This audio cable business is getting out of hand...

[hetzer]

The whole science of human hearing so far is established by experiments and trails. Not absolute mathematical proof not brain pulse analysis type of measurements. You should know that it's easy to prove one thing is wrong and hard to prove it's correct using anecdotal/experimental evidence.

In a same manner, a lot of people says that god exists. But we can't write 'god exists' in science lecture book. The premise of Audio "Science" Review is that we should talk about things that is widely accepted and proven in science. Science is based on well-controlled experiments and anything that is not proven by experiments should be denied.

The funny thing is that 'mathemetical proof' is called 'theory' and according to Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, any difference between digital filters or dacs can be shown on measurement devices and subjective test is almost useless in evaluating the performance of digital filter or dac.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Power cable can make difference if the amplifier isn't design very well. And it's often time true. Tho it shouldn't. It's not like a few milliamps like in the headphone Amps. It's serious single digit number of amps. And that's why regenerator makes mkre difference than power cable alone and housing wiring can also make a difference. It's all impedance. However, it's best to maximize the performance and design of amplifier rather than make up for the faults using something else.

 

[edechamps]

It is measurable. Then, then people are gonna say, it's measurable on equipment doesn't mean it's audible. It doesn't make a lot of sense to express tbh.

Sure it makes sense. With measurements, we can at least get an idea as to the likelihood of whether it will be audible or not. For example, if measurements show a frequency response deviation of less than 0.1 dB, I am willing to bet it's impossible to hear. Around 0.5 dB, maybe, depending on the Q of the deviation from flat. At 1 dB and above, we quickly get into clearly audible territory. These numbers have been documented in rigorous studies done on a variety of signals (both artificial test signals and real content).

In the case of "burn-in" of cables, assuming you can even get measuring equipment to pick up any difference (which I strongly doubt), I am willing to bet it will be so far below all known thresholds of audibility that it would be pointless to even discuss it.

 

[JohnYang1997]

In a same manner, a lot of people says that god exists. But we can't write 'god exists' in science lecture book. The premise of Audio "Science" Review is that we should talk about things that is widely accepted and proven in science. Science is based on well-controlled experiments and anything that is not proven by experiments should be denied.

The funny thing is that 'mathemetical proof' is called 'theory' and according to Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, any difference between digital filters or dacs can be shown on measurement devices and subjective test is almost useless in evaluating the performance of digital filter or dac.

Mathematical theories don't exist in biology nor medical. It's just not the way it does. Nyquist theorem is just a smallest part that is in the digital domain and even that we don't suffice the condition to make Nyquist theorem work.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Sure it makes sense. With measurements, we can at least get an idea as to the likelihood of whether it will be audible or not. For example, if measurements show a frequency response deviation of less than 0.1 dB, I am willing to bet it's impossible to hear. Around 0.5 dB, maybe, depending on the Q of the deviation from flat. At 1 dB and above, we quickly get into clearly audible territory. These numbers have been documented in rigorous studies done on a variety of signals (both artificial test signals and real content).

In the case of "burn-in" of cables, assuming you can even get measuring equipment to pick up any difference (which I strongly doubt), I am willing to bet it will be so far below all known thresholds of audibility that it would be pointless to even discuss it.

Another thing as analogy as impedance of headphones. Some headphones have flat impedance curve. But are they really resistive (like planars)? No. Other wise there wouldn't be emf generated to degrade the performance of thd measurements of amplifiers. The bass region and natural material , dimensions of the driver will have impact on the impedance. But static averaged measurements don't show that.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I do agree that frequency response is the single most important thing in any auditory system. But is it the only thing that is audible. No of course not. We don't even understand how frequency works after or concha sending pulse signal to our neurons. Do we know the equivalent digital filter of human ear+brain? Will it be constant or changing one? We can't even proceed to start to measure it. It's hard. It's hard.

 

[hetzer]

It seems that there is a nihillist of acoustic psychology here. This is just a meaningless conversation if we don't agree with it.

 

[JohnYang1997]

It's alright to say: That will make little to none difference.
But it's not ok to say: That's completely inaudible.
Even with rule of thumb of 5 or 10 times under "audible threshold" it's possible to hear it at a chance, not even consistent. Human auditory system is dynamic changing every second minute and every day. And will gradually change over years. How our brain interpret sound is also unknown. We can only have a slightest glance at how it works in the largest scale. Nothing is certain.

 

[JohnYang1997]

It seems that there is a nihillist of acoustic psychology here. This is just a meaningless conversation if we don't agree with it.

Sure I don't really seek a conclusion. Guess we'll just end here.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Mathematical theories don't exist in biology nor medical. It's just not the way it does. Nyquist theorem is just a smallest part that is in the digital domain and even that we don't suffice the condition to make Nyquist theorem work.

Ummm, yeah they do. Mathematical work was crucial in identifying and solving the double helix. What about organic chemistry? Do you think those bonds aren't borne from physics? The central nervous system operates on electricity, which has a strong mathematical component. What about vision? Doesn't the frequency of the visible spectrum tell you anything about how the retina responds to light?

I'm not trying to be rude here but I do get the impression that you're receptive to some of the ridiculous pseudoscientific claims being made by cable manufacturers.

 

[hetzer]

Science don't work on relativist. Because uncertainty is so certain to them.

 

[pkane]

Mathematical theories don't exist in biology nor medical. It's just not the way it does. Nyquist theorem is just a smallest part that is in the digital domain and even that we don't suffice the condition to make Nyquist theorem work.

For better or for worse, our universe is not known to violate mathematically proven theorems, be it within biological, chemical, physical or cable manufacturing processes.

 

[FrantzM]

It's alright to say: That will make little to none difference.
But it's not ok to say: That's completely inaudible.
Even with rule of thumb of 5 or 10 times under "audible threshold" it's possible to hear it at a chance, not even consistent. Human auditory system is dynamic changing every second minute and every day. And will gradually change over years. How our brain interpret sound is also unknown. We can only have a slightest glance at how it works in the largest scale. Nothing is certain.

Dream on Brother. You age your hearing acuités diminishes. We know quite well how our bargains interpret sound. Also anything -130 dB below is INAUDIBLE (has to shout so that you can hear it ). It is certain no one can hear -130 dB. By the way.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Some of the stuff being offered by JohnYang1997 is classic subjectivist clap-trap.

First, you get the subject to admit anything could be true. Then you leverage gaps in knowledge by suggesting things which have not been proven scientifically (or even empirically). If you're half-assed clever, you weave shreds and pieces of accepted scientific theory into something new and unproven.

By that point, you've done yeoman service to subjectivist philosophy -- not disproving known scientific principles but either stitching them up into an intellectually grotesque pastiche or ignoring them altogether in favour of wholly imaginary bunk.

 

[PierreV]

Mathematical theories don't exist in biology nor medical.

We can argue on many things, but that is an amazing display of pure unadulterated ignorance.

 

[MC_RME]

I got tired of using my long RCA cables to interconnect small DACs and Amps so decided to get a short one. Saw one on Amazon (by "World's Best Cables') that used Canare Star-Quad cable and Amphenol connectors for just $22 shipped. My time was worth much more than that to make one so I ordered it. It came promptly. When I opened though, I was shocked to see this massive sign in there:

Same situation over here. Had no time, ordered two cables from WBC a month ago. This one and another one based on Mogami 2964 with different, shorter (and more beautiful) Amphenols. Put the note on my note board for a good laugh when friends come visiting.

But seriously, you bought the wrong cable. The Mogami is the better cable, and I can easily proove that. I tested a bunch of RCA cables to check the change in noise (leakage current) when connecting two units running on SMPS by unbalanced cables. The lower the resistance of the shield/ground connection in the cable, the lower the noise. Technically the leakage current induces a voltage over the shield resistance. Imagine that to be exactly 0 Ohms - no voltage anymore, no noise.

So how low do these cables go? As we are talking quality material (Canare/Mogami) there are data sheets with detailed specs available. The StarQuad's shield is given with 0.03 Ohms per meter. But the shield is not used here. Instead two inner conductors, which have 0.098 Ohms each result in 0.049 Ohms per meter.

The Mogami has a double shield and reaches a super-low 0.012 Ohms per meter. And that was exactly what my measurements showed, the PS noise was 10 to 20 dB lower than all other RCA cables I had for testing, the noise nearly vanishing in the noise floor of the FFT diagram.

As the StarQuad effect is completely bollocks on a short unbalanced cable, and also the one sided connection doesn't bring any advantage on such lengths, I resoldered the Canare, connected the second inner pair to shield and connected shield on the missing connector. That brought the Canare much closer to the Mogami, but still the 2964 showed better results.

Please note this is not about Canare and Mogami, it is about choosing the correct cable type for an application. I am pretty sure Canare also makes a cable that is similar to the 2964. And the 2964 advantages are easy to find in its spec sheet:

- only 57 pF capacitance per meter (the StarQuad is a whopping 185 pF)

- 75 Ohms impedance, means it is very controlled and also a perfect SPDIF cable. The StarQuad does not have any 'impedance' at 10 MHz, it is strictly an analog cable.

The Mogami 2964 is an astonishingly thin and flexible cable. Audiophiles will not like it for that reason alone.

Disclaimer: I don't sell these cables, nor have any affiliation with either company.

 

[Veri]

Would be cool if Amir also gets the mogami variant and measures if there's any real-world difference

Thanks for chiming in, @MC_RME

 

[Xulonn]

We can argue on many things, but that is an amazing display of pure unadulterated ignorance.

You are correct, Pierre. This goes well beyond Dunning-Kruger into triple-facepalm territory. Like many internet trolls and the many global warming denialists I have battled over the years on other forums, the antagonist will continue to try to put down objectivists.

Another point of great ignorance he often displays is that while we cannot measure specific electrical signals between the ear and the brain, we can measure whether - and how - the brain reacts to input/stimuli. We can often know if the brain "heard" something by detecting and measuring its response.

 

[MC_RME]

@ Veri: You will not see any difference with normal audio measurements in a controlled environment, especially THD and frequency response will not change. Depending on Armir's setup the lower resistance of the 2964 shield might help to lower hum noise, the lower capacitance could give a higher roll-off with critical output stages, and he can even use it as coaxial SPDIF cable on his test bench. Sounds like a win-win to me...

Meanwhile I bought this cable in different lengths and removed all others. Also the RCA plugs used seem to make very good contact and sit stable, but don't stick too hard on all devices I tried. I have other 'high-end' cables once plugged you need a wrench to get them off again...

 

[GrimSurfer]

Mathematical theories don't exist in biology nor medical.

We can argue on many things, but that is an amazing display of pure unadulterated ignorance.

He's likely never heard of the Fibonacci Sequence either...