Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I have NO interest in your unproven test...oh wait I have already said that.

 

So I am now waiting for your reply that I am not interested in your unproven test , let me guess - "okay then well I'll be willing to see if you can hear a difference with my test"

 

 

Neuro, you seem to be missing the bigger picture. You seem intent on picking on Plissken and his proposed test. Fine, nobody said that it's perfect,  and maybe it deserves to be picked apart. No argument.

 

But, the bigger picture is that there is no objective, peer-reviewed test of any design or methodology that demonstrates a difference in sound between two ethernet cables. None.

 

What there is, though, is a very real and extensive knowledge of physics and computing that says there will be no difference, and a lot of experimental and measured data showing that there is no audible difference (if the cable is functioning within specs)

 

There are those that speculate about ground loops and noise transmission as the mechanism for making these cables audible. This may happen in some systems. That's fine,  but the way such issues get resolved is not by swapping ethernet cables for more expensive ones, but to provide proper noise isolation in the circuit or to use a different transmission mechanism that isolates noise. 

 

If you are a scientist in more than a name, you must understand the need for a proof beyond hearsay when the claim is unsupported by the existing, established science.

 

If you think that ethernet cables are audible, please propose an objective, repeatable test methodology that will prove it rather than picking on someone who is trying to do exactly that. 

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

19 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Nor am I aware of any peer reviewed published study that says that Ethernet cables can’t affect SQ.

 

Notice that I didn't say that, although there are measurements that bear that out.

 

I didn't call anyone delusional. What I said was:

Quote

There are those that speculate about ground loops and noise transmission as the mechanism for making these cables audible. This may happen in some systems. That's fine,  but the way such issues get resolved is not by swapping ethernet cables for more expensive ones, but to provide proper noise isolation in the circuit or to use a different transmission mechanism that isolates noise. 

 

As you can see, I'm open to the possibility that noise transmission might be the reason for audible changes in some systems, but swapping ethernet cables to accomplish noise filtering is the wrong approach. Do you disagree?

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

That is precisely my claim. ....If you are a scientist in more than a name, you must understand the need for a proof beyond hearsay when the claim is unsupported by the existing, established science. I have explained this above. I am happy to discuss further if you want.

 

I am sincerely puzzled at times as to why this seems so difficult to grasp. I am not being adversarial. It's just that if you invoke science then you must abide by it.

 

There are published measurements that show Ethernet and USB cables have no audible effect. Measurements based on objective, established science, repeated by others, done to a great precision. Do you know what the proponents of expensive USB and Ethernet cables claim? Science doesn't know enough to measure these effects properly. There must be something we don't understand. We need new science, new measurements, new explanations.  Which leads us to your statement:

 

Quote

 The whole trouble with 'objective reality' is that it turns out to be malleable in light of new evidence, sometimes.

 

That is a crutch that comes up a lot on these forums: 'science doesn't know everything, therefore anyone can question any and every conclusion ever drawn, no matter how established or well-proven on the basis of ... no evidence at all.'  If only it were so simple to overturn established science!

 

[pkane2001]

12 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

References please. 

 

Here's one:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/02/measurements-ethernet-cables-and-audio.html

 

I've done similar tests in my own setup and found no measurable difference between a 1m CAT5e, CAT6, and a 20m CAT6 UTP cables, a few different DACs and ADCs, although I was specifically looking into frequency spectrum and jitter. I've also done listening tests. No differences found.

[pkane2001]

28 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Please read my post again.

 

It is physically impossible given the state of available scientific knowledge to test *audible differences* . You are talking about a different thing, cable or signal measurements or other surrogate data (speaker specs, room measurements, THD of your amp, wave shapes, voltages........).

 

If I am wrong, please supply your evidence

 

It is possible to test for audible differences, as human hearing has been studied and measured quite a bit. But that's not my point. If there are no measurable differences found using extremely sensitive instruments, the human ear will not hear any differences, either.

[pkane2001]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

References please that demonstrate this. Otherwise you are just talking nonsense and assumptions. Easy to invoke science but not so easy to abide by it when it doesn't fit your plan.

 

Sorry, references for what? That measurement instruments are more sensitive than the human ear? I'll leave that as an excercise for the reader.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

Ok, scientifically the term “published” means something else: published in a peer reviewed journal

 

I would call that a “report” not a publication. This isn’t “established science”

 

No, the established science is the physics of sound and electricity.

