Snake Oil Department, Top This

[Jim Taylor]

Some like to argue that no harm is done if the buyer gets enjoyment from the product and believe it was money well spent.

That's called "rationalization". It is often used to defend compulsory behaviors.

Jim

 

[OldHvyMec]

US line voltage is normally supplied as 110 V phase to neutral, but it's fed from a supply transformer with twin secondary windings with the centre tap providing the neutral.

Really? I've never seen 110 in the US for over 30 years and I've never heard the term 2 phase. In the US we run on 220/240 single phase in all residential
neighborhoods. 3 phase is industrial or commercial ONLY.

My machine shop ran on 3 phase with a Delta Stinger. 120, 120, 208+. 440 vac for my lathe, milling machine, bender, a large boring machine and the
Lincoln Tig welder at the time. It required an additional transformer not supplied from the pole.

It was suggested by the designer of the electric panels when the shop was set up. I called Local 315 and they dispatched my brother who later
became the BA for the Local 315 in Martinez CA. 12 or 15 years I can't remember. 45 years total service. He is still the guy that goes through the
apprenticeship apps and then weeds out or in and on to a board of trustees for the final choice.

My home has 2 120vac (L1 & L2) out of phase with each other. Between the two it reads 240 but is still single phase not 2 phase, thus my question
"What is 2 phase"

Maybe there is a language barrier BUT I worked with German mechanics for over 25 years and I never heard them call their electric 3 phase 330/380 50hz
L1, L2, L3 motors or the the smaller ones with L1 & L2 any thing but 3 phase or single phase. The electric drills were fitted with German motors for
in structure foundational drilling. There was an RPM requirement from motor to hydraulic pumps. We used 3 phase 60hz gensets made by CAT (usually)
and used a mobile transformer if the genset didn't have one onboard.

I just never heard the term "2 phase" from electricians or mechanics in the trades.

But many thanks for replying. I do have a Garrard 401 from England that is 230 vac 50hz. SP I just haven't changed the 50hz pully to 60hz and change
the wiring. They say the better way to go is keep it the way it is and use a converter for proper speed control and the 50hz platter strobe will still work
properly. LOL I think I'll stick with my old Thoren 121, 124s and Russco if I want to go rim drives.

Regards

 

[Alexander Gödde]

It bothers me the way so many postings on about expensive cables are so dismissively negative without first explaining how they reached their conclusions.

Ethernet is a protocol which ensures that data is transmitted accurately. If there are issues with the cable then the rate of re-transmitted data packages rises, and eventually you get connection errors (or not connection in the first place). At no point is the transmitted data changed. The idea that an Ethernet cable could improve the sound of music transmitted via it, in arbitrary encodings, is preposterous. My brain hurts whenever I try, and of course fail, to conceptualise how something like that would work. There is no need for experimental proof that it does not. The fact that Ethernet functions already does that.

 

[Punter]

A few months ago, a series of posts ridiculed Shunyata's highest-end Ethernet cables. I just read those posts, and I want to offer my perspective about them. Roughly three months ago, I purchased my "end game" streamer/DAC. As a consequence, I also decided to look at the possibility of a "better" alternative to my $39 Audioquest Pearl Ethernet cable to connect this new streamer/DAC to my 24-port Ethernet switch. Over the course of a week, I tried Audioquest Cinnamon ($130), DH Labs SilverSonic Reunion ($220), Shunyata Theta ($500), and Shunyata Sigma ($1,200) Ethernet cables. Now, I live on a fixed income budget, with splurges for audio gear funded by a rather depleted special savings account. Accordingly, my optimal goal was to prove to myself that there wasn't any performance difference among these cables and that, therefore, my Audioquest Pearl Ethernet cable was just fine. What I discovered only partially realized that hope. I could not tell any difference among the Cinnamon, Reunion, and Theta cables, nor could my wife. However, this was not at all the case with the Shunyata Sigma Ethernet cable. Streamed music simply sounded better -- more musical, slightly clearer, more detailed, etc. Let me point out that this Sigma cable is unusual in that it incorporates two "common-mode noise" filters within the cable; all the other Ethernet cables I tried lacked such filters, and, in fact, that is true for nearly all Ethernet cables. Shunyata's filters really do work. Moreover, I have to say that this was a complete -- and very welcome -- after-the-fact surprise for me, which is why I am making this posting.

It bothers me the way so many postings on about expensive cables are so dismissively negative without first explaining how they reached their conclusions. In doing my evaluation, I selected seven different tracks. For each track, I had previously identified certain elements (and their times) I wanted to hear critically and, after playing each one to three times (as needed), I jotted down pertinent notes on my spreadsheet. I also had three tracks I played throughout (rather than "snippets") in order to react to them as music. This process, when completed, made it easy for me to determine the effective of each cable. Moreover, as a confirmation of my original conclusion, the following day I was subjected to a blind test of the Shunyata Theta Ethernet cable vs the Shunyata Sigma Ethernet cable. Differentiating between the two of them was no challenge.

For the record, I am not affiliated in any way with Shunyata. I have lots of other cables which are not Shunyatas (Blue Jeans, Audioquest, etc.) and, in particular, the analog cables from my DAC to my preamp are made by DH Labs. I also want to say that the performance benefit I got from the Sigma cable could be peculiar to my system. Indeed, perhaps my network switch has a noise issue that the filters in this Sigma cable addressed. I don't know. All I can conclude is that the Shunyata Sigma Ethernet cable sure worked for me a lot better than any of the others I tried. And now, three months later, I continue to be delighted with how good digital-sourced music sounds.

Can you confirm that you had absolutely no way of knowing which cable you were auditioning in your testing? I think it's understandable the most expensive cable sounded the best if you had some inkling you had it in circuit.

If you took some time to understand Ethernet and how it operates, you would come to the conclusion that the brilliant minds that invented and developed it, created a supremely robust system which utilizes a range of built-in measures to preclude errors due to external electromagnetic energy. Subsequently, the "noise" the Shunyata cable is supposedly filtering out cannot cause an audible improvement as the "music" at this point is a stream of five volt pulses and is immune from the type of noise that the average person understands as "noise" The point at which an external electromagnetic signal would cause an audible difference to the eventual audio signal at the end of the chain is if the data packets are sufficiently damaged or missing such that the equipment receiving the data runs out of viable data packets. Prior to this, the common-mode rejection and packet checking/resending protocols will ensure enough data to decode an audio signal from.

Cable manufacturers like Shunyata actually place themselves above the engineers and scientists who developed ethernet by proposing that their meter or so of cable has the ability to improve it in some way, presumptuous charlatans that they are. Good thing for them that there are CAT 8 connectors being manufactured! It would be tough to fake something like that

I started a thread about this and other ethernet/network systems if you'd care to read it.

The Truth About HiFi Network Devices

Audio recording has come a long way since the first wax drum was cut in the late 1800’s. The search for ever higher quality and more realistic recording and reproduction has driven numerous technologies forward. From LP records to the Compact Disc, engineers and designers have poured their...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Killingbeans]

Prior to this, the common-mode rejection and packet checking/resending protocols will ensure enough data to decode an audio signal from.

Not mention that the data rate required for transmitting two channel audio is a walk in the park for any ethernet setup.

There's hardly any risk of even a single packet resending being necessary in the first place.

 

[Mnyb]

Because they are worthy of ridicule, and they sucked a bunch of money out of your pocket with a good story.

They rely on the fact that most people have no idea how much natural human bias makes uncontrolled subjective listening sessions so error prone.

And no idea or false ideas on how electronics works ? There is no mechanism in the system that can make changes usually described ?
The cable has no DSP or secret connections to a multitrack to remix the music so that some instruments move in the soundscape for example ? Packet errors in ethernet does not do that , real errors are random glitches or some other obvious effect.

 

[CedarX]

Roughly three months ago, I purchased my "end game" streamer/DAC. As a consequence, I also decided to look at the possibility of a "better" alternative to my $39 Audioquest Pearl Ethernet cable to connect this new streamer/DAC to my 24-port Ethernet switch.

Care to elaborate on your “end game” streamer/DAC?

#1:

Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Audio Blind Tests and Listener Training (video)

I see so many people claiming to have done blind tests in youtube videos recently without knowing what it means to perform one. Also, the topic of training comes up with many abusing the term. So I decided on a whim to create a video on it. It is rather long at 44 minutes but you can speed it...

www.audiosciencereview.com

This addresses the “perception bias” aspects…

#2:

? There is no mechanism in the system that can make changes usually described ?
The cable has no DSP or secret connections to a multitrack to remix the music so that some instruments move in the soundscape for example ?

This (definitely) addresses the “digital” aspect…

#3:

They are balanced digital connetions, and are usually also transformer isolated by default.

This addresses the “electrical/ground” aspects.

First, I think you need to go through #1 above and confirm an actual difference.

I believe there is a slight possibility that, despite being “end game” (from which angle?), your streamer/DAC is so crapilly designed that, despite #3, you end up with cables making a difference.

 

[Speedskater]

NFPA 70, NEC 210.4: In dwelling units and guest rooms or suites of hotels, motels, and similar occupancies, the voltage shall not exceed 120 volts, nominal, between conductors that supply the terminals of the following:
(1) Luminaires (lighting fixtures)
(2) Cord-and-plug-connected loads 1440 volt-amperes, nominal, or less or less than 1/4 hp.

But NEC 210.4 is about:
210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits
not luminaries or cords.

 

[Anton S]

But NEC 210.4 is about:
210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits
not luminaries or cords.

Typo, now corrected. Sorry. Correct section is 210.6, and that is a direct quote.

Edit: Note that "nominal" in that quote is +/- 5%, so a range of 114 - 126 is acceptable, but 120 is the target.

 

[gfinlays]

My home has 2 120vac (L1 & L2) out of phase with each other. Between the two it reads 240 but is still single phase not 2 phase, thus my question
"What is 2 phase"

I agree, it's not really 2 phase. It's technically "split-phase" to use the correct terminology, since the 240 V is already derived from one phase of a 3 phase supply. It probably helps some people to think about 120/240 as if it were 2 phase though.

Here in the UK, the 3 phase is 240 phase to neutral and 415 V phase to phase. 240 is supplied as a single phase with reference to neutral (earth). There's no 240/120 transformer in the mix, so it's quite simple, but it's also deadlier! RCDs (GFCIs) are now compulsory on any new domestic power outlets and on any existing supply utilised outdoors.

In industry, portable power tools are all 110 V, supplied by a safety isolating 240/110 V transformer. The transformer secondary is a 2 x 55 V split phase arrangement with an earthed centre-tap, which limits peak phase to earth voltage to ~78 V.

 

[Speedskater]

A century ago there were some 2 phase AC power systems, with 90 degrees between phases.
Now almost everything is single phase, single phase with a center tap, or 3 phase.
But it's common to incorrectly refer to the single phase legs/poles as phases.

 

[MattHooper]

This reminds me of a thread on the Steve Hoffman forum, where a member was advising others to upgrade their HDMI cables.

He had bought $1000 audioquest HDMI cable and declared how it improved the picture remarkably, increasing contrast and black levels, sharpness, colour saturation.

I tried to explain why that was impossible.
That, so long as you have two properly working HDMI cables of any price, transmitting the same signal, the type of image changes he described would never occur. To think it would means misunderstanding how HDMI actually works.
It would mean HDMI theory itself would be catastrophically incorrect, and it would have massive implications for the reliability of signal transmission that we simply don’t see.

This person claimed to be a scientist as well, though of course, not doing a scientific evaluation, but rather taking his subjective impressions and going with them.

I cited articles explaining how HDMI works, I cited articles literally comparing cheap versus expensive HDMI cables, showing there is no difference and explaining why.

And I literally quoted the Senior Technical Manager for HDMI Licensing who was asked about just this issue, and he explained that there would be no difference in the picture with any functional HDMI cable.

None of this made a dent. This person’s subjective impression reigned supreme over all counter evidence and theory.

And of course, I was called a troll for daring to produce this information against someone’s subjective reality.

 

[SIY]

This person claimed to be a scientist as well

We see that often here as well. I'd guess that it's actually true maybe 0.1% of the time unless one is... generous about what is called "science." I will allow the occasional exception considering that even scientists get brain damage once in a while.

BTW, my rule of thumb is that if an area uses "science" in its name, it's not science. Physicists don't do "physics science," chemists don't do "chemistry science," biologists don't do "biology science."

 

[MattHooper]

We see that often here as well. I'd guess that it's actually true maybe 0.1% of the time unless one is... generous about what is called "science." I will allow the occasional exception considering that even scientists get brain damage once in a while.

BTW, my rule of thumb is that if an area uses "science" in its name, it's not science. Physicists don't do "physics science," chemists don't do "chemistry science," biologists don't do "biology science."

Interesting.

As someone who still haunts the subjective forum for many years, I’m used to quite a number of subjectivists who are making crazy claims mentioning that they have scientific jobs.

This type of stuff, along with so many other examples, reinforces my view of just how critical the scientific method itself is as well as peer review.

The whole point of course is that scientist are just as subject to biases and going down rabbit holes as anyone else, which is why they apply rigourous controls for those human failings, as well as a system of Having to meet certain standards and being checked by their peers.

Once you start operating outside of that framework, frankly, “ there, be monsters.”

Any scientist can slip down any crazy rabbit hole as soon as they stop actually doing science. We see this all the time, even from great scientists who, after making their mark in real science start to think therefore any of their speculations are substantive. But when they do that outside science and only get the feedback of their audience, they can just start saying crazy shit.

There’s even more amplification of this phenomenon these days via social media and the Internet, amplifying the status of Mavericks and contrarians “ working outside the system.” They think they are freed from stifling orthodoxy or even from “ the general conspiracy against their ideas.” And so operating outside the framework of science down the rabbit hole they go. Cheered on by certain audiences, who like being free of the effort required for expertise, which allows them all to “ know more” than the experts, just going on their intuitions and spit balling.

And unfortunately, as contrarianism, distrust of institutions and conspiracy thinking becomes more prevalent, it is the mavericks working outside the systems who are seen as more insightful, knowledgeable, and trustworthy, over the scientific consensus.

Ugh. This age can really suck in some ways.

 

[kyuu]

BTW, my rule of thumb is that if an area uses "science" in its name, it's not science. Physicists don't do "physics science," chemists don't do "chemistry science," biologists don't do "biology science."

Hm. Surely that doesn't include "audio science" and the review thereof, does it?

 

[mhardy6647]

We see that often here as well. I'd guess that it's actually true maybe 0.1% of the time unless one is... generous about what is called "science." I will allow the occasional exception considering that even scientists get brain damage once in a while.

BTW, my rule of thumb is that if an area uses "science" in its name, it's not science. Physicists don't do "physics science," chemists don't do "chemistry science," biologists don't do "biology science."

As a life scientist* -- I am somewhat in disagreement with your rule of thumb... but, yeah, I see your point.


_______________
* We really do use that term -- but typically only when talking to normal people, of course. ... and not that normal people deign to speak with us all that often, of course.

 

[HammersRocco]

We see that often here as well. I'd guess that it's actually true maybe 0.1% of the time unless one is... generous about what is called "science." I will allow the occasional exception considering that even scientists get brain damage once in a while.

BTW, my rule of thumb is that if an area uses "science" in its name, it's not science. Physicists don't do "physics science," chemists don't do "chemistry science," biologists don't do "biology science."

HA!

Great point! If you have to say it....

But, well, I know I am kind of a... broken record ( vinyl! ) on this... it all comes down to the usual fallacies... "I am a scientist" then proceeding to make improbable claims, falls squarely the "argument from authority' one. And yes, sometimes scientists with great credentials can still do that. If you are claiming the earth is flat, your credentials, no matter how impressive and true, won't make it a probable argument.

 

[Alexander Gödde]

He had bought $1000 audioquest HDMI cable and declared how it improved the picture remarkably, increasing contrast and black levels, sharpness, colour saturation.

I tried to explain why that was impossible.
[...]
It would mean HDMI theory itself would be catastrophically incorrect, and it would have massive implications for the reliability of signal transmission that we simply don’t see.

Precisely. For anybody who has even the most elementary understanding of digital signal transmission and processing (which is all that I can claim), the idea that a digital cable could have beneficial effects as the subjectivists claim is not just wrong, but utterly insane. No modern technology would work. Fore example, I would not be able to type this into a computer for others across the world to read.

 

[SIY]

As a life scientist* -- I am somewhat in disagreement with your rule of thumb... but, yeah, I see your point.


_______________
* We really do use that term -- but typically only when talking to normal people, of course. ... and not that normal people deign to speak with us all that often, of course.

You’re a microbiologist or biochemist.

 

[HammersRocco]

Precisely. For anybody who has even the most elementary understanding of digital signal transmission and processing (which is all that I can claim), the idea that a digital cable could have beneficial effects as the subjectivists claim is not just wrong, but utterly insane. No modern technology would work. Fore example, I would not be able to type this into a computer for others across the world to read.

Indeed! <3

Someone over at Hoffman asked about affordable CD players. Back when I decided to come back to CD I wanted to not break the bank, so found two CD players that were very well reviewed in terms of quality, build and price. Found both an Onkyo and a Teac that were very well reviewed objectively and yes, also by the audiophile reviewers.

Apparently, they "punched above their weight". Never thought much of the phrase, until yesterday, when suggesting those to the poster. How does that happen? This is only a hypothesis, of course, but I think it goes like this:

1.- Audiophile reviewer/listener listens to inexpensive player
2.- Compares to their own expensive one
3.- THIS IS THE THING. For some reason, their brains accepts the truth in the moment. They sound the same to them.
4.- But that moment of lucidity fades. They need to explain it in terms of the audiophile view.
5.- So they declare, "punches above its weight" and declare the inexpensive device a rara avis, an anomaly in that world.

Not sure if related to the thread.... but seemed to me - like a reverse snake oil... while still reinforcing the worldview.