cleeds
One thing that strikes me odd about those who seek measurements of things such as cables is that they don’t seem to be interested in conducting valid, scientific, double-blind listening tests. The protocols for conducting such tests are pretty well established, whereas the methods needed to properly measure cables seem to be a topic of some debate. In that way, the listening test seems to be a more practical next step in this study.
>>>>As I’ve oft preached, the problem with any cable tests - including double-blind tests - is that they are unreliable for many reasons. These reasons include but are not limited to failure to sufficiently break in cables under test to help assure a clear difference, failure to wait a suffient period of time once cables under test are attached to the system, failure to ensure the test system is in correct absolute Polarity AND that test recordings are in correct Polarity, failure to find and correct errors in the test system and lack of listening ability or skill on the part of the testee. The words “scientific” and “valid” are completely open to interpretation.
|
cleeds
One thing that strikes me odd about those who seek measurements of things such as cables is that they don’t seem to be interested in conducting valid, scientific, double-blind listening tests. The protocols for conducting such tests are pretty well established, whereas the methods needed to properly measure cables seem to be a topic of some debate. In that way, the listening test seems to be a more practical next step in this study.
I would run some tests, but am not willing to spend the money on the cables that I do not believe would make a noticeable difference. |
erik_squires... this all assumes cables make a difference ... I think many of us agree with you that they do: To be clear: I am on the "cables make a small difference" camp. Whether a difference is really "small" or not is subjective, as whether a difference is worth its cost is also subjective. OK, we couldn’t measure this conclusively in 1970s. Is that true? So.... can we now? I’m waiting for those who are interested to try, and then report back with what they’ve found. One thing that strikes me odd about those who seek measurements of things such as cables is that they don’t seem to be interested in conducting valid, scientific, double-blind listening tests. The protocols for conducting such tests are pretty well established, whereas the methods needed to properly measure cables seem to be a topic of some debate. In that way, the listening test seems to be a more practical next step in this study. I’m among those who think the results of listening tests are often inconclusive or ambiguous. Still, they can be a good place to start. |
To clarify, this all assumes cables make a difference. OK, we couldn't measure this conclusively in 1970s. So.... can we now?
|
Yes Ethan. I am very familiar with your musings. I have read them in the Internets many times. Good copy / paste job! |
How I measure cables is to lay them flat on the floor as straight as possible.Using a tape measure, I align the zero point at one end, extend the tape measure until it just passes the other end and note the number aligned with that end.It works every time.I have noted that most of my cables seem to measure 1.5 metres except for the USB cable between the server and DAC which is only 80cm.
|
thyname,
Another pointless discussion from the people who yell "PROVE IT TO ME" all over the Internets, with no desire whatsoever to try for themselves.
You can make it pointless by attacking strawmen. Or, we could have a possibly interesting conversation. Your choice. No one is pounding tables shouting "PROVE IT." Strictly speaking, nothing is absolutely proved; we just have more and better evidence supporting one hypothesis or another. Simply pointing out the inconsistencies and problems in certain claims is hardly a dogmatic stance; it’s just good old critical thinking of the type you’d use to buy a car (hopefully!).
Of course said people would dismiss anybody sharing their experience of ownership and usage as placebo, psychoacoustics, and such,
Nope. You could really be hearing differences in your cables. But, since it’s also very easy to be in error from our subjective impressions, it’s fair to ask "how did you reliably determine the difference was objectively audible, vs your subjective impression." This is asked routinely in virtually all areas in which science studies human experience, including in scientific understanding of audio. But for some reason, audiophiles think they are immune. And one is cast as some Terrible Dogmatist simply by pointing out the facts that none of us are immune to such errors. Is it really THAT hard to accept?
And yet, if you searched a bit, you will find plenty of info from cable manufacturers showing the rationale behind their product.
That’s fine...but every manufacturer of anything you can buy - from electronics, to beauty products, to purveyors of alternative medicine - will give you their "rationale" behind their products. Does that mean you just accept the rationale? Or should we apply some critical thinking to the claims? You don’t necessarily have to be an expert yourself to notice when it doesn’t make sense to simply jump on some manufacturer’s rationale as The Truth. For instance, from your link: Roger Skoff - who sold and manufactured expensive audiophile cables keep in mind! - wrote: The one thing, though, that seems to be most consistently (and insistently) under attack is cables. Very true. Now it makes sense to ask: WHY is that? It’s because many people with relevant knowledge and credentials dispute the claims made for audiophile cables. That’s significant. In medicine, you don’t see professionals "attacking" the germ theory of disease. But, tellingly, you certainly see a lot of them "attacking" things like anti-vaccine claims. It should tell you something: if the claims are controversial among people who know about a field...it is wise not to simply jump in and presume someone’s disputed claim is sound. Roger Skoff continued:
Among the doubters have been the AES (Audio Engineering Society), EEs (Electrical Engineers), and even a goodly number of High End equipment designers and manufacturers (not to be named here to preserve our friendship), all of which or whom believe (as they were educated to do) that the only factors determining cable performance are resistance (R), capacitance (C), inductance (L), and characteristic impedance (Z0), and that any audible difference in cables can only be the result of one of those or of physical damage, poor connection, or poor construction.
So...look who the "doubters" are. The AES is a collection of trained audio professionals dating to 1948 and currently comprising 12,000 members around the world. Work published in AES journals are peer-reviewed. You don’t get to just make up anything that sounds plausible TO YOU and it gets a pass: it will be critically dissected by other professionals with knowledge and experience in what you are talking about. In contrast, who is Roger Skoff? A bio states: Roger Skoff is an economist and entrepreneur, http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/reviewers/skoff.htmSo, he’s not accredited in electronics. Basically, he’s lived an audiophile life and turned it into a writing profession and at one point a business selling expensive cables. Now, one doesn’t have to be an accredited EE oneself to simply apply critical thinking here. If on one side we have claims by an "entrepreneur" without training in electronics, and on the other hand we have the largest, most prestigious and rigorous engineering society in the world whose members would generally be skeptical about his claims....which one does it make sense to give more credence? The answer is obvious. But the audiophile who has a "personal experience" of a high end cable sounding "so much better" will go with that experience - never mind any possible error - and side with whatever mavericks or cable sellers can produce as explanations to sell their cables. And, so it goes.... |
My experience is that in addition to your ears you also need a tape measure. They don’t work at all if you can’t connect at both ends. |
Speaker cables and interconnects are harder, but I have a suggestion:
rather than try to measure the cable itself, measure its effects on your
system.
I think both can be measured the same way, and speaker terminals are the least room dependent. :) That's my idea though. We can do both steady state measurements of power cords, as well as measure the playback of an entire musical track. This actually gets us to the gathering data portion of the work. After this, we need to go hunting for clues about differences. That's a lot of data to sort through, but with some programming skill, straightforward to automate. You want to know what effect a power cable ultimately has on your system? Sure. Change cords, and see how the speaker outputs change, if at all. Same for power conditioners, etc. It would probably be useful to develop a suite of analysis steps to compare phase, amplitude, frequency and total output routinely. It could be very instructive, and lead to completely new ways of evaluating gear. |
Another pointless discussion from the people who yell "PROVE IT TO ME" all over the Internets, with no desire whatsoever to try for themselves. Of course said people would dismiss anybody sharing their experience of ownership and usage as placebo, psychoacoustics, and such, but nothing replaces EXPERIENCE, even some measurements made with a questionable tool (i.e. Null Taster of the famous Ethan Winer). And yet, if you searched a bit, you will find plenty of info from cable manufacturers showing the rationale behind their product. Example: https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/rcl-part-1/https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/rcl-part-2-roger-skoff-cables/ |
Power cables oddly are probably the easiest to measure, since you can do a lot of it with a regular DVM.
Speaker cables and interconnects are harder, but I have a suggestion: rather than try to measure the cable itself, measure its effects on your system.
Place a microphone at the listening position and do a 20-20KHz sweep. Record the actual frequency response and distortion across the band. Then make the cable change and do the test again. A customer of mine did this for filter capacitor changes and was able to show that an improved filter capacitor resulted in lower distortion in his listening room. Some cables **seem** like they help certain systems play bass better; if that is really true you should be able to measure the results.
A lot of software is available that might allow you to do most of this using your laptop in the listening position.
|
You know, what I suggest is you try shielded and unshielded power cables. Make some yourself, inexpensively. Find the Parts Connexion.
See if you find a difference.
I suggest using
|
And I'm thinking about power cables. Looking at the Fusion cables and Mr Love has his theories, which I find quite interesting. Now I've bought almost every piece of my system soley on recommendations and research from this site.
However, with cables it's such a leap of faith I have stuck with modestly priced cables throughout. I did find and Eqiu-Tech wall unit so balanced power comes through those dedicated lines to very good effect.
Ralph Karsten repeatedly extolls the benefit of balanced fully differential systems and the benefit to moderately priced cables.
But no one has commented as to whether Balanced Power negates the need for expensive power cords. I'm curious. |
Yep, demands. Fines are already being prepared and the Marshal of the Supreme Court of Audio is getting ready to deliver them along with grand jury summons.
Look at me, demanding ... absolutely nothing, but hey, fines.
|
prof
I have never made such a demand. And in his OP, neither did Erik, so that's a strawman. When ou cite a "burden of proof," you essentially make a demand, just as Erik does here:
erik_squires If you make claims about speaker cables, prove it.
|
cleeds,
I have never made such a demand. And in his OP, neither did Erik, so that's a strawman.
In his OP Erik simply gave the reasons for his own skepticism about some claims made for high end cables, and he encouraged THOSE WHO MAKE CABLES CLAIMING THEY DO SOMETHING (cool) to engage in the type of research that yields results that others can test.(Clearly...he's talking technical evidence, not just subjective vetting).
This is an entirely sensible suggestion (and not a "demand"). His suggestion for skepticism and common sense critical thinking in the face of cable claims is also entirely sensible and not some "demand."
|
erik_squiresMaybe what I should do is measure a bunch of cables with brand new metrics ... Yessss! Please do! Please share with us how you measured the cables and what the results were.
|
prof cleeds is as usual trying to shift the burden of proof. That’s silly. This is a hobbyist’s group. Users here are free to post their observations and no "burden of proof" exists at all. Those who desire such "proof," or who seek scientific tests, are free to conduct their own research. I’ve been part of such testing more than once - and the results have not always been predictable. So while I encourage the testing, and enjoy reading about valid scientific listening tests, I’d never demand that others conduct such tests, especially in a group such as this. |
Maybe what I should do is measure a bunch of cables with brand new metrics and charge cable makers not to publish my reviews. Isn't that how things work in the US??
E
|
Give me a break. That Nelson Pass article is 40 years old. Hel-loo!
And I'm sure he did the best he could think of with what he had, and this is my point. Here we are many years later, we should re-think our approach to cable measurements. |
Give me a break. That Nelson Pass article is 40 years old. Hel-loo! |
To be clear: I am on the "cables make a small difference" camp.
I'm also in the "If cables make a difference, we need measurements which help us understand them, compare them, and build them."
That last part is why I am suggesting that with the advent of cheap storage, cheap compute power, and cheap measurement we should push for a new cable enlightenment.
Best,
E
|
Thanks @gs5556
His thoughts in terms of how simple models can explain cables is aligned with my own.
Notice the date, 1998. Storage, and A/D conversion being cheap and good, I think it may be time for some one else to take this on again. Maybe PS Audio? :)
Best,
E
|
|
People are still arguing about cables?! Well, shut my mouth and call me corn pone.
|
erik,
Thank you for the rational, reasonable post
And, yes, as you rightly identify: cleeds is as usual trying to shift the burden of proof.
Of course, the skepticism many have about cables comes from actual knowledge of the theories and practical applications of electrical theory. That's why so many EE's disparage audiophile claims. They aren't doing it from their armchair: they often discuss in detail electrical theory and practice, to show why audiophile cables come with suspicious claims.
