ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Oct 14, 2016 17:23:50 GMT -6
The problem with the null test is most of us lack the equipment with the resolution to see the differeance! Now if your your using an AP ... So a DAW null to infinity is somehow missing what makes one cable sound "open" and another sound "round"? I know those aren't your descriptors, Eric, but they are things that get thrown around. I'm genuinely curious. What's the flaw in a DAW null test? Resolution and the belief that the wave form you see is truelly what you see is what you get! In my much much younger days I was a cable disbeliever till I was lucky enough to attend demonstrations and be invited to hang socially with The people behind MIT/ Spectrtal cables and Ray Kimber, both are very scientific driven cable companies. Also every DAW developer I have ever spoken to has said the waveform display is an eproximation not a true What you see is what you get image of the wave form, or what bit resolution the drawing is. I do know that most Audio Interfaces present a much higher noise floor than say an AP or NTI measurement platform and that cables make the biggest difference on high resolution systems. I once got into an argument with the editor of one of the top highend mags because I said his favorite speaker system , The large infinity IRS was inherently flawed as impressive as it is because of the fact that no matter how well QC'ed the fact that it used line arrays of drivers their was some low level phase cancellation and there for lacked detail!
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Oct 14, 2016 17:26:47 GMT -6
So a DAW null to infinity is somehow missing what makes one cable sound "open" and another sound "round"? I know those aren't your descriptors, Eric, but they are things that get thrown around. I'm genuinely curious. What's the flaw in a DAW null test? Resolution and the belief that the wave form you see is truelly what you see is what you get! In my much much younger days I was a cable disbeliever till I was lucky enough to attend demonstrations and be invited to hang socially with The people behind MIT/ Spectrtal cables and Ray Kimber, both are very scientific driven cable companies. Also every DAW developer I have ever spoken to has said the waveform display is an eproximation not a true What you see is what you get image of the wave form, or what bit resolution the drawing is. I do know that most Audio Interfaces present a much higher noise floor than say an AP or NTI measurement platform and that cables make the biggest difference on high resolution systems. I once got into an argument with the editor of one of the top highend mags because I said his favorite speaker system , The large infinity IRS was inherently flawed as impressive as it is because of the fact that no matter how well QC'ed the fact that it used line arrays of drivers their was some low level phase cancellation and there for lacked detail! But you're talking about the visual representation of a waveform. It's the actual sampled audio that is in question if we're nulling things against each other. As far as science, what's the supposed science behind the cables you think sound better? Again, I'm actually curious.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 14, 2016 17:30:52 GMT -6
how long was your run? Most pro studios with patch bays are going thru 100-300 feet before all is said and done. A 10' run isn't really going to show the differences in a real world situation. IMO. What difference? Noise? These were just 20' runs. HF rolloff
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 14, 2016 17:32:43 GMT -6
Simple solution, beer, barbecue, blind test... although not necessarily in that order. You assume some of us haven't done that already? Minus the beer here..... Oh, but I can't remember what we were eating, so maybe my tests are voided?
