[*Scotty*]

Kevin,Too much information!
Scotty

[Kevin Haskins]

Tomorrow I'm planning on running around my house naked at midnight.

Pics or it didn't happen!

Is this a philosophical statement Ethan?     "If a man runs naked in the woods and nobody was there to see it, did it happen?"

[Niteshade]

If there is no load, the spectral & scope readings don't mean a thing.   That's why I was wondering if I missed something. In the thread I started, there were some scope shots of a cord's performance- but I didn't see what kind of a load the cable was performing under- they were showing how it reduced line noise coming from a router or something like that.

How much capacitance & inductance are you looking for per foot in order to make these cables potentially good filters under their full load rating?

Wouldn't it be better to use standard 12-3 or 10-3 with good ends and then put your L-C filter inside the amp, preamp, etc...? At least you'll know exactly what you're dealing with and the filter can be made precisely for the load and frequencies you want to eliminate.

[Bill A]

Tomorrow I'm planning on running around my house naked at midnight.

To work off the effects of the Big Mac, no doubt

Bill

[Kevin Haskins]

The Corcom RFI filter would be much more effective if the premise is that conducted RFI is the issue.    I'd also point out that the difference in distortion numbers is nowhere near the threshold of audibility (as shown by research, not someones opinion).

Now don't go getting rational on us.

I try my best to be a little irrational now and then.    Too much rationality isn't good for you.   I find that I need to take "rationality breaks" once in awhile just to enjoy myself.    

Today, I had a Big Mac for lunch.    If that isn't irrational I don't know what is.    Tomorrow I'm planning on running around my house naked at midnight.  

You lead an exciting life. 

Yea... someone has to.  

Here is a good irrational audio story for you.   This is my favorite.   To start, this is not a knock on anyone.   I wouldn't even tell it if I knew this individual visited this site (he doesn't) and I won't mention any names.  

I used to sell a brand of capacitor that had a +/- sign on it's logo.    I had a small OEM customer who sells high-end speakers.   Let's call him Larry just for the sake of the story.    Larry contacted me to get some samples of our capacitors so that he could try them in his speaker designs.   We got him samples and a couple months later Larry called back and ordered product, happy with the results.  

A year or two goes by and I get a call from Larry one day.   Larry is complaining that his latest order of capacitors was not properly marked for polarity.    I promptly tell him they are MKP caps and they have never been marked for polarity.   He insist that his old batch was and that he had done many many hours of listening test in order to figure out which orientation was best.   They where audibly much better in one orientation vs. the other.      I asked him to send me a picture of the old batch so I could take a look.   Sure enough... the manufacture had changed their logo and the small +/- in the logo was no longer on the new capacitors.    Now I knew that the +/- was just part of the logo and that it had nothing to do with the orientation of the cap.   I called the manufacture to check to cover my bases.   The capacitors come out of a machine, fall into a bin, and the workers apply the label in an entirely random manner.   They CAN mark them for polarity, and have customers that request the outer foil be marked, but that was never the case with Larry's product.

Now... as a supplier, you hate to tell a customer that they spent many many hours listening to capacitors in their crossover network, and that it was all for naught.   I was tempted to not tell Larry it was all due to his imagination but I thought that if I where in his shoes, I'd want to know.   So, I call up Larry and as gentle as possible explain to him that the capacitors had never been marked for polarity.  The orientation of the label was purely random.  

Larry was pretty cool about the whole thing but he wanted to return the production run and get capacitors that where marked for orientation.   I have no problem with that but it seemed to me pretty cukoo after he had just proven that he couldn't tell the difference.  

Moral of the story?  Don't assume that everything you hear is real.       

[Bill A]

Wouldn't it be better to use standard 12-3 or 10-3 with good ends and then put your L-C filter inside the amp, preamp, etc...? At least you'll know exactly what you're dealing with and the filter can be made precisely for the load and frequencies you want to eliminate.

I would agree.  To a certain extent, isn't that pretty much what cables are anyway?  Which is why (IMO) they have a unique sound to them.  I guess that is why  manufatureers such as MIT builds filter networks into their cables.  At least I assume that is what is in the boxes.  Why go to the  trouble of manufacturing different wire topologies when you can build the filter right into the cable.  And with greater accuracy, most likely.

Bill

[Browntrout]

Unless you have something constructive to write could I politely ask you to refrain from posting? Is that alright or am I being a bad sport?

[Kevin Haskins]

Unless you have something constructive to write could I politely ask you to refrain from posting? Is that alright or am I being a bad sport?

Define constructive.   

