Audiophile cables - brain science...or not?

[Matthew J Poes]

Worth remembering that Popular Music is mostly a Fashion thing....... This results in the Producers following every current fad, constantly insecure.
Word got out that Bob Clearmountain used the Yamaha NS10 for Mixing his hugely successful global hits. Apparently he also blocked the tweeters with Loo Paper. Many wanted to know what brand!
Yamaha Toilet Roll became widely used....... LOL. But the little speakers blew up in the deadened power hungry studio CR. So Yamaha increased the power handling from 15W (afaik) to 50. The original NS10 was the entry level model in a great range, ending up with the legendary NS1000. It was low powered, very affordable, designed to be used 'Bookshelf'.
I tested a pair recently, the sealed woofer still does very clean 30Hz, albeit quietly. A Bookshelf or Floor, Corner, location will take advantage of this extended tight LF. The tweeter is above the woofer, normal vertical two way orientation. Conversely the higher powered 'Studio' Version was usually used horizontally, ruining the Stereo picture. Fashion eh? The sound had a pronounced mid, with pretty horrible HF. Yamaha sold gazillions of them. Myths were invented.....'A Standard Reference, same in every CR' 'Make something sound OK to good on these and it will sound amazing everywhere else.' Fashion eh? The Urie were indeed horrible. Compounding this to the extreme, many CR's were voiced flat on axis. i.e. 6-10dB Tilted opposite to the rest of the listening world. Indeed the world's currently most Fashionable Studio Designer, vehemently, aggressively even, promotes such a response to this day in his basically Anechoic copies of Newell and Hidley. There are many many more examples of appalling sound becoming hugely successful. Vinyl for instance.....;-) The SE Reflexion Filter seen in hundreds of thousands of Studios. The Stone Age sounding Beats Headphones. Fashion eh?

My Reference Trax.
Enjoy DD

@DanDan I’m actually having trouble following your last point. Are you saying studios don’t follow trends?

 

[DanDan]

Sorry that it reads unclearly. The point is the same throughout. i.e. Fashion Rules and it is often a mistaken following of something actually bad or misunderstood. The original Yamaha NS10 used by Clearmountain was a sweet sounding little thing, but he was only using it as a muffled AM Radio Reference. The gazillions of revised NS10 sold over decades sounded horrible, no comparison. In recent decades Loud was King. Musicians and Record Companies insisted that Mastering Engineers absolutely destroy probably fine sounding mixes. Now there is a divide. Elbow may well Master with a decent dynamic range. But Madonna won't. Over the last two years, I have Mastered three number 1 National Airplay hits for the same act. -16 to -14 LUFS. DJ's pointedly comment positively on the sound. 16-11 is the range actually used by iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube, DAB etc. etc. I read somewhere that a fairly recent Madonna track was -7 LUFS. Even T Bone Burnett's 'Analogue' productions are bizarrely and unnecessarily loud. Fashion eh?


DD

 

[Grayson Dere]

Worth remembering that Popular Music is mostly a Fashion thing....... This results in the Producers following every current fad, constantly insecure.
Word got out that Bob Clearmountain used the Yamaha NS10 for Mixing his hugely successful global hits. Apparently he also blocked the tweeters with Loo Paper. Many wanted to know what brand!
Yamaha Toilet Roll became widely used....... LOL. But the little speakers blew up in the deadened power hungry studio CR. So Yamaha increased the power handling from 15W (afaik) to 50. The original NS10 was the entry level model in a great range, ending up with the legendary NS1000. It was low powered, very affordable, designed to be used 'Bookshelf'.
I tested a pair recently, the sealed woofer still does very clean 30Hz, albeit quietly. A Bookshelf or Floor, Corner, location will take advantage of this extended tight LF. The tweeter is above the woofer, normal vertical two way orientation. Conversely the higher powered 'Studio' Version was usually used horizontally, ruining the Stereo picture. Fashion eh? The sound had a pronounced mid, with pretty horrible HF. Yamaha sold gazillions of them. Myths were invented.....'A Standard Reference, same in every CR' 'Make something sound OK to good on these and it will sound amazing everywhere else.' Fashion eh? The Urie were indeed horrible. Compounding this to the extreme, many CR's were voiced flat on axis. i.e. 6-10dB Tilted opposite to the rest of the listening world. Indeed the world's currently most Fashionable Studio Designer, vehemently, aggressively even, promotes such a response to this day in his basically Anechoic copies of Newell and Hidley. There are many many more examples of appalling sound becoming hugely successful. Vinyl for instance.....;-) The SE Reflexion Filter seen in hundreds of thousands of Studios. The Stone Age sounding Beats Headphones. Fashion eh?

