Ethan Winer Null Test For WIre

[jtwrace]

 

 

 

 

 

[mintakax]

Please someone knowledgable comment on this ? 

[pkane2001]

15 minutes ago, mintakax said:

Please someone knowledgable comment on this ? 

 

What do you want to know?

[ralphfcooke]

Very difficult to refute the information provided in the video.

For those of us with an objective frame of mind this is exactly as expected.

I'm not sure what 'subjectivists' can  disagree with, but I'm sure there'll

be someone who cries 'foul' over some aspect.

[mintakax]

That is my feeling as well ralphcooke. In total I've only wasted around $2500. Could be worse :).

 

On the other hand, I don't feel all that bad about allowing some "magic" into my listening life.

[fas42]

And you only have to listen to the first few minutes to know that there will be nothing useful to be found in the clip: the important step is to grossly simplify the behaviours of the device or part you're supposedly measuring, and then to just measure those properties - job done! The fact that every part of a system has to play its part with full integrity with respect to the required behaviour of the system is carefully ignored - "dumbing down" what you're testing always proves nothing, but will give what those of that bent what they want: "proof" that there's nothing in it ... .

 

Parasitic behaviours, unfortunately, are part and parcel of dealing with the goal of best sound - pretending that they are not there, just to "make everything nice", is a useless approach - unless one is happy with compromised sound, .

[Ralf11]

I like wire.

 

 

You can wrap it in circles to make transformers

[ralphfcooke]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

And you only have to listen to the first few minutes to know that there will be nothing useful to be found in the clip: the important step is to grossly simplify the behaviours of the device or part you're supposedly measuring, and then to just measure those properties - job done! The fact that every part of a system has to play its part with full integrity with respect to the required behaviour of the system is carefully ignored - "dumbing down" what you're testing always proves nothing, but will give what those of that bent what they want: "proof" that there's nothing in it ... .

 

Parasitic behaviours, unfortunately, are part and parcel of dealing with the goal of best sound - pretending that they are not there, just to "make everything nice", is a useless approach - unless one is happy with compromised sound, .

 

Not so!  Your statement above, especially between and is almost complete gobbledegook, 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Are you claiming that a piece of wire has some magical properties in addition to L,C and R?

[Ralf11]

better to just ignore Frank - along with GUTB

[barrows]

36 minutes ago, ralphfcooke said:

 

Not so!  Your statement above, especially between and is almost complete gobbledegook, 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Are you claiming that a piece of wire has some magical properties in addition to L,C and R?

There is no magic to it, but there are many other factors.  A couple: triboelectric effects, dielectric effects, etc.  If one only thinks in simplistic terms at the most basic level (L, C, & R) one will usually get simplistic results.

Even makers of general bulk audio cable like Belden and Mogami take these effects into consideration.  What about shielding? L, C, & R do not even take into account the effects and methods of shielding.

[fas42]

Yes, a display of simplistic thinking ... right there. It's taken me years to get my head around some of the subtle effects that unfortunately matter in audio - compromised audio is everywhere, because our hearing systems are good enough to pick up defects in the reproduction, that disrupt the illusion we're chasing. Mostly, only OTT systems with heroic engineering manage to get much closer to what's possible - the "over-design" manages to keep the gremlins at bay enough to give the lucky owners a good taste of better sound ...

 

The "magic" is in understanding the need to assume nothing - be willing to suspect that the "silliest thing" might be relevant - many times, it's exceedingly easy to test whether "something matters" - and hence, one learns.

[wgscott]

I was 30 min into this and starting to nod off, 

and then I noticed this:

 

 

[marce]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

There is no magic to it, but there are many other factors.  A couple: triboelectric effects, dielectric effects, etc.  If one only thinks in simplistic terms at the most basic level (L, C, & R) one will usually get simplistic results.

Even makers of general bulk audio cable like Belden and Mogami take these effects into consideration.  What about shielding? L, C, & R do not even take into account the effects and methods of shielding.

dielectric effects at audio frequencies.... Hmmm got any info, same with tribo effect...

L c and R are a good indicator for low frequency side of things, the digital side is not that wild either so basic transmission line would suffice.

[ralphfcooke]

At the risk of oversimplifying things ? a null test will eliminate all differences between the devices being compared.

As long as the signal source being used for both is identical then the lack of any differences down to the noise level,

100+ Db or more must be totally inaudible.

I appreciate that it is possible to hear a signal below the noise floor, but surely not in the presence of music 60+ Db

louder (masking effect).

If there is any evidence to the contrary I would like to see/hear about it

[plissken]

11 hours ago, barrows said:

There is no magic to it, but there are many other factors.  A couple: triboelectric effects, dielectric effects, etc.  If one only thinks in simplistic terms at the most basic level (L, C, & R) one will usually get simplistic results.

Even makers of general bulk audio cable like Belden and Mogami take these effects into consideration.  What about shielding? L, C, & R do not even take into account the effects and methods of shielding.

 

Yep and we even know how to test for things like triboelectric noise.

 

You should know better btw and I think you are being purposefully dishonest in regards to the title off the thread.

 

If I'm doing a null test and I take cable A and suspend it across an open span and hang a weight and let it loose I'm going to generate energy. That's going to travel across and it will show in the null test.

[plissken]

22 minutes ago, ralphfcooke said:

At the risk of oversimplifying things ? a null test will eliminate all differences between the devices being compared.

 

Actually the null test will SHOW differences if they are there.

[ralphfcooke]

10 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Actually the null test will SHOW differences if they are there.

Oops, sorry. You are of course correct?

[barrows]

1 hour ago, marce said:

dielectric effects at audio frequencies.... Hmmm got any info, same with tribo effect...

L c and R are a good indicator for low frequency side of things, the digital side is not that wild either so basic transmission line would suffice.

Only subjective listening of cables which claim to deal with such effects.  But i will point out that the (quite objectively based) engineer Bruno Putzeys has noted that he addresses turboelectric effects in his cable designs.

In no way I am denying that there is quite a bit of mumbo jumbo in the world of high end audio cables, but the truth is there are cables which sound different, and some sound better, of course, indeed these cables do vary for L, C, and R as well...

 

[PeterSt]

Ignorance is bliss ...

 

"Look, there is only millivolts of noise (at -90dB) so these cables are exactly the same". Also listen for 20 seconds at 04:35.

Yeah, sure. What about implying 50dB or so less noise in the first place, okay ?

 

Start looking at 24:15 fairly to the end. See how he moves the cables, tells about that not making a difference as long as they are "laid somewhere" it won't make a difference for any of two cables, ignoring the fact that it makes a hell of a difference where they will be laid (he looks at it himself), he can't imagine that possibly shielding may help to what he shows there himself but is still persistent in that the cables measure the same. "This is just stuff picking up from the computer". And somehow I must be satisfied with the following "the wires are just the same".

 

He doesn't know what he is doing ...

Give the man a 15 bits CD player and let him test(ify) with the same device that 15 bits and 24 bits (but make it 20 to be on the safe side) can't make a difference either.

 

PS: And stop dialing that knob to tweak out the audible (music) differences.

[barrows]

33 minutes ago, ralphfcooke said:

Oops, sorry. You are of course correct?

Yes, it if it well done enough.  Nordost actually used such testing to show actual differences in their cables.  I watched the video though, and this was not well done enough to satisfy me, and neither were the right cables tested.  For example, the source used was notably low fi.

Lets see a true null test with music files, and a real high end set up: top level dCS DAC, with speakers playing at a high level in the room (to account for microphonic effects), etc.

[mansr]

28 minutes ago, barrows said:

turboelectric

What do ship propulsion systems have to do with audio?

[christopher3393]

      "Cable threads are placebos." 

              --- Schopenhauer 

The World as Will and Representation 

[KeenObserver]

Could one not accomplish the same by sending a mono signal over left and right wires to an ADC converter, feeding the results to a sound program, and flip one of the channels?  This would eliminate all the extra boxes.

[Ralf11]

tribo effect. are known to affect audio in microphone cables - which are often moved around

 

otherwise...

 

 

Bruno P. has an article on the internet somewhere about both effects - bottomline... just use balanced 

[gmgraves]

19 hours ago, mintakax said:

Please someone knowledgable comment on this ? 

Sure. Null tests are golden. Between active components, they are also difficult to do. As Winer points out there must be no difference in signal level between the two test subjects or even identical components will leave a detectable "residue". But cables are much easier because they can't change the level of the signal passing through them. And unless, as Winer says, the cables' termination is corroded or has a poor solder joint, cables can't add distortion, either. All you have to do is supply an audio signal; sine wave or music, it doesn't matter. In addition, you need a 180 degree inverted version of that signal. It must be exactly 180 degrees out of phase, no more, no less! That means taking a signal and running it through an inverting op-amp stage with unity gain, won't work. The delay of the signal going through the op-amp is enough to make sure that the resulting inverted signal is delayed from the original signal. You must have two identical op-amp stages, both with exactly the same gain (unit is fine) with one used as a non-inverting stage and the other an inverting stage. That would output two identical signals one in phase the other exactly 180 degrees out of phase. Then hook up the two cables being evaluated and then use another op-amp stage to SUM the two signals. If their is no difference between the two signals when summed together, the cables are identical. If there is residual noise left that can be seen on a 'scope or heard through a speaker, then the cables are not identical. The only cables which would leave any residue would be those containing extra resistance, capacitance or inductance (these usually have bulges of wood, plastic or metal somewhere in the cable between the connectors on each end) installed in them. But these aren't cables, these are fixed (usually single pole) filters, designed to attenuate some portion of the audio passband.

Years ago, I was privy to a demonstration by Bob Carver where he took one of his Carver solid state power amplifiers and by using some nulling equipment of his own design, was able to compare his amp to a conrad johnson  tube amp; and by fiddling with adjustments he had added to his amp, was able to "null out" the solid-state amp until there was no discernible residue from the summed signals. Those assembled were then invited to a double blind tests between the conrad johnson and the "nulled" Carver amp as well as between the c-j amp and a "stock" Carver amp. There was no difference between the c-j and the nulled amp that anybody could detect, but between the c-j and the stock carver unit, the differences were like night and day.

Carver said that he could make one of his solid-state amps sound exactly like any amplifier on the market, regardless of make, model, technology used, or price.