Does high quality digital cables matter?
Comments
-
You're not the first to come in here purposing the same type of challenge and I'm sure you won't be the last. Each has expected folks to travel to them. Of course, someone like you is banking that no one is going to spend the time and money traveling to where you are. It's a safe bet for you and just like your previous proposal when no one shows up you get to proclaim that no one had the balls to take your challenge. You think you've made a point when in reality all you've ended up with is a bag of false pride.
Do you purposefully not read posts or are you always this dumb? I said I would drive the 4 hours to Tony's place in Chicago. Jesus Wept.
If you really want folks to take your challenge, you do the traveling and come to Polkfest in the fall.
Hold on a second:
On one hand everyone says they have to hear it in their own setup. It's in this very thread and I know it's in others.
But now it's: Come to a venue that no one is familiar with?!
So which is it? Start up a separate thread on the subject, get everyone together and hash it out and let me know.
However I think Tony is quite capable of speaking for himself. He said it has to be setup in a familiar rig (his) and so far he has said he doesn't want to demonstrate to the tune of a nice DAC that he can tell the difference without knowing what cable is being used. -
This goes both ways. You are trying to prove your hypothesis that Ethernet cables make no difference by expecting others to do your work. You have assumed it is impossible for these cables to affect audio quality, and are designing an experiment that, by the nature of its design, will prove your point. Not exactly the scientific method.
There are too many reports coming in claiming there is a difference. Your experiment needs to not rely on somebody's hearing, but on examining the packet as it leaves the storage device, and arrives at the player. The rise/fall of the signal needs to be measured to the thousandths or better, the timing of each bit needs to be similarly measured between each cable. Since a music file will not fit in a single Ethernet packet, the assembled file going to the file player needs to be similarly compared to the same file coming off the drive. Once you get some data then you can refine your hypothesis. Until then you just have a contrived BS test.
I don't have to prove a single digit. I just have to find a single brave soul.
Wireshark or Ethereal will do packet sniffing. But the real test is to checksum the file at the source and the destination. Just send over the entire CD of songs (~5-7 seconds on GB networking) then run the checksum again.
So to point out the obvious error in your riposte: What happens if you measure packets on a 'superior' CATX cable and it varies from play back to play back? Let's say it's different every time? Good luck with that. You simply don't understand how networking works. Read up on the OSI model first, look at TCP windowing etc...
You do realize that Hospitals hire 3rd party radiologists that are viewing X-Rays, 4K resolution, on their computers and that the person and computer could be and often are 100 or 1000s of miles away and may even be in India. -
The problem with your reply to the analogy is that you assume that the "ride" in the car the "people" are taking has no affect on the people. What matters is the speed, comfort, and condition they arrived in. In the Yugo, the "people" arrived in a constricted (due to small space), uncomfortable (due to being thrown arround the inside of the car because it doesn't handle well), and bumpy (because the suspension sucks and the material used to make the car were adequate, but not exrodinary) Also, the speed at which they arrived was much slower than their friends travelling in the Lexus (but I prefer a BMW being used
) and this left them unhappy, short tempered, and "singing the blues").
Alternatively, the people who arrived in the Lexus (although, again I would use a BMW ) arrived in a very good mood since the car handling, suspension, materials used to make the "car", and space inside were much better and more adequate to what the "ride" gave them. These "people" arrived very quickly and happily. These people were so happy they "sang" joyously about their arrival.
Again, you need to think about it from the "travellers" perspective as well as the observers of the "travellers" in order to understand how cables work and why there can be differences in them. Until you can do that, you will always believe that all cables sound the same.
Good luck and happy listening.
Remember I said a proper Ethernet cable. I.E. the road is perfectly smooth. This isn't hard to do with networking and for home setups quite trivial.
The travelers are the data. They don't have feelings. You are maintaining the difference is audible. -
Maybe a better analogy would be me telling him how to set up a computer network system, never having done it before. How much weight would my opinion carry with him ? None....thats how much.
Same goes for cables. If you only have experience with X cables, your opinions on Y and Z cables is pretty much worthless.
