The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[gmgraves]

21 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

Thank you.  I like those speakers.  

 

Just curious:  do you tend to listen more to the speakers than the headphones (everyday use)?  Any room treatments in the main system?  

I find myself listening more to headphones these days because I have been reviewing a lot of headphones and headphone amps lately. In the last six months, I’ve had the following through my system: Stax SRM-700T headphone amp, Stax SR-009S phones, Stax SRT-L300 phones, Dan Clark ‘Voce‘ phones, Abyss-1260 phones, HeadAmp GSX mkII amplifier, the LTA z10e  headphone/speaker amp, the Schiit Asgard 3 headphone amp, and the Audeze LCD4x phones.

I prefer speakers though and listen to my MLs every chance I get!

My room’s pretty good, aside from my overstuffed chair and my couch, no room treatment.

[fas42]

41 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

The guy I’m talking about is too EE savvy to buy The preposterous idea of “burning-in“ wire. 
“...Gone through the process”! Think about that for a while. What “process”, passing an AC signal of roughly 2 volts PP? What could it possibly change except that the owner gets used to the differences between that portion of the spectrum that his new cables attenuates when compared to the portion of the spectrum his old cables surppressed. The only thing “burning-in” is the owner/listener!

 

I never have had the concept of "burning in" figure as part of my thinking - the whatever has to do the job within a reasonable time frame, from a cold start, is my attitude.

 

However, what does figure, I believe, is that materials have parasitic electrical behaviours, which vary depending upon the stress on them. Over time, the parts of the whole 'relax' into the shape that they were arranged or organised in - similar to a piece of wood yielding to a deliberate bending of it - and so these parasitic aspects stabilise. I have no interest in having to deal with this, so I aim to use parts and materials that don't show this sort of behaviour.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

Well yes, but I was not addressing a particular experiment, rather a report of a get together in which sound perceptions were reported as different. I extended that from perhaps 4 people to 1000. 
 

 

Reporting a difference and perceiving a difference are separate things (irrespective of the stimulus changing) . My understanding was that in your thought experiment a difference was perceived (not just reported). I know it gets tricky but this is why I questioned SAM about "response bias" regarding his comment relating to reporting vs perceiving.  All good, just a clarification.

 

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

Previously I used the term “placebo effect” but that was met with hostility from some parts. People also don’t react well to the term “expectation bias”.

 

Placebo is a bit different....but in non medical circles, like expectation bias, it takes on negative connotations. Indeed it seems to used as some kind of weapon of ridicule by some.

 

 

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

I would like to use the general term “bias” like the electrical bias applied to a transistor, to mean a force that pushes, in this case perception, in one direction or another. 
 

Has anyone met someone or had personal experience with synesthesia? In that case a color may evoke or modulate a sound as might touch, likewise a sound might evoke a color. 
 

Id say that all perceptions are real (ala Descartes) If we are interested in explaining perceptions then yes you want to identify the force pushing the perception in one direction or the other. 

 

I see where you are going now with electrical bias as analogy. The term bias is well recognized and studied in medical and scientific research as you know. The term will obviously need to stay in the vocabulary but I think it is great you are trying to dissociate it from negative connotations.

 

IMO, we simply need more people in audio taking on an indifferent (impartial) approach, scientifically speaking, interested in answers , not being right or proving something in a "I told you so" manner.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, SoundAndMotion said:

But my observation is that there are not thousands of new physical theories, waiting to be tested with measurements, while there are thousands of people who report perceiving differences. I want to test, or to have them tested, with standard psychophysical methods. That allows one to not only pursue the nature of the "force pushing the perception in one direction or the other", but also guides hardware measurement.

 

Amen to that.

 

I would wager there are no new theories that need developing to address the questions in audio.

 

I am of course talking theories in the scientific sense not the popular usage of 'a bit of a guess'. I find myself guilty at times of doing this also, mea culpa.

 

Hypotheses take on a much more limited scope and while they do not grow into theories they still have explanatory powers, and when tested, may be integrated within theories.

 

Sam, you may or may not agree, but I make the distinction because I believe at times people just assume that a particular hypothesis should be dismissed if it doesn't seem to fit under a known theory. No experimental evidence is required. This of course comes back to how preposterous or absurd the reported observation is deemed to be, that leads to a new hypothesis.

