I need help with audio interconnects????

[E-Stat]

But you might be wrong.

I would compare my observations to that of the informed automotive press such as Car and Driver, Road and Track, Automobile, etc. Unlike the engineers here, those engineers / professional driver / journalists have all experienced the highest performance examples of their trade. Unlike here, those engineers understand that metrics alone are woefully inadequate to fully characterize the abilities of an automobile. They are used as a starting point only. If the extent of their experience were limited to Hyundais, we would have a similar situation.

Fantasy is fun, isn't it?

Perhaps, but I find that direct experience such as piloting an airplane or skydiving to be more satisfying than just daydreaming about it. Similarly, I find experiencing the finest music systems far more enjoyable than theorizing about them.

rw

[Monstrous Mike]

Until there is proof one way or the other, the recommendation of anything, be it cheap or expensive, is a claim.

No, this is not true. From a purely objective viewpoint, it is logical to recommend basic cabling since there is no evidence of cable sonics. This is not a claim and nothing needs to be proven to make this recommendation. The only way to counter this recommendation is to provide evidence of cable sonics. Then, and only then, this recommendation will no longer be valid.

Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. And this claim is unfounded until it is proven.

If claims must be proven before they can be posted, the naysayers have the same obligation as the yeasayers.

My statements above show this to be a logical fallacy regarding the "burden of proof".

[E-Stat]

...Why not post the ENTIRE summation and the paragraph that follows it...

Here's the complete summation of the article's author, the point of Mtry's post. After all, he is not a "fly by nighter".

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves. On the other hand, those that say that cables should not make a difference, are dead right. "

He acknowledges that theory and results differ. As for Gene's CYA analysis of the analysis, I'll let you comment on the backpeddling. For example, I find phono stages to be very much a part of consumer audio.

...BTW, I've never seen any of the regulars say that cables cannot sound different...only that cables of similar length and gauge have not been shown to have any appreciable sonic difference in valid, repeatable test procedures..

Here's one from this thread:

isn't skeptic a regular?

rw

[Resident Loser]

...There has been no conclusive evidence that wiring of similar length and gauge performs any better sonically than run-of-the-mill generic wiring.

...Aftermarket wiring provides warmth to systems that are excessively bright, deep bass for those that lack it, better imaging and depth or is revealing of inner details...

It's wire...it transfers electrons...it doesn't perform miracles...contrary to any wishful thinking...there is not one reason to assume otherwise...

We claim nothing...the point(one of the many) that is always missed, is that it requires no proof to post subjective opinion when it is represented as such...it is required when these claims are offered as fact(as it is in many cases). In some instances, a kinder, gentler response by some may be in order, but...

Anecdotal opinions and/or claims are usually countered with well deserved scepticism and the poster is reminded that a great many outside influences can and do affect perception...the poster usually gets all in a huff because...well, because...no one likes to admit they are anything but masters of their own senses. They thrash about with things about science not knowing everything or bee flight and tire analogies or outright insults about the resolution deficiencies of the objectors' system...The whole scenario is at once laughable and predictable...with each new crop of visitors, it is repeated ad naseum...

jimHJJ(...Lord, it's like I nebba left!...)

[Resident Loser]

"... As for Gene's CYA analysis of the analysis, I'll let you comment on the backpeddling. For example, I find phono stages to be very much a part of consumer audio..."

As do I. However, I can't recall the last time I was swinging my TT at the end of a cable as though it were a Shure 55SW...or the last time it did some inane gyration during a solo...

Insofar as Skeptic...I think you are comparing apples with oranges...his statement does not seem at odds with mine, as they are mutually exclusive IMO...

jimHJJ(...I think a serious re-read on your part may reveal that...)

[rb122]

No, this is not true. From a purely objective viewpoint, it is logical to recommend basic cabling since there is no evidence of cable sonics. This is not a claim and nothing needs to be proven to make this recommendation. The only way to counter this recommendation is to provide evidence of cable sonics. Then, and only then, this recommendation will no longer be valid.

Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. And this claim is unfounded until it is proven.


