The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[fas42]

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

Excuse my pedantry but how do you know what the recording is supposed to sound like?

 

What is your reference?

 

Process of elimination. As given in my original post, the full wording was

 

Quote

How do I know it's correct? The setup is producing the sound from the CDs that I have heard 100's of time before - better in some ways; not quite as good in others ... IOW, I'm largely hearing the recording, not the playback signature.

 

Evey recording has a signature. Every track of a compilation of tracks assembled from a variety of sources - Greatest Hits of the 80's type of thing - has a distinct signature, from one to the next. The more that differentiation is toned down, the more 'even' it becomes; then the more the signature of the playback is intruding - the goal is to eliminate the latter.

 

What the recording is supposed to sound like is irrelevant - it sounds like what it is. As soon as you hear a recording you're familiar with sound significantly different from normal then you can embark on getting a handle on the playback chain distortion; its 'signature'. From experience, you then feed it recordings for which the first misbehaviour has given you clues, as to to where it will trip up, and you quickly build up a clear picture of its weaknesses. Which gives the information that guides sorting out the replay.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Any and every thing changes constantly, nothing stays un-changed in the apparent world. If you want stay eternally with un-changed go beyond time and space. Depends of what you know as "you". Back to music reproduction, it's quite strange that audiophiles strive to endlessly "improve" mechanical components and systems without trusting enough the organic mechanism of their own perception already in place between their ears.

 

You need to improve the integrity of the playback to the point where it always sounds convincing. If you are in a filthy mood while walking around in the street, and you come across a busker playing an instrument - that negativity you feel doesn't make the music sound less real; you mightn't like what is being played, but the qualities of the sound don't evaporate just because you're not in the mood to appreciate the piece.

[March Audio]

51 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Process of elimination. As given in my original post, the full wording was

 

 

Evey recording has a signature. Every track of a compilation of tracks assembled from a variety of sources - Greatest Hits of the 80's type of thing - has a distinct signature, from one to the next. The more that differentiation is toned down, the more 'even' it becomes; then the more the signature of the playback is intruding - the goal is to eliminate the latter.

 

What the recording is supposed to sound like is irrelevant - it sounds like what it is. As soon as you hear a recording you're familiar with sound significantly different from normal then you can embark on getting a handle on the playback chain distortion; its 'signature'. From experience, you then feed it recordings for which the first misbehaviour has given you clues, as to to where it will trip up, and you quickly build up a clear picture of its weaknesses. Which gives the information that guides sorting out the replay.

 

How can you eliminate anything if you dont know what the original is supposed to sound like?

 

You werent at the recording.  You have only heard it replayed on a different system.

[AnotherSpin]

48 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You need to improve the integrity of the playback to the point where it always sounds convincing. If you are in a filthy mood while walking around in the street, and you come across a busker playing an instrument - that negativity you feel doesn't make the music sound less real; you mightn't like what is being played, but the qualities of the sound don't evaporate just because you're not in the mood to appreciate the piece.

 

I know integrity in a broader and deeper way. When one is whole and knows everything, and does not feel lacking in any sense, music is beautiful. And one doesn't need any upgrades or tweaking of mechanical components besides.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

[...] If you are in a filthy mood while walking around in the street, and you come across a busker playing an instrument - that negativity you feel [...]

 

I can't replicate your conditions, I usually walk around in the street in good balance and peace.

[fas42]

55 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

How can you eliminate anything if you dont know what the original is supposed to sound like?

 

You werent at the recording.  You have only heard it replayed on a different system.

 

Again you use the word, "supposed".  There is no "supposed" about it - a digital version is locked, by the set of 0s and 1s within; and 10 completely different, but "perfect" systems will replicate the "sound captured in the recording" the same way, every time. Take a real world mechanism: Yamaha produces player acoustic pianos; 10 off the production line are sent to different rooms around the world, and the same digital file is sent to each, to play them. Yes, the sound will vary slightly because of the room, variations in instruments - but what a person in each place hears is essentially identical.

 

I look at a replay system in the same way - eliminating audible characteristics that are due to the playback chain can worked upon in a step by step manner, until the system itself becomes completely anonymous. At this point all that is left is the uniqueness of each recording, which is as recognisable as the voice of a member of your family.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

I know integrity in a broader and deeper way. When one is whole and knows everything, and does not feel lacking in any sense, music is beautiful. And one doesn't need any upgrades or tweaking of mechanical components besides.

