The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Julf]

Hi Julf - I highly recommend visiting Bert van der Wolf's mastering lab. Bert is from Turtle Records and based pretty close to your location. He uses Spectral and dCS components and other high end items. I was there last year and heard some crazy multi-channel recordings.

Ah, yes, and absolutely. But just as with some of the other "audiophile" producers/engineers mentioned here, the Turtle Records stuff tends to be a bit off the mainstream and going for a specific niche audience.

[prufrock]

Some things I can guarantee that you will never see:

You will never see any cable manufacturer who sells outrageously priced cables/interconnects put those items to an independent agency to test on consumers.

Nor will you ever be witness to any of the big name music industry figures mentioned above submitting to a study to prove up their claims.

Long live the cable debate.

[barrows]

Maybe there is misinterpretation of my quote. You can read the full story here: Sonic Signatures: The Art and the Science - Blogs - Computer Audiophile

Mitch, read the blog post from the link, thanks, an I mostly agree with what you are saying. The key for me would be when the difference level is audible, and under what conditions, ie the resolution of the system in question, and the skill of the listener.
Interestingly, I would be interested to hear your opinon on the effects of playback software (or pro recording suites if you prefer, not features, but sonics). I struggle with the fact that bit perfect playback from I-tunes vs bit perfect playback from Pure Music actually sounds different.
Additionally, there is plenty of evidence to suggest, that despite perfect nulls, the use DSP can have a deleteriousaffect on sonics, some would say this idea is voodo... but there may be a simple explanation: more processing produces more RF, which couples into the analog side of the playback system, causing audible distortions. Some locations are so swamped with RF in general, these kind of affects may have no meaning, as any additional RF is inconsequential to the overall background levels. I live in a rural area, with no cell service, in simple home with little in the region to produce RF, and I find that simple things like shutting down computers can result in a more enjoyable listening session-not a scientific result at all, but still significant to me.

[barrows]

"You will never see any cable manufacturer who sells outrageously priced cables/interconnects put those items to an independent agency to test on consumers."

I have already mentioned the testing (measurements, not on consumers) which Nordost commissioned from an independent agency, note that they also did not tell the independent agency which cables were which, so the agency had no idea of which cables might be "expected" to test better. I think you might need to re-visit your POV.

[Daudio]

"You will never see any cable manufacturer who sells outrageously priced cables/interconnects put those items to an independent agency to test on consumers."

I have already mentioned the testing (measurements, not on consumers) which Nordost commissioned from an independent agency, note that they also did not tell the independent agency which cables were which, so the agency had no idea of which cables might be "expected" to test better. I think you might need to re-visit your POV.

barrows,
I have a sneaking suspicion that prufrock's POV is influenced by the post count of 'his' thread and perhaps this latest post is just stoking the flames with another outragous statement whenever things seem to slow down

"poke the beast and it Roars !"

[esldude]

"You will never see any cable manufacturer who sells outrageously priced cables/interconnects put those items to an independent agency to test on consumers."

I have already mentioned the testing (measurements, not on consumers) which Nordost commissioned from an independent agency, note that they also did not tell the independent agency which cables were which, so the agency had no idea of which cables might be "expected" to test better. I think you might need to re-visit your POV.

Can you point us to that Nordost info. If it is that same white paper on their website, then it isn't quite what it is being portrayed as here. These cable company measurements are like ghosts themselves. They don't seem to be genuine simple defined measurements. There is some kind obscuring tactics involved in those I have seen so far.

[mitchco]

Mitch, read the blog post from the link, thanks, an I mostly agree with what you are saying. The key for me would be when the difference level is audible, and under what conditions, ie the resolution of the system in question, and the skill of the listener.
Interestingly, I would be interested to hear your opinon on the effects of playback software (or pro recording suites if you prefer, not features, but sonics). I struggle with the fact that bit perfect playback from I-tunes vs bit perfect playback from Pure Music actually sounds different.
Additionally, there is plenty of evidence to suggest, that despite perfect nulls, the use DSP can have a deleteriousaffect on sonics, some would say this idea is voodo... but there may be a simple explanation: more processing produces more RF, which couples into the analog side of the playback system, causing audible distortions. Some locations are so swamped with RF in general, these kind of affects may have no meaning, as any additional RF is inconsequential to the overall background levels. I live in a rural area, with no cell service, in simple home with little in the region to produce RF, and I find that simple things like shutting down computers can result in a more enjoyable listening session-not a scientific result at all, but still significant to me.

re: iTunes and Pure Music. Hi barrows, unfortunately, I don't have a Mac to test this, but I did compare two bit-perfect music players on the PC: JRiver vs JPLAY Test Results - Blogs - Computer Audiophile Without testing, I can't say for sure what the issue is between iTunes and Pure Music...

However, as a professional software engineer, I can say I have seen a lot of crappy code in the way of Codecs and simple mistakes in dealing with math errors, bugs, etc. For example, have a look at the software change history of LAME, the best MP3 encoder: LAME Changelog Point is, the sonic difference, is likely caused by a software error. If the playback software is designed and programmed correctly, it should play bit-perfect right from the file on the disk to the digital outputs.

On the pro audio side, for Digital Audio Workstations (DAW's) the bit-perfect, summing (nulling), SQ, etc., got settled years ago. They all sound and measure the same. A REAL DAW summing test Well, not quite, as you see there are a few maths errors in a couple of the DAW's, but that was 5 years ago.

Personally, I tried the same tests, including ABX listening on 3 DAW's and gave up as I could not measure or hear a difference. Don't forget, we are recording/playback not just stereo tracks, but maybe 24 or even 48 tracks on mostly off the shelf computers. And during playback, many folks have quite a few DSP plugins (called VST's - KVR: Virtual Instruments, Virtual Effects, VST Plugins has thousands of them) pluginto sometimes every track.

With today's incredibly fast computers and extremely powerful DSP software, I rarely see even 5% CPU utilization when I am multi-track recording. For playback, rarely above 1%, even with many DSP plugin's. I am sure everyone realizes that if you are listening to anything digital is has beend DSP'd...

As far as distortion or other DSP anomalies, plus that most software plugins use the full 64 bit data path, noise and distortions, in my experience, are far below what folks can hear. I use JRiver on the PC for playback and this is there description: "The precision offered by Media Center's 64bit audio engine is billions of times greater than the best hardware can utilize."

But more on that later as I intend to prove that in an upcoming blog post where people can hear for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

wrt masking and RF. I found this to be a great way to test yourself: Artifact Audibility Comparisons

Cheers, Mitch

[barrows]

esl: The full details of their whole program are not published anywhere that I am aware of. I have attended two presentations where all that was discussed was the methodology of this measuring, and the results. As previously stated, nothing during these presentations involved "obscuring tactics", and they took any questions posed to them, and answered them clearly and without any sort of obfuscation. A mathematician from the testing agency was at the second presentation as well-the testing agency was a UK based defense contractor, whose primary work involved the analysis and improvement of SONAR systems-so their expertise lay in the fine measurement and analysis of audio signals in the time and amplitude domains.

[barrows]

mitch: Both Itunes and Pure Music are bit perfect (nulls to nothing in the digital domain) when set up properly, but there is a sound difference which is heard by many. It appears that your POV would be that this sound quality difference is imagined. If so, I find that a quite short sighted and relatively arrogant point of view, as I find the idea that we can already measure "everything". I am not trying to be disrespectful at all, you have your opinion, and that is as valid as anyone else's, but not more so.
History has shown us over and over again that what we think we "know" is often in error, and leaving open the possibility that even our most basic assumptions are wrong, is a good idea-this often describes the difference between a scientist and an engineer as well.

[mitchco]

mitch: Both Itunes and Pure Music are bit perfect (nulls to nothing in the digital domain) when set up properly, but there is a sound difference which is heard by many. It appears that your POV would be that this sound quality difference is imagined. If so, I find that a quite short sighted and relatively arrogant point of view, as I find the idea that we can already measure "everything". I am not trying to be disrespectful at all, you have your opinion, and that is as valid as anyone else's, but not more so.
History has shown us over and over again that what we think we "know" is often in error, and leaving open the possibility that even our most basic assumptions are wrong, is a good idea-this often describes the difference between a scientist and an engineer as well.

Where did I say the sound difference you or others hear is imagined? I think you assumed that yourself. Yet I am "quite short sighted, arrogant, and disrespectful". I did not expect an ad hominem attack from you barrows. No joy man.

Re: History has shown us over and over again that what we think we "know" is often in error, and leaving open the possibility that even our most basic assumptions are wrong...

Really? Are you saying that sound does not travel at 1126 feet per second? That the Haas Effect is not real? That Ohm's law does not work? That room modes don't exist? That we can't measure amplitude, frequency, and time? That transfer functions are not real? Plus all of the other wonderful scientific discoveries and engineering feats that are the sole reasons why we can all enjoy digital audio today?

I would love to hear the difference you and others are describing. Like I say, in my next blog post, I will present a way that CA members can share what they are hearing with other CA members and then we can all hear the difference.

Have a great weekend.

[esldude]

esl: The full details of their whole program are not published anywhere that I am aware of. I have attended two presentations where all that was discussed was the methodology of this measuring, and the results. As previously stated, nothing during these presentations involved "obscuring tactics", and they took any questions posed to them, and answered them clearly and without any sort of obfuscation. A mathematician from the testing agency was at the second presentation as well-the testing agency was a UK based defense contractor, whose primary work involved the analysis and improvement of SONAR systems-so their expertise lay in the fine measurement and analysis of audio signals in the time and amplitude domains.

Well, I would like to see it. Why did they bother putting up the other stuff that doesn't answer any of the right questions when they could put up details instead? In any case, I wish they would video one of those presentations or let someone else, and put it up on the web. If they go to the trouble to do all this seems awfully odd not to bother with the last most beneficial step.

[Paul.Raulerson]

Re: History has shown us over and over again that what we think we "know" is often in error, and leaving open the possibility that even our most basic assumptions are wrong...

Really? Are you saying that sound does not travel at 1126 feet per second? That the Haas Effect is not real? That Ohm's law does not work? That room modes don't exist? That we can't measure amplitude, frequency, and time? That transfer functions are not real? Plus all of the other wonderful scientific discoveries and engineering feats that are the sole reasons why we can all enjoy digital audio today?

Well, I kind of read your comments the same way, and yes, what we think we know is not always right.

For example sound does not travel at 1126ft per second, through most materials. Or even through air, except at exactly sea level pressure air at precisely 68degrees.

Temperature and density have drastic effects on the speed of sound. I don't know the effects as well in air as I do in seawater, but I am positive they are still there.

Paul

[barrows]

Where did I say the sound difference you or others hear is imagined? I think you assumed that yourself. Yet I am "quite short sighted, arrogant, and disrespectful". I did not expect an ad hominem attack from you barrows. No joy man.

Re: History has shown us over and over again that what we think we "know" is often in error, and leaving open the possibility that even our most basic assumptions are wrong...

Really? Are you saying that sound does not travel at 1126 feet per second? That the Haas Effect is not real? That Ohm's law does not work? That room modes don't exist? That we can't measure amplitude, frequency, and time? That transfer functions are not real? Plus all of the other wonderful scientific discoveries and engineering feats that are the sole reasons why we can all enjoy digital audio today?

I would love to hear the difference you and others are describing. Like I say, in my next blog post, I will present a way that CA members can share what they are hearing with other CA members and then we can all hear the difference.

Have a great weekend.

Mitch, I am very sorry as it appears I have offended you, that was not my intent at all. Please take a moment to re-read my posts, paying attention to the way I stated things, phrases such as "it appears..." and "if so..." are very carefully chosen to show that what I was saying was not absolute, but quite condition dependent. I appreciate hearing your point of view, and am looking forward to your continued contributions to these discussions.
In no way did I intend to call you arrogant, my point is that the general point of view that we know "everything" there is to know about sonic performance (or any subject) is arrogant, and short sighted. It is common quality in cultures for many participants to feel that in the present we know "everything", or close to it, but as we look back through history we realize that this is not true. Neither did I intend to state the converse: that we know "nothing" or that all properties we take for granted are inaccurate.
If I misunderstood your point of view on playback software, I look forward to being enlightened, as I really do struggle with coming up with any physical explanation why two bit perfect playback softwares would sound different, but I have to accept the fact that they do.

