Scientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review

[@screamallyouwant]

Let’s stop for a moment and appreciate how Amir does all these videos unedited.

[@jeankazamer9166]

Totally ! He does it so naturally also !! Sharing is love :)

[@cityoflights3808]

It is rather amazing . He must script practice repeatedly before filming. No way anyone speakers line this for this long so smoothly without lots of prep

[@charlesbiller4371]

@@cityoflights3808 Maybe he missed his calling in the film industry acting. 😀

[@sand9577]

He talks like a person who has done technical presentations all his life.

[@terhohalme]

@@sand9577 Well, Isn't he?

[@henhouseharry6193]

As a fellow scientist it's depressing that a paper like that can get published in a peer-reviewed journal.

[@Enemji]

Peer reviewed is a joke. At a conceptual level that peer group is just as good as a cult. Nothing personal. Just stating what I feel about peer reviews. Bose did not care. Steve Jobs did not care. Elon Musk does not care. Bezos does not care. Says something about it.

[@scottwheeler2679]

no shit. I'm no scientist and I would have rejected it for numerous reasons. Who is doing their review?

[@alphaniner3770]

Single author papers are often more a hobby project than anything else. That crap gets published too is a flaw of the system - in this case probably because no competent reviewers could be found by the journal.

[@scottwheeler2679]

He clearly did a better job

[@alphaniner3770]

@@scottwheeler2679 agreed

[@jamesrizzo295]

Brilliant and thorough breakdown and explanation of the report Amir. No doubt this takes a lot of your time to review and present back and I'm sure it gets painfully repetitive so a huge thank-you and appreciation for what you do!

[@AudioScienceReview]

That is very kind of you. I almost didn't do this video due to amount of detail I had to cover in there.

[@YuengsNwings]

@@joesmith4443 What are you even talking about? As of this writing there is not a single secondhand eBay listing for a D90SE. On HifiShark there are 2 secondhand listings in Europe, nothing in the US. I get that they don't hold their value on the secondhand market quite like Schiit, but you're making it sound like we should be able to have a choice among a half dozen listings at any given moment.

[@joesmith4443]

@@YuengsNwings I counted 7 on hifishark second hand and the others are new from China totaling 23. Keep looking they are out there. It depends on the draw. eBay doesn’t show the sold ones in the past but hifishark does! The listings even site the ASR page of the review for 90se as advertisement. As of yesterday There’s one for the D90le for 600 on eBay which Amir ranked even higher! My point is that if it’s the “highest score” dac it SHOULD the best sounding (according to Amir’s testings and credibility). Plenty of toppings that Amir reviewed with high scores on eBay like the Topping DX7 Pro (ranked 3rd of all time) 14 of them currently selling on hifishark. So what’s his criteria then in his recommendation? How well they measure?

[@joesmith4443]

@@YuengsNwings Second hand on hifishark are 183 sold! And -four- seven currently selling. Head fi has at least 25 sold or taken off the market Topping DX7 on hifishark there are 14 selling now! It’s ranked 3rd on Amir’s all time list of DACs!

[@alunjprice]

@@joesmith4443 Have you ever thought that you might be one of the people that like distortion and noise? ‘Better’ in engineering terms might not appeal to you (personally I like SET amplifiers, I like what they ‘add’, but from an engineering POV they are terrible), people selling DACs on eBay or any other second hand platform is no measure of the precision of equipment. I think you may be on the wrong KZbin channel here, there are plenty of channels where people tell you what they like the sound of out there, but in terms of engineering, their subjective opinions are utterly worthless.

[@josephreynolds6844]

A classic Amir deconstruction. I enjoy these so much. The the highest resolution oscilloscope I’ve used was a LeCroy 12 bit, HDO6104-MS. This was used to attempt to measure ripple of a 2-10kV DC pulse for x-ray gridding. Being retired I sure do miss those challenges.

[@blanchbacker]

What type of schooling did you go through for a job like that? Sounds interesting

[@josephreynolds6844]

@@blanchbacker I went to a community college and got an associates degree electrical technology. I went to work for a audio/video store as an electronics service technician for 5 years then went to a manufacturing company as a electronics tech for 16 years. I was hired at GE Global Research, in upstate NY and worked there as a electronics research technician for 23 years, mostly in the healthcare, x-ray and military power electronics.

[@thelonewolf666]

maybe get out side and find a life

[@mikej9174]

It sounds like he made a pretty great life for himself. Especially if it his passion and he loves doing it.@@thelonewolf666

[@fwabble]

Amir - saving level headed objective audiophiles a fortune all over the world - absolute HERO

[@Coneman3]

Yet he has a hi end system himself. Go figure 😂

[@andmoreagain]

@@Coneman3 not sure you understand what is being said here...

[@Coneman3]

He’s clueless because he ‘assesses’ without listening to hear.

[@eliasroque2397]

The most credible reviewer I've seen so far on KZbin, excellent work!

[@fwabble]

100% this.

[@larsv6144]

hahaha that is one of the most ridiculous answer on KZbin.... "most credible reviewer".... have you seen all reviewers on KZbin? Is this "credible reviewer" peer reviewed? Can his reviews been backed up by scientific evidence, does he have an understanding of human hearing and brain functions? Etc. Etc....... stop kissing your self proclaimed guru's a**.

[@Texacate]

I just LOVE this channel! The first thing they hammered into my head in engineering college was; 1) Make dang sure you are measuring something relevant to the application, and 2) account for measurement errors induced by your imperfect setup before drawing any conclusion.

[@Texacate]

@Douglas Blake Ha ha. So true. A very common Fluke.

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

@@Texacate Less measurement errors using Fluke gear. Hee hee hee, ha ha.

[@sharagan]

I can not imagine how much work had to go into debunking that report. You have my admiration. The report reminds of something I heard a while ago: "If you can not convince them, confuse them." ;)

[@AudioScienceReview]

Thanks and isn't that the truth. And it has worked given how youtubers put it forward and say, "here it is" without an ounce of explaining what the paper is saying.

[@mohammedisaa9952]

The saying actually is :- " if you cant blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit"....... used it many times myslef ... 🙂👍🏻🏅🏆

[@34332]

I just couldn't wait for your take on this one (and it didn't disappoint, mildly said) 😄 This felt like an autopsy on insane claims and also reminds of the Mofi incident, where 'golden ears' claimed they could here any digital step (except they couldn't). Thumbs up for your humoristic and non-offensive take-down of a 'scientific' document.

