Ethan Winer Builds a Wire Null Tester

[SIY]

Steve Guttenberg has tried to do the same thing as Paul McGowan in defending the merits of over priced cables by studiously ignoring the real question and talking about something else (only without Paul McGowan's affable camera friendly persona and cleverly crafted script, the bumbling idiot next door without a clue approach of Steve just doesn't work as well for me).

This was useful in a sense. I'm only vaguely familiar with this guy and with what little exposure I had, I was undecided if he was gullible or complicit. Now I know for sure.

I haven't read enough of Kal Rubinson's stuff to know if he's a knowing promoter of fraud, but everyone else I'm familiar with in that world seems to be perfectly happy to take the check and the freebies in exchange for lying.

 

[svart-hvitt]

But look at expensive cable sale transactions in terms of contract, trust, interpersonal relationship, or any other metric you care to choose: the seller who promises audible (and in many cases even measurable) superiority to the purchaser is making a false representation.

Whether you characterise that as a contractual breach, an abuse of trust, or a lack of faith in the interpersonal relationship, it is unacceptable.

RANT ALERT!!!

As the modern economy matured a couple of centuries ago, what lacked was trust in transfer of value. The quakers thus filled a role in the emerging modern economy; you could take them on their words.

Today, bankers dress like quakers; black clothes are quaker custom. So you have the appearance of trust, but that’s just a facade in modern banking and doesn’t resemble quaker ways except dress.

A well-functioning economy needs to find solutions to the trust problem, like the quakers did in previous times. In the last 50 years, trust in competition as a guarantor of trustworthiness needs scrutiny. Ever more complex contracts don’t help the ordinary man; it only makes entrance barriers bigger for smaller startups.

I believe there is no model that fits them all. I don’t believe every man on earth is best served by one economy, one set of rules. Every economy needs to find its own way to ensure trust in the society is intact and building.

My view is probably coloured by 1800s optimism when people believed that science would lead to more rationalism where kwakzalvers would be wiped out (by the strong hand of government). We could do a lot more to take actions against quack marketing.

 

[DonH56]

I think it at least worth considering that not all the reviewers are liars and thieves but rather genuinely thought they heard something. Bought into the "every atom matters" argument and probably not have enough of a science background to read through the chaff. Perception bias is powerful; their main fault may be an unwillingness to try testing that might distinguish perception from reality.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I think it at least worth considering that not all the reviewers are liars and thieves but rather genuinely thought they heard something. Bought into the "every atom matters" argument and probably not have enough of a science background to read through the chaff. Perception bias is powerful; their main fault may be an unwillingness to try testing that might distinguish perception from reality.

QUOTE: I used to say to our audiences: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Source: https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair

 

[Soniclife]

I think it at least worth considering that not all the reviewers are liars and thieves but rather genuinely thought they heard something. Bought into the "every atom matters" argument and probably not have enough of a science background to read through the chaff. Perception bias is powerful; their main fault may be an unwillingness to try testing that might distinguish perception from reality.

I agree with you on how I expect most start out, but how long can you go before the part I've bolded crosses the line from unwilling to knowingly avoiding the truth? My view is that in the internet age, with so much information available, ignoring this for more than a year or so moves you from wilfully gullible through unprofessional to complicit.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I agree with you on how I expect most start out, but how long can you go before the part I've bolded crosses the line from unwilling to knowingly avoiding the truth? My view is that in the internet age, with so much information available, ignoring this for more than a year or so moves you from wilfully gullible through unprofessional to complicit.

I dunno, I think rationality and a desire to research are big assumptions to make about people. I know a lot of honest, thoughtful people with access to the same internet we have access to who are very serious and enthusiastic about audio but who nevertheless hold views that are not scientifically founded and can’t be rationally justified. IME these people believe that we “just don’t know” for sure, sometimes they aren’t at all interested in the science, as the little they know of it has never accorded with their personal subjective experience. They’re not right, but they’re not dishonest either. Take a glance at any other audio forum out there and it’s a minefield of highly technical-seeming “expert” opinions on every minute aspect of audio. It takes quite a lot of effort to get beyond that, and if your attitude is “just trust your gut and enjoy the hobby”, quite a lot of will that just isn’t there...

