|
Post by wiz on Nov 15, 2018 16:37:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 15, 2018 16:45:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 15, 2018 17:56:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 15, 2018 18:38:00 GMT -6
1. Because it's Ethan Winer 2. Because it's Ethan Winer combined with null testing 3. Because Ethan Winer and null testing are each controversial enough on their own 4. Because threads involving Ethan Winer and/or null testing tend to devolve into complete fucking shit shows 5. Because a thread involving Ethan Winer AND null testing likely WILL devolve into a complete fucking shit show That's why.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Nov 15, 2018 18:59:26 GMT -6
^^^^
This !
And it’s Ethan Winer ( he has more than lived up to his last name) it’s null testing.
This is the guy who preaches like his views are fact, always forgetting he was one of the biggest advocates for solving room issues until he went into the room treatment buisness.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 15, 2018 19:00:23 GMT -6
1. Because it's Ethan Winer 2. Because it's Ethan Winer combined with null testing 3. Because Ethan Winer and null testing are each controversial enough on their own 4. Because threads involving Ethan Winer and/or null testing tend to devolve into complete fucking shit shows 5. Because a thread involving Ethan Winer AND null testing likely WILL devolve into a complete fucking shit show That's why. HAHAHAHA cool thanks Cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 15, 2018 19:01:46 GMT -6
I must have missed some stuff...
I always liked his posts, liked that he liked his cat... 8)
I bought his book...
I have learned some stuff from him
no doubt there are two sides to the coin...
I watched it, didn't find anything wrong...
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 15, 2018 19:11:05 GMT -6
Tough crowd.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 15, 2018 19:22:07 GMT -6
Well, there is a lot of water under that particular bridge... Water of the "dubiously swapped files" kind...
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 15, 2018 19:44:20 GMT -6
But specific weirdos aside, what’s wrong with the science? I didn’t watch the whole thing but what I saw was basic stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 15, 2018 20:01:31 GMT -6
I’m game. Ethan chooses not to post here. I was probably type A on him so I accept most of the blame. It’s probab a better place without the controversy. Edit to say I haven’t watched the video.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 15, 2018 20:07:02 GMT -6
But specific weirdos aside, what’s wrong with the science? I didn’t watch the whole thing but what I saw was basic stuff. I'm a fierce advocate of science and the scientific method, especially in this day and age where people seem to believe they can just make up their own facts. The thing with Ethan is that he has a knack for blowing the whole experiment up when he fears he is about to be proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 15, 2018 20:43:36 GMT -6
But specific weirdos aside, what’s wrong with the science? I didn’t watch the whole thing but what I saw was basic stuff. I'm a fierce advocate of science and the scientific method, especially in this day and age where people seem to believe they can just make up their own facts. The thing with Ethan is that he has a knack for blowing the whole experiment up when he fears he is about to be proven wrong. Well falsifying stuff is (obviously) no good. You don’t need to when you stick to the science. I don’t know much about Winer other than seeing some really, really odd videos from him some time ago. But I am a big proponent of combatting ridiculous audiophile superstition and dogma with actual factual information.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 15, 2018 21:26:08 GMT -6
I'm a fierce advocate of science and the scientific method, especially in this day and age where people seem to believe they can just make up their own facts. The thing with Ethan is that he has a knack for blowing the whole experiment up when he fears he is about to be proven wrong. But I am a big proponent of combatting ridiculous audiophile superstition and dogma with actual factual information. Agreed. I am too. But I think he swings too far in the other direction in his efforts to do so. Or he loses the plot. Or who knows... All I know is that a shit show normally ensues whenever he embarks on these sort of endeavors.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Nov 15, 2018 21:43:14 GMT -6
I’m game. Ethan chooses not to post here. I was probably type A on him so I accept most of the blame. It’s probab a better place without the controversy. Edit to say I haven’t watched the video. I will never understand why people go wild because of someone who can proof his point. In times where people stop believing in facts just to justify thier BS anything seems to be possible? I still love facts and I hate if people want to make me believe that they don't need facts for thier arguments.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Nov 15, 2018 22:44:10 GMT -6
I’m game. Ethan chooses not to post here. I was probably type A on him so I accept most of the blame. It’s probab a better place without the controversy. Edit to say I haven’t watched the video. I will never understand why people go wild because of someone who can proof his point. In times where people stop believing in facts just to justify thier BS anything seems to be possible? I still love facts and I hate if people want to make me believe that they don't need facts for thier arguments. The thing about science is you have to have a thick skin when it comes to those who find fault in your method’s that isn’t Ethan, Ethan thinks Ethan’s methodology is perfect, there for Ethan’s conclusions are scientific law. One of my doctors and good friends literally wrote the book on surgery about 20 years ago ( former vice chair at Yale) I asked him if he thought many of his findings and methods would still be in use 30 years from now his answer “ My ego hopes so, the scientist in me prays somebody smarter comes along and discovers better methods because that’s science, many things were no longer current when the type was set, science always moves forward. How can I say I have a better idea and not except that you might have an idea better than mine ? That’s science!” That’s not how Ethan’s mind works. I think he has a chip on his shoulder because in the world of acoustics he really hasn’t done anything but package the knowledge of others and while his products are well regarded, in the academic and research area he’s held at the same level as I and I know I’m nobody. I will say this though he is a very talented musician. See I said something nice.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 15, 2018 23:06:20 GMT -6
I will never understand why people go wild because of someone who can proof his point. In times where people stop believing in facts just to justify thier BS anything seems to be possible? I still love facts and I hate if people want to make me believe that they don't need facts for thier arguments. The thing about science is you have to have a thick skin when it comes to those who find fault in your method’s that isn’t Ethan, Ethan thinks Ethan’s methodology is perfect, there for Ethan’s conclusions are scientific law. One of my doctors and good friends literally wrote the book on surgery about 20 years ago ( former vice chair at Yale) I asked him if he thought many of his findings and methods would still be in use 30 years from now his answer “ My ego hopes so, the scientist in me prays somebody smarter comes along and discovers better methods because that’s science, many things were no longer current when the type was set, science always moves forward. How can I say I have a better idea and not except that you might have an idea better than mine ? That’s science!” That’s not how Ethan’s mind works. I think he has a chip on his shoulder because in the world of acoustics he really hasn’t done anything but package the knowledge of others and while his products are well regarded, in the academic and research area he’s held at the same level as I and I know I’m nobody. I will say this though he is a very talented musician. See I said something nice. There's a fundamental difference between someone pioneering new methods for something and someone disproving null theory. The former happens all the time as technical prowess marches onward. The latter would be rearranging the fundamentals of what we know about waves. Much, much bigger deal. I feel like (and this isn't directed at you) the "well science may discover something different later" is often used as a crutch by people who are making a bad case and who need to deflect from solid science showing they're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 15, 2018 23:15:20 GMT -6
I will never understand why people go wild because of someone who can proof his point. In times where people stop believing in facts just to justify thier BS anything seems to be possible? I still love facts and I hate if people want to make me believe that they don't need facts for thier arguments. The thing about science is you have to have a thick skin when it comes to those who find fault in your method’s that isn’t Ethan, Ethan thinks Ethan’s methodology is perfect, there for Ethan’s conclusions are scientific law. One of my doctors and good friends literally wrote the book on surgery about 20 years ago ( former vice chair at Yale) I asked him if he thought many of his findings and methods would still be in use 30 years from now his answer “ My ego hopes so, the scientist in me prays somebody smarter comes along and discovers better methods because that’s science, many things were no longer current when the type was set, science always moves forward. How can I say I have a better idea and not except that you might have an idea better than mine ? That’s science!” That’s not how Ethan’s mind works. I think he has a chip on his shoulder because in the world of acoustics he really hasn’t done anything but package the knowledge of others and while his products are well regarded, in the academic and research area he’s held at the same level as I and I know I’m nobody. I will say this though he is a very talented musician. See I said something nice. There is also a larger problem among the general populace these days that simply does not understand the iterative nature of science. Our shitty education