My statements above show this to be a logical fallacy regarding the "burden of proof".

I don't agree. There is plenty of evidence of cable sonics. It's simply a matter of whether or not you accept that evidence which in this case is provided by reasonable, intelligent people lending their experience. There is no proof that all cables sound alike in all applications. To suggest they do is a claim. I'm not saying it isn't valid ( it may be absolutely correct) but it's no more valid to the average audiophile than anecdotes. It's all a question of which evidence you support. If you post that Home Depot cable sounds and performs as well as Tara Labs Whatzis mk II, you'll need to provide DBT results to lend credence to your claim.

As I read ROJ, he's merely saying that we need to be careful of what we recommend in light of the fact that there is no PROOF either way. If I take the opposite approach of the Tara Labs/Home Depot issue above, I too must provide proof. But it's not a one way street. I prefer to read "...there is no evidence to support cable sonics" rather than "...all cables (with the usual disclaimers) sound alike so don't waste your money."

"Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. "

Not illogical at all! Biased and due to incomplete analysis perhaps, but not illogical. There is no way in the world that anyone will convince me that cable believers are not hearing... er...perceiving what they claim. Therefore, it is perfectly logical for them to recommend that cable to others.

[ROJ]

"The longer that I participant in this debate it is becoming increasingly clear that this debate is not based on science the way that I have been trained to conduct science, the inclusion of DBT notwithstanding."

That is precisely the problem. There is no AVAILABLE scientific evidence. This type of evidence is generated from basic research which can come about through at least two different channels. One is through research grants to universities or other organizations from private sources or the government. Since in the scheme of life, this is an indisputibly unimportant area of inquiry, it won't come from that source. The other is from companies who have a commercial interest in developing a new and better product. If this has been done at all, the results have not been published and for obvious reasons.

So we are left with little or no actual basic research. When people have a losing arguement, one tactic they use is to try to create in the minds of those they are trying to persuade a notion that the two sides of the arguement are somehow equivalent except for a disagreement. We see it in the most emotional disputes all of the time. Communism versus democracy, creation versus evolution, any religion versus science. The losing side is ALWAYS opposed to scientific facts because it inevitably destroys their case. In the case of Gallileo, not only were his opponents opposed to him publishing his research, his facts, his conclusion, they were opposed to the very idea of science itself because they knew in the end it would dethrone their monopoly on knowledge.

You start off this posting by stating that there is “…no AVAILABLE scientific evidence.” Then you start discussing the motives of people that have losing arguments. How can we know they are making losing argument since there is “no available scientific evidence?” As I have read your posting and others, it seems that a focus of the debate is on the motives of the cable makers. I have no doubt that cable makers may not want to have legitimate testing given the chance that cables may not make a difference. The motives of the cable companies, however, should not be considered proof. I think the issue with Galileo is that the establishment may have been opposed to research because it could potentially disrupt the status quo, which worked for their benefit. When they opposed his research, no one knew which side was the losing side because the research had not yet been conducted. At that time, how did we know they were on the losing side. I do agree that some people with a losing position discount evidence to the contrary. I just don’t think we can assume that there is a losing side in the cable debate yet since the research has not been done.


Scientists do not make absolute statements and neither have I. What I have said or tried to say is that so far there is no reliable evidence to support the notion that you can improve the sound of an audio system or even change it by selecting one cable over another. And there is a lot of scientific and mathematical evidence to suggest the contrary.

Scientists also do not treat their hypothesis of what a study will show as fact before the study has been conducted. They do not prejudge the ultimate outcome. In your posting to me, I have read several strong statements (such as “losing side”) that seem to indicate that you may have already concluded that cable will not make a difference even though you acknowledge there is no scientific proof.

You mention that there is a lot of scientific evidence to suggest the contrary. Is this different than the nonexistant basic research you previously mentioned? Is this research in another field that is relevant to the debate?


"1. It would be important to clearly define what is an “average” listener and how you plan to recruit your participants (e.g., random sampling, case matching)."

