The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[esldude]

There is so much misinformation I won't even try to respond to it. As the objections are based upon further misunderstanding and the misinformation overload multiplies as we go.

[50000]

There is so much misinformation I won't even try to respond to it. As the objections are based upon further misunderstanding and the misinformation overload multiplies as we go.

esl, have you nothing more specific, reasoned or scientific to say than misinformation?

[bhobba]

I have read this thread and am really left scratching my head.

The solution is simple - very simple. When buying cables, or indeed any piece of audio equipment, do a simple blind test to see if you can hear the difference. I took my USB DAC over to an acquaintances place along with a generic USB cable and an up market one I use. The difference was easy to spot - the up-market one sounded smoother and more analogue like. Another acquaintance thought it was all hoopla and did a blind test and passed it easily - the difference was real and it exists. The maker of the up market cable used in both cases claims he develops them by double blind listening tests. I personally believe him, and hear the difference easily, but if you don't it is an easy and fun thing to check - simply do a blind test and post about it.

If you think a high end Hi Fi store is selling snake oil simply go down there and see if the staff selling the stuff can pass a blind test. If not expose them.

Thanks
Bill

[esldude]

esl, have you nothing more specific, reasoned or scientific to say than misinformation?

Of course I do, plenty, but I am not going to bother. I don't have that much time to waste.

[barrows]

There is so much misinformation I won't even try to respond to it. As the objections are based upon further misunderstanding and the misinformation overload multiplies as we go.

sorry esl: the above is a non-starter. No evidence presented. The above is akin to saying: "you are just stupid" and walking away like a little boy would do. I have not read any misinformation in the last few posts, just opinions. My opinion is plain and simple: I like the way the Ayre MX-R/VX-R amplifiers sound, I think they bring something special to the table. These amplifiers feature a relatively simple circuit, and achieve excellent measured performance without relying on a global feedback loop.
Opinions are not misinformation, in fact, they cannot be such. You can choose to disagree of course, that would be your opinion.

[esldude]

sorry esl: the above is a non-starter. No evidence presented. The above is akin to saying: "you are just stupid" and walking away like a little boy would do. I have not read any misinformation in the last few posts, just opinions. My opinion is plain and simple: I like the way the Ayre MX-R/VX-R amplifiers sound, I think they bring something special to the table. These amplifiers feature a relatively simple circuit, and achieve excellent measured performance without relying on a global feedback loop.
Opinions are misinformation, in fact, they cannot be such. You can choose to disagree of course, that would be your opinion.

Me not presenting the evidence is not the same thing as there not being any.

[barrows]

Bill, this is why I keep imploring folks to listen in my posts! Although, as is well known, I see no reason to be "blinded", but hey, whatever works for you.

[sandyk]

I am not an E.E., only a long term hobbyist from an Electronics background,so please don't expect me to go deeper with
this bit.(grin)
Local Feedback can be as simple as an unbypassed emitter resistor, or an unbypassed cathode resistor.
Simply doing this “degeneration” reduces distortion, improves bandwidth and with an input pair (LTP/Differential pair) also improves input overload performance, as usual though, there is no free lunch and overall gain before Global feedback is lower.
At least, that is my understanding.Personally, as far as global feedback goes, I believe that for best results the O/P devices shouldn’t be way slower than the other devices. 30MHZ O/P devices in an amplifiers global feedback network, for example, sound better to me than say 4MHZ O/P devices in the same circuit.
I realise that that’s not the whole story though.(wink) With circuitry using input differential pairs, a further SQ improvement may be obtained by closely matching the collector currents of an already well matched ( for HFE and VBE) input differential pair. This is another case of typical measurements not revealing why. However my findings were put to the test in the DIYAudio "Current Mirror "thread of November 2008.The differences can be heard when this balancing is done, although the typical distortion measurements may already have 3 Zeroes in them.
BTW, the often quoted Nelson Pass was also a participant in that thread.
Alex

[1audio]

Feedback is one of the not well understood aspects of audio design that can instantly be blown out of proportion. Its just another tool that can accomplish good things when used well. Its very difficult to build an amplifier that is really free of feedback simply because there are many pathways for feedback to be present. I have discussed this with John Curl (and Keith Johnson) at length. Less is better is a good way to express it, except when its not enough.

