Acceptable Responses when Impossible Claims Are Made??

[fas42]

Golly gosh, I've just discovered a new phrase, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_inertia ...good thing no-one in the audiophile world is tainted with such a unpleasant sounding condition...

[tapatrick]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

A lot of the fighting would disappear if people would take the effort to understand that getting optimum sound is removing obstacles to the potential of the rig being realised. The mindset is normally that I have to keeping adding better and better 'things' to my system - because that's the only way I'm going to hear the "good stuff". And that's wrong. Big time, wrong ...

 

"Synergy" doesn't exist - it's a weasel word expressing the fact that the right things have been done, usually purely through luck, and the system is now producing far less of the usual artifacts that disturb one's hearing - you fluked "creating a piece of software that has far less bugs in it than usual"; and hence it's always satisfying to use - it can be relied upon to nearly always behave itself.

 

Having a barney because someone says a gizmo makes the sound better is completely misunderstanding what's going on - much of the tweaking, and "silly stuff" is playing with, experimenting with, workarounds which compensate for the lack of robustness of the setup; if the drive belt in your car keeps going bad, because the manufacturer didn't get the design of the engine right in the first place, then you will very likely do some crazy things, to try and keep the car on the road.

I probably agree with you but not totally getting your drift... and what’s a ‘weasel’ word? 

[gmgraves]

59 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Hi George

 Would you disagree that in the vast majority of technical areas that we both discuss, that for the most part we are on the same page, unlike your discussions with Frank ?

 

Kind Regards

Alex 

I think so.

[tmtomh]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

The OT stated "someone posts a claim that cannot possibly be correct"  - if someone says that they used a "silly tweak" which just happened to be a workaround for some system misbehaviour, where is the "cannot possibly be correct" component in that?

 

A tweak can correct or remedy a problem with a system. But a tweak of one problem cannot compensate for other problems in the system.

 

And to bring this back on topic, I would say that explaining as clearly as possible what the logical flaw is in a flawed claim is an example of an acceptable response when an impossible claim is made.

[Jud]

On 12/12/2019 at 12:28 PM, Ralf11 said:

What responses are allowed when someone posts a claim that cannot possibly be correct?

 

"Allowed" is of course up to Chris. I'll answer a slightly different question, what should the response be?

 

- Be specific with regard to the particular scientific principle being violated.

 

- Show your work. Don't simply say it's impossible, say exactly how/why.

 

- Don't repeat what you or someone else has already said in the thread. If people have blithely ignored the sound scientific principles you or someone else has set forth once, saying it again louder will work no better.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

"Allowed" is of course up to Chris. I'll answer a slightly different question, what should the response be?

 

- Be specific with regard to the particular scientific principle being violated.

 

- Show your work. Don't simply say it's impossible, say exactly how/why.

 

- Don't repeat what you or someone else has already said in the thread. If people have blithely ignored the sound scientific principles you or someone else has set forth once, saying it again louder will work no better.

Okay, so to be a little bit personal, but still respectful.  Let us use you as an example.  

 

I believe you use Maple Shade interconnects because you find they improve the sound?

 

So barring any malicious or incompetent impedance mis-matches or ridiculous amounts of capacitance or inductance in the connections, those won't sound any different than a good RG6 based interconnect.  They can't.  Any cable effects are way down in the dirt well below anything you could ever hear.  No frequency response differences are available.  No change in the signals that could result in anything audible.  I personally couldn't go so far as to explain it using Maxwell's equations, but it could be done.  

 

So what say you?  You can't be hearing what you are perceiving due to a change in signal over the interconnects.  

 

Not meant as a personal attack on you, but you are one of the most level headed participants here, and I can't think of anything more basic than cables have a sound vs no they don't as an example.  I suppose I'm falling into the just saying it is impossible without showing my work category here, but let us start at this point. 

 

The specific point is the Maple Shade interconnects won't effect the audible signal so can't "have a sound".  

[fas42]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

A tweak can correct or remedy a problem y, with a system. But a tweak of one problem cannot compensate for other problems in the system.

 

Correct. So the process is, remedy one discovered problem; and listen. The chances are very high that there are other problems still remaining - indicated by the fact that there are still issues with the SQ. So you explore again, and determine the next area that can be improved ... repeat this medication until healthy, 🙂.

 

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

And to bring this back on topic, I would say that explaining as clearly as possible what the logical flaw is in a flawed claim is an example of an acceptable response when an impossible claim is made.

 

Agree.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

So barring any malicious or incompetent impedance mis-matches or ridiculous amounts of capacitance or inductance in the connections, those won't sound any different than a good RG6 based interconnect.  They can't.  Any cable effects are way down in the dirt well below anything you could ever hear.  No frequency response differences are available.  No change in the signals that could result in anything audible.

