I dont know what or who that is, but to compare to a DIY. Crazy. Then you get comments from the crowd like:
“Wow, that’s a relief to see that PS Audio can make good devices. Too bad their DACs will destroy the performance.”
The only “noise” I see from ASR is from the people that post there including Amir. That is probably from a poster who never even heard one, just going off what Amir measures and calls it gospel. And of course at the end of the his posts there are always the ask for money to support his evangelism. online reviewers live off subscription numbers. He obviously cannot survive off that.
Angst? Requesting a simple answer to a simple question. It might be difficult for you to believe but my posts are aimed at @Paul , @Elk , and others whom may be able to shed some light. Not you. Carry on. . .
Thanks for the video. Long time lurker. Please run a short addition showing the high current output, as I plan on using this for my amplifiers and don’t want to limit their potential output.
If you can’t do that, I would also be interested in a product like this without any HC output, for my DAC’s, turntable, etc., where HC isn’t required and wouldn’t have to spend money on something with HC. Is something like that in the works? Maybe a PowerPlant 1 for $999?
Too funny. The poster is spot on in Reddit. But boy Amirs crowd hunted him down and spoke the spoke. The best line was Built to test well as opposed to built to sound well. The two camps shall never agree.
I realize this is getting incredibly off topic and I don’t know how well that is tolerated here so please ignore my post if you’re not interested in this subject. Alternatively, I am fine with going to PM if requested.
Nobody is claiming that speakers sound the same based on a single 1KHz tone listening test. Obviously there are a ton of factors that affect sound reproduction, namely full range frequency response, dispersion, harmonic distortion, and IMD among others. ±2 dB isn’t a claim for speakers sounding the same in any of the research that I’ve been reading either. Audibility of SPL is much lower than ±2 dB. Where are you getting these criteria from?
Which is why all amplifier reviews worth their salt measure the frequency response into a simulated speaker load to measure its response. We agree that this is very important for an amplifiers performance. An amplifier should have a high damping factor to avoid the frequency response being audibly affected by the speaker, this is an area where the newer Class D amplifiers really excel. Clearly modern design is aware of this issue and is designing solutions to account for this. As far as I can tell audio science minded individuals fully support vetting amplifiers for their frequency response under load.
I go by the available published audibility threshold studies I can find from sources like AES. Admittedly, there isn’t consensus on thresholds for all the measurements that could be important for “perfect” audible transparency. There is a lot of information out there to parse through though. For the sake of having targets to make audibility claims referencing available studies and “rule of thumb” limits we can use something like this:
My personal belief is that if an amplifier has noise and distortion below the threshold from the available studies/articles, has a flat frequency response across the audible range, isn’t audibly affected by speaker loads, has low crosstalk, and can provide the required power for the dynamic range of the system it’s being used in that it represents what I would describe as an audibly transparent amplifier and will be very hard to impossible to distinguish between another amplifier with the same or better specifications in a controlled listening test. I realize that it depends on the definition of audibility for these different measurements, but do you roughly agree with this? If not, what measurement is missing or which audibility threshold do you not agree with? If so, what evidence are you aware of that the threshold should be different?
Agreed, cables do have varying LCR properties which can affect the audio reproduction. I believe the method of how and why these changes can occur is well understood. It is easy to measure these cable properties and pick a cable that is appropriate for the application. My question to you is what do the LCR parameters change in an audio signal and at what threshold are these changes audible? Measurements of cable frequency response, distortion, etc. in properly designed cables do not show differences to suggest they are audible. Speakers frequency response with different properly designed cables have been measured and laid on top of each other and are readily available to review. What is wrong with these measurements? What is missing that you would test to show the claimed audible differences? Do you have evidence in the form of these measurements that you would share with us?
Many measurements out there, pulled up a quick example:
I have seen cables with measurable edge case properties which I would not consider to be properly chosen for the application as capable of being audibly different compared to proper ones. I have not seen a published example where a cable without measurable audible differences was able to be identified in a controlled test.
The null tester does show the differences that LCR properties create in the signal. The signals require level matching to negate the affect of additional resistance for example. The point of the null test is to show the differential signal between two identical signals with the only variable being the cables. The null residual signal would show evidence of a difference between the two cables no matter what caused it. If LCR differences between the two had audible affects beyond the required level matching they would show up here in the residual. If “EM wave effects of the metal grains” were affecting the signal in one cable and not the other it would also show up here. You wouldn’t be able to adjust the alignment of the signals to find a null position, where the two signals audibly cancel out, unless they were audibly identical. That’s the entire point! The existence of a null position between two cables at all is evidence that these theoretical effects pointed to as possible audibility issues haven’t been realized.
That’s not true. If you were to play a different signal through one cable you wouldn’t be able to find a null position and measurement of the null residual would clearly show the difference between the two signals. If you were to attach a cable that had some sort of component attached to it that was purposefully modifying the signal that difference would also show up. The concept of null testing is straightforward and is purposefully designed and used to determine if there are differences, for any reason, between two signals without processing them.