 

The problem is that if one is in a very good place, emotionally, then you're very tolerant - a lacking in what you experience doesn't matter; you'll overlook shortcomings, be forgiving of its mistakes. Which is all excellent - but doesn't 'fix' anything .. I've found it's extremely worthwhile to optimise sound reproduction setups, because then they always produce magic times, and not only when I'm in the mood for it to happen.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

The problem is that if one is in a very good place, emotionally, then you're very tolerant - a lacking in what you experience doesn't matter; you'll overlook shortcomings, be forgiving of its mistakes. Which is all excellent - but doesn't 'fix' anything .. I've found it's extremely worthwhile to optimise sound reproduction setups, because then they always produce magic times, and not only when I'm in the mood for it to happen.

 

The problem is no 'optimization' of equipment would stay or last any significant length of time. Good news is if you know the truth you are at peace forever. I have nothing against people's desire to optimize or improve something that, by definition, falls apart quite naturally and in not so long time. What is, is, ho need to argue. But for me the picture is more or less clear, I am off this merry-go-round. 

[Iving]

Reversing entropy is what human beings (and other speices) do naturally! From survival (building shelter etc) to fiddling with Hi-Fi systems (hobby, pastime, delight, gas, sense of achievement, musical thrill). A little harmless perseverative fun is not to be sneezed at surely. We're lucky to be able to do it - uninterrupted enough to post here. Only got to read the headlines to appreciate that.

Yes - satisfaction with the natural order of things vs. reality-avoidance is one way of understanding sanity - reconciling oneself with how it "is" rather than too much how we would have it. I don't think I've ever met anyone already perfectly and permanently sane. Must mix with the wrong crowd. Or just have an unusual kind of family. Mine is cool, but as imperfect as hell - including me goes without saying.

[DRB100]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Process of elimination. As given in my original post, the full wording was

 

 

Evey recording has a signature. Every track of a compilation of tracks assembled from a variety of sources - Greatest Hits of the 80's type of thing - has a distinct signature, from one to the next. The more that differentiation is toned down, the more 'even' it becomes; then the more the signature of the playback is intruding - the goal is to eliminate the latter.

 

What the recording is supposed to sound like is irrelevant - it sounds like what it is. As soon as you hear a recording you're familiar with sound significantly different from normal then you can embark on getting a handle on the playback chain distortion; its 'signature'. From experience, you then feed it recordings for which the first misbehaviour has given you clues, as to to where it will trip up, and you quickly build up a clear picture of its weaknesses. Which gives the information that guides sorting out the replay.

I would think that an estute cable mfg. would examine how a cable “filters” the incoming signal and design a cable that does as litttle harm as possible.   Are all of the frequencies, for example, used in music stored and released in the cable equally throughout the bandwidth?  Some cable mfg’s actually conduct measurements that have proved that depending on the materials and design that they do not, and by changing the design of the cable, they can improve/change how the cable stores and releases energy at different “musical” frequencies.   
 

‘if the cable is designed to not destroy the incoming signal as much, then shouldn’t that be audible?   While some people and/or their system/room/ambient noise levels might or might not be able to hear such differences depending on which cables and which recordings one is listening to.

[DRB100]

55 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

The problem is no 'optimization' of equipment would stay or last any significant length of time. Good news is if you know the truth you are at peace forever. I have nothing against people's desire to optimize or improve something that, by definition, falls apart quite naturally and in not so long time. What is, is, ho need to argue. But for me the picture is more or less clear, I am off this merry-go-round. 

I have heard many audio equipment mfg’s suggest that one’s system may sound better late at night vs during the day due to the power being cleaner at night due to less construction equipment or other’s in your area simply aren’t using as much power thus reducing the noise that gets into the power llnes that might leach into one’s system.   
 Another factor is in most populated areas, there is less ambient noise (cars, trucks, highway noise from the outside) thus your room’s ambient noise level will be lower allowing the listening to have a lower noise floor.   

[PYP]

1 hour ago, DRB100 said:

I have heard many audio equipment mfg’s suggest that one’s system may sound better late at night vs during the day due to the power being cleaner at night due to less construction equipment or other’s in your area simply aren’t using as much power thus reducing the noise that gets into the power llnes that might leach into one’s system.   
 Another factor is in most populated areas, there is less ambient noise (cars, trucks, highway noise from the outside) thus your room’s ambient noise level will be lower allowing the listening to have a lower noise floor.   