[Browntrout]

OK

con·struc·tive 
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈstrək-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1680
1 : declared such by judicial construction or interpretation <constructive fraud>
2 : of or relating to construction or creation
3 : promoting improvement or development <constructive criticism>
— con·struc·tive·ly adverb
— con·struc·tive·ness noun

Number three is the relevant definition here.

[Kevin Haskins]

OK

con·struc·tive 
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈstrək-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1680
1 : declared such by judicial construction or interpretation <constructive fraud>
2 : of or relating to construction or creation
3 : promoting improvement or development <constructive criticism>
— con·struc·tive·ly adverb
— con·struc·tive·ness noun

Number three is the relevant definition here.

I'm not trying to be a jerk.   I'm just kind of goofy.   

The Subject is "Mains Cable Scientific Proof" so I'll start with the requirement that we understand what constitutes "Scientific Proof".

I'll rip this from quick Google Search because I like it.


THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF
This handout has some general comments about experiments and "proof" in science. It is for
review purposes -- you should be familiar with these ideas from Introductory Biology.
I. THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF
A. Is there proof in science?
1. In the sense that the word proof is used in mathematics and philosophy, nothing
is ever proven in science. There is always some uncertainty about the actual value of results
obtained from some experiment or their interpretation.
2. The more times an observation is repeated and the greater number of different
observations and theories that it ties into and agrees with, the more confident we are about how well
we actually understand something.
3. However, in the strictest sense, we never arrive at "proof"; we simply arrive at a
very high degree of probability that we understand something. Thus, it is important that you shift
your frame of reference from one of proof and certainty of knowledge and interpretation of facts to
one that is PROBABILISTIC in nature, where our confidence in whether or not we understand
something properly is not and never can be absolute. Thus, you are well advised to remove the word
"proof" from your vocabulary as far as science is concerned.
This should be no big surprise -- truth and proof in our own lives are generally probabilistic in
nature. In fact, it is only in philosophy and mathematics where the criteria are rules of logic where
the idea of proof, in its purest sense, ever has absolute meaning.


And this from Wikipedia.


Background beliefs differ. As a result, where observers operate under different paradigms, rational observers may find different meaning in scientific evidence from the same event[2]. For example, Priestly, working with phlogiston theory, took his observations about the decomposition of what we know today as mercuric oxide as evidence of the phlogiston. In contrast, Lavoisier, developing the theory of elements, took the same facts as evidence for oxygen[3]. Note that a causal relationship between the facts and hypothesis does not exist to cause the facts to be taken as evidence[1], but rather the causal relationship is provided by the person seeking to establish facts as evidence.



I find that the evidence shown in the paper have more to do with someone looking for ways to verify their belief, rather than really objectively look at the situation.   Scientific Proof for me, would mean that the paper was published for peer review, that there was a genuine search for knowledge.    It is a method that allows for real examination of the data, it should jive with other research, and if it doesn't, it should at least suggest why.    In other words, scientific proof has a higher standard than does a marketing paper.   It has elements to it that involve criticism by uninterested parties.   It involves objectivity that you don't find when you are writing about your own products.   It involves more than just a few measurements.   It also would stand up to the types of questions we have already asked.   

I consider that germane to the subject and constructive.     

[*Scotty*]

Kevin, I think some people come to forums looking for validation of choices they have made. This is a hard commodity to come by. If you hear a change in sound due to the addition of a power cord or other cable that stands up to a single blind test you may be tempted to look for an explanation for the observed phenomena. I am content to do without an explanation. I rather doubt that the differences heard due the DUT are as simply explained as a RF filter function.  When all we are left with is speculation and an incomplete explanation of test conditions not much can be accomplished. 
Scotty

[Kevin Haskins]

Kevin, I think some people come to forums looking for validation of choices they have made. This is a hard commodity to come by. If you hear a change in sound due to the addition of a power cord or other cable that stands up to a single blind test you may be tempted to look for an explanation for the observed phenomena. I am content to do without an explanation. I rather doubt that the differences heard due the DUT are as simply explained as a RF filter function.  When all we are left with is speculation and an incomplete explanation of test conditions not much can be accomplished. 
Scotty

I understand that and I'm not out to correct everyone.  It seems that there are many people on one side of the debate that want to ridicule and belittle those on the other and vice versa.   There is no scientific proof for most things that audiophiles believe.   They are made on faith or based upon what an individual perceives.   My only point was that is a slippery slope.    Just because you hear it, doesn't make it so and just because you can make a couple measurements, doesn't make it so. 

The Scientific Proof thing gets under my skin because it is used to deceive people.   There is no "scientific proof" for many beliefs in audio and I think long-term, that hurts the business.    I think long-term, it relegates us to a bunch of crazies who run around their house naked and eat Big Macs.    Long term, that isn't good for the health of high-end audio.   

