plissken Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Oh, no RF noise, so I expect you to now rail against the waste of money that would be involved in the RF cage you were calling for as a design element just a few posts ago here. And just wondering why the standards call for shielding if there's nothing to shield against. I'd be interested to see the RF cage design that would keep out noise coming in to equipment through input cables. Generally the RF cage (in my instance I use a PCIe card) would be for protection from the internals of a computer. It's like car insurance: You purchase and hope you never have to use it. Can you link to a post where or what I'm railing about? Curious about that. Houses are not typically chock full of RF/EMI in the audible band. Link to comment
plissken Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Exactly. So a potential sonic difference not due to LCR. Let's first actually establish you can hear a sonic difference unequivocally and then discuss difference. I think that totally fair. Link to comment
YashN Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 rf/emi in the audible band. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
Jud Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Let's first actually establish you can hear a sonic difference unequivocally and then discuss difference. I think that totally fair. So you think it's tremendously controversial to consider behavior with respect to noise, interference, or distortion when evaluating the performance of a component of an audio system? Just inductance, capacitance and resistance is all that's necessary, and anything beyond that is just crazy talk? 'Cause that's what we're talking about. Whether LCR is such a complete descriptor of cable behavior in any reasonably likely environment that it's all you need, and these AES and RANE standards about shielding are completely out of left field, because we don't need no stinkin' shielding. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
mansr Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 So you think it's tremendously controversial to consider behavior with respect to noise, interference, or distortion when evaluating the performance of a component of an audio system? Just inductance, capacitance and resistance is all that's necessary, and anything beyond that is just crazy talk? 'Cause that's what we're talking about. Whether LCR is such a complete descriptor of cable behavior in any reasonably likely environment that it's all you need, and these AES and RANE standards about shielding are completely out of left field, because we don't need no stinkin' shielding. You are, deliberately or not, confusing unrelated matters. For an audio interconnect, we care about two aspects: 1. How well it delivers the input signal to the other end of the cable. 2. How well it rejects external interference. The first is entirely determined by the LCR values of the cable while the second depends on shielding. The output from a cable consists of the filtered (LCR again) input plus noise. With few exceptions, the improvements people report from fancy cables could only be the result of filtering the input, not by changes in noise. It is indisputable that any basic, well-made cable is transparent to audio frequencies. It thus follows that the reported changes, if real, are the result of extreme inductance or capacitance. Now if someone prefers their sound filtered in some way, I won't argue with that, but bizarre cable topologies are a poor way to construct a filter. Why not use a plain cable and a simple filter box instead? Link to comment
jabbr Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I think that the improvements people report are certainly possibly the result of noise issues. For example: 1) it has been reported that adding on the order of 3 ohms to the ground wire resistance improves the sound if a USB cable 2) optical Ethernet cables are an obvious complete galvanic isolation. No reason to think that the actual Ethernet bits are any different -- indeed no real change in packet checksums 3) I've tested different shielding patterns of RCA cables in high noise environments where neophytes can spot changes in SQ -- these easily detectable differences vanish in a lower noise environment Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
mansr Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I think that the improvements people report are certainly possibly the result of noise issues. For example:1) it has been reported that adding on the order of 3 ohms to the ground wire resistance improves the sound if a USB cable The opposite has also been reported and measured. 2) optical Ethernet cables are an obvious complete galvanic isolation. No reason to think that the actual Ethernet bits are any different -- indeed no real change in packet checksums And thus no reason to think a fancy Ethernet cable could improve the bass extension or that the direction of the cable could make a difference. 3) I've tested different shielding patterns of RCA cables in high noise environments where neophytes can spot changes in SQ -- these easily detectable differences vanish in a lower noise environment Noise is additive. It can't do the things people claim exotic cables do. Link to comment
plissken Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I know, I know. I had some coffee about and hour later and had to laugh at my post. Link to comment
