Suggestion: ban all cable debates

[mmerrill99]

Ok, I'll bite:

I really don't know what the rest of your post means but what I was getting at was the point you seemed to be making - that blind testing made these differences go away & that was what I was replying to with the post "You display little understanding of perception"

 

Your reply further demonstrates that you really do not have much understanding of blind testing or perception

[mmerrill99]

This is *exactly* why I participate in discussions about such things - I can't stand to see someone ripped off. I'm very tenderhearted - maybe that makes me "superior" or a hypocrite, but I genuinely am trying to help people. I find your comments very insulting.

Ah come on - don't try to BS me & other readers - you are upset by someone unknown to you spending their money in the way they want? Give me a break & get real - it's this sort of attempt at self-agrandising & self-beatification that is puke-making.

 

Oh dear - you are insulted that I find such an attitude hypocritical & sanctimonious? You need to get a thicker skin if you are going to assume that role.

 

Again everybody has their own line where reality crosses over into fantasy but it is your own personal line & isn't a universal line defined by "science" (remember perception is involved & this is not fully characterised yet - I would also argue that audio systems & all the variables involved that are perceptible, are not yet fully defined. the arrogance of those who claim they have the "truth" & want to "teach" other this truth, are anti-science, IMO & yet they continually invoke science.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Oh dear - you are insulted that I find such an attitude hypocritical & sanctimonious? You need to get a thicker skin if you are going to assume that role.

 

Again everybody has their own line where reality crosses over into fantasy but it is your own personal line & isn't a universal line defined by "science" (remember perception is involved & this is not fully characterised yet - I would also argue that audio systems & all the variables involved that are perceptible, are not yet fully defined. the arrogance of those who claim they have the "truth" & want to "teach" other this truth, are anti-science, IMO & yet they continually invoke science.

 

With due respect, I find the "science can't explain why I'm hearing what I'm hearing" claim to be a convenient way for cables to become magical.

[gmgraves]

The tone of this forum is really dragged down by all these stupid debates. It seems as if some posters have nothing better to do than to start threads to sneer at their fellow audiophiles. I don't think they even think of other audiophiles as "fellow" audiophiles, sharing a common hobby. Rather, a target of derision to be harassed and bullied. This is a good example. What purpose do threads like these serve? How does it benefit the community? Does it do anything but boost the narcissistic tendencies of those who endlessly create such threads? And why is it that they are not satisfied with only creating one - they have to do it over and over again.

 

This forum is called computer audiophile. There are plenty of other forums where these people can go and scorn those whom they perceive are inferior to them. I think it is time to get this forum back on track - discussion of computer based audio.

I think that these debates actually do serve a purpose. They present two sides of the coin. Lot's of newbies come here looking for advice. Cables are a very contentious subject. There are those among us with engineering degrees who can explain the electrical theory in layman's terms as to why interconnect cables cannot affect the sound of a stereo, because those factors that can and do affect an electronic signal do not apply at audio frequencies, and why that explanation might not apply with speaker cables and that "boutique" power cables can have no effect at all on the AC mains for sound scientific reasons. Then on the other side, there are people here who insist that in spite of what the laws of physics say, the effect of cables not only are audible but they can make a profound difference in the final sound. Thus armed with both sides of the argument, a newbie can decide for themselves which side of the argument to come down on. So, if they want to experiment with cables, they can do so forearmed with the knowledge that what they think they hear may be expectational or some other form of bias. and to proceed with a bit of good old scientific skepticism. They might end up being full blown cable believers, but at least they have seen both sides of the story.

[Bystander]

"Teach the controversy"

[mmerrill99]

With due respect, I find the "science can't explain why I'm hearing what I'm hearing" claim to be a convenient way for cables to become magical.

There is no doubt that perception is malleable & that people can be biased in all sorts of ways but the usual calls for blind tests (the ones that aren't formally organised by those who know about perceptual testing & how to deal with "all" biases) don't answer this - they are just a way of substituting one flawed method that is biased towards false positives for another flawed method that is biased towards false negatives.

