[b0ck3n]

It's always good to be able to look at things objectively from a position of knowledge and understanding... even art.

It is also entirely possible to discern objectively what appeals to a person subjectively, in case someone would attempt to dumb it down to taste.

Edit: that said, not everyone needs an explanation as to why things are to accept that they are.

 

[analogsurviver]

I have to admit that I'm of two minds on this issue.

On the one side of it, I agree that a lot of people need "just the basic facts". They need to know the information that they're likely to have an immediate use for... like which pair of headphones is more accurate... or which one they'll like better... or even how to decide exactly what that means. However, as someone with a science and engineering background, I also believe that getting the details, and understanding the details, is an important part of getting the real benefit from that knowledge. Sometimes it really does help to understand the details and why things happen - in full detail. Specifically, when it comes to audio, where we get into so many "subjectivist vs objectivist arguments", sometimes it really does help to sort things out if you DO know the theory in some depth. And, in some cases, unless you have some depth, you are not really going to be able to make informed decisions.... or to evaluate things like claims.... and whether other people's opinions ore "useful" or "valid" . (And, often, the lack of that depth of knowledge is what leads to these vitriolic arguments about the theory and the facts.)

I'm going to pick an example.... which is near and dear to everyone's heart here....
Question: "Do audio interconnects really sound different?"

The "subjectivists" will, of course, insist that: "interconnects sound very different".
And, of course, the "objectivists" will insist that: "it's all snake oil; wire is wire; and interconnects can't possibly sound different".
And, in the context of this discussion, the simplest and probably "best quick answer" for many newbies would be: "interconnects shouldn't sound any different; most expensive interconnects are snake oil; so it's silly to buy expensive wires hoping they'll make your system sound better".

However, then we run into the subjectivist who just insists that HE upgraded his wires and heard a real difference....
At which point, the folks on the "cables are fun forum" welcome him with open arms... and proceed to discuss the exact flavor, texture, scent, and probably the color of the psychic aura of what he thinks he heard.....
While the people here castigate him for being such a gullible idiot that he imagines he's hearing things that can't possibly be there, and so it must clearly be due to some sort of bias.....
(And, in fact, a few of them seem deeply offended that someone would even dare to suggest such an absurd notion.)

Well, the reality is that YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY SORT OUT ALL OF THE CLAIMS UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND ALL THE FACTS....
The full and proper engineering answer would be: "Assuming you're connecting two well-designed modern pieces of equipment, and talking about reasonably well designed interconnects, then interconnects should all sound the same".
And, yes, I phrased that very carefully, and there are subtleties involved.

For example, we're talking about more or less modern equipment, and more or less standard equipment (and wires).
If you're looking at competently designed modern consumer equipment than that statement is true (even minus some of the picky qualifications).
However, if you look at mid-priced consumer preamps from the days when tubes were current technology, it's entirely wrong.
Many tube preamps, especially inexpensive ones, have an output impedance of 100k Ohms or higher, and they absolutely WILL sound different if you switch between interconnects with slightly different amounts of capacitance.
(Don't worry; the difference will also be easily measurable... and significant.)
And many modern interconnects do have quite different amounts of capacitance - because it shouldn't matter with modern equipment (which pretty well all has a much lower output impedance).
And it also probably won't matter with a high-priced tube preamp, which probably has a cathode follow or similar output buffer, so it also has a lower output impedance.
So, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TYPICAL VINTAGE TUBE PREAMPS, different interconnects may actually sound quite different.
So.... my point... (for those of you who had the attention span to read this far) is that.....

Yes, the proper "short answer", for the guy who is in too much of a hurry to listen to the details, is: "Interconnects shouldn't sound different, and most of the claims made for the expensive ones are just bunk, so you shouldn't waste your money on them"...
HOWEVER, if the guy who does own a 1950's vintage Fisher tube preamp says he hears a difference, it's quite possible he MIGHT actually be right...
Likewise, the guy who swears he hears a difference with his new Whooeee Fazoooie preamp, whose designers followed a vintage design instead of modern best practices, just might be right too...
When you actually UNDERSTAND the science, you can understand why buying fancy interconnects is a waste of time and money, but not ALL stories about interconnects sounding different are necessarily untrue.

And, as far as I'm concerned, and most real scientists agree, the whole point of science, is in understanding those details... and I believe that applies to a forum entitled "understanding audiophile claims and myths".
I believe that some people come here because they DO want the full explanation.
(And I don't think all of them really want the discussion limited to the level of sixth-grade pop science.)