Whats not sinking in is the fact that it is not up to us to distinguish, it's up to them. Only by experience can an opinion carry weight. If you try 3 different cables from 3 different price categories and still can't hear a difference, I would respect that opinion. When you buy stuff, anything...do you seek reviews from those who never owned one, never had experience with the product ? No...you want reviews from those with experience with said product. HELLO !!
Your experience has exactly zero merit in so far as you giving advice to others. The fact that you talk but won't walk says it all.
I'm trying to give you $1600 in some form or fashion. All you need to do is PROVE you can HEAR the difference.
My only opinion is you can't do what you say you can do. You don't have the chops.
[sarcasm] I shudder any any computer audiophiles that use the mainboard integrated realtek PHY [/sarcasm] -
Let me ask you this...do you think that compression effects the quality of a music file?
Now that you have answered yes (because if you didn't answer yes, then we have clearly found your problem...because it does, indeed have an effect), consider how a music file is transferred from point A to point B...or data if you prefer as you can't seem to unwrap your head from the "data is data" mantra.
Fact: Files are compressed before transmission and decompressed when they are received.
Fact: Synchronous transmission *does* result in minor constant corruptions and corrections due to sending and receiving clocks never being identical (even 2 atomic clocks will be slightly off from each other).
Fact: Parity checksums can contain errors and still pass.
And much more that can effect your digital passing of 1s and 0s.
It has been proven, time and time again that digital signals can and will pass errors. They aren't infallible and all of this adds up to potential auditory differences.
But I am more than willing to take you up on your offer. I could use a DAC upgrade. (Having heard first hand that there is indeed a difference in audio quality between the same manufacturer's Cat5E and Cat6 cables)"Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
Habanero Monk wrote: »Do you purposefully not read posts or are you always this dumb?
When it comes to your posts I freely admit to not reading all of them as I can only take so much of your ignorant trolling.I said I would drive the 4 hours to Tony's place in Chicago.
Yet before you expected folks to travel to Dayton. So, now that you willing to travel a bit, make it to Polkfest.Jesus Wept.
Indeed he did, he might even for you.Hold on a second:
On one hand everyone says they have to hear it in their own setup. It's in this very thread and I know it's in others.
But now it's: Come to a venue that no one is familiar with?!
So which is it? Start up a separate thread on the subject, get everyone together and hash it out and let me know.
I was presenting an option for you. Of course, instead of saying yes you've done yet another side step.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Yet before you expected folks to travel to Dayton. So, now that you willing to travel a bit, make it to Polkfest.
It was mere conjecture on my part the first time. Nice that you confirmed it for me.
The entire issue with anyone coming to a GTG is that, surprise, "It wasn't their setup".
2ndly I didn't expect anyone to drive anywhere. It was simply an offer of venue. One rejected by many for the reason quoted above.
Anyways I have some business to conduct with ZLTFUL. Run along now... -
But I am more than willing to take you up on your offer. I could use a DAC upgrade. (Having heard first hand that there is indeed a difference in audio quality between the same manufacturer's Cat5E and Cat6 cables)
Can you give me a zip code to see travel options? Reasonably 4 hours is about my max driving time. Anything over that and air travel, paid by the losing party, should be the Nom De Rigor IMO.
Let me know if that is acceptable. Then we can work out the rest of the details and completeness of understanding (i.e. due diligence).
Remember, my side will be BJC Certified Cat6 for the audio portion. I'll bring some generic cable for the RDP control of the Music Computer.
Also please state if you assertion is that your Ethernet cable will outperform the BJC I am bringing. It will need to be certified. No showing up and I hook up a broken patch cord from you and you can easily tell the difference. But we can work out all that no problems. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »It was mere conjecture on my part the first time. Nice that you confirmed it for me.
The entire issue with anyone coming to a GTG is that, surprise, "It wasn't their setup".
2ndly I didn't expect anyone to drive anywhere. It was simply an offer of venue. One rejected by many for the reason quoted above.
Anyways I have some business to conduct with ZLTFUL. Run along now...
You are so full of crap.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Actually, the Polkfest idea I like...pretty sure there will be a variety of cables available....and a variety of opinions and ears.
Pack up the Scooby-doo van Monk, looks like your going on a road trip.
