Proof that cables Do make a difference

[naturephoto1]

When did HDMI cables become audio cables?? I use HDMI cables for video.

They can carry both audio and video. Many people use their players including Blu-ray players with their HDMI cables to play digital music including CD and SACD.

Rich

 

[terryj]

Terry,

Speaker positioning, room acoustics..........Basics. Get it?

Jack

Yeah, I get it. But why do you keep saying that in a cable thread??

@terryj... most definitely the role of the reviewer is to educate, and the idea here is to communicate my listening experiences with cables.

Am more than happy for you to give us your experiences. It is part of fulfilling the (major?) requirement of being an audio reviewer...entertainment. That you will no doubt also be fulfilling most readers expectations is just a nice bonus, they too after all fully believe in cables as you do.

But that does not actually meet the definition of education does it. It is merely 'one more sighted anecdotal report' no matter how strongly held. To be brutally honest, all your exhortations to me to 'go to a dealer and experience the cable demonstration' merely perpetuates the matter. It is NOT a way to become educated about cable differences, it IS a way to fall into the mire of the sighted, biased (and they MUST be biased no??) and possibly flawed situation. I am keeping the doors open here by stressing 'possibly biased', in other words I allow the possibility that cable differences do exist.

BUT, they need to be there on audible factors alone no??

In my reference system, could I tell the difference between three brands of cables? Of course, and so could you, probably without any training at all. And you could hear some of the differences just standing off to the side, in another room. Others are more subtle, and of course the fine polishing of the sonic experience is what makes the difference between tolerating and loving the sound.

Would it surprise you if I said *we* have heard statements like this many times on forums?? It seems to roll off the tongue easily to many. I am not disputing the level of belief you have that it is clearly audible to you. I am not saying you are deluded or any such description.

I am trying to get you to see that it may be possible that factors OTHER than sound has had an influence. Are you able to admit that possibility?


I asked you this very question in post 133. You answered one question (thank you), this one you left alone. I'll quote it here for completeness (and save you going back) Are you able to admit that a demonstration conducted as you said above, can have outcomes due to reasons OTHER than cable sound?? Are you able to see that? (just a first baby step here)

Cable differences can be, and usually are, far from negligible, even in relatively inexpensive products.

Again, the use of words like 'far from negligible'.

No double blind testing is required to determine if the sun has come up over the horizon yet on a clear day, or even on a murky day... just the estimated time of arrival will be a little less precise.

If you prefer, we can all wear blindfolds... as mentioned earlier, with both eyes covered, that should be the equivalent of double-blind.

Why do you persist in using completely inapplicable analogies or examples to help prove your case?? That the sun rises does NOT prove cable differences exist! Nor does it prove that dbts are not required to see if cable differences exist!

Would you allow that we COULD use dbt to find out if the sun rises??

I let it go before, but am curious about this continued use of 'blindfolds' in your discussions of dbt. If I did not know any better, it seems that your definition of blinded is 'wearing blindfolds'. That is not the case I hope?? See, there ARE some out there who have that false idea. To them, coming from a reviewer who's job it is to clarify (ie educate) well, you continued use of that phrase does little to clear the waters does it.

If however, this is the start of an acceptance that you will do a dbt, then OK. If that is what you are comfortable with in how you do it, then I too am fine with it. Maybe there is some peculiarity with your individual setup that requires blindfolds, ok then that's fine.

As long as you are comfortable with it. When doing a dbt it makes perfect sense to maximise the chances of passing it, so if that is how you best feel you can pass it then I am happy with it too.

Each contributes its own set of toxic effects. What I'm referring to here are several well-known musical venues, some high-end recording studios, etc., where the sound is nowhere what it should/could be.

This one is an interesting amplification of your earlier 'I can walk into a new room and pick cables'. To you now, the difference between the 'house sounds' of different studios is down to the cables used??

Really?? Nothing to do with mics, pres, amps, acoustic spaces, cables???

really??

When one complains to those guilty of such offenses, their response is usually, we know, we know, but that's what the client wanted, which is another set of problems

So you think the engineer gets his sound (what the client wanted) by mixing and swapping cables???? Do you really think that is what they meant? Or maybe it was more to do with things like the level of compression, the loudness.

