leads.



leopard said:


> Edit:
> 
> Hint:-
> 
> You may want to look at the effects of unbalanced cables and their interaction in a working circuit where the conductor that earths the chassis is also at reference to the desired signal hence carrying a voltage drop,something balanced cables don't do...


I refer you to my previous comments.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to be insulting? Is that an compensatory indication of how you feel about the strength of your argument?
> 
> A distorted waveform is one that's changed shape (voltage vs. time) on an oscilloscope. It would sound different if visibly different in the audio bandwidth frequency domain. If you are now saying the signals have the same shape you are also saying they sound the same. You now appear to be arguing with yourself as you previously said the cables sounded different. How can they sound different if the signal shape is identical?
> 
> For your information a passive element can readily change the shape of a waveform and therefore distort it. A square wave run through a simple RC filter for example would strip off the higher harmonics leaving more of the fundamental components. The square wave would appear to have the leading corners rounded off - distorted.
> 
> The reason coaxial input leads don't do this is because the output resistance of a CD player is typically 200 ohms and the coaxial cable will be something much less than 0.1 ohms with a capacitance of typically 50pF terminated into a 47k ohm amplifier input. The resistances attenuate the signal by 47k/(47k+0.1+200) = x0.9957 (-0.036dB) which is too small an attenuation to perceive. The capacitance is frequency selective and basically has a -3dB point (x0.707 half power just perceivable on a logarithmic scale according to the formula f = 1/(2.PI.R.C) so f = 1/(2.PI.200.50E-12) = 15.915 MHz.
> 
> If you think you can hear sound up in the short wave radio frequency band then you are much better than a bat and never need to buy a radio.
> 
> But how much difference does it make at 20kHz I hear you ask. Well the reactance if 50pF at 20kHz is Z = 2.PI.f.C = 2.PI.20E3.50E-12 = 159,154 ohms. So doing the potential divider calculation as before that's a factor of 159k/(159k+200)= x0.9987 (-0.01dB - utterly imperceptible).
> 
> There you go, I used Ohms law which you previously said is all that's needed when considering cables.
> 
> So for a normal human being with hearing limited to below 20kHz there's no difference to be perceived - So all coaxial Hi-Fi input interconnects sound the same to humans. Thank you. You are arguing with yourself again :lol: This is fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insulting lol,I suggest you look at your Pal's posts :roll: I'll only engage in a structured argument if you stop playing ping pong with each other,else I'm off out of here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the lesson in basic electrical physics thanks all the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you keep making basic errors on this subject. For example ....
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Resistor Capacitor network is designed to roll off or roll up frequency,but a cable is open circuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't. The coaxial cable has a characteristic impedance e.g. RG58 is 50 ohms i.e. when terminated with input and output impedance of 50 ohms it appears as 50 ohms resistive to those input/output ports. This cancels out the reactive components of the transmission line.
> 
> When terminated with vastly different impedance however, such as an amplifier's 47k ohm input, it reverts to a largely capacitive load on a typical CD player 200 ohm output.
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is invalid in these circumstances because of your test is not showing distortion,which it wouldn't when just testing a cable in isolation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are again arguing against yourself. You initially claimed these coaxial cables "sounded" different but that requires for there to be a difference in electrical signal. The capacitive loading is one way a cable could sound different but I have explained that it only has an effect at radio frequencies well behind your hearing range. You seem to now be claiming that there is no difference but also previously that there is a difference. Your arguments are contradictory.
> 
> My test is designed to highlight any difference between these cables not in isolation but on a real system with real music. It demonstrates no audible difference between cables and proves that any belief that these cables sound different is pure imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have also assumed that a cable is used between a low output impedance into a high one,not taking into account that a pre-amplifier can have an R out = >100K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, you can poorly design a pre amplifier so it has a problem with cable capacitance but even your example with a 50pF cable only had a problem at 31kHz well above your hearing range. I could change the 200 ohm source to 100k to demonstrate any effect but it's not typical.
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've now used Ohms Law and found that there is a way of measuring something quantative however small,although previously you refused to accept that measurements could be made.You also keep referring to coaxial cables ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I always said that if there was a difference it could be measured and demonstrated but as I showed it's negligible. The mathematical proof is just a theoretical way of doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've hinted at before there is more than one way of constructing a cable.
> 
> Come back when you've worked it out for all topographical combinations,like you said fun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you trying to confuse the situation again? This thread was about coaxial input leads.
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Hint:-
> 
> You may want to look at the effects of unbalanced cables and their interaction in a working circuit where the conductor that earths the chassis is also at reference to the desired signal hence carrying a voltage drop,something balanced cables don't do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I refer you to my previous comments.
Click to expand...

