Same old cable argument again...
- Thread starter tones
- Start date
Noone has EVER managed to demonstrate scientifically or even with trials show the existence of a subjective effect. I beleive there is a $1M offered to the first person that can do it. The onus is on the ones making the claims for cables 
. IMHO most systems would be best served by consideration of other issues.
. IMHO most systems would be best served by consideration of other issues.
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
Not just bordering. If you where to familiarise yourself with the general stance the ABX Mafia diseminates you would find that:
1) All pieces of equipment sound the same if the frequency response and THD are the same.
2) The specific type of double blind tests called ABX have provided either no data to reject the above contention or worse, more often they claim completely erroneously that the data from the ABX tests in fact prooves the contention in 1.
Their truck with "HiFi" cables is merely a corollary on their general Weltanschaung, unsurpring of course.
It is worthwhile to study the personages and personalities of the crowd I call "the ABX Mafia" (their annual meeting is probably jointly with CISCOP, which on occasion have been called "a sort of scientific Klu-Klux-Klan" and of which the Great Randi is a prominent member), it is quite revealing of exactly the "sour grapes" attitude I noted elsewhere and overtly fond of simply pelicanising anything they don't like.
Basically, catch the heretic, tar & feather him and then string him up is their attitude, except not in the literal but in the scientific sense of the application.
So, my appeal again to, don't jump on any bandwagon's, whosoevers they are, whatever the windowdressing may look like. Think, experiemnt and draw conclusions for yourself, while accepting that others doing the same may come to different results.
Ciao T
Anex said:
Not just bordering. If you where to familiarise yourself with the general stance the ABX Mafia diseminates you would find that:
1) All pieces of equipment sound the same if the frequency response and THD are the same.
2) The specific type of double blind tests called ABX have provided either no data to reject the above contention or worse, more often they claim completely erroneously that the data from the ABX tests in fact prooves the contention in 1.
Their truck with "HiFi" cables is merely a corollary on their general Weltanschaung, unsurpring of course.
It is worthwhile to study the personages and personalities of the crowd I call "the ABX Mafia" (their annual meeting is probably jointly with CISCOP, which on occasion have been called "a sort of scientific Klu-Klux-Klan" and of which the Great Randi is a prominent member), it is quite revealing of exactly the "sour grapes" attitude I noted elsewhere and overtly fond of simply pelicanising anything they don't like.
Basically, catch the heretic, tar & feather him and then string him up is their attitude, except not in the literal but in the scientific sense of the application.
So, my appeal again to, don't jump on any bandwagon's, whosoevers they are, whatever the windowdressing may look like. Think, experiemnt and draw conclusions for yourself, while accepting that others doing the same may come to different results.
Ciao T
After scanning through many of his many long posts, I think what he claimed was he himself had done at least one or two comparison but unfortunately since people find his figures were did not statistically strong enough, he came to the conclusion they were just really try to rubbish all highend audiophiles manufacturers discoveries.
I think you have the impression all ABX tests always came to the conclusion all hifi components sound similar. That is certainly not the case. It is just that audiophile cables do. What is more interesting are the majority of well built modern amplifiers also appear to sound remarkably similar unless some were intentionally designed to have a different sonic character.brizonbiovizier said:
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,309
- Reaction score
- 0
Doesn't the grand inquisitor claim that no electrically identical cables sound different?
Doesn't Thorsten claim that for cables to be indentical in all parameters, they have to be of identical construction, down to terminations, dialectic and conductor?
If Thorsten is right, and I accept it's a big if, then it follows that you could not prove differences between cables under these conditions. In addition, if the only way to measure the same is to be the same, any difference will make an electrically unique cable, and Randi accepts the potential for that to sound different.
Doesn't Thorsten claim that for cables to be indentical in all parameters, they have to be of identical construction, down to terminations, dialectic and conductor?
If Thorsten is right, and I accept it's a big if, then it follows that you could not prove differences between cables under these conditions. In addition, if the only way to measure the same is to be the same, any difference will make an electrically unique cable, and Randi accepts the potential for that to sound different.
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
Actually, my own tests used neccesarily a small sample size (as did all the tests the ABX Mafia publishes). That limits the statistical analysis I can perform if I wish to be equally certain that I have gotten neither type A and type B statistical errors.
