The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

Well said, and if I might.....If one must go through such rigorous preperations and conditions control to discern the slightest bit of difference, is the slight performance gain of any value in a recreational listening session? An analogy......say there's two stacks of 1$ bills...one quantity is a 1000, the other 1001. One can only take a single stack. Does one count each stack and take the larger quantity or does one just simply pick up whichever and go? IT would seem to me that time is more valuable than a buck in tHis case........and given the amount of long term listening it takes to even consider a preference, the less the value of that preference.

Interesting line of thought. Let me throw one out for comparison; I think both may be valid.

I'd bet I've owned some cables longer than some readers of this forum have been alive. Still using an S/PDIF digital cable I bought more than 20 years ago, a couple of 20-year-old analog cables, and recently replaced 20+ year old speaker cables. So think of two piles of $1 bills, one with $20,000, one with $20,100. That's a .5% initial difference. Maybe not worth spending the time counting. But now let's say the offer is of one or the other pile invested at compound interest over 20 years. Maybe now it's worthwhile? So the fact that at least some of us look at even cables as long-term parts of our systems affects the effort we are willing to put into listening. We know this may well affect our enjoyment, even if by a small amount, for a good portion of our lives.

I might now refer to interconnects as 'Cable Meth' for those that like to tweak......or suffer from OCD.

:-) When I'm in a *very* occasional tweaking mood, something relatively cheap and safe like a cable is a good way to satisfy my jones. (E.g., just bought an "audiophile" Firewire cable to connect the external hard drive that holds my music. I think it makes a slight difference, but for less than $30 I wouldn't be too perturbed if it didn't.)

Given the rise in prices of semi precious metals these days, your compound interest theorem might just be valid from a scrapper's point of view. lol

 

:-) When I'm in a *very* occasional tweaking mood, something relatively cheap and safe like a cable is a good way to satisfy my jones. (E.g., just bought an "audiophile" Firewire cable to connect the external hard drive that holds my music. I think it makes a slight difference, but for less than $30 I wouldn't be too perturbed if it didn't.)

Retail therapy. Well spotted mate. Will use that one if you don't mind. Hadn't really though of that point till now. But cables and interconnects slot in nicely there don't they, a la: all the main gear nicely setup, but we liked fiddling so much on that part, that we want more. Another fix so to speak. So we can either swap the amp worth a grand or play it safe and "try" an exotic looking new interconnect that's marked down from $1599 a metre to $299. An affordable loss. I hate shopping but I do something similar. I buy stuff that is no better but 3 times the price. But that's a different point.

I think your point is valid. Get out there girls and do some shopping. Nothing stupid. Just the bargains.

a Zobel network is designed to work optimally with a selected loudspeaker impedance.

A few amplifiers use external Zobel networks IF required.Perhaps the manufacturers of the more expensive amplifiers should provide a way for the consumer to optimise the Zobel network to suit the speakers being used ?

Some loudspeakers have built-in Zobel networks in their crossovers. I have not seen fancy loudspeaker cables come in "4 ohms" and "8 ohms" versions - wouldn't that be the logical thing if they really are intended to work as matched impedance transmission lines?

Julf refuses to accept the possibility of file degradation due to uploading and downloading etc. despite quite a few subjective reports to the contrary.Award winning Recording Engineer Cookie Marenco even provides her DSD downloads as Uncompressed Zips to reduce file degradation.Barry Diament even refuses to provide Lossless DLs to avoid file degradation,

and provides his high resolution material on DVD's burned to order with the user's preferred Non Lossless format.

I am not entirely sure how this is relevant to the topic at hand, unless it's about silly audiophile superstitions in general.

As far as listeining goes, I suspect that each of us may find things we can do differently, that is, what works for me, may not be the same for you.

Thanks, Barrows - all very good advice.

But a few things: blinded does not work for me, it just introduces stress which makes it harder to remain objective.

You have a good point about the stress, and I totally agree with it. But if you can't resort to blinded tests, how do you protect yourself from perceptual biases?

