Cable Myths Continued

[Don Richard]

Proper use of measurements can help in setting a system up and as a troubleshooting aid if a person hears something wrong with their system.

I agree.

But have we been discussing troubleshooting in all these threads? No. Have I made any arguments about troubleshooting? No. So, I don't see that this advances any particular argument about the quality of sound vis a vis cables and wires.

Don, describe for me your "sound style." What are your goals when you listen to your stereo?

Re: Troubleshooting

It seems like many people desire to improve their systems, so they read the audio magazines hoping to find the solution to the particular issue that is bothering them. They are not going to find much information about solving problems in the selection of magazines on the newsstands today. What they will find is a lot of advertising for various audio products along with reviews of those audio products. A reviewer may write, "Cable XYZ removed the veil from the music and made it sound sparkling and lifelike" or something like that. So the poor listener buys the product in the hope that this will solve the problem he is hearing on his system. At this point 2 things will happen:

1) He hears no difference.

2) He hears a difference.

1) If he hears no difference he might take the cables back to the store where the salesman might say, "These cables require a break-in period of several weeks or months". So the listener goes home to "break in" his cables. Of course, there is no such thing as "cable break-in", but after a period of time the listener may think the cables have broken-in and delude himself into thinking he has achieved the improvement he was seeking. Or not.

2) If he actually hears a positive difference he is happy, thinking the new cables have solved the problem that he heard. Most of the time the improvement he heard was because the connections on his old cable had loosened and/or had some corrosion issues. The action of unplugging the old cable cleaned the jack combined with the new cable's clean connectors have solved the issue that was interfering with his enjoyment of the music. He could have saved some time and money by troubleshooting the problem then cleaning the connectors on his old cable. It is a good idea to periodically clean the connections on any sound system to prevent those sorts of issues from ever happening, but most non-technical types don't do this. They were never told to do so in the magazines because the magazines are mostly in the business of helping their advertisers sell their products.

As far as my "sound style", I listen to a variety of music from classical to country, gospel to rock. I expect my system to reproduce whatever I decide to play and to sound as close to what it sounded like when I heard the music live as possible.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Don Richard

[Mallette]

Ok. And what's the implication therefore on your "list of aspects?"

Please clarify. I don't recall listing any...

Dave

[Mallette]

fiddle factor - is it easy to tweak, easy to get music playing? does any component require too much effort to tweak or get music playing?

Ouch. I fail miserably here. Half the time, I can't recall precisely how to access a given source...or leave the preamp switched to "mono," or forget to take the DBX out of "bypass," or whatever...

Dave

[Mallette]

Nah. No need to go round the bush a dozen times. It doesn't matter

As you wish...it was an honest question.

Dave

[Ski Bum]

Are you referring to things like PWK's cardinal rules for speakers, Mark?

I'm not sure that I could specify a set of "aspects" that applies universally in the way you would accept. I question if such aspects you refer to are critical to system setup, which I view as a reductive affair. They seem to be more recording and production quality questions, artistic concerns.

I want my system to reveal the music in my collection in the same way yourself and Dave have described (i.e. fundamentally a subjectivist approach due to practical limitations and lack of standards when it comes to commercial recordings), but using objective methods as far as possible to get there, such as buying a copy of Toole's book and a calibrated mic, and learning to use REW, to cross referencing any potential purchases with the dynamic range database. Clean electronics is pretty durn easy compared to all that, and adequate speaker wire is simpler still.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Ski Bum

[Mallette]

A guy going into Chez Henri for French cuisine that will cost $80 an entre apparently doesn't know that he can get a BigMac for $3 down the street? Guys who buy Lambos $300,000 have no clue that a Nissan Sentra can be had for $14,000?

Talk about silly... The purpose of this "logic" trail eludes me. Truly bizarre line of thought...

Dave

[Don Richard]

So, if I summarize... 1. You want a system to reproduce whatever you decide to play. 2. It should sound like when you heard the music live.

Exactly! I'm proud of you.

wouldn't call that a list of the "aspects" of sound production in the home. Not in the sense Mike first addressed, and I then expanded on. How can we apply that to any kind of general understanding? Wouldn't we all want to "reproduce whatever we decide to play?" And to your second item, that's general, and would be better if broken down into some specifics. I wonder if Mike would find those useful to design for?

