Shunyata Factory Tour - and how do THESE claims hold up?

[MattHooper]

He folks,

There is a new video (Absolute Sound) of a Shunyata factory tour:

That video itself may not interest too many here, but in discussing this on another forum I was pointing out that, as far as I know, Shunyata has not
provided any evidence of their product measurably/audibly improving an actual audio signal. As Amir always points out in his reviews, that is of course
what we actually care about.

Here are a couple of responses that purport to provide such evidence:

DTCD® Technology - Shunyata Research

DTCD® Technology The Shunyata Research DTCD® Analyzer is the first and only power analyzer designed specifically to measure the differences between AC power cables, wires and connections. We interrupt our regularly scheduled analog programming for this important message: Shunyata Research’s...

shunyata.com

Here is an "unpaid" video testimonial from someone in a recording studio.

I'm not concerned with the standard "we all heard a difference" stuff, but he does make some claims using measurements at around: 3:17 in to the video.

He describes measuring the the noise floor of the output of a loop - DAC to mastering console to the ADC: - 108 dB(z)
With the Shunyata cabling they measured: - 118 dB(z)

So drop of 10dB noise floor "across all frequencies." Inner crosstalk was reduced by -3dB. Harmonic distortion was also reduced by a small percentage.

He then says some would argue that the noise floor was already below human perception. But as they raise volume levels, add processors etc, this can increase the residual noise floor 20dB or more, well in to the audible noise range:


Now, audiophiles are generally not putting their signal through chains of processors and mastering consoles. So this still seems to me of dubious benefit in the average system. Also: the gentleman in the video doesn't IIRC tell us what exactly he measured at the output of that chain, and how he measured it (e.g. what measuring device).

However, I'm no EE so what do you more knowledgeable folk have to say about these particular claims?

 

[JayGilb]

They are using a proprietary analyzer without providing a chance for outside engineers to analyze the testing procedures.
The recording studio offers this as proof:

and nothing else. A single poorly grounded connection in such a complex system could have caused the measurement differences.

The testing methodology is barely endorsed by Micheal Fremer: "and that perhaps these measured differences are what audio enthusiasts hear when they swap out these elements in their systems." He's not exactly picking a hill to die on in that quote.

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks JayGilb,

That was my thinking (such as it is) as well.

Even if we take the measurements at face value, I'm not sure it suggests the cables are likely to make any sonic differences in most systems. This still isn't someone identifying cable differences using music. I wonder what a music file, through that system, would show with and without, nulled for differences.

Anyone else care to comment?

 

[kemmler3D]

Checked out the Shunyata link. They show pretty convincingly that certain cables will conduct at higher voltages faster than others, on the scale of a few microseconds. They don't show anything involving audio signals, though.

I think this might be of real interest if capacitors had never been invented.

Think about it like this. If the differences shown in their tests made a difference to audible output, noisy AC would have an extremely obvious impact on what you hear from your systems, as it has a much "worse" impact on the electricity going into your gear than these tests show. As it stands, it's rare to even find a measurable impact, let alone audible.

Thinking about the impact of these cables on sound is like thinking about the impact of bumper stickers on the top speed of a car. Yes - technically the bumper stickers have a theoretical impact on aerodynamics... which does impact speed. But they want to assert that the impact of bumper stickers is comparable to the impact of opening the doors and windows while driving, and sell you a $10,000 bumper sticker removal tool.

Amir consistently tests the effect of various power devices on audio output, and AFAIK has yet to find any impact good or bad. Nobody else shows those tests, because they know they'd come up with the same result.

 

[RayDunzl]

They show pretty convincingly that certain cables will conduct at higher voltages faster than others, on the scale of a few microseconds.

Shunyata DTCD:

Take a 60Hz wave and zoom in. Zoom in some more. Zoom in to microseconds on the scale.

Look at the slope where it might begin to forward bias a bridge rectifier - the gatekeeper in the power supply.

Using 170Vpk as the left scale (.80 = 80% of 170 as the turn-on area)

Compare the rate at which the diodes turn on and begin to conduct to the "microsecond" rise time of the tested raw cable.

When I played around with that, my conclusion is the power cable really doesn't need to be very fast.

 

[kemmler3D]

It's unknown for now. There are just way too many aspect of audio that we do not know and have no means of measuring it today.

Hmm, you do realize you're posting this on a site where those measurements have been performed, rather often in fact?

PS Audio PowerPlant 3 Review

This is a review, listening tests and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Power Plant 3 AC regenerator. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $2,499. There are no front panel controls other than standby/power switch on the left. To activate the MultiWave and ClearWave requires...

www.audiosciencereview.com

So - on the point of whether there is any aspect of audio signals we can't measure - the answer is no. By definition, no.