As soon as I ratchet up the significance so that I reduce the the risk of type A errors (incorrectly concluding a difference exists where there is in actuality is non) I increase the risk of type B errors (that is the risk to not reject the null hypothesis despite the presence of a small but significant difference).
As for the rest, you may notice that I am extremely cynical about the state of the High End audio industry and usually rubvbish the vast majority as making stuff that does the opposite what is needed.
To note that I "came to the conclusion they were just really try to rubbish all highend audiophiles manufacturers discoveries" is footballing ridiculous. BUT, I refuse to accept people pelicanising stuff on the grounds of "I don't like it", "It's expensive", "I don't understand it" et al. That is rankest religious dogmatism.
Actually, the ABX Mafias's published tests conclude:
1) Amplifiers with the same FR and similar THD sound the same, which boils down usually to "all competently designed amplifiers operated outside clipping sound the same!"
2) CD Players and other sources following the same dictum as Amplifiers above sound the same.
It is worth to study their actual tests as well, including the used ancillary equipment. Considering several key tests used AR-3 speakers they are disqualified on grounds of timewastage. The one where the CD Players where AD converted on a 16-Bit DAT Recorder with the level adjusted in the digital domanin and then replayed through the DAT's DAC's via the analogue output should once and for all illustrate the deliberatly fraudulent nature of the tests coming from that particular corner.
Ciao T
wolfgang said:
Actually, my own tests used neccesarily a small sample size (as did all the tests the ABX Mafia publishes). That limits the statistical analysis I can perform if I wish to be equally certain that I have gotten neither type A and type B statistical errors.
As soon as I ratchet up the significance so that I reduce the the risk of type A errors (incorrectly concluding a difference exists where there is in actuality is non) I increase the risk of type B errors (that is the risk to not reject the null hypothesis despite the presence of a small but significant difference).
As for the rest, you may notice that I am extremely cynical about the state of the High End audio industry and usually rubvbish the vast majority as making stuff that does the opposite what is needed.
To note that I "came to the conclusion they were just really try to rubbish all highend audiophiles manufacturers discoveries" is footballing ridiculous. BUT, I refuse to accept people pelicanising stuff on the grounds of "I don't like it", "It's expensive", "I don't understand it" et al. That is rankest religious dogmatism.
wolfgang said:
Actually, the ABX Mafias's published tests conclude:
1) Amplifiers with the same FR and similar THD sound the same, which boils down usually to "all competently designed amplifiers operated outside clipping sound the same!"
2) CD Players and other sources following the same dictum as Amplifiers above sound the same.
It is worth to study their actual tests as well, including the used ancillary equipment. Considering several key tests used AR-3 speakers they are disqualified on grounds of timewastage. The one where the CD Players where AD converted on a 16-Bit DAT Recorder with the level adjusted in the digital domanin and then replayed through the DAT's DAC's via the analogue output should once and for all illustrate the deliberatly fraudulent nature of the tests coming from that particular corner.
Ciao T
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
I am right insofar as fairly small changes in cable makeup produce measurable electrical changes. Some of these changes are large enough in magnitude to produce, in the context of many typhical systems changes to the signal that are large enough to be considered "potentially audible" according to currently accepted "wisdom" by the Audio Engineering community in general.
That is the sole total of my claims on that account, plus that my own blind tests when analysed with equal risks of type A and type B errors apropriate for the sample size suggest only a 1 in 5 chance of my conclusion "certain cables cause audible differences" where down to chance, rather than to an actual difference.
The 1 in 5 chance is rather large where we talking about publishing a rigerous peer reviewed paper, so where I wish to do that I would have (had) to collect a lot more data, not allways a trivial thing, but for MY OWN PERSONAL USE I am comfortable that with the results.
Ciao T
Stereo Mic said:
I am right insofar as fairly small changes in cable makeup produce measurable electrical changes. Some of these changes are large enough in magnitude to produce, in the context of many typhical systems changes to the signal that are large enough to be considered "potentially audible" according to currently accepted "wisdom" by the Audio Engineering community in general.
That is the sole total of my claims on that account, plus that my own blind tests when analysed with equal risks of type A and type B errors apropriate for the sample size suggest only a 1 in 5 chance of my conclusion "certain cables cause audible differences" where down to chance, rather than to an actual difference.