 

Case in point - audio cables, the great debate - right smack back on topic.

 

How would you go about testing perceived differences with standard psychophysical methods. Can you explain those methods in plain English.

 

Could you please elaborate a little more on the distinction between "reported" and "perceived" differences and how standard psychophysical methods address this.

 

TIA

Cheers

David

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Reporting a difference and perceiving a difference are separate things (irrespective of the stimulus changing) . My understanding was that in your thought experiment a difference was perceived (not just reported). I know it gets tricky but this is why I questioned SAM about "response bias" regarding his comment relating to reporting vs perceiving.  All good, just a clarification.

 

ok I’m not sure I was making that distinction. really we were talking about considering all the possibilities, so I was making a distinction between physical differences ie electrically measurable and perceptual differences. Casting a wide net.

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Placebo is a bit different....but in non medical circles, like expectation bias, it takes on negative connotations. Indeed it seems to used as some kind of weapon of ridicule by some.

 

Got it. Placebo effect to me means that there is more than hard core science in terms of treatment. The patient needs to believe they will get better and needs encouragement.

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

I see where you are going now with electrical bias as analogy. The term bias is well recognized and studied in medical and scientific research as you know. The term will obviously need to stay in the vocabulary but I think it is great you are trying to dissociate it from negative connotations.

 

IMO, we simply need more people in audio taking on an indifferent (impartial) approach, scientifically speaking, interested in answers , not being right or proving something in a "I told you so" manner.

Yes! and if someone, perhaps an AC power cable manufacturer were interested in giving a coherent physics based explanation to me then that would go a long way. The explanations that I’ve read haven’t cut it for me. I would love it if, for example @PeterSt were willing to share his design philosophy and any measurements he’s done for the “Lush” cable — but I understand if he wishes not to share his IP ... and I suspect that it’s more than simple EMI modulation  

[Digi&Analog Fan]

 Lots of interesting theories between you guys, but do you think this will ever come to an actual checkmate? It sort of reminds me of a thing Woody Allen. once wrote about 50 years ago about a chess match he was having "through the mail" with a guy who lived halfway across the globe in France. Each move they would mail to each other in a stamped envelope, and wait several weeks for the others next move. In the end they disagreed about a move & subsequently who won the chess match and were writing back and forth arguing about it. "I won."  "No No I won." The postage ended up costing them both a small fortune in money; not to mention time.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

 Lots of interesting theories between you guys, but do you think this will ever come to an actual checkmate? It sort of reminds me of a thing Woody Allen. once wrote about 50 years ago about a chess match he was having "through the mail" with a guy who lived halfway across the globe in France. Each move they would mail to each other in a stamped envelope, and wait several weeks for the others next move. In the end they disagreed about a move & subsequently who won the chess match and were writing back and forth arguing about it. "I won."  "No No I won." The postage ended up costing them both a small fortune in money; not to mention time.

 

Yep, seems that way sometimes, which is why i say

 

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

IMO, we simply need more people in audio taking on an indifferent (impartial) approach, scientifically speaking, interested in answers , not being right or proving something in a "I told you so" manner.

 

[jabbr]

34 minutes ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

 Lots of interesting theories between you guys, but do you think this will ever come to an actual checkmate? It sort of reminds me of a thing Woody Allen. once wrote about 50 years ago about a chess match he was having "through the mail" with a guy who lived halfway across the globe in France. Each move they would mail to each other in a stamped envelope, and wait several weeks for the others next move. In the end they disagreed about a move & subsequently who won the chess match and were writing back and forth arguing about it. "I won."  "No No I won." The postage ended up costing them both a small fortune in money; not to mention time.

No checkmate but what do you have to add to the conversation? What is your move?

 

[PYP]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

The Equi-tech “Q” is great but not cheap ...

 

 

 

Did a quick lookup of the price of your Q and a quickly added up the total cost of my own "filtration system" (power conditioner + fancy power cables) and conclude we spent approximately the same $$$ (mine might be a little less, depending upon whether you paid retail).  My point being that there are many ways to get to great sound (of course, great to us).  To simply discuss one aspect out of many -- cables -- just seems pointless to me.  If my power cables aren't doing anything, folks might be able to save a lot of bread buying my "basic" power conditioner.   

