The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

I don’t know his work, but we take lots of medicines that do no more than modulate symptoms. Cures are relatively rare. Pain can be disabling. Nonetheless we require that a marketed drug be better than placebo  

 

I only mentioned Professor Ted Kaptchuk of Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center as you cited "Harvard" as your reference. IIRC both articles were more like editorial  articles written by third parties, no matter. I have a great many actual peer reviewed journal articles from around the world spanning decades. None substantiate your retracted claim about placebo effect. That's ok, we're good.

 

This in no way changes the relevance of placebo in medicine and approach to testing.

 

 

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

For power cables there is no such requirement, nor can conclusions be drawn one way or the other. If this were studied you could say, for example: ok 20% of the improvement is attributed to placebo but 80% of the improvement is attributable to the phlogiston 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

We are back to doing the experiments (and eliminating confounds) and yes I agree, until such time as a rigorous unbiased scientific approach is completed, the issue will not be settled, FWIW, and if anyone cares beyond eliminating a means of ridicule or sarcasm. Terms like phlogiston don't help.

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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"?

Purely subjective, here, of course. With all the baggage that infers, the system gets a bit “fuzzy“ with the bass getting less well controlled without the transformer. I’ve done the “experiment” at one time or another, for all of my audiophile friends, and all have heard it. It’s not a great change and the system doesn’t sound so much worse that I couldn’t live with it, but I bought the hospital mains isolation transformer for peanuts, so I might as well use it...

[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.

[jabbr]

26 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

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

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

There is NO leading edge science going on here in audio -- it is all well understood for at least the last 20-30yrs, and fairly well understood for 30yrs before that.  The math has been solid for 20-30yrs before that (Nyquist, sampling theory, statistics -- much from Bell Labs.)   Point being -- there is little room or need for metaphysics in the audio world.   The mathematical understanding and the experience of the actual engineering community is strong enough that silly claims are pretty darned easy to spot.

 

Some assertions made in some audiophile forums are bordering on totally delusional -- there are really competent engineers out there, there is absolutely no need to be a leading edge scientist, some claims are just wrong....   This all means that the observations might have truth in them, but when observations are made with a faulty sensor, and processed with a poorly programmed computer, then the results are likely going to be eccentric, aren't they?  The results are going to have errors.l

Hi John

It is a long post with good points but I have fundamental disagreements.

 

If we look politely at the situation it could be considered that such disagreements might be what separates some engineers and scientists.Now, I already predict people will take what I now say the wrong way but please don't....engineers are trained to apply science within practical tolerances, to implement and make it work. Scientists are also interested in the practical and no-one has to invoke metaphysics or other pejoratives like delusions to justify scientific skepticism. Yes, I know,skepticism is supposed to be only about puzzling subjectivist claims, right? 

 

So if some engineers, or even so called scientists say " we are experts and we really, really know we are right, trust us and our science that launches spaceships....we are reaaaalllly right". Real scientists say, Really? Sounds more like a religion. Lets see. You say unnecessary, I say necessary....especially when it comes to the perception of music as the outcome of the enquiry

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Some assertions made in some audiophile forums are bordering on totally delusional -- there are really competent engineers out there, there is absolutely no need to be a leading edge scientist, some claims are just wrong....   This all means that the observations might have truth in them, but when observations are made with a faulty sensor, and processed with a poorly programmed computer, then the results are likely going to be eccentric, aren't they?  The results are going to have errors.l

 

Okay you say "observations might have truth in them, but when observations are made with a faulty sensor, and processed with a poorly programmed computer, then the results are likely going to be eccentric, aren't they?  The results are going to have errors."

 

So, as I see it you are undermining your own argument because such flaws could skew any conclusion.

 

It boils down to a rejection that you must be right without taking the necessary steps. I agree that it is not always practical and in some cases, sure it is acceptable to reject absurd claims until such time as the claimant provides additional evidence and the results of experiment. HOWEVER, IMO hearing differences in cables or components as reported by a great many is simply an observation. The explanation may not be forthcoming and what is offered may be absurd, but in and of itself doesn't negate the observations without further inquiry. That's an open mind at work.That is how science works, you test your ideas through experiment. If you want to believe something else you are free to do so.

 

Great eureka scientific moments probably come less with "I told you so" as much as, "What the Fuck!"

[fas42]

11 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

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. 

 

 

The overall, working principle is very simple ... most audio gear is not engineered well enough to be completely impervious to frequently occurring levels of intererence. Noise derived from any mechanism, whether one can call it  jitter, a poor eye pattern, RF/EMI, etc, etc, are all forms of interference, which may impact the analogue side of the playback chain - one can a) eliminate all noise, or b) add heroic levels of isolating structures to protect the fragile circuitry, or c) do a bit of both. Most sensible thing is to do c) ... you know you've done enough when any extra work along these lines doesn't improve, or change the sound.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

are you suggesting that the single ASIC somehow switches the RF noise from input to output? It seems to me that the noise would multiply and quickly blow the eye pattern. 
 

