WHAT ? LOL
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Stereophile and Audio Cables
- Thread starter MattHooper
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2022
- Messages
- 928
- Likes
- 1,322
I‘m sure most people don’t want to be part of this club. You could be the most accomplished surgeon in the world but have absolutely no idea about cables. And really can’t be bothered to spend the time to research it. So you buy the expensive cable the ‘expert’ told you to buy to hook up the McIntosh stack you can finally afford. I give those people a pass and don’t presume them dumb. It’s the guy spending his kids college fund who geeks out gear and should know better that bothers me a bit.
OP
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,332
- Likes
- 12,294
- Thread Starter
- #143
That seems to come from the school of people who insult but defend it as "Just Me Being A Truth Teller, That's All."
Atkinson's integrity and honesty have been called in to question in this and other threads, including by you. ("Atkinson is the king of blowing smoke up your butt.")
Though it's not always easy, and we all can get off track, I'm sure Adam is indicating we can address the arguments of members like JA without having to impugn their character.
theREALdotnet
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,202
- Likes
- 2,077
Of course, that’s how audiophile components are created, too. The god-like audio celebrity designers throw transistors (or tubes) against the wall until something bounces back that sounds great.
theREALdotnet
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,202
- Likes
- 2,077
I haven’t read the article nor the discussion, but “techically plausible” to me could simply mean this:
It is possible to design and manufacture an interconnect or speaker cable that audibly changes the sound, but you’d have to go out of your way to make it so. The threshold for competence in home audio cables is very low and much of it lies in electrical contact and termination.
When I was being lab tested in my Principles of Electron Flow electronics study near the end of the study we where given a fair sized sealed black box and told to determine what was inside by using the function generator, a multimeter and a oscilloscope. It was weighty so the weight was no hint at all etc. I worked away at it and was pretty excited/stressed and I really was drawing on my instructors hints that he always dropped in the class theory sessions about how the tricky stuff worked and what would be upcoming in tests and in real life work later. Anyway I was having a difficult time and then I started using the sine wave generator and oscilloscope to determine the corner/cutoff frequencies, bandwidth, linearity from input to output, voltage peak levels and anything that gave me information. So after I gathered all this info I sat down alone and was drafting schematics that might work and voila! I had several schematics drafted and I eliminated the obvious stuff based on the very strange waveform coming out of the black box and then started calculating reactance both capacitive and inductive and I eventually settled on the one schematic that worked and everything fit the information that I had gleaned. About 2 hours had passed by very quickly and I was running out of time so I said, "DONE!" Anyway... I had come up with a schematic that worked but it was different than the parts inside the black box and did not match the instructors' schematic. I was scared that I failed the lab test but I insisted that it worked. The instructor took all my lab paperwork and black box and disappeared for about 45 minutes to convene with his work mates in their instructors' office area. He came back and said you have done something different and interesting and it works so you have passed the lab test for the course. He said they would be reviewing the lab test black box test and maybe changing it so this does not happen again. I was so relieved. Anyway... It goes to show things can be deceiving, variations occur and theory works but the end result is not always the same.
Last edited:
Unless of course you are MIT (Music Interface Technologies.) A interconnect and speaker cable company that is absurd.
MIT Cables - Music Interface Technologies
MIT Cables Product Catalogs Click Image to View the Reference Series Catalog Click Image to View the Heritage Series Catalog
mitcables.com
What part is not clear or that you don't understand?
I based that comment on a pet peeve that I have. It is about that statement of world class stuff and we can do the same as that etc etc. I say screw that let's set our own standard and make it exceed what this world class stuff is. World class is a leading statement that does not define what it is. It bugs me...LoL.
Last edited:
1: The Essex echo has been debunked numerous times, not hard to find. My guess is JA hasn't tried, for obvious reasons.
2: Electric fields don't exist in superconductors. They do exist in real conductors, the voltage from one end to the other end of the conductor, or no electron drift. Comparing cable to capacitor dielectric is a stretch, capacitors in audio 1000s of times as much capacitance.
3:JAs only point is that the resistance of different cables is different? Really, thats number 3?
4,5 Grounding. Complicated, but because of the system not the cabling. Replacing one interconnect with another (unless they have built in components, but then its not a cable, its a filter) dosnt change any ground"loops" all the same loops are there. Cutting the ground wire in an unballanced IC to fix something means there something else that should have been fixed.
