Suggestion: ban all cable debates

[Keith_W]

(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.

 

a) Oops, mea culpa.

 

b) It is not dissent that I dislike. It is how threads get derailed with predictable regularity and thread after thread gets created to flog the same old dead horse. Like I said before, these cable debates have been going on for 30 years. I don't see anything new being said by anyone from either side of the debate. I suspect I am younger than many here (I am 45) but even I am fed up of them. Let alone people who are older. Ask yourself, what will be your great achievement in life? That you spent 50 years of it arguing about cables on internet forums?

 

c) Yours was the most recent one. I could have dug up a dozen if I had bothered to look.

 

d) Who is Alex?

[gmgraves]

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?

 

No. I'm not saying anything pro or con about either side of the argument. But since you ask, 99.99% of systems have no problem with RF, but if they do, buying any non-balanced cable, irrespective of price won't fix it because using RCA connectors makes any cable essentially non-balanced regardless of price.

 

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.

 

While that's certainly true, it is not incumbent upon those offering sound engineering answers about cable mythology to explain all the reasons why cable mythology might be just that, mythology. However, it is incumbent for the technically unsophisticated to ask the questions of those who know and understand. I'm sure that any person here who's an engineer would be happy to try to answer anyone interested enough to ask.

 

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

I'm sure it is, but most anybody can learn if they want to do so.

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

 

I'm not advocating anything here except to say that there is value in these types of debates. Read into my comments whatever you like.

[esldude]

I think of the guy who had $300'ish speakers. $259 DAC. And combined $1200 plus in devices to clean, reclock, isolate and convert the USB signal for his DAC from his laptop. I feel he was not well served with advice and admonitions he read here on CA.

 

I hope we could all agree the he likely would have been better served to spend $1200 on some speakers and use a $3 USB cable. Or maybe $900 on some speakers and $300 plus what he could get for his DAC upon resale for a DAC with a better isolated USB input, and a $50 USB cable.

 

I assume he was an adult and can do as he pleases. Am I trying to protect him from himself? Just trying to give good advice? When you see such do you not cringe just a little somehow regardless of which 'side' you are on?

 

To me the hyperbole on cable issues, most especially USB connection issues, has gone way beyond the pale.

 

So I can't and wouldn't want to force someone into choices I deem correct if for no other reason than ethics derived from the golden rule. I don't however think banning cable debate is the solution. Nor disallowing someone to vociferously argue their opinion by excessive moderation.

[firedog]

Nice of you to say. Upsetting to be told that my genuine nature (kind and generous / altruistic) is a sham. I don't need that type of negativity . . . and with the "ignore" feature, won't have to put up with it

 

JH-

 

Funny, when I read the your previous post (the one that resulted in mmerrill99 insulting you), I thought to myself: jhwalkers posts aren't arrogant, and he isn't the kind of poster that mmerrill99 was referring to, so he didn't really need to respond. Then, ironically, he over-reacted to your post and got arrogant himself.

 

Sorry about that, please keep posting....but maybe not in this thread.

[firedog]

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.

 

I think you are setting up a straw man to knock down here. Where has ML said "bits aren't bits"? I think his position would more accurately be portrayed as bit perfect reproduction is digitally perfect and yet doesn't always sound the same - which is something else entirely.

 

As far as I understand him, he thinks since what we are doing (supposedly) is listening to music for pleasure, the ultimate decision factor is how something sounds to us and does it bring us musical pleasure. He does have some issues with ABX testing in audio, which I understand are similar to the kind of objections Jud often mentions.

 

In practical terms, since most of us can't set up scientifically valid testing with our systems (and have no inclination to go to the trouble), what we do is compare components the best we can, and to our own satisfaction.

 

We might be fooling ourselves. If we are aware of that, and still want to spend money on a product, I'm not sure why anyone gets their feathers ruffled by it.

 

Your example is also ironic, b/c when Ars Technica made a big hulabaloo about setting up just such a cable test, they screwed up and produced data which couldn't pass muster as a valid scientific test, rendering their "conclusion" that cables make no difference invalid, or at least not conclusive. And you expect your average audiophile to do better at home?

[Jud]

Are you suggesting that Fire, ready , aim is not good methodology?

 

Was thinking more along these lines (HT to Monty Python):

 

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable,

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table,

David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was twice as sloshed as Schlegel.

 

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach yer 'bout the raising of the wrist,

Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

 

John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,

Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whisky every day,

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am."

 

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed -

A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Confused]

Oddly enough, the debate about cable debates also reminded me of Monty Python. I am all for a good on-line discussion and technical debate. The problem with cable discussions is that they inevitably descend into a form of tribal warfare, points get endlessly repeated, and basically they turn into this:

 

[plissken]

I think you are setting up a straw man to knock down here. Where has ML said "bits aren't bits"? I think his position would more accurately be portrayed as bit perfect reproduction is digitally perfect and yet doesn't always sound the same - which is something else entirely.

 

I don't think that I am setting up a straw man. If I am then people are free to attempt to set fire to it. "Bits aren't bits" are his words exactly. Use audio streams search feature and use 'ethernet' as the term. It will be in the results somewhere.

 

In practical terms, since most of us can't set up scientifically valid testing with our systems (and have no inclination to go to the trouble), what we do is compare components the best we can, and to our own satisfaction.

 

In the above case you don't have to. I've done that precluding anyone able to tear down my method or setup. Remember that the claim is they can hear a difference. The question my testing asks: Can people have the level of hearing they claim?

 

Put it this way: A reviewer says a cable produced a much higher FR response than another. Empirically we measure the cable and they both extend out to 1Mhz. We are in the territory of testing ones ability to hear and discern.

 

I'm not testing cables. I'm putting ones claims of hearing ability to the test.

 

We might be fooling ourselves. If we are aware of that, and still want to spend money on a product, I'm not sure why anyone gets their feathers ruffled by it.

That's fine. Its when you introduce placebo as fact to others a information to make a purchasing decision

 

Your example is also ironic, b/c when Ars Technica made a big hulabaloo about setting up just such a cable test, they screwed up and produced data which couldn't pass muster as a valid scientific test, rendering their "conclusion" that cables make no difference invalid, or at least not conclusive. And you expect your average audiophile to do better at home?

 

I spoke with Lee before they ever did the Randy Event. It was poorly conceived.

 

On the ABX testing. I've seen bandied about that the 'invalidity' of it is based on the weakness of echoic memory. If that's the case then your sighted evaluations where you are hearing a difference are just as equally invalid because of echoic memory.

 

It's a 2nd argument I have made that no one (even Jud) has been able to find any cracks in.

 

Subjectivists can't have their cake and eat it too in this regard. I'm not saying there couldn't be a difference. I was at a speaker DIY group where one member could hear a speaker cable with very high capacitance reliably blind:

 

1.> It was a slightly rolled off high end (at a frequency higher then my thresh hold as I am 20 years older than the participant).

2.> We were able to find out what the cable was doing

3.> We were able to model that into a tweaked crossover and reproduce the effect

4.> It was basically crap cable to begin with

5.> He was listening for something SPECIFICALLY

 

Find me an intellectually honest audiophile.

[firedog]

I don't think that I am setting up a straw man. If I am then people are free to attempt to set fire to it. "Bits aren't bits" are his words exactly. Use audio streams search feature and use 'ethernet' as the term. It will be in the results somewhere.

 

 

 

In the above case you don't have to. I've done that precluding anyone able to tear down my method or setup. Remember that the claim is they can hear a difference. The question my testing asks: Can people have the level of hearing they claim?

 

Put it this way: A reviewer says a cable produced a much higher FR response than another. Empirically we measure the cable and they both extend out to 1Mhz. We are in the territory of testing ones ability to hear and discern.

 

I'm not testing cables. I'm putting ones claims of hearing ability to the test.

 

That's fine. Its when you introduce placebo as fact to others a information to make a purchasing decision

 

 

 

I spoke with Lee before they ever did the Randy Event. It was poorly conceived.

 

On the ABX testing. I've seen bandied about that the 'invalidity' of it is based on the weakness of echoic memory. If that's the case then your sighted evaluations where you are hearing a difference are just as equally invalid because of echoic memory.

 

It's a 2nd argument I have made that no one (even Jud) has been able to find any cracks in.

 

Subjectivists can't have their cake and eat it too in this regard. I'm not saying there couldn't be a difference. I was at a speaker DIY group where one member could hear a speaker cable with very high capacitance reliably blind:

 

1.> It was a slightly rolled off high end (at a frequency higher then my thresh hold as I am 20 years older than the participant).

2.> We were able to find out what the cable was doing

3.> We were able to model that into a tweaked crossover and reproduce the effect

4.> It was basically crap cable to begin with

5.> He was listening for something SPECIFICALLY

 

Find me an intellectually honest audiophile.

 

No argument with your reply in general. But supposed objectivists are often just as intellectually dishonest. The Ars Technica test is one of many examples, where it is bandied about as objective proof, when it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Not saying it was "wrong", just that it doesn't "prove" what they wanted it to.

 

As far as ML, I looked up the column you referred to: The "Bits Are Bits" Fallacy and Noise In Mixed Signal Systems | AudioStream and did a search on his site and a search on his site with Google. As far as I can tell, he never uses the phrase "bits aren't bits"; so you've misrepresented his position. Am I nitpicking? Yep. But if you demand that other posters be accurate and rigorous, then you need to meet the same standard in your posts.

 

Again, his position is that bits can be transmitted accurately but the resulting analog may be sonically altered in spite of that. How is his position that "mixed signal" systems have something to do with that wrong per se?

 

I've also seen engineering papers in the Ham Radio world where they talk about how noise on digital cables can change the resulting analog output of the system even when the bits are accurately transmitted, and how the "problem" can be countered. No one claims that these papers are based on some imaginary perception due to the power of suggestion.

[plissken]

No argument with your reply in general. But supposed objectivists are often just as intellectually dishonest. The Ars Technica test is one of many examples, where it is bandied about as objective proof, when it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Not saying it was "wrong", just that it doesn't "prove" what they wanted it to.

 

And I'll be the first to say they screwed the pooch.

 

As far as ML, I looked up the column you referred to: The "Bits Are Bits" Fallacy and Noise In Mixed Signal Systems | AudioStream and did a general Google search on his site. As far as I can tell, he never uses the phrase "bits aren't bits"; so you've misrepresented his position. Am I nitpicking? Yep. But if you demand that other posters be accurate and rigorous, then you need to meet the same standard in your posts.

 

Somewhere ML said "Bit's aren't Bits". If I see the quote I'll PM it do you. I didn't refer to any specific column. It may have been in the comments section.

 

Again, his position is that bits can be transmitted accurately but the resulting analog may be sonically altered in spite of that. How is his position that "mixed signal" systems have something to do with that wrong per se? I've also seen engineering papers in the Ham Radio world where they talk about how noise on digital cables can change the resulting analog output of the system, and how the "problem" can be countered. No one claims that these papers are based on some imaginary perception due to the power of suggestion.

 

Henry Ott has written many a paper on mixed DNG and ANG systems. Here's the thing: Ethernet cables simply tie separate systems together. You have 8 metal conductor and possible shield and drain wire.

 

ML's claim (but he won't allow it to be vetted) "will stubbornly stick to my guns that the differences I've experienced are in fact audible differences. "

 

So anything he says is worthless.

[firedog]

 

Henry Ott has written many a paper on mixed DNG and ANG systems. Here's the thing: Ethernet cables simply tie separate systems together. You have 8 metal conductor and possible shield and drain wire.

 

 

Are you implying that you accept that non-ethernet digital cables COULD have an effect on the sound of analog output in such a system?

[plissken]

Are you implying that you accept that non-ethernet digital cables COULD have an effect on the sound of analog output in such a system?

 

No. I'm saying I've read the papers and I believe people that are trotting out the 'Mixed Signal' system theories don't know how to effectively digest the information that is presented in these papers and why 8 pieces of copper from one cable vs another isn't going to fundamentally alter the output. I'm not talking about other cables. But I would say the same would apply for 75 and 110 ohm digital connect systems. Same for HDMI. There is a reason for impedance matched systems. Same as SATA and SCSI.

 

I just got into this in another thread where a paper was posted in counter response to me and the paper actually supported what I was saying about clock domain boundaries.

[Keith_W]

As the OP, I have changed my mind. Rather than ban all cable debates, let's put them all in one thread. Any new cable threads get merged into the existing thread. That way, these 15 or so posters can get up to 4,000 pages and find themselves arguing in circles. It will be fun! Given there is never anything new to say from either side of the debate, after a while everyone concerned can save time with their posts and write replies like this:

 

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

 

Or:

 

BS.

I call BS on your call of BS.

I call BS on your call of BS on your call of BS.

I call BS on your call of BS on your call of BS on your call of BS.

I call BS on your call of BS on your call of BS on your call of BS on your call of BS.

 

Essentially - that's what cable threads are about.

[wgscott]

How about we ban troll threads devoid of humo(u)r?

[Samuel T Cogley]

As the OP, I have changed my mind. Rather than ban all cable debates, let's put them all in one thread. Any new cable threads get merged into the existing thread. That way, these 15 or so posters can get up to 4,000 pages and find themselves arguing in circles. It will be fun! Given there is never anything new to say from either side of the debate, after a while everyone concerned can save time with their posts and write replies like this:

 

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

 

Or:

 

BS.

I call BS on your call of BS.

I call BS on your call of BS on your call of BS.

I call BS on your call of BS on your call of BS on your call of BS.

I call BS on your call of BS on your call of BS on your call of BS on your call of BS.

 

Essentially - that's what cable threads are about.

 

I disagree. This one seems to be about how much you can troll while attempting to present the appearance that you're adding something intellectual.

 

You're trying to distance yourself from "these 15 or so posters" while absolving yourself of any culpability for the low signal to noise ratio in the thread you created. Surely you see the hypocrisy?

[bobbmd]

Keith_W: I agree with everyone else just don't read posts/threads you don't like or care about. Half the fun of COMPUTER AUDIOPHILE is the insane comments people make or digressions on subject at hand.

Like for me in regards to CABLES I am still afraid of not having any silver wire to transport sound except for the silver my father put in my teeth 50+ years ago and I am WORRIED VERY WORRIED about not having any silver wire cables to make into swords or daggers or crosses to protect myself from werewolves and vampires.

Guess you have figured out I only have copper wire speaker cables interconnects and headphones with copper wire and copper CAT6 ethernet cables and ME2 DAC which probably has some copper in the chips and my SQ is pristine/beautiful/full/clear especially now with Audirvana Plus 3 which has NO CABLES whatsoever(but only plays MQA albums songs and playlists-maybe that's the problem THEY don't have silver in them either)!!.

[Johnseye]

I disagree. This one seems to be about how much you can troll while attempting to present the appearance that you're adding something intellectual.

 

You're trying to distance yourself from "these 15 or so posters" while absolving yourself of any culpability for the low signal to noise ratio in the thread you created. Surely you see the hypocrisy?

And yet look at all the responses to the troll. Clearly he's accomplished his goal. It's hard to resist a good troll.

[plissken]

 

You're trying to distance yourself from "these 15 or so posters" while absolving yourself of any culpability for the low signal to noise ratio in the thread you created. Surely you see the hypocrisy?

 

Haha. That was funny tell another!

[Keith_W]

The only reason you think I am a troll is because I do not get upset by all your name calling and bullying. You think i'm out to irritate you. I'm not. I have seen enough cable debates to know that how you guys respond is absolutely stereotypical. The more you do it, the more you prove my point.

 

If you really as smart as you say you are, you would have better things to do than vent at anonymous people on internet forums over a matter as trivial as whether cables make a difference or not. Get a grip man, it is not important! Yet even pointing this out provokes some kind of existential crisis!

[Samuel T Cogley]

And yet look at all the responses to the troll. Clearly he's accomplished his goal. It's hard to resist a good troll.

 

You're absolutely right. No more troll feeding from me.

[Ralf11]

The best cables are the ones that cast the highest definition shadows on the walls of the cave.

[jglacken]

I just read this entire 6 pages. It is somewhat distressing. Here's why: I am a 67 year old guy with some diminished hearing from all those concerts I attended back in the 60s-70s and have a bit of tinnitus too. That aside, have always loved listening to music in one form or the other. It is only since I retired in 2005 that I began to rebuild my system to the point I love what I am hearing and more importantly what I am feeling from the music. Moving from Long Island to Hilton Head, South Carolina was not only a culture change, but there are no high end brick and mortar stores closer than a 4.5 hour drive. So how does one do upgrades to ones system without traveling all over the place?