So, the next time someone asks whether they should buy those expensive interconnects, by all means tell them that "the facts, as revealed by science, indicate it's not a good idea"....
But also remember that you are stating a GENERALIZATION... and not the words of some God... written in stone... and beyond any possible dispute (or exception).

And, for anyone who wants to pop up and challenge my statement (about interconnects).....
And really would like to claim that "interconnects ALWAYS sound the same with EVERY piece of equipment"......
Send me the schematic of your favorite preamp and I'll tell you how to modify it so it DOES sound quite different with different interconnects (it will take about $2 worth of parts).

I really like this post. Because it adressess real world equipment found in the field.

The reason being that Science Guys on this and similar threads are generally so prone to generalizations that they possibly can not see the smallest distance from their nose measurable today - with strictly CD as the source and dynamic headphones/speakers as the final transducer of choice. OK, in such a simplistic case I agree that cable differences - audible ones - are minor or do not exist at all. Particularly not over bandwidth limited to 20 kHz - or just above that figure.

Try "one cable fits all/does not matter one bit" in a bit more specific and challenging environment - and above assumption gets busted to smitherins. NO, all cables do not sound alike, NO they do not perform equally and, YES, they DO sound differently under some real world circumstances. The most specific examples of "(in)/properly designed equipment" that can not be made so that cable will not AUDIBLY influence the performance ( which can be measured by any decent engineer and shown to deviate from the desired goal, as well as from cable to cable ) are moving magnet phono cartridges and any electrostatic speaker - and, particularly - electrostatic headphones. Both of these transducers have reactive impedance(s), FAR removed from simple ohmic nature of most CD players/DACs and dynamic speakers/headphones.

There are uses for different cables - supported by science, if properly applied - and such cables are NOT snake oil. And they absolutely need not to be expensive any more than necessary. However, one can not expect a custom cable ( because there REALLY is no off-the-shelf available cable offereing the same performance) that has to be custom ordered and usually produced in a minimum quantity for which the cable manufacturer is (at a price... ) willing to make/change tooling in order to produce the desired cable - to cost the same amount per foot as something the same manufacturer has been churning out in large quantities for ages. One such example is cable for electrostatic headphones - anything readily available is either mechanically too stiff, and/or does not provide sufficient insulation for safe operation with voltages required, and/or has just plain too much capacitance.

Try today to source a low capacitance coax for turntable - next to Mission Impossible. But, in the past, there were such - exotic today - coaxes with 80 pF per metre and half; that is to say below 60 pF/m, something I can only dream about obtaining today. For the last batch of Technics SL-1200MKV, some 10 or so years ago, Matsushita ran out of cable they have been using since day one - and used a visually almost indistingushable coax cable for audio output. The "only" problem was increase of the capacitance - to up to well over 400 pF. This rendered the turntable unusable - audibly so - with most moving magnet cartridges on the market today - including Technics' own.


I have cited two of the most obvious exceptions regarding inproper generalizations on cables. There are other, less critical applications for cables, which can also result in an audible difference.

For the reasons of impedance problems of tube gear cited, the solution has been found decades ago. The only way to drive a power amp by tube preamp is trough NO cable ( and its dreadful 100 or so pF of capacitance ) > integrated amplifier. Unless one wants to resort to cathode followers & other buffers, which according to purists affect the sound negatively. Listening to any tube integrated amp from the likes of Jean Hiraga and his "school" makes it awfully hard to disagree.

One of my preamps is ( modified, of course ) Technics SU-A60. Its output impedance is 4 ( in words : four ) ohms and it can drive any amount of interconnect cable to power amp - allowing far longer cable runs than can be used in domestic setting, without audible difference. I forgot where the - 3dB rolloff measured with a signal generator and oscilloscope is, even using 25 metres ( roughly 3000 pF) of cable - lower than with strictly ohmic load, but definitely not affecting the amplitude response below 100 kHz .

It is amusing but not funny - a cable specified as say C117 can have one hell of a lot difference in electrical properties ( particularly coming from different manufacturers ). They look (almost) the same, they cost (almost) the same - but can have capacitance more than three times different from make to make. For the same length of cable to allow for the same above mentioned performance, a 1 1/3 ohm instead of 4 ohm output impedance preamp would be required - necessitating another, MUCH more costly preamp.

