Guitar Cables

[muttley600]

Alright, buddy. You didn't have to waste your time with this response, but since you couldn't resist indulging yourself with your rude comment, I take personally, I must now attack your character and intelligence! While you could have just confirmed my guess as to why an oxygen free cable would be a quality to be desired in an instrument cable, or possibly extracted a bit of your expert knowledge from physics, you just attacked my intelligence. So while your listening to cables with your bat ears, through your Epiphone SG and Crate stack PAL, I'm judging my cable on durability. This little bit of sales "jargon" did not affect my purchase, but since we are talking about the characteristics of a good instrument cable, I feel this is pertinent information to discuss. I have used $5 cables where the tip of the jack breaks off into the input jack, get stepped on night after night and eventually just break, solder joints are broken and not noticed until MINUTES BEFORE SHOWTIME OR DURING A SHOW. While I agree $50 is a lot of money to pay for a cable, there are characteristics that make a man like me want a durable cable, whether it have gold jacks, oxygen free cable, whatever. Good quality cables mean alot to me. I have piles of $5 JUNK cables in my garage that have FAILED! I like to make sure my guitar tone is getting to my ears without a $5 cable hindering the performance. Thanks for wasting my time, Physics Master.

I wasn't meaning to be rude to you at all. I don't know if you believe the hype or not. I was responding in general terms. Offense taken I'm afraid not given. If that is the case I apologise. You made no inaccurate statements and your assessment above is correct. What you want is a good solid cable with the best connectors you can find. For a more in depth look at the why's and why not's, see my post above..

 

[Light]

1. Thicker conductors tend to be tougher and transmit with fewer problems. They may have a lower resistance. There is an interesting concept called "skin effect" in which electrical current tends to travel along the skin, or outside surface, of a conductor. A thicker conductor has a greater surface area, or "skin" than a thinner, higher gauge conductor and the effects of resistance tend to be minimized to some extent. So good heavy patch cables and guitar cables are better for a number of reasons than lightweight stuff.

Actually, a better way to get more copper into a cable is to use two small conductors (such as in the Mogami quad mic cables). Unfortunately, they also have more capacitance, and while that isn't a problem with low impedance signals like microphones, it's a big problem with a high impedance signal like a guitar. At some point, your cable starts acting like a tone control, which is why it is usually recommended to keep guitar cables under 20 feet, unless you have a buffer amp in the line.

As for the skin effect, use stranded cable instead of solid, but in guitar cables you always use stranded for flexibility. It's just not something you need to think of in a guitar cable.

From a theoretical point of view, you could reduce the amount of resistance in a cable (along with the capacitance) by using either silver plated copper or pure silver wire, but the cost would be far beyond any possible benefit. None the less, there is no question that silver IS a better conductor than copper (and by the way, copper is a better conductor than gold - the only advantage to gold contacts is that it doesn't corrode, but that is valuable in some situations). It's just not enough better to matter.

3. Bottom line: These are interesting theories and good brain puzzlers, but if you pay more than thirty bucks for a guitar cable, you're buying some well packaged ego.

Agreed, with one exception. Cables with braided nylon jackets (such as Spectraflex, though many people make them these days) are tougher. One of mine had a cymbal fall on it, edge on, and it still works perfectly, and doesn't have a nick on it. I had that happen to a Rapco or some such once, and the cable was cut in half. If you are looking for a cable which is more robust, that is the way to go. The one problem with them is they are quite difficult to fix, but they also are a lot less likely to need repair. They don't sound one wit different, but they do look cool, and they stand up to a lot of abuse.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[famous beagle]

With an academic background in musical acoustic research I can say quite confidently that you are mistaken. First the range of human hearing is taken to be as it is as a result of very real and accurate testing. All the existing studies that are considered creditable qualify certain things. That the range as defined is not absolute. Variations occur amongst individuals and a quite definite degradation in our capacity to detect sounds with increasing age, illness and environmental living conditions also play a part.

