[abomwell]

Wow...this is really interesting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWt3kANA3Q&t=455s

[77SunsetStrip]

Yep, interesting test and comments.  No problem with the test concept or methodology.  However, 40+ years of engineering experience taught me that even the best laboratory test did not always perfectly predict real world results.  Still, no argument with what Winer intended to demonstrate in a laboratory setting.  Would be interesting to devise a more real world test that includes listening.

More interesting to me are the reactions to science based tests related to the audio hobby.  Some in the science, or measurements tell all, camp do not treat all science based tests equally.  Winer constructed a test and produced a result widely supported as definitive.  Cyril Bateman performed exhaustive and meticulous testing of capacitor types.  One of his conclusions was electrolytic capacitors should not be used in loudspeaker crossovers.  Supported by data, just like the Winer test. 

Loudspeaker manufacturers routinely include electrolytic capacitors in crossovers and many in the "science" crowd say just fine.  Winer's test data is accepted as proof no human can hear a difference - without actual listening.  Bateman's test data and conclusion is dismissed - without actual listening.  Seems like picking and choosing which science is acceptable based on a non science belief system.

Dr. Floyd Toole said, "Two ears and a brain respond very differently to a complex sound field — and are much more analytical — than an omni-directional mic and analyzer."         

[Early B.]

Yep, interesting test and comments.  No problem with the test concept or methodology.  However, 40+ years of engineering experience taught me that even the best laboratory test did not always perfectly predict real world results.  Still, no argument with what Winer intended to demonstrate in a laboratory setting.  Would be interesting to devise a more real world test that includes listening.

More interesting to me are the reactions to science based tests related to the audio hobby.  Some in the science, or measurements tell all, camp do not treat all science based tests equally.  Winer constructed a test and produced a result widely supported as definitive.  Cyril Bateman performed exhaustive and meticulous testing of capacitor types.  One of his conclusions was electrolytic capacitors should not be used in loudspeaker crossovers.  Supported by data, just like the Winer test. 

Loudspeaker manufacturers routinely include electrolytic capacitors in crossovers and many in the "science" crowd say just fine.  Winer's test data is accepted as proof no human can hear a difference - without actual listening.  Bateman's test data and conclusion is dismissed - without actual listening.  Seems like picking and choosing which science is acceptable based on a non science belief system.

Dr. Floyd Toole said, "Two ears and a brain respond very differently to a complex sound field — and are much more analytical — than an omni-directional mic and analyzer."       

This should be a sticky and inserted into every "science vs. listening" thread.
 

[abomwell]

Listening test white paper by Roger Sanders is also very interesting.

http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/162-audio-equipment-testing-white-paper

[WGH]

Ethan's demo explains why we don't need expensive wires for mono. Stereo is different with complex interactions between the two speakers to form the illusion of a sound field.

If he listened a stereo comparison between the cheap low capacitance cable and a Hapa interconnect he would say mea culpa and delete this video because his entire belief system would have been shattered.

And a direction arrow on some shielded interconnects is not for current flow but because the shield is only connected to the ground at one end minimizing the possibility of noise inducing ground loops. Point the arrow either way but both arrows should point in the same direction or you could get a ground loop hum but Ethan knows this basic engineering fact doesn't fall in line with his agenda.


Frank Van Alstine has mentioned many times in his circle that variations in an amp design measure the same but sound different.
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=100776.msg1029884#msg1029884

"We did regulated power supplies for each tube heater at the same time.  This provided a major improvement in overall clarity and musical involvement. Again, we could hear it and knew that it was better engineering, but could not measure it within the capabilities of our test equipment."

"Finally, in the release before the current new production Fet Valve 400R and 600R amplifiers, we redesigned the audio boards to allow one more active regulated power supply per channel, so that the tubes no longer had to share one supply per channel, now each tube plate and the accompanying mos-fet each had their own independent active regulated power supply.  Again an engineering improvement we knew would be worthwhile, but as usual, not one we can measure, except with our ears."

[abomwell]

Well, this is what drives audiophiles crazy: You get very knowledgeable experts, who should be taken seriously, saying just the opposite things! It's like golf instruction and the pandemic. We live in a sea of contradictory information, don't we? LOL.

[S Clark]

Well, this is what drives audiophiles crazy: You get very knowledgeable experts, who should be taken seriously, saying just the opposite things! ...

The problem I have with Winer, and others like him, is that they are telling me that their instruments don't measure what my ears and brain are telling me.  Ok, but if I have to pick between their instruments or my brain and ears, is there really any contest as to which one to follow? 
... and I don't agree that Ethan Winer is an expert that should be taken seriously. 

[abomwell]

Thanks to everyone for their comments. I had a feeling this post would be controversial and it surely has. I appreciate your impassioned points of view.

Al

[RonN5]

I suspect that part of the problem of being able to tie hearing preferences to measurements is that we hear and interpret what we hear differently from each other.  What do I mean by that?  What an instrument says is the "perfect" violin may in fact sound like the perfect violin against other tones offered for X% of the people...but not for everyone.

I liken it to the Harman Curve for loudspeakers...if the science is right and if the measurements correlate to hearing then it would be a 100% correlation...but it isn't....not because the science is wrong but because people hear/interpret what they hear differently.

So what?  For me, measurements can get you into the arena of what may sound good to you and if you need to do some tweaking to get the sound that you want because it is what your brain says is right...then so what...its right for you and that is all that matters, no further explanation needed.

My personal example....the bass that my brother thinks is "right" and "accurate" would lift most people out of the chair...but it is right for him no matter how it measures.

[Mr. Big]

None of this matters how things spec out in a lab. The main reason is your room, my room, and everyone's room changes the sound with that listening environment. I added 2 flux plants on each side of my listening room by my sitting area, all the rest remained the same, the sound changed like I put a new piece of gear in, all of a sudden more bass, imaging remained more in place, and depth, midrange clarity and cleaner more defined highs. The music stayed more in place.

Our rooms are #1 as important as the gear and speakers and more so than cabling. I think many of us change gear due to our rooms, when in fact we should fix the room and save our gear. I have learned power cords feed the power supply and impact the gear connected. One post here mentioned how one designer just beef up the power supply in their gear and how it dramatically improved the sound while the specs remained the same. That is true I built my own tube preamp once and when I finally built an outboard power supply that could have driven a small amp, the preamp became night and day better across the board. POwer cords feed the power supply's and even on my Quad electrostatic speakers when I upgraded the power cords the sound improved in all areas and the bass was night and day better, yet the guy who rebuilt my speakers would tell you the cheap power cord sent with the Quads is all you need, wrong he was.

[Early B.]

I liken it to the Harman Curve for loudspeakers...if the science is right and if the measurements correlate to hearing then it would be a 100% correlation...but it isn't....not because the science is wrong but because people hear/interpret what they hear differently.

Well, the science is wrong if it doesn't correlate with reality. They're either measuring the wrong things or misinterpreting what they measure, both of which occur frequently in academia. 

The problem is -- scientists haven't yet developed a process or system of measurements for the high-end audio crowd that takes into account the variations of what people hear. So guys like Winer -- very little of what they claim seems to fit with the reality that audiophiles experience. For instance, Winer eschews high-end cables, but most audiophiles disagree. So imagine if the scientists invited audiophiles to help design studies and provide feedback on their experiments and measurements. Real science can occur somewhere in the middle. Otherwise, 50 years from now, audiophiles will still be trying to convince the science crowd just how unscientific it is to rely solely on objective measures in highly subjective situations.
   

[Tangram]

Most audiophiles work within a budget. I know I do. This means that price/performance MUST be a consideration when assembling a system, including room treatments and music purchases. That's why I pay almost no attention to cables. True, I have a full loom of cabling made by a respected company, but the cost of that cabling represents considerably less than 5% of my total budget. I bought the cables because they are made-to-order and because they appear well-made. But I don't care if cables have a sound - the differences between cables are vanishingly small when compared with, for example the difference in phono cartridges, speakers and rooms.

