or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audiophile cables, an interesting question.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audiophile cables, an interesting question. - Page 15

post #211 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post


 This is not the case with two cables of equal resistance/inductance/capacitance but different materials. 

 

Actually, that is not quite accurate.

 

If a cable goes from one end to another, and there are no other conductive paths, then we agree completely...

 

If a power cord for example, has identical RLC, but one has been twisted while the other has not, the non twisted one will couple HEAVILY into a ground loop should one exist, while the twisted cord will NOT as a result of geometry..  I have the exploded capacitors to prove this. (and the dirty underwear).

 

cheers, jn


 

 

post #212 of 1186

 

As for the Russ Andrews issue, here are the ASA's reports for both instances (one in 2008 and another in 2011).

 

http://asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/3/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44177.aspx

 

http://asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/1/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_49597.aspx

 

se

 

 

 

 

post #213 of 1186
Quote:

Originally Posted by jnjn View Post

 

If a power cord for example, has identical RLC, but one has been twisted while the other has not, the non twisted one will couple HEAVILY into a ground loop should one exist, while the twisted cord will NOT as a result of geometry.. 


Eh? I don't see what twisting or not twisting has to do with ground loops.

 

se

 

 

post #214 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

As for the Russ Andrews issue, here are the ASA's reports for both instances (one in 2008 and another in 2011).

 

http://asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/3/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44177.aspx

 

http://asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/1/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_49597.aspx

 

se

 

 

 

 


Wow.

 

For some reason, the proof that the expert provided to support his assertions were not even mentioned.  No mention of tests, equipment, measurements...nuttin.

 

I would have thought that it would have been.  Surely the "court" didn't just take his word, no?  I mean, it should have been easy to measure.

 

Cheers, jn
 

 

post #215 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


Eh? I don't see what twisting or not twisting has to do with ground loops.

 

se

 

 


A power cord creates an external dipole magnetic field.  A ground loop formed using that cord will see that dipole field.

 

Twisting the power cord causes a net zero integral for that trapped flux, reducing the loop currents.

 

jn
 

 

post #216 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjn View Post


Wow.

 

For some reason, the proof that the expert provided to support his assertions were not even mentioned.  No mention of tests, equipment, measurements...nuttin.

 

I would have thought that it would have been.  Surely the "court" didn't just take his word, no?  I mean, it should have been easy to measure.

 

 


What the expert attested to was that Russ Andrews was not able to adequately substantiate their claims. That doesn't require any testing on the part of the expert, but rather depends on the evidence provided by Russ Andrews.

 

In other words, the burden of proof wasn't on the expert to falsify Russ Andrews' claims, rather, the burden of proof was on Russ Andrews to substantiate their claims. What the expert concluded was that Russ Andrews fell short on that count.

 

se

post #217 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjn View Post


A power cord creates an external dipole magnetic field.  A ground loop formed using that cord will see that dipole field.

 

Twisting the power cord causes a net zero integral for that trapped flux, reducing the loop currents.


You're looking at the wrong loop if you're actually talking about a ground loop.

 

se

 

 

 

post #218 of 1186



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


What the expert attested to was that Russ Andrews was not able to adequately substantiate their claims. That doesn't require any testing on the part of the expert, but rather depends on the evidence provided by Russ Andrews.

 

In other words, the burden of proof wasn't on the expert to falsify Russ Andrews' claims, rather, the burden of proof was on Russ Andrews to substantiate their claims. What the expert concluded was that Russ Andrews fell short on that count.

 

se


Agreed.  However, the expert made claims regarding the susceptibility and sensitivity of equipment to common mode vs differential mode RFI, and he asserted that the cord was not capable of protecting the system against one specific variety..  All that without proof of any kind in support of his assertions.

 

Reminds me of a co-worker who beat a radar speeding ticket by using his title of EE to explain to the judge that the radar calibration technique using a tuning fork was not well controlled because the tuning fork could not be held perfectly perpendicular to the microwave beam, therefore calibration could not be guaranteed to be accurate.

 

The judge believed him as a result of his credentials.  Of course, neither my co-worker nor the judge understood that the calibration did not require the angle be correct, merely that a metallic object resonated at a very specific frequency within the beam, reflecting it back.  The device was not measuring doppler per se, but the beat frequency of the send mixed with the return.  Excessive angle would prevent lock of the gun.

 

As such, the veracity of the expert's comments were not evaluated with respect to the actual conditions the product would be used in.  Instead, it was decided that an "expert" who stated that a bar was not cleared by the defendent.... by the expert's unsubstantiated say so..was sufficient to conclude against the defendent.

 

Cheers, jn

 

ps..hey, happy new year steve.

 

pps.  Nope, I am looking at the correct loop.  You've not followed my EMC discussions, eh??


Edited by jnjn - 1/12/12 at 10:55am
post #219 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjn View Post

Actually, that is not quite accurate.

 

If a cable goes from one end to another, and there are no other conductive paths, then we agree completely...

