Interesting Thesis on IC's

[blackraven]

Here's an interesting read on a Thesis done by an M.I.T student on IC's for what its worth-

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/hand...5/41567257.pdf

[atomicAdam]

YAY another person who thinks they know everything in the world about cables and systems because they have a science degree and tested a couple cables.

How about this - this was done over 10 years ago and technology in terms of measurements have changed, and if they haven't, than maybe what is being measured isn't what is affecting the sound.

I do agree that is all about pairing and your own taste - but to say that a $10.95 Rat Shack cable will be a smarter purchase than a $300 whatever cable is retarded. The smartest purchase is whatever sounds good to you and if you think it is worth it.

Now I've tried and could certainly whip out a range of cables from

Rat Shack ($10)
Monoprice ($5)
Blue Jean Cables ($30)
Granite Audio ($900)
WyWires ($1000)
Monster somethings ($?)
and those full copper things I think are ($150)

and we'd hear a range of sound tweaking on the system. What I maybe consider best or worth it might not be what you do.

[Steve Eddy]

How about this - this was done over 10 years ago and technology in terms of measurements have changed...

Not really. About the only thing technology has done in the past 10 years is the ability to make high resolution measurements much more affordable, largely by way of newer, high resolution sound cards.

...and if they haven't, than maybe what is being measured isn't what is affecting the sound.

Or maybe not.

When you get right down to it, all that we can hear is the result of changes in air pressure over time in the acoustic domain which is brought about by changes in voltage and current over time in the electrical domain.

And we've had the capability of measuring such changes and differences to levels far below that which humans are capable of perceiving for quite some time.

I do agree that is all about pairing and your own taste - but to say that a $10.95 Rat Shack cable will be a smarter purchase than a $300 whatever cable is retarded. The smartest purchase is whatever sounds good to you and if you think it is worth it.

Nothing to argue there.

There perhaps wouldn't be such a controversy if people wouldn't make all manner of claims which are either erroneous or lack any meaningful substantiation.

Personally, I go with what sounds best to me, regardless of what the reasons for it may be. I don't listen to reproduced music for the purpose of satisfying any sort of objective criteria. I listen for my own subjective pleasure and enjoyment. And if something gives me greater pleasure and enjoyment, that's what I use.

If someone were able to prove beyond all shadow of doubt that competently designed cables aren't capable of producing actual audible differences, I would do absolutely nothing different.

To take from the old 60's refrain, if it feels good, do it.

se

[Smokey]

The smartest purchase is whatever sounds good to you and if you think it is worth it.

Although that sound like a good advice on the surface, but it is really not.

For example four or five years ago in AudioAsylum where Steve hangs out, there was this yellow extension cord from HomeDepot which many poeple recommended because it sounded good to them.

But if you look at extension cord electrically, it is a nightmare. Crappy insulation, dielectric insulator and cable geometry. Would you buy such a cable if it sound good to you?

[Steve Eddy]

But if you look at extension cord electrically, it is a nightmare. Crappy insulation, dielectric insulator and cable geometry. Would you buy such a cable if it sound good to you?

Why would you buy any cable if it didn't sound good to you?

What's the goal here? Winning some numbers game or enjoying reproduced music?

se

[Smokey]

Why would you buy any cable if it didn't sound good to you?

Because it is not job of a cable to make system sound good as cable should not alter the sound for better or worse. I know that sound very primitive, but there are alot of hidden meanings there.

What's the goal here? Winning some numbers game or enjoying reproduced music?

Well, since we can't have "accurate" music reproduction without good numbers, I guess the goal would be to win some numbers. My advice for buying cables would be to first find cables with good numbers, and then compare them sonicaly.

Transparency is the main goal and you can't have that without cable having good numbers

[Steve Eddy]

Well, since we can't have "accurate" music reproduction without good numbers, I guess the goal would be to win some numbers.

Ah, but what exactly is "accurate" music reproduction?

What is the reference?

My advice for buying cables would be to first find cables with good numbers, and then compare them sonicaly.

What numbers do you mean? You mean like resistance, inductance and capacitance?

Transparency is the main goal and you can't have that without cable having good numbers

Really?