Now, 25 m interconnect runs between pre and power amp are rare; then again, so are preamps with output impedance of 4 ohm or even less.
With "normal" preamps and a interconnect run of 5 m and "C117" cable from brand A and Brand B differeing in capacitance by a factor of 3 there IS possible to affect the performance for the difference between the two "identical" cables to be audible.

Please adjust the output imedance value of the "normal" preamp(DAC/whatever) to whatever value will affect the response to the level of difference YOU find audible . The output impedance value(s) should be in the range found in "average spread" of the equipment in the field in use today.

 

[b0ck3n]

I want to pose a question to you guys (as an alternative to continuing previous tedious discussion or getting into cables again): given that all variables are equal - direction of sound, all manner of distortion below audible levels, the exact same frequency response - will two different types of drivers be indistinguishable? Does anyone know of a blind test to support or disprove this?

 

[castleofargh]

It is also entirely possible to discern objectively what appeals to a person subjectively, in case someone would attempt to dumb it down to taste.

Edit: that said, not everyone needs an explanation as to why things are to accept that they are.

one person determines his/her own level of requirement to create a belief. it's when he/she/helicopter comes forcing those beliefs as factual onto the rest of the society that we have a problem. and TBH the answer to that issue isn't to have everybody show their doctorate on a topic before being allowed to post. the answer is much more obvious: when we don't have a clue about a topic, we shouldn't claim stuff.
we can express clear personal opinions, express doubt, suggest ideas. a lot of options really for the ones willing to participate. what we don't need is having audiophiles behaving like they're that drunk guy at the pub with the answer to fracking everything. I can tell for sure that if most claims weren't empty claims from outer space, I wouldn't have turned out to be so openly skeptical about everything on audio forums.

I want to pose a question to you guys (as an alternative to continuing previous tedious discussion or getting into cables again): given that all variables are equal - direction of sound, all manner of distortion below audible levels, the exact same frequency respone - will two different types of drivers be indistinguishable? Does anyone know of a blind test to support or disprove this?

I'm afraid that's one of those "who would win, Vegeta or Harry Potter?" you're suggesting a situation that we can't test because it most likely cannot exist. we'll never get 2 different types of drivers giving the same measurable variables. but if you're asking if the same sound sounds the same, then I'm fairly confident the answer is yes ^_^.

 

[b0ck3n]

I'm afraid that's one of those "who would win, Vegeta or Harry Potter?" you're suggesting a situation that we can't test because it most likely cannot exist. we'll never get 2 different types of drivers giving the same measurable variables. but if you're asking if the same sound sounds the same, then I'm fairly confident the answer is yes ^_^.

I want to establish a floor after which all improvements, regardless of how esoteric the measures taken to achieve them, are pointless. That would save alot of people alot of money (although, expensive placebo sounds way better than cheap placebo). I agree it's pointless to argue that same is same, so does anyone instead have an opinion on where that floor is?

 

[Zapp_Fan]

I want to establish a floor after which all improvements, regardless of how esoteric the measures taken to achieve them, are pointless. That would save alot of people alot of money (although, expensive placebo sounds way better than cheap placebo). I agree it's pointless to argue that same is same, so does anyone instead have an opinion on where that floor is?

I think there are two ways to look at this.

One "endgame" for audio technology is being able to exactly reproduce a 3D field of sound in another space. Like a star-trek teleporter for audible information. I imagine this would be accomplished with an effectively infinite array of microphones on one end, and an infinite array of transducers on the other, or fancy technology which transparently approximates them. The end result is you can walk around in your room and hear precisely what it was like in the recording studio, with all acoustic imperfections compensated for.

It's probably not productive to compare our pitiful technology to theoretically perfect gear. So it's probably more useful to talk about just two "practically perfect" channels at a time. I'd personally define that as - the system in question reproduces the original waveform stored in the recording with zero distortion (of any form) that is theoretically audible. So if the lowest threshold of THD that's detectable by a human in a lab is XYZ% (I don't know this value myself) then this "practically perfect" system would be below that, whether or not you can really hear such distortion in typical music. Since a perfect system should be perfect regardless of input, we would refer to the maximal / minimal theoretical values when judging the specs.

So I'd say you'd want to be below the audible "in the lab" threshold on:
THD, IMD, phase distortion, Impulse response, frequency response, SNR, directionality ... and I am probably missing quite a few important values here, but that's the gist of my "practically perfect" system.