The feedback thing that shows JA dosnt know how feedback works. The RF on the output is an error signal on the negative input terminal and feedback will decrease this signal at the output. (because its on the -input it comes out inverted so subtracts from the noise on the output). Another way to look at feedback is it reduces the output impedance of the amp which reduces the voltage produced by the error signal current.
With RF it get trickier than that, it likes to leak and couple in different ways but good designers know how to deal with it. Limit the device BW so RF dosnt get amplified. Use RF bypass caps, etc.
6: I pound on my cables with a hammer every time I listen to music, don't you? And again with the incorrect feedback logic. Once again these would be error signals that the feedback would reduce, only there so small they probably don't register. Hes got that analyzer this one would be vary easy to measure. Actually it should show up in every measurement Amir makes of speakers, there's always wire in the sound field.
Last edited:
Shield impedance is the key factor in the single ended link transfer. Loop current creates error voltage depending on shield impedance and this error voltage is added to the useful signal. The difference may be audible.
Your talking about ground loops? So low frequency impedance as in resistance? Yes shield resistance matters in ground loops but any decent cable should have low shield resistance. Its no justification for $1000 cables.
From: https://www.jensen-transformers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/generic-seminar.pdf
NO OTHER PRODUCT IS AS SHROUDED IN HYPE AND MYSTERY AS THE AUDIO CABLE!
The audio industry, especially the "high-end" segment, abounds with misinformation, myth, and
mysticism. Scientific double-blind tests have shown that there is nothing unexplainable about
audible differences among cables — when the differences can be demonstrated to truly exist. For
example, the physical design of a cable is known to affect its coupling of ultrasonic power line
noise. Even very low levels of this noise can cause audible “spectral contamination” in
downstream amplifiers. [11] The real solution to this problem is to prevent the coupling in the first
place, rather than agonize over which “designer cable” makes the most pleasing improvement.
Expensive and exotic cables, even if double or triple shielded, made of 100% pure un-
obtainium, and hand-made by a team of virgins, will have NO significant effect on hum and
buzz problems!
In engineering terms, a high-performance cable for unbalanced audio should have low
capacitance and very low shield resistance. A good example of such a cable is Belden #8241F. Its
17 pF per foot capacitance allows driving a 200 foot run from a typical 1 kS consumer output while
maintaining a !3 dB bandwidth of 50 kHz. Its low 2.6 mS per foot shield resistance is equivalent
to #14 gauge wire, which can significantly reduce common-impedance coupling.
Last edited:
I'll stand by that comment and you bet I'll call his integrity into question.
He has a very knowledgeable background in the technology, likely the best in residence, but never calls things like the claims over the sound of power cables made all around him into question.
No matter how bad a component measures he finds a way to put his findings aside and support the subjective findings of the reviewer. Witness the review of the Spec RPA-W7EX amp, This amp fell on it's face in almost every area examined, Yet it was given a glowing review by Ken Micallef. Then when it was all over the only thing John could say was,
KM very much liked the sound of the Spec RPA-W7EX. I, however, was disappointed by its measured performance—modern class-D amplifiers, especially those using one of the Hypex modules, measure very much better than this. And with its low input impedance, its dislike of load impedances below 4 ohms, and its high levels of radiated noise, this not an amplifier that can be universally recommended, I feel.—John Atkinson"
Read closely Micallef's conclusions on it's sound.
Spec RPA-W7EX Real-Sound power amplifier Page 2
www.stereophile.com
Spec RPA-W7EX Real-Sound power amplifier Measurements
Sidebar 3: Measurements When I unpacked the Spec amplifier for testing, I was at first confused: Although Ken Micallef was supposed to have reviewed Spec's RPA-W7EX, a label on the amplifier's rear panel identified it as an "RPA-W5ST." It turned out that this very early export sample of the...
www.stereophile.com
Talk about riding the fence and a refusal to take a stand in the interest of the consumer.
Who's interests were served here, as far as I can see, only the advertiser.
Sal1950
Im surprised stereophile is still doing measurements when they constantly show the reviewers can't hear sh#t and just make a review up. Then JA has to come up with some techno bable to justify the review. Its like a snake oil salesman hiring a chemist who only finds water and lemon juice and than puts it on the snake oil poster. Cant be good for there business. Something is gonna give, and it won't be the reviews.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,778
- Likes
- 37,643
Well he did provide the measurements. There is worth in that. He did say he couldn't universally recommend it. Weak sauce I agree. Given that Stereophile philosophy has been ears are the ultimate arbiter of quality and sighted listening is how they do it I can understand why if a reviewer says thumbs up you do and publish the measurements even if they are dubious. For years there have been products that measure in a way raises suspicion and yet end up on the Recommended components list. That in the end is what bothered me. Unless someone thinks a product has no peer with better measurements even by their sighted review criteria those with substandard measures should not get on the recommended list. Yet they regularly did and do. Maybe in these cases JA should ask the reviewer to compare with similarly priced and powered device with good measurements and ask if the substandard one is superior. And put one or two devices the reviewer used as being lesser in the reviewer's opinion.I'll stand by that comment and you bet I'll call his integrity into question.