Listen and you will believe

Ahh, there must be some sections of the industry that really love you nicholas!!

Say, according to the Wilson product literature here on my desk, the MAXX3 and Sashas have the same midrange and tweeters, so one would expect their overall sound to be quite similar... During the next two-three weeks, I'll be listening extensively to the MAXX3, X-2s and Sashas, and hope to learn a lot from the experience.

Side note, this is an interesting thing to follow. IF, as I too feel, they should sound similar, why then do these hi end companies seem to stress how their tweeter is 'built to spec'?, proprietary?? My feel is to engender the thought that a diy'er (for example) could not somehow clone the similar sound by buying the same factory drivers! So how do they do that? Easy. 'built to our specs, proprietary treatment' yada yada. That way to get the sound you have to buy the product.

My "anecdotes" are from the principal designers of several high-end cabling companies who most definitely build their own stuff, and personally are in the winding plants watching the reels get manufactured; and what's more, they're all audiophiles who listen to what they build on their own systems, and can tell you very accurately the strengths and weaknesses of a given product. These are not bluff and bluster marketing types; they're lifetime contributors to the art and science, and commercial successes.

These guys are really good, in my opinion, which is the reason for me bringing their inputs into the discussion.

Why have not nasa, or the LHC decided to use these scientific advances?? I'm sure their budget would allow it, if these contributors to the science really had something to contribute to science.

As frantz asked earlier, how can it be that all the new discoveries in science seem to only emanate from the ears of audiophiles?? That moving a very small bandwidth signal thru six feet of wire has things new to science??

Or, as I suspect, does the answer more lay between the ears than between the connecting lugs...hahaha, slang over here in australia for ears is lugs!!

So the answer to the question does not lie between the lugs, it lies between the lugs

 

[Nicholas Bedworth]

Even more fuel for the fire

They became audio cables also around 5 years ago. The spec was set up in, what, 2003? Amir may know the details. Basically it's similar to DVI, except highly miniaturized mechanically, along with a bunch of additional capabilities. Audio performance is, guess what, highly cable dependent.

Be sure and watch the video with David Salz that Amir posted...

 

[muralman1]

Well, in my case, that little noodle of a cable won't do. My preamp has to breath, and can't be squished on top of, or under the rather large DAC I have. When did HDMi every become popular?

 

[Nicholas Bedworth]

@ muralman1

Let's see, HDMI has been standard-issue on just about every (non-Apple) digital-media laptop and computer for a few years now. Oddly enough, Apple has retained the huge, unsightly and definitely un-chic DVI connector long past its abandonment by the rest of the industry. And just every monitor, TV, DVD player, etc., has also been HDMI-standard for years.

Check out Sears...

It's not that HDMI became popular, the entire CE industry simply switched over to it.

 

[muralman1]

Audio comes first here. I use HDMI to connect the projector to the Blue disc player.

 

[JackD201]

Yeah, I get it. But why do you keep saying that in a cable thread??

Oh my, I need glasses.

I've been addressing you when I should have been addressing Mr. Seinfeld. My apologies.

 

[terryj]

Oh my, I need glasses.

I've been addressing you when I should have been addressing Mr. Seinfeld. My apologies.

hi jack, no worries.

I too have seen a Mr Seinfeld make his appearance here, and I found him!!

Randall Smith. http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ake-a-difference&p=13674&viewfull=1#post13674

BUT, I still am confused why you would be directing those comments at him?? esp given what was said in the post linked.

He seems to be saying the very thing you are, basics first.

 

[naturephoto1]

Audio comes first here. I use HDMI to connect the projector to the Blue disc player.

Many of us connect our Blu-ray player to our Pre/Pro and then to the TV or Projector via HDMI cables. Thus, it provides both audio and video.

Rich

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

HDMI is neither Audio nor Video cable .. It is a Digital cable .. It carries whatever signals the bits represent ...

I find the video from the Wirewold person at least disingenuous. I am really amazed how much slack the audiophile world is wiling to give to such ... The same amount of Bovine Manure is present on many audiophile accessories sites. From DC bias which can't absolutely do ANYTHING in term of shielding to little pieces of woods made of a special wood that will magically correct your room acoustics the world of High End Audio is full of devices where Science is regularly bent out of shape ... Quantum physics in particular takes a beating

Yet , they seem never to be called out by the audiophile press. If they have been , I apologize in advance.
Just to repeat an observation. The true High End videophile don't use any of the audiophile brands video cables, they use what the Pros use: Belden, Canre, Mogami and the likes.. Check it out on any forum truly dedicated to the highest End of Video .. Video bandwidth is much , much wider than Audio. HD video's well over 100 MHz of Band ...width ...
Video has those pesky test patterns which can remain on the screen until everyone can see the contribution of any component ... Our test patterns are unfortunately fleeting and the shortness of Auditory memory, previously an argument of the DBT side is now claimed by the anti-dbt side ... The debate will go on but the Pro-cable side is moving toward acknowledging at least that cables contribution are subtle .. there remain a few stalwarts that would tell you that cable make a "huge" difference ... their arguments are getting weaker, washed by the evidence at hand ...

 

[Gregadd]

Would it not be great if everything was like duct tape. It's cheap and easy to use. It makes almost no claims and yet seems to be good for everything from sealing duct work to binding a kidnap victim.

 

[DonH50]

<OT>

In the duct work? Mental note: Stay away from Gregadd, and maybe just DC in general!

If it moves and shouldn't, duct tape; if it doesn't move and should, WD-40. What else needs knowing?

Back to your usual debate - Don

 

[muralman1]

Many of us connect our Blu-ray player to our Pre/Pro and then to the TV or Projector via HDMI cables. Thus, it provides both audio and video.

Rich

I don't need a tutorial what HDMI cables do. My question has been just when the HDMI cable might have been considered a Stereophile class A component? I missed the fan fair somewhere.

 

[amirm]

I don't need a tutorial what HDMI cables do. My question has been just when the HDMI cable might have been considered a Stereophile class A component? I missed the fan fair somewhere.

It has the potential to be so just as S/PDIF coax cables are.

Here is the theory. The main job of HDMI cable is to transmit the digital data. If you are getting a clear picture without dropouts or white dashes then the digital part is accomplished. Unfortunately, the system is designed such that HDMI must also carry an analog signal! Yes, I said analog. The timing of audio signals is carried over that interface and timing is always an analog piece of data.

When your AVR receives HDMI data, it extracts the audio and video samples. Once there video samples in today's world goes to a "digital" display whose pixels are fixed and hence, immune to timing errors (again, as long as you the timing jitter is not too big as to cause data loss per above). Audio works differently. The samples are fed to the DAC but now the timing matters. The DAC cannot "freewheel" and use its own independent clock. Just because it is told the sampling rate is 48Khz, it doesn't mean it can output 48,000 samples/sec! When the content was authored, it is entirely possible that the actual rate would be 47998 or 48001. The DAC therefore, must "slave" its clock to the master clock coming over HDMI cable.

Unfortunately are now talking about a high speed video clock being used as our source of timing for an audio channel which requires pretty high accuracy per the jitter thread. With so many other activity going on in your receiver due to video and its processing, keeping the audio clock clean is more challenging than the simpler, audio-only S/PDIF. As a result, AVRs routinely have worse jitter spec for audio over HDMI as opposed to S/PDIF. This, despite the fact that S/PDIF itself is poorly designed from this point of view!

This is what you get by the way when video engineers design audio . We had a gold opportunity to do this right and not create yet another synchronous channel but it was botched with borrowing a PC interface (DVI) and turning it into an A/V interface (HDMI).

Now that you know the theory, can cables change the nature of audio timing? Well, it certainly is possible as it is with S/PDIF cables. In the jitter thread, I showed how jitter is created due to cable effect. How much filtering goes on to get rid of that kind of jitter is unknown without testing the equipment.

