Cables again. For Arny, et al.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Feb 14, 7:38 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> 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).

There are plenty of plausible explanations for a real audible
difference. Let me offer one based on my own experience in
the field.

The audio industry in general, and the high-end and pro audio
industry in particular, are extremely bad at conducting controlled,
single-value experiments. I might even posit that the industry
is grossly incompetent at it.

We have absolutely no assurances that the ONLY thing
changed was the cabling. It fact, it is likely the the alledged
changes in cabling is the LEAST significant of the changes
made. We don't know what other changes occurred between
the two sets. I would, in fact, challenge the producers to
demonstrate and prove the assertion that the cabling was
the big difference, and, again from my past experiences,
that if I were to bet cold hard money on my assertion, I'd
actually be making a reasonable low-risk investment.

By "proof," I don't mean someone's personal assurances,
I mean an auditable train of evidence showing that the
cables represent the only difference introduced. Relatively
minor changes in mastering or the final level adjustments
before cutting the glass masters and many other things
could easily make differences in levels that would far exceed
and plausible audible differences due to cabling.

And even at that, it's entirely plausible that simply swapping
out the cables may have actually fixed something that was
wrong, like a loose ground or a missing leg of a balanced
line, something that has NOTHING to do with the cabling
per se.

If the claim is being made that the cables made such
a difference, only a comparison where the ONLY variable
was the change in cables has any validity, the claims of
manufacturers, producers, mavens and others
notwithstanding.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

In rec.audio.high-end, dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com had the audacity to say that:

> On Feb 14, 7:38 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> 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).
>
> There are plenty of plausible explanations for a real audible
> difference. Let me offer one based on my own experience in
> the field.
>
> The audio industry in general, and the high-end and pro audio
> industry in particular, are extremely bad at conducting controlled,
> single-value experiments. I might even posit that the industry
> is grossly incompetent at it.
>
> We have absolutely no assurances that the ONLY thing
> changed was the cabling. It fact, it is likely the the alledged
> changes in cabling is the LEAST significant of the changes
> made. We don't know what other changes occurred between
> the two sets. I would, in fact, challenge the producers to
> demonstrate and prove the assertion that the cabling was
> the big difference, and, again from my past experiences,
> that if I were to bet cold hard money on my assertion, I'd
> actually be making a reasonable low-risk investment.
>
> By "proof," I don't mean someone's personal assurances,
> I mean an auditable train of evidence showing that the
> cables represent the only difference introduced. Relatively
> minor changes in mastering or the final level adjustments
> before cutting the glass masters and many other things
> could easily make differences in levels that would far exceed
> and plausible audible differences due to cabling.
>
> And even at that, it's entirely plausible that simply swapping
> out the cables may have actually fixed something that was
> wrong, like a loose ground or a missing leg of a balanced
> line, something that has NOTHING to do with the cabling
> per se.
>
> If the claim is being made that the cables made such
> a difference, only a comparison where the ONLY variable
> was the change in cables has any validity, the claims of
> manufacturers, producers, mavens and others
> notwithstanding.

If there is one thing I took away from my days as a graduate student it is
the requirements of an objective research study:

The study must be double-blind where neither the tester nor the
subject know which variables are present.

The experiment must be a controlled study: all factors not under study
that can contribute to the results must be kept constant.

The experiment must be reported on objectively and honestly, without fudging
or tampering with the data.

The experiment must be replicable by anyone who employs the conditions
set forth in the study.

The experiment must control for subject variation, and must employ as large
a pool of subjects as practicable to achieve statistical validity.

The study must undergo statistical analysis, and the results must exceed the
margin of error to be valid.

The study must undergo peer review and any critisism responded to and if
a major doubt is raised, it must be redone with the critisism addressed.

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

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

Here's another take on the wire story:

http :// www .musicmattersjazz,com /sound.html#article4

Note that one of the principals here describes himself as "VP of
product development at AudioQuest since 1983." Needless to say, the
combination of financial interest and expectation bias is pretty
powerful here.

As for the TAS writer, they are known to be gullible fools, so it
would be pretty easy to convince him that *something* cool happened
between set 1 and set 2 (otherwise, why make a big deal of there being
two sets?).

bob

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:02:27 -0800, bob wrote
(in article <fp78fj0uc6@news5.newsguy,com >):

> Here's another take on the wire story:
>
> http :// www .musicmattersjazz,com /sound.html#article4
>
> Note that one of the principals here describes himself as "VP of
> product development at AudioQuest since 1983." Needless to say, the
> combination of financial interest and expectation bias is pretty
> powerful here.