Maybe there is some aspect of hearing that is unknown to science. I don't think so but I'm not prepared to bet my life on that or anything.

However. There is no aspect of audio SIGNALS that is unknown to science. That's what we're talking about here - electrical signals.

Think about it. Recording and playback are both done using equipment that works the same way as measurement equipment, but is less sensitive.

The recording IS ITSELF no different than an audio measurement.

If we can't measure the effect on the signal, then for all intents and purposes, the effect does not exist. It would imply that the effect you're hearing is smaller than the smallest thing we can actually put on a record.

It would also imply that the people selling the equipment (and asserting that it improves the sound) actually can't know if it actually improves the sound, because according to this line of reasoning, the change is not measurable.

The counter-argument might be: "well, maybe there is a change, but it is too small and subtle for laboratory equipment to pick up, well below the known threshold of human hearing, but my speakers can accurately reproduce this change, and my ears can hear the change too."

And I would say... prove it? That would be a bold claim.

We know that a person's state of mind affects your impressions of what you hear pretty strongly. This is a much better way to explain heard differences in things like audio cables or power conditioners. People really do hear differences, but the differences are not caused by the performance of the cable itself, they are caused by its influence on the mind.

 

[lisgotan]

Hmm, you do realize you're posting this on a site where those measurements have been performed, rather often in fact?

PS Audio PowerPlant 3 Review

This is a review, listening tests and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Power Plant 3 AC regenerator. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $2,499. There are no front panel controls other than standby/power switch on the left. To activate the MultiWave and ClearWave requires...

www.audiosciencereview.com

So - on the point of whether there is any aspect of audio signals we can't measure - the answer is no. By definition, no.

Maybe there is some aspect of hearing that is unknown to science. I don't think so but I'm not prepared to bet my life on that or anything.

However. There is no aspect of audio SIGNALS that is unknown to science. That's what we're talking about here - electrical signals.

Think about it. Recording and playback are both done using equipment that works the same way as measurement equipment, but is less sensitive.

The recording IS ITSELF no different than an audio measurement.

If we can't measure the effect on the signal, then for all intents and purposes, the effect does not exist. It would imply that the effect you're hearing is smaller than the smallest thing we can actually put on a record.

It would also imply that the people selling the equipment (and asserting that it improves the sound) actually can't know if it actually improves the sound, because according to this line of reasoning, the change is not measurable.

The counter-argument might be: "well, maybe there is a change, but it is too small and subtle for laboratory equipment to pick up, well below the known threshold of human hearing, but my speakers can accurately reproduce this change, and my ears can hear the change too."

And I would say... prove it? That would be a bold claim.

We know that a person's state of mind affects your impressions of what you hear pretty strongly. This is a much better way to explain heard differences in things like audio cables or power conditioners. People really do hear differences, but the differences are not caused by the performance of the cable itself, they are caused by its influence on the mind.

Its not about the audio signal itself. It extremely easy to record a signal and show its amplitude and frequencies. What that is extremely difficult is to decipher the information contained in this audio signal. Give you a really good example.

I am sure you have experienced those audio demos by dolby or some other effects company. Eg if they use a ball and bounce around in the room, you can literally hear the balling bounching off these imaginary walls at various location. Simple to hear and even pinpoint the location right? Now try to use record the audio signals and show the location of sound in the room. Then you realise its an entirely different ball game. How different audio signals coming out each speaker interacts and ultimately make us as a listener having the perception that the sound is coming from a particular location (when it's not).

So, the measurements performed here are basically synthetic tests like frequency response, SINAD, SNR, THD etc...They all do tell the performance of respective equipment. However, they are insufficient to tell how the entire system will perform when playing actualy music.

 

[kemmler3D]

Now try to use record the audio signals and show the location of sound in the room.

This is actually more or less doable if you know how to read a vectorscope or even just a raw stereo waveform.

You would need to combine a knowledgeable read of the spectrogram to determine height information, but it's doable.

The factors in directional hearing are pretty well understood and you can buy software tools (for not very much money) that do left, right, up, down, forward and back quite effectively, they have existed for a long time.

How different audio signals coming out each speaker interacts and ultimately make us as a listener having the perception that the sound is coming from a particular location (when it's not).

Yes, sound in the room is complex, but has nothing in particular to do with cables / AC conditioners.

However, they are insufficient to tell how the entire system will perform when playing actualy music.

Correct that they don't provide a full picture of how a full system sounds.

However, in the case of electronics (cables, DACs, amps) that don't make sound on their own...the measurements tell you everything you might need to know.

If you aren't keen on SINAD you can always do a deltawave test with real music. It would also show no audible change.

There is no mystery step where the signal changes in ways that are unknown to science, especially not due to using a thicker power cable.

In general audio is much more of a solved problem than most audiophiles realize or are willing to admit. IMO speakers and headphones are the only places we should be looking for material improvements to sound quality, because they are by far the weakest links in the chain. The rest of the chain is pretty damn strong here in the 2020s.

Put it this way - whatever you think of SINAD, ~60dB is considered awful for an amp, but it's pretty excellent for a speaker.

 

[lisgotan]

Hmm, you do realize you're posting this on a site where those measurements have been performed, rather often in fact?

PS Audio PowerPlant 3 Review

This is a review, listening tests and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Power Plant 3 AC regenerator. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $2,499. There are no front panel controls other than standby/power switch on the left. To activate the MultiWave and ClearWave requires...

www.audiosciencereview.com

So - on the point of whether there is any aspect of audio signals we can't measure - the answer is no. By definition, no.

Maybe there is some aspect of hearing that is unknown to science. I don't think so but I'm not prepared to bet my life on that or anything.

However. There is no aspect of audio SIGNALS that is unknown to science. That's what we're talking about here - electrical signals.

Think about it. Recording and playback are both done using equipment that works the same way as measurement equipment, but is less sensitive.

The recording IS ITSELF no different than an audio measurement.

If we can't measure the effect on the signal, then for all intents and purposes, the effect does not exist. It would imply that the effect you're hearing is smaller than the smallest thing we can actually put on a record.

It would also imply that the people selling the equipment (and asserting that it improves the sound) actually can't know if it actually improves the sound, because according to this line of reasoning, the change is not measurable.

The counter-argument might be: "well, maybe there is a change, but it is too small and subtle for laboratory equipment to pick up, well below the known threshold of human hearing, but my speakers can accurately reproduce this change, and my ears can hear the change too."

And I would say... prove it? That would be a bold claim.

We know that a person's state of mind affects your impressions of what you hear pretty strongly. This is a much better way to explain heard differences in things like audio cables or power conditioners. People really do hear differences, but the differences are not caused by the performance of the cable itself, they are caused by its influence on the mind.

Continuation about your confidence in science and lab equipment.

I have no arguments on the science part since we know how we hear etc... The part we don't know is how the brain interprets these signals and give us the perception. We only know which part of the brain responsible and activities, but we don't know the exact mechanism behind it.

Now to the lab equipment.

This is actually more or less doable if you know how to read a vectorscope or even just a raw stereo waveform.

You would need to combine a knowledgeable read of the spectrogram to determine height information, but it's doable.

The factors in directional hearing are pretty well understood and you can buy software tools (for not very much money) that do left, right, up, down, forward and back quite effectively, they have existed for a long time.

Yes, sound in the room is complex, but has nothing in particular to do with cables / AC conditioners.


Correct that they don't provide a full picture of how a full system sounds.

However, in the case of electronics (cables, DACs, amps) that don't make sound on their own...the measurements tell you everything you might need to know.

If you aren't keen on SINAD you can always do a deltawave test with real music. It would also show no audible change.

There is no mystery step where the signal changes in ways that are unknown to science, especially not due to using a thicker power cable.

Then I challenge you to do it and show everyone. Walk the talk. I never seen anyone in this forum doing it other than to talk or rather type.

 

[kemmler3D]

Continuation about your confidence in science and lab equipment.

I have no arguments on the science part since we know how we hear etc... The part we don't know is how the brain interprets these signals and give us the perception. We only know which part of the brain responsible and activities, but we don't know the exact mechanism behind it.

Now to the lab equipment.


Then I challenge you to do it and show everyone. Walk the talk. I never seen anyone in this forum doing it other than to talk or rather type.

I think this would actually be fun but I'm pretty slammed until at least late February... if you can remind me I'd be happy to do this challenge for the heck of it around then.

The task: get an audio recording of something moving around like you said - bouncing ball, buzzing bee, etc. Something with quite dramatic movement. Take a few seconds of the recording and give me just screenshots of the stereo waveform and high res spectrogram. I'll attempt to annotate the images with the apparent position of the audio. These will need to be pretty zoomed in so we might need several screenshots, but it should be doable.

Left to right is simple because it will blatantly show up as amplitude in the stereo waveform.

Up and down is associated with gross amplitude as well as filtering in certain bands to simulate HRTF-like effects. Height will be the hardest to see because the frequency filtering is not extreme and it doesn't necessarily have a big signature in gross amplitude. I do not promise great results on height, I will probably mix it up with front/back or miss it in many cases.

Front and back is associated with the direct/reflected/reverb mix, a little filtering of highs, and of course gross amplitude.


There are also delays associated with simulated distance / angle from the virtual listener, but those are pretty hard to see unless you zoom way TF in and we can probably ignore them for this exercise.

