Ars prepares to put “audiophile” Ethernet cables to the test in Las Vegas

[plissken]

Crash tests, of course. It's in Mercedes' ads, and not accidentally. They know their market.

 

Now tell me how many Mercedes owners know the C&D skidpad numbers for their cars? How many would switch to a Chevy, Honda or Lexus on learning their skidpad numbers were better? Does Mercedes show C&D skidpad numbers in their ads or print them on certificates for their customers? Of course not. Again, they know their market.

 

You would have to ask owners. It's still data points that many people use to help make decisions. I'm not arguing that it's the arbiter. I encourage test drives.

 

There's a difference between reviewing numbers and remembering them years after the purchase.

 

But cars are cars and cables are cables. I know that my worst performing BJC cable is 200% better than the minimum spec. I couldn't tell you the hard number. I would have to look at the report.

 

I agree and see your point. It's sad that if that is the case then. Because if there is one thing you purchase by the spec it's something that handles data.

 

So why exactly is it AQ owners merit criticism for the same sorts of attitudes?

 

Because selling a cable that is some how CAT7 when CAT7 doesn't exists and compound that with the fact that it's not even CAT6A, regardless of price, is false advertising.

 

AQ would have an issue if their customers en-mass decided to return their Vodka and Diamond cables. All it would take is rash of calls to state's AG office.

 

Regarding "critically engineered:" Which do you think best meets the definition of critical engineering, whether an Ethernet cable used in a home audio system meets the Cat 7 spec, or the performance of the family car on a skidpad?

 

Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

I expect good engineering in all my purchases regardless of costs. Don't you demand the same?

[bluesman]

Nothing different than saying Mercedes drivers are likely less interested in a printed certificate that their vehicles meet certain minimum automotive specifications than, for example, Chevy owners might be. Mercedes and AQ owners firmly believe their products are *better*. They're not terribly interested in certifications of compliance with minimum standards; likely the reaction if told of noncompliance would be to say that spec must not be important for audio anyway - right?

 

Dude! Why are you taking the bait? This is only prolonging the agony.

[Jud]

 

Because selling a cable that is some how CAT7 when CAT7 doesn't exists and compound that with the fact that it's not even CAT6A, regardless of price, is false advertising.

 

AQ would have an issue if their customers en-mass decided to return their Vodka and Diamond cables. All it would take is rash of calls to state's AG office.

 

Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

I expect good engineering in all my purchases regardless of costs. Don't you demand the same?

 

Didn't know they were falsely claiming compliance with a spec - while I don't know if this would be a matter for the AG's office, a clear test on a representative sample of cables and ensuing discussion with AQ might get changes made.

 

The reason I made the comparison is that people act pretty much the same with respect to more important or expensive purchases all the time, but I don't see message boards populated by people demanding, for example, that Rolls owners do blind tests to see whether the interiors of their cars are really quieter or have better climate control than, e.g., a Lexus. For some reason in audio de gustibus seems more disputandem. (I think it may have something to do with audio's relative unimportance - Google "bikeshedding.")

[esldude]

"Under what conditions would you be willing to accept that your hypothesis is wrong?"

 

Unless both "sides" are able to do this, there is no point in even conducting a perfect experiment.

 

For the believers, is there any set of potential conditions under which you would be willing to accept being wrong? (If not, it is a tacit admission of irrational metaphysical/religious/superstitious belief.) If so, under what conditions would you accept being wrong?

 

For the non-believers, does it have to be a statistically significant majority of listeners who pass an A/B/X test, or would one listener, who repeatedly can pass an A/B/X test under a variety of conditions, in a statistically significant manner, be enough to accept being wrong?

 

If only it could be approached this way. We have at last a few hundred ways that are NOT accepted as being wrong. Alas, if the possible ways that will not be excepted are infinite, we will always be infinitely far away from eliminating all the ways not accepted. (Sigh)

[Superdad]

Another approach would be to use selected show participants. By that I mean use some known to be audible, but not obvious differences in blind testing. Then only accept those who successfully obtained a positive result in those preliminary screening tests. That shows they can hear relatively small differences, and they aren't thrown off by the process of blind listening as done during testing nor by the equipment in use.

