Audio DesignLine Blog
Putting an audiophile "tweak" to the test
Rich Pell
10/27/2010 12:30 PM EDT
There's no shortage of audiophile products on the market making dubious - if not outrageous - claims. But not often enough are these products put to the test - literally - and subjected to critical objective analysis. Mostly they're reviewed subjectively (and almost always favorably) by non-technical writers in audiophile publications.
Now, finally, some of the folks at diyAudio are taking an objective look at one longstanding audiophile "tweak" favorite. It's a $92 device claimed to have been originally developed for military applications ("many of which are still highly classified") and which boasts a number of impressive-sounding features:
- Based on quantum/superconducting technology
- Operates on the quantum mechanical level to regulate the flow of electrons that make up the signal
- Strips quantum noise energy off the electrons, streamlining their flow in a "slipstream effect" through ensuing conductors
- Dissipates unwanted quantum noise energy as heat rather than allowing it to emerge as a "layer of contamination residue" over audio/video information
- Reduces quantum noise and increases signal velocity, resulting in performance improvement beyond what is attainable by any cable alone
- Uses a combination of rare earth metal oxides in a ceramic form to absorb and dampen 1/f noise
Now I'm no quantum physics expert, but the first thing that comes to mind when I read the above is the "Turbo Encabulator." But apparently audio reviewers who have "tested" the device with their ears are impressed:
- "Once in a lifetime there comes along a technology that breaks new ground and is easily worth its weight in gold" 1
- "Smoothed out all of the wrinkles in timing, dynamics, and space, and brought all of the musicians together as a musical whole" 2
- "The music flows with a greater sense of ease—it is simply more musical, and more whole" 3
- "Viagra for the ears and the soul" 4
What the diyAudio folks have proposed - and are in the process of performing - are a series of objective tests on the product (such as impedance, noise, distortion and RF measurements) followed by some controlled listening tests. While these tests will never satisfy the "you can't measure everything you can hear" subjective crowd, they do promise to shed some much-needed light on one of the more dubious areas in consumer audio.
So what do the results show so far? The first round of testing has been completed and the results are due out momentarily, but early word is that there's "no real difference between one of these [devices] and an ordinary 0R025 resistor." What a surprise.
Well, perhaps the RF tests will reveal something more extraordinary. Or not. You can read the complete diyAudio forum thread (now at 800+ posts and counting) or follow the testing progress at the wiki testing page.
Comments, questions or suggestions? Email me at rich.pell@verizon.net.
1 http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/1202/bybee.htm
2 http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue8/bybee.htm
3 http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue12/bybee.htm
4 http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0204/bybee.htm
Related links:
Audio cable break in, analog vs. digital nonsense
Are audio cables guilty of sonic differences?
Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Lacovara
11/2/2010 4:16 PM EDT
If we started doing engineering tests of all the audio product garbage, we'd be doing ourselves a great disfavor. First, the astonishing claims of "openness, flow, dynamic headroom, interoperable transdimensional frequency displacement, and completion of hyperspacial revolving transportals" would be replace with Bode diagrams. Dull. Next, we wouldn't have the chance to see just who buys a polarized cable to be used in only one direction of sound flow. And there wouldn't be jobs for audio salesmen with better knowledge of beer labels than audio. No, we shouldn't peer too closely into the outer limits of audio accessories. Now look: are there artifacts that are easier to hear than to measure. I'll bet there are. I don't hear as well as a friend of mine, a superior electrical engineer and musician, and when he tells me that there's something wrong with an audio setup, I tend to believe him. On the other hand, he does not believe in either the Easter Bunny or mystical audio effects: he might say "hey, these speakers are really boomy" or "this room has too much in the way of hard walls". I've yet to hear that microscopic cracks in the bearings of a CD player are introducing ultrasonic overtones into the digital playback of anything. But then, he's an engineer, not a retreaded car salesman. To be fair to audio salesmen, I've run into two who seemed to actually know something about their products and music as well. They were a refreshing change. But let's not drive out the witch doctors quite yet: they are sooooooo much fun.
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
11/2/2010 5:38 PM EDT
I agree Bob, we shouldn't drive out the witch doctors, since they help sell products. Audio quality is subjective, and if someone thinks he needs a device that "strips quantum noise energy off the electrons" because to him it sounds better, then by all means someone needs to be there to sell it to him.
The placebo effect is very powerful!
Sign in to Reply
kdboyce
11/4/2010 2:34 AM EDT
Of course we can't forget the blind test between metal coat hangers straightened out and connected to speakers versus Monster cables in which the listeners were told both were Monster cables. The listeners could not detect any difference between the two. In fact, some claimed the coat hangers sounded better.
I'm betting on the coat hangers since ALL the electrons stay bound together in one medium instead of being split across multiple wire strands only to be joined again at the other end. Can you trust that the electrons went back together at the speaker end in the exact same manner as they were sent from the amplifier? Not me!