system these days hasn't properly prepared the general population to go through these sort of thought processes and general intellectual exercises. The brain "is a muscle". Science says: I understand what I know now, based on what the best information tells me now, but I'm always striving to understand it even better, and new information will always refine that position to the Nth degree. Joe Normal says: Senator X (who is paid for by large corporations, but tells me I'm special and he's rooting for me) knows best. If new info disagrees with my preconceived notions, it must be wrong. If, through the iterative nature of fact discovery, I'm still proven wrong, the best course is still to double down on myths. If the previous understanding of things as they were is even slightly different from the the way they were previously understood before, it must now mean that all UNDERSTANDING is called into question and the earth is apparently flat. It's hard to reconcile those two diametrically opposed concepts. Ethan "thinks" he's a scientist. But he doesn't have the background to respect what that actually means. Nor does a lot of the population that just chooses to believe whatever the hell they want.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Nov 16, 2018 7:08:37 GMT -6
I think the problem with most of these guys, Ethan included, is the way they approach their argument. They love getting that “gotcha” moment where they can prove somebody wrong, but in most cases they come off as a bragging ass hat - and that can dilute their argument.
If somebody wants to spend 2k on an rca cable, I say go for it. You don’t need a reason, and you don’t need to explain yourself to anybody. Why does anybody care what people spend their money on? Is it just so they can be right?
Such a waste of time...
I will say though - the directional cable thing is just brilliant.. Whoever the marketing guy is that came up with that... I mean we can all agree he deserves an award of some sort.
If I were to wire up a studio and had unlimited funds, I’d be going with a more expensive cable. The reasoning for that isn’t sound quality though, it’s shieliding, manufactured quality, ease of use when actually stripping and building out the cables. In that case I prefer Mogami. My wallet tends to disagree with me though 🤔
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 16, 2018 7:34:12 GMT -6
"If you can't say anything good, say nothing at all" - my nana So . . .
He made sense for about 7 minutes.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Nov 16, 2018 7:52:38 GMT -6
The thing about science is you have to have a thick skin when it comes to those who find fault in your method’s that isn’t Ethan, Ethan thinks Ethan’s methodology is perfect, there for Ethan’s conclusions are scientific law. One of my doctors and good friends literally wrote the book on surgery about 20 years ago ( former vice chair at Yale) I asked him if he thought many of his findings and methods would still be in use 30 years from now his answer “ My ego hopes so, the scientist in me prays somebody smarter comes along and discovers better methods because that’s science, many things were no longer current when the type was set, science always moves forward. How can I say I have a better idea and not except that you might have an idea better than mine ? That’s science!” That’s not how Ethan’s mind works. I think he has a chip on his shoulder because in the world of acoustics he really hasn’t done anything but package the knowledge of others and while his products are well regarded, in the academic and research area he’s held at the same level as I and I know I’m nobody. I will say this though he is a very talented musician. See I said something nice. There's a fundamental difference between someone pioneering new methods for something and someone disproving null theory. The former happens all the time as technical prowess marches onward. The latter would be rearranging the fundamentals of what we know about waves. Much, much bigger deal. I feel like (and this isn't directed at you) the "well science may discover something different later" is often used as a crutch by people who are making a bad case and who need to deflect from solid science showing they're wrong. Don’t worry I have thick skin, well theoretical thick skin, my actual skin is pretty damn thin and fragile . Now, here is where I’ll tell you Bill my friend and pancrease major scientific arguments, the majority of pancreatitis is caused by abuse of Alcohol or drugs, another excepted cause and forgotten by many medical professionals is major trauma. I fit this second cause and will request another physician or resident if you accuse my of being an addict or alcoholic, I figure I don’t need somebody with reading comprehension skills that low and can’t look at me say major, big time major trauma, BUT here is the thing, how can you prove statistically that it is in fact the trauma and not all the drugs used to treat the trauma? There isn’t a large enough subset of major trauma patients with pancreatitis patients who did not receive large amounts of drugs. So I blame my pancreatitis on my Doctors 😁.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 16, 2018 8:55:07 GMT -6
Yes, I've seen and heard the drama around Mr. Winer.