Your raison d'etre throughout the whole of this thread is to state that interconnects have no effect on sound quality.You have shouted it from the roof tops...And probably anything else that might be on a tangent with reference to a bread and butter electronics engineer (yourself) and his handbook.

You're now backpeddling to state it's only coaxial input leads.I've stated all along that interconnects can and do sound different depending on a whole host of combinations,some of which we've only just started to scratch the surface here by a kind of a one upmanship (read sanctimonious) discussion by yourself with a flawed self demonstration,which shows nothing only to be proved wrong by good 'ol Ohms Law however significant that may be,accompanied by awry calculations in a futile attempt to justify your headling topic..."HiFi Nonsense" which proves that a little knowledge can be dangerous.

What is it,something like two cables of the same geometry that you've " tested " ?...Go write the white paper now :lol:

An RC network *is* designed to cut off or indeed cut in a required frequency response in amplifier input or output architecture....no argument.

A pre-amplifier isn't necessarily badly designed or an amplifier that matter just because it happens to have a high R-out,witness the thermionic amplifier.It sounds like you've been brought up by the school of Solid State,high feedback and buffering amps etc where anything higher than a few hundredths R-out is the work of the devil.Clever design and better sound quality can be achieved by breaking these envelopes,one such example being Julius Futterman,a genius in his own right.

How about digital players with no analogue or digital brick wall filters...Does this blow the conceivability factor in your mind also ?

There is no argument with myself,I've been steadfast all along in contrast to yourself..go figure.

Just to boil your blood a little further :lol:

http://www.highendcable.co.uk/Nordost_O ... Cables.htm

http://www.highendcable.co.uk/Nordost_O ... Cables.htm


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> You're now backpeddling to state it's only coaxial input leads.


Oh you are back. Now you seem not to be able to read or conveniently remember my first post :roll: :



John-H said:


> I actually made a test facility to amplify only the difference between two different audio interconnects passing the same audio signal to prove this point and it proved to the ears of anyone listening that there is NO audible difference between cheap coax and whatever expensive leads you care to compare. Over the distance of typically 1m of interconnect between typical Hi-Fi components this is an utterly pointless consideration.


Note the word "co-ax". Note the word "typical" with a CD player and amplifier as example. The £1,000+ co-ax leads shown were offered for this purpose. That's the subject and whether the leads featured in this situation make a difference. I say they don't and gave details of a test for leads with full details, you said they do and came out with this nonsense:



leopard said:


> as a practical demonstration make up three sets of interconnects in the simplest configuration ie hot (signal) and return (ground).One with purified lead wire,copper and silver.
> 
> Starting with the lead the sound will be heavy thick and slow,the copper will have normally perceived sound and the silver will sound slightly brighter like the treble has been turned up slowly.


Then you came out with this clap trap:



leopard said:


> You can sweep a cable made from different materials on an oscilloscope from dc to 100 Mhz and they will measure the same whilst sounding different.


To which I responded:



John-H said:


> It's absurd to suggest that two cables sound different when they demonstrably produce the same electrical signal. Don't you realise that you are claiming your sound difference is not represented or carried by the electrical signal?
> 
> How then does the amplifier know what sound difference to produce in the speakers without the information being present in the electrical signal?


The argument carried on with you clearly not understanding how my test worked and not appreciating the contradictions and physical impossibilities of what you say.

