The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Julf]

Now some of you you even want a thread of your own where the Objective side can discuss these things free of annoying replies from the other side.

 

Yes. Outrageous, isn't it!

 

You can just about bet your left one, that if the subjective side tried to do the same ,it would be met with howls of protests and extremely sarcastic replies, as is almost always the case where there are any kinds of subjective reports,no matter what the subject, and the thread would end up getting locked by Admin. This is a regular occurrence on MANY different forums.

 

I wouldn't bet on that one - there has been several cases on CA where the OP has asked for purely subjective impressions and no technical discussion, and in general that wish has been respected.

[thesurfingalien]

Prufrock

I suggest that you use the Search facility, as if I go there again, Chris may have my scrotum for a " Beanie"!!!

 

Hi Alex,

 

I wonder why you keep repeating this... Unless Chris C. has contacted you privately in the recent past asking you to refrain from discussing this topic, I can only see a few more recent posts that indicate he simply does not agree with you. However, I see no recent comments from Chris that indicate any restrictions.

 

If you are unsure as to what extent you may or may not discuss this topic on CA, I suggest you contact Chris personally and ask him if he objects to you discussing it freely.

 

Like I hinted before, I see no reason why that should be he case as the topic has been discussed on multiple forums and has been published. In other words, it is out there already.

 

Besides that, if Chris wants to "counter" these ideas, he can start a topic himself explaining his position. In a recent article he already did hint to this topic being a non-issue.

 

 

Having said that, I would really like to see an article written by Chris about this topic as he is well-respected, and his opinion in this matter might be reassuring for people that are bothered by the possibility of bit-identical files getting corrupted.

 

Peter

[sandyk]

"I wouldn't bet on that one - there has been several cases on CA where the OP has asked for purely subjective impressions and no technical discussion, and in general that wish has been respected. "

 

And far, far more, where the request of the OP has been completely ignored.

 

Anyway, I hope that something worthwhile comes out of this latest initiative with files created using different USB cables.

Goodnight from Sydney Au.

[4est]

Hi Alex,

 

Besides that, if Chris wants to "counter" these ideas, he can start a topic himself explaining his position. In a recent article he already did hint to this topic being a non-issue.

 

 

Having said that, I would really like to see an article written by Chris about this topic as he is well-respected, and his opinion in this matter might be reassuring for people that are bothered by the possibility of bit-identical files getting corrupted.

 

Peter

 

Since when is Chris "the" expert? I mean no offense mind you, but someone like Cookie (mentioned by sandyk) IS an expert. She is very well respected and noted for having very acute abilities - and has the credentials to back it up.

[4est]

Have decided to create a blog on this issue. Will name it similar to the above and have the link on my posts. This will avoid, from my point of view, any further personal confrontation on the issue. And hopefully endless repetition and groundhog day type arguments. If I see a poster asking advice on cables/interconnects I will drop in and direct them to the blog and leave it at that. If it seems a cable discussion may be influencing other readers I may do the same. The link on my posts will also hopefully provide a counterbalance to the those who list their cables in their system setups.

 

Would appreciate other's contribution as well. What I hope is to be able to write a very succinct, under 2 page entry about how this whole issue evolved; how it started and what keeps it going.

If you are on the opposite side, I would request that you don't post on this thread please. Not because I don't want debate. Its just that I want ideas that will help with my blog and these will be best gotten from people on the skeptics side of the fence. I think it would be a good idea if others from the opposite side of the debate did something similar as well.

 

 

Basically my argument is this: the unique characteristics of audio have provided an environment where this phenomenon has been able to gain traction. You would not expect to, and will not find an analogy in photography for example. Due to current legislation the companies who peddle this expensive stuff are able to get away with not proving up their claims. Audiophile land is a bit of a backwater, so this is not surprising. It seems the con has gained enough momentum now for it to have reached the stage where the sheer number of believers has given it an elevated status.

 

Anyhow look forward to comments. Will likely need help getting the significance of the null testing right and other bits. Will write sections of it up here as I get time and ask for feedback.

However, other skeptics feel free to post your ideas anytime without waiting for me.

 

and

 

I wont be setting myself up as an authority at all. Will be clearly stating that I probably know less about audio than most people on the forum. Also will be stating that I have never actually personally tested one cable/interconnect against another. It will be very much the perspective of an outsider looking in.