In any real meaningful test, it would be valuable to segregate the test populations into groups based on auditory accuity, ability to discern small differences in sounds, and their ability to remember sounds from moment to moment by prequalifying them through screening tests. It would be useless to buy a product if you fall into a group whose hearing accuity makes it impossible to hear differences that other people might hear if that is the determinant of the value of that product. IMO, many audiophiles have far poorer auditory accuity than they think they have often due to exposure to very loud music for prolonged periods such as at live rock concerts and at "discotheques."

This would definitely be helpful, but it would limit the applicability of the findings to the target populations. If the studies found that cable difference were not evident with middle age audio enthusiasts with poor hearing. Then the results would only be applicable to middle age audio enthusiasts with poor hearing. However, if we could test multiple target populations then maybe we could narrow done which populations hear cable differences if cable differences exist, such as gullible, audio novice, graduate students. Then we could say if you belong to this target population try cable, if not do not try cables. Right now, both sides are making recommendations without consider people as a potentially moderating variable.

" I don’t think that the procable group would argue that improvements in sound can be achieved by no other means or that cables are the most important factor. "

The "pro cable group" has rejected every method of electrical measurement known to electrical engineering science arguing instead that the differences they hear are caused by factors which go beyond what is known. Some of their theories are so arcane and "off the wall" as to be laughable. However, objectively there are at least two kinds of distortion we know about. Linear and non-linear. Linear distortion can be compensated for in several ways, changing the capacitance, inductance, and resistance of a wire being only one of them. Non linear distortion usually can't be compensated for. If the cable advocates can demonstrate that one cable has less non linear distortion than another, the MAY have a valid point depending on how strong and significant the evidence is. The only one I've seen so far was John Curl's report of his measurement that the difference between the best and worst case he could find for interconnects was that the 7th harmonic of 5 khz in $1 Radio Shack cable was down to minus 120 db while for the best cable he measured it was minus 135. Even though he is a cable advocate, this was convincing enough to me to conclude that interconnect cables would not produce any non linear distortion that could ever be audible.

I don’t know what the pro cable groups have been claming as I only recently started reading both sides of the debate. However, have their “off the wall” and “arcane” theories been empirically refuted? Remember, the scientific community may have thought that Galileo’s theory was “off the wall”. I am not supporting these arguments especially since I have not read them. However, I don’t think we can immediately dismiss a theory without evaluation. Fortunately, sufficient evidence often exists to dispute most “off the wall” theories in general. The whole process of science, however, is to expand our way of thinking even if it originally does not make intuitive sense. Some “off the wall” theories may lead to significant discoveries (e.g., Galileo).

"To legitimately test for cable differences, it would be important to control all factors that can improve sound (for example, system characteristics, room acoustics, and cd quality) and then see if cables makes an incremental improvement."

The most serious cable advocates argue that only high resolution sound systems can reveal the difference in sound between one cable and another. Of course there is no agreement among them what "high resolution" sound systems are. On audiophile's high resolution system is another's mid fi. This is why it is important to analyze and thoroughly understand not only whether differences occur but why they occur and to be able to measure them and predict where they will and won't have an effect and when they do, what the nature and degree of effect will be. Otherwise, this is an absurd game of hit or miss that can be played by any fool forever.

I agree completely. It appears that neither side has controlled for system quality. I have never read a claim on either side that tried to control for system quality by comparing cables with multiple systems.

In my experience, this is how real knowledge is gained and how people who know how to get at the truth go about it if they have the skill and the means. So far, the companies which manufacture and market audiophile cables haven't even gotten to the first rung. And it is also obvious to me that there are two reasons for this. They can't and they don't have to. The market already gives them exactly what they want. Profits, profits, profits.

You are probably right that the cable companies do not have a financial incentive to conducts tests. Greedy motives, however, do not constitute proof. When you wrote the manufacturers “can’t” are you stating that they can’t find differences? If so, do you think that you have prejudged the ultimate outcome?

