advertisement


Philosophy Science Electronics and cables

M

marvan

On the banks of the Tay
Some musings. More of a posset!


I should explain I have a scientific background

My understanding is good scientists have an open mind, make observations and then try to understand and explain them.


Knowing what you don’t know is another good characteristic


I have a number of issues with science.

1 How do we know science is correct? Ah yes. Scientists have made up scientific rules to confirm they are correct

2 Why are there not universal rules that apply to every situation?


Which is the better scientist?

1 I have a set a rules and equations to explain electrical conduction and electronics. I have a machine to measure some characteristics of a cable. These characteristics of the are the same. This means the cables sound the same.

2 Is there a different sound from different cables. If so how do I explain that?


So how do we explain a difference of opinion?

The degree of detail and precision the signal is and how accurately the speaker translates the signal will have an effect on potential difference the cable will impose.


System synergy will highlight the potential difference cables make


Observer bias


What are my observations?

When buying my system I observed differences between naca5, and Chord speaker cable (rumour, odyssey and signature)

To my ears( and my good lady) the Signature was massively better!


I have just compared a Yannis Silver Litz XLR to a Van Damme starquad and Mogami. 4 of us did this in the last 24 hours. We independently wrote down our preferences. The other 3 were “blind” and only knew the cables as 1,2,3.

The system was a Linn DSM to a Chord Power amp, Chord Speaker cable and B&W 805 speakers.


Cable 3 was the best Everyone agreed. I agrees but thought the difference was slight


I love my music and I am blessed being able to have a quality system which augments my enjoyment of it.


Like a lot of us I enjoy a little tinker to make it even better


I am genuinely interested in understanding the difference in opinion on the subject. I am keen to learn more on the subject. Please educate me. Your thought and opinions would be appreciated


Thanks

M
 
That's a really well-posed question for another 'cable thread' !
I hope you have water and aspirin to hand...
atb
 
Simply put, unless the test was blinded and level matched and run a statistically valid number of times you have no way of knowing if bias, chance, group think or any other variables were at play.

You have to remove all the variables and bias before you have a valid listening test. Then and only then will you know that it was down to hearing and not something else.

It's boring, time consuming and usually not much fun to do proper tests. But if you care about truthful results it's the only way.

Most people don't care, that's not unusual.
 
Couple of generalised thoughts:

If they measure the same but sound different, are you measuring the right parameters to detect a difference?

You have three things in the system, your source of signal, your transmission line/cable, and your destination transducer. Different sources will have different abilities to drive the cable and different transducers put different demands on the source/cable combination. Some amplifiers may be more susceptible to differences in cables than others, output stage stability driving reactive loads etc.

I don't think cables 'should' make a difference to sound if correctly specced. Neither should they if the supporting equipment is properly designed. But we do design some amps to run on the ragged edge of stability to simplify them in order to be pure, in this case cables interaction could be significant!

Just my opinion, I also think connectors are a bigger deal than cables.
 
marvan said:
Some musings. More of a posset!


I should explain I have a scientific background

My understanding is good scientists have an open mind, make observations and then try to understand and explain them.


Knowing what you don’t know is another good characteristic


I have a number of issues with science.

1 How do we know science is correct? Ah yes. Scientists have made up scientific rules to confirm they are correct

2 Why are there not universal rules that apply to every situation?


Which is the better scientist?

1 I have a set a rules and equations to explain electrical conduction and electronics. I have a machine to measure some characteristics of a cable. These characteristics of the are the same. This means the cables sound the same.

2 Is there a different sound from different cables. If so how do I explain that?


So how do we explain a difference of opinion?

The degree of detail and precision the signal is and how accurately the speaker translates the signal will have an effect on potential difference the cable will impose.


System synergy will highlight the potential difference cables make


Observer bias


What are my observations?

When buying my system I observed differences between naca5, and Chord speaker cable (rumour, odyssey and signature)

To my ears( and my good lady) the Signature was massively better!


I have just compared a Yannis Silver Litz XLR to a Van Damme starquad and Mogami. 4 of us did this in the last 24 hours. We independently wrote down our preferences. The other 3 were “blind” and only knew the cables as 1,2,3.

The system was a Linn DSM to a Chord Power amp, Chord Speaker cable and B&W 805 speakers.


Cable 3 was the best Everyone agreed. I agrees but thought the difference was slight


I love my music and I am blessed being able to have a quality system which augments my enjoyment of it.


Like a lot of us I enjoy a little tinker to make it even better


I am genuinely interested in understanding the difference in opinion on the subject. I am keen to learn more on the subject. Please educate me. Your thought and opinions would be appreciated


Thanks

M
Click to expand...
There's some of us who like to tinker and are happy with any small Improvement the tinkering makes in the sound we hear.
It might well be we are optimistic and quite happy!
Then there are some who laugh at us trying to improve our hifi! They tell us there is no difference in cables.
And we are deluded and if we succumb to their ' unsighted ' listening tests etc..we will hear the error of our ways?
Well, I don't want to be like them who hang onto their belief in science to listen like a dog hangs onto a bone!
So I will carry on listening and tinkering as any small or big improvement makes me smile..this is my simple philosophy
 
I believe there is difference, no matter how small. Whether there is improvement is another matter. Same with equipment. There will come a point where your set up is right for your ears. This may be expensive or more reasonable.
 
marvan said:
Some musings. More of a posset!