Julf

The silly superstition here is the inability of most EEs to accept that there is more to hearing than sine wave hearing tests. The rise time of the waveform allows older people to still appreciate high res material, which is something you appear unable to do.Yet EEs like yourself.still base their designs around this outdated information.

I was talking about Paul's suggestion of passing around a USB memory stick.

Alex

"Some loudspeakers have built-in Zobel networks in their crossovers. I have not seen fancy loudspeaker cables come in "4 ohms" and "8 ohms" versions - wouldn't that be the logical thing if they really are intended to work as matched impedance transmission lines?"

Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook 5th edition by Douglas Self on pages 227 and 228, gives further information about Zobel Networks as NORMALLY fitted INSIDE amplifiers.

Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook 5th edition by Douglas Self on pages 227 and 228, gives further information about Zobel Networks as NORMALLY fitted INSIDE amplifiers.

Thanks, I am familiar with zobel networks and their uses. I was pointing out that some loudspeakers use them in the crossovers to even out the impedance curve, and thus some loudspeakers already have the zobel network built in.

I was talking about Paul's suggestion of passing around a USB memory stick.

OK, so your objection to the test is that downloading the files will change their sound, while transferring them on an USB stick won't?

I reckon for any such test to have any meaning, the cables need to be shipped around to each tester, along with the test files on a USB stick, and played on the tester's own systems. That means for any kind of analysis to be done, the equipment of each system has to be recorded, and the environmental conditions, as well as the tester's opinions.

At this point I am not suggesting trying to find out how and why the audible differences happen, but simply see if there are any audible differences. I would appreciate your views on why a series of ABX tests on hi-res files recorded from the output of the DAC on a decent system, but using different USB cables, wouldn't show if there are audible differences or not.

"OK, so your objection to the test is that downloading the files will change their sound, while transferring them on an USB stick won't? "

As per what Cookie Marenco has found , the files on the USB memory stick would be best saved to it as Uncompressed Zips.

Yes, there is still a smalll degradation, but not as bad as going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters.

Not that I expect you to accept any of this ! Paul is simply suggesting a method that should ensure that everybody receives an identical copy of the comparison material.Even if you refuse to accept any reasons for differences, surely that method should be acceptable ?

Interesting line of thought. Let me throw one out for comparison; I think both may be valid.

 

I'd bet I've owned some cables longer than some readers of this forum have been alive. Still using an S/PDIF digital cable I bought more than 20 years ago, a couple of 20-year-old analog cables, and recently replaced 20+ year old speaker cables. So think of two piles of $1 bills, one with $20,000, one with $20,100. That's a .5% initial difference. Maybe not worth spending the time counting. But now let's say the offer is of one or the other pile invested at compound interest over 20 years. Maybe now it's worthwhile? So the fact that at least some of us look at even cables as long-term parts of our systems affects the effort we are willing to put into listening. We know this may well affect our enjoyment, even if by a small amount, for a good portion of our lives.

I agree that spending extra on cables could positively affect our long term enjoyment. That is the strategy I use, and I am coming at it from the angle of - spend a bit more and hopefully get a decently constructed item. You know, good quality UV resistant plastic coatings, proper shielding, strongly constructed ends etc. If I have to replace cables at my place I have to venture under the floorspace. Its a lousy job, so I want cables that will last and that are built will quality control looking on. I don't want to be sitting on my butt listening to music and have thoughts of the plastic rotting off my cables coming into my head. I hope that by spending more I will have the above considerations covered.

But then my brain does goes into one of its unusual little modes. I would give the cable guys say a 1 in a 1000 chance of being right and hearing something the null tests don't indicate. That's pretty much the same as saying they are wrong. Yet as I have mentioned above, I usually spend around 3 times what I need to. Part of that is to hopefully secure good quality. But you don't have to spend that much more to achieve that. So what is going on here? Why do I admit I think its rubbish but then not back up my belief in my choice of purchase?