BTW- the dribble keeps getting better and better. LOL Get some experience under your belt with a variety of cables, then come back and discuss. Otherwise nobody here is going to give you the time of day.HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
Pack up the Scooby-doo van Monk, looks like your going on a road trip.
Looks like to ZLTFUL's place.
To those who don't have ZLTFUL's level of integrity you should all just shut up.
Tony you had your chance. -
Still dodging the Polkfest invite I see......so much for your level of integrity.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Still dodging the Polkfest invite I see......so much for your level of integrity.
Your clique did nothing but complain about it not being in their listening environment. So I finally capitulated because I don't want someone that failed it in a listening environment totally alien to them using that as an excuse.
So now you are going to say that listening in your own room isn't the optimum?
It will have to be in someones environment that they are intimately familiar with. I am leaving no one an out to welsh on the deal. I am giving you all possible advantages that don't involve sighted testing.
Keep dancing Gene.
-
Wow! This is the answer to everything that I said!? I replied to two of your posts at great length and depth. You answer *both* of my replies with what's below (being very light in depth and content)? :sad:
Anyway, in response to your inadequate response:Habanero Monk wrote: »Remember I said a proper Ethernet cable. I.E. the road is perfectly smooth. This isn't hard to do with networking and for home setups quite trivial.
Again, your logic and thinking are flawed. There *IS NO* perfectly smooth road (either in the car analogy, nor in the actual cable). There are smoother roads and less smooth roads; there are also a minimum level of smoothness the road is kept to keep the "travellers" riding on them in their "cars". Everyone would absolutely prefer a perfectly smooth road, but it doesn't exist. To deal with this, some can only afford (or are *willing* to afford) the minumum acceptable vehicle to get them from point A to point B on this road. Others are willing and able to spend more on a higher quality vehicle to get them from point A to point B in much higher "comfort", speed, and less "edgy".
As I said in my last post:Again, you need to think about it from the "travellers" perspective as well as the observers of the "travellers" in order to understand how cables work and why there can be differences in them. Until you can do that, you will always believe that all cables sound the same.
You are still not willing or able to do this, unfortunately.Habanero Monk wrote: »The travelers are the data. They don't have feelings. You are maintaining the difference is audible.
Well, it's good to see you are very basically understanding the analogy. Thanks for pointing out that the "travellers" are the data. It is true that data has no feelings, but data can still exibit and "express" unpleasant things that happen to it while" travelling on this "road" (just as the passangers can and most often will express what their travel experience was like in the "vehicle". That is the Yugo or the Lexus).
Yes, I do still maintain the difference that the "travellers" experience is audible, just as the experience can audible from the "people" travelling in their cars.
You need to imagine yourself actually being in the cable and traveling down it. Imagine all the effects that two very different cables put onto you. Can you do that?
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."![:\](https://forum.polkaudio.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
Habanero Monk wrote: »I don't have to prove a single digit. I just have to find a single brave soul.
Wireshark or Ethereal will do packet sniffing. But the real test is to checksum the file at the source and the destination. Just send over the entire CD of songs (~5-7 seconds on GB networking) then run the checksum again.
So to point out the obvious error in your riposte: What happens if you measure packets on a 'superior' CATX cable and it varies from play back to play back? Let's say it's different every time? Good luck with that. You simply don't understand how networking works. Read up on the OSI model first, look at TCP windowing etc...
You do realize that Hospitals hire 3rd party radiologists that are viewing X-Rays, 4K resolution, on their computers and that the person and computer could be and often are 100 or 1000s of miles away and may even be in India.
I explained to you what needs to be done for a valid experiment, not a BS contrived experiment. Get some valid data and then you can talk, but now all you are doing is spouting BS based on what you think should happen without any data to support your hypothesis.
Also, you shouldn't use words like OSI, or TCP windowing since they are beyond your education level. There is more to it than what you read on Wiki. Simply because the Ethernet checksum is correct, doesn't mean the final assembled music file is the same. The checksum, or CRC, is based on the 1s and 0s. In this case, they are electrical pulses representing 1s and 0s. These pulses have a rise and fall, which can have slight timing issues introduced by the cable. While the received packet will have the correct CRC, it very well can have slightly different timing characteristics than when it left. There is a +/- tolerance built into it, and the final destination app is built to handle that. If that is possible, and it certainly is, then different cables can create different timings in the final file, which will manifest itself as sounding different to someone used to their system. At least, that is my hypothesis of what could be occurring in this situation. If I cared, and I don't, I would do exactly what I said to test it, not create a contrived test to "prove" it.