Dont think it will be alienating. More the opposite really. Instead of continually repeating the same stuff in thread arguments, there will be a link to an opinion. People can then chose to read it or not.

 

I am completely with Jud on this. WTF? I wanted to stay off this thread out of respect, but I have a hard time respecting a premise based on second hand knowledge with little or no experience to back it up. I mean come on. If you want to believe in God, that is your business. But if you are going to tell us that we are going to hell, you might ought to at least spend some time with us heathens to learn what we are really all about.

 

Prufrock mentioned "retail therapy", but I somehow cannot see this as anything but his diatribe over buyer's remorse, and a method to help contain his impulse purchasing.

 

I'll leave this thread alone now if I can, and go to my backwater shack and pull out some chicken bones or runes to help me decide what to do next with my stereo.

[mav52]

The Logic of Cables:

 

[Paul R]

At this point I am not suggesting trying to find out how and why the audible differences happen, but simply see if there are any audible differences. I would appreciate your views on why a series of ABX tests on hi-res files recorded from the output of the DAC on a decent system, but using different USB cables, wouldn't show if there are audible differences or not.

 

Exactly because we don't have a theory, or at least a testable theory about why there would be differences. What we do have are a few well thought out theories that say there should be no differences.

 

What we need to attempt to falsify are those theories, since that at lest, is doable.To do that, we need to impose more consistency than simply passing files around will accomplish.

 

We already have exactly that situation, and so far at least, nobody has found a way that is acceptable to all sides of this discussion to validate results and move forward.

 

So, let's say that with cable-a and cable-b, x number of people out of a test population of y are able to hear differences in their own system. Depending upon the results, further testing might be indicated or it might not.

 

A testing procedure and standardized way to record the results is also needed. Then a way to sanitize the data and evaluate it.

 

That is a bare beginning by the way, not the end game. Like I said, to do it right is time intensive, takes some money, and is a lot of hard work.

 

If anyone was really willing to put the work into it, it is probably six weeks of work to design and put the test together, and six months or more of testing. Maybe more like a year.

 

This is why it doesn't get done- it is a lot of time, money, and effort to do it. Hitting round at the edges with half-arse efforts are a waste of time. Which is the reason most people just suggest going and listening.

 

The results of just listening are at least as accurate as some of the tests being proposed. Actually, there is a good chance that listening is more accurate for an individual that poorly constructed tests that encourage indefensible conclusions drawn from inadequate and even incorrect data.

 

All this protecting the consumer stuff is a smokescreen for not wanting to do the real work, IMO. It is way easier to point fingers and get out the pitchforks and torches (a fine old European habit, no? Americans are too well armed for that to work well over here, we just seem to sue each other instead... ) than to do the work to get real answers.

 

Cheaper too, and you don't run the risk of getting answers you don't like.

 

Paul

[Julf]

... a smokescreen for not wanting to do the real work, IMO.

 

Indeed. It's easy and cheap to throw around words about why a test is "not good enough", instead of actually spending the effort to run a test that can provide some valuable information, even if it isn't perfect.

 

Pitchforks and torches went out of favour in Europe once we sent our narrow-minded religious fanatics over to the (former) colonies.

[Paul R]

The only issue with the USB stick approach is that it severely limits the number of participants, and increases the time it takes to conduct the test, just to accommodate a rather controversial position.

 

I know we have had this conversation many times over, but if two files compare bitwise identical, where can the audible differences be stored? In the fifth dimension? And as operating systems only copy the bits, wouldn't your audible differences disappear just copying the file from one disk to another?

 

 

I suggest that for a different reason than you assume - precisely the reason that Alex stated. It eliminates any possibility of a tester listening to the wrong copy of the get files. For example, a MP3 copy of the file they have on their system.

 

I am not suggesting tht copiying the file around would change the sound, only that a tester would, invariably, get the wrong file somehow. It is, however, not coincidental that doing so would satisfy objections from folks who believe that would make a difference.

 

I am not suggesting testing for that however, I am suggesting testing to see if two cables make a difference.

 

Note I did not even suggest what kinds of cables. That would have to be discussed and decided upon. Probably by people suggesting cables they can readily hear differences in. Speaker, digital, or interconnects I suppose. Pick one.

 

Paul

[Julf]

I suggest that for a different reason than you assume - precisely the reason that Alex stated. It eliminates any possibility of a tester listening to the wrong copy of the get files. For example, a MP3 copy of the file they have on their system.

