The ultimate cables can/can't - only $80,000

[esldude]

It is a ridiculous way to apply a little EQ.  It is disgusting they have sold more than 50 of these and have a backlog of orders.  You can go find where Bruce tells you how to make your own articulated cables.  Parallel capacitance and inductance.  The effect is to very slightly alter some speakers and how they interact with amps.  Same result could be done in DSP EQ and it would sound the same.  

[esldude]

3 hours ago, sdolezalek said:

One of the reasons I wasn't so quick to just dismiss Brisson's claims is that we are increasing learning that out of audible bandwidth effects can have in-bandwidth artifacts.  His quote below goes to that:

I don't like the way he starts by saying it is assumed that "the electrical bandwidth of an audio system should be ten times greater than the audio bandwidth."  I would guess a number of folks here might dispute that assumption.  But the rest of his statement at least explains what he thinks is going on.  You might say, "yeah" but there is no way these effects are audible, but I hear a lot of folks saying the same thing about upsampling to DSD512 and benefitting from the use of further out of bandwidth and gentler sloped filters.  

 

If the net result is just a tiny bit of re-equalization of the signal, then we have other cheaper ways of fixing that.  So I'm more curious about his claims with regard to this introducing jitter and noise that he somehow filters out.

 

Further thoughts?

This 10x bandwidth thing comes from a time of analog gear.  If an amplifier has a bandwidth of 0-200,000 hz that means it is -3db down at 200,000 hz and rolls off at 6 db per octave above that (usually).  It will be .1 db down at 20,000 hz and above that frequency the phase begins to change between that point and 200 khz.  So for flat in phase 20 khz response you needed an amp to manage 200 khz - 3db for that to happen.  Or you needed instruments working to 200 khz measuring that over 20 khz without corrupting results.  None of this is directly the issue when digital filtering is involved.  There can be other issues about such digital gear, but the old reason you wanted 10x bandwidth and the digital gear are not exactly relevant to each other. 

 

Like many such ideas, it has a seed of truth while not really telling you what you think it is. And as already mentioned cables have bandwidth well in excess of this so monkeying with them isn't needed for audio.  

 

Now his use of analog jitter is rather re-purposing a digital word for analog thinking to convince customers.  Surely everyone knows what a marketing boon the jitter worry is to the audiophile world.  So Brisson's points are sort of true and yet completely irrelevant to audio.  I don't know if his device has enough capacitance and inductance to create a jitter like oscillation at some frequencies.  If it did, it will sound different, and it isn't improving anything.  

 

As for patents, here is a picture of one of the MIT lower priced digital interconnects.  It is part of the patented networking design (the patent number is right there on it).  You can't quite read it in my picture.  It consists of a conventional nicely shielded 75 ohm coax cable, their nice RCA ends, and the part that makes it one of their patented network designs.  It says AVT network inside. That part is a 1 ohm metal film resistor in series with the center lead.   Now that doesn't exactly impress me. 

 

http://www.mitcables.com/limited-production/audio-interconnects/avt-3-digital-interconnect.html

 

You can read here how it has micro-componentry networks in the RCA housing.  (that would be the one ohm resistor). Quoting from the link above.

 

MIT's patented Digital Terminator Technology—Eliminates jitter-based distortions found in all other cables, delivering natural timbre & precise imaging.

[esldude]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

Isn't it common knowledge that higher bandwidth sounds better?

Or a common wive's tale.

[esldude]

28 minutes ago, mansr said:

I challenge anyone to discern a 1 dB drop at 20 kHz. 10x is probably a good rule of thumb for instrumentation. Audio is a different kettle of fish.

There are young people who can do that.  They still have hearing to around 20 khz.  With test tones anyway.  Don't know about music.  And even then it will be a small percentage of people. 

 

I think the old idea was one common among audiophiles.  What performance level will be blameless if it is achieved. 20khz no lower than 1/10th db and not having any appreciable phase shift was the idea and for that you need the 200 khz amps.  Hearing it was yes a different kettle of fish.  We don't disagree about that. 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, sdolezalek said:

 Thank you.  Useful input.  As someone with large Magnepan speakers that are notorious for having fairly complex impedance curves, I was wondering whether a network like this might present an amplifier with an easier load to drive.  Question is, what sonic benefits are derived from "easier to drive loads"?

Someone has mislead you.  Magnepans have some of the easiest impedance curves of all speakers in the world.  They are sometimes moderately low impedance at 4 ohms or a bit under.  But they are very nearly purely resistive having no appreciable capacitance or inductance.  

 

Here is the impedance plot of a 3.6 R.  It is typically like this for Maggies.  A little bump around the crossover, and not too much else. 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

Thank for the timely truth drop on the thread.

