• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

do cables make a difference in sound?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#121
"Thing is, you can also easily prove that most basses and amps sound different from each other in double blind tests and graphing."

So can you with audio cables and equipment. It's done all the time. Check those old Sterophiles.

This is not to say that you can't have an overpriced cable, the pricing of which is based on hype, and voodoo electronics. There are lots of those around too, and I've tried some.

"By the way, I was teaching electronics before you were born"

Really? Another proclamation based on nothing? I'm 55. You must be extremely old!

And the number of posts you have written has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
 
#122
vespasian1 said:
"You have defined "people who don't know what they are talking about" to be the same set as "people who disagree with vespasian1"

BS. I'm not the one who started this thing by calling people 'Kool Aid Drinkers'. Pay attention.

So, how much blind testing do you all need to do to tell you one bass, or one amp sounds better than another? What scientific data is there? What's that you say? Relying on your ears, are ya?

I can't imagine such a thing. It's sooo unscientific.

I can't speak to what happened in an audio store. I can speak for what happens when you listen to equipment and music you are familiar with. And I never said cables need to be expensive.

If ignorance is bliss, some of you must be very happy people.
Click to expand...

Again, you seem to be confusing objectivity with subjectivity and bluster with evidence. I'll try again, for all the good it will do me. :D

No one is trying to tell you that you don't hear what you hear. When I pick out a bass or an amp, OF COURSE I use my ears, subjective as they are, to make a decision based on how it sounds TO ME. It's not scientific and I wouldn't claim that it is, neither will I try to convince anyone else that the decision I make would work for them. As I said, it's subjective, and making decisions based on subjective bases are totally valid.

You claim that what you hear are objective differences, but like it or not, your hearing is subjective, just like everyone else's. If you want to prove objective differences, then you have to supply objective evidence, and "I hear it" is subjective, not objective. It's not invalid; it just does not address the objective case.

Demeaning and abusive language directed to those who challenge your assertions does nothing whatsoever to support your point. Bluster away if you must, but it's just so much hot air.
 
#123
vespasian1 said:
"I guess the cables just magically adapt to whatever CD you're listening to and add back in whatever frequencies were lost in the original recording"

High end equipment and better cables don't add anything back in. The music obviously has to be present in the recording in the first place. Cheap cables allow RFI into the signal, the distortion from which masks detail, whether you 'buy' it or not. Better components with better parts eliminate vibration and RFI.

If you need scientific data to tell you what you are hearing, that is unfortunate. However Stereophile Magazine provides such data when they conduct tests of cables and equipment. Blind testing is often involved. And while you're hunting for this scientific data, perhaps you can find some that proves an Alembic sounds better than a SX.

One question- Have any of you 'IPod Dock' audio experts ever sat down in front of a high-end system and actually TRIED different cables? No? Then I rest my case.

Arguing with people who have no practical experience, and don't know what they're talking about is an empty pursuit. It's like running in the Special Olympics. You might win the race, but you're still ********. :smug:

PS- Cables and other electronic components need about a hundred hours of break-in before they begin to sound like they are supposed to sound. This break-in is required for the dielectric (usually teflon) to form a tight seal around conductors.
Click to expand...

not only am i a bass player but i am a sound guy and i own a recording studio. i can tell you that shielding is important to not let in rfi but that's it, if the wiring is properly shielded then it does not matter who made the cable or how much was spent on it. a $20 cable can be just as good if not better than a $50 cable.
and yes hearing is subjective. people hear differently you may be able to pick out the nuances but most people can't.
it's just like the difference between mp3 and wav. mp3 loses sound quality FACT. but not many people can tell. same for cables.
 
#124
oi_pride said:
and yes hearing is subjective. people hear differently you may be able to pick out the nuances but most people can't.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what subjectivity means. Subjectivity simply means that two people listening to the same piece of music at the same time will hear it differently, not that one of them hears it "better" than the other.
 
#126
Plug your bass in with a Monster Rock Cable then Plug it in with the Bass Cable and you should hear a difference.

In case you can't hear or are too stubborn to give it a shot: the Rock cable tends to mess with your mids a little.

