The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[sandyk]

17 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

FYI the AudioQuest Music SACDs I have all use AudioQuest cables. Some of my favorite blues recordings in my collection.

 

 Any claim that AudioQuest cables resulted in these SACDs superior sounding qualities to your ears should be taken with a grain of salt and are unlikely to be proved by Objective measurements.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

They or I made no such claim. The AudioQuest cables are listed in the credits along with all the other equipment used. It would be silly IMHO for AudioQuest Music to use a different brand of cable. Musically and sonically some great blues IMHO.

 

 By including their cables in the list of credits, they are implying that the use of their own cables helped to achieve the great sounding results.Otherwise, why bother to mention this ?

[sandyk]

7 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 …

 The same probably applies to many original masterings, with most of the CD players of the time unable to do them justice, partly due to their larger dynamic range and usually lower peak levels.

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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

 

Getting the Objective crowd to accept that result is unfortunately an entirely different matter .

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

In reply to Audiophile Neuroscience

You know, EMI/RFI aren’t invisible. If you have a problem with either (or both) of those, you can easily see it on even a cheap oscilloscope, so there’s no reason to assume that it’s there or that it is high enough in amplitude to obscure your audio. LOOK for it before attributing sonic differences in cables to those phenomena.

 George

RF/EMI doesn't need to be of such a high level as to obscure Audio .It can even present as low level wideband rubbish that can be like looking through a dirty window , adding low level grain/smearing.

Much of the RF/EMI from Computers is in the UHF and higher region, with even SSDs crap (higher harmonics) via it's PSU  leads etc.able to affect GPS modules as well as degrade Audio S/N. Al.fe even recommends HDD over SSD for this reason

RF/EMI from nearby TV and Radar transmitters can get back into Audio gear and be inadvertently rectified, as happened to me some years back where a 200MHZ Analogue TV transmitter several KM distant from me got back into the amplifier via the speaker leads and the NFB area to cause frame buzz interference .

 

Regards

Alex

 

 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I have a 100 MHz Tektronix ‘scope, yet at maximum sensitivity, I see no RFI/EMI On any interconnects on my system.

 George

Does the Tektronix have a higher sensitivity than most older CRT CRO's ?

 With my Preamp I had to use a battery powered low noise 10 x preamp as well to highlight stuff such as SMPS from the nearby TV to much more than a thick centre trace. Many have reported that even this level is audible on a resolving system.

 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Noise at -120 dB or less, is simply not going to “color” the sound

 I disagree.

 I have seen measurements taken of a front end modified good quality amplifier, where DIY Audio members have verified hearing differences in the -130dB area.

[sandyk]

51 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

We’re gonna have to agree to disagree here. -130 dB is so far below the threshold of human hearing, that anyone who says that they can hear something so low that it’s below the thermal noise on any active device operating at audio frequencies has a great imagination.

Several members are now routinely hearing differences of a small fraction of 1dB, and I think that you will find that Chris is now hearing extremely low level differences on very well measuring gear when using his RAAL-requisite SR1a headphones.

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/58443-raal-requisite-sr1a-has-landed/        #348

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, jabbr said:

It’s easy to completely eliminate the possibility of ground loops/leakage currents etc with fiberoptic Ethernet and it’s cheap so I use it. 

 

 And the wider the Bandwidth of the fibreoptic Ethernet, the better it is for passing  along any UHF (and higher) RF/EMI that may be riding along with the Signal from the source device ?

 e.g. SSDs can inject noise into the PSU with harmonics that are capable of upsetting close proximity 2.4G devices and the EMI noise falling on 1.57 GHz band is excessively high for GPS applications

14A2-B4.pdf

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

In any case you don’t call that EMI because fiber doesn’t carry that.

I said RF/EMI out of force of habit. It should then also pass RF from SSDs etc. that may be riding along with the signal.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

It doesn’t. 

 How does it reject it if it's part of the signal?

[sandyk]

33 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The system is designed to pass the bits and nothing else

So is USB and wired Ethernet !

Now we are back to the usual A.S.R. style putdowns of Planes falling out of the sky etc. if the system didn't work as designed.

[sandyk]

50 minutes ago, fas42 said:

... which indicates that jitter related behaviour over the optical link does matter.

Using a brilliant optical link most likely won't make that go away - so, shield the source component more, to attenuate that noise being generated.

 +1

 

[sandyk]

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

 

And it's religion to believe that all the degradation caused due to RF/EMI, and differences in the PSU area ,  in a hostile environment such as a PC can be cured by simply passing it through a Fibre Optic Ethernet Network. 

This is akin to shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

You have provided no proof whatsoever of your claims in this area, yet you are completely unwilling to check out the comparisons that I have offered to you due to lack of interest.

Unlike you, quite a few well qualified members including George and Paul R. and many others have verified many of my reports, as well as with published correctly performed DBT sessions

Quote

The stressed eye pattern test requirement ensures that injected noise does not appreciably pass down the Ethernet link!

.

Similar claims are made for CD, USB and Wired Ethernet Audio,. yet people still hear differences between cables, PSU areas etc..

