Townsend Isolda cable

[audio2design]

I see Max started pandering his cable theories here over a year ago. He is presently trying to peddle his "paper" on Audiogon. I am up to 10+ errors and omissions, many glaring, and the of course erroneous conclusion.


https://forum.audiogon.com/discussi...nd-of-music-how-why-the-speaker-cable-matters


I make a summary near the end of all the issues.


Max keeps repeating that the characteristic impedance does not have a frequency component. That is of course completely wrong. As well one can simulate (properly) based on reflection time and impedance mismatch transmission line effects at 20Khz and see they will be down 100's of db and more.


Cbdb2 nails it. The measurements show cable drop differences as everyone would expect. But vague correlation does not equal causation. That takes far more rigour and proper measurement including proper impedance measurements at all frequencies across the audio band as Zo has a frequency component,.

 

[amirm]

Your measurements will show similar results.

I hear you but let's get the cable and see where we go from there.

 

[ahofer]

I see Max started pandering his cable theories here over a year ago. He is presently trying to peddle his "paper" on Audiogon. I am up to 10+ errors and omissions, many glaring, and the of course erroneous conclusion.


https://forum.audiogon.com/discussi...nd-of-music-how-why-the-speaker-cable-matters


I make a summary near the end of all the issues.


Max keeps repeating that the characteristic impedance does not have a frequency component. That is of course completely wrong. As well one can simulate (properly) based on reflection time and impedance mismatch transmission line effects at 20Khz and see they will be down 100's of db and more.


Cbdb2 nails it. The measurements show cable drop differences as everyone would expect. But vague correlation does not equal causation. That takes far more rigour and proper measurement including proper impedance measurements at all frequencies across the audio band as Zo has a frequency component,.

I got a good laugh from “millercarbon” leaping on with the praise. He’s told me I have crappy ears and a lousy system a few dozen times, but won’t put his money where his mouth is.

 

[audio2design]

I am looking at the previous simulations that Max has posted and I can see many obvious issues. For one, the simulated load he uses as Amir found does not match his purported frequency response. It would hit 40 ohms at 20K. This is also an electroacoustic model and flawed for electrical use. The electrical model also missed critical parasitics needed for transmission line effects or even a bulk model for that matter. This would be true at the load but the amplifier also is erroneous for transmission line effects missing high frequency impedance increase.


The simulations shown look like typical simple simulator transmission line element models which are only good at high frequency. You need more sophisticated models at audio frequencies. I also question whether the same load model was used for the Isolda as the load is not 8 ohms at high frequency and yet his simulation settles nicely. It would never do that with a transmission line model and that load as that load is high impedance at high frequency. It would be a bouncy graph like all the others. I highly suspect an RC was added across the load for the Isolda simulations (previous, not white paper which are really strange) as it has the nice somewhat smooth overshoot and settling of a simple transmission line model in this instance.

 

[scott wurcer]

The simulations shown look like typical simple simulator transmission line element models which are only good at high frequency. You need more sophisticated models at audio frequencies.

No you don't, the telegrapher's equation is not relevant at 0.0000002 wavelengths. The RF R,L,C,G (per unit length) numbers used in a finite element transmission line analysis of say a 3m cable give a result that lies on top of a simple simulation of the bulk R,L,C,G of the total 3m line. That is if you break each meter of cable into 100 50 psec sections (that's the equivalent of sampling at 20 GHZ, sort of) and simulate 3m with 300 sections you get a result that lies on top of one with the R,L,C,G per length multiplied by 3m inserted as simple lumped elements in an ordinary simulation.

I spent hours of my time doing the simulations and presenting them elsewhere years ago, I don't have the energy to repeat that now. There is no point in doing these things for manufacturers that have no grasp of basic EE and substitute reading Wikipedia and making things up.

 

[audio2design]

Scott,


I think you are agreeing with me ..
Or what I was trying to communicate at least. The simulations that Max posted don't look like they come from a finite element simulation model in a more sophisticated simulator. They look like the output from a Zo + time delay simulation model that is common and reasonably accurate for high frequency simulation. Sorry if I did not communicate that well. I agree with your statement about manufacturers who either lack the grasp of EE, choose to ignore or are so arrogant it never occurs to them they are wrong.

 

[Southall-1998]

Max is just a wealthy businessman, at the end of the day. No more, no less!

S.

 

[ABall]

Max is just a wealthy businessman, at the end of the day. No more, no less!

S.

I wont get involved in this debate but on Max in general, I remember a very long time ago he did a very short demo at a show, it was for his stand, we are probably talking 30 seconds or so, my memory is a little hazy but everyone in the room heard what I heard. He played a track, let the air out of his stand and then played the same track or portion of, thats all it took. I think "scammer" as recently suggested is a bit unfair, he has dedicated his life to this hobby and some of us have benefitted. I bought the stand and I owned 2 pairs of Glastonbury speakers, back then it was affordable, not now though, his gear has taken on new levels of expensive. I dont think he is a snake oil seller, just my opinion, this cable stuff is way above me though so I will stay well clear. I do really like this forum, I like the scientific approach but I can only speak from my own findings. I keep seeing "expectation bias" as one reason for hearing a difference in equipment where there should be no difference and this is rightly stopping me from buying the next best thing as reviewed by the usual suspects but there was no expectation bias when I cut an interconnect in half 25 years ago purely to make another interconnect, this was the catalyst for my DIY and my subjectivist upbringing. If nothing else its been a fun time but I look forward to sitting back and listening to music on equipment measured by Amir as totally transparent. Now im off to donate to the forum, I look forward to seeing this one play out... Oh I was wondering if expectation bias has been measured or proven by some scientific method or is it just a theory? Carry on guys and good look Max, nice to see you here.

