Ethan Winer Builds a Wire Null Tester

[Soniclife]

yet people who want us to buy $1000 power chords want us to believe that we don't really know how wire works?

And despite not knowing how it works either, they can somehow design a solution to it.

 

[amirm]

Why do some people find it so difficult to simply accept that there are differences we cannot account for scientifically (yet)? Is that just not possible?

We know it is abundantly easy to have people perceive a difference where there is none entering their ear.

We know it is abundantly hard for the sound that enters one's ear to be different based on cable differences.

What should a reasonable person conclude?

 

[tmtomh]

What bugs me about Paul McGowan's video response to Winer's test, is that McGowan speaks in a very authoritative-sounding tone about the factors Winer didn't take into account - ignoring the fact that Winer actually did take those factors into account.

And Winer pointed this out very clearly in his "I challenge Paul to a public debate" response - although unfortunately Winer called McGowan out in a pretty harsh and nasty way that I think encourages folks to go down the name-calling, degenerating path of the discussion.

Regardless, McGowan's argument employs two very common moves or techniques in these discussions, and so I think his video is quite instructive for us all:

1. He tries to carve out a new, separate category of measurement so he can claim that the original test did not account for it. Specifically, he asserts that Winer's test only works for "electrical" factors and not "non-electrical" ones - and then cites EMI (electromagnetic interference). But of course EMI is an electrical factor, and Winer explicitly shows EMI at work in his video, when he moves some cables around and shows how EMI-induced hum pollutes the sound. So his null test takes EMI into account, because if EMI were a factor between the cables he's comparing, then the null test would produce hum (and at a level much higher than the -100dB nulling Winer is able to get), just like it would produce musical artifacts if the cables made a difference.
2. He emphasizes beneficial, superior properties of audiophile cables without providing any evidence that those properties are in fact necessary, or more robust than what one can find in non-audiophile cables. Specifically, he talks about PS Audio power cables' resistance to noise - again, EMI. But it is no way, shape, or form clear that folks' stereo setups have sufficient EMI where extraordinary measures must be taken to protect one's component interconnects from it. Winer's own test is in an EMI-rich environment, and the cheap and expensive audiophile cables demonstrate equal levels of immunity and susceptibility. In other words, McGowan's claim should be ignored unless he or someone else can produce data showing a clear, repeatably measurable increase in noise rejection by audiophile interconnects. Even then, increased noise rejection by an expensive cable would be meaningful only if the cheap cable's noise were above the noise floor of the equipment it's attached to.

We see both of these types of arguments all the time in audiophile discussions. The 2nd argument is particularly epidemic: "Our cable uses oxygen-free silver for better conductivity"; "Our USB cable produces a more symmetrical-looking eye test for data entering the DAC"; and so on. What they leave out is the overwhelming evidence that normal cables already have sufficient conductivity to produce identical measurements to the fancy cables; and that DACs re-clock the incoming USB signal, with the result that there's overwhelming evidence that every properly designed DAC produces identical output regardless of what the eye pattern (within reason) looks like at its input.

 

[Killingbeans]

I don't think so Ray. Audio is different somehow. I would love to see a thread on ASR about why that is. I have some ideas, but I would like to hear the opinions of those who have considered it more thoroughly.

I've been thinking about the same thing lately. It's peculiar why 'sight' is not plagued by the same things as 'hearing'.

'Smell' and 'taste' quickly gets a parallel when you start talking about wine. I'm not sure where 'feeling' stands

EDIT: BTW, I know that we have way more than five senses, but I'm just trying to keep the analogies simple.

And despite not knowing how it works either, they can somehow design a solution to it.

Can I please like this post more than once?... Pretty please?

 

[tomelex]

Why do some people find it so difficult to simply accept that there are differences we cannot account for scientifically (yet)? Is that just not possible?

As I have mentioned in this thread and other places, any test you do between components has to account for input and output impedances, such as a null test or any other test. Its a system. And, if you take into account basic electronics and I dare say a full understanding of basic electronics your tests will be valid and repeatable. And, yes, it is difficult to accept there is something we can not account for in the flow of energy from one place to another in an audio circuit because we DO understand all we need to about audio energy flow, we really do. Someones perhaps lack of understanding or perhaps a poorly done experiement does not mean there is some mystery in audio energy flow. There simply is not.