 

I don't think that was the concern Alex had - he was clearly concerned about the contents getting corrupted during a network transfer. Somehow I don't see how transfer using an USB stick would reduce the risk of confusion compared to a download, especially is the files are distinctly named and tagged.

[prufrock]

I am completely with Jud on this. WTF? I wanted to stay off this thread out of respect, but I have a hard time respecting a premise based on second hand knowledge with little or no experience to back it up.

 

I guess you are referring to the fact that I have never actually compared cables myself. And as a consequence you think my opinion/analysis is of little value. However it also means I have no baggage or axe to grind either way. If they do make a difference I will accept that and buy what I have to accordingly. If not, same deal.

If I don't base my stance on my own personal listening, (or yours), what then? Well nothing extraordinary really. Just the usual perusal of the literature and some research. Pretty much the same as what you would do for any similar issue. It tells me your opinion is very much on the fringe and has virtually no support in pro audio circles. It seems to a phenomenon confined to a small group in audiophile land. I find it interesting nonetheless as my starting this thread would indicate. Stick around as we trace the etiology. You may find it interesting.

[Paul R]

I don't think that was the concern Alex had - he was clearly concerned about the contents getting corrupted during a network transfer. Somehow I don't see how transfer using an USB stick would reduce the risk of confusion compared to a download, especially is the files are distinctly named and tagged.

 

I can see you don't see that, because you are not thinking it through. If part of the test criteria is- you must use the files off the included USB stick, then you reduce if not eliminate the probability of the file getting passed around bad being the wrong copy. If you don't do something like that, then your test data is far more suspect. Chain of possessin type of thing.

 

Ad for your other comment, I think what you are saying is along the lines of "it is more fun to do something -anything, even if it does not produce usable results- than to do something te right way."

 

Just passing around files to tet cables is a useless test, and would produce meaningless results. Won't stand up to even the most trivial peer review.

[Paul R]

Indeed. It's easy and cheap to throw around words about why a test is "not good enough", instead of actually spending the effort to run a test that can provide some valuable information, even if it isn't perfect.

 

Pitchforks and torches went out of favour in Europe once we sent our narrow-minded religious fanatics over to the (former) colonies.

 

It is just as easy to whine about doing nothing instead of wasting time and money on a teSt which will produce no reliable results.

 

But it is even easier to just go listen for ourself- and far more reliable than the test you propose.

 

And even forward thinking liberal European leading England was convicting people of witchcraft in the 1940s. Didn't repeal the 18th century witchcraft laws until 1951 in fact.

 

Uh huh...

[Julf]

I can see you don't see that, because you are not thinking it through.

 

Ah, thank you for pointing out what I was doing wrong.

 

I must have been confused by Alex writing:

 

As per what Cookie Marenco has found , the files on the USB memory stick would be best saved to it as Uncompressed Zips.

Yes, there is still a smalll degradation, but not as bad as going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters.

Not that I expect you to accept any of this ! Paul is simply suggesting a method that should ensure that everybody receives an identical copy of the comparison material.Even if you refuse to accept any reasons for differences, surely that method should be acceptable ?

Somehow I took that to imply that the issue was that the files would be degraded less using an USB stick compared to "going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters", and that the distribution method you suggested would be better as it would ensure the files would be identical instead of corrupted by the net.

 

I am glad you are so much better at understanding what Alex meant, and corrected my mistake. Much appreciated.

 

Just passing around files to tet cables is a useless test, and would produce meaningless results. Won't stand up to even the most trivial peer review.

 

Are you sure you aren't secretly an European naysayer?

[prufrock]

 

But it is even easier to just go listen for ourself- and far more reliable than the test you propose.

 

If you have been following this debate fairly closely to date, you will recognise the comment above as being a recurrent theme. Trust your ears. They do not lie.

[sjoc2000]

Again "Perception is reality"?

 

Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. As Einstein moved away from the town clock tower in a tram he perceived that if he went fast enough the clock tower time would slow down. For him this perception was reality, although many at the time would have put him in the category of chicken bones and runes ( I love that one 4est, and I mean that in a positive sense, not a negative one ).

