Jump to content
IGNORED

The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology


Recommended Posts

More likely you simply choose the parts that agree with whatever you want to believe.

 

Very interesting, considering the message you replied to was me pointing out you choose only part of what I had chosen - what does that imply based on your conclusion? :)

Link to comment
Retail therapy. Well spotted mate. Will use that one if you don't mind. Hadn't really though of that point till now. But cables and interconnects slot in nicely there don't they, a la: all the main gear nicely setup, but we liked fiddling so much on that part, that we want more. Another fix so to speak. So we can either swap the amp worth a grand or play it safe and "try" an exotic looking new interconnect that's marked down from $1599 a metre to $299. An affordable loss. I hate shopping but I do something similar. I buy stuff that is no better but 3 times the price. But that's a different point.

I think your point is valid. Get out there girls and do some shopping. Nothing stupid. Just the bargains.

 

The more you think about this aspect, the more it looks to be an essential building block in the whole process. Although music is centre stage, the gear part is also very central to this hobby for a lot of people. Fiddling and tweaking are interesting and fun. Most audiophiles are men and they seem hardwired to revel in this aspect.

Once all the main gear, speakers amps etc, are setup, cables/interconnects are sitting pretty as vehicles to keep the hobby alive. They are cheaper than other components and at least in the case of interconnects, easy to remove, transport and replace.

Link to comment
Julf:

 

"You have a good point about the stress, and I totally agree with it. But if you can't resort to blinded tests, how do you protect yourself from perceptual biases?"

 

At some point I have to accept that some bias may creep in, but my experience shows that is (usually at least) not the case. Considering that the additional stress from being blinded generally makes the results moot, that is not an option. I find that short term tests are unreliable, and most subject to the kinds of bias that folks here talk about, but multiple longer term listening, in my experience, eliminates bias as a problem for me. Many times I will go into a test, where my expectation is that something will be one way, but my listening results are counter to my expectations-this happens often enough that I gain confidence in my ability to hear difference without biases affecting me.

Like anything, this kind of listening is a skill which is developed purposefully over time-I would not expect random subjects picked off the street to be able to do as well.

When I first started working at PS Audio, I took it upon myself to do critical listening for at least an hour every single day, as part of my job, often testing different components, cables, power conditioners. After about a year of this, I had developed skills which I did not posess previously, despite being an audiophile before working there.

Now, I prefer to listen for pleasure, and keep my analytical hat off most of the time, but every once in awhile I am called upon to test something new, and I find my skills remain pretty sharp (but not as good as they were when I was doing critical listening every day).

 

Barrows,

 

I think your listening methodology is sound. It also will enhance your ability to perceive real differences as far as human senses can go. I would also mention if someone had asked me how to go about listening carefully for comparative purposes my instructions would have been identical to yours. Not just very similar, but identical. That is how I have done such listening for some number of years.

 

While you might be able to avoid bias better than most, and I do think repeated experience helps in that regard, you still are subject to it. Human minds and perceptions have certain common ways of processing things we are all subject to those. Somewhere around the edges of the perceivable or beyond bias would affect you or any of us.

 

You have written:

At some point I have to accept that some bias may creep in, but my experience shows that is (usually at least) not the case.

 

Quite a bit of careful work has shown this statement is common, and nevertheless people's senses usually get biased much more than they think it does. Again this is where the fascination of the issue is for me. I have accepted the idea no matter how careful and unbiased I think I have been, no matter how certain I am of my perceptions they can be wrong. They aren't always wrong, and there have been a number of situations where I was getting a niggling nagging idea something was up and eventually figured out why. Found a reason for it and determined it was true. That rightly reinforces the idea you trust your ears. But with interconnects there simply appears to be no reason that anything audible is happening and that should reinforce the idea you also doubt your ears. It bears investigating and it might be someone will come up with something. My best idea now is there is nothing there beyond my ears getting fooled.

 

So the murky, messy, in-between area is fascinating and requires some different practical or philosophical way to deal with it. If you assume all hearing abilities are completely understood it makes it simple, but in fact we know that isn't the case. On the other hand much is understood and shouldn't be dismissed either. We can say the same for technical considerations. Much is understood, but not everything. Then there are the psychological aspects of it. While we understand quite a bit more than nothing, we probably are on shakier ground here than the other two areas.

 

So you have interactions in at least three broad areas of knowledge. Even 3 sets of interaction get much too messy to keep straight in people's minds without some extra effort and care in applying that knowledge. That doesn't leave this area hopeless. Much of science deals quite effectively with much more than 3 variables and incomplete information.

