The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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

Of course!  Perception,  by the brain,  is what this is all about

 

Lets postúlate that there is no electrical difference, nothing measurable by any measurement technique. Yet there is a sound perception difference. What do you conclude?

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

  though a well done DBT might pique my curiosity enough to try and measure something. 

 It's a shame that the Red Pill/Blue Pill thread didn't further continue, although Mansr was unable, just like al.fe,  to find any differences in the Digital area. So, I am far from being the only one to make such reports.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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

 

 

How it works is that ego steps forward, and proclaims "we really, really know we are right, trust us and our science that launches spaceships" ... because they have got away with the procedures used up to that point ... then there's an "Uh, oh!!" moment, when bits and pieces fly in all directions ... and the cockiness side of things has to take a back seat for a while ... 😁.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Of course!  Perception,  by the brain,  is what this is all about

 

Lets postúlate that there is no electrical difference, nothing measurable by any measurement technique. Yet there is a sound perception difference. What do you conclude?

 

is this a trick question? No Matter

 

you don't have to postulate, it happens constantly as far as I can tell.

 

The scientifically correct answer is a) there is a difference in sound that tests have not detected (for any number of reasons) or b) there is no difference in the eliciting sound stimulus and something else explains the perception (for any number of reasons)

[jabbr]

18 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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

 

 

 

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.

Love it. 
 

Why Physics? Some people consider that a religion just like any other.

[jabbr]

13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The scientifically correct answer is a) there is a difference in sound that tests have not detected (for any number of reasons) or b) there is no difference in the eliciting sound stimulus and something else explains the perception (for any number of reasons)

I mean the electricity entering the speaker is not different ie (b) yet the perception is different. What could it be?

 

Now consider when 1000 people hear the same difference in perception (though the electricity is identical)

[PYP]

57 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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 😉)

 

Didn't Einstein's wife do the math?     Just kidding.  That brilliant light was one of a kind.  Still think he was an alien and helped build the pyramids, but I continue to be a power cable skeptic.  

 

I remember Feynman testifying before Congress about the tragic Challenger explosion.  He dipped an o-ring into cold water and observed that it became inflexible.  Folks were sitting there thinking:  WTF? (I was thinking:  who f'd this up?  Not the engineers.)  I must admit to believing that "simple" (extremely focused and unencumbered) observation is a guiding light of all kinds of disciplines (and living well).  Didn't take long to find out that Feynman was correct and that the engineers already knew this.  It was management, not listening to the engineers, who caused the tragedy.  

 

But, back to our regularly scheduled programming....

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

24 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Love it. 
 

Why Physics? Some people consider that a religion just like any other.

I love Physics. I did it concurrently with Medicine for two years (Nuclear medicine then also had some appeal). I dropped it when the maths got too much and Medicine and girls were more ...appealing🤷‍♂️. In many ways I wish I had continued 'to get the letters' but I still enjoy it.

 

I think Physics as a religion would be insulting to a Physicist (but the two are not mutually exclusive strangely enough) but I agree there are some that worship at the altar of science. It seems antithetical to me. One is faith based ,one is not.

 

Physics and metaphysics (ontology) are complementary as is epistemology, logic and reasoning.

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I mean the electricity entering the speaker is not different ie (b) yet the perception is different. What could it be?

 That is yet another assumption, as it's difficult to measure , preferably by Analogue means,  minute differences on actual Music material at the speakers themselves.  A reminder too,  that Chris is now hearing clear repeatable differences with his new RAAL-requisite SR1a headphones despite the Benchmark gear being virtually perfect according to the usual raft of measurements from A.S.R.

[jabbr]

13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I think Physics as a religion would be insulting to a Physicist (but the two are not mutually exclusive strangely enough) but I agree there are some that worship at the altar of science. It seems antithetical to me. One is faith based ,one is not.

Perhaps physics is better than the alternative at making useful predictions, designing transistors, ICs, ADCs, filters, DACs, SMPS, speakers, short everything we do in audio let alone the rest of the Internet. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

27 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I mean the electricity entering the speaker is not different ie (b) yet the perception is different. What could it be?

 

Now consider when 1000 people hear the same difference in perception (though the electricity is identical)

 

Ok, then unlike "Russell's Teapot" i say, hmmm I wonder what's going on here. maybe i should listen or at least enquire further. If the number then raises to 1001 my interest is further piqued. I still question whether the tests that assert no electrical difference may be wrong or there is some other variable not accounted for. I also still consider that just the perception has altered, nothing else. I would be curious to know how many people do not report the difference,is it 1000 naysayers (50/50) or ten million. Sample size counts

[jabbr]

9 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Ok, then unlike "Russell's Teapot" i say, hmmm I wonder what's going on here. maybe i should listen or at least enquire further. If the number then raises to 1001 my interest is further piqued. I still question whether the tests that assert no electrical difference may be wrong or there is some other variable not accounted for. I also still consider that just the perception has altered, nothing else. I would be curious to know how many people do not report the difference,is it 1000 naysayers (50/50) or ten million. Sample size counts

It’s not a trick question. I assert no electrical difference. Pick any sample size you choose. There is a perceptual difference. 
 

Indulge me for a moment. (though the possibility that there is an as yet un measured electrical difference is apropos russell’s teapot  

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

It’s not a trick question. I assert no electrical difference. Pick any sample size you choose. There is a perceptual difference. 

 

On the basis of no difference in the ilicting stimulus, not just electrical, then the conventional wisdom is expectation bias. Other factors like central auditory processing variations and hallucinations should wash out if the numbers are big enough. Even shared illusions should not explain it IF there is no change to the stimulus.

[jabbr]

14 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

On the basis of no difference in the ilicting stimulus, not just electrical, then the conventional wisdom is expectation bias. Other factors like central auditory processing variations and hallucinations should wash out if the numbers are big enough. Even shared illusions should not explain it IF there is no change to the stimulus.

Expectation bias is one type of bias, but bias in the electrical sense describes a voltage applied to a transistor to “push” the function in one direction — so there is something pushing the sensory perception in a direction other than the electricity. 
 

So you’d need to look at the universe of possible biases and determine the explanation. Now, hmm, if I suggest EMI as a possible mechanism, it doesn’t depend on extra electrical bias. No doubt that I have a psychological bias using nice yellow single mode fiber that I personally threaded across my attic, down a laundry chute and into my server room 😂 yet I’m not claiming that 100Gbe is any better SQ than 10Gbe so there!!

 

(and I hesitate to discuss SQ differences because I admit my bias, so I’ll let the opticalRendu and Lumin users to SQ reports  

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

Expectation bias is one type of bias, but bias in the electrical sense describes a voltage applied to a transistor to “push” the function in one direction — so there is something pushing the sensory perception in a direction other than the electricity. 

Yes but the electrical bias has not changed, by definition. My amp has adjustable bias - but we are saying the stimulus has not changed.

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Yes but the electrical bias has not changed, by definition. My amp has adjustable bias - but we are saying the stimulus has not changed.

Right, we are talking extra electrical bias — you tell me what it is  

 

Have you done blind wine tastings? They are very fun!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Right, we are talking extra electrical bias — you tell me what it is  

 

Ok, but the premise is still that the stimulus has not changed in any way.

 

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Have you done blind wine tastings? They are very fun!

 

Yes and agreed

[gmgraves]

2 hours 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.

Ok, you do that, Frank. I’m not neurotic enough.

[jabbr]

24 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Ok, but the premise is still that the stimulus has not changed in any way.

Ok so ... use a high quality isolation transformer. If you hear an SQ difference between AC power cables either a) demonstrate a measurement difference at the DAC output*** or

b) explain the sensory bias

 

Tell me?

*** it’s trivial to measure electrical differences between DACs and amps

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Ok so ... use a high quality isolation transformer. If you hear an SQ difference between AC power cables either a) demonstrate a measurement difference at the DAC output

 It has already been mentioned that a higher quality Mains cable may result in less noise being induced into nearby interconnects , not just due to incoming RF/EMI that shouldn't get through too much via the Isolation transformer, but perhaps also by rectification artifacts and leakage back into the A.C. mains  from the Amplifier's PSU.

 In any event, you are the E.E. with knowledge and equipment necessary to perform this action, yet you

are requesting an untrained person without the necessary test equipment to perform these measurements, knowing full well that they are not in a position to do so.

