Mac Mini and Ayre QB-9--Amarra noticeably improving the sound?

[Blu]

The rationale to support these claims is the improvement/non-improvement in the sound coming out of your system after making the changes.

 

The objective device used to detect the changes is your ears, these will detect things that may not be measurable by any engineered piece of equipment available yet.

 

Humans don't know everything yet.

 

The reasoning I use to test claims, is to borrow a piece of equipment at the centre of the claim, put it in my system and if I can hear an improvement the claim is verified.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I think the point (or at least one of them) that the gentlemen above are making is the prospect of removing, or at least minimizing, subjectivity.

 

FWIW, in a sensory test, if it can't be measured, it's likely (re: Occam's Razor) nonsense. Yes, tools are getting better all the time, but this is a practical issue, not an epistemic one (or a metaphysical one, for that matter). As an aside, this approach is the entire basis of 20th century philosophy, and therefore, science. No one is required to believe this, but neither is anyone is entitled to an opinion that disputes it as it does leave one in a rather tenuous position of having to re-argue 100 years of philosophy. I, for one, am not ready to do that. ;-)

 

That said, I can only wholeheartedly concur with the suggestion that Blu is making ("go and see for yourself"), but must admit that this "test" is a rather two-edged: either you perceive/imagine a difference or you do not. If you do, you must then answer the question: "is this difference enough to justify the cost of the change?" If so, your course is clear, which is I think Blu's point. The counter point has been made by Warren that "if you don't, it isn't" and he goes further to say that "you won't".

 

As for cabling, I tend to believe Warren, but then, only because I've done a truckload of a/b cable testing. That said, there is something that can be said in defense of expensive USB cables. As I mentioned in other posts, some specialty manufacturers do something different, beyond using quality large-gauge wire and careful shield termination -- they actually separate and isolate the ground and power leads from the data leads. While this is not a guarantee of a sonic difference, I can imagine that the resulting signal could be "cleaner" on the receiving end and therefore help to minimize jitter induced by EMI and RFI from the cable itself -- jitter which is, fwiw, entirely acceptable within the USB spec, but which many DACs are able to reproduce with sonically audible effects.

 

But it's worth a word of a caution here that this ought not to be taken too far as there has been some actual empirical testing of cable performance. And yes, different cables perform differently, so there is something to the claims that cable manufacturers make with regards to their designs. The studies I've seen referenced (Audioholics, Audio Critic, &c) all agree, however -- short runs (less than 1m) eliminate all such differences, excepting those caused by poor design or manufacturing, that is. And for long runs, most measurable differences between cables occur far below the threshold for audibility (-100dB) or far outside the threshold of human hearing (1MHz+). As I said, there are exceptions, but they're unusual. What to look for in those instances where long runs are required? Large gauge wire. That's it. Everything else is noise.

 

An aside: Ethernet cable is either in spec or it isn't. If it is, and it is undamaged, it performs. Regardless. You'll note that Cisco Systems doesn't sell wire, and I submit that this is for a good reason. I'll also submit that, statistically, all data loss occurring in transmission is not a result of the physical medium (Layer 1) itself. But then, that's networking, not audio.

 

As for lossless formats, I suspect that that has to do with the idiosyncrasies in playback, not in file type, format or storage. I believe the "problem" lies in playback tools, like iTunes, which likely do on-the-fly conversions of file types during playback (Chris can probably shed some light here wrt to Airport Express at least) that I believe are completely invisible to the user. Such manipulations, while not altering the fidelity of the bitstream, nonetheless introduce variations and jitter. Well, it's a theory. :-)

 

[cfmsp]

 

"FWIW, in a sensory test, if it can't be measured, it's likely (re: Occam's Razor) nonsense."

 

Allow me to disagree with this premise...albeit it by asking a question - how do you propose that we 'measure' the variations in spatial cues (aka soundstage depth, width, forwardness) that result from improvements in audio chain, including cables?

 

FWIW, I'm not suggesting that there is an absolute truth, e.g. greater depth is always better - I'm just wondering how the objectivist's suggest that anyone can measure such.

 

Since it's not known exactly what expanded soundstages can be attributed to, I'm not sure how it can be measured. Yet, soundstaging SEEMS to be the easiest way to notice the effects of subtle increases in resolution (allowing presentation of ever more minute details). OTOH, 'objectivists' have argued that some forms of soundstage 'expansion' are actually errors. The most oft used example is that of tube gear PERHAPS introducing subtle phasing issues that 'increase' soundstage width, as an example.