 

[JJB70]

You wrote: «...does it satisfy the contractual specification?»

This is a biased representation. In many parts of the world things are still governed by custom, habit, common sense, if you will - instead of contracts.

In some places this way - trust based interpersonal relations - work very well. But the world - in our age of globalization and one set of rules set - goes in the direction of more and more contracts. So when you buy a €10 product, you need to sign a hundred pages of small print contract text.

A contract doesn't have to be long or complex, it doesn't even have to be recorded in writing. It is also a voluntary agreement and for it to have legal standing both parties have to consent to the terms (I'm talking about English law, which tends to be pretty similar to contract laws in countries with legal systems similar to that of England but obviously laws differ internationally). The length and complexity of a contract tends to be determined by the value and complexity of the exchange. I've seen contracts signed for capital investment projects worth tens and hundreds of millions of dollars based of 4 - 6 pages. Writing a good contract is something of an art, some are very good at it, others aren't. Contrary to popular belief the importance of getting the contract right isn't to screw the other party but to ensure there is a clear understanding of what each party has committed to, such as price, payment terms, project specifications, exclusions, schedule, obligations of the buyer to provide rights of access, information etc etc. And in most cases it works extremely well.

Using a contract example was more a way of pointing out that whether buying something makes any sense or not is entirely for the buyer to decide (anybody is free to waste their money) but regardless of that the products should do what the suppliers sells them to do. Whilst spending a lot of money on something you don't need may be stupid, selling something under false pretences or exaggerated claims is outright wrong. In the case of consumer goods the role of a formal written contractual specification as per industrial practice tends to be played by the manufacturers published specifications and consumer protection laws regarding false advertising. Most of the snake oil vendors are however clever enough to make vague claims in their sales literature, make bold claims in interviews and on their Youtude channels and making sure tame reviewers do their dirty work for them whilst keeping their product specifications on the right side of the law. Which is why I tend to agree with SIY in believing that far from being some sort of innocent but wrong headed belief in magic electrons it is in fact all part of a very carefully crafted scam.

 

[Soniclife]

I know a lot of honest, thoughtful people with access to the same internet we have access to who are very serious and enthusiastic about audio but who nevertheless hold views that are not scientifically founded and can’t be rationally justified.

To clarify my point, I was only talking about people professionally involved in hifi, including reviewers.

 

[jsrtheta]

I think it at least worth considering that not all the reviewers are liars and thieves but rather genuinely thought they heard something. Bought into the "every atom matters" argument and probably not have enough of a science background to read through the chaff. Perception bias is powerful; their main fault may be an unwillingness to try testing that might distinguish perception from reality.

This is even more dismaying - I think you're right. They really do think they hear a difference!

 

[jsrtheta]

A contract doesn't have to be long or complex, it doesn't even have to be recorded in writing. It is also a voluntary agreement and for it to have legal standing both parties have to consent to the terms (I'm talking about English law, which tends to be pretty similar to contract laws in countries with legal systems similar to that of England but obviously laws differ internationally). The length and complexity of a contract tends to be determined by the value and complexity of the exchange. I've seen contracts signed for capital investment projects worth tens and hundreds of millions of dollars based of 4 - 6 pages. Writing a good contract is something of an art, some are very good at it, others aren't. Contrary to popular belief the importance of getting the contract right isn't to screw the other party but to ensure there is a clear understanding of what each party has committed to, such as price, payment terms, project specifications, exclusions, schedule, obligations of the buyer to provide rights of access, information etc etc. And in most cases it works extremely well.

Using a contract example was more a way of pointing out that whether buying something makes any sense or not is entirely for the buyer to decide (anybody is free to waste their money) but regardless of that the products should do what the suppliers sells them to do. Whilst spending a lot of money on something you don't need may be stupid, selling something under false pretences or exaggerated claims is outright wrong. In the case of consumer goods the role of a formal written contractual specification as per industrial practice tends to be played by the manufacturers published specifications and consumer protection laws regarding false advertising. Most of the snake oil vendors are however clever enough to make vague claims in their sales literature, make bold claims in interviews and on their Youtude channels and making sure tame reviewers do their dirty work for them whilst keeping their product specifications on the right side of the law. Which is why I tend to agree with SIY in believing that far from being some sort of innocent but wrong headed belief in magic electrons it is in fact all part of a very carefully crafted scam.

