The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[pkane2001]

37 minutes ago, CG said:

 

OK.  No need to be condescending.  (How you were able to determine that to your own satisfaction without those many hours of consulting engineering time is something that I probably couldn't understand even if you explained that aspect of it to me.  Please don't tell my boss...)

 

Please note that I didn't even slightly, vaguely hint at whether these cables could change the sound of an audio system.  I was just pointing out an example of an engineer from a generally accepted to be good cable company providing a mathematical analysis of what he thinks is the systemic aspect of cabling.  Complete with measurements.  Isn't that what objectivists usually ask for?

 

So far here's what I've seen here on this "objectivist" forum.

 

Many people are quite willing to dismiss most anything they want to with a brush of their hand.  No details, no measurements, no reason.

 

Many people, some of whom happen to be members of the above group, also demand complete juried papers with mathematical derivations and extensive measurements with double blind testing before they dismiss whatever it is with a brush of their hand.

 

This is crazy.  At least, to me.  But, I won't criticize people if that's their way of thinking.

 

However, this is not for me.  I prefer to investigate things before I dismiss them.  Or accept them.

 

Note to Chris:  I know I may have deviated in this post from the central purpose of this sub-forum.  I apologize for that.  So, feel free to delete it.  I can dismiss myself with a brush of my own hand.  Thanks.

 

 

 

 

Let's turn it around. You brought in this reference, so you must find something interesting or worth reading in it. So, can you point to the specific measurements, tests, or the white-paper analysis that you think are worth discussing in relation to the audibility of a cable? 

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Paul^2, you can try your own measurements and tests ... 

And since that was about a digital application, it's a fairly strong test if that's projected on to analogue applications (like discussed in here). Want an analogue cable now ?

 

🙃

 

PS:

 

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

I've tested analog interconnects many times, a couple as recently as yesterday. If you want to send me one of yours to test, feel free

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

Just now, jabbr said:

 

It is well known that the cable shield, when attached to the transmitter ground, acts as part of the transmitters "ground plane" ... so in your testing you need to test for EMI transmission and reception. In some cable shield configurations, the shield can act as a wave guide and funnel EMI from the transmitter into the receiver ... or attenuate ... needs to be specifically tested for or modeled with 3D SIV software

 

Similarly digital cables need to be tested for above, as well as rise time/fall time which means a really good high speed scope!

 

Agreed. I've built a number of balanced interconnects for my own use and for friends, so have some first-hand experience messing things up by wiring the shield incorrectly  3D modeling wasn't needed.

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

George, just because you don't understand how, doesn't mean it cannot exist.

 

That logic applies equally well to Santa and unicorns. 

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

As well as many of the reports quoting "definitive" measurements in A.S.R 

 

Huh? Did I quote ASR? As far as I know, their measurements of unicorns and Santa are indeed, definitive. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Santa was one of those guys that sent me the aforementioned PMs. He is bummed about Mac Minis dropping spdif. 😉😁

 

Santa is a PC user.

 

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, semente said:

Let's ignore the question of audibility for a moment. It's just too downright lazy to assume that we cannot hear 90dB below or that speakers are so imperfect that aiming for anything better is a waste because it will be masked. (I've been surfing some of the audibility threshold studies and find them wanting)

 

 

If we were to aim at the best possible / lowest loss analogue signal cables would it be possible to agree on the techical specifications or characteristics of:

 

- a single-ended interconnnect cable?

 

- a loudspeaker cable?

 

For interconnects, pick a cable with the lowest LCR characteristics, using quality connectors and be done with it. Use balanced if you have balanced topology components, as that helps reduce the chance of ground loops and adds common-mode noise rejection. Star-quad is good for balanced - you don't need anything more esoteric than that. Single-ended ICs with RCA can cause more issues than balanced with XLR.

 

As far as audibility, don't believe random studies. Test things for yourself. But do so properly when comparing two components: make sure the levels are properly matched (yes, even when comparing cables) and that you don't know which cable is in the system while you're evaluating it. Yes, it's more work, but then you did argue against being lazy, right?

 

[pkane2001]

15 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

Can you suggest a specific (already assembled) XLR cable that I can buy to compare with what I have? 

 

If I run this experiment, there is no way for me to accomplish a blind test.  I would simply use the new cable for a week and see whether I prefer one over the other and will post my impressions.  

 

Thanks.  

 

Mogami Gold microphone cable (studio version) is good quality and often recommended by pros. GLS Audio microphone cable is cheaper and actually performed better than Mogami in my tests, although the connectors are also of a cheaper variety.

 

Interestingly, I also compared an AES/EBU cable from Monoprice to the other two, and it performed better than both, Mogami and GLS cables as an IC. Of course, it's not designed for this.. But still, seemed to work out very well 

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

Thanks. 

 

GLS Audio XLR-M to XLR-F Mic Snake Cables - 15ft Black Single Cable:  out of stock.  Every organization is struggling with COVID-related issues.....   Seems to be the shortest Mic cable.  Not sure if the patch cables are the same as Mic cable.  

 

 

 

If you don't need 15ft, get the shorter versions. Patch cable should also work:  https://www.glsaudio.com/

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

I'm unclear about what folks consider extraordinary claims are.  I am learning a lot from the objectivist point of view, but find that I don't understand what appears to be the consensus working definitions for non-technical terms, like "extraordinary claims."  Also, all marketing has an element of hyperbole, so why does audio marketing get some folks in such a tizzy?  Isn't marketing and branding the creation of myths and origin stories made modern?  I can roll my eyes at marketing claims while enjoying the product itself.    

 

Extraordinary claims are those that lead to a conclusion that's in conflict with existing objective, well-confirmed findings and facts.

 

Slightly exaggerating something for the purpose of increased sales is marketing. Making up complete falsehoods is fraud.

 

[pkane2001]

Just now, PYP said:

The manufacturers are claiming, with some validity, that there are things that can be heard but not measured.  

 

That is an example of an extraordinary claim. The conclusion implied by such a claim is that human hearing is more sensitive than the most sensitive measurement instruments, or that there is some electrical property of the cable that we don't know yet how to measure. 

 

Either conclusion requires some extraordinary evidence, since there are well-established (yes, scientific), objective facts that:

 

a. put very significant limits on human hearing ability that are no match for sensitive instruments

b. describe the behavior of electrical current traveling over the wire in extremely fine detail, confirmed over centuries of studies and billions of engineered electric and electronic devices

 

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

wouldn't you have to be able to measure the brain/ear communication in order to understand how we react to different sound (and, I assume, our hearing acuity and what we actually hear may be different)?  As usual, I think it all comes down to felines:  If an ordinary cat can somehow finds his/her way home over the distance of 2,000 miles (actual case), there is a lot under the heavens that we have not measured and do not understand (and not just about cats).  Ok, signing off now.  

 

That is overcomplicating things. Either you hear the difference or you don't. If you need an MRI machine to tell you that you heard something, I'd guess that the difference wasn't very audible 😃

A cat finding their way home over 2,000 miles could be a good objective evidence of some sense (or combination of senses) that cats posses that works over large distances. I'd think that 200 miles is much more likely, though

 

Now, provide a similar objective evidence that you can hear the difference between the GLS and Mogami interconnects (as an example), and we can then talk about why they might sound different. And if we then find no differences in measurements that explain the audible differences, we might then start to speculate that there's something we don't know know about or can't measure yet.

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Except that far too often what is presented as "existing objective well-confirmed findings and facts" is nothing of the kind and is really no more than opinion based on a biased interpretation of scientific facts.

 

The good thing about scientific method is that opinions can be challenged and proven wrong in exactly the same, objective way. 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

But the bad thing is that too often objectivists offer their opinions as statements of fact, which is both misleading and disingenuous.

 

Sure, there are some people espousing unsubstantiated opinions. But the number of subjectivists expressing opinions as fact far outnumber these, at least by a factor of 100:1. Probably greater now, here on AS. So why aren't you outraged about that?

[pkane2001]

38 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Agreed. It is faith in theory.

 

No, faith in the scientific process. There's no such thing as faith in theories in science.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

something of an oxymoron perhaps but I get what you mean

 

 

people can indeed have faith in their theories until such time they are subjected to experiment. If they disagree with experiment they are wrong.

