Those who own Audioquest cable...what do you think?

[Paul R]

...and yes placebo effect/expectation bias can go either way: better or worse.

 

In fact essentially all double blinded placebo controlled studies have undesirable "side effects" in the control groups.

 

And is occasionally blamed for the results, because treating human hearing as a purely mechanical function does not provide definitive answers. But psycho-acoustics is still one of the fuzzy sciences, because it is fantastically difficult to measure exactly what one is actually hearing once processed in the brain.

 

So the arguments continue, with, apparently, right and wrong on both sides.

[semente]

Maybe you guys need to slow down a bit a define exactly what "fancy and expensive" cables are. Can a cable be fancy and cheap? Plain and expensive? What limits?

 

I am sure we can all agree that speaker cables costing $30,000/meter are expensive, and I think most would agree or not dispute that they are probably fancy snake oil.

 

Just as certainly, most would also agree, or at least not dispute, that a $10 Belkin Gold USB cable is both plain and inexpensive.

 

The area of dispute lies within the two extremes of course. Is a $50 Optical TOSLink cable expensive? Fancy? Worth the cost?

 

How about a $150 USB cable?

 

Is expensive and/or plain/fancy relative here? Compared to what?

 

Yep it is less exciting to try and deal with facts than to mudsling. But at least we might all learn something or gain some new insight if we start with facts and agree what each term really means.

 

I don't think that one can answer that question because unfortunately there is no real relation between price and performance.

 

In my view and experience all elements from equipment to accessories to supports to cables to electronic components affect the performance of a system (the accuracy with which the signal is read, amplified and transduced); what changes is the magnitude of these effects - each has a different significance.

And the way I see it, whether a cable is expensive or not is related to it's cost when compared to the total money invested in the rest of the system; it also depends on the cable's absolute performance when compared to the competition, the uniqueness of it's qualities so to say.

 

If/since the conductive performance of a cable depends on it's topology and the materials used there's a fair chance that one won't need to look too far for a manufacturer offering adequate performance at a reasonable price (when compared to the price of say an amplifier or a pair of speakers).

 

I try to look at what makes an optical TOSlink or a USB a good performer and then find out how much I need need to pay to get that performance/conductivity.

But this will be limited by the cost of the cable in relation to rest of the system (which should be proportional to how much it interferes with the signal and influences the final result).

 

R

[jabbr]

And is occasionally blamed for the results, because treating human hearing as a purely mechanical function does not provide definitive answers. But psycho-acoustics is still one of the fuzzy sciences, because it is fantastically difficult to measure exactly what one is actually hearing once processed in the brain.

 

So the arguments continue, with, apparently, right and wrong on both sides.

 

 

What I am saying is that cables should be treated as purely mechanical entities whos function and behavior are actually incredibly well known and measurable.

 

Human hearing is not anywhere near this level.

 

If two cables behave identically in every measurement known to mankind, then will sound identically except for expectation bias and measurement error. That is for certain.

 

I am not claiming that there is any minimal audible difference, just that for a difference to be audible (aside from either measurement error or placebo effect) it must be measurable.

 

But the placebo effect is dramatically audible and so may swamp other effects. Basically those new shiny, big thick heavy and expensive cables that you need to be brought into a dark private room to feel and listen to, might sound different, and make you want those cables at home -- just throw out your everyday boring cables that have been with you for 20 years

[SciFiGuy]

And is occasionally blamed for the results, because treating human hearing as a purely mechanical function does not provide definitive answers. But psycho-acoustics is still one of the fuzzy sciences, because it is fantastically difficult to measure exactly what one is actually hearing once processed in the brain.

But is this so?

 

I ask because science clearly knows that music is defined by just two variables; amplitude and frequency. We have instruments that can measure both to levels that far exceed the limits of what humans can discern. Instruments can also measure other distortions, such as noise and phase irregularities, with similar accuracy levels.

 

I guess what I am wondering is what distortions is science not measuring that the brain might be interpreting?

[Jud]

But is this so?

 

I ask because science clearly knows that music is defined by just two variables; amplitude and frequency. We have instruments that can measure both to levels that far exceed the limits of what humans can discern. Instruments can also measure other distortions, such as noise and phase irregularities, with similar accuracy levels.

 

I guess what I am wondering is what distortions is science not measuring that the brain might be interpreting?

 

Music is defined by far more than two variables. (Yes, I am speaking scientifically.)

 

Regarding our hearing (the entire auditory system, including the relevant areas in the brain), what it is exquisitely good at (and has in fact been drafted into scientific research regarding), far better than any computer or measuring device yet invented, is pattern identification and matching. See generally the articles quoted and cited at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f7-disk-storage-music-library-storage/does-zip-or-tar-gzip-archive-compression-damage-audio-files-26390/index10.html#post482948.

[mansr]

But is this so?