Indeed. Here in the States, where we cadged much of English law while adding a few twists, contracts are pretty much viewed the same way.

To me, though, the problem is that it is premised on the fiction that both sides to a negotiation are equally empowered. They almost never are.

 

[jsrtheta]

Just watched this and got half way through and stopped. 5:20 (paraphrasing) "we listen to a fancy mains cable, swap it to a standard one and hear a difference, ergo there IS a difference"

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Couldnt be more untrue. A perception of difference does not mean there is one. Especially when it involves an audiophiles and sighted listening comparisons.

Deep breath, carry on watching.

My money's on Ethan.

 

[andreasmaaan]

To clarify my point, I was only talking about people professionally involved in hifi, including reviewers.

I was too actually. I don’t think all the reviewers and pros are as rational and scientific or informed as we might assume they are/should be.

Specifically though, I was thinking about what often passes for a “blind test” in a typical hifi mag. If that were what I thought the science of audio were about, I don’t think I’d be particularly compelled to abandon subjectivism, and I’d find it quite easy to continue to believe that there was almost nothing we could actually “know”. I say this as someone who read a lot of hifi mags and various subjectivist forums for some time. I mean, I work in the industry partly and it took me a month on this site and an introductory digital signal processing textbook to finally dispel the possibility from my mind that there might actually be something to R2R DACs that wasn’t showing up in the standard measurements, and that’s a lot more tech than I think the average reviewer or salesperson has their head around.

I may be naive ofc

 

[Wombat]

I think it at least worth considering that not all the reviewers are liars and thieves but rather genuinely thought they heard something. Bought into the "every atom matters" argument and probably not have enough of a science background to read through the chaff. Perception bias is powerful; their main fault may be an unwillingness to try testing that might distinguish perception from reality.

A reviewer, knowledgeable in science and engineering AND directly honest too boot would not make a living in the current commercial world of audio.

 

[jsrtheta]

I was too actually. I don’t think all the reviewers and pros are as rational and scientific or informed as we might assume they are/should be.

Specifically though, I was thinking about what often passes for a “blind test” in a typical hifi mag. If that were what I thought the science of audio were about, I don’t think I’d be particularly compelled to abandon subjectivism, and I’d find it quite easy to continue to believe that there was almost nothing we could actually “know”. I say this as someone who read a lot of hifi mags and various subjectivist forums for some time. I mean, I work in the industry partly and it took me a month on this site and an introductory digital signal processing textbook to finally dispel the possibility from my mind that there might actually be something to R2R DACs that wasn’t showing up in the standard measurements, and that’s a lot more tech than I think the average reviewer or salesperson has their head around.

I may be naive ofc

An examination of the difference between current DAC technology and the DACs of the '90s, the multibit wonders like the PCM63PK-based DACs, would be interesting. DACs started out, seemingly, a war between one-bit DACs, like the Philips DACs, including Bitstream, and mulitbits, like the Burr-Brown DACs. Delta-Sigma configurations, including Bitstream, were disparaged in comparison to multibit solutions like those on offer from Burr-Brown and Analog Devices. True, there was a lot of ignorance about DACs then. And a lot of energy was spent on developing higher resolutions, like 18-bit and 20-bit, in a quest for greater resolution in the 16/44 format. But did any of them actually succeed, compared to the 24/96 revolution?

Or, more likely, are these just the ravings of an aging fart who wishes to recapture the halcyon days of middle age? Asking for a friend.