 

This very "subtle" observation-perception, when rigorously examined proved to be real, and has dramatically changed human history. Therefore;

 

"I would appreciate your views on why a series of ABX tests on hi-res files recorded from the output of the DAC on a decent system, but using different USB cables, wouldn't show if there are audible differences or not." Julf

 

is not an unreasonable request. Now the subject here is a little less earth shaking than relativity, but the same principle is in play. If we take these subtle differences that are reported by some and examine objectively these claims we can learn something.

 

The fact that this has not been done, may be instructive. There are in fact many universities where people spend their lives examining such issues. There are many companies that would create an advantage for there market if objective data proved, or even seemed to indicate that these subtle experiences have a basis in fact. They have the resources to do such studies. Excuse my language, but a pissing match here about testing procedure, experimental design, and chi squares isn't really necessary. And, this is not a new debate, but has been going on for years, yet there is no data, no demonstrable evidence. Why is this...

 

In the meantime, play the music, have fun.

 

Jim

[Julf]

And even forward thinking liberal European leading England was convicting people of witchcraft in the 1940s. Didn't repeal the 18th century witchcraft laws until 1951 in fact.

 

Uh huh...

 

Indeed. On the other hand...

 

"Jane Wenham was among the last subjects of a typical witch trial in England in 1712, but was pardoned after her conviction and set free."

 

"The last execution of a witch in the Dutch Republic was probably in 1613. In Denmark this took place in 1693 with the execution of Anna Palles. In other parts of Europe, the practice died down later. In France the last person to be executed for witch craft was Louis Debaraz in 1745.In Germany the last death sentence was that of Anna Schwegelin in Kempten in 1775 (although not carried out). The last known official witch-trial was the Doruchow witch trial in Poland in 1783."

 

On the other hand, it seems the last documented witch trial in the US was the 1878 Ipswich Witchcraft Case in Massachusetts.

 

I think all we can conclude is that history is written by those who write history, and that no one has a monopoly on Chauvinism (in its original and primary meaning, "an exaggerated, bellicose patriotism and a belief in national superiority and glory").

[4est]

I guess you are referring to the fact that I have never actually compared cables myself. And as a consequence you think my opinion/analysis is of little value. However it also means I have no baggage or axe to grind either way. If they do make a difference I will accept that and buy what I have to accordingly. If not, same deal.

If I don't base my stance on my own personal listening, (or yours), what then? Well nothing extraordinary really. Just the usual perusal of the literature and some research. Pretty much the same as what you would do for any similar issue. It tells me your opinion is very much on the fringe and has virtually no support in pro audio circles. It seems to a phenomenon confined to a small group in audiophile land. I find it interesting nonetheless as my starting this thread would indicate. Stick around as we trace the etiology. You may find it interesting.

 

Etiology? This seems more a rant IMO. As to being on the fringe, doubtful, but I am fine with that. You may have misread me though as I was suggesting that you DO listen and make judgments yourself and not take others (or my) opinions on it. Had this started with I have tried these four cables I would feel different. Two is not enough as there really is some junk out there as ESL has mentioned, and at decent prices meaning not over the top, but not <$100 either. I'd have kept my mouth shut. As it is it still seems to me that you are unsure of your position and are looking for affirmation from the crowd.

[barrows]

Julf:

 

"You have a good point about the stress, and I totally agree with it. But if you can't resort to blinded tests, how do you protect yourself from perceptual biases?"

 

At some point I have to accept that some bias may creep in, but my experience shows that is (usually at least) not the case. Considering that the additional stress from being blinded generally makes the results moot, that is not an option. I find that short term tests are unreliable, and most subject to the kinds of bias that folks here talk about, but multiple longer term listening, in my experience, eliminates bias as a problem for me. Many times I will go into a test, where my expectation is that something will be one way, but my listening results are counter to my expectations-this happens often enough that I gain confidence in my ability to hear difference without biases affecting me.

Like anything, this kind of listening is a skill which is developed purposefully over time-I would not expect random subjects picked off the street to be able to do as well.

When I first started working at PS Audio, I took it upon myself to do critical listening for at least an hour every single day, as part of my job, often testing different components, cables, power conditioners. After about a year of this, I had developed skills which I did not posess previously, despite being an audiophile before working there.

Now, I prefer to listen for pleasure, and keep my analytical hat off most of the time, but every once in awhile I am called upon to test something new, and I find my skills remain pretty sharp (but not as good as they were when I was doing critical listening every day).