 

A friend always warns me about reasoning by analogy. He is right and the more he points it out the clearer it is he is right. Still I will give in to the temptation here.

 

Ever see someone try to adjust a color television when they don't have any real knowledge of what the controls do? Or do you have a memory of doing that yourself? You know what stuff looks like, and there are only a few controls. So how could it be so hard to at least get close? Well you can end up with quite the colorful psychedelic result. I have seen people work and work and finally be satisfied with the adjustments. Then argue when you point out how far from right they are. After staring long enough they really don't see the green skin tint or the blue-greenish skies. If you finally get some reference (once used a white piece of paper held up to fluffy white clouds on screen that had a cyan tint), then it will flick something and they see it. Usually at that point they get disgusted and shake their heads at how hard this has been.

 

But with just a bit of extra understanding you can make it work pretty well. The brightness is a black level control, wait for dark scenes and adjust. Contrast is a white level control wait for the white dress or fluffy clouds to adjust. The color balance is tougher as magenta and cyan are harder to get in TV scenes. Skin tone can stand in. One can do a pretty decent job that way. All you have is a bit of extra understanding at how it works, and know which of the controls to adjust in which order. Only takes a handful of minutes to do what someone else might spend hours on and not get right and be convinced they have. Yet, even more technical methods give even better results. Would be foolish to claim only using your eye and viewing over time can one get truly good results. Yes, an experienced person can improve on the results with the eye, but not at the level of instrumentation. And yet like hearing the eye is the final arbiter. Without the human visual perception the rest has no point.

 

I think the thread is well named if it left out swindle. The etiology of how these differing opinions about cable come about with the overlapping, incomplete knowledge from three broad areas of knowledge is where progress can be made. If only we can get agreement such is the case, and people quit picking just one of the three areas while claiming it to have near religious-like infallibility. Then progress could be made on reliable methods to work around all this.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
I think the thread is well named if it left out swindle. The etiology of how these differing opinions about cable come about with the overlapping, incomplete knowledge from three broad areas of knowledge is where progress can be made. If only we can get agreement such is the case, and people quit picking just one of the three areas while claiming it to have near religious-like infallibility. Then progress could be made on reliable methods to work around all this.

 

Could you please put your posting into a blog or somewhere else where it is easy to refer to? The whole posting is an excellent summary of so many of the issues related to audiophilia!

Link to comment

When I first started working at PS Audio, I took it upon myself to do critical listening for at least an hour every single day, as part of my job, often testing different components, cables, power conditioners. After about a year of this, I had developed skills which I did not posess previously, despite being an audiophile before working there.

/QUOTE]

 

Ding ding ding ... once this is admitted, the validity of any given DBX test---and for just that reason---is rendered uncertain, because its outcome is seen to depend on the resolving power of the person performing the test. Trained hunters see things the untrained cannot, trained wine tasters taste things the untrained cannot, trained logicians think things the untrained cannot, etcetera. In esldude's language, "you are still subject to it." Think about that.

Link to comment
Since when is Chris "the" expert? I mean no offense mind you, but someone like Cookie (mentioned by sandyk) IS an expert. She is very well respected and noted for having very acute abilities - and has the credentials to back it up.

 

4est,

 

I fail to see your point. What gives Cookie the rank of "expert" with regards to discerning differences? And why should Chris not be regarded as such?

 

Regards,

Peter

“We are the Audiodrones. Lower your skepticism and surrender your wallets. We will add your cash and savings to our own. Your mindset will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” - (Quote from Star Trek: The Audiophile Generation)

Link to comment
Ding ding ding ... once this is admitted, the validity of any given DBX test---and for just that reason---is rendered uncertain, because its outcome is seen to depend on the resolving power of the person performing the test.

 

Unless what you look at is "can *anyone* tell the difference above random chance?"

Link to comment
What test would you perform to determine that, Julf? You're merely restating the problem.

 

I think that does not make ABX testing invalid. It just means you want to use the best listeners you can find. While someone, somewhere is the best hearing person in the world it is statistically possible to get pretty good answers on those limits.

 

Another way to handle that problem is to test near the audible limit. If you get some that score very well, retest only using those high scoring individuals. In such testing one does sometimes just guess lucky. Highly unlikely to guess lucky twice. So if those high scores repeat the score they hear something others don't. One could then lower whatever quality they are listening for and see how much lower these selected high performers can hear things. While there is always the chance there is a person out there that hears even better with a goodly number of participants you can get an idea of what becomes inaudible to virtually everyone.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

esl, how does one determine if a person is a "best listener"? The best listener will by definition be the person who hears something none of the other listeners can. His or her listening report will be statistically anomalous, no?