 

[Occam]

Browntrout,

The data is interesting- but the cable was not tested under a load as far as I can see.

No. Browntrout was kind enough to give a link to not only the White Paper, but the technical paper as well which contains, well, the technical details. Mr. Duncan used a source and load impedance of 50 ohms, which is used by convention by anyone in the field, Corcom, myself, Shaefner, etc... in characterizing power filters. Certainly not ideal, but tractable. Consider a linear supply, with the diodes not conducting, many 1,000s of ohms, and durring the short retification angle of conduction, the reflected load of the capacitors dynamically charging. Good luck with that.

FWIW

[Niteshade]

Thanks Paul- I found the info on the test fixture.

Why is that test setup considered enough? Why not use actual equipment as the load and inject RF/noise/etc.. into the supply side of the cable being tested? If it were an amp, you could take readings all the way to the speaker posts. 

[TerryO]

Wouldn't it be better to use standard 12-3 or 10-3 with good ends and then put your L-C filter inside the amp, preamp, etc...? At least you'll know exactly what you're dealing with and the filter can be made precisely for the load and frequencies you want to eliminate.

I would agree.  To a certain extent, isn't that pretty much what cables are anyway?  Which is why (IMO) they have a unique sound to them.  I guess that is why  manufatureers such as MIT builds filter networks into their cables.  At least I assume that is what is in the boxes.  Why go to the  trouble of manufacturing different wire topologies when you can build the filter right into the cable.  And with greater accuracy, most likely.

Bill

Bill,

You're absolutely right about the "XXX" cables having a filter network built into them. Some years ago Dan Wiggins measured a pair and found they had a suspicious "saddle back" frequency response, which suggested a network. A year or so later, an Engineer in the Netherlands (I think it was) actually took the same cables and using dental instruments removed the epoxy potting around the contents of the box at one end of the cable and found an RC filter. BTW: they used an NP electrolytic capacitor!

Best Regards,
TerryO

[TerryO]

Kevin, I think some people come to forums looking for validation of choices they have made. This is a hard commodity to come by. If you hear a change in sound due to the addition of a power cord or other cable that stands up to a single blind test you may be tempted to look for an explanation for the observed phenomena. I am content to do without an explanation. I rather doubt that the differences heard due the DUT are as simply explained as a RF filter function.  When all we are left with is speculation and an incomplete explanation of test conditions not much can be accomplished. 
Scotty

I understand that and I'm not out to correct everyone.  It seems that there are many people on one side of the debate that want to ridicule and belittle those on the other and vice versa.   There is no scientific proof for most things that audiophiles believe.   They are made on faith or based upon what an individual perceives.   My only point was that is a slippery slope.    Just because you hear it, doesn't make it so and just because you can make a couple measurements, doesn't make it so. 

The Scientific Proof thing gets under my skin because it is used to deceive people.   There is no "scientific proof" for many beliefs in audio and I think long-term, that hurts the business.    I think long-term, it relegates us to a bunch of crazies who run around their house naked and eat Big Macs.    Long term, that isn't good for the health of high-end audio.   

 

I certainly agree with Mr. Haskins' statement. In the modern world that we live in it's unfortunate that it's become acceptable to give equal weight to opinions verses facts. It been suggested since the 1960s that "there is no right or wrong, only shades of gray" or the Marxist idea of a situational context or validity regarding facts.

Best Regards,
TerryO

[Browntrout]

Thankyou Occam.

I don't quite understand what some others here are talking about, it sounds like when questioning a cables validity the nay sayers require proof and when it is provided they question the meaning of the word proof.

[Niteshade]

I can see that the R-L-C values of a cable will have an impact on sound, providing they are enough to make a difference.

The cable is part of the amp, just as speakers are. Making a cable have an impact as part of the feedback loop is interesting....but the results will be hit & miss on whether you will like it or not depending on the load the amp exhibits and the reactive property of the cable.

[turkey]

Thankyou Occam.

I don't quite understand what some others here are talking about, it sounds like when questioning a cables validity the nay sayers require proof and when it is provided they question the meaning of the word proof.

I could actually care less about whether or not the cables or Russ Andrews are valid.

What I was questioning was the proof offered. I read the abstract and found that it really didn't prove anything.

"I have a telescope. At night I use my telescope to observe things in the sky. In the sky I see the moon. The moon is a pale yellowish color. New cheese is a pale yellowish color. The moon is made of cheese."

See? I just made a series of factual statements (or they could be anyway), up until the end when I wander off into the ozone.

By the same token, you can measure and test a whole bunch of stuff and then wind up nowhere at the end. As I read and understood it, the abstract wound up nowhere.

[Browntrout]

I suggest you read the technical paper if the abstract version does not satisfy.