I’ve watched some of his video and I actually agree on some of what he said, but he seems too confident on his insistence on measurement. For those who expound on the merits of blind test and measurement, why not turn the table upside down?
Why not do a blind test of measurement? That is I will supply all the measurement you want, can you tell me which is a better product?
For example, if I have a set of cable, and a set of measurement for each individual cable, can you tell me which is the best cable based on measurement alone? I will supply all the measurement you want. After all, that is what you’re after right? Objective result and not subjective listening test.
He wants to talk logically. But then the very next thing he does is commit logical fallacy upon logical fallacy, until within barely a minute he’s talking about "magic cables".
The fact of the matter, as you seem to already know, is many people are indeed able to not only hear differences between cables but evaluate and rank them. Different listeners prefer different cables just as different listeners prefer different amps, cartridges, or speakers. If the alcoholic wanted to talk logically he would talk about how stupid it is to have the big fancy speaker sitting behind him because all his same reasoning applies, and if all wire can be is a tone control then speakers are tone controls on steroids!
But instead he uses the speaker as a prop telling us to respect his "logic" because, speaker.
Seriously though, the "tone control" argument is a giveaway. Tells us that is all he is capable of evaluating. Listening is a skill. Like every skill it can be broken down into little bitty bits. Baseball breaks down into the skills of running, throwing, catching, hitting, etc. Listening breaks down into the skills of volume, frequency, dynamics, tone, harmonics, imaging, timbre, layering, grain, glare, etc.
Only a very partial list of skills but notice I’ve listed them in roughly their order of simplicity. Pretty much anyone can easily hear and tell which volume is louder, which frequency is higher, which thing is more or less dynamic than another, and what tone is open or boxy or bright or dull. These are the low hanging fruit. Pull any random person off the street and ask, they will pick these out no problem.
Harmonics, now its getting a bit harder but still most people can hear the difference between a sine wave and the more complex structure of the same note on a musical instrument. Timbre, the particular harmonic signature of every individual instrument, now its getting harder. A lot less people can hear the difference between a violin and a viola, tenor and alto sax, etc when playing the same note.
Already its getting hard and we’ve barely scratched the surface of listening skills. Grain is the quality of sound that can range from very coarse and etched, to extremely smooth and liquid. Grain changes as components burn in and warm up - but only for those who have developed the skill, the ability to hear and recognize grain.
I’m just getting going. There’s a whole bunch of these sonic character traits people that take forever to explain, and even longer to learn to reliably hear. But once one does develop the requisite skills then hearing these things is child’s play.
Okay now here’s the thing. People like the alcoholic with nothing to say about any of this, people who rely on the crutch of the pathetic "tone control" argument, are telling us more about themselves than anything to do with wire. What they are telling us is, "I can’t hear!" They are telling us they are lousy listeners.
I think it is a waste of time and effort explaining to someone that they are wrong. I just smile at that video and move along. People who are passionate about wrong opinions are usually driven by fear. That being said, I happen to like Belden and Ken Shindo favored the Belden 9497. When I played Bass Clarinet, I could hear the difference between the reed I chose though I doubt their measuring devices would have that capability.
Read right to the end. Bring your molecular level understanding of inductance, capacitance, and resistance along for any comments... as otherwise..
There is literally...Teo Audio Liquid metal cables..and...everything else. The gulf is huge and all encompassing, in the complex electrical and complex physics sense.
The Teo audio cables don’t have their inductance occurring like any other cable in the world. What, is the dynamics of the inductance of a charged gas? Think in that direction.
As a matter of fact, it is almost impossible to get an inductive response out of a Teo Audio Liquid Metal Cable.
Importantly, if you try to make an inductive coil out of liquid metal you get a giant... FAIL.
You get a wholly different beast. Ie, ’forces you don’t understand’. An entire area of potentials in physics and possible technology that exactly ZERO people have thought enough about to explore and exploit. the math becomes impossibly complex (quantum and classical, combined, in living motion) and experimentation becomes the order of the day.
.... and yet people have made antennas out of liquid metal almost exactly like the material claimed to be used in the Teo-Audio cables and guess what, those antenna have a characteristic inductance, why, because any time you have two conductors in proximity you will have inductance, period, end of story.
This article is from 1995 and is as wrong now as it was then it its conclusions and methodology.
I wouldn't say that the article "nailed" anything, except perhaps to illustrate what actual engineers have been saying all along, that LCR parameters are what matter, not all manner of made-up voodoo.
But let's talk about the bad engineering in the article. A sine-wave tone burst is "Not", big emphasis on "Not" only inclusive of that frequency. The waveform as presented has near infinite frequency harmonics, which is required to start and stop a waveform instantly.
Let's unwrap this statement, "The other wilder, more wavy response is the imperfect damping measured
at the speaker end. The different responses directly show each of the
cables' ability to aid the action of the amplifier's NFB". This makes the assumption, not correct, that high damping leads to best sound. Arguably, lower damping can lead to less distortion. But again, the point is taken, that LCR, particularly L, and not some made up specification, is what matters. What can't be stated unequivocally is that high or low is best, at least not for a single run, and not for any given speaker and speaker/amp combination ... or was it really L?? 0.5mm twisted lamp cord will have less inductance than 1.0mm twisted lamp cord (normally) because you can keep the conductors closer together which leads to less inductance. Resistance is higher. So those 1KHz waveforms are not measuring the impact of L, they are measuring the impact of R .... and in many ways they are measuring things not at all about the cable, as the frequency of the oscillation is independent of the cable.
The 15Khz tone has oscillations at 100KHz approx, all amp/load induced as the same frequency as the cable and low and behold, the oscillations match ... NOT the L, but the R most closely (as I predicted above). The author may not have predicted it because he is not a good engineer.
Surprisingly at such a high frequency, some of the fat, low-resistance
cables are damping best—if not in the order one would predict from their
At 125Hz, oh look at that, pure resistance based results.
Gravity presents as a force, and if two objects are held apart, there is no acceleration, but there is still a force of attraction. What we don’t know is if gravity is truly an independent force as theorized or some manifestation of other forces.
geoffkait23,260 posts07-06-2020 2:46pmGravity is not a force, it’s an acceleration. Without mass there can be no crackers and wine.
You are probably right, but I keep having hope for you.
geoffkait23,260 posts07-06-2020 2:35pm phcollie I think it is a waste of time and effort explaining to someone that they are wrong.
Wrong again, Mr. Smarty Pants 👖 Gravity is spacetime. There is a force associated with gravity I.e., F=ma as I already said. That’s why time can’t exist without mass. You’re still stuck back in the 1800s.
roberttdid/roberttcan whoever - You have trouble getting quotes right and posting on the right thread, don’t you?
Stick to high school physics, goofball. You look ridiculous when you pretend. If you’re pretending to be dense you’re doing an excellent job. By the way your comebacks are very lame, just like the other pseudo scientist roberttcan. Gee, I wonder why....🤔
Waste of life to argue with skeptics. Invite them to try, and if they are too jaded, so be it. Half the audiophile population has to have mediocre systems anyway, and they are the ones who lead the way to it.
phcollie -- I'm super-sensitive to the sound and feel of guitar picks. Gimme a Fender Heavy and I'll be happy. But I got to say that the genuine, made-a-long-long-time-ago, genuine Fender tortoise shell pick I got about 30 years ago is in a class by itself.
I believe almost all of it was written in 1995, except a follow up from 1996 about LRC measurements, and a very short more recent preface. I believe the only 2008 part is the first photo, and then a reference later that the photo was to prove EMI rejection of a cable ... that should have been pretty obvious. There is a real disconnect between what was measured and the conclusions that were arrived at, and even the claim w.r.t the inductance/capacitance accuracies (and knowing the meter and test processes) show a lack of understand of the underlying measurements. Speaker cables are the low hanging fruit in audio w.r.t. correlating measurements to potential audio effects and even then it becomes difficult without making conclusions well supported by data. Interconnects gets much harder.
For example, if I have a set of cable, and a set of measurement for each individual cable, can you tell me which is the best cable based on measurement alone? I will supply all the measurement you want. After all, that is what you’re after right? Objective result and not subjective
You give some measurements and I decide which is best? Go ahead give me some measurements on two different cables and I'll pick the best. Not really an objective test, it's not really a test at all but sure, what do I win?
The 1995 test doesn't look like it's telling me anything. What's the relationship between these measurements and the sound that comes out of the speaker? Wouldn't it have been better to test that instead of between the terminals. Different metals and guage etc.. will measure different that's no revelation.
Apparently there is no longer a need for listening sessions to select equipment. Just follow the yellow brick measurement road. Our hearing is so poor it seems, that I’m not sure why we even bother listening to music to begin with. We can’t be trusted to hear the differences between cables, or so they say.
The guy in the video is a clown. I have watched a couple of his videos (mainly because posters have passed them along) and they are painful to watch. If he can't hear, then he needs to take up another line of work
You can of course clearly point out his erroneous statements? I found some I disagree with, but I am not calling him a clown, so surely you can point out clearly what statements he made that are erroneous w.r.t. this piece on cable "synergy"?
I so agree with those statements about the oscilliscope not judging. It’s like someone trying to compare one piece of music to another by the beats per measure, or the range of the notes within the measures. You’re ( the non believers) determining the tests by which I have to measure what I hear, and have become the sole judges of that? I don’t think so. On the other hand, if you chose not to use your ears to dictate your listening preferences, that is your choice and it won’t bother me in the least.
Just a 20hz to 20khz sweep from your speakers. Use two different speaker cables in the same system and room. I can tell from that which gives the flattest response which will be the best cable. What do I win?
Audio is a subjective hobby. Sure there are obviously some things that need to be measured, but you can’t measure soundstage height, air, warmth, naturalness, liquid-ness, realism, presence, instrument separation or closeness to the original recording. The sound that arrives at the listeners ears is - after all is said and done - what matters most and it’s the least measurable. Yes, I know what you’re thinking, but what about frequency response?
Glupson, have no idea how they determine what music to suggest for you, but my response is still the same, their suggestions do not equate to the same thing as me liking that content. So therefore, that only proves that measurements, or at least those types, do no equate to what we as individuals hear.