I should explain I have a scientific background

My understanding is good scientists have an open mind, make observations and then try to understand and explain them.

Knowing what you don’t know is another good characteristic
Click to expand...
Another good characteristic is to not dismiss reasonably plausible explanations for observations. Commonly, people have their own beliefs and prejudices and so arrive rather informally at their own explanations. Observation of the world tells me this is a perfectly usual way of life. The good scientist has to do better but still have a mind that is "not so open that his/her brains fall out".
marvan said:
I have a number of issues with science.

1 How do we know science is correct? Ah yes. Scientists have made up scientific rules to confirm they are correct

2 Why are there not universal rules that apply to every situation?
Click to expand...
To quote Richard Feynman: "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain".

Scientists make up reasonably plausible rules to test them against reality. They keep the ones that prove useful and discard the ones that are not. And useful rules continue to be tested against reality to see if they should be modified or even discarded. Thus with time and the absence of any contradiction with reality the rules that survive move towards the "nearly sure" end of the spectrum. Those that get there need much better reasonably plaisible challenges for them to be modified or discarded.

With respect to this hobby I am sure you will have seen challenges to current science and engineering that go beyond some definition of reasonably plausible as well as those that seem reasonable. We all have our own thresholds.
 
marvan said:
Some musings. More of a posset!


I should explain I have a scientific background
...

I am genuinely interested in understanding the difference in opinion on the subject. I am keen to learn more on the subject. Please educate me. Your thought and opinions would be appreciated


Thanks

M
Click to expand...

Since you have a "scientific background" I'd assume you already know the sensible answers to the questions you pose about the actual scientific process.

Beyond that any answers tend to depend on the specific example and if those involved actually understand all the relevant 'science' and decide on that basis, or if they simply grab an 'answer' they prefer to believe.

Yes "cables" can "make a difference" in some situations. Sometimes they don't, Sometimes something else did and the person decides incorrectly any "cause".

My own reaction tends to be "If moving my head a cm or tweaking the volume makes a bigger difference than the one that *might* be due to a particular 'cable' in a particular system, I canna be bothered to care much about the 'cable'." Seems a waste of time and possibly money.

For the above reasons 'cable' threads tend to become both boring and irrelevant. Enjoy the music. :)
 
My personal view, no background in any science or electronic engineering.
Cables do make a difference if you have a highly resolving system, which I believe you have. Chord amp and B&W speakers. Hated by some on here but I love the combination so reveling.
Maybe I'm bias I have a chord amp and b&w 802d.
 
A good system should have well matched input/ output impedances throughout and all output devices should be load invariant, within reason. Now assuming these basic engineering tenets are achieved then cabling, short of rf/emi noise rejection, should make no difference.

In short, if none pathological cabling makes a difference your gear is poorly designed, not just highly resolving, ie low noise.
 
sq225917 said:
A good system should have well matched input/ output impedances throughout and all output devices should be load invariant, within reason. Now assuming these basic engineering tenets are achieved then cabling, short of rf/emi noise rejection, should make no difference.

In short, if none pathological cabling makes a difference your gear is poorly designed, not just highly resolving, ie low noise.
Click to expand...
I read a piece by dCS earlier which said that some of their stuff measures better than the resolving capabilities of the measuring equipment, partly because in some instances the measuring equipment introduces elements (eg, second harmonic components) that aren't there in the device inherently, and they had to develop measuring systems to get round this. What this suggests to me is that measurements are the output of a combined device/measuring device system, not purely the device itself. The act of measuring affects the parameter being measured.

"At dCS, we regularly review the performance [of our products] and look very closely at how things are working and where we might be able to improve them," explains Chris. "We took some time last year to look very carefully at how [the Ring DAC hardware] was performing, and we found that the performance of the existing analogue board is beyond the capability of most test equipment."

This is a familiar issue for dCS engineers: as our products often exceed the capabilities of conventional test equipment, we’ve had to devise a range of bespoke tools and equipment that allow us to measure each aspect of a system’s performance with absolute precision. If we cannot measure something as accurately or as comprehensively as we’d like, then we often invest in building a new platform or measurement tool from scratch.

"Audio measurement systems [can] introduce noise, or distortion, or limit the frequency response, just like the thing they’re trying to measure, and there can come a point where, even if they’re not dominating what you’re measuring, these artefacts are affecting it one way or another," explains Chris. "A good example is when measuring harmonics, where the second harmonic inherent in the test equipment can cancel with the one in the item you’re trying to measure. This can result in a measurement that is much lower than it should be and one which tends to behave unexpectedly as the performance of the item under test is adjusted."
Click to expand...

When we listen, of course, we are listening to the device, not the device-plus-measuring-device.