 

With regard to measurements, it has yet to be shown the one-to-one correlation between measurements & auditory perception. We all know that measurements alone do not determine the sound of something.

 

So yes "science can't explain" how something will sound would be a correct statement but your flipping of it demonstrates an unwillingness to face up to the limitations of science - these limitations are something that true science always bears in mind but people using science to push an agenda have no recognition of.

 

If you actually believe that auditory perception is understood to the same depth & level that visual perception is then you really need to go & do some research into this very topic

[plissken]

There is no doubt that perception is malleable & that people can be biased in all sorts of ways but the usual calls for blind tests (the ones that aren't formally organised by those who know about perceptual testing & how to deal with "all" biases) don't answer this - they are just a way of substituting one flawed method that is biased towards false positives for another flawed method that is biased towards false negatives.

 

Because you don't know how to perform a bias controlled listening session means that no one else is capable? Got it.

[mmerrill99]

I think that these debates actually do serve a purpose. They present two sides of the coin. Lot's of newbies come here looking for advice. Cables are a very contentious subject. There are those among us with engineering degrees who can explain the electrical theory in layman's terms as to why interconnect cables cannot affect the sound of a stereo, because those factors that can and do affect an electronic signal do not apply at audio frequencies, and why that explanation might not apply with speaker cables and that "boutique" power cables can have no effect at all on the AC mains for sound scientific reasons. Then on the other side, there are people here who insist that in spite of what the laws of physics say, the effect of cables not only are audible but they can make a profound difference in the final sound. Thus armed with both sides of the argument, a newbie can decide for themselves which side of the argument to come down on. So, if they want to experiment with cables, they can do so forearmed with the knowledge that what they think they hear may be expectational or some other form of bias. and to proceed with a bit of good old scientific skepticism. They might end up being full blown cable believers, but at least they have seen both sides of the story.

 

if you limit your analysis to "those factors that can and do affect an electronic signal do not apply at audio frequencies" shows a limitation in the imagination. RF noise can have an affect on the performance of those active devices which are handling audio signals so are you saying that these are of no concern?

 

The problem is that these sorts of discussions get into deeper areas of physics that the "newbie" is not equipped to handle & so the stuff that looks "scientific-enough" often impresses those who are not interested in or capable of deeper scientific analysis or investigation.

 

Yes, science is difficult & this is why many "believe" in those who sound "scientific-enough".

 

But is it really "truth" or just a charade as the above post presents??

[mmerrill99]

Because you don't know how to perform a bias controlled listening session means that no one else is capable? Got it.

 

Again, get real - describe your bias controlled listening session in detail & it will be shown to be a sham ending up with you saying "ah well it's better than a sighted test"

[wgscott]

How about banning any cable claim that does not use Maxwell's field equations??

 

As a Moderate, I am fine with either differential or integral mode (as long as they have separate bathrooms)

 

Can the magnetic vector potential have an effect upon sound quality in regions where the magnetic field itself is zero? I think we need a new sub-forum on the Ahronov-Bohm effect in audio.

[Paul R]

Can the magnetic vector potential have an effect upon sound quality in regions where the magnetic field itself is zero? I think we need a new sub-forum on the Ahronov-Bohm effect in audio.

 

Oh dear - you may really get your whiskers in a twist with that one....

[Keith_W]

When I started this thread, I knew that all the usual suspects would turn up in here and pour bile on everyone. It really is a rogue's gallery. I have been attacked personally, called a troll and all sorts of pejoratives for merely suggesting that cable debates are a waste of time and have been going on for almost 30 years with no sign of stopping. And this is even coming from someone who is skeptical about cables.

 

I am not going to take the bait. Those who have called me names - well, you have only proved my point. Please keep doing so, I think you are doing an excellent job of confirming what I have said.

