End of cable debate - snake oil

What's the point of posting something on a discussion forum if you don't want it to be the subject of discussion?

Allen Mornington-West writing in the Audio and HiFi Handbook (1998) provides the single most comprehensive article on the subject of audio cables.

 

If this is 'discussion' of what I posted then I'd like to see this criticism addressed to the person who wrote the original piece & their response to it. It's not difficult to do. The email address is there.

In the meantime you discuss what Paul Miller wrote as much as you like. I'm rather more interested in his response than your view.

Unless of course you've also conducted measurements, carried out blind listening tests & published the results somewhere.

 

Im not interested in an audio journalists view Murray.

If I was, I'd have a load of musical fidelity, Monitor Audio, Cambridge Audio and Audiolab stuff.

Magazines can claim a lot of things, but more than a single eyebrow is raised when one of them is 'impartiality'. That old curates egg however is a circular arguement in itself.

 

In 99% of cases I'd agree with that, however in this case Paul Miller absolutely wasn't pushing any particular brand.

I have to admit that I do find his views on this, having conducted the blind listening tests and carried out the measurements, rather more substantial than the views of a couple of HiFi Forum keyboard jockeys or indeed those of an ex stage magician, but each to their own I suppose.

 

It's difficult for a complete Amateur to discern pseudo-science from the real thing.

I personally 'start' by dismissing anything that isn't generally accepted in the recording/broadcasting/mastering arena.

For example, in the quote above there's some stuff about 'Skin Effect'. I've read in a couple of places that this isn't irrelevant in audio, but often used as a cable makers crutch.

I'm not claiming 'Skin Effect' to be irrelevant - I don't have the scientific knowledge to say.

For me the term is a ''warning sign'' so to speak, that what follows may be bunkem.

 

Perhaps you'll actually tell us about these then?

You've posted one thing and seem to think this has some authority even though it is almost completely non-specific. It's not up to me to validate your expert.

I've given you a link to a proper electrical treatment of audio cables, I suggest you read it and then tell us where it is wrong in its quantification of the physics.

Paul

 

Just for you Paul, a scanned page from this booklet.



I'm sure a resourceful chap like you can find a copy if you look hard enough . It was published along with the August 1992 edition of HiFi Choice. You could even ask Choice or the author.

You are right though. You don't need to validate the credibility of Paul Miller. I'd like to see you put your criticisms of what he wrote to him though & to read his reply. Sadly I somehow don't think you will. Its easier to stay on here isn't it?
As someone who participated in the blind listening these tests involved it was quite apparent to me and the various other listeners present what differences were audible. If everything we listened to had sounded the same I don't think that the 8 participants involved would have sat, unpaid, listening to the same sound over & over again and imagining the differences for 5 days!

 

Murray, are you going to post any details of the blind test? Which was what this thread was about and is apparently why you introduced this article. The above is just more meaningless hifi speak.

BTW did you spot the directionality of NACA5 blind? This is a result worthy of the JAES.

In the meantime until you or another produce actual evidence I'm happy to stay with the physics.

Paul

 

Yes, I think that's probably for the best, Paul.

If you do ever summon the gumption to ask Paul Miller about his blind testing methodology (email address supplied) do post his response here or indeed if you ever conduct & publish your own blind listening tests be sure to let us know.

At least we've established that one piece of QED cable sounds like another. That's something anyway.

 

Murray, before I put the effort into a critique of the Paul Miller article excerpt you've posted perhaps you would check with him that it actually represents his understanding and opinion of audio cable physics?

And perhaps you could sometimes address points in posts? For instance about the directionality claim for NACA5 in the other Miller article excerpt.

We haven't established anything other than you have some secret evidence of something you won't state...

Paul

 

Murray, you can't win. I once had an exchange with him about amps. Paul maintains that all well-engineered amps sound the same. When I asked him to tell me how I could establish an amp was well-engineered, he declined. But he offered the observation IIRC that if two amps sounded different, at least one of them had to be less-than-well engineered.

I can't be arsed to look it up, either on this thread or on the now locked one, Paul has come up with a similar gem for cables. He maintains that all electrically similar cables sound the same. Asked how to define "similar", he declines. But if you can hear a difference between two cables, they obviously cannot be electrically similar.

And his favourite discussion technique is to put the burden of proof on you.

 

Markus, the burden of proof IS on you. You are the one asserting something surprising. (I don't really know what Murray is asserting, he is notoriously vague)

You miss the point. We have no evidence that you can hear a difference between cables. Other than those that cause amplifier instability or which make significant changes to the frequency response (bad cables....). Until you can show otherwise it is all moot.

