Does Everything Make a Difference?

[DaveC]

Looking back to the entry by Richard Austin where a dealer demonstrated a power conditioner that improved the sound of one device, but not another, we can deduce that cables can be chosen by dealers (or owners) to correct the sound defects of a particular piece of equipment. We can equally deduce that those same interconnects may make no difference (or an negative difference) to another piece of equipment.

Herein lays the rub of this thread; that which makes a positive difference in one set up may cause a negative or negligible difference in another and by the nature of this website comes to us from anecdotal experience. Although the tone of my replies so far on this thread would suggest I believe it is all snake oil and to now say otherwise here is hypocritical, I am certain there are experts on this forum who have discussed observations/findings in this and other threads that might be totally appropriate to the OP query.

For example, I think it was back in March that Shakti noted that an Onyx-bodied Koetsu cartridge, that had neither the platinum magnets or the diamond cantilever , that he listened to sounded great, like the sound of those Koetsu cartridges he initially fell in love with. We also know that before platinum/diamond, the Koetsu only differed in price (and sound?) by what the body was made from (the insides were identical). Certainly there is useful information here. No, not that the sound of your hi-fi would improve if the components were encased in Onyx, but that if you are looking for that classic Koetsu sound you might be wise to audition pre-platinum magnet and diamond cantilevered cartridges before buying.

In response to my belief, referred to in my first paragraph, that some types of insulation on interconnects will turn the interconnect into a low-pass filter; I purchased Dulund wire which insulates with woven silk and oil. Does such not behave as a low-pass filter, Is it the best option? I don’t know, but it sounds great to me (totally anecdotal I know, but some here know the truth).

The OP asks if all things affect sound, I don’t know the answer to that question but I do believe that the more things between source and speaker the more the sound is adversely affected. What was the saying used to describe the best amplifier, “ a straight wire with gain”? Does this concept explain why, to many, SET’s sound better than pentodes and push-pull circuits?

I think that the experts on this forum (and I am certainly not one), could be able to converse amongst themselves and work out what designs/materials would, in fact, make the biggest difference to this hobby for the benefit of all.

There's no doubt that subjective impressions may vary, but if you look at a large sample size it's quite clear that objectively better gear results in subjectively better sound. The key is understanding what objective parameters matter and how they relate to what we hear. There's a lot we can measure that some think makes a big difference, but in fact does not. And there's a lot that is unidentified as a factor, or is dismissed as unimportant, that is actually important. One example of each... having perfectly flat frequency response... while it is important fr doesn't deviate wildly, a perfectly flat fr isn't generally preferred. Or jitter in digital gear... some have theorized "it's just ones and zeros!" so nothing can make a difference as long as ones and zeros aren't confused for one another. Another just mentioned is propagation speed of the signal, this is not so important in and of its self, but it is correlated with dielectric absorption, which is important. Also, the potential of the dielectric to cause triboelectric noise is a factor that at the highest levels is very important, yet for the most part completely disregarded.

It's also true that imperfect gear can "fit" well into an imperfect system, and I feel this is what causes seemingly unexplained preferences. The issue with imperfect gear is it fits into far fewer systems than more perfect gear. In the past I've offered pleasantly colored cables using Dueleund silver wire, the results are very difficult to predict and if that was all you had it would be difficult to explain and might be quite confusing. But this isn't the case with objectively better cables, they are subjectively preferred FAR more often than the pleasantly colored cable. The difference here is not subtle at all, it's night and day.

So in my case, I strive for objective perfection and this ALWAYS results in better gear. Whether it's my amps, speakers or cables, making them objectively better is ALWAYS an improvement. You have to listen to understand correlation and educate the ear to identify the effects of flaws and issues, but the truth is progress in sound quality comes from a better understanding of the system, what really matters, and making objective improvements.

If you're just making changes and hoping for the best without any understanding of what you're doing, that's ok, sometimes that's all we have, but that's just the starting point for empirical observation which will hopefully lead to a hypothesis, and via the scientific method a theory that explains the empirical observation. But these observations, like one thing does X in one system and Y in another, is just a basic starting point to understanding why. In time this will all be able to be plainly explained, we're just not quite there yet.