 

Chris, what you should realize is this: every forum has its contentious topics, and moderators on those forums know that some topics are unproductive and will forever cause problems. This is why Canon vs. Nikon debates are banned on photography forums, Mac vs. PC banned on computer forums, iOS vs. Android banned on mobile forums, Star Trek vs. Star Wars banned on sci-fi forums. You can see why - all it takes is for a newbie to turn up to a photography forum and ask if he should buy a Canon or Nikon. The resulting flood of replies opens up all sorts of enmities and old wounds and the result is not unlike what you are seeing on CA.

 

What you should also see from Jud's thread Poll: Where are you on the cable divide? is that the vast majority of members on CA believe that well constructed cables do make a difference to the sound, with only 15 members saying that cables are snake oil. This position is even outnumbered 2:1 by those who think that as cable price goes up, so does sound quality. Yet look at this thread (and all cable debates) - this minority of 15 seems to dominate these threads whilst the majority of CA remain silent. I am one of those who very rarely bothers posting, or even looking in cable debate threads.

 

How you run this forum is of course, up to you. But I am not like Jud (who is an optimist). I am a realist, and what I see is that adults will not be adults and that some people really enjoy creating thread after thread with the sole intention of ridiculing others.

[Samuel T Cogley]

There is no doubt that perception is malleable & that people can be biased in all sorts of ways but the usual calls for blind tests (the ones that aren't formally organised by those who know about perceptual testing & how to deal with "all" biases) don't answer this - they are just a way of substituting one flawed method that is biased towards false positives for another flawed method that is biased towards false negatives.

 

With regard to measurements, it has yet to be shown the one-to-one correlation between measurements & auditory perception. We all know that measurements alone do not determine the sound of something.

 

So yes "science can't explain" how something will sound would be a correct statement but your flipping of it demonstrates an unwillingness to face up to the limitations of science - these limitations are something that true science always bears in mind but people using science to push an agenda have no recognition of.

 

If you actually believe that auditory perception is understood to the same depth & level that visual perception is then you really need to go & do some research into this very topic

 

I think we basically agree. But psychology is also a contributing factor to perception. I'm only saying that "science can't totally explain perception" is not a free ticket for the delusion train. Biases exist, and must be addressed as much as is reasonably possible. When the discussion goes off the rails is when it starts venturing into suspicions or even outright accusations of class envy. That is an unfortunate dismissal I've seen deployed too many times in these discussions.

[Paul R]

I think we basically agree. But psychology is also a contributing factor to perception. I'm only saying that "science can't totally explain perception" is not a free ticket for the delusion train. Biases exist, and must be addressed as much as is reasonably possible. When the discussion goes off the rails is when it starts venturing into suspicions or even outright accusations of class envy. That is an unfortunate dismissal I've seen deployed too many times in these discussions.

 

I think you are absolutely correct in your thinking - however, the flip side of that is that music listening is a pleasurable experience for most of us, and therefor is judged on purely subjective terms.

 

If something sounds different to one person or another, it really does sound different to that person, even if there are no measurable physical differences. It is really hard for people to accept that sometimes. Then you get into the nonsense accusations of "fooling myself" and so on.

 

It is nonsense, speaking about the part of the hostile accusations, responses, and so forth and so on. Making this or that person a villain behind a mask of anonymous usernames. (shrug)

 

Like I said, it is really hard for some people to accept.

 

 

-Paul

[wgscott]

What you should also see from Jud's thread Poll: Where are you on the cable divide? is that the vast majority of members on CA believe that well constructed cables do make a difference to the sound

 

(a) Teresa is not Jud.

 

(b) If the cable believers are the "vast majority" and it is the sensible opinion, why are you so frightened of the small amount of dissent?

 

© Since you linked my thread in the OP, I can only assume your intent was to troll me and any others who happen to approach the topic with a bit of humor and skepticism. You need to get over yourself, and stop whining for intervention if you don't get your way.

 

(d) Please send Alex my best. We miss him.

[sphinxsix]

Most people who debate stuff aren't being rude (or at least are not intending to be rude).