The accepted range has been studied using both simple blind testing and with complicated neurological equipment. The results are remarkably similar. There is a strong body of scientific evidence that supports the psycho-acoustic phenomena that we will often claim to hear what we want to hear. Those artifacts that we claim to hear disappear when the tests are done blindfold, so we might as well conclude that our eyesight also effects our ability to process sound waves!!

One thing here about what we do and do not know about the physics of sound. No matter what discoveries may be made in the future, they will not suddenly extend our capacity to hear above or below certain frequencies.

The frequency range in which we can observe quantifiable changes in the properties of electrical signals passed through conductors that are relevant to sound waves are way above the spectrum that any human can detect. Couple that with the fact that if you did the same tests on the electrical equipment that converts the electrical signal into sound waves, your amp and speaker. They would colour the sound far more than any cable making any supposed benefits redundant even with the most sophisticated equipment..

Your example of the overtones or higher harmonics of a note. Yes you can hear them it is those higher partials that dictate the timbre and tone quality of a sound. If you remove subtleties above or below certain inaudible frequencies you do not alter the timbre or tonal quality. What you are hearing is a product of all those higher harmonics within the audible range. The only higher or lower partials that effect the timbre are those that are of such a magnitude that they either cancel out or amplify weaker ones within the audible spectrum. The size of any such resonances in the signal passed through a cable are so small as to have no effect in that regard.

This unquantifiable and of no relevance to the debate.

This is very true, but it does not exclude people from making ridiculous claims that are supposedly based in good science when in fact they are not. There is a lot of good science out there and none of it supports the claims made by these people.

Next time you are in a music store and one of the sales guys tries to tell you that his $100 cable out performs the $10 one, suggest you carry out a blind test on the spot. Then suggest you do the cable switching and if he can get a better than 60% success rate that you'll buy his cable and but him one as well. Believe me I've tried it. That cable will never come out of the packet. I've heard excuses ranging from "cables need to be broken in", down right lies, to "you obviously don't have the experience to hear the difference so there is no point", a joke considering my background but if I have the time I ask what their experience is. That always provides some fun listening.

The bottom line if you want to use a £100 cable thats fine it's not going to hurt, but don't suppose you are getting more sound for your money, your not. What you are getting is a well made cable that has had a lot of marketing money spent on it and inflated mark up prices that make it worthwhile for the shop to push them ahead of other perfectly good cables.

Personally as I make the guitars they plug into I tend to make the cables as well. Its not hard and I can make one that is as good as any "Monster cable at a tenth of the price.

All you need for a decent guitar cable is one that is well constructed, will last the rigors of the road and gets your signal from the guitar from the amp in the traditional fashion. There is too much else going on as far as physics and acoustics is concerned to even begin to worry about the effect it is having on your tone.

You millage shouldn't vary..

Again, I said I wasn't endorsing hi-priced cables at all. I prefer to make my own as well. I just simply said that I don't necessarily wholeheartedly buy into the fact that since a sound is above 20khz, it affects us in no way whatsoever. That certainly could be true, but other things I've witnessed from quantum physics experiments have led me to stay open-minded about the possibility.

Regarding the overtones, I think you missed my point by a mile. I said you can't conciously hear the different notes. I'm well aware that we do "hear" them, and that's what creates timbre; that's very common knowledge. What I meant was, if I play you an open A string on the guitar and ask you to name what note or notes you hear, I bet you my life savings you're not going to tell me A, the A above that, then the E above that A, then the A above that E, then the C# above that A, then the E above that C#, etc.

You may tell me that because you're trained in the overtone series, but that would be the only reason you tell me that. Like I said, certain overtones are more noticeable depending on tone, picking location, etc., but most of those tones aren't obvious to us the way the fundamental is, and certainly not the non-musician casual listener.

 

[muttley600]

Again, I said I wasn't endorsing hi-priced cables at all. I prefer to make my own as well. I just simply said that I don't necessarily wholeheartedly buy into the fact that since a sound is above 20khz, it affects us in no way whatsoever. That certainly could be true, but other things I've witnessed from quantum physics experiments have led me to stay open-minded about the possibility.

