Mainstream Engineer

[pctower]

If one were to visit just this board, he would probably be left with the idea that all mainstream engineers laugh at the idea that audio cables can make a difference or are worth looking into.

MM for example cites his career dealing with cables for the Canadian Navy, and once, in response to a question as to why mainstream engineers aren't interested in testing audio cables, shouted "BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING TO TEST".

The guy in the following link seems to be about as mainstream as you can get and he doesn't seem to be laughing at audio cables or shouting about NOTHING TO TEST:

http://www.highwireaudio.com/

[Monstrous Mike]

If one were to visit just this board, he would probably be left with the idea that all mainstream engineers laugh at the idea that audio cables can make a difference or are worth looking into.

MM for example cites his career dealing with cables for the Canadian Navy, and once, in response to a question as to why mainstream engineers aren't interested in testing audio cables, shouted "BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING TO TEST".

The guy in the following link seems to be about as mainstream as you can get and he doesn't seem to be laughing at audio cables or shouting about NOTHING TO TEST:

http://www.highwireaudio.com/
I NEVER SHOUT!

After a visit to that site you quote I would have to assert my opinion that the entire site if filled with complete and utter crap from the bio to the patents to the designs to the product (i.e. made up to impress and fool people and sell a product). Perhaps you could tell us if that's against the law or does caveat emptor apply here.

I really hope that his "No. 5,548,082 PASSIVE SIGNAL SHIELDING STRUCTURE FOR SHORT WIRE CABLE" isn't the one he is using for his Powerwraps because it expired three years ago: http://www.micropat.com/og/ogn20001024/patexpi.html

That's assuming of course the there is any accuracy to his bio. For example, his "digital pulse dialing mobile telephone" is something I am having a hard time trying to get info on. Perhaps it was a secret military project.

And by the way, all of the mainstream engineers I know aren't laughing at anybody or any idea. I simply cannot find a single one that lends any credence to what is generally presented as fact around here. None have any possible explainations for the entire concept of cables making audio sounds better.

[skeptic]

It seems to me that this man was trained as a mechanical engineer and worked as a mechanical engineer in the microwave field. What makes him more qualified than anyone else to invent better audio cables is beyond me. That blue spiral object in the photo suggests a ferrite RF trap for a power cable by increasing series inductance. As I've said before, IMO that kind of device is useless for improving audio performance but risky from a safety point of view because it increases ground impedence and decouples the equipment from the safety ground at higher frequencies. It clearly violates the intent of NEC and UL to assure that electrical appliances can be operated with an absolute minimum of risk.

[mtrycraft]

The guy in the following link seems to be about as mainstream as you can get and he doesn't seem to be laughing at audio cables or shouting about NOTHING TO TEST:

http://www.highwireaudio.com/

Why doesn't he post any measurement data for before and after application of his magic? Like maybe his power cords effect on the audio signal at the speaker terminal before and after the treatment?
Data that makes sense, not ambiguous as some others have posted in the past?

[pctower]

Why doesn't he post any measurement data for before and after application of his magic? Like maybe his power cords effect on the audio signal at the speaker terminal before and after the treatment?
Data that makes sense, not ambiguous as some others have posted in the past?

Apparently, you think I'm suggesting that there is validity to his "magic". That wasn't my point. I was simply pointing to a mainstream engineer who doesn't fit the mold as usually portrayed on this board.

[skeptic]

Why doesn't he post any measurement data for before and after application of his magic? Like maybe his power cords effect on the audio signal at the speaker terminal before and after the treatment?
Data that makes sense, not ambiguous as some others have posted in the past?

Everybody's an expert, didn't you know? As a mechanical engineer designing microwave waveguides and feed horns, he's main stream. As an electrical engineer designing better audio cables, he's off the wall and deep fringe.

Why doesn't he post measurements of his product? Why doesn't he post documentation that there is even a problem to begin with? Insufficient current flow through the power cord resulting in depletion of the filter capacitor charge and consequent fall in rail voltage. RF noise induced in the power cord resulting in power supply noise appearing in the output stages causing increased distortion. Once he has proven his case using before and after measurements, he'll need DBTs to prove that not only did he fix a REAL problem but that it is audibly useful. Without that he is no main stream engineer, he's a wanabee entrepreneur trying to jump on the audiophile cable mania gravy train. BTW, it is the incessant mention and insistance of reason and logic like this that certain people who want to change the culture of this board to that of Cable Asylum would surpress and eliminate. This kind of arguement does not help sell cables. Now who else might be a shill?

