The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I have a theory. Frank and Paul are somehow related....round in circles we go I cannot say it is a very scientific theory

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

This really is a different topic for a different thread.

 

I just spoke with John. How difficult would it be to build a GUI for the decoder? Are we talking days, weeks, months of time? As you say this should be discussed on its own thread but just wanted to get some idea.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 hours ago, jabbr said:

I have been doing some decoding using my Linux workstation, and I have scripts to help automate the process. I guess at some point someone could write a GUI that would execute a command line program — I think the amount of time could be weeks for someone experienced in doing that type of coding ie I assume you want to use Windows. 

Yes, Windows

 

I have basic command line skills for specific tasks in Windows but a GUI for the decoder just seems less daunting.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

 you see how the difficulty of using a particular ***free*** software program that really does alter the sound is preventing you, and countless other anonymous people, from using this yet people are willing to spend countless hours plugging in and listening to cables that at most cause a relatively insignificant benefit (comparatively -- the software really does cause a significant effect): I think that the reason everyone focuses so strongly on cables is that they are so easy to replace, it is an easy and accessable way to do an "upgrade" 🤷‍♂️

 

 

I think it is a case of "it depends".......as you say it is easy to swap out cables and some people find it fun to do listening comparisons, some don't.

The case of "it really does cause a significant effect", whether cables or software, is subjective. Even if measurable and verifiable it remains subjective as to whether the listener likes the effect

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

What would need "extraordinary proof" (nonexistant and never provided) would be the claims about "why XXX cable is better"

It is easy to dismiss the claims as BS without doing your own "experiment"  (the science is that well established).

 

Not everyone is quick to dismiss observed phenomena as reported by many as BS (not saying you do) and notwithstanding the well established scientific evidence that would appear to suggest BS . Yes agreed the claims about "why XXX cable is better" may be wrong, may be even intentionally misleading as in marketing hype. It doesn't follow however that cables don't or can't make a difference or that difference is not significant to some folk. The ONLY scientific way to solve the riddle is by testing each hypothesis by experiment.Some want to skip that test and by doing so, only back the science that backs their beliefs. That's not objective science.That's faith.

 

Remember also that no laws of physics need to be broken in order to accept a possibility that something may be other than first expected. Some people just assume laws are being broken as they cannot see it any other way. Notwithstanding, even "well established" science (and laws)  is always there to be challenged, always.It is pretty well one of the only generalizations one can make as a scientist. If it were not the case science would be a religion. Indeed science appears to be religion for many people = sciencey, scientism, pseudoscience.

That said, I have no problem with people making informed choices about how they see the available evidence and deciding that cables probably don't make a difference, and are BS and absolutely make no difference for them.What is error in logic and science is that some believe (key word believe) that this must be the case for everybody and experiment is not even required to justify this belief. These people are simply in error, scientifically speaking. Some are also rude and arrogant, some just do not understand scientific method.Some are caught in a loop of burden of proof.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

 The question is why would anyone want to pay $$$$$ for a cable who's manufacturer has no idea why its "better" (or worse).

 

Easy. They like the cables.Spending their own money on what they want is their choice (and mine).

 

 

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

I choose cables which are well constructed e.g. there are a variety of well respected XLR cables with  Neutrik connectors that pros use -- or Amphenol. and if you want to get fancy custom cables then Lemo makes some really sweet connectors but you need equipment designed for that.

 

That's fine but other people are not you, they are them 😵. Okay, very obtuse way of saying each to their own.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

 

Yet, as I've said many many times, it is the out-of-band transmission of noise between the components that is not accounted for:

 

 

That's your hypothesis but one cannot conclude it is the only explanatory proposal and there cannot be other things as yet not accounted for

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

48 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

When I say significant, I mean easily listenable and in the case of some "bad recordings" greatly smooths out the harsh high end. In other cases the settings might make things "worse" e.g. dull and less immediate, so a lot of fiddling.

 

I can say that, for example, Led Zeppelin can be brought close to Barry Diament's remastered versions and Whitney Houston can be made more similar to the HD version available on Qobuz.

 

When I say significant difference it means that I can easily, unquestionably, hear it, as opposed to many cable differences which I struggle to hear.

 

In any case I could post my settings, and you could apply them (assuming you have the CD) and decide for yourself. 

 

Pity Barry no longer posts, but I get why. He may have been hamstrung to some extent at Atlantic records. It is possible of course to still ask him if he was restricted in what he could do.

 

Yes, I think it is great to get a repository of setting for the decoder so thank you for sharing. As you say best to do on the decoder thread.Thanks. I also need to have a listen to the reworked version of Love Over Gold - Dire straits

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The original masterings released on CD of Led Zep are by far the best - all the remasterings I've heard so far have been largely degutted, in comparison; probably fine for rigs that suffer SQ issues, but far too much of the visceral impact has been lost ...

 

Yes I agree. IMO pretty much anything recording/mixing/mastering Barry touches is going to be the best. So, just clearing that up. He may not have had full freedoms at Atlantic,that's all I was saying. I vaguely recall him saying he brought in his own cables but don't take my recollection as true

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

28 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Really depends what you define as "The Riddle".

 

Yes, agreed and I think we may be talking at cross purposes.

 

I have stated the null hypothesis, there is no audible difference between cables that meet a collection of measurements (list to be announced)......and by inference, in the context of the thread title, are therefore a "swindle"

 

Quote

 

If "The Riddle" is some hoaxy explanation about some nonsense special cable material having some quantum mechanical property etc, then no, one does not need to do an experiment to deny every hoaxy claim. Don't mistake marketing for science, that's all.

......Again the observed difference in "SQ" is not what the established scientific evidence says "BS", its the so-called explanations for why there is a difference in "SQ", those marketing claims are what goes against established science. I mean if I stated that a cable altered the "aether" in the listening room with a little knob, would you do an experiment to try and verify that?

 

As said, the explanation being wrong does not make the hypothesis wrong. It would be preposterous to explain that the world is round because marbles are round.

 

 

Quote

 

I maintain that doing a "scientific experiment" to "prove" that some gobbledygook marketing claim is not supported is completely unnecessary, no real scientist would waste their time on such folley. Not just my faith, unless not wasting time is a faith, in which case I'm in!

You have to look past the BS explanation. So here i am about to offend some people about some chiropractors. Some claim spinal manipulations will adjust energy flows in the body, not just mechanical pressure on pinched nerves, but good for everyone on a regular basis to keep you tuned into the universe or some such. I say gobbledygook. Chiropractic has been shown to be of benefit for some - I don't even have to understand the reasons why.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The “SQ” difference isn’t the hypothesis, it’s the observation.

 

Not sure what that means exactly as the hypothesis must surely address audibility, otherwise what is the point. The title of the thread suggests or asserts swindle and that suggests no audible difference N'est-ce pas?

 

I have stated the null hypothesis, there is no audible difference between cables that meet a collection of measurements (list to be announced)......and by inference, in the context of the thread title, are therefore a "swindle"

 

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I’ve been very clear. I’ve offered an out of band explanation for why digital cables might “sound different”.  The hypothesis could be that it’s EMI and that could be scientifically tested (eg same switch with and without fiberoptic cable).
 

 

 

I like your hypothesis. 👌

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

If someone wants to develop another hypothesis and test it scientifically they are free to.
 

 

 

I agree and kudos to you.

 

I just don't like anyone (not referring to you Jonathan) telling me what I am supposed to hear because they think it is snake oil based on a rubbish explanation for the snake oil.

 

If they invoke science as the reason, okay great, then follow full scientific method.If they invoke some other way of knowing something then I guess, follow that method, but at least do it properly.

 

I have never said snake oil doesn't exist.I have often said the most dangerous advocates of any snake oil product or service are the ones that believe the snake oil. The snake oil salesman con artists are easier to pick IMO.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

I’m using the term “hypothesis” formally (we are in the objecti-fi subforum  )

 

me too, so whats wrong with my hypothesis and what is yours formally stated

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

51 minutes ago, jabbr said:

What is your hypothesis? How are you going to test it?
 

 

I have expressed a null hypothesis because it is easier to test. "there is no audible difference between cables that meet a collection of measurements (list to be announced)"

IOW once the measurements are agreed upon be they inductance, capacitance, RFI/EMI, whatever, and ways to measure, then test for audible difference between cables that meet pre-determined acceptable values and more expensive cables with "hoaxy" mysterious claims  .

 

Quote

My hypothesis: Ethernet cables sometimes affect audio equipment through RF/EMI/common mode noise transmission between components. 
 

I would test fiber vs copper and various S/FTP, UTP etc. shields grounded to both connectors. 
 

 

So, easier to do as a null and to determine what "affect" means.

 

Is it audible difference or change in a specific audio test parameter as the outcome measure? If the latter, it would need to be decided what level of change will be accepted as significant and stage 2 would be to determine if it is audible ie does it matter.

 

The theory is (if understanding) that optical fiber provides better isolation than other interfaces. Theory as in scientific theory supported by evidence. To test / confirm the theory you need falsifiable hypotheses.

 

"there is no change (or less than 1% change or whatever) in audio signal xyz parameter by any level of demonstrated RF/EMI common mode noise transmission accompanying the cable"

or

""there is no audible difference between cables due to any level of demonstrated RF/EMI common mode noise transmission accompanying the cable"

 

Edit- key here is the demonstrated part of the RF/EMI common mode noise transmission so i suppose to start with

 

" there is no difference between level of demonstrated RF/EMI common mode noise transmission accompanying fiber vs copper ethernet cable"

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

the old saw about Christopher Columbus: “He left Spain, not knowing where he was going, arrived in the New World not knowing where he was, and returned to Spain not knowing where he had been!”

 

..sounds like a typical Saturday night really😵

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

This is not easier to test, since it is stated as a negative. 

 

Which is why it is easier to test

 

 

12 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

But it is easier to falsify.

 

Which is why it is easier to test

 

12 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

We can't test every human alive, who ever lived or who will ever live to determine if something is inaudible.

 

Which is why it is easier to test the null

 

12 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Demonstrating the opposite should be really easy,

 

No,

 

12 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

We can't test every human alive, who ever lived or who will ever live to determine if something is audible.(bold to fix statement)

 

Which is why it is easier to test the null, you only need ONE counter example.

You cannot "prove" inaudibility, you can "disprove" it with one exception

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Rethinking all the established science doesn't bother me, as long as I think I can hear the difference! 😜
(sorry, sarcasm!)

perhaps understanding the established science is a better starting point (sorry, sarcasm) 😜

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, jabbr said:

You could test this if you wish but we know that fiber doesn’t carry EMI or other electrical signals — that’s the point, nor does glass make a good radio antenna  

 

Its good to be practical and you are allowed to make reasonable assumptions. If you tried to test every single thing it would take forever and you never get results.

 

I am not suggesting test every single thing, just things that are critical to your method. If you are proposing that EMI/RFI is somehow involved you need to be able to accurately demonstrate its presence or absence.

" there is no difference between level of demonstrated RF/EMI common mode noise transmission accompanying fiber vs copper ethernet cable" should be easy to disprove and supports your theory

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Funny, I was thinking the same.

 

I am not surprised🙄

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Yes it is true that a measurement makes a scientific experiment vastly more convincing.

 

Oh without doubt,...... but only to the extent that the measurement is accurate, valid, reliable, sensitive, specific and is in all other respects, meaningful 😉

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

so what you may gain in galvanic noise EMI isolation you may lose in UHF RF noise?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

No. This is a possibility which could be true save for the actual details of the specification : read about “stressed eye pattern”

 

Does the 10Gbe Ethernet specification exclude High RF transmission

 

i will look at "stressed eye pattern" but am more concerned with "stressed ear pattern" 😉...kidding

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Okay, waaay to premature for me to be making any conclusions but stressed eye test is a receiver jitter tolerance test about not making a mistake.

 

One could argue that leakage currents in USB audio have been addressed by various implementations/ error correction mechanisms.

 

The appeal for fiberoptic (for me) is it is said to be not dependent on error tolerance at all (for EMI). It doesn't have to tolerate or fix anything if its not present. This does not appear to be the case for RF induced jitter?

 

Error tolerance to me suggests possibility of failure. Not necessarily, just possibly, maybe.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

It is absolutely NOT part of the signal. The bits are the signal. The system is designed to pass the bits and nothing else.

 

You are not suggesting ones and zeroes are being pulsed down the fiber ?

 

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Lots of super smart people have designed it and it works. Not only do they say it works but there is test equipment that verifies it.

 

Lots of super smart people have tested it...to a degree of error tolerance.

 

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

If it didn’t work we wouldn’t be communicating. Probably the single greatest invention of the 20th century. Hmm ... do you use quantum mechanics every day? You use the Internet every day  

 

 

does quantum mechanics and the internet working mean better audio? Well, I guess if you stream from Qobuz 🙂

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

17 hours ago, jabbr said:

Exactly and the error tolerances and test protocols are available to anyone who wishes to spend the time to read. 
 

 

Just to be clear are you saying it is impossible for error to occur or that it is likely not to occur under most circumstances? How certain are you

 

17 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Our usual suspects can continue to speculate that SSD noise is carried throughout the universe by little faeries flying in the aether ...

 

This is not helpful

 

17 hours ago, jabbr said:

ideally anyone may believe what they believe, and pray to whatever entity they wish — that’s religion. 

 

Which is why experimental scientific evidence is required for any hypothesis no matter how good you think it is. Science is not by popular vote or faith or fairies flying in the aether.

 

17 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Tee hee. I have suggested a simple hypothesis and method of testing and validation — really as an example of how he could go about it — and then yes all the naysayers might read and make fanciful objections.

Respectfully, you have this backwards. It is you who should be making fanciful objections to your own hypothesis.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

 

 

17 hours ago, jabbr said:

I suspect one of the reasons folks in ASR are not interested in entertaining certain ideas is that no matter what, people have their own religions and wish to believe that SSD noise is carried over glass fiber by little faeries.

 

I suspect there are many reasons that folks at ASR are not interested in entertaining certain ideas, most have very little to do with science.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 It’s about enjoying the music, not obsessing over minutia. 

 

12 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Well, I don’t like USB for audio, but I must say that the latest Schiit Yiggy has a newly designed USB interface that has greatly improved the performance of USB for audio.

 

maybe because they obsessed at the time about what seemed to be the minutia they redesigned the USB interface to greatly improve the performance of USB for audio