Keith's remarks were about the forward bandwidth and managing the feedback loop and its reactive elements. The thermal tails are something he is really focusing on and an interesting issue, but completely separate from feedback.

One of the key challenges for a no feedback amplifier is the higher output impedance it will have, making it more sensitive to speaker impedance (indeed, the voltage response of the amp will follow the speaker impedance). If the speaker was not designed for this (like the Quad) then you will get a distinct difference in the sound.

Feedback is a complex subject and a lot of really well reasoned analysis of feedback in audio has been done and many myths have been debunked. Feedback does work as the math suggests. There are additional artifacts created under certain circumstances at specific feedback levels but you have to get several things just right for those circumstances. A lot have been argued to death here: John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - diyAudio . Its really too long to read unless you have a lot of time.

Better sound is a judgement call not a defined value in this context. A more accurate frequency response may not sound
"better". Higher distortion may sound "better". And "better" is in the perception of the specific "perceiver", not everyone. Unfortunately going down the "sound better" direction can lead to a circle with no end. For example, speakers that have a softer top may sound better on most music (Floyd Toole demonstrated this). So then microphones get selected to be brighter to accomodate the softer speakers and get back to linear response. And then speakers get more rolled off to compensate etc. Madness lies down that road, and not too far. Some of these other discussions are similar, with a gradual disconnection from real measurable baselines.

Sometimes the most accurate reproduction is not the most beautiful of sounds, but real music isn't always beautiful either. Too much beauty in a reproducing chain may hide reality and remove some of the message.

Some of the "audiophile" qualities people extol don't seem to exist in real life. I get to live classical concert performances in good halls every few weeks. I have been listening for the "back wall" for years and I cannot hear it in those concerts. Does that mean that systems that reproduce a back wall are distorting?

[prufrock]

I have read this thread and am really left scratching my head.

The solution is simple - very simple. When buying cables, or indeed any piece of audio equipment, do a simple blind test to see if you can hear the difference. I took my USB DAC over to an acquaintances place along with a generic USB cable and an up market one I use. The difference was easy to spot - the up-market one sounded smoother and more analogue like. Another acquaintance thought it was all hoopla and did a blind test and passed it easily - the difference was real and it exists. The maker of the up market cable used in both cases claims he develops them by double blind listening tests. I personally believe him, and hear the difference easily, but if you don't it is an easy and fun thing to check - simply do a blind test and post about it.

If you think a high end Hi Fi store is selling snake oil simply go down there and see if the staff selling the stuff can pass a blind test. If not expose them.

Thanks
Bill

Bill
The trouble with just blind (rather than double blind) is that it is so open to things going wrong. Factors that you wouldn't even suspect can come into play. Small seemingly insignificant cues than throw the whole thing. You need very well thought out experimental design to eliminate these. Double blind protocol is an absolute must. Science, especially biology, is littered with the ruins of those who failed to realise this.
You say the manufacturer of the upmarket USB did double blind testing. Does he publish detailed description of his protocol and results?
It is beyond the resources of most individuals to do the above type of testing. It should be a requirement that anyone selling this stuff submit it to an independent agency to test, and those tests be made public. This should be done before it is released for sale. This is not happening atm, and is basically the cause of this whole fiasco.

[barrows]

Demian, thanks for your thoughts. Are you suggesting that a distortion caused by a no global feedback design is responsible for a phantom "back wall" though?
I think that every hall, and every seat, and every recording is going to give a different perspective on what life like transparent sound in playback might be, this is, of course, a complex topic with many variables. The "soundstage" for instance, in many recordings is a completely artificial creation of the recroding engineer. And my experiences of live music, whether in the concert hall, or a small club, a church, or moderate sized theatre have never exhibited the "sculpted images in space" type of soundstage which audiophiles often crave. That said, perhaps in playback, without visual references as to musician locations, an (admittedly artificial) "sculpted soundstage" may contribute to a greater sense of realism to the listener, eventhough it is an artifice. This is the rub I guess: when we admit that our playback systems are always colored to some extent, and have many inaccuracies, then, we must choose which inaccuraces lead to a better appreciation of music.
Have you looked at the output impedance of Charlie Hansen's latest amps, they are pretty good, and certainly good enough to remain even in response for most well designed speakers, with, perhaps, a few notable exceptions. I think they sound pretty good as well, at least with Wilson and TAD...
Is there any general technical info published anywhere (basic topologies and design philosophies) on the Constellation preamps and amps?

[barrows]

Honestly, really??

"It is beyond the resources of most individuals to do the above type of testing. It should be a requirement that anyone selling this stuff submit it to an independent agency to test, and those tests be made public. This should be done before it is released for sale. This is not happening atm, and is basically the cause of this whole fiasco."

What fiasco? I love it, you start with your own POV, and any evidence to contrary is declared invalid. Yes, so Bill did a blind test and was able to hear clear differences, therefore, his testing protocal must be flawed. And it should be required that scientific double-blind testing should be done and the results made public. Perhaps we should also require this testing for beer, as I am tired of the whole beer fiasco and I cannot tell which beer tastes better to me...

[1audio]

Barrows:
I'm not sure what has been public on the circuitry of the Constellation products. I'll see what can be revealed.

(And now for a completely different perspective) Perhaps recordings really are an isolated art form with a tenuous connection to reality. Much like the connection between a photograph to the scene its a photo of. Things like the mix between the performers and the space they are in are used to help create the overall experience. Once you accept this you then need to confront how the hardware impacts the experience. Perhaps a metaphor is the frame, lighting and location of a photo print and how that affects the visual experience of the print.

[Paul.Raulerson]

Barrows:
(And now for a completely different perspective) Perhaps recordings really are an isolated art form with a tenuous connection to reality. Much like the connection between a photograph to the scene its a photo of. Things like the mix between the performers and the space they are in are used to help create the overall experience. Once you accept this you then need to confront how the hardware impacts the experience. Perhaps a metaphor is the frame, lighting and location of a photo print and how that affects the visual experience of the print.

That resonates very well indeed with me. I have had thoughts along those same lines, but none so well put together. That goes into my notebook as something to think further about.

Paul

[prufrock]

as I am tired of the whole beer fiasco and I cannot tell which beer tastes better to me...

I have noticed bit of a thing with beer lately. Its sort of become ultra gentrified. Bit like that dirty inner city block you could have got cheap and is now worth a heap. Not quite up there with wine yet of course.

[prufrock]

Speaking of wine, this article covers the usual Frederic Brochet experiments at the University of Bordeaux 2001. However is also includes other interesting stuff as well.
People will believe almost anything, no matter how ridiculous. Audiophiles are a pretty bright bunch but venerable nonetheless.

[prufrock]

Sorry, the link.

Health - David McRaney - 'You Are Not So Smart': Why We Can't Tell Good Wine From Bad - The Atlantic

[Jud]

Scientologists try to rid themselves of these thetans (spirits) by helping each one to remember the painful experiences of being blown up like that.

I take care of that with Gas-X.

[Jud]

Ha! :-) Yes, I often think of you and the handful of other experienced designers who hang out here (much to our benefit - I hope you enjoy it enough to keep doing it) looking on in bemusement as we indulge in yet another thread where we rush to one or the other generalized extreme, when the answer in a given instance is highly situation-specific.

Feedback is one of the not well understood aspects of audio design that can instantly be blown out of proportion. Its just another tool that can accomplish good things when used well. Its very difficult to build an amplifier that is really free of feedback simply because there are many pathways for feedback to be present. I have discussed this with John Curl (and Keith Johnson) at length. Less is better is a good way to express it, except when its not enough.

Keith's remarks were about the forward bandwidth and managing the feedback loop and its reactive elements. The thermal tails are something he is really focusing on and an interesting issue, but completely separate from feedback.

