I need help with audio interconnects????

[jneutron]

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.)

Agreed on number 4 as an option. I don't agree or disagree that it is the overriding scenario.

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.

He discusses that at the end of his paper, when he is discussing error analysis.. He also worried about the possibility that modulation noise was reaching jnd levels.

Actually, he plotted lateralization sensitivity increase at the .2 uSec level, but calls .6 as the actual point.

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

LOL..Actually, it's been nicely calm..

Cheers, John

[mtrycraft]

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

My post to your total post didn't make it, too long to redo

I forgot about Dr. David Rich, Bell Labs then. I have it if you want it. He didn't do it the way you did though and it was not in an audiophile approved magazine, so it didn't get the exposure. He did say that Hawksford should have published in a Journal and go through the peer process Yours was much more technical oriented.

[okiemax]

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.

Your comments should be addressed to Putzeys. I don't speak for him. However, I didn't get the impression Putzeys' article was limited to mic cables. If you are saying that was the case, please explain why.

[mtrycraft]

Your comments should be addressed to Putzeys. I don't speak for him. However, I didn't get the impression Putzeys' article was limited to mic cables. If you are saying that was the case, please explain why.

No, my comments don't need to be addressed to him, yet. He explained under what condition a cable may be affected to a degree that may be audible.
They are the ones that are affected by the conditions he described, moving cables, driven by a cap type mic. But, if you replicate these whipping around with your cable to the amp, it may, or not, depending on impedances, have a bearing on the case. Mic cables are the ones that are abused, not interconnects.

Did you read the article carefully?
Does your interconnects move about as a mic cable would walking around on the stage being whipped about?

Is your preamp/amp imedances falls into his category to avoid? Not hardly.
Where is the evidence for audible difference based on listening?

[okiemax]

No, my comments don't need to be addressed to him, yet. He explained under what condition a cable may be affected to a degree that may be audible.
They are the ones that are affected by the conditions he described, moving cables, driven by a cap type mic. But, if you replicate these whipping around with your cable to the amp, it may, or not, depending on impedances, have a bearing on the case. Mic cables are the ones that are abused, not interconnects.

Did you read the article carefully?
Does your interconnects move about as a mic cable would walking around on the stage being whipped about?

Is your preamp/amp imedances falls into his category to avoid? Not hardly.
Where is the evidence for audible difference based on listening?

Gimme a break, mtrycraft! I got the part about mic cables being moved around. Next time I have a mic in my hand I will try to remain motionless. Should I also give up playing jump rope to the music with my speaker cables?

I didn't know silver was used in some mic cables before reading the article. Putzeys refers to the "brightness often attributed to teflon silver cables." I wonder if they are bright only when they are being moved or have recently been moved. I tried some silver interconnects between my CD player and my integrated amp, and I thought they were too bright, so I returned them. Now I'm thinking maybe I moved those cables around too much before installing them, or it could have been that 500 miles bouncing up and down in the back of the UPS truck before arrival.

Putzeys may or may not agree with everything DellaSala said in that epilogue to Putzeys' article. I don't know. I do wonder why DellaSala thought the epilogue was necessary.

[E-Stat]

He did a lot of measurements, science, and zero listening testing, unless you can show the latter...

Next time read the first sentence. The listening preceeded these tests. When you do, you will understand why he tried to measure that which he and others hear. Amen.

"Recently I've done a collection of measurements and tests on interconnect cables to see what I could find that would explain the sonic differences that many people, including myself, have grown accustomed to hearing."

He is talking about technical differneces, measurments, applications in certain cases, like mic cables.

I read no such qualification in either his opening comments that framed the research nor in his conclusion:

"To recap: to make cables disappear from the sonic equation, all that is needed is balanced transmission combined with sub-1ohm output impedance line drivers. I would like to propose this as a standard for audiophile equipment makers.

He is has no basis for audible differences; he has not conducted any such trials, did he?

You may debate that with him. Since you cited this source, I presented his observations without commentary.

rw

[mtrycraft]

Next time read the first sentence. The listening preceeded these tests.


Ah, yes, he did listen as you and may audiophiles have. Unreliable at best, worhtless for sure as it had zero bias controls, at least he has not reported that he used any. We know you have not. So, Those lisneing has no real meaning. End of story.


When you do, you will understand why he tried to measure that which he and others hear. Amen.

Oh, I know why he measured. He wanted to confirm what he thought he heard. As to real listeing, bias controlled, there were none. So, he is chasing ghosts, nothing more.

[b]"Recently I've done a collection of measurements and tests on interconnect cables to see what I could find that would explain the sonic differences that many people, including myself, have grown accustomed to hearing."

Yes, perceptional differences that have no real basis in facts. Ghost chasing.



[b]I read no such qualification in either his opening comments that framed the research nor in his conclusion:

"To recap: to make cables disappear from the sonic equation, all that is needed is balanced transmission combined with sub-1ohm output impedance line drivers. I would like to propose this as a standard for audiophile equipment makers.

You may debate that with him. Since you cited this source, I presented his observations without commentary.

rw

Oh, you presented a sentenca and tried to draw an underlying concusion that is not there.

And precisely what he concludes, to make cables dissappear, he has not listened to see if there needs to be anything further done in the first place.

[mtrycraft]

Gimme a break, mtrycraft! I got the part about mic cables being moved around. Next time I have a mic in my hand I will try to remain motionless. Should I also give up playing jump rope to the music with my speaker cables?

I didn't know silver was used in some mic cables before reading the article. Putzeys refers to the "brightness often attributed to teflon silver cables." I wonder if they are bright only when they are being moved or have recently been moved. I tried some silver interconnects between my CD player and my integrated amp, and I thought they were too bright, so I returned them. Now I'm thinking maybe I moved those cables around too much before installing them, or it could have been that 500 miles bouncing up and down in the back of the UPS truck before arrival.

Putzeys may or may not agree with everything DellaSala said in that epilogue to Putzeys' article. I don't know. I do wonder why DellaSala thought the epilogue was necessary.

You give me a break. Are all the interconnect recommendations being asked for are for mic cable? Any? One such request? No. So it is irrelevant what he has measured in such cables when in such abused conditions when it comes to interconnects between CD and amp, isn't it? And, he found nothing in those interconnects, nothing. End of chapter.

Putzeys didn't include teflon and silver beacuse they are in mic cables but because audiophiles use them in their regular interconnects and report those perceptions. He just extended the range of operations beyond what is encountered in a system and tried to explain away the perceived differences. Does not apply unless in a mic type setup. Does not apply in these discussions as that is not what is being discussed here, no mic cable discussed. So, he really has not explained away perceived differences as he has yet to demonstrate those audible differeences in standard interconnect usages just accepted reports as being factual. Yet, it appears, people extrapolate that mic cable measurements to ordinary interconnects. Does not apply.
But what do I know?

[DMK]

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.

I'd say that rb can and has been objective, particularly in light of your post where you believe that rb is a believer in cable sonics. He's posted the opposite many times on this board. As I recall, he's a disbeliever but is open to the possibility that some cables might sound different but doesn't particularly care. He's sorta like YOU!

[okiemax]

You give me a break. Are all the interconnect recommendations being asked for are for mic cable? Any? One such request? No. So it is irrelevant what he has measured in such cables when in such abused conditions when it comes to interconnects between CD and amp, isn't it? And, he found nothing in those interconnects, nothing. End of chapter.

Putzeys didn't include teflon and silver beacuse they are in mic cables but because audiophiles use them in their regular interconnects and report those perceptions. He just extended the range of operations beyond what is encountered in a system and tried to explain away the perceived differences. Does not apply unless in a mic type setup. Does not apply in these discussions as that is not what is being discussed here, no mic cable discussed. So, he really has not explained away perceived differences as he has yet to demonstrate those audible differeences in standard interconnect usages just accepted reports as being factual. Yet, it appears, people extrapolate that mic cable measurements to ordinary interconnects. Does not apply.
But what do I know?

Mtrycraft, there is no need for you to get hysterical about what I have said about Putzeys' article and DellaSala's epilogue. Is it outrageous for me to say I didn't get the impression the article was limited to mic cables and question whether Putzeys agrees with the epilogue? What else did I do?

[pctower]

Mtrycraft, there is no need for you to get hysterical about what I have said about Putzeys' article and DellaSala's epilogue. Is it outrageous for me to say I didn't get the impression the article was limited to mic cables and question whether Putzeys agrees with the epilogue? What else did I do?

"But what do I know?"

How come you never throw me a good straight line?

[E-Stat]

Oh, you presented a sentenca and tried to draw an underlying concusion that is not there.

Classic. The "sentenca" was a direct quote from your source. The "concusion" was likewise also a direct quote of his. Is English your first language?

rw

[mtrycraft]

Classic. The "sentenca" was a direct quote from your source. The "concusion" was likewise also a direct quote of his. Is English your first language?

rw

No matter how you try, you are trying to draw a conclusion from one sentence, period. Good try, doesn't work.

[E-Stat]

No matter how you try, you are trying to draw a conclusion from one sentence, period. Good try, doesn't work.

Amazing. I am not "trying" to draw any conclusions. There is no need to. The author of the article already has - based upon the body of his work. In this regard, I am taking your "experience free" tact. I merely quoted his summation. Evidently, you lack understanding of some language fundamentals.

sum-mar-y: - A presentation of the substance of a body of material in a condensed form or by reducing it to its main points; an abstract.

Is there any part of that you don't understand?

rw

[mtrycraft]

Amazing. I am not "trying" to draw any conclusions. There is no need to. The author of the article already has - based upon the body of his work. In this regard, I am taking your "experience free" tact. I merely quoted his summation. Evidently, you lack understanding of some language fundamentals.

sum-mar-y: - A presentation of the substance of a body of material in a condensed form or by reducing it to its main points; an abstract.

Is there any part of that you don't understand?

rw

Obviously you didn't understand the article and what the conclusion means. Good try.

[E-Stat]

Obviously you didn't understand the article and what the conclusion means. Good try.

Your keen observations have even transcended the capabilities of the author of the article itself. I stand amazed at your analytical abilities.

rw

[Pat D]

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

Why don'tcha include the rest of the summary?

"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."

[mtrycraft]

Why don'tcha include the rest of the summary?

"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."

Don't forget, the author is talking about measured performance and mic cables in swinging mode, not anything that is related to audibility as he didn't check for that, just relied on unreliable reports from audiophiles and his own perception of dubious reliability. And, no one can disagree with his measurement findings.

[E-Stat]

Why don'tcha include the rest of the summary?

See post # 53. In the second sentence, the author acknowledges there are instances in audio where theory and practice differ.

I need help with audio interconnects????

rw

[rb122]

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.

"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."

Yes, it is indeed evidence, at least according to several of the literal definitions by Webster's. You "choose" to refer to it as not being evidence - it isn't good enough for you. I agree that it isn't sufficient evidence and needs to be explored. But it is evidence aplenty for those that perceive these differences. What it isn't is PROOF.

" 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."

You are, of course, correct. But I don't intend to open each and every sentence using all the disclaimers such as guages, lengths, using music in a non-reverberant room, etc etc. I directed my post at the so-called "naysayers" who make claims of their own and who are fully aware of the issues. Sorry if I was unclear.


"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.[/QUOTE"

Correct again. You may not recommend Home Depot wire as being better than something else or proof is required for your claim such as DBT using all known audio gear. You may claim that it is as good based on measurements. You may not claim that there is no audible differences in wire (with all the disclaimers!) without DBT proof using all wire. You may claim that science and what DBT's there have been done don't support cable sonics. The claim that all wire sounds alike unless broken or purposefully tampered with is something you are guilty of and don't be surprised if someone requests you to perform DBT for ALL wire using a "high resolution" system and that you have your results peer reviewed before making such a claim. If you are using the "proof for unsubstantiated claims" defense, be careful that you aren't snagged in your own web.

[rb122]

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.

First of all, as the other poster said, I'm not a believer in cable sonics. I'm not a disbeliever, either. But I lean towards "extremely skeptical". Hell, I haven't even heard differences in sighted listening! I own fairly cheap cables and I may as well just keep them since they're out of favor with the current market and they work fine. All I'm requesting is a level playing field. There is no "proof" either way and I'm not going to play along as though there is. Your second to last paragraph is exactly the way things should read around here from the scientific community, not the posts that say there is no way cables can make a difference. The latter is a claim and I'll need proof of that claim, just as I would be asked to supply proof if I claimed Cable A sounded better than Cable B. That's all I'm saying.

[jneutron]

[b]I forgot about Dr. David Rich, Bell Labs then. I have it if you want it.

Certainly. Thank you

John

[pctower]

"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."

Yes, it is indeed evidence, at least according to several of the literal definitions by Webster's. You "choose" to refer to it as not being evidence - it isn't good enough for you. I agree that it isn't sufficient evidence and needs to be explored. But it is evidence aplenty for those that perceive these differences. What it isn't is PROOF.

" 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."

You are, of course, correct. But I don't intend to open each and every sentence using all the disclaimers such as guages, lengths, using music in a non-reverberant room, etc etc. I directed my post at the so-called "naysayers" who make claims of their own and who are fully aware of the issues. Sorry if I was unclear.


"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.[/QUOTE"

Correct again. You may not recommend Home Depot wire as being better than something else or proof is required for your claim such as DBT using all known audio gear. You may claim that it is as good based on measurements. You may not claim that there is no audible differences in wire (with all the disclaimers!) without DBT proof using all wire. You may claim that science and what DBT's there have been done don't support cable sonics. The claim that all wire sounds alike unless broken or purposefully tampered with is something you are guilty of and don't be surprised if someone requests you to perform DBT for ALL wire using a "high resolution" system and that you have your results peer reviewed before making such a claim. If you are using the "proof for unsubstantiated claims" defense, be careful that you aren't snagged in your own web.

"But I don't intend to open each and every sentence using all the disclaimers such as guages, lengths, using music in a non-reverberant room, etc etc."

Ah, but they will harpoon you everytime you don't. They use such tactics to divert attention from the fact that their goal is not to inform, but to propagate their own (not so cleverly) thinly disguised "claims". Fortunately people like you are smart enough to see through it.

[Resident Loser]

..you should be used to all the "weasel words" as some might characterize what I see as legitimate parameters for comparison purposes...roast pork and ham come from the same animal, but they hardly taste the same...

jimHJJ(...how's the new vehicle?...)

[pctower]

..you should be used to all the "weasel words" as some might characterize what I see as legitimate parameters for comparison purposes...roast pork and ham come from the same animal, but they hardly taste the same...

jimHJJ(...how's the new vehicle?...)

I'm guessing that if "weasel words" were outlawed, at least 99% of communication between and among humans would stop. Lawyers may have elevated the weasel to the defacto national mascot, but we certainly don't find ourselves alone in rodent section of the zoo (Bugsy, please forgive me for casting aspersions on your cousins).

Vehicle's great - it really is amazing to me how good vehicles have become from a comfort and usability standpoint. Now if we could just solve that pesky little environmental problem.

While you didn't ask, Bugsy's great also.