Consumers often don't have the requisite technical knowledge to vet the seductive technical boasts of cable manufacturers, so the best we can do is look to consensus of experts, and notice who is making the arguments based on bad logic or inherently suspicious grounds.As you point out: it's a suspicious feature of high end cable manufacturers that they invoke all sorts of physical, scientific phenomena in their claims, yet almost never give measurable, scientific data supporting that they have solved the purported problem. It goes straight to marketing instead.
But...again as you rightly point out...when a high end cable manufacturer makes claims about their cable, technical or otherwise, especially extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is NOT on the consumer's shoulders to disprove the claims; it's on the manufacturer to support the claim.
Shifting the burden of proof has always been the modus operandi of people defending bogus claims.
|
erik_squires If you make claims about speaker cables, prove it. Whatever claims I have made about speaker cables have been proven to my satisfaction. You are free to do the same. Or, good luck getting others to do your work for you.
I'm also saying that the reasons we can't is that we are hearing things to subtle to be measured. But you state in your OP that it would be "super easy" to do these tests. So which is it? Super easy? Or too subtle to measure? |
If you make claims about speaker cables, prove it. That's what I'm asking. I'm also saying that the reasons we can't is that we are hearing things to subtle to be measured.
I call BS.
|
erik_squires
... since it is their product, the onus is on them, not me, the consumer, to do their testing for them. No, you're asking others to do the tests you desire, but "don’t have the time or energy to do" yourself, even though you think those tests would be "super simple"
to conduct. Sorry, but no one has any burden to conduct testing to your satisfaction.
... You should be upset cable manufacturers and reviewers won't measure them
... We should be upset because you tell us to be upset? That's absurd. |
BTW, my point to this thread is that a lot of marketing and BS science is thrown out to justify very expensive cables. The claim is made that we can't measure cables based on basic, old school, steady state measurements.
OK, fine, but we are decades from the invention of the oscilloscope, frequency generator and volt meter. It's time to refresh our expectations of how we could in fact measure something which could be more complex.
Where are they?
No one should be upset that _I_ won't measure cables. You should be upset cable manufacturers and reviewers won't measure them or try to come up with a reasonable theory as to what is happening and how they work.
|
Here’s another example of someone arguing for objective testing of things such as cables, but refusing to do the work themselves - even though they insist it would be "super simple" to do it. After all, it’s just "basic research." Why do they reserve the chore for those who are already happy with the choices they’ve made?
Oddly, Erik titled this thread, "How I would measure cables." But he won’t. Simple for a manufacturer to do, and since it is their product, the onus is on them, not me, the consumer, to do their testing for them. Funny that amplifier, speaker, room acoustic and DAC makers have little problems measuring their products. Why should the consumer be responsible for proving their products work as advertised? PS audio even did credible testing and demonstrations for their power plants. Now, if some one wants to start a gofundme for this project, I’d be happy to, because then I’d be a professional doing this. It's simple. If you are selling free energy, you pay for the testing. Best, E |
erik_squires
There’s been a lot of talk about "science" and cables. To me it sounds a lot like free energy, and cold fusion scams. With few exceptions, they invoke a lot of physics, without ever tying it back down to actual results. Fancy words, and lots of them ... If any cable actually was worthwhile, it would be super simple to test the output ... I don’t have the time or energy to do this ... if you have cables you think do something cool, and worthwhile, I encourage you to undertake this type of basic research, maybe even define how testing should be done so others can follow and we can compare ... Here’s another example of someone arguing for objective testing of things such as cables, but refusing to do the work themselves - even though they insist it would be "super simple" to do it. After all, it’s just "basic research." Why do they reserve the chore for those who are already happy with the choices they’ve made? Oddly, Erik titled this thread, "How I would measure cables." But he won't. ... ask yourself repeatedly if what you are hearing really is worth the cost, or whether the same amount of money is better spent on a vacation. Money spent on a vacation is gone forever. Money spent on a cable can always be recovered - at least in part - on the used market. So there’s no comparing the value between the two. |
