Any evidence wire is less than fully transparent at audio frequencies?

[gmgraves]

Hi George - Thanks for the links. Armed with this information I am puzzled why your are 100% certain no differences in "correctly" made cables can exist. The tests in the links are nothing on which I would base an absolute opinion.

 

For the sake of discussion, if you were listening for evidence of the smallest audible changes possible would you listen on a system and in a room with which you weren't intimately familiar? Listening at a Stereophile show for sonic differences in cable can be a major disservice to the listener and anyone reading the "results".

 

I'm not arguing about cables, rather the fact that your 100% absolute opinion is based on, what I consider, less than desirable evidence.

 

I don't see it that way. There is lots of evidence, its just not, for some reason, posted on the web. Like I said, I have been involved in many DBTs of cable sound, and under conditions that I feel are unimpeachable. If my only experience had been the aforementioned Stereophile show, I would be inclined to be a bit more circumspect in my assertion. But it's not just controlled listening tests that say that cable differences (I'm merely talking interconnects here. Speaker cables are much more complicated proposition) don't exist, its the physics and the mathematics behind it coupled with the listening tests that paint such a complete picture. I trust the science and in this case, even DBTs (about which, for complex active circuits I have my doubts) back-up that science.

[gmgraves]

I used to buy into that statement. Recently I've changed my mind.

 

Why wouldn't all claims, ordinary or extraordinary, simply require proof?

 

Well, that's another way of saying just that. Basically, a claim that flies in the face of known wisdom, is an extraordinary claim. Proving it would be, in and of itself, an extraordinary act. That's really all it means.

 

For example: If I claimed that pigs can fly without any technological assistance, that's an extraordinary claim. Were I able to prove to you that my assertion is 100% correct, would not that proof be extraordinary?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Well, that's another way of saying just that. Basically, a claim that flies in the face of known wisdom, is an extraordinary claim. Proving it would be, in and of itself, an extraordinary act. That's really all it means.

 

For example: If I claimed that pigs can fly without any technological assistance, that's an extraordinary claim. Were I able to prove to you that my assertion is 100% correct, would not that proof be extraordinary?

 

It's a matter of semantics.

 

People frequently use that phrase to bolster their position as if proof just isn't proof.

[Allan F]

Sorry, but your FACTS are NOT facts, they are only YOUR belief.

It says more about the unsuitability of DBT testing in unfamiliar listening surroundings and conditions, than anything else. In many cases the listeners are not familiar with the musical content, or the presentation of the equipment used.

 

+1

 

gmg has demonstrated time and again that he appears to be incapable of recognizing the distinction between opinion and fact. Nor is evidence to be confused with fact. Facts are established from incontrovertible evidence.

[Jud]

If your two WAV files are played through the SAME hardware chain, they HAVE to sound the same because they are the same. Just like any other digital file.

 

And my facts are facts. That you might not buy them is another subject altogether and speaks to the realm personal belief. It has nothing whatsoever to do with facts or reality or even logic - like most religious delusions.

 

I believe Alex has at least one example of DBTs confirming differences in sound in the circumstances he described.

 

I think this either says something about DBTs, or about a mechanism for causing differences that is certainly beyond my current comprehension.

[Daudio]

Actually, I'm only partly an objectivist...

 

Whoa, if you are going to try that big a whopper on me, I will disbelieve all your further assertions !!

[esldude]

I don't know if Gordon Rankin even mentioned any differences in input measurements. My general recollection is that he said pretty much that he heard differences he couldn't account for with the measurements he'd done (whatever those were).

 

I hope my rather non-specific memories aren't unintentionally misrepresenting what he said.

 

I am thinking of two instances from Gordon Rankin. One was a discussion about bit perfect playback software with Tony Lauck. He specified all the various things he measured which as I recall was almost every step of the way digital and on out to the final analog result. Said he found nothing different, but they still sound different.

 

Another was about USB cables. He said he tested quite a number, and some didn't pass or properly conform to the USB standard (mostly some audiophile USB cables). He eliminated those not conforming, and tested the rest. Found nothing in the analog output different and was a bit less clear as to whether they sounded different or not. Though you got the impression they did to him. He did say odd configurations from various audio cable companies performed worse. Though not all. That was also two or possibly even 3 years ago, and lots of different cables are out there for USB now vs then.