He has a very knowledgeable background in the technology, likely the best in residence, but never calls things like the claims over the sound of power cables made all around him into question.
No matter how bad a component measures he finds a way to put his findings aside and support the subjective findings of the reviewer. Witness the review of the Spec RPA-W7EX amp, This amp fell on it's face in almost every area examined, Yet it was given a glowing review by Ken Micallef. Then when it was all over the only thing John could say was,
KM very much liked the sound of the Spec RPA-W7EX. I, however, was disappointed by its measured performance—modern class-D amplifiers, especially those using one of the Hypex modules, measure very much better than this. And with its low input impedance, its dislike of load impedances below 4 ohms, and its high levels of radiated noise, this not an amplifier that can be universally recommended, I feel.—John Atkinson"
Read closely Micallef's conclusions on it's sound.
Then read the measured performance from John.Spec RPA-W7EX Real-Sound power amplifier Page 2
Spec RPA-W7EX Real-Sound power amplifier Measurements
Sidebar 3: Measurements When I unpacked the Spec amplifier for testing, I was at first confused: Although Ken Micallef was supposed to have reviewed Spec's RPA-W7EX, a label on the amplifier's rear panel identified it as an "RPA-W5ST." It turned out that this very early export sample of the...
Talk about riding the fence and a refusal to take a stand in the interest of the consumer.
Who's interests were served here, as far as I can see, only the advertiser.
Sal1950
Since you can make the same filter with a cap or an inductor theres more than one way to build a circuit with the same transfer function. That seems an unfair question.
I was very intimidated with the entire lab test black box method and I was not in a position to debate or complain...
OP
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,332
- Likes
- 12,294
- Thread Starter
- #157
Blumliei beat me to this one but...
The question isn't whether you agree with Stereophile's approach. Obviously you don't. The issue is denigrating someone's honesty.
And "he should know better" simply is NOT conclusive in that account. That's just not the way humans often work. There really is a range of human belief
which will include those who have a lot of technical experience, but who may have come to different conclusions than you or others at ASR.
It doesn't mean they are being dishonest.
And remember, Stereophile is NOT trying to rank things as ASR does. We've gone through this before when people wonder "how did that poorly measuring speaker get in to their Class A ratings? Well, it's because they are not rating on accuracy or the standards used at ASR. They are just trying to describe how different speakers sound and ranking on what the reviewer perceives as favourable sonic attributes...accurate or not.
The magazine, views listening as the ultimate way to evaluate gear. Right or wrong that's the general approach. And JA has, as I recall, wrote that he doesn't necessarily see measurements as the last word in evaluating sound (even though he is more technically inclined).
So with that in mind...
Possibly because he doesn't think the claims are impossible or implausible. Ask him.
He is trying to find correlations between the measured performance and what the reviewer reports, as well as what JA hears himself. So of course he'll point those out when he thinks he finds them. However, he's often written along the lines: "I didn't find anything to support or explain why the reviewer liked this so much and/or heard X characteristic." (That's usually writing about amps, DACs).
Uh...so?
JA provided the measurements, pointed out how the amp did not perform in terms of best practices. That's there for someone who cares about the measurements. Those who are in the "I don't care about the measurements tell me how it sounds" camp will put more weight on the subjective part.
Not sure you could have picked a worse example to make your point.
Of course Stereophile isn't ASR. They don't have the same approach. You will never be satisfied. But that has nothing to do with whether JA is being dishonest in what he writes. The subjective review is presented, JA presents his measurents and either points out he finds something corresponding to the subjective review, or he doesn't. If he said "but the subjective review is Just Wrong" that would go against their very approach as a magazine that emphasizes subjective impressions, and if he weren't on board with that ethos he wouldn't have been the Editor for so many years.
The question isn't whether you agree with Stereophile's approach. Obviously you don't. The issue is denigrating someone's honesty.
And "he should know better" simply is NOT conclusive in that account. That's just not the way humans often work. There really is a range of human belief
which will include those who have a lot of technical experience, but who may have come to different conclusions than you or others at ASR.