The only mystery to me in audio is why folks think their ears are better than test instruments and why they will not submit to a blind test to prove their ears are better than test instruments. This in my book points to a deep insecurity. If you love music, and good reproduction as you determine that to be that's perfectly normal, but any statement you make is a preference and only a fact to you at that moment in time. It is not the job of audio engineers to deal with ones preferences, well, not really, we did invent tone controls and all kinds of things like mix and master engineers and algorithims and all that to change the sound to suit atleaast the mix and master engineers preference on their systems and then deliver the result to the masses to then use tone controls of whatever for them to further indulge their preferences.....

IT is not the place of audio engineering to try to figure out why some people in their own mind can come to conclusions they do when they listen to audio impingements to their ears, no more than we can say why no body can agree on what the best tasting wine is...you get the brain involved and preference involved and you leave the science of making a wiggle in the air be recorded then another wiggle in the air happen somewhere else. It would be nice to have the "brain people and doctors spend their lives worrying about whey we interpret our thoughts that we do not even know where they come from within our brains the way we do, but there are certainly other priorities out there that are more beneficial to man and woman kind IMO.

 

[tomelex]

Unlike subjectivist audiophiles, we know we do not know everything, and do not have all the answers. "Knowledge from books and teachers; creativity from God." Interestingly, some of the very smartest engineering friends I have, are also quite religious.

Have some faith...

Yes, faith is belief without proof, and plenty of audiophiles exercise that when talking about their hearing, but it is not really faith, because there is a way to prove what they hear and that is by blind testing. Wish there was a test to prove "God" then the problem would be how many folks would want to actually take that "test"!

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't think so Ray. Audio is different somehow. I would love to see a thread on ASR about why that is. I have some ideas, but I would like to hear the opinions of those who have considered it more thoroughly.

Well with speakers it's much the same as video. It's when you get down to dacs, pre-amps and potentially transparent gear that things change.

 

[Soniclife]

Can I please like this post more than once?... Pretty please?

Oh go on then, because you asked nicely.

 

[Soniclife]

I don't get out much.

Do folks on (just for an example) the Video Display forums get all choked up with their choice of display and argue like this about unknown qualities of the light waves (and other unknown phenomena) they emit?

I think the crucial difference between audio and the video world is that the video world has had a series of large and real upgrades in formats and displays over the years. In home video it's gone from very low quality, to very similar to what's happening at the cinema, the change from SD to HD is huge, home displays are much better than they were 30 years ago, and much bigger, etc. In music it's still a 2.0 world, and the change from vinyl to CD wasn't huge in absolute quality with good gear, CD was a huge step forward from low end turntables for most people, and the world rightly got excited by it, but other than that the rest is mainly fantasy where we are still debating if the improvement are even audible.
Makes me wonder what happens after 4k for video, as the difference isn't likely to be visible for many.

 

[DonH56]

Yes, faith is belief without proof, and plenty of audiophiles exercise that when talking about their hearing, but it is not really faith, because there is a way to prove what they hear and that is by blind testing. Wish there was a test to prove "God" then the problem would be how many folks would want to actually take that "test"!

I was solely referencing the comment about engineers not believing, not anything audio related.

There's also faith to my wife, faith that when I flip the switch the light comes on, and faith I'll have a job next week. Sometimes it easier to have faith in some things than others...

Didn't mean to turn this into yet another religious debate, although a religious debate about actual religion instead of the audibility of cables in audio systems might be a nice change.

 

[GGroch]

Well with speakers it's much the same as video. It's when you get down to dacs, pre-amps and potentially transparent gear that things change.

I am not sure about that.....but I have not fully thought it through. I know that there are audiophiles who are convinced that high efficiency single driver speaker systems represent the highest fidelity to a live performance. The purity of these systems makes sense to them. The concept of inserting crossovers, multiple drivers, and (horrors) active amplification or DSP seems foreign and inorganic. Yet, based on objective measurement, I doubt the vast majority of single driver systems are as accurate as a modern, well designed multi-driver active monitor.

This may not be what you are talking about. It does not directly involve inventing some mythical ether that magically improves sound quality. But, it is an example where a general knowledge of how things work impacts what we hear. Even if you could convince single driver aficionados that active multi-driver monitors were more technically accurate, they may still feel that the experience, the pleasure they get from listening to single driver systems is superior.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Speaking of photos, video paused if you will......

I found some photos from 40 years ago in a closet last week. I remember some debates about digicams vs film that got almost like audio debates.

Now my photos were from a Kodak instamatic 110 film. Now it wasn't considered top quality even then vs 35 mm. But it seemed okay for convenience. How could we ever have thought that? A crappy cellphone camera is tremendously better. Had similar experiences digitizing VHS tapes from video cameras.