 This is a typical tactic /response used by many E.E.s to shut down the Audiophile making the claims .

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 That is yet another assumption, as it's difficult to measure , preferably by Analogue means,  minute differences on actual Music material at the speakers themselves.  A reminder too,  that Chris is now hearing clear repeatable differences with his new RAAL-requisite SR1a headphones despite the Benchmark gear being virtually perfect according to the usual raft of measurements from A.S.R.

 

Having used the listening with "the ear next to the tweeter" method of detecting differences for many, many years now, it's very obvious that the driving signal has altered - the headache for the measurists is that this is hard to quantify, as yet. Trouble is, the mind is so excellent at dealing with tiny differences, when subjected to high level sound - but that's what you have to trick, 🤪.

 

16 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Ok, you do that, Frank. I’m not neurotic enough.

 

Ummm, being neurotic about it is what gives me the SQ I've talked about over and over again - the dividing line between what is enough to do to sort a rig out, and what is not, is very poorly defined - you just keep going until you get the results you want. So, for example, I now have two stages of mains filtering on the current, cheap active speakers; and am just organising another stage for the source player - it's immediately obvious on this setup that I have more to gain by doing this ... as a simple guide to what's being gained, I either have some of John Dyson's "feralA" unpleasantness there, or I don't.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Paul McGowan, head of PS Audio, on youtube not that many weeks ago did a nice video on many of the horrid problems of A/B testing, besides its being just plain awkward.. Many decades ago AR (Acoustic Research) did a much publicized A/B experiment, where out of vision real musicians were playing and all of a sudden they would stop playing and a prerecorded tape of the same music seamlessly took over, played through their AR 3 speakers, and the group of people could not distinguish each time (or any time) when the real musicians stopped and the AR speakers kicked in. The ultimate AB experiment. Does this mean that the AR speakers are indistinguishable from live unamplified acoustic instruments? No. It proved peoples ineptitude at distinguishing between (live and real) vs.a tape playback through a speaker. AR3 speakers, If you've ever heard them at length, they are not even capable of fooling a seasoned listener into thinking they are a really good speaker; YET ALONE LIVE MUSIC!  They have a really chopped off high end, they are full of cabinet resonance, and the midrange sounds murky and dark with 1960 vintage tube equipment, which was the only equipment there was in 1960.

 

  I listened to certain albums hundreds of times, over and over again throughout my life. My sonic memory is not so short that I would need the comparison switching  less than 1 second apart. If I listened to the Who's Next LP a hundred times in my life, if I hear a superior reproduction of it, I will easily & instinctively know it without a doubt within the first few minutes of the first track. A/B comparisons, using music people are not intimately familiar with is just one of the many stupid things about A/B testing. About as exciting as watching paint dry too.

[jabbr]

22 minutes ago, sandyk said:

In any event, you are the E.E. with knowledge and equipment necessary to perform this action, yet you

are requesting an untrained person without the necessary test equipment to perform these measurements, knowing full well that they are not in a position to do so.

 This is a typical tactic /response used by many E.E.s to shut down the Audiophile making the claims .

Im not an E.E. but no matter — I’m just telling you what you need to do to convince me. I use an Equi-tech Q and Topaz Iso transformer — my audio is terrific. If you are happy with your system then Great and you should have no reason to persuade  me. If you insist on trying to persuade me, I am telling you how to go about it  

 

Seriously what evidence would it take for you to consider you are wrong? If this is a religion for you then I don’t care to convert you otherwise — peace

[jabbr]

12 minutes ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

Paul McGowan, head of PS Audio, on youtube not that many weeks ago did a nice video on many of the horrid problems of A/B testing, besides its being just plain awkward..

Yeah A/B testing is a headache. I find measurements combined with my own listening impressions much better.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

39 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Ok so ... use a high quality isolation transformer. If you hear an SQ difference between AC power cables either a) demonstrate a measurement difference at the DAC output*** or

b) explain the sensory bias

 

Tell me?

*** it’s trivial to measure electrical differences between DACs and amps

 

This makes no sense to me ,sorry. If the stimulus hasn't changed then there is no need to fix it.