Analysis of Paper on Measurements of RCA Cables by Kunchur (Video)

[tomchris]

Just goes to show that being a professor in physics and astronomy does not exclude being intellectually impaired. Can't fix stupid. Can't even hide it.

 

[Fleuch]

Haven’t watch the video (nor made the calculation) but You are probably thinking speed of sound in the air, not transmission line theory.

Without knowing the cable specifications, this is the next best guess. The R, G, L, and C parameters of the cables under test are not available for a refined estimate, so the calculation stands.

 

[krabapple]

Is that journal predatory?

Researchgate commenters say 'yes'.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Could_you_please_order_the_best_5_journals_of_the_following

 

[krabapple]

"Psychophysics"?

Awesome. Just awesome.

Psychophysics is a real and reputable branch of psychology. Psychoacoustics is a sub-branch of it.

Research before you snark.

 

[Yuhasz01]

So this guy published in AES. That's way more problematic than noise or distorsions.

No he did NOT publish with AES, or at least latest article discussed here.

 

[PeteL]

Without knowing the cable specifications, this is the next best guess. The R, G, L, and C parameters of the cables under test are not available for a refined estimate, so the calculation stands.

Which calculation? Are you replying to me by mistake?

 

[dadregga]

Just goes to prove the old adage - any idiot can write a paper.

But not any idiot can create a controlled experiment with consistently reproducible results.

 

[krabapple]

So this guy published in AES. That's way more problematic than noise or distorsions.

A cold fusion paper got published in Nature back in the day. It happens. If it happens often, it's a problem. The traditional response to crazy and hyped 'science' like Kunchur's is rigorous replication/testing, and publication & advertisement of the results. That's how cold fusion was quickly debunked (in Nature again).

 

[xaviescacs]

Here are the numbers in a human readable form.
c = 3e8 m/s
f = 20Khz
λ = c/f = 3/2 *10^4 = 15km

Well, that depends on the background and criteria of the human. In complex units nobody writes / but always exponents. I only use IS units and therefore only two of them. Besides, it's important to make clear what's going on with the units during the calculation.

 

[krabapple]

No he did NOT publish with AES, or at least latest article discussed here.

He has published work on cable audibility in JAES. And Amir referred to it in his video. It is the JAES paper that spawned the new paper currently causing so much excitement.

The JAES paper:

AES E-Library » Cable Pathways Between Audio Components Can Affect Perceived Sound Quality

The arena of highest fidelity in music reproduction, sometimes referred to as high-end audio, has many controversial claims and contentious issues. One such controversy is whether the cables and topology used to interlink components together make an audible difference. There seems to be a...

www.aes.org

 

[Andysu]

did anyone see it ? how the coffee mug seems so fake like the video with annoying music edited in the video for background ambiance and how that sipping of the fake drink , that sipping sound sounds post sound edited into the video . the coffee mug has not one peep of steam . and sits on the table going stone cold ? no one spends effort to making hot coffee , tea and then sips it and leaves it on the table to go stone cold .
just a wanna bee hi-fi shill . unless he has orange juice or water in that mug , otherwise i think anyone watching his videos all the time , have been taken for a mug .

 

[sam_adams]

I think you might be confusing the speed of light with the speed of sound.

This is a point of confusion for many individuals when it comes to audio interconnects. Many have a perception that it is the sound that travels through the cable.

 

[Andysu]

This is a point of confusion for many individuals when it comes to audio interconnects. Many have a perception that it is the sound that travels through the cable.

it's my understandably guess , it's electrical audio signals . sound well when it comes out the speaker from electrical signals passing though magnetic field magnet surrounding a voice coil then comes out as air born sound waves that my ears receive as impulses in the air .
what ticks me off more than the reading a pdf white paper is , the fake drink in that coffee mug sitting on the table going stone cold . of course there is no drink in that mug the sipping all post sound edited with that annoying music edited in background .

 

[GXAlan]

Here is video proof that short interconnect cables can affect the sound. I live in San Francisco where Sutro tower also exists, a large TV and radio broadcast tower.

These Internet cables from China were purchased from eBay as “audiophile “flat ribbon cable. These are silver plated copper with a Teflon dielectric. All the right subjective buzzwords.

Switching back to generic shielded cable fixed the problem.

Given that @amirm has shown that cheap Amazon Basics shielded RCA interconnects work, that’s a good strategy. I have had Monoprice XLR cables break on me from too much strain on the connector. That is also where more expensive cables may have avoided a problem. That said, Monoprice stood by their lifetime warranty and are replacing that broken cable after 10 years.

If you want something special with a brand, Nelson Pass uses the gold Radio Shack cables.

 

[Andysu]

Here is video proof that short interconnect cables can affect the sound. I live in San Francisco where Sutro tower also exists, a large TV and radio broadcast tower.

These Internet cables from China were purchased from eBay as “audiophile “flat ribbon cable. These are silver plated copper with a Teflon dielectric. All the right subjective buzzwords.

Switching back to generic shielded cable fixed the problem.

Given that @amirm has shown that cheap Amazon Basics shielded RCA interconnects work, that’s a good strategy. I have had Monoprice XLR cables break on me from too much strain on the connector. That is also where more expensive cables may have avoided a problem. That said, Monoprice stood by their lifetime warranty and are replacing that broken cable after 10 years.

