Your test method was wrong….

[pucho812]

Saw this elsewhere and wanted to share.
Engineer #1: I need to make some more cables for the studio. They will be 10’ long. Should I go with mogami 2549 or mogami 2534.

Half the peanut gallery: go with 2549 it sounds better

the other half of the peanut gallery: go with mogami 2534 it sounds better

Engineer#2: go with 2549 we have noticed a difference in cables and that 2534 the quad cable rolls off the high end.

engineer#3: it’s 10’ I highly doubt you will notice a difference between either of the two.

En#2: dude, #3 that is wrong. I’ll show you.

en#3: any noticeable difference at that length means something is wrong. You’ll get about 288’ of quad cable before you notice any difference.

en#2. Here I tested it. I have two 10’ lengths of those part numbers. I ran a pass of pink noise through one cable. Then using the same I/o did a second pass of pink noise with the other cable I then nulled them out. See, see there is a huge difference. Also see how the graphs are different. This proves it.

en#3: you generated pink noise twice? Pink noise which is random? Not sure what your expecting to show here. It’s 10’ of cable. Read the data sheets, between that and the math can tell you what you need.

 

[pucho812]

I should post the graphs that were made. Boy was there a huge difference, but then again the testing method was faulty which is why there was such a discrepancy.

 

[Rybow]

That would be interesting even if it’s a faulty test.
I’ve never given much thought to cables. All of mine are Yorkville.

 

[pucho812]

That would be interesting even if it’s a faulty test.
I’ve never given much thought to cables. All of mine are Yorkville.

I shouldn't post a graph of false information. Nothing to learn from that.

there are things that are real with cables, and then there are a lot of imagined things. The latter of the two is how audiophile companies make a living. Selling you things like feelings and unmeasurable things not quantum rejection. The former is things that can be measured. You can measure at what point a cable will start to roll off into noticeable frequencies because it is too long. There is enough real science with cables, that the data is already there. No need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I wrote about funny wire for my audio mythology column back in the 80s. It is a testament to the powers of persuasion that there are (were?) stadiums named after funny wire.

JR

 

[john12ax7]

Reading datasheets to determine how something sounds is a rather bizarre approach. Fwiw I have both 2549 and 2534 in 25' lengths. Yes the datasheet might suggest otherwise, but if you compare the two you can hear a difference with normal low impedance audio signals. It's not something to agonize over, but definitely audible. The 2534 is a little less bright, which can sometimes be a good thing.

 

[JohnRoberts]

If you can reliably hear a difference, absent perceptual distortions, you should be able to measure and quantify the difference.

I can imagine a simple null test to subtract one from the other...

JR

PS: I try not to argue with people about what they say they hear, but I'd love to see data...

 

[john12ax7]

You can do a null test and there will indeed be a residual. The issue then is the naysayers will come back and say the difference is too low to be audible. So what then? You can't convince someone who has already made up their mind.

 

[pucho812]

Reading datasheets to determine how something sounds is a rather bizarre approach. Fwiw I have both 2549 and 2534 in 25' lengths. Yes the datasheet might suggest otherwise, but if you compare the two you can hear a difference with normal low impedance audio signals. It's not something to agonize over, but definitely audible. The 2534 is a little less bright, which can sometimes be a good thing.

I’ve measured both models of cable. I used to use both too. I only do them on request these days.
In measurements they nulled nicely

 

[Rybow]

I shouldn't post a graph of false information. Nothing to learn from that.

there are things that are real with cables, and then there are a lot of imagined things. The latter of the two is how audiophile companies make a living. Selling you things like feelings and unmeasurable things not quantum rejection. The former is things that can be measured. You can measure at what point a cable will start to roll off into noticeable frequencies because it is too long. There is enough real science with cables, that the data is already there. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Agreed on the audiophile companies. You can buy a 2.5 metre crystal/copper speaker cable at parts connexion for the low price of $492.00 CAD. Guaranteed to alter reality

Price difference between those 2 Mogami cables is not insignificant. More money equals better in most peoples minds

 

[JohnRoberts]

You can do a null test and there will indeed be a residual. The issue then is the naysayers will come back and say the difference is too low to be audible. So what then? You can't convince someone who has already made up their mind.

A null test only quantifies the magnitude of difference, not which DUT is accurate if either.

Depends on what the difference is? Masking of low level phenomenon by louder signals is pretty well studied.

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

You can do a null test and there will indeed be a residual. The issue then is the naysayers will come back and say the difference is too low to be audible. So what then? You can't convince someone who has already made up their mind.

It is well known that there is a gene that allows some people to taste things others cannot. This explains why brussel sprouts taste very bitter to some folk and rather nice to ordinary folk like me. I am convinced their is a golden ear gene that allows certain unfortunate individuals to hear things us regular mortals cannot. If you are cursed with this gene then you may well be able to hear the tiniest of differences but the vast majority will not.

It has nothing to do with naysayers. Just because you can hear something does not mean everyone else can.

Cheers

Ian

 

[pucho812]

That’s why I trust my test gear over my ears

 

[JohnRoberts]

That’s why I trust my test gear over my ears

I learned long ago that I could measure things that I could not hear, and everything I could hear I could measure.

Further if you can measure something wrong you can improve it.

JR

 

[Tubetec]

Does look like the starquad cable has apreciably higher pf/meter both conductor to screen and conductor to conductor , could make a difference on long cable runs .

 

[john12ax7]

Just because you can hear something does not mean everyone else can.

That's certainly true and I think we should all accept people hear and taste differently. I find brussel sprouts gross unless they are charred and spiced up to drastically change the original flavor. But I also wouldn't tell you you're wrong for liking them.

The problem for me comes about when people use their experience to project onto otters. Just because they don't hear something they assume no one else can.

 

[pucho812]

Does look like the starquad cable has apreciably higher pf/meter both conductor to screen and conductor to conductor , could make a difference on long cable runs .

Yes. But as in the op at 10 feet/3 meters. It’s not long enough to be noticeable.
You need some 288 feet/87 meters for quad to have a noticeable roll off.

 

[dmp]

I would love for someone to instead of saying: " I hear a difference between cable A and B" to say "I listened, without seeing what cable I was listening to (a friend switched them), for 20 blind tests. I correctly identified the cable as A or B correctly 18 times. ". or "I listened, without seeing what cable I was listening to, for 20 blind tests. I picked which cable sounded better and when I saw what cable I picked, it was A 10 times and B 10 times" i.e. no better than random.

I have found I cannot really hear a difference in SO many audio things - like transformers, etc... but I have also been amazed at things other musicians could hear, that I could not.

If you can't hear the difference in a blind test, you aren't hearing a difference. You are thinking you are hearing a difference. The mind is highly susceptible to influence and eager to think it sees differences or patterns where they may not exist. I agree everything we perceive can be measured, but we don't always know how to measure what is important. The senses are in fact extremely powerful measurement devices. I do not think humans have technology that can match the ear, eye, or nose in many ways (nose of a dog for instance)

The problem for me comes about when people use their experience to project onto otters

Please be more respectful of otters, haha

 

[john12ax7]

Please be more respectful of otters, haha

Lol. Totally missed that typo.

 

[Whoops]

That’s why I trust my test gear over my ears

I trust both, they're both good and complement eachother.
I like to listen first (ears/Brain) and measure after

I normally measure what I Ear