Cables again. For Arny, et al.

I've made no bones about my firm commitment to the proposition that in audio,
there is simply nothing that a cable can do to affect the sound of a system
at all (unless that cable were purposely designed to be a filter or the runs
are so long (for interconnects) that they roll-off the extreme top).

So it was with some interest that I read Wayne Garcia's excellent article
('The Big Beat" Page 36) in the latest TAS about Blue Note's Vinyl reissues
of Rudy Van Gelder's often stunning jazz recordings of the late '50's and
early '60's.

That these recordings were, are, and will continue to be viewed as the best
of the best is not at issue here. What somewhat startled me was that Garcia,
the author, received two sets of four review pressings of some of these
reissues. The first set he found to be excellent, but the second set blew him
away. What was the difference? He asked Producer/Engineer Joe Harley via
E-mail. Why does the second set sound so much more immediate, present, and
dynamic, in short, more musically thrilling than the first?

Harley answered back that he wished he could go back and remaster the first
set of releases because after they were done, he went back and re-wired
AcousTech's (the studio doing the transfers) mastering system with upgraded
AudioQuest cabling!

How can this be that Wayne Garcia, not knowing that anything had changed
(ostensibly), immediately noticed that something had changed for the better
in the second set of releases and found it significant enough to mention it
to Blue Note? Does this mean that interconnects can and do make an audible
difference (something that my electronic engineering degree makes it hard for
me to believe).

Arny? Anyone?

On Feb 14, 7:38 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> I've made no bones about my firm commitment to the proposition that in audio,
> there is simply nothing that a cable can do to affect the sound of a system
> at all (unless that cable were purposely designed to be a filter or the runs
> are so long (for interconnects) that they roll-off the extreme top).
>
> So it was with some interest that I read Wayne Garcia's excellent article
> ('The Big Beat"  Page 36) in the latest TAS about Blue Note's Vinyl reissues
> of Rudy Van Gelder's often stunning jazz recordings of the late '50's and
> early '60's.
>
> That these recordings were, are, and will continue to be viewed as the best
> of the best is not at issue here. What somewhat startled me was that Garcia,
> the author, received two sets of four review pressings of some of these
> reissues. The first set he found to be excellent, but the second set blew him
> away. What was the difference? He asked Producer/Engineer Joe Harley via
> E-mail. Why does the second set sound so much more immediate, present, and
> dynamic, in short, more musically thrilling than the first?
>
> Harley answered back that he wished he could go back and remaster the first
> set of releases because after they were done, he went back and re-wired
> AcousTech's (the studio doing the transfers) mastering system with upgraded
> AudioQuest cabling!
>
> How can this be that Wayne Garcia, not knowing that anything had changed
> (ostensibly), immediately noticed that something had changed for the better
> in the second set of releases and found it significant enough to mention it
> to Blue Note? Does this mean that interconnects can and do make an audible
> difference (something that my electronic engineering degree makes it hard for
> me to believe).
>
> Arny? Anyone?

How many years between the two? Age and degraded hearing might account
for most/all of it. Then, better speakers, electronics, and so forth.
Too many possible variables to attribute solely to cables. If you were
to define away some of them, a better answer may be possible. Further,
simple nostalgia and fresh ears may well account for everything.

Unless an true direct comparison might be made or the evidence more
fully defined, this becomes simply anecdotal.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:35:39 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article <fp57kb019d5@news1.newsguy . com >):

> On Feb 14, 7:38 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>> I've made no bones about my firm commitment to the proposition that in
>> audio,
>> there is simply nothing that a cable can do to affect the sound of a system
>> at all (unless that cable were purposely designed to be a filter or the runs
>> are so long (for interconnects) that they roll-off the extreme top).
>>
>> So it was with some interest that I read Wayne Garcia's excellent article
>> ('The Big Beat"  Page 36) in the latest TAS about Blue Note's Vinyl reissues
>> of Rudy Van Gelder's often stunning jazz recordings of the late '50's and
>> early '60's.
>>
>> That these recordings were, are, and will continue to be viewed as the best
>> of the best is not at issue here. What somewhat startled me was that Garcia,
>> the author, received two sets of four review pressings of some of these
>> reissues. The first set he found to be excellent, but the second set blew
>> him
>> away. What was the difference? He asked Producer/Engineer Joe Harley via
>> E-mail. Why does the second set sound so much more immediate, present, and
>> dynamic, in short, more musically thrilling than the first?
>>
>> Harley answered back that he wished he could go back and remaster the first
>> set of releases because after they were done, he went back and re-wired
>> AcousTech's (the studio doing the transfers) mastering system with upgraded
>> AudioQuest cabling!
>>
>> How can this be that Wayne Garcia, not knowing that anything had changed
>> (ostensibly), immediately noticed that something had changed for the better
>> in the second set of releases and found it significant enough to mention it
>> to Blue Note? Does this mean that interconnects can and do make an audible
>> difference (something that my electronic engineering degree makes it hard
>> for
>> me to believe).
>>
>> Arny? Anyone?
>
> How many years between the two? Age and degraded hearing might account
> for most/all of it.

weeks, I suppose.