jabbr Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 The opposite has also been reported and measured. And thus no reason to think a fancy Ethernet cable could improve the bass extension or that the direction of the cable could make a difference. Noise is additive. It can't do the things people claim exotic cables do. No disagreement. I think of cables as being able to screw thing up rather than add to the music. Noise, ground loops etc can be pesky. I tend to think that when people are hearing differences between cables that it has something to do with some type of noise -- that's my personal experience Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Speedskater Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Just as many members have very little respect for you and your many anti subjective pronouncements ! Even the actual series output resistor value in a Preamplifier that is capable of being used as a low powered audio amplifier, due to having more than adequate current capabilities (>100mA Bias) and a low output Z, can cause a considerable difference in how a typical interconnect, whose impedance shouldn't matter much at audio frequencies sounds. Even the differences between say 82 ohms, 100 ohms and 120 ohms. In a Class A Preamplifier project in another forum, 100 ohms was found to sound more realistic than the other 2 values.It would have been helpful to have been able to have used 120 ohms, which is the designed output impedance for headphones meeting the old IEC61938 requirements. This was when used with a Class A amplifier having an input impedance of around 15Kohms. The Radio Frequency Characteristic Impedance of an interconnect cable and a real resistor in series with an output are two very, very different things. RFC Impedance has absolutely nothing to do with hi-fi, unless your cables are more than one mile long. Link to comment
Speedskater Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 There are four different traditional digital interconnect system. In the past it was AES/EBU and SPDIF. The current standards are: [TABLE=class: mft-pivot mft-both-header] [TR=class: mft-header] [TD][/TD] [TD][h=4]AES3[/h][/TD] [TD][h=4]AES3[/h][/TD] [TD][h=4]AES3id[/h][/TD] [TD][h=4]S/PDIF[/h][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Interface [/TD] [TD]Balanced [/TD] [TD]Balanced [/TD] [TD]Unbalanced [/TD] [TD]Unbalanced [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Connector [/TD] [TD]XLR-3 [/TD] [TD]CAT 5 [/TD] [TD]BNC [/TD] [TD]RCA [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Note: The XLR uses a Shielded Twisted Pair (there is no ground) CAT 5 does not required a shielded Cat5 cable. BNC uses a shielded coax cable. RCA uses a shielded coax cable. Interfacing AES3 and S/PDIF Link to comment
tne Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 What I'm saying above is a specific application of the general 'problem' of scientific reductionism -- we have a great ability to make measurements, and a great understanding of the individual components of a system, but have difficulty understanding the system as a whole., in this case going from 'electrons' and 'copper' which we know a great deal about, to SQ which we know very little about (except that we know it when we hear it -- the oft repeated 'trust your ears' ) Exactly. Unfortunately there are no known objective metrics of SQ. How does one measure and characterize "soundstage" or "tonal fidelity", etc., in a way that can provide a tool for development or for comparing different components? The ability to model and predict any of the parameters important for SQ, actually even to define them, and to make a connection with LCR, and other parameters easily measured on a lab bench, remains very elusive, outside the context of minimal to no EMI/RFI. You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star Link to comment
mansr Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Exactly. Unfortunately there are no known objective metrics of SQ. How does one measure and characterize "soundstage" or "tonal fidelity", etc., in a way that can provide a tool for development or for comparing different components? The ability to model and predict any of the parameters important for SQ, actually even to define them, and to make a connection with LCR, and other parameters easily measured on a lab bench, remains very elusive, outside the context of minimal to no EMI/RFI. That's incorrect. Sane cables simply have no discernible effect on sound quality. End of story. Link to comment
CR250 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 You are, deliberately or not, confusing unrelated matters. For an audio interconnect, we care about two aspects: 1. How well it delivers the input signal to the other end of the cable. 2. How well it rejects external interference. The first is entirely determined by the LCR values of the cable while the second depends on shielding. The output from a cable consists of the filtered (LCR again) input plus noise. With few exceptions, the improvements people report from fancy cables could only be the result of filtering the input, not by changes in noise. It is indisputable that any basic, well-made cable is transparent to audio frequencies. It thus follows that the reported changes, if real, are the result of extreme inductance or capacitance. Now if someone prefers their sound filtered in some way, I won't argue with that, but bizarre cable topologies are a poor way to construct a filter. Why not use a plain cable and a simple filter box instead? Who's we? Link to comment
JR4321 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I apologize for the irritation of asking a million questions, but I don't know the answers and I'd like to. I doubt anyone paying attention believes this sentence. We all know that you, Jud, the lawyer, would not ask this question unless you knew the answer. This is typical click-baiting by our moderator. Once again proving the misinterpreted, yet beloved and widely accepted truth of Shakespeare's quote "first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". Link to comment