Some of what he says is true. Some is assumed to be "true" by others who haven't been able to prove otherwise, some is just conjecture, and some is plain false.
Truth: There is no such thing as "correct" and "incorrect" in electronics, only "works" and "does not work", but even then those can be highly relative to the situation, the testing method, the components, and most importantly, the design of what is being tested. In fact, I do things all the time that are technically "wrong" to others, but end up working well, because I understand the scope of what I need, and how to get the results from the parts I'm using. That's not to say I haven't failed in dramatic fashion before trying to force a result from an obviously poor choice in design.. There is a lot more to designing and testing than most anyone ever understands. I know tons of well-regarded engineers that lack significant understanding in their fields that have made names for themselves by doing a single thing in the past, and yet still get tons of work despite having produced mediocre work since.
But back to the point on testing.
As they say, judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree and it will live it's life thinking it's a failure.
Why do I say this? Because I've seen tons of people misappropriate methods and theories over the years, and unfairly and mistakenly attribute results to wholly innocent phenomenon. I agree with Mr. Winer that cable is 'just cable' (my paraphrase) and there is NO magic in conductors, their insulation, or their shielding. There is nothing "unknown" in cables, and all differences in performance between different cables can be seen and understood through normal (but highly involved) testing. The key is knowing how to interpret the test results and how to attribute various phenomenon to the underlying physics correctly. The other part of this is having test equipment that can do this accurately, which the majority of self-proclaimed "testers" do not.
I work in the CATV and Telecom industries designing test equipment that is used to identify and detect physical and protocol layer defects over conductors of various types. I've been doing this for 12 years now, so I kinda feel like I'm getting the hang of it. However, the knowledge comes in layers, and once you understand one aspect of how conductors work you find that it opens new avenues of how to interpret what you see further down the road, and it's this road that people rarely get very far down. They read a few posts, maybe search some keywords on google and find the first thing that meets the confirmation bias threshold, and that's it.
You'll know them when you see them because when you offer to do tests, the first response is generally "tests can't tell you everything about a cable, only listening can" and when you say that you DO hear a difference in something else that they don't, the same people will say things like "only tests can determine the difference, listening isn't everything", AKA mental gymnastics to avoid ridicule. Mr. Winer has indeed been guilty of this, as have we all at some point.
One thing I've absolutely become sure of is that no two cables are identical. Even conductors from the same batches made back to back in time are slightly different. Even some of the best PCB materials I use to ensure extreme tolerances can have significant value spreads at some point, especially if used improperly.
it's all about applications, and risk management. The design needs to be cheap enough to be purchased, but be fault tolerant enough that differences in connections, cables, PCBs, even the ICs can't cause edge-case failures.
However, in audio, there are no *real* standards, so you have very wide tolerances on products that are connected with cables that have even more variations, which lead to a huge mess of combinations that can have significant affect on your results, which is the real boogeyman in the closet when you read these tests. You cannot simply swap cables on audio equipment and expect that there is no external factors that might be exaggerating the differences at the very least, and completely swamping the results at worst.
That's where the pseudoscience comes in.
Folks inherently believe that keeping some portions of their test setups the same will somehow exonerate those pieces from needing to be accounted for in the results. For instance let's say that they think keeping the transmitter and receiver the same for every test will show only the differences between cables.
That's simply untrue, and it's bad science to boot.
What it shows is the differences in interactions between the TX/RX and the cables/connectors as a complete system, at that moment in time and it that very specific configuration.