Sign in to Reply
Bob Lacovara
11/4/2010 9:48 AM EDT
Hey, kdboyce, them's fighting words... you lay off the metal coat hangers! For all we know, the increased resistance was of use in damping the system response. (Insert here your favorite quasi-engineering explanation. Mine is... ) Skin effect in the coat hanger raises the resistance even above that of the rat-gut steel that they make them out of, and was precisely the right amount of damping resistance to smooth out any abrupt transitions in the speaker's frequency response. And just the same, this is not a problem for the exotic-cable crowd, but an opportunity. How hard can it be to make oxygen-free solid copper coat hangers? With banana plugs? Just don't put a heavy coat on one by accident.
Sign in to Reply
kdboyce
11/5/2010 1:29 AM EDT
Bob, you have some points, but I would like to add that the test was with the older style metal coat hangers where there was real metal, not cheap knockoffs. You could really hang a coat and a pair of pants on those without them folding up in the middle. But I digress.....
With the new ones that sag, the electrons will also fall off a bit as they round the curve resulting in a loss of fidelity, also lag somewhat compared to a rigid one resulting in phase differences, and all in all probably adversely affect the sound, although I am not quite sure how just now. Just a feeling.. :)
Somewhere there must be a machine able to measure these things.
Sign in to Reply
David Ashton
11/5/2010 3:55 AM EDT
Aren't we all just a little bit envious that there are guys out there who can package up 0R025 resistors and sell them for $ 92 each??
The trouble with engineers is that (technically anyway) they have maybe a tad too much integrity for the rest of the population. There are guys with more money than sense who get a kick out of buying things from these snake oil salesmen, and I'm far from being sure that we shouldn't let the snake oil salesmen do their worst. Then WE can get a kick (not to mention a feeling of superiority) out of NOT being conned by said S.O.S'men.
But where do you draw the line? If you allow these SOS to do what they do, shouldn't you also allow the smooth talking pyramid scheme salesmen who con little old ladies out of their life savings and leave them destitute?
Difficult one.....
Sign in to Reply
rpell2
11/5/2010 1:06 PM EDT
Asho_#1's comments bring to mind the following amusing cartoon involving engineers and "Spinal Tap amplifiers" (originally submitted by a reader for a previous Audio DesignLine blog post):
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/spinal_tap_amps.png
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
11/5/2010 1:39 PM EDT
Thanks for reminding me of Spinal Tap -- what a classic movie! And the engineer in the last panel of the cartoon has exactly the right attitude: "For $2000, I'll build you one that goes to 12."
As engineers, our #1 job is to give the customer what he wants, not to tell him he doesn't need it!
Sign in to Reply
kdboyce
11/9/2010 11:58 AM EST
More correctly, what the customer will pay for!!
If for any reason we have a moral problem with any of it, we clearly need to choose not to participate.
Sign in to Reply
stuart.yaniger
11/27/2010 3:34 PM EST
The amusing part will be the squeals of outrage from the True Believers, who themselves won't bother to gather any contrary data.
My personal feeling is that if you're gullible enough to swallow this, you deserve to get taken.
Sign in to Reply
Robotics Developer
11/27/2010 11:01 PM EST
In my early days I enjoyed Audiophile equipment and tried the big buck cabling versus standard multiple sets of zip cord. What did I find? No difference! Surprise, NOT. I did find a few things that made a difference: speakers and (in those days anyway) the turntable/cartridge. They impacted the most because they were involved in the conversion from electrical to mechanical realms. Amps/pre-amps only made a difference if they were: underpowered or had high THD. I did have a preference for the sound from the tube amp (seemed warmer) but that I think was due to the even versus odd harmonics in the distortion numbers. Anyone have similar/different experiences?
Sign in to Reply
r3son8tr
12/1/2010 10:29 AM EST
Anyone recall teh "Tice Clock"? It was a $20 digital clock from Radio Shack that was "treated" I believe magnetically to "remove randomness" from the motion of electronics in the AC wiring of your audio system. Or some such nonsense.
Audiophiles fall for this stuff because the days of true "tweaking" are long gone. They used to be able to spend hours adjusting the weight of their tonearms, changing cartridges, replacing and testing vacuum tubes until they were satisfied they had the best sound (and these were all real things that had an effect on the sound quality!). Now everything is digital and sealed up, so all you can do is buy some silly device with magical properties. The supposed improvement in audio quality is directly proportional to the cost of the device.
Sign in to Reply
jcdrisc
5/28/2011 3:00 PM EDT
Plenty of sanity here.
Bob Pease too has contributed much
to a rational debate on esoteric audio claims.
My most recent encounter with snake oil was
magic rock "quantum purifiers" at about a hundred bucks apiece you are urged to clamp on cables.
I love audio but am not easily fooled.
Good old WC Fields was sure right about those
suckers.
Sign in to Reply