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

[odarg64]

It's been a long time since I was an AES member, but I believe that:
It's only the AES Journal papers that are peer reviewed. I don't think the the convention and show papers are.

FWIW:
OSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering(IOSR-JECE) is a double blind peer reviewed International Journal that provides rapid publication (within a month) of articles in all areas of electronics and communication engineering and its applications. The journal welcomes publications of high quality papers on theoretical developments and practical applications in electronics and communication engineering. Original research papers, state-of-the-art reviews, and high quality technical notes are invited for publications.

 

[DonR]

Doubtful. Only the editor or associate (should) know reviewer identities.

I think he means the reviewer can remain anonymous but his critique could be made public.

 

[voodooless]

Yeah, this seems quite damning:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are-international-organization-of-scienctific-research-IOSR-and-Journal-of-ChemistryEducation-research-and-practice-predators-journals-or-real

How on earth can you be a serious “professor” if you must resort to publishing your papers at these kinds of urinals?

 

[voodooless]

Doubtful. Only the editor or associate (should) know reviewer identities.

I don’t care about that. Just want to know what they wrote.

 

[odarg64]

I think he means the reviewer can remain anonymous but his critique could be made public.

In my experience peer reviews are not made public, although a different peer could certainly write a response to the published article.

 

[DonR]

In my experience peer reviews are not made public, although different peer could certainly write a response to the published article.

Not in mine either but more to protect the author than the reviewer.

 

[odarg64]

Yeah, this seems quite damning:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are-international-organization-of-scienctific-research-IOSR-and-Journal-of-ChemistryEducation-research-and-practice-predators-journals-or-real

How on earth can you be a serious “professor” if you must resort to publishing your papers at these kinds of urinals?

Comments are also revealing, although I don't take people concerned about a journal's 'impact factor' seriously. That's not a good reason to select a journal for publication.

 

[odarg64]

Not in mine either but more to protect the author than the reviewer.

It's an editor's responsibility to maintain confidentiality with respect to anonymous reviews and reviewers. Peer review could not function otherwise.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

I was looking at the rest of his research in his actual field that he included PDFs of on his page. Wham, bam, thank ya' ma'am! Man of very few words. Think the mean length looks to be about 3-4 pages. Seems audio is his guilty pleasure where he can bloviate and wax poetic a bit more. The actual research seems to be the data, some commentary, and that's all she wrote. Not that there is anything wrong with that at all. If its a concise topic, don't mince words. But the 3x length discrepancy is quite obvious when comparing the two. Edit: Of course its likely down to the target publications, but still seems he enjoys the audio side of things substantially more

 

[krabapple]

FWIW:
OSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering(IOSR-JECE) is a double blind peer reviewed International Journal that provides rapid publication (within a month) of articles in all areas of electronics and communication engineering and its applications. The journal welcomes publications of high quality papers on theoretical developments and practical applications in electronics and communication engineering. Original research papers, state-of-the-art reviews, and high quality technical notes are invited for publications.

I've never heard of a *journal* describing itself as 'double blind'.

Is this z quote from somwhere?

 

[SIY]

I've never heard of a *journal* describing itself as 'double blind'.

Double blind peer review means that the reviewers are not known to the author and the author is not known to the reviewers. It's not an uncommon term.

 

[odarg64]

I've never heard of a *journal* describing itself as 'double blind'.

Is this z quote from somwhere?

https://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jece.html

 

[lc6]

I came across videos from a few years ago by Ethan Winer in which he demonstrates his cable null tester and challenges Paul McGowan of PS Audio to a public debate:
The Null Tester
Ethan Winer challenges Paul McGowan to a public debate
I do not fully agree with Winer's assertion that he has to fine-tweak the tester's gain after changing to a new set of cables under test because of a "thermal drift" after his sensitive box has been up and running for more than an hour (rather, he really is compensating for minute differences in attenuation of various cables), but OK.

Not sure whether that challenge was taken on, but prior to it McGowan made a bunch of nonsensical statements in his video:
Is Ethan Winer's test infallible?
First, Winer is not null-testing power cables but only interconnects, for which his tester had various connectors. Second, Mc Gowan says that "non-electrical differences" (i.e. the ones Winer's null test does not detect) can still be heard between AC cords, specifically due to high-frequency EMI getting into the audio equipment (how said EMI is "non-electrical" escapes me). Third, he argues that there exists some kind of "interaction between inductive/capacitive loudspeaker [as opposed to a resistive test load] and the speaker cable, which is solved with different types of construction [presumably, of the cable]."

So if Kunchur claims his findings are valid and reproducible, he should give the three cables he used to Winer, who could then quickly verify the claims with his dedicated null tester (not that we do not trust the AP).

 

[amirm]

So if Kunchur claims his findings are valid and reproducible, he should give the three cables he used to Winer, who could then quickly verify the claims with his dedicated null tester (not that we do not trust the AP).

I performed digital captures and null tests of cables in addition to AP measurements. Those nulls showed that there is no audible difference. Digital comparison solves the issue of having to fine tune the comparator and its noise floor.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

I came across videos from a few years ago by Ethan Winer in which he demonstrates his cable null tester and challenges Paul McGowan of PS Audio to a public debate:
The Null Tester
Ethan Winer challenges Paul McGowan to a public debate
I do not fully agree with Winer's assertion that he has to fine-tweak the tester's gain after changing to a new set of cables under test because of a "thermal drift" after his sensitive box has been up and running for more than an hour (rather, he really is compensating for minute differences in attenuation of various cables), but OK.

Not sure whether that challenge was taken on, but prior to it McGowan made a bunch of nonsensical statements in his video:
Is Ethan Winer's test infallible?
First, Winer is not null-testing power cables but only interconnects, for which his tester had various connectors. Second, Mc Gowan says that "non-electrical differences" (i.e. the ones Winer's null test does not detect) can still be heard between AC cords, specifically due to high-frequency EMI getting into the audio equipment (how said EMI is "non-electrical" escapes me). Third, he argues that there exists some kind of "interaction between inductive/capacitive loudspeaker [as opposed to a resistive test load] and the speaker cable, which is solved with different types of construction [presumably, of the cable]."

So if Kunchur claims his findings are valid and reproducible, he should give the three cables he used to Winer, who could then quickly verify the claims with his dedicated null tester (not that we do not trust the AP).

I think Ethan's tests are analog and somewhat noisy, no? By comparison it looks like those done by Amir above make it down to the noise floor of the instrumentation, which means nothing is heard as opposed to residual hiss and other noise in Ethan's. Not that its wrong, just not as exact and not as easy to get a "slam dunk" when it comes to claims, as it still leaves the door open to arguments on EMI/interference differences since the lack of such cant be as easily demonstrated on an analog setup.

 

[PeteL]

I think Ethan's tests are analog and somewhat noisy, no? By comparison it looks like those done by Amir above make it down to the noise floor of the instrumentation, which means nothing is heard as opposed to residual hiss and other noise in Ethan's. Not that its wrong, just not as exact and not as easy to get a "slam dunk" when it comes to claims, as it still leaves the door open to arguments on EMI/interference differences since the lack of such cant be as easily demonstrated on an analog setup.

I had the same thoughts when I watched it a while back. Was not clear how he would distinguish the difference between the noise in his rig and what he wanted to demonstrate. But it's from memory and don't take my word for Gospel, It may be valid, but yes... It's a lot of trouble when there are audio analysers to do the job, much more simply.

 

[lc6]

I think Ethan's tests are analog and somewhat noisy, no? By comparison it looks like those done by Amir above make it down to the noise floor of the instrumentation, which means nothing is heard as opposed to residual hiss and other noise in Ethan's. Not that its wrong, just not as exact and not as easy to get a "slam dunk" when it comes to claims, as it still leaves the door open to arguments on EMI/interference differences since the lack of such cant be as easily demonstrated on an analog setup.

Yes, his tests are analog with a noise floor of -110 dB or better (as he shows in the video). Despite the deficiency of requiring a bit of hand-tuning, they remove a potential argument (surely to come from opponents) that digital does not truly capture the entire signal or reflect what we hear, etc. Imperfect as they may be, these tests do constitute an independent observation of no audible differences between cables.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

Yes, his tests are analog with a noise floor of -110 dB or better (as he shows in the video). Despite the deficiency of requiring a bit of hand-tuning, they remove a potential argument (surely to come from opponents) that digital does not truly capture the entire signal or reflect what we hear, etc. Imperfect as they may be, these tests do constitute an independent observation of no audible differences between cables.

The fact they are imperfect is the issue. We know they demonstrate no audibility, but anything other than true perfect silence show a difference in the mind of audiophiles, and the twiddling of the knobs can be seen as potential hand waving (How does that saying go? Always accuse your enemy of your own crimes?) But there in lies the issue is that digital is the only way to get a deep enough null to get silence even when you crank up the volume, but as you state, they will just move the goal posts, because they have hearing that goes down to -300 dB or something, because this is radio astronomy and not audio. However having such arguments is futile in many ways to begin with as it shows profound ignorance of how wires actually work on the part of audiophiles. I suspect many don’t want definitive proof but rather a contrived reason for discontent.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

The fact they are imperfect is the issue. We know they demonstrate no audibility, but anything other than true perfect silence show a difference in the mind of audiophiles, and the twiddling of the knobs can be seen as potential hand waving (How does that saying go? Always accuse your enemy of your own crimes?) But there in lies the issue is that digital is the only way to get a deep enough null to get silence even when you crank up the volume, but as you state, they will just move the goal posts, because they have hearing that goes down to -300 dB or something, because this is radio astronomy and not audio. However having such arguments is futile in many ways to begin with as it shows profound ignorance of how wires actually work on the part of audiophiles. I suspect many don’t want definitive proof but rather a contrived reason for discontent.

Nicely summarized. Thx.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The fact they are imperfect is the issue. We know they demonstrate no audibility, but anything other than true perfect silence show a difference in the mind of audiophiles, and the twiddling of the knobs can be seen as potential hand waving (How does that saying go? Always accuse your enemy of your own crimes?) But there in lies the issue is that digital is the only way to get a deep enough null to get silence even when you crank up the volume, but as you state, they will just move the goal posts, because they have hearing that goes down to -300 dB or something, because this is radio astronomy and not audio. However having such arguments is futile in many ways to begin with as it shows profound ignorance of how wires actually work on the part of audiophiles. I suspect many don’t want definitive proof but rather a contrived reason for discontent.

No one who understands electronics will be worried by Ethan's adjustment of volume to tune the deepest null. Do people realize he is adjusting something at the level of one millionth of a volt?

Even digitally you'll not get deeper nulls. As I recall Ethan is boosting levels up to 80 db to just barely hear low level hiss. Using Deltawave and good ADC's gives about the same performance as Ethan's analog device. You cannot get to complete silence due to thermal noise. You can get results in the -100 to -110 db level. With better ADCs you can do better. Amir has gotten down around -115 db and near -120 db, but he has the APx 555 to work with. You get the same results whether comparing cable A to itself 5 minutes later or cable B to cable A. Also it might interest people to know the left and right channels of even very expensive DACs don't null this deep.