It sure would be nice for these companies to do a few measurements to go with their marketing material. If they don't have the equipment, then their claims are totally invalid because a heavier or fancier cable may actually make things worse as much as better.

 

[amirm]

I should add that there is a master mode where the AVR and its clock could drive the source. This would eliminate the problem above and make it work like some DACs on the PC. How well that is implemented in the sources is an unknown. The correct solution might force the source to resample the audio to slow or speed it up and that could cause its own set of issues.

 

[muralman1]

Thank you Amir.

The builder of my preamp and amp is an electronics engineer. One of his recent jobs was designing robotics ribbon connectors. I sent on your dissertation on HDMI to him. 'He rarely writes much, but if he does I will print it here.

 

[Nicholas Bedworth]

HDMI Wiki, data pattern jitter

Regarding the ubiquity of HDMI, looks like there are close to 1 billion devices in the field already...

For those willing to slog through the Julian Dunn articles, there's even a kind of jitter resulting from unfortunate bit combinations in the datastream itself.

Everything modulates everything else...

HDMI bandwidth for video is orders of magnitude greater than for audio, and this too generates all kinds of interesting possibilities for distortion and artifacts.The pixel clock rate is getting close to a gigahertz for some applications. And the conductors run in close proximity to each other. The standard HDMI connector is quite small; the mini connector is VERY small...

Check out the excellent Wiki article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

 

[rhopkins]

Insanity at its best! Absolutely wild little thread you have going here and I'm in awe.

I can only offer my personal experience and a couple of thoughts on this.

1) Yes, sometimes I have been able to hear differences with audio cables and sometimes not. I'm not sure why, but I do.

2) I'm running everything balanced and at 600 ohms so I shouldn't hear any difference apparently or perhaps very small differences.

3) The cheaper the cable, the better it sounds - for the most part. I've tried silly expensive stuff down to plain Jane Belden and I've settled on a ProCo cable that really works well in that I can't detect that it is adding or subtracting anything. No need to look further.

4) There is one exception - my phono cable, and I haven't had a chance to experiment much with this however, I'm pretty satisfied with it so why bother.

5) OK, maybe two exceptions my speaker cables. I'd like to experiment with this of course too but I've got to be in a special mood to start swapping cables around and I like to have others around to at least partially ensure that I'm not hearing things. Most days I'd rather have dental work done without pain killer than experiment with cables.

6) I've always wondered about people that need scientific proof for something. Not in a religious sense, but rather the assumption on their part that they know everything and have the equipment to measure all of that. It sounds terribly bold to me.

I think about all of the remarkable discoveries people are making right now finding other solar systems and planets that may support life when a few decades ago the idea was just a theory. Perhaps even a silly theory. No proof at all. Perhaps we need more theories and attempts to prove differences in cables than dogma and rigid belief that if we can't prove it right now it doesn't exist.

7) I'm pretty sure that the only thing that matters to me is what I hear. I would think all that matters to you is what you hear. If you don't hear a difference between lamp cord and $10,000 speaker wire laugh all the way to the bank and don't care to much about converting the unwashed masses. Or this could read the other way around... depending on your polar position.

I think that's about it. I do find it amusing that this topic causes so much polarization regardless of what forum it appears in. It's obviously hot and passionate for some!

If you find yourself getting hot and passionate over this post please see your doctor immediately and remember, I'm just telling you what my experience is with my little stereo. Yours might be very different.

 

[stehno]

If you find yourself getting hot and passionate over this post please see your doctor immediately and remember, I'm just telling you what my experience is with my little stereo. Yours might be very different.

I'm sure you're speaking a bit tongue-in-cheek but still serious.

You ever watch football or basketball? They are passionate. How 'bout Formula 1 or Top Fuel drag racing? They are passionate too.

Why is high-end audio the only performance-oriented industry I'm aware of where being passionate is so frequently looked upon as a negative?

Shouldn't one's passion be a bit of a barometer to discern how serious an individual might be? No matter how perverted that passion may be?

Assuming it's all about performance, why would anybody give an attention or credence to one who is not passionate / serious?

 

[Gregadd]

I think the problem is we are way to concerned about someone else's stereo.