The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Summit]

I use S/PDIF and a DDC because with my DAC it sound best. I know that it’s not a universal truth and believe that it depends both on implementation, accompanying gear, preference and format which we like the most. What I object to is the description of a way of transfer a digital signal as being flawed. It is almost humours then it is stated by the all-cables-sound-the-same-brigade.

[Summit]

It is not true that a recording either sounds good or bad regardless of the playback system. Some records are more complex and difficult to reproduce and can sound bad on a lesser audio system but good on a better one.

 

It is a myth that a bad recordings sound worse the better the system. The better system will still sound better even if we can hear some flaws more clearly. It is those over-analytical midfi “HIFI” system that lack bass and that emphasize a sharp and bright sound that can sound worse, but I don’t consider them to sound good and lifelike.

[Summit]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. In one breath you say that bad recordings don’t sound worse on good systems, then you say that good systems reveal more of the flaws in a bad recording. In what universe does revealing more flaws not equate to the bad recording sounding worse?

 

In this universe because a good audio system is about much more than digging up and showing flaws. Maybe one day you will understand that.

[Summit]

28 minutes ago, jabbr said:

This isn’t intended to be a trick question. I am offering that no electrically measurable difference exists. 
 

Previously I have discussed possible electrical differences eg EMI etc and suggested that a good isolation transformer would be a much better filter. Additional  physics hypotheses could be developed. I’ve said that for a physics hypothesis I want a measurement to confirm — electromagnetic physics is well established. 
 

The premise/assumption that there is no electrically measurable difference at the output of the DAC or amp, is to allow the assumption that the audio signal traveling to the ears is identical. Yet there is a perceptual difference. So yes!

 

 

Far from all EMI/RFI that affect an audio system is traveling by the cables and therefore can be stopped by isolation transformers or optical cables, even if they would isolat/insulate 100%.

 

A transformer always generates EMI, the bigger and the lousier the more the transformer will generally radiate. Isolation transformers can be one step forward and two step back in some systems.

[Summit]

This is Objective-Fi, but no data or evidence of the thesis of this topic has been presented yet. The negative effect of noise and EMI is well known. Intel for example have measured the interference of wireless devices operating in the 2.4 GHz ISM band and its effect on hard drives, USB muse and cables.

 

Here are some papers that can be of interest:  

 

https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/327216.pdf

 

file:///C:/Users/AS/Downloads/ANP024c_EN_The_USB_interface_from_EMC_point_of_view.pdf  

 

http://www.ti.com/lit/wp/slla432/slla432.pdf

 

[Summit]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The answer is, there is never a "magic pill" ... ever. Slavishly following a set of steps one's worked out may give you better sound ... or it may not. Every rig will be different, with a different set of weaknesses ... all that really counts is that one is prepared to "try everything", and not be certain that one "knows everything", 😉.

 

Yes there is no "magic pill" – glad we can agree on that.

[Summit]

If been used it's vintage tubes/caps.

 

NOS = new old stock; meaning that they have never been used.

[Summit]

All components are slowly changing over time. Some components are changing considerably more than others in their initial lifetime. This initial rapid change in SQ is known as the break in or burn in time or phase. Electricity (e.g. electrons) always try to find the shortest way between two points. Cables and many other components are made of material that is made up by “Metallic bonding”*. The delocalizing is higher in new gear there the metallic bonding haven’t reached its optimum yet. The metal is slowly changing its structure on an atomic level so that the electricity (electrons) can run faster and smother.   

 

*Metal bonding is the type of chemical bonding characteristic of metals. In a metal, the valence electrons of the metal atoms do not form pairs, as they do in non-metallic covalent bonds. They are also not located to specific atomic nuclei but move freely around the entire structure. This is not a completely random movement since the electrons are affected by mutual repulsion and these electrons are said to be "delocalized". This can be likened to an "electron cloud" that surrounds a giant structure of positively charged metal ions.