 

It is funny that the OP cited a thread I started as an example of such thought-crimes he would like to see banned. In this particular instance, I found a funny photo of some grotesque-looking cables. From what I could see, people on both "sides" of the debate (the "sides" are really more like a continuum, but that kind of nuance just doesn't play as well on right-wing talk radio in Peoria) thought it was funny, because it was so extreme (both in diameter and appearance). There wasn't anything being debated in that thread, as far as I could tell.

 

I agree.

 

Just to make things clear as far as my posts from the wgscott's thread are concerned - according to my experience different cables do sound different which which doesn't mean I can't have have some fun commenting on some weird looking or giant in diameter cables. This weird THING on the photo from the thread is yet another proof that the audio world can surprise me everytime I think I have already seen everything. And I love it! I mean the surprise. As for the THING - I'd have to hear it first. Anyway no sneering at anybody was intended.

[Samuel T Cogley]

What you should also see from Jud's thread Poll: Where are you on the cable divide? is that the vast majority of members on CA believe that well constructed cables do make a difference to the sound, with only 15 members saying that cables are snake oil. This position is even outnumbered 2:1 by those who think that as cable price goes up, so does sound quality. Yet look at this thread (and all cable debates) - this minority of 15 seems to dominate these threads whilst the majority of CA remain silent. I am one of those who very rarely bothers posting, or even looking in cable debate threads.

 

I am in that majority, yet I don't think that cable debates should be squashed like they are in other forums. Perhaps you're stereotyping and looking to validate your views?

 

If you rarely even read cable threads, why would you start one?

[plissken]

Again, get real - describe your bias controlled listening session in detail & it will be shown to be a sham ending up with you saying "ah well it's better than a sighted test"

 

Believe me I've asked for input before so here we go again:

 

Michael Lavorgna is a bits aren't bits and we are dealing with 'Mixed Signal Systems'. HIS position is that an Ethernet cable can change the output of a DAC for this reason. He has heard differences in his own system with 4 or 5 Ethernet cables and also heard differences in other systems. Namely at trade shows in most likely sub-optimal rooms full of people.

 

So I setup a client and server computer with Windows 7 (server) Windows 8 (client) with a Cisco SG 200-8 Managed Layer 3 switch. Ports 7/8 in a LAG going to the client computer and port 1 going to the server.

 

The LAG basically takes the the 7/8 ports and builds out each at layer 2 with a virtual MAC address so you can swap cables with out breaking the TCP/IP session (since everything is going to the same MAC and that's isn't changing with the cable swaps).

 

So now I can swap between a $27.50/foot cable at 12 feet and a $0.30 cable at 315 feet while playback remains uninterrupted. I take balanced out of the DAC and go into the balanced input of a Studio grade mastering card. Save the output as 24/192 (and the source was also 24/192).

 

During the capture I swapped multiple times. Made the captures available for download and so far one person couldn't hear differences and another bombed on the guesses as to # of change and the time of change.

 

What's wrong with this approach?

[Samuel T Cogley]

I think you are absolutely correct in your thinking - however, the flip side of that is that music listening is a pleasurable experience for most of us, and therefor is judged on purely subjective terms.

 

I see this more often than I expect to. Can I extrapolate from this that there is a view that an "objectivist" is perceived as someone who doesn't like listening to music? Am I misunderstanding this?

[mmerrill99]

I think we basically agree. But psychology is also a contributing factor to perception. I'm only saying that "science can't totally explain perception" is not a free ticket for the delusion train. Biases exist, and must be addressed as much as is reasonably possible. When the discussion goes off the rails is when it starts venturing into suspicions or even outright accusations of class envy. That is an unfortunate dismissal I've seen deployed too many times in these discussions.

I agree that using the motto "science can't totally explain perception" is not a free ticket for the delusion train but neither is the opposite true "science explains all we hear" a free ticket to denying the impossibility of people's genuine reports of their auditory perception.