The 1 in 5 chance is rather large where we talking about publishing a rigerous peer reviewed paper, so where I wish to do that I would have (had) to collect a lot more data, not allways a trivial thing, but for MY OWN PERSONAL USE I am comfortable that with the results.
Ciao T
Last edited by a moderator:
We get lost in semantic vortices. If the claim from the cable guys is that cable differences are down to FR changes then there really isn't any argument, and sensitivity to FR can be assessed in ways that do not involve cables. If it's that some magic happens that doesn't affect the signal but does affect the sound then we have supernature and Randi awaits.
Perhaps a better example would be cable directionality, where we many claim the sound will change but clearly the measurements cannot.
Paul
Perhaps a better example would be cable directionality, where we many claim the sound will change but clearly the measurements cannot.
Paul
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
As of this point in time I have seen formally demonstrated by measurements the following effects in cables:
1) Frequency Response alterations (obvious this one) from the RLC parameters and dielectric absorbtion variations, potential audibility may be safely concluded as alterantions of the FR may exceed the 0.1db audibility treshold usually assumed.
2) Changes in the amount of RFI/EMI the cable picks up in an electrically noisy envoironment. It should be widely known that many amplifiers are suceptible to noise above the audio bandwidth, resulting in intermodulation and spectral contamination of complex signals. Audibility for RFI has been illustrated as well.
3) Small but possibly significant amounts of spectral contamination and other nonlinear distortion have been illustrated in SOME types of conductors and with some types of signals. No audibility has been reliably illustrated, more research is needed, commonly the EE community is turning it's collective noses at that one and claims "experimental error", usually without attempting to replicate the experiments first.
4) Alteration of RLC (and G) parameters with signal (in speaker cables - due to magneto striction) or mecanical resonance (interconnects) has been illustrated, more reasearch is needed to reliably exclude these as source of audible differences.
Well, even Magick, practiced inaccordance to the systems of such orders as the Golden Dawn or the A:.A:. is actually not as such supernatural or "magic" in Randi's definition, it merely postulates additional natural laws to those currently understood, which allow certain actions to have consequences that our current level of understanding suggests should not happen.
Again, cable directionality has several underlying reasons, usually it is down to an assymetry in the construction which causes for example levels of RFI pickup in conjunction with the equipment attached to vary, depending on which end is connected where.
The problem is that the ones supposedly educated in the subject (that is most Audio & Electronic Engineers) seem to have an instinctive reaction that causes them to simply reject the thesis "cables can make a difference", without any reference to what is actually happening.
I remember talking with the EE Designer of some australian redwood fronted audio gear at a show and he disparaged the UK distributor for having used "fancy mains cables" and "fancy distribution socket boards". When I challenged him on the why he trotted the same self boring old argumnet of the miles of cheap & nasty wire in distribution system and the cheap house wiring out, thus doubly missing the point and illustrating his complete unwillingness to actually THINK about the topic.
His first fault was of course to bring in the "cheap wire in the wall" - "expensive cable at the Amp" argument, which is obviously irelevant in any kind of logic, to the question "does it make a difference".
His much graver error was however one that a degreed EE NEVER EVER should make, namely to completely ignore the basic networks involved. Practically all "high performance" audio gear is safety earthed. All gear is subject to parasitic currents, both at normal mains frequencies and all the way to RF "leaking" from the mains into the chassis and being effectively "evened out" in the earth connection (in safety insulated gear the fault currents instead equalise through the interconnect cables!!!).
That means usually any current loops relevant to the audio gear end at the distribution socket board, if not at the worst case at the point in the house where PEn and Neutral are tied together. So, the main argument of "how can 1m mains cable can make a difference with all these miles of cables" shows a complete inaptitude to understand most basic AC network analysis.
As we may safely assume that any EE had to sit and pass EE101 the reason would seem not so much an actual lack of the required knowledge to understand the subject than an an active unwillingness to do so in this case (again, check my comments on moral affordability in the cencored away thread on "HiFi & Philosophy - I though it was highly relevant to "The gear" but modertaion seems arbitrary and pro objectivist these days).