My thought in quoting Keith Johnson was to say essentially the following: Here's someone who is concerned about thermal tails. The "feedback and compensation parts" he mentions are additional circuitry to worry about. So one of the considerations in design would be minimizing that additional circuitry by minimizing the need for feedback (to the extent reasonable under the circumstances).

Sometimes the most accurate reproduction is not the most beautiful of sounds, but real music isn't always beautiful either. Too much beauty in a reproducing chain may hide reality and remove some of the message.

Some of the "audiophile" qualities people extol don't seem to exist in real life. I get to live classical concert performances in good halls every few weeks. I have been listening for the "back wall" for years and I cannot hear it in those concerts. Does that mean that systems that reproduce a back wall are distorting?

Would depend on the hall and where you're sitting, I suppose. I never listen for "audiophile" stuff at live concerts, and I try to do so as little as possible at home. I think down that road lies the "one trick pony" approach - if one aspect sticks out that much to be noticeable by itself, rather than letting you get lost in the music, then it's not accurate. No matter how well it does that one thing, eventually you'll get tired of it. Music, on the other hand, I hope never to get tired of. Getting lost in the music is a luxury I as a consumer can probably afford more than you as a designer. Do you sometimes find yourself getting swept away, then having to remind yourself, "Oh yes, I'm supposed to be listening to this critically"?

[bhobba]

What fiasco? I love it, you start with your own POV, and any evidence to contrary is declared invalid. Yes, so Bill did a blind test and was able to hear clear differences, therefore, his testing protocal must be flawed. And it should be required that scientific double-blind testing should be done and the results made public. Perhaps we should also require this testing for beer, as I am tired of the whole beer fiasco and I cannot tell which beer tastes better to me...

This is the trouble I have with the DBT crowd. They know they are difficult to set up and analyse properly so they harp on it and harp on it. They also hopefully know such tests supposedly show things that any audiophile knows makes a difference such as DAC's and amps all in fact sound the same - this should be a clue there is more to it than meets the eye - but of course is not the lesson they usually take - they actually buy into the all amps sound the same etc etc and become the laughing stock of those that actually listen to gear.

There was a time I did a lot of blind wine tasting. The same issues could be leveled at the person pouring the wine who usually knows full well what it is. Yet anyone that has attended such knows from the often shocked faces of those doing it no such bias existed. Yet in audio a certain subculture harps on it all the time - it makes you wonder - it really does.

I personally have learned to trust my ears and only rarely do blind tests these days. Most of the time its done by others who are incredulous there is a difference because their often very limited technical knowledge tells them there shouldn't be. I had a long long discussion with a guy that had an honors degree in computer science (I do as well BTW as well as one in applied math) and argued black and blue cables could make no difference - yet had no idea of even fundamental signal propagation stuff such as the basic Gibbs phenomena. They are the honest ones who will accept what they hear blind - fortunately I have not come across the other type who refuse to accept even that and want a DBT. I conjecture that's because those types basically want to study specs rather than actually listen to gear - but of course that is only a guess.

Thanks
Bill

[prufrock]

There was a time I did a lot of blind wine tasting. The same issues could be leveled at the person pouring the wine who usually knows full well what it is. Yet anyone that has attended such knows from the often shocked faces of those doing it no such bias existed. Yet in audio a certain subculture harps on it all the time - it makes you wonder - it really does.


Thanks
Bill

I didn't understand what you were saying here, sorry. If you feel inclined to elaborate I would appreciate it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi prufrock - After reading, and removing, your post about Scientology and Scientologists it's very obvious you have a major axe to grind with many people who think differently than you. Your goal of saving newbies from purchasing a product you don't like or don't believe in is the identical front 99% of people in your shoes hide behind.

I believe Hydrogen Audio is the perfect place for you to express yourself, minus the religious statements.