Whoops, there you go again. This is not a thread about general understanding - it's a thread about cables and their effect on audio signals. "Sound style" is a unique term you seem to have invented that has no meaning to me. You are just creating word games and demanding that others play them for your own amusement. I hate to disappoint you but I'm not interested in participating in your audio psychobabble. Sorry.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Don Richard

[Mallette]

As for long drawn out diatribes about the envy people have for other people spending money on wire, I don't think it has any applicability to this subject matter.

Second time you've mentioned that. I haven't seen any of this in the thread. There are quite a few in the this forum who could spend whatever they wanted on cables. and one of the reasons many of them can is that they are perfectly content with 3 dollar Rat Shack cables passing their signals from their Sequerra tuners to their Nagra PL-L and 12 cents per foot zip cord to run their 60th Anniversary Diamond Klipschorns.

Suggesting that jealousy of others good fortune or the fruits of their labor is playing a major factor, or even a significant one, to the positions held by people on this forum is rather insulting IMHO.

Dave

[Don Richard]

So, if I summarize... 1. You want a system to reproduce whatever you decide to play. 2. It should sound like when you heard the music live.

Exactly! I'm proud of you.

wouldn't call that a list of the "aspects" of sound production in the home. Not in the sense Mike first addressed, and I then expanded on. How can we apply that to any kind of general understanding? Wouldn't we all want to "reproduce whatever we decide to play?" And to your second item, that's general, and would be better if broken down into some specifics. I wonder if Mike would find those useful to design for?

Whoops, there you go again. This is not a thread about general understanding - it's a thread about cables and their effect on audio signals. "Sound style" is a unique term you seem to have invented that has no meaning to me. You are just creating word games and demanding that others play them for your own amusement. I hate to disappoint you but I'm not interested in participating in your audio psychobabble. Sorry.

Well good then, one down. And actually, it's NOT a thread about cables and their effect on audio signals, it's about whether or not we can hear those effects and whether or not it matters. If you want to limit your participation to the "effects on audio signals" - read the paper Dave posted. There's at least one "effect on audio signal" demonstrated - a 0.04dB difference in FR. Whoopieeeeee.

If you can't cope with the aspects of sound and none of the subjective analysis has meaning to you, then don't post about it. As for long drawn out diatribes about the envy people have for other people spending money on wire, I don't think it has any applicability to this subject matter.

Originally you asked me this:

"Don, describe for me your "sound style." What are your goals when you listen to your stereo?"

And when I answered that I listen to a variety of music and want it to sound much like what I hear when I hear live music you said that was not a list of "aspects" of sound production in the home. You write so much that you forget what you asked for and get mad at me for your confusion. Get a grip, dude.

[thebes]

Couldn't the reason for the difference in sound of cables me nothing more than inductance, capacitance, and resistance?

Bingo!!!!!!!!

[Mallette]

I can't control what words will insult each of the many individuals posting.

Really? Why is it so hard?

I read you "example" and could not have come to the conclusion from it that you did unless I as going out of my way to insult people.

Dave

Edited February 6, 2014 by Mallette

[Mallette]

Why on earth would you? Do you have the same frame of reference I have? Same world view? Same experiences? Same circumstances? Same ethics? Same politics? Of course not. So, why would you read something and come to the same conclusion I did?

Absolutely no reason.

Carry on...

Dave

[Ski Bum]

Mark, let's match up your list of subjective aspects to the various components that make up a system that could influence such things. (Nice list, by the way, and I'm trying to do just what I suggest, and can't really find a case where speaker wire has any bearing.)

Regarding the Stereophile cable review, sure, we all understand that the cable reviewer is full of . Only a nitwit would put credence in that marketing fluff.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Ski Bum

[oldtimer]

Couldn't the reason for the difference in sound of cables me nothing more than inductance, capacitance, and resistance?

Bingo!!!!!!!!

Bingo indeed. Just as they influence sound elsewhere in the chain. My ss amp has two outs for the main speakers. A current source and a voltage source (so named). One has a one ohm resistor. The other doesn't. Yes, by gum, they sound different by a degree. How much different? I'd say about one ohm.

[Mallette]

So, decided to quit reading and talking about it and go do something instead. Shostakovitch "Festival Overture" had been banging around in my head all day, and I happen to be fortunate to have the 1986 Sheffield Moscow Sessions.

I went through Mark's list of "aspects" of subjective listening. Granted, I consider all to be components of what I call "transparency" of the playback chain, but certainly, as I mentioned with the window analogy, when one notes something other than the "thing itself" that's a fine list to try to determine what is going on.