[esldude]

Mitchco,

You can't be all objective and absolutist like that>

Really? Are you saying that sound does not travel at 1126 feet per second? That the Haas Effect is not real? That Ohm's law does not work? That room modes don't exist? That we can't measure amplitude, frequency, and time? That transfer functions are not real? Plus all of the other wonderful scientific discoveries and engineering feats that are the sole reasons why we can all enjoy digital audio today?

Sound might travel at other speeds if you change the temp and pressure enough or if you are in a deep submarine using a helium atmosphere.

If engineers hadn't made all this stuff the Haas effect wouldn't matter.

Ditto for room modes, without some engineering no rooms, hence no nodes. These engineers create all kinds of problems when you let them.

You can't hear amplitude, frequency and do it in time. You have to approach it as an element of a holographic, holistic, dare I say, holy existence where every action effects everything else like ripples in the quantum fabric of things. Silly linear thinking engineer.

If engineers had really known what they were doing, completely, in true circular knowledge of everything at once, they would have created a perfect, complete and unitary way of reproducing sound in perfection. The fact there is more than one approach, in fact hundreds of designs, is proof certain they don't know everything and hence know nothing of total value. They are just trial and error hacks who don't get the big picture. Blind men groping an elephant is too kind a metaphor. They are more like blind men who made a copy of an elephant and then believe investigating the copy is reality itself. So sad.

I very much look forward to your next blog. Your blogs are some of the best and most informative on CA.

[Paul.Raulerson]

Mitchco,



If engineers had really known what they were doing, completely, in true circular knowledge of everything at once, they would have created a perfect, complete and unitary way of reproducing sound in perfection. The fact there is more than one approach, in fact hundreds of designs, is proof certain they don't know everything and hence know nothing of total value. They are just trial and error hacks who don't get the big picture. Blind men groping an elephant is too kind a metaphor. They are more like blind men who made a copy of an elephant and then believe investigating the copy is reality itself. So sad.

I am not sure who said that in the quote above but it sure made me grin. Engineers of course, never deal with a fudge factor, never finagle the numbers, and of course, never ever do things based upon experience or training, only upon measured effects.

-Paul
(grin)

[Daudio]

... Silly linear thinking engineer...

Dennis, Wow ! man, you really are on a downer

[Daudio]

... proof certain they don't know everything and hence know nothing of total value...

In modeling one can get closer to the 'reality', but never exactly. It is like the Limit function; you can approach zero, but never get there. There is 'value' all along the curve ! I find words like "perfect", "absolute", "total value" and such pretty much useless. They are unobtainable, or ridiculously defined, but their pursuit is of value, with that knowledge in mind.

And I know that there are two broad types of engineers: the Empiricists and the Theorists. Two different approaches, necessary and complementary.

[prufrock]

barrows,
I have a sneaking suspicion that prufrock's POV is influenced by the post count of 'his' thread and perhaps this latest post is just stoking the flames with another outragous statement whenever things seem to slow down

"poke the beast and it Roars !"

Daudio
I do post on several other forums (mostly stock market related). Nothing to do with audio. I do like this method of talking to people and sharing ideas. In a way it harks back to the days of old and written communication. Because it is anonymous, it also allows directness and honesty in many ways. I actually try and keep my posts as short as possible and only reply when I think I have something worthwhile (or funny) to say. I have been posting a lot on this thread as I want to get my take on this issue over and done with.

[50000]

And I know that there are two broad types of engineers: the Empiricists and the Theorists. Two different approaches, necessary and complementary.

That's my perspective, likewise, Dave. These approaches are necessary and, by their necessity, necessarily complementary. Speaking to the development of theory in general, scientific theorizing has moved, via quantum physics, out of the old classical single-pole thinking where everything was a particle [Newton], then a wave [Einstein], to a two-polar conceptualization where everything is both always, in complementary relation [Bohr].

No limit function could have meaning without the ideal it implies (there's the complementarity). Any advance is therefore an advance only toward that ideal in a necessarily asymptotic approach. What I contend is that that approach is itself nonlinear (asymptotic is a curve, after all). Any narrowing of the gap between real and ideal is a fractioning of the previous measure of that gap. Fractions, being the other side of the decimal, are infinite. Thus one can infinitely halve one's way to a line but never reach it, as Zeno understood, rendering any asymptotic approach a fractaling into finer degrees of resolution.

