Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[rbbert]

Tim, that is at best a very unconvincing discussion. To mention just a couple of very obvious problems: he states that a difference of 3 dB (1 dB for trained listeners) is the threshold of audibility, and no listening tests of any kind were performed. Even over 40 years ago when I was in college, differences of less than 1 dB were easily detected by untrained listeners in my Intro Psych lab. More, there are many small (he says inaudible, but who knows? no listening tests were done) measurable differences in the audio range using test tones, no more complex signals (analagous to music).

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, that is at best a very unconvincing discussion. To mention just a couple of very obvious problems: he states that a difference of 3 dB (1 dB for trained listeners) is the threshold of audibility, and no listening tests of any kind were performed. Even over 40 years ago when I was in college, differences of less than 1 dB were easily detected by untrained listeners in my Intro Psych lab. More, there are many small (he says inaudible, but who knows? no listening tests were done) measurable differences in the audio range using test tones, no more complex signals (analagous to music).

I wasn't trying to convince you; I was just demonstrating that there are studies to be found, by linking the first one I came across that wasn't a white paper from a cable manufacturer. I didn't even read it, frankly, as I was pretty confident that any decent faculty-supervised MIT study would not show audio quality differences correlated to price, particularly once you get past good, shielded cable with decent build quality. Was I wrong about that?

If this study doesn't meet your criteria, I'm sure there are more out there to Google.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

I wasn't trying to convince you; I was just demonstrating that there are studies to be found, by linking the first one I came across that wasn't a white paper from a cable manufacturer. I didn't even read it, frankly, as I was pretty confident that any decent faculty-supervised MIT study would not show audio quality differences correlated to price, particularly once you get past good, shielded cable with decent build quality. Was I wrong about that?

If this study doesn't meet your criteria, I'm sure there are more out there to Google.

Tim

Actually, this study doesn't show much of anything related to audio quality, and it's only a little surprising that it was from MIT. In case you are unaware, there ARE some pretty good studies showing that roughly 90% of published scientific literature should NOT have been published, since in that 90% there are always large methodological flaws and/or conclusions unsupported by presented data.

But anyway there are a handful of studies actually using listening tests, which usually don't show much of anything. No differences detected for the most part (although as posted previously there can be differences found if the cables are enough different, like 22 ga zip cord for speaker wire), which of course doesn't mean there are no differences, because the studies are designed to see if there IS a difference, not if there ISN'T a difference. So I have no doubt that cable differences are less than transducer differences, or mastering differences, but beyond that I don't know.

 

[microstrip]

Actually, this study doesn't show much of anything related to audio quality, and it's only a little surprising that it was from MIT. In case you are unaware, there ARE some pretty good studies showing that roughly 90% of published scientific literature should NOT have been published, since in that 90% there are always large methodological flaws and/or conclusions unsupported by presented data.

But anyway there are a handful of studies actually using listening tests, which usually don't show much of anything. No differences detected for the most part (although as posted previously there can be differences found if the cables are enough different, like 22 ga zip cord for speaker wire), which of course doesn't mean there are no differences, because the studies are designed to see if there IS a difference, not if there ISN'T a difference. So I have no doubt that cable differences are less than transducer differences, or mastering differences, but beyond that I don't know.

This study is old stuff and has been referred previously in our audio debates. IMHO, the objective of this Master study was just to study the electrical transmission properties of the cables using the SOTA classical audio equipment available at that time, comparing it with simulations. The student seems to have done a nice work, most probably he learned a lot about audio electrical measuring and audio norms during that period. The objective seems to have been fulfilled, the thesis seems well written, I hope the guy got a good mark , although there is no new science in it and it does not add nothing new to our debate. What else should be expected from "the first one that some one come across that wasn't a white paper from a cable manufacturer." ?

 

[Groucho]

he states that a difference of 3 dB (1 dB for trained listeners) is the threshold of audibility

As soon as I saw that, I knew someone would mention it. However, he says it only in the context of asking how audible a series cable impedance of 0.43 ohms would be, leading to 0.074 dB attenuation in the hypothetical scenario of his amplifier having a 100 ohm input impedance (rather than the 10k or so, that it probably has). The fact he dubiously suggests that 1dB is the minimum intensity difference that anyone can hear does not rubbish his conclusion that 0.00074 dB of attenuation* is likely to be inaudible!

* assuming an input impedance of 10k ohms

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Actually, this study doesn't show much of anything related to audio quality, and it's only a little surprising that it was from MIT. In case you are unaware, there ARE some pretty good studies showing that roughly 90% of published scientific literature should NOT have been published, since in that 90% there are always large methodological flaws and/or conclusions unsupported by presented data.

But anyway there are a handful of studies actually using listening tests, which usually don't show much of anything. No differences detected for the most part (although as posted previously there can be differences found if the cables are enough different, like 22 ga zip cord for speaker wire), which of course doesn't mean there are no differences, because the studies are designed to see if there IS a difference, not if there ISN'T a difference. So I have no doubt that cable differences are less than transducer differences, or mastering differences, but beyond that I don't know.

I personally think a comparison of the electrical transmission properties of cables - given that their sole purpose is electrical transmission - is a great place to start an analysis of audio quality, though blind listening tests is a great place to go from there, particularly when people report hearing things that is unsupported by the data. Like I said, there's data out there if you want it. I don't think there's a lot of independent research, though, and most of it is going to be a bit old. In my brief search it seemed that most of the scientists interested in the subject in recent decades were working for audio cable companies.

Tim

 

[mep]

I really don't know why we still involve ourselves in cable fights and their associated flame wars anymore. You either believe that cables can make a difference in the sound of your system (for better or worse) or you don't. For those that don't, they need to quit making it one of their life-time goals to "prove" to the believers that they are full of crap. If you want to double-blind yourself into cheap cable bliss, knock yourself out. Don't stop with just cables though. Double-blind test every piece of audio gear you have with the cheapest stuff you can buy at Wal-Mart or Best Buy and then when you can't tell any difference between the sound of your Iphone plugged into a jam box playing low-bit rate MP3 files and the sound of good stereo playing back RBCD or hi-rez files, look at how much more money you will save yourselves.

Conversely, people who do believe that audio cables make a difference in the sound of their systems also need to quit trying to convert audio atheists who don't believe that high-end audio exists except in price. It reminds me of a Russian saying I read a few days ago that still makes me laugh: "All of this talk is like shearing a pig. Lots of screams, but little wool."

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I really don't know why we still involve ourselves in cable fights and their associated flame wars anymore. You either believe that cables can make a difference in the sound of your system (for better or worse) or you don't. For those that don't, they need to quit making it one of their life-time goals to "prove" to the believers that they are full of crap. If you want to double-blind yourself into cheap cable bliss, knock yourself out. Don't stop with just cables though. Double-blind test every piece of audio gear you have with the cheapest stuff you can buy at Wal-Mart or Best Buy and then when you can't tell any difference between the sound of your Iphone plugged into a jam box playing low-bit rate MP3 files and the sound of good stereo playing back RBCD or hi-rez files, look at how much more money you will save yourselves.

Conversely, people who do believe that audio cables make a difference in the sound of their systems also need to quit trying to convert audio atheists who don't believe that high-end audio exists except in price. It reminds me of a Russian saying I read a few days ago that still makes me laugh: "All of this talk is like shearing a pig. Lots of screams, but little wool."

You just did a fine job of staking out a position in a discussion you said wasn't worth having...as you clearly staked out your position.

Tim

 

[Atmasphere]

^^ Yes, I remember a discussion that came up about 10 years ago wherein the issue was try to discern what is high end and what is not. It is certainly not price. As best I can make out after all this time, 'intention' seems to be the discerning factor but even then one can't be 100% about it...

 

[Groucho]

'intention' seems to be the discerning factor but even then one can't be 100% about it...

A bit like the definition of art that says "I am an artist, therefore what I make is art".

 

[microstrip]

I personally think a comparison of the electrical transmission properties of cables - given that their sole purpose is electrical transmission - is a great place to start an analysis of audio quality, though blind listening tests is a great place to go from there, particularly when people report hearing things that is unsupported by the data. Like I said, there's data out there if you want it. I don't think there's a lot of independent research, though, and most of it is going to be a bit old. In my brief search it seemed that most of the scientists interested in the subject in recent decades were working for audio cable companies.

Tim

Tim,

We still do not have accepted results on correlation of measurements on electronics and speakers with most aspects of sound quality, why do you believe that cables, where the electrical differences will be very small and the interaction with other equipment is poorly understood and difficult to measure (I am addressing effects such as noise and EMF) "is a great place to start an analysis of audio quality"?

Yes, you often said in this forum there is plenty of data. But when asked for links it you always suggest that people asking you should use Google, as you have no time or will to do what you consider their homework.

 

[Groucho]

We still do not have accepted results on correlation of measurements on electronics and speakers with most aspects of sound quality

Is this true? I believe that there is a correlation that has stood the test of time, and that is the one that says that simple linearity between input and output sounds best. All of the feverish debate and activity takes place around this simple idea. All amplifiers and DACs and speakers are measured with respect to this, and I don't think anyone has ever found that a deliberate deviation is a good thing per se.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

We still do not have accepted results on correlation of measurements on electronics and speakers with most aspects of sound quality, why do you believe that cables, where the electrical differences will be very small and the interaction with other equipment is poorly understood and difficult to measure (I am addressing effects such as noise and EMF) "is a great place to start an analysis of audio quality"?

Yes, you often said in this forum there is plenty of data. But when asked for links it you always suggest that people asking you should use Google, as you have no time or will to do what you consider their homework.

I provided a link, micro. But studies are often considered invalid until they agree with the iidividual's existing point of view. Do you expect me to keep researching something I personally consider a non-issue unitl I find one that someone I'm talking with on the internet finds sufficient from their point of view? If you believe there is a sonic difference in cables that are virtually identical electrically, and you want support for that point of view, yes, that's your homework to do. This time I was simply answering the assertion that there was no data out there. There is. One just has to look for it.

Tim

 

[Groucho]

This time I was simply answering the assertion that there was no data out there. There is. One just has to look for it.

I think you overestimate how much data there is. I reckon that pretty early on in any DB testing of cables it would be clear that there was no audible difference between them. Maybe a student doing a Masters degree might tackle it, but it would be a pretty boring report, and it would be difficult to find reputable engineers who would waste their time on it. If the cable manufacturing companies had ever found any evidence they would mention it, but they haven't, so they don't - why waste their time on something that would only come up negative, anyway? And they have a mystique to nurture - their only asset. I think you won't find much real data beyond the obvious and easily measured electrical characteristics, and those will show that a $2 cable is no different from a $2000 one.

 

[microstrip]

I provided a link, micro. But studies are often considered invalid until they agree with the iidividual's existing point of view. Do you expect me to keep researching something I personally consider a non-issue unitl I find one that someone I'm talking with on the internet finds sufficient from their point of view? If you believe there is a sonic difference in cables that are virtually identical electrically, and you want support for that point of view, yes, that's your homework to do. This time I was simply answering the assertion that there was no data out there. There is. One just has to look for it.

Tim

OK. Can you tell me what is your conclusion about the link you provided? Or you just send links to fill posts and once something has the MIT dissertation stamp we should venerate it ?

Anyway I am still curious to know why we consider the study of cable electrical properties so promising. What do you mean by "virtually identical electrically" ? Just measured total values or ratios of R, L and C all within 10%? Or just cables that have FR response in the same system within .1 dB?

 

[microstrip]

Is this true? I believe that there is a correlation that has stood the test of time, and that is the one that says that simple linearity between input and output sounds best. All of the feverish debate and activity takes place around this simple idea. All amplifiers and DACs and speakers are measured with respect to this, and I don't think anyone has ever found that a deliberate deviation is a good thing per se.

You are oversimplifying the problem. No system is completely linear, and IMHO the main issue is what are the really bad deviations, and how to minimize or mask them.

Signal handling is a compromise. Just measuring and trying to minimize the deviations without discernment - this means at less correlating them with perceived sound quality in my view - is not the solution. YMMV.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

OK. Can you tell me what is your conclusion about the link you provided? Or you just send links to fill posts and once something has the MIT dissertation stamp we should venerate it ?

Anyway I am still curious to know why we consider the study of cable electrical properties so promising. What do you mean by "virtually identical electrically" ? Just measured total values or ratios of R, L and C all within 10%? Or just cables that have FR response in the same system within .1 dB?

My god, how many ways do I have to say this?

If you'll read the thread, micro, you'll know that I only provided that link to show that there is data out there. I didn't endorse that particular study. I didn't even read it, and I don't intend to. To me, that the signal transmission qualities of a cable are indicative of the signal quality it delivers to the receiving component is obvious; I'm not looking for data to support the obvious. I was just demonstrating that such data exists. You don't like that particular study? Keep looking.

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-Why is it that you continuously ask everyone else to do the research to help make your point?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think you overestimate how much data there is. I reckon that pretty early on in any DB testing of cables it would be clear that there was no audible difference between them. Maybe a student doing a Masters degree might tackle it, but it would be a pretty boring report, and it would be difficult to find reputable engineers who would waste their time on it. If the cable manufacturing companies had ever found any evidence they would mention it, but they haven't, so they don't - why waste their time on something that would only come up negative, anyway? And they have a mystique to nurture - their only asset. I think you won't find much real data beyond the obvious and easily measured electrical characteristics, and those will show that a $2 cable is no different from a $2000 one.

Oh I don't think there is a huge volume of data out there and I suspect most of it is old, and you've hit on the reason why -- "it would be difficult to find reputable engineers who would waste their time on it." I'm no engineer and I think I'll stop wasting my time on it. Those who are selling $2k cables are the ones who should be doing the research and making the case. But as you've pointed out, they don't. Why would they?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-Why is it that you continuously ask everyone else to do the research to help make your point?

Because it is their point, not mine, Mark. rbert said there was no data to support the objectivist point of view about cables. I gave him a link to an MIT study to show that there is data. Point made. The arguments against that particular data set? That's a completely different conversation and one that I find pointless.

Tim