Does it account for the microscopic tarnish from your finger oils? How about the fine metallic dust that's built up in the connectors from all of the (un)plugging? How about the retention values of the connectors changing as the size of the mating connectors differ? How about the flux and rosin that's flowed down into the shield during assembly and has caused high-ohmic shorting? The temperature of the ICs changing during usage and the change in jitter as the testing happens? Solar activity at that very moment in time?
There's a big reason that a lot of designers spend tens-to-hundreds of thousands of dollars to test their gear in EMI/RFI anechoic chambers with highly regulated temperatures designed to reduce external influences, and do huge amounts of testing across tolerance ranges. They will map out frequencies over impedances and levels and build up a window of operation, which they use to "calibrate" out the effects of their test fixture cabling so they might "see" what their product is truly doing. This takes time, money and patience. Pretty much the things that A/B testers don't have.
My point is that it's almost useless to do this type of A/B test with consumer gear as the system influence can result in vastly different results for relatively similar cabling. Unless you're willing to go through with the full testing, or have the appropriate equipment available, there are still too many factors to truthfully determine results unless you have an inherent understanding of the underlying physics.
The truth is that once you factor all these things in/out, cables are relatively benign creatures that don't offer much in the way of "a sound", but can greatly influence how two pieces of gear interact with each other over that conductor.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Nov 16, 2018 9:33:45 GMT -6
Yes, I've seen and heard the drama around Mr. Winer. Some of what he says is true. Some is assumed to be "true" by others who haven't been able to prove otherwise, some is just conjecture, and some is plain false. Truth: There is no such thing as "correct" and "incorrect" in electronics, only "works" and "does not work", but even then those can be highly relative to the situation, the testing method, the components, and most importantly, the design of what is being tested. In fact, I do things all the time that are technically "wrong" to others, but end up working well, because I understand the scope of what I need, and how to get the results from the parts I'm using. That's not to say I haven't failed in dramatic fashion before trying to force a result from an obviously poor choice in design.. There is a lot more to designing and testing than most anyone ever understands. I know tons of well-regarded engineers that lack significant understanding in their fields that have made names for themselves by doing a single thing in the past, and yet still get tons of work despite having produced mediocre work since. But back to the point on testing. As they say, judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree and it will live it's life thinking it's a failure. Why do I say this? Because I've seen tons of people misappropriate methods and theories over the years, and unfairly and mistakenly attribute results to wholly innocent phenomenon. I agree with Mr. Winer that cable is 'just cable' (my paraphrase) and there is NO magic in conductors, their insulation, or their shielding. There is nothing "unknown" in cables, and all differences in performance between different cables can be seen and understood through normal (but highly involved) testing. The key is knowing how to interpret the test results and how to attribute various phenomenon to the underlying physics correctly. The other part of this is having test equipment that can do this accurately, which the majority of self-proclaimed "testers" do not. I work in the CATV and Telecom industries designing test equipment that is used to identify and detect physical and protocol layer defects over conductors of various types. I've been doing this for 12 years now, so I kinda feel like I'm getting the hang of it. However, the knowledge comes in layers, and once you understand one aspect of how conductors work you find that it opens new avenues of how to interpret what you see further down the road, and it's this road that people rarely get very far down. They read a few posts, maybe search some keywords on google and find the first thing that meets the confirmation bias threshold, and that's it. You'll know them when you see them because when you offer to do tests, the first response is generally "tests can't tell you everything about a cable, only listening can" and when you say that you DO hear a difference in something else that they don't, the same people will say things like "only tests can determine the difference, listening isn't everything", AKA mental gymnastics to avoid ridicule. Mr. Winer has indeed been guilty of this, as have we all at some point. One thing I've absolutely become sure of is that no two cables are identical. Even conductors from the same batches made back to back in time are slightly different. Even some of the best PCB materials I use to ensure extreme tolerances can have significant value spreads at some point, especially if used improperly. it's all about applications, and risk management. The design needs to be cheap enough to be purchased, but be fault tolerant enough that differences in connections, cables, PCBs, even