I think what has happened here I am being influenced by cable guys in ways I cannot prevent. If I had backed myself and bought what I almost certainly know will do the job, I may still have had lingering doubts - caused simply by their numbers, advertising and the general momentum of the "movement." So what my brain has done is to perhaps recognize I cannot overcome these forces and it has performed a "trick" of sorts to help me cope with the dissonance. In reality I have joined the opposition to a degree by buying irrationally.

Sorry, etiology can get a bit dull.

"At this point I am not suggesting trying to find out how and why the audible differences happen, but simply see if there are any audible differences. I would appreciate your views on why a series of ABX tests on hi-res files recorded from the output of the DAC on a decent system, but using different USB cables, wouldn't show if there are audible differences or not. "

Just a reminder that Mark Powell took that a step further when he tried batteries instead of USB power.

Perhaps a good choice of cables would be a normal generic type, and an upmarket cable where the power and data are in separate cables until the sockets ?

Paul is simply suggesting a method that should ensure that everybody receives an identical copy of the comparison material.Even if you refuse to accept any reasons for differences, surely that method should be acceptable ?

The only issue with the USB stick approach is that it severely limits the number of participants, and increases the time it takes to conduct the test, just to accommodate a rather controversial position.

I know we have had this conversation many times over, but if two files compare bitwise identical, where can the audible differences be stored? In the fifth dimension? And as operating systems only copy the bits, wouldn't your audible differences disappear just copying the file from one disk to another?

"And as operating systems only copy the bits, wouldn't your audible differences disappear just copying the file from one disk to another? "

Not according to Martin Colloms or the authors of the TAS Report on .flac vs. .wav.

Despite what you may wish to believe, I am not the only C.A. member who hears similar to the TAS report either.

Is it so hard to compromise so that both Objective and Subjective camps sides are happy ?

A more in depth test may even involve an option where a SOtM USB device is used.

According to some, that shouldn't make a difference either !

Or would you prefer to see a quick result that is open to criticism because the Objective side has set the rules ?

"And as operating systems only copy the bits, wouldn't your audible differences disappear just copying the file from one disk to another? "

 

Not according to Martin Colloms or the authors of the TAS Report on .flac vs. .wav.

So where are you suggesting the audible differences hide in the file?

FLAC vs WAV is a different issue. What you are talking about is not a difference in file formats, but audible differences between two bit-identical files, based on their history. So kind of audiophile homeopathy, right?

Despite what you may wish to believe, I am not the only C.A. member who hears similar to the TAS report either.

No, I most definitely believe you are not the only one.

Or would you prefer to see a quick result that is open to criticism because the Objective side has set the rules ?

So if we used USB sticks, would you consider the test a valid one?

"OK, so your objection to the test is that downloading the files will change their sound, while transferring them on an USB stick won't? "

As per what Cookie Marenco has found , the files on the USB memory stick would be best saved to it as Uncompressed Zips.

Yes, there is still a smalll degradation, but not as bad as going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters.

Sandy, can we stick around this point for a while so I am sure of what is being talked about. I don't have the tech knowledge here, so need it slowed down. When you say you down want it downloaded, it that because you are saying bits can get lost? Or are you saying something else may get lost (something the EE's haven't the tools to measure yet?)

Julf

I am not getting into the other area again. Believe what you want.

On the subject of older people still being able to hear these things that I refer to, perhaps the attached link may be of interest ? Israel is a >80 year old ex U.S. A Professor of Music. He details differences he hears with a recabled headphone using Cardas cable. According to presently accepted hearing dogma, and according to you guys, what he reports should be impossible, shouldn't it ?

Rock Grotto Audio Forum - For Headphones - Headphone Amps - Amplifiers - X-Can V2 - Musical Fidelity - headphone Discussion - Amplifier Discussion - DIY - Amplifier Kits - Projects - SCHA - Sennheiser - Beyer - Grado - Audio Technica - Headphone amp ( reply 118)

I believe that the use of the USB stick as Paul has suggested, has the best chance of obtaining meaninful results provided that the equipment used to generate these differences is suiutable.

Prufrock

I suggest that you use the Search facility, as if I go there again, Chris may have my scrotum for a " Beanie"!!!

If you are genuinely interested, there is a brief write up at the attached link. There is also a brief discussion about the use of cat6 vs, cat 5e cables and other items such as Linear PSU vs. SMPS for the Naim Unitiserve..

Audio Networking: A potpourri of computer network audio findings, including updates on the Naim UnitiServe, gigabit switches, CAT 5/6 cable and ripping issues. Review By Martin Colloms

I am not getting into the other area again.

Ah, so hinting at things is OK, but actually discussing them isn't?

On the subject of older people still being able to hear these things

A subject that has nothing to do with this thread.

Israel is a >80 year old ex U.S. A Professor of Music. He details differences he hears with a recabled headphone using Cardas cable. According to presently accepted hearing dogma, and according to you guys, what he reports should be impossible, shouldn't it ?

Uh, why? And what does this have to do with anything?

I believe that the use of the USB stick as Paul has suggested, has the best chance of obtaining meaninful results provided that the equipment used to generate these differences is suiutable.

OK! Thanks!

I suggest that you use the Search facility, as if I go there again, Chris may have my scrotum for a " Beanie"!!!

I assume he has good reasons for that...

"Israel is a >80 year old ex U.S. A Professor of Music. He details differences he hears with a recabled headphone using Cardas cable.

According to presently accepted hearing dogma, and according to you guys, what he reports should be impossible, shouldn't it ?

Uh, why? And what does this have to do with anything?"

I believe that this report about differences between headphone cables fits in with the title of this thread.

"The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology"

Not only is he reporting things that present hearing dogma would suggest is impossible due to sharp hearing decline with age, but he reports hearing differences between 6' long headphone cables that Dennis and others seem to believe is not possible on technical grounds.

Not only is he reporting things that present hearing dogma would suggest is impossible due to sharp hearing decline with age

I don't think there is any "dogma" that states that hearing high frequencies is impossible at an advanced age. I think the generally accepted fact is that on the average, most people do seem to have some high frequency hearing loss in their later years.

but he reports hearing differences between 6' long headphone cables that Dennis and others seem to believe is not possible on technical grounds.

So you consider one person reporting subjectively hearing a difference objective proof that there are real, audible differences?

When you say you down want it downloaded, it that because you are saying bits can get lost? Or are you saying something else may get lost (something the EE's haven't the tools to measure yet?)

As sandyk seems unable to address direct, factual questions because Chris supposedly won't allow the discussion (while seemingly being OK at *hinting* at the things),. let me state what I have understood sandyk's position to be - hopefully he will correct me if I get it wrong.

Basically he is saying that there is some audible difference, stemming from the past history of the data, that bit-wise file comparison programs can't detect (so clearly it isn't bits getting lost, but the content being somehow different despite every bit being the same).

This audible difference is supposedly caused by downloading/copying files over the Internet. Packing the files in a zip file supposedly helps protect the files against this corruption.

On the other hand, sandyk has also claimed to have files that, while being bitwise identical, sound different, because the content, a bit-perfect rip of a CD, was in one case ripped using a standard power supply and in the other case using a custom power supply - this despite both files comparing the same using bit-for-bit comparison programs. This was "independently verified" by having other people listen to the files after the files had been either downloaded or emailed to them, so clearly the transfer over the net didn't obliterate the differences.

"So you consider one person reporting subjectively hearing a difference objective proof that there are real, audible differences? "

No, I am simply pointing out that there are other highly trained people that can hear these things, and that people like yourself shouldn't be so dismissive of these reports based on present technical knowledge.

Now some of you you even want a thread of your own where the Objective side can discuss these things free of annoying replies from the other side.

You can just about bet your left one, that if the subjective side tried to do the same ,it would be met with howls of protests and extremely sarcastic replies, as is almost always the case where there are any kinds of subjective reports,no matter what the subject, and the thread would end up getting locked by Admin. This is a regular occurrence on MANY different forums.