[@Wichard1969]

I really admire your passion and patience Amir. We all know that these "expert youtubers" are only influencers trying to make easy money speaking BS for naive people. Nowadays this is not only seen in consumer electronics but all market areas, pitifully. Thanks for another great, educational video. Keep it up!

[@fwabble]

"We all know that these "expert youtubers" are only influencers trying to make easy money speaking BS for naive people." This is exactly why I can get so aggressive towards these *****. They are literally making a fortune at the EXPENSE of all too often decent, hard working but ignorant folk, who are not LUCKY enough to have yet fallen under the educational umbrella of the future legend that is Amir.

[@survivejp]

@@fwabble That "Amir" is also a youtuber generating clicks and making money running a website that delivers it's audience what that audience wants to read.

[@ruger6049]

Bahahahahaha, funny stuff.@@fwabble

[@cityoflights3808]

I just realized that I have a problem with Amir’s video reviews. When I read his reviews on ASR, I pictured Amir as a dude in his 20s, with a cool haircut and maybe a goatee. Che with Dan Clarke headphones. Maybe it was the pink panther, maybe it was the impish sense of humor that would bubble up here and there, maybe it was the sense of iconoclastic slaying of an older generation’s audio myths, storming the ivory tower of audiophile elites and liberating the hobby for the masses. Now I watch this dude who is my age , or thereabouts, and man, all those qualities of the “young rebel Amir” are still there but in the nicest, least snarky and most articulate package.

[@spdcrzy]

You need PRECISELY that combination of age, experience, snark, a rebel streak, good debating skills, AND the facts to back you up in order to confidently take everybody on the way Amir does - and quite successfully at that.

[@ipsofacto7386]

Jay is completely untrustworthy. He told me a few days ago he doesn't take payments for reviews, but before, he's stated that he doesn't take payment "upfront", but if the company likes the review, then he will take payment afterwards. To me, that is taking payments for reviews. And it's his shady way of trying to get around YT's payment disclosure policies, by stating that he wasn't paid "upfront" for the review, but he may be paid some time after the review, so why would he disclose it in the review if he hadn't been paid yet? Shady AF.

[@AudioScienceReview]

Even without that, these people need to state right up front where the equipment came from. Almost none do.

[@burntable]

​@@AudioScienceReview Does the FTC just not enforce their own rules? Free stuff / payment is supposed to be disclosed. Bigger fish to fry, I guess.

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

Ipso - Shady like you not using your real name.

[@pedrocols]

Why would anyone listen to Jay? The guy is probably 12 years old.

[@Poraqui]

When these guys say they haven't tried an equipment yet, they'll usually follow by saying that they're gonna talk to the brand to get a loaner or a test unit or a tester sample. Unbiased my a*".

[@artozi87b]

Thank you Amir for being such an awesome human being, relentlessly bringing knowledge to audio community

[@rafalobo5308]

Sir you are an absolute treasure, thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[@Poraqui]

It's good to enjoy our "low-fi" audio with the info that Amir provides. Great job mate!

[@radiandrzgaming8708]

The sad thing is that there seems to be more people believing the snake oil on Jays channel (which I just unsubscribed to). Placebo is real. It effects all of us. Just get a wire that's the proper gauge and call it a day. I love this channel and the Audioholics channel. You two are where I go to debunk the myths. Thank you!

[@duroxkilo]

omg, i watched a few clips from mr Jay: exquisite language, pure misinformation. i actually clicked "don't recommend this channel" :) :(

[@zenboy863]

Some well known audiophile reviewers admit that with higher end gear there are psychological factors to do with the look, feel and price that determine the perception of how good the product sounds.

[@mrkymrk99]

I agree, ASR & Audioholics are the best for no BS or snake oil!

[@joesmith4443]

So are the test and who measures them. Amir had this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJKUqmyAh86jbJo removed from ASR instead of rebutting the claims on measurements. He also bans dissenters and collects users data via cookies to sell to advertisers. Ask any guitar player what amps sounds better and they say tube which measure terrible compared to solid state amps. Why do you think they say Elvis had that velvet sound. That’s a tube mic! What is accurate and what sounds pleasant two different animals most of the time. It’s best to get both when possible but I’d take sound over measurements any day. Gene from Audioholics admitted he and his wife prefer the sound of vinyl which doesn’t measure as well as a DAC. Go figure. Folks were NOT measuring medical equipment for precision performance. Sound is subjective so is music. Placebo or not, It will always be the case!

[@goodsound4756]

Then you may also like the Audio Masterclass channel. However Audioholics have a video contradicting ASR, so….

[@martinbaron2921]

I have no issue with audiophiles who dismiss measurements and science. You want to spend thousands on cables, go for it, love them and enjoy then and I hope they bring you joy. What bothers me is when these people try to cross over to the world of objectivity and science to justify their beliefs. Who do they think they need to answer to? This paper was written backwards: the conclusion came first and the data followed. Why bother? I saw this on Jay's channel and thought Amir's going to tear this to shreds! Thanks again for another awesome video!!

[@nicktan4530]

I still dont understand what is so great about Jay. He and Guttenburg has a special relationship. Both love to mumbo jumbo

[@nicktan4530]

@Allan Miller And whats up with all those poetic mumbo jumbo nonsense that utterly makes no sense. The way they describe audio is very poetic.

[@martinbaron2921]

@Allan Miller Darko is sponsored by AudioQuest, and that tells you everything you need to know.

[@grantdavid9466]

I’m glad I came across Audioholics when I got heavy into audio years ago (back when Hugo was still on the channel), they always brought forth no bs information and I’ve learned a lot from Gene, Matthew, James, and the rest.

[@frankgeeraerts6243]

Science starts with OBSERVATION............

[@SC-29229]

Amir, you forgot to sprinkle the magic fairy dust on the connectors. That is why you don't hear the difference between the cables. Thanks for the detailed analysis. Your videos are a breath of fresh air in the dim, squalid world of hi fi audio.

[@owenjbrady]

appreciate the work you do, you and audioholics are the only KZbinrs that make any sense to me .

[@wesselingaudiodesign5031]

Fantastic, watched and listened to every second. This channel and ASR forum is the supreme Audio information source!

[@giriprasadkotte9876]

Jay is a passionate guy that tries to be honest. Sadly, he lacks scientific temper.

[@burner8959]

Does he? He seems more like a wanna be to me.

[@Audfile]

too many years selling it to people. eventually you have to believe what you're saying to pocket the commission on that 10,000 dollar wire.

