The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

If you spend $$$$$ on a cable it really will improve the sound of your system!

 

Expectation bias works both ways, as does confirmation bias for that matter.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, John Dyson said:

It is so funny to hear about all kinds of strange beliefs about 'quality' in the audiophile world.  Even audiophile recordings (not even talking about FeralA) have often been made using equipment with off-the-shelf, and sometimes ugly technologies and cables.   Those recordings can sound really good, and be of full audiophile quality.

 

One problem in the audio world, probably other hobby worlds also, that two people with similar misunderstandings will re-enforce an mistaken belief.  Dunning-Kruger is operative here where two people will each not understand the depth of their knowledge, re-enforicing a mistaken belief.  There is a poor risk/reward for technically compteent people to try to explain things to people who do not want to know, who already know 'everything.'   Even now, my ego encourages accepting my own mistakes -- opposite of many people.  My philosophy is to accept a mistake earlier on, rather than to continually compound the folly.

Now, I'll give a technically accurate evaluation about cables:  Sometimes there are really bad cables, sometimes the interfaces to/from the cables are not well designed/bad grounding, sometimes the RFI environment is egregiously bad, sometimes experiments are poorly controlled.  Sometimes, people simply want to believe something strange, and will psychologically make that fake-fact true in their own minds.

 

There are actual, scientific explanations for given observations, but the observation might be in error, the analysis is often very defective, and the conclusions are sometimes absurd.   Until a correspondent understands&accept the possibility of these potential flaws, and looks at a situation with an open mind, it isn't helpful for an actual expert to participate in the discussion.  It is best for the expert to demure even if that true expert REALLY KNOWS what is going on...

 

John

 

 

 

 

I almost fully agree with this John except:

 

"psychologically make that fake-fact true in their own minds." presupposes you are absolutely certain they are wrong ...and that it can only be explained by expectation bias

 

and

 

"It is best for the expert to demure even if that true expert REALLY KNOWS what is going on..."

 

If you meant demur (not demure) then I disagree, anyone can object, hesitate or question. As for expert appeal to authority -Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion that... "really knows"

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, PYP said:

Objectivists:  what say you?

 

They say fairies, damn fairies !

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

It's actually not that hard to get control over all those variables

 

"It's actually not that hard to get control over all those variables". I vote that quote should be the motto of every scientist and researcher.

 

nothing like faith in positive affirmations !🤣

 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

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

That’s OK for them. They are SELLNG something; they have to stay abreast of the competition, I’m not selling anything. I’m just listening to music and occasionally I record it. So I just have to please myself. I can do that without obsessing over differences so small that many are half heard and half imagined. it seems that’s become the game. Who can detect the more vanishingly small difference? That might be a fun pastime for many, but gee, isn’t this hobby about listening to music? It is for me. I’m not knocking those who like to continually swap cables and obsess over tiny differences in sound. It’s just not for me.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That’s OK for them. They are SELLNG something; they have to stay abreast of the competition, I’m not selling anything. I’m just listening to music and occasionally I record it. So I just have to please myself. I can do that without obsessing over differences so small that many are half heard and half imagined. it seems that’s become the game. Who can detect the more vanishingly small difference? That might be a fun pastime for many, but gee, isn’t this hobby about listening to music? It is for me. I’m not knocking those who like to continually swap cables and obsess over tiny differences in sound. It’s just not for me.

 

I totally get it George. I have to say tho it seems a little curious coming from a professional audio reviewer but then again your personal listening habits don't have to reflect your job as a reviewer. As a (trusted) reviewer its good to know what you think is unimportant as well as important - at least as a starting point.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

No clue! If it’s below the threshold of hearing, who cares? That was my point.

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

 

Where audio minds typically operate, is that they think they've scored a goal if it's 10% better than it needs to be ... my belief is that it needs to be 10x better - to be called robust!

 

If you pulled that transformer out of the chain, when the latter was operating at a high SQ, what changes do you hear, if any - what "gets worse"?

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Well this is just wrong at a number of levels.

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-placebo-effect-amazing-and-real-201511028544
 

That’s from Harvard, shall we continue? Provide evidence or a reference to counter

[Richard Dale]

20 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-placebo-effect-amazing-and-real-201511028544
 

That’s from Harvard, shall we continue? Provide evidence or a reference to counter

There is no connection between the term ‘placebo effect’ used in a medical context (whether or not it actually exists), and the term ‘placebo effect’ when used by a HiFi ‘objectivist’ framing their usual arguments. The latter use is simply something they made up.

[jabbr]

3 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

There is no connection between the term ‘placebo effect’ used in a medical context (whether or not it actually exists), and the term ‘placebo effect’ when used by a HiFi ‘objectivist’ framing their usual arguments. The latter use is simply something they made up.

 

What is the basis for your claim? The fact that you seem to question the existence of the placebo effect suggests to me that your understanding of this subject is suspect.

 

How about this: Your brain determines what you hear. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

17 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

 It cures diseases with a surprisingly high effectiveness.

 

30 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-placebo-effect-amazing-and-real-201511028544
 

That’s from Harvard, shall we continue? Provide evidence or a reference to counter

 

I have peer reviewed articles from many medical journals and from Harvard.....

 

Professor Ted Kaptchuk of Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, whose research focuses on the placebo effect.

"Placebos won't lower your cholesterol or shrink a tumor. Instead, placebos work on symptoms modulated by the brain, like the perception of pain. Placebos may make you feel better, but they will not cure you," says Kaptchuk.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

 

Placebo is something I have studied for many years. It is a real psychobiological effect. I am happy to discuss any aspect you wish. I believe there would be some things that may surprise you. Interesting stuff

[pkane2001]

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

"It's actually not that hard to get control over all those variables". I vote that quote should be the motto of every scientist and researcher.

 

nothing like faith in positive affirmations !🤣

 

 

 

You are going in circles. According to you everything is a hypothesis looking for an experiment, but there is no way to construct a proper experiment. So, let's continue spouting baseless hypothesis and then argue that any evidence against them cannot be tested. 

 

 

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

I have peer reviewed articles from many medical journals and from Harvard.....

 

Professor Ted Kaptchuk of Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, whose research focuses on the placebo effect.

Placebos won't lower your cholesterol or shrink a tumor. Instead, placebos work on symptoms modulated by the brain, like the perception of pain. "Placebos may make you feel better, but they will not cure you," says Kaptchuk.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

 

Placebo is something I have studied for many years. It is a real psychobiological effect. I am happy to discuss any aspect you wish. I believe there would be some things that may surprise you. Interesting stuff

 

https://www.syracuse.com/cny/2010/07/studying_voodoo_death_syracuse_cardiologist_makes_sense_of_rare_heart_disorder.html

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17455536/

 

It goes both ways. The brain has a powerful ability to modulate the body. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that the Placebo Effect is everything, but certainly when we are talking about sensory perception the brain determines what the perception is.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

https://www.syracuse.com/cny/2010/07/studying_voodoo_death_syracuse_cardiologist_makes_sense_of_rare_heart_disorder.html

 

It goes both ways. The brain has a powerful ability to modulate the body. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that the Placebo Effect is everything, but certainly when we are talking about sensory perception the brain determines what the perception is.

 

I haven't read the "voodoo" article but I will say your claim about curing diseases is just plain wrong. There are a whole lot more interesting things that have been researched in the last 70 years including that placebo is NOT as powerful as what was originally thought. Henry Beecher popularized the concept of the placebo effect and brought it to the attention of the medical community in his classic 1955 JAMA article, “The Powerful Placebo” . I can walk you through the history from there. It is fascinating and I daresay has implications to the way we view expectation bias in audio. At one stage I was going to do a thesis on placebo and its effect.

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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

 

I am certain that there is a specification placing *limits* on what compliant errors may be.

 

The common way to think of this is as an eye-pattern. The signal must fall within a very tight eye.

 

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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.

