do cables make a difference in sound?

[oi_pride]

"and there is what is called redbook standard that companies that make cds must adhere to, so all cds are going to sound the same."

"Perfect sound forever"?

Forgive me. That was the claim made by manufacturers of CD players (namely Sony) in the 80s, at the dawn of CD tech. Starting price...............$1000, for a player they wouldn't have the nerve to ask $50 for now.

The quality of the sound reproduced on CD is predominantly dependent on the original recording. You can't reproduce sound that isn't there to begin with, but you can try to clean up what is there, if necessary.

regardless of anything you may believe ALL cds are produced at 44.1 Hz and at 16bits. period. and you're right you can't produce sound that isn't there to begin with. but no matter what you do any time you burn to a cd the information is automatically condensed into a format that is going to lose certain frequencies and no amount of paint can fix that. here read this.
An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate.

The bit rate is 1411.2 kbit/s:

2 channels x 44,100 samples per second per channel × 16 bits per sample = 1,411,200 bit/s = 1,411.2 kbit/s.

As each sample is a signed 16-bit two's complement integer, sample values range from -32768 to +32767.

On the disc, the data is stored in sectors of 2352 bytes each, read at 75 sectors per second. Onto this the overhead of EFM, CIRC, L2 ECC, and so on, is added, but these are not typically exposed to the application reading the disc.

By comparison, the bit rate of a "1x" data CD is defined as 2048 bytes per sector × 75 sectors per second = 150 KiB/s, or approximately 9.2 million bytes per minute.

 

[Fab Superlative]

regardless of anything you may believe ALL cds are produced at 44.1 Hz and at 16bits. period. and you're right you can't produce sound that isn't there to begin with. but no matter what you do any time you burn to a cd the information is automatically condensed into a format that is going to lose certain frequencies and no amount of paint can fix that. here read this.
An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate.

The bit rate is 1411.2 kbit/s:

2 channels x 44,100 samples per second per channel × 16 bits per sample = 1,411,200 bit/s = 1,411.2 kbit/s.

As each sample is a signed 16-bit two's complement integer, sample values range from -32768 to +32767.

On the disc, the data is stored in sectors of 2352 bytes each, read at 75 sectors per second. Onto this the overhead of EFM, CIRC, L2 ECC, and so on, is added, but these are not typically exposed to the application reading the disc.

By comparison, the bit rate of a "1x" data CD is defined as 2048 bytes per sector × 75 sectors per second = 150 KiB/s, or approximately 9.2 million bytes per minute.

Oh crap! Impirical data...you win.

 

[oi_pride]

"and there is what is called redbook standard that companies that make cds must adhere to, so all cds are going to sound the same."

"Perfect sound forever"?

Forgive me. That was the claim made by manufacturers of CD players (namely Sony) in the 80s, at the dawn of CD tech. Starting price...............$1000, for a player they wouldn't have the nerve to ask $50 for now.

The quality of the sound reproduced on CD is predominantly dependent on the original recording. You can't reproduce sound that isn't there to begin with, but you can try to clean up what is there, if necessary.

by the way here is a link
http://www.audiomasterclass.com/arc.cfm?a=what-is-the-red-book-standard-do-i-need-to-use-it-why

and yes cd manufactures still adhere to this, but some don't because of copy protection.

 

[ggunn]

regardless of anything you may believe ALL cds are produced at 44.1 Hz and at 16bits. period. and you're right you can't produce sound that isn't there to begin with. but no matter what you do any time you burn to a cd the information is automatically condensed into a format that is going to lose certain frequencies and no amount of paint can fix that. here read this.
An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate.

The bit rate is 1411.2 kbit/s:

2 channels x 44,100 samples per second per channel × 16 bits per sample = 1,411,200 bit/s = 1,411.2 kbit/s.

As each sample is a signed 16-bit two's complement integer, sample values range from -32768 to +32767.