[@giriprasadkotte9876]

@@burner8959 He puts a lot of effort and money into his hobby. Doesn't come across as a scamster.

[@andreisopu]

@@giriprasadkotte9876 To me he does. Also he clearly doesn't know jack s. Either go full subjective like some do (admit you have 0 idea for the science) or do your homework and stop pushing stupid stuff like this "paper".

[@giriprasadkotte9876]

@@andreisopu I don't see him scamming anyone but he does go to objective to subjective pretty fast and random.

[@Daves2024]

Another great de-bunking video. Jay I is another channel that keeps getting pushed into my view through algorithms even though I keep telling KZbin to quit recommending channel. I would be very interested to see your measurements on capacitors. Electrolytic vs Polypropylene especially when used in speaker crossovers.

[@AudioScienceReview]

Thanks. That is on my todo list (to investigate).

[@BlackCatPianist]

Electrolytic decay (dry out) overtime, and it can behavior like a inductor with higher enough frequency thus distort the signals. Electrolytic is far susceptible to ambient temperature and humidity changes and in generally not suitable to use in signal paths. See www.wima.de/wp-content/uploads/media/WIMA-Audio.pdf.

[@monteverdefarms5626]

Amir, thank you. When the first you tuber came out with this “proof” from a college professor my question was, “who funded his research?” I tried to explain that college professors would generally find grants in order to do research as no college or university wants their professors working in unfounded projects. The old saying “publish or perish” refers to publish things you get paid for and bring money into your college. Of course people took offense just like in anything cable related. My thoughts, there are three important things when it comes to speaker cables: gage, quality of copper, connectors. Anything else is jewelry and things like little batteries and tinker toys are pure snake venom! Did I say Audioquest?

[@rowanjones3476]

I’ve specified the cabling for passive audio monitors in TV outside broadcast trucks and studios with 2 core power cable in the past. Diameter was more than sufficient for the speaker power handling, and its easy for the cablers to route and terminate. We used a significant amount of it in the OB truck jobs for wiring up the UPS batteries and it made sense to use what we kept inventory of, as most monitors were active/powered. Never heard any complaints! Ditto, line level, mic, analogue/digital video, RF cable/waveguide, data, power, optical were all selected using… surprise surprise, knowledge of the signal on the wire and cable data sheets! (And vendor quantity discounts) Something I’ve never understood is what these audiophiles feel that they’re going to gain by spending money on far more exotic components than a professional recording facility would - the very source of the material they’re listening to. Pros are spending their budget on well engineered tools built with a purpose in mind, room acoustics and other things that create an accurate listening environment and/or otherwise facilitate their work. One suspects there’s a reason no one in the audiophile world thinks to ask them what cables they use.

[@naturalverities]

@@rowanjones3476 We have a BINGO, ladies and gentlemen!

[@realitykicksin8755]

What do you mean by quality of the copper. The OFC story is a myth.

[@monteverdefarms5626]

@@realitykicksin8755 contrary to what you may believe ASTM has standards for copper and copper alloys.

[@nathandaniels4823]

You bring up an interesting point. If there’s one thing that Amir and most of his fans stand for, it’s their “belief in science”. Given that scientific research is overwhelmingly conducted by universities or product development teams, it begs the question: how can we fully trust any of it?

[@pcgamingftw5694]

This kept getting funnier the more it went on. I expected some minor mistakes in methodology due to a lack of knowledge in the field, but wow, this was beyond terrible! I'm glad you spent your time on this Amir, it was not just educational, but also quite hilarious. I appreciate your work a lot!

[@epi2045]

Thanks Amir. From my experience, if something is written on formal paper, by an expert, it doesn’t mean it’s 100% true. I always tell people to follow the money if you want understanding of the truth. How many times have we encountered “scientific research” which was paid or sponsored by a corporate or political agency?

[@HomeCinemaJunkie]

This! The climate activism agenda is a great example.

[@ZombieLincoln666]

@@HomeCinemaJunkieactually climate denialism is much more influenced by monied interests from fossil fuel companies.

[@HoundStuff]

Nice work addressing this paper, Amir! Seems to really call into question AES and the reviewers on why the paper was accepted for publication. With those types of issues I don’t think it would have been accepted into other journals for publication. An easy google search quickly pulls up the professors webpage and CV. Looks like he mostly focuses on superconducting nanowires and thin films but then uses concepts from high frequency analysis in those areas to then apply them in psychoacoustics and high end audio. Interesting pairing. His webpage also states that he expects to publish an entire book in 2023 on topics in audio, will be interesting to see how that is received in the field!

[@AudioScienceReview]

Thanks. I hadn't seen the bit about his book. Seems like there are a lot more videos I need to do when his book comes out! :)

[@Lauren080508]

an entire book in 2023 on topics in audio!? oh boy, sorry Amir it never ends, lol

[@HoundStuff]

@@AudioScienceReview My thoughts exactly. Job security! 😄

[@charlesbiller4371]

I am pretty sure that Amir's video is addressing this paper: boson.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur/papers/Interconnect-cable-measurements--Kunchur.pdf If so, it is not a paper in JAES but some weird international paper that may not have credibility? IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering(IOSR-JECE)

[@MichaelPohoreski]

There are no grades of cables but there are 2 grades of consumers: * suckers, and * everyone else.

[@truegodofthunder]

Amir, One of the things I appreciate most about your videos is how you make your points without being disrespectful or confrontational. Just plenty of facts, proof and science. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[@mbp1646]

Thank you for doing such a detailed analysis on this and thank you even more for you fantastic knowledgeable treatment of all things audio. I am not an audio engineer but I have a good background in electronics so I have long been sceptical of the performance advantages attributed to expensive cables (not to mention expensive digital cables for audio) but I have never had the opportunity to test their claims myself. Your dedicated work has restored my confidence in science. The world is indeed a sphere and not flat. There are several good reasons to buy high quality cables (standards compliance, reliability, robustness, aesthetics or just pride of ownership) but imagining that a $500 ethernet cable is going to improve your audio quality is just foolish.

[@rowanjones3476]

As we’re taking science, it’s actually an irregular ellipsoid, or oblate spheroid, not a sphere. But anyway…. Amir has done an excellent review as always. Shame AES didn’t seek his input before publication.

[@mbp1646]

@@rowanjones3476 That's just what the main stream media, NASA and Bill Gates want you to believe. Wake up sheeple #EarthisRound

[@hurkamur1]

Someone really needs to crowdfund a massive blind test, and host all of these predominant youtube audiophiles who have been slinging this cable voodoo unchecked for forever and a day. I watch and enjoy a lot of these guys, but somebody seriously needs to put a nail in this coffin, it's absolutely absurd. Time to put their money where their mouths are.