 

There are many variables.  Some folks like isolation transformers (I realize the Q is a balanced power model), but this clearly depends upon the equipment powered by them.  I've had equipment that benefited from an isolation transformer and other equipment that sounds better without.  It isn't one size fits all.  

 

This thread seems to be evolving to talking about perception (and hearing acuity).   Acuity can be measured (although I'm unclear how that translates to listening preferences) but how we actually perceive the sound cannot.  

 

Just want to do my part to ensure this thread goes on forever. 

[Summit]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The answer is, there is never a "magic pill" ... ever. Slavishly following a set of steps one's worked out may give you better sound ... or it may not. Every rig will be different, with a different set of weaknesses ... all that really counts is that one is prepared to "try everything", and not be certain that one "knows everything", 😉.

 

Yes there is no "magic pill" – glad we can agree on that.

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, PYP said:

Did a quick lookup of the price of your Q and a quickly added up the total cost of my own "filtration system" (power conditioner + fancy power cables) and conclude we spent approximately the same $$$ (mine might be a little less, depending upon whether you paid retail).  My point being that there are many ways to get to great sound (of course, great to us).  To simply discuss one aspect out of many -- cables -- just seems pointless to me.  If my power cables aren't doing anything, folks might be able to save a lot of bread buying my "basic" power conditioner.  

 

Agree that it is pointless to discuss a single aspect like cables in isolation. I didn't arrive at my system by swapping in and out components until I found the sound I like, rather designed my system: 

 

1) The signal input (audio) enters the system by fiberoptic ethernet.

2) The power to the system passes through a hefty isolation transformer

3) The components within the audio area are powered by linear supplies

 

Both of these are designed to reject both differential and common mode noise (as well as phase noise if that matters). Both the fiberoptic ethernet as well as balanced isolation transformer have easily measurable physical characteristics and the mechanism by which they operate is well known.

 

I visualize this as the isolation transformer defining an "audio" zone which is pierced only by glass fiber -- no copper enters nor leaves the zone (aside from the transformer)

 

 

[PYP]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

Both of these are designed to reject both differential and common mode noise (as well as phase noise if that matters). 

 

At some point, I decided to acquire all the electronics (streamer/DAC/preamp/amp functions) from one company in order to simplify the interactions among components.  If the stuff has been designed and built to work together, I thought, that will eliminate a lot of potential problems.  That worked out very well.  Of course, I always look for speakers and equipment with extremely low distortion, because you can't adjust for that elsewhere.

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, PYP said:

 

At some point, I decided to acquire all the electronics (streamer/DAC/preamp/amp functions) from one company in order to simplify the interactions among components.  If the stuff has been designed and built to work together, I thought, that will eliminate a lot of potential problems.  That worked out very well.  Of course, I always look for speakers and equipment with extremely low distortion, because you can't adjust for that elsewhere.

It is a very reasonable design decision to select a solution from one company, where the components are designed to work together. What AC power cables does Bruno Putzney recommend for use with your equipment -- I would go with his recommendations for your system!

 

[PYP]

51 minutes ago, jabbr said:

It is a very reasonable design decision to select a solution from one company, where the components are designed to work together. What AC power cables does Bruno Putzney recommend for use with your equipment -- I would go with his recommendations for your system!

 

 

Agreed!  The guidance regarding power connections: "It is usually best to plug the component directly into the outlet."  Had is that way until power surges convinced me to add a transparent power conditioner with surge protection.  After much research and a 30-day trial, found one that doesn't inhibit the amazing PRAT of his designs.  I believe his advice about cables in general is: no need to go too crazy.  In one hifi show, they used cables from K-S, which I also use (not sure what "level," but given how shows go probably the "crazy" ones).  He definitely advises the use of XLR ICs and has made it easy and transparent to bi-wire speakers.  

[gmgraves]

21 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I never have had the concept of "burning in" figure as part of my thinking - the whatever has to do the job within a reasonable time frame, from a cold start, is my attitude.

 

However, what does figure, I believe, is that materials have parasitic electrical behaviours, which vary depending upon the stress on them. Over time, the parts of the whole 'relax' into the shape that they were arranged or organised in - similar to a piece of wood yielding to a deliberate bending of it - and so these parasitic aspects stabilise. I have no interest in having to deal with this, so I aim to use parts and materials that don't show this sort of behaviour.