 

Ok, but to be clear, I used fiber as an example of a way to test a hypothesis of why Ethernet cables might have an sound. Another test would be to use shielded vs unshielded cables. This test is designed to block RF/EMI noise. It was suggested that RF *noise* might travel though the fiberoptic ethernet cable. I counter that the required eye pattern does not allow for such significant noise. 

 

I don't need to do an experiment to counter every hypothetical. If someone wants to pursue the possibility that fiberoptic Ethernet can transmit RF as noise/sideband then feel free to do your own measurement.

 

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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

 

No, I choose to do things that I judge likely to be of value. Most often you do your state your hypothesis, do your experiment, discuss and publish. Other peoples objections can be handled later. 

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I haven't read the "voodoo" article but I will say your claim about curing diseases is just plain wrong. There are a whole lot more interesting things that have been researched in the last 70 years including that placebo is NOT as powerful as what was originally thought. Henry Beecher popularized the concept of the placebo effect and brought it to the attention of the medical community in his classic 1955 JAMA article, “The Powerful Placebo” . I can walk you through the history from there. It is fascinating and I daresay has implications to the way we view expectation bias in audio. At one stage I was going to do a thesis on placebo and its effect.

 

Since you have such a strong background in science, I am puzzled with your difficulty proposing a simple testable hypothesis for why cables have sound, to get back on topic.  

 

Alex says that you were there when the AC power cables were determined to have sound -- so lets hear YOUR hypothesis and method of testing.

 

I don't expect folks without a science background to know how to do this, you you have a background, have peer reviewed many papers from Harvard, so surely you can state a hypothesis for AC cables and propose a method of testing.

[jabbr]

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I haven't read the "voodoo" article but I will say your claim about curing diseases is just plain wrong. There are a whole lot more interesting things that have been researched in the last 70 years including that placebo is NOT as powerful as what was originally thought.

 

In any case, at least here in the USA, the FDA requires randomized double blind placebo controlled trials in most cases. If the scientific community, including our National Academy felt otherwise, then things would be different. Admittedly this is up for discussion. I am not saying that the placebo cures cancer or serious disease, hardly, rather that it is an effect that needs to be accounted for -- and is.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I am certain that there is a specification placing *limits* on what compliant errors may be.

 

Then what is it. I don't mean tell me now, but surely it is relevant to your hypothesis?

 

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

The common way to think of this is as an eye-pattern. The signal must fall within a very tight eye.

 

Must? .... or should - within certain margins of error. That's all I'm saying.

 

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I don't need to do an experiment to counter every hypothetical. If someone wants to pursue the possibility that fiberoptic Ethernet can transmit RF as noise/sideband then feel free to do your own measurement.

 

So your hypothesis is restricted to EMI? Ok, sorry, my error.

 

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

No, I choose to do things that I judge likely to be of value. Most often you do your state your hypothesis, do your experiment, discuss and publish. Other peoples objections can be handled later. 

 

My point was that science expects you to consider how you might be wrong just as much as how you might be right. Its about being impartial and considering all angles. IF others can pick holes in your hypothesis you need to consider them before you proceed because you can be damn sure that after the fact, they will bring it up once you have spent a whole lot of time and money doing your experiment.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Since you have such a strong background in science, I am puzzled with your difficulty proposing a simple testable hypothesis for why cables have sound, to get back on topic.  

 

I DID state a null hypothesis, I just didn't elaborate on the method. I also stated it won't be me because I know how difficult it is. It is also costly. I also said it falls to those that care enough about the results. I am curious but not crazy !😉

 

 

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Must? .... or should - within certain margins of error. That's all I'm saying.

 

To be considered "compliant" it must fall within certain margins of error with infrequent exceptions.

 

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

So your hypothesis is restricted to EMI? Ok, sorry, my error.

 

My hypothesis is that in certain cables, when grounded at source, the cable shield becomes part of the source devices ground plane, and this can alter transmission of RF/EMI down the cable (or consider that the RF/EMI is radiated through the shield). 

 

I have never said this is always the case or is always relevent. I proposed this as an electrical explanation of why cases might, under certain circumstances have sound, despite measuring the same in terms of RLC.

 

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

My point was that science expects you to consider how you might be wrong just as much as how you might be right. Its about being impartial and considering all angles. IF others can pick holes in your hypothesis you need to consider them before you proceed because you can be damn sure that after the fact, they will bring it up once you have spent a whole lot of time and money doing your experiment.

 

I don't intend to do a formal experiment, I simply switched to fiberoptic ethernet in 2015, both for fun, for a learning experience, as well as to eliminate this as a possibility. (I had a problem with ground loops that was maddening). Fiber is cheap and audiophile ethernet cables are expensive. I have no financial gain in this. Perhaps my "reputation" but I don't use my professional name here, so really this is all for fun, and debate, and giving folks a cheap solution to ground loops/leakage current/EMI.

 

If I were to do a formal experiment, either an organization would need to fund i.e. a grant, or else if I were offering a commercial product, I would publish measurements.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

26 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

In any case, at least here in the USA, the FDA requires randomized double blind placebo controlled trials in most cases.

 

Yes I know. I will also add prospective (not retrospective) to that list.

There are also levels of evidence quality and British but internationally based organizations like the Cochrane Collaboration of systematic reviews

 

Quote

I am not saying that the placebo cures cancer or serious disease, hardly, rather that it is an effect that needs to be accounted for -- and is.

 

Of course it is but it is not as easy or as straight forward as some might think

[jabbr]

23 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I DID state a null hypothesis, I just didn't elaborate on the method. I also stated it won't be me because I know how difficult it is. It is also costly. I also said it falls to those that care enough about the results. I am curious but not crazy !😉

 

 

Ok, then let's consider AC power cables for the moment. It is possible that a cable could filter out noise on the AC line ... hmm ok then in all cases, a good isolation transformer is far better than what a puny cable could do, or else one of those ham radio AC line filters ... and I use both. A hypothesis could be stated thus:

 

<hyp>

AC power cables might filter EMI from the line.

</hyp>

<exp>

If a sound difference is detected between two AC power cables, this would be reduced or eliminated by employing a good isolation transformer and RF/EMI filtering to the AC source.

</exp>

 

Needless to say, I use isolation transformers (Equitech and Topaz) and sometimes RF/EMI filters (a box inline to the AC cord) and hospital grade AC cables but otherwise have no desire to "listen" to AC power cables.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

My hypothesis is that in certain cables, when grounded at source, the cable shield becomes part of the source devices ground plane, and this can alter transmission of RF/EMI down the cable (or consider that the RF/EMI is radiated through the shield). 

 

Isn't this John Swenson's idea?

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Isn't this John Swenson's idea?

 

Its not his original idea, I think I learned this from Ott's textbook, or another high speed digital textbook. I don't fully understand John's thoughts but he might very well have said this. Do you have a quote?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Ok, then let's consider AC power cables for the moment. It is possible that a cable could filter out noise on the AC line ... hmm ok then in all cases, a good isolation transformer is far better than what a puny cable could do, or else one of those ham radio AC line filters ... and I use both. A hypothesis could be stated thus:

 

<hyp>

AC power cables might filter EMI from the line.

</hyp>

<exp>

If a sound difference is detected between two AC power cables, this would be reduced or eliminated by employing a good isolation transformer and RF/EMI filtering to the AC source.

</exp>

We are now talking about possible reasons or explanations. Until SOMEONE does the experiment, and we have established it will not be you or I, it remains possible explanation aka hypothesis or theory. 

This is the crux of the issue. You may be pretty sure you are right but if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. Disagree with experiment means someone has rejected the null hypothesis by testing it. It just takes one counter example. Laws of thermodynamics and maxwell's equations will not be harmed in any experiment, and bridges won't fall down or planes fall from the sky 🙂

Now, without experiment we are left in some doubt. Each will weigh the merits of the supporting scientific evidence and make up their own minds about what they believe.