[@jakephilbrick7384]

Hes not doing science. hes starting with what he believes and is trying to prove that. thats not how science works.

[@AudioScienceReview]

@@rowanjones3476 AES was terrible. Post publication, as an AES member, I post three responses to the comment section. All three were rejected and I was told to get on a zoom call with the author instead! My head is down with respect to treatment from AES here.

[@barskuleli8612]

Mr. Amir I really appreciate your self confidence which is coming from your knowledge. And many thanks for your all videos that shared with us. I learned many things from your videos as an audiophile. Thank you.

[@juqual78]

Thank you for this tireless work. Scammers and grifters suck. Anyone peddling these cables is EXTREMELY suspect. There is ample proof from you and Audioholics that you don't have to pay much for high quality, well engineered audio interconnects. We are in you debt sir!

[@AudioScienceReview]

You are very kind.

[@Douglas_Blake_579]

A year down the road ... than this is still a discussion? Lets talk about what really makes the difference these people are hearing. Here's a simple experiment anyone can try... and audiophiles should. 1) Sit in a quiet room. No music. No TV... just you in a quiet room. Now relax, sit back, and just hear the room for a couple of minutes ... get used to what it sounds like. 2) Now gently, with your thumb and forefinger pull your ears back and up, just a little bit. Notice how the sound of the room changed? It got more open, airy and lively sounding... the sound probably also shifted slightly up in frequency. 3) Now add a mechanical clock or a quiet metronome ... tick tick tick tick. 4) Relax again and take in the room sounds. 5) Now focus your attention on the clock (metronome). Notice how the sound of the room changes when you focus in... You might describe it as being more open, airy and lively sounding... just like step 2, above. What you have just noticed is an actual human reflex. "Cocking one's ears"... and we do it automatically, without even realizing when we are focused on a specific sound. We use it to pick out conversations in noisy rooms, to hear a specific instrument at a concert... and... when listening to new cables in our systems. It is the difference between "hearing" and "listening". So now lets imagine we are testing a new cable... first we play a familiar piece of music, then we swap in our new cable. We focus in on the sound... we subconsciously "cock our ears' ... and lo and behold we hear a difference. This is also used to advantage during sales demonstrations... You're at the audio show, there is a cable maker's demo, so you go in and settle into a chair, with music playing as you wait for the sales pitch. Now the salesmaker comes out gives you the pitch about his miracle wire, made of single crystal, oxygen-free, cryo-harmonized, copper jacketed in unobtainium and polished to a fine finish by the virgins of valhalla. "Now lets hook up this cable... listen carefully, and see if you can hear the difference". So now he plays the same music again and son of a gun, everyone hears the difference! Why? Because the second time around they were paying attention, ears cocked, and searching for even the slightest difference... Yeah it's really that easy to fool huge numbers of people...

[@zzz2496]

Finally !! I was waiting for you to make a video for this topic. From my own investigation, there is no measurable difference between cables when measured directly (the cable in question as DUT), but there is when I put it on a mic, then I can see TINY TINY difference in phase (few degrees in 10KHz+) and frequency response (less than 0.5dB), and that's it...

[@petertreyde3212]

Thank you for that clear analysis of the paper. Dissapointing that a paper as poorly researched as this is allowed to see the light of day.

[@pizzaearthpancakesandother2549]

Jay's WTF moment was when he took Danny's advice and compared the GR Research XLS to the Sonus Fabers instead of the Polk. It was a no-lose situation for Danny when comparing his kit to the much more expensive Italian

[@7966016]

I'm sure Jay was compansated very handsomely from Danny! Danny is a fraud along with Jay and a few others!

[@ruger6049]

And he stated it honestly. What's the issue? Are you bent out shape because Jay was truthful in his findings?

[@great100m]

fortunately, for me and my pocketbook, old ears & damaged hearing (ie don't have 'golden ears')negates differences in audio even between speakers, amplifiers, DACs, parts, wiring, etc, etc. Saves me a lot of time seeking the latest & greatest marginal improvements.

[@mohammedisaa9952]

@great100m Unfortunately..... many of us are circuming to poor or bad hearing.... I guess like "eyesight" 1 by one our sences begin to fail us as old age crreps upon us like a fog bank that just becomes thicker and thicker with no resolve..... For me, its like i am being slowly robbed of the things i love, and its quiet intolerable to understand that there is nothing i can do but accept this "degridation" of my sences..... I do sympathise and share your grief, i suppose its inherent of our age... God bless and keep well 🙂

[@ruger6049]

Odd, my old and my hearing is not top notch. I could hear the difference ( I was shocked at how quickly I could hear it ) when I changed different types of headphone cables. It was literally stupid obvious.

[@brentshock3787]

What do I enjoy more than your knowledge? You’re self confidence… its amazing! Keep up the great work sir.

[@Lauren080508]

I have to express my deeply gratitude to all those people who believes in expensive cables, without you there would not be a reason for Amir to put these masterful lectures, than you!!

[@ruger6049]

Interesting. I wonder what he would do with himself.

[@UncleDansVintageVinyl]

Excellent work, Amir. Thanks for being the voice of reason.

[@tomasstolpe8177]

Got a Big respect for your work Amir!

[@AudioScienceReview]

You are very kind.

[@jeremyweaver5639]

I was calmly enjoying this video, but the "Subjective Frequency Response" had me howling at my desk. That is a hilarious joke for someone who isn't kidding at all.

By the way, you can "withdraw" a peer review publication by proving such things as wrong methodology, wrong claims and so on. You just need to write a paper :) If you need help with that, I am quite efficient writer who is also strongly interested in this topic

[@hurkamur1]

Fight the good fight!

[@AudioScienceReview]

Much appreciate the offer. Question is whether our time is better spent dealing with the next topic.

[@alkestos]

So there is one guy in the world who can measure the difference they hear in different cables? Can’t wait. Also no way for others to reproduce his tests? Solid science… Edit: Oops. Edited out some typos and apparently KZbin removes the heart thing given by the channel owner after the message has been changed. I guess I can see why that is.

[@Bob.martens]

Not reproducable = NOT SCIENCE. Elementary...

[@alkestos]

@@Bob.martens yep!