[esldude]

Just conceptually, I could also see noise affecting amplitude of the "bits" short of causing dropouts sufficiently to alter the timing of transitions across the zero crossing point. I don't know whether this would be remedied by the DAC's buffer and clock.

 

The other possibility would be noise getting into the ground plane and from there into the analog side of the system. I imagine galvanic isolation should minimize such problems, but as always it depends on the quality of both design and implementation.

 

Yes, the timing of the transitions across the zero point could be effected by noise. Whether that gets into the timing of the DAC depends on the design of the DAC. Though with a buffer and local clock I would think it should mostly drop out.

 

And about the same for the latter. Yes, noise could get into the analog portion, how serious that is depends on the design of the unit in use. I believe such noise is such a low level in analog form at audio frequencies it would be swamped by other analog noise sources, but I don't have good information on that.

[Allan F]

On the other hand, there is no scientific reason why amplifiers, CD players and DACs should all sound the same as they are complex bits of kit...

 

Even when they measure the same within the threshold of human hearing? According to your thesis, they would have to sound the same in that instance. The common experience is that they do not, notwithstanding the doubters who insist that they do.

[sandyk]

George

Please check your PMs.

Kind Regards

Alex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist."-Cookie Marenco. cookiemarenco.com/

[gmgraves]

Even when they measure the same within the threshold of human hearing? According to your thesis, they would have to sound the same in that instance. The common experience is that they do not, notwithstanding the doubters who insist that they do.

 

Some people don't read the very posts to which they are responding. As I said, NO past or current amplifier, preamp, CD player, or DAC is 100% transparent. IOW, none have all possible anomalies below the threshold of hearing. When these active components are "perfect" whereby all measurable specification anomalies are BELOW the threshold of hearing, (in the same manner that interconnect characteristics are) then they will all sound alike. I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen, were I you. 8^)

[Allan F]

When these active components are "perfect" whereby all measurable specification anomalies are BELOW the threshold of hearing, (in the same manner that interconnect characteristics are) then they will all sound alike.

 

In your opinion. And no interconnect or speaker wire passes the current perfectly between components because of fundamental electrical characteristics as well as dialectric properties, etc.

[elcorso]

Some people don't read the very posts to which they are responding. As I said, NO past or current amplifier, preamp, CD player, or DAC is 100% transparent. IOW, none have all possible anomalies below the threshold of hearing. When these active components are "perfect" whereby all measurable specification anomalies are BELOW the threshold of hearing, (in the same manner that interconnect characteristics are) then they will all sound alike. I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen, were I you. 8^)

 

I need a proof of your statement.

 

Roch

[gmgraves]

I need a proof of your statement.

 

Roch

 

Which statement, specifically, are you referring to?

[gmgraves]

George

Please check your PMs.

Kind Regards

Alex

 

Thanks, I did that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist."-Cookie Marenco. cookiemarenco.com/

[gmgraves]

In your opinion. And no interconnect or speaker wire passes the current perfectly between components because of fundamental electrical characteristics as well as dialectric properties, etc.

 

Actually, over the audio passband, for all audible purposes, they do. From the cheapest throw-away to the most expensive boutique interconnects all of the electrical characteristics and dialectric properties that a 1-2 meter length of coax can possibly have affect the audio signal at levels so far below the threshold of human hearing as to be negligible. Work the maths yourself using the published characteristics of plain old RG59 coax if you doubt that. The results are undeniable facts. Those results are, for all intents and practical purposes, perfect. I can't help it if people wish to ignore those facts and continue to believe in magic cables.

[barrows]

Nothing is fully transparent at audio frequencies.

[esldude]

Nothing is fully transparent at audio frequencies.

 

Thank you for that contribution. Got any evidence beyond anecdote, sighted listening impression or proclamation?

[elcorso]

Which statement, specifically, are you referring to?

 

Any, since everybody ask me the same when I output what I believe I'm listening.

 

But specifically those you mention as "BELOW the threshold of hearing" since this threshold could vary from person to person.

 

If interconnects "then they will all sound alike" is your other statement. Since I believe the contrary: There are some interconnects that harms the music more than others.