Dennis

  I disagree,and agree with Jud .This is in many cases also governed by the value of the parallel output capacitors to 0 volts at the outputs of a DAC for example, and the actual length and capacitance of the Interconnects used.

 As an  example, several years ago I purchased 2 pairs of Blue Jeans LC1 cables of 6 feet length to connect from my DIY Silicon Chip magazine designed DAC at the other side of the cabinet to my DAC. I found HF detail too metallic sounding with these cables of almost half the capacitance of a normal RG59 double screened style cable of the same length, and gave them to a friend.

 Yes, I may have been able to compensate for this by increasing the value of the DACs output capacitors to allow for this, but most consumers are not able to do this. Some designers will however use larger value capacitors at that area to boast the best possible distortion figures, but this can sometimes result in a small audible degradation.(a little dull sounding)  This effect will also governed by the value of the series output resistors used at the output of the output I.Cs,  which are needed in most cases as many opamps do not like driving capacitive loads of >100pF e.g. LM4562/LME49720

 BTW, who uses RG6 cables for interconnects ? They are too thick and not bendable enough in most cases, and may place additional strain on the RCA sockets.

 

 Regards

Alex

[esldude]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Dennis

  I disagree,and agree with Jud .This is in many cases also governed by the value of the parallel output capacitors to 0 volts at the outputs of a DAC for example, and the actual length and capacitance of the Interconnects used.

 As an  example, several years ago I purchased 2 pairs of Blue Jeans LC1 cables of 6 feet length to connect from my DIY Silicon Chip magazine designed DAC at the other side of the cabinet to my DAC. I found HF detail too metallic sounding with these cables of almost half the capacitance of a normal RG59 double screened style cable of the same length, and gave them to a friend.

 Yes, I may have been able to compensate for this by increasing the value of the DACs output capacitors to allow for this, but most consumers are not able to do this. Some designers will however use larger value capacitors at that area to boast the best possible distortion figures, but this can sometimes result in a small audible degradation.(a little dull sounding)  This effect will also governed by the value of the series output resistors used at the output of the output I.Cs,  which are needed in most cases as many opamps do not like driving capacitive loads of >100pF e.g. LM4562/LME49720

 BTW, who uses RG6 cables for interconnects ? They are too thick and not bendable enough in most cases, and may place additional strain on the RCA sockets.

 

 Regards

Alex

So you are saying such a cable will cause measurable distortion and FR differences?  If so, then it is easy.  Measure those differences and choose clean and flat response.  Easy to measure with a couple different lengths of interconnect and extrapolate what is too much for them. 

[semente]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

So barring any malicious or incompetent impedance mis-matches or ridiculous amounts of capacitance or inductance in the connections, those won't sound any different than a good RG6 based interconnect.  They can't.  Any cable effects are way down in the dirt well below anything you could ever hear.  No frequency response differences are available.  No change in the signals that could result in anything audible.  I personally couldn't go so far as to explain it using Maxwell's equations, but it could be done.

 

What about noise-shaping and @Miskas measurements showing ultrasonic rubbish and @Juds ultra-wide bandwidth amplifier and wide-bandwidth metal-alloy dome tweeter?

[semente]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

As an  example, several years ago I purchased 2 pairs of Blue Jeans LC1 cables of 6 feet length to connect from my DIY Silicon Chip magazine designed DAC at the other side of the cabinet to my DAC. I found HF detail too metallic sounding with these cables of almost half the capacitance of a normal RG59 double screened style cable of the same length, and gave them to a friend.

 

I also had a pair LC1s for a bit and felt that I could hear some hazy-glare in the treble compared to my homebrewed ICs which have 1/3 the capacitance. And this was using the D2010 tweeter which produces a steep roll-off from 19k onwards.

The LC1 was bought new, whilst my cable cost me the price of the plugs (someone ofered me a bit of CAT5 wire so perhaps £3?).

I'm not a cable listener. I bought the LC1 because I was convinced that shielding would improve sound (now I don't).

[sandyk]

53 minutes ago, esldude said:

So you are saying such a cable will cause measurable distortion and FR differences?  If so, then it is easy.  Measure those differences and choose clean and flat response.  Easy to measure with a couple different lengths of interconnect and extrapolate what is too much for them. 

Dennis

 In this case I am unable to take suitable measurements and need to take note of what I am hearing, just as Jud did.

 Whether we like it or not, opamps are affected by different load capacitances. Even as far back as the earlier CD players that had a small front panel mounted headphone amplifier, they found that the additional parallel capacitance of the cable to the headphone amplifier PCB caused audible degradation at the RCA output sockets. The fix back then was to disconnect this cable.