I also found my old Argus C3 35mm camera. Was old when I purchased it 2nd hand. When I later purchased a Canon AE1 program photo quality took a big step forward even though the underlying film format was the same. I think lots of people have that idea about paying more for digital audio when it's mostly not true above an inexpensive level.

 

[JJB70]

The TV and AV world is still very much a mass market one, whereas hi-fi is now very much a niche (well, if you exclude BT speakers and headphones which are pretty mainstream). Even in AV I think the market has gone more and more towards sound bars and away from recievers and full on multi-speaker set ups. AV seems to be mercifully free of a lot of the tweako snake oil stuff, I'm sure it exists but it doesn't seem to have established itself to anything like the extent that it has in hi-fi. I'm sure a lot of it is that as the hi-fi world has shrunk it needs to make higher margins on fewer sales and maximise revenue from a much smaller customer base. Two channel stereo is a very mature technology and as has been noted it has had nothing like the same technological innovation as AV over the last couple of decades. The big revolution in hi-fi in that time was the move to computer audio but of course that wasn't necessarily good for hi-fi manufacturers as it has effectively removed the "source" from the hi-fi chain as people use PCs, smart devices etc instead of traditional hi-fi sources. If you consider speakers, amplifiers and even DACs they don't really move forward much and high-res audio has struggled to establish itself.
Although one of the things that saddens me is the way a lot of the audiophool type silliness is now part of the world of headphones. At one time headphones were an island of normality in the world of audio however the explosion of headphones costing $$$$$$$$$$s, the growth of expensive aftermarket headphone cables etc indicates headphones are now following the rest of hi-fi. It wouldn't be so bad if thse headphones costing $$$$$$$$$s were actually well engineered and with performance to justify costing an order of magnitude more than much more modest but well performing models.

 

[Fone]

I've tried directional wires where it is the wire vs itself reversed. Nothing there.

Obviously no signal. The wire is backwards!

 

[Killingbeans]

Makes me wonder what happens after 4k for video, as the difference isn't likely to be visible for many.

I think we are already beginning see how the pixel-cow has been milked dry. The big talk of the town at the moment is 'HDR'. A picture of the sun on your screen doesn't really need to blind you in order to give you a "realistic" experience (and who actually wants that anyway?), but the industry is scrambling to find new focus areas.

I agree with what has already been pointed out. When a technology hits a wall of diminishing returns, the desperacy for improvements pushes people away from critical thinking.

 

[JJB70]

I have to say, I find the difference between HD and 4K UHD very marginal. The TV manufacturers are very good at filming stuff which has been specifically developed to show off the higher resolution for show room display purposes and which does indeed look stunning but for movies and TV the real difference is marginal IMO. And I suspect that where there are differences, as with high resolution audio, it is probably as much about the care taken in production as the added resolution itself. For example, I do like the 4K UHD disc of The Bridge on the River Kwai as even though it highlights the original warts of the movie and highlights film grain the 4K HDR production was very well done and I do prefer it to the regular blu ray. However I suspect that is less about 4K resolution than about other factors.

 

[Pluto]

However I suspect that is less about 4K resolution than about other factors

Such as the back-door re-introduction of Digital Restrictions Management!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

When a technology hits a wall of diminishing returns, the desperacy for improvements pushes people away from critical thinking.

As people with a deep and abiding interest in any particular technology, we see this all around us. This does not mean that real improvements are not possible but that we are currently spinning our wheels until science and technology advance further.

 

[Killingbeans]

As people with a deep and abiding interest in any particular technology, we see this all around us. This does not mean that real improvements are not possible but that we are currently spinning our wheels until science and technology advance further.

But how do you define "real improvements"?

I agree that speakers and room acoustics are a pair of wheels that still needs plenty of momentum. But trying to find "real improvements" in the chain from source to speaker terminals is IMO like chasing unicorns. As long as the adverse effects are kept below audibility, then focusing on things like power efficiency, manufacturing cost, build quality and other non-audio issues becomes way more important.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

But how do you define "real improvements"?

Perhaps I should have described them as substantial audible improvements.

I agree that speakers and room acoustics are a pair of wheels that still needs plenty of momentum. But trying to find "real improvements" in the chain from source to speaker terminals is IMO like chasing unicorns. As long as the adverse effects are kept below audibility, then focusing on things like power efficiency, manufacturing cost, build quality and other non-audio issues becomes way more important.

I agree.