 

Back to real world experience, I recently tried a new set of quite expensive cables (for me), but as with almost all changes I try out, I really wasn't expecting to hear a great difference, if at all.

 

I still can't get over the improvement. Not only do I 'hear' things in the music that I hadn't noticed before, but often it is clearly defined in space, and far from the center of the soundstage (i.e. increased depth) also.

 

These were analog cables - XLRs to be precise and thus some of the positive impact is from being balanced as well.

 

I"m still not a big believer in expensive USB cables though, although I did just pick up an RCA pair of the same analog cables - connecting these from the Proton direct to my amp should allow me to see if I can hear a difference between Gordon's provided 'purple' USB cable and Chris' recommended Kimber v2 silver USB cable ($75).

 

I am a believer in isolation of power in digital cables. Some have claimed to hear a difference when their external disk cables have the power leg isolated, although this was in a highly tweaked system of very high resolution.

 

enjoy,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[warrensomebody]

Excellent information sonicweld, particularly regarding USB isochronous transfers. Any idea on the error rate that actually makes it past the CRC for your typical cable? My guess is that we're talking about something that might happen once in a blue moon (oh... that was just a few nights ago). :-)

 

And to cfmsp: "how do you propose that we 'measure' the variations in spatial cues (aka soundstage depth, width, forwardness) that result from improvements in audio chain, including cables? ... I'm just wondering how the objectivist's suggest that anyone can measure such." -- The only way you can measure the subjective skew is statistically, through double-blind trials. This is the only way to uncover that there is truly something we don't yet know everything about sound reproduction and how people perceive it, and point the direction for future measurements and development. Unfortunately, no one seems to be conducting such studies out there (probably because it would lay waste to the cable industry).

 

Maybe we should come up with an audiophile home-brew double-blind trial methodology -- a step-by-step guide that can be followed by lots of interested people out there to gather real data. I think that would actually be kinda fun, like a tupperware party for audio truth seekers.

 

 

[sonicweld]

"But to say that USB cables make a difference -- I just can't see any reason for that. Data transfer over USB is a bi-directional protocol with error correction and retransmission."

 

Not so for isochronous transfers (the type used in USB audio). This type of transfer uses stream pipes, in which the content has no meaning in the context of the USB protocol. Basic CRC checking is performed for error detection, but there is no mechanism for re-transmission or guaranteed delivery as in Ethernet. The emphasis is on guaranteed bandwidth for real-time data delivery, with a tradeoff in error recovery robustness.

 

Incidentally, Ethernet cables can and do affect quality of service on a LAN, and for at least some of the same reasons that USB cables can affect audio quality. When I worked in IT in the nineties, there were several occasions on which I had to pull a new cable because it was badly kinked (which would show up in a TDR plot) or because it was directly on top of a flourescent light fixture in the ceiling (an EMI problem). The protocols are very different, so a direct analogy between Ethernet and isochronous audio data transfer over USB is specious.

 

Bit-level errors in a short USB interface are rare enough to be discounted as a mechanism of degrading sound quality in USB audio practice, but I can think of two other cable effects that do have an influence:

 

1.) Signal integrity effects arising from cable parasitics. For examples of this, look at cable eye diagrams, or the standards and industry practice surrounding HDMI cables.

 

2.) Shielding, antenna effects, and ground loops. In my own testing, I've seen considerable and repeatable differences in characterizing USB to SPDIF translation devices for jitter based solely on how the USB shield was terminated.

 

Regarding lossless formats and how they might sound different: I'm in complete agreement with you regarding the actual data content of an uncompressed file versus one that has undergone lossless compression. But I can think of at least one mechanism that could account for a sound quality difference in playback: power supply modulation and/or differing EMI signatures. Granted, the CPU horsepower required to decompress losslessly packed files is generally very small, but it is not zero. Ergo there would be some probability of non-random, correlated noise finding its way onto the USB cable and into the downstream devices. I want to be clear that I think these effects are probably exceedingly small in most cases, but are at least worth consideration. Although we can say that the data is identical in both cases, we cannot say that the conditions of playback and the effects on various error mechanisms are precisely the same with lossless compression vs. uncompressed playback.

 

[cfmsp]

 

"The only way you can measure the subjective skew is statistically, through double-blind trials."