gmgraves Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I have, by definition, no respect for those people. Generally, I agree with you on a lot of technical issues, but when you say that you have no respect for someone based solely on the fact that they don't have the training that you do in electronics, and therefore are perhaps susceptible to being fooled by their senses (or perhaps not) and don't realize that perhaps what they hear has no scientific explanation, then I think that you have crossed the line. Everyone deserves respect even if you disagree with them on some issues. George Link to comment
gmgraves Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 It wasn't lost on me the the starting point of the attenuation sweep started at 1 million cycles per second and only .24 dB of loss. I wonder how many here could listen to a stereo pair of speakers and pick out a .24 dB of loss on one channel across the entire FR band. Nobody, and that's the point! George Link to comment
tne Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 That's incorrect. Sane cables simply have no discernible effect on sound quality. End of story. Which of the comments are you saying are incorrect? Do you know a way to measure and characterize "soundstage", etc.? Do you disagree that it would useful to have a predictive tool that could be used to see how SQ varies with LCR, etc.? You seem not to have really read my post. Do you base your opinion about cables on experiments (e.g. proper DBT on similar and dissimilar cables) ? You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star Link to comment
tne Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Generally, I agree with you on a lot of technical issues, but when you say that you have no respect for someone based solely on the fact that they don't have the training that you do in electronics, and therefore are perhaps susceptible to being fooled by their senses (or perhaps not) and don't realize that perhaps what they hear has no scientific explanation, then I think that you have crossed the line. Everyone deserves respect even if you disagree with them on some issues. we all should understand the distinction between "no scientific explanation" and "no known scientific explanation" and "i do not know the scientific explanation" at all times. You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star Link to comment
kumakuma Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I doubt anyone paying attention believes this sentence. We all know that you, Jud, the lawyer, would not ask this question unless you knew the answer. I think that rule only applies to questioning witnesses at a trial. Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
mansr Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Generally, I agree with you on a lot of technical issues, but when you say that you have no respect for someone based solely on the fact that they don't have the training that you do in electronics, You're misrepresenting what I said. My respect for someone does not depend on their education. I do, however, have little respect for people who refuse to accept that scientists and engineers generally know their stuff. and therefore are perhaps susceptible to being fooled by their senses (or perhaps not) and don't realize that perhaps what they hear has no scientific explanation, then I think that you have crossed the line. Everyone deserves respect Have you ever heard of this thing called hyperbole? You also need to consider the context: sandyk once again referring to his unnamed friends as proof of supernatural phenomena. even if you disagree with them on some issues. Physics is not a matter of opinion. Link to comment
JR4321 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I think that rule only applies to questioning witnesses at a trial. I sincerely hope you are correct. I believe, however, in this instance the evidence suggests otherwise. Link to comment
CR250 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I doubt anyone paying attention believes this sentence. We all know that you, Jud, the lawyer, would not ask this question unless you knew the answer. This is typical click-baiting by our moderator. Once again proving the misinterpreted, yet beloved and widely accepted truth of Shakespeare's quote "first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". I believe him. Link to comment
sandyk Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Have you ever heard of this thing called hyperbole? You also need to consider the context: sandyk once again referring to his unnamed friends as proof of supernatural phenomena. O.K. you elitist and arrogant individual, who likes to put E.E.s on a pedestal as if they are all-knowing Gods, the main person I referred to here was Chris, who is also a C.A. member. and is based in Spain. How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
CR250 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 "You're misrepresenting what I said. My respect for someone does not depend on their education. I do, however, have little respect for people who refuse to accept that scientists and engineers generally know their stuff." If all the great scientists thought that way, the wheel probably wouldn't have been invented. The disrespect of non acceptance is directly responsible for all the technology we take for granted. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now