... And how would you know what are “parts and materials that don't show this sort of behaviour“? I don’t believe that I’ve ever encountered a manufacturers’ spec for that particular property.

I absolutely reject the notion that cables need or are even susceptible to “burning-in”, “running-in” or any other term that infers a process of electrically stabilizing over time. And I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck here, either. As I have mentioned before, I once worked as the lead engineer in an aerospace company’s “Cable Lab” where intricate cable assemblies were designed, tested and assembled for missiles, advanced aircraft and satellites. Cable assemblies were tested in every kind of environment that could be imagined, including high-tension stress tests, vibration tests, tests where the cables were exposed to high pressure chambers, vacuum chambers, high temperatures, low temperatures, and often for as much as six months at a time, while carry every kind of signals imaginable, and never, never once did any of them exhibit even the most minute unexpected change in characteristics over all of those tests. So you will forgive me if I put the notion of cable “burn-in” down to some  neurotic audiophiles’ imagination!

[PYP]

50 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I absolutely reject the notion that cables need or are even susceptible to “burning-in”, “running-in” or any other term that infers a process of electrically stabilizing over time.

 

Just curious:  do you believe there is running-in for mechanical devices, like speakers?  How about tubes used in audio?  

[sandyk]

34 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

Just curious:  do you believe there is running-in for mechanical devices, like speakers?  How about tubes used in audio?  

 

 There is definitely running in for Speakers, Headphones and large value Electrolytic capacitors, especially the Audio types with their different electrolyte formulations.

I doubt that there is any running in time for Vacuum tubes, which unlike transistors have slowly reduced emission and gain as they age.

[gmgraves]

20 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

Just curious:  do you believe there is running-in for mechanical devices, like speakers?  How about tubes used in audio?  

Cars need running-in. The pistons and the bores have to wear together. If you don’t, the piston bores get scored and rings don’t seat properly. Result? The car starts to burn oil almost immediately, and gets steadily worse. I’ve seen it said that modern cars don’t need running in, but my eyes tell me that’s nonsense. I have known several people who have bought late model ex-rental cars, and they already burning a little oil, and it quickly accelerated to a lot of oil. Rental cars are driven by people who don’t care that the car is brand new, and can’t be bothered to baby it (“it’s not my car!”).

Turntables, tape recorders, CD players, etc, do not benefit from any form of run-in. Some speakers benefit from running-in. The bass on Magnepans, for instance improves by getting more prominent, more robust, and cone headphones seem to get more “bassy” over the first 100 hours or so, but planar dynamics and electrostatic ‘phones, in my experience,  don’t really seem to. 
Electronics don’t “burn-in per se, but all can benefit from thermally stabilizing by leaving it on all the time (if practical) or warmed up for an hour before a listening session since leaving a power amp all the time is not practical.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

... And how would you know what are “parts and materials that don't show this sort of behaviour“? I don’t believe that I’ve ever encountered a manufacturers’ spec for that particular property.

 

Trial and error. Over time one develops a toolbag of tricks, that are called on in a situation, because previous experiences have shown that some things just work better.

 

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

I absolutely reject the notion that cables need or are even susceptible to “burning-in”, “running-in” or any other term that infers a process of electrically stabilizing over time. And I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck here, either. As I have mentioned before, I once worked as the lead engineer in an aerospace company’s “Cable Lab” where intricate cable assemblies were designed, tested and assembled for missiles, advanced aircraft and satellites. Cable assemblies were tested in every kind of environment that could be imagined, including high-tension stress tests, vibration tests, tests where the cables were exposed to high pressure chambers, vacuum chambers, high temperatures, low temperatures, and often for as much as six months at a time, while carry every kind of signals imaginable, and never, never once did any of them exhibit even the most minute unexpected change in characteristics over all of those tests. So you will forgive me if I put the notion of cable “burn-in” down to some  neurotic audiophiles’ imagination!

 

It's all about signal to noise ... many of the industrial uses don't need extreme levels of this; general reliability is far more important. The irksome thing about general audio systems is that noise intrudes right at the edge of listeners' abilities to perceive it - the fussy audio enthusiast picks it up easily, and so starts their adventures ...

[gmgraves]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 There is definitely running in for Speakers, Headphones and large value Electrolytic capacitors, especially the Audio types with their different electrolyte formulations.

I doubt that there is any running in time for Vacuum tubes, which unlike transistors have slowly reduced emission and gain as they age.

While I agree about many speakers, and some headphones, that electrolytics need run-in, is myth. The dielectric in large electrolytic capacitors forms in just seconds, after the application of voltage, so burning-in is unnecessary, but stabilization through warm-up is a real thing. An hour or so of warm up stabilizes the operation of all active electronics. So do that before any critical listening.

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Trial and error. Over time one develops a toolbag of tricks, that are called on in a situation, because previous experiences have shown that some things just work

OK that at least makes sense.

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

 

It's all about signal to noise ... many of the industrial uses don't need extreme levels of this; general reliability is far more important. The irksome thing about general audio systems is that noise intrudes right at the edge of listeners' abilities to perceive it - the fussy audio enthusiast picks it up easily, and so starts their adventures ...

Why would a cable’s susceptibility to noise change over use? I’ll answer that. It doesn’t! That was one of the things we tested for. Not just susceptibility to noise, but the cable’s ability to self generate thermal noise; something that is not an issue in a small signal cable in a domestic setting. When a satellite is measuring tiny amounts of gas or a particular, minute type of radiation, signal to noise performance is orders of magnitude more important than in someone’s stereo system!

[sandyk]

Quote

 that electrolytics need run-in, is myth - gmgraves

NO ! It definitely is NOT !!!

  Virtually all NOS large value electros for example , benefit from further forming, and many DIY Audio members even use a " Cap Rack" to help quickly stabilise larger value electrolytic capacitors.

 Many hundreds of DIY Audio and other forum members  who have constructed the John Linsley Hood designed PSU Add-on  from the >800 PCBs made available for this project have found that the resulting SQ varies dramatically in SQ for around 72 hours as the large value Capacitance Multiplier electros reach stabilisation with the typically low 600mV across them. When using 2 parallel 4,700uF in that area some constructors found that the Current Limiter transistor often became quite warm initially.

[gmgraves]

17 minutes ago, sandyk said:

NO ! It definitely is NOT !!!

  Virtually all NOS large value electros for example , benefit from further forming, and many DIY Audio members even use a " Cap Rack" to help quickly stabilise larger value electrolytic capacitors.

 Many hundreds of DIY Audio and other forum members  who have constructed the John Linsley Hood designed PSU Add-on  from the >800 PCBs made available for this project have found that the resulting SQ varies dramatically in SQ for around 72 hours as the large value Capacitance Multiplier electros reach stabilisation with the typically low 600mV across them. When using 2 parallel 4,700uF in that area some constructors found that the Current Limiter transistor often became quite warm initially.

Alex, that is warm-up, not “burn-in”. Burn-in infers a situation where a characteristic is permanently changed over time through use. Warm-up, OTOH,  infers a temporary change in characteristics brought on by use. If you let an electrolytic capacitor, especially a large one sit without being used for a long time, and assuming no damage has occurred during that dormant period, when pressed into service again, you would have to re-initiate that “72 hour” burn-in in order for that cap to get back to it’s optimum and stable operating condition. IOW, the change wasn’t permanent, and therefore it’s warm-up not burn-in.

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Alex, that is warm-up, not “burn-in”. Burn-in infers a situation where a characteristic is permanently changed over time through use. Warm-up, OTOH,  infers a temporary change in characteristics brought on by use. If you let an electrolytic capacitor, especially a large one sit without being used for a long time, and assuming no damage has occurred during that dormant period, when pressed into service again, you would have to re-initiate that “72 hour” burn-in in order for that cap to get back to it’s optimum and stable operating condition. IOW, the change wasn’t permanent, and therefore it’s warm-up not burn-in.

 George

 You are playing with words.

 According to you, this phenomenon did not exist. The same applies to brand new and fresh stock large value Audiophile capacitors from different manufacturers. Some Audiophile large value electros take WEEKS, not hours to fully stabilise.

 

Alex

[kumakuma]

15 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Some Audiophile large value electros take WEEKS, not hours to fully stabilise.

 

Is this stabilization a permanent or temporary change in condition?