 

I am just questioning (asking) how it works. I never have 100% faith in tests until someone tells me how good the test is....and then it is as good as the tests of test demonstrates.No more, no less.

 

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

 

Until someone demonstrates with good data that that occurs, I don’t believe it happens. 

 

Totally agree.

BTW this is why I am open to fiberoptic as a better digital interface, maybe. That doesn't mean I do not question why or that at the end of the day, for me at least, listening is required. I am less concerned with an academic exercise than how that translates to a better listening experience.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, PYP said:

 

Really?  How so?  Rather than accepting a label for myself, perhaps this explains it:  I don't think a power cord should make a difference because I can't find a reason why it should, but since others report differences and I believe not everything that can be heard can be measured, I decided to give it a try.  The first tries were unsuccessful and I gave it a rest.  When when I bumped into ICs that really worked for me, I thought it might time to try again.  This time, I was very surprised by the result and that cord is still in my system.

 

While in theory it would be interesting to test cords, that just isn't where I am now, if you know what I mean.  I would need to recall my younger self and it isn't working.     I'm not on this thread to convince anyone that my approach is verifiable by measurement, but am very interested to understand what folks measure and why.  I respect your informed opinions, but that is what they are.  No offense intended.  

 

A hint: people try and simplify what a power cord is - and it's not a number of perfect conductors in a form which has zero parasitic electrical behaviours, with exquisitely well defined L,C, R parameters - and nothing else. The latter is the kindergarten level of understanding - and will only get one so far ...

 

Which is not an excuse for going out and buying ridiculously expensive cables, just for the hell of it - trying to understand what might be going on is far more useful - and cheap.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, PYP said:

 

Really?  How so?  Rather than accepting a label for myself, perhaps this explains it:  I don't think a power cord should make a difference because I can't find a reason why it should, but since others report differences and I believe not everything that can be heard can be measured, I decided to give it a try.  The first tries were unsuccessful and I gave it a rest.  When when I bumped into ICs that really worked for me, I thought it might time to try again.  This time, I was very surprised by the result and that cord is still in my system.

 

While in theory it would be interesting to test cords, that just isn't where I am now, if you know what I mean.  I would need to recall my younger self and it isn't working.     I'm not on this thread to convince anyone that my approach is verifiable by measurement, but am very interested to understand what folks measure and why.  I respect your informed opinions, but that is what they are.  No offense intended.  

Exactly!

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I am just questioning (asking) how it works. I never have 100% faith in tests until someone tells me how good the test is....and then it is as good as the tests of test demonstrates.No more, no less.

 

Yes but the answer is technical and what is available on the web (eg from Tektronics or Agilent/Keysight) is far better than I can interpret...

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

Totally agree.

BTW this is why I am open to fiberoptic as a better digital interface, maybe. That doesn't mean I do not question why or that at the end of the day, for me at least, listening is required. I am less concerned with an academic exercise than how that translates to a better listening experience.

 

I would never claim that everyone has an EMI problem, or that changing a cable would ever “solve” anything but I once had an EMI problem with a DAC attached to my PC. An Ethernet isolation improved and fiber improved a wee bit more, for me. It’s cheap.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

If you want science, you need objective measurements

That's an excellent part😉........of developing an excellent scientific hypothesis. yeh,yeh I know, you don't need no stinkin' experimental evidence 🙄 Einstein and Feynman were just eggheads, sticklers for unnecessary details ...(just kidding Jonathan and I await the usual suspects sayin, Oh yeh! Einstein woulda agreed with me, you're all delusional.....I disagree in advance 😉)

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

We are back to doing the experiments (and eliminating confounds) and yes I agree, until such time as a rigorous unbiased scientific approach is completed, the issue will not be settled, FWIW, and if anyone cares beyond eliminating a means of ridicule or sarcasm. Terms like phlogiston don't help.

If you wish to validate your sensory experience scientifically, then you need to do that. 1) Form a testable hypothesis 2) Test the hypothesis. 3) Discuss your findings with reference to known science. The science of electromagnetism is perhaps the most established science of all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary validation.
 

There’s physics and metaphysics: pick one if you want an explanation. Phlogiston is an ode to metaphysics. You might not like the term but there are only two choices. 

[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

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Purely subjective, here, of course. With all the baggage that infers, the system gets a bit “fuzzy“ with the bass getting less well controlled without the transformer. I’ve done the “experiment” at one time or another, for all of my audiophile friends, and all have heard it. It’s not a great change and the system doesn’t sound so much worse that I couldn’t live with it, but I bought the hospital mains isolation transformer for peanuts, so I might as well use it...