 

[Kingrex]

Herein lays the rub of this thread; that which makes a positive difference in one set up may cause a negative or negligible difference in another

A good reason why having a goal is important.

 

[Kingrex]

There's no doubt that subjective impressions may vary, but if you look at a large sample size it's quite clear that objectively better gear results in subjectively better sound. The key is understanding what objective parameters matter and how they relate to what we hear. There's a lot we can measure that some think makes a big difference, but in fact does not. And there's a lot that is unidentified as a factor, or is dismissed as unimportant, that is actually important. One example of each... having perfectly flat frequency response... while it is important fr doesn't deviate wildly, a perfectly flat fr isn't generally preferred. Or jitter in digital gear... some have theorized "it's just ones and zeros!" so nothing can make a difference as long as ones and zeros aren't confused for one another. Another just mentioned is propagation speed of the signal, this is not so important in and of its self, but it is correlated with dielectric absorption, which is important. Also, the potential of the dielectric to cause triboelectric noise is a factor that at the highest levels is very important, yet for the most part completely disregarded.

It's also true that imperfect gear can "fit" well into an imperfect system, and I feel this is what causes seemingly unexplained preferences. The issue with imperfect gear is it fits into far fewer systems than more perfect gear. In the past I've offered pleasantly colored cables using Dueleund silver wire, the results are very difficult to predict and if that was all you had it would be difficult to explain and might be quite confusing. But this isn't the case with objectively better cables, they are subjectively preferred FAR more often than the pleasantly colored cable. The difference here is not subtle at all, it's night and day.

So in my case, I strive for objective perfection and this ALWAYS results in better gear. Whether it's my amps, speakers or cables, making them objectively better is ALWAYS an improvement. You have to listen to understand correlation and educate the ear to identify the effects of flaws and issues, but the truth is progress in sound quality comes from a better understanding of the system, what really matters, and making objective improvements.

If you're just making changes and hoping for the best without any understanding of what you're doing, that's ok, sometimes that's all we have, but that's just the starting point for empirical observation which will hopefully lead to a hypothesis, and via the scientific method a theory that explains the empirical observation. But these observations, like one thing does X in one system and Y in another, is just a basic starting point to understanding why. In time this will all be able to be plainly explained, we're just not quite there yet.

The question is, how does the enthusiast use science. How do we pick a cable, pick a stand, pick a component. Heck, just look at rooms. If you ask 3 different room accousticians how to build a room, you get 3 answers. Ask a speaker designer how to select a speaker and what do you get. You were very helpfull when I was looking for 60 foot speaker cables and knowing the math. But that was very unusual.

 

[sbnx]

The question is, how does the enthusiast use science. How do we pick a cable, pick a stand, pick a component. Heck, just look at rooms. If you ask 3 different room accousticians how to build a room, you get 3 answers. Ask a speaker designer how to select a speaker and what do you get. You were very helpfull when I was looking for 60 foot speaker cables and knowing the math. But that was very unusual.

I believe there is a great deal in audio that is not fully understood. Science can get you only so far and sometimes it is quite counterintuitive. Ones limited understanding of science can actually mislead the decision making process. I don't think we really know what to measure nor do we have equipment sensitive enough to measure it. And nobody in acedemia is even remotely interested in studying this stuff.

In the end, we should just trust those highly sensitive pressure transducers attached to our head. I will offer my current favorite example -- the Neodio B2. I have no idea how this thing works and the papers on the website are very nebulous, pseudo-sciency sounding stuff. But I don't care. They work and they work extremely well.

 

[bonzo75]

A good reason why having a goal is important.

if goal posts don’t change, one will remain NL

 

[sbnx]

Propagation velocity is only dependent on the dielectric. I'd agree the dielectric is very important, but I'm not sure propagation velocity is the primary reason why this is the case.

Doesn't the conducting material matter in propogaton velocity?

 

[Argonaut]

I can't talk about power cables; for interconnects there is a relatively straightforward example. Background first:

"Under typical conditions, an audio signal traveling via alternating current suffers its existence in an environment of shifting magnetic and electrical forces that alter the original signal coming off a component’s output. When current flows through an insulated wire, it does not pass through the insulation, but it does interact with it. The alternating current polarizes the particles of the atoms of the insulating material (the cable’s dielectric), which causes them to shift position according to the frequency and polarity of the signal at hand. As long as the AC polarity holds, the dielectric acts like a capacitor, maintaining a charged electric field. In a sense, the dielectric retains energy as a memory of the audio signal at the point when it was polarized. As time passes, the polarity of the current alternates, taking with it the polarity of the dielectric. This "dielectric relaxation" releases the remembered energy, which induces tiny new currents within the conductor, currents that are not indigenous to the signal presently on the wire. If it’s not part of the original audio signal, it’s distortion." (from my review, here.)

So an interconnect suffering from this phenomena may present signal timing issues. How may that be perceived? It may be perceived as what I'll call a 'smeared' signal, as, in a way of speaking, signal energy from the past may arrive too late. The percept may be a blurring or fuzziness in sound, or a shortening of decay. There are a couple manufacturers who have a means to mitigate or prevent this. And for others, choice of dielectric material (with different dielectric constants) may have an influence. Call it what you like, resolution or clarity, this smearing or its absence is greater or lesser between different interconnects.

Might you advise us which published Research papers, , measurements , Dissertations , thesis etc , that you have used in order to to compile your own thesis on this subject ? It would be of interest to read them , Perhaps you might also share your intelligences regarding :

” There are a couple manufacturers who have a means to mitigate or prevent this.”

Also might you advise us of the nature of these material combinations and your research material on the same ?

” Call it what you like, resolution or clarity, this smearing or its absence is greater or lesser between different interconnects.”

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Nice theater. It's not even close to the same level as your two channel system however. The speakers in your theater (Revel Performa F30's - $3500), for example, aren't in any way comparable to the Evolution Acoustics MM7's ($200k) in your two channel room, and as you acknowledge, the room acoustics aren't what they should be in your theater either. Given those very important differences, it's an apples & oranges comparison to say that you prefer your analog two channel room for music listening. The superiority of your two channel system has far more to do with the speaker differences & room acoustics in your two rooms than any compromises with your Altitude or a digital signal path.

no matter how far i take the Home Theater room it's dsp'ing the signal path. and a large section of my music focus is analog based recordings.

and while optimizing my music is my highest priority, my HT room is focused on movie soundtracks, which my current HT set-up succeeds at quite nicely.

no doubt if i were to add assets to my HT room and system there is more to hear than i'm hearing with music. but it's ceiling will not reach my 2 channel set-up.

i know full blown state of the art Home Theaters with investments like my 2 channel room can sound awesome. but will be a different thing with a different focus than mine. do i think my 2 channel will surpass any of those with my analog sources? of course; my best tapes would smoke them.

The Altitude does have analog inputs (RCA & XLR).

it then immediately digitizes them. with it's own adc. why bother?

I don't know what adapters you would need to hook up a turntable, for example, but I'm sure that it could be done without too much effort if someone wanted to have a single listening room for both analog-sourced music and home theater. You would then have the benefits of room correction & using your ideal house curve with those analog sources, as well as the ability to upmix them for immersive listening if you like.

i don't need room correction for my music. i've already completely corrected the room the old fashioned way. my better vinyl out multi-channels multi-channel. lots more musical rightness when you really push things. it energizes every molecule of the room.

 

[henrich3]

henrich3 said:
The Altitude does have analog inputs (RCA & XLR).

it then immediately digitizes them. with it's own adc. why bother?

So the Altitude can correct the frequency response, phase response, group delay, and impulse response of each speaker at the main listening position, provide an optimal house curve, and give one the ability to upmix for immersive listening. I know that most folks in this forum are loath to "DSP the signal path". Modern A-to-D conversions have noise below audibility however (measurably & using blind testing), and the benefits of DSP'ing the signal path far outweigh the questionable benefits of the audiophile tweaks mentioned in the original post in this thread. In my opinion anyway...

i don't need room correction for my music. i've already completely corrected the room the old fashioned way. my better vinyl out multi-channels multi-channel. lots more musical rightness when you really push things. it energizes every molecule of the room.