It doesn't mean they are being dishonest.
And remember, Stereophile is NOT trying to rank things as ASR does. We've gone through this before when people wonder "how did that poorly measuring speaker get in to their Class A ratings? Well, it's because they are not rating on accuracy or the standards used at ASR. They are just trying to describe how different speakers sound and ranking on what the reviewer perceives as favourable sonic attributes...accurate or not.
The magazine, views listening as the ultimate way to evaluate gear. Right or wrong that's the general approach. And JA has, as I recall, wrote that he doesn't necessarily see measurements as the last word in evaluating sound (even though he is more technically inclined).
So with that in mind...
Possibly because he doesn't think the claims are impossible or implausible. Ask him.
He is trying to find correlations between the measured performance and what the reviewer reports, as well as what JA hears himself. So of course he'll point those out when he thinks he finds them. However, he's often written along the lines: "I didn't find anything to support or explain why the reviewer liked this so much and/or heard X characteristic." (That's usually writing about amps, DACs).
Witness the review of the Spec RPA-W7EX amp, This amp fell on it's face in almost every area examined, Yet it was given a glowing review by Ken Micallef. Then when it was all over the only thing John could say was,
KM very much liked the sound of the Spec RPA-W7EX. I, however, was disappointed by its measured performance—modern class-D amplifiers, especially those using one of the Hypex modules, measure very much better than this. And with its low input impedance, its dislike of load impedances below 4 ohms, and its high levels of radiated noise, this not an amplifier that can be universally recommended, I feel.—John Atkinson"
Read closely Micallef's conclusions on it's sound.
Then read the measured performance from John.Spec RPA-W7EX Real-Sound power amplifier Page 2
Spec RPA-W7EX Real-Sound power amplifier Measurements
Sidebar 3: Measurements When I unpacked the Spec amplifier for testing, I was at first confused: Although Ken Micallef was supposed to have reviewed Spec's RPA-W7EX, a label on the amplifier's rear panel identified it as an "RPA-W5ST." It turned out that this very early export sample of the...
Uh...so?
JA provided the measurements, pointed out how the amp did not perform in terms of best practices. That's there for someone who cares about the measurements. Those who are in the "I don't care about the measurements tell me how it sounds" camp will put more weight on the subjective part.
Not sure you could have picked a worse example to make your point.
Of course Stereophile isn't ASR. They don't have the same approach. You will never be satisfied. But that has nothing to do with whether JA is being dishonest in what he writes. The subjective review is presented, JA presents his measurents and either points out he finds something corresponding to the subjective review, or he doesn't. If he said "but the subjective review is Just Wrong" that would go against their very approach as a magazine that emphasizes subjective impressions, and if he weren't on board with that ethos he wouldn't have been the Editor for so many years.
OP
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,332
- Likes
- 12,294
- Thread Starter
- #158
The subjective reviewers can't hear sh#t, their reviews aren't accurate is something of an ASR shibboleth in regard to subjective reviews, and stereophile.
But I don't find it to be the case.
One can talk about reviewers imagining sounds, e.g. perhaps this cable review or other implausible tweaks. But that doesn't speak to a listener's innacuracy - literally everyone is prone to hearing differences. Even Amir points out he seems to hear differences when switching cables, even when he knows they aren't really audibly altering the signal. That anyone is susceptible to such bias doesn't necessarily mean they don't have somewhat accurate hearing for real sonic differences.
So it comes down to whether the reviewers "can't hear sh#t" concerning actual audible differences. An obvious example being loudspeakers. I've paid attention to the reviewer descriptions and the measurements, and often the reviewers describe sonic characteristics that show up in the measurements. I've given a number of examples before on this forum, so I won't bother again now for the moment. (As that is not strictly the subject of the thread).
beeface
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2017
- Messages
- 330
- Likes
- 791
Sounds like you’re describing Jordan Petersen tbh. But I digress
This is the key point. Atkinson is one relatively few people equipped to actually gather data and conduct proper tests of his conjectures. But he doesn't, he just throws his hands up in the air and says "who knows?".
If he undertook to carry out the tests, and in the meantime added a 7th conjecture along the lines of "it could of course all be purely in the mind of the listener", I'd have more respect. As it is, pretending to be the "the scientific one" while producing sciency prose without backing it up with test design and execution is far worse and more damaging to the general understanding of these issues than his colleagues' crappy analogies to coffee, cream, LSD, or whatever.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll