The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Familiarity, familiarity, familiarity is the key. I have certain pieces of music that I played so many times that I am tired of hearing them, but when I try out something new, I will know almost right from the start of playing, how this very familiar music has changed soundwise. Having several records or discs that you know like the back of your hand is the main thing of all, as far as evaluation is concerned. You may tire of the music though, so make sure its not a cherished favorite.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Seriously what evidence would it take for you to consider you are wrong?

I  will NEVER consider that for even one moment, when I have all the confirmation that I need from several other well qualified EEs, Barry Diament and numerous members, including several well respected members. Even Paul R. who was an I.T. manager and Specialist, who  originally gave me a very hard time in concert with Prof. W.G.Scott for quite a few years has now confirmed my reports Visually .

AFAIK, I am the ONLY member who has ever gone to the trouble to have my reports confirmed independently by a well qualified and respected E.E. and Magazine Editor. I was fully aware that I could have been told that I was imagining these things as people like yourself keep insisting .

My more recent comparison files are way easier to verify as I have managed to markedly increase both Audible and Visual differences, where you only need to find a difference between either Audible or Visual (perhaps both) if you use a decent quality external monitor.

 Unlike people like yourself apparently, I have also always been willing to demonstrate my claims in person  under non sighted,  or more recently using Music Video comparisons, (some of which can also be found in MY Profile) 

as I did with David and several others, and on other occasions for 2 qualified E.Es from Sydney who are willing to back me up as well.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour 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.. 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.

 

The whole audio blind testing thing is a rabbit hole that has been hotly argued for as long as I can remember, well 90's to my recollection. There are those that preach it as gospel and those that reject it entirely. For me the science usually doesn't adequately stack up but there are times when it is useful. Eliminating bias and confounders is not only important but required.

 

I will tell you this, if debated there will be another 40 pages added to this thread and at the end of which no-one will have changed their minds.

 

People will want to draw you out on this so be wary. It is an interesting topic as is placebo effect mentioned earlier but that too I have skirted around.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I will tell you this, if debated there will be another 40 pages added to this thread and at the end of which no-one will have changed their minds.

 

 

 Sad, but true.

 At least we now have way more agreement in these areas than previously, after the move to ASR by several "Measurements are Everything" members.

[PYP]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

I use an Equi-tech Q and Topaz Iso transformer — my audio is terrific. 

 

You had posited that this key part of your system made power cords unimportant (as long as structurally sound).  I understand your thoughts about expensive power cables.  Do you mind telling us the total cost of the Equipment-tech and Topaz (or what you consider to be a reasonable investment for these parts)?  

 

I'm wondering what kind investment folks have made in these parts of the (let's call it) power filtration system.  Total cost (including what for you are perhaps free/nominal fee cables) seems the best indicator, not just comparing the cost of generic and boutique cables.  

 

Thanks. 

[Digi&Analog Fan]

The main thing wrong with A/B as I see it, is expecting people under stress to makeinstantaneous perception judgements about music which they are unfamiliar with; or at least not nearly familiar enough. I've played the 1970's album The Captain & Me at least 150 times and I'm still hearing new things on it.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Sad, but true.

 At least we now have way more agreement in these areas than previously, after the move to ASR by several "Measurements are Everything" members.

 

35 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Even Paul R. who was an I.T. manager and Specialist, who  originally gave me a very hard time in concert with Prof. W.G.Scott for quite a few years

 

I remember Paul, he was a good guy. Don't remember the other guy tho

[kumakuma]

46 minutes ago, sandyk said:

At least we now have way more agreement in these areas than previously, after the move to ASR by several "Measurements are Everything" members.

 

Glad you're happy with your little echo chamber.  

 

Perhaps you could convince Chris to ban a few more folks for even "more agreement".

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Perhaps you could convince Chris to ban a few more folks for even "more agreement".

 The majority of those members moved of their own volition after concerted attempts to destroy Uptone Audio backfired. 

 Perhaps you were "the one that John West rejected"  ?

 I have nothing further to say to you on this subject in this thread.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

6 hours 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,

 

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

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

 

6 hours 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 for publication in your life.***

 

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

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.

 

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

I  will NEVER consider that for even one moment, when I have all the confirmation that I need from...

 

Alex,

Here is the problem. You have stated for years that you were involved with "correctly performed" DBTs that show... 

, and that piqued my interest. I have asked you in PMs and forum posts for details, that you have kindly provided. But...

 

Let's back up. I am aware and critical of goal-post moving by objectivists. "Do A and B and C, or I won't believe it" followed after ABC is complete with "Well, you really need D and B is invalid without E..." This is shameless. But I don't do that. I can tell you what it takes to convince me. Hint: it is unchanged by what jabbr, Eloise or a bunch of EEs say or think. My requirements for being convinced stand independent of others.

 

Back to the "But..." your methods have been unconvincing to me. I have no interest in going round and round with you, so I gave up. Part of giving up is your last quote above. I am an open-minded skeptic, open to many ideas..., except a closed mind.

 

BTW. *** Yes, I have published several DBTs in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals, but that is unimportant to you given your unequivocal last quote. So why did you even bring it up with jabbr?

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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, 🤪.

 

 

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.

Frank, do you teach elementary conclusion jumping? You assume that your system, put together and “tweaked” using your “method” sounds “better” than anyone else’s. You don’t, and you can’t know that. I wish we lived close to each other. I’d love to hear what you’ve done, and even more, I’d love for you to hear my setup. I’d be willing to wager that if you heard my system playing one or more of my own recordings, your jaw would drop at the reality I’ve achieved and have done so without soldering interconnects to components and without using boutique cables.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, SoundAndMotion said:

BTW. *** Yes, I have published several DBTs in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals, but that is unimportant to you given your unequivocal last quote. So why did you even bring it up with jabbr

 

 Jabbr keeps rejecting the results of the M.C. 6 separate DBT sessions insisting that the sessions couldn't possibly have been  correctly performed, yet has no inside information on how they were performed . This objection appears to be simply based on the belief that they can't have been correctly performed to obtain results different to what he believes they should have been.

 I would expect that an E.E. of Martin's lengthy experience, including being the Editor of several well respected U.K. magazines including Hi Fi News and Record Review, which originally had quite a bit of technical content from well respected Audio designers such as Ben Duncan, is more than capable of correctly setting up DBT sessions with results published that were not Biased or in error, just as you would be able to apparently.

6 separate sessions over a period of several months, with 8 repeats in each session ,IIRC, and 48 out of 48 POSITIVE results , should have at least  been worthy of further examination.

1 hour ago, SoundAndMotion said:

My requirements for being convinced stand independent of others.

  So ?  Why should I need your validation ?  I know very little about you .

As I have already stated , improved examples along with the methodology required have been available in MY Profile for some time, and judging by the many visits ,including from Jon, many are aware of them, but appear to have shown no interest in checking them out.

I have also provided access to physical media with my comparisons which has always been my preferred option, yet not a single person availed themselves of the BluRay discs or the USB memory stick that were sent to esldude (Dennis) in the USA.  

 

However, all of this is OFF TOPIC in this thread.

[gmgraves]

4 hours 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.. 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 was there at the AR show room on Broadway in NYC one afternoon. The chamber group musicians were behind a scrim. One could see them in silhouette. The speakers were behind the scrim too, so that those listeners assembled couldn’t see the grill cloth flutter when the speakers were active. I might point out that I was 17 at the time. Everyone else in the store were middle aged guys. I could tell the the speakers from the live musicians every time. Not because I could tell the difference between the musicians and the recording of them from the sound, but rather because I could hear the tape hiss when the recording was being played, and the older members of the audience couldn’t. Nevertheless, the demonstration was impressive. AR chose the repertoire VERY carefully so as not to tax the speakers by asking them to do something they couldn’t. I’m sure that the acoustic characteristics of the scrim played a part in the deception as well.

All you say about AR3 speakers is true (BTW when I was there in the spring of 1962, the speakers were AR3ax’s), but keep in mind that in those days, the AR3 was perhaps the best money could buy with the possible exception of doubled-up KLH electrostatics (never heard them, just read about them). My high school music teacher who was a friend of mine who had a pair of AR3s powered by a MacIntosh 275 power amp. At the time I thought his system sounded awesome. I’m sure I wouldn’t be so impressed today.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

30 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, do you teach elementary conclusion jumping?

 

Nothin' elementary about it, strictly advanced🤣

 

30 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I wish we lived close to each other. I’d love to hear what you’ve done, and even more, I’d love for you to hear my setup. I’d be willing to wager that if you heard my system playing one or more of my own recordings, your jaw would drop at the reality I’ve achieved and have done so without soldering interconnects to components and without using boutique cables.

 

I disagree here. Respectfully to Frank, putting aside the good natured humor, Frank is invested in his method. From the bad recordings sound good thread some interesting perspectives came across, in some ways reinforcing Frank's method.

 

I think much of it boils down to sounding less bad, hearing past the flaws, enjoying the music and then calling that "good". And it is except you and I would still identify that bad sound cant be turned into good sound even if colored - maybe enjoyable sound nonetheless.

 

That said, my prediction is that Frank would not like your or my "rig" as it would go against his credo and expectation bias. I have little doubt if we heard Frank's system we would not be in agreement with Frank's assessment of good sound. You might call that expectation bias also but I wager most audiophiles, not knowing about Frank or his method, would have the same view.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

What a great recollection about the AR speakers A/B blind test (which they later used in their ads for it). Thanks for sharing that. The model 2 was the one that had the AX designation I hear. The AR 3 became the 3A when they started incorporating their new "dome" tweeter. Someone told me, as a registered owner of the 3, AR sent him a letter in the mail saying they could fit his speaker with the new dome driver, and he took them up on it. In 1969 AR came out with a speaker they called the AR 5 with a new crossover designed by not Ed Vilchur but Roy Allison. The speaker had a slightly smaller woofer for those that thought that the 3A's bass was a little too much, but with the same dome mid and tweeter but 8 ohm instead of 4 ohms. The 5 and 3A were both in the line concurrently for a while. Members on other forums who owned both, said they preferred the 5 for its more seamless integrated sound, due mostly to Roy Allison's new improved crossover. I have a nice pair of AR 5 speakers here in good working condition. I am presently using one as a stand for my amp and the other one is downstairs. Will find someone for them one day, as I listen to some classic rock and the vintage AR speakers were more voiced for classical and Jazz. The KLH 9 I believe came out in 1969. The Rectilinear High Boy model was one of the few speakers that would have been a AR 3 upgrade according to some in the mid 1960's. They enlisted Duke Ellington to help promote them in magazine ads, saying that "I love my Rectilinear Highboys."   

[SoundAndMotion]

@sandyk, you continue to believe that names and resumes matter, and detailed descriptions of methods don't so much. For most who read science, that is reversed.

 

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Jabbr keeps rejecting the results of the M.C. 6 separate DBT sessions insisting that the sessions couldn't possibly have been  correctly performed, yet has no inside information on how they were performed .

[snip]

[MC's resume]

[snip]

POSITIVE results , should have at least  been worthy of further examination.

I believed it WAS worthy of further examination, which is why I contacted you. I don't reject the results; I simply don't accept them, since the methods remain unclear. 

 

46 minutes ago, sandyk said:

  So ?  Why should I need your validation ?  I know very little about you .

Mine? Who cares about mine? I wouldn't expect you to, unless you repeat some form of the following quote countless times in countless threads on multiple forums. Everyone should reject your claim about the tests unless more detail is forthcoming and it shows valid methodology.

8 hours 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,

[SoundAndMotion]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

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?

 

8 hours 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 agree with @Audiophile Neuroscience. Assuming no one jumps up with better/other measurements for a), and assuming jabbr concedes that the 2 measurements of the analog signal won't completely null, the next step is careful evaluation of the differing perceptions, b)

It's too bad the red pill/blue pill didn't continue...

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

I simply don't accept them, since the methods remain unclear. 

 

 You could always ask Martin this question directly as Eloise did.

In the meantime, I have made available more recent examples where you don't even need to use your ears.

 

 BTW, this is mainly an Audiophile based forum where we shouldn't need to provide the standards of proof that you demand, as the majority of members are not suitably qualified in these areas, although I do come from a basic Technical background due to 43 years with Telstra where I was a Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer.

 

.

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

Seriously what evidence would it take for you to consider you are wrong?

I  will NEVER consider that for even one moment,

Simply put, this is a religious issue for you. That’s ok, everyone is allowed  to have their religion, but you are here in the objecti-fi subforum. 
 

The reason I say this is that a central tenet of science is falsifiability. There is nothing in currently accepted physics that I consider non-falsifiable.

 

This is sort of an intro science concept, so my faith that you would be able to conduct a valid DBT is not there. I don’t “reject” your claims but I don’t accept them either.  I don’t have confidence that you’ve conducted your listening sessions as valid “DBT” but more so, for your specific claims, personally I would want to also see measurements performed by someone like @alfe Who is actually a scientist with expertise in the media used to store files. — he has read your argument countless times and I have not read him confirm your listening sessions so that tells us something. Moreover I heard no difference in your files so you seem to select only the “data” that supports your religious claim. 

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, SoundAndMotion said:

 

I agree with @Audiophile Neuroscience. Assuming no one jumps up with better/other measurements for a), and assuming jabbr concedes that the 2 measurements of the analog signal won't completely null, the next step is careful evaluation of the differing perceptions, b)

It's too bad the red pill/blue pill didn't continue...

This isn’t intended to be a trick question. I am offering that no electrically measurable difference exists. 
 

Previously I have discussed possible electrical differences eg EMI etc and suggested that a good isolation transformer would be a much better filter. Additional  physics hypotheses could be developed. I’ve said that for a physics hypothesis I want a measurement to confirm — electromagnetic physics is well established. 
 

The premise/assumption that there is no electrically measurable difference at the output of the DAC or amp, is to allow the assumption that the audio signal traveling to the ears is identical. Yet there is a perceptual difference. So yes!

 

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, sandyk said:

Jabbr keeps rejecting the results of the M.C. 6 separate DBT sessions insisting that the sessions couldn't possibly have been  correctly performed, yet has no inside information on how they were performed . This objection appears to be simply based on the belief that they can't have been correctly performed to obtain results different to what he believes they should have been.

You have not described your so-called double blind method. Do you know what the difference between single blinded and double blinded even is?

 

Hint: if you send files to someone labeled “A” and “B” and they don’t know which is which that’s single blinded . if you get a bunch of guys together in a listening session and someone else swaps cables behind the scenes that’s also single blinded. 
 

[Summit]

28 minutes ago, jabbr said:

This isn’t intended to be a trick question. I am offering that no electrically measurable difference exists. 
 

Previously I have discussed possible electrical differences eg EMI etc and suggested that a good isolation transformer would be a much better filter. Additional  physics hypotheses could be developed. I’ve said that for a physics hypothesis I want a measurement to confirm — electromagnetic physics is well established. 
 

The premise/assumption that there is no electrically measurable difference at the output of the DAC or amp, is to allow the assumption that the audio signal traveling to the ears is identical. Yet there is a perceptual difference. So yes!

 

 

Far from all EMI/RFI that affect an audio system is traveling by the cables and therefore can be stopped by isolation transformers or optical cables, even if they would isolat/insulate 100%.

 

A transformer always generates EMI, the bigger and the lousier the more the transformer will generally radiate. Isolation transformers can be one step forward and two step back in some systems.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

33 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The reason I say this is that a central tenet of science is falsifiability. There is nothing in currently accepted physics that I consider non-falsifiable.

Popper's falsifiability does work and serve well in many situations but may not be one size fits all. It has its limitations and indeed its criticisms. There are things that by nature cannot be falsified and things that can be falsified but still not advance truth - it depends on how you frame the hypothesis. I don't want to argue about it, it is not a contest, but just be careful of generalizations.

[Summit]

This is Objective-Fi, but no data or evidence of the thesis of this topic has been presented yet. The negative effect of noise and EMI is well known. Intel for example have measured the interference of wireless devices operating in the 2.4 GHz ISM band and its effect on hard drives, USB muse and cables.

 

Here are some papers that can be of interest:  

 

https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/327216.pdf

 

file:///C:/Users/AS/Downloads/ANP024c_EN_The_USB_interface_from_EMC_point_of_view.pdf  

 

http://www.ti.com/lit/wp/slla432/slla432.pdf

 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

This is sort of an intro science concept, so my faith that you would be able to conduct a valid DBT is not there.

 

 

Quote

You have not described your so-called double blind method. Do you know what the difference between single blinded and double blinded even is?

Nasty  !

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? 

This is exactly why I passed it over to a well respected E.E to check out., as well as at a later date supply a Comparison CD to Barry Diament who has way more experience in this area than any member of this forum. Barry and his wife also confirmed the differences .

I was already well aware of M.C, due to previously reading HFNRR which was a good quality U.K. publication back in the days when they also published technical projects etc. and then saw a post from him in C.A. so took the opportunity to send him a P.M.

Later, I sent M.C. several sets of Comparison CDs to check out as well, where similar results were confirmed as with the original DBT sessions.

 Your argument here is with M.C, NOT me, as I was not privy to the full details of the way the tests were performed, and ONLY provided the comparison .wav files. I only saw the posted results of each session in HFC forum as they were performed.

 

 Yes, this is the Objective forum , so PROVE that the DBT sessions performed in the U.K. were flawed !!!!

 And , for the record, I have never mentioned using DBT at any of our local listening sessions, including those with Audiophile Neuroscience present. They were only stated to be under NON SIGHTED conditions !!!

 

G'night !