Why HiFi Gear Measurements Are Misleading (yes ASR talking to you…)

@thespeakerdude , the cable changed not me. How do I know? Because I had a control (the original cable).

Did you know which cable was in the system, or did you have someone switch it such that you did not know?

And actually the >1.5m is the guidance for USB according to some - pretty easy to google. Even Mark Coles of Sablon confirmed to me that he’s heard that as well (he said he hadn’t heard that for AES/ SPDIF). But as I mentioned I don’t believe this is “scientifically proven” anywhere. As a side note I repeated this finding with a .7m Audioquest Diamond USB cable that sounded very compressed and closed in compared to the equivalent 1.5m Diamond. I even preferred a generic USB cable to the .7m version of the Diamond.

The 1.5 meter is definitely for SPDIF and there is a good explanation for it. I have a formula written down.  (Rise time)/(1.5 * 3) in feet.  SPDIF rise time first google hit = 25nsec. Cable = (25/4.5) = 5.5 feet = 1.7 meters. USB rise time 0.3nsec first google for 2.0. That is 0.3/(1.5*3) = 0.07 feet.  I think if a cable supplier has not heard of the 1.5 meter thing with SPDIF, you need a new cable supplier. Maybe you were having some noise issues?

cleeds,

Amir does listen to much of what he reviews. You know it.

And in the instances he does not, when you say Amir merely has a "wordy rationalizations to justify that - undermines whatever science he’s trying to pursue."

That is a completely unsupported claim on your part. He may well have a perfectly good justification. It’s like if you claimed that I need to come to your place to see your Perpetual Motion machine, and if I point out that current understanding of physics suggests your claim is so unlikely it’s not worth my while to make such a trip. The reason for not bothering to "go see your perpetual machine" would BE based on currently understood science!    You could try to dismiss my reasons as some "wordy rationalization" but that does NOT actually address the REASONS. It’s just a dismissal of an argument using a lazy characterization rather than an actual rebuttal.

Likewise, if Amir doesn't listen to a certain component after measuring, he may well be justified based on all sorts of studies and science that tell us "X won't be audible."

If you want to point to specific examples to make your case, and you can show why Amir was unjustified in not listening...be my guest.

prof

... It's like if you claimed that I need to come to your place to see your Perpetual Motion machine, and if I point out that current understanding of physics suggests your claim is so unlikely it's not worth my while to make such a trip.  You could try to dismiss my reasons ...

That's the logical fallacy of the Exluded Middle. Don't be silly.

If you want to point to specific examples to make your case, and you can show why Amir was unjustified in not listening...be my guest.

I've already done that. In my view, a test of an audio component is not complete without a listening evaluation. I understand you disagree, and that Amir disagrees vehemently. So be it.

https://www.theaudiobeat.com/visits/shunyata_visit_interview.htm

All I get from this @andy2 is that you can fool Michael Fremer all of the time. I will defer to @amir_asr who I believe is an EE, but even I can tell that article is just blowing smoke. An honest article would hook up the power cable to an off the shelf unmodified audio product and show the measured waves with AC input not a fake input.

If you want to point to specific examples to make your case

I think Amir needs to test equipment using transient methods.  I think his tests mostly are done using frequency domain which is steady state.  Most of stuffs in music happens in transient.