Yeah, that's true, But ostensibly he did not tell Garcia that anything had
changed between the first batch of masterings and the second. Garcia NOTICED
an overall difference in the sound between the two sets of four discs and
asked the guy why. It was then that the MusicMatters engineer/AudioQuest guy
mentioned that he had changed the cabling. I would think that if I sent you,
without comment, two recordings made on the same equipment and they sounded
substantially different, and you noticed it ON YOUR OWN, that this would tend
to eliminate the chance of any bias on my part.

> As for the TAS writer, they are known to be gullible fools, so it
> would be pretty easy to convince him that *something* cool happened
> between set 1 and set 2 (otherwise, why make a big deal of there being
> two sets?).

Well, the way the article is written, we are led to believe that Garcia
noticed the difference between the two sets of pressings on his own without
being prompted. But who knows. Maybe the guy from music matters casually
mentioned in a phone conversation something like "Oh, you might notice a
slight difference in overall sound quality between this new set of 4 masters
that I'm sending you and the first set."

Who knows? I'm not prepared to actually believe that the cabling made any
difference UNLESS by breaking the connections on each end and using new
connectors to re-connect them resulted in eliminating some corrosion on the
old connectors. Then, I MIGHT believe that the masters made after the cable
change sounded cleaner than the ones made BEFORE the cable change. But if
that's the case, the same effect could have been had by just going through
and cleaning the contact points of the existing cables. The article doesn't
say whether or not the AudioQuest guy used Stabilant on his connections or if
he even used a contact cleaner both of which can make a slight difference.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Feb 16, 3:17 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:02:27 -0800, bob wrote

> I would think that if I sent you,
> without comment, two recordings made on the same equipment and they sounded
> substantially different, and you noticed it ON YOUR OWN, that this would tend
> to eliminate the chance of any bias on my part.

Depends on what you were told about the two recordings. If it's two
versions of the same recording (is that what we're talking about here,
or sets of different recordings?), you'd naturally assume they were
different, even if you weren't told anything. But any little comment
could set off expectations (esp. when the guy sending them sells the
cables in question and wants you to notice!).

Also, there's not nearly enough information out there to conclude that
the *only* thing that changed was the cabling. If they did anything
twice, there's a good chance they did it better the second time--esp.
if *they* thought they were "hearing deeper into the music" now.

IOW, there are *lots* of possible explanations for this. And given the
source (TAS, and an Audioquest exec), any of those explanations would
be more plausible than that the cabling made a difference.

bob

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:58:27 -0800, bob wrote
(in article <fp7tb3024sb@news4.newsguy,com >):

> On Feb 16, 3:17 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:02:27 -0800, bob wrote
>
>> I would think that if I sent you,
>> without comment, two recordings made on the same equipment and they sounded
>> substantially different, and you noticed it ON YOUR OWN, that this would
>> tend
>> to eliminate the chance of any bias on my part.
>
> Depends on what you were told about the two recordings.

Sigh, did I not just say that the recordings were sent without comment?

> If it's two versions of the same recording (is that what we're talking about
here,
> or sets of different recordings?)

The same recording.

> you'd naturally assume they were
> different, even if you weren't told anything. But any little comment
> could set off expectations (esp. when the guy sending them sells the
> cables in question and wants you to notice!).
>
> Also, there's not nearly enough information out there to conclude that
> the *only* thing that changed was the cabling. If they did anything
> twice, there's a good chance they did it better the second time--esp.
> if *they* thought they were "hearing deeper into the music" now.

Possible and likely to a certain extent. But remember what these people
Music Matters were doing was taking existing Rudy Van Gelder master tapes and
cutting new phonograph record masters from them. The chain and the mastering
process (and indeed the mastering engineers) have been used before and the
process is the same and the people doing the transfers have likely done it
many times before (operating a cutting lathe is non-trivial. If you don't
what you are doing, you can blow out a cutter head or break an expensive
cutting stylus in an instant at the very least, and not knowing where the
safe margins are or what depth to which to cut and a hundred other variables
will yield a useless master disc). So, I sort of dicount the "learning curve"
scenario.

> IOW, there are *lots* of possible explanations for this. And given the
> source (TAS, and an Audioquest exec), any of those explanations would
> be more plausible than that the cabling made a difference.

Agreed.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Feb 17, 10:25 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:58:27 -0800, bob wrote

> > Depends on what you were told about the two recordings.
>
> Sigh, did I not just say that the recordings were sent without comment?

Perhaps you did, but you weren't there, were you? ;) Presumably there
was *some* explanation for why two versions were sent.