 This was also documented in magazines such as HiFi News and Record Review. Another solution that I also implemented back then was to insert 100 ohm series resistors at the start of this additional cable.

In the case of the Silicon Chip Studio Preamp/HA design some constructors found that the cable from the Preamp Section PCB at the rear to the remote control PCB at the front caused the LM4562 to OSCILLATE., which was evidenced by grainy sounding audio and the I.C. being quite warm to the touch.  Again, in this case the best solution was also to fit series 100 ohm output resistors, which I also did with this DIY project. 

 In the attached .pdf you will note the increased degradation when the output capacitance is only 100pF, and it gets even worse with higher capacitance cable loading.

 Note  p.22 and especially the top of p.24 of the attached Data sheet.

Quote

The LM4562 is a high speed op amp with excellent phase margin and stability. Capacitive loads up to 100pF will cause little change in the phase characteristics of the amplifiers and are therefore allowable.

Capacitive loads greater than 100pF must be isolated from the output. The most straightforward way to do this is to put a resistor in series with the output. This resistor will also prevent excess power dissipation if the output is accidentally shorted.

 

 

Alex

LM4562.pdf

[mansr]

5 hours ago, tmtomh said:

And to bring this back on topic, I would say that explaining as clearly as possible what the logical flaw is in a flawed claim is an example of an acceptable response when an impossible claim is made.

Let's take an example. How would you explain that cable lifters are "unlikely" to do anything, not even if made of myrtlewood?

[Iving]

21 minutes ago, mansr said:

Let's take an example. How would you explain that cable lifters are "unlikely" to do anything, not even if made of myrtlewood?

 

Why do you have to say anything at all.

 

If you really mean to engage in a spirit of respectful conversation you could say any number of things:

- Are you aware of any explanation for improved SQ lifting cables?

- Have you any idea why myrtlewood would be effective over other materials?

- Have you thought that salespeople and marketeers might be dishonest even if with themselves?

- Have you thought about buying myrtlewood direct rather than via audio retailers so avoiding unnecessary mark-ups?

- It really bothers me that you seem to be enjoying something that I am convinced there is no justification for.

 

But that's not the general approach of the "typical" objectivist, right?

[semente]

38 minutes ago, Iving said:

Why do you have to say anything at all.

 

Because this is an audio forum; the idea is to discuss things.

[Iving]

17 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Because this is an audio forum; the idea is to discuss things.

 

... at a threshold level of mutual respect else it only works for some.

 

(The folks for whom it doesn't work aren't here to say so - but who cares.)

[semente]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

... at a threshold level of mutual respect else it only works for some.

 

(The folks for whom it doesn't work aren't here to say so - but who cares.)

 

I've learnt a lot in forums.

I am happy to be corrected/educated as long as this is done in an informative and polite manner.

[Iving]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

I've learnt a lot in forums.

I am happy to be corrected/educated as long as this is done in an informative and polite manner.

 

Absolutely same here

 

Honestly I say what I do hoping to optimise my (technical) learning opportunities. I am expert in one or two (other) areas but can learn a great deal to my own advantage in audiophile matters.

[Blackmorec]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

Okay, so to be a little bit personal, but still respectful.  Let us use you as an example.  

 

I believe you use Maple Shade interconnects because you find they improve the sound?

 

So barring any malicious or incompetent impedance mis-matches or ridiculous amounts of capacitance or inductance in the connections, those won't sound any different than a good RG6 based interconnect.  They can't.  Any cable effects are way down in the dirt well below anything you could ever hear.  No frequency response differences are available.  No change in the signals that could result in anything audible.  I personally couldn't go so far as to explain it using Maxwell's equations, but it could be done.  

 

So what say you?  You can't be hearing what you are perceiving due to a change in signal over the interconnects.  

 

Not meant as a personal attack on you, but you are one of the most level headed participants here, and I can't think of anything more basic than cables have a sound vs no they don't as an example.  I suppose I'm falling into the just saying it is impossible without showing my work category here, but let us start at this point. 

 

The specific point is the Maple Shade interconnects won't effect the audible signal so can't "have a sound".  

I like the polite tone and I like the discussion, so I’m going to reward you by disagreeing 😁 Politely disagreeing. 

 

In terms of cables, what about Echo, NEXT, FEXT and all the other problems related to impedance, cross talk, conductor interaction and radiated EMI and RFI? Do they have no effect of how the ultimate signals sound? They certainly will effect what comes out of the end of the cable I would have thought. 

 

 

[marce]

Analgue or digital cables...