 

None of us here are Bruce Brisson, who's been conducting research and experimentation into these topics since the 70s. Electrical Engineers have very little knowledge of advanced audio -- their knowledge is basic, and that leads to basic opinions on advanced technologies. I'm also just as ignorant, so I have to rely on my ears to notice any benefits, and until I can listen to this product in a meaningful way I can't say yea or nay, and nor can I really judge the efficacy of the technology.

 

Another example would be Bybee purifiers. "Quantum" speak is throughout the marketing, but it was revealed in a 6moons interview with Bybee that he, himself, doesn't know why conducting currents through certain rare-earth metal oxide resistors lowers 1/f noise -- it just does. The Bybee products aren't scams, and several reputable amp, speaker, and cable manufacturers continue to offer them as options in their products. Literally every single review I've ever come across of Bybee DIY products report improvement.

You continue to bat for zero with another couple of swing and misses.  

 

You can find a long DIY Audio forum thread where these filters from Bybee were measured with some highly precise instrumentation.  They do not reduce 1/f noise or do anything else except act like the little cheap goofy resistor they have embedded inside them.  You fall for every scam product and lap it up.  And then argue everyone is the mis-informed.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Albrecht said:

A knowledgeable buyer who is someone who does investigative comparative analysis.

Electrical Engineering knowledge often hampers knowledge, - because the EE makes judgments outside of the scope of the device without conducting investigative tests. Commenting on anything based on price is just another form of speculation, - where little to no knowledge is gleaned. Your unqualified opinion and bias has little value to the potential purchaser of the device. The only way to know is to compare two similarly priced devices in a system that is appropriate and commensurate to the device being tested.

No one will EVER buy a $10K cable if they have $800 speakers.

If you haven't done any comparative testing, - you have no knowledge of the efficacy of the product: period.

A cute tell you have made up.  

 

Knowledge is ignorance perhaps?

 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

And, as usual, I had to go pry a layer of deception off the discussion. In fact, no one in that thread was able to design and conduct a meaningful test of the Bybees. Furthermore, in a separate ABX test thread, the tester conducted some simple electrical analysis -- found nothing except a very small drop in upper harmonics -- and proceeded to find he could subjectively identify the difference in high frequency sounds, and ended up scoring 60% in two ABX runs when using quality sources, which is better-than-chance certainty. That was with the bullet plugs, devices to be hooked up between your amp and speakers, while the filters are supposed to be connected as close as possible to the transducers for best results. 

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/172673-bybee-quantum-purifier-measurement-analysis.html

 

This is the thread I had in mind.  More than one simple measurement.  Admittedly a long thread of more than 1500 posts.  No effects were found other than those expected of a small value resistor that was found inside the device.  A few people measured the device purchased as a group in several different ways including into the ghz region.  

 

I know nothing of the ABX runs perhaps I missed them or they are in another of several threads over the years about these filters.  Just the kind of product I would expect GUTB to find compelling.  I am confident if you had the $80k MIT unit a couple Bybee units added to it would help plenty.  

[esldude]

58 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

The Chevy V-6 used in the Camaro has 335 BHP and will propel the car to it's chip-limited top speed of 155 MPH and will do 0-62 MPH in less than 5 seconds. Does that sound feeble to you? Ford also has a V-6 in the Mustang, but I don't know anything about it. 

There is the Ecoboost Mustang, 2.3 turbo 4 cylinder which is 310 hp, and a naturally aspirated V6 which is 300 hp. 

 

I think I read they intend to drop the V6 next year and have only V8 and turbo 4.  

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Is it really possible to reduce 1/f noise by conducting current through a resistor? rare-earth or otherwise? Is there a reference to a paper which describes this?

 

That would be a truly remarkable property.

It does nothing of the sort.  Don't waste your time.  DIY measured it several ways and it does not reduce 1/f noise.  

[esldude]

32 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

1. He says that, but 60% across two runs is more-than-chance.

 

2. ABX tests are notoriously bad for audio testing, and especially horrible when trying to determine minor differences.

And a few more swings and misses.  

 

60% over 20 trials (which he says he did once) is not significant enough to disprove a null hypothesis.  Even his combined results for 60 trials doesn't reach a level of 5% chance of guessing.  

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

What? He did did one run using a CD player source attempting to focus on certain areas where he thought he could tell a difference — 60% success, which is better-than-chance. He did another run using vinyl — 60% success.

 

Could this minor improvement really just be because of that small reduction of high order harmonics he found in testing? Maybe, as we recently are learning more about how finely tuned our audio perception system is.

 

Have you tried challenging an ABX? I took a few related to mp3 vs FLAC and 44/16 vs 96/24. In particular the CD vs hi-res ABX was interesting because the difference between the two was small but perceptible — I remember homing in on the attack and decay of symbol hits — but after a while of ABX switching the differences blur together and you lose them altogether. Try it and experience this phenomena for yourself. This is a very common occurrence in ABX testing small differences, which is why it sucks in audio.

No 60% does't cut it. You don't understand how all this works. 

