See, cables do matter!!! (Yeah right) (1 Viewer)

[Brad_Harper]

Actually speakers can be capacitive (electrostatics) or inductive (any speaker with a cone woofer). Neither of these will affect the signal coming from a CD player (any source) to the amplifier. The input to an amp is seen by the source as a resistor; most of the time it is apporx 10Kohms. So using a scope to view the signal is perfectly valid. To view amplifier output one just has to put the scope into parallel with whatever speaker you have hooked up. Seeing as the impedance of the speaker is low (8 ohms) and the scopes impedeance is very high (millions of ohms) the impedance of the entire circuit seen by the amp will not be change by any signifcant amount.

8 ohms in parallel with 1 Mohm = a circuit with an impedance of 7.9936 ohms. Not anywhere near enough to affect any waveforms.

 

[Chu Gai]

Well that's an oversimplification of an electrostatic speaker. If we've got an electrostatic panel that's coupled to a tranformer we''l find the behavior to be a bit more complex. At very low frequencies the impedance tends to be predominantly resistive. As the fundamental resonance of the diaphragm, the impedance rises with frequency and is predominantly inductive. At the resonance it's resistive. Above the resonance, the impedance falls with frequency and is predominantly capacitive. If it were purely capacitive, there'd be no output whatsoever, just as if it were purely inductive. In the former case, the amp would see an impedance phase angle of +90 degrees while it would be -90 degrees in the latter.

 

[John Garcia]

Argue with this: I was skeptical too, and always just used basic cables, until I decided one day to try it out myself. I wasn't TRYING to believe, I was trying to DISPROVE to myself that there was a worthwhile difference. I went and got a variety of boutique cables and tried them all for days on end, weeks in some cases. I could discern subtle differences in each of them. Now, the tolerance level for me was cable cost. What was I willing to spend for those subtle differences? I found a level that was reasonable to me for what I got in return.

Go down to a higher end store with a good return policy. Pick up some substantial analog ICs, and try them out, comparing them to your $30 ICs for a few weeks, DBT, or not, and see what you find. If you haven't done this, you have no arguement.

 

[Brad_Harper]

Chu I know I over simplified the speaker loads. I know all speakers are a combination of resistance, inductance and capacitance and form an impeadance. Impeadance varies with frequency and yadda yadda. I was just trying to point out that putting an O scope in parallel with the speaker will not affect what the O scope sees.

John: I have listened to fancy silver cables and the such and I couldn't hear the difference. As for your arguement that you did hear the difference. You're entitled to your opinion but you're making statements about what you "think" you've heard and not about what was actually there. To test a cables abiltity to conduct signals you don't need to do any listening at all. So forget about what you "think" you hear and look at the waveforms. Let me know what you find out. You will turn to the dark side. You know you want too.

 

[Chu Gai]

Just wanted to amplify on the electrostatic thing Brad

Well a scope is but one way of looking at things. The thing is, examining something like an analog interconnect between two devices, it's pretty easy, knowing such things as the preamp's & amp's output/input impedances and capacitance to calculate how linearly the signal is going from one to the other. This is not a mystery. However, as this starts becoming common knowledge amongst people and they get a gut feeling for what's going on, you find manufacturers inventing theories or utilizing approaches that may well do what they say but from a practical point of view have no effect on audibility.
There's no reason a person can't used sighted evaluations without level matching for their own personal reasons. However due to the inherent flaws in such an approach they basically have no validity outside of that person. Certainly not a procedure that can be duplicated or verified with any degree of certainty.

 

[Yogi]

That is the only thing I took home from this thread. Didn't really know that.

 

[Chu Gai]

Yes, but Einstein wasn't too shabby

 

[BrianAe]

Amid all the clutter in this thread is some information that I was wondering about. Namely, is there any concensious among those who use or believe in expensive cables about the details of how they work or what benefit they provide. The answer I think is a resonding no.

1) Some say the difference is subtle and some say it is quite large

2) Some say what expensive cables provide is better clarity, others say cables do color the sound , still others can't explain the improvement

3) Some are sceptical of break in even though they do believe in expensive cables others believe in break in.

4) Some believe in digital interconnects, others do not.

 

[Yogi]

What say Chu? Time to break out the beer?

 

[RobertR]

You said absolutely nothing about using a proper double blind methodology, so your comparisons were subject to the psychoacoustic bias mentioned by Eugene. You can claim "immunity" to bias all you want, but unless you eliminate it as a possibility, you're still subject to it.

It always fascinates me how often those who claim to have no bias will fight steps to eliminate it so vehemently.

 

[Chu Gai]

Yogi's on to something. BTW, how's the tube setup doing?
Time to pause for a nice NY pastrami sandwich.

And afterwards, I'm in the mood for some Bush.

