Why Do Cables Matter?

                          Once again, hitting the REPLAY button:

      AND (incidentally): I DO have a number of recordings, of my own creation (using a John Oram board and complimentary cabling, FYI), that I've used to critique my system and it's accuracy in instrumental/vocal tonality, etc.

       But: a more scientific way, at least with which to determine if a system will/can recover room ambiance, describe the air between the above voices and image well, which (to me) are what is most greatly affected by cable choices, is the LEDR test, so easily found online and CD.

rodman99999 5,746 posts 05-31-2023 at 03:57pm           The adherents of the Naysayer Church will never accept that there exist a multitude of variables, when an accurate simulacrum of performers and their performance in a particular venue, is the desire/goal.         If their result differs from that of others, the aspects that they can't discern CERTAINLY MUST BE the product of the others' imagination.              Of this they are certain: it CAN'T be THEIR system or ears!                                       Perish the thought! A much more apropos view of the local, imaginary intelligence operative (et al):                                            (SNORT of derision)   rodman99999 5,760 posts 06-02-2023 at 08:35am         No one can tell you whether/how your system, room and/or ears will respond to some new addition.   There are simply too many variables.      LIKEWISE: no one can possibly know whether a new addition (ie: some kind of disc, crystal, fuse, interconnect, speaker cable, etc)  will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves.         Some companies offer a 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee, so- those that are actually interested, have absolutely nothing to lose, by trying (experimenting with) such.           Anyone that knows anything about the sciences, realizes that something like 96% of what makes up this universe, remains a mystery.             For centuries; humanity’s seen, heard, felt and otherwise witnessed phenomena, that none of the best minds could explain, UNTIL they developed a science or measurement, that could explain it.           The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!").       Theories have never proven or disproven anything.  It’s INVARIABLY testing and experimentation that proves or disproves theories/hypotheses.        IF you’re interested in the possibility of improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and trust your own senses: actually TRY whatever whets your aural appetite, FOR YOURSELF.                                The Naysayer Church HATES it, when THAT happens!

     

      

rodman99999

5,760 posts

06-02-2023 at 08:53am 

     Feynman was and will remain, my favorite lecturer (yeah: I'm that old).

     He mentioned often (and: I took to heart) his favorite Rule of Life: "Never stop learning!"

     For all his genius, he never grew overly confident in his beliefs.    The perfect obverse to the Dunning-Kruger sufferer.

     ie:  “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.”

     and: “I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”

     Tesla is probably my favorite innovator, who (despite the incessant, projectile vomit, from his day's naysayers), took the World, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century, with his inventions.

                                                  His thoughts: 

     “Anti-social behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists.”

     “All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combatted, suppressed, only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”

 

rodman99999

5,760 posts

06-02-2023 at 08:56am 

                 Quotes from past Dunning-Kruger sufferers, here:   

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."  (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872) 

     "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon,"  (Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873)

      "The super computer is technologically impossible.  It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." (Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University)                        

      "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."  (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923)

      "Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." (Dr. Lee DeForest, Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television)

      "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible!" (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895) 

      "The bomb will never go off.  I speak as an expert in explosives."  (Admiral William Leahy, re: US Atomic Bomb Project) 

     When the steam locomotive came on the scene; the best (scientific) minds proclaimed, "The human body cannot survive speeds in excess of 35MPH."

      Until recently (21st Century); and the advent of the relatively new science of Fluid Dynamics, the best (scientific) minds involved in Aerodynamics, could not fathom how a bumblebee stays aloft. 

     Often; Science has to catch up with the facts/phenomena of Nature and/or, "reality" (our universe). 

     I haven't been in school since the 60's, but- at Case Institute of Technology; the Physics Prof always emphasized what we were studying was, "Electrical THEORY."         He strongly made a point of the fact that no one had yet actually observed electrons (how they behave on the quantum level) and that only some things can really be called, "LAWS." (ie: Ohm, Kirchoff, Faraday)   

            PERHAPS: that's changed in recent years and I missed it?     

