This audio cable business is getting out of hand...

[NoMoFoNo]

I'm quite surprised that this thread hasn't been descended upon by veiled subjectivist posters and protectors, in the last couple of pages at least. Refreshing!

 

[mhardy6647]

I may be confusing things, but I think I remember (???) that Jim Austin used to work (in some editorial capacity) for AAAS/Science magazine.

Personally, I am loath to fault him for the seeming disconnect between his formal education and his current gig. To wit, I am a carbohydrate biochemist, and I have been reasonably successful in that fairly rarefied realm for over three decades -- but I use Splenda in my coffee. Oh, the irony.

 

[scott wurcer]

It took me a day to get it;, Stuart is a very sharp guy.
His circuit design is clever as well.

Always an arms length away, don't need no stinkin' Kindle.

 

[Sal1950]

I'm quite surprised that this thread hasn't been descended upon by veiled subjectivist posters and protectors, in the last couple of pages at least. Refreshing!

It happens on occasion but a large section of the rabid believers from the usual sites have come and gone already. They've learned that they don't have the technical background to go to bat against the very knowledgeable gurus here. Then if things got snotty, they learn rapidly that in a battle of wits, they arrived unarmed.

 

[Head_Unit]

"there are people who WANT to spend a bunch of money to show off"? How do you know?
I don't spend money on cables, I use what comes in the box with the devices.
But I think is a very interesting question how do you know what is going inside peoples heads.

Are you seriously saying you don't believe there are people on this Earth who want to spend money to show off? Or is this post humorous? I don't get it.

 

[Wes]

juries infer what is going inside people's heads every day - as do marketers, psychologists, etc. etc.

 

[Head_Unit]

How did you verify that you actually heard a difference?

Ha ha that IS the big question isn't it? How do we know if there is an ACTUAL physical difference as opposed to the mere perception of a difference even when there is NO physical difference?

In this case, I believe I was really hearing a difference because:
- It was repeatable several times
- The difference wasn't some vague thing, it was a particular change in the sound of the violins
- Most of all because I thought it was all bullshit and expected to hear no difference at all.

In retrospect as an audio engineer I don't have any problem with my conclusion, because due to the high quality of the system, the extremely low impedance of the speakers, and the passive networks on the cables, it is not hard to believe an actual physical change could happen. (Unlike, for example, arguing about cable break-in which let's NOT).

 

[Head_Unit]

To wit, I am a carbohydrate biochemist...but I use Splenda in my coffee.

So you're like the fat smoking doctor who tells you to lose weight and not to smoke?
If I didn't know "carbohydrate biochemist" was a real thing I'd feel it was a fake title!
- So, what IS better than sugar without killing us some different way? Stevia? Agave? Do tell!

 

[BDWoody]

In retrospect as an audio engineer I don't have any problem with my conclusion, because due to the high quality of the system, the extremely low impedance of the speakers, and the passive networks on the cables, it is not hard to believe an actual physical change could happen.

You left out the controls part...

Without matching output levels very closely (by volt meter, not by ear), and you aren't peeking, your results are going to be less than reliable.

Seems like such a tired mantra around here, but without a proper controlled test, differences are almost guaranteed. With controls, it is a less obvious situation.

As a scientist, you must be up for the challenge... right?

 

[Julf]

Ha ha that IS the big question isn't it? How do we know if there is an ACTUAL physical difference as opposed to the mere perception of a difference even when there is NO physical difference?

Indeed. One of the most fundamental questions in audio. Audio professionals spend a lot of time on that question. This is one method that is used in professional testing: BS.1116 : Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems

In this case, I believe I was really hearing a difference

I believe you do believe that.

In retrospect as an audio engineer I don't have any problem with my conclusion, because due to the high quality of the system, the extremely low impedance of the speakers, and the passive networks on the cables, it is not hard to believe an actual physical change could happen. (Unlike, for example, arguing about cable break-in which let's NOT).

Again, the key word is "believe". Science (technology is applied science) isn't based on belief, but objective, verified evidence. There are lots of things people have believed very firmly, and supposedly on good grounds, that have been proven wrong...

 

[FrantzM]

Ha ha that IS the big question isn't it? How do we know if there is an ACTUAL physical difference as opposed to the mere perception of a difference even when there is NO physical difference?

In this case, I believe I was really hearing a difference because:
- It was repeatable several times
- The difference wasn't some vague thing, it was a particular change in the sound of the violins
- Most of all because I thought it was all bullshit and expected to hear no difference at all.

In retrospect as an audio engineer I don't have any problem with my conclusion, because due to the high quality of the system, the extremely low impedance of the speakers, and the passive networks on the cables, it is not hard to believe an actual physical change could happen. (Unlike, for example, arguing about cable break-in which let's NOT).

Was it under blind and level-matched conditions?

 

[mhardy6647]

So you're like the fat smoking doctor who tells you to lose weight and not to smoke?
If I didn't know "carbohydrate biochemist" was a real thing I'd feel it was a fake title!
- So, what IS better than sugar without killing us some different way? Stevia? Agave? Do tell!

None of 'em, AFAIK.
Just to be clear, I am not a nutritional biochemist -- my work's focused mostly on structural elucidation and the biological roles of protein-bound carbohydrates (i.e., glycoproteins) and their binding partners (lectins) in nature. Cool stuff, if one is interested in how cells interact with each other & their environment (e.g.).
Spent most of my 'pro' life in biotech -- where it was easier to afford the kind of expensive toys I fancy without writing grants

Here's a photo of my son (now a mathematics professor) in my lab in Sunnyvale, CA (first 'real' job) ca. 1991.

Yeah, no eye protection & no PPE It was a different world.
Note, however, the earthquake-proof gas cylinder storage. That was required.

 

[DChenery]

Not "earthquake proof where I come from. The regulators also have to be encased in a cage at least as strong as the bottle retention system. The hoses must be directed inside the cage and be encased in a "crush proof" run to prevent damage from falling objects. I also see stacked unsecured objects (glassware and gas cylinders!) in every direction. PPE wouldn't help.

 

[Sal1950]

Here's a photo of my son (now a mathematics professor) in my lab in Sunnyvale, CA (first 'real' job) ca. 1991

The lab doesn't exactly look childproof?

 

[mansr]

The lab doesn't exactly look childproof?

Indeed. And look what happened to the kid.

 

[Julf]

Indeed. And look what happened to the kid.

Indeed. Mathematics is a gateway drug to academia.

 

[mhardy6647]

My boy in the modern era (although this photo dates back to his grad school days -- he doesn't look all that different now).

https://doctorhardy.wordpress.com/

 

[Sal1950]

My boy in the modern era (although this photo dates back to his grad school days -- he doesn't look all that different now).
https://doctorhardy.wordpress.com/

Wow, I thought professors could afford a modern camera? JK

 

[mhardy6647]

Wow, I thought professors could afford a modern camera? JK

oh, he has those, too... he's got the same kind of issue with photography, film, cameras and (especially) glass that I do with , umm... hifi.
Actually, I kind of enjoy that camera thing too. We kind of reinforce each other in that regard.
The only real difference is that he's a very good photographer. I... am not.

Steve's photoblog (which he hasn't updated for quite a while): http://icouldbeahero.blogspot.com/

https://icouldbeahero.blogspot.com/2018/01/nikon-af-s-micro-nikkor-60mm-f28-g-ed.html

 

[Sal1950]

The only real difference is that he's a very good photographer. I... am not.

Neither am I, it's an artistic sort of thing I guess.
I can't even sign my name legibly let alone draw or paint. LOL