 

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Okay I get you don't get it. instruments don't measure differences in the perceptual experience but rather aspects of the signal or the stimulus. Not sure if you can understand the distinction.Your assumptions are not scientifically grounded, just assumptions that you choose to believe.

 

What you don't get is that perception is based on physical reality, and physical reality is governed by laws of physics. If there is no measurable difference in the physical world, any detected difference in the perceptual world is faulty. 

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm ... there is always a measurable difference, but you may choose to measure the wrong things - simply because that's the convenient path. This is always the wriggly bit in these discussions - "My measurements count - and that's all that matters!"

 

As I said before in this and other threads -- go ahead and offer different measurements that prove your point, then we'll talk. For now, even the manufacturers of USB cables, USB cleaning devices, ethernet cables, have offered not a shred of evidence that their gadgets have an effect on audio beyond placebo. And I've asked and will keep asking. Because I'm curious.

 

[pkane2001]

18 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Yeah I know a thing or two about physics of sound and electricity — the established science of physics says absolutely nothing about the sound of cables one way or the other.

 

I assure you that real physical difference in any two cables are quite measurable,

 

Use science to measure the differences in the output of a DAC due to an ethernet cable upstream, and then we'll have something to talk about. Of course cables have different LRC characteristics. Who would argue against that?

[pkane2001]

42 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Nope, theory not fact and largely based on assumption on a number of levels. Sorry to break it to you

 

Break it down for me, please. Which assumption is wrong? That perception of sound is based on physical reality -- i.e., sound? That it makes sense to measure physical reality rather than perception of it to determine if there really is a difference? That such measurements can be made with instruments much more precisely than the human ear could possibly do? Or is it that perception can be faulty?

 

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

You are measuring the surrogate not the object of study. Its a valid indirect marker of the object of study and a reasonable start but not the end game.

 

To me, it's not the physical reality that is the surrogate for perception, it's the other way around.  Perhaps you are interested in perception as the primary object of study, but that's not at the top of my list.

 

I'm interested in faithful sound reproduction. Note that I didn't say 'the perception of faithful sound reproduction'. That last one leads directly to all kinds of aberrations, from lossy MP3 standard, to vinyl, to expensive USB and ethernet cables.

 

[pkane2001]

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

That is the assumption I believe is wrong. My friend, audio designer John Curl has stated many times that we can only measure a small percent of what we can hear. Measurements get you a competent design, selection of quality parts by listening is what gets you a product people want to hear music through.

 

It's different to say that we can't measure a certain perceived quality of the sound than to say we can't measure difference between two audio signals. I may not know how 'transparency' or 'liquidity' can be measured because that's a perceived quality. But I do know how to determine if two ethernet cables produce an effectively different electrical output at the DAC, and so does John.

 

Speaking of, I recall you've received a Lush USB cable from Peter. Did that make a difference in your system?

 

[pkane2001]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Think mains filters for the moment. I think most would accept that components that have poor rejection of mains interference would likely benefit from such devices, in some instances. If I were to test every mains filter, designed for all sorts of situations, they could all be shown to have some impact on the signal passing through them, altering the frequency response of the mains line - so, they all have, easily measurable, electrical behaviour.

 

But were I to insert each of these units before a particular component, with some there would be zero audible impact, with others a positive impact, and yet others a negative impact - an example of the latter could be a power amplifier which has the current spike to top up its smoothing caps limited.

 

IOW, these are devices - the main filters - which are system dependent on their action - proving that they "have an effect beyond placebo" on the audio quality depends upon everything in the environment of a particular system - a completely different thing from proving they have some electrical behaviours, which may or may not be relevant.

 

So many of these tweaks fall into this camp - there is nothing intrinsically special about the the device in itself; its function is merely to help the audio system stop misbehaving in some fashion. Like a spring washer used in dozens of places on a mechanical device subject to vibration - accidentally leave one off, and it may make a zero difference - or the machine may catastrophically fail a couple of years down the track ... how do you measure the value of a particular spring washer?

 

 

Sure, I can envision all these noise paths through the system. But,  the result of these should be measurable. What is reported, instead, is that they are audible, but not measurable. That is a big red flag for me.

 

If noise we are fighting has an effect below the measurable noise floor of the whole system, and well below audibility, then what do these cleaner devices really do?

 

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

Plissken is referring to measurements of DAC output, with and without Regen type devices. 