Paul

 

Paul, what would be surprising is if all amps did sound the same, given that there are so many measurable differences between them. I understand - as you know, I'm not an engineer, but I've talked to enough designers - that one can find a good correlation between subjective impression and distortion spectra, especially under load changes, as well as the absolute level and the spectral content of noise.

To get back on topic, I don't have much of an opinion about cables. But I did once participate in a comparison of two speaker cables; the same basic cable was used, but one sample was heavily damped with sand. I heard a difference. It was non-blind, I hasten to add. I don't think the difference, if there was one, could be explained by LCR changes?

 

LOL!

I really have read it all now. The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

IMO, Paul is possibly the vaguest, most unclear poster I have seen on any forum, ever.

 

These discussions are like religious arguments - no one is interested in moving forward to a common understood ground, just in showing that the others are wrong or if not, to mock and ridicule them. It's painful to see what this forum has become.

 

It would seem unlikely.

And it is the existence or not of this type of change that is interesting, similarly for, say, a change in conductor material from copper to silver, or a direction reversal in a symmetrical cable.

Cables that 'conventional' measurement suggests will sound different actually sounding different is not surprising but seems to be a blind alley that many want to go down.

Paul

 

Perhaps you can divine what Murray's on about in this thread. And why he is talking about a blind test he took part in 16 years ago but won't tell us what he tested blind.

I've been very clear (for once...). I even did some measurements and posted a graph to demonstrate that Murray's request for specific values of LCR was meaningless.

Paul

 

LOL. I should send your little 'graph' to Paul Miller & see what he thinks. I don't expect he or any of the clients his company has supplied test/measurement gear to will be queuing up to hire you.

Lets see where we are up to.

People say they can hear differences in cables. This opinion is or has been regularly derided on fora. As I see it the goal posts have been subtly shifted. Whereas once it seemed that any such changes were simply delusion it now seems that your statememt is that all electrically equivalent cables sound the same. I ask you to define the tolerance for the parameters for electrical equivalence. You have no idea. You even think that the LCR figures for DNM cable are those of a cable like Naim because you were fooled by the higher inductance figure. I chuckled at that one. You still can't say what tolerance there should be on capacitance or inductance because you don't know (although Mosfet tries to help out with a figure for series resistance) I cite an example of a published blind listening test for cables and give some of the rationale for the author's viewpoint. You poohpooh that. I post an explanation of how the test was done, I post an example page from the publication which shows the measurements and subjective opinions of a couple of the many cables tested. The author is an AES member, a respected engineer in the audio industry who has supplied QC/measurement gear to many UK and Far East based electronics manufacturers and who is also the editor of a well regarded world renowned audio magazine. You, a keyboard jockey on a Hifi website imply that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Lordy, who the hell do you think you are?

And lets look at what you've brought to the discussion. The fact that 2 pieces of QED cable will sound alike and the opinions of a conjuror. Well whoopy doo!

I'm sorry Paul, you've obviously nothing to add and you really aren't worth the trouble. Funnily enough, I did speak to Paul Miller about that test earlier this year. He would stand by the opinions published then. I shouldn't worry about sending a critique of Paul Miller's work to him though. He'll make mincemeat of you!

 

Murray, just a question or two.

Paul Miller made his name by formulating accurate test procedures to illustrate the subjective affect of jitter in digital replay equipment. He has since expanded the MAR repertoire to encompass all facets of the audio chain. And yet he has not been able to formulate a test to illustrate the subjective differences proposed by manufacturers for conductor material, for skin effect or for microphony. Given that they have actively sought to assimilate objective and subjective affects in all fields of audio, does it not strike you as odd that nothing has been forthcoming for these supposed phenomena? For someone so thorough, is it not unusual that no FR plots were supplied for the cable tests, and no attempt made to reconcile that with your subjective findings?

Secondly, were you at any point asked to identify cables under blind conditions or were you just asked for subjective impressions after you were told that the cable had been changed?

 

No they haven't. At least not in the last 20 years.

Murray, I thought you were electrically literate. Clearly you're not. I explained and enlarged and I give up with you. Mosfet understood.

You've given us nothing about the interesting parts of your blind test.

Well he won't, because the material you posted as attributed to him is largely irrelevant to audio cables. If not you are implying that a well respected man in both the hifi world (a contributor to Hifi News no less) and an academic at St Andrews has his maths wrong. I think you ought to resolve that with Mr Miller before moving further out onto the limb on his behalf.

Paul