Audible difference between analog interconnects

[sandyk]

I don't know how many, but those who are not could learn something from listening to those who are.

 

Don't stand in the breeze or your tickets will blow off !!!

Modesty sure isn't one of your strong points.

The products designed by Engineers are usually further improved due to customer and also repair technician reports of their various shortcomings.

[Jud]

I don't know how many, but those who are not could learn something from listening to those who are.

 

Don't stand in the breeze or your tickets will blow off !!!

Modesty sure isn't one of your strong points.

The products designed by Engineers are usually further improved due to customer and also repair technician reports of their various shortcomings.

 

I feel sure he was referring to John Swenson.

[PopPop]

I don't know how many, but those who are not could learn something from listening to those who are.

 

So, you are, or not?[emoji4]

[PopPop]

Two truths to make as this discussion continues to it's inexorable end. Anyone can look big on the Internet. Faith will always trump fact.

[mansr]

So, you are, or not?[emoji4]

 

I am an engineer. I don't know how many others are.

[PopPop]

That's actually helpful to know. I'm a civil engineer but that doesn't add much to the conversation.

[mansr]

That's actually helpful to know. I'm a civil engineer but that doesn't add much to the conversation.

 

Then you still have basic maths and physics education. That's useful.

[CR250]

As a 50 year audiophile I am firmly in the objective camp. My believes are that current technical knowledge supplies all that's necessary for both digital and analog cable designs to deliver a signal from point A to B without any audible degradation.

I remain open to the possibility that there may be something going on that we have

yet to identify. But until the subjective claims of cable audibility can be backed up with both strictly controlled non sighted listening tests and technical measurements, those claims will forever remain just an opinion.

Opinions of which there are a million different ones. How will you find out who's right in the untold numbers of opposing claims?

 

The problem like people like you claiming to be firmly in the objective camp, is that your views are more subjective than people who claim to be subjective. You use it as a shield to hide behind in a conversation and as a badge of honor. Neither of which is objective. Choosing to ignore ideas and findings that are based on subjective observations is subjective. You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. Here's an example.

 

"As a 50 year audiophile I am firmly in the objective camp. My believes are that current technical knowledge supplies all that's necessary for both digital and analog cable designs to deliver a signal from point A to B without any audible degradation."

 

There's nothing objective about that statement. Just because you believe something doesn't mean its true.

 

"I remain open to the possibility that there may be something going on that we have yet to identify. But until the subjective claims of cable audibility can be backed up with both strictly controlled non sighted listening tests and technical measurements, those claims will forever remain just an opinion."

 

There's the next sentence. You remain open to the possibility of something going on, but in your last sentence, you claim a belief in that we already know everything we need to know about cables. You can't have it both ways. And following it up with opinions will remain opinions unless testing will say otherwise is false. When Einstein proposed the theory of Relativity, he didn't have any testing to prove it until later on. It wasn't an easy thing to test. Regardless, it wasn't his opinion that was proven to be fact. It was already a fact. All he did was discover and confirm it. This is not what you're doing Sal. Most of your objective posts are purely emotional, like this one on Blue Jeans Cable.

 

"+1 for some sanity in this thread."

 

Sanity? Really? An objective individual wouldn't make such emotional comments.

[CR250]

I am an engineer. I don't know how many others are.

 

It doesn't take an engineer to listen to music.

[gmgraves]

But, not nearly as good as bourguignon sauce with lots of garlic.

 

I doubt that is the case very often, even if owing to self-delusion. Having said that, the outrageous claims made by some belie even that, e.g. remember the "Tice clock".

 

 

Actually, the Tice Clock is what I was thinking of when I wrote the above!

[CR250]

But, not nearly as good as bourguignon sauce with lots of garlic.

 

I doubt that is the case very often, even if owing to self-delusion. Having said that, the outrageous claims made by some belie even that, e.g. remember the "Tice clock".

 

I know that I'll get some harsh criticism for saying this, but the Tice Clock was based on sound theory. It was a parallel line conditioner. You don't need to plug a component into a parallel conditioner. It just needs to be plugged into the same circuit that the audio system is plugged into. There's plenty of other products that work the same way. If Tice used the display for something like volts instead of time, it probably wouldn't have attracted so much negative attention.

[gmgraves]

Like in the Volkswagen situation, there is no easy way for the audiophile community to know what the manufacturer knows.

What label would you use for manufactures that misuse or misrepresent scientific & engineering knowledge?

 

Crooks.

 

I wonder if the folks at VW understand that the damage done to their reputation by the Diesel scandal was not worth 100 times whatever they thought that they were going to get away with? VW makes some of the world's best built cars, they didn't need to pull that crap!

[semente]

Criminals?

Cheating on emissions' tests affects people's health...

 

R

[Allan F]

I know that I'll get some harsh criticism for saying this, but the Tice Clock was based on sound theory. It was a parallel line conditioner. You don't need to plug a component into a parallel conditioner. It just needs to be plugged into the same circuit that the audio system is plugged into. There's plenty of other products that work the same way. If Tice used the display for something like volts instead of time, it probably wouldn't have attracted so much negative attention.

I may be wrong but, as I recall it, there were a number of reports that the same device could be purchased at Radio Shack for a fraction of the cost.

[gmgraves]

As a 50 year audiophile I am firmly in the objective camp. My believes are that current technical knowledge supplies all that's necessary for both digital and analog cable designs to deliver a signal from point A to B without any audible degradation.

 

In that, I agree with you 100%!

 

I remain open to the possibility that there may be something going on that we have

yet to identify. But until the subjective claims of cable audibility can be backed up with both strictly controlled non sighted listening tests and technical measurements, those claims will forever remain just an opinion.

 

Well put. Yes, there's a possibility that there is something going on here that our collective knowledge has yet to uncover and quantify. Obviously those who believe in cable sound are hearing something. But belief systems are fraught with pit-falls and history shows us that most of them turn out to be to false. It's too bad that in the realm of cable sound, there doesn't seem to be any real research going on (the cable manufacturers don't count. Their "research" is self serving at best, and even if such research came up with nothing, they'd never tell anyone about it).

 

Opinions of which there are a million different ones. How will you find out who's right in the untold numbers of opposing claims?

 

Luckily, it's not an world-changing problem. My ol' pappy used to say (and he really did) that High-Fidelity wasn't, and couldn't be, an absolute, and that it was to a degree. You can spend all you want on a system, and still not achieve absolute fidelity. That was true 50 years ago when he told me that, and it's just as true today. Modern equipment is very good. Speakers are low in coloration and cover the frequency spectrum more than adequately, and today's electronics are squeaky clean. My stereo (and probably yours too) sounds great. It gives me great pleasure and it is a revealing tool when used to evaluate equipment for publication. I choose not to follow the cable crowd down that particular garden path for one compelling reason. Cables are passive. They can only subtract. if different cables sound different, it's because they are subtracting different things. If that's the case, then all cables subtract something, irrespective of cost or construction. Since it seems to ultimately be very little, whatever it is, it's too minute for me to care and if I want tone controls, I'll buy an equalizer.

[gmgraves]

In some cases, e.g. Synergistic Research, it's easy to spot the bullshit. The "explanations" they offer are nothing but meaningless technobabble. If they know better, they are deliberately misrepresenting the product. If they genuinely believe their own statements, they are obviously clueless about engineering. Either way, not someone you want to buy from.

 

+1

[PopPop]

Then you still have basic maths and physics education. That's useful.

 

What I learned from school and from my mentors, over the past 47 years, is that their are many unforeseen irregularities in the strength, assembly and demand on physical elements and structures. I always applied a safety factor in the design of earthwork for roadways and bridges. There are just too many external forces that the engineer can't control. I'm retired now and every night I go to be thankful that the statute of limitations has probably expired for my liability on some project, somewhere.

 

I lived in a theoretical world that modeled reality. I had one failure early in my career that cost my employer $$$, fortunately no one was hurt. The problem: not all steel is created equal. So I lived with a fudge factor, trying to balance safety with economy with elegance. In the end, math and physics were only part of the final design solution.

[plissken]

What I learned from school and from my mentors, over the past 47 years, is that their are many unforeseen irregularities in the strength, assembly and demand on physical elements and structures. I always applied a safety factor in the design of earthwork for roadways and bridges. There are just too many external forces that the engineer can't control. I'm retired now and every night I go to be thankful that the statute of limitations has probably expired for my liability on some project, somewhere.

 

I lived in a theoretical world that modeled reality. I had one failure early in my career that cost my employer $$$, fortunately no one was hurt. The problem: not all steel is created equal. So I lived with a fudge factor, trying to balance safety with economy with elegance. In the end, math and physics were only part of the final design solution.

 

Yep, you have to use directional load bearing steel

[esldude]

The problem like people like you claiming to be firmly in the objective camp, is that your views are more subjective than people who claim to be subjective. You use it as a shield to hide behind in a conversation and as a badge of honor. Neither of which is objective. Choosing to ignore ideas and findings that are based on subjective observations is subjective. You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. Here's an example.

 

"As a 50 year audiophile I am firmly in the objective camp. My believes are that current technical knowledge supplies all that's necessary for both digital and analog cable designs to deliver a signal from point A to B without any audible degradation."

 

There's nothing objective about that statement. Just because you believe something doesn't mean its true.

 

"I remain open to the possibility that there may be something going on that we have yet to identify. But until the subjective claims of cable audibility can be backed up with both strictly controlled non sighted listening tests and technical measurements, those claims will forever remain just an opinion."

 

There's the next sentence. You remain open to the possibility of something going on, but in your last sentence, you claim a belief in that we already know everything we need to know about cables. You can't have it both ways. And following it up with opinions will remain opinions unless testing will say otherwise is false. When Einstein proposed the theory of Relativity, he didn't have any testing to prove it until later on. It wasn't an easy thing to test. Regardless, it wasn't his opinion that was proven to be fact. It was already a fact. All he did was discover and confirm it. This is not what you're doing Sal. Most of your objective posts are purely emotional, like this one on Blue Jeans Cable.

 

"+1 for some sanity in this thread."

 

Sanity? Really? An objective individual wouldn't make such emotional comments.

 

It is the difference between believing a TV faith healer and an MD. Or Einstein and a perpetual motion crank.

[Jud]

I am an engineer. I don't know how many others are.

 

What is/are your specialization(s)?

[gmgraves]

I don't know how many, but those who are not could learn something from listening to those who are.

 

 

Of course, those who are not engineers will say that they have more open minds and can listen more objectively because their minds aren't filled with pre-conceived electrical theory which would keep them from considering certain audible phenomena for which electrical engineering has no explanation. There is no "winning" here.

 

Funny thing. One of my best friends was that late J. Gordon Holt. Gordon founded Stereophile because he found, when he was working at High-Fidelity Magazine in the late 1950's that their method of reviewing told the reader nothing about how the individual components under test actually sounded. In fact, their editorial policy (like that of their competitor, Stereo Review) was that everything sounded the same, I.E. nothing had a sound of it's own (to avoid offending advertisers, it turns out). Their measurements pretty much supported that policy, and as far as they went, they were right. But Gordon heard differences between amplifiers, preamps, FM tuners, tape decks, and record decks. The very equipment that the test organs of these magazines such as Hirsch-Hock Labs said were all the same*, Gordon found to sound wildly different. He found out that the test lab never actually listened to the equipment they tested. They merely ran the prerequisite suite of electronic tests on the DUT (Device Under Test), and that was that.

 

Now, Stereophile does extensive computer-based testing of all the components it reviews. Now we see that the simple frequency response plots, coupled with total harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion figures, does not tell anybody enough (usually) to characterize, in engineering terms, the way a component sounds. So we have come a long way. BUT! have any of you tried to correlate John Atkinson's test results with the comments of the accompanying subjective review? We've a long way to go, baby.

 

*Julian Hirsch's favorite line: "Like all of the (insert component type here) that we have tested the (insert brand and model number here) has no sound of it's own, and passes whatever signal that is fed to it without alteration." Which has been parodied into "Of all the (component type) that we have ever tested, this has been one of them".

[CR250]

I may be wrong but, as I recall it, there were a number of reports that the same device could be purchased at Radio Shack for a fraction of the cost.

 

Maybe. If you're looking for a clock, then yes. But I doubt that Radio Shack developed a balanced line conditioner in the form of a clock and marketed it as a cheaper alternative to Tice. Its just not plausible. Back in the late 80's, early 90's, there were several companies making surge protectors, but very few line conditioners. Unless you can view the reports in question, I wouldn't believe it.

[gmgraves]

I am an engineer. I don't know how many others are.

 

I am an engineer, by training. Got my AA in Electrical Engineering from the Danville Virginia Campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and later, I received my BSEE through Lockheed's Continuing Education program.

[CR250]

It is the difference between believing a TV faith healer and an MD. Or Einstein and a perpetual motion crank.

 

I get that. But I think if you read enough of Sal's posts, you'll see my point. He's completely subjective, emotional and admits to getting most on his information by reading others work, and not through experience. He's clearly not objective.

 

Also, consider back in 1905 when Einstein came up with the idea of relativity. If you told other scientists time wasn't fixed and that if you were walking at a different speed than I was, a different amount of time has passed, they would think you were more insane than any cable manufacturers claims.

[gmgraves]

I may be wrong but, as I recall it, there were a number of reports that the same device could be purchased at Radio Shack for a fraction of the cost.

 

 

You're not wrong. In fact Tice purchased his clocks from the same source as did Radio Shack, and they were the same model. The "value added" on Tice's part was what he "did" to the clocks once he got them. He never revealed what that was, but many have speculated that he cryogenically treated each clock. That was the difference between $19.95 and $199.95! And while "parallel conditioning" is a real thing, there never was any evidence that Tice's clock acted as a parallel conditioner. The mistake he made was using a clock that was available anywhere. That made it easy to check "before" against "after". As I recall, nobody could either measure or hear any difference between the Radio Shack model, the Tice model, and nothing at all.