Remember those Harmonic Technology CyberLights I mentioned previously? You know, the ones that measured so bad that JA said that if he was measuring a conventional component he'd dismiss it as being broken?

Here's what Michael Fremer had to say about them:

If you hear what I heard, for the first time in your life you'll hear no cables whatsoever. When you switch back to any brand of metal conductors, you'll know you're hearing cables—because what's transmitted via CyberLight will be the most gloriously open, coherent, delicate, extended, transparent, pristine sound you've ever heard from your system—at least if you hear what I heard.

So it would seem that you can indeed have transparency with very VERY bad numbers.

se

[E-Stat]

Transparency is the main goal and you can't have that without cable having good numbers

So what are "good numbers" from your point of view?

rw

[Mr Peabody]

I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured and I have to wonder sometimes if can even be explained. I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change. There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy. A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.

[Steve Eddy]

I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured...

Like what?

What else is going on in our audio equipment beyond changes in voltage and current over time? And that we can measure from DC to RF and down to the thermal noise produced by a length of wire.

So what's going on that would escape measurement?

I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

And I for one am not suggesting you do otherwise. I'm all for people using whatever gives them the greatest pleasure and enjoyment.

I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change.

I disagree.

You can't expect their minds to be changed if you never give them any compelling reason to. And simply insisting that there are audible differences isn't terribly compelling.

There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

But what's the point? If you can't adequately demonstrate that there's an actual audible difference, then what use is it for someone to try it for themselves? Even if they say they do perceive some difference, that does nothing to establish whether or not there is an actual audible difference.

And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

How can you say this unless you've first established that there are actual audible differences?

We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy.

And why would you expect them to change their beliefs when no one to date has established actual audible differences between CD players or amps?

A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

I don't know that anyone's arguing that there are no differences in analogue output stages. What's at issue is whether or not those differences are sufficient to actually be audible.

I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.

Interested in what exactly?

It's one thing to be interested in what sounds best to oneself, whatever the reasons for it may be.

It's another to be interested in whether or not there are actual audible differences.

And the former does not establish the latter.

se

[Mr Peabody]

Like what?

What else is going on in our audio equipment beyond changes in voltage and current over time? And that we can measure from DC to RF and down to the thermal noise produced by a length of wire.

So what's going on that would escape measurement?

You tell me but there has to be some reason gear sound different, why a receiver with better specs on paper pales in comparison to a higher end amp in sound quality.

And I for one am not suggesting you do otherwise. I'm all for people using whatever gives them the greatest pleasure and enjoyment.

I disagree.

You can't expect their minds to be changed if you never give them any compelling reason to. And simply insisting that there are audible differences isn't terribly compelling.

You seem to want to make a philosophical argument, is there or is it not, if you think it is therefore it is. I don't need to compel some one to do anything, if they are in this hobby then they should be compelled on their own. Most in this hobby are anxious to find areas of improvements, especially those that are cost effective. How else would any one know unless they try something for themselves.

But what's the point? If you can't adequately demonstrate that there's an actual audible difference, then what use is it for someone to try it for themselves? Even if they say they do perceive some difference, that does nothing to establish whether or not there is an actual audible difference.

See above.

How can you say this unless you've first established that there are actual audible differences?

I believe that fact is established by those with experience with different gear and your denial doesn't make it less true. I am confident that one with intelligence and hearing acuity would also be able to do so. So it's on you to establish there, is, no difference.

And why would you expect them to change their beliefs when no one to date has established actual audible differences between CD players or amps?

Your statement is inaccurate. If there's no difference then all we'd have is one brand with the only difference being cosmetic. And, there are measureable differences aside from the audible differences. Parts with tighter tolerances make a difference, how a manufacturer chooses to deal with certain issues such as jitter, current or feedback all make a difference.

I don't know that anyone's arguing that there are no differences in analogue output stages. What's at issue is whether or not those differences are sufficient to actually be audible.

Well they are, it's diffibult to believe the salesman are such good hypnotists that we all spend more money for something that's not there. As I stated, denial doesn't make it so. It's insulting for those like you to incenuate humans are not capable of hearing any difference in gear although one can demonstrate the ability to tune instruments by ear or hear pitch. You can't show that all gear sounds the same, so your request doesn't hold water.