My Reference Trax.
Enjoy DD

I found the part on Yamaha Toilet Paper so amusing I had to look it up for myself...

http://bobhodas.com/examining-the-yamaha-ns-10m.php

 

[Grayson Dere]

Sorry that it reads unclearly. The point is the same throughout. i.e. Fashion Rules and it is often a mistaken following of something actually bad or misunderstood. The original Yamaha NS10 used by Clearmountain was a sweet sounding little thing, but he was only using it as a muffled AM Radio Reference. The gazillions of revised NS10 sold over decades sounded horrible, no comparison. In recent decades Loud was King. Musicians and Record Companies insisted that Mastering Engineers absolutely destroy probably fine sounding mixes. Now there is a divide. Elbow may well Master with a decent dynamic range. But Madonna won't. Over the last two years, I have Mastered three number 1 National Airplay hits for the same act. -16 to -14 LUFS. DJ's pointedly comment positively on the sound. 16-11 is the range actually used by iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube, DAB etc. etc. I read somewhere that a fairly recent Madonna track was -7 LUFS. Even T Bone Burnett's 'Analogue' productions are bizarrely and unnecessarily loud. Fashion eh?


DD

Thanks for the input regarding dynamic range. Something I've been struggling with lately is the accuracy of using the Dynamic Range Database to compare album formats with. Would you rely on this DRB blindly? or should it be taken with a grain of salt? I do notice most vinyl on these charts rate pretty high on dynamic range. I thought the higher noise floor of vinyl would automatically make it less dynamic range than digital.

http://dr.loudness-war.info

 

[DanDan]

If you look at heavily Mastered Tracks in a DAW, some have little or no Dynamic Range at all. Buzz Cuts.
I am afraid I have not come across that before so thanks, perhaps.....
I say perhaps because on a quick google I can't see what those numbers mean. Is there a definition somewhere?
The LUFS initiative seems like a long term well considered thing. https://www.tcelectronic.com/brand/tcelectronic/loudness-explained#googtrans(en|en)
I find it really very very useful in Mastering. But I don't use Buss Compression much, except on quite wildly recorded and mixed material. Also I start to feel uneasy above -16LUFS even when not looking at the Meters. This is the level that 'SoundCheck' in iTunes Normalises everything too. (Unless they have gone up to -14 due to Fashion Pressure) For Rockier music I get that uneasy feeling about -14LUFS. Note, I am unsusual, don't get to do any real Major Label stuff.
Most Mastering Engineers either chose or have to achieve much higher level. Early Mixes of my own, in that DropBox Folder, have undergone NO Mastering at all. e.g. Vaj Vaj, Fat Valley of Pain, Columbus, A Stor Mo Chroi.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

For those interested, here is the NS-10M Spin-o-Rama measurements. Not good:

Modern monitors are much better. Even Current Yamaha monitors are quite good.

While the above speaker response shows problems across the various axis that can be corrected such as the issue at 1.5khz. The problem at 2khz and at 15khz cannot be corrected with eq. It’s an inherent problem in the design of the speaker. The 2khz problem is caused by the crossover. A redesign of the crossover would fix it. I wouldn’t be shocked if someone has done that and it’s my understanding that the drivers themselves aren’t bad.

I think the bigger point is, don’t assume just because it’s made for a studio it’s good. Today I would say that far more studio equipment offers better objective performance than home audio equipment. That doesn’t mean all studio equipment is good or all home audio equipment is inferior.

Though my earlier point was really more than you see sill trends everywhere. I’ve also seen some studios using very expensive audiophile cables in the studio. I’ve also seen Bybee purifiers, exotic parts mods, cryo-treatment, and strange acoustic treatments that stand no chance of working.

@DanDan may not agree with me on this one as i know there remains quite a bit of debate, but I’m still not convinced that absorbing first reflections with acoustic treatments is a good idea. I think it makes more sense to design the speaker to have controlled constant directivity and letting the wall be reflective.