 

In a metal, the orbitals available to the valence electrons are so large that they surround the entire structure and the energy levels of the different orbitals are so close to each other that the energy difference can be neglected. Thus, the electrons can move "freely" without significant energy supply across the different orbitals and it is therefore usually said that the electrons move in energy bands. The free electrons constitute the cohesive force of the bond in the metal, and are behind several of the characteristic properties of the metals such as e.g. very good electrical conductivity, special luster and luster, flexibility and malleability etc.

 

[Summit]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

No ... it never works like that - let's say you've bought yourself a very expensive car, and soon afterwards it develops an irritating rattle behind the dash ... is your advice that the irritation is "all in your head" and therefore you should make an effort, to learn to ignore that sound ... ?

 

I would never buy a very expensive car, but if I did and it develop an irritating rattle behind the dash I would not stack newspapers to fix it 😉.

[Summit]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:03 AM, March Audio said:

Good question.  It's certainly not defined by just listening in isolation to replay, you have to have a known reference.

 

In the hifi show it's just the stuff you personally like.  Other people will like other things.  None of this indicates accuracy.

 

You are just reinforcing my point.  Your emotional responses are your own, no one else's.  Your emotional response does not indicate replay accuracy.

 

Sorry wrong post.

 

[Summit]

On 5/13/2021 at 4:58 PM, March Audio said:

Sorry but I don't follow you.

 

Unless you were at the recording you simply don't know what it was meant to sound like. You have no reference.

 

Therefore you have no idea if what is being replayed is accurate.

 

10 different systems will have 10 different sounds. NONE of them will be perfect.

 

You are just guessing and picking one you think is the best.  

 

There are, in fact, two kinds of audiophiles. Those who believe that you can measure what sounds most like IRL and those who believe that it is by listening. Those who believe in listening to many different records and comparing them with all the references that have been built after have heard how voices and music sounds like depending on the type of room, mix layouts, microphones, instruments, etc.

 

It is about a reproduction, so the reproduction can sound more or less accurate/lifelike, but it's still an reproduction and how convincing the illusion is. Without having been involved in that particular recording I can hear and judge if it sounds convincing and that folks is what is meant by sounding accurate. 

[Summit]

55 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Can you help me understand this a bit? I’ve never thought the terms convincing and accurate were equivalent. Convincing is subjective while accurate is objective. There can be many forms of “convincing” but only one “accurate.”

 

Accurate as in providing a faithful representation of someone or something.

 

[Summit]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

 

It's true that "convincing" and "accurate" aren't synonymous. Unless you're someone who tends to prefer authenticity and wants to make a point about it. I've always maintained that less "accurate" women with permed hair (or blue rinses, whatever) look less convincing. But other people may hold quite the opposite view. All of us can be right in that respect. But yes - there is only one "accurate". Au naturel!

 

(I'm going to get egg on my face when March tells me I picked the "wrong" sample.)

 

Edit: Thinking about what I wrote within editing time, isn't it true that you can have a preference through grainy photographs - or off of CCTV stills - for women who look like they haven't fiddled with their hair? I mean you're probably going to be "right" a lot of the time. And then you can repeat with another image - and another - triangulating your outcomes. In other words, you don't have an absolute reference - but you can hunt accuracy (through an iterative process). A bit like signal detection theory maybe. I think I've seen a formal version of this somewhere. If it comes back to me I'll post.

 

Accurate to what? A recording played by a playback system is a reproduktion and can never be 100% accurate. Sounds accurate means it sounds real/lifelike whatever word you want to use to express/describe it.   

[Summit]

1 hour ago, March Audio said:

I will post a link to 2 versions of a recording and let you tell me which is most accurate.

 

Yes you and the fellow that call him self an audiophile have got an hung up on this. If you want to use measurements and believe that they will give you a more accurate information on how audio gear/systems and recordings sounds like, please don't let me stop you. 

[Summit]

11 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/profile/24138-iving/?tab=field_core_pfield_1

 

?

[Summit]

4 minutes ago, March Audio said:

No, but that's my point.

 

We have fas42 claiming that he can identify what's accurate when he wasn't at the recording so has no idea what it sounded like, and when most recordings are an artificial construct.  The sound has been created by the engineer/producer/artist.

 

It is you that don't understand that music is meant to be heard and whats counts is perceived sound quality. This mean good illusion. 

