View Single Post
Old 05-18-2008   #35
hedge605
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: Dispelling audio myths, the cable lie

Hi all! This is my very first post in this community, thanks for all the good information.

I have to try to do some convincing here.

With regard to comments like: "Screw the math and measurements, I can hear a difference and therefore this cable is better than that cable", ignorance is costing you thousands of dollars. Let me explain a few flaws that might change your mind.

Hypocrisy: The most blatantly wrong thing in that statement is the hypocrisy. MATH is used to design components. You want all the folks with engineering degrees who design these pieces of equipment to do so without math and measurements? I'd like to see that. I'm sure once they just throw it together because it looks right it will sound AMAZING.

Logic, math, and physics are the reasons we all get to enjoy reproduced music. It is what defined the requirement of conductors being used in the first place. The pure definition of electronically reproduced music lies in the math behind it. There are measurable known quantities that will change the output of the audio. These are known because without knowing them we would never have had stereos to begin with!! Do you see what I'm trying to say here? The designer knows what will affect his system because HE DESIGNED IT. Please don't tell the engineer to put his math away when it's the math that defines the whole entire system.

Using logic. With respect to digital cables only: Would you say that dying your hair purple makes you a faster runner because it feels like you're running faster, when in fact the stop watch records the same time on average? Of course not! Stop correlating non-correlating subjects, that's just stupid.

Here is an example to prove my point:
Assuming a CD reader and writer are in good working order, is the copy of an audio CD (non-scratched, perfectly readable) to another CD lossy? NO. You can check them, they will be BIT for BIT identical. Go ahead, make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy etc... and they will BE IDENTICAL 100%. And a computer is a WAY more complicated and noisy environment than a home audio setup, it has lots of steps -- take the track, read it with a cheap transport, run the data through a bus controlled by software onto a hard disk medium (through multiple buffers) and back off the hard disk to the CD, where it is burned by yet another CHEAP transport. NO LOSS. All over CHEAP ASS 22 gauge or LESS wire inside the computer, with no AC filtering or anything else and hardly any shielding! That 90th copy of a copy still sounds great in your home audio setup, doesn't it? So what makes you think that the digital stream your receiver PRODUCES (in the DAC) from your CD player isn't 100% the original stream as recorded on the disc?

Here is another example. How come I can fetch data through the internet which uses thousands of miles of cheap ass wire, through multiple computers and switches, through different conversions for interface (ethernet, fibre, coax) all the way on the other side of the world, and have it be 100% the same as it was there? BECAUSE IT'S DIGITAL. It's either 100% or 0%.

With respect to analog cables:
It is true that noise introduced into an analog cable will affect sound quality, that should never be denied, but to what lengths you go to shield this noise from entering the wire is up to you. Wire gauge is the most important factor, followed by shielding. There are many white papers you can read by very very talented and qualified designers discussing the importance (or lack thereof) of quality interconnects that will open your eyes.

Finally, and this is my last pet peeve, the aim (goal) of a high quality sound system is to reproduce the sound AS RECORDED. People often miss that maybe half the music they have is recorded so ****ty that even a perfect (ideal) audio system will still sound ****ty. GIGO (garbage in = garbage out). You're high dollar interconnects wont help if the recording is junk!
hedge605 is offline   Reply With Quote