In large rooms my preference is bare walls at the first reflection point with large LF absorbers above and below the listening axis for side walls. I prefer the entire ceiling to be a LF absorber with a reflective surface at the first reflection point (or use of diffusion).

When you look at Tooles measurements of what is actually absorbed by a 2” panel or my own from a 4” panel, it’s a bit scary.

 

[DanDan]

Yup that 'Studio' variant sounds horrible. But to my ear, the original version was quite a sweet tonally balanced little box, with a nice suggestion of subby stuff when used close to the wall, bookshelf, or floor. A good friend of mine is still happily using my original pair....... " I’m still not convinced that absorbing first reflections with acoustic treatments is a good idea." LOL, big issue, often denied or glossed over. The BBC CID design, my friend Boggy's My Room Design, are attempts at addressing THE issue. Also johnlsayers.com shows his designs which have majority area reflective side walls. What works best for one purpose doesn't really apply to another. When Mixing or Mastering, or evaluating a sound to be or already recorded, I find Headphones deliver fast sure results. HD650 currently, previously forever HD 380? or the BBC standard 480. Obviously I am not hearing any Early Reflections. Most 'Pro' CRs have been at least 20/20 for decades. No ER above -20dBFS or even -30 these days, for at least 20mS. BUT BUT BUT ...... when sound is played over 'flat' speakers in such an anechoic environment, the lack of HF destructive early reflections, coupled with the lack of LF rising room tone, is horrendous to my ear. More importantly a full 6-10 dB Tilt away from normal listening conditions.
Some of us settle for using the Monitors as 'Big Headphones', but of course with the tonality adjusted to Bruel and Kjaer. (Very similar to the 650) This combines the ability to hear great detail with also with automatic translation to the real world. I think Bob Hodas would agree with this compromise....
DD

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Yup that 'Studio' variant sounds horrible. But to my ear, the original version was quite a sweet tonally balanced little box, with a nice suggestion of subby stuff when used close to the wall, bookshelf, or floor. A good friend of mine is still happily using my original pair....... " I’m still not convinced that absorbing first reflections with acoustic treatments is a good idea." LOL, big issue, often denied or glossed over. But what works best for one purpose doesn't really apply to another. When Mixing or Mastering, or evaluating a sound to be or already recorded, I find Headphones deliver fast sure results. HD650 currently, previously forever HD 380? or the BBC standard 480. BUT....... when sound is played over 'flat' speakers in an anechoic environment, the lack of HF destructive early reflections, coupled with the lack of LF rising room tone, is horrendous.
Some of us settle for using the Monitors as 'Big Headphones', but of course with the tonality adjusted to Bruel and Kjaer. (Very similar to the 650) This couples great ability to hear great detail with also with automatic translation to the real world.
DD

One of the Studios I worked on in Chicago was in such a state of disrepair that the engineers mixed exclusively on headphones. They told me it was totally fine, they knew how it would translate to speakers. Once we got them situated they continued to primarily use headphones.

 

[AudiocRaver]

Matt, I remember hearing about those UREI monitors when I was a wee lad, and seeing ads in the trade journals, and lusting for them. I never heard a pair though. Not a bad thing that they went away, according to those measurements.

Until you have removed the variable of your head moving...you will not know if there is a difference or whether your head moving caused the differences.

Head location, a slight shift of the speaker's location or angle, a new piece of furniture in the room, so many uncontrolled variables in most poorly conceived "listener tests," and the intended test item, be it a cable or an outlet cover, receives all the blame or credit.

As for why people think there are differences even though we have so far failed to explain why, well, there is always mass hysteria.

Mass hysteria! What fun! We are so easily fooled! And who is usually at fault? "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

@DanDan may not agree with me on this one as i know there remains quite a bit of debate, but I’m still not convinced that absorbing first reflections with acoustic treatments is a good idea. I think it makes more sense to design the speaker to have controlled constant directivity and letting the wall be reflective.

I am not sure this one will ever get totally settled, because even among well-trained listeners there can be differing listening.... PRIORITIES, shall we say? I am so attuned to focusing on imaging and soundstage qualities that I have to consciously shift gears to listen for distortion, or subtle frequency response variations, or whatever. Matt, I have found that early reflections from side walls are destructive to sharp imaging, for instance, so I vote for absorption there. That is what sounds right to me.