Since then you've obfuscated, unwittingly argued with yourself and introduced all sorts of other irrelevant detail as a smoke screen to try and divert and broaden the scope of the discussion to include examples where there is a difference but was not the subject of my post e.g. latest:



leopard said:


> I've stated all along that interconnects can and do sound different depending on a whole host of combinations,some of which we've only just started to scratch the surface here


And this:



leopard said:


> A pre-amplifier isn't necessarily badly designed or an amplifier that matter just because it happens to have a high R-out,witness the thermionic amplifier. ... Clever design and better sound quality can be achieved by breaking these envelopes,one such example being Julius Futterman,a genius in his own right.





leopard said:


> How about digital players with no analogue or digital brick wall filters...Does this blow the conceivability factor in your mind also ?


All of those are not the subject of this thread which is a comparison between inexpensive and expensive analogue coax input leads used in a typical situation e.g CD player and amplifier. It couldn't be simpler but you have to complicate the issue to confuse the reader.

And this is superb:



leopard said:


> There is no argument with myself,I've been steadfast all along in contrast to yourself..go figure.


It's like trying to have a logical conversation with a door knocking religious zealot with a (Hi-Fi) magazine full of quotes from the holy ones.

You'd argue that black is white just for something to say. Just read the thread again and have another go at understanding what it's about.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're now backpeddling to state it's only coaxial input leads.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you are back. Now you seem not to be able to read or conveniently remember my first post :roll: :
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually made a test facility to amplify only the difference between two different audio interconnects passing the same audio signal to prove this point and it proved to the ears of anyone listening that there is NO audible difference between cheap coax and whatever expensive leads you care to compare. Over the distance of typically 1m of interconnect between typical Hi-Fi components this is an utterly pointless consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note the word "co-ax". Note the word "typical" with a CD player and amplifier as example. The £1,000+ co-ax leads shown were offered for this purpose. That's the subject and whether the leads featured in this situation make a difference. I say they don't and gave details of a test for leads with full details, you said they do and came out with this nonsense:
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> as a practical demonstration make up three sets of interconnects in the simplest configuration ie hot (signal) and return (ground).One with purified lead wire,copper and silver.
> 
> Starting with the lead the sound will be heavy thick and slow,the copper will have normally perceived sound and the silver will sound slightly brighter like the treble has been turned up slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you came out with this clap trap:
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can sweep a cable made from different materials on an oscilloscope from dc to 100 Mhz and they will measure the same whilst sounding different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I responded:
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's absurd to suggest that two cables sound different when they demonstrably produce the same electrical signal. Don't you realise that you are claiming your sound difference is not represented or carried by the electrical signal?
> 
> How then does the amplifier know what sound difference to produce in the speakers without the information being present in the electrical signal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument carried on with you clearly not understanding how my test worked and not appreciating the contradictions and physical impossibilities of what you say.
> 
> Since then you've obfuscated, unwittingly argued with yourself and introduced all sorts of other irrelevant detail as a smoke screen to try and divert and broaden the scope of the discussion to include examples where there is a difference but was not the subject of my post e.g. latest:
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated all along that interconnects can and do sound different depending on a whole host of combinations,some of which we've only just started to scratch the surface here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this:
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> A pre-amplifier isn't necessarily badly designed or an amplifier that matter just because it happens to have a high R-out,witness the thermionic amplifier. ... Clever design and better sound quality can be achieved by breaking these envelopes,one such example being Julius Futterman,a genius in his own right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about digital players with no analogue or digital brick wall filters...Does this blow the conceivability factor in your mind also ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those are not the subject of this thread which is a comparison between inexpensive and expensive analogue coax input leads used in a typical situation e.g CD player and amplifier. It couldn't be simpler but you have to complicate the issue to confuse the reader.
> 
> And this is superb:
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument with myself,I've been steadfast all along in contrast to yourself..go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like trying to have a logical conversation with a door knocking religious zealot with a (Hi-Fi) magazine full of quotes from the holy ones.
> 
> You'd argue that black is white just for something to say. Just read the thread again and have another go at understanding what it's about.
Click to expand...

Firstly you've said it in your own first paragraph.

Quote:" I actually made a test facility to amplify only the difference between two different audio interconnects passing the same audio signal to prove this point and it proved to the ears of anyone listening that there is NO audible difference between cheap coax and whatever expensive leads you care to compare."