 

So, there is an well established SQ change - where I operate is that that I say, OK, the system is sensitive to the quality of the mains power - and the isolating transformer changes that enough to be quite audible - therefore, how sensitive is the system, and how effective is that transformer in removing every last shred of mains behaviour that impacts the rig? ... I would do a whole series of experiments to create a working understanding of where the system was at, by carefully changing, increasing the filtering; and adding electrical devices onto the mains which generate excessive noise - I'm expanding my awareness of what's going on, and what can possibly be done to improve the situation.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

You are free to be biased, but your statements won’t get the same consideration as if you were neutral. 

 

41 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I am very biased .........toward explanations that fit within established frameworks supported by well developed theories and empirical data.

hmmmnn

kidding 🤣😜

[jabbr]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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,

I suspect you have no real idea what a real DBT is, nor what I would consider “scrupulously validated”.

 

I don’t consider your claims validated, nor do I think you are capable of validating them. Not only that but when I listened on my own system I heard no difference. 
 

Furthermore you are trying to steer the topic toward PSU which is entirely off topic for this thread.
 

Moreover in the matter of electromagnetic physics, “DBT” are completely worthless as a validation method.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, there is an well established SQ change - where I operate is that that I say, OK, the system is sensitive to the quality of the mains power - and the isolating transformer changes that enough to be quite audible - therefore, how sensitive is the system, and how effective is that transformer in removing every last shred of mains behaviour that impacts the rig? ... I would do a whole series of experiments to create a working understanding of where the system was at, by carefully changing, increasing the filtering; and adding electrical devices onto the mains which generate excessive noise - I'm expanding my awareness of what's going on, and what can possibly be done to improve the situation.

 Now the interesting thing here is how this minor change can get all the way through the system, including the DAC, presumably with no Binary errors, or are we assuming , most likely incorrectly, that only the Digital Area such as a DAC is impervious to these minor imperfections in the A.C. mains supply area ?

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

To paraphrase Henry Higgins from Shaw’s (and Lerner and Lowe’s) Pygmalion, “I will never let a Boutique interconnect in my life!”

 

Sure that works for you.👌

 

Also from Pygmalion:

 

“If you can't appreciate what you've got, you'd better get what you can appreciate.” ...

“Happy is the man who can make a living by his hobby” ...

“What is life but a series of inspired follies? ...

-----

fun is where you find it - AN

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I suspect you have no real idea what a real DBT is, nor what I would consider “scrupulously validated”.

 Even Eloise appeared to be happy with the way they were performed after becoming an HiFi Critic member to ask directly.

 Yet, you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable than others in this area, although most likely never having performed a series of DBTs for publication in your life.

 Why should it surprise me that you were unable to hear the differences back then, when you don't believe that the Source PC/Server matters, and weren't even using Ethernet Optical back then ?

Besides which, it's not just Digital Audio  that is affected by the PSU area, the same applies for Digital Video as Paul R. and ACG ( Anthony) have verified . 

[jabbr]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Even Eloise appeared to be happy with the way they were performed after becoming an HiFi Critic member to ask directly.

 Yet, you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable than others in this area, although most likely never having performed a series of DBTs to publication standards in your life.

I have no idea nor care who “Eloise” is. I am willing to tell you what it would take to convince me. I strongly doubt you could articulate what it would take to convince you that you are wrong. DBTs are done daily in the life sciences. They would not convince me of your claim, though a well done DBT might pique my curiosity enough to try and measure something. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

22 minutes ago, jabbr said:

If you wish to validate your sensory experience scientifically, then you need to do that. 1) Form a testable hypothesis 2) Test the hypothesis. 3) Discuss your findings with reference to known science.

 

 

In the words of George (Shaw and Graves reference to Pygmalion) "By George, I think HE'S got it

 

 

22 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

There’s physics and metaphysics: pick one

 

Physics

 

but philosophy of science and knowing what is real is also important. How do we know what we know. Epistemology and Ontology - Physicists actually discuss this a lot IME.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

31 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Moreover in the matter of electromagnetic physics, “DBT” are completely worthless as a validation method.

 

ehhr I know I am going to regret this but not in the context of how it then applies to the perception of music, and that is/relates to the topic

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Now the interesting thing here is how this minor change can get all the way through the system, including the DAC, presumably with no Binary errors, or are we assuming , most likely incorrectly, that only the Digital Area such as a DAC is impervious to these minor imperfections in the A.C. mains supply area ?

 

 

The DAC itself is highly likely to be sensitive to this, because it's a hybrid circuit - part digital, part analogue. It's the transition area between those two worlds, and is especially critical. Preceding digital circuitry's job is to try and be as well behaved as possible, in the analogue sense, so that it doesn't present anything other than an ideal, digital, waveform to the DAC - to get the best result.