I'm not going through the setup and all that, as this isn't about a complete review and I want to stay on topic. If you want to know "what I got" see my profile.

Well, thoroughly enjoyed and fed on the "Festival" and the fine performance (Crikey...from SOVIETS!) of "Appalachian Spring" that is on the same side.

Conclusion: Only thing that somewhat diminished the experience was something not on the list, at least directly. The amp was "clinical." My Dynaco is down and now I am really jonsin' to fix that. Heads up, Craig.

I am subbing with a Soundcraftsman PCR800. It's considered by many a pretty good SS amp. But I've never heard an SS amp I like as well as tubes, or Class D, with Klipschorns. They are accurate...stainless steel, bright lights CLINICALLY accurate. Tubes are accurate as well, but much more musical, IMHO.

So, that was it. I (just me...and as I used to say I MAY be deaf) I heard no wires, no interconnects, no capacitors, nothing but a clinical amplifier and an extraordinarily well engineered recording.

OK, heard the ceiling fan and turned it off.

It was transcendental at times, and only that "edge" from the SS (remember, I've heard this many times in the precise same chain but with the Dynaco) intruding. Granted, that was pretty minimal...but I AM an audiophile and any little itch must be scratched.

Gotta get on the horn to Craig...

Dave

[Deang]

The interesting thing about that list is that I don't consciously think about those things anymore while I'm evaluating or actively listening - but I know my brain is. Ha!

[Mallette]

The interesting thing about that list is that I don't consciously think about those things anymore while I'm evaluating or actively listening - but I know my brain is. Ha!

Not unusual in people with extreme skills in an area. In my profession, we call it "compiled knowledge" as it's like a compiled computer program. Once compiled, you can no longer look at the individual processes or logic...only the output.

Dave

[Mallette]

You did hear the difference in the amplifier you "subbed" for your regular one, however. You described the substitute amp as "clinical." If you have changed any of those other items, maybe you would also hear differences.

Quite possibly. My Klipschorns are the very most transparent speakers I own, though Frazier Eleven's are very close. As I've said elsewhere, I prefer the Klipsch on pipe organs but piano on the Fraziers.

I've other carts, TTs, preamps, etc. However, none of these materially affect accuracy AS I PERCEIVE IT. Caps because "accuracy" is a lot like reality in that there is probably no such thing. Metaphysics aside, I would concur I could change some things in and out and hear a difference.

The one I mentioned is one that actually indicates a preference. I was, at no point, wanting to shut if off and run away. It was extremely nice and at times downright transcendental. Just that edge, however, that I don't experience with my Dynaco.

Brings me to something of a point: There is almost no doubt in my mind there are any number of highly experienced and knowledgeable audiophiles in this group that might detect all manner of deficiencies in my system. But like Mark Twain said "It's like mind over matter. If you don't mind, it don't matter." An old pair of shoes may not be attractive to all, but if they feel great to YOU no amount of money can improve on them. They ACCURATELY fit.

Dave

[mungkiman]

What's Red, and smells like Blue paint?

[DrWho]

However, if you're in fact hearing a difference (which I don't deny), then I believe there exists an objective measure that quantifies that difference. For the engineer that wants to recreate or fabricate your experience, it is vital to understand what metrics accomplish that and what metrics have no affect. I'm also open to the idea that we don't know what that objective measure is yet.

Good. You are young and starting out. I have been at it 40 years. So, I hope you find the correlation. It's a good goal for all engineers. I didn't find the correlation, nor did any of the many engineers I worked with, but I hope you do.

To be honest, when I started working at Shure I was absolutely daunted by all this talk about lack of correlation. I know I usually argue for the objectivist on the forums, but coming into Shure, I was ready to throw all the theory away if it didn't coincide with my ears. I might even argue that it's more objective to start with your ears, but that's another topic. I personally start and end with the subjective experience at work because that's the experience of the end users. They aren't machines or cold hearted engineers (usually).

However, what has surprised me over the last five years is that the correlation is way stronger than I was led to believe. This forum and all of these interesting debates have been a large force in setting my expectation - and while I think a lot of the arguments are solid, I think they often overstate the reality. Or maybe it's better to say that I think the correlation is definitely there, but you really gotta trust your ears and spend a ton of time in the numbers so you don't over-emphasize what the numbers are actually saying. Maybe I'm the only one with this epiphany, but I find this to be incredibly powerful when making boring engineer decisions about a particular resistor or capacitor value - or even what topology I'm going to start with in the first place.