Edit: Back to cables, I believe it would take a mightily fine-tuned ear with a carefully designed test situation (i.e. impossible?) to accurately hear differences between well-designed cables in a typical audio system, with low source impedances and high load impedances. I have tried, using phones to eliminate room variables, and could never discern any difference. No doubt there are other / better ways to test.

 

[Tony V.]

The only Urei equipment I ever used was their limiters, had two of them in our studio at our church.
Back to cables I just use ones I made and enjoy the fact that they do the job without spending a fortune. Generally I feel the correct gauge is used and the connectors on both ends are solid you will be fine. As far as power cables are concerned again the same thing, remember the solid copper in your walls going from the breaker to the plugin is only 14awg so putting 10awg from the plug to the amp/receiver is kind of pointless.

 

[DanDan]

"One of the Studios I worked on in Chicago was in such a state of disrepair that the engineers mixed exclusively on headphones. They told me it was totally fine, they knew how it would translate to speakers."


Headphones diminish the Centre/Mono element of the stereo by up to 6dB. But this Mono element is probably up to 90% of the sound! Certainly looks that way in M/S processing in any case. It seems like quite a skill to mix on headphones guessing the panning and hearing all the main elements 5-6dB down. But we do. I have read elsewhere that Mix Engineers do not respond to a dry acoustic by adding reverb and vice versa. We hear through the room acoustic somehow it appears. Brain Science indeed.

But to simpler matters, how does one do the Quote thing here?
DD

 

[Tony V.]

But to simpler matters, how does one do the Quote thing here?
DD

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Headphones diminish the Centre/Mono element of the stereo by up to 6dB. But this Mono element is probably up to 90% of the sound! Certainly looks that way in M/S processing in any case. It seems like quite a skill to mix on headphones guessing the panning and hearing all the main elements 5-6dB down. But we do. I have read elsewhere that Mix Engineers do not respond to a dry acoustic by adding reverb and vice versa. We hear through the room acoustic somehow it appears. Brain Science indeed.

Yeah we can certainly hear through the room. That’s well established. I can only assume from what they told me, that they could compensate. I never heard any of their mixes so for all I know they were terrible.

 

[Todd Anderson]

I have come to the conclusion that if a person pays 1000 dollars for a cable the buyer will hear a difference because he/she wants to and expects to hear a difference. I always “believed” I could hear a difference, but by scientific standards I probably didn’t.

That begs the question: if you believe you're hearing a difference, then your experience may be more emotional or enriched. If that's the case, maybe its worth it?

 

[Matthew J Poes]

That begs the question: if you believe you're hearing a difference, then your experience may be more emotional or enriched. If that's the case, maybe its worth it?

Which is of course the placebo effect. Many people cite that as reason why it’s bogus and why people shouldn’t waste their money. These are people who don’t study and use placebos! It is quite common to seek means to increase the placebo effect. It’s powerful! Our brain is one of the most powerful tools for changing our perception. Have a headache? Guess what, I can trick you into relief that is as effective or more effective than Tylenol. Have chronic pain, same thing, I can give you Tylenol and tell you it’s a powerful new opioid and your body will react as if it was given an opioid including the significant pain relief.

If someone wants to buy something that they think will improve their sound and they perceive it to have made an improvement, then it’s an improvement. It may not be a real improvement, but that doesn’t really matter.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/15/416123.full.pdf
An example article where they seek to enhance the expectancy effect to improve working memory rather than develop drugs that actually improve working memory. Just think about that. They can actually improve your memory in an objectively measurable way by giving you a drug that enhances your receptiveness to the placebo (but itself does nothing for memory).

 

[Todd Anderson]

Yup. That's my whole point.

Hey - life's super short. If you have the means to boost your enjoyment, go for it! ;-)

In all seriousness, tho, I'm more skeptical of some enhancements than I am of others. But, at the end of the day, if you're believing that you hear or experience a difference, then your perception is your own reality. That's not necessarily a bad thing... and acceptance of that is really what divides the hardcore "must have measured performance" group from the "my ears tell me what I hear" group.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Yup. That's my whole point.