Then this
Quote:

"In the case of Hi-Fi interconnects you are quite wrong Mr Leopard. That's not just an opinion but a physically demonstrable fact that can be repeated any time. Just say the word but I know you won't do that because you "believe" otherwise with an insurmountable faith. Ok it's a free cosmos."

I fail to see where you've said it's only coax cables...

"Whatever expensive leads you care to compare" :lol:

The amplifier and other examples are purely for your own comprehension,to wit,that differing output impedances do exist and therefore will interact with L,C,R of a given cable....nothing more and this is without going into any other kind of measurements outside of basic electrical parameters...

That's it exactly,you're the door knocking religious zealot, 
(quote: physical impossibilities,contradictions,claptrap and smokescreens :lol: ) for not taking into consideration other environs to which a cable can sound different.I have gone to great lengths by giving examples how this might be so but of course your sanctimony refuses to see this and yes,although a cable's material make up can be constructed from a wide range of materials including the carbon conductor of the cable you set out to humiliate,it will sound different to one made of silver.

Do yourself a favour,dry your eyes and instead of pontificating go out and get a demonstration from a reputed independent dealer who can show and let you hear the improvements in cable hierarchy in a controlled listening environment and report back.

Chop,chop :roll:


----------



## Spandex

Just so we're all clear, do you agree with the idea that there is no difference in sound between cheap coax and expensive coax cables?

Because if you don't agree, it seems like that's the thing you need to be discussing with the organ grinder. Arguing the toss over the semantics of his first post might feel like an easy win, but I can't see it going anywhere. Just a helpful tip from a fellow monkey. :wink:


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> Just so we're all clear, do you agree with the idea that there is no difference in sound between cheap coax and expensive coax cables?
> 
> Because if you don't agree, it seems like that's the thing you need to be discussing with the organ grinder. Arguing the toss over the semantics of his first post might feel like an easy win, but I can't see it going anywhere. Just a helpful tip from a fellow monkey. :wink:


Only if the coaxial cable has the same electrical specification,for example the impedance,velocity factor and material make up and one is only more expensive than the other because it might be branded differently and consequently sold at a different price.

If however for the sake of argument a coaxial cable has different materials,impedances then yes,there is a possibility it will sound different in the context of differing sound systems to which I've already been accused of going off topic with.

But why the context of coaxial cables ?

It's already been stated..."Any cable you care to compare" of which there are dozens of differing types.

I will continue tonight if you want to discuss in a non
condescending way because atm I've got a company to run :wink:


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> I will continue tonight if you want to discuss in a non
> condescending way because atm I've got a company to run :wink:


The trouble is, when you say hilarious things like that, I get this massive urge to take the piss out of you.

Ok, I'll try to take it seriously if you promise not to mention the canteen staff again. That one really set me off...


----------



## John-H

I actually said...



John-H said:


> I actually made a test facility to amplify only the difference between two different audio interconnects passing the same audio signal to prove this point and it proved to the ears of anyone listening that there is NO audible difference between cheap coax and whatever expensive leads you care to compare. Over the distance of typically 1m of interconnect between typical Hi-Fi components this is an utterly pointless consideration.





leopard said:


> I fail to see where you've said it's only coax cables...


That's because I didn't but it's presumed the variation is cheap to expensive and therefore unnecessary English to repeat the word coax unless arguing with someone looking for an escape route - if you don't use coax screening you'll likely pick up mains hum and then they will sound different but it won't be the cable that sounds different it will be the interfering signal due to a lack of screening. I suppose you could attempt a twisted pair to remove mains interference but it's not so good at near field cancellation.

You also edit out where I say "typically 1m of interconnect between typical Hi-Fi components". You trying to broaden the scope again?

I think it's reasonably clear what In talking about. Particularly as I compared at length the manufacturer's comments about 200 ohm CD output impedance and 50k ohm amplifier input impedance.

You later introduced speaker cables and I said I agree they can affect damping factor if the resistance was to high and therefore the sound but it's away from the context of the subject I introduced, as was your attempt to introduce extreme impedances as it's not typical but I also agreed if they were extreme enough then yes they could affect the sound but it didn't appear that the example you gave was extreme enough.