 

[SIY]

Oh I was wondering if expectation bias has been measured or proven by some scientific method or is it just a theory? Carry on guys and good look Max, nice to see you here.

Any text on sensory science or experimental psychology will give you piles of references. This is extremely basic and well-established.

As for Max... you'd do better reading James Randi's "Flim Flam."

 

[solderdude]

Objectively his expensive and 'different' cable obviously is technically superior to 'normal' cables. The measurements, despite lacking a reference, are can be used for comparisons between cable geometries. The cables do require conditioning (inductor and Boucherot) for them to be used with normal speakers/amps. They are also needlessly expensive and provide no proven audible benefits when you disregard the subjective 'testimonials'.
Let's hope Amir does get to measure them, repeats the measurements + shows a spinorama of the same speaker with different cables used also in the 'Max T' cable test (measure the voltage across 1 conductor).

See it similar as to a DAC with SINAD of 120 and 100, very measurable and there is a good 20dB difference but in practice it won't be audible.
The same with this cable. The difference is too small for 'normal' speakers to matter (become audible).

 

[ABall]

Any text on sensory science or experimental psychology

I did a search for that, complete mine field, wouldn't know where to start on the results as none of them seemed to be relevant, perhaps a few pointers if you would take the trouble please, I look forward to reaffirming the doctrine of this forum and I mean that sincerely. I will also check out the flim flam thing thanks.

 

[Thomas savage]

Any text on sensory science or experimental psychology will give you piles of references. This is extremely basic and well-established.

As for Max... you'd do better reading James Randi's "Flim Flam."

Simple test at home , eat various things , some you know you don't like but tell yourself you do... like really tell yourself.

One will find they don't dislike half the shit they thought they did and bust a load of bias assumptions they likely held onto since they were a child.


Or don't do this, instead fart in a lift at the same time someone else dose , then question whether that smell you are enjoying and assuming is yours really is yours.


...
..
.

Yea first option is safest!

 

[ABall]

Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions

Oh that's just harsh..... have you heard any of max's stuff? I'm not sticking up for this cable debate I just think that's a reference too far, I'm sure you wouldn't make comments like that without hearing anything he's designed so fair do's..... you probably have....

 

[ABall]

Simple test at home , eat various things , some you know you don't like but tell yourself you do... like really tell yourself.

One will find they don't dislike half the shit they thought they did and bust a load of bias assumptions they likely held onto since they were a child.


Or don't do this, instead fart in a lift at the same time someone else dose , then question whether that smell you are enjoying and assuming is yours really is yours.


...
..
.

Yea first option is safest!

Lol, sure sounds like bull shit to me, as I said, I wasn't looking for anything when I cut that cable in half, It wasn't a test, I didn't do it to make an improvement, I was been a tight arse and saving money, I wasn't prepared for the upgrade I got. But I look forward to reading some science. Just to be clear this is the first forum I have ever subscribed to with money so I'm not looking for a scrap, just answers but I dont think theres anything I can eat that I dont like already and farting in lifts is out, we all know we love our own farts dont we?

 

[Thomas savage]

Lol, sure sounds like bull shit to me, as I said, I wasn't looking for anything when I cut that cable in half, It wasn't a test, I didn't do it to make an improvement, I was been a tight arse and saving money, I wasn't prepared for the upgrade I got. But I look forward to reading some science. Just to be clear this is the first forum I have ever subscribed to with money so I'm not looking for a scrap, just answers but I dont think theres anything I can eat that I dont like already and farting in lifts is out, we all know we love our own farts dont we?

Yes until your not sure if its yours or not .. then... one confronts dissidence.

The key to understanding is held in understanding cognitive dissonance.

 

[NTK]

I did a search for that, complete mine field, wouldn't know where to start on the results as none of them seemed to be relevant, perhaps a few pointers if you would take the trouble please, I look forward to reaffirming the doctrine of this forum and I mean that sincerely. I will also check out the flim flam thing thanks.

This is on a different but related topic. You can watch the video in this post. It demonstrates how unreliable our "hearing" is in the presence of other sensory inputs (the McGurk effect).
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ation-affect-your-listening.9032/#post-229933

 

[ABall]

This is on a different but related topic. You can watch the video in this post. It demonstrates how unreliable our "hearing" is in the presence of other sensory inputs (the McGurk effect).
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ation-affect-your-listening.9032/#post-229933

Wow that's something, thanks for the link, not sure how it's related to my subjectivist origin story but it's a bloody good example of the mind been fooled by sight.....

 

[ABall]

Yes until your not sure if its yours or not .. then... one confronts dissidence.

The key to understanding is held in understanding cognitive dissonance.

Ok I've had way too much beer to start reading up on cognitive dissonance but I will, soon....

 

[SIY]

Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions

Oh that's just harsh.....

Not half harsh enough. His impermeability to any suggestions of where he's gone wrong (given here by actual experts in E&M, electronics, and signal theory, as well as sensory science) strongly suggests that it's deliberate, not self-deluded (on his part, not his marks).

 

[BDWoody]

I got a good laugh from “millercarbon” leaping on with the praise. He’s told me I have crappy ears and a lousy system a few dozen times, but won’t put his money where his mouth is.

Funny how often it works that way!