Jump to content
IGNORED

Cable Pathways Between Audio Components Can Affect Perceived Sound Quality


Recommended Posts

Unless I misunderstand, this is ONLY an analog experiment, so doesn't directly apply to USB/ethernet/etc type things.   There is a digital interconnect used, but is not part of the experiment.

 

Given this fact, the results become more likely but still I am so skeptical as to not believe it, and currently assume that there was a missing experimental control.   My mind is open, but incredibly skeptical.  The paper will require VERY careful and strict analysis to understand what was measured/compared and VERY VERY precisely undersand the environment.

 

The paper just might be accurate, but the claim/results might be easy to misunderstand.   I am very frustrated that for me, a careful read must wait until after the weekend.   This is 'interesting'...

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just invited Professor Kunchur to chime in here... 

 

Parallel is not completely relevant, but it's an amusing scene regardless. 

 

 

 

my blog

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Fully balanced and single-ended signal paths are sufficiently different internally that any differences could be due to electronics rather than interconnects. The author is, unwittingly, changing too many variables by comparing balanced to single-ended interconnects to make any conclusions about just the interconnects. Different components, different signal path, different processing of the signal between these two cases, possibly different signal levels at the output. All of these are important to eliminate as possible confounds before declaring that interconnects cause the differences. 

 

Also, the fact that balanced vs. single-ended can produce different levels of noise at the output is not surprising, since these were created specifically to deal with noise.

Anecdote -- back in the olden days, in NYC, the TV/Radio networks would pass audio signals between buildings/across town with balanced audio cabling.   Of course, the 'art' of doing that has differences from simple local balanced connections, but does show that with proper techniques, balanced connections can do amazing things WRT noise encroaching into the signal.   Also, the balanced signal I/O HW doesnt' have high common mode rejection, there is some lost opportunity for avoiding noise.  The quality of the driving/receiving electronics has major influence on the results.

 

100's of volts of single ended (or common mode in  case of balanced) noise can appear between buildings, the cause substantially being ground potential issues, yet the audio on the TV/radio stations ended up being reasonably clean.  (I am very sure that it wouldnt' be high fidelity by todays standards, but still the SNR was usable.)  Important hint - if grounding the wire shield on long distance balanced connections, do so only on one side...

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Fully balanced and single-ended signal paths are sufficiently different internally that any differences could be due to electronics rather than interconnects. The author is, unwittingly, changing too many variables by comparing balanced to single-ended interconnects to make any conclusions about just the interconnects. Different components, different signal path, different processing of the signal between these two cases, possibly different signal levels at the output. All of these are important to eliminate as possible confounds before declaring that interconnects cause the differences. 

 

Also, the fact that balanced vs. single-ended can produce different levels of noise at the output is not surprising, since these were created specifically to deal with noise.

 

I do wonder whether anyone has actually read this paper - just try perusing the Conclusions section, okay?

 

When people have an agenda, all forces that can be applied will be applied, no matter how feeble they are ...

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely, the concept is that unless "perfect" integrity is the nature of the chain, that there will be audible differences - in the real world everyone knows this, and it forms the backbone of what everyone does - yet, a formal paper investigates, and puts this in writing, and people fall to the floor in amazement 😉 ... the human condition is quite remarkable to observe, at times ... 🙂.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Different components, different signal path, different processing of the signal between these two cases, possibly different signal levels at the output. All of these are important to eliminate as possible confounds before declaring that interconnects cause the differences. 

 

100%.

But all I know from design is that differential is mainly a pain in the *ss implying more THD than less with SE.

Nicely controversial, right ?

100 pages to discuss ...

 

PS: Strange claim: If you know what can be achieved with balanced, you can achieve the same with SE just by pushing (yourself) harder. For example, common mode noise can also be diminished by eliminating noise in the first place.

So soo many ways to Rome ...

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Understanding why and how things work is my only agenda, Frank. I understand that you just naturally come by the understanding and knowledge of how things and work and how to improve them. Not all of us are this gifted, so some of us actually need to ask relevant questions. Okay?

 

 

No. First step, acknowledge that there is "something going on" - don't apply maximum effort to convince yourself that that you were deluding yourself, by doing measurements until absolutely "nothing to be seen here" - in some parts, they call this being open minded; and they don't let their brains fall out, BTW, when doing so, 😉.

 

The "why" and "how" comes later - accept the WTF'ness of the situation, and proceed with the realisation that something is happening, and should be dealt with ...

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Not how science works, I'm afraid. We are discussing a scientific paper that purports to describe a scientific experiment.

 

Love the way you throw in the word, "purports" - ahh, that science find it so easy to rise above the emotions that everyday folk succumb to ... 😜

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started watching and paused it once he got into talking about 'beliefs'. A complete red herring.

 

Curiosity got the better of me and I played a bit longer. Had to stop though where he claims 'wire can't add noise'. I take it he's never heard of 'common ground impedance coupling'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2021 at 7:24 AM, PeterSt said:

 

100%.

But all I know from design is that differential is mainly a pain in the *ss implying more THD than less with SE.

Nicely controversial, right ?

100 pages to discuss ...

 

PS: Strange claim: If you know what can be achieved with balanced, you can achieve the same with SE just by pushing (yourself) harder. For example, common mode noise can also be diminished by eliminating noise in the first place.

So soo many ways to Rome ...

Not controversial, just simply wrong.

MARCH~audio
excellence in audio
www.marchaudio.com
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, opus101 said:

I started watching and paused it once he got into talking about 'beliefs'. A complete red herring.

 

Curiosity got the better of me and I played a bit longer. Had to stop though where he claims 'wire can't add noise'. I take it he's never heard of 'common ground impedance coupling'.


Or perhaps he is simply saying that a wire is not an active component and can’t generate noise all by itself. Noise can be introduced from the outside, but not generated by the wire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:


Or perhaps he is simply saying that a wire is not an active component and can’t generate noise all by itself. Noise can be introduced from the outside, but not generated by the wire.

 

Strictly speaking all wires have resistance so do generate noise 'all by themselves' - but normally that noise is negligible in the context of audio ICs.

 

I haven't watched the video beyond where he said 'wires can't add noise' but his line of thinking leads me to formulate a hypothesis. I am predicting that his testing of wires is not done in-circuit, in which case he'll completely miss the elephant in the room which is the aforementioned common ground impedance coupling.

 

Anyone watched it all and can confirm or deny my prediction?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah maybe we mean different things by 'wire' - I am meaning the whole interconnect, perhaps you only mean the copper conductor part. I shall change to 'cable' in future to avoid such misunderstandings.

 

When I say 'not from the circuit' I don't include cable insulation as part of the circuit. The circuit to me is amps, sources etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I have very direct experience of this from jet engine testing.

 

Completely OT but I used to design tacho processing for jet engine testing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...