Cables, have we been evaluating the wrong parameters?

Options
heiney9
heiney9 Posts: 25,710
edited September 2025 in The Clubhouse
This article touches on things that aren't easily measured in the narrow band of tests most try to use to "prove"outcomes.

Please read with an open mind and discuss. After reading the article, Darqueknight comes to mind, in his excellent descriptors of what he was hearing. Not everything correlates to a measurement. Or at the very least you have to know what to measure.

https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/standard-tests-hiding-what-makes-cables-different/

H9
"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | Galion TS P75 Pre | Holo Audio Cyan 2 Dac | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul!
· Share on Facebook

Comments

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Options
    This content has been removed.
  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 35,562
    Options
    ... not cables, but there was a really interesting post on hifihaven today about capacitors arguing that there is strong correlation with readily measurable parameters... the trick is to correlate what one hears with those measurements.
    Obviously this is off topic for this thread, but my gut feeling is that all that matters is indeed measurable; the trick is correlating quantitative data with qualitative outcomes.
    Hint: I don't think that 'social science' types of assessments such as the "Harman Preference Scores" (for loudspeakers and headphones) is 'the trick'. ;)
    · Share on Facebook
  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 35,562
    edited September 2025
    Options
    so... on topic ;) it seemed pretty reasonable overall, although I am really puzzled by one statement:
    To back this up, Juhl referred to an experiment where ordinary listeners reportedly detected offsets down to about 1/517,000,000 second (~1.9 ns). Meanwhile, the equipment hit its limit before the ears did.
    If the "equipment hit its limit before the ears did", how did he know the minimum offset detection for "ordinary listeners" was ca. 1.9 nsec?
    I am sure the issue here is with the reportage, not the actual comment by the engineer... but I'd sure like to know what the comment actually was and what limit was being hit.
    · Share on Facebook
  • heiney9
    heiney9 Posts: 25,710
    Options
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    so... on topic ;) it seemed pretty reasonable overall, although I am really puzzled by one statement:
    To back this up, Juhl referred to an experiment where ordinary listeners reportedly detected offsets down to about 1/517,000,000 second (~1.9 ns). Meanwhile, the equipment hit its limit before the ears did.
    If the "equipment hit its limit before the ears did", how did he know the minimum offset detection for "ordinary listeners" was ca. 1.9 nsec?
    I am sure the issue here is with the reportage, not the actual comment by the engineer... but I'd sure like to know what the comment actually was and what limit was being hit.

    It was a bit superficial. I'd really like to read more in depth about some of the topics. I may do some research on the engineer in the article. I'm sure pages and pages could be written about these topics.

    H9
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | Galion TS P75 Pre | Holo Audio Cyan 2 Dac | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul!
    · Share on Facebook
  • daddyjt
    daddyjt Posts: 3,263
    Options
    I read that too, but I’m going to wait for Amir’s take…
    “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”
    ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
    · Share on Facebook
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Options
    This content has been removed.
  • F1nut
    F1nut Posts: 52,406
    Options
    The timing aspect is what MIT Cables address and why they sound right compared to others.
    · Share on Facebook
  • skrol
    skrol Posts: 3,493
    Options
    Timing.. That is an interesting concept for cable measurement. It makes me think of the EMG test that mesured the conduction of nerve signals in my arm. Left arm showed delays that indicated an anomaly which is s pinched nerve in my neck at C5-C6. It makes sense.
    Stan

    Main 2ch:
    Polk LSi15 (DB840 upgrade), Parasound: P/LD-1100, HCA-1000A; Denon: DVD-2910, DRM-800A; Benchmark DAC1, Monster HTS3600-MKII, Grado SR-225i; Technics SL-J2, Parasound PPH-100.

    HT:
    Marantz SR7010, Polk: RTA11TL (RDO198-1, XO and Damping Upgrades), S4, CS250, PSW110 , Marantz UD5005, Pioneer PL-530, Panasonic TC-P42S60

    Other stuff:
    Denon: DRA-835R, AVR-888, DCD-660, DRM-700A, DRR-780; Polk: S8, Monitor 5A, 5B, TSi100, RM7, PSW10 (DXi104 upgrade); Pioneer: CT-6R; Onkyo CP-1046F; Ortofon OM5E, Marantz: PM5004, CD5004, CDR-615; Parasound C/PT-600, HCA-800ii, Sony CDP-650ESD, Technics SA 5070, B&W DM601
    · Share on Facebook