Audible difference between analog interconnects

[semente]

Folks these days market to segments, and do so very effectively, including many companies whose design engineers I've long admired. "Objectivists" are such a segment, and so are "subjectivists."

 

I'm sure many of you have read Roger Russell (McIntosh) on speaker wire:

 

(...) Gordon Gow's (McIntosh) cable demonstration provided a personal experience for customers that could replace the Authority Beliefs they had relied on earlier. The demonstration was controlled. It was an instant comparison and the listeners did not know the wire identification. Gordon held many such demonstrations in dealer showrooms and at shows.

Despite the effectiveness of Gordon's cable demonstration and the truth about speaker wire, people visiting the McIntosh room at the shows, who had not experienced the cable demonstration, were disturbed that we were using ordinary heavy zip cord instead of one of the popular brands of speaker wire. Instead of listening to the McIntosh speakers and electronics, they recalled "bad" things they had been told about "common" speaker wire and this promoted questions about the "inferior" wire being used. When we changed the wire to a popular brand of wire, customers were happy with the setup, and directed their attention to the McIntosh equipment.

 

The demand for high quality speaker wire was increasing and appeared to be a new marketing area for several companies. McIntosh did not make or sell speaker wire. The solution seemed very obvious - rather than spend time and effort to create negative sales for McIntosh dealers who were beginning to sell speaker wire, it seemed best to encourage the speaker owner/customer to consult with the dealer about what speaker wire to use. Consequently, I no longer recommended the kind of wire or wire sizes in the speaker manuals.

 

By 1988, McIntosh no longer supplied audio interconnects with the electronics. Again, many kinds of special audio cables were available to the customer/owner. The dealer could also be consulted about what cables to use.

 

I credit the success of the speaker wire industry to their expert sales and marketing ability. However, it is my experience that ordinary copper wire, as long as it's heavy enough, is just as good as name brands. (...)

 

Roger Russell : Speaker Wire

 

R

[Paul R]

And that somehow makes him less of an engineer?

 

It definitely makes him more of a marketeer, does it not?

[plissken]

My 'validated CAT6' cables demonstratively outperform cables costing 28 times more

 

If there is no difference in cables, how to the BJ cables "outperform" others?

 

So you can hear these differences?

 

I think short term memory loss and aural acuity are closely intertwined there for ya.

 

They outperform them by a 28 to 1 price margin for starters. Which I clearly mentioned before.

[Jud]

I think short term memory loss and aural acuity are closely intertwined there for ya.

 

Short term memory is definitely a key here.

[plissken]

I'm sure they wouldn't be too torn up if you got a Wyrd to go with that, for example if the Adapticlock on one of their DACs showed the USB input was lousy quality.

 

Take a semi-"objectivist" view about something you don't make much if any revenue from (cables), thus building up cred with one segment of the market, while Mike cracks wise at objectivists in his Head-Fi thread, thus building up cred with another segment. It's called "marketing."

 

Or their DAC is competently designed that as long as a 3 foot section of cable is sending bit perfect stream they can successfully extract all the DATA that there is to be extracted.

 

Their verbiage is just as easily dressed in real engineering speak as it is 'marketing'. You know what? It could also be both. Because when something is so well designed and at a good price point in kind of 'sell's itself'.

[plissken]

Jon Siau (of Benchmark) markets a competing DAC that is very good. I have trouble separating his marketing from his science though. He complained, loudly and with great certainty that DSD was useless too, but the Benchmark 2 does DSD. And does it very well. (shrug)

 

Besides, I have never seen John Siau directly dispute that with Gordon Rankin. Perhaps you have a link?

 

As for Schiit - well Mike Morrow markets some of the best reviewed cables around, including analog interconnects. Some versions get quite expensive. I seriously doubt he would do that if he did not believe they sounded better. He is another of the "good guys" in the audio world.

 

Elite Grand Reference Interconnects (RCA & XLR Available)

 

-Paul

 

John Siau also hooked up 100 feet of digital cable to a DAC with horrible eye pattern and still extracted 100% of the information with out error.