Link to comment
esl, how does one determine if a person is a "best listener"? The best listener will by definition be the person who hears something none of the other listeners can. His or her listening report will be statistically anomalous, no?

 

Very simple. Repeat the test or use several test tracks to make sure they are really hearing it.

 

Lets just use a simple level difference. Generally people will no longer hear level differences less than about .2 db. If someone can pick the louder track out of say 15 attempts with levels different by no more than .05 dB they are reliably showing they indeed hear it the differences smaller than other people.

 

So yes, this one listener among lesser listeners might be missed. Which is where picking only the ones scoring better and retesting comes in. Its nothing complicated about that.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
4est,

 

I fail to see your point. What gives Cookie the rank of "expert" with regards to discerning differences? And why should Chris not be regarded as such?

 

Regards,

Peter

 

Peter- Please note that I am not saying that Chris is not qualified, but that Cookie is more qualified and has a stake in the results. As a composer, producer and engineer she has tested files and noticed degradation akin to sandyk having been involved in the process. I guess in my mind one does not get more qualified than that. She also supports her belief even though it costs her company money- a reason for bias against it.

 

I dunno. She is far from fringe, and is known to have very good ears and she hears some of this stuff. You do the math as you wish, but it seems pretty compelling from here.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
Very interesting, considering the message you replied to was me pointing out you choose only part of what I had chosen - what does that imply based on your conclusion? :)

 

That you are operating as I expected of course. I quoted your entire quote and the paragraph from Alex you choose to misinterpret. It basically tells me you are not interested at all in the real facts of the subject, but rather simply amusing yourself, perhaps indulging in a belief of how very clever you believe yourself to be.

 

You did ask.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Most reasonable people might conclude after reading this and other lengthy posts on this subject that there is NO absolute method of quantifying audio as it pertains to pleasurable listening.

The subjectivists contend that measurement quantifiers don't exist that analyze some of the things they hear. Usually we find these 'quantifiers' renamed with common adjectives or adverbs as there exists no science of sound to identify them. Maybe this is done to elude the measurement and validate their perceptions....who knows? Nobody. This is an unfortunate truth as there's no way of knowing what it is they hear.

Now before you might think I've jumped the fence and inherited the subjectivist point of view, consider the last statement. Since these 'perceptions' or 'abilities' cannot be measured, nor can the material be compared to a valid reference, by default, the conclusions of such must be considered invalid. Liken it to people who say they can see an Aura or ghosts. As such theirs is the burden of proof.

Now the objective side wields the tools of science. There's the accepted understanding f the science of human hearing, an extensive list of parameters and properties associated with these measurements as well as proven mathematical formula and physical laws associated with the properties of sound waves. But, somehow the objective front is still somehow presented with the burden of proof.......to devise measurements or methodology to quantify the subjectivists special perceptions.

The audio subjectivists get a bit of pass in this regard as unlike other fringe groups, theirs is based on sound and not on sight. Other groups associated with taste and smell, get the same pass. But those based on sight......they're shit out luck aren't they. But the current methodology and tools to measure sound is just as strong as optics. Why does the hall pass exist?

I place this burden on the subjective audiophile community if they wish to validate their position.....or should we accept it on faith?

Link to comment

There are a host of problems buried in the assumption that measurements can pinpoint and reveal all relevant, meaningful sonic subtleties and parameters. Quite apart from those problems, which must be faced and unravelled one by one, because measurements are objective, if any uncertainty exists whether measurements do or do not quantify all relevant, meaningful sonic attributes, we can say with a certainty they do not, as a fully objectivized understanding would be free from doubt. Uncertainty about whether measurements are comprehensively explanatory shows they are not comprehensive. The very logic of measurements quite clearly, to my sense of logic, validates the subjective position that ultimately what counts is listening. Until we reach certainty that we have fully revealed sonic attributes with measurements, subjectivists get that pass you're referring to.

 

But only some subjectivists. That pass is not a free pass, but comes with years of hard work, and love for the art.

Link to comment

Allow me to add one further observation here. Measurements, for their part, depend on and are shaped by the prior theoretical understanding within which those measurements gain some sort of meaningful traction and reference. To get a measurement regime properly oriented, one's theoretical perspective must be comprehensive. But who can claim to possess comprehensive theoretical understanding?

 

Lord Kelvin felt he had just such a comprehensive understanding. In a lecture to prospective physics students he gave around the year 1900, he dissuaded students from entering physics because he considered the field pretty much all sewed up: further advances, he felt, would be but adding a further decimal point to our near-complete knowledge. Except, err, for two little clouds on the then prevailing measuring and theoretical regime---black box radiation and the Michelson-Morley experiment.

 

He named his clouds well. The former theoretical-measurement anomaly led to quantum physics, the latter to relativity. Classical physics was by those two clouds consigned to the status of good-for-bridge-building; the real action in physics was now elsewhere.

 

I find it interesting that Kelvin thought in linear terms---that measurement leads to further (linear) decimal-place precision. Classical physics was of course then largely a linear science. Enter quantum physics, which in wholesale fashion refashioned scientific thinking within a non-linear frame.

 

Music, and electrical flows, generate and exist as non-linear, systemic phenomena that cannot be explained with linear representative models. The ear, for its part, also operates in a non-linear system-space. As Bruno Putzeys said over on DIY:

 

Ears aren't spectrum analysers. The hair cells are zero-crossing detectors. The cochlea is an adaptive filter. It is not a linear system.

 

As chaos theory (not to mention quantum physics) has shown us, we cannot objectify system-flows without fundamental predictive blurring, fundamental Heisenbergian uncertainty. My deeper sense regarding this measurement debate is that those who claim the eventual (!) certainty of measuring-result operate from a scientific or theoretical perspective inadequate to the task of presenting the systemic wholism in which sonic and electronic wave phenomena appear. I mean, what linear science can account even for rogue waves on the ocean? (Answer: none.)

 

Rogue wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

As for audio circuits, they are circuits---circular, non-linear---and cannot be simply represented 1:1 using measuring techniques. That would be to miss some vital forest for a few linear trees that exist only in and with and as the forest itself. So too quantum physics. So too electronics, imho.

Link to comment
Most reasonable people might conclude after reading this and other lengthy posts on this subject that there is NO absolute method of quantifying audio as it pertains to pleasurable listening.

The subjectivists contend that measurement quantifiers don't exist that analyze some of the things they hear. Usually we find these 'quantifiers' renamed with common adjectives or adverbs as there exists no science of sound to identify them. Maybe this is done to elude the measurement and validate their perceptions....who knows? Nobody. This is an unfortunate truth as there's no way of knowing what it is they hear.

Now before you might think I've jumped the fence and inherited the subjectivist point of view, consider the last statement. Since these 'perceptions' or 'abilities' cannot be measured, nor can the material be compared to a valid reference, by default, the conclusions of such must be considered invalid. Liken it to people who say they can see an Aura or ghosts. As such theirs is the burden of proof.

Now the objective side wields the tools of science. There's the accepted understanding f the science of human hearing, an extensive list of parameters and properties associated with these measurements as well as proven mathematical formula and physical laws associated with the properties of sound waves. But, somehow the objective front is still somehow presented with the burden of proof.......to devise measurements or methodology to quantify the subjectivists special perceptions.

 

This is well thought out. Let me address a small part of it though. I believe you are, in a way, blinding yourself by insisting on labeling people as "subjectivist" or "objectivist." Most of the "subjectivist" people here "wield the tools of science" as well as anyone here you label as an "objectivist." Not all of course, but a lot.

 

Many of the "objectivists" clearly do not have a comprehensive understanding of the subject, and yet draw indefensible and inaccurate conclusions based on that understanding. Then feel that because they are being "scientific" they have the forces of truth, justice, and God on their side.

 

There are two clear facts to start with and reason forward from. That reasoning requires careful thought and testing, as well as a lot of time and work.

 

(A) People appear to be able to hear differences in cables

(B) Measurements do not usually reveal the reasons behind the differences these people here.

 

There are two lines of reason to avoid:

 

(1) The people who hear differences are making it up or imaging it

 

(2) The people who take the measurements are incompetent or doctoring the results to suit their preconceived ideas.

 

Note that both (1) and (2) above have happened before, which is the audiophile world is not only silly, but in explicable to me. But the fact they have happened does not mean they are a general happening nor does it invalidate what people hear or measure.

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Allow me to add one further observation here. Measurements, for their part, depend on and are shaped by the prior theoretical understanding within which those measurements gain some sort of meaningful traction and reference. To get a measurement regime properly oriented, one's theoretical perspective must be comprehensive. But who can claim to possess comprehensive theoretical understanding?

 

I could respond to much in this post. But the first little bit is probably enough. Quite simply it is wrong and doesn't make any sense. To get a measurement regime properly oriented, one's theoretical perspective must be comprehensive......really,.....I mean REALLY!? Where did this idea come from?

 

This is very much in the direction of we can know nothing till we know everything kind of thinking. Since we don't know everything we don't know nothing. That is not at all correct.