 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

In terms of cables, what about Echo, NEXT, FEXT and all the other problems related to impedance, cross talk, conductor interaction and radiated EMI and RFI? Do they have no effect of how the ultimate signals sound? They certainly will effect what comes out of the end of the cable I would have thought.

None of that matters at audio frequencies.

[John Dyson]

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

None of that matters at audio frequencies.

At audio -- I'd first look for hum infiltration and other ground currents. Ground currents and significant RFI sources could be worrisome.   Back in the '70's, I used to live a few 1k feet from a full power, probably noisy, HI-VHF TV transmitter, and it can cause troubles without some consideration - I had real-wolrd experience with that issue, but building/testing open air prototypes.   Certainly couldn't be guaranteed to get by with an unshielded circuit.   A 2n5089 can detect 100-200MHz signals very nicely.  In fact, I used a 2n5089 to generate a junk FM audio signal, as the RF oscillator!!!   I prefered to use more appropriate transistors, but I wanted to give it a try -- a bit tricky to make it work as good as the correct parts.  A commercial quality packaged circuit, shielded cables shouldn't be a problem -- but esp the quality of consumer stuff isn't always perfect.

 

I'd suspect that most people, where only transmitters >500MHz nearby, prob not such a terrible problem.   I learned about RFI/EMC problems very early on...  Of course, when working at a cobbled together 25kERP (AFAIR abt 5kW transmitter) FM station (one of the first stereo FM) -- it was a super RF hot environment, but there was a lot of 95.5MHz energy in the air studio -- so hot that everything needed to be grounded, or could/did get a 95MHz shock!!!   That would be a good proof-of-snake-oil test environment for those pretty and decorated/almost-industrial looking consumer cables...

 

John

 

[semente]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

None of that matters at audio frequencies.

 

What do you mean by audio frequencies?

 

@John_Atkinson and @Miska to name a few seem to agree that the performace of an ultra-wideband amplifier or of a hard-domed tweeter with a massive resonance peak may be affected by ultrasonic garbage with audible repercussions:

Bowers & Wilkins CM5, acoustic crossover on HF axis at 50", corrected for microphone response, with nearfield responses of woofer (green) and port (red) respectively plotted below 350Hz and 1kHz.

[Jud]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

Okay, so to be a little bit personal, but still respectful.  Let us use you as an example.  

 

I believe you use Maple Shade interconnects because you find they improve the sound?

 

So barring any malicious or incompetent impedance mis-matches or ridiculous amounts of capacitance or inductance in the connections, those won't sound any different than a good RG6 based interconnect.  They can't.  Any cable effects are way down in the dirt well below anything you could ever hear.  No frequency response differences are available.  No change in the signals that could result in anything audible.  I personally couldn't go so far as to explain it using Maxwell's equations, but it could be done.  

 

So what say you?  You can't be hearing what you are perceiving due to a change in signal over the interconnects.  

 

Not meant as a personal attack on you, but you are one of the most level headed participants here, and I can't think of anything more basic than cables have a sound vs no they don't as an example.  I suppose I'm falling into the just saying it is impossible without showing my work category here, but let us start at this point. 

 

The specific point is the Maple Shade interconnects won't effect the audible signal so can't "have a sound".  

 

In fact this is an excellent example.

 

I can then respond that "cables have no sound" is an oversimplification, not taking into account the fact that the Mapleshade cables have virtually no shielding. I've switched to inexpensive cables that are much better shielded.

 

Good conversation, highlights the fact that people may want to take account of the susceptibility of cables to radiated noise and use cables with good shielding unless other considerations would prevail in their specific circumstances. (For example, I am currently using inexpensive light, flexible Monoprice Ethernet cables because they are connecting lightweight components and I am concerned about torque on the connections from cables that may be better shielded but are stiffer and heavier.)

 

And no civilities were harmed in the making of this conversation. 🙂

[mansr]

36 minutes ago, semente said:

What do you mean by audio frequencies?

With cables of lengths typical for domestic audio, the properties Blackmorec mentioned do not matter for frequencies up to 1 MHz or so. Transmission line effects only become relevant when the cable length starts approaching 1/4 of the wavelength.

 

36 minutes ago, semente said:

@John_Atkinson and @Miska to name a few seem to agree that the performace of an ultra-wideband amplifier or of a hard-domed tweeter with a massive resonance peak may be affected by ultrasonic garbage with audible repercussions:

Bowers & Wilkins CM5, acoustic crossover on HF axis at 50", corrected for microphone response, with nearfield responses of woofer (green) and port (red) respectively plotted below 350Hz and 1kHz.

A speaker is not a cable.