Now, having explained the context again let's look at your first comment in response to my first and introductory post where you said:



leopard said:


> I see this topic has risen it's head again albeit in a slightly different form.
> 
> Cables do make a difference to sound quality and it's relatively easy to tell the difference with the right equipment.
> 
> Firstly as a practical demonstration make up three sets of interconnects in the simplest configuration ie hot (signal) and return (ground).One with purified lead wire,copper and silver.
> 
> Starting with the lead the sound will be heavy thick and slow,the copper will have normally perceived sound and the silver will sound slightly brighter like the treble has been turned up slowly.


You didn't claim any different context. So, do you maintain that's relevant to a 200 ohm output CD player connected with a 1m lead into a 47k ohm input amplifier - let's say any CD player of your choosing and any hi-fi amp meeting those typical resistive parameters and any speakers? This is so you are compatible with the topic of the thread.

Now, you must have mentioned lead copper and silver for a reason. Are you maintaining that leads made of those different materials in the above circumstances will sound different? Yes or no?

Do you still stand by the following statement:



leopard said:


> You can sweep a cable made from different materials on an oscilloscope from dc to 100 Mhz and they will measure the same whilst sounding different.


Can you explain how the amplifier knows what the difference to amplify is when the signals are measurably identical?

Please explain.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> I actually said...
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually made a test facility to amplify only the difference between two different audio interconnects passing the same audio signal to prove this point and it proved to the ears of anyone listening that there is NO audible difference between cheap coax and whatever expensive leads you care to compare. Over the distance of typically 1m of interconnect between typical Hi-Fi components this is an utterly pointless consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see where you've said it's only coax cables...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because I didn't but it's presumed the variation is cheap to expensive and therefore unnecessary English to repeat the word coax unless arguing with someone looking for an escape route - if you don't use coax screening you'll likely pick up mains hum and then they will sound different but it won't be the cable that sounds different it will be the interfering signal due to a lack of screening. I suppose you could attempt a twisted pair to remove mains interference but it's not so good at near field cancellation.
> 
> You also edit out where I say "typically 1m of interconnect between typical Hi-Fi components". You trying to broaden the scope again?
> 
> I think it's reasonably clear what In talking about. Particularly as I compared at length the manufacturer's comments about 200 ohm CD output impedance and 50k ohm amplifier input impedance.
> 
> You later introduced speaker cables and I said I agree they can affect damping factor if the resistance was to high and therefore the sound but it's away from the context of the subject I introduced, as was your attempt to introduce extreme impedances as it's not typical but I also agreed if they were extreme enough then yes they could affect the sound but it didn't appear that the example you gave was extreme enough.
> 
> Now, having explained the context again let's look at your first comment in response to my first and introductory post where you said:
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see this topic has risen it's head again albeit in a slightly different form.
> 
> Cables do make a difference to sound quality and it's relatively easy to tell the difference with the right equipment.
> 
> Firstly as a practical demonstration make up three sets of interconnects in the simplest configuration ie hot (signal) and return (ground).One with purified lead wire,copper and silver.
> 
> Starting with the lead the sound will be heavy thick and slow,the copper will have normally perceived sound and the silver will sound slightly brighter like the treble has been turned up slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't claim any different context. So, do you maintain that's relevant to a 200 ohm output CD player connected with a 1m lead into a 47k ohm input amplifier - let's say any CD player of your choosing and any hi-fi amp meeting those typical resistive parameters and any speakers? This is so you are compatible with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Now, you must have mentioned lead copper and silver for a reason. Are you maintaining that leads made of those different materials in the above circumstances will sound different? Yes or no?
> 
> Do you still stand by the following statement:
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can sweep a cable made from different materials on an oscilloscope from dc to 100 Mhz and they will measure the same whilst sounding different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you explain how the amplifier knows what the difference to amplify is when the signals are measurably identical?
> 
> Please explain.
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph in which you claim....

Do you know I don't give a f*** ,haven't got the time.

Go on deluding yourself and your disciples and believe what you want to believe :roll:


----------