So, as long as those who should know better actively refuse to try to make sense out of what's on the table the result is that those who wish to make a commercial profit of significant degree will advertise whatever claims they like, KNOWING their claims will not be seriously challenged, as the only people who could do so simply rubbish and ignore the whole subject and thus make sure they in turn are ignored by those wo nevertheless hear differences.
Hence instead of helping to educate and protect the consumer the general "anti cable" stance of the A/EE comminity at large is the key enabler for Cable companies to keep trading the way they do!
I rather wish someone would make decent quality and reasonable cost commercial cables (ones that actually work for the purpose at hand as they should!), so I do not have to make my own for our customers and instead can recommend to them with confidence in the product and in them getting good value for money "go and buy brand X". I'd be even tempted to recommend Nordost for all but their extreme pricing and in certain ares counterintelligent engineering.
Well, so much more on the "Same old cable argument again...".
Ciao T
Paul Ranson said:
As of this point in time I have seen formally demonstrated by measurements the following effects in cables:
1) Frequency Response alterations (obvious this one) from the RLC parameters and dielectric absorbtion variations, potential audibility may be safely concluded as alterantions of the FR may exceed the 0.1db audibility treshold usually assumed.
2) Changes in the amount of RFI/EMI the cable picks up in an electrically noisy envoironment. It should be widely known that many amplifiers are suceptible to noise above the audio bandwidth, resulting in intermodulation and spectral contamination of complex signals. Audibility for RFI has been illustrated as well.
3) Small but possibly significant amounts of spectral contamination and other nonlinear distortion have been illustrated in SOME types of conductors and with some types of signals. No audibility has been reliably illustrated, more research is needed, commonly the EE community is turning it's collective noses at that one and claims "experimental error", usually without attempting to replicate the experiments first.
4) Alteration of RLC (and G) parameters with signal (in speaker cables - due to magneto striction) or mecanical resonance (interconnects) has been illustrated, more reasearch is needed to reliably exclude these as source of audible differences.
Paul Ranson said:
Well, even Magick, practiced inaccordance to the systems of such orders as the Golden Dawn or the A:.A:. is actually not as such supernatural or "magic" in Randi's definition, it merely postulates additional natural laws to those currently understood, which allow certain actions to have consequences that our current level of understanding suggests should not happen.
Paul Ranson said:
Again, cable directionality has several underlying reasons, usually it is down to an assymetry in the construction which causes for example levels of RFI pickup in conjunction with the equipment attached to vary, depending on which end is connected where.
The problem is that the ones supposedly educated in the subject (that is most Audio & Electronic Engineers) seem to have an instinctive reaction that causes them to simply reject the thesis "cables can make a difference", without any reference to what is actually happening.
I remember talking with the EE Designer of some australian redwood fronted audio gear at a show and he disparaged the UK distributor for having used "fancy mains cables" and "fancy distribution socket boards". When I challenged him on the why he trotted the same self boring old argumnet of the miles of cheap & nasty wire in distribution system and the cheap house wiring out, thus doubly missing the point and illustrating his complete unwillingness to actually THINK about the topic.
His first fault was of course to bring in the "cheap wire in the wall" - "expensive cable at the Amp" argument, which is obviously irelevant in any kind of logic, to the question "does it make a difference".
His much graver error was however one that a degreed EE NEVER EVER should make, namely to completely ignore the basic networks involved. Practically all "high performance" audio gear is safety earthed. All gear is subject to parasitic currents, both at normal mains frequencies and all the way to RF "leaking" from the mains into the chassis and being effectively "evened out" in the earth connection (in safety insulated gear the fault currents instead equalise through the interconnect cables!!!).
That means usually any current loops relevant to the audio gear end at the distribution socket board, if not at the worst case at the point in the house where PEn and Neutral are tied together. So, the main argument of "how can 1m mains cable can make a difference with all these miles of cables" shows a complete inaptitude to understand most basic AC network analysis.
As we may safely assume that any EE had to sit and pass EE101 the reason would seem not so much an actual lack of the required knowledge to understand the subject than an an active unwillingness to do so in this case (again, check my comments on moral affordability in the cencored away thread on "HiFi & Philosophy - I though it was highly relevant to "The gear" but modertaion seems arbitrary and pro objectivist these days).
So, as long as those who should know better actively refuse to try to make sense out of what's on the table the result is that those who wish to make a commercial profit of significant degree will advertise whatever claims they like, KNOWING their claims will not be seriously challenged, as the only people who could do so simply rubbish and ignore the whole subject and thus make sure they in turn are ignored by those wo nevertheless hear differences.
Hence instead of helping to educate and protect the consumer the general "anti cable" stance of the A/EE comminity at large is the key enabler for Cable companies to keep trading the way they do!
I rather wish someone would make decent quality and reasonable cost commercial cables (ones that actually work for the purpose at hand as they should!), so I do not have to make my own for our customers and instead can recommend to them with confidence in the product and in them getting good value for money "go and buy brand X". I'd be even tempted to recommend Nordost for all but their extreme pricing and in certain ares counterintelligent engineering.
Well, so much more on the "Same old cable argument again...".
Ciao T
Last edited by a moderator:
Thorsten,
I assume you are using your patented "runestaff" cables that improve conduction by utilising higher dimensions? It seems your knowledgeable of the Arts also - familiarity with the hermetic order and possibly marked with the Sanjian Sign of the Void?
I think you are exactly right about earthing issues - be interesting to see if isolation a la the new bryston units or that feedback correction mains unit in the mags a little while back would then render a system less sensitive to the interconnects, if the entire chain is isolated.
Nick.
I assume you are using your patented "runestaff" cables that improve conduction by utilising higher dimensions?
It seems your knowledgeable of the Arts also - familiarity with the hermetic order and possibly marked with the Sanjian Sign of the Void?I think you are exactly right about earthing issues - be interesting to see if isolation a la the new bryston units or that feedback correction mains unit in the mags a little while back would then render a system less sensitive to the interconnects, if the entire chain is isolated.
Nick.
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
Nah, I just use goldplated silver for that. Silver for improved conduction, goldplating for long term stability.
As in interconnects capacitance dominates and as my own gear does not mind a bit of RFI I just minimise capacitance as much as possibly and make it as linear as possible using air as dielectric.
I am passingly familiar (possibly somewhat more than passingly) with the liberal and hermatic arts, yes. No sign of the void on my forehead though, I leave that gig to Yakomo Fuji, he seems jolly good at it anyway...
That's why I like transformers.
In my system the preamp effetcively breaks any loops between interconnected items, assuming I set the output switch to "lift".
For that to work I tend to add a proper earth to the cases of safety insulated gear. The differences in sound are neither that small nor are they imaginary. Of course, this strictly speaking has nothing to do with cables.
Ciao T
brizonbiovizier said:I assume you are using your patented "runestaff" cables that improve conduction by utilising higher dimensions?
Nah, I just use goldplated silver for that. Silver for improved conduction, goldplating for long term stability.
As in interconnects capacitance dominates and as my own gear does not mind a bit of RFI I just minimise capacitance as much as possibly and make it as linear as possible using air as dielectric.
brizonbiovizier said:
I am passingly familiar (possibly somewhat more than passingly) with the liberal and hermatic arts, yes. No sign of the void on my forehead though, I leave that gig to Yakomo Fuji, he seems jolly good at it anyway...
brizonbiovizier said:
That's why I like transformers.
In my system the preamp effetcively breaks any loops between interconnected items, assuming I set the output switch to "lift".
For that to work I tend to add a proper earth to the cases of safety insulated gear. The differences in sound are neither that small nor are they imaginary. Of course, this strictly speaking has nothing to do with cables.
Ciao T
Indeed - to me this is an earthing issue which cables can affect rather than a cable issue as such.
I look forward to hearing the TVC approach - I have been a bit busy of late as evidenced by my absence on the forum but I was wondering if you have got around to rejigging your pre yet so that I can hear it?
I have the honour of knowing a number of pagans and manga / anime afficianados so I imagine we have many points of reference in common given that i have recognised all of your little snippets across all the forums so far!
I look forward to hearing the TVC approach - I have been a bit busy of late as evidenced by my absence on the forum but I was wondering if you have got around to rejigging your pre yet so that I can hear it?
I have the honour of knowing a number of pagans and manga / anime afficianados so I imagine we have many points of reference in common given that i have recognised all of your little snippets across all the forums so far!