Bottom line, if you have a channel that performs above / below the threshold at which any human can, under perfect conditions, detect a defect, then it's perfect and no more improvement is worth pursuing. In other words, you'll never hear any distortion no matter how hard you try, so your quest is at an end.

(note: this is not where most audiophile debates come from. Usually, it's because they're pursuing "improvements" that actually do nothing, or do so little that the difference is not audible. So a more informative standard or rule of thumb might be "what is the just-noticeable-difference in a lab setting, for all relevant forms of distortion"? - this allows you to distinguish between "possibly worth it" and "snake oil" improvements. Knowing what a theoretically perfect speaker is like only helps you know how far off a given piece of gear is.)

This is a bit of a literal-minded approach, but at least at that point you could say improvement is literally impossible. In practice distortion is a lot harder to hear in real music than lab tests, so a "real world" perfect system would have looser standards.

Maybe we should start a new thread and compile such values for reference?

Now, even if we all had such systems, I think people would still want to play around with EQ and various pleasant forms of distortion, but if you want to talk objective perfection, total fidelity is a good place to start.

 

[bigshot]

I want to establish a floor after which all improvements, regardless of how esoteric the measures taken to achieve them, are pointless. That would save alot of people alot of money (although, expensive placebo sounds way better than cheap placebo). I agree it's pointless to argue that same is same, so does anyone instead have an opinion on where that floor is?

The way to establish that is with basic blind listening tests. I compare every piece of electronics I buy to similar items I already have. So far, every amp, player and DAC all sound the same. I usually buy midrange consumer audio, not high end. For me, midrange is my line. When it comes to transducers, it's a different story, especially speakers. Room acoustics, equalization and quality of transducers always seem to have room for improvement.

The best advice I can give you is to not make random changes in the hopes that things will improve. Before you buy a new piece of equipment, identify the specific weakness in your system that you want to address. Research the best way to fix it. Then buy something and do a blind test to make sure you've fixed your problem. If it doesn't make any difference, return it. If everyone did that, sales of high end components would plummet.

Maybe we should start a new thread and compile such values for reference?

A few years ago I did this ballpark audible thresholds list. I imagine some of the citation links are dead now though.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear.645851/

 

[Glmoneydawg]

The way to establish that is with basic blind listening tests. I compare every piece of electronics I buy to similar items I already have. So far, every amp, player and DAC all sound the same. I usually buy midrange consumer audio, not high end. For me, midrange is my line. When it comes to transducers, it's a different story, especially speakers. Room acoustics, equalization and quality of transducers always seem to have room for improvement.

The best advice I can give you is to not make random changes in the hopes that things will improve. Before you buy a new piece of equipment, identify the specific weakness in your system that you want to address. Research the best way to fix it. Then buy something and do a blind test to make sure you've fixed your problem. If it doesn't make any difference, return it. If everyone did that, sales of high end components would plummet.



A few years ago I did this ballpark audible thresholds list. I imagine some of the citation links are dead now though.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear.645851/

Guessing you are buying (used)stuff off the internet...i have dealt with the same dealer for 35 years or so...lets me take it home and try it...think i have returned 3 items in that time period...everything else has been a definate improvement.

 

[amirm]

Yes, the proper "short answer", for the guy who is in too much of a hurry to listen to the details, is: "Interconnects shouldn't sound different, and most of the claims made for the expensive ones are just bunk, so you shouldn't waste your money on them"...

Good post overall . I just want to add that it is not always the expensive stuff that is a rip off, but also cheap stuff. On another forum one of the guys without any technical depth would constantly tell people to buy Monoprice cables. Then someone post that they went by that recommendation and found their speaker wire to be junk and far worse than the Radio Shack cable which cost a few more dollars. Folks jumped on his throat saying wire is wire. I look at the specs for their 12 gauge wire and notice that it is thinner than nominal. So I decided to test it and a bunch of other 12 gauge speaker cables: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/when-12-gauge-wire-is-not-12-gauge.3/

Here are the measurements normalized to Belden cable:

As I suspected the Monoprice cable indeed had higher resistance per foot than Belden, Radio Shack, Canare, etc.

Not expected was the awful performance of generic cable from Fry's Electronics and BestBuy (major electronics retailers in US).