Anyway, I promise that sound localization within a recording isn't super complex.

I do agree with you that the neurological processes that govern localizing sound are more complex and less well understood... or at least I'm personally much more ignorant about those.

However, we don't need to know about those to know whether cables make a difference. If the electrical signal coming out of the amp doesn't show a difference, there's no chance anything is making it to our brains or ears.

 

[JSmith]

I never seen anyone in this forum doing it other than to talk or rather type.

Ah you've been here a week, so unfortunately I don't place much credence in what you have seen anyone doing here.

Then I challenge you to do it and show everyone. Walk the talk.

Now you're demanding by challenge that people prove things to you? Other way around...


JSmith

 

[Palladium]

Ah you've been here a week, so unfortunately I don't place much credence in what you have seen anyone doing here.

Now you're demanding by challenge that people prove things to you? Other way around...


JSmith

You see our teapot ears are so good at discerning microscopic quantum details that they can't pass a 160kbps Opus vs loseless ABX without killer samples.

 

[Yuhasz01]

Continuation about your confidence in science and lab equipment.

I have no arguments on the science part since we know how we hear etc... The part we don't know is how the brain interprets these signals and give us the perception. We only know which part of the brain responsible and activities, but we don't know the exact mechanism behind it.

Now to the lab equipment.


Then I challenge you to do it and show everyone. Walk the talk. I never seen anyone in this forum doing it other than to talk or rather type.

Read power cable reviews and tests data reported here… many have been done if you search

Seems like a lot of troll type comments from this guy.

Oh yeah I bought and tried Shunyata cables two years ago. Well made but made no audible difference what so ever. There is no objective tests anywhere I could fine to verify their claims either.

Ball in your court to do the tests and provide the data for these cables.

 

[JSmith]

killer samples

Plenty here; https://www.thekillersmusic.com/#/




JSmith

 

[Blumlein 88]

Checked out the Shunyata link. They show pretty convincingly that certain cables will conduct at higher voltages faster than others, on the scale of a few microseconds. They don't show anything involving audio signals, though.

I think this might be of real interest if capacitors had never been invented.

Think about it like this. If the differences shown in their tests made a difference to audible output, noisy AC would have an extremely obvious impact on what you hear from your systems, as it has a much "worse" impact on the electricity going into your gear than these tests show. As it stands, it's rare to even find a measurable impact, let alone audible.

Thinking about the impact of these cables on sound is like thinking about the impact of bumper stickers on the top speed of a car. Yes - technically the bumper stickers have a theoretical impact on aerodynamics... which does impact speed. But they want to assert that the impact of bumper stickers is comparable to the impact of opening the doors and windows while driving, and sell you a $10,000 bumper sticker removal tool.

Amir consistently tests the effect of various power devices on audio output, and AFAIK has yet to find any impact good or bad. Nobody else shows those tests, because they know they'd come up with the same result.

If you look at that example and the other cables, all it shows is more current flows with larger gage cable because of less resistance. And it has no relevance to how gear works and what they are measuring. This company is always trying to mislead you with breakthoughs that amount to nothing. They are trying to show you they know more about cables to get them to respond faster when all it amounts to is the very small cable resistance limits the current and therefore how quickly the voltage can change by a few microseconds. Not exactly revolutionary you know.

 

[kemmler3D]

If you look at that example and the other cables, all it shows is more current flows with larger gage cable because of less resistance. And it has no relevance to how gear works and what they are measuring. This company is always trying to mislead you with breakthoughs that amount to nothing. They are trying to show you they know more about cables to get them to respond faster when all it amounts to is the very small cable resistance limits the current and therefore how quickly the voltage can change by a few microseconds. Not exactly revolutionary you know.

Yes, totally realize that. It does show something, but nothing of relevance.

 

[Palladium]

Yes, totally realize that. It does show something, but nothing of relevance.

Hey I really like my music consisting of 20KHz 0dBFS square waves, you insensitive clot.

 

[mhardy6647]

I feel somehow compelled to mention this in the context of this thread...

ALTAIRA Road Map - Shunyata Research

ALTAIRA Roadmap This guide is intended to give some structure and order to the materials required for a successful ordering and implementation of an ALTAIRA Grounding System. BACKGROUND MATERIALS ALTAIRA Brochure // Read the brochure Grounding Concepts Guide // Read the concepts guide PRE-ORDER...

shunyata.com

Extreme Snake Oil

You have to have both, the goal is to look legitimate, withstand scrutiny with multiple camouflage angles while maintaining a distance of ownership of several SEMI-empty shells for plausible deniability. This takes an interesting direction :) Worth a thread spin-off like "SO Laundry - Tips &...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[JSmith]

JSmith

 

[Chrispy]