Cables can make a huge difference...

[DonH50]

Cool stuff. Guess my theory doesn't pan out. Cables are not causing any phase change vs frequency. That seems to be the conclusion here.

They cause some but it is negligible at audio frequencies and in normal consumer installations.

I'm still mystified then as to why cables can go from neutral to warm to hot and even impact PRAT. In my mind I can understand how they reduce noise, but how do they then improve clarity, add detail, etc? All this tied to wire material, wire gauge, wire drawing process, wire plating, wire annealing and dielectrics. This is about analog cables.

The times I have heard, or blind testing has proven, differences in audio cables there has always been a reason that made sense. Noise coupling, routing (which can induce noise), poor cable construction, impedance (usually resistance) too high, etc. Wire gauge matters for speaker wires, maybe power cables for high-power amps driven to the limit of the cables, and very long runs. RLC for interconnects matters for very long runs as well, as does shielding and tribology (handling noise). Handling noise for microphones. Material, plating(*), drawing, annealing, quantum effects, etc. I find hard to believe can affect an audio cable. Some dielectrics are worse than others but again I find it hard to believe they would be audible. I have measured traps and hysteresis at audio frequencies in the past and it took fun things like a screen room and fV (leaf) voltmeter. There is a lot of stuff that goes on in cables that is real, and measurable, but way more important in my day job doing GHz stuff than for audio. Cables are critical there.

I took part in, and set up and ran, a number of DBT/ABX tests many years ago when I was sure I could hear every grain in the cable, and it all went away in testing, again unless there was a real issue that we found. Some cables are not well-shielded so in a high-noise environment are subject to coupled noise, poor connections can lead to noise, and ground loops are always insidious. A change in cable can shift the ground path and change the sound in ways difficult to detect, though I tend to think of that as a problem with the component and not the cable. But a cable could fix it... The vexing thing is that a cable that is better or worse might sound better when a ground loop is involved, by shifting or reducing the loop current through lower or higher impedance shielding.

One interesting thing was that listener mood had a huge impact on the perceived sound during listening sessions (not necessarily blind).

And one difference still holds true: No high powered amps or motors/speakers are in the recording chain. (Studio Monitors are not part of the recording chain. They are part of the recording process.)

Depends on the recording and artist. Some guitar players prefer to use their own amplifiers and speaker stack as they prefer the sound; at least IME, guitarists seem to be most likely to want to hear their own system. "Color" is the name of the game in music production; I prefer a neutral playback system that lets the recording shine through -- then tweak to preference anyway.

My experience as an audiophile and engineer puts me at odds with the presumption of this thread, that cables can make a huge difference. Again IME that only happens when something is wrong someplace, and usually involves grounding and shielding rather than material properties of the cable. The usual response to to throw the decades of engineering and listening under the bus and blame me or my system, of course. It pissed me off no end when I discovered many of my beliefs were false, but it was really cool (to me) to learn the reasons things sounded differently.

This'll probably get me kicked off here but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. - Don

(*) An exception is CCA speaker cables I am no fan of; the copper is usually a very thin layer and can lead to connectivity problems (house wiring fires led to development of special means of connecting Al to Cu wires), and Al is significantly higher in resistance than copper. Cheaper but I will pay for copper.

Gold plating is nice to reduce oxidation, but often is so thin that it is worn away after a connection or two, and/or allows oxidation to occur naturally through pinholes in the very thin plating. I do think cable construction is important as far as connectors and such, but question if the difference between 0.99 and 0.999999 conductor purity is audible.

 

[Holmz]

…
This'll probably get me kicked off here but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. - Don

I can’t see much wrong with it though.

(*) An exception is CCA speaker cables I am no fan of; the copper is usually a very thin layer and can lead to connectivity problems (house wiring fires led to development of special means of connecting Al to Cu wires), and Al is significantly higher in resistance than copper. Cheaper but I will pay for copper.
audible.

Even worse is that the aluminium wires form an oxide layer very quickly. So they are pretty much self anodising “at the speed of sound.”
For house wiring, they do not flow current In a classic sense, but the “electrons” tunnels through the anodize.
This is about the only use of the word quantum which I can abide with respect to cables and wires… but oxide layers often result in tunneling. Which differs by just slapping “quantum” on as a marketing moniker.