If there was an audible difference between two cables due to dynamics of the signal and LCR properties of the individual cables then the null residual would contain those signal differences. If your claim is that by adding two signals together in an analog circuit which reverses the polarity of one signal somehow doesn’t have the “sensitivity” to show these claimed differences then I would encourage you to explain how that is possible. There is no processing happening. You also wouldn’t be able to dial in a null position when sending a dynamic signal such as music if your claim was true. Since you clearly can do this, I don’t understand how you are able to rationalize your theoretical argument against actual measured performance of the cables null residual along with the practical testing of listening to the null residual signal.
How much is the cable adding to the reactance over the audible range? How much different can one properly designed cable be from another? Quantifying statements like this is important. Otherwise you’re just throwing a bunch of potentials out there hoping something sticks. Why don’t I see frequency response differences between cables if there is a different reactance affect between them and the amplifier?
It doesn’t matter HOW, it only matters if there IS a difference. That’s the whole point of why null testing is used. In this case the industry standard would be any audible difference. If you dial in the null position and play the null residual and you can’t hear anything then by definition there is no audible difference. The measurement of the null residual with an instrument grade analyzer is just more evidence to show the null residual, or difference between the two signals, doesn’t contain some sort of euphonic distortion or some other signal component that could explain uncontrolled listening bias.
Again, you have to quantify these affects and how they manifest in actual audible signal differences. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the whole point of null testing is to not care about what causes the differences but to just listen if any exist. Since you haven’t actually refuted the null test methodology or refuted instrument grade measurements of frequency response for cables which have been performed by multiple outlets that show these differences to be so minor as to not impact audibility then you aren’t really making a solid argument. You’re using a lot of electrical terms to suggest an issue exists without quantifying and showing their audible existence. Your position directly against the available measurement evidence from multiple sources and practical testing demonstrated.
Yes, you can hear the null residual between properly designed cables once you amplify it up some 100dB. It’s not euphonic distortion or some musical signal difference playing at a low level, it’s hiss.
Nobody is claiming speakers and amplifiers all sound the same! They are claiming amplifiers which can satisfy certain audibility and frequency response parameters used within their available range of power are near impossible to differentiate in controlled listening tests. You’re welcome to provide compelling evidence that dispels this notion. As far as speakers all sounding the same, that’s just lumping in a wacky claim to make rationale arguments regarding cables and certain amplifiers seem less plausible. Not a strong tactic.
That’s the crux of this right? Once you know what you’re supposed to hear, know the cost of an item, or realize some other unintentional bias, then you can listen. Why would this sort of listening counter controlled listening in your view? I’ve been looking for examples of a published study with proper listening controls which counters the measurements and testing regarding the audibility of cables and I haven’t had much luck finding one. I was able to find this though:
A woman who was able to demonstrate her ability to smell Parkinson’s disease in a controlled test. If she can work with a group to setup a controlled test and prove her ability to do that, why is it so difficult for someone to setup and publish results on audibility of cables? There seems to be a lot of money in selling expensive audio tweaks; I imagine it would be extra lucrative if they have proven scientific evidence the tweaks actually work. Makes one wonder.
It doesn’t seem like we’re going to convince each other of the merit of our arguments, but I do appreciate that you took the time out to write a thoughtful response. I enjoy this kind of discussion. If what I’ve posted doesn’t make any sense to you then I ask that you help me by demonstrating the actual measurements of equipment which you believe show audible differences that go against the audibility criteria I’ve referenced. I think that would go a long way towards bridging the gap between our positions. I make no claims to be anything other than an amateur hobbyist and realize that you appear to have a wealth of knowledge on these subjects.
@Shazb0t Sadly, that wouldn’t be an “Argument from authority” for Galen doesn’t promote a false conclusion, but one of experience in the field as a designer. (i.e. he knows what he’s talking about) I simply asked if you knew who Galen was.
Hopefully this is an opportunity for me to learn something from Galen. I would like to know what measurement of a cable’s performance is missing from the information I have been able to find which will clearly identify audible differences. Galen implied that there are various measurable parameters that directly change the sound of a cable. I would like to see the measurements of a speaker taken with and without one of these cables where the difference can be observed. That would be extremely enlightening. He explained the scenario in which he believed the changes would manifest, and now that I know he’s an esteemed cable engineer maybe he could setup and take those measurements to share with us? The issue I took with his response to the measurements we have and the validity of null testing is that he said a lot about what causes potential differences, but didn’t demonstrate them. How are we supposed to have a discussion if his position isn’t falsifiable? That’s why I asked for specific measurements, values for thresholds, etc. If there is an audible difference, surely it would be seen in frequency response, noise, or distortion? If not, then where and how? Simple enough.