[Paul R]

Ah, thank you for pointing out what I was doing wrong.

 

I must have been confused by Alex writing:

 

Somehow I took that to imply that the issue was that the files would be degraded less using an USB stick compared to "going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters", and that the distribution method you suggested would be better as it would ensure the files would be identical instead of corrupted by the net.

 

I am glad you are so much better at understanding what Alex meant, and corrected my mistake. Much appreciated.

 

 

Alex said:

Not that I expect you to accept any of this ! Paul is simply suggesting a method that should ensure that everybody receives an identical copy of the comparison material.Even if you refuse to accept any reasons for differences, surely that method should be acceptable ?

 

Guess he was right. Either that or you simply choose to misinterpret.

 

Are you sure you aren't secretly an European naysayer?

 

Other than Paris, there isn't much of Europe I do not like, including or most especially, the people. I admit to being particularly found of the U.K.

 

Paul

[mav52]

Paul

x number of people out of a test population of y are able to hear differences in their own system.

say all of this occurred, once the results came back there are those that could or could not hear any difference. Was it their system ? their speakers, their headphones, are they all using the same interconnects, apple vs PC, cheap DAC vs high end DAC, tubes vs solid state, the wife bothering the poor soul, their age , it never stops if you know what I mean..

[Julf]

Guess he was right. Either that or you simply choose to misinterpret.

 

Or maybe I simply looked at the whole paragraph instead of just cutting out one half?

[Paul R]

Paul say all of this occurred, once the results came back there are those that could or could not hear any difference. Was it their system ? their speakers, their headphones, are they all using the same interconnects, apple vs PC, cheap DAC vs high end DAC, tubes vs solid state, the wife bothering the poor soul, their age , it never stops if you know what I mean..

 

Yes, of course. So let's play with that a bit. Assume that 100 people participated in the test.

 

Out of that, let us assume that 70 were able to detect some difference between cables. (I assume a high number because no further effort with this testing method would make sense if say, only 10 people could hear a difference. Not because I am pushing one result or the other.)

 

Out of those 70, how do we now go back and further narrow down equipment and other issues. I think I proposed a very bare minimum, and much more thinking and analysis would be needed before anything is actually implemented. Especially since we operate on very restricted budgets and have no prospect of financial gain from doing all this work.

 

Which is absolutely why the most prevalent form of this testing is individuals listening for their own purposes, and sharing their personal opinions.

 

Paul

[Paul R]

Ah, thank you for pointing out what I was doing wrong.

 

I must have been confused by Alex writing:

 

Somehow I took that to imply that the issue was that the files would be degraded less using an USB stick compared to "going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters", and that the distribution method you suggested would be better as it would ensure the files would be identical instead of corrupted by the net.

 

I am glad you are so much better at understanding what Alex meant, and corrected my mistake. Much appreciated.

 

 

 

Are you sure you aren't secretly an European naysayer?

 

More likely you simply choose the parts that agree with whatever you want to believe.

 

Paul

 

 

Or maybe I simply looked at the whole paragraph instead of just cutting out one half?

[Paul R]

Ah, thank you for pointing out what I was doing wrong.

 

I must have been confused by Alex writing:

 

Somehow I took that to imply that the issue was that the files would be degraded less using an USB stick compared to "going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters", and that the distribution method you suggested would be better as it would ensure the files would be identical instead of corrupted by the net.

 

I am glad you are so much better at understanding what Alex meant, and corrected my mistake. Much appreciated.

 

 

 

Are you sure you aren't secretly an European naysayer?

 

If you have been following this debate fairly closely to date, you will recognise the comment above as being a recurrent theme. Trust your ears. They do not lie.

 

I said that listening was probably just as reliable as the test that was proposed.

 

I did not say to always trust your ears, But ears are just as, or even more reliable than poorly constructed tests using other methods.

 

A heck of a lot cheaper too. I really don't like the idea of cables having an invisible surtax on them only to fund your testing- even less so when the testing methods are faulty and encourage unreliable or even false conclusions.

 

If I buy something, and feel ripped off, I have a choice of many remedies for the situation. Not a one of which actually needs to involve expensive testing packaged into the price to satisfy some consumer watchdog type of thing.

 

If you need that, you pay for it. Just don't try to push off some substandard testing as "proof" of what you want to believe.

 

 

 

Paul