 

I ask because science clearly knows that music is defined by just two variables; amplitude and frequency. We have instruments that can measure both to levels that far exceed the limits of what humans can discern. Instruments can also measure other distortions, such as noise and phase irregularities, with similar accuracy levels.

 

I guess what I am wondering is what distortions is science not measuring that the brain might be interpreting?

 

The distortions added by the brain itself are hard or impossible to measure.

[mansr]

Music is defined by far more than two variables. (Yes, I am speaking scientifically.)

 

Regarding our hearing (the entire auditory system, including the relevant areas in the brain), what it is exquisitely good at (and has in fact been drafted into scientific research regarding), far better than any computer or measuring device yet invented, is pattern identification and matching. See generally the articles quoted and cited at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f7-disk-storage-music-library-storage/does-zip-or-tar-gzip-archive-compression-damage-audio-files-26390/index10.html#post482948.

 

The human brain is indeed incredibly good at certain kinds of pattern matching. However, the brain is so intent on finding patterns that it is very prone to false positives, e.g. seeing faces in clouds. The patterns it detects are also dependent on a huge number of external influences such as environment, mood, and various physiological states, all of which are difficult or impossible to control or compensate for in a test. All this makes subjective experience a rather poor tool in evaluating the performance of a mundane object like a cable.

 

Of course when it comes to music itself, the subjective experience is all that matters. If I say Beethoven's 7th is better than his 4th, you may disagree, but there is no ultimate right or wrong answer.

[Jud]

The distortions added by the brain itself are hard or impossible to measure.

 

If we are talking about "music" rather than "a signal," in my view this presupposes a listener and thus the brain's processing would not be a distortion.

 

Wrt a "signal," yes, a great deal of what comes out of our speakers gets turned into something else by our brains. We in fact depend on many of these "distortions," such as the brain conjuring a single image from two signals coming out of two speakers, or attributing not only a base frequency but an entire series of harmonics to a single instrument or voice.

[mansr]

If we are talking about "music" rather than "a signal," in my view this presupposes a listener and thus the brain's processing would not be a distortion.

 

Wrt a "signal," yes, a great deal of what comes out of our speakers gets turned into something else by our brains. We in fact depend on many of these "distortions," such as the brain conjuring a single image from two signals coming out of two speakers, or attributing not only a base frequency but an entire series of harmonics to a single instrument or voice.

 

True, but we're mainly concerned with ensuring the signal that enters the ears is as close to some ideal as possible. This is something we can measure.

[Allan F]

If two cables behave identically in every measurement known to mankind, then will sound identically except for expectation bias and measurement error. That is for certain.

You 'beg the question' by assuming that 'every measurement known to mankind' is exhaustive and that nothing new can possibly be identified and measured in the future. By that token, the only thing that is 'certain' is your opinion.

[SciFiGuy]

Music is defined by far more than two variables. (Yes, I am speaking scientifically.)

What, besides amplitude and frequency, defines a waveform?

[SciFiGuy]

The distortions added by the brain itself are hard or impossible to measure.

 

In the case of the devices being talked about in the OP, we can measure the distortions and reference them to known limits of human distortion thresholds. Or, are you saying that we don't know what those limits are?

[mansr]

What, besides amplitude and frequency, defines a waveform?

 

Phase.

[mansr]

In the case of the devices being talked about in the OP, we can measure the distortions and reference them to known limits of human distortion thresholds. Or, are you saying that we don't know what those limits are?

 

Even with perfectly identical inputs, the brain doesn't always see or hear the same thing. We cannot presently measure what someone actually heard.

[SciFiGuy]

True, but we're mainly concerned with ensuring the signal that enters the ears is as close to some ideal as possible. This is something we can measure.

I would say that this is only true up until the time the electrical signal is inputted into our speakers. I am not very confident we can measure, with definitive certainty, the resultant waveform once it has been converted by our speakers.

[SciFiGuy]

Phase.

in properly designed audio electronics?

[SciFiGuy]

Even with perfectly identical inputs, the brain doesn't always see or hear the same thing. We cannot presently measure what someone actually heard.

We can measure the amplitude and frequency errors of electrical signals and compare them to known limits of human hearing. Unless you are saying that we don't know what these limits are?

[Jud]

The human brain is indeed incredibly good at certain kinds of pattern matching. However, the brain is so intent on finding patterns that it is very prone to false positives, e.g. seeing faces in clouds.

 

I agree. This is responsible for most if not all the optical and auditory illusions that we cannot "unsee" or "unhear," because the brain matches a familiar pattern that does not correspond with the actual data.

 

The patterns it detects are also dependent on a huge number of external influences such as environment, mood, and various physiological states, all of which are difficult or impossible to control or compensate for in a test.

 

There I very much disagree, and I believe the experimental results will bear me out. If you are in such a physiological state that you cannot recognize the voice of a close friend or relative, no matter what they are saying, even via low fidelity transmission such as a phone, then you are more likely to be in a hospital bed than at home listening to music. Or here, when would you be in such a state that you would not recognize these are two versions of the same song, though instrumentation, rhythm, chord changes, etc., all vary?

 

 

 

And here, try to be in such a physiological state that you will "unsee" the checkerboard pattern, though you have been shown it is false:

 

 

Our pattern matching abilities are vigorous enough to find patterns where the actual data are at some variance, yes. On the other hand, they are not nearly so fragile as you seem to think.

[Jud]

We can measure the amplitude and frequency errors of electrical signals and compare them to known limits of human hearing. Unless you are saying that we don't know what these limits are?

 

We are still finding out what many of these limits are, because they are not restricted to frequency or amplitude varying one at a time. See, e.g., Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 044301 (2013) - Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle

[mansr]

We can measure the amplitude and frequency errors of electrical signals and compare them to known limits of human hearing. Unless you are saying that we don't know what these limits are?

 

That is not what I'm saying. I was addressing the "music is so much more than a waveform" comments.

[sdolezalek]

For anyone who has the patience to read it, this year's HiFi Guide to cables has taken a different approach (compared to prior years) by interviewing many of the leading cable manufacturers on a variety of cable design subjects. Download the guide here: Hi-Fi+ Guide to Cables | Hi-Fi+

In it, Bill Lowe of AudioQuest actually comes off as fairly reasonable and studied vis-a-vis others, but you be your own judge. For those who see snake oil, this is as big a concentration of it as you are likely to ever get on cables.

[gmgraves]

There are two issues:

 

a) Maxwell's equations along with Lorenz force law describe electromagnetic phenomena and for practical purposes describe any electromagnetic circuit including cables, that we are discussing, including any quantum effects.

 

b) The so-called placebo effect, which is very real and significant, describes the power of expectation bias.

 

I suspect both are involved.

 

Placebo's are fine as long as they are not prohibitively expensive. Because healthcare is such a universal problem, and has great cost, at least in the USA the FDA aims to protect the public against overpriced placebos. Audiophilia has not gained national attention.

 

(a) at RF frequencies, Maxwell's equation as well as the Lorentz Force Law are almost assuredly a factor in the performance of any electrical circuit. But if you actually do the maths, you will see that at audio frequencies and interconnect voltages and currents, the effects are, essentially nil. We have to keep looking.

 

(b) There is no way to know about this one since it deals with human perception. Certainly human beings are highly susceptible to the vagaries of both expectation and confirmation bias. i.e. the placebo effect. No real way has ever been found to separate what people actually perceive with what they think they perceive. In some areas of study, double-blind-testing seems to work, but the way most audio-centric DBTs and ABX tests are conducted, the results seem to be so inconclusive as to call into question their validity. Most, if not all, DBTs produce a null result wrt interconnects, but many statistical researchers say that none of the published tests are stringent enough in either their construction or their analysis to be of any real use. It has been suggested that the tests would have to be administered over a much longer period with a much higher number of participants than has heretofore been been done, making the entire undertaking impractical for most interested parties to attempt.

[Jud]

What, besides amplitude and frequency, defines a waveform?

 

As mansr said, phase. And as regards "properly designed," phase changes are part of the design of the filters used in many DACs. But that is just as regards waveforms, not music. With regard to music, there is timbre, which consists of many things. Some academic papers recognize upwards of 20 aspects of timbre. The most commonly included aspects are harmonics/overtones, and characteristic attack/sustain/release. There are also time-related aspects [edit: of music, not timbre] such as rhythm and meter.

[Jud]

No real way has ever been found to separate what people actually perceive with what they think they perceive.

 

There are well known and quite interesting experiments in non-audio areas that shed some light on this, and as technology advances there may be more audio-specific research.

 

In some areas of study, double-blind-testing seems to work, but the way most audio-centric DBTs and ABX tests are conducted, the results seem to be so inconclusive as to call into question their validity. Most, if not all, DBTs produce a null result wrt interconnects, but many statistical researchers say that none of the published tests are stringent enough in either their construction or their analysis to be of any real use. It has been suggested that the tests would have to be administered over a much longer period with a much higher number of participants than has heretofore been been done, making the entire undertaking impractical for most interested parties to attempt.

 

There have been many experiments conducted over decades and published in peer-reviewed academic journals that shed considerable light on this. I hope to write something of interest on the topic for CA soon.

[mansr]

As mansr said, phase. And as regards "properly designed," phase changes are part of the design of the filters used in many DACs. But that is just as regards waveforms, not music. With regard to music, there is timbre, which consists of many things. Some academic papers recognize upwards of 20 aspects of timbre. The most commonly included aspects are harmonics/overtones, and characteristic attack/sustain/release. There are also time-related aspects, such as rhythm and meter.

 

All of those are fully described by a Fourier transform as a collection of frequencies of various amplitudes and phases. The higher-level concepts like timbre are useful when discussing music and musical instruments, but DACs and amps don't care about such things.