That is why you need to look at the electrical signal (file) before it is transmitted, and compare that to the electrical signal (file) after it is received. As I said before, I have not yet tried streaming music, so I have no first hand experience with trying Ethernet cables for audio. You very well might be right, but your contrived experiment is BS. Until you actually have data to give your idea any legitimacy all you are doing is sounding stupid with a nonsense test.
In so far as understanding networking, after I graduated with a Computer Science degree I have only worked in networking. Starting with Hewlett-Packard, then Ungermann-Bass, Bay Networks, a couple of start ups, Foundry Networks, Brocade Networks, and my current job where I write software to test all this crap. So while I certainly do not know everything, I do know enough to accept the possibility that a received music file can be the same from a CRC perspective as the transmitted file, but be slightly different on the timing. I'm not sure if this would be the same as jitter, but the concept is the same.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Also, you shouldn't use words like OSI, or TCP windowing since they are beyond your education level. There is more to it than what you read on Wiki. Simply because the Ethernet checksum is correct, doesn't mean the final assembled music file is the same. The checksum, or CRC, is based on the 1s and 0s. In this case, they are electrical pulses representing 1s and 0s. These pulses have a rise and fall, which can have slight timing issues introduced by the cable. While the received packet will have the correct CRC, it very well can have slightly different timing characteristics than when it left. There is a +/- tolerance built into it, and the final destination app is built to handle that. If that is possible, and it certainly is, then different cables can create different timings in the final file, which will manifest itself as sounding different to someone used to their system. At least, that is my hypothesis of what could be occurring in this situation. If I cared, and I don't, I would do exactly what I said to test it, not create a contrived test to "prove" it.
And this can change with the same exact cable in place. Still has nothing to do with your inability to SBT hear the differences. All you are doing is trying to find some way to make excuses.That is why you need to look at the electrical signal (file) before it is transmitted, and compare that to the electrical signal (file) after it is received. As I said before, I have not yet tried streaming music, so I have no first hand experience with trying Ethernet cables for audio. You very well might be right, but your contrived experiment is BS. Until you actually have data to give your idea any legitimacy all you are doing is sounding stupid with a nonsense test.
The data you asked isn't needed. It's a smoke screen pure and simple. You either can or can not hear the difference.In so far as understanding networking, after I graduated with a Computer Science degree I have only worked in networking. Starting with Hewlett-Packard, then Ungermann-Bass, Bay Networks, a couple of start ups, Foundry Networks, Brocade Networks, and my current job where I write software to test all this crap. So while I certainly do not know everything, I do know enough to accept the possibility that a received music file can be the same from a CRC perspective as the transmitted file, but be slightly different on the timing. I'm not sure if this would be the same as jitter, but the concept is the same.
Agreed. I've seen lag on 10GB bonded channels that were fine a minute before with the same large SQL query with 4 joins done just a little bit later. The data container was the same it's just something changed about the over all network load on the switch fabric.
Fortunately we are talking about a NAS>Switch>PC. You can stop with the red herrings.
As a CCNP and CCSP I understand the OSI layer, TCP Windowing etc quite well. It's interesting when I need to come into HR every once in a while and play back a users complete packet session.
I'm a fan of Foundry. Loved their load balancers back in the day. But now we are strictly an HP and Cisco shop. But none of what you typed has anything to do with the fact that data is played back from buffer.
Again you can set a buffer, load it up, and play something back and pull the network cable.
But even that is trivial. Can you use your own ears to tell me the difference. -
You really are a troll. It must be nice to know everything. Oh well, continue to make a fool of yourself. As I said, I don't really care at this point whether Ethernet cables make a difference or not, but I am not so arrogant or ignorant to assume they can't.