Yes I also tested a coat hanger because it was said that in some test it sounded the same as Monster cable (turned out to be a bit of fish story there). With its much higher resistance, it would not be hard to create a test where it would change the response of the speaker and become audible. Although don't ask me to make a 12 foot section of it.

There is a tendency in us to promote garbage using overly simplified assumptions like "wire is wire." Without data we could be promoting junk to people that can have audible consequences. In the rush to sell cheaper and cheaper audio products, there are subpar components to avoid.

 

[amirm]

A few years ago I did this ballpark audible thresholds list. I imagine some of the citation links are dead now though.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear.645851/

In there, I see this:

Just Detectable Threshold in Music 20ns
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=8354 (needs subscription)
http://www.nanophon.com/audio/1394_sampling_jitter.pdf (cited in section 2.2)

This is from your second reference:

Do you agree with the highlighted sections? Also, have you read the first reference in your list (also referenced as [8] above)?

 

[Strangelove424]

Guessing you are buying (used)stuff off the internet...i have dealt with the same dealer for 35 years or so...lets me take it home and try it...think i have returned 3 items in that time period...everything else has been a definate improvement.

Last I heard, Bigshot snagged a pair of new KEFs on sale. But I don't see what's wrong with used speakers. I think that's actually the best place to find bang for the buck.

 

[Strangelove424]

Here are the measurements normalized to Belden cable:

Those are comparisons. Cable measurements are in ohms/ft. Your lack of hard numbers makes it impossible to tell if the deviation is within an audible range, or what the effective difference may even be.

To present a different source of observations and actual hard measurements:

https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-speaker-cable/

AmazonBasics (16 AWG): 0.019 ohms, 15 pF

Monoprice 2748 (14 AWG): 0.011 ohms, 19 pF

RCA AH1450SR (14 AWG): 0.013 ohms, 22 pF

Pyle PSC1250 (12 AWG): 0.015 ohms, 21 pF

Monoprice 2747 (12 AWG): 0.010 ohms, 16 pF

Seems pretty competitive to me.

 

[bigshot]

Guessing you are buying (used)stuff off the internet.

Nope. I order most things from Amazon. They give me a 30 day return window. They even pay return shipping.

In there, I see this

Note "with music". We listen to music, not worst case test tones. I can't tell the context of your second yellow highlighter. 24kHz? Who can hear that in music? A lot of people can't even hear the 17kHz worst case test tone.

Last I heard, Bigshot snagged a pair of new KEFs on sale. But I don't see what's wrong with used speakers. I think that's actually the best place to find bang for the buck.

Damn straight! There were some great speakers made in the 70s before the cheap Chinese speakers flooded the market. If you frequent the Goodwill and take a chance, you can get some great sound for under $50. But you have to know what you're looking for.

 

[amirm]

Those are comparisons. Cable measurements are in ohms/ft. Your lack of hard numbers makes it impossible to tell if the deviation is within an audible range, or what the effective difference may even be.

To present a different source of observations and actual hard measurements:

https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-speaker-cable/

AmazonBasics (16 AWG): 0.019 ohms, 15 pF

Monoprice 2748 (14 AWG): 0.011 ohms, 19 pF

RCA AH1450SR (14 AWG): 0.013 ohms, 22 pF

Pyle PSC1250 (12 AWG): 0.015 ohms, 21 pF

Monoprice 2747 (12 AWG): 0.010 ohms, 16 pF

Seems pretty competitive to me.

You didn't click on the link I provided??? Here are the "hard" numbers:

As to you see measured results are worse for Monoprice but better for Belden and such. And it is much more extensive and detailed than what is in your link.

There is also no "control" in the other link. I specifically tested Belden because that is the industry gold standard. That way, if there are measurements errors, we would see it. And at any rate, relative data to Belden cable remains correct even if the specific measurements have errors in them.

As to audibility, research allows us to determine that. Do you know how before I explain?

 

[amirm]

Note "with music". We listen to music, not worst case test tones. I can't tell the context of your second yellow highlighter. 24kHz? Who can hear that in music? A lot of people can't even hear the 17kHz worst case test tone.

It is your reference, not mine, that you are complaining about. Why did you reference that article if you disagree with the main point you wanted the reader to read(section 2.2)???

Here is the thing about masking: it is content dependent. Since music can span infinite variations, you can't count on masking to always bail you out.

Do you know how many music samples were tested in reference [8] which you wanted people to read?