Interested in what exactly?
It's one thing to be interested in what sounds best to oneself, whatever the reasons for it may be.
It's another to be interested in whether or not there are actual audible differences.

And the former does not establish the latter.

se

I suppose if there wasn't any interest then who would be reading this or in the hobby?

[frenchmon]

I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured and I have to wonder sometimes if can even be explained. I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change. There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy. A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.

I hear ya Peabody...and I agree with you. Most of those over at the http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com think cable and speaker wire is all the same. They also think amps all sound the same Their argument is that amps have no sound.

Look at this thread...its just stupid.http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com/...-Bell-o-cables

[Steve Eddy]

I hear ya Peabody...and I agree with you. Most of those over at the http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com think cable and speaker wire is all the same. They also think amps all sound the same Their argument is that amps have no sound.

Given that to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences, what makes their thinking that so absurd?

se

[Dual-500]

I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured and I have to wonder sometimes if can even be explained. I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change. There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy. A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.

Bingo - well stated. I don't get into the arguments any more either.

I can say this - take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture.

Same holds true for speakers, amps, etc. Take gear that sounds good. No two amps sound the same and for certain no two speakers sound the same - yet, many sound good.

But, not the same.

[Steve Eddy]

I can say this - take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture.

What exactly don't you get?

Same holds true for speakers, amps, etc. Take gear that sounds good. No two amps sound the same...

How something "sounds" to a given individual is quite subjective. And just because two amps may "sound different" to a given individual it doesn't inherently mean that there are any audible differences between them.

...and for certain no two speakers sound the same...

Speakers are another matter. The differences between them can be quite significant and well within known thresholds of audibility.

The same doesn't hold true for most electronics.

se

[Dual-500]

1) What exactly don't you get?

2) How something "sounds" to a given individual is quite subjective. And just because two amps may "sound different" to a given individual it doesn't inherently mean that there are any audible differences between them.

3) Speakers are another matter. The differences between them can be quite significant and well within known thresholds of audibility.

4) The same doesn't hold true for most electronics.

se

1) Nothing - I do get it. Test gear won't discern a Bundy tenor saxophone from a Yamaha. Let alone who is playing either. I can tell you the difference as I played a Bundy for years. They don't sound the same.

Different heads on the same drum sound differently. There is no electronics available that I know of that can detect that and quantify it in terms of test results.

2) Agreed. However, many can tell audible differences between amplifiers and other components that others cannot perceive. Our entire perception of sight and sound is mapped individually. The psychologists have proven that. You and I will both agree on red, but won't be perceiving the same thing. They have tested individuals with inverting lenses in front of their eyes where the world is upside down - takes about 2 weeks for their brains to re-map the vision processing and then everything is perceived as normal. Take the lenses off and they are screwed - everything then goes upside down. Takes another 2 weeks to remap vison processing back to normal. Same with hearing. We don't have the stereophonic doppler discering capabilities at birth. That's all learned and unique to each of us.

3) Agreed again. So, would you not agree that two diffeerent pairs of speakers may test out to the same basic specifications - yet, clearly sound differently. That being said, many would agree on the differences and be able to reliably tell which they were listening to - yet, there would also be many others that couldn't tell the difference, let alone care.

4) True again. But not an absolute. I can tell one amp from another - some have glaring differences, some subtle. I'm not talking comparing tubes to solid state here. Tube to tube and SS to SS amps - apples to apples. There are many on this and other audio forums that can readily discern differences between amplifiers and other electronic front end components. Differences that don't always show up on test gear.

Put two different drummers on the same kit. Tuned the same. Have them play the same material at the same tempo. They won't sound the same - I guarantee it. They will not strike the drums the same. And even more obvious will be the sound of the cymbals.

That's why music is taught in the School of Fine Arts and not the School of Engineering Math and Science Lab.

Cheers!

[Steve Eddy]

1) Nothing - I do get it.

That's not what I meant. You said "...take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture."

I was asking you what don't you get that doesn't leave you with the whole picture?

Test gear won't discern a Bundy tenor saxophone from a Yamaha.

2) Agreed. However, many can tell audible differences between amplifiers...

I must have missed it. When was this established?

Our entire perception of sight and sound is mapped individually. The psychologists have proven that.

Yes. But they've also proven that our perceptions can be highly unreliable, which is why it's trivially easy to get people to perceive differences even when there are none.

3) Argeed again. So, would you not agree that two diffeerent pairs of speakers may test out to the same basic specifications - yet, clearly sound differently.

What do you mean by "basic specifications"? If you mean "basic specs" as in what's typically listed on a spec sheet, then sure, they could very well sound different. But "basic specifications" is a far far cry from a full measurement suite.

That being said, many would agree on the differences and be able to reliably tell which they were listening to - yet, there would also be many others that couldn't tell the difference, let alone care.

Sure.

4) True again. But not an absolute. I can tell one amp from another - some have glaring differences, some subtle. I'm not talking comparing tubes to solid state here. Tube to tube and SS to SS amps - apples to apples.

Then you should step up and demonstrate this. I believe there are still some cash prizes being offered to those who can do this without peeking.

There are many on this and other audio forums that can readily discern differences between amplifiers and other electronic front end components.

Sure, there have been many people over the past 30 some odd years who have made such claims. But so far, no one has ever demonstrated this ability under controlled conditions.

Differences that don't always show up on test gear.

But as yet, no one has demonstrated actual audible differences under controlled conditions except when the differences were trivially measurable and within known thresholds of audibility.

If someone has, please point me to it so I can check it out.

se

[LeRoy]

Here's an interesting read on a Thesis done by an M.I.T student on IC's for what its worth-

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/hand...5/41567257.pdf

That was an interesting read. I suppose if all he had to test back in the day was R.S. -vs- Monster...then I may have also reached the same conclusion...lol

[Steve Eddy]

That was an interesting read. I suppose if all he had to test back in the day was R.S. -vs- Monster...then I may have also reached the same conclusion...lol

Back in the day? We're talking just 13 years ago. There were dozens if not hundreds of high end cable offerings available at the time. Thirteen years ago Monster wasn't even taken very seriously by the high end.

Hell, in 1998, Kimber had already been in business for more than 10 years.

se

[LeRoy]

Back in the day? We're talking just 13 years ago. There were dozens if not hundreds of high end cable offerings available at the time. Thirteen years ago Monster wasn't even taken very seriously by the high end.

Hell, in 1998, Kimber had already been in business for more than 10 years.

se

Ya, 13 years ago doesn't seem like a long time ago, however, given all the advancements/progress in audio technology since then it does feel like "back in the day" to me.

Good info on the Kimber though I never really kept in mind when any Hi-Fi company got it's start.

Is Monster taken seriously now? All I know is that I never took Monster seriously and I did try one of their sub-woofer cables that I had to wrestle off the sub inputs just to get it off both the amp and the sub. That was enough to keep me clear of Monster. I don't recall the audio difference that the Monster was suppose to indulge me in so I guess it did not leave a favorable impression with me.

[Steve Eddy]

Is Monster taken seriously now?

Are you kidding? They're being sold at Radio Shack now.

se

[blackraven]

That was an interesting read. I suppose if all he had to test back in the day was R.S. -vs- Monster...then I may have also reached the same conclusion...lol

I would not knock the Monster M1000i's. I picked up a pair of those and the M900i's on ebay for $30. They are well made and sound great. Certainly no worse than the Audio Quest Corals that came with my Music Hall CD player. I'm using them in my second system now and I am using BJC's in my main system because I perceive the BJC's to have more prominent treble probably because of their low capacitance, but otherwise the bass, and overall sound is the same. I'm not a big monster supporter and would never buy any new gear from them but they do make some good over priced stuff.

[Mr Peabody]

se, I'd be interested in knowing what is in a "measurement suite" that goes beyond what is shown on a spec sheet.

[Steve Eddy]

se, I'd be interested in knowing what is in a "measurement suite" that goes beyond what is shown on a spec sheet.

Full frequency response, impulse response, impedance plots, group delay plots, waterfall plots, distortion plots, distortion spectra, etc.

se

[Dual-500]

Full frequency response, impulse response, impedance plots, group delay plots, waterfall plots, distortion plots, distortion spectra, etc.

se

Why, one could ascertain the meaning of life with such a comprehensive battery of tests.

So who's right, Darwin or the Creationists?