When I do start streaming music I will do my research and start with the best Ethernet cable that others have tried. Perhaps I might then try an A/B with some old cables in the garage. That would be interesting, and if it does sound the same then I will be the first to admit it.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
There are too many reports coming in claiming there is a difference. Your experiment needs to not rely on somebody's hearing, but on examining the packet as it leaves the storage device, and arrives at the player. The rise/fall of the signal needs to be measured to the thousandths or better, the timing of each bit needs to be similarly measured between each cable. Since a music file will not fit in a single Ethernet packet, the assembled file going to the file player needs to be similarly compared to the same file coming off the drive. Once you get some data then you can refine your hypothesis. Until then you just have a contrived BS test.
^^ That is contrived BS.
Really you have to measure all that to listen to audio. Someone better tell all the engineers at Meridian, Crown, Focusrite, Lake Processing (the list goes on).
LOL. You were serious.
Very definition of grabbing at straws. Since you don't have a dog in this fight just wait for ZLTFUL...
Ethernet cables may make a difference. But since I understand how packet driven data works I'll stake $1600 Wyred DAC that you can't do it. -
teekay0007 wrote: »Hmmmm....very interesting, William. From the links:Harmon Kardon and Flyd Toole seem to disagree:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/HarmanWhitePaperMLLListeningLab.pdf
And the cable test proposed above isn't really "evaluating" audio. You don't have to have a preference, just the ability to discern any difference at all.
Roll the excuses...
"As it turned out, the experienced listeners were no more or no less immune to the effects of visual biases than inexperienced listeners."
And..."It may already be too late according to Stereophile magazine founder, Gordon Holt, who lamented in a recent interview:
Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me.."
Floyd Toole and Sean Olive have no real interest in stereophonic reproduction systems. They consider them fundamentally flawed and inferior to monophonic systems. That is why the vast majority of their audio tests were/are done in mono.
The "experienced listeners" mentioned by Olive were "experienced" in listening to pre-recorded music, but were not trained and experienced in evaluating the performance aspects of a stereophonic sound field.
I/we have discussed the Olive and Toole tests extensively on this forum:
Stupid-things-you-hear-from-the-DBT-Null-test-crowd....DarqueKnight wrote: »Isn't that amazing...and ironic? Obviously, the naysayers are only interested in the "science" that appears to support their positions. Naysayers frequently reference the 1994 Toole and Olive study as proof that stereo evaluation must be done blind. All the while they are oblivious to the fact that Toole and Olive used listeners untrained in stereophonic evaluation and that the sound samples were 30 second loops of monophonic sound.
When they are pressed to scientifically justify their positions, they refuse to do so. They try to turn the focus back on the questioner. However, audiophiles are consistently dogged for "proof" that they hear what they hear. If a difference is measured, well then, the measurement is not audible. If you prove the difference is within the range of audibility, well then, you didn't verify it with a blind test.
The point that the cable difference jihadists miss is that any stereo equipment test must be done within the context of stereophonic performance. Just listening for some vaguely defined or undefined "difference" is not appropriate testing methodology for stereo systems.
Most people who own and listen to stereo systems don't know anything about image weight, sound stage dimensions, layering, or articulation. Most people can't even tell you why a stereo system has two speakers.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
50266
West Des Moines, IA
But instead of your BJC cable, I will happily provide both cables and you are welcome to test them to make sure that they "meet spec"."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
heck... maybe I should drive down and be the referee.50266
West Des Moines, IA
But instead of your BJC cable, I will happily provide both cables and you are welcome to test them to make sure that they "meet spec".Polk Lsi9
N.E.W. A-20 class A 20W
NAD 1020 completely refurbished
Keces DA-131 mk.II
Analysis Plus Copper Oval, Douglass, Morrow SUB3, Huffman Digital
Paradigm DSP-3100 v.2 -
Habanero Monk wrote: »Really you have to measure all that to listen to audio.