 

If a power cord for example, has identical RLC, but one has been twisted while the other has not, the non twisted one will couple HEAVILY into a ground loop should one exist, while the twisted cord will NOT as a result of geometry..  I have the exploded capacitors to prove this. (and the dirty underwear).

 


Ok. But dealing with IC's, speaker and headphone cables... this should be a non-issue. No?

 

post #220 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post


Ok. But dealing with IC's, speaker and headphone cables... this should be a non-issue. No?

 



For ground loop issues, speaker and headphone cables do not really couple..IC's can do so quite easily.

 

jn

 

post #221 of 1186

Standard construction seems to avoid this though, yes? 

post #222 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

Standard construction seems to avoid this though, yes? 


No.

Fully differential signal paths, along with a pin 1 system which is totally impervious to pin 1 currents.

 

Unbalanced signal path interconnects do not do this.

 

Personally, I do not worry.  No noise, no hum, no problem.  T'would be different if I really wanted to control soundstage image on a big stereo.

 

jn
 

 

post #223 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willakan View Post

The funny thing is, if no DBTs had even been conducted I still wouldn't believe in cables. As I see it:

 

1. Existing science suggests cables do not do magical things to the sound. This is incontestable.

 

2. Audiophiles suggest they do, but fail to satisfy the burden of proof (reproducing these differences under controlled conditions). This is also rather hard to refute: Mr. Robert Harley of Stereophile presented a paper at the AES, declaring that there were audible differences in prettymuch everything, but they disappear under any types of controlled testing. If that's not an unfalsifiable claim with no supporting evidence (anecdotal listening reports are explained quite adequately with reference to psychology), I don't know what is.

 

With those two things being established, you can then logically go to step 3, exercising the mechanism by which we reject unfalsifiable claims with no supporting evidence as silly.

 

3. I hence do not give audiophile beliefs in cables any credibility.

 

DBTs are just trying to put things in the audiophile's court - (OK, so you think ears are better than everything. Fine, have a listen and distinguish these two things). The fact that cable believers reject this and then make out that the entire scientific argument rests on the DBTs done for their benefit says everything you need to know: you throw them a bone, but they stamp on it then try to stab you with the broken bits...

 

 


Robert Harley is correct in what he states, under blind testing differences which can be heard under sighted conditions either differ or disappear. The proof is here 

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

from the results of blind testing when compared to sighted testing.

 

Where I think that he goes wrong is then claiming blind testing is flawed because of those results

 

http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1

 

He dismisses blind testing as it it does not fit in with his belief in the accuracy of sighted testing. But there is an alternative view which is that both types of test produce accurate results and that shows how sight affects sound quality.

 

 

 

post #224 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAttorney View Post
One thing I've never claimed is that it's due to magic or mysterious forces. Those are terms that the sceptics keep bringing up. Only the sceptics seem to get into a lather about Marketing BS. I never pay any attention to it - it's the end result that counts.

Many people do make claims that are essentially magic but I wasn't directing that at anyone in this thread though.  I just joined in the thread without reading the whole thing and was only responding to the specific posts I quoted.

 

Personally I don't get why someone who understands why its BS wouldn't at least dislike all the marketing BS and outright lies that permeate this market.  Personally, I get angry when I see people get scammed.  The end result is what many of us are after but doesn't the path to get there matter as well?  Unless you've got more money than free time doesn't it pay to do some research so you can try to get the most for your money?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

Robert Harley is correct in what he states, under blind testing differences which can be heard under sighted conditions either differ or disappear. The proof is here 


Maybe this is just a difference of semantics but do you mean differences that are simply perceived to exist or differences in the sound waves produced by the transducers actually demonstrated to be detectable by a human ear?

 

I would argue the first kind of difference isn't something that was "heard" because it does not correlate with the sound waved detected by the ear.

 

post #225 of 1186
Quote:

Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post
.  I just joined in the thread without reading the whole thing and was only responding to the specific posts I quoted.

Ditto smile_phones.gif. Had I read the whole thread, I'd probably have come up with better arguments!

 

Personally I don't get why someone who understands why its BS wouldn't at least dislike all the marketing BS and outright lies that permeate this market.  Personally, I get angry when I see people get scammed.  The end result is what many of us are after but doesn't the path to get there matter as well? 

 

I don't treat cable marketing BS any different to the marketing BS in any other walk of life. In fact, BS is too strong a word for me. All they are all trying to do sell their product in the best way they think they can. The difficulty the cable Marketeers (?) have over many other products, is that, well, it's just a bit of wire really. Just how may ways can you make a bit of wire sound sexy? But it's their free right to try.

 

In the same way, I don't treat a cable test any different to any other component. They are all black boxes that either make a worthwhile improvement for the money or they don't. On the, fairly rare, times I ever listen test a new cable, I don't try to consider whether it sounds better than any other cable, I consider if it sounds better than the same amount of money spent on any other component. That, I think, is a pretty unbiased approach. And scientific in a strange sort of way. If I tried to justify the worth of a cable purely on its material content, then... I wouldn't get very far.

 

 



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audiophile cables, an interesting question.