Anti-cables?????

[lucey]

Originally Posted by PhilRanger

I don't feel it's right to throw away ALL measurements, but on the other hand, we do not measure everything yet (and probably never will)

But if you can't blindly tell one cable (or amp, or whatever) from another, but loudly claim you can, but just when no one is looking at you, I'll doubt. I don't ask you to be able to do it everytime (I have bad days as well!), but saying "studio A is better than studio B because of the cables", I'll think to myself "I'm sure that's not the only difference in studio A and studio B, so it's not a valid proof". And my studio tonight is different than my studio tomorrow morning (temperature, tireness of your humble servitor, moved seat, etc).

Please don't totally throw away all science, and don't throw away all non measured results.

nice ...



I dont think exotic cable is impotant to music making, but I think it's interesting to discuss, and it's insane how pissy people get against it. As if the worlds main problems are in essence, the cable makers

[Harley-OIART]

Originally Posted by PhilRanger

MP3s are better than tape and LPs? No hiss, no crackles? Very ugly artefacts. How do you measure them?

Well... you can measure them, right? Just analyze the harmonics with a fine toothed comb and it should in my mind at least turn up a result. If an MP3 is roughly on average 1/10th the filesize of a .wav file, something says to me there is alot of meaurable data missing, most likely in the upperharmonics.


Secondly, Brendondp :

Originally Posted by Brendondp

Well, I think every now and then it's important to redefine the boundaries of what the context are.

???

when science is continually proffered to be the ultimate arbiter for the validity of the products we're being sold, (in this case products which reduce the effect of comb-filtering) I think it's valid to question factors by which the context is constructed; i.e; commerical interest.

The science in this thread is by absolutely no means trying to back up the sales of product offered by the "Scientist" (a.k.a. Ethan "the Mad" Scientist ) [J/K]. Yes, the products he offers claim to, and in practise, reduce combfiltering caused by interference of from reflections and standing waves. The problem is you completely failed to understand that the combfiltering he refers to in his work is caused by direct sound, not reflections. Maybe this will make sense if you didn't get it already : If you are comparing two microphone cables in a properly designed A/B/X Double-Blind Test, and you, while switching between the two sources being compared (Cable one, &, Cable two) move your head so much as a 1/8th of an inch, you have skewed the results. Why? because you are hearing altered frequency response as a result of combfiltering.

Don't belive me? Take Live Sound as an example. Why is the ideal mix position actually off-centered from the middle of the Mains (F.O.H. P.A.)? Well because if you are directly in the centre of the two clusters, then you are mixing from a spot completely riddled with Acoustic Combfiltering. Thats why ideally you mix slightly off to the side, more infront of one speaker than the other. (Disclaimer: Does this happen as often as it should in reality [mixing off to the side, more infront of one cluster than the other] no because most of the time it doesn't matter all that much to FOH guys. They are trained (or learned) to reference they're mix / translate it to the room. Meaning they are used to mixing in the far back corner of the bar, so they 'throw they're ears" and deal with it.

I should hope that I pretty clearly backed up Ethan's point here. He hardly has a versted interest in this thread, aside from his own credibility.

Now do we really have to start a thread about the moon?

Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Don't get offended
-Scott

[7 Hz]

Originally Posted by starseed

Makes me wonder if all they have to offer their customers is attitude and science.

What else is there? An unfounded, airy-fairy belief system based on ego? (Thinking your infallible and refusing to try to back up claims with EASY scientific measurements).

Music has always been a mixture of science and attitude. Belief systems come and go.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by 7 Hz

What else is there? An unfounded, airy-fairy belief system based on ego? (Thinking your infallible and refusing to try to back up claims with EASY scientific measurements).

Ah, that cocky lack of understanding ... again. No "claims" were made, only observations and this difference in intention was defined up front.

I understand your points in principle and in practice ... and am taking them FURTHER based in experience. You don't share my experiences ... yet that's not my problem. The lack of "proof" to your standards is not a factor in my experience, only in yours.