These haven't been posted. 

 

Some have been measured by others, but the results did not bear out the claims of the manufacturer.

 

[pkane2001]

31 minutes ago, marce said:

Its EMC compatibility engineering...

 

Or perhaps it's audiophile-compatibility engineering?

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

As are many dbt's.

You can argue against DBTs all you want, but if DBTs are biased then how could a sighted test be any more valid?

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, Allan F said:

Open minds do exist, notwithstanding your view to the contrary.

True. And open minds don't hear a difference between Ethernet cables

 

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, Allan F said:

But they may, not will, hear a difference between USB cables, interconnect cables, speaker cables, and power cables.

 

Nah. I know this from personal experience

 

[pkane2001]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The impact is measurable, but is hard to do. 

 

Would love to see a single measurement, no matter how complex, that demonstrates the effect you're describing.

[pkane2001]

12 hours ago, Teresa said:

Most DBTs fail to show any statistical differences between most everything, and the few that do, only show a very small statistical difference. Thus I put zero stock in DBTs. On the other hand long-term listening lets me hear any accumulative effects on sound quality that increase over time.

 

Teresa, I know this has been mentioned before, but it is worth repeating: DBTs do not preclude you from doing long term evaluations. What DBTs do is eliminate one very likely source of bias, confirmation bias. In my experience, blind tests do often produce significant statistical results... but not with USB or ethernet cables.

 

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Pretty good rundown ... my quibble is the use of the word "neutral", throughout - I never use this term, because it means nothing, to me. Now, if he had titled it "Approaching Inaudible Distortion" I would grok the article, fully - it's distinctive distortion artifacts that distract one, that cause one to switch from "experiential listening" to "analytical listening" - if it switches like this, it's game over for the system I'm listening to ...

 

Doesn't the word neutral mean exactly that in the context of audio: 'approaching inaudible distortion'? Neutral, as in not adding to or subtracting from, not imparting any of its own characteristics to the sound. At least that's how I understand it.

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, going by the Stereophile Audio Glossary, it means, "Freedom from (an audible "signature" with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it)". However, that word typically is only used to refer to linear distortion, FR and phase variations from the ideal - a type of distortion I find to be relatively benign. Non-linear distortion is the real culprit IME, so I should have inserted that term, "non-linear", in my post - I will always be meaning non-linear distortion when I refer to distortion artifacts.

 

I don't keep up with audiophile press, so maybe I missed that 'neutral' applies only to linear distortions

 

But, FR is far from being a benign distortion and is often the largest offender in an uncorrected system. Phase distortions, I'll agree with you, are not as obvious although can be audible. Also, these types of distortions are most often non-linear.

[pkane2001]

16 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

My experiences have been otherwise - a competent system where the FR is varied has minimal impact subjectively, for me - a classic counter example is a cheap radio, where you twiddle the treble control; the radio has highly distorted treble content, so what the FR changes are doing is altering the level of (non-linear) distortion relative to the desired signal. If a supposedly high performance rig has the higher frequencies lifted in level, and it becomes unpleasant to listen to as a result, then that system is faulty - it's as simple as that for me.

 

Hi Frank,

 

You often state that the mark of a quality system is 'the speakers disappearing'. Do you know what causes this phenomenon? What signal changes cause soundstage to collapse into the speakers? I would argue that this has primarily to do with phase. So, you think that phase is more significant than the frequency response in quality sound reproduction. I disagree in their relative merits, but I do agree that both are important.

 

That's why my system is adjusted for linear FR with minimum phase response. I've done this with both of my speaker systems and now with  headphones. The change due to phase was a slightly more natural soundstage, a bit more sense of the overall space. The change in FR resulted in a much greater sense of pace, a more 'complete' sound, better balance between instruments, more natural sounding piano, etc. To me, the FR correction is about 10 times the value of the phase change and is nothing like the treble control of the old radio. Soundstage is nice, but proper sounding instruments and human voices are a must. Maybe I'm just too sensitive to frequency imbalance.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, opus101 said:

In my experience the 'collapsed into the speakers' state is caused by noise modulation. The noise created in the electronics by intermodulation distortion doesn't have a location in space so the ear/brain takes it as emanating from the surface of the drive units. The more noise modulation the 'flatter' the presentation.

 

So, this is due to noise modulating the signal? What does that do to the output signal relative to the low-noise version? I posit that it destroys the phase relationship between the left and right signals.