If you want something special with a brand, Nelson Pass uses the gold Radio Shack cables.

i have some few radio shack rca connected on back of one of the high end ( i am not a hi-fi snob ) lol connected to i think uhd panasonic 9000 THX , Lt Rt outputs . does golden wonders 4.2.4 analog sound that i think even , Dr. Carl Sagan would approve of .

do you get any mobile phone like repeater noise anymore ? i not heard peep of it now for year and half as they shifted the transmitter frequency up a bit .
is that blu disc on the table , its not superman the movie theatrical mix is it ?

 

[Fleuch]

No he did NOT publish with AES, or at least latest article discussed here.

Apologies but this is fake news.

Please check the link http://boson.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur//Acoustics-papers.htm which lists the published papers, including "Cable pathways between audio components can affect perceived sound quality", M. N. Kunchur, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 69, 398–409 (2021).

Also note the list includes: "High-end audio -- a scientific perspective", M. N. Kunchur, forthcoming book expected to be published in (2023). Information will be posted here when completed, and "The human auditory system and audio", M. N. Kunchur, review article in preparation (2022)

The scientific perspective is to be found on ASR, not on the writings of M. N. Kunchur.

Other veritable journals that need to question the veracity of what is published under their banner include Applied Acoustics, IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Acta Acustica, Technical Acoustics, and Physics News

 

[DanielT]

Thanks Amir! Good with educational videos.

Tip, start these videos by making a clear point: Yes there are measurable differences but no absolutely not audible ones. Really point this out. Then you have many people checking on your hook. A little drama, a little cliffhanger for the next part of your video.

A matter of taste, which mostly has to do with drama, presentation, how you want to post, market your videos. ....yes difference...but definitely not audible...something like that...

 

[DanielT]

.. noise..

Noise. The most annoying thing I know, and it can really be audible. Not a little cozy noise that Amir talks about in the video, but other noise, crap humming, grounding noise and so on. BUT that, in itself, has nothing to do with the cables themselves.

 

[GXAlan]

Anyway, @amirm I got lots of cables lying around, bought during the past 20 years of audio tinkering, and it is a fact that some do affect aspects of the reproduced sound in a somewhat consistent way, despite prices or brand

So let´s focus in one aspect and one instrument to make correlations easyer, piano notes decay.

It is very notable that some cables make you think the pianist are indeed using the brake pedal when others show it really isn´t.

I've been an audiophile since I was in college, so thankfully had opportunities to enjoy what my budget could afford when my hearing was still great.

#1. Sighted bias. This is different than imaginary perception. Something imaginary doesn't actually exist. Bias can alter our perceptions measurably. The best example of this are some of these fMRI studies on phantom acupuncture. When the brain thinks something, it can actually alter and convince you of the change.

Phantom Acupuncture Induces Placebo Credibility and Vicarious Sensations: A Parallel fMRI Study of Low Back Pain Patients - Scientific Reports

Although acupuncture is an effective therapeutic intervention for pain reduction, the exact difference between real and sham acupuncture has not been clearly understood because a somatosensory tactile component is commonly included in the existing sham acupuncture protocols. In an event-related...

www.nature.com

What this means is that your brain probably does hear better piano note decay, but it's because of the sighted bias. You can convince and train your brain to believe in the same thing for any product. This is what being a good listener is about and it's free. When the subjective listeners believe that some tweak is changing the sound, I genuinely believe that they hear and experience what they are writing. The problem is that most tweaks are sold at absurd markups and there may be more effective ways to convince yourself of what you presume to hear.

#2. Intentional, euphonic colorations. I don't think this is too hard to appreciate. Someone like @amirm is a "trained listener" and is able to detect difference in frequency response and transparency. Harman used to have a Windows application that let you train yourself. He can hear differences between transparent and non-transparent audio and prefers transparent audio.

100% there is a concept of personal preference. That 17 year old kid with the car stereo and bass that's heard from blocks away and is nothing but distortion and rattle? You cannot talk that person out of believing that they are listening to poor quality audio, because for THEM, that experience of the shaking car gives him/her the audio pleasure that a more neutral experience doesn't happen.

For me, I like ultimate transparency for recorded instruments like classical music. On the other hand, I genuinely think that colorations can make some music sound better and can ABX the differences.

These are the cables with actual capacitors or inductors in them.

#3. Masking. A few posts up, I show that bad cables can introduce coloration, and in my specific case, a buzz. This buzz may not be equal across the spectrum. The same way you need to turn up the volume if you are watching TV and there is a vacuum going on, you can imagine that any type of added noise into a signal may preferentially mask specific portions of the content and then when "level matching" you preferentially enhance other portions of the content.

 

[Fleuch]

Haven’t watch the video (nor made the calculation) but You are probably thinking speed of sound in the air, not transmission line theory.

Reply #1 is a response to this post, which mentions a calculation, and agrees that the figures calculated are for the wavelength of a 20kHz electromagnetic signal propagated in a vacuum rather than in a cable. It is the best estimate as the relative permittivity and the relative permeability of each cable are unknown, or, alternatively, the electrical parameters of the cables are not specified in the paper.