[RobotCzar]

Let's suppose you found one (or maybe six) "mainstream" engineers (whatever that is) that didn't laugh at wire silliness. This would prove what? Is it your contention that all "mainstream" engineers are fully correct in their assertions? Is it your contention that an engineer in any field would be qualified to discuss other fields?

In fact, engineers are NOT qualifed to definitively discuss the audiblity of this stuff because they are not necessarily taught about human perception, placebo effects, and other things that are essential to the discussion. Actually, engineers are not necessarily taught how to do experiments, i.e., they are not scientists. Even rational EEs are not the defintive source of audiblity information. (Consider skeptic, who has lots of good information but thinks he hear differences in amps.)

The main problem I have is that the general suggestion of your post is logically flawed.

[FLZapped]

If one were to visit just this board, he would probably be left with the idea that all mainstream engineers laugh at the idea that audio cables can make a difference or are worth looking into.

MM for example cites his career dealing with cables for the Canadian Navy, and once, in response to a question as to why mainstream engineers aren't interested in testing audio cables, shouted "BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING TO TEST".

The guy in the following link seems to be about as mainstream as you can get and he doesn't seem to be laughing at audio cables or shouting about NOTHING TO TEST:

http://www.highwireaudio.com/


Of course not, he's a mechanical engineer. Different discipline; And looking at his "technical info" it is quite apparent, because it is just more Bovine Scatology.....

-Bruce :rolleyes:

[skeptic]

"Actually, engineers are not necessarily taught how to do experiments, i.e., they are not scientists. "

You are dead wrong. Engineers get the same education for the first two years of undergraduate studies as physicists and chemists. Engineering is applied science. They perform the same kind of experiments in the same laboratories, learn the same techniques, the same kind of reasoning and logic. And the same principles of math and science. I roomed with a physics student for two of my four years in college. It is only when specialization occurs during the third and fourth years that the educational paths diverge. If there are differences during the first two years at all, it is one of degree of emphesis, not substance.

To some non technical people, an engineer is an engineer is an engineer. But t'ain't so. Even among engineers of a type, there is a great deal of specialization. And there is also a great range of degrees of skill. There are good ones, bad ones, great ones, and the majority who fall right in the middle. The reason WarrenWarren was so easily outed as a non engineer when he said that he was a candidate for a PHD in rf engineering is that because the problem he blundered on, namely the mathematical model of coax versus twisted pair is at the third year (junior) level for undergrad engineering students. At his claimed level, it should have been child's play. Mechanical engineering students on the other hand, may never have seen it. I personally am amazed that I remember as much as I do about this topic from my undergrad days. If I was in the business of wiremaking as say either a manufacturing engineer or as an applicatons engineer or a sales engineer, I would know tons more than I do.

As for the qualifications of EEs insofar as testing is concerned, they are usually qualified to devise, perform, and evaluate electrical testing. Audiometric testing is much more specialized. They would most likely have to be directly involved with audiometrists or work in the audio engineering field reading whatever authoritative material wire manufactures can supply them with to make judgements as to whether or not exotic wires are of any benefit.

I will continue to stick with the notion that I along with other end users can be easily tricked by demos, and yes even in my own home trying unsupervised casual listening tests myself. Before I came to any real conclusions about the benefits of these wires, I would want to see the same rigorous scientific methods applied as I expect in all other areas. That is why I am a skeptic. Not because I am convinced that these wires have no merit whatsoever. But that it hasn't been at all demonstrated that they do.

[woodman]

Apparently, you think I'm suggesting that there is validity to his "magic". That wasn't my point. I was simply pointing to a mainstream engineer who doesn't fit the mold as usually portrayed on this board.

That most certainly was the inference that I drew from your original post here ... that here was a valid, certified ENGINEER that wasn't laughing at "cables" as a subject worthy of further serious study and exploration.

Well, any engineer that starts talking about power cords as something that plays an important role in sound reproduction has already blown it with me, simply because I know better! No engineer that I've come across has given me any sort of rational, logical, or believable reason to alter my views - acquired through being technically educated to begin with, and then honed, refined, and reinforced through more than 50 years of actually working on these products ... none - zero - zilch - nada! It simply has no basis in fact. A power cord delivers raw elecricity in the form of 60Hz - 120V A-C current to an electronic device or component, where that raw electricity is transformed (converted) into the D-C voltage and current that ALL of the rest of the circuitry MUST have in order to function properly. As long as the wire gauge of the power cord is sufficient to provide the amount of current that the device demands, there is nothing further that it can do to enhance the performance of the device in question ... NOTHING!

There's only one more thing to add here, and that is that any engineer is first and foremost a human being, and therefore just as vulnerable and susceptible to being completely "snookered" and "bamboozled" and misled by any sort of supposedly technical "information" - which in the final analysis turns out to be complete nonsense, as anyone else is! Just because someone is an "engineer" does not make them immune from this "problem".

[pctower]

"Actually, engineers are not necessarily taught how to do experiments, i.e., they are not scientists. "

You are dead wrong. Engineers get the same education for the first two years of undergraduate studies as physicists and chemists. Engineering is applied science. They perform the same kind of experiments in the same laboratories, learn the same techniques, the same kind of reasoning and logic. And the same principles of math and science. I roomed with a physics student for two of my four years in college. It is only when specialization occurs during the third and fourth years that the educational paths diverge. If there are differences during the first two years at all, it is one of degree of emphesis, not substance.

To some non technical people, an engineer is an engineer is an engineer. But t'ain't so. Even among engineers of a type, there is a great deal of specialization. And there is also a great range of degrees of skill. There are good ones, bad ones, great ones, and the majority who fall right in the middle. The reason WarrenWarren was so easily outed as a non engineer when he said that he was a candidate for a PHD in rf engineering is that because the problem he blundered on, namely the mathematical model of coax versus twisted pair is at the third year (junior) level for undergrad engineering students. At his claimed level, it should have been child's play. Mechanical engineering students on the other hand, may never have seen it. I personally am amazed that I remember as much as I do about this topic from my undergrad days. If I was in the business of wiremaking as say either a manufacturing engineer or as an applicatons engineer or a sales engineer, I would know tons more than I do.

As for the qualifications of EEs insofar as testing is concerned, they are usually qualified to devise, perform, and evaluate electrical testing. Audiometric testing is much more specialized. They would most likely have to be directly involved with audiometrists or work in the audio engineering field reading whatever authoritative material wire manufactures can supply them with to make judgements as to whether or not exotic wires are of any benefit.

I will continue to stick with the notion that I along with other end users can be easily tricked by demos, and yes even in my own home trying unsupervised casual listening tests myself. Before I came to any real conclusions about the benefits of these wires, I would want to see the same rigorous scientific methods applied as I expect in all other areas. That is why I am a skeptic. Not because I am convinced that these wires have no merit whatsoever. But that it hasn't been at all demonstrated that they do.

From all I know, I would agree with you.

I would only add that I assume that any good engineer (and I assume the vast majority of engineers are "good" engineers) who reaches a point in his work where he requires test results from a test that is beyond his particular expertise, he has the good sense to locate someone with the necessary expertise to conduct that particular test.

[skeptic]

Engineers are by nature, usually cautious people. Even conservative. Hopefully they get burned early on in their careers or see some other engineer get burned in a way that leaves a lasting impression, doesn't result in a catastrophic financial loss and doesn't create a lifelong trauma. When this happens, they can spend the rest of their lives contemplating the what ifs. When they do, they understand that if they fly off the handle making engineering or business decisions on false evidence or false logic, they can be badly burned. And even when the logic seems impeccable, they can still overlook something that will seem obvious in retrospect and make them seem foolish. Example; the space shuttle Challenger. Before the disaster, perhaps a few thousand material scientists and chemists in the United States KNEW what happens to certain polymers at low temperatures when it comes to forming an effficient gas seal. A year later, there wasn't a 10 year old kid who didn't understand it. So if most engineers laugh at the notion of special audio cables playing a major, significant, or even contributory role in improving the performance of audio systems, it should be understood in that context.

It cannot be ignored however, that there are a new breed of engineers including foreign trained engineers and those recent inexperienced domestically trained engineers who let computers do their thinking for them, who have given the profession a bad name. In this business, you must pay your dues. There's no faking it and as I said elsewhere, when they throw the switch and the smoke clears, everyone's suddenly an expert. And then there are those who want to exploit a resume by impressing people who don't know. A mechanical engineer who hasn't paid his dues as an electrical engineer falls in that category. By virtue of his training, he is no more qualified to make pronouncements about audio cables than I am to make pronouncements about cold fusion. (The experiments at Bellcore didn't work any better than they did anywhere else.)