Ok, I didn’t communicate my point. I’ll try one more time and you don’t have to read my notes.
-Listening- to what? I mention Anthony Hopkins because everyone knows his voice but few have heard it in person, I’m not name dropping, If you have had season tickets to the London Philharmonic for 40 years you buy a record of the latest season, you still don’t know where the microphones were placed to record the performance, you don’t know what effects were put on each microphone, you probably aren’t even familiar with those microphones nor all the components and mic cables that were used in the recording nor the components in the mixing. You nor I or anyone other than the mixer has any idea what to -listen- for because you didn’t do the recording.

People with -golden ears- who evaluate sound systems who don’t do the recording and the mixing (which is very rare) have no right to say there is to much of this and not enough of that, the entire "listening" based on accuracy is silly. Sure some people are good at picking adjectives to describe what many people like but the idea that a cable is accurate is impossible. -More- is not always proper I used to use an old EV mic cable to record tubby sounding women in the studio it worked like gold we would go to a mic like the Sennheiser 421 dynamic first then if that didn’t smooth out her voice we’d use the special mic cable because it was screwed up which made it perfect to record big powerful women’s voices.

Cables are not a consideration in a recording unless there is a problem, you obviously always use good quality cables and if you do use cables you have to run them in ways they don’t get interference from the lighting/power guys who are set up right next to you in concert situations, this is why Dante and digital networking are used in concerts today because 1s and 0s stay 1s and 0s all the way to the decoder or else it doesn’t work at all.

What are you listening for? Answer, simply to enjoy the music.

Also with todays digital EQ and dynamic tools its easy to change the signal, for some reason audiophiles don’t want to manipulate the signal in the digital realm with no phase or harmonic coloration problems you used to have with analog manipulation. Why not save $80k on cables and boost the bass or whatever frequency to exactly match the way you like the sound?

@donavabdear -

"Ok, I didn’t communicate my point. I’ll try one more time and you don’t have to read my notes."

"Listening- to what?"

     APPARENTLY: you don't even bother to read the very first sentences of posts previous to yours.

ie:  

      AND (incidentally): I DO have a number of recordings, of my own creation (using a John Oram board and complimentary cabling, FYI), that I've used to critique my system and it's accuracy in instrumental/vocal tonality, etc.

       But: a more scientific way, at least with which to determine if a system will/can recover room ambiance, describe the air between the above voices and image well, which (to me) are what is most greatly affected by cable choices, is the LEDR test, so easily found online and CD.

From the next post:        The adherents of the Naysayer Church will never accept that there exist a multitude of variables, when an accurate simulacrum of performers and their performance in a particular venue, is the desire/goal.

         IOW:  The majority of us that are experimenting with better cables, do so that we might enjoy a more realistic presentation, in ALL aspects.

         Many of us have found that improving our interconnects, PC and fuses, has resulted in more accurate information retrieval, and/or less loss of information, throughout the system, NOT with the intent to, "...change the signal" or, "boost the bass or whatever frequency to exactly match the way you like the sound?"

          Nothing lost through the use of crappy cabling, can ever be recovered by you beloved digital EQ and dynamic tools.

               Are you really that obtuse, or just choosing to be argumentative*?       

                                     *AS IF that's not already obvious. 

@donavabdear I’ve been trying to understand why so many people are willing to spend so much money on cables, when no studio does, easy question really,...

 

Easy question and easy answer, which has been answered for you, multiple times.

Either you fail to read carefully and try to comprehend, or simply don’t want to.

When someone has not tested something first-hand, no point trying to debate it.

A friend owns a recording/mastering studio - and does not short-change on cables.

@rodman99999 Yes I read that post, and that is perfect exactly what I'm saying but that is the exception, you understand. I'm asking honest questions so smart audiophiles will give me their view. You mentioned being obtuse, that is what you did when you mention using bad cables, again, again, again no one on either side of the discussion advocates using bad cables (strawman). You are wrong about DSP not making up for problems in the signal. Have you ever used ProTools and the amazing plugins that are available in it? If you are good with audio tools you can make recording sound much better. I have a friend who mixed the Sinatra Duets album, Frank said no efx, the original recording was so unmixable they did it anyway, something you don't do when Frank say no, the album was great and no one ever knew. 

BTW I'm not stating normal anti cable argument like saying they aren't testable or they don't sound better, I never said anything like that. I've spent millions on sound equipment over the years believe me I know sound equipment on the professional level I'm just trying to understand it at the audiophile level. Honestly.