[mtrycraft]

Since you have experimented at home, must have swapped and listened to different cables or components to compare, it appears that you have not included any bias controls to these comparisons. Not difficult, certainly no more so than swapping in a sighted comparison. All you need to do is have someone else do it randomly, they record it, cover the cables unless they are already not visible from the listening place, they leave, you listen and guess A bit of statistics, say 20 trials and 15 correct guess is a good indication Or, at least it would show how difficult it is to guess correctly.

[mtrycraft]

There is a difference between speculation as you practice and experience. I'll take experience any day. I find it far more rewarding.

rw

Ah, the experinece of speculation. What a new concept.

[Rockwell]

I would compare my observations to that of the informed automotive press such as Car and Driver, Road and Track, Automobile, etc. Unlike the engineers here, those engineers / professional driver / journalists have all experienced the highest performance examples of their trade. Unlike here, those engineers understand that metrics alone are woefully inadequate to fully characterize the abilities of an automobile. They are used as a starting point only. If the extent of their experience were limited to Hyundais, we would have a similar situation.



Perhaps, but I find that direct experience such as piloting an airplane or skydiving to be more satisfying than just daydreaming about it. Similarly, I find experiencing the finest music systems far more enjoyable than theorizing about them.

rw

You can compare yourself as much as you want, but until you can identify the 5 wheeled car from a four wheeled car in a test where you don't know which you are driving, then you are just talking. Some things can be measured and tested, but others are just subjective opinions. Once you establish that a five wheeled car produces a human detectable difference in the feel of a vehicle's driving characteristics, then talking about subjective opinions is valid. If a driver cannot detect when the 5th wheel is present, then what are you really talking about when you give your subjective opinion of it?

As far as experiencing things, I agree with you, but not everything falls into the category of "needs to be experienced."

[Monstrous Mike]

I don't agree. There is plenty of evidence of cable sonics. It's simply a matter of whether or not you accept that evidence which in this case is provided by reasonable, intelligent people lending their experience. There is no proof that all cables sound alike in all applications. To suggest they do is a claim. I'm not saying it isn't valid ( it may be absolutely correct) but it's no more valid to the average audiophile than anecdotes. It's all a question of which evidence you support. If you post that Home Depot cable sounds and performs as well as Tara Labs Whatzis mk II, you'll need to provide DBT results to lend credence to your claim.

As I read ROJ, he's merely saying that we need to be careful of what we recommend in light of the fact that there is no PROOF either way. If I take the opposite approach of the Tara Labs/Home Depot issue above, I too must provide proof. But it's not a one way street. I prefer to read "...there is no evidence to support cable sonics" rather than "...all cables (with the usual disclaimers) sound alike so don't waste your money."

"Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. "

Not illogical at all! Biased and due to incomplete analysis perhaps, but not illogical. There is no way in the world that anyone will convince me that cable believers are not hearing... er...perceiving what they claim. Therefore, it is perfectly logical for them to recommend that cable to others.

I fully believe that you cannot have an objective discussion on this topic. You may accuse the same of me but I really have no interest in the final outcome of this debate one way or the other. If it turns out that the exotic cable compnaies have been right all along with their unique cable designs then I may or may not explore getting new cables for my system.

On the other hand, if it turns out that a basic cable is all you really need and no amount of handwaving will actually improve system sound, then a lot of people like you will be left scratching their heads wondering that the hell they were hearing in the first place.

Perhaps the spectre of that possibility keeps you steadfastly anchored in your belief about cable sonics, no matter what is discussed.

I remain fully open to the possiblity of cable sonics and if and when somebody shows that they actually make a difference, I will be first in line to find a scientific explanation. And ironically, this sort of investigation should lead to even better cables.

Are open to cable sonics being myth? It sure doesn't sound like it.

[skeptic]

"How can we know they are making losing argument since there is “no available scientific evidence?” "

Simple if you agree that it is up to them to prove the superiority of their product to justify its added expense and the effort to seek it out. By not presenting any after more than twenty years, they have lost by default. Now of course if they did present some evidence they might turn it around but.....

"it seems that a focus of the debate is on the motives of the cable makers."

