I cannot even fathom the stupidity..

[mr moose]

Would you pay $5 over $1 USD if it meant the physical durability of the cable was much improved?  Sound being about equal.

 

If they were for my live rig then yes, if they were for my home theatre which only moves/gets touched once every year  or so then no.

 

EDIT: but either way I would not spend more than A$5 for basic RCA cables.

[NannerBeans]

If they were for my live rig then yes, if they were for my home theatre which only moves/gets touched once every year or so then no.

EDIT: but either way I would not spend more than A$5 for basic RCA cables.

What if they had LEDs and light up?!?! Lol

[Michael McAllister]

If they were for my live rig then yes, if they were for my home theatre which only moves/gets touched once every year  or so then no.

 

EDIT: but either way I would not spend more than A$5 for basic RCA cables.

 

But it's only $5.  Not $80 or $300. 

[mr moose]

What if they had LEDs and light up?!?! Lol

 

I wouldn't want to make the lighting guys feel unwanted by setting a sound system that did both. 

[Jechhh]

wait...this is on r/audiophile... lol i was jut on there. 

[creatip123]

the challenge is for all cables. Feel free to try and find some actual evidence that there is a difference.

 

EDIT: turns out the randi challenge was only for pear cables ($7000 cables) against $80 cables, however pear pulled out of the challenge and forbid anyone from using their cables in that test. surprise surprise. Suffice to say the challenge was there and the net is still littered with tests and challenges all over that disprove the cable myth umpteen times over.

 

A reader of the skeptics magazine (James Randi's) actually suggest the test to be those $7000+ pear cables against lamp cords, but according to Randi, Fremer (the guy who accepted the challenge) already stated specifically that he's ready to pit the pear cables against monster cables. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/101-swift-october-19-2007.html#i7

 

Aside from all the fuss, my personal opinion is, yes those super shining cables do yield perceivable differences. Problem is, it's only perceivable by maybe 1% of the entire population, and only when rigged to high quality/performance equipments, in an accoustic perfect room. Even then, the differences are so minuscule. As to whether or not that minuscule difference justify the price, well that's subjective to every guy out there....

 

On an entirely different note, there was a skeptic (Randi's side) giving a public talk, that it's kinda impossible to prove negatives (much more easier to prove positives).To prove negatives, one have to constantly challenging any positive claims by others, forever and ever. While proving positives only needed 1 successful proving, and that's that. He gave an example that even he can't prove that Santa Claus never exist. 

[mr moose]

A reader of the skeptics magazine (James Randi's) actually suggest the test to be those $7000+ pear cables against lamp cords, but according to Randi, Fremer (the guy who accepted the challenge) already stated specifically that he's ready to pit the pear cables against monster cables. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/101-swift-october-19-2007.html#i7

 

Aside from all the fuss, my personal opinion is, yes those super shining cables do yield perceivable differences. Problem is, it's only perceivable by maybe 1% of the entire population, and only when rigged to high quality/performance equipments, in an accoustic perfect room. Even then, the differences are so minuscule. As to whether or not that minuscule difference justify the price, well that's subjective to every guy out there....

 

On an entirely different note, there was a skeptic (Randi's side) giving a public talk, that it's kinda impossible to prove negatives (much more easier to prove positives).To prove negatives, one have to constantly challenging any positive claims by others, forever and ever. While proving positives only needed 1 successful proving, and that's that. He gave an example that even he can't prove that Santa Claus never exist. 

 

fair enough, so the premise still stands, the test hasn't been administered, and no one can prove otherwise.  Sounds like I will be spending my $7000 on something a little more empirical,  like scotch or spiced rum. :wacko:

[Phillyphries]

Awesome replies, guys.

 

I'm looking to see if there is anything on head-fi or whatever about this video to see if they disputed anything. Mike is respected in that community, I think.

 

I'm not really trying to just make fun of him, I just want you guys to also be aware of his channel, now that you know he's buying ridiculous USB cables that he "thinks" makes a difference. You should now probably be questioning if his reviews are reliable. And that is why I unsubbed.

[SSL]

Awesome replies, guys.

 

I'm looking to see if there is anything on head-fi or whatever about this video to see if they disputed anything. Mike is respected in that community, I think.

 

I'm not really trying to just make fun of him, I just want you guys to also be aware of his channel, now that you know he's buying ridiculous USB cables that he "thinks" makes a difference. You should now probably be questioning if his reviews are reliable. And that is why I unsubbed.

 

Well, clowns are probably respected by the circus but that doesn't mean I need to.

[Phillyphries]

@SSL Word, man.

 

I can't believe I was subbed to him for so long

[SSL]

@SSL Word, man.