<snip>

> > Also, there's not nearly enough information out there to conclude that
> > the *only* thing that changed was the cabling. If they did anything
> > twice, there's a good chance they did it better the second time--esp.
> > if *they* thought they were "hearing deeper into the music" now.
>
> Possible and likely to a certain extent. But remember what these people  
> Music Matters were doing was taking existing Rudy Van Gelder master tapes and
> cutting new phonograph record masters from them. The chain and the mastering
> process (and indeed the mastering engineers) have been used before and the
> process is the same and the people doing the transfers have likely done it
> many times before (operating a cutting lathe is non-trivial. If you don't
> what you are doing, you can blow out a cutter head or break an expensive
> cutting stylus in an instant at the very least, and not knowing where the
> safe margins are or what depth to which to cut and a hundred other variables
> will yield a useless master disc). So, I sort of dicount the "learning curve"
> scenario.

I wasn't thinking of a learning curve per se. But as I understand it
(i.e., not much), there is at least some art to this process, which
means that it's inconceivable that they would do it exactly the same
way twice. And, as I said, if *they* thought they were hearing
something different the second time, that could well affect how they
went about it, no?

An executive with a cable company makes two versions of a recording--
one with generic cables, one with his own pricey ones--and sends them
to an audio writer. How likely is it that those two versions are
otherwise identical?

bob

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:15:19 -0800, bob wrote
(in article <fpa14701qgd@news3.newsguy,com >):

> On Feb 17, 10:25 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:58:27 -0800, bob wrote
>
>>> Depends on what you were told about the two recordings.
>>
>> Sigh, did I not just say that the recordings were sent without comment?
>
> Perhaps you did, but you weren't there, were you? ;) Presumably there
> was *some* explanation for why two versions were sent.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Also, there's not nearly enough information out there to conclude that
>>> the *only* thing that changed was the cabling. If they did anything
>>> twice, there's a good chance they did it better the second time--esp.
>>> if *they* thought they were "hearing deeper into the music" now.
>>
>> Possible and likely to a certain extent. But remember what these people  
>> Music Matters were doing was taking existing Rudy Van Gelder master tapes
>> and
>> cutting new phonograph record masters from them. The chain and the mastering
>> process (and indeed the mastering engineers) have been used before and the
>> process is the same and the people doing the transfers have likely done it
>> many times before (operating a cutting lathe is non-trivial. If you don't
>> what you are doing, you can blow out a cutter head or break an expensive
>> cutting stylus in an instant at the very least, and not knowing where the
>> safe margins are or what depth to which to cut and a hundred other variables
>> will yield a useless master disc). So, I sort of dicount the "learning
>> curve"
>> scenario.
>
> I wasn't thinking of a learning curve per se. But as I understand it
> (i.e., not much), there is at least some art to this process, which
> means that it's inconceivable that they would do it exactly the same
> way twice. And, as I said, if *they* thought they were hearing
> something different the second time, that could well affect how they
> went about it, no?

The place where the "art" comes in would not affect the overall sound very
much, if at all. The reason is that these things tend to be in the mechanical
part of the process, rather than in the signal chain. The margin for variance
in record mastering is very low. The masters must conform to the limitations
of the cutting equipment, the plating procedures and the pressing procedure.
A master disc with a groove that's two deep will either have the groove
bottom out on the aluminum substrate, or it won't plate properly. If the
groove is too wide, it will cut into adjacent grooves leaving no "land"
between them. It takes lots of power to get a cutting stylus to move at all,
and just a few more watts beyond that to blow the cutter head. The
temperature of the cutting stylus must be just right and it's different for
different discs and is influenced by such parameters as ambient temperature
and humidity. On the signal chain end, cutter systems employ such things as
acceleration limiters, headroom limiters, compressors because records,
normally, have a dynamic range of about 56 dB, which is less than even
non-Dolby 'A' magnetic tape (Scotch 150, for instance, at 15 ips/ half track
stereo has a dynamic range of about 61 dB IIRC. Dolby 'A' adds a practical
8-10 dB to that.) and automatic margin control (a computer based system for
analyzing the contents of the tape being transferred using a "look-ahead"
pickup placed ahead of the actual playback head on the tape deck. This head
looks at the content of the signal for excessive dynamics and unusual bass
content and widens or narrows the pitch of the lathe, accordingly. Modern
lathes do not have fixed lead screws anymore as groove width need to be
variable). The point being that all program material is subject to the same
limitations and signal modification and the things over which the mastering
engineer has control, generally deal with optimizing the mechanical process
to yield usable masters and has little or no effect on the sound.

> An executive with a cable company makes two versions of a recording--
> one with generic cables, one with his own pricey ones--and sends them
> to an audio writer. How likely is it that those two versions are
> otherwise identical?

Any knowledgeable engineer with a degree in electrical engineering will tell
you that if made on the same equipment, with only the interconnecting cabling
changed, that the two recordings will sound identical, unless in one of the
cases the wiring or connections were defective.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:

> > An executive with a cable company makes two versions of a recording--
> > one with generic cables, one with his own pricey ones--and sends them
> > to an audio writer. How likely is it that those two versions are
> > otherwise identical?
>
> Any knowledgeable engineer with a degree in electrical engineering will tell
> you that if made on the same equipment, with only the interconnecting cabling
> changed, that the two recordings will sound identical, unless in one of the
> cases the wiring or connections were defective.

Just to be clear, I agree with you on this. But I've been trying to
suggest some explanations for the question you originally raised--why
did the writer hear a difference? Because we have only the word of the
principals involved that nothing but the interconnects was changed.
And one of the principals involved is an executive of the company that
made the cables.

bob

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:49:49 -0800, bob wrote
(in article <fpd5it023oh@news4.newsguy,com >):

> On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>>> An executive with a cable company makes two versions of a recording--
>>> one with generic cables, one with his own pricey ones--and sends them
>>> to an audio writer. How likely is it that those two versions are
>>> otherwise identical?
>>
>> Any knowledgeable engineer with a degree in electrical engineering will tell
>> you that if made on the same equipment, with only the interconnecting
>> cabling
>> changed, that the two recordings will sound identical, unless in one of the
>> cases the wiring or connections were defective.
>
> Just to be clear, I agree with you on this. But I've been trying to
> suggest some explanations for the question you originally raised--why
> did the writer hear a difference? Because we have only the word of the
> principals involved that nothing but the interconnects was changed.
> And one of the principals involved is an executive of the company that
> made the cables.
>
> bob

I have no problem with your suggestions.

--
Do you know the difference between students like you, amateurs and
professional jazz musicians? Student bands and amateurs "almost" swing!

Fred Berry
Professor of Music
Stanford University

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:

> Yeah, that's true, But ostensibly he did not tell Garcia that anything had
> changed between the first batch of masterings and the second. Garcia NOTICED
> an overall difference in the sound between the two sets of four discs and
> asked the guy why. It was then that the MusicMatters engineer/AudioQuest guy
> mentioned that he had changed the cabling.

And that probably the guy mastering the new set wasn't as stoned as the
first one ... so what? There are so many variables that change. The most
likely cause is a human mistake at the first set if there was an audible
difference. But they would NEVER admit that.

cug

--
http :// www .event-s,net

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:02:56 -0800, Guido Neitzer wrote
(in article <fp7tjg025ie@news4.newsguy,com >):

> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, that's true, But ostensibly he did not tell Garcia that anything had
>> changed between the first batch of masterings and the second. Garcia NOTICED
>> an overall difference in the sound between the two sets of four discs and
>> asked the guy why. It was then that the MusicMatters engineer/AudioQuest guy
>> mentioned that he had changed the cabling.
>
> And that probably the guy mastering the new set wasn't as stoned as the
> first one ... so what? There are so many variables that change. The most
> likely cause is a human mistake at the first set if there was an audible
> difference. But they would NEVER admit that.
>
> cug
>
>

Quite possible although I doubt that anyone stoned would be operating a
mastering lathe. They are too easy to damage and to hard to get a useful
master off of for that.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:

> Quite possible although I doubt that anyone stoned would be operating a
> mastering lathe. They are too easy to damage and to hard to get a useful
> master off of for that.

You know what I mean - difference in mood, different person, different
party the night before and you get a different result.

cug

--
http :// www .event-s,net

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:14:20 -0800, Guido Neitzer wrote
(in article <fpa12c01qc3@news3.newsguy,com >):

> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> Quite possible although I doubt that anyone stoned would be operating a
>> mastering lathe. They are too easy to damage and to hard to get a useful
>> master off of for that.
>
> You know what I mean - difference in mood, different person, different
> party the night before and you get a different result.
>
> cug
>
>

I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in another post, the
things over which the mastering engineer has direct control are on the
mechanical end of the process, not on the signal side. And those things are
unlikely to affect the sound in any way from disc to disc or day to day.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fpad740ni4@news1.newsguy,com

> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
> another post, the things over which the mastering
> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end of
> the process, not on the signal side.

??????

Here's a formal definition of mastering from the rec.audio.pro FAQ, written
by the sainted Gabe Wiener:

Q6.3 - What is mastering?

"
Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in
the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
be properly rendered on vinyl.

The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing.
As most mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively
simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication.
PQ subcode is the data stream that contains information such as the
number of tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of each
track, the clock display information, and the like. This information
is created during mastering and prepared as a PQ data burst which the
pressing plant uses to make the glass pressing master.

Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in
mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener
doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place),
program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on.

A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording
and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good
recording sound terrible. Some recordings are so well produced,
mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and
sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who
think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings
that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.

Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many styles of music,
and know what it is that their clients hope to achieve. They then use
their tools either lightly or severely to accomplish all the multiple
steps involved in preparing a disc for pressing. [Gabe]
"