 

[DavidLW]

Sound..... yes, Music...... no

Psycho-acoustic 101b- When we listen to Music on our stereo system, our left ear hears mainly the left speaker and our right ear hears mainly the right speaker. But our left ear also hears the right (opposite) speaker and our right ear also hears the left (opposite) speaker. The sound of the music from the opposite speaker in each ear is ever so slightly delayed because it's farther from that speaker (plus our head is in the way). Our brain uses this delay to help construct an image of the Music in front of us. When we toe our speakers in and out to get a better image of the Music, what we're also doing is changing what each ear hears from the opposite speaker (high frequencies are very directional). Stereo recording behaves the same way. Each channel mainly records it's own side plus some of the opposite side. How much of the opposite side it records depends on the sweep (the recording footprint) of the microphone, it's position (how far apart they are) and the sound engineer. Some, very little or a lotl of this delayed information of the opposite channels can make it into the final recording (CD / vinyl). Now our brain is really confused because not only do we hear the actual delay of the Music from the opposite speaker, we also hear the delay Music of the opposite channel (that the microphone recorded) in the closer speaker. Teaching our brain how to filter through the conflicting infomation is part of the learning process of listening to Music with our stereo system. How well a recorded piece of Music image depends on the balance of how much delayed info is recorded and what's actually happening in your room. If you listen to the Music with headphones and thus eliminating the actual delay information from each ear you will notice that it's very hard to from a 3-D image in front of you. So some information from the opposite speaker in necessary for our brain to form the image. It is this imaging of Music that can not be measured. It doesn't exist in real space. Yet, nearly everyone can (or at least is capable of) this imaging process. And you can consistantly get the right response when listeners are asked to judge if a certain recording images well or not. Even though all listeners don't form the exact same mental image. There is no way that you can hook up an O-scope (or two O-scopes to imitate our ears) and measure how well a recording will image. You may see the difference in waveform of a well imaging recording vs a poor imaging recording but you can't tell which is which without your ears. Ears are used in every step of the way when going from live to CD (vinyl). So it's only logical that using your ears is the best way to "measure" Music. The day they eliminate the human ear from this chain is the day you can claim your O-scope is better than the ears in measuring Music.

On a side note. The Hafler Effect- David Hafler (of Hafler Amps fame) has a novel way of expanding this 3-d imaging. What you do hook up some rear speakers. You play the right front speaker in the left rear and the left front speaker in the right rear. The only thing was that you hook up the rear speakers out of phase with the front speakers. Of cousre you'll need another amp, though not much of one as the rear channel are bearly audible. What this does is cancel some of the sound of the opposite speaker from each ear. It's the same principle used in noise cancelling headphones. The improvement to imaging varied from recording to recording. It can vary from amazing to "what's his noise I hear coming from the rear". When done right you don't even hear the rear speakers, just a huge sound stage in front. If you have some spare time and an extra receiver and speakers hanging around...... go for it. (Just take the signal out of your tape loop and input it into the second receiver). You have to be able to control the volume of the rear speakers. Hooking up the "B" speakers of a receiver may work if you can control the volume of the "B" speakers. There are also "bi-aural" recordings that take advantage of this process. But that's another day.

As for Einstein being lousy in math. That a little misleading. He understood more than most but just couldn't see wasting his time thinking about how to formulate equations to prove his ideas. He found math boring. And yes, even though he understood calculus and quantum mechanicals he would often made mistakes in addition and subtraction.

 

[Chu Gai]

interesting, but how does this address the question is one cable is audibly different from another?

 

[John Garcia]

Sorry, lousy was an oversimplification.

 

[John A. Casler]

Sorry Chu, but I didn't see where I suggested "any" cables???

I simply proposed that while measurments are great, there is not a measurment for all human sensory perception.

I certainly could care less if someone wants to listen to lamp cord (I assume all you objective arguers do) or $10K cables.

Do you use the 12ga lamp cord? and if not, why not?

But the end result is that people will do what they want.

They'll take Mega-vitamins, they think Ultra-happy thoughts, they'll buy megabuck cables.

They'll also judge the world on how they perceive it and not how it may be to others. Seems logical.

Julian Hirsch said "all quality amps sound the same"

PT Barnum said (paraphrasing) There's a sucker born every minute"

12ga Zip cord or more? That is the question.

I know my answer....

 

[Angelo.M]

BrianAe:

It would have been fitting to close this thread with your "summary post." Answers to those questions are not, and will not be, forthcoming.

"Cables matter!" "Yeah, right."
"There are large differences in amplifier performance!" "Uh, sure".
"Green markers make my CDs sound sweet!" "No way."
"See my new Tice Clock. Keeps my rig running right!" "Get lost."

The answer lies... in you...

OK, who wants a...



...I'm buying...

 

[BrianAe]

Angelo,

IF you no longer interested in the thread, then why are you still reading it

 

[Angelo.M]

I don't recall having said anything of the kind. So much for complementing your post.

I'm having more fun with this thread than I've had on HTF in a long, long time (at least since the last time we dragged out the old "subjectivist-objectivist-I-hear-a-difference-that-you-don't" dog and pony show).

As usual, it's a lot more useful to talk about beer. So pass the...

 

[BrianAe]

Ah, then cheers! Sorry for the misunderstanding...

 

[Angelo.M]

No worries, Brian! All cables "sound" great after a few Grolsches...