I always encourage opposing views here at CA. But your abrasive argumentative tone and facade of saving people from themselves (who likely don't want to be "saved") is getting old. Everything discussed in this thread has been discussed countless times in other threads here on CA and dozens of other sites. No new ground has been covered in this very strangely titled thread. Covering new ground isn't a prerequisite for continuing threads here at CA but when your goal is to talk newbies into believing what you believe purhaps you should mention items that they haven't read several times. There is no way a newbie can read this thread and glean anything helpful. It's much more likely you've just rallied your base and vice versa.

Your idea to write a blog summary of this could be helpful. But, as all of the ideas and beliefs discussed here have been discussed many many times, you could have used Google to find all this information and all the old arguments in less than 0.002 seconds.

If you're here at CA to contribute or learn something I encourage you to stay and help grow this wonderful community dedicated to our wonderful hobby. If your motives are antithetical to contributing and learning you can move on to another site.

[barrows]

Barrows:
I'm not sure what has been public on the circuitry of the Constellation products. I'll see what can be revealed.

(And now for a completely different perspective) Perhaps recordings really are an isolated art form with a tenuous connection to reality. Much like the connection between a photograph to the scene its a photo of. Things like the mix between the performers and the space they are in are used to help create the overall experience. Once you accept this you then need to confront how the hardware impacts the experience. Perhaps a metaphor is the frame, lighting and location of a photo print and how that affects the visual experience of the print.

Yes, agreed for the most part. Of course there are varying degrees to which this is true. The work of say, Barry Dimanate's Soundkeeper Recordings, and the work of the Fines with Mercury are certainly intended to reproduce the sound/feeling of attending a live musical performance, whereas, at the opposite end of the spectrum, the studio recordings of Pink Floyd or Peter Gabriel are a created art form of their own, not really meant to represent what a live perfromance might be like.
Like I said I consider the "sculpted sound stage" of audiophiles to be mostly an artifice, but it is still an interesting one, especially with created in the studio type recordings where all kinds of tricks can be done with the placement of sound, sonic sculptures if we will.

Any general approach, design philosophy on the Constellation stuff would be intersting to me. BTW, I have not gotten to p. II of the Blowtorch/JC threads yet, still one p. I. Thanks for your contributions here, and to audio reproduction over the years.

[Daudio]

Like I said I consider the "sculpted sound stage" of audiophiles to be mostly an artifice, but it is still an interesting one, especially with created in the studio type recordings where all kinds of tricks can be done with the placement of sound, sonic sculptures if we will.

Barrows,

I wonder if that is an internally generated artifice ? Without the corresponding visual input the mind constructs a 'picture' with what data it has. I know that when I watch a music video, I'm much less critical of the sound quality, even if I try, because I'm getting two channels of perceptual information that seem to reinforce each other. I also find that I am much more tolerant of poor video quality with good sound.

Not that this is entirely relevant to our quest for the 'absolute sound', but it may illuminate our reactions a bit.

[1audio]

Yes, agreed for the most part. Of course there are varying degrees to which this is true. The work of say, Barry Dimanate's Soundkeeper Recordings, and the work of the Fines with Mercury are certainly intended to reproduce the sound/feeling of attending a live musical performance, whereas, at the opposite end of the spectrum, the studio recordings of Pink Floyd or Peter Gabriel are a created art form of their own, not really meant to represent what a live perfromance might be like.
Like I said I consider the "sculpted sound stage" of audiophiles to be mostly an artifice, but it is still an interesting one, especially with created in the studio type recordings where all kinds of tricks can be done with the placement of sound, sonic sculptures if we will.

Think about the impack photography had on painting at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. When accurate painting of an image was no longer necessary the other aspects of the painting became the reason for painting, leading to the impressionists (viz. Rock recordings) and then abstract expressionists (new music of many types) and so forth. If I focus on a neutral presentation of the audio that is captured in the recorded stream I will offer up the artists efforts and honestly as possible. If I start consciously or unconsciously altering the sound its like selecting the frame for the photo/painting. Since I don't know what painting you are presenting the gold filigree Baroque frame I stick on everything may not work well with your Warhol. I would rather not do that.