[@airun5362]

Your ear with your brain can measure. You can defenetly say when difffrence in volume is persist in 1-2 seconds drum kick and how loud is it. Even that short sample have wave that very vary inside. Using same equipment, same sample in different days and daytime, changing only xlr or rca cable for example. I did that 5-10 times and heard it. So for me its something that persist in aspects/characteristics of that kick that didnt change and what I can hear in any other sample, but may way harder. (depends how clearly you can hear that sample)

[@airun5362]

The only exception is very very close to perfect equipment and very stable electricity, where any cable will not be noticeble, cause there is almost 0 distortion. Appart from that Ive noticed a lot of people got hearing abilities way worse than mine, but mine not that perfect as some proffessionals in musical world has. To underline all above, the thing ppl need is to understand how good their ears are.. to do some tests with live instruments at least... Did you hear some wrong playing on guitar or "broken notes" etc? Before you go and run look at measurments. I could defently hear difference between 98 and 100v - its 1-2% of voltage difference, but it affects sound and my ear response on the results. Any day, any track same equipment.

[@Bob.martens]

@@airun5362 Amazing.

[@krazyfrog]

The error in the testing methodology in Paper 1 reminds me of the arguments people have regarding Bluetooth codecs. There are people who SWEAR they are hearing a difference in sound when switching between LDAC, aptX, AAC or what have you. What they often don't realize that the differences rarely come from the codecs themselves but the way the way the receiving device is processing the audio, which can sometimes be different between various codecs, leading to a perception that the codec is making a difference when it's usually just poorly inconsistent audio processing.

[@GodmanchesterGoblin]

Agreed. Even good old SBC can be very good and has often been used by quality brands in hi-fi components. Of course there are differences between codecs, but good implementation and integration is what matters most.

[@formdissolve]

Low bitrate standard bluetooth will always sound worse than LDAC and that has been proven with measurements by Amir. Low bitrate is highly compressed and cuts off a large chunk of the top end (over 16khz, like MP3).

[@GodmanchesterGoblin]

@@formdissolve Agreed. Those differences are audible. I was simply agreeing with the earlier post that the implementation also has a big role to play. That is especially true for some brands that aren't able to build the lower-level audio processing software themselves. It's not much different to how a poor hardware design can destroy the performance of a good DAC chip.

[@ZombieLincoln666]

@@formdissolvethey still have a point that downstream processing can be the primary source of audible differences.

[@sportsmachinerr1401]

It's nice to see someone with the knowledge to debunk these wild claims. Personally I have noticed changes in sound quality from one RCA to the next but that was simply down to poor fitment and oxidation creeping in after 15yrs of use.

[@joentell]

I like that you're bringing objectivity to this industry. As a reviewer, and as a human, there are times I get things wrong, but I try hard to make sure I do not. If I am wrong, I won't hesitate to admit it. I hope to never see my face on one of your debunking videos. 😁 I think many audiophiles aren't interested in learning. They would prefer to defend their existing beliefs. Ask them what it would take to change their minds about ______, and they'll likely say, "nothing." They know if they say that something could, someone might provide that information. When someone tells me nothing will change their mind, I know that the conversation is over and it's time to walk away.

[@swinde]

Techno-Babble is what this is called. Thank you for the honest review of the review.

[@GA-pc2qd]

To pay my deeepest respects to Amir's dedication to truth : " Work as though everything depended on you ! ", Saint Augustin.

[@Creeptonic]

Legend has it that Prof Kunchur has sold his soul *not*for rock and roll (dough) !! And still reeling under the clinical dissection Amir has ever so exquisitely rendered.

[@gsm9551]

Absolutely brilliant!

[@jorgerodriguez6042]

hello thank you for what you are doing keep going and hello once again from MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA

[@GodmanchesterGoblin]

I just posted this under the Jay's iyagi video on this paper... ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2W1Z3yVidl-h7M ) "A bit of a rant... Note - you do not have to agree, and if you don't like what I have written that's fine - really. This video currently 342 comments and none point out the absurdity of sending a 4ns pulse down a cable intended for audio use as a test method? The paper barely mentions transmission line theory (highly relevant to 4ns pulses and fast transients, but not generally relevant to analogue audio signals). This becomes even more apparent when they try to measure transient response in section 4.4 when sending signals which would require the cable to have a matched terminating impedance and or matched source impedance, but they go with an arbitrary source of 100 ohms and a load of 10k ohms. This is reasonable for audio frequencies, even up to 100kHz or so, but they do not test with a signal that is reasonable for audio. A get it that audiophiles do not like engineering types (like me) questioning their beliefs, and I have little issue with that - they are entitled to their views. But I cannot accept "research" when the basic electrical principles of how signals behave in cables are overlooked to such an extent." Will see what happens....

[@peterhaslund]

While I wholeheartedly understand your reluctance to waste time on this "science", I must recommend you for doing so

[@zihotki]

That's the reason why peer review is very important in Academia.

[@gioponti6359]

No-one objects on this point (yet on the web one can lead lively debates on that level of assumptions and general statements) but are you sure the paper of discussion has not been peer reviewed? The one i am glancing here is published in the JAES..

[@AudioScienceReview]

Sadly this one is peer reviewed. Problem is that the review board is not experienced in this domain either and gave it a pass due to formal look of the paper with all those references and all. And no doubt the title of the author.

[@charlesbiller4371]

@@gioponti6359 The author Kunchur has two papers, one is published in JAES, the 2nd, I am sure is what Amir is reviewing in the video, is not in JAES but an international organization of dubious value, IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering(IOSR-JECE). The graphs in this video is in the international organization paper. This is also a reference number 49 in the JAES paper. The JAES paper is also of dubious value. Kuncher had 16 subjects, and each had 3 trials to guess correctly. Really?

[@gioponti6359]

@@charlesbiller4371 thanks for making me aware of it.. i have gone through what I believe was the IO paper and found it in parts quite interesting (longterm listening tests and their justification for example - quite in contrast with Amirs blitz A/B tests, which also in my experience are less revealing), mostly however I was wondering who would finance such studies .. ;)

[@redstang5150]

There's lots of articles bashing the entire process of "peer review". I think like a lot of things, peer review sounds nice and official but you still never really know if that designation is meaningful unless someone was to investigate what went into the peer review and exactly who did it.

[@mohabeersudhirpanday1924]

Brilliant presentation with so many objective information submitted. Respect Boss

[@chrisharper2658]

You peaked my interest. Figuring that lump sum parameters are all that are really important here, I found three old RCA cables and wondered what the capacitance was for them. I was surprised to find that the junk cable that came with a cassette recorder over 45 yrs ago measured the best at ~75pf. And a high end video cable from Monster measured at ~85pf. Then a Radio Shack AV cable measured ~175pf for the audio and strangely ~110pf for the composite (Y). All cables were about the same resistance. So even the worst cable if driven with a 600 ohm source won't hit the 3dB down point until over 1.4MHz.