I do think I've been fairly vocal about people over-stating correlation, or referencing the wrong reasons for the differences they hear. I cringe anytime I hear someone say "it measures the same, but sounds different" where the obvious implication is that the measurement is therefor meaningless. I'm over here in the corner trying to say "hey, that measurement doesn't describe what you're hearing....maybe you should try another measurement if you really want to put a number on the difference you hear". The most often culprit here is the frequency response - is it really not common knowledge that there is a ton more happening that doesn't show up in the frequency response?

The perception of audio is a highly dimensional world and it will never be the case where you can put a single number to a single subjective impression. I think expecting that to be the case is a bit naive and ignorant of what can actually be known.

I think we might be more on the same page here though because you've clearly mentioned using measurements to aid in your amplifier design. And on the flip-side, I'm constantly using my ears (as I'm sure you did too) when designing audio circuits. It's actually amazing sometimes how hard it is to find the right measurements to quantify a clearly audible artifact. Sometimes it takes weeks to find the right measurement and months to track down the true root cause. As a side point, I'm always frustrated that the final solution always looks so simple at the end of the day - all this work into a super complicated system and someone can just go "oh look, an opamp with this gain....easy" (and I've totally been that guy in the past). I've spent 2 years studying a circuit with three components, trying to improve upon it....I'm still finding new quantifiable attributes that describe why the circuit is so awesome - and it really doesn't get much simpler than 2 parts surrounding 1 active element. How much more complicated are the systems with way more parts - even the simplest of tube amps.

I am not hung up on small improvements. I am hung up on "small changes" that lead to "massive improvements in sound quality." When the small thing is missing, the sound falls apart into a meaningless blather to me. If the illusion does not appear - the sound it makes is utterly pointless to me. There's a "small change" which occurs, and then suddenly the illusion appears and now the experience is glorious, because that's the power of the illusion. If you know the idea of "tipping point" that's what I am referring to. Something "tips" the sound from ordinary into a special illusion. And my interest, my sound style, is all about this illusion. Regular stereo sound coming from all sorts of fancy stereos means nothing to me without the illusion happening.

That said, if anyone can present any real physical phenomenon at play that isn't swamped by other aspects of the system, then I would consider that a huge learning opportunity and that would greatly benefit the audio community.

Other aspects? I'd be able to answer this if you describe the list of aspects you consider valid.

I would include any aspect that could be quantified in a repeatable manner...preferably by a machine.

Here's a quick list of the everyday basics:

• Frequency Response (way over-emphasized)
• Linearity Response (at every frequency ideally)
• Distortion Profile (not %THD, but several IMD plots and FFTs with multi-tone signals and even music)
• Noise-floor shape with/without signals present
• Impulse response
• Clipping behavior
• Thermal Drift of all the above
• Input/Output Impedance affects of all the above

But we could get into more advanced subjects like the interaction between input/output stages, and even the effect of the wire on those stages. This might look more like stability plots, or square-wave responses, etc... there's all sorts of ways to quantify really weird behaviors. Some of these behaviors can't be directly measured and you need to install other circuits to capture what's happening.....like capacitor non-linearities, or thermal memory would be difficult ones that come to mind, which can be hard to see with just a steady-state sine wave. Multi-tone bursts? Differential comparisons?

My point is that I would need to see all of that (or most of it) to start to hone in on how I would expect something to sound before listening. I've yet to see any kind of analysis performed anywhere in audiophile circles that comes even close. You're right, that's a huge mountain of information. Btw, Ricci's work over at data-bass.com comes real close....I didn't have to hear the Othorn before knowing it would sound awesome: and that was entirely due to the measurements he provided (and they don't even cover the full gambit).

I'm curious about this idea of a tipping point as it is something I too have experienced...and for the things I've designed, I usually do that by ear. There are some things better done with instruments, but I will concede there are some things that are hard to do "mechanically".....and maybe at the end of the day it's the need for the human element because the emotional response to music is probably way more complicated than the circuitry design of the equipment providing the music.

Maybe this is a better idea to sum up my view.....if there was a way to quantify the tipping points, then I would want to take advantage of that tool. Until then, we must always rely on our ears - but I don't think using our ears is entirely a subjective exercise - especially if you can compare against the original...

Edited February 7, 2014 by DrWho