I don't believe a bit in the fancy wires thing. I've never heard any difference between proper 
impedance cabling, with the shield properly connected and the connectors properly wired. I had a 
chance to really test this out a few years ago. A buddy was getting divorced and gave me a big box 
of ridicu-priced wires to sell for him. I happened to know a local audiophile with connections and 
offered these things at quite the bargain for people who crave them because they believe they hear 
differences (I can't argue with anyone else's beliefs, but I do trust my own hearing regarding 
things I actually hear). Before they left my house, I compared and contrasted numerous balanced and 
unbalanced cables, replacing connections between sources and my monitoring system in the studio. The 
only difference I heard with any of them was a pair of balanced XLR cables that had a sealed "black 
box" on one end. I assume there was some sort of passive EQ network in the black box to change the 
character of the sound, it made it sound wrong as far as the midrange vs. the other frequencies. In 
the other cases, except for the one RCA cable that had a damaged connector and thus hummed, they all 
sounded like ... wire.

The most audible thing I've ever heard with cabling is when too-thin-gauge speaker wire is used, it 
seems to effect the efficiency of the electrical-acoustical transfer. I always use heavy-gauge 
copper speaker wire, and shorter runs. It's worth noting that Absolute Sound, definitely known to 
accept money from peddlers of cable-sound claims, once tested $$$$ speaker cables against a regular 
Home Depot orange AC extension cord, using the black and white leads and having an audio 
professional attach connectors on both ends. They listeners often prefered the AC extension cord! I 
would suggest that anyone who knows what their speakers sound like would prefer something that 
provided the most efficient energy transfer path, and perhaps large black boxes on the $$$$ cables 
contained passive components that interfered with this and thus degraded the sound -- or presented 
the wrong impedance to either the amp or the speakers.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Geek question - is there any way to get Foobar2000 to automatically change 
to a file's native sample/bitrate in Win7?


>I dunno and resisted the temptation to try a 'better' one for some time,
> until I came across a bargain that could be passed on if I decided it was
> hogwash. I didn't. I suspect that impedance is an aspect, if not the whole
> story, and cheap printer cables are not as good in that regard. Standing
> waves may also play a role, as some people have noted that different lengths
> give different results. But, all I can say is that the nicely made one made
> for a more organic, less mechanical, character of the sound.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 4:38 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Geek question - is there any way to get Foobar2000
> to automatically change to a file's native sample/bitrate in Win7?
>
> Why would a USB cable matter? I haven't seen any science to back up any
> claims. As long as the cable is not messing up impedence or is incompetently
> shielded, it shouldn't matter. A loose connector is more along the lines of
> something I believe would matter.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 1:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Geek question - is there any way to get Foobar2000
> to automatically change to a file's native sample/bitrate in Win7?
>
>
>> Try 'em all! Sometimes I think I hear a difference between them, and
>> then I don't. Doesn't hurt to install them. While you're at it, there
>> is a HDCD decoder and a RAM-disk utility. Good clean fun.
>>
>> From what I've read of the views of coders, there isn't anything wrong
>> with ASIO or WASAPI. I haven't gone 'ultimate' yet myself, but what I
>> have played with suggests those guys are not delusional regarding hardware
> optimization.
>> My latest DAW is built on a Gigabyte gaming motherboard, which has
>> what they call a specially-filtered USB buss, inspired by the idea
>> that noise on the data and power lines changes the sound. Know what?
>> It is very obviously better. Perhaps similar to having a built-in
> Audioquest Jitter Bug.
>>
>> A modestly tricked-out USB cable improved the sound, too. As for $100
>> Ethernet cables - - prove it to me!
>>
>> I do hear a consistent difference between playback apps. I've used
>> Jriver Media Center for some years, for its excellent ripping and
>> tagging functions, and networking capabilities. It sounds different
>> than Foobar - smoother. Sometimes that seems less accurate, sometimes
>> more. I guess I've come down to feeling, after hearing my own work
>> played through both of those programs and from Samplitude, that MC is
>> more accurate. But it's subtle and maybe more within the realm of taste
> than objectivity.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 11:46 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Geek question - is there any way to get
>> Foobar2000 to automatically change to a file's native sample/bitrate in
> Win7?
>>
>> That's it, components. So which is best to install? I thought I read
>> somewhere that ASIO is not favored in the "ultimate file player"
>> crowd, the guys who optimize laptops for playing digital music files.
>> Never understood why, above my geek pay grade.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 11:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Geek question - is there any way to get
>> Foobar2000 to automatically change to a file's native sample/bitrate in
> Win7?
>>
>>
>>> Maybe a "component' could be termed a plugin. In
>>> File>Preferences>Components, you can install support for ASIO, Kernel
>>> Streaming, and WASAPI. That may be what you're missing. The HiLo
>>> probably supports them all, but certainly ASIO. Try installing that
>>> and WASAPI support, then under Output, select the Device menu entry
>>> that shows the HiLo in one or both interface types. NOT DS! That's
>>> the
>> Windows interface, IIRC.
>>> It should show at least one of those named for the HiLo, or as a
>>> generic USB device.
>>>
>>> One way to check this is to play an 88.2 file. Win7 doesn't support
>>> it; it will resample or just not work. If you get 88.2 on your
>>> converter, it is bypassing the Windows mixer.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>>> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 10:33 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Geek question - is there any way to get
>>> Foobar2000 to automatically change to a file's native sample/bitrate
>>> in
>> Win7?
>>>
>>> Also, is there some parameter deep in the Sound control panel that
>>> turns control of this over to the playback software? Sony Soundforge
>>> doesn't have this problem with the Lynx HiLo -- it seems designed to
>>> take control of all this stuff in the background. Also, Carl are you
>>> sure you don't have a Foobar plugin that is controlling this? If so,
>>> which
>> plugin?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 10:23 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Geek question - is there any way to get
>>> Foobar2000 to automatically change to a file's native sample/bitrate
>>> in
>> Win7?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gee, Tom, that's never been a problem for me. Via USB to Benchmark
>>>> DACs, using ASIO, KS, or WASAPI, Foobar will automatically output
>>>> native rates and change on the fly (unlike Mac OS). This is with no
>>>> other processing plugins in the virtual signal path, which I almost
>>>> never use. I confirmed this when I got the DAC2, which indicates
>>>> sr/bit-depth. It requires no intervention and has worked that way on
>>>> Win7, 8.1, and 10. It doesn't care what the Windows default setting
>>>> is, as the Benchmark drivers bypass that internal system. Hardware
>>>> interfaces that use Windows native drivers may behave differently.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>>>> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 9:58 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Geek question - is there any way to get
>>>> Foobar2000 to automatically change to a file's native sample/bitrate
>>>> in
>> Win7?
>>>>
>>>> I have tried figuring this out on Google and nothing I'm searching
>>>> gets me there.
>>>>
>>>> I use Foobar2000 as my primary audio player on my Win7 computers in
>>>> the studio. Foobar seems to default to the Windows Sound setting for
>>>> the actual output sample/bitrate, no matter what is native to the
>>>> file. So, if I'm listening to multiple files from the studio,
>>>> HDTracks and CDs, I have to keep opening up the Sound control panel
>>>> and changing the settings to match the file.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any way to make Foobar do this, take control of these
>>>> settings and then change them based on the file parameters?
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>