The dCS piece went on to say that, having developed more resolving measuring systems they were able to reengineer some components in their output stages and these improvements were correlated in listening tests.

Now you can say this is marketing bollocks if you like, but my impression is that most people respect dCS for the quality of its engineering.
 
I don't doubt that dcs create test gear to measure parameters specific to how their gear works.

But I 100% doubt that improvements beyond the range of widely available test kit, -140db let's say, make any audible difference at all.

Thetes no point engineering an output stage to -170db. When -160db is 10,000 times less than we can hear.
 
I just wonder whether what we hear isn't so much the measured parameters, but artefacts arising from those measured parameters. So we don't hear noise as noise, just as we don't hear a noise floor, what we hear is a 'greyness' or a 'haze' or 'glare' or 'hash', or a reduction in dynamics, or whatever. So it may be that the parameter being below the generally accepted threshold of audibility, doesn't prevent the parameter from generating an artefact in some way that is detectable. Noting also that most measurements are 'steady state' using test tones and what we're experiencing is a very dynamic and fast-moving situation.

If you consider that the differences in cables, say, may be down in the levels dCS is talking about when it talks about the resolution of measuring kit, I just find myself wondering. That's all.
 
marvan said:
Some musings. More of a posset!


I should explain I have a scientific background

My understanding is good scientists have an open mind, make observations and then try to understand and explain them.


Knowing what you don’t know is another good characteristic


I have a number of issues with science.

1 How do we know science is correct? Ah yes. Scientists have made up scientific rules to confirm they are correct

2 Why are there not universal rules that apply to every situation?


Which is the better scientist?

1 I have a set a rules and equations to explain electrical conduction and electronics. I have a machine to measure some characteristics of a cable. These characteristics of the are the same. This means the cables sound the same.

2 Is there a different sound from different cables. If so how do I explain that?
..............

I am genuinely interested in understanding the difference in opinion on the subject. I am keen to learn more on the subject. Please educate me. Your thought and opinions would be appreciated


Thanks

M
Click to expand...
"Scientific background" is a very general expression. For what it's worth IMHO if you are really interested in these questions then it is advisable to think outside the box. No really. As in "open mind", but in the Richard Dawkins sense.
Most people interested in this hobby will unfortunately start out (and even more unfortunately finish) within a box of plausible, widely shared but neverthless totally misleading assumptions. Essentially along the lines of what a medieval farmer would think about disease or weather.

I would recommend forgetting about physics and start by reading some books about neuroscience and psychoacoustics.
Then come back to what in the name of god you mean by "sound from different cables" before you even get to the question of how you "explain it".
if you think the "sound of a cable" is to be understood in terms of physics then you are barking up the wrong tree.
 
This is fantastic
Thank you so much!
Keep it coming
Jim’s work (http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html)
is an education for me. I think I am a “natural philosopher”Plenty more reading for me there

Popper, Feuerabend, Kuhn, Lakatos et al is also going to be a good read.

Apologies for all the typos in my first post

“sound of the cable” was a loose phrase! My rudimentary knowledge would suggest a cables function is to transmit a signal from a to b with the least amount of interference/alteration. My assumption is any interference/alteration can influence the signal and hence the output of the speakers.

What then happens ,especially in the 6 inches between the ears, is somewhat mind bending !

I really enjoy being challenged to think differently

God bless PFM
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I read a piece by dCS earlier which said that some of their stuff measures better than the resolving capabilities of the measuring equipment, ...

Now you can say this is marketing bollocks if you like, but my impression is that most people respect dCS for the quality of its engineering.
Click to expand...
It is both plausible and marketing. They are not AFAICS exclusive concepts.

In the OP's question we are, I think, looking at the interaction between philosophy and science/engineering. IMHO it's for the best to first understand your philosophy -- the beliefs you hold that inform the way you enjoy the hobby. The why of individual preference is rather inexplicable even if research may shed light on the what of population preference.

To some people nothing is good enough. Sometimes based on the hypothesis that human hearing is better than any measurement instrument (but I haven't seen a convincing justification). They chase "the best" for whatever is their definition of "the best" whether engineering, aesthetics, or something else. It's a perfectly good way of enjoying the hobby.

To some, enjoyment is in trying out new things on a regular basis. It's a perfectly good way of enjoying the hobby too.

To some, there is a threshold. For me it's "good enough to get out of the way of enjoying the music". I think that's a perfectly good way of enjoying the hobby too. On cables (as in the thread title) I did my experimentation many years ago and discovered what matters to me and what does not. I stopped worrying about cables but I do occasionally test more modern issues such as whether digital audio transport and DACs are now too good to be of concern to me.

I like excellence in engineering. It pushes boundaries and pulls up the technical performance of others through leadership. You can use that in marketing too. The likes of dCS have produced products that are certainly better than my threshold and almost certainly better than any demonstrable human hearing capability. With unlimited financial resources I could go there because it would please me to have products so good they're audibly "blameless" on my scale. However my engineering sensibilities encompass the definition of quality as "good enough for purpose." So actually I am better pleased to not over-spend (as I see it) to reach my threshold. YMMV, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top