Hey - life's super short. If you have the means to boost your enjoyment, go for it! ;-)

In all seriousness, tho, I'm more skeptical of some enhancements than I am of others. But, at the end of the day, if you're believing that you hear or experience a difference, then your perception is your own reality. That's not necessarily a bad thing... and acceptance of that is really what divides the hardcore "must have measured performance" group from the "my ears tell me what I hear" group.

I agree. It benefits nobody to get too up in arms about this stuff. However people want to spend their money is their business.

I know a lot of goofballs in this industry with ideas that aren’t very science based and that I don’t ascribe too. Many of them have redeeming qualities that make me want to be around them anyway. Some of the best experiences I’ve had with music is with these people. They have fun, they love music, they love the process. My friend @James Larson and I will sometimes come together to watch a movie and end up spending more time doing experiments or measuring something. I’m not saying we don’t have a good time, but 2hrs comparing microphone plots isn’t probably anyone’s idea of a good time.

 

[Grayson Dere]

Yup. That's my whole point.

Hey - life's super short. If you have the means to boost your enjoyment, go for it! ;-)

In all seriousness, tho, I'm more skeptical of some enhancements than I am of others. But, at the end of the day, if you're believing that you hear or experience a difference, then your perception is your own reality. That's not necessarily a bad thing... and acceptance of that is really what divides the hardcore "must have measured performance" group from the "my ears tell me what I hear" group.

Same goes with some exotic equipment isolation products I've seen from various manufacturers. I'm not sure if $600 space-grade steel speaker spikes are going to really sound better than plain steel ; )

 

[AJ Soundfield]

That begs the question: if you believe you're hearing a difference, then your experience may be more emotional or enriched.

If that's the case, maybe its worth it?

That's long been answered https://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050

"Worth it" is a value proposition and thus another matter entirely.

Regarding cabling, if they made a (real) audible difference in an audio circuit, that would be a rather bad sign.

Cheers,

AJ

 

[Matthew J Poes]

That's long been answered https://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050

"Worth it" is a value proposition and thus another matter entirely.

Regarding cabling, if they made a (real) audible difference in an audio circuit, that would be a rather bad sign.

Cheers,

AJ

So the lesson is we need to charge more for the same old crap and people will like it better.

I honestly believe that some reviewers rate products based more on price than actual sound. I’ve read reviewers comparings products that I either own or have heard extensively and will notice complaints about rather obsurd issues. They often preface it with saying, it’s good for the money. Problem is the product they are dissing is a technically excellent product and the product they prefer, while more expensive, is not. So I can’t help but wonder if it’s nothing more than price bias.

I’m sure they believe what they are saying. That study shows the effect to be physiologically very real.

I’m listenint to a pair of speakers right now that is very affordabley priced. It’s technical measurements can’t be beat (for its bandwidth and peak spl limits), yet I’m sure if this was reviewed against a more typical audiophile speaker by some, they might complain of some coloration, congestion, veil, or whatever else they can come up with.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

So the lesson is we need to charge more for the same old crap and people will like it better.

I’m sure they believe what they are saying. That study shows the effect to be physiologically very real.

From a generalized marketing perspective, yes, especially regarding luxury goods. Raising the price of your favorite bread x2...and you'll probably buy something else. Lots of caveats.
Yes, the folks who spend a lot on magic audio jewelry may indeed be getting their moneys worth, so to speak. I prefer a nuanced approach to such matters, vs outright fraudulent objective claims.

cheers,

AJ

 

[DanDan]

It is not just the Hi Fi community. There are many varieties of crazy......
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/stu...testing-loudspeaker-isolation-products-2.html
DD

 

[ddude003]

And for your reading pleasure... http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

 

[Sonnie Parker]

That's a good read by Roger Russell. It's been a while since I've read it... worth reading again.

I do agree that I can fool my mind with certain things I buy from time to time... thinking whatever it might be is making a positive contribution, yet in reality is likely doing nothing at all.

I also happen to like good looking cables, but I can make an ugly cable look good myself in most cases.

 

[ddude003]

Many Amplifier Designers, AV Equipment Manufactures and Electronic Bench Technician agree that cables matter... And they matter for various design reasons which can be measured... It is Price/Performance that hits a point of diminishing returns... It is up to the consumer to decide at what Price/Performance point value is returned...