Music has always been a mixture of science and attitude. Belief systems come and go.

Science is a language and a great one. But it's not all language. Music is another language. Listening with the whole body is a skill, not a belief system. You dont comprehend this at all, proving your bias once again. I accept your bias and dont mean to insult it, why can't you accept my experience?

Defining music is another off topic direction, but I'll play. Death metal is maybe "science and attitude" yet Music is a quality organised in sound. It's also the energy in individuals communicated in a different language.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by lucey

Ah, that cocky lack of understanding ... again.

Originally Posted by lucey

You dont comprehend this at all, proving your bias once again.

Is it possible for you to have a discussion without being such a ______?

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Is it possible for you to have a discussion without being such a ______?

From your years of posts ... um ... Pot meet Kettle. You chose to NOT quote something very important ... "I accept your bias and dont mean to insult it". Selective posting to prove your personal bias? Not very scientific, or very kind.

Seriously Rob when someone calls your experience airy-fairy ... and misunderstands that your intent is simply to share and not to prove to them ... and then insults you left right and sideways for not conforming to their bias and preconceptions ... and then calls you out for 'ego', but is blind to their own ...

then it's YOUR fault? tutt

I'm simply countering wild misunderstandings that miss the point ... ironically ... from a scientific basis claiming to be about fact. Fact means READ and COMPREHEND. Fact does not mean, "skim and reinterpret at will ... then accuse others of not fitting my prejudicial bias." Where is your scolding of the 10 shitty, personal, and clearly malicious posts? The insulting going on here is not from me. I'm simply posting my experience.

Oh the ornery irony!

[Ethan Winer]

Brendon,

> it’s not in the least irrelevant to say that your have a vested interest in maintaining your current line of thinking and dispute the claims of those who do not solely subscribe to your way of thinking, because to not do so raises the possibility that the products you have put your resources into marketing are not based on scientific principles, thus undermining the credibility you’ve managed to establish. <

Yes, that's totally irrelevant. As I already explained, were I not interested in acoustics I'd have never done those measurements. BTW, I'm in the business of acoustic treatment because I truly believe in it, not the other way around. You don't have to believe me! But it's the truth.

> Someone who refuses to be open to new knowledge and information that is currently beyond their experience because to do so risks undermining a commercial venture is not a scientist. They are a profiteer. <

I understand you're not trying to be combative for the sake of it, but I'm still waiting for you to explain what exactly in my article you disagree with!

> as your own website purports to support free-thinking individuals who are prepared to question established truths, it’s hardly “unfair” for me to challenge them whether they be personal or professional. <

Again, what exactly is your challenge?

> I take issue with the fact that you created a class above both subjectivism and objectivism in order to “prove” the validity of your findings. <

No, I'm an objectivist through and through.

> I think it’s cynical for you to provide a link to your site (“Why We Believe”) that states that the reason you believe audible differences in cables occur is neither supported by those of us who consider ourselves either subjectivists or objectivists, and that it’s you alone who hold the “truth” on this matter <

You are reading far too much into my article. It is written from the vantage of science and measurements. If there is a conciliatory tone to it, that's only to get subjectivists to consider what I'm saying rather than dismiss it out of hand as is too often the case when guys like me offer "evidence" that refute their beliefs.

> Is the intended message here “Don’t bother with cables – they’re incapable of providing scientifically-proven audible differences <

Yes, that's a fair assessment.

> ... and won’t eliminate comb-filtering which is a major problem ... Spend your money instead on my acoustic-traps which on the other hand are scientifically proven to do exactly that!”? <

That might be a side benefit for me personally, but it was not my motivation for writing the article. This is not the first article I've written that takes on "beliefs" in audio! Here are two others:

www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html
www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html

> if perception is everything, then my perception is that I should be just as skeptical of your posts as I should of anyone else’s, and apply the same level of scrutiny to the stuff you “believe” as I should to the claims of even the most vociferous religious fundamentalist. What else would you expect a skeptic to do? <

Fine, so for the third time, what exactly do you dispute in my article?

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Phil,

> MP3s are better than tape and LPs? No hiss, no crackles? Very ugly artefacts. How do you measure them? <

Very easily!

> So with cables, if you can repeatedly identify one without looking, there is a difference. <

Yes, but the key is "repeatedly." When tested blind, folks who believe they can tell one competent cable from another are suddenly unable to do so. So rather than accept that it's all just perception and bias, they instead denounce blind testing. Stereophile magazine is a perfect example of that. They recently ran editorials three issues in a row denouncing blind testing!

> When we'll know what to look for, we'll be able to judge from specs... Until we find new defects that are not yet in the specs. <

Actually, there's a very simple way to tell if a cable or whatever has changed the sound, and it doesn't even require test gear. It's called the null test. If you're not familiar with this let me know and I'll elaborate. This is why I'm so surprised these arguments can go on and on and on so often. This stuff is very easy to settle once and for all!

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Brian,

> it's insane how pissy people get against it. As if the worlds main problems are in essence, the cable makers <

LOL - I can't argue with that! Of course it works both ways. I was recently the recipient of vile name calling and accusations in an audiophile forum. It was depressingly similar to the name calling here, but from the opposing faction.

Maybe Gearslutz should impose a minimum age restriction. Allowing only people over the age of 13 would avoid much of this immature name calling.


--Ethan

[lucey]

Cable threads are a platform for personal/psychological projections. Whatever someone thinks is wrong with the world ... you can read about it here!

Too much Science? ... too little science? ... too much profit? ... too much this? ... too much that? This thread, as always, brings out the negative projections we carry around about other people.

Brendon, Ethan is not a bad person for making money from his ideas. And his postitions came BEFORE the income those ideas created. What on earth is bugging you? If you have a problem with profit or profiteering runing the world, this is not the place for it. K Street, and lobbyists can and should be discussed in the Politics forum.



On cable ... once again, I dont equate price with performance, or think its a huge deal ... and would simply like to talk about the actual product this thread is about. Unfortunately there are too few users, so we have a lot of abusers.

[7 Hz]

Originally Posted by lucey

No "claims" were made, only observations.

Ok, the claim is (as far as I understand) that properly constructed cables can affect audio band signals at line level. That is the claim I am wanting substantiated.

I consider myself open minded and I am happy to accept that there may be something in it... but I need proof before I can respect the idea that line level signals will be affected by a few metres of well made cable.

It really is elemental, my dear Watson!

I would just DEARLY love for someone to say 'hey, this cable sounds (insert hyperbole here), AND here are the test measurements to back up my claim - thereby removing the element of doubt that people obviously have regarding whether the difference is REALLY there, and it's not imagined or experienced through things like comb filtering, psychological expectations etc.

What adds weight to this whole discussion for me is the fact that there is a big industry out there devoted to selling 'special' cables, yet no one is prepared to look at it from a scientific point of view. I still don't understand why, or rather, my cynical side understands perfectly... it's snakeoil salesmen at play.

I am not here to offend anyone, and if I seem brash or whatever please forgive me. I too don't appreciate the silly gif animation on previous pages. I would much rather be enlightened by interesting debate.

I am doing a bunch of wiring over the coming weeks, so I may be tempted to try a test of my own on various cables (and maybe the odd coathanger) and listening, doing null tests etc. if I have an hour to spare. As I said, I have been into the hifi thing for 20 years anyway, so I can appreciate listening to different components, but for me the cables never really seemed to make a difference.

[VelvetGoatmine]

No, no, no, no, no... You've got it all wrong (as per the usual). It is just that people don't like YOU! Virulently... How many forums HAVE you been banned from already? I can think of one... are there more that don't appreciate your hyperbole and lack of skeptical reasoning?

Your arguments remind me of ultra-creepy Ray Kurzweil's rantings about living forever. Excepting the part that he actually is quite brilliant in certain ways, but a total kook regarding his non-scientifically backed 'beliefs'. You are espousing 'beliefs' and saying that they are irrefutable when they quite plainly are. Much virtual ink wasted in order to bring ABSOLUTE ZERO to the table.
Don't live in make-believe, Peter Pan.

Originally Posted by lucey

Cable threads are a platform for personal/psychological projections. Whatever someone thinks is wrong with the world ... you can read about it here!

[lucey]

Nice post ... thank you for finally seeing my intent and pulling back on the frustrations and accusations.

Originally Posted by 7 Hz

I am doing a bunch of wiring over the coming weeks, so I may be tempted to try a test of my own on various cables (and maybe the odd coathanger) and listening, doing null tests etc. if I have an hour to spare. As I said, I have been into the hifi thing for 20 years anyway, so I can appreciate listening to different components, but for me the cables never really seemed to make a difference.

I agree, not a huge difference. And if you dont hear it today then why bother? Seriously. And why ask others to do your testing to your specs? I've spent hundreds of hours, not one or two when it was convenient, testing gear and cables and whatever, and never once did I worry about what you tested, think or believe. It's a journey, and being on it for yourself is far more important than trusting anyone else, be they purveyors of specification or snake oil.

For listening tests, try Canare Quad vs. anything ... and you'll hear it. Sure it's a game of millimeters. But more importantly in my view it's about listening. That's FAR more important. The act of A/Bing cable is as informative about how we imagine things as it is about the cable itself. All of this is part of the process, and it's your process.


If you're building a studio based on specs it will have a certain identity. If you're building one based on function or a certain vibe, another identity .... there are a 1000 ways to cater a studio to an integrity of taste but they all start and end with individuals taking responsibility. Respecting others with a different view ... pretty important to studio life as well. I'm glad we're there now. The individuals in this thread playing with photoshop dont get personal responsiblity or respect so I can only wish them well.

The testing procedures for cable are pretty simple. You can null, you can listen, you can do both. The end. The projections people make onto cable are as interesting as any projections I've ever seen. Truly fascinating ... on all sides.

The rest of what these threads evoke are crusty old and deep negative emotions from those projections ... and at Christmas time no less.

Originally Posted by VelvetGoatmine

No, no, no, no, no... You've got it all wrong (as per the usual). It is just that people don't like YOU! Virulently...

What we "like" or "dont like" speaks to our own biases and lack of understanding, it's something we dont control. How we act in the face of what we "like" or "dont like" speaks to our discipline and self-respect. That's character.



and a very Merry Christmas!



Here's your present, sent with love and respect.


"We know others to the extent that we know ourselves"

and

"Seeking fault in others is to know a fault in ourselves"

[brendondp]

To Ethan and Harley,

I'm just looking at a Word document that is running close to 800 words to continue the debate and attempt to discuss issues you've both raised as I see it from my point of view.

And y'know... I'm not going to post it.

I really appreciate the time and effort you've both taken to respond to my points and make clear salient points that I feel have a tremendous amount of validity to them in response.

I still have problems with them (and I have to admit, it's probably due to an excess of ego that makes me want to keep trying to deal with your arguments), but I believe you've made your cases as well as a forum like this allows, and again, I thank you for doing so.

There comes a point though, when you have to ask whether or not you're contributing something worthwhile or simply adding noise that's then compounded by further noise.

And after a little bit of reflection I've decided I'm just contributing noise.

As much as I feel I need to respond to the points you've made, the fact is I don't need to and I'm going to sign off here. (You're both welcome to percieve that as defeat on my part if you wish...)

Instead, I'd like to wish you both a great Christmas (should your world-view appreciate such a wish) and the very best personally and professionally for the New Year.

Best wishes to you both,

bdp

P.S. Harley, I can't remember the last time I felt "offended". Whenever it was, it certainly wasn't the result of someone's anonymous post on an internet forum.

P.P.S. Ethan, I still have a tremendous amount of respect for your products. God knows more people could do with using them. Your world-view on the other hand is the subject I'm choosing to overlook in the spirit of the season.

[brendondp]

Originally Posted by lucey

Brendon, Ethan is not a bad person for making money from his ideas. And his postitions came BEFORE the income those ideas created. What on earth is bugging you? If you have a problem with profit or profiteering runing the world, this is not the place for it. K Street, and lobbyists can and should be discussed in the Politics forum.
.

Sorry Brian, I missed your post to me here.

No, he's not a bad person by any means. And it's certainly not that making money in ways compatible with our world-view is a bad thing. It's just saying that when we take on a commercial venture because our world-view compells us to do so, the potential exists for the commercial venture to then compell the world-view.

However, as I've said above, I don't believe any more posts from me will achieve anything other than more noise on a thread that already has way too much static to be informative.

Thanks for your posts Brian. Have a great holiday, and to you too, I wish you the very best personally and professionally next year.

Cheers to you,

bdp

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by lucey

From your years of posts ... um ... Pot meet Kettle.

Ok. But I did leave a blank so people could fill it in as they feel fit.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by brendondp

. It's just saying that when we take on a commercial venture because our world-view compells us to do so, the potential exists for the commercial venture to then compell the world-view.

That's over 50% of America for sure! A huge problem in an increasingly competitive economy. Has that ever happened to you?

I think we can all struggle with a clean identity as you've defined it ... it's a great point. But again, I know Ethan ... and disagree as I might with some of his ideas, I respect them all, and his integrity.

[mrlouie]

5 pages about cables .. shhheeeeezzz

[glassmaster]

Originally Posted by mrlouie

5 pages about cables .. shhheeeeezzz

Beats 5 pages about dither...

[PhilRanger]

Originally Posted by mrlouie

5 pages about cables .. shhheeeeezzz

not quite, if you remove all the whining...

[PhilRanger]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Phil,

> MP3s are better than tape and LPs? No hiss, no crackles? Very ugly artefacts. How do you measure them? <

Very easily!

Agreed with my knowledge now, but I scratched my head a few times trying to figure it out. After knowing what is mp3 compression, I knew what to look for and it was then easy. But you have to know what to look for!

> So with cables, if you can repeatedly identify one without looking, there is a difference. <

Yes, but the key is "repeatedly." When tested blind, folks who believe they can tell one competent cable from another are suddenly unable to do so. So rather than accept that it's all just perception and bias, they instead denounce blind testing. Stereophile magazine is a perfect example of that. They recently ran editorials three issues in a row denouncing blind testing!

I couldn't be more with you on this, if you accept some bad days as well!

> When we'll know what to look for, we'll be able to judge from specs... Until we find new defects that are not yet in the specs. <

Actually, there's a very simple way to tell if a cable or whatever has changed the sound, and it doesn't even require test gear. It's called the null test. If you're not familiar with this let me know and I'll elaborate. This is why I'm so surprised these arguments can go on and on and on so often. This stuff is very easy to settle once and for all!

Very interesting, thank you. (now flame suit on!) Did someone made some null tests comparing high end cables?

Am I wright that it is splitting a signal in 2 equipments and substracting the outs, then looking (or listening) at the amplified result?

--Ethan

Thank you very much for your explanations clarity and patience

Phil

[Ravian]

man, most of the cables i have i have made them my self.
was head of the service deparment for a PA company.
and also sevice tech at panasonic/technics.
measurements where done using a digital fluke meter (scope VC meter etc. etc.)
and never had any problems with my cables.
you can hear the sound of bad cables the signal looses the top end.
and if you check the cable in ohms it can say things like 4 ,5, or 6 ohms
good cables are in the range of 0,5 ,1 ohm (also depens on the distance of the cables)

[lucey]

Originally Posted by glassmaster

Beats 5 pages about dither...

I dont know ... dither is more interesting and probably a more useful topic.

The Rock 1 dither in the HDCD for example ... a very low signal, maybe -80 IIRC, and yet it changes things so differently from Dither 1, POWr 1, Linear, etc

[minister]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Where is the golden section?

DC

Right next to the 'Banana Section'.

[Ethan Winer]

Brendon,

> I'm just looking at a Word document that is running close to 800 words to continue the debate and attempt to discuss issues you've both raised as I see it from my point of view. <

Why not? If it's on-topic, all input is relevant and welcome.

> I still have problems with them (and I have to admit, it's probably due to an excess of ego that makes me want to keep trying to deal with your arguments), but I believe you've made your cases as well as a forum like this allows, and again, I thank you for doing so. <

I doubt it's ego. I think you are confusing skepticism, which is healthy, with cynicism, which is not so useful. Being skeptical is to say, "I'm not sure that makes sense, so please tell me more." Being cynical is to presume "guilty until proven innocent." Just because someone has a financial stake in a product does not mean the product is bad. Not that my "Believe" article has much if anything to do with products.

There are lots of bad products, and overpriced products, and products that solve a non-existent problem. But some products are good, fairly priced, and help and/or please a lot of people.

--Ethan

[JohnRoberts]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Brendon,



There are lots of bad products, and overpriced products, and products that solve a non-existent problem. But some products are good, fairly priced, and help and/or please a lot of people.

--Ethan

"Fair" in the context of prices is apparently somewhat subjective or perhaps relative to the pockets of the beholder.

JR

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I think you are confusing skepticism, which is healthy, with cynicism, which is not so useful. Being skeptical is to say, "I'm not sure that makes sense, so please tell me more." Being cynical is to presume "guilty until proven innocent."

Merry Happy 2007 Ethan

[Timecode]

Just in terms of scientific measurement - surely there are other areas in which a scientific measurement doesn't capture everything about a piece of gear? Like the distortion on my Thermionic culture Phoenix - I'm sure you could build a box with the same frequency response and thd, but it wouldn't sound the same - isn't that (simplistically stated) both the reason for and shortcoming of emulation plugins / boxes? I'm not saying that if it nulls it can still be different - I'm just saying that if it is different it takes more than a few specs to describe that difference.

Seasons greetings all and an artistically satisfying 2007.

Cheers
Matthew

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by lucey

Merry Happy 2007 Ethan

Back atcha buddy. And I was serious about hiring you to master my current project when it's finished. After the "success" of my first cello video (nearly 300,000 views so far!) I'm hard at work on another. This will be mostly guitars and drums and other pop instruments, and I know you'll be able to make a nice improvement just as you did for my cello video. I'm hoping to have the music done in the next month or so, and I'll email or call you when I'm close to completion.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Matthew,

> surely there are other areas in which a scientific measurement doesn't capture everything about a piece of gear? <

That's the whole point. There is nothing in audio that is unknown or cannot be measured. If you want to know exactly what your Thermionic Culture Phoenix does to a signal, measure its frequency response, noise spectrum, and THD and IM distortion over a range of input and output levels.

> I'm sure you could build a box with the same frequency response and thd, but it wouldn't sound the same <

This is a very different issue. Not that one couldn't model any device and make it behave and sound exactly the same. But there are a lot of variables within the scope of "frequency response, noise, and distortion." For example, how does the distortion vary with signal level? Does the high end roll off more, or less, at higher gain settings? And so forth.

> I'm not saying that if it nulls it can still be different <

Good, because if it nulls it is not different! Believe it or not, some people do claim that. These are the same folks who believe that different hard drives can sound different, etc. When you tell them the music matches bit-for-bit and thus is identical by definition they say there's more to it than that. These are exactly the people my "Believe" comb filtering article was written for.

--Ethan