 

I wonder how this holly CA forum is denominated Computer Audiophile, there is so many people questioning "audiophilia". And from an audiophiliac way of thinking everything matters (like in Barrows signature), and then interconnects is a must to take care.

 

Enjoy the music and good night,

 

Roch

[esldude]

Any, since everybody ask me the same when I output what I believe I'm listening.

 

But specifically those you mention as "BELOW the threshold of hearing" since this threshold could vary from person to person.

 

If interconnects "then they will all sound alike" is your other statement. Since I believe the contrary: There are some interconnects that harms the music more than others.

 

I wonder how this holly CA forum is denominated Computer Audiophile, there is so many people questioning "audiophilia". And from an audiophiliac way of thinking everything matters (like in Barrows signature), and then interconnects is a must to take care.

 

Enjoy the music and good night,

 

Roch

 

You mention what gets mentioned often about thresholds of audibility varying from person to person. True it does. It even varies for each person as they age. But like most human abilities there is a distribution of thresholds and limits to them. If you use the well worked out basic outlines for young healthy adult hearing, and keep below those thresholds then you have nothing to worry about. Wire as interconnect is so far below those thresholds even if we mistake the actual threshold by a factor of 10 or more wire still isn't a problem.

[barrows]

Thank you for that contribution. Got any evidence beyond anecdote, sighted listening impression or proclamation?

 

Honestly, if all wire sounds the same to you, then I am not going to do anything to try and convince you. I have nothing to prove.

[Allan F]

The results are undeniable facts.

 

Bullfeathers! No, they are not. The fact that you can't hear differences doesn't establish anything. Anyhow, this is just another thread that goes around circles because of differing opinions and, I dare say, different hearing abilities.

 

The claim of expectation bias is a sham because it's based on the premise that a particular result is anticipated. In fact, listening comparisons are most frequently done to determine which product sounds better with no bias aforesaid, e.g. I may end up preferring my current cable because it sounds better to me, not because I expected it to. The contrary may be true. Expectation bias would favor the new product under examination. Of course, it may also be the case that two cables sound so similar as to be indistinguishable. I have experienced all three possibilities.

[esldude]

Bullfeathers! No, they are not. The fact that you can't hear differences doesn't establish anything. Anyhow, this is just another thread that goes around circles because of differing opinions and, I dare say, different hearing abilities.

 

The claim of expectation bias is a sham because it's based on the premise that a particular result is anticipated. In fact, listening comparisons are most frequently done to determine which product sounds better with no bias aforesaid, e.g. I may end up preferring my current cable because it sounds better to me, not because I expected it to. The contrary may be true. Expectation bias would favor the new product under examination. Of course, it may also be the case that two cables sound so similar as to be indistinguishable. I have experienced all three possibilities.

 

Listening comparisons most frequently done to determine which product sounds better inherently has a bias that they can sound different. Is that really so invisible you don't see it?

 

I have experienced all three possibilities you list as well. Though in fact, they all sounded the same or at least the same to differences of -120 db or so. Research by others indicate that is more like -160 db.

[Allan F]

Listening comparisons most frequently done to determine which product sounds better inherently has a bias that they can sound different. Is that really so invisible you don't see it?

 

How is the possibility that they can sound different a bias? That makes no sense. Because there is no assumption that they will sound different. Yes, it really is so invisible as to be non existent. To start out with the belief that they can't or won't sound different is clearly a bias.

 

I have experienced all three possibilities you list as well. Though in fact, they all sounded the same or at least the same to differences of -120 db or so. Research by others indicate that is more like -160 db.

 

I'm sorry but you must have misunderstood me if you say that you have experienced "all three possibilities" and they "sounded the same". The three possibilities I refer to are: 1) A sounds better than B, 2) B sounds better than A, and 3) A and B sound so similar as to be indistinguishable. In two of those cases, they sound different.

[Superdad]

Ran across something more recent that might be describing the same effect with specific reference to audio - Walt Jung and Richard Marsh (then of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, since then an audio designer for companies like MIT, and eventually his own company) talking about "dielectric absorption" in capacitors:

 

Jud, don't you just love these threads where they ask for reasoned techncal evidence or debate, and when you present some they just ignore it and keep on with their closed- minded ranting? It's as frustrating as watching politicians argue past one another.