Regarding the overtones, I think you missed my point by a mile. I said you can't conciously hear the different notes. I'm well aware that we do "hear" them, and that's what creates timbre; that's very common knowledge. What I meant was, if I play you an open A string on the guitar and ask you to name what note or notes you hear, I bet you my life savings you're not going to tell me A, the A above that, then the E above that A, then the A above that E, then the C# above that A, then the E above that C#, etc.

You may tell me that because you're trained in the overtone series, but that would be the only reason you tell me that. Like I said, certain overtones are more noticeable depending on tone, picking location, etc., but most of those tones aren't obvious to us the way the fundamental is, and certainly not the non-musician casual listener.

I know you weren't advocating much of the rubbish out there about the supposed superiority of high priced cables. Equally I wasn't missing the point about the way higher partials effect tone. There is soooo much going on there. One thing is certain the timbre you are hearing is a result of the audible spectrum not the inaudible spectrum. I can pretty much tell you what the frequencies are, thats physics and describing a simple harmonic series. It's also possible to observe it simply. What is impossible to predict is the external effects that materials have on the attack and decay of those partials and the influence they have on the amplitude and impedance of the resulting wave.

I'm not telling anyone this because I am "trained" in anything. I'm telling people this because it is physics and pretty much accepted as a done deal. I didn't come up with the model or discover any of this, it is something I had to grasp before I could move on to trying to explore more complex phenomena such as the relationship between mass, stiffness and internal damping or Q, in materials used in instrument construction, or the acoustic behavior of shell plates under torsional forces, which is what I spent a lot of years exploring. Without understanding the stuff under debate here I couldn't have done that. I also didn't get involved in musical acoustics because I thought I could discover the secrets of the old masters or anything like that. I got involved because it fascinates me. How much any of it helps me build better instruments I have no idea. What I do know is it helps me separate the wheat from the chaff and explains to me why stuff does or doesn't do what I might expect.

The issues surrounding progress in quantum physics or mechanics have little to do with it. In terms of materials and how they behave they are concerned primarily with theoretically smaller models that don't apply to our model, where as traditional physics does and it works, or they are concerned with practical models that deal with the behavior of materials at a molecular level at extreme temperatures. Again that doesn't apply to this model. Extremely useful stuff but not applicable to this model.

I'm happy to discuss wider physics with anyone but lets not lose sight of the issue here, which is,

There are claims made by cable manufacturers that describe significant advantages in terms of tone. The physical model which describes how those materials behave when conducting wave forms whether it is electrical or otherwise are clearly understood and are not in dispute by anyone. The part that is in dispute is the validity of the claim made purely on commercial grounds. The physics just does not support them.

One of the main problems is that they constantly use objective physical phenomena to describe their product and then describe the results in purely subjective terms. Brighter, darker, warmer, sparkling highs etc. You get the picture. The reason they do this is because the claims are simply unfounded both in scientific and practical terms. Believe me if I thought for one moment there was even a small possibility that spending $100 on a cable would improve the guitars I make I wouldn't bat an eyelid spending it. That money is small beer in the grand scheme of things. They simply do not improve things over the cable I can make for a fraction of the cost.

Really I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm happy to discuss physics. Challenging models and theories is how science moves forwards. When I teach acoustics modules to undergrads I encourage debate it's part of the process but as with all things in science there comes a time when you have to accept something as true if for no other reason than to prove it wrong. In this case it's very old ground and very well understood.

 

[famous beagle]

I know you weren't advocating much of the rubbish out there about the supposed superiority of high priced cables. Equally I wasn't missing the point about the way higher partials effect tone. There is soooo much going on there. One thing is certain the timbre you are hearing is a result of the audible spectrum not the inaudible spectrum. I can pretty much tell you what the frequencies are, thats physics and describing a simple harmonic series. It's also possible to observe it simply. What is impossible to predict is the external effects that materials have on the attack and decay of those partials and the influence they have on the amplitude and impedance of the resulting wave.

I'm not telling anyone this because I am "trained" in anything. I'm telling people this because it is physics and pretty much accepted as a done deal. I didn't come up with the model or discover any of this, it is something I had to grasp before I could move on to trying to explore more complex phenomena such as the relationship between mass, stiffness and internal damping or Q, in materials used in instrument construction, or the acoustic behavior of shell plates under torsional forces, which is what I spent a lot of years exploring. Without understanding the stuff under debate here I couldn't have done that. I also didn't get involved in musical acoustics because I thought I could discover the secrets of the old masters or anything like that. I got involved because it fascinates me. How much any of it helps me build better instruments I have no idea. What I do know is it helps me separate the wheat from the chaff and explains to me why stuff does or doesn't do what I might expect.

The issues surrounding progress in quantum physics or mechanics have little to do with it. In terms of materials and how they behave they are concerned primarily with theoretically smaller models that don't apply to our model, where as traditional physics does and it works, or they are concerned with practical models that deal with the behavior of materials at a molecular level at extreme temperatures. Again that doesn't apply to this model. Extremely useful stuff but not applicable to this model.

I'm happy to discuss wider physics with anyone but lets not lose sight of the issue here, which is,

There are claims made by cable manufacturers that describe significant advantages in terms of tone. The physical model which describes how those materials behave when conducting wave forms whether it is electrical or otherwise are clearly understood and are not in dispute by anyone. The part that is in dispute is the validity of the claim made purely on commercial grounds. The physics just does not support them.

One of the main problems is that they constantly use objective physical phenomena to describe their product and then describe the results in purely subjective terms. Brighter, darker, warmer, sparkling highs etc. You get the picture. The reason they do this is because the claims are simply unfounded both in scientific and practical terms. Believe me if I thought for one moment there was even a small possibility that spending $100 on a cable would improve the guitars I make I wouldn't bat an eyelid spending it. That money is small beer in the grand scheme of things. They simply do not improve things over the cable I can make for a fraction of the cost.

Really I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm happy to discuss physics. Challenging models and theories is how science moves forwards. When I teach acoustics modules to undergrads I encourage debate it's part of the process but as with all things in science there comes a time when you have to accept something as true if for no other reason than to prove it wrong. In this case it's very old ground and very well understood.

I appreciate everything you're saying, and I understand you're not trying to start a fight. I was just bringing up the fact that I think it's a fascinating subject: our senses, perceptions, and how they're tied in with each other.

I remember as a child I was messing around with my dad's fishing knife while he was gone (as all good boys should be doing). I was trying to put the knife back into its sheath and was having difficulty, so, obviously, I forced it! (I was like 10 or something.)

I was holding the sheath in the palm of my right hand, with my palm facing up (so I could see my palm). As I forced the knife into the sheath, it finally gave way, and just then I felt a little itch in between my first and second finger of my right hand. And that's really all it felt like ... kind of a nagging little itch. As I went to scratch the itch, I noticed that the knife hadn't gone back into the sheath; it had been forced through the side (the underside that I couldn't see) and sliced my hand open.

It was only once I realized this that the true pain set in---I'd say a good 2 or 3 seconds after it actually occurred.

In a purely "physic"al word, the likes of which you say (or at least imply) is indisputable in certain areas, it shouldn't have mattered whether or not I had been aware of my injury. The cut triggers nerves, nerve sends signal to brain, brain tells me I'm hurt. But it didn't work that way. In this instance, seeing was believing.

These kind of things fascinate me. So I'm just saying that I'm open to the idea that not everything boils down to proven, indisputable science---especially when you're talking about fringe things like limits of senses, etc. I'm not going to go challenging that 2+2=4 anytime soon, but I'm just saying I think the things we know about the human brain (and the world around us for that matter) are probably not as concrete as we like to think.

And by the way, the issue of my original post wasn't the cables. I thought that was clear by the disclaimer and the statement "what does this have to do with guitar cables? probably not much." It was just a tangent sparked off by your post that touched on physics.

 

[Gnash5150]

I wasn't meaning to be rude to you at all. I don't know if you believe the hype or not. I was responding in general terms. Offense taken I'm afraid not given. If that is the case I apologise. You made no inaccurate statements and your assessment above is correct. What you want is a good solid cable with the best connectors you can find. For a more in depth look at the why's and why not's, see my post above..

Thanks for being the better, man! Hell, I like this guy now! I apologize for any rudeness aimed at you in my post as well. I sometimes have a short fuse when it comes to instrument cables.

 

[cannabis]

Let me preface this by saying I'm in no way advocating expensive cables. Your post just brought up an interesting point, regarding the "range of human hearing thing."

While I'm not claiming this is true, proven, or anything like that, there is evidence to suggest that we (humans) still can detect a difference with sounds even when they're above 20khz ... indeed up to 45 and 50khz. I've read a few studies, but I'm too lazy and don't have the time to find the link right now.

Anyway, what does this mean as it relates to $15 cables vs. $115 cables? Probably not much. (IIRC, this study was an analog vs. digital thing, touting the virtues of analog.) It's just that I'm certainly open to the possibility that there's more to it than simple hz limits of human hearing. With everything we're learning about physics and biology every day, it seems the only constant thing we know is how little we really do know.

Think about a simple example. I can't conciously hear all the notes in the overtone series that are present when I play the open A string. (Granted, depending on where you pick, what kind of tone you have, etc., you can hear some of them, but not all of them in the upper reaches.) But they all are there, and they are affecting me greatly.

For that matter, most of us can't really even conciously hear 18khz. Those human hearing limits were set a good while ago as well, and I'm wondering with what technology they were established.

I'm guessing they took a bunch of people, gave them hearing tests, and determined what our "audible range" was.

Well, if they used that same type of test with reference to overtones, how many notes do you think people would say they heard if you piped a guitar's open A string through their headphones?

and

the mind hears overtones -

even the fundamental -

that are not present

(paraphrase)
For instance, if you take a complex waveform of 200 Hz (say a square wave), and filter out the fundamental (200 Hz), the 2nd harmonic (400 Hz), and the 3rd harmonic (600 Hz) - that is to say, so that none of these are present in the resultant waveform - the ear will still hear the tone as 200 Hz, even though neither 200 Hz nor even its octave are present. Apparently it locks on to the difference in frequency in the remaining overtones (800, 1000, 1200, 1400 ...) - 200 Hz - and perceives that as the pitch of the tone.

 

[muttley600]

I appreciate everything you're saying, and I understand you're not trying to start a fight. I was just bringing up the fact that I think it's a fascinating subject: our senses, perceptions, and how they're tied in with each other.

I remember as a child I was messing around with my dad's fishing knife while he was gone (as all good boys should be doing). I was trying to put the knife back into its sheath and was having difficulty, so, obviously, I forced it! (I was like 10 or something.)

I was holding the sheath in the palm of my right hand, with my palm facing up (so I could see my palm). As I forced the knife into the sheath, it finally gave way, and just then I felt a little itch in between my first and second finger of my right hand. And that's really all it felt like ... kind of a nagging little itch. As I went to scratch the itch, I noticed that the knife hadn't gone back into the sheath; it had been forced through the side (the underside that I couldn't see) and sliced my hand open.

It was only once I realized this that the true pain set in---I'd say a good 2 or 3 seconds after it actually occurred.

In a purely "physic"al word, the likes of which you say (or at least imply) is indisputable in certain areas, it shouldn't have mattered whether or not I had been aware of my injury. The cut triggers nerves, nerve sends signal to brain, brain tells me I'm hurt. But it didn't work that way. In this instance, seeing was believing.

These kind of things fascinate me. So I'm just saying that I'm open to the idea that not everything boils down to proven, indisputable science---especially when you're talking about fringe things like limits of senses, etc. I'm not going to go challenging that 2+2=4 anytime soon, but I'm just saying I think the things we know about the human brain (and the world around us for that matter) are probably not as concrete as we like to think.

And by the way, the issue of my original post wasn't the cables. I thought that was clear by the disclaimer and the statement "what does this have to do with guitar cables? probably not much." It was just a tangent sparked off by your post that touched on physics.

In which case we are talking about issues that have to do with psycho-acoustics which is an absolute minefield. Still which ever way you look at it. If you perceive something to sound one way that may well be the case, BUT it in all likely hood no one else is going to hear the same things unless you acquaint them with the same set of perceptions that you hold. In this case that boils down the claim that some cable manufacturers make and people who buy into them. If they do, that doesn't mean that the cable is actually doing anything or that anyone else is going to hear it like you do. It is as I pointed out sometime ago really just a re-telling of the "Emperors New Cloths". No matter how much you will it to be so, the sound of that guitar is going to be the same with another cable, at least to everyone else.

On a wider front psycho-acoustics is a fascinating subject but even most of the phenomena it deals with has a sound basis in physics and can be explained in one way or another in much the same way as optical illusions can be explained. I'm not entirely convinced that you or me hearing something that isn't there is a specific example as it is in no way consistent or applicable to all people or situations, most psycho-acoustics would be. What we have here has more to do with gullibilities of some people in my opinion. We've all fallen for a hard sell at some point there is no shame in that. Hell, I've spent many years trying to debunk some of the myths that surround Stradivarius and the supposed magic sound of his instruments. Sure magnificent instruments and the guy was a true craftsman and defined many aspects of the violin. There are many obvious reasons why that illusive sound was not a closely guarded secret that he took to the grave. His instruments sound no better or worse than many contemporary examples and blind tests and playing have consistently proved it. There is still a massive body of people who will not accept that and they are largely driven by two things. The commercial desire of the industry to perpetuate the myth and the desire of those who have bought into it to justify their long held theories and belief.

It's hard to let go of a belief you have held and worked towards for any length of time, I know I've been there, but ultimately its better for all concerned that we are able to do so when required.

Once again If any one wants to use those cables go ahead they are fine cables. Don't expect me to be able to hear a difference though..

 

[muttley600]

Thanks for being the better, man! Hell, I like this guy now! I apologize for any rudeness aimed at you in my post as well. I sometimes have a short fuse when it comes to instrument cables.

No problem, you'll come to understand a few things about me in time. One of them is that if I choose to be rude to you there will be no ambiguity about it.

I only really do that with people who make false or stupid claims and call them facts. Even then I normally give people a chance to point me to the evidence. I guess after nearly 30 years building instruments and studying how they work I have little tolerance for those that have all the answers after reading a few magazines and chatting with teenage "Fred" down at the music shop. I haven't got close understanding anywhere near all there is to know yet. I appreciate you weren't doing that you just got caught in the crossfire.

 

[muttley600]

and

the mind hears overtones -

even the fundamental -

that are not present

(paraphrase)
For instance, if you take a complex waveform of 200 Hz (say a square wave), and filter out the fundamental (200 Hz), the 2nd harmonic (400 Hz), and the 3rd harmonic (600 Hz) - that is to say, so that none of these are present in the resultant waveform - the ear will still hear the tone as 200 Hz, even though neither 200 Hz nor even its octave are present. Apparently it locks on to the difference in frequency in the remaining overtones (800, 1000, 1200, 1400 ...) - 200 Hz - and perceives that as the pitch of the tone.

One of the best examples of this is the "resultant" tone often used by organ makers. Briefly to avoid huge long pipes to get the lower notes, it has long been known that sounding two very specific notes together at certain frequencies will fool the brain into hearing a further much lower tone that just isn't there. Thats a good example of a true psycho-acoustic phenomena. Repeatable and undeniable.