I wish that I could hear your two channel system. I'm sure that it's phenominal.

 

[stehno]

It is often said by many audiophiles that "everything makes a difference." Beyond different cables and different components making a difference, these folks mean that everything makes a difference:

-- the metallurgy of the duplex outlet wall cover plate

-- a block of wood or other material on the top of a component

-- a Shun Mook disc or Shakti Stone on the top of an amplifier

-- the power cord going into the power supply of a turntable motor

-- the DAC is plugged in when you are listening to vinyl

-- interconnects are elevated above the floor

-- the metallurgy of the wire carrying power from the electrical sub-panel servicing the listening room to the outlets into which components are lugged

-- different fuses in a component

-- power cables are not criss-crossed with signal cables

-- an unused amplifier is sitting on the floor of the listening room

-- the connector on the speaker cable is Rhodium plated or not

-- the unused jacks on the pre-amp are plugged up

-- a coffee table is in front of the listening chair

-- an extra piece of wire "dongle" is inserted somewhere

-- a block of wood or steel or granite underneath a component

-- the ASC TubeTrap is diffusion side out or absorption side out

-- a clock is plugged into a AC outlet in the listening room

-- the wire coming out of your Wi-Fi router

-- the USB extension bus ("switch") going to your streamer

-- etc.

Does everything really make a difference? Or do we just believe -- or do we just want to believe -- that everything makes a difference?

Do we want to believe that everything makes a different because we think we can hear a difference?

Excellent topic, Ron. Yes, it all has the potential to make a difference. In addition to your partial list, there’s various other things to consider, not to mention materials, locations, strategies, methodologies, principles, designs, executions, etc. All of which make a potential difference. And if we toss in genuinely inferior vs superior flavors of each there’s a potential infinitesimal list if we consider all possible combinations thereof.

But isn’t that’s the very nature and/or mindset required of perhaps every performance-oriented industry where performance is paramount? With Formula 1 or Top Fuel racing teams, I’m guessing they think everything matters. Do they think of everything? Doubtful as I would think that’s impossible for any one person or any team plus there’s always more future discoveries to be made.

Then again, none of the above potentials work so well if we don’t have our own ducks (mindsets, understandings, etc) in a row. IOW, without an intelligent understanding, experience, strategy, and/or execution plan of all the above, achieving a genuinely superior playback presentation can’t be much better than a somewhat-educated crapshoot, right?

Take for example Elliot, Mike L, and perhaps a few others here who claim or agree the greatest performance benefits by far are the room, the speaker, and/or the quality of speaker/room interface (if sufficiently performed) makes every other potential sonic gain pale in comparison. Paraphrased but I’m pretty sure Elliot said as much in another thread maybe 6 months ago.

Even from purely a logical perspective such claims make about as much sense as a Formula 1 team claiming the tires, track surfaces, and/or tire/track interfaces provide the greatest performance benefits and any efforts toward improving fuel, chassis’, and/or drivetrains pale in comparison. That's not to say the tire/surface interface is not crucial to performance.

But such claims are so off base, I can’t help but think some of us aren't thinking things through very thoroughly.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

improving fuel, chassis’, and/or drivetrains pale in comparison. That's not to say the tire/surface interface is not crucial to performance.

...I thought it was more like fuel, chassis, drivetrain, etc. are already optimized, but the wrong tires are mounted. So, you get the right compound for the track/conditions, and you get the rest of the improvement from the performance.

 

[dcathro]

When comparing components what is your target?

For example, when comparing two different power cables, how do you evaluate "timing"?

Hi Ron,

I think we may be thinking of the term "timing" differently. I am not thinking of it in a technical sense such as alignment of drive units, or of the high frequencies being ahead or behind the mids/bass.

I think of timing as a subjective quality that in conjunction with tone, timber and dynamics give music it's sense of flow and rhythm. In my experience, everything effects timing, and even the changing of a power cable can increase or diminish it.