Of course not. Why do you ask something so stupid? However, that is what you have to do to test your hypothesis that the cable makes no difference. If you have no idea what the signal out is, and can't compare it to the signal into the DAC then you have no data, and no basis for claiming there can be no difference. A contrived listening test proves nothing. While the listener might or might not hear a difference, others might have different results. If you provide no data then your 'result' is simply an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
One reason why I like Shunyata cables (power and signal), aside from the fact I think they work great, is that they demonstrate that the signal out of their cable is very, very close to the signal into their cable. As an engineer I appreciate the data. On the other hand, you are simply sounding more and more desperate trying to rationalize your opinion by saying you understand networking, but continue to demonstrate that you don't. In effect you are like others who periodically show up with a Certificate as an electronic technician, and think because they know how to use a multi-meter they "prove" power cables are all the same. Classic fail, as is your contrived test.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
The World Of Cable Debates As I See It
My view of the long-raging audiophile cable debate(s) can best be illustrated with something most people can relate to: SEX!
The characters in the analogy are:
1. Mike - a man in his early 30's who has been sexually active since 15 with a variety of girls and women. Mike sometimes sends articles about his sexual experiences to a popular men's magazine. Over the years, Mike has trained himself to last for hours before ejaculating and he has become proficient in noting the differences in tactile sensation, lubrication, depth, taste, and aroma of the vaginas he encounters.
2. Arnold - a man in his early 40's who is a virgin and has never masturbated or had any type of sexual experience at all. Arnold's entire knowledge of human sexual activity and response comes from reading medical books and the Internet. Arnold thinks any talk of there being a noticeable difference in tactile sensation between two vaginas is not scientifically valid. He believes that two different women will, of course, have two physically different vaginas, but, aside from anatomical abnormalities, he insists that the differences will be small and not noticeable in the heat of passion.
3. Bill - a man in his late 30's who started masturbating in his teens, had a couple of sexual intercourse experiences with women in college, then went back to using his hand because he couldn't tell the difference between his well-lubricated hand and a well-lubricated ****. Plus, using his hand is a whole lot easier on his wallet and emotions. Bill thinks that men who say they can tell the difference between vaginas are actually expressing a preference for the woman that is most physically attractive to them or the woman that "costs" the most in time and money. Bill insists that, in a totally dark room, all the ascribed differences in vaginas would disappear. He never received more pleasure out of having sex with women than he did with his hand and he doubts other men's reports to the contrary. That, he believes, is why men who say they are in "satisfying" sexual relationships with women still ****.
4. Xavier - a man in his early 30's who has been sexually active since 15 with a variety of girls and women. Xavier can last a maximum of two minutes before ejaculating. He swears that all vaginas feel the same and he challenges any man to prove that he can tell the difference between two vaginas in a totally dark room. Xavier insists that the room be totally dark because a man will most likely say the woman who is most physically attractive to him has the better feeling ****. Furthermore, Xavier believes that two minutes is a reasonable time for a sexual encounter to last and that any differences in vaginas would be immediately evident during that time frame. Xavier's views have been steadily reinforced by experiments he conducted wherein other sexually experienced (but sexually ignorant) men had brief, two minute (or less), sexual encounters with equally or more sexually ignorant women. In every case, the man reported not being able to tell the difference between two or more vaginas.
After a while, Arnold, Bill and Xavier became fed up with Mike's published tales of his sexual adventures. Rather than seek fulfilling sexual adventures of their own, they wanted Mike to prove that he could actually feel a difference between vaginas. Furthermore, they were sick and tired of his endless dissertations on the need for training yourself to be a good lover. Arnold, Bill and Xavier wanted to know where Mike acquired such training and did he have a certificate from a recognized school documenting such training. Mike countered that getting good at sex is like getting good at any physical activity: some study is required on the basic mechanics and pitfalls, but proficiency comes with lots of practice. No formal education is required.
Arnold's, Bill's and Xavier's rage eventually boiled to the point where they challenged Mike to a contest to prove once and for all, in a blind test, that he could tell the difference between two or more vaginas if he was not allowed to see, touch, kiss, hear, or smell the woman. They offered to buy Mike a year's pass to the Bunny Ranch if he could prove his stated abilities in a blind test with three female certified sex therapists. Bill countered that he did not need a blind test to tell a difference in vaginas because some were tighter, looser, wetter, shallower, deeper, had more rippling in the walls, etc., and it was easy to tell the difference between vaginas and that he even kept a notebook on each of his sexual partner's genital interior physical characteristics. Furthermore, although Mike admitted to some aesthetic preferences, he insisted that such preferences did not affect the sensations derived from his **** interacting with the walls of a woman's ****. Mike said he has had lackluster sex with very attractive women and has had spectacular sex with plain or less than attractive women.
