10 Biggest Lies in Audio

[doors666]

I agree doors !

But lets go back to a very direct point which we discussed earlier.

In the test which I described, if the listener is able identify the cables correctly each time and every time, how can it be a trick ?

Can you please elaborate ?

I am still sitting on the fence. At the least One of the three conditions have to be met for me to believe.

1. i can hear a difference
2. someone can prove they can hear a difference. Yes, your test qualifies.
3. science can explain it conclusively.

 

[itsnotmeatall]

All this theoretical back and forth will lead nowhere and achieve nothing (except raise some administrative hackles). Why don't some senior members get together at a neutral venue with a neutral setup, and do a double blind test to see if anyone can or cannot identify cables and equipment by "quality"?

It would be helpful to those of us who cannot make head or tail of all this technical jargon.

Audio Myths Workshop - YouTube

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

The sky is ablaze. But you need measurements to acknowledge that the sun exists sorry couldn't resist

Nobody is disputing the sun.

Much more to the point, nobody is selling us the sun.

 

[square_wave]

@doors666,

Do this experiment; the first two points will most certainly be met.

Science is a constantly evolving thing. Observation and curiosity is the first step towards scientific inquiry.

Lets not burn people on stakes because of the limitations of present day science. Perhaps it is already explained. I dont care as long I can experience it myself.

 

[square_wave]

Nobody is disputing the sun.

Much more to the point, nobody is selling us the sun.

Point taken.

Nobody is disputing the darkness.

None is selling darkness too

 

[doors666]

@doors666,

Do this experiment; the first two points will most certainly be met.

Science is a constantly evolving thing. Observation and curiosity is the first step towards scientific inquiry.

Lets not burn people on stakes because of the limitations of present day science. Perhaps it is already explained. I dont care as long I can experience it myself.

The problem is till I am convinced, dont want to spend money on cables. And I guess till I send money on cables, I wont get convinced. Classical chicken and egg or deadlock problem. I got belden rg59 cable and neutrik connectors and made a cable. Cant differentiate from mx. Also got rg6, but thats 7mm and the connectors dont support beyond 6mm. Need to get canare connectors or something like that to try it.

People who got burnt on stake were the ones who believed in science, not the other way around.

I agree. If I experience it myself, but science cant explain it, that only means that their theories need re-evaluation. Science always tries to come up with theories to explain observations, they also do it the other way around though:lol:

 

[arj]

The problem is till I am convinced, dont want to spend money on cables. And I guess till I send money on cables, I wont get convinced. Classical chicken and egg or deadlock problem. I got belden rg59 cable and neutrik connectors and made a cable. Cant differentiate from mx. Also got rg6, but thats 7mm and the connectors dont support beyond 6mm. Need to get canare connectors or something like that to try it.

People who got burnt on stake were the ones who believed in science, not the other way around.

I agree. If I experience it myself, but science cant explain it, that only means that their theories need re-evaluation. Science always tries to come up with theories to explain observations, they also do it the other way around though:lol:

Either You can listen to the difference or you can wait for science to explain it..nothing wrong in either .
Spending money on cables blind is really a waste..better is if you can ,with an open mind hear it at anyone else's place or even borrow from someone and try it on your own.

A theoretical discussion on this will just remain theoretical..proof here is in the pudding !


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[matbhuvi]

@Asit...it is really fascinating to read your posts. Thank you very much for sharing..

I have some questions..I read this in another forum..i hope it is ok to share this..

A Nordost Valhalla will sound different from a stock cable. Why? Because it distorts more! Independent measurements have shown that the Valhalla has really, really, really high inductance. (Nordost is one of the few companies to submit there cables to DBT testing... I wonder why) The inductance will help filter out any RFI or EMI signals out of the audio stream, but if high enough could roll off some highs, making the system less bright. High capacitance will also roll off highs, but raising the inductance is safer.

An further analysis, i find these details about Valhalla

Valhalla interconnect: $3300/m pair with RCAs

- 99.999999% OFC copper, plated with a 78m-thick silver coating, and polished prior to wrapping and encapsulation.
- capacitance - 22pF/ft, inductance - 0.055H/ft.

Thanks to Digital Vampire, who explained the cut off frequency..which is 1/(2Pi * sqrt(L.C))

Taking that into account, the cable's cut off frequency is around 15k. Does this relate to what you said as each cable will sound differently? Is it better to choose a cable with a cut off frequency of 20K ?(I doubt i can hear anything above 16k now ).

 

[longshanks]

^The Valhalla series by nordost is probably the best cable i've heard in a system till date, i think it is the second in the nordost range next to odin.

I know there are a lot of people who don't like nordost cable but my experience has been quite the opposite.

 

[musicbee]

3. science can explain it conclusively.

I'm from a medical background and I tell you conclusively that science cannot explain many things and yet they are true. I have many times seen the placebo effect... people get healed by faith or even simply positive thoughts.

Many its a placebo effect here... people paying $2000 for cable believe in it so much that their music sounds better (though the $2000 cable may not be better) and then people not believing in a $2000 cable may not hear a difference (even though the $2000 cable may indeed be better and also produce better sound).

Relying on science is good but not to the exclusion of faith. Perhaps it is faith in a particular brand that makes audiophiles (or fanboys) hear better music.

 

[matbhuvi]

^The Valhalla series by nordost is probably the best cable i've heard in a system till date, i think it is the second in the nordost range next to odin.

I know there are a lot of people who don't like nordost cable but my experience has been quite the opposite.

Did you felt a high frequency rolloff when listening to Valhalla. Did the system sounded sweeter? I have HM-601 PMP which starts roll off at 10K -12K...I know that's inaccurate. But, i like the tonality and it is my favt PMP (I have Zune, iPhone, Clip+). In general audiophile world, roll off is strictly hated. I wonder these costly cables which distorts more (in a sweeter way) are accepted by audiophiles.

 

[square_wave]

Just as an aside:

Many of us do not use cables which are costly. I use some wire which is used in some studios. A Japanese OEM. I like this better than many which are more costly.

 

[matbhuvi]

Just as an aside:

Many of us do not use cables which are costly. I use some wire which is used in some studios. A Japanese OEM. I like this better than many which are more costly.

Perfectly agree...What i understood from this thread is, different cables will sound differently. If that is the case, how i can choose the cable that suits to my taste and budget..in the same way like speakers. I am using a Profx cable given to me free. What i am loosing here? I know what i loose when i choose a Polk RTi speaker over Norge or KEF..but how about the cables?

 

[mbhangui]

- 99.999999% OFC copper, plated with a 78m-thick silver coating, and polished prior to wrapping and encapsulation.
- capacitance - 22pF/ft, inductance - 0.055H/ft.

Thanks to Digital Vampire, who explained the cut off frequency..which is 1/(2Pi * sqrt(L.C))

Taking that into account, the cable's cut off frequency is around 15k. Does this relate to what you said as each cable will sound differently? Is it better to choose a cable with a cut off frequency of 20K ?(I doubt i can hear anything above 16k now ).

This is the best and the only rational explanation I have heard till now on the issue of quality of cables having some kind of effect on the SQ.

So to get a higher cut off frequency, one will have to decrease L or C or both. The length of the cable can also be decreased to decrease both L and C.

1) To decrease the capacitance, one can increase the distance between the two wires in a pair. This can be made by having a thicker insulator. Also shorter cable will result in lesser capacitance. But since capacitance is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two conductors, the thickness of the insulator (dielectric) will play a bigger role.
2) To decrease L, should use as short a cable from the output of one device to the input of the other device without using any bends.

Shouldn't cable manufacturers then publish some kind of cut-off frequency for every meter length of their cable? I guess, more the length of the cable, lesser will be the cut-off frequency and at a point the cut-off frequency can well fall within the hearing range of audiophile class homo sapiens.

Idea for a patent by mbhangui: For a particular cable and a specific length, capacitance and inductance value, the cable manufacturer can claim that their cables can have a cut-off frequency enough to drive out mosquitoes and charge a further premium on that hyeah:

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

All this theoretical back and forth will lead nowhere and achieve nothing (except raise some administrative hackles). Why don't some senior members get together at a neutral venue with a neutral setup, and do a double blind test to see if anyone can or cannot identify cables and equipment by "quality"?

It would be helpful to those of us who cannot make head or tail of all this technical jargon.

<<Ethan Winer: Audio Myths Workshop Video>>

You posted my favourite audio mythbuster!

Blind, let alone double-blind, tests are not so easy to set up or conduct. You need to connect all-identical components so that they can be switched instantly, and volume levels must be set to exactly equalise SPLs at the listening positions. To do this for cables, you might need to make the switching equipment (switches for changing speaker and amp configurations are available. Are they for cables?). You need an entire crew to set all this up, who should be audio engineers. Then you need another crew (who do not know what they are switching) to operate the A-B switching, and then your listeners. "Guys, get a cup of tea while we switch these cables over," is not good enough

I believe that it is quite reasonable to expect this of an established audio publication, even perhaps some of the online ones, but that it is not an amateur undertaking. They won't: it is not in their interest to change the culture.

Your group of "senior" (or other) members is ...here! And telling you. The trouble is that all answers are here: of course they do not all agree.

Science is a constantly evolving thing. Observation and curiosity is the first step towards scientific inquiry...

immediate problem! Don't you think it would have been a good idea to do the research before the mass marketing?

Lets not burn people on stakes because of the limitations of present day science. Perhaps it is already explained. I dont care as long I can experience it myself.

Is not that it is deficient in its use? Because neither blind testing nor non-subjective measurement of results is commonly done, or even asked for.

What is happening here is more like burning people at the stake for wanting the science to be done. There is nothing to be lost! Anyway, we don't even have to believe scientists

I am happy that you are happy with your cable, that you may have picked a cable by comparison with other, and that your personal research is ongoing. At least, as far as analogue cable is concerned, I do not have a problem with people hearing the difference and picking the one they like. Might even do it myself if I was buying, Why not?

What I have a problem with, is the whole marketing angle, and especially the vast numbers of people who are sold cables (named after large animals, maybe) because they are told they need them, without any objective basis whatsoever.

The problem is till I am convinced, dont want to spend money on cables. And I guess till I send money on cables, I wont get convinced.

I'm almost with you. I'm inclined to believe (and to accept the word of listeners here) that they do, but I'd put a price cap on that, and I'd apply my own feelings about likelyhood and reasonability to things like fancy wood attachments. However, if the culture had devoloped differently, and some of standard measurements and blind test had been the rule, rather than the exception, then people like you and I, not to mention the untold millions to whom hifi is just a piece of furniture to play music, would have a much better starting place. Just like I have a problem with PC audio people who ask, "What DAC do I need?" when they haven't even listened to the output of the sound card: this is not informed audio buying, it is swallowing marketing. And there are times when the whole community seems to join in with that marketing --- which must be enormously gratifying to the manufacturers!

People who got burnt on stake were the ones who believed in science, not the other way around.

Depends which bit of history you look at. People who get burned at the stake are those who are not acceptible to the establishment at the time. In Galileo's day, it was scientists, in middle-ages Europe it was not-scientists.

 

[Hiten]

Is it better to choose a cable with a cut off frequency of 20K ?(I doubt i can hear anything above 16k now ).

matbhuvi - Interconnects should feed all the frequencies to speakers regardless of one can hear it or not. What you are mentioning can be helpful in playing around with different interconnects as all interconnects of various length, material and insulation have different sound signature. There is very much truth in it.

offtopic : Fortunately my rusty tin ears can not differentiate such minor perceivable difference of various (0.055) inductances.
Also would like to add offtopic - please don't bother about oxygen free copper. Almost all amp PCB circuits in which audio signals travel don't have oxygen free copper. As you venture further in to 'high fidelity' please don't bother about power cords (except high resolution digital systems) as most of the amps have fuse protection of quiet humble material (mostly alloys). One more thing I would like to add dont worry about vibration+resonance in capacitors of SS amps as honest companies put good solid heavy casing for their amps. (But if you must you can look for honeycomb chassis and stuff like that). But trust me there are more significant factors which are easily perceivable than these. For instance room, power, source etc. And knowing about them is fun too.

Sorry one more thing would like to add dont go for blind test reviews as there is no conclusive evidence from either believers or non believers on any debatable claims since decades. And it is very difficult to put both of the species in a room together for long.
Funny this hobby. Isn't it ? But let that not stop you from listening to good music.

Regards and peace to all.

 

[square_wave]

Blind, let alone double-blind, tests are not so easy to set up or conduct. You need to connect all-identical components so that they can be switched instantly, and volume levels must be set to exactly equalise SPLs at the listening positions. To do this for cables, you might need to make the switching equipment (switches for changing speaker and amp configurations are available. Are they for cables?). You need an entire crew to set all this up, who should be audio engineers. Then you need another crew (who do not know what they are switching) to operate the A-B switching, and then your listeners. "Guys, get a cup of tea while we switch these cables over," is not good enough

Thank you Thad for the details about blind testing. I have read a lot about this. The pros and cons has been debated on many forums by many prominent folks for decades.

Can you please let me know the technical problems with the testing method I suggested ? Try and be specific with the points. It will make the discussion meaningful

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Do you mean the methodology described in post #52? Or have I missed something. I have seen you say, several times, about 10/10 success rate in identifying cables: I if I missed the original description of that test, though? Please refresh my memory.

Any such test would be impressive. I'm impressed with the results of the experience that Asit describes a few posts back. The key fact in his description is that he did not know what he was listening to at any given time, and yet his analysis was consistent.

There are degrees, obviously. If you tell me that cable A would be better than cable B, for my purposes, and they are affordable and similarly priced, then why should I not accept a friendly recommendation, without cross-examining you as to your test methods? Unless I personally hear otherwise, I'll go for it.

However, impressed as I might start out, if you tell me that you could consistently got the same results without knowing which cable you were listening to (7/10 will do me!) I'll be even more impressed.

Among a community of friends, this is mostly the best we can do: fairly and openly exchange and share our experiences. As in any other subject in life, we may be right about some things, wrong about others, and mistaken about yet others, but that is life, and I am not going to employ a scientist to find out if there is the right amount of sugar in my tea.

However, I feel that the industry, which includes those supposedly independent publications, owes their buyers something better than subjectivity.

It is not just a matter of proving that there is a difference, either. We can know, for a fact, that a 96K digitisation is different to a 192K digitisation. We can see the wave form, we can see the spectroscope. You might be able to tell the difference, and if you tell me you can, I will not hesitate to believe you. I can't --- or at least, in my one or two tests on imperfect equipment, I have failed to do so. Not really sure that I can really appreciate 96, but hey, all it costs me is disk space, and I may, one day, be playing the stuff to someone who can.

... blind testing. I have read a lot about this. The pros and cons has been debated on many forums by many prominent folks for decades.

Vested interests. I'm afraid they fear the truth. We have nothing to loose if we can introduce non-subjective testing into our experiences: their jobs might be at stake. If not jobs, then egos.

 

[square_wave]

Do you mean the methodology described in post #52? Or have I missed something. I have seen you say, several times, about 10/10 success rate in identifying cables: I if I missed the original description of that test, though? Please refresh my memory.

Any such test would be impressive. I'm impressed with the results of the experience that Asit describes a few posts back. The key fact in his description is that he did not know what he was listening to at any given time, and yet his analysis was consistent.

There are degrees, obviously. If you tell me that cable A would be better than cable B, for my purposes, and they are affordable and similarly priced, then why should I not accept a friendly recommendation, without cross-examining you as to your test methods? Unless I personally hear otherwise, I'll go for it.

However, impressed as I might start out, if you tell me that you could consistently got the same results without knowing which cable you were listening to (7/10 will do me!) I'll be even more impressed.

Among a community of friends, this is mostly the best we can do: fairly and openly exchange and share our experiences. As in any other subject in life, we may be right about some things, wrong about others, and mistaken about yet others, but that is life, and I am not going to employ a scientist to find out if there is the right amount of sugar in my tea.

However, I feel that the industry, which includes those supposedly independent publications, owes their buyers something better than subjectivity.

It is not just a matter of proving that there is a difference, either. We can know, for a fact, that a 96K digitisation is different to a 192K digitisation. We can see the wave form, we can see the spectroscope. You might be able to tell the difference, and if you tell me you can, I will not hesitate to believe you. I can't --- or at least, in my one or two tests on imperfect equipment, I have failed to do so. Not really sure that I can really appreciate 96, but hey, all it costs me is disk space, and I may, one day, be playing the stuff to someone who can.
Vested interests. I'm afraid they fear the truth. We have nothing to loose if we can introduce non-subjective testing into our experiences: their jobs might be at stake. If not jobs, then egos.

Hey Thad,

Like your candid post.

The test is described in post #55.

Yes...identifying cables without knowing which is in use is the only fool proof method in a testing scenario. Some problems which I have noticed with some popular tests are as below:

1.The usage of a switch system for switching cables. This pretty much negates the whole purpose. The quality of the switch is one problem. The switch system pretty much extends its personality to both the wires being tested equally making the testing skewed in favour of the naysayers.

2.Using large number of random listeners. Many will have no clue.

3.Playing short burst of unfamiliar music samples. This is a big problem.

4.Using a random music system which one is not intimately familiar with.

From a theoretical point of view, many of the above points can be debated by folks from the testing fraternity. But this is one of the reasons why audiophiles stay away from blind testing. The testing system does not reflect their ground realities.

 

[doors666]

Hey Thad,

Like your candid post.

The test is described in post #55.

Yes...identifying cables without knowing which is in use is the only fool proof method in a testing scenario. Some problems which I have noticed with some popular tests are as below:

1.The usage of a switch system for switching cables. This pretty much negates the whole purpose. The quality of the switch is one problem. The switch system pretty much extends its personality to both the wires being tested equally making the testing skewed in favour of the naysayers.

2.Using large number of random listeners. Many will have no clue.

3.Playing short burst of unfamiliar music samples. This is a big problem.

4.Using a random music system which one is not intimately familiar with.

From a theoretical point of view, many of the above points can be debated by folks from the testing fraternity. But this is one of the reasons why audiophiles stay away from blind testing. The testing system does not reflect their ground realities.

I agree. The testing should be done on a familiar system with familiar music. One way to gain some familiarity would be to listen to a few favorite songs repeatedly for about an hour.

Switches are a waste, cables should be changed manually. And I dont care about blind or not. if i hear a difference, I hear a difference. I wont be biased, specially if its with borrowed cables.:lol:

Large random lot of people might be for surveys. during the test, i only care about what I am listening to.