The motive of business is to make money, moolah, profits. That's all. What separates the legitimate businesses from thieves is that fair businesses make claims for their products, can back it up with facts, and comply with the advertising requirements of the FTC. Cable companies don't do that. They make inferences, lead non technical people to draw unjustified conclusions, and then leave the rest to fast talking sales people who get paid far more handsomely in terms of profit sharing for this product than other electronics products.

"I have no doubt that cable makers may not want to have legitimate testing given the chance that cables may not make a difference"

Somewhere somebody must have been curious enough to find out whether or not their product actually did something even if it was not scientifically rigorous. What motive could there be for not pursuing it further if there was any indication that there was an improvement. Not only would they be able to shout it from the rooftops about how their cable is better than generic but better than the competition's. What other explanation could there be except that they haven't found any?

"I think the issue with Galileo is that the establishment may have been opposed to research because it could potentially disrupt the status quo, which worked for their benefit"

I think that's what I said. At the time, the status quo in Europe was that the Catholic church had a monopoly on truth and knowledge. If they said the sun goes around the earth, it went around the earth and if you disagreed publicly with them, there was the inquisition and the rack. Gallileo faced the inquisition, was placed under house arrest and was shown the instruments of torture. Fortunately for all of us, cable companies don't have quite that power but at Cable Asylum, if you commit heresy by denying the validity of the pro cable arguement, you will be severely reprimanded, then exiled and banished for your blasphemy. Why? You can never know for sure but my guess is based on the fact that there is considerable sponsorship from people who stand to make money through the sale of audiophile cables including at least one manufacturer.

"I just don’t think we can assume that there is a losing side in the cable debate yet since the research has not been done."

"I have read several strong statements (such as “losing side”) that seem to indicate that you may have already concluded that cable will not make a difference even though you acknowledge there is no scientific proof.

You mention that there is a lot of scientific evidence to suggest the contrary. Is this different than the nonexistant basic research you previously mentioned? Is this research in another field that is relevant to the debate?"

Actually considerable research has been done in the electrical performance of all types of cables for nearly 100 years. There are standards for the manufacture and performance of every type of cable known. Not only by trade organizations but by the manufacturers themselves. There is also a vast body of knowledge of mathematical analysis of complex waveforms that can describe every possible deviation caused by an electrical circuit. The application of these principles allows electrical engineers to precisely match the characteristics of cables with the requirements of various users and to design and manufacture new types when the existing generic types are inadequate for a new application. The audiophile cable companies have dismissed all of this saying that there are aspects to cables which influence the audible performance of sound systems beyond this knowledge. Objectively, this is pure idiocy. However, humoring these people, one would say, well if you cannot demonstrate an electrical performance difference but you claim an audible performance difference, prove it in fair double blind listening tests. They have been unable to do this either and at another site, Cable Asylum which I mentioned earlier, discussion of this topic is off limits ostensibly because it would cause endless flame wars. That anti DBT rule not withstanding, on the rare occasion I have visited that site, it seems that there is no lack of flame wars anti DBT rule or no anti DBT rule. In fact there are far fewer here where there is no such rule IMO than there is there.

"I only recently started reading both sides of the debate. However, have their “off the wall” and “arcane” theories been empirically refuted? Remember, the scientific community may have thought that Galileo’s theory was “off the wall”."

Strand jumping, Fermi velocity, and all manner of quantum physics arguements they use not withstanding, these so called experts actually know little or nothing about the theories they advance to explain their arguement. Every one of them has one from creating single crystal wire (new crystal boundaries are created every time you bend it) to oxygen free copper to silver wire to anything you can dream up. To anyone even slightly grounded in advanced physics, their explanations seem rediculous. All that aside, ultimately there must be differences in electrical performance which they cannot demonstrate.

As for Gallileo, there was no scientific community in his day. I think what really got them crazy in the Vatican was that anyone who could build a small telescope could look at Jupiter, see the 4 largest moons revolving around it for themselves and come to the conclusion that not everything revolves around the earth the way they said it did. By creating one chink in the armor of certainty that the church had a monopoly on all worldly truth, the entire ediface was put in jeopardy. If they made one mistake, why not another and another. Why not all of it. Remember, these were arrogant men who not only had a monopoly on knowledge but on power as well because God spoke to them and they delivered HIS message to the rest of the world.

"The whole process of science, however, is to expand our way of thinking even if it originally does not make intuitive sense. Some “off the wall” theories may lead to significant discoveries (e.g., Galileo)."

This does not mean that every idea that comes along is given equal value or weight. Some ideas simply die and are regarded as worthless because they make no logical sense in light of facts determined by experimentation. Speaking of experimentation BTW, the method of science is to generate a hypothesis, create an experiment to test it, examine the results, and see if the hypothesis holds up. The process is repeated endlessly. Where are the cable companys' scientific experiments? Why don't they publish any? This is not science they expound. It is anti science using the language of science to trick the scientifically uneducated or inexperienced. And judging from the success of this cottage industry, it works. Yes it works very well.

[pctower]

No, this is not true. From a purely objective viewpoint, it is logical to recommend basic cabling since there is no evidence of cable sonics. This is not a claim and nothing needs to be proven to make this recommendation. The only way to counter this recommendation is to provide evidence of cable sonics. Then, and only then, this recommendation will no longer be valid.

Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. And this claim is unfounded until it is proven.


My statements above show this to be a logical fallacy regarding the "burden of proof".

"No, this is not true. From a purely objective viewpoint, it is logical to recommend basic cabling since there is no evidence of cable sonics. This is not a claim and nothing needs to be proven to make this recommendation. The only way to counter this recommendation is to provide evidence of cable sonics. Then, and only then, this recommendation will no longer be valid."

What's really scary is that you actually believe that. the problem really is one of arrogance. You don't believe the average boob is smart enought simply to be told there is no proof and let them decide what they are going to do with that. Too bad, because you get the following right:

"Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. And this claim is unfounded until it is proven."

Oh well. Very few of us can be perfect.

[Rockwell]

What's really scary is that you actually believe that. the problem really is one of arrogance. You don't believe the average boob is smart enought simply to be told there is no proof and let them decide what they are going to do with that. Too bad, because you get the following right:

"Average boob," huh? Pot, the kettle is calling!

Actually, I've worked in technical support and customer service before, and I can tell you that many people need to be led to water. Hopefully they will drink.

[mtrycraft]

Or we could tell you about it and if you require proof, you could test it for yourself.

Oh, your telling about it has been tested, that is why you need to offer evidence beyond just a statement.


[b] However, ROJ makes what I believe to be a valid point: Until there is proof one way or the other, the recommendation of anything, be it cheap or expensive, is a claim..[/QUOTE]

He is not saying this. You are misinterpreting him, I believe. If he is sayiong this, it is not a claim. What is there to test? To use or not to use Home depot cable? Really?
Any testable claims made?

[mtrycraft]

I don't agree.

Obvious

There is plenty of evidence of cable sonics.

Where? Cite one such evidence that can be investigated? Claiming that there is one, is not evidence. Please cite it. Just because Jon claimes it is not evidence.Please.

It's simply a matter of whether or not you accept that evidence which in this case is provided by reasonable, intelligent people lending their experience.

Sorry, that is not evidence, especially when it is based on sighted listeing in the first place.

There is no proof that all cables sound alike in all applications.

Now you are distorting what has been stated before. No one is claiming this as there is published evidence for differences between 24 ga and 16 ga and 12 ga wire. You should know this by now so stop repeating this silly all inclusive claim.


As I read ROJ, he's merely saying that we need to be careful of what we recommend in light of the fact that there is no PROOF either way.

No, he says how we recommend.

[mtrycraft]

jneutron here and at Prophead disavows any dogma and trudges ahead with real experiements.

Yes, he is digging into the depth of the electronic world. And then what?
It doesn't, it won't show audible differences in cables untill it is put to the listening test, DBT. I am not sure he will do that aspect, or why he didn't start with that first, to establish a need to dig beyond what is already known, the basics.Even if there is no audible differences he certainly could dig deeper for a better understanding of the science beyond what is needed in audio applications.

He did a great job of exposing Hawksfords mistakes. That should be published in an audio mag at least.; that is where Hawksford published his, a big mistake.

[mtrycraft]

Of course, this was a couple of months ago, I don't know what may or may not have concluded after these discussions.

-Chris

I think this is a completion of his work thus far:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...istortion.html

Nothing there to his equipment limits. Not sure if there is one better than his but it is already beyond ...

[mtrycraft]

Right on, Mtry. Let's all read the summation together:

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves."

rw

Here we go, your ability to follow a publication is pee poor, as usual. I think you have been accusing me when you should have been looking in the mirror.
You have no clue, an idea what he is saying, do you?
He did a lot of measurements, science, and zero listening testing, unless you can show the latter and his data for audible differences, I will retract. He is talking about technical differneces, measurments, applications in certain cases, like mic cables.
He is has no basis for audible differences; he has not conducted any such trials, did he?

Stick to what you know best, not much.

[mtrycraft]

What you have quoted is Gene DellaSala's comments on the article by Bruno Putzeys. How do you know Putzeys agrees with DellaSala's comments on his article?

What did Bruno do, exactely? He did a lot of great measurements.
Where is his DBT listening tests for interconnects? Oh, nowhere to be found? And he makes statements for audibility? I don't think so. Oh, perhaps he is making claims for measured differences in certain applications and what should be avoided. Anything about interconnects? Really? Or just Mic cable applications and impedance mismatches. Oh, that would apply to the passive preamp junks that are passed off as something good.

[WmAx]

Thank you for the link. This must have concluded when I last read it a couple of months ago. Same conclusion as I remembered reading.

-Chris

I think this is a completion of his work thus far:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...istortion.html

Nothing there to his equipment limits. Not sure if there is one better than his but it is already beyond ...

[pctower]

"Average boob," huh? Pot, the kettle is calling!

Actually, I've worked in technical support and customer service before, and I can tell you that many people need to be led to water. Hopefully they will drink.

"and I can tell you that many people need to be led to water. Hopefully they will drink"

Hey, no fair introducing reality into this discussion.

[jneutron]

Yes, he is digging into the depth of the electronic world. And then what?
It doesn't, it won't show audible differences in cables untill it is put to the listening test, DBT. I am not sure he will do that aspect, or why he didn't start with that first, to establish a need to dig beyond what is already known, the basics.Even if there is no audible differences he certainly could dig deeper for a better understanding of the science beyond what is needed in audio applications..

I started there because there are no tests I am aware of that clearly shows that cables make a difference. If there were, the cable guys would be trouncing everybody with proof positive.

Which leaves several possibilities...

1. There is absolutely no difference, and everybody who thinks so is deluding themselves.

2. There is a difference, and everybody falls flat on their butt under the pressure of discerning obvious differences during a rigorous dbt session.

3. There is a difference, but it is subtle enough in it's nature, that when you hear it, you really can't put your finger on it....reliably.

So, to attack this problem from the DBT end, one would have to know what it is being sought..Amplitude and phase from dc to 20 Khz is so easy to measure, using simple equipment off the shelf, to accuracies and sensitivities many orders of magnitude beyound human hearing...if there really is a difference, then why does this major equipment not see it???

I don't think it's gonna be answered by using the old tried and true tests. That is why I am not using them. Do you think that a novice dbt'er like me could actually, poof, make a dbt test that works where the experts failed??

Look at the Nordmark paper..He used bipolar jitter, and by doing so, enhanced human perception (actually, it allowed some subjects to accurately discern when a waveform was time shifted R-L to within 1.5 uSec), so it is still a question of what was going on.

Why in gods name did he use jitter? did he take a cue from a/d conversion dithering? Who knows..

But, he made it very easy for humans to lateralize by modification of the stimulus.

My take? What stimulus can be used to help humans discern cable differences in a more rigorous way? What to look at, what to focus on..

If I jitter the input signal as he did, with say, a .6 uSec bipolar one , will right-left delays (on the order of 2 to 20 uSec)caused by an amp/wire combination suddenly become very audible? (obviously, I can't burn a test CD for that one..) Perhaps a delay box, one which can introduce delays in the 600 nanosecond realm to each channel independently in a coherent fashion...perhaps an analog bucket chain, with two independent clocks, the clocks being dithered...Hmmmm, I like that one...That would provide jitter without relying on high amplitude to force a pressure jitter in the ear canal....nice...I'll continue thinking about that one...

I note that no matter how powerful an FFT system is, it cannot see a cos component of a sine fundamental, so is rather useless to see small soundstage divergence. And how many are capable of accuracy of testing on an audio system with 1.5 uSec tolerances?

I have had initial discussions with several prof's, broaching the possibility of a student or students taking and running with it as part of a masters or PhD thesis, should my playings define something to be tested for.

I have also discussed with others the possibility of trying several wire constructs on good systems, evaluating wildly varying L-C numbers with identical construction and materials, both as a starting point for determining if those parameters are discernable, as well as for my own edification...the owner of the system will be coerced (by me) to demonstrate for me the different sounding wires they have experienced..not a DBT thing, just a simple listen..I would focus on image lateralization, as I make the assumption that phase/amplitude won't be changing much..just as a loose correlation of LC and hearing.. And all that without actually knowing how good my hearing is..been a while since I had a hearing test..

He did a great job of exposing Hawksfords mistakes. That should be published in an audio mag at least.; that is where Hawksford published his, a big mistake.

Thanks...unfortunately, from what I have heard recently, that was done in a mag called the audio critic a coupla years ago. Apparently the author got some PhD types together, and rigorously pounced Hawksford's analysis..I was unaware of it prior..And it seems, so was Curl....:-)

Cheers, John

[FLZapped]

jneutron here and at Prophead disavows any dogma and trudges ahead with real experiements. In my book, it is guys like ROJ and jneutron (and I'll even toss in skeptic who is saying all kinds of intelligent things lately about DBTs) who are the real "scientists". The rest of you - mere wanna-bees

Really, how would you know? You're a lawyer and the last I checked, a law degree is not accredited under the school of science in any university.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

I started there because there are no tests I am aware of that clearly shows that cables make a difference. If there were, the cable guys would be trouncing everybody with proof positive.

Which leaves several possibilities...

1. There is absolutely no difference, and everybody who thinks so is deluding themselves.

2. There is a difference, and everybody falls flat on their butt under the pressure of discerning obvious differences during a rigorous dbt session.

3. There is a difference, but it is subtle enough in it's nature, that when you hear it, you really can't put your finger on it....reliably.

Ahhh, grasshopper, you omitted one: 4. There are differences, but they fail to rise to the level of audibility :~). ( I believe most would agree this is the overriding scenerio.)

Look at the Nordmark paper..He used bipolar jitter, and by doing so, enhanced human perception (actually, it allowed some subjects to accurately discern when a waveform was time shifted R-L to within 1.5 uSec), so it is still a question of what was going on.

Why in gods name did he use jitter? did he take a cue from a/d conversion dithering? Who knows..

But, he made it very easy for humans to lateralize by modification of the stimulus.

My take? What stimulus can be used to help humans discern cable differences in a more rigorous way? What to look at, what to focus on..

If I jitter the input signal as he did, with say, a .6 uSec bipolar one , will right-left delays (on the order of 2 to 20 uSec)caused by an amp/wire combination suddenly become very audible? (obviously, I can't burn a test CD for that one..) Perhaps a delay box, one which can introduce delays in the 600 nanosecond realm to each channel independently in a coherent fashion...perhaps an analog bucket chain, with two independent clocks, the clocks being dithered...Hmmmm, I like that one...That would provide jitter without relying on high amplitude to force a pressure jitter in the ear canal....nice...I'll continue thinking about that one...

Cheers, John

Uhm, there is the possibility that he introduced some artifact that sent a cue as well. Odd that the detection threshold is nearly 2x the jitter rate......if that is within the measurement error window, an audible articfact is a likely scenerio.

Good to see you're still around, John. Have any head-on crashes with mosquitos lately??

-Bruce