 

A single report of something is really of no consequence but many people reporting the same effects makes it worthy of investigation & if one comes to the same conclusions with a modicum of care in one's listening then is one has to decide - am I on the delusion train or the realism train?

[Samuel T Cogley]

I agree that using the motto "science can't totally explain perception" is not a free ticket for the delusion train but neither is the opposite true "science explains all we hear" a free ticket to denying the impossibility of people's genuine reports of their auditory perception.

 

This is called "testimony", and has some value. But its value is not elevated because it's used in the context of audiophilia. I hope we agree that's it's not equal to hard data or "evidence".

 

A single report of something is really of no consequence but many people reporting the same effects makes it worthy of investigation & if one comes to the same conclusions with a modicum of care in one's listening then is one has to decide - am I on the delusion train or the realism train?

 

I can't speak to that. But again, there is consumerism in the mix, and a ton of psychological baggage that comes with it. And psychology has a mighty impact on perception and belief. Without any effort to address that impact, the testimony becomes less credible.

[mmerrill99]

Believe me I've asked for input before so here we go again:

 

Michael Lavorgna is a bits aren't bits and we are dealing with 'Mixed Signal Systems'. HIS position is that an Ethernet cable can change the output of a DAC for this reason. He has heard differences in his own system with 4 or 5 Ethernet cables and also heard differences in other systems. Namely at trade shows in most likely sub-optimal rooms full of people.

 

So I setup a client and server computer with Windows 7 (server) Windows 8 (client) with a Cisco SG 200-8 Managed Layer 3 switch. Ports 7/8 in a LAG going to the client computer and port 1 going to the server.

 

The LAG basically takes the the 7/8 ports and builds out each at layer 2 with a virtual MAC address so you can swap cables with out breaking the TCP/IP session (since everything is going to the same MAC and that's isn't changing with the cable swaps).

 

So now I can swap between a $27.50/foot cable at 12 feet and a $0.30 cable at 315 feet while playback remains uninterrupted. I take balanced out of the DAC and go into the balanced input of a Studio grade mastering card. Save the output as 24/192 (and the source was also 24/192).

 

During the capture I swapped multiple times. Made the captures available for download and so far one person couldn't hear differences and another bombed on the guesses as to # of change and the time of change.

 

What's wrong with this approach?

 

What capture? What's Lavorgne go to do with it - I see no description of him taking any listening test. I see no description of any attempt to show your system is capable of differentiating subtle differences. I see no description of any pre-testing of anybody. I see no description of any attempt at controlling biases.

 

As I said I see no clue about how to conduct perceptual testing in a manner that is informed - just some pseudo-science pretence.

[Ralf11]

If you actually believe that auditory perception is understood to the same depth & level that visual perception is then you really need to go & do some research into this very topic

 

That's news to me. Can you give some citations to the scientific literature in cognitive psychology?

[wgscott]

That's news to me. Can you give some citations to the scientific literature in cognitive psychology?

 

Oh, come on, that is so pre-2017. If you need an alternative fact, you just make it up, and scream at anyone who doesn't march in lockstep.

[plissken]

What capture? What's Lavorgne go to do with it - I see no description of him taking any listening test. I see no description of any attempt to show your system is capable of differentiating subtle differences. I see no description of any pre-testing of anybody. I see no description of any attempt at controlling biases.

 

As I said I see no clue about how to conduct perceptual testing in a manner that is informed - just some pseudo-science pretence.

 

Again: What is materially wrong with me capturing playback with two cables that may or may not affect the DAC output?

 

I just explained the claim made: That bits aren't bits and mixed signal systems can have their output altered by cabling. That it's not an isolated phenomenon (more that one manufacturers cable, more than one system).

 

So to test the claim of audible superiority of an Ethernet cable I put together a testing apparatus that allows for changing of cables while a track is being played.

 

I posted those captured tracks for people to do ears on evaluation with.

 

You said you could poke hole so start poking. But then again may be that you can't. So you aren't the expert at perceptual testing and you have no abilities to actually take a reasoned approach to pulling apart my instrumented system.