But most of the time when people choose monster...they do it for the reliabilty. Because if you're someone like me..I don't like to spend more money to replace gear because you'll realize it will be cheaper to buy 1 expensive cable then to keep buying cheaper ones every time they crap out.
 
#127
Here's a "for instance" for you. Do you remember when, back in the dawn of CD's, some folks were claiming that using a green Sharpie to mark the edge of a CD would make it sound "warmer" and "more transparent"? Many, many folks tried the experiment and reported positive results. Audiophile stores were quick to capitalize, marketing special markers which were supposed to maximize this effect.

It was total BS and easily debunked:

For subtle differences to be entered into a digital audio signal, the LSB's (least significant bits) would have to be exclusively affected, but when the bits are read off a CD, they are read off sequentially, one bit at a time. The laser has no way of knowing which bit it is reading at any point in time; the bits are assembled into digital words which are fed into the D/A converter by a mechanism completely separated from the laser reading hardware. There is simply no way that changing the way that the light from the laser reader is reflected in the medium it is reading can affect the music subtly. The flaw in reasoning behind the scheme was in applying analog thinking to a digital medium.

But in the face of reason and easily verified objective evidence, many people continued to insist that their green marks on the CD's edge made a difference in the sound. Why is that? It's simple; they refused to acknowledge that the difference they were hearing was all in their heads. They insisted on believing that their subjective listening experience was objective in nature.
 
#129
Cables differ in components used, quality of maufacture and hence reliability/durability. They don't differ in sound at all unless there are quite significant differences in measurable elctrical properties such as capacitance or resistance, and that isn't generally the case, unless you're comparing cables of very different lengths.
 
#130
They're both instrument cables and the Rock cable is made for rock guitar and is supposed to mess your mids a little..so if it wasn't doing that..then that would be defective.
You can make electronics sound different with different parts. Take your guitar, pedals and amps for example. If they all do the same task..then why do they sound so different if they were designed to perform the same task as of those in the same category? Why would a Carbon Copy sound warmer and better than the Behringer analog delay? Why would an Ampeg sound better than another brand etc etc...
 
#131
ggunn said:
But that isn't what subjectivity means. Subjectivity simply means that two people listening to the same piece of music at the same time will hear it differently, not that one of them hears it "better" than the other.
Click to expand...

i agree with you that's the point i was trying to make.

it's like art you look a smeared paint you hate it i like at it i love it, same difference.
 
#137
ggunn said:
Here's a "for instance" for you. Do you remember when, back in the dawn of CD's, some folks were claiming that using a green Sharpie to mark the edge of a CD would make it sound "warmer" and "more transparent"? Many, many folks tried the experiment and reported positive results. Audiophile stores were quick to capitalize, marketing special markers which were supposed to maximize this effect.

It was total BS and easily debunked:

For subtle differences to be entered into a digital audio signal, the LSB's (least significant bits) would have to be exclusively affected, but when the bits are read off a CD, they are read off sequentially, one bit at a time. The laser has no way of knowing which bit it is reading at any point in time; the bits are assembled into digital words which are fed into the D/A converter by a mechanism completely separated from the laser reading hardware. There is simply no way that changing the way that the light from the laser reader is reflected in the medium it is reading can affect the music subtly. The flaw in reasoning behind the scheme was in applying analog thinking to a digital medium.

But in the face of reason and easily verified objective evidence, many people continued to insist that their green marks on the CD's edge made a difference in the sound. Why is that? It's simple; they refused to acknowledge that the difference they were hearing was all in their heads. They insisted on believing that their subjective listening experience was objective in nature.
Click to expand...

Otherwise known as the placebo effect.

Your story reminds me of those metal stickers you could stick onto your mobile phone that supposedly boosts the signal. Honestly, people with believe, and spend money, on anything. Even if it defies the laws of physics.
 
#140
bassybill said:
Excellent article. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Quote from said article for all the breaking in believers (which I also believe that 'breaking in' is loose stool water of the highest order):

"A related legend is that cables and electronic devices must be "broken in" for some period of time before they achieve their final highest fidelity. Aside from a manufacturing defect, the notion that wire or a solid state circuit changes audibly over time makes no sense. This legend becomes a scam when you deal with a vendor who says you must break in the product for 90 days to realize a benefit. Why 90 days? Because credit card purchases are protected for only 60 days."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back