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 14, 2016 17:36:30 GMT -6
Not sure if you're talking to me or Rowmat, but let me describe my position on the matter. I work for a multi-million dollar company. I make design choices that must be backed up in fact, using provable data and established practices in order to mitigate the monetary risk for the company. In other words, my decisions can make or cost the company millions, and cost people jobs (including my own). My job depends on facts that are indisputable to others. There is no such thing as "in my opinion" in the professional design field when it comes down to the nitty-gritty. I have yet to see any of these proven facts that the cables in question do anything to improve an electrical situation. I've yet to see graphs, charts or other data that proves the opinion that these are improving a signal. I have to show charts, graphs, data and other proof of performance whenever I spec out any piece of cable, connector, insulator, and any other associated piece of transmission line that I might utilize. I have to use the manufacturer's data, and verify with my own testing before I can use an item in my designs. We don't work on hope, or expectations. We work on plain and provable facts. In my line of work, I have access to RF cables that do cost hundreds to thousands of dollars, but to use such, I must prove that the cost is necessary. I have yet to see any of this in the audio cable world, beyond standard manufacturer specs, and some buzzy lingo promising things that may, or may not, be true. Show me a chart, graph or other piece of indisputable data that can be independently verified and I'll be with you 100% behind the claims. Until then, I know through 2 decades of design experience with cables, that what is being promised by *some* of these manufacturers is nothing but marketing, with little basis in facts. So in other words, you don't work in the pro audio industry? I'm not trying to defend the snake oil salesmen. Unfortunately, they are lumped in with very talented designers like Kimber who do the science and have the cajones to back it up. I respect your design expertise, but I know what my ears hear, and as much hyperbole as science that is spouted about, it does not change reality. There are discernible differences. Now.....all that said, I'm not about to be buying $450 IEC cables. But I have heard a difference. If I had unlimited money on tap, I'd probably spend the cash on what I consider to be high end and not snake oil. Other than designing the "svartbox" converter, no, I'm not. And thanks for being civil about this. I don't doubt you hear a difference, but without quantifiable data to tell you what you're hearing, what exactly is it you're actually hearing?
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Oct 14, 2016 17:36:57 GMT -6
Simple solution, beer, barbecue, blind test... although not necessarily in that order. You assume some of us haven't done that already? Minus the beer here..... Oh, but I can't remember what we were eating, so maybe my tests are voided? Baked beans will void the test. They could be mistaken for 60hz interference.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Oct 14, 2016 17:44:54 GMT -6
Resolution and the belief that the wave form you see is truelly what you see is what you get! In my much much younger days I was a cable disbeliever till I was lucky enough to attend demonstrations and be invited to hang socially with The people behind MIT/ Spectrtal cables and Ray Kimber, both are very scientific driven cable companies. Also every DAW developer I have ever spoken to has said the waveform display is an eproximation not a true What you see is what you get image of the wave form, or what bit resolution the drawing is. I do know that most Audio Interfaces present a much higher noise floor than say an AP or NTI measurement platform and that cables make the biggest difference on high resolution systems. I once got into an argument with the editor of one of the top highend mags because I said his favorite speaker system , The large infinity IRS was inherently flawed as impressive as it is because of the fact that no matter how well QC'ed the fact that it used line arrays of drivers their was some low level phase cancellation and there for lacked detail! But you're talking about the visual representation of a waveform. It's the actual sampled audio that is in question if we're nulling things against each other. As far as science, what's the supposed science behind ge cables you think sound better? Again, I'm actually curious. The visual you see in a DAW is a much lower graphical resolution of that wave , why waste CPU power drawing pretty pictures? The difference in cables is also so level that dither may obscure it as well . A DAW is not a test instrument, as much as I wish it were ! Both Bruce Bryson and Ray Kimber and I believe Richard Marsh have written papers with imperial data to back their cable designs. I put the differeance in cables at the comparable level of a GAR VS Scott Liebers 2520. That's a Hosa vs high dollar Kimber! I have used Kimbers silver mic cable, is it better than my Mogami? Yes , but no where near enough to justify the cost!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Oct 14, 2016 17:46:28 GMT -6
FWIW the power infrastructure in the United States is much older than that in most other countries.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Oct 14, 2016 17:47:19 GMT -6
Throwing this out there with no intended adversarial-ness.
I would trust an electrical engineer more than an audio engineer to tel me about signals traveling over cable. The ear is so demonstrably unreliable. It fails over and over.
I've done so many blind AB's where I was sure I was hearing something, just positive, only to be totally disproven once I went blind with the audio. I don't trust ear-impressions. I do trust science.
Of course science can be wrong or behind or misleading or incomplete. But in arenas like this, where it's going up against such a weak opponent (sonic impressions), I'm inclined to give it the upper hand.
Now, if you guys are talking about cable differences that you've reliably picked out in clinically done blind ABX tests, well then I'm all ears (pardon the expression).
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Oct 14, 2016 17:49:16 GMT -6
FWIW the power infrastructure in the United States is much older than that in most other countries. Bob, are you running an isolation transformer and/or any other power conditioning/filtering with your setup?
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Oct 14, 2016 17:50:57 GMT -6
But you're talking about the visual representation of a waveform. It's the actual sampled audio that is in question if we're nulling things against each other. As far as science, what's the supposed science behind ge cables you think sound better? Again, I'm actually curious. The visual you see in a DAW is a much lower graphical resolution of that wave , why waste CPU power drawing pretty pictures? The difference in cables is also so level that dither may obscure it as well . A DAW is not a test instrument, as much as I wish it were ! Both Bruce Bryson and Ray Kimber and I believe Richard Marsh have written papers with imperial data to back their cable designs. I put the differeance in cables at the comparable level of a GAR VS Scott Liebers 2520. That's a Hosa vs high dollar Kimber! I have used Kimbers silver mic cable, is it better than my Mogami? Yes , but no where near enough to justify the cost! Again, I'm not following. The way a DAW visually represents he audio is irrelevant here, isn't it? It could be a drawing of a kitty representing the audio for all I care as far as a null test. All that matters is the pieces of actual audio you're comparing. That's purely the AD converters concern.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 14, 2016 17:54:34 GMT -6
So in other words, you don't work in the pro audio industry? I'm not trying to defend the snake oil salesmen. Unfortunately, they are lumped in with very talented designers like Kimber who do the science and have the cajones to back it up. I respect your design expertise, but I know what my ears hear, and as much hyperbole as science that is spouted about, it does not change reality. There are discernible differences. Now.....all that said, I'm not about to be buying $450 IEC cables. But I have heard a difference. If I had unlimited money on tap, I'd probably spend the cash on what I consider to be high end and not snake oil. Other than designing the "svartbox" converter, no, I'm not. And thanks for being civil about this. I don't doubt you hear a difference, but without quantifiable data to tell you what you're hearing, what exactly is it you're actually hearing? I'm not an electrical engineer, so I can't tell you "what" it is that I'm hearing - just that I'm hearing it. There are data sheets for capacitance available from most manufacturers. For me it all boils down to 4 things : - I Like - I Don't Like - I can hear a difference but the difference doesn't matter to me - it's a toss up - I can't hear a difference With #'s 2 or 4 I'm not buying. With #1 I might buy depending on the price. With #3, again price becomes the determining factor and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to "upgrade" because I'd rather be working than testing, but I would take the preferences into account if I needed to buy new cable (or whatever is being tested) in the future. Note that 3 of the 4 result in no sales - and #1 is COMPLETELY cost dependent.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Oct 14, 2016 17:55:49 GMT -6
I run an isolation transformer on the computer to keep its garbage out of the audio.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 14, 2016 17:58:34 GMT -6
I agree about the fallibility of testing stuff. But so is measuring gear - there are people who can consistently hear "beyond" the gear. Maybe the gear is crap, or their ears are golden, or the electronic testing flawed, but they CAN hear it. I have been in tests where certain people can consistently hear what others cannot. Doesn't mean they are great engineers or producers, just that they can discern things others can't. Personally, the last person I'd trust is an electrical engineer who is not designing audio gear. (No offense meant to svart who is apparently both...) They are not trained to do and listen for the things we are. - their judgement paradigm is nothing like what we use all the time. As a matter of fact, I have quite a few friends that are electrical engineers, and they notoriously rely on educational bias and listening fail tests that everyday joe audio engineers can consistently hear with little problem. So..... To each his own.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Oct 14, 2016 18:30:04 GMT -6
I would ask what it is they believe they CAN hear? Is it THE cable under test or is it something else or a combination of factors?
Obviously any perceived differences are assumed to be the cable as it is what is being tested. Therefore it MUST be the cable. So here we already have expectation bias like it or not.
Once you reach hair splitting differences other variables enter the equation that can make it difficult, if not impossible, to make consistently valid conclusions about what you are hearing, golden ears or not.
An extra person in the room, a change in temperature, humidity etc. can alter the result even subtlety.
However I am still no wiser as to the construction of some of these special power cables. Are they acting as filters etc?
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 14, 2016 18:47:13 GMT -6
I would ask what it is they believe they CAN hear? Is it THE cable under test or is it something else or a combination of factors? Obviously any perceived differences are assumed to be the cable as it is what is being tested. Therefore it MUST be the cable. So here we already have expectation bias like it or not. You are assuming a faulted test before starting. And certainly, there are myriads of faulty tests on the internet. One of the reasons I don't even participate in the "which mic do you like" TESTS. Unless I'm doing them myself and have taken all variables out of the pathway, they are useless. And yet, I believe in the differences of cables because of my own experiences and testing.... Now....an off-topic comment about a topic that I'm going to launch as it's own thread -- "science vs. perception/confirmation bias - aka - apparent facts vs. creative muse". And when I do, I will prove that confirmation bias is not only GOOD, it's a necessity to work as an audio engineer, and while many diss it, it's actually a verifiable and valuable aspect of our workflow. Without it, we are left floundering in deep water..... But that's for another day....
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Oct 14, 2016 18:54:49 GMT -6
How many have adjusted the EQ on a track while discussing the changes with someone else... "Just a little more 16k... bit more... perfect! How does that sound now?" "Much better. Sounds great with more air!" "Oh shit!" "What's wrong?" "I didn't actually have the EQ engaged!"
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 14, 2016 18:59:35 GMT -6
Should we talk about PC's vs. Macs or maybe PT vs. Logic? How about we keep this on topic.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Oct 14, 2016 19:08:56 GMT -6
Should we talk about PC's vs. Macs or maybe PT vs. Logic? How about we keep this on topic. Or maybe Double Blind Testing vs. Test Measurements vs... In fact the Audio Asylum forum has decreed DBT discussions banned on some of its forums, notably the Cable Forum... www.audioasylum.com/audio/dbt.html
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Oct 14, 2016 19:17:08 GMT -6
The visual you see in a DAW is a much lower graphical resolution of that wave , why waste CPU power drawing pretty pictures? The difference in cables is also so level that dither may obscure it as well . A DAW is not a test instrument, as much as I wish it were ! Both Bruce Bryson and Ray Kimber and I believe Richard Marsh have written papers with imperial data to back their cable designs. I put the differeance in cables at the comparable level of a GAR VS Scott Liebers 2520. That's a Hosa vs high dollar Kimber! I have used Kimbers silver mic cable, is it better than my Mogami? Yes , but no where near enough to justify the cost! Again, I'm not following. The way a DAW visually represents he audio is irrelevant here, isn't it? It could be a drawing of a kitty representing the audio for all I care as far as a null test. All that matters is the pieces of actual audio you're comparing. That's purely the AD converters concern. Dither! Low level differences are obscured by dither in a null.
|
|
|
Post by jin167 on Oct 14, 2016 20:27:32 GMT -6
science vs. perception/confirmation bias
sometimes I wonder why audio engineers are called 'engineers' in the first place.
No matter which school of engineering you belong to all engineers share one fundamental principle and it is that they make decisions based on calculations and data collected through experiments where everything is measurable.
Personally, I've never seen a professional engineer who makes their decisions based on their 'perception'. Until you can prove your claim with tangible data and able to reproduce the said phenomena you remain silent and admit that you are either wrong or don't know enough about the subject.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Oct 14, 2016 21:47:35 GMT -6
Personally, I've never seen a professional engineer who makes their decisions based on their 'perception'. Until you can prove your claim with tangible data and able to reproduce the said phenomena you remain silent and admit that you are either wrong or don't know enough about the subject. You can't just decide sound engineers aren't 'engineers', because they don't publish a 15-page report every time they reach for an EQ.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 14, 2016 22:03:01 GMT -6
I've seen this discussion literally hundreds of times, and it always goes the same way. Some people get all smug, snarky and yes, condescending, while others have to qualify their own positive experiences, get ridiculed and scolded, or get disqualified on technicalities. I've actually been physically threatened over this same discussion. Over 15 years ago, I used to beta test high end cables for a few companies.
My experience basically parallels Jim Williams'. Jim said, "I did all these sort of "tests" 20 odd years ago in my old Van Nuys shop. Everyone in the room easily heard the differences. It wasn't even close like some converters. I found Ray Kimber's stuff to be the best (not surprising as he makes great stuff and has the lab to confirm it). His $400 IEC cable did open up the tops and low end. It was feeding a custom preamp/playback rack I used to send to my DAC's. I was also using his $400 S/PDIF cable to the DAC"
So, here we have a highly respected engineer/designer saying he spent $400 on an IEC cable and oh, oh, get this, $400 on s S/PDIF cable! How soon before someone says the $9.99 S/PDIF cable they got from Radio Shack sounds the same. Now, someone tell me why it's so difficult to believe that the improvements Jim hears are real?
There are other very qualified cable companies who deserve the same respect that Jim gives Kimber, and certainly not derision. Lumping any expensive cable into the "snake oil" category is frankly a copout and forgive me my friends, I think it's a cheap shot. Here we are at a website sharing some of the most subtle differences in details of things like capacitors, opamps, power supplies, tubes, diaphragms on mic capsules, esoteric preamp designs, original and clone classics, changes in sound between years manufactured, even things like the minute difference the design of the mic screen on clone versus original, and yet, when highly respected members like Jim Williams or Bob Ohlson mention they hear improvements when changing power cords, there's always pushback.
If you were in the room with Jim when he did his "tests", and didn't hear the improvements, there's something not right with your hearing. Cables don't have to be megabuck items to improve the sound you get. Most of my power cords are $75-$175. On occasion though, the expensive cable proved its value to me.
When I was setting up my home stereo, a serious audiophile friend owed me a favor. I asked him to send me a power cord for my new amp. He sent me two. I had no idea of their value, but listened carefully, first blind testing, and I picked the cables correctly 100%, then I listened to each one for a week. My experience is sometimes things reveal themselves over time, not in a short term test. The power cord I didn't pick cost $275 originally, the one I preferred originally cost $2,000. The difference was substantial. Now I wouldn't think of buying a cable that expensive myself, but there was no doubt the expensive cable gave me much more of what I hoped my new system could deliver.
I'd sell it now if it wasn't an older model that would only fetch a few hundred dollars now.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 14, 2016 22:36:48 GMT -6
science vs. perception/confirmation bias sometimes I wonder why audio engineers are called 'engineers' in the first place. No matter which school of engineering you belong to all engineers share one fundamental principle and it is that they make decisions based on calculations and data collected through experiments where everything is measurable. Personally, I've never seen a professional engineer who makes their decisions based on their 'perception'. Until you can prove your claim with tangible data and able to reproduce the said phenomena you remain silent and admit that you are either wrong or don't know enough about the subject. Audio engineers once had to get a degree in electrical engineering, that's why.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Oct 14, 2016 22:39:02 GMT -6
I'm certainly not ruling out that this cable stuff could be real, it's just not persuasive to me at all when people's opinions are based on feelings, general impressions, etc. Even "several of us were in a room and we all agreed". I mean, that's something, for sure. Anecdotal evidence is a kind of evidence. It's just not the kind that's persuasive to me personally. I've been tricked by confirmation bias so many times, as have other highly qualified engineers I know, I just don't trust this kind of "general impressionary" evidence. It's proven itself to me to be unreliable.
But I'm not trying to convince you guys. I'm genuinely interested to see if there's something valid (again, to me) that I'm missing. Certainly wouldn't be the first time.
|
|