 

Who said anything about measuring subjective skew. I asked about measuring the very real differences I hear when comparing components, including cables.

 

That you suggest this is subjective skew says a lot about your biases, but nothing about my question.

 

"This is the only way to uncover that there is truly something we don't yet know everything about sound reproduction and how people perceive it, and point the direction for future measurements and development."

 

Talk to me about your ideas on the 'future measurements' you refer to here, if you're interested. I am, but I'm not interested in someone telling me that the audiophile community needs to do ABX testing BEFORE we can make further progress, as I'm past that point.

 

respectfully,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Clay said:

"Allow me to disagree with this premise...albeit it by asking a question - how do you propose that we 'measure' the variations in spatial cues (aka soundstage depth, width, forwardness) that result from improvements in audio chain, including cables?"

 

LOL. Interesting problem, but I believe the problem is fabricated -- you've already gone down the rabbit hole.

 

Subjective experience is, almost by definition, personal. What you call "spatial cues" might mean absolutely nothing to me (and in fact, I'm bemused whenever I hear the phrase). But taking a step back, and lumping "spatial cues" into a broader category of "subjective interpretation of audible character", one would proceed precisely as Warren suggested. Empirically. To wit, some kind of statistical analysis done of a sufficiently large pool of trials. Double-blind is preferable, though shouldn't be incompatible with some kind of guidance (a checklist, including items such as "did the soundstage increase|decrease (circle one)" as long as sufficient controls are put in place.

 

As for your cables providing a dramatic increase in performance (whatever that might mean to you), I think that's fantastic. It's uncommon that such things occur, but when they do, (assuming they're affordable) one ought to buy them! As for the why those cables made such an impact, well. No idea. Or rather, too many ideas. But what I'd submit is that there is a threshold which you obviously crossed -- either that, or your original cables were damaged, defective, were really badly designed or just sucked rocks. An interesting next step would be to then compare those "good" cables to others in that "class" (however that's defined). And here's where we start running smack into diminishing returns. But YMMV. And there's no reason why lightning can't strike twice. Call the Cable Company. Run through your system with them and let them make a recommendation or two that "matches" your system based on what customer feedback they've gotten in the past. Then, borrow a couple sets out of their lending library (minimal cost which becomes store credit, so no real loss) and then a/b them. I'm told that you really ought to let cables settle into the system (nonsense, AFAIK, but whatever), but after 4 days you should be able hear whatever it is you're going to hear with them. I submit that it isn't going to be a lot. But, again, what if it is?

 

FWIW, I have a really nice Pro-Ject turntable (RM9.1) that I just swapped the cables out on. Its pretty cool, as a turntable -- all I needed to do was hook up some RCA interconnects and go -- no special cables. Sound was great. But ... every time I touched the rack, I'd shock the crap out of myself. Took out my expensive cables, swapped back in the set that the turntable came with (which had a very handy grounding leg on it, which I promptly connected), and bingo. While not a shocker anymore, the sound was completely different. Ok, sorry, no, it wasn't. It was exactly the same, AFAIK. YMMV. But the point: cables do make a difference, but at least in my experience the difference tends to be tiny -- except when the you compare two cables that do different things like ground properly, shield properly (when needed), or terminate properly.

 

I think a/b testing is the way to go, at least for this kind of thing. "System synergy" might be a problem, but honestly, testing and reviewing cables when they're used as tone controls (which is what 'synergy' would amount to in this context) isn't useful anyway (unless you happen to have the exact same system), and isn't reviewing supposed to be all about getting to the truth of the matter anyway (as opposed to being an excuse for a writer to wax poetic)? If so, swap the cables into many different systems. Heck, be systematic and do the trials on representative examples of different types of system -- speaker vs headphone, horn vs box vs planar, all tube vs all solid state, $1k vs. $5k vs $15 vs $50k speakers or systems, or whatever. Have many listeners fill out score cards for each a/b test. Tabulate, correlate and analyze the results. Very complicated, yes, but valuable, no?

 

I think this would be a wonderful excuse to get out of the house for a day and perhaps pile into a dealer showroom (Sanjay, you listening?).

 

[cfmsp]

 

"As for your cables providing a dramatic increase in performance (whatever that might mean to you), I think that's fantastic. It's uncommon that such things occur, but when they do, (assuming they're affordable) one ought to buy them!"

 

Well, they're not exactly in the affordable category, but maybe in the category right next to it.

 

"As for the why those cables made such an impact, well. No idea."

 

Me either, which is why I was wondering about how to measure the differences I heard. As you your comment "(whatever that might mean to you)", I mentioned that earlier. It meant that I now hear things I could not, and that (these same things) are now more clearly delineated in space (and to be specific, they sound like they're coming from two rooms over). You're suggesting that becuase it's subjective it's 'suspect'. I'm saying - you're calling it subjective simply because it can't be measured. Let's figure out how to measure it - that's my interest in this. I'm saying that it's real even though it can't be measured. Which is why I made my point earlier - I'm beyond trying to prove to disbelievers that it's not imaginary. I don't give a damn if anyone believes me or not. I'd like to measure it, then correlate the measurements to the (measurements of) the experience of others and see what products provide the greatest improvement. If it happens that we can then correlate that back to design at that point, great.

If not, we still know which products provide the greatest improvement.

 

This will avoid the problem we have now where someone says 'night & day' and someone else says 'barely audible' to the exact same change.

 

"To wit, some kind of statistical analysis done of a sufficiently large pool of trials."

 

This is where you lose me. I'm not interested in stuff that can only be proven to be heard by the masses on a multitude of systems. There's a phrase for that - lowest common denominator. okay, maybe not literally, but it makes my point.

 

We're working at the bleeding edge of audibility here. And in computer audio playback, what we're finding out is that there are many more variables than in one box solutions. IOW, things that work (or don't work) well in one (or even a few) system are not as likely to be universally applicable as in the past.

 

This diminishes the relevance of an ABX test with a 'sufficiently large pool of trials' by an order of magnitude, IMO, due to it really only being applicable to the system as setup for the test.

 

Not to be selfish, but I only care about my system's performance, so I'm only interested in whether a product enhances my system.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

I trust your subjective observations! I would suggest that you not try to convince Warren and S7 here, as they do not really seem to get it.

1. Listening to music is a subjective experience by nature, so subjective observations are valid.

2. Double blind testing only works to point out gross differences in sound quality, it is almost entirely unreliable as a means to determine the more subtle differences that audiophiles are looking for. I worked for an audio company, and one of my jobs was to listen test different prototypes-we almost never did any blinded testing because it does not work. Blinded testing introduces a stress factor, that reduces ones ability to hear subtle differences. Audiophiles who have gained enough experience, over time, have learned how to listen, and need not be blinded.

3. Measurements do not tell us much about how a component will sound, as most audio components measure very well these days. This does not mean that measurements do not matter, it just means that we really do not know what to measure, and how to do it...yet. Nordost is involved in an interesting new measurement technique that involves actual music as the test signal, and measures various time delays, resulting in the smearing of details-this technique is only just being developed now. I have seen some of the results, and it is quite interesting; they were able to show measurable differences from power cable changes, and vibration management strategies (component platforms). If one is wondering how something like a different brand of resistor might affect sound in a circuit design, ponder this: what if a certain resistor has different propagation speeds for different frequencies and/or amplitudes of the signal? Time smear, now apply this concept to every component in the signal path.

High end audio performance is a very complex matter, that is not very well understood from a scientific perspective, that is why listening is such a critical part of evaluating components and systems. It would be nice if we could just reduce audio performance down to a handful of simple measurements and declare which products are best, but this approach is simply not realistic at all.

 

[bmckenney]

I don't care about testing, blind or measurements. I also only care about what I hear. And I think my abilities are decent enough to do a good job of it. But one thing I've always wondering about is whether it is possible to measure the results of some component by measuring the speaker output with an RTA or whatever. Let's say I perceive the HF's were really cleaned up because of some sort of noise reduction tweak (e.g. a dedicated balanced AC circuit and power isolation transformer). I wonder if what I'm hearing would be picked up by an RTA. Maybe the HF response isn't higher, but maybe it's flatter.

 

Bryan

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Clay said:

 

"Not to be selfish, but I only care about my system's performance, so I'm only interested in whether a product enhances my system."

 

Touché. :-P

 

Clay, as usual, I don't think we really disagree. The fact is that you perceive a difference. Calling that "subjective" doesn't negate the fact that you perceive it. What makes it subjective is, perhaps, the fact that that perception may or may not be shared by others. The degree to which a pool of observers is able to corroborate your delta is the degree to which that change is measurable and thereby objective. Look, you may be full of it, but then again, perhaps you're a "super-taster" when it comes to this particular aspect of your system's performance. More likely you are simply trained to it. However you dice that onion, I'm not dismissing your claims. But, again being perfectly honest, one man's "night-and-day" improvement is another's "tone control". And if that is all the difference there is to be had, then yes, there is benefit for the night-and-dayer, but for the rest of us the review becomes an outlier, or said another way, an anecdote.

 

For the sake of the discussion, however, what cable did you select and where did you place it for such a dramatic impact? Perhaps more importantly what did it replace?

 

Look, tying this back to the thread, I really think that most systems are not beyond tweaking. That is, their performance is not so exemplary that the impact of the appropriate tone control could not bring out some extra oompf. My concern, and hence the digression into subjectivity and objectivity, is that "improvement" in the context of an audio signal extends only the degree to which the signal gets through intact. That's the objective part. The subjective part is when we start adding such color as "better" or "worse". And in this context, that depends in no small part on the condition of the auditory apparatus of the listener -- which, sadly, varies wildly ... and therefore so does the meaning, portability, and general usefulness of any such claims.

 

Back to objective measurements, it is entirely possible to measure the actual waveform leaving the speaker by analyzing a recording of it taken with a nice A/D converter. Presumably, this would be an objective measure. All things being equal, two recordings of the same song in the same location by the same equipment really ought to be very similar. Identical might be too much to ask for, so take 3 such recordings and average them together. Then, change a component and repeat three more times, averaging that second set as well. Then, do a diff on the two averaged waveforms. If they fall within the margin of error (as evidenced by the deltas inherent in the first three), then it's "safe" to conclude that they are the same (or close enough for government work). If, however, the deltas do not, well then. Further analysis might show what kinds of differences appear and with what regularity. "Reverb" might be a technical term that refers to a characteristic of "spaciousness" -- and I believe reverb can be added and removed from a waveform, so, if so, it can be identified. If the two waveforms differ along these lines in certain frequencies, say, then you have an objective measure of a change introduced by the new component. I think the challenge isn't in finding differences, should any show themselves, but rather in assigning the appropriate semantic tag to the phenomenon being measured. And of course, such measurements beg the question most easily and directly addressed by your loathed ABX testing -- just because it's there, can anyone (on average) actually hear it?

 

My interest in this is exactly like you -- I want to make my system sound better. But given that I'm not likely to have the same system as a given reviewer, then there comes the question: "Is this review at all meaningful to me and my system?" If everything matters so very much, if the changes that are introduced by any given component are so very great, then the answer to that question is a thorough, shout-it-from-the-rooftops, "NO". In this case, nothing anyone says matters not a whit and the entire practice of "audio review" is witchcraft and poetry. Interestingly, this seem not to be the case. What is open for discussion, however, is the degree to which this is true. Unfortunately, I suspect there is far more sorcery than science in the average review.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Barrows said:

 

"Double blind testing only works to point out gross differences in sound quality, it is almost entirely unreliable as a means to determine the more subtle differences that audiophiles are looking for."

 

Bah humbug. I submit that it is part of the only means of identifying any differences to a degree of certainty that transcends basic social-psychological pressures. It's not the only thing, though. That's why its important to not get lost in what could easily be simply "system synergies", ie. tone controls unique and relevant to only the system being listened to.

 

Barrows also said:

 

"Listening to music is a subjective experience by nature, so subjective observations are valid."

 

Couldn't agree more. And any improvement that increases enjoyment, assuming it's affordable, is also worthwhile. All the rest is noise.

 

;-)

 

[cfmsp]

 

"Clay, as usual, I don't think we really disagree."

 

Agreed, just two folks philosophizing. I could as easily argue your point of view, as, I imagine, you could as effectively argue mine.

 

"For the sake of the discussion, however, what cable did you select and where did you place it for such a dramatic impact? Perhaps more importantly what did it replace?"

 

Still more work to be done here, but...since you asked. I inserted ASI Livelines directly between DAC (ULN-2) and power amp (First Watt J2).

 

The previous cable was Analysis Plus Silver Oval-In, again direct to amp.

 

A complicating factor is that I switched (from RCA) to XLR connectors with the Livelines, so some of the improvement is likely from balanced signals. I've just purchased an RCA terminated pair of Livelines with which to try to sort this out, when I get around to it.

 

An additional complication, which if anything would compromise/ degrade the livelines' performance, is the requirement to use an adapter from TRS to XLR. I'm hoping to get a custom terminated version of the Livelines in here soon.

 

Apologies that I don't have more time this morning for philosophizing, there are some nuggets in your post that are just beggin' for rebuttal.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

[warrensomebody]

Clay, this is where you lose me: "I'm not interested in stuff that can only be proven to be heard by the masses on a multitude of systems. There's a phrase for that - lowest common denominator." When things are proven, that's real progress, not some lowest common denominator to be dismissed as beneath us audiophiles somehow. Obviously, these proofs may not be formally conducted studies, but they might be marketing trends that point the direction the masses are headed in. HDTV is a proof like that -- people are "provably" migrating to it because it is better than the tv that came before. One could say the same for digital audio in general -- cds over vinyl (although some audiophiles would disagree). All of us in this forum are benefiting from the provable progress that has been made in digital audio over the last few decades, even if we think we're somewhat ahead of the mass appeal curve.

 

"I'm only interested in whether a product enhances my system." -- I think we all are, but this is where I think I haven't been completely clear on my position, so let me try one more time. (1) I believe that to get a the facts, you have to do science, and where subjectivity is concerned this necessarily involves statistics. For instance, this is how we might come to "know" that a minimum phase filter is a better technology than a linear phase one, and from that conclusion come to devise new ways to measure and improve that technology. (2) I believe that audiophiles are very often influenced by factors that fall outside of the realm of verifiable sound improvements (reputation of the manufacturer, build quality, money spent, peer group trends, new new thing), and that true ABX testing -- in their own system, if this could be done correctly -- would demonstrate that in many cases they themselves can't distinguish differences (e.g. USB cables, disk drive technology, lossless formats). Now I know that you're all going to balk at this last point, because you've "heard" the differences for yourselves, but please just take a moment to ask yourselves how unbiased you've really been in your evaluation process. Did someone else randomly swap the cable for you, or did you know when it was in the loop? I'm not saying there aren't benefits to be had, but just that I just think there's a lot of bad information floating around, coupled with a tendency to want to be in the club that hears the difference.

 

[cfmsp]

"I believe that audiophiles are very often influenced by factors that fall outside of the realm of verifiable sound improvements (reputation of the manufacturer, build quality, money spent, peer group trends, new new thing)"

 

Do you have any evidence to prove that belief?

 

 

EDIT, this question below is not directed to you, but to the hundreds of others who have come before you over the years. No disrespect meant.

 

Or, as with (most of) the objectivists clamoring for more testing, do you expect others - specifically that you suggest can't hear what they claim - to prove this for you, and by employing methods that they do not believe will prove anything?

 

There's the rub, IMO.

 

respectfully,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Warren said:

 

"I believe that audiophiles are very often influenced by factors that fall outside of the realm of verifiable sound improvements (reputation of the manufacturer, build quality, money spent, peer group trends, new new thing)"

 

Clay responded:

 

"Do you have any evidence to prove that belief?"

 

Well, yes, actually. It's a branch of psychology called "social psychology". Lots of interesting experiments done (before the entire line of questioning came under increasing ethics scrutiny) that demonstrated all manner of interesting things like peer pressure induced perception and such. I think Warren's comments, general as they are, are pretty uncontroversial.

 

Clay also said:

 

"Or, as with (most of) the objectivists clamoring for more testing, do you expect others - specifically that you suggest can't hear what they claim - to prove this for you, and by employing methods that they do not believe will prove anything? "

 

First, it's "empiricist", not "objectivist". Ayn Rand et al have appropriated the latter term.

 

Second, I submit that you've conflated two things: reviewer and consumer. The former has different goals than the latter, carries different obligations, and finally has 'success' judged differently.

 

You, as a consumer, aren't asked to do anything wrt ABX testing. That falls to the reviewer as a potential way to discharge an obligation -- that is, clearly identifying the relative merits of any given component (key word being 'relative', as in, a comparison to either a baseline, an archetype or some specific competitive example). Now, should a reviewer not "believe [empirical testing] will prove anything", then the resulting "review" will be, at best, poetry.

 

If, however, you as a consumer want to evaluate a component (say for whether or not a component is worth implementing), then ABX testing is hardly required -- but certainly can't hurt, can it?

 

[cfmsp]

"Do you have any evidence to prove that belief?"

 

Scot replies:

"Well, yes, actually. It's a branch of psychology called "social psychology". Lots of interesting experiments done (before the entire line of questioning came under increasing ethics scrutiny) that demonstrated all manner of interesting things like peer pressure induced perception and such. I think Warren's comments, general as they are, are pretty uncontroversial."

 

Warren said that "VERY OFTEN AUDIOPHILES are influenced...".

 

I could give care less about studies that prove there are idiots out there who are influenced by every television advertisement they've ever seen.

 

using this level of gross generalization, any audio study ever done that supported a difference in sound could be used to prove my point.

 

Did you mention something about 'ethics charges'? Can you say tainted? question withdrawn!

 

Given that Warren is questioning the validity of audio specific claims, I figure he must have some specific audio-relevant evidence to support his claim. And since he said VERY OFTEN, that would seem to imply a need for mutiple such piece of evidences.

 

Does he have proof that those who make claims of hearing audible differences VERY OFTEN make these claims when a difference is not heard.

 

And yes, I know Warren only said "very often influenced", BUT... unless the influence resulted in a claim being made when an audible difference was not heard, the influence didn't result in an incorrect claim, i.e. no damage occurred as a result of the influence.

 

I will agree that people MIGHT often be influenced when making purchases, but I'm not convinced that the percentage of people who make specious claims based on imaginary differences is large.

 

Scot:

"Second, I submit that you've conflated two things: reviewer and consumer. The former has different goals than the latter, carries different obligations, and finally has 'success' judged differently."

 

That's a very 'adult' distinction you make, Scot. I wish the hundreds of posts I've read on forums had also put the sole responsibility for ABX testing on Reviewers. That's not been the case, IME. More often, someone (casually) makes reference to a tweak that they believed in all honesty made a difference for them, and the naysayers come out and say it's not possible, and you need to prove it with DBT, or ABX, or simply say that they are imagining things. That was the type of reply I got to my very first post here at CA - from none other than Ashley James. Some forums even declare areas as DBT-free zones due to the rancor that results from this type of conversation.

 

Scot:

"If, however, you as a consumer want to evaluate a component (say for whether or not a component is worth implementing), then ABX testing is hardly required -- but certainly can't hurt, can it?"

 

Again, quite a 'grown up' view.

 

No, it can't hurt, if one wants to do that.

 

I wonder how often those who propose that someone else do a DBT to prove their claim actually bother to follow their own recommendation? IOW, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. I'm generalizing again, I know, but it seems like those who believe in testing are more often promoting it's use by others rather than doing it themselves, esp. with regard to the claims that they believe would be refuted if only someone else would perform a blind test.

 

Perhaps instead of suggesting that others do testing, they could perform the suggested tests themselves? Presumably they already have a proper setup for doing A/B/X or DBT testing... or do they? ;0

 

OTOH, perhaps their own beliefs that a difference is not possible would "very often influence" them to NOT hear a difference that existed! :0

 

over to you, Scot.

 

respectfully,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

[vanderdm]

This topic has been debated on 1000 different forums..

 

Any experienced audio nut has done the comparisons. It's a total no brainer.. Good cables make a dramatic improvement in sound..

 

lets move on..

 

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I might have mentioned at some point that I have a really awesome headphone amp, a Stax 006tII driving my 4040 Mk2's. The amp has two RCA inputs, and by some strange coincidence, my preamp has 2 tape outs. This makes a/b testing of interconnects trivial, so I've done quite a bit that. To little or no avail, sadly. To corroborate those "findings", I've swapped those cables all over my system ... again, to no audible change. Scientific? Hardly. But good enough for me.

 

But it did get me thinking. And researching. Was it me? My system? Or an Evil Plot? LOL. Seriously, I did (and still do) wonder what the deal was (is). How much of this is just in my head? Or rather, not?

 

Anyway, I started to wonder how to best determine whether or not this was something that could be uncovered by a review. But what would such a review look like? And how do you get around little things, like, oh I dunno, "system synergies"? Anyway, that's how I got to statistical sampling. Wouldn't it be grand ....

 

But no, I'm not here to poop all over someone who claims to have made improvements on their system. If it's true, then fantastic. If it's imagined, well, who cares? But when they make that recommendation to others, well, it troubles me, but whatever. When they then shout down all doubters as is they were assaulting the One True Faith, well, that's simply intolerable. Unfortunately, the step from placebo to High Inquisitor is short.

 

And I do so love it when a universal generalization is trotted out as received wisdom, especially something patently false, like: "Good cables make a dramatic improvement in sound". To be true, it'd have to apply to me and my system -- and it didn't. Doesn't. Hasn't. Might at some point, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Oh, and FWIW, ethical quandries do not impugn or in any way undermine the validity of empirical observations. It's just not very nice to fool, panic, or terrorize people. Or so they say. ;-)

 

So, let me apologize if I've been encouraging rancor or divisiveness. No harm intended ....

 

[vanderdm]

You'll notice mostly how cables affect your soundstage, the depth of the instrument, the position of the instrument in the soundstage, etc.. you can't do that with headphones.. so no wonder..

 

[cfmsp]

"So, let me apologize if I've been encouraging rancor or divisiveness. No harm intended ...."

 

No need ... and none taken.

 

I had a similar experience - wondering why I couldn't hear the differences others claimed from Amarra.

 

I've improved my system bit by bit since purchasing Amarra - such that the improvements are now more obvious to me. This includes switching from Mac Mini (Snow Leopard) to G5 (Tiger), innumerable tweaks to the G5 (e.g. SSD, power isolation of Firewire cable, re-nicing, etc.), upgrading my interconnects to ASI Livelines, connecting directly to amp from DAC, upgrading my amp to First Watt J2, and 'tuning' my AC circuit with Alan Maher products, in ascending order of perceived improvements.

 

ASI Liveline speaker cables are next, plus more fine-tuning of AC circuit - with focus on entire system's electrical connectivity & grounding, eventually followed by the Metric Halo ULN-8 (or new MH product) and new speakers (probably Devore 9s or Silverbacks, depending on available space).

 

Probably throw in some Firewire cable testing/improvements somewhere in there, and I'm all set.

 

The girlfriend asked today - after noticing improvements from the Amarra re-nicing script - How can it keep getting better?

 

enjoy,

clay

 

 

 

[Blu]

Yes headphones are not noted for there ability to create the soundstage of the recording venue, you need to use properly set up speakers for that.

 

Another improvement with good cables is the increased resolution in the sound of an instrument on the stage, for example with the sound of violins, you will notice an improved DELICACY to the sound of the strings, that is closer to the sound of real strings I noticed when I went to Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty Ballet several weeks ago, here in Brisbane.

 

 

[vanderdm]

I couldn't agree more..

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I'm sure that Stax headphones are, in fact, just terrible for soundstage creation and the perception of delicacy -- just like most electrostats. Err. Wait ....

 

Look, not to belabor the point, but if you'll read back a few posts, I swapped those cables all over my entire system -- with the bulk of the swapping being played back via top-of-the-line Totem speakers.

 

And while my experience over the last several weeks showed me rather conclusively that such cabling has had zero impact on anything audible, regardless of playback chain -- be it soundstage, delicacy, placement, or even overall sound quality -- I am not discounting that it's possible. But hearing was believing.

 

But your responses do bring up an interesting side question. What, exactly, do cables contribute to the audio experience?

 

1. Soundstage: placement of instruments within space, aka, dimensionality of the presentation.

2. Air: separation of instruments and the relative degree of "sparkle" a given instrument showcases, which is usual tied to treble/hi-freq response.

3. Delicacy: the degree to which the sound reproduced approaches "real".

4. Weight: the degree to which the instruments have solidity, usually tied to bass response.

5. Attack/Decay: the degree to which notes "hit" the soundstage and leave it.

 

I'm sure there's more, but a score card would be helpful, well, helpful to me at least so I can guide my listening should I (or anyone else) choose to experiment again. And I'm sure I will, even though "Round 1" was decisive. But not before I make changes that are more dramatic.

 

Which brings me back to another, side post where I submitted that there is a scale of impact to making system improvements. On that scale, all of the previous contributions that cables may or may not make are of the following category: refinement. That is, cables are used as a tuning instrument. And as any tuning instrument, the tuning itself is only relevant to the gear being tuned -- that is, the qualitative contribution of cables are entirely system dependent, and it therefore follows that there is no reason to expect that cables that contribute positively to one system will do so for any other system, no?

 

If that's fair to say, then it also follows that the scale I referred to earlier is valid. To wit, to change your sound, change your speakers. The goal of everything else is to get your speakers to perform their best. Cables are simply not very high on the "impact" scale. And I submit that Amarra is on this level too.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

What is the "re-nicing" script and what does it do? BTW, like the progressive improvements approach....