Resultant tones

 

[ggunn]

One of the best examples of this is the "resultant" tone often used by organ makers. Briefly to avoid huge long pipes to get the lower notes, it has long been known that sounding two very specific notes together at certain frequencies will fool the brain into hearing a further much lower tone that just isn't there. Thats a good example of a true psycho-acoustic phenomena. Repeatable and undeniable.

Resultant tones

Another one is if you play only the middle 4 strings of a standard 1st position D chord (A D A D) on an acoustic guitar, you'll hear the 9th, an E (the same note as the high open E), even though it's not there. For some reason I don't seem to hear it on my electric guitars, though YMMV.

 

[famous beagle]

In which case we are talking about issues that have to do with psycho-acoustics which is an absolute minefield. Still which ever way you look at it. If you perceive something to sound one way that may well be the case, BUT it in all likely hood no one else is going to hear the same things unless you acquaint them with the same set of perceptions that you hold. In this case that boils down the claim that some cable manufacturers make and people who buy into them. If they do, that doesn't mean that the cable is actually doing anything or that anyone else is going to hear it like you do. It is as I pointed out sometime ago really just a re-telling of the "Emperors New Cloths". No matter how much you will it to be so, the sound of that guitar is going to be the same with another cable, at least to everyone else.

On a wider front psycho-acoustics is a fascinating subject but even most of the phenomena it deals with has a sound basis in physics and can be explained in one way or another in much the same way as optical illusions can be explained. I'm not entirely convinced that you or me hearing something that isn't there is a specific example as it is in no way consistent or applicable to all people or situations, most psycho-acoustics would be. What we have here has more to do with gullibilities of some people in my opinion. We've all fallen for a hard sell at some point there is no shame in that. Hell, I've spent many years trying to debunk some of the myths that surround Stradivarius and the supposed magic sound of his instruments. Sure magnificent instruments and the guy was a true craftsman and defined many aspects of the violin. There are many obvious reasons why that illusive sound was not a closely guarded secret that he took to the grave. His instruments sound no better or worse than many contemporary examples and blind tests and playing have consistently proved it. There is still a massive body of people who will not accept that and they are largely driven by two things. The commercial desire of the industry to perpetuate the myth and the desire of those who have bought into it to justify their long held theories and belief.

It's hard to let go of a belief you have held and worked towards for any length of time, I know I've been there, but ultimately its better for all concerned that we are able to do so when required.

Once again If any one wants to use those cables go ahead they are fine cables. Don't expect me to be able to hear a difference though..

Again, you're still talking about guitar cables. Please understand that I'm not talking about them!

This isn't the exact link containing the studies I had read about before, but it's similar:

In research published in 2000 in the Journal of Neurophysiology, researchers described double-blind experiments in which subjects were played music, sometimes containing high-frequency components (HFCs) above 25 kHz and sometimes not. The subjects could not consciously tell the difference, but when played music with the HFCs they showed differences measured in two ways:

EEG monitoring of their brain activity showed statistically significant enhancement in alpha-wave activity
The subjects preferred the music with the HFCs
It is a common understanding in psychoacoustics that the ear cannot respond to sounds at such high frequency, so one question that this research raised was: does the hypersonic effect occur via the "ordinary" route of sound travelling through the air passage in the ear, or in some other way? A peer-reviewed study in 2006 seemed to confirm the second of these options, by testing the different effect of HFCs when presented via loudspeakers or via headphones. The hypersonic effect did not occur when the HFCs were presented via earphones.

The 2006 study also investigated the comfortable listening level of music with and without HFCs, an alternative way of measuring subject response to the sound. The CLL for the music with HFCs was higher than that for the music without HFCs - this provides a quantitative way to demonstrate general listener preference for the music with HFCs.

Again, all I'm saying is I'm open to the possibility that some of this may be true.

Again, I'm not debating that Monster cables are full of sh*t or anything like that. I agree with you. It's just a discussion on perception and other things.

 

[Zaphod B]

Thats a good example of a true psycho-acoustic phenomena.