[Summit]

5 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Nothing I have said here has anything to do with measurements.

 

It's entirely  about subjective interpretation.

 

Yes Its about subjective interpretation and how we audiophiles describe how it sounds. Sounds real, lifelike or accurate is words that nor Frank or I have invented. It is common ways of describing the kind of SQ may of us are aiming for. 

 

Yes it is not easy to put word on what we hear and many things has to be read in its context. 

[Summit]

5 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Good illusion to whome?

 

Everyone. 

[Summit]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

And where is that getting you if there is no commonality, reference or concensus?

 

It's just personal preference, which is fine, but let's not conflate that with accuracy.

 

Its not only personal preference many people actually prefer the same SQ aspects, at least in the grand schema of things.  

[Summit]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

But we have just demonstrated people have different opinions about this.  You can't say everyone.  There is no consensus. 

 

You asked good illusion to whome? And the answer is that the recording is meant for everyone. 

[Summit]

14 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Really Sorry but I don't understand the relevance of that statement.

 

OMG. You don't understand that no musicians are actually playing in your living room and High fidelity is all about creating an as good illusion as possible of that. 

[Summit]

11 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Where did you get all this from?

 

The point I made was that different people find different sound convincing.

 

I repeat its not only personal preference, many people (audiophiles) actually prefer the same SQ aspects, at least in the grand scheme of things.  

 

We use words to describe how we hear things. If you really think that we have no common grund, not much point in trying to describe or leave sonic impression.   

[Summit]

8 minutes ago, March Audio said:

As I said, this is disproved by the massive variation and sound of equipment owned.  The massive variation of opinion found on forums such as this.

 

Regardless, that's not actually what the conversation has been about.  It's been about "knowing accuracy".

 

It is about words to describe sonic impressions and you can not for your life understand that some people use words like accurate, lifelike or similar to describe *it*. 

[Summit]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is getting weirder by the minute. 
 

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to grasp that judging accuracy of a recording on a home audio system isn’t possible. 

 

"Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear. It is based on the novel idea that, since audio equipment is made to be listened to, what it sounds like is more important than how it measures......"

 

"accuracy The degree to which the output signal from a component or system is perceived as replicating the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound."

 

"Accurate - The music is unaltered by the recording or playback equipment. Ideally, to sound identical to the original music."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/describing-sound-a-glossary.220770/

[Summit]

10 hours ago, March Audio said:

You need to stop conflating this discussion to be about measurement.  It's been entirely about subjective opinions and conclusions.

 

I don't conflate anything. This discussion is about accuracy and my posts and quotes is all about subjective impressions and words/terms to express them. I believe that the best way to judge if a system or record sounds real/lifelike/accurate or whatever  terminolog you want to use to describe a convincing reproduction of the original sound.

 

Here some more quotes from J. Gordon Holt on this matter but please read the whole artikel.  

 

"Different subjective terms often have the same meaning, and some have more than one meaning. Don't be put off by this. Subjective terminology can never be as precise as the language of physics. But imprecise or not, it's still a much more meaningful way of describing reproduced sound than just saying, "It sounds fine.""

 

"Subjective reviewing simply skirts the question of how objective test results relate to what we hear, endeavoring to describe what the reproducing system sounds like."

 

"But what should it sound like? The pat answer, of course, is that it should sound like "the real thing," but it's a bit more complicated than that. If the system itself is accurate, it will reproduce what is on the recording. And if the recording itself isn't an accurate representation of the original sound, an accurate sound won't sound realistic. But what does the recording sound like? That's hard to tell, because you can't judge the fidelity of a recording without playing it, and you can't judge the fidelity of the reproducing system without listening to it---usually by playing a recording through it. Since each is used to judge the other, it is difficult to tell much about either, except whether their combination sounds "real." But it can be done."

 

"Even after more than 116 years of technological advancement (footnote 1), today's almost-perfect sound reproduction still cannot duplicate the sound of "the real thing" well enough to fool someone who has learned to listen analytically---a trained listener. But the goal of literal realism, or "accuracy," remains the standard against which a subjective reviewer evaluates any audio product design."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html