 

Science doesn't recognize as valid faith in anyone's pet theories, not those by Einstein and not those by sandyk. No matter how many people believe them.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

which is why i said theories are just theories,

 

The correct scientific terminology for an unproven opinion is a conjecture. A theory requires proof. You know, like the difference between the theory or relativity and the conjecture that noise can be embedded in a digital file during the recording or copying process.

[pkane2001]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

well i would say hypothesis is a more correct word. Hunch is probably a better word for what you are implying.

 

 

Where did you read that? but i know what you mean.

 

 

so whats your theory

 

Conjecture is a guess or an opinion. A hypothesis is a conjecture with a way and an intent to prove it. A theory is a hypothesis with proof.  Shall we go another round?

 

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Close. A hypothesis is testable and can be confirmed with empirical evidence. With repeated confirmation becomes a theory. Theories aren’t “proved” — that would be a Law and we no longer use that terminology. Generally a hypothesis is “deniable” however 

Haha! I was trying to keep it simple, as David was starting to feel dizzy 🥴 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Speaking of which, from watching the video - what is this thing about cables with batteries - if I did not know the industry I would think is a joke... or a parody...

 

ah well - here we are, in our sandbox, preaching to the converted when it should be possible to take the fight "over there", where is needed...

 

v

 

Batteries are needed to help polarize the dielectric. According to some well-unknown and as-of-yet unpublished research, dielectric is the main cause of cable-induced distortions in an audio system. The solution is to bias it (ie., electrically charge) so as to not let the electrons leap from the conductor to their untimely death into the dielectric, which some are apparently inclined to do. Hence a battery. Makes the sound more musical, and saves electron lives by repelling the suicidal ones back into the conductor.

 

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Note that the well known wacky speaker company, JBL, had the temerity to use batteries in their speakers - they had some silly idea that passive components aren't perfect, and resorted to dumb polarising methods 😜 ... https://www.techradar.com/au/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/jbl-everest-dd66000-673108/review

 

Believe it or not, batteries do have their proper uses  Biasing polarized electrolytic capacitors might be one such. But perhaps JBL is also concerned with the increasing rate of electron suicide?

 

[pkane2001]

28 minutes ago, mfsoa said:

For you to save me from making a voluntary purchase of a good that I desire?

 

While one can easily measure the amount of money in one's wallet, it is perhaps one of the less important measurements for the study of objective performance of an audio good that one desires 😄

 

[pkane2001]

22 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

I recommend instead to stop and listen to the DaniIl Trifonov's latest Rach releases....

 

Love him to death, although lately (even before corona) I thought that his performances lost some of the originality and depth. Still great, just not as great. Hopefully it's only temporary and isn't caused by his venture into the commercial enterprise.

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

From a strictly scientific stance what we have here is competing hypotheses/theories based on an explanatory proposal (or "narrative" as you put it) which in turn is based on available evidence. I totally get that you feel your evidence is more "scientific" (or perhaps sci-ency) than the evidence of people's observations and other evidence. Science, however, could care less how you or I view the evidence.

 

If you invoke science, and therefore scientific method, you need to put hypothesis to test by experiment. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

 

So we are ALL left scientifically speaking with hypotheses looking for experiment. Whose burden it is to devise and conduct the experiment is yet another debate. It will come down to those who either care more (if they care at all), or are more scientifically curious, or even the one's claiming the moral imperative.

 

Anyone who comes up with a hypothesis that's at odds with the established science has to provide sufficient evidence to show why their hypothesis better explains all the known facts. We don't need to keep redoing the same experiments to confirm the standing results every time someone comes with another hair-brained hypothesis. That's not how science works. The burden is on the new hypothesis author to provide sufficient evidence to prove their hypothesis and to explain why it contradicts established results, not on anyone else to disprove it.

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Established science is established through experiment - the established scientific facts, to the extent they have been established, support your untested hypothesis.

 

 

Nope, evidence for hypothesis does not make it true. Whether you prefer the evidence or not, or whether you feel it sufficient or not, or you feel it better explains something, or you feel it is "hair-brained" is entirely irrelevant.

Scientific method requires testing by experiment, usually a null hypothesis - that is how science works.

 

In science, established science is that which has been validated through experiment and found to explain all known facts. There's no preferences involved here, and I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. If, as you say, anyone can pick and choose which experimental results they prefer, then science is no better than any other belief system, and I strongly disagree with this position.