the ICs can't cause edge-case failures. However, in audio, there are no *real* standards, so you have very wide tolerances on products that are connected with cables that have even more variations, which lead to a huge mess of combinations that can have significant affect on your results, which is the real boogeyman in the closet when you read these tests. You cannot simply swap cables on audio equipment and expect that there is no external factors that might be exaggerating the differences at the very least, and completely swamping the results at worst. That's where the pseudoscience comes in. Folks inherently believe that keeping some portions of their test setups the same will somehow exonerate those pieces from needing to be accounted for in the results. For instance let's say that they think keeping the transmitter and receiver the same for every test will show only the differences between cables. That's simply untrue, and it's bad science to boot. What it shows is the differences in interactions between the TX/RX and the cables/connectors as a complete system, at that moment in time and it that very specific configuration. Does it account for the microscopic tarnish from your finger oils? How about the fine metallic dust that's built up in the connectors from all of the (un)plugging? How about the retention values of the connectors changing as the size of the mating connectors differ? How about the flux and rosin that's flowed down into the shield during assembly and has caused high-ohmic shorting? The temperature of the ICs changing during usage and the change in jitter as the testing happens? Solar activity at that very moment in time? There's a big reason that a lot of designers spend tens-to-hundreds of thousands of dollars to test their gear in EMI/RFI anechoic chambers with highly regulated temperatures designed to reduce external influences, and do huge amounts of testing across tolerance ranges. They will map out frequencies over impedances and levels and build up a window of operation, which they use to "calibrate" out the effects of their test fixture cabling so they might "see" what their product is truly doing. This takes time, money and patience. Pretty much the things that A/B testers don't have. My point is that it's almost useless to do this type of A/B test with consumer gear as the system influence can result in vastly different results for relatively similar cabling. Unless you're willing to go through with the full testing, or have the appropriate equipment available, there are still too many factors to truthfully determine results unless you have an inherent understanding of the underlying physics. The truth is that once you factor all these things in/out, cables are relatively benign creatures that don't offer much in the way of "a sound", but can greatly influence how two pieces of gear interact with each other over that conductor. Chris So what your saying is you need to know and understand all the variables so you can control them to to generate real data.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 16, 2018 11:02:11 GMT -6
The truth is that once you factor all these things in/out, cables are relatively benign creatures that don't offer much in the way of "a sound", but can greatly influence how two pieces of gear interact with each other over that conductor. Chris So what your saying is you need to know and understand all the variables so you can control them to to generate real data. Yes, but more in depth than that. It's not just understanding all the variables, but it's understanding that most folks don't even know what they don't know, if that makes sense.. Like I do believe that while the basis behind A/Bing cables should exhibit a quantifiable difference, most people might not know that the cable might be just the catalyst of the difference, but not the sole reason for the difference, thus they'd be falsely led to think that the cable itself it what they hear. That seems to be the most prolific falsehood I've seen about audio cables. I believe that null tests are beneficial. Some folks argue that they aren't, but we use nulling all the time in the electrical domain for differential signalling like XLR and TRS, or in phone lines, on circuit boards, etc, but somehow when applied to testing people act like they disagree with the principle.. But in truth they're inherently disagreeing with the high chance of erroneous results that stem from testing in an uncontrolled environment. As I mentioned before, small differences can lead to large errors, especially when null tests report results of 0.001dB difference which might be the difference in connector impedance at that frequency, at that temperature with a little finger oil causing ohmic differences. Actually I think all tests can be beneficial no matter how in-depth, as long as the test itself accounts for variables (such as connector discontinuities) that are calibrated out through proper test methodologies and as long as you know the shortcomings of the tests performed. Such things happen all the time in my domain. Each piece of gear is calibrated, and if cables are to be used, there are methods to remove the effects of the cables such that the reported result does not mistakenly attribute any values to the device that might be caused or catalyzed by the cabling.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 16, 2018 12:05:33 GMT -6
Boy, Ethan's gertting fat! And where's his pussy?
|
|