 

Yes, I am comfortable with ABX testing.  

[esldude]

30 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

All that to state the obvious and you are just guessing about the rest......

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/brisson/brisson.html

 

You can see about DIY kits offered by Mr. Brisson.  You can see what he describes this idea of articulation amounting to.  You can see what kinds of devices are in the kit to alter or create articulation poles.  You can see the review in the OP and Brisson's comment about poles of articulation.

 

So yes we have a good idea of what this device is claiming to do, and how it does this.  Unless he is lying to us and something else is in the box.  Some of the first MIT network boxes had a couple components in one end and the other was an empty box of epoxy around the cable going straight thru.  I've shown you one of the patented micro-component digital cables with networking consisting of a single inline one ohm inexpensive resistor.  

 

Sure to know precisely what if anything it does you need a chance to input a signal and measure the output.  We have enough info to have some idea of what is going on in this device (unless being lied to and even less than that is happening).  So I fail to see the point of your continuing stance that nothing much can be said about the efficacy of the device.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, CuteStudio said:

 

Interesting link!

Is there a definition of an 'articulation pole' on the internet at all?

There is none in any EE books or texts I have and I think this mystery would shed light on quite a bit of Mit jargon.

 

I.e. what is an 'articulation pole'?

It's almost like it's a pure marketing phrase that sounds good to separate the hi-end audio believer and his money.

 

Maybe someone on the thread can explain?

These images will illustrate what he is calling a pole of articulation.  It is like a combined low and high pass filter function of a resonance.  Good luck measuring such results with speaker wire.  

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a quote from the sidebar statement by Mr. Brisson in the link of the OP.  Even though he tells us he is dealing with this resonance caused by parasitic reactances by using reactive components in a network, Speedracer will inform us we are only guessing.  I am only guessing Mr. Brisson is adding what he says rather than lying to us about what his $80k gizmo does.  About the resonances of poles in the above graphs, I don't need Mr. Brisson's input. 

 

As with any passive network, cables contain both resistive and reactive components. This creates resonances and anti-resonances in the cable. A series resonance is when the reactive components cancel each other. At the resonant frequency the complex impedance will be quite low. This series resonance doesn’t impede the signal flow in a cable. An anti-resonance, however, is formed when the reactive components add together to form a highly complex impedance. This “parallel resonance” does impede signal flow in the cable. 

It’s generally assumed that the electrical bandwidth of an audio system should be ten times greater than the audio bandwidth. That is, the electronic components should operate out to at least 200kHz. So, what are the first issues that cause distortion when a cable doesn’t work well within that band of frequencies? Cables suffer from a parasitic series resonance at frequencies below about 1.5kHz and from parallel resonances at higher frequencies, determined by the values of the inductance and capacitance. The cable doesn’t function as an ideal inductor. All audio products act as low-pass filters. Cables without networked terminations function as a lossy low-pass filter because of this parasitic capacitance as well as shunt capacitance. The vector seen at the input terminals of an audio signal-carrying cable should be an inductive vector at all frequencies and at all power levels.

 

We can correct for the parasitic and shunt capacitance by adding reactive components in the network that will offset these effects.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, sdolezalek said:

Thanks Dennis, I can always count on you to dig deeper, just when others give up because it seems too hard in today's "feed it to me by the spoonful" world... 

 

Unfortunately, because Mr. Brisson appears good at inventing his own dictionary, he may in fact have identified a physical characteristic that varies and can be varied within the audible range, but the variance of which might be worth big numbers on his "articulation scale" but count as a less than 1dB variance on any scale of human audibility.  Also, if through a multiple pole approach, as his graphs imply, you could create a flat "articulation curve" and that had audible benefits, then why not just fix the problem rather than turn it into a weak form of equalizer? 

You're not going to find rational answers.  If this were a thing you could fix it with DSP based EQ.  No one pays $80 k for non-mysterious software. 

 

I remember when I subscribed to TAS which was a small quarterly publication with no ads, and each issue had a photo by HP on the rear cover.  Mr. Brisson was there telling HP about the pole of articulation, and how he could tell where each reviewer wanted the pole of articulation based upon which gear the reviewer preferred.  The only new thing in his spiel is analog jitter.  We all know how the mention of jitter gets audiophiles all atwitter and willing to spend money to fix it. 

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, sdolezalek said:

 

Interesting and valid comment.  Why are we willing to pay so much more for an unknown in a physical box than we are for the same thing in software?  Has the Internet and all the Apps we use every day demystified but also taken the "value" out of software, or are we somehow much more willing to challenge claims of value in a piece of software than we are from a piece of hardware?  

Sounds like a topic for its own thread to me.  

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Analog “jitter” is just noise in the imaginary plane  

Can we graph that?

 

Dollars along the x-axis and level of imaginary noise along the y-axis. 

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

Snake oil on a complex plane.

Sounds like a Samuel L. Jackson movie.