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

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

well, I saw it in the '70s at one of the xITs - the engineers got away with easy texts & courses....

I studied at KTH, my siblings at Stockholm University, around the turn of the century. Maybe things are/were different in Sweden.

[phosphorein]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Electrical Engineering knowledge often hampers knowledge, - because the EE makes judgments outside of the scope of the actual physics and math.  This is because the lowly engineering majors took simple, cook-book course in math & physics as undergrads, instead of the full bore physics major physics and math major math that REAL MEN took....

 

Alb - the rest of your post is completely wrong: 

1. it is not speculation if a mechanistic understanding is adequate to explain the behavior of a device or other phenomenon. 

2. No listening tests are needed if condition [1] is true

3. The Probability that [1] is false is vanishingly small.

 

4. The main problem with your entire thesis is that the affirmative bears the burden of proof.  Otherwise, we could maintain that the moon is constructed of unripe cheese (as some dud did back in the 1500s) and you would personally have to travel there to experience it for yourself to disprove that notion.

 

 

Ralf11, this is rather unfair set of assertions. The curriculum at our top ten ranked EE department required a sequence of math courses equivalent to that required for our physics majors.

[pkane2001]

37 minutes ago, Milt99 said:

You know why engineers are rejected from serving on juries by savvy prosecution & defense attorneys?

They think they know everything about anything...

 

Of course! It would be completely wrongheaded to expect an engineer to know anything about the subject matter they are trained in and work in. These know-it-alls have no clue, and are completely tone deaf to boot.

 

[GUTB]

Electrical engineers are mostly very ignorant of high end audio. Basic knowledge supports only basic views. I’m not saying that as if I’m better than EEs, or belittling them. In fact, they know more than I do when it comes to basic electrical circuit knowledge. If an EE can walk into a Synergestic Research show room, walk out and then re-produce the sound based on only their knowledge of physics and electrical circuits I’ll listen very intently. But the thing is — why can’t you even get them to go listen to the room to begin with? You don’t have to buy anything. Is it really just willful ignorance?

[Ralf11]

16 minutes ago, phosphorein said:

 

Ralf11, this is rather unfair set of assertions. The curriculum at our top ten ranked EE department required a sequence of math courses equivalent to that required for our physics majors.

 

I just wanted to be fair and diss engineers... ;]

 

oh - and BTW, Eat Flaming Death, EBCDIC Users!!

[asdf1000]

Just now, GUTB said:

Electrical engineers are mostly very ignorant of high end audio. Basic knowledge supports only basic views. I’m not saying that as if I’m better than EEs, or belittling them. In fact, they know more than I do when it comes to basic electrical circuit knowledge. If an EE can walk into a Synergestic Research show room, walk out and then re-produce the sound based on only their knowledge of physics and electrical circuits I’ll listen very intently. But the thing is — why can’t you even get them to go listen to the room to begin with? You don’t have to buy anything. Is it really just willful ignorance?

 

A couple people have hinted you may be Steve Guttenberg ?  Are you? 

 

Just asking out of interest only, no specific reason.

[phosphorein]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I just wanted to be fair and diss engineers... ;]

 

oh - and BTW, Eat Flaming Death, EBCDIC Users!!

 

Well, I've been known to "diss engineers" in my time...taught thousands of them, though.

 

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Electrical engineers are mostly very ignorant of high end audio.

I think "impervious" is the word you are looking for, not "ignorant."

 

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Basic knowledge supports only basic views. I’m not saying that as if I’m better than EEs,

Yes, you are.

 

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

or belittling them.

Yes, you are.

 

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

In fact, they know more than I do when it comes to basic electrical circuit knowledge.

Finally something we can agree on.

 

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

If an EE can walk into a Synergestic Research show room, walk out and then re-produce the sound based on only their knowledge of physics and electrical circuits I’ll listen very intently.

I can do that in my sleep.

 

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

But the thing is — why can’t you even get them to go listen to the room to begin with? You don’t have to buy anything. Is it really just willful ignorance?

Do you attend flat earther conventions? Why not?

[GUTB]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

I think "impervious" is the word you are looking for, not "ignorant."

 

Yes, you are.

 

Yes, you are.

 

Finally something we can agree on.

 

I can do that in my sleep.

 

Do you attend flat earther conventions? Why not?

 

Can you post your system? I’d like to see if I can replicate what you’ve accomplished.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Can you post your system? I’d like to see if I can replicate what you’ve accomplished.

DAC, amp, and speakers.

[kumakuma]

15 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Can you post your system?

 

 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, CuteStudio said:

 

 

One thing I couldn't work out when I used to visit the states and rent cars is all the V6's I drove sounded great but went nowhere (impossible to wheel-spin even in the wet or on dirt), but the V8 northstar Cadillac I rented went like a train and was most amusing.

 

Have the US V6 engines finally got into line with the european V6s (which always had power even back in the 1970s with the Ford 2.8efi etc)? Do you still have feeble V6s or have they been banished?

 

BTW I know a straight 6 is better balanced and in a way sounds sweeter but in my view anything above a 4 is sonically fine with me

 

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. 

[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.  

[STC]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Can you post your system? I’d like to see if I can replicate what you’ve accomplished.

 

You mean you could tell how good the sound is just by seeing the pictures?  This is the only hobby where they prefer to use eyes instead of ears to judge the results/objective. A camera manufacturer would post the actual image rather than the sound of shutter or the specification to prove how good the camera is. Mere specification without actual product/outcome for what it was made is useless. You learn nothing looking at pictures to tell about the sound.

 

[GUTB]

11 minutes ago, STC said:

 

You mean you could tell how good the sound is just by seeing the pictures?  This is the only hobby where they prefer to use eyes instead of ears to judge the results/objective. A camera manufacturer would post the actual image rather than the sound of shutter or the specification to prove how good the camera is. Mere specification without actual product/outcome for what it was made is useless. You learn nothing looking at pictures to tell about the sound.

 

 

When you constantly make claims dismissing high-end audio as a scam, the natural conclusion is that you’ve built a system that competes with high-end systems using common components and setup with your expert knowledge. So, why wouldn’t you post your system so others can learn from it? 

[jabbr]

8 hours ago, GUTB said:

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.

 

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.

[STC]

3 minutes ago, GUTB said:

When you constantly make claims dismissing high-end audio as a scam,........

 

High end audio manufacturers usually would not make the claim. They never make an outright claim that they are capable of reproducing sound better than the others. It is usually those reviewers and end users those paint the "ultimate" achievent to the product.

Example of Galileo UEF cable.

Quote

 

 

Detail, transparency, dynamics and speed on one hand with balance, musicality and refinement on the other are normally mutually exclusive but not with Galileo UEF. Thanks to the most complex multi layer UEF Inductive Filters that condition signal outside the signal path, and bespoke Galileo UEF Tuning Modules voiced expressly for Galileo UEF we can build cables with all the detail, air and transparency of silver in an air dielectric without sacrificing musicality for all day listening enjoyment without fatigue. In short these are not only the highest resolution and most dynamic cables we have ever manufactured, they are also the most musical and largest sound field cables we know how to build. Galileo UEF, the highest performance cables on the planet.

 

 

 

But TAS making a bigger claim...

Quote

....More importantly, the UEF marks a dramatic shift in SR sonics, coming far far closer to neutral in balance than the darker-sounding originals, without sacrificing any of the speed, color, resolution, or power-range solidity and slam that SR is famous for.

 

 

 

You see the difference?

[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.  

[GUTB]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

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

 

No, there's one guy who did some garage test that ended up being highly debated.

 

There was another guy who conducted an ABX using Bybee speaker bullets and when using a quality source, thought he could hear the difference in high frequency notes, and then got 60% success on two runs.

[STC]

6 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

No, there's one guy who did some garage test that ended up being highly debated.

 

There was another guy who conducted an ABX using Bybee speaker bullets and when using a quality source, thought he could hear the difference in high frequency notes, and then got 60% success on two runs.

 

He also said that the 60% could be statistical fluke and concluded to spend the money elsewhere.

 

 

 

[GUTB]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

He also said that the 60% could be statistical fluke and concluded to spend the money elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

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.

[STC]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

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

 

Yes, I agree with you. It is highly unfavourable to those who claim could hear the difference but unable to back it up.

 

And reproducing the so called ABX for other to draw their own conculsion.

 

Quote

Bybee Quantum Purifier Measurements and Double Blind Test

---

There was a lot discussion of the Bybee Quantum Purifier in other threads, but no double blind listening test results, nor any measurements that I can recall. I was able to borrow a pair of Bybee Quantum Purifier "Speaker Bullets" for a day for testing.

These units physically consist of a banana plug, a body that is about 2 1/2 inches long by 1/2 diameter and a 5 way binding post. The units are plugged into an amplifier output and the speaker cables connected to the 5 way binding post, thus putting the Bybee device in series.

The first thing I did was to measure the DC resistance. The resistance was so low that I had to use a Kelvin 4 wire circuit to get an accurate measurement. I obtained a reading of 0.013 ohms on both samples. I then measured the impedance at various frequencies. As expected, the device behaved like an inductance, a very small inductance, the impedance was 0.056 at 100 KHz. Subtracting the DC resistance gives an inductive reactance of 0.043 ohms. Solving for L gives an inductance of 0.0684 microhenrys. One can accomplish the same thing with about 5 turns of #18 wire wound on a 1/2 diameter form 2 inches long. However I suspect that the Bybee device is a straight through conductor surrounded by a ferrite material of some kind.

I then ran some harmonic distortion measurements with a very good 400 watt amplifier into a 8 ohm dummy load at full power. Measurements at 1000 Hz were identical 0.007% with and without the Bybee Quantum Purifier in the circuit. I then measured THD at 20 KHz. THD at 20 KHz on this amplifier measured 0.150% with and 0.155% without the Bybee devices. I ran the amp at full power for 15 minutes and took the measurements again, got 0.145% with and 0.150% without. A change but the difference between the two was the same and very slightly in favor of the Bybee device. Of course one would expect an inductance to filter the higher order harmonics.

A weighed noise measured exactly the same with and without the Bybee devices.

So perhaps there is some "magical" property that my simple measurements would not reveal, so on to the double blind listening tests.

The double blind test set up consists of a relay box controlled by the parallel port of a computer. It is an "ABX" test, in which either A, B or X can be auditioned at will. The computer randomly chooses what source will feed X. The goal of the listener is to choose what X sounds the same as, does it sound like A or does it sound like B? The listener chooses what he thinks X sounds like and the computer records the choice then presents a new trial, with a new random choice for X. This is repeated 20 times and only at the end of the run does the computer reveal what X was for each trial and report the final score. Any score between 40% and 60% is just guessing. Scores between 60% and 75% might mean something but are still not considered highly confident. Anything 75% and above gives a 95% confidence rating that there is an audible difference between the two sources.

I confirmed that the double blind ABX test setup was working correctly. First a run with "B" disconnected, so that X would be silent if "B" was the randomly chosen source. 100% score on that one! Then a second run with A and B both connected with a jumper wire. 45% score, yes, just guessing, as I could not tell the difference.
Finally the jumper was removed from the "B" source and the Bybee Quantum Purifier installed in the "B" circuit.

I first ran the real listening tests from an FM tuner, listening to classical music from the local PBS station and "Alternative" from a college station. Result: 55% score, basically just guessing. Perhaps the FM audio quality was too poor to reveal any difference that the Bybee Quantum Purifier would make.

I then put on an EMI CD recording of Willam Tell. Result first try using the entire overture, 55%, but I thought that I was hearing some difference in high pitched instruments, such as triangles and flutes. I ran another series, but using only portions of the overture with high pitched instruments. My score improved to 60%, but still by no means night and day difference, it could well be a result of statistical fluctuation.

Next a test with vinyl. Leory Anderson Volume II, Mercury Living Presence. I used "The Typewriter" and "The Song of the Bells". again a 60% score. It could still be a statistical fluke, but what I thought I was hearing on high pitched instruments was a slightly "cleaner" sound.

Conclusion: While there *might* be an audible difference, the money spent on ByBee Quantum Purifiers would give a more audible improvement if spent on new speakers or phono cartridge upgrade instead.

Future research to be done: Test with 5 turns of #18 wire as described above and see if I get the same audible results.

 

[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.  

[sdolezalek]

And the topic we were discussing was???

 

I think one of the reasons they frequently close down threads over on the Roon Community Forum is that most active threads at some point have put out 90% of the useful content, what comes after that is 80% noise and <20% useful content.  Maybe that is where we have arrived on this topic...

[GUTB]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

And a few more swings and misses.  

 

60% over 20 (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.  

 

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.