[plissken]

Benchmark was one of the first, if not the first, asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) DACs on the market. Benchmark advertised ASRC

 

ASRC is input neutral....

[beautox]

They don't "outperform" any other cable that is correctly designed. Main issue is that you don't have to spend more that about $2 a foot for any cable to get one that will deliver a totally transparent signal from A to B.

 

I use this quote as it is an example of someone making a statement that simply cannot be known for sure to be true, so must be mere opinion (yet is presented as fact). There are many statements of this type on this thread. And they come from the so-called 'objectivist' side of the argument.

 

Why?

 

You cannot prove a negative such as this. Only a positive. What do I mean by this?

 

It is not possible for a statement like "no cable can outperform a correctly designed cable" (or "all cables sound the same") to be correct.

 

Even if you tested every cable combination and every person, using whatever blind test or other metric you like. (Which of course you cannot anyway). Because the following day, a cable could be made that did outperform it.

 

On the contrary, it is easy to disprove the statement, or prove a statement like "cables do sound different" - all you need is one instance where a cable does outperform another (again, using whatever metric you like).

 

This is similar to the 'black swan' theory (Nicholas Taleb) - you cannot for sure say that "Black swans do not exist", even if you spent your whole life observing white swans. On the contrary, all it takes to disprove the assertion is one person reliably sighting one black swan.

 

I just find it funny that those claiming objectivity are unscientific in this sense. After all, scientists spend their lives trying to find black swans.

 

I'm an engineer, and I am well aware that according to simple first year university electronic theory that cables should perform the same. However I am fascinated by the observations that they don't. And in science and engineering, data outranks theory.

[plissken]

So fear not, objectivist-leaning audiophiles of the world. Audio companies know how to talk to you in terms that you'll understand and like.

 

(Same for subjectivists, of course.)

 

They simply aren't talking to us. They are proving what they say. Again Benchmark tested a DAC of theirs with 100 foot of cabling (WAY beyond spec) and their implementation recovered 100% of data w/o error.

[BobSherman]

I think short term memory loss and aural acuity are closely intertwined there for ya.

 

They outperform them by a 28 to 1 price margin for starters. Which I clearly mentioned before.

 

 

But still no details. Your outperform might be much different from someone else. What you are claiming in essence is rather meaningless, just like this entire discussion.

 

Cables can make a difference. That being said, IMO it is rather crazy to spend exorbitant funds on cables. People should set a reasonable limit for themselves and then just listen. Everyone's system is different. Conductors, construction and insulation all can alter sound. No one comment here yet about connectors, they matter also.

[beautox]

Short term memory is definitely a key here.

 

In my opinion and experience, short term memory is not what it takes to hear subtle differences between things.

 

Short term memory lasts just a few seconds, like 5 or at the most 10.

 

My experience suggest to me that it's long term memory that is important. For me to hear subtle differences, I need to be very familiar with the music and system - ie spend many many hours listening to the same tracks again and again, so they are burned deeply into long term memory.

 

Here's a similar effect that is easy to understand : suppose a test was set up whereby you were presented with pictures of two faces (A and B) for a couple of seconds, then immediately presented with a third picture that shows either A or B, but somehow disguised (eg wearing glasses, from a different angle, and so on). I suggest that this would be fairly hard to "pass" this test and correctly identify whether X was in fact A or B.

 

On the contrary, if you used faces that were well known to you - eg your family or friends, it would be simple.

 

From this I suggest that those who rely on short term memory and ABX tests will come to conclusions that are not correct.

[BobSherman]

In my opinion and experience, short term memory is not what it takes to hear subtle differences between things.

 

Short term memory lasts just a few seconds, like 5 or at the most 10.

 

My experience suggest to me that it's long term memory that is important. For me to hear subtle differences, I need to be very familiar with the music and system - ie spend many many hours listening to the same tracks again and again, so they are burned deeply into long term memory.

 

Here's a similar effect that is easy to understand : suppose a test was set up whereby you were presented with pictures of two faces (A and B) for a couple of seconds, then immediately presented with a third picture that shows either A or B, but somehow disguised (eg wearing glasses, from a different angle, and so on). I suggest that this would be fairly hard to "pass" this test and correctly identify whether X was in fact A or B.

 

On the contrary, if you used faces that were well known to you - eg your family or friends, it would be simple.

 

From this I suggest that those who rely on short term memory and ABX tests will come to conclusions that are not correct.

 

 

+1

[Paul R]

John Siau also hooked up 100 feet of digital cable to a DAC with horrible eye pattern and still extracted 100% of the information with out error.

 

Cherry picking?

 

There is a big difference between extracting the information and producing sweet analog music. Also, you are not saying what kind of digital cable. 100 feet of high quality optical or XLR cable isn't going to be the same as a 100ft USB cable... heck, I run high speed data over kilometers of cables, and stream music over an unknown but large number of wires, radio beams, and fibre...

 

And how did this DAC sound?

[BobSherman]

They simply aren't talking to us. They are proving what they say. Again Benchmark tested a DAC of theirs with 100 foot of cabling (WAY beyond spec) and their implementation recovered 100% of data w/o error.

 

 

So because there were no measurable errors... You are saying this will sound exactly the same when compared to another cable? Is that your claim? Are these also your listening experiences? Everything sounds the same?

[plissken]

But still no details. Your outperform might be much different from someone else. What you are claiming in essence is rather meaningless, just like this entire discussion.

 

Cables can make a difference. That being said, IMO it is rather crazy to spend exorbitant funds on cables. People should set a reasonable limit for themselves and then just listen. Everyone's system is different. Conductors, construction and insulation all can alter sound. No one comment here yet about connectors, they matter also.

 

The claim isn't meaningless.

 

You're telling me you would purchase a brand new $80,000 car over the same brand new car at $40,000?

 

The cost difference isn't a meaningless metric. You can easily say that the $40,000 car does indeed have a 2:1 performance advantage. Because your so dumb as not to figure out the OBVIOUS performance metric being used is on you.

[plissken]

compared

So because there were no measurable errors... You are saying this will sound exactly to another cable???

 

John Siau is saying it. And I agree with his assessment.

[BobSherman]

Cherry picking?

 

There is a big difference between extracting the information and producing sweet analog music. Also, you are not saying what kind of digital cable. 100 feet of high quality optical or XLR cable isn't going to be the same as a 100ft USB cable... heck, I run high speed data over kilometers of cables, and stream music over an unknown but large number of wires, radio beams, and fibre...

 

And how did this DAC sound?

 

 

Thank you Paul.

[plissken]

In my opinion and experience, short term memory is not what it takes to hear subtle differences between things.

 

Short term memory lasts just a few seconds, like 5 or at the most 10.

 

My experience suggest to me that it's long term memory that is important. For me to hear subtle differences, I need to be very familiar with the music and system - ie spend many many hours listening to the same tracks again and again, so they are burned deeply into long term memory.

 

Great then bias controlled evaluation won't be a problem since the previous sound is inextricably in your long term memory that you now have a bullet proof way to compare to the new sound you are hearing without the crutch of seeing what is in the chain.

 

Here's a similar effect that is easy to understand : suppose a test was set up whereby you were presented with pictures of two faces (A and B) for a couple of seconds, then immediately presented with a third picture that shows either A or B, but somehow disguised (eg wearing glasses, from a different angle, and so on). I suggest that this would be fairly hard to "pass" this test and correctly identify whether X was in fact A or B.

 

On the contrary, if you used faces that were well known to you - eg your family or friends, it would be simple.

 

From this I suggest that those who rely on short term memory and ABX tests will come to conclusions that are not correct.

 

It's why I have offered to test in peoples own systems. So far they can't remember what their own kids look like if we are to continue with your analogy.

[plissken]

Cherry picking?

 

There is a big difference between extracting the information and producing sweet analog music. Also, you are not saying what kind of digital cable. 100 feet of high quality optical or XLR cable isn't going to be the same as a 100ft USB cable... heck, I run high speed data over kilometers of cables, and stream music over an unknown but large number of wires, radio beams, and fibre...

 

And how did this DAC sound?

 

It's not Cherry picking. You folks wanted an example and you have one.

 

"This is John Siau, VP and Director of Engineering at Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.

 

I can confirm that we do not recommend purchasing high-priced USB, AES, or Optical cables to achieve an improvement in the sound.

 

When we introduced the DAC1 in 2002 we published detailed FFT plots that compared the performance of the DAC1 connected with two different cables: Cable 1 was a high-quality 2-foot long balanced AES cable and Cable 2 was 1000 feet of CAT 5e cable. Both produced the same results at the output of the DAC1 because the DAC1 has near-perfect jitter attenuation (see page 36 of the DAC1 manual). This plot confirms that the sound did not change when 1000 feet of generic CAT 5e wire replaced the short high-quality AES cable."

[mansr]

It definitely makes him more of a marketeer, does it not?

 

Two people each make a very good DAC. This, according to you, makes one of them an engineer, the other a marketeer.

[esldude]

It's not Cherry picking. You folks wanted an example you and you have one.

 

"This is John Siau, VP and Director of Engineering at Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.

 

I can confirm that we do not recommend purchasing high-priced USB, AES, or Optical cables to achieve an improvement in the sound.

 

When we introduced the DAC1 in 2002 we published detailed FFT plots that compared the performance of the DAC1 connected with two different cables: Cable 1 was a high-quality 2-foot long balanced AES cable and Cable 2 was 1000 feet of CAT 5e cable. Both produced the same results at the output of the DAC1 because the DAC1 has near-perfect jitter attenuation (see page 36 of the DAC1 manual). This plot confirms that the sound did not change when 1000 feet of generic CAT 5e wire replaced the short high-quality AES cable."

 

Look at the FFT on page 36 of the owners manual.

 

http://www.musicdirect.com/documents/pdf/abmdac1.pdf

 

Look at the previous page where they synthetically added over 2000 nano seconds of jitter. Compared output with and without that jitter. No change.

 

The 1000 ft of cable added 4 nanoseconds RMS of jitter with 8 nanoseconds of peak jitter.

[BobSherman]

The claim isn't meaningless.

 

You're telling me you would purchase a brand new $80,000 car over the same brand new car at $40,000?

 

The cost difference isn't a meaningless metric. You can easily say that the $40,000 car does indeed have a 2:1 performance advantage. Because your so dumb as not to figure out the OBVIOUS performance metric being used is on you.

 

Wasted enough time dealing with stupidity. LOL Where did I mention price vs. performance? Or price at all??? You are so caught up in blind worship of numbers, that you cannot even understand that music is something to listen to... Not measure... smh...

[plissken]

Wasted enough time dealing with stupidity. LOL Where did I mention price vs. performance? Or price at all??? You are so caught up in blind worship of numbers, that you cannot even understand that music is something to listen to... Not measure... smh...

 

You're the one that assumed I said audible performance when I said no such thing. The fact your reading comprehension sucks is no fault of mine.

 

The BJC when adjusted for both price and length outperforms the $340-$350 AQ Vodka RJE cable by ~78:1 margin. I couldn't have been any clearer in my posts.

 

Audio is measured all the time. Do you think your favorite act at a large venue doesn't measure and dial it in? Do you think speaker manufacturers don't measure?

 

You are acting like price has no place in the equation here. For some the more the price the seemingly better the sound.

[4est]

What are the other two 3:1 then?

You're the one that assumed I said audible performance when I said no such thing. The fact your reading comprehension sucks is no fault of mine.

 

The BJC when adjusted for both price and length outperforms the $340-$350 AQ Vodka RJE cable by ~78:1 margin. I couldn't have been any clearer in my posts.

 

Audio is measured all the time. Do you think your favorite act at a large venue doesn't measure and dial it in? Do you think speaker manufacturers don't measure?

 

You are acting like price has no place in the equation here. For some the more the price the seemingly better the sound.

[BobSherman]

What are the other two 3:1 then?

Maybe 33 1/3 to 1???