A challenge to the "measurement" camp

, which measurement parameters are you inquiring?  

Just a 20hz to 20khz sweep from your speakers. Use two different speaker cables in the same system and room. I can tell from that which gives the flattest response which will be the best cable. What do I win? 

I so agree with those statements about the oscilliscope not judging. It’s like someone trying to compare one piece of music to another by the beats per measure, or the range of the notes within the measures. You’re ( the non believers) determining the tests by which I have to measure what I hear, and have become the sole judges of that? I don’t think so. On the other hand, if you chose not to use your ears to dictate your listening preferences, that is your choice and it won’t bother me in the least. 

I don't get the "bashing the synergy" from him.  Surely he listened to tubes before.  For example, most people use tube pre-amp, and solid state amp to take the advantage of synergy between them.

Or if for example you have a upfront speaker, then you can use tubes to mellow out the sound a bit.  It has nothing to do with tone control.

Every piece of equipment has a certain sound signature regardless of price range.  The end user can mix and match to get what he wants.

You can of course clearly point out his erroneous statements?  I found some I disagree with, but I am not calling him a clown, so surely you can point out clearly what statements he made that are erroneous w.r.t. this piece on cable "synergy"?

The guy in the video is a clown. I have watched a couple of his videos (mainly because posters have passed them along) and they are painful to watch. If he can't hear, then he needs to take up another line of work

You give some measurements and I decide which is best? Go ahead give me some measurements on two different cables and I'll pick the best.

OK, which measurement parameters are you inquiring?  

he major failings of the ASR camp are :

1 - The idea that an oscilloscope is a judge of my listening preferences.

2 - The idea that measuring first does not generate observation bias. In fact, it creates it.

3 - The idea that measurements mostly defined by the 1960s capture our hearing.


I also believe that cables are way over priced, and that good room acoustics are a better first investment than any cable, as well as that tone controls are good.

Best,

E

 i cannot say it better....Thanks....

Apparently there is no longer a need for listening sessions to select equipment. Just follow the yellow brick measurement road. Our hearing is so poor it seems, that I’m not sure why we even bother listening to music to begin with. We can’t be trusted to hear the differences between cables, or so they say. 

The 1995 test doesn't look like it's telling me anything. What's the relationship between these measurements and the sound that comes out of the speaker? Wouldn't it have been better to test that instead of between the terminals. Different metals and guage etc.. will measure different that's no revelation. 

For example, if I have a set of cable, and a set of measurement for each
individual cable, can you tell me which is the best cable based on measurement
alone? I will supply all the measurement you want.
After all, that is what you’re after right? Objective result and not subjective

You give some measurements and I decide which is best? Go ahead give me some measurements on two different cables and I'll pick the best. Not really an objective test,  it's not really a test at all but sure, what do I win? 

geoffkait23,281 posts07-06-2020 3:47pm1905 if memory isn’t shot. 😳

Ok Ok, I give in, WHO is SMARTEST of them all...Please let me know where to look.  I,I,I need to know...I need, someone, blubber, blubber, blubber, bo ho bo ho bo ho.....

No Manson quotes, and NO YOKO ONO........ Ok... NONE....

I believe almost all of it was written in 1995, except a follow up from 1996 about LRC measurements, and a very short more recent preface. I believe the only 2008 part is the first photo, and then a reference later that the photo was to prove EMI rejection of a cable ... that should have been pretty obvious.  There is a real disconnect between what was measured and the conclusions that were arrived at, and even the claim w.r.t  the inductance/capacitance accuracies (and knowing the meter and test processes) show a lack of understand of the underlying measurements.  Speaker cables are the low hanging fruit in audio w.r.t. correlating measurements to potential audio effects and even then it becomes difficult without making conclusions well supported by data.  Interconnects gets much harder.

1995 is the year of the report linked to by Teo_Audio

If one reads the entire article, the last of it, is done in 2008, IIRC. It is a combination of a few articles, as a bit of continuance, the last of it being from 2008...

I notice a lot of anti-cable youtube/websites tend to gravitate toward Belden cables.  Are they all being paid by Belden?

1995 is the year of the report linked to by Teo_Audio

1905 if memory isn’t shot. 😳

Not sure why what year is of relevance. We still believe e=mc2 and that was proposed when? 

It's all some people have. Actually if we follow this report (from 1995) it shows pretty much that resistance is important and perhaps inductance. That doesn't fit the voodoo narrative perhaps?

Wow, so when measurements fail to prove a point, the fall back is always name calling, because as we all know, that always ends the argument. Lol. 

phcollie -- I'm super-sensitive to the sound and feel of guitar picks.  Gimme a Fender Heavy and I'll be happy.  But I got to say that the genuine, made-a-long-long-time-ago, genuine Fender tortoise shell pick I got about 30 years ago is in a class by itself.

Well said, Mr. Schroeder.

You can’t kill kill. - Charles Manson 😃

Waste of life to argue with skeptics. Invite them to try, and if they are too jaded, so be it. Half the audiophile population has to have mediocre systems anyway, and they are the ones who lead the way to it. 

Stick to high school physics, goofball. You look ridiculous when you pretend. If you’re pretending to be dense you’re doing an excellent job. By the way your comebacks are very lame, just like the other pseudo scientist roberttcan. Gee, I wonder why....🤔

Wrong again, Mr. Smarty Pants 👖 Gravity is spacetime. There is a force associated with gravity I.e., F=ma as I already said. That’s why time can’t exist without mass. You’re still stuck back in the 1800s. 

roberttdid/roberttcan whoever - You have trouble getting quotes right and posting on the right thread, don’t you?

Gravity presents as a force, and if two objects are held apart, there is no acceleration, but there is still a force of attraction. What we don’t know is if gravity is truly an independent force as theorized or some manifestation of other forces.

geoffkait23,260 posts07-06-2020 2:46pmGravity is not a force, it’s an acceleration. Without mass there can be no crackers and wine.

You are probably right, but I keep having hope for you.

geoffkait23,260 posts07-06-2020 2:35pm
phcollie
I think it is a waste of time and effort explaining to someone that they are wrong.

.... and yet people have made antennas out of liquid metal almost exactly like the material claimed to be used in the Teo-Audio cables and guess what, those antenna have a characteristic inductance, why, because any time you have two conductors in proximity you will have inductance, period, end of story.

This article is from 1995 and is as wrong now as it was then it its conclusions and methodology.


I wouldn't say that the article "nailed" anything, except perhaps to illustrate what actual engineers have been saying all along, that LCR parameters are what matter, not all manner of made-up voodoo.

But let's talk about the bad engineering in the article. A sine-wave tone burst is "Not", big emphasis on "Not" only inclusive of that frequency. The waveform as presented has near infinite frequency harmonics, which is required to start and stop a waveform instantly.


Let's unwrap this statement, "The other wilder, more wavy response is the imperfect damping measured at the speaker end. The different responses directly show each of the cables' ability to aid the action of the amplifier's NFB". This makes the assumption, not correct, that high damping leads to best sound. Arguably, lower damping can lead to less distortion. But again, the point is taken, that LCR, particularly L, and not some made up specification, is what matters. What can't be stated unequivocally is that high or low is best, at least not for a single run, and not for any given speaker and speaker/amp combination ... or was it really L??   0.5mm twisted lamp cord will have less inductance than 1.0mm twisted lamp cord (normally) because you can keep the conductors closer together which leads to less inductance. Resistance is higher. So those 1KHz waveforms are not measuring the impact of L, they are measuring the impact of R .... and in many ways they are measuring things not at all about the cable, as the frequency of the oscillation is independent of the cable.

The 15Khz tone has oscillations at 100KHz approx, all amp/load induced as the same frequency as the cable and low and behold, the oscillations match ... NOT the L, but the R most closely (as I predicted above). The author may not have predicted it because he is not a good engineer.

Surprisingly at such a high frequency, some of the fat, low-resistance cables are damping best—if not in the order one would predict from their CSA:

At 125Hz, oh look at that, pure resistance based results.

Gravity is not a force, it’s an acceleration. Without mass there can be no crackers and wine.

phcollie
I think it is a waste of time and effort explaining to someone that they are wrong.

>>>>>People can be so stubborn. 😬

Without time there can be no mass.

Forces I don’t understand? Highly unlikely. All forces can be reduced to the very simple equation, F=ma 🤗 (mass x acceleration) ....it’s not that complicated, guys.

Without mass there can be no time. - Luke Perry

There was a great article from stereophile the other day, that finally nailed it to the wall.

Not that most understand the concepts being spoken about.

It comes down to the dynamic aspects of inductance, it seems.

Capacitance? capacitance turned out to be almost meaningless.

Read:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/what-difference-wire-makes

Read right to the end. Bring your molecular level understanding of inductance, capacitance, and resistance along for any comments... as otherwise.. 

~~~~~~~~~~~

There is literally...Teo Audio Liquid metal cables..and...everything else. The gulf is huge and all encompassing, in the complex electrical and complex physics sense. 

The Teo audio cables don’t have their inductance occurring like any other cable in the world. What, is the dynamics of the inductance of a charged gas? Think in that direction.

As a matter of fact, it is almost impossible to get an inductive response out of a Teo Audio Liquid Metal Cable.

Importantly, if you try to make an inductive coil out of liquid metal you get a giant... FAIL.

You get a wholly different beast. Ie, ’forces you don’t understand’.

An entire area of potentials in physics and possible technology that exactly ZERO people have thought enough about to explore and exploit. the math becomes impossibly complex (quantum and classical, combined, in living motion) and experimentation becomes the order of the day.

I think it is a waste of time and effort explaining to someone that they are wrong. I just smile at that video and move along.  People who are passionate about wrong opinions are usually driven by fear. That being said, I happen to like Belden and Ken Shindo favored the Belden 9497.  When I played Bass Clarinet, I could hear the difference between the reed I chose though I doubt their measuring devices would have that capability.

The major failings of the ASR camp are :

1 - The idea that an oscilloscope is a judge of my listening preferences.

2 - The idea that measuring first does not generate observation bias. In fact, it creates it.

3 - The idea that measurements mostly defined by the 1960s capture our hearing.


I also believe that cables are way over priced, and that good room acoustics are a better first investment than any cable, as well as that tone controls are good.

Best,

E

He wants to talk logically. But then the very next thing he does is commit logical fallacy upon logical fallacy, until within barely a minute he’s talking about "magic cables".

The fact of the matter, as you seem to already know, is many people are indeed able to not only hear differences between cables but evaluate and rank them. Different listeners prefer different cables just as different listeners prefer different amps, cartridges, or speakers. If the alcoholic wanted to talk logically he would talk about how stupid it is to have the big fancy speaker sitting behind him because all his same reasoning applies, and if all wire can be is a tone control then speakers are tone controls on steroids!

But instead he uses the speaker as a prop telling us to respect his "logic" because, speaker.

Seriously though, the "tone control" argument is a giveaway. Tells us that is all he is capable of evaluating. Listening is a skill. Like every skill it can be broken down into little bitty bits. Baseball breaks down into the skills of running, throwing, catching, hitting, etc. Listening breaks down into the skills of volume, frequency, dynamics, tone, harmonics, imaging, timbre, layering, grain, glare, etc.

Only a very partial list of skills but notice I’ve listed them in roughly their order of simplicity. Pretty much anyone can easily hear and tell which volume is louder, which frequency is higher, which thing is more or less dynamic than another, and what tone is open or boxy or bright or dull. These are the low hanging fruit. Pull any random person off the street and ask, they will pick these out no problem.

Harmonics, now its getting a bit harder but still most people can hear the difference between a sine wave and the more complex structure of the same note on a musical instrument. Timbre, the particular harmonic signature of every individual instrument, now its getting harder. A lot less people can hear the difference between a violin and a viola, tenor and alto sax, etc when playing the same note.

Already its getting hard and we’ve barely scratched the surface of listening skills. Grain is the quality of sound that can range from very coarse and etched, to extremely smooth and liquid. Grain changes as components burn in and warm up - but only for those who have developed the skill, the ability to hear and recognize grain.

I’m just getting going. There’s a whole bunch of these sonic character traits people that take forever to explain, and even longer to learn to reliably hear. But once one does develop the requisite skills then hearing these things is child’s play.

Okay now here’s the thing. People like the alcoholic with nothing to say about any of this, people who rely on the crutch of the pathetic "tone control" argument, are telling us more about themselves than anything to do with wire. What they are telling us is, "I can’t hear!" They are telling us they are lousy listeners.

Personally, I am inclined to believe them.