Sound on Sound did a test with some $$$$ mic cables vs. a cable made from
coat hangers soldered together inside a garden hose!  The "garden variety"
cable did as well as the expensive ones.

Digital cables can be tested by recording the signal with a digital
recorder, and then nulled (mixed out of polarity) with the source.  I have
yet to find a digital cable that didn't pass the null test, yet many people
claim to hear differences.  If a digital recorder can correctly receive the
signal, then surely a well designed D/A converter also can.

Ellis

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'll go out on a limb here: differences between cables carrying analog
> signals? Possible under some circumstances, but those circumstances are
> rare in professional audio.
>
> Here's an experiment worth trying: borrow a set of fancy cables, RCA-RCA,
> and replace your plebeian cables with them. Your system is likely to sound
> better. Wait a couple of weeks, and replace the fancy cables with your old
> plebeian cables. Very likely you'll hear an improvement again. Is it all
> placebo effect, and were you fooling yourself both times. Maybe, but keep
> in mind that when you switched cables, you scraped the connection, and very
> likely you scraped off some oxide, and oxide can rectify the signal and
> cause measurable distortion. I know because I've measured it. That's the
> sort of rare circumstance in which I've heard differences in analog cables.
> (I've heard a very few others, too, but that's a different discussion.)
>
> Digital cables? As far as I'm concerned, any D/A converter that lets you
> hear differences between cables carrying digital signals is badly designed.
> The only differences a digital cable can introduce are in jitter and
> grounding, and a properly designed D/A converter gets rid of the jitter,
> and has a robust enough grounding system that upstream errors in grounding
> technique won't affect it.
>
> Okay, fire away.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 11/9/2015 6:47 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>



-- 
Ellis
[log in to unmask]
818-846-5525