I did travel to audition my S5s due to the amount of spend, but still was not in my room. The DS dac and the Oasis monos were purchased from folks I trust after reading many sites like this and reviews, but placing more importance on users experience than the reviews.

Cables, same thing. First power cables and I heard an improvement. ICs and I heard a huge improvement coupled with SE to balanced change. Speaker wire, another very synergistic addition.

What is important here is what I hear. Not what others think I should hear. Yes, their comments are important.

I am lucky enough to be able to spend a fair amount on my system, but I may be done at this stage.

And I am thrilled with the connection to the music!

If others don't hear a difference between cables or components, by all means, don't spend!

That being said, let's all get along as we are all writing about something we feel very passionate about. Let's just enjoy the music.

[jglacken]

I just read this entire 6 pages. It is somewhat distressing. Here's why: I am a 67 year old guy with some diminished hearing from all those concerts I attended back in the 60s-70s and have a bit of tinnitus too. That aside, have always loved listening to music in one form or the other. It is only since I retired in 2005 that I began to rebuild my system to the point I love what I am hearing and more importantly what I am feeling from the music. Moving from Long Island to Hilton Head, South Carolina was not only a culture change, but there are no high end brick and mortar stores closer than a 4.5 hour drive. So how does one do upgrades to ones system without traveling all over the place?

I did travel to audition my S5s due to the amount of spend, but still was not in my room. The DS dac and the Oasis monos were purchased from folks I trust after reading many sites like this and reviews, but placing more importance on users experience than the reviews.

Cables, same thing. First power cables and I heard an improvement. ICs and I heard a huge improvement coupled with SE to balanced change. Speaker wire, another very synergistic addition.

What is important here is what I hear. Not what others think I should hear. Yes, their comments are important.

I am lucky enough to be able to spend a fair amount on my system, but I may be done at this stage.

And I am thrilled with the connection to the music!

If others don't hear a difference between cables or components, by all means, don't spend!

That being said, let's all get along as we are all writing about something we feel very passionate about. Let's just enjoy the music.

Forgot to change my signature:

Aurender N100H, Kimber USB, PS Audio Directstream DAC, Siltech 550I ICs, Oasis S200 Mono Blocks, AQ Red Wood Speaker Cables, Magico S5 speakers

[Paul R]

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".

 

That's just untrue. At least in the most part. Check out what Scientific Observation means. Here's a hint, it definitely involves using the senses of the observer. It can also mean using instruments, but not always. In many cases, instruments are not even the *primary* method of recording observations.

 

It is just flame bait when people claim otherwise. I suspect you may be a lawyer or someone else along similar lines, because "testimony" has a specific and very precise meaning in those fields, where most engineering fields define the same thing as an observation.

 

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.

 

Hard to argue with that, because of course, it is true. I just doesn't mean that observation are to be discarded or not to be trusted at all because someone with a mic and a digital analyzer claims they are.

 

Everything is impossible until someone does it, you know. Whether you or I are convinced of the impossibility of something or not doesn't affect reality one little bit.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

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?

You bet - there are audiophiles who are so in love with the hardware that they don't really care all that much about the music. And of course, that is perfectly okay.

 

 

The equipment is fun to tinker with, play with, and otherwise obsess over, at least for some folks.

 

There are people that cannot listen to music on a less worthy system - some to the point it almost physically painful for them to do so.

 

Neither of those types of folks are the majority of course, but there are quite a number of them. They shouldn't be made to feel minimized or reduced because of that. It's their thing.

 

There are also a few folks who view audiophiles as targets to be baited. You can usually identify them because of the strident tone and strong desire to be recognized as an authority. Most of the folks with truly authoritative options are very reserved and respectful of others. Easy peasy to tell the difference.

 

But I feel you are possibly trying to wordsmith something here I didn't say. I am - quite definitely - a skeptical objectivist. Yet I can hear repeatable audible differences from changes that should have no effect. (shrug) The world won't end if I don't dig out the reasons for that, though obviously, all the easily discounted reasons have crossed my mind, and more than once, my test bench. That neither makes me crazy, insane, or anything else, except an audiophile who loves music.

 

-Paul