A designer friend of mine once told me that it takes thousands of good choices to create the illusion and only one bad one for it to collapse.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hi Ron,

I think we may be thinking of the term "timing" differently. I am not thinking of it in a technical sense such as alignment of drive units, or of the high frequencies being ahead or behind the mids/bass.

I think of timing as a subjective quality that in conjunction with tone, timber and dynamics give music it's sense of flow and rhythm. In my experience, everything effects timing, and even the changing of a power cable can increase or diminish it.

Actually I know you meant the subjective quality you are describing. Sometimes it is referred to as "PRaT."

 

[Ron Resnick]

Excellent topic, Ron. Yes, it all has the potential to make a difference. In addition to your partial list, there’s various other things to consider, not to mention materials, locations, strategies, methodologies, principles, designs, executions, etc. All of which make a potential difference. And if we toss in genuinely inferior vs superior flavors of each there’s a potential infinitesimal list if we consider all possible combinations thereof.

But isn’t that’s the very nature and/or mindset required of perhaps every performance-oriented industry where performance is paramount? With Formula 1 or Top Fuel racing teams, I’m guessing they think everything matters. Do

I'm not sure it's a great analogy, because in racing I guess everything, or virtually everything, can be objectively measured. The change in question either allows the driver to reduce his track time, or it doesn't.

 

[tima]

Might you advise us which published Research papers, , measurements , Dissertations , thesis etc , that you have used in order to to compile your own thesis on this subject ? It would be of interest to read them , Perhaps you might also share your intelligences regarding :

” There are a couple manufacturers who have a means to mitigate or prevent this.”

Also might you advise us of the nature of these material combinations and your research material on the same ?

” Call it what you like, resolution or clarity, this smearing or its absence is greater or lesser between different interconnects.”

Thank you in advance.

I have subdirectories full of materials reflecting my research for all the reviews I write, but I don't publish those or conversations with manufacturers which are under an NDA. The study of dielectric absorption and relaxation dates back many years. There is plenty of information about it on the Web. For example, here or here, if you want to read more. I was aiming for an explanation of that phenomena relevant to the product review referenced in the post to which you responded. That was over 10 years ago so there may be more recent studies.

The cable builders who address it in their designs are Louis Motek of LessLoss (the review product manufacturer) and Calen Gabriel of Shunyata Research with his patented ?tron (zitron) technology. Each takes a different implementation to their similar goal of less distortion / better sound. There may be others.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Those are going to be my next cables, when I have money, that is. I've heard them already. In the meantime I'm continuing to enjoy DaveC's ZenWave D4 interconnects and SSR-11 silver speaker cables. I *love* how my system sounds with them (it's powered through ZenWave power cables as well). Tonight I had another fantastic listening session. With Bruckner 4 I almost felt transported to the Musikverein concert hall in Vienna, to a legendary performance of the symphony recorded 50 years ago.

Hi Al,
Have you written up much on your thoughts on Dave’s SSR-11 speaker cables… would be great to read your experiences with them and what you have found with your previous speaker cables in comparison.

 

[dcathro]

Actually I know you meant the subjective quality you are describing. Sometimes it is referred to as "PRaT."

You didn't misunderstand me, I misunderstood you.

Did I answer your question?

 

[Argonaut]

For example, here or here, if you want to read more.

Thank you , i am aware of the subject of dielectric hysteresis however the majority of published material refers more to capacitors and other components within electrical circuits, I was merely wondering what source reference material you utilised.

 

[Folsom]

Thank you , i am aware of the subject of dielectric hysteresis however the majority of published material refers more to capacitors within electrical circuits, I was merely wondering what source reference material you utilised.

These aren't audio problems as described. You won't find any published work supporting "smearing" in the audio band because no one can find that. Does insulation cause sound differences? Seems like it, but descriptions seem to be poor. Teflon lends towards third harmonic distortion in capacitors for example.

 

[Argonaut]

@Folsum , Just so , As an aside I came across a thought provoking article a litttle while back should anyone be interested. .

Dielectric Absorption in Cables Debunked

This article explores the claim by some cable vendors that cables exhibit dielectric absorption like a capacitor. We discuss the purpose of a cable dielecric and whether it can affect sound.

www.audioholics.com