 

[Wombat]

An examination of the difference between current DAC technology and the DACs of the '90s, the multibit wonders like the PCM63PK-based DACs, would be interesting. DACs started out, seemingly, a war between one-bit DACs, like the Philips DACs, including Bitstream, and mulitbits, like the Burr-Brown DACs. Delta-Sigma configurations, including Bitstream, were disparaged in comparison to multibit solutions like those on offer from Burr-Brown and Analog Devices. True, there was a lot of ignorance about DACs then. And a lot of energy was spent on developing higher resolutions, like 18-bit and 20-bit, in a quest for greater resolution in the 16/44 format. But did any of them actually succeed, compared to the 24/96 revolution?

Or, more likely, are these just the ravings of an aging fart who wishes to recapture the halcyon days of middle age? Asking for a friend.

If the differences were obvious we would have stopped talking about them.

 

[March Audio]

I think it at least worth considering that not all the reviewers are liars and thieves but rather genuinely thought they heard something. Bought into the "every atom matters" argument and probably not have enough of a science background to read through the chaff. Perception bias is powerful; their main fault may be an unwillingness to try testing that might distinguish perception from reality.

Indeed, but as a reviewer essentially providing advice to people, isn't a pre requisite to have adequate knowledge of a subject? In this instance various technical fields and that of perceptional science? Its one thing that differentiates the reviews in this forum for instance.

 

[Wombat]

Indeed, but as a reviewer essentially providing advice to people, isn't a pre requisite to have adequate knowledge of a subject? In this instance various technical fields and that of perceptional science?

Unsupported opinions seem to be dominant in society. The crash is coming and I will remember those who pushed for maintaining the status quo rather than face up to the future.

 

[confucius_zero]

For some reason, I did appreciate the sound of a quad-shielded mogami RCA cable more than that of a conventional one. Perhaps I was hearing my imagination then.

Can this test then prove that XLR and RCA "null" each other as well?

 

[Breezy]

I’m a little bit confused about the conclusion as far as it pertains to the concept of “adequate” cable configuration for a specific task. Say for a moderate run of 30 feet with 8 Ohm speakers, using 16AWG *copper-clad* aluminum core speaker wire is not as optimal as something like 12AWG full copper wire. Not at all talking about fancy $100+ cables here but rather taking Amir’s 12AWG speaker wire comparison as an example of quality difference even among 12 AWG offerings. My own good heavy-duty 12 AWG copper wire cost me $22 shipped from Amazon for a 50ft spool, and it was not much more expensive than 16 AWG Amazon Basics CCA wire at $8.50 shipped. Extrapolating this to RCA cables for powered speakers—is there not some minimum standard to adhere to as well, even for short runs of 6ft? That was not clear from the video, which seemed to say it doesn’t matter which RCA wire I use: the difference is not going to be audible regardless of length or composition. Am I missing something?

 

[DonH56]

I’m a little bit confused about the conclusion as far as it pertains to the concept of “adequate” cable configuration for a specific task. Say for a moderate run of 30 feet with 8 Ohm speakers, using 16AWG *copper-clad* aluminum core speaker wire is not as optimal as something like 12AWG full copper wire. Not at all talking about fancy $100+ cables here but rather taking Amir’s 12AWG speaker wire comparison as an example of quality difference even among 12 AWG offerings. My own good heavy-duty 12 AWG copper wire cost me $22 shipped from Amazon for a 50ft spool, and it was not much more expensive than 16 AWG Amazon Basics CCA wire at $8.50 shipped. Extrapolating this to RCA cables for powered speakers—is there not some minimum standard to adhere to as well, even for short runs of 6ft? That was not clear from the video, which seemed to say it doesn’t matter which RCA wire I use: the difference is not going to be audible regardless of length or composition. Am I missing something?

Speakers require much more power and present a much lower load impedance than that seen by an interconnect, by orders of magnitude. A typical speaker load may be around 8 ohms nominal whilst a typical power amplifier input is usually 10 k-ohms or higher, more than a thousand times greater impedance and thus less than one-thousandth the load. Powered speakers look like the amplifier input to the preamp since the power amp within the speaker drives the speaker (driver) itself. So, unless you are running many hundreds of feet or more, the RCA cable does not matter. If you are in a high-noise environment you might need better shielding, and good cables (still not expensive) may have better connectors, but the simple answer is that interconnects do not matter in the vast majority of consumer installations.

<Insert lengthy disclaimer here> - Don