You might be interested in this article on power cords:  https://shunyata.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2019/07/DTCD-tech_article.pdf

 

From the article (I bolded one sentence):

At this juncture we began to look at the operation of the power supplies within consumer audio and video products. We knew from power analyzer tests that a typical power supply could generate current harmonics above the 50th harmonic of the power line frequency. This implied that there may very well be high frequency events in the current domain that could be causing audible differences between cables. We used a high-powered audio amplifier as a test subject. We looked at the AC input to the power supply and at the current and loads across the rectifiers (electronic switch) using current probes and spectrum analyzers. To our surprise we found that the rectifier “on-time” was different when different types of power cables were used. Further, we found different spectral signatures with different cables. After many months of testing we found that the results of the test comparisons were not always consistent and repeatable. The input voltage from the wall outlet to the amplifier could vary based upon time of day and other loads within the building. The test could vary depending upon the load on the amplifier and the specific heat that the amplifier was generating. For these and other reasons, we decided to create a precision reference test rig that would simulate the power line voltage source and a test load that closely simulated the action of a typical power supply under load. If we could build such a device it could provide us with test results that were repeatable and calibrated. This would allow testing of a power cable
or other AC power device directly without having to run tests on an amplifier and then interpreting the indirect results. Thus, the concept for the DTCD Analyzer was born.

[March Audio]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Again you use the word, "supposed".  There is no "supposed" about it - a digital version is locked, by the set of 0s and 1s within; and 10 completely different, but "perfect" systems will replicate the "sound captured in the recording" the same way, every time. Take a real world mechanism: Yamaha produces player acoustic pianos; 10 off the production line are sent to different rooms around the world, and the same digital file is sent to each, to play them. Yes, the sound will vary slightly because of the room, variations in instruments - but what a person in each place hears is essentially identical.

 

I look at a replay system in the same way - eliminating audible characteristics that are due to the playback chain can worked upon in a step by step manner, until the system itself becomes completely anonymous. At this point all that is left is the uniqueness of each recording, which is as recognisable as the voice of a member of your family.

Sorry but I don't follow you.

 

Unless you were at the recording you simply don't know what it was meant to sound like. You have no reference.

 

Therefore you have no idea if what is being replayed is accurate.

 

10 different systems will have 10 different sounds. NONE of them will be perfect.

 

You are just guessing and picking one you think is the best.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Sorry but I don't follow you.

 

Unless you were at the recording you simply don't know what it was meant to sound like. You have no reference.

 

Therefore you have no idea if what is being replayed is accurate.

 

10 different systems will have 10 different sounds. NONE of them will be perfect.

 

You are just guessing and picking one you think is the best.  

 

This is true. There's no way around it even though many people will twist themselves into knots trying to explain they know what a recording should sound like. 

 

A common response is, "I know what a violin sounds like."

 

I always say, which violin (which Strad, which Guarneri, which etc...), in which room, using which DAW for recording, and the list goes on. 

[March Audio]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

This is true. There's no way around it even though many people will twist themselves into knots trying to explain they know what a recording should sound like. 

 

A common response is, "I know what a violin sounds like."

 

I always say, which violin (which Strad, which Guarneri, which etc...), in which room, using which DAW for recording, and the list goes on. 

As you allude to, even saying that you have heard a violin so know what it should sound like, doesn't help.

 

Up close in a small venue sounds very different to a concert hall.

 

Then add into the situation the sound of the specific microphones, their configuration, positioning and so on.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

Up close in a small venue sounds very different to a concert hall.

And, which small room or concert hall. I heard they were all the same 🤣

[PYP]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

And, which small room or concert hall. I heard they were all the same 🤣

Even concert halls change.  If you happened to experience the sound change before and after Carnegie Hall's 1986 renovation, you know the difference between a Hasselblad and Leica.   After the renovation, you could hear someone blink from 10 feet away.   Those few enthusiasts who would follow along with the score were a real distraction.  Turning the page sounded like a small, unfolding thunderclap (from thunder, not the dance move).  

 

 

[fas42]

10 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

The problem is no 'optimization' of equipment would stay or last any significant length of time. ...