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
Now we are seriously uslem bird style up in semantics. If I replace cable A with cable B and it makes an observable difference than the different properties between cable A and cable B are the cause.
Yes, system at home is now back to normal.
I guess I'm neither pagan nor that much of an Otaku, but yes, you noticed quite a few of my sly underhanded notes.
Ciao T
brizonbiovizier said:
Now we are seriously uslem bird style up in semantics. If I replace cable A with cable B and it makes an observable difference than the different properties between cable A and cable B are the cause.
brizonbiovizier said:
Yes, system at home is now back to normal.
brizonbiovizier said:
I guess I'm neither pagan nor that much of an Otaku, but yes, you noticed quite a few of my sly underhanded notes.
Ciao T
A difference yes but not better or worse by design just accidental. The cable may be "responsible" for the difference but it may not be the very root cause. Just how that cable happens to arbitrarily perturb the emergent sonic properties of the system due to the current flow network in that particular system. Probably completely unpredictable. Best to do away with the root problem and then the cable differences would likely dissapear. You cant decompose factors in the same way in a nonlinear network. The oozulum bird is safely in its nest dont worry.
Good! Perhaps when you have a free moment I can explore the possibilites with you regarding S&B kit?
Good! Perhaps when you have a free moment I can explore the possibilites with you regarding S&B kit?
Last edited by a moderator:
I certainly agree it would be most interesting to be able to read the actual situation how the ABX mafias or anyone else do their tests. The methodology is more important then the final p value or statistical analysis. Actually 3DC how many people and how many times did they repeat these cable ABX comparison of yours?3DSonics said:
To arrange a cable test that is suppose to be so easy to identified, as night and day different as some people claimed, to be only 1 in 5 chance does sound very low. If you ask people to identify say the identity of 2 loudspeakers with a blind test I am sure we could ask as many people or few people to repeat this to as many times as accurately to manage a figure better then 1 in 5 chance.
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
Okay, yes. I completely agree. The problem is in effect that inapropriate interfaces have been defined.
Classic pro audio systems from the "golden days" are pretty much cable-invariant in nature. Why?
1) Transformer coupled floating (non earth referenced) balanced outouts.
2) Transformer coupled inputs.
3) Impedance matching to 600 Ohm CI across the audio band in output and input.
4) Fairly (very) high relative reference levels.
The combination of 1 & 2 effectively kills ground/earth/noise loops completely dead, they cannot happen.
On top of that 2 effectively eliminates RFI from the input.
The combination of 3 & 4 means that not only are all circuit impedance very low, which snubs out resonances and minimises any issues from capacitance in the cable AS LONG as the transmission line is 600 Ohm compliant, regardless of length and by making a lot (relatively speaking) current flow they overcome low level conductor problems.
Interconnects hence are a problem only if you do not have ALL of 1 - 4 but most crucially 1 & 2 with 3 & 4 bringing up the rear pretty closely though.
Sure, you are always welcome for a listen. Test in your own place, contact mfaudio.co.uk dircectly, to see what they can do.
Ciao T
brizonbiovizier said:
Okay, yes. I completely agree. The problem is in effect that inapropriate interfaces have been defined.
Classic pro audio systems from the "golden days" are pretty much cable-invariant in nature. Why?
1) Transformer coupled floating (non earth referenced) balanced outouts.
2) Transformer coupled inputs.
3) Impedance matching to 600 Ohm CI across the audio band in output and input.
4) Fairly (very) high relative reference levels.
The combination of 1 & 2 effectively kills ground/earth/noise loops completely dead, they cannot happen.
On top of that 2 effectively eliminates RFI from the input.
The combination of 3 & 4 means that not only are all circuit impedance very low, which snubs out resonances and minimises any issues from capacitance in the cable AS LONG as the transmission line is 600 Ohm compliant, regardless of length and by making a lot (relatively speaking) current flow they overcome low level conductor problems.
Interconnects hence are a problem only if you do not have ALL of 1 - 4 but most crucially 1 & 2 with 3 & 4 bringing up the rear pretty closely though.
brizonbiovizier said:
Sure, you are always welcome for a listen. Test in your own place, contact mfaudio.co.uk dircectly, to see what they can do.
Ciao T