 

Since you mentioned rogue waves, well satellites have been used to detect and measure them. From your statement without comprehensive theory we couldn't do that. Plus, while not fully understood people are working on it. One group seem to find Schordinger wave equations seem to describe how such could occur with the right conditions. Yet to be proven, but hey you don't need comprehensive theory to nibble away at problems. In time lots of nibbling has good results. Not every worthwhile theory is all encompassing the way perhaps Einstein's relativity seems to you. And quantum theory has been somewhat ad-hoc build a block at a time from the early days.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Thanks to all who have responded to my post, as you have helped bolster it's content and summed in a nutshell.....Those that claim to hear these characteristics where others cannot or counter measurements do so only because there is no science to refute their abilities or claims. Cleverly, the business end of audio has created this community of Charlatans who gladly do their bidding and earn their livings for them. But not do be undone, but harboring a need to be a part of the game, the equipment reviewer is born, carrying the candle of audio prophecy, cheerfully fanning the flames of subjectivity. But as long as there still exists mysteries of faith, so must reason accept your existence as well......for now. It took a while, but Darwin finally won. After a while, even the most devout stop believing their own bullshit.

Link to comment

esldude, you've misunderstood me. The claim that measurements comprehensively describe audible phenomena assumes that one's understanding is comprehensive. Measurement never exists simply "in the air" absent a grounding frame of reference, but is always a tool of some or another theory or idea.

 

Nor am I saying we cannot know anything until we know everything. Again, for measurements to comprehensively cover the audio field, there must by necessity exist a comprehensive understanding. If you think this through, you will see that I'm saying the opposite of what you're claiming I'm saying.

Link to comment
I could respond to much in this post. But the first little bit is probably enough. Quite simply it is wrong and doesn't make any sense. To get a measurement regime properly oriented, one's theoretical perspective must be comprehensive......really,.....I mean REALLY!? Where did this idea come from?

 

This is very much in the direction of we can know nothing till we know everything kind of thinking. Since we don't know everything we don't know nothing. That is not at all correct.

 

Here we go again with this nonsense. You don't see it both ways.

 

You say, you know everything, though you really don't know everything i.e., "cables don't matter, cables all sound the same".

 

I could respond to much in this post. But the first little bit is probably enough.

 

No it's not enough. Please do respond to the entire post, because I think 50000 makes some excellent points.

Link to comment

 Originally Posted by chg 

It appears that the cable debate simply moved to a new thread.

 

elsdude- Why do you insist on continually presenting your opinions as fact. The fact is, you don't know whether cables sound different, or not. If it were fact, then there would be no debate. Please present your factual, definitive evidence, or stop the attacks.

Read my null testing thread. Their is not a difference that is audible between the interconnects I tested interconnects. That is a fact. I am not the only one who has done such things. I can provide them if you wish. One I have linked to is an MIT grad student measuring audio performance of cables for his thesis. He found nothing to explain how they could sound different. In other words, my opinion has been informed by facts.

 

It seems we differ on our definition of fact. A few measurements don't make fact.

 

Instead of reply in my own words, I'll just reference what Jud said earlier;

 

Originally Posted by Jud

If you were failing to measure something significant (and I'm not saying you are), then of course the fact of a null in what you did measure wouldn't matter...

That, to me, is one of the fascinating open questions of the Null Test. The possibility is that it be measuring "everything"; that known and that unknown. Hopefully this thread can add credence to the test or explore if there are flaws in it.

 

This debate is becoming so incredibly ridiculous it baffles the mind. No matter what very good argument is given by those questioning the testing methods, understanding, viability of whether "cables make a difference" they're instantly dismissed. If one cannot gain any insight from some of the very well written/thought-out points of view posted (such as those numbered 141-143), then I have to believe that there is something else going on in the minds of some of these objectivists. Is it boredom? An obsessive love for testing? Addiction to argument? I'm beginning to conclude that the cable objectivists are just a confused, fearful, distrusting (of their own senses), argumentative bunch. At what point do you stop questioning perceptions (or lack thereof) and simply trust your senses?

Link to comment
At what point do you stop questioning perceptions (or lack thereof) and simply trust your senses?

 

I agree, chg. Anything short of a comprehensive understanding of things electronic (assuming such understanding could exist [it cannot]) meets the problem that a person doesn't know what that person doesn't know. Am I really to believe that any set of measurements covers the entire field of known+unknown? Talk about belief! Objectivists who refuse to admit the partiality of their understanding (and by inference of their measurements) are of a subjectivist cast I personally cannot respect. I'm too objective about the limitations of my understanding for such magnanimity.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...