When a reviewer or audiophile says: "the difference wasn't small" I simply don't believe them. Their brains and biases are messing with reality. If there are differences, they are inconsequential relative to other parts of the system.

I'm still waiting for the definitive double-blind cable test. Get a bunch of "golden ears" in a room with some competent scientists conducting the experiment and have at it. In fact, why wouldn't the makers of uber-expensive cables sponsor such a test? 

 

[abomwell]

I agree with everything you said.  Regarding testing I posted, up above, a white paper on testing by Roger Sanders. It's a long read but, to me, of value. Here it is again if anyone cares to read it.

http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/162-audio-equipment-testing-white-paper

[Early B.]

Most audiophiles work within a budget. I know I do. This means that price/performance MUST be a consideration when assembling a system, including room treatments and music purchases. That's why I pay almost no attention to cables. True, I have a full loom of cabling made by a respected company, but the cost of that cabling represents considerably less than 5% of my total budget. I bought the cables because they are made-to-order and because they appear well-made. But I don't care if cables have a sound - the differences between cables are vanishingly small when compared with, for example the difference in phono cartridges, speakers and rooms.

When a reviewer or audiophile says about cables: "the difference wasn't small" I simply don't believe them. Their brains and biases are messing with reality. If there are differences, they are inconsequential.

We all understand budget constraints, and focusing less than 5% of your budget on cables is a choice, and that's OK. But then you indicated you don't believe audiophiles when they say the difference isn't small and you question their brains. Be honest -- this belief helps you make sense of how you allocate your audio budget. If you had a much larger budget, you'd probably spend more money on cables and prove to yourself the benefits they can offer. Until then, the most you can say is that you don't have any personal experience to know the significance of high-end cables.

Personally, I've introduced upgraded cables that made as much of an improvement as a component upgrade. That statement doesn't require your belief. Geez, I wish it weren't true myself 'cause I'd save a lot of money. The other reality is that for audiophiles, small sonic improvements are worth spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to obtain. Just ask the tube rollers on this forum.     

[Tangram]

Yes, I'll be honest. I would use my extra budget to upgrade my phono cartridge. It's no slouch - a Kiseki Purple Heart NS, but the sonic improvement from a better cartridge would "not be small". I have my eye on an Ortofon Windfeld Ti, which is supposed to be a great match for my Graham Phantom tonearm.   
 

[abomwell]

FWIW, here is a post by Robert Greene, about cables, from his forum.

Some of the cables
of high price do make a difference-- because
there is a model that includes an adjustable
passive EQ device at speaker level.  It is
wrapped up in rhetoric about phase matching or
something or other. But what it really is, is a passive
EQ device--which of course is hard to make and expensive
at speaker level, though much easier at line level-- which of course
does what an EQ ought to do, it is just more easily
done with lower level signals. And of course as a minimum
phase EQ device it does change phase- along with
changing frequency response.l
REG

[Tangram]

FWIW, here is a post by Robert Greene, about cables, from his forum.

Some of the cables
of high price do make a difference-- because
there is a model that includes an adjustable
passive EQ device at speaker level.  It is
wrapped up in rhetoric about phase matching or
something or other. But what it really is, is a passive
EQ device--which of course is hard to make and expensive
at speaker level, though much easier at line level-- which of course
does what an EQ ought to do, it is just more easily
done with lower level signals. And of course as a minimum
phase EQ device it does change phase- along with
changing frequency response.l
REG

Here’s what Pandora’s Box looks like when you open it: a screen grab from a Thomas and Stereo YouTube video of what’s inside one of those little warts that some high-end cables have. In this case, it is a cheap metal film resistor. Will the sound change because of the resistor? Yes. For the better? Open question. Worth the money? Depends on whose money it is.