[@carswnova]

Jay then says measurements aren't important, sorry but we really want to know if we are missing out because some of us take time to upgrade so this work really helps us cheap audiophiles get a better idea of where to take our money. I've always wondered if I'm missing out on anything with these expensive cables. But after learning how electricity and these electronics work, the information i get from Amir correlates with my personal experiences at home. This is honest work, again, thank you.

[@AudioScienceReview]

Yes, I should have made that point that folks that normally dismiss measurements, promote someting like this which is all measurements.

[@asx1248]

Oh Amir, great video. When I saw Jay's I was firstly disappointed in Jay for taking comfort in that nonsense and secondly, I was hoping you or Gene might do a rebuttal video and here it is and not just a short 10min one stating how the paper is tripe but instead a real detailed analysis as to why. Lol I don't know why we would have expected less from you though!! Anyway again, great video, I hope the KZbin algorithm sends watchers of Jay's here next as this deserves many hits.

[@asx1248]

It gets even better. Jay has done one on cable risers now! He hears a difference but caveats it with only hearing the difference in certain treated rooms, on certain systems and with only particular cables! But here's the thing, he admits he likes how they look and that also the difference could be in his head, but that that's OK because if his head says it's better and he enjoys it more then so be it. Now that might be ok if he wasn't a reviewer.. but as a reviewer doesn't it mean that his reviews are compromised since what he 'hears' is dependant on what he sees? Anyway that's one channel I can happily unsubscribe from!

[@b00m3rh4nd_sol]

when I saw Jay's video, I heard your voice in my head questioning those assertions :) then this video came out! :D

[@vladishere]

Amir, great respect for your analytical and objective approach towards reviews and in my opinion that's the correct way. I'm still laughing after watching Jay's video where he is so happy that finally he discovered a scientific paper that proves something, at least he thinks. Hilarious and sad in a same time.

[@AudioScienceReview]

Yeh, his attitude about this paper is what prompted me to do this video.

[@FOH3663]

What a solid piece of work! Well done.

[@Lauren080508]

I work in medical science, if a researcher does a paper promoting a specific brand, data should be not only irrefutable but corroborated by other researchers, otherwise you loss your credibility, your money and sometimes your freedom

[@naturalverities]

If humility is the willingness to publicly display one's ignorance, the author of this paper appears to be quite humble.

[@jimshaw899]

I spent a year in engineering school studying electrical measurements. It is a discipline that laymen usually find baffling. That is because to measure something accurately and usefully, you must understand it very well. This fellow seems to have replaced that understanding with prejudice. And the the most common error in making measurements is prejudice. This fellow might well have started out in his project definition by saying, "The purpose of this effort is to prove that expensive audio cables are better (in some way) than cheap cables. In this effort, I will work with generalized, readily available asserts to prove that postulate." ..... As an aside, years ago I muted the KZbinr, Jay, from my accessible group of pundits when I heard him describe the relative position of the volume controls as describing the power output capability of two amplifiers being compared. That demonstrates a 4th grade level of technical understanding. That level of knowledge is fertile fodder for the carnival cable touts. ..... Reluctantly I say, "Lottery tickets are probably a better audiophile investment than expensive interconnect cables."

[@hurkamur1]

But, as an audiophile "HE WANTS TO BELIEVE" 👽 🤪

[@josephreynolds6844]

Many a technician and engineer have made errors in their experiment and end up measuring the measurement system.

[@Jordonater]

Hey Amir I dont know if you read comments this late but i think ive found the reason for the buzzing sound in the Focal Elex/Clear. With EQ applied listening to low bass in music has sometimes created a buzz but i literally just realised that when i tilt my head to the left it doesnt do it. I was confused by this but then i found out basically when the driver moves a lot it touches the small hairs from your head and they poke through just enough the touch the driver which causes this buzzing sound. This is my cause however perhaps yours was truly the driver limit becuase i listen at very low volume (-6db pre amp on APO and 34% - 36% volume on my THX Onyx.

[@geoff37s38]

Thanks Amir. It is very sav that there is so much nonsense like this in our hobby. The truth is that audio frequencies are barely above DC and most budget cables are perfectly fine. Coat hanger wire to connect speakers may not look pretty but will have no audible effect on sound quality. It is only at Radio Frequencies that cables and connectors become important. At very high frequencies it becomes more like plumbing, but this does not apply in any way to audio.

[@stevenholt5484]

Damn man, good idea! Now where are my coat hangers?? (I'm not kidding!)

[@jerrygeorgopolis8015]

Amir, One of the craziest papers I have ever heard. Talking about SWR in an Audio Cable (Standing Wave Ratio(s)) !

[@BobFrostV]

Lol of course they are considering frequency loss above 100khz. They can't show cables matter if they consider human hearing range. The funny thing is that a lot of high end cable performs worst than regular stranded wire. Aren't they lucky that we can't actually hear a difference.

[@dean6816]

When you buy or upgrade components in your audio system, you tend to focus a lot more in your listening so you hear things that you've never (think you've never) noticed before when listening under normal circumstances! Placebo is a powerful thing so if buying an expensive cable triggers this effect and you're happy to spend money, then why not!

[@dingdong2103]

The balanced input signal is +3db vs RCA so if they did 'blind testing' without matching audio levels, XLR will always sound 'better' because it's +3db louder...

[@peterw2714]

Honestly, audiophiles couldn’t care less whether it measures differently. If they sound different, that’s what does matter to them and that’s why people choose different speaker cables because different cables can accentuate certain specific characteristics. Audiophiles choose the characteristics they wish to accentuate for their system by what cables they they select.

[@dfiler2]

They only perceive a difference in sighted testing. Blind testing always destroys these claims. Always. There has never been an exception.

[@keyboardrambo]

There's was a story circulating among Russian audiophiles from the 90s about a party held by a wealthy dude who wanted his guests to marvel over his stereo system costing a fortune and while he was not watching one of the guests swapped his graden-hose RSA cable for a throwaway one. Then the host presented his system, played some of his most audiophiliac records and went on about how tough a job this was for him to put all the components together to achieve the fantastic synergy and how every little piece was crucial to the success, including the cables, and then he noticed the throwaway cable and went berzerk.

[@mohammedisaa9952]

"Russians" have a habbit of doing that.... da? Re: coflict in Ukraine.....

[@lurkersmith810]

I am so glad I have not fallen into the serious audiophile rathole. Thank you for validating my ability to enjoy my $600 speakers, $600 receiver (Yamaha R-N602 with built-in DAC), my generic interconnects and 16 GA Zip-cord speaker wire (from that famous American audiophile store called "The Home Depot"), strung willy-nilly without "lifters". Even though your typical audio setup exceeds my car budget, I still enjoy these science based debunking videos, even though I would never have the patience to sit through some random KZbinr like Kuncher trying to convince me I need $500 audio cables.

[@rogerjames6956]

It,s great being 76 years old,everything sounds ok, people should just sit down and listen to the music !!!

[@CirclesandSounds]

28:30 I busted out laughing here! 😂🤣 I love your method of busting these ridiculous myths. As someone who grew up being taught electronics engineering by a lead RCA engineer (my grandfather), went on to develop microphones and speakers based on the hardest science we have on the subjects... just to say one thing - a mic with character, warmth, body, and other non-scientific terms people use - the sexiest mics have a good bit of self noise and distortion created by the “exotic” parts, such as discrete circuits with high end transformers, vacuum tubes, etc. There are mics today that minimize these effects, but the most sought after mics often have some rough measurements that do not turn us off. I appreciate that you measure what matters on the playback end and discuss what is useful vs useless information. 💚

[@aZebroadcast]

You are so right about everything as usual! Thank you!

[@dillonsaudio]

Hilarious mistakes! I'm in tears from laughing. Yet another brilliant video Amir.

[@jackgiuffre3501]

Amir, you are the best. Thanks for calling these snake oil salesmen and clowns on the carpet. IMO, you are a rare voice of reason in an industry overloaded by fools and slimy idiots.

[@edbrumbaugh9202]

Thank you for breaking down that paper. I saw Jay’s video and one other … very disappointing to see people who don’t understand testing & engineering latch on to this paper and hold it up as fact … as you mentioned up front, when the paper doesn’t get into the specificity of the cables, etc., preventing anyone from replicating the measurements, it should immediately put up a “red” flag as to the paper itself. My take away from reading the paper was that it’s a justification paper for high end cables that not even the manufacturers can back up with measurements. Thanks again Amir!!

[@AudioScienceReview]

My pleasure. What disappointed me about Jay's video was him saying how he also was in science and was vouching for this work. That made a lot more people believe his read and ignore the fact that Jay didn't present any of the technical detail.

[@rowanjones3476]

@Douglas Blake I know a few folks in research, and I assure you, they definitely don’t have the luxury of having someone do their lunch fetching! Packed lunches and constant belt tightening is where its at.

[@lseiwang]

Start a Patreon channel Amir, I'll be the first to sign on! You're the best snake oil & lay intuition 'noise filter' that hobbyist like myself can rely on to filter out BS!! (I'm serious about supporting you on Patreon btw, your work is invaluable :))

[@AudioScienceReview]

Thank you so much. I do have a patroen account: www.patreon.com/audiosciencereview I just don't promote it in these videos because I don't want people to be confused about the purpose of these.

[@lseiwang]

@@AudioScienceReview great, just signed up :)

[@zergbong]

I really can't tell you how much I appreciate what you do.

[@nicksundby]

Me too, this is just what the hifi industry needs as well

[@HaykDingchyan]

As an integrated circuit designer who dealt with GHz digital transmission, I signing on what Amir said here ! Thank you for exposing stupid audiophiles!

[@rowanjones3476]

Doing the lord’s work as usual there Amir. Perhaps AES should consider having you on their review panel! It’s amazing they didn’t even give the results for some RG-whatever co-ax as a control given the bandwidths they were testing at. Even some basic plots of attenuation, impedance, phase shift against frequency would have been more useful than the drivel you had to trawl through.

[@teashea1]

A great presentation - intelligent, articulate, organized. thanks very much

[@pjhandle]

The "professor" might have been sponsored by a cable manufacturer. Let's see who is going to refer to this "research" and market it as proof.

[@scagooch]

I read in a magazine once about an amp"sounds like a crisp cold winter night" now that sounds scientific!

[@davidketley5359]

Well done again, this audio thing is just full of bullshit trying to extract more money out of us. Thank you for another great breakdown.

[@mohammedisaa9952]

Its called "fraud"..... report to poliice ANYBODY who quotes this to help persuade you into parting with cash.... Charge is "obtaining money by deception"......

[@brikaf6001]

Excellent job as usual, thank you Amir

[@antibrevity]

Peer review is critically important. Unfortunately, it's not always critically done. I've come across multiple peer-reviewed papers over the years that were simply wrong and the generous people who chose to review those papers did not notice the mistakes, whether through lack of competency on the subject or mere oversight. This professor should have asked an EE colleague for help; it could have avoided this entire charade.

[@scottwheeler2679]

That is really quite disturbing.

[@tomas_m]

Lol that's a 10/10 thumbnail, made me laugh out loud in train

[@Edward135i]

I love when amir roast audiophools.

[@davidreece1642]

He wanted to show expensive cables are better than cheaper ones. He found some random parameters that "demonstrated" the above, most likely by chance. Thanks Amir.

[@mysock351C]

Sadly most people lack the necessary basic education to even understand why the cable differences don't matter (edit: Outside of noise and EMI, of course). Even if you can explain it to them, they wont have the needed knowledge to evaluate your argument vs. the subjectivist one. I have had that similar arguments with, shall we say, certain other "people" on this platform who are also purveyors of audiophile cables and its pretty much hopeless since the necessary concepts are outside of their mental purview. Its not that they are unintelligent. Most are simply ignorant when it comes to technological topics like this.

[@alkestos]

You can’t convince someone, who doesn’t have any respect for science in the first place, with scientific facts.

[@nicoras8803]

Cables are passive components, they do not generate noise nor EMI or RFI, these quantities measures susceptibility or radiation of EMI, RFI in equipment.

[@AudioScienceReview]

Yes, it is a tough battle. I am hoping however that youtube format works better than written text in this regard.

[@senn_660s]

Amir's really doing god's work here

[@jamesfurz7406]

Someone on the internet is going to be massively annoyed that you've used science, facts & experience to show that most "audiophile" stuff is snake oil. Great video!

[@ruger6049]

So why spend money on audiophile gear. Just get JBL Flip. Done.

[@jamesfurz7406]

@@ruger6049 What?

[@krisharrison7740]

Lol. Finally some reasonable talk about audio cable. I have laughed for years how much money people waist on this issue.

[@ThinkingBetter]

Amir, you are awesome and brings me hope that humanity has not lost its mind completely. I don't know what motivates professor Kunchur to do such an utterly flawed report and it puts a great deal of shame on him. Let's see if any cable company is using this nonsense in their marketing.

[@ThinkingBetter]

@Douglas Blake The audio cable industry has always needed someone's "scientific" arguments for getting customers to pay those insane margins since Polk Audio launched their Japanese Cobra cable in the 1970s.

[@ThinkingBetter]

@Douglas Blake I still have some 12 gauge OFC Monster cables from the 80s that I use in my gym room setup. I bought those when in college.

[@ThinkingBetter]

@Douglas Blake I don't think those original Monster cables I have from almost 40 years ago are any inferior to any newer speaker cable I have. As a college student I worked in my summer holidays and spent most of the money on audio gear. I'm not sure audio fidelity overall has really progressed all that much e.g. comparing a modern system with my first setup and in particular I am quite convinced I had more resolving qualities out of my student system of my first Stax headphones with my Denon CD player and NAD3020 back from the 80s than most modern audiophile systems of today. Rather, when I compare my latest computer or smart phone with my first computer or the home phone from 1982, progress has been insane.

[@dell177]

I agree many expensive audio cables are not worth the price they ask. However there is a difference between throw away cables and well constructed cables but most above $50-100 are chasing very small returns on the sound of that cable.

[@DesmondKarani]

Jay: As someone with a scientific background and a day job as a researcher, this paper is legit. Me: But, but it is just one paper with no repeatable experiments and in a questionable journal..? Jay: Trust me. I also used to work in a high-end audio store. Me: Okay.

[@AudioScienceReview]

That's a great summary of his video! :)

[@RoadFai]

Trust me. I also used to work in a high-end audio store.

[@TrinitronX]

After reading through the first paper (see [1]), at first glance it did appear that some obvious conclusions could be made about "balanced" (balanced wheatstone bridge impedances + differential signaling), versus "unbalanced" (single-ended / non-differential signaling). However, the use of very subjective listening tests & psychoacoustics has been a classic confounding problem since the 80's (see "The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation", an AES paper from 1980 [2], and "Listening Tests: Turning Opinion into Fact" from 1981 [3] which both talk about a lot of the problems with listening room setup & listener subjectivity). So, we can take the listener's perceptions of the A/B testing with the usual grain(s) of salt. It would have been nice to see some more controlled experiments regarding noise perception using the same setup and simply controlling for playing a recording with controlled generated noise vs. without. Then perhaps some sort of general (yet still subjective) conclusion could be drawn regarding whether people prefer noise or not in those types of classical recordings (as were used in the tests). As far as the RCA (unbalanced, single-ended) vs XLR (balanced, differential signaling) conclusions & measurements of noise... Those would have held more weight if the noise analysis were done with some common known environmental sources of noise controlled for, and compared between each cable & signaling modality without any subjective psychoacoustic A/B listening tests. Instead, just use common quantitative measurements of the noise itself to compare them, no need to muddy the waters by bringing subjective listening tests into the picture. For example, just measure noise spectrum in a very controlled low-noise environment (or at least as best is as possible for AC mains being nearby for test equipment) versus a high-noise environment where EMF noise sources were intentionally added in a controlled manner. Quantifying a cable's susceptibility to external noise as much as possible would help, along with good experiment design such as using a test setup with a cable at constant controlled distance from EMF source, perfectly straight, proper connections, taking into account cable lengths, inverse square law and some basics of antenna radiation patterns (really have to control for that well to simplify things given the directional lobe radiation patterns for some sources, and the impacts of AC mains noise sources such as Romex AC wiring vs. twisted pair in metal conduit). Cable length could be it's own experiment, but intuition and antenna research would probably conclude it's related to cable length being 1/4 wavelength multiple(s), shape & noise source frequency resonance capability with such an antenna length & shape. It would also help to compare different cables susceptibility to that same interference source, which would come down to the signaling modality (differential vs. single-ended), the physics of the cable's material & construction, and Maxwell's EMF equations at some point. Other comparisons to do would include comparing CMRR for different XLR cable constructions, comparing shielded twisted pair with other cable types, comparing susceptibility to intentionally created ground loops by making or breaking connections to the shield or pins. Again, all the above with audible frequency ranges taken into consideration. For that last idea about ground loops, there is good precedent for proving some relation between CMRR and the different cabling (unbalanced single-ended vs. balanced differential signaling). Also the relationship between the real meaning of "balanced" as in "balanced wheatstone bridge" which Bill Whitlock goes over in his AES 2021 talk. This is viewable here on KZbin: Bill Whitlock - Signal Interfaces Debunked - 4/27/2021" (link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4q1maqkra2oj9E ). Also see AES standards: AES48-2005, and AES54-2-2008 regarding shielding & interconnects. On the psychoacoustics aspect regarding "do people prefer noise or not"... If indeed people do prefer lower noise, then do that psychoacoustic experiment separately and don't bring cable differences into it yet... just generate the noise and compare! Probably best to take into account the even vs. odd harmonic types of noise too. It's commonly thought that people prefer the even harmonics (e.g. from tube amp distortion) over the odd harmonics (e.g. digital distortion). It's probably safe to assume most people don't prefer the common 60Hz (or 50Hz in EU) ground loop hum when it's loud enough to compete with the recording being played back on a turntable (also happens to be odd harmonics). So there's the tie-in to XLR vs RCA again with ground loop hum, but do that experiment separately! That would have been much better research to prove in steps rather than this "expensive vs. non-expensive" and less controlled subjective A/B test comparing cabling type kind of research. If the original author's a physicist, then best to focus on the physics & materials, not the marketing! [1] M. N. Kunchur, ‘Cable Pathways Between Audio Components Can Affect Perceived Sound Quality’, J. Audio Eng. Soc, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 398-409, 2021. [2] S. P. Lipshitz and J. Vanderkooy, ‘The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation’, in Audio Engineering Society Convention 65, 1980. [3] F. E. Toole, ‘Listening Tests: Turning Opinion into Fact’, in Audio Engineering Society Convention 69, 1981.

[@vladsee76]

Learned that peer review and replication is just as important as coning up with a scientific paper. Cant't just accept whatever paper is published.

[@liesandy291]

Healthy skepticism is paramount.