 

It does actually ... if the right areas are addressed, and in a smart way, then the benefits are long term. Taking shortcuts to get answers is fine, but one should always remember that you haven't finished the job until it's been "properly engineered" - and I'm as guilty of not following through as anyone! ☹️

[fas42]

9 hours ago, DRB100 said:

I would think that an estute cable mfg. would examine how a cable “filters” the incoming signal and design a cable that does as litttle harm as possible.   Are all of the frequencies, for example, used in music stored and released in the cable equally throughout the bandwidth?  Some cable mfg’s actually conduct measurements that have proved that depending on the materials and design that they do not, and by changing the design of the cable, they can improve/change how the cable stores and releases energy at different “musical” frequencies.   
 

 

I don't believe in that sort of thing ... any cable should perform the same function as a half inch link of copper on a circuit board; it merely ties two points of a circuit together, which are physically distanced ... as soon as a cable does more than that, then the gremlins arise ...

 

9 hours ago, DRB100 said:

I have heard many audio equipment mfg’s suggest that one’s system may sound better late at night vs during the day due to the power being cleaner at night due to less construction equipment or other’s in your area simply aren’t using as much power thus reducing the noise that gets into the power llnes that might leach into one’s system.   
 

 

This is a real issue ... the filtering of noise in nearly all audio gear is not good enough; and it should be fixed by the manufacturers - it's just silly that the consumer has to do all the work of trying to, yes, optimise this.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, March Audio said:

Sorry but I don't follow you.

 

Unless you were at the recording you simply don't know what it was meant to sound like. You have no reference.

 

Therefore you have no idea if what is being replayed is accurate.

 

10 different systems will have 10 different sounds. NONE of them will be perfect.

 

You are just guessing and picking one you think is the best.  

 

If 10 different systems have 10 different sounds, then the chances are that none of them are particularly accurate.

 

What is best is the one that conveys the sense of what occurred at the recording site most convincingly. And to nail this what you can do is play recordings of music which have characteristics that are complex, very distinctive, and that are not fiddled with. A very good example would be an "all the stops out" pipe organ recital - most rigs are pretty shameful at this, that I've come across. If you get the tremendous intensity of this instrument happening in your listening space, with its glorious harmonic richness intact, then you are in a pretty good space.

 

If a setup can present the power of the pipe organ convincingly, at realistic volumes, then all your other recordings fall into place - things just work well, as in, vocals on every type of recordings sound like the real thing, rather than weak imitations a lot of the time.

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

If 10 different systems have 10 different sounds, then the chances are that none of them are particularly accurate.

 

What is best is the one that conveys the sense of what occurred at the recording site most convincingly. And to nail this what you can do is play recordings of music which have characteristics that are complex, very distinctive, and that are not fiddled with. A very good example would be an "all the stops out" pipe organ recital - most rigs are pretty shameful at this, that I've come across. If you get the tremendous intensity of this instrument happening in your listening space, with its glorious harmonic richness intact, then you are in a pretty good space.

 

If a setup can present the power of the pipe organ convincingly, at realistic volumes, then all your other recordings fall into place - things just work well, as in, vocals on every type of recordings sound like the real thing, rather than weak imitations a lot of the time.

Oh boy. Or should I say oh Frank. 

[fas42]

People are confusing hearing differences in what is being presented musically - the "which violin?" scenario - with hearing that the presentation is flawed; has too much audible distortion.

 

To take a more extreme example: a violin playing on the car radio sounds horrible and scratchy - is it because the maker put out a bad instrument? No, it's because the radio has lousy treble quality ... simples, 😉.

 

It's the same thing on a high end system - even though it's less obvious ... if the playback is audibly wrong, then there's your problem - you've got to fix that, before quibbling about other stuff.

[fas42]

Dup ...

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

People are confusing hearing differences in what is being presented musically - the "which violin?" scenario - with hearing that the presentation is flawed; has too much audible distortion.

 

To take a more extreme example: a violin playing on the car radio sounds horrible and scratchy - is it because the maker put out a bad instrument? No, it's because the radio has lousy treble quality ... simples, 😉.

 

it's the same thing on a high end system - even though it's less obvious ... if the playback is audibly wrong, then there's your problem - you've got to fix that, before quibbling about other stuff.

You don’t know if it’s wrong because there is no reference. 

[fas42]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

You don’t know if it’s wrong because there is no reference. 

 

The reference is one's experiences with sound in the natural world - the easiest to work with is vocals; which we are all intimately familiar with. You hear the sound of a voice from another room - 99 times out of 100 anyone will be able to instantly pick whether that is an actual person, or the reproduction of a person's voice ... when a system is in a good zone, it will drop back to 50 out of 100 - it becomes a guess ...