You won’t find THAT at ASR 
1 Like
I just don’t understand why you feel the need to belittle me and others. Do you get some sort of clout or high from doing it? I guess everyone is the hero of their own story.
3 Likes
Hi Shazb0T,
We have two arguments here. One is the true differences in cable that are definable (mostly). The second is defining audible differences which is VERY subjective (same as the gals’ sense of smell). We sell the true differences in the cable’s electrical.
When you compare two variables, you set a reference and YOU CAN NOT change the settings after that! Don’t touch the volume, nothing. Phase and amplitude are both variables under the test.
Many a speaker cable has enough odd rectances to change amplifiers responses, and not all amplifiers use large amount of feedback to drive the output impedance lower. Are we saying if it is different it is the amp and not the speaker cable when both are interacting? Feedback has consequences but it is far better than in the past. Here is the Issue, I use T+A M40-HV amplifiers that have zero feedback. They can be run as class A and AB and have the same electrical component biased two different ways. They don’t sound the same and the electrical on paper “looks” inaudible. I flip two switches on the back is all it takes. You can’t get more A to B than that. Strangely, I like the AB mode better, Yep, the technically “worse” mode. Remember, audio is also entertainnet and we can “like” distortions.
Most amp designer’s will tell you in an instant amplifiers are different in sound quality with very good measured electrical. Choices have to be made. Nelson Pass has plenty on that topic.
True, we test amplifiers with a reference “speaker cable” load but not more cable than that as we need a steady edy reference cable and pure resistive load. I have no issue with that. We have no data for other loads (speaker and cable) on that amplifier. We could start there.
I design to true differences in LRC and time based variables such as Vp (alter the C and R values while managing L) in cable with industry defined tests and calculations.
Reactive loads driven with dynamic amplitude signals are not linear as the reflection coefficient will show that the simple reflections seen on low frequency (audio ) loads alter the summed voltage. Since the signal we hear are a single voltage superimposed at an instant in time, we sum a differing signal voltage as the reflections get stronger, or different at higher drive voltages. We don’t have a resistor as a load in the cable and speaker at all. It gets pretty crazy with the math but unlike RF where we see a nearly resistive load, we see a dynamic load and ANY changes in reactance alter the summed voltage with respect to time. If it doesn’t physics as we know it is gone! It isn’t.
The null test should show even INAUDIBLE differences, but a difference none the less in devices under test if it is accurate to 10X what it is measuring (a general level of gauge R and R repeatablilty). Do we see those changes? I sure do with the tests that I do. They are all on the web site including where values are calculated and where numbers are modeled with an equation and thus will error some to reality. A phono cartridge tracking equation arch is right in TWO exact places but “close enough” on either side of those two point).
Are we OK saying it’s really different but you feel most won’t hear it? People want to see the differences and they are there. The cable are NOT the same and the math has to show that, and it does. Two differing reactive cables stuck in a system will not be the same. If we are saying that the null test shows nothing than we’re not done yet. The test granularity needs to show the true lump differences in the cables that individual LRC, open-short impedance tests and the Vp calculations do. NOW we can chart true changes and a SUBJECTIVE line of what is audible to that reference and with various loads. We need to include the amplifier and speaker though as we can’t take them out of the reactive equation. To do so ignores the very nature of reactive systems. I have no qualm with a “lump” test as that is indeed what we listen to, it just needs to show true and real changes we both know are there.
At RF, we can test RL, Return Loss, or SRL, Structural Return Loss. One is useless, SRL, as it doesn’t take the LOAD into account but just how consistent the cable’s structure / impedance is. SRL can miss the proper LOAD impedance. This is why the standard is RL into a FIXED resistor at RF. Audio cable’s can’t have a fixed load by the nature of the Vp linearity, the speaker, cable impedances and amplifier output impedance variation with frequency (the damping factor equation has to take into account the varying LOAD resistance at every frequency). How can we ignore those reactive interactions? To say all amps need so much feedback as to negate the speaker + cable has other problems. I don’t think you are saying that, though.
As far as speakers go, few are closer than 2 dB, but the ear can’t discern steady state tones as we are far better at phase (location) anomolies than pure amplitude. Take those “identical” sounding 1 KHz tones and add music to the speakers and nearly no one will say they are now the same sounding “speaker” (we aren’t listening to JUST the speaker). I don’t thnk we need to go over all that again.
180 phase reversal, swapping the leads at the speaker, is inaudible once time moves on so we exclude that. Freeze the dancers in place an we all look great. Now let the characters move and well some can dance and some can’t (like me!).
I’m sticking with the LRC and swept data as it captures the true definition of JUST each cable. Customers want to try truly better cable can and we make and sell. A null test doesn’t have the ability, yet, to define the true analog frequency tested differences so we won’t use it. Customers are free to use any reference cable to define the viability of the improvements. There is no “trick” here. To say we sell nothing is patently false. We show HOW and WHY they are different and with assemblies tested 100% for R, L and C.
The differential concept of a null test is tantalizingly wanted, but the results SHOULD show differences that are really there, that are audible or not to YOU and to some different extent others as well. When we can map a NULL test to a system under standardized tests it would be useful I agree. True cable differences away from the system response itself are needing to being shown…and they are there with known tests.
Very good discussion, and I made ICONOCLAST because I felt cable was not impacting systems, better ones with good amps, much. Not all systems experienced the changes the same, some were remarkably different and yes, it is the amp+cable+speaker interaction. We offer that experiment fully explained and unchanged and sold strictly on the improved data. The designs are not cheap. We are technically on the same page. Does REALLY TRULY different and better cable help? Does copper change the sound? We have that comparison.
Analog is death by a thousand cuts. Once mistakes are made, they remain. Improvements across the board matter and we’ve been doing this everywhere but analog cable can’t be improved? If the prices can be lowered, you’d be foolish to not use the improved designs. Last I checked, no one will buy tar and paper dielectric cable anymore.
I stand 100% with what I said, the math is on the systems side as to changes with cable. We both know that. How and when we hear changes is system dependent. Overall stereo system changes are also the “system” of changes over time. Cable is just but a part of those improvements, although minor when isolated from each other as unimportant.
Best,
Galen
2 Likes
I don’t know. I’ll have to check the measurements to see if it’s a real high, and not some simple expectation bias! 
1 Like
Be nice everyone. We have someone showing a possible way to differentiate a cable. Likely needs to be the “system” but I don’t see this as a problem. It takes RLC and the like but tries to look at it as a LUMP variable…and that is indeed how we use the products.
Since no test exists that DOES show the NULL differences that individual tests do, we design to the true RLC variables and how they change other factors. The differences are indeed there, we do KNOW that from cable testing. All we have is someone trying to look at it from an end point signal perspective. What do we see and if not a difference that we KNOW is in the cable’s parameters WHY? What needs to be done to look back at the cable?
We still have the problem that it is an INTERACTION we hear. Not the cable, Not the amplifier, Not the speaker. It is actually an interaction of ALL the mistakes that the analog chain sees along the way.
Remarkably, stuff works as well as it does is a testament to individual testing of components well before it is a device under analog test.
Best,
Galen
6 Likes
Seems highly unlikely
@Shazb0t is being decent. Please do not take cheap shots at him. Disagreeing with his opinions and assertions is fine, insulting him is not.
10 Likes
Anyhoooo. . . Back on topic
Any answer yet to the HC outlets impedance discrepancy?
5 Likes
Ok, fair enough. My apologies to all. 
2 Likes
That sums up part of the fun of this hobby. Finding synergy between components. Whether it be cabling, tubes, solid-state, or the friction of a stylus dragging through a groove.
So much fun!
2 Likes
Agreed (mostly)
I don’t necessarily agree. Audibility threshold defined limits are subjective in some areas and well studied in others. There likely isn’t a person out there than can hear 100kHz for example, that’s not “very subjective”. Like the “gal” we can also setup a controlled listening test to determine our ability to identify differences. If she can statistically smell Parkinson’s in a controlled medical study, shouldn’t we be able to statistically identify a different sounding cable? She proved it. We have not.
This seems silly. Of course cables with varying electrical properties could have a reduced signal level. Comparing two audio signals where one is lower, even if it is otherwise identical, would result in a false positive for hearing a difference. Level matching is a necessity.
If a cable is changing the amplifiers response, surely you can measure this? Where is the measurement? How much has the response measurably changed? What dB level will the response change if you mathematically calculate its frequency response with the LCR properties of the cable? If you say that measurements and mathematics support your claims wouldn’t it be easier to show the numbers rather than insist I take them on faith? If an amplifier has complicated dynamic feedback systems in place, then I imagine taking the measurement and posting it would be the easiest way to definitively prove your claim?
More importantly, If a well designed amplifiers frequency response is unchanged under a normal speaker load (we agreed this was an important goal earlier), what percentage change to the reactance will a properly designed cable actually add to this system? Why do you believe that would be the ‘straw to break the camels back’ in changing the amplifier response? It should be easy to show an amplifier response with a speaker load (to confirm the load hasn’t affected it) and perform the same test with the new cable in place. Is there an audible dB difference to the measured frequency response with the new cable? I postulate that the answer is no.
This really isn’t proof of anything. Nelson Pass makes a ton of amplifiers with largely audible measured harmonic distortions, of course he thinks amp sound differently! He does it on purpose! He’s had quite a successful career doing so. We have to define and agree on what “very good measured electrical” is. I attempted to do that earlier and made the hypothesis that amplifiers that meet or exceed that criteria will be very difficult or near impossible to identify in controlled testing. Do you agree?
I agree. An amplifier with load independent flat frequency response in the audible band is highly desirable and possible to purchase in todays modern slew of state of the art amplification. What a time to be alive!
Our problem is that I don’t know exactly what this means and you haven’t shown me any measurement to define the affect on the system output. You’ve kind of implied you acknowledge that there isn’t one or that measuring one is somehow impossible. Am I understanding that right? If so, why do you believe this? It seems counterintuitive to your principals of designing to measurable electrical properties. Shouldn’t the output of the system be equally characterizable by the same measurements?
Do you contest that all of these affects should be measurable on the summed output of the entire systems audio signal with a scope? Please show this if you have the measurements available for review.
I’m still unclear as to why you think the null circuit residual signal sent directly to a speaker isn’t a good enough indicator of audibility. Could you elaborate on exactly how something that is audible wouldn’t be heard in this differential residual signal? That’s the entire point of a null test and you’ve skirted around the outcome that the signals cancelled each other out when the residual was measured and importantly when the signal was actually listened to.
Yes, we are saying there are differences in cable properties, but we are attempting to determine if they have audible affects in the human hearing spectrum. The cables can both have different properties and not sound audibly different from 20-20,000 Hz to a human being. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. You can literally setup a null test yourself and experience the same outcome.
Okay, then it should be easy to measure a system with and without the cable for relative comparison measurements. Where are these measurements? Do they look different than something like this:
This is the measured system outputs of 3 headphones cables with varying LCR properties compared to a stock cable. It’s not a speaker cable, but should be a fair stand in. How do you explain this result away? The system output appears to be identical in any audible sense. There are obviously minor differences associated with all the summed cable factors, but they clearly must be considered negligible?
So you readily admit that testing the output of a system to determine if there are audible differences is a fair test, but only to believe it if it shows audible differences? Doesn’t that seem a little bit silly?
I’m saying it should be relatively easy for you to measure the output of the amp with a speaker load with and without a different cable and compare the signals. If an audible difference exists, it should be discernable in the measurements. If it doesn’t, you’ll get the same result as the above testing.
Again, I’m not sure why you’re dead set on claiming people believe that equivalent 1 KHz measurements are the identifier of speakers sounding the same. It’s not and nobody thinks that. Two speakers could have identical full audible range on axis frequency response levels and still sound different for a myriad of other reasons, including dispersion, harmonic distortion, IMD, etc. Nobody is making this claim! You are correct that we don’t need to go over all that again.
If I’ve misunderstood you and what you’re trying to say is that only with a dynamic signal will cable differences manifest in an otherwise identical system then you should be able to produce this measurement. The frequency response and multitone measurements that are available do not show this. This line of reasoning also comes dangerously close to the trope that music isn’t sinewaves. We both know that Fourier proved long ago that any signal can be represented by a combination of sinewaves. So yes music can be accurately represented by multitone sinewave measurements. We’re looking at Fourier transforms after all.
I’m not accusing you of tricking anyone. It sounds like you design for certain LCR parameters, quality of construction, gauge, insulation, shielding, etc. That’s all good! People will rightly pay for those things. I disagree with your assertion that the null test doesn’t have the ability to discern “true analog frequency tested differences” as that is exactly what it accomplishes. I also don’t understand how you rationalize that testing the output from the cables in a system isn’t the “true analog frequency” or why you aren’t able to show measurements which demonstrate this claimed difference in the output of a system with such cables. It seems to be an experiment I would quickly setup if my profession and work was about designing cables to optimize their ability to do exactly that.
So the null test is “tantalizingly wanted” (I like that), but only if it shows the results that you’re hoping to see. I think you may have some bias 
Where is this data available for review? Is this purely based on subjective listening? I’m scared to get into cable material construction debate with you! You appear to trust in LCR and other electrical property measurements. I assume we can acknowledge that different materials have different electrical properties, but if you design two cables from different materials while ensuring through differing design that they have the same measured electrical properties shouldn’t they sound equivalent? I’m scared that you’re going to say no!
I don’t know that we both agree that the math is on your side. Where is this math? Where are the measurements of the output of the system with the different cables? These seem to be important to your arguments, maybe even more important than anything else. I’ve supplied you with measurements that show the opposite is true. They are readily available from multiple sources all over the internet. The same cannot be said for system measurements that prove your claims. That’s the crux of our disagreement.
I would say that the differences you measure at the component level ARE shown in the null and at the end point signal, they just end up being such a small contributor to audibility that they are negligible. That is essentially our argument in a nutshell. You believe in the measurements, you just don’t appear to accept their outcome. I hypothesize that were you to do the math as to the cumulative effect on the audio speaker system that a cable with defined electrical parameters would have that the measurements above, which show negligible differences, are exactly what is predicted by the mathematical model. I have never seen peer reviewed math around audio cables that would indicate otherwise. I’ve seen plenty of whacky math about skin effect, RF stuff, and other non starters that’s easily disproven. In fact people making these claims usually resort to saying that we don’t really understand how audio and electronic signals work and that is why the math is against them. So I am now very interested in your math! Again I appreciate you taking the time to respond to this back and forth. If you’re able to provide me with compelling data, measurements, and/or math that I can review in your next response I will have to take a long look!
4 Likes
Shazb0t, are you Amir? Simple enough. Thanks!
5 Likes
Or someone with no life.
No, I am not. I have a life, but it’s a sad one @dawkinsj Thanks for your understanding.
1 Like
Thanks. Please tell him I think it would be fair for him to identify himself here the way so many of the other engineers have. I mean, you guys have been literally getting MIT (and the like) brains to converse with you and your utterly safe anonymity. Seems to me they have much more on the line by being so revealing. Also, readers might be interested in whoever you represent professionally. I’ve seen some good thinking, but still kinda clingy to Amir’s findings/beliefs.
3 Likes
I’m sorry for you, but it’s the only logical reason why you and your ASR buddies feel the need to make every post a novelette. Every time one of you finally crosses the long line another one immediately appears and again offers nothing positive to any discussion. Going back to the days when he had some power at WBF before banishment if you went there or now ASR and even hinted at challenging or disagreeing with his way of thinking you are immediately banned.
2 Likes
Well I don’t intend to cross any lines and I’m not going to clog up posts here with my musings. In this particular instance I made a post and was thoughtfully replied to so I am attempting to repay the courtesy. If this bothers you, I understand that there is an ignore feature here and I won’t be offended. As I stated before I am also willing to delete the posts and go to pm with Galen if he’s interested in continuing this conversation. If not, I’m sure he’s busy with better things to do. I’m not sitting here begging to debate topics with anyone.
3 Likes
I disagree.
2 Likes
Taking on @rower30 on cables? He’s the grand fromage of the cable business, for heavens sake. Is nothing sacred?
1 Like
I hear compelling data every time I switch on my stereo. You should try it.
3 Likes