On the disc, the data is stored in sectors of 2352 bytes each, read at 75 sectors per second. Onto this the overhead of EFM, CIRC, L2 ECC, and so on, is added, but these are not typically exposed to the application reading the disc.

By comparison, the bit rate of a "1x" data CD is defined as 2048 bytes per sector × 75 sectors per second = 150 KiB/s, or approximately 9.2 million bytes per minute.

Very good. Gold star for oi_pride.

I was trying to keep it simple (though I'll confess I could not have been so rigorous with my presentation off the top of my head) for someone who doesn't have a digital background.

I'm trying not to be too hard on him; it can be really hard for those steeped in the analog world to wrap their minds around the implications of working in the digital domain. His willingness to accept the green marker theory, however, does put some of the other things he has said in perspective, IMO.

This has been fun, but I've got to get ready for a party. I'll pick back up later on. See ya's!

 

[vespasian1]

"His willingness to accept the green marker theory, however, does put some of the other things he has said in perspective, IMO."

Good Lord. I didn't "accept" anything. Nor did I ever accept anything about audio cables. I was at least as doubtful as anyone else here. I tried before I judged. I wouldn't ask any more or less from anyone else.

"it can be really hard for those steeped in the analog world to wrap their minds around the implications of working in the digital domain."

If you're talking about sound reproduction, analog isn't so bad. Digital processing usually degrades the signal.

Play your favorite CD through a dedicated, analog audio system. Then play the same CD through an AV receiver with all kinds of whiz-bang digital processing messing with the signal. Even a digital volume control will blow all kinds of resolution right out the window. Try, and you'll see.

 

[JanusZarate]

If you're talking about sound reproduction, analog isn't so bad. Digital processing usually degrades the signal.

This becomes less true every day, and in the world of high-end digital gear, it's not true at all.

Play your favorite CD through a dedicated, analog audio system.

Problem #1 - CDs store data in a digital format. You can't have a purely analog playback system for CDs.

Then play the same CD through an AV receiver with all kinds of whiz-bang digital processing messing with the signal.

Not a fair comparison, but not for the reasons you might think. As with expensive analog gear, some expensive digital gear will offer "enhancement" features which, more often than not, just color the signal in a more ear-pleasing manner.

For the sake of such a test, such features should not be used. And if they are, some might be inclined to think that digital is unequivocally better.

Even a digital volume control will blow all kinds of resolution right out the window. Try, and you'll see.

See my original comment. You've kept up with the progress of digital technologies, I hope?

 

[oi_pride]

If you're talking about sound reproduction, analog isn't so bad. Digital processing usually degrades the signal.

Play your favorite CD through a dedicated, analog audio system. Then play the same CD through an AV receiver with all kinds of whiz-bang digital processing messing with the signal. Even a digital volume control will blow all kinds of resolution right out the window. Try, and you'll see.

you're right analog does sound better than digital and that is why there have been several companies that make products that reproduce the analog tone. also basses, drums, and guitars are analog so to record them on anything other than tape is going to turn the signal into digital. then it doesn't matter if the system is analog or not if your playing cds, because the analog information is lost unless you have software that can recreate the analog tone.

 

[Zureta]

So, this has boiled down to vespasian1 vs. the world? I told you guys this thread wasn't going to get any more useful. I didn't say anything about entertaining, though.

First of all, vespasian1, you have my utmost respect for taking a stand and not backing down no matter what. Sure, one man's "headstrong iron-will" is another's "pigheaded obstination". But where would be the fun in debate if people always changed their minds without putting up a fight? Your attitude, sir, is a siren song for challengers and the beating heart of this surprisingly long-lasting thread. I wonder if the OP had any idea of what he was starting with such an innocent-sounding question....

That said, since my initial "humorous comic strip to defuse tempers" approach failed, and the subsequent "why can't we all agree to disagree and chill together in peace" strategy (known as the hippie's gambit) proved unfruitful, I shall change gears and add some friendly fuel to this engaging, healthy gentleman's debate. You know. For fun.