 BTW, it was al.fe who sent me the posted .pdf and suggested that HDD is better for audio then SSD.

But what would the guy who designed my internal BR writer, and has several patents in the Optical area know ?

 G'night !

 

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Besides, in my opinion it’s not about fractions of a dB differences. It’s about enjoying the music, not obsessing over minutia. 

  Which is exactly what the ASR Brigade (and a few others) do with their measurements that they often draw invalid conclusions from.

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Expectation Bias. Let me ask you this. What would a boutique power cord do that a normal power cord couldn’t? Look at what is before and after that mains cord

 Nevertheless, a group of 4 people heard differences between normal power cords and expensive dealer supplied cords under non sighted conditions, into big Nelson Pass Class A monoblocks, and they all reported hearing similar differences. A 5th person did the setting up. Audiophile Neuroscience was one of the participants.

Quote

The fancy line cord can’t fix the noise and/or voltage fluctuations that MAY occur before the wall socket, and it certainly can’t correct for any power robbing or noise problems AFTER the boutique cable.

 

However, it may be capable of reducing noise induced into the leads of nearby ancillary equipment.

 BTW, ALL of the listening sessions that we performed in Sydney were performed under non sighted conditions, with all equipment left powered up so that we couldn't guess which pieces of equipment were in use at the time.

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, if “non sighted” does not mean a rigorous double-blind protocol, The results could still be influenced by subtle things like body language, facial expressions, etc.

 

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Maybe in Oz. Maybe in some systems. Not in mine.

 

 Sorry George, but these attacks on Aussies are getting tiresome.

 The simple fact is, that this is more likely to happen in Trumpdom, where more will also need to take advantage of expensive isolation transformers etc. because your gear needs to draw double the amount of current from the A.C. wall socket  .

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

making sure that the output levels are matched to 0.1dB or better, and pick the better power cord 9 out of 10 or 10/10 times correctly by listening only (no peeking).

 

 FFS !  We are talking about Power cables here, with nothing else changed.

.

 

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I wasn’t attacking Aussies. I was actually chiding Frank for his RFI/EMI paranoia.

 You are attacking Frank for his RF/EMI paranoia ?

That's the best laugh I have had this miserable overcast day.

Quote

I have an Isolating hospital 120 to 120 30 Ampere isolation transformer with pre and post transformer filtering. I’m very robust.😊

 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

Not at all. I am saying that if your brain believes that something will make the system sound better, that it *will* actually sound better to you. It has nothing to say about your tastes nor experience. 
 

By the same token , if your brain believes that something can't possibly make the system sound better, or perhaps even different, then you are unlikely to hear it unless the difference is large. 

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I wonder if this is actually true.

 That has been my experience at several listening sessions with 6 or more participants., where one was a qualified E.E. and the other an I.T. specialist . 

[sandyk]

27 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

Is it possible their listening skills were simply less developed that others participating in these sessions?

 No. They didn't believe the differences were possible, and the others who could clearly hear the differences ( not me this time) had a bit of fun at their expense later. In the case of the E.E. , he later heard the differences through his own system, and as a result purchased an Oppo 103 for the family for Xmas.

The I.T.Specialist, even knowing that everybody else, including another I.T. specialist who was able to hear the same differences, was  never able to hear the same differences as everybody else, although perhaps his listening skills were a little less well developed, despite owning gear like a Transporter and very good VAF Research speakers. Greg mainly enjoyed the social aspect of the meetings and the different music selections.

[sandyk]

40 minutes ago, jabbr said:

You should believe a negative listening experience the same as you do a positive one, otherwise you are biased. You are free to be biased, but your statements won’t get the same consideration as if you were neutral. 

 You have already shown that you are as Biased as most other participants in this thread.

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I am very biased toward explanations that fit within established frameworks supported by well developed theories and empirical data. When anomalies occur one should first attempt to place them within the established theory before altering a theory to accommodate, and before that the anomaly must be scrupulously validated. That’s my strong bias.

 

For audio, I choose what music I like and how I like to listen. I give my advice freely to those who might find it useful, and for those who don’t c’est la vie

 Yet you refuse to accept the results when the anomaly has been scrupulously validated by way of the " Gold Standard" DBTs when correctly performed, but still make non validated claims yourself, despite many 100s of members replacing the stock PSU in their Mac Minis, for example with a John Swenson designed Linear PSU to obtain worthwhile improvements in SQ without changing any other component of their system, and then using Iso Regens etc. with improved power and higher quality USB cables for a further improvement. 

If the front end didn't matter, why would they bother to do this at a substantial additional expense ? 

John even reported that filtering the PWM control of the Fan resulted in a worthwhile improvement as did the use of a Kelvin Sensor with his Linear PSU for additional PSU stability.

You still steadfastly refuse to accept that even the PSU area of a PC/Server can influence how the Audio sounds, assuming that the PSU area has no part to play in the sound of Digital music files., despite numerous members in other areas of he forum also  finding that the expensive PSUs from Paul Hynes and others can result in a much higher order of SQ despite the exported Binary Data not changing