That must also explain why anyone thought they could hear "bass" notes on AM car radios in the '60s.

 

[muttley600]

Again, you're still talking about guitar cables. Please understand that I'm not talking about them!

This isn't the exact link containing the studies I had read about before, but it's similar:

In research published in 2000 in the Journal of Neurophysiology, researchers described double-blind experiments in which subjects were played music, sometimes containing high-frequency components (HFCs) above 25 kHz and sometimes not. The subjects could not consciously tell the difference, but when played music with the HFCs they showed differences measured in two ways:

EEG monitoring of their brain activity showed statistically significant enhancement in alpha-wave activity
The subjects preferred the music with the HFCs
It is a common understanding in psychoacoustics that the ear cannot respond to sounds at such high frequency, so one question that this research raised was: does the hypersonic effect occur via the "ordinary" route of sound travelling through the air passage in the ear, or in some other way? A peer-reviewed study in 2006 seemed to confirm the second of these options, by testing the different effect of HFCs when presented via loudspeakers or via headphones. The hypersonic effect did not occur when the HFCs were presented via earphones.

The 2006 study also investigated the comfortable listening level of music with and without HFCs, an alternative way of measuring subject response to the sound. The CLL for the music with HFCs was higher than that for the music without HFCs - this provides a quantitative way to demonstrate general listener preference for the music with HFCs.

Again, all I'm saying is I'm open to the possibility that some of this may be true.

Again, I'm not debating that Monster cables are full of sh*t or anything like that. I agree with you. It's just a discussion on perception and other things.

OK, OK, I get you but still as I said true psycho-acoustics is a mine field. A bit like the way psychology is to medicine..

 

[muttley600]

Another one is if you play only the middle 4 strings of a standard 1st position D chord (A D A D) on an acoustic guitar, you'll hear the 9th, an E (the same note as the high open E), even though it's not there. For some reason I don't seem to hear it on my electric guitars, though YMMV.

That may have more to do with dominant partials or even partial wolf tones. I've had practical experience of those buggers..

Basically a strong partial will dominate and hint at a note or the body cavity, which also has fundamental and partial modes of vibration can set up some interesting wolf tones. They can be hard to track down exactly.

Does this only happen in one key? does it happen if you drop the tuning by a half or whole step? Do you hear it on just that instrument? Those would be the key questions I'd ask if I was starting to track down a possible cause.

It could be some form of resultant but normally to hear a resultant the tone has to be fairly pure. I've never heard one on a guitar but I have on a cello. It really is quite spooky when you hear it first time. One of those shut your eyes and shake your head moments..

 

[muttley600]

That must also explain why anyone thought they could hear "bass" notes on AM car radios in the '60s.

I remember all those claims. Wow that goes back. Weren't there also claims that people were hearing stereo from MW/LW mono broadcasts? And bangs and crashes in the back seat sort of stuff? They never did get to the bottom of that one.

 

[Zaphod B]

Mutt, please educate me. What are wolf tones and resultants?

 

[famous beagle]

OK, OK, I get you but still as I said true psycho-acoustics is a mine field. A bit like the way psychology is to medicine..

Oh wow, ok we should just stop there ... don't even get me started on psychology compared to medicine! I truly believe that the mind could take care of just about any malady if we were able to use it properly. Self-anesthetizing (which has been widely documented) is only the tip of the iceberg with regards to mind over matter.

 

[Zaphod B]

I remember all those claims. Wow that goes back. Weren't there also claims that people were hearing stereo from MW/LW mono broadcasts? And bangs and crashes in the back seat sort of stuff? They never did get to the bottom of that one.

I think I know where the bangs and crashes in the back seat came from.

 

[ggunn]

It could be some form of resultant but normally to hear a resultant the tone has to be fairly pure. I've never heard one on a guitar but I have on a cello. It really is quite spooky when you hear it first time. One of those shut your eyes and shake your head moments..

By the term "resultant", are you referring to beat frequencies?