In the chase for better audio reproduction, we meet these principles at work. To solve subtler audio problems, one needs a subtler ear to hear those problems in the first place. This complementarity drives an iterative process where technical problems meaningfully appear only in relation to an ear more finely attuned to the audible effects of them. The benefit of this process is thus iteratively twofold: the problem in question gets solved, which opens the door to finding the next and to which one is now attuned, or soon will be, as things thus onwardly unfold. And in that finer attuning there's simply more pleasure---major benefit! Who listens to AM radio because the sound is so pleasing?

Dropping down out of those clouds, it seems obvious to me that Edison's record player began bloody irritating those who listened to it (the dog being the first), which drove a process that hasn't stopped. To the technically leaning, I'm afraid any claims that technical-advance-only drives process and that measurements and DBXs etc have the final word on audible matters is on the wrong side of many forms of history.

[50000]

"Geezus, who glued me to the floor in front of this insufferable screechbox?"

Demonstratively tense and in pain. Not a good listening session.

[chg]

For example, when picking out speakers, I only did a (single) blind test at the very end, when trying to choose between two different price-points in a very similar line by one manufacturer. Otherwise, the differences I was hearing were fairly obvious to me. Why did I think this might be anything other than self-deception?

The speakers I was comparing were constructed very differently, and different measurements and physical characteristics. It is not unreasonable to think that bigger speakers might sound better than smaller ones, etc. There are easily quantifiable, measurable differences.

Most of the above can be said of cables also.

With power cords (for example), it is much more counter-intuitive to suspect that there are going to be audible differences...

Power cords? Bad example!

I thought you were staying away from cable debates (for mental health reasons)? Probably not a bad idea actually.

[chg]

Barrows said;

1. Pro audio has the best measuring equiment: No, this is often not the case. And, as mentioned by another poster, considering the quality level of some (most) of the recordings produced by pros, I do not think it wise to consider "pro audio" as some kind of benchmark which audiophiles shoudl aspire to.

Well, you did pretty well. You added some more.

Indeed. What do the pros know. They only do it for a living. But ... you know... they get all they want so they really don't understand, you know... about a life like Frank's. I mean, when you've loved and lost the way Frank has, then you, uh, you know what audio is about.

I have absolute admiration for the work of Barry and Cookie, but why is it that they are the only ones audiophiles keep referring to? How about Steve Hoffman? Alan Parsons? Bob Clearmountain?

The difference is that one is for work (to get the job done) and the other is for leisure and enjoyment.

Here's what Alan Parsons said;

"Pro sound people have different expectations; they are only concerned that a piece of gear works and allows them to do their job. Hi-fi people spend huge amounts of money for tiny improvements, and pro sound guys will say, “I can spend half as much and get the results I need.”

[chg]

barrows,
I have a sneaking suspicion that prufrock's POV is influenced by the post count of 'his' thread and perhaps this latest post is just stoking the flames with another outragous statement whenever things seem to slow down

"poke the beast and it Roars !"

That's how it's looking to me also. Needling is the term that came to my mind.

And then posts like this looks like he's trying to turn an audio site into a psych site.

I am suggesting that what you like, and the reasons that led to you liking it, may be not as clear cut as you might imagine. Every time you go to the supermarket and pick something off the shelf, there are a whole range of factors that influenced your decision that you were almost certainly completely unaware of. Companies spend a lot of time, effort and money on researching colours shapes etc that may give them the edge. The "you" that you think is you, is only the tip of the iceberg.

[chg]

I have absolute admiration for the work of Barry and Cookie, but why is it that they are the only ones audiophiles keep referring to? How about Steve Hoffman? Alan Parsons? Bob Clearmountain?

Also;

Bob Ludwig
Tony Faulkner (Quad ESL,Wilson).
The Mormon Tabernacle recording studio (Wilson).
SnowGhost (in Montana)(Wilson,VTL, EMMlabs).

[sandyk]

Most of the above can be said of cables also.





With power cords (for example), it is much more counter-intuitive to suspect that there are going to be audible differences... Power cords? Bad example!

I thought you were staying away from cable debates (for mental health reasons)? Probably not a bad idea actually.

SOMEBODY obviously has clear feelings about the improvements resulting from the use of high quality power cables. (grin.)


The Computer Audiophile's Album: Listening Room