Telos Quantum Active Cable - Snake Oil?

[MetalNuts]

 

Telos is a Taiwan manufacturer and has a variety products claiming to use quantum technology.  I am not a technical guy and I doubt whether they are just gimmick or snake oil.  The video is in Cantonese introducing this quantum active cable and the photo is a capture screen from the video showing the flow of electricity and the quantum box is not placed on the path of the electricity to the equipment but by another wire that linked from the end of the live wire and from the box linked back to the neutral wire.  Does it work that way to have any clearing or filtering effect on the power to the equipment?

 

[Jud]

https://telos-audio.com.tw/sticker/

 

Holy s**t, no.

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

https://telos-audio.com.tw/sticker/

 

Holy s**t, no.

 Also, unless I am mistaken, the Blue component appears likely to be a VDR used for clamping the mains voltage, and subject to the usual degradation in storm prone areas.

[MetalNuts]

The brand is quite hot here but I am not a user and I have doubt on their claim.  As I stated I am not a technical guy so I can't objectively comment on it. 

[jabbr]

Audiophile’s with pets, particularly cats, should be very careful with these cables as if you leave the room, the cats have a certain probability of dying. 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Audiophile’s with pets, particularly cats, should be very careful with these cables as if you leave the room, the cats have a certain probability of dying. 

 

What's more, if you never look into that room again, the cat will continue to exist in the state between life and death... it will become a zombie!

[Speedskater]

Do they have any engineering papers (in English)?  YouTubes are close to worthless, can't have reference points, can't be quoited.

When it comes to AC power the problem is current noise (the circuit is at a very low impedance.  Their device should look like a small audio amplifier.

[MetalNuts]

16 hours ago, Speedskater said:

Do they have any engineering papers (in English)?  YouTubes are close to worthless, can't have reference points, can't be quoited.

When it comes to AC power the problem is current noise (the circuit is at a very low impedance.  Their device should look like a small audio amplifier.

The product in question is yet to appear in their website.  The video was made by its agent/dealer in HK as an introduction.  I know very little about science not to mention quantum which I do believe not so many scientists are familiar with, so I am doubtful to products using quantum as part of its label.  

[DuckToller]

1 hour ago, MetalNuts said:

I know very little about science not to mention quantum which I do believe not so many scientists are familiar with, so I am doubtful to products using quantum as part of its label.  

Didn't James Bond use Quantum with success or had it been solely solace ???

[jabbr]

Without even looking at this it is yet another example of magical thinking that some external circuit could somehow make up for the failings of a piece of electronic equipment without even knowing what the actual electronic circuit (i.e. your DAC, amp etc) is!

 

This is all part of the audiophile story told by companies marketing to audiophiles: the emperor has no cables!!

 

Regardless ts possible to have better or worse cables or, for example, balanced vs unbalanced transmission:

 

0) all cables should transmit the desired information

1) balanced cables (can)  reduce differential mode noise

2) cable shielding etc can affect common mode noise transmission

3) it is possible for cables to reduce a digital rise time and a transmitter might have too fast a rise time for a receiver etc

 

Too bad that except for differential mode noise (and widespread adoption of balanced cables) none of the above is measured. Instead cables are marketed to audiophiles playing the game of dungeons and dragons, and where the key into the next chamber is a magical cable (available for purchase in the game store 👹)

 

[CG]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Too bad that except for differential mode noise (and widespread adoption of balanced cables) none of the above is measured.

 

 

And, balanced cables are in many cases not what people think they are.

 

A twisted pair is a "balanced" cable.  There are definitely positive attributes to twisting wire pairs, especially at the low frequencies of the audio band where shielded cables really don't do the job.  (See various discussions by Henry Ott...)

 

However, to really get the complete benefit package of "balanced" cabling, you also need balanced transmitters and receivers.  Most of these found in audio products lose their goodness for rejecting common mode noise starting right above the audio band.  No matter how much magical thinking or wishing we apply, signals outside the audio band can, and often do, affect performance within the audio band.  So, some qualifiers need to be applied here as well.

 

Despite the comments, this stuff isn't as easy as people want to make it.  Just ask an instrumentation engineer.

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, CG said:

However, to really get the complete benefit package of "balanced" cabling, you also need balanced transmitters and receivers.

 

Exactly my point. The engineering needs to be applied to the active components rather than only the cables. But unquestionably none of this discussion needs to invoke "magical" quantum effects ... I mean you can measure shot noise on thin vs thick film resistors or a new resistor material or a new cable material and you can measure capacitance, inductance etc and these all describe the cable. In order to deeply understand why thick film vs thin film resistors or jFet vs bipolar transistors have different current vs voltage noises yes quantum effects are necessary to understand, but believe me that has all been described in excruciating detail since the development of the transistor itself! This is just magic handwaving here :🧛‍♂️

[CG]

37 minutes ago, jabbr said:

This is just magic handwaving here :🧛‍♂️

 

Yeah, but...  That's the way people look at things.  Whether made by leprechauns or imbued with quantum effects doesn't matter.  

 

Personally, I am disappointed that well understood engineering and physics principles are not used to describe various products.  Obviously, that's not an effective explanation.  If the marketing didn't work as it does, the companies would either go out of business or take a different approach.  

 

But, hey!  I read through the various comments here on what is labeled as a forum where physics is supposed to rule, and instead I read various statements of "FACT" that probably are true from the perspective of a networking expert, or perhaps a software genius.  They are very simplified and hardly represent the so-called big picture.  (The jitter argument in another thread just amazes me.)  So, just imagine how accountants, musicians, restaurateurs, and various other people who aren't specifically trained in the subject must look at it all.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, CG said:

But, hey!  I read through the various comments here on what is labeled as a forum where physics is supposed to rule, and instead I read various statements of "FACT" that probably are true from the perspective of a networking expert, or perhaps a software genius.  They are very simplified and hardly represent the so-called big picture.  (The jitter argument in another thread just amazes me.)  So, just imagine how accountants, musicians, restaurateurs, and various other people who aren't specifically trained in the subject must look at it all.

 

I don't care for the word "FACT" or "TRUTH" or "FALSE" (living in a fundamentally quantum world as we do  )

 

That said, there are networking principles, standards including standard tests.

 

jitter is a complex topic and the goal is to shed light not heat, though even @alfe's very special lasers do have a finite linewidth 🤭

 

here we are in an objectivist forum and the topic of quantum cables comes up, so yes lets stick to the physics of electronic components including cables  

 

From my own perspective I am very interested in why different devices have a different "sound" whether that be jFets vs Bipolar transistors or Neutrik vs Switchcraft XLR connectors or ... you know real stuff. I am much more inclined to get interested in these differences when there is some information provided by the manufacturer  regarding what the device is made of, what specifications it has, and objective information about how it works. By and large boutique cable vendors don't provide. Many audio vendors provide but unfortunately many just espouse theories and whitepapers without providing measurements which are most important when their claims are controversial.

[Archimago]

I came across the Telos box last year when in Singapore. Didn't think much of it then and the sales guy had no explanations either other than to pull out some company material and say "let's listen to it". Couldn't hear anything special and too much hassle for an A/B comparison.

 

Clearly, until demonstrated otherwise, anything in the audio world with the word "quantum" in it should be treated with suspicion.

[alfe]

41 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Clearly, until demonstrated otherwise, anything in the audio world with the word "quantum" in it should be treated with suspicion.

"In physics there is two fundamental concepts. One is the concept of a particle, an entity which moves in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. The other one is the concept of an electromagnetic wave, an entity with a presence at every point in space that is provided by electric and magnetic fields which change in accordance with Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism."

Anything without the word quantum should be treated with suspicion.🙂

 

[alfe]

49 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

jitter is a complex topic and the goal is to shed light not heat, though even @alfe's very special lasers do have a finite linewidth 🤭

 

 

This means a non-relativistic quantum-mechanical approach for the electronic system and a non-quantized, classical electromagnetic field.😉

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, alfe said:

This means a non-relativistic quantum-mechanical approach for the electronic system and a non-quantized, classical electromagnetic field.😉

In other words Maxwell's equations continue to accurately describe the behavior of cables 🤣

[alfe]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

In other words Maxwell's equations continue to accurately describe the behavior of cables 🤣

Yep.

[CG]

53 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Neutrik vs Switchcraft XLR connectors or ... you know real stuff

 

https://www.rfindustries.com/resources/white-papers/intermodulation-distortion-in-rf-connectors.php

 

https://www.digikey.jp/Web Export/Supplier Content/AmphenolConnex_624/PDF/amphenol-connex-passive-intermodulation-distortion.pdf

 

I'm not saying that the differences in connector sound are specifically due to this - probably not, in fact - but, this just goes to show that low level effects in all electronic components are there whether somebody has a reason to look for them or not.

 

Back in the first half of the 20th century, various mathematicians at the BBC and Bell Labs worked out the effects and relative amplitudes of intermodulation distortion in imperfectly linear communications systems.  At the time, their work was primarily centered around audio, which was their companies' main business, although the math applies elsewhere, too.  Back then, the best they could do was measure harmonic distortion, noise, and some linear effects like amplitude flatness, due to the test equipment available at the time.  

 

Here's the goofy part.  For the most part, we still hang onto those simple tests and the ways they are performed.  Part of it is simple dogma.  Part is to maintain continuity of test results made over the past 70 years.  Part of it, I suspect, is plain stubbornness.  All of this even though the researchers of the day knew that what they could measure was limited.

 

In 2020 it's crazy that we average a zillion samples in order to find distortion products more than 100 dB below the desired tones.  What in the world does that tell us?  Music and other sounds are continuums of samples (in the digital sense) and our ears detect that.  No averaging for 1000 samples.  (For you networking guys in the crowd, ever measure the MER of a digital communications system?  Ever see the displayed constellation explode or collapse briefly?  What's that do to the MER measurement?  ALMOST NOTHING, if you're averaging over a 1000 symbols.  Yet, those symbols are lost or corrupted.  You can see that directly with a BER test.  No wonder that all sorts of error correction schemes are built into the networking standards - they're needed!  What's the implications of that concept in a digital audio system???  What error correction scheme is there between your ears or brain and the network transmission structure?)

 

In addition, unless you're interested in listening to just pure test tones, sound is a combination of a lot of individual tones and their harmonics.  These produce IMD, just as the BBC and Bell Labs guys predicted.   The power in the IMD completely swamps the simple harmonic distortion.  How and where do we consider that?

[Arpiben]

50 minutes ago, CG said:

 

https://www.rfindustries.com/resources/white-papers/intermodulation-distortion-in-rf-connectors.php

 

https://www.digikey.jp/Web Export/Supplier Content/AmphenolConnex_624/PDF/amphenol-connex-passive-intermodulation-distortion.pdf

 

I'm not saying that the differences in connector sound are specifically due to this - probably not, in fact - but, this just goes to show that low level effects in all electronic components are there whether somebody has a reason to look for them or not.

 

Back in the first half of the 20th century, various mathematicians at the BBC and Bell Labs worked out the effects and relative amplitudes of intermodulation distortion in imperfectly linear communications systems.  At the time, their work was primarily centered around audio, which was their companies' main business, although the math applies elsewhere, too.  Back then, the best they could do was measure harmonic distortion, noise, and some linear effects like amplitude flatness, due to the test equipment available at the time.  

 

Here's the goofy part.  For the most part, we still hang onto those simple tests and the ways they are performed.  Part of it is simple dogma.  Part is to maintain continuity of test results made over the past 70 years.  Part of it, I suspect, is plain stubbornness.  All of this even though the researchers of the day knew that what they could measure was limited.

 

In 2020 it's crazy that we average a zillion samples in order to find distortion products more than 100 dB below the desired tones.  What in the world does that tell us?  Music and other sounds are continuums of samples (in the digital sense) and our ears detect that.  No averaging for 1000 samples.  (For you networking guys in the crowd, ever measure the MER of a digital communications system?  Ever see the displayed constellation explode or collapse briefly?  What's that do to the MER measurement?  ALMOST NOTHING, if you're averaging over a 1000 symbols.  Yet, those symbols are lost or corrupted.  You can see that directly with a BER test.  No wonder that all sorts of error correction schemes are built into the networking standards - they're needed!  What's the implications of that concept in a digital audio system???  What error correction scheme is there between your ears or brain and the network transmission structure?)

 

In addition, unless you're interested in listening to just pure test tones, sound is a combination of a lot of individual tones and their harmonics.  These produce IMD, just as the BBC and Bell Labs guys predicted.   The power in the IMD completely swamps the simple harmonic distortion.  How and where do we consider that?

 

Well, PIM Passive Intermodulation distortions can be an issue in RF transmission with co located multi channel transmitters and receivers operating in different power ranges and sharing the same transport media: coaxial cable, waveguide, circulator,antenna.

Transmission power Tx >=+20 dBm  & Receive power sensitivity around Rx = -100 dBm.

But unlike RF, Audio non linearities involved are inband. Therefore PIM should be out of concern for audio cables or connectors.

Despite your introduction warning, in order to avoid confusion it is probably better not to mention it.😉

 

[MetalNuts]

16 hours ago, DuckToller said:

Didn't James Bond use Quantum with success or had it been solely solace ???

 

Wow, if that counts, then I am a quantum expert cos' I have been using the phase "quantum meruit" so frequently and much more than "hello".😀

[jabbr]

23 minutes ago, MetalNuts said:

...' I have been using the phase "quantum meruit" so frequently and much more than "hello".

Should be the price of every cable!

[CG]

3 hours ago, Arpiben said:

 

Well, PIM Passive Intermodulation distortions can be an issue in RF transmission with co located multi channel transmitters and receivers operating in different power ranges and sharing the same transport media: coaxial cable, waveguide, circulator,antenna.

Transmission power Tx >=+20 dBm  & Receive power sensitivity around Rx = -100 dBm.

But unlike RF, Audio non linearities involved are inband. Therefore PIM should be out of concern for audio cables or connectors.

Despite your introduction warning, in order to avoid confusion it is probably better not to mention it.😉

 

 

Umm, much of the PIM problems with RF fall into the band as well - like the cellular bands.  I'm not sure that's what you meant to say.

 

But, let's use your numbers.

 

You describe a dynamic range of roughly 120 dB.  I'm not sure if the -100 dBm level is the effective noise floor for the receiver or whether that's the minimum receive level for successful operation, and I'm too lazy to look that up this late at night.  So, I'll stick with 120 dB for the moment.

 

Second order distortion goes up by 2 dB for every dB of fundamental power.  Third order by 3 dB, and so on.  Typical audio power levels from a power amplifier are probably between 30 dBm (1 watt for folks reading) and maybe as much as 40 dBm.  At 30 dBm, that would raise the second order IMD level by 20 dB compared to your referenced 20 dBm.  That puts the dynamic range for second order IMD at 100 dB.  It gets worse as you go up in order.  So, maybe it's not so insignificant after all.  Maybe.  Dunno!

 

My point is, this stuff doesn't get measured or evaluated.  It either is blown off as being "obviously insignificant" or dismissed because "nobody can hear that."  Or, worse.  You don't need to search very far to find these kinds of arguments.  

 

That is decidedly different from, "we measured 20 tone IMD and looked at the IMD levels for 31 different kinds of connectors and found that the highest distortion levels were found to be at a level that would be equivalent to 30 dB below a very quiet room's ambient noise level when the audio system is operated at normal listening levels.  The tones were spectrally shaped in amplitude to approach the typical spectral distribution of energy for various forms of music as well as spoken voice.  In addition, a weighting filter was applied to simulate the human aural sensitivity curve.  Finally, out of band signals were also measured to be sure that nothing untoward was found there, in order to be thorough.  The spectra were measured using not only an averaging scheme to minimize the effects of thermal noise in the system, but also using a peak hold function over time so that the relative phase alignment of the test tones and subsequent signal crests of the distortion products were captured as well.  We also found cases where dirty connectors caused much higher levels of distortion that is likely to be audible.  More work is required in that area."

 

One is scientific investigation, while the other is a dorm room argument.  This is the world we live in today.  People need to be persuaded and often the threshold of persuasion is insurmountable based upon forces other than reason.  

 

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear 
"And disregards the rest" - P. Simon, 1968

[MetalNuts]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Should be the price of every cable!

I wished but we all know that pricing of the HIFI gears are not based on their performance.