Arnold (the virgin), Bill (the masturbator) and Xavier (the premature ejaculator) stood their ground. Mike capitulated and agreed to do the tests in a completely dark room while blindfolded, wearing nose plugs, ear plugs and using sexual positions that only allowed vaginal penetration with no other physical contact. Mike did require two conditions: he could have sex with each woman for as long as he wanted to and he would be allowed to make written notes after each episode. Arnold, Bill and Xavier agreed to these conditions.
Over four days of random trials, Mike easily passed the blind tests and demonstrated that he could tell which woman he had just had sex with. However, Arnold (the virgin), Bill (the masturbator) and Xavier (the premature ejaculator) attributed the success to pure and spectacular luck. They still ridiculed the idea of taking notes after a sexual encounter and, although they were impressed by Mike's sexual stamina, they insisted that such longevity served no real purpose other than "bragging rights".
Mike laughed as he collected his one year pass to the Bunny Ranch, all the while knowing that the experimental results would not have any meaning to a virgin, a man whose sex life consists solely of masturbation, and a man who cannot stay in a **** longer than the time it takes for a Windows computer to boot up.
Peace be upon us.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Now I have got to steal that one. ^^^HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
Great analogy Raife,Home Theater
Onkyo PR-SC5508 Sharp LC-70LE847U
Emotiva XPA-5 Emotiva XPA-2 Emotiva UPA-2
Front RTi-A9 Wide RTi-A7 Center CSi-A6 Surround FXi-A6 Rear RTi-A3 Sub 2x PSW505
Sony BDP-S790 Dishnetwork Hopper/Joey Logitech Harmony One Apple TV
Two Channel
Oppo 105D BAT VK-500 w/BatPack SDA SRS 2.3 Dreadnought Squeezebox Touch Apple TV -
Ha ha....excellent! But who am I? :^ /2 channel - Willsenton R8 tube integrated, Holo Audio Spring 3 KTE DAC, audio optimized NUC7i5, Windows 10 Pro/JRiver MC29/Fidelizer Plus 8.7 w/LPS and external SSD drive, PS Audio PerfectWave P3 regenerator, KEF R3 speakers, Rythmik F12SE subwoofer, Audioquest Diamond USB cable, Gabriel Gold IC's, Morrow Audio SP5 speaker cables. Computer - Windows 10/JRiver, Schiit Magni 3+/Modi 3+, Fostex PMO.4n monitors, Sennheiser HD600 headphones
-
For those who feel cable differences don't exist; what cables do you use?Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
-
DarqueKnight wrote: »The World Of Cable Debates As I See It
My view of the long-raging audiophile cable debate...
Classy...just what I'd expect here.
But it's not like a cable debate at all. "Mike" was actually able to demonstrate his claim, rather that just make a bunch of anecdotal statements. -
50266
West Des Moines, IA
But instead of your BJC cable, I will happily provide both cables and you are welcome to test them to make sure that they "meet spec".
No, I will bring a BJC cable because it will come with a certificate. You can send what ever cable you desire to Kurt for validation per his generous offer. Trying to keep things as transparent as possible. -
Of course not. Why do you ask something so stupid? However, that is what you have to do to test your hypothesis that the cable makes no difference. If you have no idea what the signal out is, and can't compare it to the signal into the DAC then you have no data, and no basis for claiming there can be no difference. A contrived listening test proves nothing. While the listener might or might not hear a difference, others might have different results. If you provide no data then your 'result' is simply an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
You were the one insisting that it's has importance to measure the voltage crest/trough. So your point is what I thought and a red herring.
Ability to, with ears, discern differences are what is at question. I didn't offer this to a group of random people. I offered this to the person that says they are going to in a SBT fashion, ears only, nail the random roll of a dice 13 out of 15 times whether it is Cable A or Cable B.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w40ushYAaYA
This discussion has been closed.