 

I can't believe I was subbed to him for so long

 

I'm sure he disseminates some useful information. Wrong clocks, twice a day, that sort of thing.

[creatip123]

fair enough, so the premise still stands, the test hasn't been administered, and no one can prove otherwise.  Sounds like I will be spending my $7000 on something a little more empirical,  like scotch or spiced rum. :wacko:

 

$7000 could actually get me a decent used car in my country, so that's what I'm going for with the money....

[Helikaon]

Agree fully here. Snake oil indeed. Same with those super fancy hdmi cables.

With that said where you WILL encounter differences is in length.

I've made custom headphone cables with a variety of wire...with varying "quality" and they all sounded the same.

So as a test I made a 15 meter cable from cheap as dirt cable and one from more expensive one - read 40c per foot vs $1.50 per foot.

The crappy wire had noticible crackle and noise along with interference issues. The slightly more expensive one had none.

But for short length inter connects and headphone cables...I've not found cables to make one damn lick of difference.

[flibberdipper]

I'm using a $65 USB cable for my monitor. But I got it for free, so it's good.

[BoredErica]

Awesome replies, guys.

 

I'm looking to see if there is anything on head-fi or whatever about this video to see if they disputed anything. Mike is respected in that community, I think.

 

I'm not really trying to just make fun of him, I just want you guys to also be aware of his channel, now that you know he's buying ridiculous USB cables that he "thinks" makes a difference. You should now probably be questioning if his reviews are reliable. And that is why I unsubbed.

You know there's an entire section dedicated to cables right?

http://www.head-fi.org/f/21/cables-power-tweaks-speakers-accessories-dbt-free-forum

 

And you're not allowed to mention blind or abx tests in that section.

[91Chris]

There is absolutely 100% a difference between a "premium" cable and a cheapo one. The price is just insanely disproportionate to the end result.

 

/topic

[creatip123]

Agree fully here. Snake oil indeed. Same with those super fancy hdmi cables.

With that said where you WILL encounter differences is in length.

I've made custom headphone cables with a variety of wire...with varying "quality" and they all sounded the same.

So as a test I made a 15 meter cable from cheap as dirt cable and one from more expensive one - read 40c per foot vs $1.50 per foot.

The crappy wire had noticible crackle and noise along with interference issues. The slightly more expensive one had none.

But for short length inter connects and headphone cables...I've not found cables to make one damn lick of difference.

 

From this, I think it's safe to say that different cables do yield different results. It's just that the differences are so microscopic that there's no way we can perceive them with our ears. With longer cables, seems like those microscopic differences pile up and become more and more perceivable. 

 

I think the companies are doing the 'honest businessman' trick, where they aren't completely lying (when they say different cables do make a difference), but not completely truthful either (that with average home-use length cables, the differences won't really make a perceivable difference)...

[mr moose]

The crappy wire had noticible crackle and noise along with interference issues. The slightly more expensive one had none.

 

 

Which could easily be a case of poor termination on the cheapo cable.  I have used 50c cables before and the issue I had was termination. When it worked it worked just like any other cable but when it wasn't being held firmly in place it was shit.

[Helikaon]

Which could easily be a case of poor termination on the cheapo cable. I have used 50c cables before and the issue I had was termination. When it worked it worked just like any other cable but when it wasn't being held firmly in place it was shit.

If this was a store bought cable interconnect then I'd agree with you. I am not an amateur with a soldering iron however.

Be that as it may, as with most things the best is to test it for yourself. My own tests show signal noise and audible crackle on overly long cheap cable - which is actually a moot point because who in their right minds will use a 15m+ heaphone cord anyway.

I agree that with normal length cables the quality of the wire itself is a non issue.

[creatip123]

If this was a store bought cable interconnect then I'd agree with you. I am not an amateur with a soldering iron however.

Be that as it may, as with most things the best is to test it for yourself. My own tests show signal noise and audible crackle on overly long cheap cable - which is actually a moot point because who in their right minds will use a 15m+ heaphone cord anyway.

I agree that with normal length cables the quality of the wire itself is a non issue.

 

So for a successful ABX tests of cables, they should use maybe 200m+ cables.... :lol:

 

To be fair, there are uses for relatively long cables, but maybe not for end user consumer use. Something like recording studios, concert halls, singing halls/cafes, etc....

[ShearMe]

People who think cables play a role in the sound are not the kind of people you want in your life.

[Lays]

I think some of it is setup sensitive, like you mentioned @creatip123 . Something that's hyper sensitive, like the HD800 may be more susceptible to changes in setup / cabling vs something like the He-400. (As you mentioned)

 

Personally I'm not close minded to knock things before I've tried them, regardless if others say they don't notice a difference at all. Reading shit online and actually trying it first hand is completely different.  I'm going to buy used cables soon,1  Silver OCC and 1 Copper OCC, and ABX test them myself with my cousin's help.  If I don't notice a difference, I'll re-sell them for the same price. If I do notice a difference, I'll keep the one I like more and sell the other.

 

Obviously like everything, there are things that have horrible diminishing returns. If this is someones hobby, and it brings joy to them, I see no problem with them spending their money on things they enjoy, regardless if we think it helps or not.  I think it's extremely ignorant to judge people on what they enjoy, just because you don't.

[creatip123]

I think some of it is setup sensitive, like you mentioned @creatip123 . Something that's hyper sensitive, like the HD800 may be more susceptible to changes in setup / cabling vs something like the He-400. (As you mentioned)

 

Personally I'm not close minded to knock things before I've tried them, regardless if others say they don't notice a difference at all. Reading shit online and actually trying it first hand is completely different.  I'm going to buy used cables soon,1  Silver OCC and 1 Copper OCC, and ABX test them myself with my cousin's help.  If I don't notice a difference, I'll re-sell them for the same price. If I do notice a difference, I'll keep the one I like more and sell the other.

 

Obviously like everything, there are things that have horrible diminishing returns. If this is someones hobby, and it brings joy to them, I see no problem with them spending their money on things they enjoy, regardless if we think it helps or not.  I think it's extremely ignorant to judge people on what they enjoy, just because you don't.

 

That was exactly what I did, buy a higher grade cable, turned out my setup couldn't benefit from it, then sell it for new price

 

I think the real cause of all the cable fuss is because it's overhyped, by a lot. Kinda like the M50. It's normal if some people like it, and others don't. Problem is because it's overhyped (not to mention a bit overpriced), people started dissing it. Take amps for example, some people think different amps only differs in its contained juice, while others think different amp dishes out different sounds altogether. Because the amp issue isn't overhyped, there's no fuss about it. 

 

Cables are overhyped by a lot, and there are already many scams involved. There is a thread in the local audio forum (in my country), where a store buy some cheap electrical cable, strip its skin, re-skin it, and sell it (as a power cable that's supposedly provide 'clean' electrical current to the amp's power supply) for insane profits. Many people bought it. Then one day 1 guy tried stripping it, and found the traces of the cable's old label name. This created quite an uproar at the time (I haven't followed the audio world at the time of the post, just read it recently). 

 

Like I said, it's impossible to prove a negative, so yeah, keeping an open mind would seem to be the best option....

[SSL]

Like I said, it's impossible to prove a negative, so yeah, keeping an open mind would seem to be the best option....

 

How about: no. In most all of science the goal is to prove the null hypothesis false. If someone claims that their expensive cables improve sound, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate a) that there is an observable effect and ideally B) propose a mechanism for how what they say occurs.

 

This is especially important in audio where sighted listening bias is rampant. This is the real cause of "fuss"; sure people get carried away by hype but the sighted listening is what entrenches the idea that things like cables and pebble actually do anything.

[creatip123]

How about: no. In most all of science the goal is to prove the null hypothesis false. If someone claims that their expensive cables improve sound, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate a) that there is an observable effect and ideally B) propose a mechanism for how what they say occurs.

 

This is especially important in audio where sighted listening bias is rampant. This is the real cause of "fuss"; sure people get carried away by hype but the sighted listening is what entrenches the idea that things like cables and pebble actually do anything.

 

Well, what I meant from 'can't prove a negative' is we can't prove that 'all cables (in the world) gives no perceivable differences, ever'. It's different from what you're saying, which is proving a positive claim (which in many cases, mandatory). 

 

So, what you're saying is something like, 'I claim that I can run 100m in under 10 seconds', well, then prove it.

What I'm saying is something like, 'I claim that no living man can run 100m in under 10 seconds, ever'. Now I can't prove this claim (because it's a negative). As soon as somebody proved that he/she can run 100m in under 10 seconds, then my claim is void or proved wrong that very moment. 

 

Another example, remember when the Harry Potter novel came out more than 10 years ago? Well, say someone at that time claims that 'there will never exist an invisibility cloak'. Well, in the recent years, they have developed exactly that, the invisibility cloak (although of course not as perfect as the book or the movie). At that very moment the invisibility cloak produced, that claim were void or proved wrong.....

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, that there are no snake oils in the cable industry. I believe there are plenty of them snake oils out there. I'm saying we can't claim that 'no cables produced or will be produced that can give a perceivable differences', because say there are none at the moment, but say they are developing one and release it 5 years from now, and it pass every tests thrown at it. At that very moment, the claim will be void/proved wrong.