|   Two engineers chatting about audio cabling... | Monstrous Mike
Oct 28, 2003 11:32 AM | | Here is an email exchange I had with another engineer. This is how most conversations go when I talk to other scientists and engineers about high end audio cabling. Although this particular fellow does have a slightly greater interest than most in pursing testing and analysis:
Hi Mike,
On 13 Oct, <Monstrous Mike> wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
MM
> As an electrical engineer, I have many doubts about many of the claims
> purported in the high end audio business. I feel that the industry is
> playing on the emotions of many audiophile enthusiasts in that there are
> countless tweaks and twiddles that will optimize the sound of their
> mega-dollar systems.
I tend to agree with you. I am very skeptical of most of the claims made
for expensive cables, etc. I also find that most of the 'technical
explanations' companies put forwards are technobabble or simply misleading.
Many of the adverts (in the UK magazines at least) are, shall we say,
"ambiguously or vaguely worded". Thus they imply some technical claim, but
upon inspection tend to up meaning no more than "we think its great". Can
be hard to deal with such shadows of reality.
MM
> While it is difficult to argue what people hear or don't hear, it is
> usually straightforward to do the math and science behind the reasoning
> for claimed audible differences, like bi-wiring. But in the end, an
> audiophile has the right to wave his hand and make logic, reason and
> science all go away in pursuit of audio nirvana.
> It's really quite a conundrum. I sometimes feel like the big, bad
> scientist who is ruining everyone's audio enjoyment.
Again, I understand your feeling here.
I tend to take the approach of simply asking for justification for the
'technical claims' people like cable sellers make, and combine this with
giving the results of simple analysis of the physics involved. As you say,
some people will be convinced they can hear things which I cannot, and for
which I can see no physical explanation. However I then take the view that
- having presented/clarified the scientific arguments as best I can -
people still feel that they benefit for spending large sums, then that is
their choice.
MM
> Actually, my discussions on chat rooms and forums over the past few
> years have increased my knowledge about audio engineering as well as
> human nature. So all is not lost.
My impression is that at least *some* people are able to take the points
that can be made regarding the lack of reliable evidence, or plausible
theories, or measurements, for many of the more extraordinary claims. Some
do not, but at least we can provide people with information and help them
make a better-informed choice if they so wish. If that saves some people
from making expensive errors, and encourages caution, it is probably as
much as we can reasonably expect.
When I do webpages like the one on bi-wiring, my purpose is to 'take
seriously' the claims and see if they lead anywhere at all. In many cases
such consideration finds no real reason for the claims. In others, (like
the bi wiring), the result seems to be a behaviour which implies that
effects might exist, but are in practice probably so small as to be
somewhere between 'inaudible' and 'not worth worrying about'. However this
is a matter of judgement to some extent I suppose. :-)
I am open to the possibility that some 'novel' effects are occuring, and
may be audible. Thus I am prepared to treat the topic seriously, but
critically. However my experience is that the claims tend to evaporate upon
analysis, or become so minor as to be of dubious significance. I find it an
interesting time to pass the odd hour, though. ;->
Sadly, the UK audio magazines seem incapable o |
| One of your statements pretty sums up my POV ... | woodman
Oct 28, 2003 4:07 PM | | ... in its entirety, Mike when you say:
b "... the result seems to be a behaviour which implies that effects might exist, but are in practice probably so small as to be somewhere between 'inaudible' and 'not worth worrying about".
This is my exact feeling about virtually ALL so-called "sonic improvements" - whether pieces of friggin' wire or the differences between one amplifier and another
or the difference in sound from different DACs. Loudspeakers are of course a whole different ballgame altogether, but even in them I think differences are vastly exaggerated due to the ABEs of each individual and how they affect and color sensory perceptions.
woodman |
| I understand, ... | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 29, 2003 8:38 PM | | ... but I have to tell you that I've found the quest for improved sound to be a most interesting pastime. Of course I play to my own drummer, because I realized long ago that the audio rags and industry weren't going to be all that helpful. Playing the audiophile flavor of the month game would probably have driven me nuts. I'm one of those people who likes to have clear goals, so I'll know whether or not I'm heading in the right direction.
Distortions that go unnoticed by some people can drive others nuts. Some SET amps are like musical instrument amplifiers, in that they produce loads of harmonics. It can be very noticeable, and many people fall in love with the sound. I can ignore it, but at times it's really difficult, and on that basis alone I wouldn't go so far as to say that amps never make a contribution (one way or the other). Clipping also bugs me, but not as much as the gritty sound of some protective circuits when they are partially activated. Doubling and cone breakup can distort the sound in ways I find highly objectionable (but then that's a speaker problem). Having said all that I can finally get to the point. Everyone who has worked on audio projects with me thinks I'm the pickiest person they've ever met, and when someone calls me a "perfectionist" (a term I hear most often in a negative context) they tend to laugh and nod in agreement. And in spite of that, I'm pretty much in agreement with you. Excluding speakers, the differences, with a few exceptions, are grossly exaggerated. However, there may be a logical reason for this. I once worked for several months (actually I've done this more than once, on more than one project) to optimize a rather slow piece of software. The code was already tight, so getting any improvement at all was a real challenge. In the end I managed to get an improvement of about 20%, which impressed the heck out of me, and sent me out boasting about the huge improvements I'd made. It was only later that I managed to see it from the end users perspective. The original response time had been around three minutes. I shaved 20%, which is 36 seconds (a helluva-lot of CPU time) but the response time was still over two minutes (nearly two and a half). For the end user waiting for a job to complete, there is almost no difference at all between 2-1/2 and 3 minutes. Both are an eternity. Audio is the same way. When you work really hard to get some small measurable improvement you feel like you've made some meaningful progress, so it is easy to blow it out of proportion. People will say that something is a "night and day difference" when what they really mean is that the difference is obvious. I don't think they really consider their words or their perceptions carefully. I try to check myself, but it still happens sometimes. It happens to audiophiles a
b lot
because they're such an enthusiastic lot.
R.O. |
| |