"With a green Sharpie?"

Not exactly a Sharpie. There is a paint pen (I actually tried this), that you run around the edge of the CD. It's called 'Audio Prism CD Stop Light'.

This CD-marker stuff is now a well-known urban legend, rarely disputed nowadays by anyone that doesn't work for Audio Prism other makers of such products. Here is an article about it from the folks at Snopes.com, one of the world's most respected and possibly the best-researched source on urban legends:

Beware of the Green

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.

Stereophile Magazine may not be a 100% reliable, unbiased source of objective information.

It's no secret that the business reality of specialized magazines (famously car mags and videogame mags, but maybe also, why not, a high-end audio gear mag) means they often have to "play nice" with the industry that places advertisement in their pages. This often means heaping on praise or glossing over the weaknesses in the products they review, out of fear of being boycotted by the offended company and losing revenue. This is their everyday editorial reality, not an exaggeration! Can you really believe any publication in this situation, no matter how "big" or "respectable", can afford to tell the whole story every single time? Can these sources be blindly trusted just because they claim to do their testing right? Food for though.

For an alternative point of view, here's what the world's most famous professional skeptic, James Randi (yes, the former illusionist turned quack-buster who has for the last decade offered a million dollar prize for anyone who can prove supernatural phenomena in previously agreed scientific test conditions and so far has had no serious takers) has to say about Stereophile:

As readers will know, I’ve battled with those at Stereophile Magazine who endorse all sorts of crackpot products and show no sign of discriminating between blatantly obvious scams and doubtful claims. Efforts to get them to be involved in proper double-blind tests – with the JREF million-dollar prize available for a positive result! – have made them run for the woods precipitously.

Just think of that for a moment, folks. We are offering a prize of a million dollars, legally and irrevocably committed to that end, if Stereophile Magazine – or any of the other agencies or promoters who tout such nonsense – would simply agree to a simple, appropriate, definitive test of their beliefs and/or claims! A million dollars! How plain can that get? To me, it appears that there can be only one reason for such reluctance: those who make and/or support such claims know that they’re wrong, that they cannot support their claims, that the product or service they offer is a scam and without merit – yet they continue to offer this swindle to their clients, knowing that it’s a fake. I cannot think of any alternative.

Full text and context here. This here is also relevant.

That's what I have to offer for now. Sorry for being long-winded. Hope this helps to keep things lively!

 

[mongo2]

"
To the young skalawag who reminded me that my ears are 55 years old:

As have my other components, they have been trained, maintained, and are working just fine.

Very good, continue to protect them as should all here. I've been protecting my hearing (and other components) since the early '70s, and I'm older than you.

But I was actually referring to the only verifiable "fact" you've mentioned in all the "marketing hype mistaken for truth" you've posted.

 

[Zureta]

Excellent article. Thanks.

You're welcome! I aim to help. Or, failing that, at least amuse somewhat.

Speaking of which...

 

[vespasian1]

"But I was actually referring to the only verifiable "fact" you've mentioned in all the "marketing hype mistaken for truth" you've posted."

There is a great deal of hype associated with all things audio. If you go strictly by what you read, even properly-conducted- test results, you can make majorly expensive mistakes, and I have been there. Try before you buy, absolutely.

You want hype, take a look at these.

http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm

They want like $400 for a few wooden poker chips. I don't get it. This must surely be a 'Golden Ears Only' item.

As far as the rest of it, as I said, give it a try. If you want to focus on a spec, make it 'signal to noise ratio'. That one is important. You will hear what you hear, and won't what you don't, just like me.

 

[Zureta]

You want hype, take a look at these.

http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm

They want like $400 for a few wooden poker chips. I don't get it. This must surely be a 'Golden Ears Only' item.

Those are hilarious! Thanks for sharing!

See why the "trust your ears above all else" credo can get such a bad rep? Look at the level of insanity some people's ears seem to lead them. Mpingo magic indeed!