Then, better speakers, electronics, and so forth.

> Too many possible variables to attribute solely to cables. If you were
> to define away some of them, a better answer may be possible. Further,
> simple nostalgia and fresh ears may well account for everything.

How about a direct A/B? between the first batch and the second?
>
> Unless an true direct comparison might be made or the evidence more
> fully defined, this becomes simply anecdotal.

I dunno.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA

In my opinion, some cables do make a difference. Whether they have been
deliberately (or accidentally) engineered to make a difference I don't
know. I do know that several times I have been able to hear
differences--sometimes in short ABX tests, and sometimes over longer
trials.

I also know that there are more things in physics and in the perception
of music (which comes under the heading of psychology and would include
both conscious processes and unconscious processes), and in the
interaction of physics and psychology, that are not covered in
engineering or in psychology!--I can't comment about physics.

I can't be bothered arguing with those who deny it's possible. They live
in a very constrained world and it is not one I want to share. I have a
tendency to enjoy Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly
scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly
right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably
wrong." (In Clarke's view 'elderly' means over 30.)

Greg

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:39:01 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article <fp57ql019k9@news1.newsguy . com >):

> In my opinion, some cables do make a difference. Whether they have been
> deliberately (or accidentally) engineered to make a difference I don't
> know. I do know that several times I have been able to hear
> differences--sometimes in short ABX tests, and sometimes over longer
> trials.
>
> I also know that there are more things in physics and in the perception
> of music (which comes under the heading of psychology and would include
> both conscious processes and unconscious processes), and in the
> interaction of physics and psychology, that are not covered in
> engineering or in psychology!--I can't comment about physics.
>
> I can't be bothered arguing with those who deny it's possible. They live
> in a very constrained world and it is not one I want to share. I have a
> tendency to enjoy Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly
> scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly
> right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably
> wrong." (In Clarke's view 'elderly' means over 30.)
>
> Greg

Well, The thing is that conductors follow some very fundamental rules of
signal carrying and they all relate to bandwidth and the source and
destination impedances of the equipment at each end of the signal carrying
cable. The audio bandwidth, as an electrical signal, is quite narrow and very
low frequency as AC electrical signals go. Even if we "push the envelope" out
to 50K instead of 20, we're dealing here, with an electrically very
undemanding bandwidth. Things like skin effect, capacitive and inductive
reactance and simple DC resistance just aren't that great of a factor at
audio frequencies - especially over runs of less than 50 ft with modern
equipment and it's low output impedances and high input impedances.
Basically, there are no characteristics that I'm aware of that could affect
the sound of an interconnect unless, as I said elsewhere, the interconnects
were deliberately designed to act as filters, then, given the characteristics
of the VALUES of the capacitance and inductance needed to affect the sound at
frequencies lower than about 15 KHz, would have to be so large that cable
characteristics alone couldn't be engineered to produce them. Actual
resistors, inductors and capacitors would have to be added to the cable. And
unless the cable in question has some bulge in it somewhere, or a box molded
into it, this is unlikely to be what's going on.

In article <fp5kuk01ne1@news3.newsguy . com >,
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:

> Well, The thing is that conductors follow some very fundamental rules of
> signal carrying and they all relate to bandwidth and the source and
> destination impedances of the equipment at each end of the signal carrying
> cable.

You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is
impossible for me to accept. If you accept the above statement then we
cannot discuss further.

You seem to be making the assumption that all rules regarding the
reproduction of music via conductors has been discovered and fully
explained.

I DO NOT BELIEVE that. My reading in the progress of physics tells me
that your statement is unlikely to be true except in the most general
way.

Greg

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:51:46 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article <fp70qi0rq5@news3.newsguy . com >):

> In article <fp5kuk01ne1@news3.newsguy . com >,
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>
>> Well, The thing is that conductors follow some very fundamental rules of
>> signal carrying and they all relate to bandwidth and the source and
>> destination impedances of the equipment at each end of the signal carrying
>> cable.
>
> You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is
> impossible for me to accept. If you accept the above statement then we
> cannot discuss further.

OK.

> You seem to be making the assumption that all rules regarding the
> reproduction of music via conductors has been discovered and fully
> explained.

Some time ago, in fact and It's not an assumption. The wire doesn't care what
kind of intelligence it's carrying; music, mutiplexed telephone
conversations, video, MRI imaging, radar returns, computer imaging, whatever.
All that wire does is move electrons. These electrons have known
characteristics at different frequencies. Different frequencies respond to
such parameters as inherent induction and capacitance and resistance per foot
in a fully understood and predictable way. These characteristics interact
with the impedances of the source and destination circuitry at each end of
the conductor to form either parallel or series resonant circuits (at some
frequency). If the nature of these things weren't well understood we wouldn't
be able to design oscillators, analog filters, crossover networks, etc. That
we can do this so successfully and that the results are always what the math
predicts tells us that we are dealing with known engineering principles. That
there is some voodoo parameter or parameters about wire that we do not know
which affects only wires carrying music, is highly unlikely. Because if there
were, engineers would have noticed anomalies in much more complex and
critical signals that would have to be investigated and this would have
happened long ago. I'm not saying that it's impossible that there is
something about wire that we don't know, but I am saying that it is highly
unlikely.

> I DO NOT BELIEVE that.

Well, in all honesty, there are people who believe that world is only 6000
years old too. But the preponderance of scientific evidence points to that
being wrong by several orders of magnitude. When what one believes is counter
to known facts, one should either reexamine one's beliefs or be prepared to
go on a crusade to find the evidence for ones beliefs to change accepted
wisdom.

> My reading in the progress of physics tells me that your statement is
unlikely
> to be true except in the most general way.

Like I said. Wire is used for much more complex waveforms and at much higher
frequencies than just music. Any anomalies that might result from the wire's
inherent AC and DC electrical characteristics would have likely shown up in
these applications long ago.

On Feb 16, 10:51 am, Greg Wormald <greg.worm...@gmail . com > wrote:
> In article <fp5kuk01...@news3.newsguy . com >,
>
> Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> > Well, The thing is that conductors follow some very fundamental rules of
> > signal carrying and they all relate to bandwidth and the source and
> > destination impedances of the equipment at each end of the signal carrying
> > cable.
>
> You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is
> impossible for me to accept. If you accept the above statement then we
> cannot discuss further.
>
> You seem to be making the assumption that all rules regarding the
> reproduction of music via conductors has been discovered and fully
> explained.
>
> I DO NOT BELIEVE that. My reading in the progress of physics tells me
> that your statement is unlikely to be true except in the most general
> way.

Then you have pretty much declared yourself out of step
and, indeed, out of touch with an entire range of physics
and engineering in fields that have spent FAR more effort
and time on the topic than ANYONE in the audio industry.

There are fields in which signals a orders of magnitude
more fragility than ANYTHING in audio are routine, where
none of the outright floobydust and flimflammeryof high-end
audio holds.

Go take a look at the requirements for detecting and
preserving the signals in fields such as SQUIDS, radio
astronomy, encephalography, particle physics and
more. These fields left high-end audio in the dust
decades ago on pretty much every topic the high-end
claims to have made fantastic "innovations" and
"discoveries" in (including cables, jitter and more).

Also look at the amount of the stuff you see in high-end
audio that has made itself into other fields (hint: pretty much
nothing). Many of the so-called "innovators " in this industry
know little or nothing about the topics they choose to hold
forth on, and would be the laughing stock in any serious
scientific or engineering forum.

Yes, the laughed at Newton (well, no they didn't) and they
laughed at Einstein (again, no they didn't). But, as Carl
Sagan observed, they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:59:48 -0800, dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail . com wrote
(in article <fp7tdk02527@news4.newsguy . com >):

> On Feb 16, 10:51 am, Greg Wormald <greg.worm...@gmail . com > wrote:
>> In article <fp5kuk01...@news3.newsguy . com >,
>>
>> Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>>> Well, The thing is that conductors follow some very fundamental rules of
>>> signal carrying and they all relate to bandwidth and the source and
>>> destination impedances of the equipment at each end of the signal carrying
>>> cable.
>>
>> You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is
>> impossible for me to accept. If you accept the above statement then we
>> cannot discuss further.
>>
>> You seem to be making the assumption that all rules regarding the
>> reproduction of music via conductors has been discovered and fully
>> explained.
>>
>> I DO NOT BELIEVE that. My reading in the progress of physics tells me
>> that your statement is unlikely to be true except in the most general
>> way.
>
> Then you have pretty much declared yourself out of step
> and, indeed, out of touch with an entire range of physics
> and engineering in fields that have spent FAR more effort
> and time on the topic than ANYONE in the audio industry.
>
> There are fields in which signals a orders of magnitude
> more fragility than ANYTHING in audio are routine, where
> none of the outright floobydust and flimflammeryof high-end
> audio holds.
>
> Go take a look at the requirements for detecting and
> preserving the signals in fields such as SQUIDS, radio
> astronomy, encephalography, particle physics and
> more. These fields left high-end audio in the dust
> decades ago on pretty much every topic the high-end
> claims to have made fantastic "innovations" and
> "discoveries" in (including cables, jitter and more).
>
> Also look at the amount of the stuff you see in high-end
> audio that has made itself into other fields (hint: pretty much
> nothing). Many of the so-called "innovators " in this industry
> know little or nothing about the topics they choose to hold
> forth on, and would be the laughing stock in any serious
> scientific or engineering forum.
>
> Yes, the laughed at Newton (well, no they didn't) and they
> laughed at Einstein (again, no they didn't). But, as Carl
> Sagan observed, they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

These are exactly the points I was making. conductors are among the most well
understood of electronics technologies. Why would one think, for instance
that when high-frequency radar came about in WWII, that engineers already
knew that waveguides were needed to carry the UHF radar signal to and from
the antennas and that coax wouldn't work? Because the physics of signals at
those frequencies were already well known, even then. This is not a subject
that lends itself to debate because there is, unlike, perhaps, other areas of
audio, little "wiggle room" for the technology of wire to have any voodoo
associated with it. It's too mature of a discipline and too basic a
technology for that to happen.

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
news:fp9ji10t59@news2.newsguy . com

>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:59:48 -0800, dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail . com wrote
>(in article <fp7tdk02527@news4.newsguy . com >):

>> There are fields in which signals a orders of magnitude
>> more fragility than ANYTHING in audio are routine, where
>> none of the outright floobydust and flimflammeryof
>> high-end audio holds.

Oh so true.

>> Go take a look at the requirements for detecting and
>> preserving the signals in fields such as SQUIDS, radio
>> astronomy, encephalography, particle physics and
>> more. These fields left high-end audio in the dust
>> decades ago on pretty much every topic the high-end
>> claims to have made fantastic "innovations" and
>> "discoveries" in (including cables, jitter and more).

True, but one need not go so far afield. One can see all sorts of
interesting obvious misbehavior by cables and simple components like
switches while going no further than the 15 pin video cable coming out of
the back of the PC one reads USENET posts with. Of course high-resolution
video signals relate to 200-500 MHz, as opposed to 20 KHz for audio, or in
the case of digital audio, perhaps 10 MHz.

>> Also look at the amount of the stuff you see in high-end
>> audio that has made itself into other fields (hint:
>> pretty much nothing). Many of the so-called "innovators
>> " in this industry know little or nothing about the
>> topics they choose to hold forth on, and would be the
>> laughing stock in any serious scientific or engineering
>> forum.

I first became familiar with the process of reclocking digital signals using
PLLs while servicing IBM mainframe tape and disk drives in the middle-1960s.

>> Yes, the laughed at Newton (well, no they didn't) and
>> they laughed at Einstein (again, no they didn't).

I think both gentlemen paid some dues in their early years, but when they
hit their stride, they were taken very seriously indeed.

Einstein must have set some kind of high water mark for being taken
seriously because his signature launched the Manhattan Project, which
absorbed a significant portion of the GNP of the USA for several years. As
the story goes, all he had to do is sign a letter that someone else wrote
for him.

>> But, as Carl Sagan observed, they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

LOL!

> These are exactly the points I was making. conductors are
> among the most well understood of electronics
> technologies. Why would one think, for instance that when
> high-frequency radar came about in WWII, that engineers
> already knew that waveguides were needed to carry the UHF
> radar signal to and from the antennas and that coax
> wouldn't work?

We're up in the 100s ( and 1,000s, and 10,000s) of MHz again. Coax does work
at very high frequencies, but its losses go up with frequency. For example
HDMI handles bitrates on the order of 10 Gbits over 4 shielded twisted
pairs, for a data rate of 2.5 Gbits for each pair. Alternatively this can be
viewed as up to 16 bits per pixel per component color, and data rates of up
to 680 million pixels per second.

> Because the physics of signals at those
> frequencies were already well known, even then. This is
> not a subject that lends itself to debate because there
> is, unlike, perhaps, other areas of audio, little "wiggle
> room" for the technology of wire to have any voodoo
> associated with it. It's too mature of a discipline and
> too basic a technology for that to happen.

Case in point, in another group someone is all turned on about headphone
cable that has been cryogenically treated. As their argument goes, if it
works for drill bits, why can't it work for headphone cable? ;-)

In rec.audio.high-end, Greg Wormald had the audacity to say that:

> In article <fp5kuk01ne1@news3.newsguy . com >,
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>
>> Well, The thing is that conductors follow some very fundamental rules of
>> signal carrying and they all relate to bandwidth and the source and
>> destination impedances of the equipment at each end of the signal carrying
>> cable.
>
> You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is
> impossible for me to accept. If you accept the above statement then we
> cannot discuss further.
>
> You seem to be making the assumption that all rules regarding the
> reproduction of music via conductors has been discovered and fully
> explained.
>
> I DO NOT BELIEVE that. My reading in the progress of physics tells me
> that your statement is unlikely to be true except in the most general
> way.
>
> Greg

I don't disagree that one cable or another can provide subjective
experiences that are more or less pleasant than another kind, and that this
will differ among people.

What I dislike is the pseudo-science trotted out to fool the unwary into
thinking these improvements in sound are objective aims of the mfgr's when
they are just unexplained tweaks of the sound that come with changing the
material and arrangement of the cables, and simply selected for their
subjective pleasantness.

And then to siphon off these folks' retirement savings thousands of dollars
at a clip for a sound that they eventually tire of anyway -- well, it's pure
mountebankery, IMO.

*R* *H*
--
AWAKE! FEAR! FIRE! FOES! AWAKE!
FEAR! FIRE! FOES!
AWAKE! AWAKE!
-- J. R. R. Tolkien

-- deleted messages --

In article <fpg2r60221b@news3.newsguy . com >, Peter Wieck <pfjw@aol . com >
wrote:

> On Feb 16, 10:51 am, Greg Wormald
> > You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is
> > impossible for me to accept.
>
> OK... With respect, you are committing the fallacy of "Begging the
> Question".

Peter,

My understanding of "begging the question" is where the argument's
conclusion is actually one of it's presumptions/assumptions. I don't
think that's what I said, it certainly wasn't what I meant. I meant that
I couldn't accept the OP's assumptions and therefore the rest of his
argument was unacceptable to me.

> (*snip*)

Most of the rest of your considerations are accepted.

That does not change what I heard, or the conclusions I reached. I (and
others) have heard differences in connectors/cables many times in blind
trials. If other people have not heard differences in different trials
that's something to investigate, but does not in itself invalidate the
contradicting trials.

I also do not accept the assumption that the basic parameters V I & R
are fully able to describe the transmission of a complex musical signal
down a connector, and neither do a lot of scientists.

Many scientists also eschew the use of ABX testing in it's usual form
(as described here a number of times) as being adequate for making the
conclusions that are often made here.

It is also now fairly commonly accepted that the influence of the bias
of the experimenter often influences the perceived outcome.

I further note in your response that you were fairly careful to use
words like "not necessarily" and "most" and "likely" and I approve.

Greg

On Feb 20, 7:26 pm, Greg Wormald <greg.worm...@gmail . com > wrote:

> I also do not accept the assumption that the basic parameters V I & R
> are fully able to describe the transmission of a complex musical signal
> down a connector, and neither do a lot of scientists.

Name two.

> Many scientists also eschew the use of ABX testing in it's usual form
> (as described here a number of times) as being adequate for making the
> conclusions that are often made here.

Name two.

Within the relevant fields, the behavior of electrical signals in wire
and the limitations of human hearing are not controversial.

bob

bob <nabob33@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:26 pm, Greg Wormald <greg.worm...@gmail . com > wrote:

> > I also do not accept the assumption that the basic parameters V I & R
> > are fully able to describe the transmission of a complex musical signal
> > down a connector, and neither do a lot of scientists.

> Name two.

> > Many scientists also eschew the use of ABX testing in it's usual form
> > (as described here a number of times) as being adequate for making the
> > conclusions that are often made here.

> Name two.

Meanwhile, ALL competent scientists would agree that 'sighted' comparison
to verify audio 'difference' or quality is an inherently crippled method.

___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic