Monster Cable would not publish this!
- Thread starter Ambio
- Start date
Interesting read. Seems to show a noticeable difference in noise floor between cables - see p.36 of the paper. The conclusion acknowledges the difference in noise but says they cant correlate it to design or price hence they ignore it.
It says "Because background noise levels are well above 30 dBSPL (background noise in an anechoic chamber may approach this low level) the
noise/distortion would not be perceivable". NF is irrelevant. If you hear NF then time to use mass market audio system where the NF is definitely below the audible level even if you are in anechoic chamber.
Very good study but unfortunately quite inconclusive. I had hoped for something that could probably guide me to a better IC
Perhaps we are still at the stage of the blind men groping at different parts of the elephant. We know some things but don't know the bigger picture yet? And may be some aspects of how ICs sound cannot be quantised with known electrical measurements? But more importantly, do we want a "Carnot's Engine" for cables that describes the ideal cable completely? Isn't how we perceive audio quite subjective? Doesn't different sounding cables help us tune our setups to achieve our subjective sonic goals? Just some food for thought
Perhaps we are still at the stage of the blind men groping at different parts of the elephant. We know some things but don't know the bigger picture yet? And may be some aspects of how ICs sound cannot be quantised with known electrical measurements? But more importantly, do we want a "Carnot's Engine" for cables that describes the ideal cable completely? Isn't how we perceive audio quite subjective? Doesn't different sounding cables help us tune our setups to achieve our subjective sonic goals? Just some food for thought
From Wikipedia:
"In general, the interior of an anechoic chamber is very quiet, with typical noise levels in the 1020 dBA range. In 2005, the best anechoic chamber measured at ?9.4 dBA."
These guys seem to be adopting a convenient approach to the entire thing - anything they can measure doesnt matter but anything that can't does. One needs to bear in mind that this was a paper prepared by a couple of students. The measurements are interesting and one is free to draw their own conclusions.
This also may be of interest re noise: https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm
I had measured my listening room a couple of years back at around 40db of ambient noise with fans off (thats usually not a problem in Bangalore).
Very good study but unfortunately quite inconclusive. I had hoped for something that could probably guide me to a better IC
Perhaps we are still at the stage of the blind men groping at different parts of the elephant. We know some things but don't know the bigger picture yet? And may be some aspects of how ICs sound cannot be quantised with known electrical measurements? But more importantly, do we want a "Carnot's Engine" for cables that describes the ideal cable completely? Isn't how we perceive audio quite subjective? Doesn't different sounding cables help us tune our setups to achieve our subjective sonic goals? Just some food for thought
Speaking of quiet room, mine measure a good 34dBSPL and probably would go lower if I add carpet and add few more rock wool. ( without air cond). So under that condition, I say there is no difference. Between us my measuremnt carries more weight since it is much more lower. If someone from a studio says they could hear then its worth considering.
When MIT conduct a research and publishes it it AES it will be peer reviewed and rejected out right if the can find holes as you did.
No one is talking about subjective aspect of music. We are talking about evidence based on science that says even if we're to listen at 120dBSPL the noise floor would be at the max of 30 dB. Read carefully. He said the background noise in anechoic chamber approaches 30.
Music is subjective and that need not be repeated very often as I don't dispute that. I posted the scientific evidence. The same science which made your amplifier, speakers, CDP and cables. the very same science that recently measured the worlds lowest noise of an atom. The same science also demanded extremely sensitve cables for measuring the particles collusion in CERN. The demand was so stringent that they commisioned one A.Ghosh from aUniversity to provide the necessary specs which includes the electrical characteris of each wire strand measuring 1 mm. I bet they didn't use audiophile cables for that.
You are telling me that you could hear what science couldn't prove. In fact, science already provided the answer why people could hear sound with different cables. Placebo and group pressure. Now we know who are the blind men. What is the point mentioning the NF could make a difference knowing very well your amplifier would not even hit 110dBSPL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw
Ask whether this applicable to our behaviour when it comes to the perpetuated cable difference.
Last edited:
koushik
Well-Known Member
Tell science to explain Quantum entanglement (the spooky action). Until then don't argue on what science can and can't.
This is not a peer reviewed article published in a journal. Its a research project done by a student as part of a course. Look at the front page of the document you linked to. Also see metadata here: DSpace@MIT: Audio interconnect Performance : claims versus laboratory measurements
Even I'm not talking about subjective impressions etc. I'm just questioning what, to me, seems to be fairly incomplete analysis.
On the subjective side, even you claim to prefer certain cables despite your practice of conducting double blind tests. Its very much a personal preference and not the topic of discussion here
I think you're replying to jai1611's post while quoting my post
Science is good, and quite advanced in some areas. My posit here is that a seemingly simple phenomena as the passage of a low voltage, low current alternating electricity across a 1-2 meter length of conductor is not as well understood as we seem to think. It is very well to be able to understand and quantise the electrical parameters of an audio cable, but what matters more is to understand how those metrics affect the perceived sound. Scientific studies (like the student theses you linked, which BTW is not a peer reviewed scientific paper) steadfastly avoid the subjective aspects because there are no instruments made by HP or Tektronix or Agilent or Neutrik or whoever that will quantise them into easily disgestible and bite sized numbers that can be neatly enumerated on an Excel table. Such matters would fall in the area of psychoaucoustics.
All I'm saying is measurements are a good starting point. What eventually tips a buying decision is how our ears like a component. And the size of the dent we're willing to suffer to our pocketbook
Science is good, and quite advanced in some areas. My posit here is that a seemingly simple phenomena as the passage of a low voltage, low current alternating electricity across a 1-2 meter length of conductor is not as well understood as we seem to think. It is very well to be able to understand and quantise the electrical parameters of an audio cable, but what matters more is to understand how those metrics affect the perceived sound. Scientific studies (like the student theses you linked, which BTW is not a peer reviewed scientific paper) steadfastly avoid the subjective aspects because there are no instruments made by HP or Tektronix or Agilent or Neutrik or whoever that will quantise them into easily disgestible and bite sized numbers that can be neatly enumerated on an Excel table. Such matters would fall in the area of psychoaucoustics.
All I'm saying is measurements are a good starting point. What eventually tips a buying decision is how our ears like a component. And the size of the dent we're willing to suffer to our pocketbook
reignofchaos
Well-Known Member
This looks like someone's MS Thesis - it is definitely not peer reviewed. Seems to be pretty poor quality to me.
so i guess we can end this debate with the following statements ?
1. It has been scientifically proven that exotic cables make no differences to a system and most differences heard are psychological/placebo or group pressure
2. If you do hear a difference and feel the price is worth it please go ahead ( its your money and none of my business) but please dont advice others to buy
3. if you do subscribe to the science view and also do not hear any difference or hear a difference not worth the price, be happy but please do not point fingers at group 2..after all its your money and none of my business
Does that summarize all our discussions ?
1. It has been scientifically proven that exotic cables make no differences to a system and most differences heard are psychological/placebo or group pressure
2. If you do hear a difference and feel the price is worth it please go ahead ( its your money and none of my business) but please dont advice others to buy
3. if you do subscribe to the science view and also do not hear any difference or hear a difference not worth the price, be happy but please do not point fingers at group 2..after all its your money and none of my business
Does that summarize all our discussions ?
1) yes. (GROUP CONFORMITY) PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS BEHAVIOUR - PART 6/17 - YouTube
2) No. if you discover something that would benefit all than please share it but be prepared to be scrutinised. If you couldn't identify your own cable then you are talking gibberish.
3) No. That would be selfish because it not about the believer and nons but about the newbies who going to get burned because of so few who think they are hearing something which they will never able to prove. That's wrong.
you are right..i need to take this seriously. My wife can actually challenge me on my right to waste money on copper at the price of gold.
.. and how can i hear a difference in cables when i cannot hear her reminding me of chores ?
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