 

[Rensselaer]

In my humble opinion, top-end detail can be lost by using certain cables because their design is essentially a low-pass filter (resistance surrounded by capacitance: the wire is a resistive load, copper more than silver, less-pure than more pure. The insulation around the wire adds capacitance; PVC more than teflon, teflon more than silk and oil).

Wire used by recording studios should (again, IMHO) work as well as any high end cable, but at a fraction of the cost.

 

[sbo6]

Out of curiosity what's the attraction? Metallurgy and insulations are so much better why go with 90 year old salvaged wire?

It's wire not drivers and even the supposed modern drivers are not as good as the ones made 90 years ago is a bit hard to swallow.

Rob

You're being kind saying it's a bit hard to swallow. IME it's confirmation bias and nostalgia.

 

[TonyW]

Perception is reality.
If someone needs DBX testing to convince themselves a cable makes a difference, that's fine. If someone else is satisfied that they hear enough difference w/o DBX testing to want to purchase a cable that is fine too. Why do so many discount what others hear or not hear? If an expensive painting makes someone happy, who are we to say it doesn't? That's presumptuous.

I did NVH work in Automotive decades ago. We did DBX tests in vehicles in anechoic chambers with a panel of four jurors. No talking, no comments allowed, just take notes and make ratings. Then we compared notes afterward. Some jurors were more perceptive than others. One OE engineer, I was convinced heard what he wanted to hear. Even with DBX testing, many of us knew by the sound which product was under test in the vehicle. Work with anything long enough and you will get to know all the details very clearly. DBX testing only works to a point. Once the jurors grow familiar with the situation, it is no longer a blind test. We can easily pick up on little telltale details that give it away. And if we can pick up on those little details, then why do DBX testing to begin with? Mostly to satisfy management that it was a fair and unbiased test. Right.

I know my own audio system well enough that I can easily detect differences between components and cables to determine what changed. Auditioning someone else's system or at a hifi shop is more difficult. For example, my son and I were in a room at Axpona a couple of years back that was demonstrating various tweaks. They would play something, make a change and play it again. I did not hear a difference with one tweak but my son did. (Many of the tweaks that were noticeable by me were not enough to get me to pay for them.) Did I accuse my son of confirmation bias? Of course not. His hearing is clearly better than mine being much younger. For me, it was too noisy (people entering and exiting the room) and the system unfamiliar for me to make a quick appraisal of changes because some of the tweaks were not obvious step changes.

 

[DonH50]

Perception can also cloud reality.

"ABX", a form of "DBT". I used to own a bunch of dbx stuff but that is not the same thing. One thing that is often lost is that ABX/DBT testing is normally used to find differences, not preferences; the difference may or may not be appealing but at least you know it is there. If the sound is clearly different then a DBT will show it, from there the goal is to make it sound like what you want.

My problem testing without controls is that all too easily I can hear, or not hear, things when I make a change based on too many other factors (price, sight, mood, time of day, etc.) I discovered many of the new things I thought I heard were there all along after switching back to the old whatever. And some were not, real differences were found and obvious, but a DBT of some sort was helpful in verifying the changes I heard were real (or not). Much of the time differences disappeared under controlled testing, but certainly not always. The (a) problem is that setting up a rigorous test can be challenging; level matching is critical, switching systems are rare, and subtle cues can give things away.

Everyone has preferences and will presumably choose components (etc.) to suit their preferences, myself included, but I try to recognize when it is simply preference versus some property that strains physical credibility. And that my preferences are my own and not necessarily those of anybody else. I loved my old tube gear whilst knowing is was less accurate than my current SS gear, but SS gear today has the features I need for my system.

 

[sbo6]

Perception is reality.
If someone needs DBX testing to convince themselves a cable makes a difference, that's fine. If someone else is satisfied that they hear enough difference w/o DBX testing to want to purchase a cable that is fine too. Why do so many discount what others hear or not hear? If an expensive painting makes someone happy, who are we to say it doesn't? That's presumptuous.

I did NVH work in Automotive decades ago. We did DBX tests in vehicles in anechoic chambers with a panel of four jurors. No talking, no comments allowed, just take notes and make ratings. Then we compared notes afterward. Some jurors were more perceptive than others. One OE engineer, I was convinced heard what he wanted to hear. Even with DBX testing, many of us knew by the sound which product was under test in the vehicle. Work with anything long enough and you will get to know all the details very clearly. DBX testing only works to a point. Once the jurors grow familiar with the situation, it is no longer a blind test. We can easily pick up on little telltale details that give it away. And if we can pick up on those little details, then why do DBX testing to begin with? Mostly to satisfy management that it was a fair and unbiased test. Right.

I know my own audio system well enough that I can easily detect differences between components and cables to determine what changed. Auditioning someone else's system or at a hifi shop is more difficult. For example, my son and I were in a room at Axpona a couple of years back that was demonstrating various tweaks. They would play something, make a change and play it again. I did not hear a difference with one tweak but my son did. (Many of the tweaks that were noticeable by me were not enough to get me to pay for them.) Did I accuse my son of confirmation bias? Of course not. His hearing is clearly better than mine being much younger. For me, it was too noisy (people entering and exiting the room) and the system unfamiliar for me to make a quick appraisal of changes because some of the tweaks were not obvious step changes.

Who's accusing anyone? Both things can be true - People may hear and / or may believe they hear differences in components, cables, etc. There is no accusation, it's simply reality. However, those that believe they hear (I have found) over time often remove / revert back to the previous gear / setup over time, realizing it made no difference, or worse, it had a deleterious effect on sonics.

 

[TonyW]

Who's accusing anyone? Both things can be true - People may hear and / or may believe they hear differences in components, cables, etc. There is no accusation, it's simply reality. However, those that believe they hear (I have found) over time often remove / revert back to the previous gear / setup over time, realizing it made no difference, or worse, it had a deleterious effect on sonics.

I call that gaining experience- a life lesson.
For a time in the 1980s I liked CDs. Then I got back into vinyl. I remember trying to buy up all the vinyl I could find as record stores were quickly vanishing. Now in the last couple of years digital is sounding really good and I play less vinyl. But good digital is not cheap and cheap digital is not good.
One time back in the 1990s I put my turntable on a granite slab thinking that was a good thing. A year later I thought to remove the granite. I experienced a big improvement in sound. What was I thinking?

 

[TonyW]

Perception can also cloud reality.

"ABX", a form of "DBT". I used to own a bunch of dbx stuff but that is not the same thing. One thing that is often lost is that ABX/DBT testing is normally used to find differences, not preferences; the difference may or may not be appealing but at least you know it is there. If the sound is clearly different then a DBT will show it, from there the goal is to make it sound like what you want.

My problem testing without controls is that all too easily I can hear, or not hear, things when I make a change based on too many other factors (price, sight, mood, time of day, etc.) I discovered many of the new things I thought I heard were there all along after switching back to the old whatever. And some were not, real differences were found and obvious, but a DBT of some sort was helpful in verifying the changes I heard were real (or not). Much of the time differences disappeared under controlled testing, but certainly not always. The (a) problem is that setting up a rigorous test can be challenging; level matching is critical, switching systems are rare, and subtle cues can give things away.

Everyone has preferences and will presumably choose components (etc.) to suit their preferences, myself included, but I try to recognize when it is simply preference versus some property that strains physical credibility. And that my preferences are my own and not necessarily those of anybody else. I loved my old tube gear whilst knowing is was less accurate than my current SS gear, but SS gear today has the features I need for my system.

I don't want to do the clever banter. Many decades ago when I was in college a magician came to our school to perform. During lunch time he was in the dining hall working the crowd. Unexpectedly, he sat down right next to me and performed some magic. My eyes were just inches from his hands and yet I could not see how he did his magic. One example I still remember clearly is when he turned an empty, small brass bowl, about 3 inches in diameter upside down on the table. When he lifted the bowl a red ball the size of a basketball came out. I still marvel how he achieved that feat right in front of me. I know that in reality he was not a Jedi. He had not mastered time and space and could not manipulate matter to do his bidding- but it appeared that he could based on my limited perception.

My perception has limitations. I know that. Had I turned to study the magic arts I would have learned what to watch for when a magician performs and I could have discerned his techniques. In the field of things mechanical and electrical I can discern and describe how things work but mainly that is limited to my fields of experience and expertise. When I listen to my stereo, I perceive a sound stage with singers and instruments placed about the room in an almost tangible way. I know reality is two 3-way speakers generating sound waves that draw and stitch together this phantom band performing in my room. I have also found (leaving components aside for this discussion) that cables of differing caliber and design can make that illusion seem more or less convincing.

How cable makers achieve this feat is not completely beyond my understanding but not working in that industry and not designing cables and testing them myself leaves me only to mostly speculate- of which I am guilty. I am more a system designer, ie my stereo system, and I have experience in the application of various cables and how that affects the sound of my system. But since I do not have copious notes, empirical measurements nor have I been published regarding the application of audio cables I do not claim in any way to be an expert. I know what I like and not like when it comes to the sound of my stereo and I spent the last few years of my retirement trying cables and tweaks that sometimes improved the sound and sometimes made the sound worse. In the best of circumstances I was able to recover monies spent. I have a number of things on the shelf (including some granite) that are reminders of failure. Failing isn't bad. It is a learning experience. And it makes success so much sweeter.

To convince yourself or someone that cables do not matter because the measurements say so is doing yourself and that person a disservice. To convince a person to buy what you like, well that is just selfish.

 

[audiopro92]

Perception is reality.
If someone needs DBX testing to convince themselves a cable makes a difference, that's fine.

Cables definitely can make a difference. Sometimes in a big way.

I agree: "Perception is reality"

You can listen to the same track at matched volume (0.5 dB or so difference) on two different systems that supposedly should "sound the same" based on measurements, but one of them will draw you in to the music and make the hair on your arms stand up. You get goosebumps. You actually feel the change. The other system will be an experience that can be described as hearing the sound (getting bored rather quickly) rather than being captivated by the performance (and wanting to listen more).

 

[DonH50]

I don't want to do the clever banter. Many decades ago when I was in college a magician came to our school to perform. During lunch time he was in the dining hall working the crowd. Unexpectedly, he sat down right next to me and performed some magic. My eyes were just inches from his hands and yet I could not see how he did his magic. One example I still remember clearly is when he turned an empty, small brass bowl, about 3 inches in diameter upside down on the table. When he lifted the bowl a red ball the size of a basketball came out. I still marvel how he achieved that feat right in front of me. I know that in reality he was not a Jedi. He had not mastered time and space and could not manipulate matter to do his bidding- but it appeared that he could based on my limited perception.

Sorry, I was clarifying that the test is ABX (by Arnold Krueger, R.I.P.), not DBX, a form of DBT (double-blind test). Not sure how that led to comparing me to a magician, presumably because my ideas are just as fake?

My perception has limitations. I know that. Had I turned to study the magic arts I would have learned what to watch for when a magician performs and I could have discerned his techniques. In the field of things mechanical and electrical I can discern and describe how things work but mainly that is limited to my fields of experience and expertise. When I listen to my stereo, I perceive a sound stage with singers and instruments placed about the room in an almost tangible way. I know reality is two 3-way speakers generating sound waves that draw and stitch together this phantom band performing in my room.

Mine too, everybody's. No argument there.

I have also found (leaving components aside for this discussion) that cables of differing caliber and design can make that illusion seem more or less convincing.

The main difference is that, for the vast majority of cables I have tested, whatever difference I perceive disappears with proper controlled testing. And note that "vast majority" is not "all". I was actually very surprised to find that under controlled conditions I could not tell the cables apart.

How cable makers achieve this feat is not completely beyond my understanding but not working in that industry and not designing cables and testing them myself leaves me only to mostly speculate- of which I am guilty. I am more a system designer, ie my stereo system, and I have experience in the application of various cables and how that affects the sound of my system. But since I do not have copious notes, empirical measurements nor have I been published regarding the application of audio cables I do not claim in any way to be an expert. I know what I like and not like when it comes to the sound of my stereo and I spent the last few years of my retirement trying cables and tweaks that sometimes improved the sound and sometimes made the sound worse. In the best of circumstances I was able to recover monies spent. I have a number of things on the shelf (including some granite) that are reminders of failure. Failing isn't bad. It is a learning experience. And it makes success so much sweeter.

I tweaked for decades, but for whatever reason, am less inclined to tweak and more inclined to just enjoy what I have in retirement. I sort of expected the opposite; with more time on my hands, more time to tweak. But after decades of it I'm just tired of it and want to listen or watch and just enjoy the durn system.

To convince yourself or someone that cables do not matter because the measurements say so is doing yourself and that person a disservice. To convince a person to buy what you like, well that is just selfish.

Hmmm... I've tried hard but apparently failed to do that. I've posted some technical stuff and explained my position, but never named the cables I have tried (probably couldn't remember them all anyway), and certainly not tried to convince folk to buy anything. Measurements matter, perhaps more than many since my life's work revolved around them, but I've tried to focus on specific questions and answers. I cannot recall trying to convince anyone to buy what I like; as far as I know, I have never stated what cables I have or anything else about what I like. I have done lots of research, listening and otherwise, so I could just as well argue that not doing additional research beyond listening tests would have done me a disservice. Can't recall I have been accused of being selfish for presenting my viewpoint. I think on that note I'll bow out since, as Dave ha argued, it is clearly inappropriate for me to contribute an opposing viewpoint.

 

[TonyW]

Sorry, I was clarifying that the test is ABX (by Arnold Krueger, R.I.P.), not DBX, a form of DBT (double-blind test). Not sure how that led to comparing me to a magician, presumably because my ideas are just as fake?


Mine too, everybody's. No argument there.


The main difference is that, for the vast majority of cables I have tested, whatever difference I perceive disappears with proper controlled testing. And note that "vast majority" is not "all". I was actually very surprised to find that under controlled conditions I could not tell the cables apart.


I tweaked for decades, but for whatever reason, am less inclined to tweak and more inclined to just enjoy what I have in retirement. I sort of expected the opposite; with more time on my hands, more time to tweak. But after decades of it I'm just tired of it and want to listen or watch and just enjoy the durn system.


Hmmm... I've tried hard but apparently failed to do that. I've posted some technical stuff and explained my position, but never named the cables I have tried (probably couldn't remember them all anyway), and certainly not tried to convince folk to buy anything. Measurements matter, perhaps more than many since my life's work revolved around them, but I've tried to focus on specific questions and answers. I cannot recall trying to convince anyone to buy what I like; as far as I know, I have never stated what cables I have or anything else about what I like. I have done lots of research, listening and otherwise, so I could just as well argue that not doing additional research beyond listening tests would have done me a disservice. Can't recall I have been accused of being selfish for presenting my viewpoint. I think on that note I'll bow out since, as Dave ha argued, it is clearly inappropriate for me to contribute an opposing viewpoint.

I apologize. My comments were intended to be in general, not directed at you. I guess I am still learning how to use the reply button.

I will also say that a great sounding stereo system can be assembled by ear and without using measurements- by those with the skill set; but a great sounding stereo system cannot be assembled by measurements alone.

 

[Robh3606]

I agree: "Perception is reality"

If your perception is correct it can be. There are lots of reasons why it is not. You have to be able to recognize that everything you see or hear may not be as you perceive them to be.

If you fail to do this you are really selling yourself short WRT how things work in the real world.

Rob

 

[plasmod3]

For the members in the know... What frequencies do you measure cz l and z at? Also wht are your favourite measurements? G y z?

How do you also use phase angles in cable measurements?

 

[AudioHR]

I don't want to do the clever banter. Many decades ago when I was in college a magician came to our school to perform. During lunch time he was in the dining hall working the crowd. Unexpectedly, he sat down right next to me and performed some magic. My eyes were just inches from his hands and yet I could not see how he did his magic. One example I still remember clearly is when he turned an empty, small brass bowl, about 3 inches in diameter upside down on the table. When he lifted the bowl a red ball the size of a basketball came out. I still marvel how he achieved that feat right in front of me. I know that in reality he was not a Jedi. He had not mastered time and space and could not manipulate matter to do his bidding- but it appeared that he could based on my limited perception.

My perception has limitations. I know that. Had I turned to study the magic arts I would have learned what to watch for when a magician performs and I could have discerned his techniques. In the field of things mechanical and electrical I can discern and describe how things work but mainly that is limited to my fields of experience and expertise. When I listen to my stereo, I perceive a sound stage with singers and instruments placed about the room in an almost tangible way. I know reality is two 3-way speakers generating sound waves that draw and stitch together this phantom band performing in my room. I have also found (leaving components aside for this discussion) that cables of differing caliber and design can make that illusion seem more or less convincing.

How cable makers achieve this feat is not completely beyond my understanding but not working in that industry and not designing cables and testing them myself leaves me only to mostly speculate- of which I am guilty. I am more a system designer, ie my stereo system, and I have experience in the application of various cables and how that affects the sound of my system. But since I do not have copious notes, empirical measurements nor have I been published regarding the application of audio cables I do not claim in any way to be an expert. I know what I like and not like when it comes to the sound of my stereo and I spent the last few years of my retirement trying cables and tweaks that sometimes improved the sound and sometimes made the sound worse. In the best of circumstances I was able to recover monies spent. I have a number of things on the shelf (including some granite) that are reminders of failure. Failing isn't bad. It is a learning experience. And it makes success so much sweeter.

To convince yourself or someone that cables do not matter because the measurements say so is doing yourself and that person a disservice. To convince a person to buy what you like, well that is just selfish.

Extremely well put! I must admit I found myself nodding in agreement as you expressed yourself. The audio journey for many of us is as important as the destination.

I must admit to having some granite under my BrinkMann Bardo, lol! To be honest I placed it there very early on based on the recommendations of the dealer which seemed to line up with the thoughts of the manufacturer. Since I haven't really seriously compared the table before and after I don't really know if it is better or worse. Some have suggested slate would be a better base. It does sound very good with the granite but I am not opposed to having a little fun and seeing what different materials might sound like. Based on my experience with all things audio (like cables), changing something will result in a different sound. Better maybe, maybe not , that's where our personal system engineering comes in!

 

[TonyW]

Perception is very complex. Eg, how is it we see black on a white projection screen? Why do we see motion when a series of photos are flashed before us at 24 frames per second? How do two speakers create the illusion of a band moving about in our listening room? And while I'm on a roll, why do drive up ATMs feature braille on the buttons?

Technology has developed ways to bend our perception to create a false reality. From that standpoint how do we objectively consider what cables can and cannot do without some baseline for a comparison? When I have someone stand between my speakers and talk while I am sitting in my listening position, their voice does not sound as real as a voice in a recording that my speakers play back. What I mean is, the live voice does not have the close mic detail, the body, the illusion of thereness quite like my stereophonic reproduction. Like I said before, my 4K HDTV has a sharper more detailed picture, more saturated colors than real life- and I love it.

 

[audiopro92]

If your perception is correct it can be. There are lots of reasons why it is not. You have to be able to recognize that everything you see or hear may not be as you perceive them to be.

If you fail to do this you are really selling yourself short WRT how things work in the real world.

Rob

If I am able to hear a difference over the span of weeks, months, and years, then I trust my own judgment. If I can't trust myself, then who can I trust?

There are a lot of reasons why our perceptions can be wrong. Sure. But that doesn't prove anything. Our daily lives are filled with so many variables. Bad drivers on the road yet I've never been in a car accident. is that my false perception of the "real world" or are most drivers on my daily commute the problem?

We can turn blue in the face talking about preconceived bias, perception of the world and natural / artifical phenomenons, but ultimately if we are able to repeatedly perceive a change, then it is probably real.

I can review notes I took of listening impressions years ago, and they align with notes I took only recently. Our working auditory memory is short...

Everything I see or hear? Now we may be getting into the world of quantum physics... is the world and all reality just a hologram? What then are audio systems? Our imaginations personified? Read it in a book or someone famous said it so it must be true. I don't think I fail to do anything audio-related. lol

 

[DaveC]

These two statements seem to be 180 degrees apart from each other.

This one talks about truncating reverb:


This one talks about making reverb.


^This^ is getting a bit magical for me…
Most ICs tend to sound similar, and are nothing like an effects box.

I cannot see how we can get reverb in a cable, but the time domain reflectometry is used to find the length, or where there is a break.
At some point, if the cable is rattling the signal back-n-forth, then don’t we get back to Ralphs 600 ohm matching impedance?

The cable is not a laser chamber, and I am unaware that there are reverbs happening… especially for ICs.


I am not even sure what is a “good vibration” versus a “bad vibration”. I suppose one could put a TT on top of a speaker, and the vibrations are going to come in. Or a microphone next to a speaker.

Or if there are “bad vibrations”, then it seems like we are getting back to @Atmasphere claims of 2nd and 3rd harmonics, as good, and higher order ones as bad.
But cables are not very choosy, and basically they just carry the signal from point A to point B. They are not adding in extra stuff (vibrations) , except in the rarest of cases. If they were, it seems like one could fondle the IC cable and get sounds out of the speaker… but I have not heard that happening. Or tap the IC with a stick… and I have not heard the tapping sounds coming of the speaker.

The 2nd part of the post you quoted has nothing to do with cables. It's just explaining how electromechanical feedback works in an audio system, so you can understand WHY we want to preserve as much resolution as possible.

IC cables make a large difference in resolution, they can preserve the information or smooth it over because of added colorations like warmth. They do little to participate in feedback, except produce triboelectric noise as a result of friction between the conductor and dielectric, which is not desirable, but also nowhere near the effect of a vacuum tube or a turntable.

I did explain what I meant by good and bad vibrations. Good vibrations lead to psychoacoustically correct feedback and bad ones do not. So when we test the effects of racks, footers, tube dampers, turntable platters and mats, adding weights, etc. all this is manipulating the electromechanical feedback mechanism of the system in order to make it psychoacoustically correct.

I also said that the result of good vibrations that create psychoacoustically correct feedback is the perception of timbre sounding more like it does in real life.

For example, the vocals I heard with the resonator in the horn (as detailed in the post you quoted) sounded clearer and more real, without it there was a dullness to the sound, and it sounded less like I'd expect vocals to sound like in real life. At the time of that particular trial, I was expecting the resonator to simply add coloration and take away from the reality of the vocals, but the result was quite surprising. The vocals sounded clearer and more real with the resonator! I forget the brand, but there have been several different products that attempt to store the speaker's energy and release it over time in order to enhance the reverb trails and make the sound more realistic. I have heard it really work, but I also think there is a possibility the resonator would result in additions that are not like we expect to hear, which would then make the sound seem more muddled.

In any case, if the goal is a 3-D immersive "you are there" soundstage, then commodity level IC cables will be a bottleneck, and psychoacoustically correct electromechanical feedback helps. We've already gone over the fact that recording and playback are not the same thing. Recording is an art, or at least a high-level craft, reproduction is simply retrieval of the recorded information. Both sides of the equation can be good or bad. The goal of playback is achieving the most fidelity to the recording as we can, hence the term "high fidelity", which has been maligned by those who are ignorant of these facts or have been exposed to HiFi systems they don't enjoy and feel are flawed. The thought that what's used to make the recording is "good enough" for playback shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between the two endeavors.

 

[DaveC]

You're being kind saying it's a bit hard to swallow. IME it's confirmation bias and nostalgia.

It also seems to fit your narrative.

Anyone who has actually bought and tested vintage WE wire will disagree with you on that!

 

[DaveC]

If I am able to hear a difference over the span of weeks, months, and years, then I trust my own judgment. If I can't trust myself, then who can I trust?

There are a lot of reasons why our perceptions can be wrong. Sure. But that doesn't prove anything. Our daily lives are filled with so many variables. Bad drivers on the road yet I've never been in a car accident. is that my false perception of the "real world" or are most drivers on my daily commute the problem?

We can turn blue in the face talking about preconceived bias, perception of the world and natural / artifical phenomenons, but ultimately if we are able to repeatedly perceive a change, then it is probably real.

I can review notes I took of listening impressions years ago, and they align with notes I took only recently. Our working auditory memory is short...

Everything I see or hear? Now we may be getting into the world of quantum physics... is the world and all reality just a hologram? What then are audio systems? Our imaginations personified? Read it in a book or someone famous said it so it must be true. I don't think I fail to do anything audio-related. lol

These claims are part of the old, tired "Do cables make a difference" debate. This is beating a horse that's not just dead, it's a skeleton.

The unfortunate thing is there are TWO threads happening simultaneously here. Talk about cables, and then talk about "Do cables make a difference".

I regret engaging in the latter previously, it always leads to unending arguments, personal attacks and even defamation. I'd encourage everyone who actually wants to talk about cables to stop participating in it.