Cables, have we been evaluating the wrong parameters?

heiney9 · September 30

This article touches on things that aren't easily measured in the narrow band of tests most try to use to "prove"outcomes.

Please read with an open mind and discuss. After reading the article, Darqueknight comes to mind, in his excellent descriptors of what he was hearing. Not everything correlates to a measurement. Or at the very least you have to know what to measure.

https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/standard-tests-hiding-what-makes-cables-different/

H9

pitdogg2 · September 30

Nice article, good information.

mhardy6647 · September 30

... not cables, but there was a really interesting post on hifihaven today about capacitors arguing that there is strong correlation with readily measurable parameters... the trick is to correlate what one hears with those measurements.
Obviously this is off topic for this thread, but my gut feeling is that all that matters is indeed measurable; the trick is correlating quantitative data with qualitative outcomes.
Hint: I don't think that 'social science' types of assessments such as the "Harman Preference Scores" (for loudspeakers and headphones) is 'the trick'.

mhardy6647 · September 30

so... on topic

it seemed pretty reasonable overall, although I am really puzzled by one statement:

To back this up, Juhl referred to an experiment where ordinary listeners reportedly detected offsets down to about 1/517,000,000 second (~1.9 ns). Meanwhile, the equipment hit its limit before the ears did.

If the "equipment hit its limit before the ears did", how did he know the minimum offset detection for "ordinary listeners" was ca. 1.9 nsec?
I am sure the issue here is with the reportage, not the actual comment by the engineer... but I'd sure like to know what the comment actually was and what limit was being hit.

heiney9 · September 30

mhardy6647 wrote: »

so... on topic it seemed pretty reasonable overall, although I am really puzzled by one statement:

To back this up, Juhl referred to an experiment where ordinary listeners reportedly detected offsets down to about 1/517,000,000 second (~1.9 ns). Meanwhile, the equipment hit its limit before the ears did.

If the "equipment hit its limit before the ears did", how did he know the minimum offset detection for "ordinary listeners" was ca. 1.9 nsec?
I am sure the issue here is with the reportage, not the actual comment by the engineer... but I'd sure like to know what the comment actually was and what limit was being hit.

It was a bit superficial. I'd really like to read more in depth about some of the topics. I may do some research on the engineer in the article. I'm sure pages and pages could be written about these topics.

H9

daddyjt · September 30

I read that too, but I’m going to wait for Amir’s take…

nooshinjohn · September 30

daddyjt wrote: »

I read that too, but I’m going to wait for Amir’s take…

Amir can take his Pink Panther and place it firmly where the sun never shines...

F1nut · September 30

The timing aspect is what MIT Cables address and why they sound right compared to others.

skrol · October 22

Timing.. That is an interesting concept for cable measurement. It makes me think of the EMG test that mesured the conduction of nerve signals in my arm. Left arm showed delays that indicated an anomaly which is s pinched nerve in my neck at C5-C6. It makes sense.

Cables, have we been evaluating the wrong parameters?

Comments