 

I agree with that suggestion. I'd use something like a range of digital SRC filters, from minimum-phase to linear-phase with some differing slopes. Audibility and measurability of those is not particularly controversial, and it is the sort of thing that reveals itself--and the listeners' abilities--as variation in attack and harmonic envelope. I won't say that all cable differences fall into that category, but if a person can tune into the aspects of musical "rightness" or "wrongness" wrought by filters, then they are more likely to be able to discern other subtle cues.

 

Problem is, I don't think such participant screening necessarily helps pick people who are not thrown off by the process. What I believe would go FAR further in providing a test environment where users can reliably identify differences would be to allow each participant to use his own music--and to direct when a switch occurs and what tracks to go back to. Thus I believe that valid testing REQUIRES that users essentially listen alone to their own music at their own pace.

 

What do the rest of you think of that?

[Jud]

Dude! Why are you taking the bait? This is only prolonging the agony.

 

Why are you still reading?

[Jud]

Why are you still reading?

 

(Edit: Since this is the Web and you can't see me, let me assure you the above remark is meant in the friendliest and most jocular possible way.)

[sandyk]

What I believe would go FAR further in providing a test environment where users can reliably identify differences would be to allow each participant to use his own music--and to direct when a switch occurs and what tracks to go back to. Thus I believe that valid testing REQUIRES that users essentially listen alone to their own music at their own pace.

 

What do the rest of you think of that?

 

That's far too sensible, but the hard line Objective mob would never accept that as proof, because it wouldn't give them the negative/NIL results they so desperately need to see.

They almost invariably need to control the proceedings, otherwise they will refuse to accept any results that don't meet their expectations.

Of course, if your results under pressure did result in their favoured outcome, they will then seize on those results as vindicating their stance. Talk about hypocrites !

[plissken]

Didn't know they were falsely claiming compliance with a spec - while I don't know if this would be a matter for the AG's office, a clear test on a representative sample of cables and ensuing discussion with AQ might get changes made.

 

The reason I made the comparison is that people act pretty much the same with respect to more important or expensive purchases all the time, but I don't see message boards populated by people demanding, for example, that Rolls owners do blind tests to see whether the interiors of their cars are really quieter or have better climate control than, e.g., a Lexus. For some reason in audio de gustibus seems more disputandem. (I think it may have something to do with audio's relative unimportance - Google "bikeshedding.")

 

Cars are cars and cables are cables. If a manufacturer of either makes claims I expect those claims to be substantiated.

 

If you want to buy cables on aesthetic then purchase them on aesthetic.

 

There is issue with how AQ lists cable. If the BJC analysis of the cable is correct the tested cable is going to show a high BER vs a $12 cable that surpasses the 6A spec at 10Gbit. I would bet money on it.

 

AQ has all the cables they need to test sitting in a warehouse. To think that a cable authority such as they would ship a line of $340 cables and NOT test them and I mean every single last one of them. Well IMO it's beyond irresponsible and taking their customers for granted.

 

I can think of a few uber lux car brands that didn't work out for.

[plissken]

That's far too sensible, but the hard line Objective mob would never accept that as proof, because it wouldn't give them the negative/NIL results they so desperately need to see.

They almost invariably need to control the proceedings, otherwise they will refuse to accept any results that don't meet their expectations.

Of course, if your results under pressure did result in their favoured outcome, they will then seize on those results as vindicating their stance. Talk about hypocrites !

 

I don't need any negative or positive results. The people that can hear subtle differences don't need someone else being their mouthpiece or their non-appointed apologist.

 

The claim being tested, the theory, is 'Plainly apparent', 'Easy to discern', 'Night and day'.

 

The claim governs testing. The claim erases all boundaries of personal source material, personal listening rig, personal pace.

 

The audience that the claimant was speaking to is the audience that goes to shows like RMAF, CapAudio Fest, Lone Star Audio Fest, Axpona, Cedia. It's the audience with a 'one percenter' audio system.

 

No persons individual belief is being tested. The people that would participate are a variable introduced to see if the claimant's suppositions hold up.

 

I'm not asking the same thing you are proposing. You can ask and propose your own questions and a methodology to get them answered.

 

If you simply have a personal belief and it incorporates sighted evaluation that's great. Just be aware that if you proselytize what is tantamount to a belief system you are going to get some hard questions asked when you are outside the congregation.

[esldude]

Problem is, I don't think such participant screening necessarily helps pick people who are not thrown off by the process. What I believe would go FAR further in providing a test environment where users can reliably identify differences would be to allow each participant to use his own music--and to direct when a switch occurs and what tracks to go back to. Thus I believe that valid testing REQUIRES that users essentially listen alone to their own music at their own pace.

 

What do the rest of you think of that?

 

Optimally there is no problem with that. Doing your own switching is suggested as best. If people get to find how long they have maximum acuity, they will find short sections out perform longer ones. Sorry, I know it is not popular, and general audiophilia says the reverse. As for using their own music, it depends upon what is being tested. In some cases it would be okay, and in some not. It would be quite interesting to do this with some effect known to be reasonably audible, but not so obvious to be chosen 100%. Let group A use music selected for them, let group B choose their own, and see which group does better.

[toddrhodes]

Here's my issue with this whole premise - the concept of "night and day" means something different to all of us. And frankly, if ANY cable presents a "night and day" difference such that your average person who really doesn't "listen" to music can pick it out, something was wrong with one cable or the other. It's just a very dumb way to market a product IMO. And regardless of the testing procedures, this outcome was readily predicted from the outset.

 

Sure, there are some things in audio that ARE night and day - compare a dCS Vivaldi to a Schiit Modi and you have a stark difference, price notwithstanding. Same for a SET amp vs the amp in a common AV Receiver. But I truly do not think that a consensus will ever be reached when it comes to the "cable debate" whether it's speaker, analog interconnects, and especially digital cables. For someone who is intimately familiar with their own material in their own space with their own gear? Yes, I don't doubt they may find some subtle changes happening. But to claim those are "night and day" no matter how dramatic the author tends to be, is just a silly claim and is shameless marketing hype. No amount of testing, proper procedures, lab environments, will change that.

 

Again, just my opinion as an untrained ear in the literal sense.

[plissken]

Here's my issue with this whole premise - the concept of "night and day" means something different to all of us.

 

We aren't testing a participants version of night and day. We are seeing if a group of audio minded people, the proposed cross section of audience a person claims to speak to as some form of authority, will yield a sample size that supports that person's claim that in both their own listening rig, other's listening rig, and at AQ's own hosted event will track.

 

It's a well defined hypothesis with narrow scope. Narrow scope makes the testing easier. Easier testing is better testing. It has less variability to it. It's easier for others to autonomously reproduce on their own. It's more difficult to pick apart. It yields a more manageable data set. Hopefully it will lead to other discovery and most importantly another question to ask.

[toddrhodes]

We aren't testing a participants version of night and day. We are seeing if a group of audio minded people, the proposed cross section of audience a person claims to speak to as some form of authority, will yield a sample size that supports that person's claim that in both their own listening rig, other's listening rig, and at AQ's own hosted event will track.

 

It's a well defined hypothesis with narrow scope. Narrow scope makes the testing easier. Easier testing is better testing. It has less variability to it. It's easier for others to autonomously reproduce on their own. It's more difficult to pick apart. It yields a more manageable data set. Hopefully it will lead to other discovery and most importantly another question to ask.

 

Well, even if I have the views I do, I will concede that testing those that would have any interest in such a product - those supposed members who believe they would benefit from said product - is smart and, dare I say, logical. I am an absolute laymen when it comes to conducting tests and applying consistent, repeatable testing methods in such an experiment. I will absolutely follow the journey though!

[sandyk]

If you simply have a personal belief and it incorporates sighted evaluation that's great. Just be aware that if you proselytize what is tantamount to a belief system you are going to get some hard questions asked when you are outside the congregation.

 

In my case, I have gone much further, having a claim of mine the subject of 6 separate Blind A/B/A/ 3 minute sessions with the results published in HiFi Critic Vol.6 No.1 , yet the hard line Objective mob here still refuses to accept the results, or even that at the very least, they are worthy of further investigation, simply because the tests weren't performed the way they demanded they should have been done. As far as they are concerned, the results must have been rigged, because the 6 POSITIVE results didn't agree with their personal beliefs.

 

You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

The subject of this thread is doomed to failure too, as any contrary results to qualified people's expectations will be dismissed as a fault of the methodology used.

[plissken]

In my case, I have gone much further, having a claim of mine the subject of 6 separate Blind A/B/A/ 3 minute sessions with the results published in HiFi Critic Vol.6 No.1 , yet the hard line Objective mob here still refuses to accept the results, or even that at the very least, they are worthy of further investigation, simply because the tests weren't performed the way they demanded they should have been done. As far as they are concerned, the results must have been rigged, because the 6 POSITIVE results didn't agree with their personal beliefs.

 

I would be interested in reading up on that and the testing methodology. Is it publicly available or behind a paywall?

[wgscott]

Just to clarify, is this the test that proves that audio files that possess identical checksums (i.e., are bit-identical) sound different?

[sandyk]

I would be interested in reading up on that and the testing methodology. Is it publicly available or behind a paywall?

 

The actual testing methodology by Martin Colloms wasn't detailed in either the various threads in HFC Forum or the magazine, and I refused to demand information on exactly how the 6 Blind Tests were actually performed, the actual dates of each session performed, or the number of participants involved, as the people who disbelieve the results, or won't accept them, wouldn't be likely to accept any further information that I requested and received from Martin anyway.

They are at liberty to directly ask him these questions themselves, but refuse to do so.

As far as I am concerned, a qualified E.E. with >30 years experience as a technical writer, magazine Editor and Hi Fi equipment reviewer ,is more than capable of correctly performing such tests.

If you are still interested , I can provide links to the various HFC Forum threads and the too brief article in HFC Vol.6 no.1 via a P.M.

Alex

 

P.S.

I will not be further responding to requests or attacks from the usual closed minded and sarcastic Objective crowd who have NO technical qualifications in this area.

[Paul R]

You are being corrected about the basics of Theory and Hypothesis but you want to preach to me about perceptual testing? Good luck with that.

 

There is no such thing as zero data in these types of testing. If no one can distinguish? Guest what? I STILL have data. I STILL have #'s.

 

It's just not the #'s YOU want. That isn't what this testing is about. It's not about the #'s I want. I'm designing a test that is evaluating someone else's claims.

 

Those claims are steering the design process. Now that there is commentary from Audiostream it's potentially more data to incorporate and points of contention to mitigate. It's hopefully data that is usable to tighten up the testing gear to better test their claims.

 

 

I'll try to be clear:

 

You are designing a test to try and prove a negative. (Ethernet cables do not cause a system to sound different.)

 

I suggest you need to be designing it to *prove* that Ethernet cables *do* cause a system to sound different.

 

And yes, there is a strong component of perceptual testing involved, and no, it is not at all like putting a component on the bench and hooking it up.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

I don't need any negative or positive results. The people that can hear subtle differences don't need someone else being their mouthpiece or their non-appointed apologist.

 

The claim being tested, the theory, is 'Plainly apparent', 'Easy to discern', 'Night and day'.

 

You need to chill a bit mate - the stuff above is at least borderline nonsensical. What they heck has any of those terms got to do with a well designed test - other than you you might allow them as answers to some test events. Nothing at all.

 

And as noted above, you cannot disprove them, so why even try? As suggested, try designing to prove that people can hear such differences. Negative test results will not be conclusive, but will be indicative. Perhaps even compelling, if the testing is well done.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

The actual testing methodology by Martin Colloms wasn't detailed in either the various threads in HFC Forum or the magazine, and I refused to demand information on exactly how the 6 Blind Tests were actually performed, the actual dates of each session performed, or the number of participants involved,

 

And yet, you insist that people, like me, who refuse to accept the results as valid because of exactly what you just said above, have reasons other than the above for that opinion.

 

as the people who disbelieve the results, or won't accept them, wouldn't be likely to accept any further information that I requested and received from Martin anyway.

They are at liberty to directly ask him these questions themselves, but refuse to do so.

 

*You* are the one claiming those tests validate *your* theories. The burden to produce compelling evidence is on you. Not me, or anyone else.

 

As far as I am concerned, a qualified E.E. with >30 years experience as a technical writer, magazine Editor and Hi Fi equipment reviewer ,is more than capable of correctly performing such tests.

If you are still interested , I can provide links to the various HFC Forum threads and the too brief article in HFC Vol.6 no.1 via a P.M.

Alex

 

And as far as I am concerned, many many qualified Software/Computer Engineers and Scientists, a very large percentage of whom have over 30 years experience, disagree with you. Including me.

 

Many people who would be interested in the subject are not interested at all in spending time and effort to prove something that you claim is proved, but refuse to meet even the most basic standards of evidence about.

 

Seriously, people are wiling to listen to facts and compelling evidence.

 

P.S.

I will not be further responding to requests or attacks from the usual closed minded and sarcastic Objective crowd who have NO technical qualifications in this area.

 

Unfortunately, this paranoid trash talk is what all of us, even those of us who are your friends, get. It's a shame you cannot recognize that when you venture into the realms where evidence and evidence alone rules - such as proving your theories - then a very skeptical attitude is what you will always meet.

 

You don't want skepticism, label your claims as your opinion and experience and let it go at that.

 

-Paul

[sandyk]

As expected, the buddy of the "Ill Tempered audiophool" joins in the attack right on cue.

 

Have you improved that "deaf" Mac Mini of yours yet using either (or both) a decent Linear PSU, or a John Swenson designed Regen ?

Until you do your conclusions/opinions in this area are worthless.

 

 

see also

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/linear-powered-rips-and-flash-drives-sound-better-alex-was-right-22116/

[Snowmonkey]

A (probably apocryphal) tale I heard long ago:

 

If you put a rat at one end of a maze and a piece of cheese at the other, the rat will keep going and exhaust every possible path until it gets the cheese.

 

If you give a human an equally complex maze to navigate, they will try to work out the way through, then repeatedly make the same errors in their efforts to conquer the maze.

 

The reason? Humans feel they need to be right. Rats just want the cheese.

[Paul R]

Actually, I feel quite the same about your "conclusions."

 

When are you going to man up and buy a Mac? You have no idea how good your music can really sound until you do. And your conclusions are all erroneous.

 

As expected, the buddy of the "Ill Tempered audiophool" joins in the attack right on cue.

 

Have you improved that "deaf" Mac Mini of yours yet using either (or both) a decent Linear PSU, or a John Swenson designed Regen ?

Until you do your conclusions/opinions in this area are worthless.

 

 

see also

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/linear-powered-rips-and-flash-drives-sound-better-alex-was-right-22116/

[firedog]

Then AQ should provide their own slip of paper. I think there would be a lot of egg on face if 20 of their cables were to be tested. They certainly aren't going to pass the CAT7 spec when ratified. The cable that was tested barely made 6A. And it could fail if retested.

 

BJC as far as I'm concerned is of un-assailable reputation. I have zero reason or hesitation to take Kurt and Co and the testing at face value.

 

I'm a BJC customer through and through. The fact that every Ethernet cable that ships from them includes a printed certification sheet and AQ doesn't.... You can reach your own conclusions.

 

I'm also a customer of theirs, including ethernet cables. But your response is a non-sequitur in relation to my post.

 

Should AQ provide a test? Sure.

What does that have to do with my claim the taking their cable to a direct competitor for a test is both scientifically and ethically questionable. You claim to be interested in objectivity and science. Do you think having a cable tested at a direct commercial competitor is either? Would any kind of peer reviewed academic journal accept such a test? I think not.

 

The fact that either you or I may trust BJC is irrelevant, other than to ourselves. If some "audiophile" company that I think has an "unassailable reputation" did something that and showed the opposite, you'd be the first to scream "bias" - c'mon admit the truth. But when it's a company YOU like, suddenly it's okay. What happened to science and objectivity?