# Dilemma: Should I not believe any reviewers who talk about cables or just ignore that section of their review?



## DNZGamer

Ever since I got linked to that whole "cables" topic and read the ridiculous number of sources repeating that from basically regular listeners all the way to top audio engineers and reviewers could not distinguish cables in blind testing, I have been highly conflicted about reviews on this site.

 Recently just read a review about another IEM and in it, the cables are being mentioned as enhancing the bass, helping with soundstage and imaging. Sounds like a big difference...
   
  But these are $200 cables while audio professionals can't tell the difference between $10 cables and $1000 cables or even coat hangers in the most extreme case...
   
  So then should I believe the rest of what these people say or is it just as likely to be as inaccurate? Or do cables still make a difference beyond just peoples imaginations?
   
  The dilemma here is that if I was to take these reviewers seriously, it would mean that I believe in cables making a difference despite all the empirical and scientific findings... If I don't believe that cables make a difference, then I am assuming they are talking out of their ass when it comes to sound and that anything they say is probably worthless!
   
  Someone tell me what to believe and make it simple!


----------



## Magick Man

Usually when I see lots of hyperbole about cables in a review I stop reading.


----------



## Kernmac

You seem to have already formed an opinion regarding cables and therefore reliable/credible reviews.  As for empirical and scientific "proof", religions have been doing fine for thousands of years without the need.
   
  Take most reviews with a grain of salt regardless of whether they rely upon cable change or not.  As for cables, you already know there is no proof (measurable or subjective opinion through blind testing under controlled situations) of them making any difference; however "credible" posters report that they hear a difference.  Maybe they do and maybe they suffer from some type of McGurk/placebo effect, however I think it is safe to conclude that significant improvement is a crock, and that very subtle change may occur at best.  If cables change FR then why can't it be measured?  Maybe they "open the sound stage" or have some other slight impact, but change a headphone from something "sibilant" to "tamed" or increase bass quality/quantity etc. to make a headphone change from "didn't like" to just short of perfect?
   
  Don't ask people to tell you what *you should believe*, that isn't credible and will almost always result in differing opinions.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Someone tell me what to believe


 
  You must be joking.  That's shameful.


----------



## wakibaki

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Someone tell me what to believe and make it simple!


 
   
  Trust your instincts and reasoning.
   
  If people are writing unsupportable (in evidence terms) stuff about cables, the chances are very high that the rest of what they write is unsupportable (worthless).
   
  There are large numbers of essentially meaningless words which are used in audio reviews. A favourite put-down applied when the author can find nothing substantial to criticize in a piece of equipment's performance is to say that it was 'uninvolving'. Another is to say that it was 'fatigueing'.
   
  Since the whole point of a review is to nail down specific failings in a piece of equipment, anyone using words like these automatically disqualifies themselves as a credible reviewer.
   
  If you find sections in a review that you find hard to attribute a concrete meaning to, this is not a failing on your part, it's just part of an industry and a pastime that generates a lot of copy (written material) that sounds superficially impressive but means very little.
   
  Since it usually sounds like it was written with absolute conviction, It's very easy for a person without much exposure to such material to be be misled by it and to question their own judgement.
   
  w


----------



## anetode

Audio journalists are directly funded both by cable manufacturers and audio retailers. Any positive review of cables has a clear profit motive. If an audio journalist claims to hear a difference with a more expensive cable, they are either lying, self-deluded or stupid. I will note, however, that I for one would accept money to lie to people I don't know.


----------



## anetode

anaxilus said:


> You must be joking.  That's shameful.




On the contrary, I respect this level of honesty.


----------



## DNZGamer

wakibaki said:


> Trust your instincts and reasoning.
> 
> If people are writing unsupportable (in evidence terms) stuff about cables, the chances are very high that the rest of what they write is unsupportable (worthless).
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Seems like you are disqualifying the majority of the reviewers I have been reading. The natural question would be, who do you find credible? Is there a last bastion of Audio Sanity? Which reviewers moderate the amount of catch phrases that overtake content?
   
  Quote:


anetode said:


> Audio journalists are directly funded both by cable manufacturers and audio retailers. Any positive review of cables has a clear profit motive. If an audio journalist claims to hear a difference with a more expensive cable, they are either lying, self-deluded or stupid. I will note, however, that I for one would accept money to lie to people I don't know.


 
  That I believe, but I am talking about a lot of the reviewers here. In fact, the reports of cables are strangely sometimes consistent amongst different reviewers hinting at possibility of slight truth?
   
  Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> You must be joking.  That's shameful.


 
   
  Was mostly meant to be light hearted and highlight the fact that I get pretty confused when reading peoples reviews and am finding it hard to find good, solid reviews that give me a frame of reference. *Don't take it literally.* As someone who reads lots of movie reviews, music reviews, game reviews, restaurant reviews and all sorts of other reviews, I find audio reviews to be lacking coherency. How do I know a headphone really has a great soundstage and bass when someone says there wasn't great soundstage and bass before a cable upgrade? But these are respected members of the Head-Fi forums or respected reviewers in general. 

 All reviews hold personal bias but in other forms of media, I have been able to recognize why someone held certain opinions. It is \harder for me to extract the relevant information from audio gear reviews though.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> That I believe, but I am talking about a lot of the reviewers here. In fact, the reports of cables are strangely sometimes consistent amongst different reviewers hinting at possibility of slight truth?


 
   
  Expectation bias is strong. We have no way to know if there was marketing material that suggested a particular change, or if multiple reviewers did their reviews after reading someone else's (unconsciously biasing theirs). 
   
  When there is a conflict between subjective observation and measured/objective observation, it is rarely the objective that should be discarded.


----------



## mikeaj

There's a lot of group think, that's for sure.  A good amount of audiophile mythology has a basis in reality though, but a lot doesn't.
   
  I don't think that kooky language, discussions on audio quality of cables, etc. should be considered as disqualifying factors when looking at a review as opposed to another.  I mean, a lot more people would be reporting differences in cables if they tried listening themselves, if they already didn't know that the idea was ridiculous (because people are inclined to hear differences in general).  There's just a difference in expectations and the filtering and processing of one's thoughts, between members of the two camps—not anything like some fundamental difference in aural acuity or trustworthiness.
   
  You can get some useful information if you think critically and don't take anything at face value.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





wakibaki said:


> If people are writing unsupportable (in evidence terms) stuff about cables, the chances are very high that the rest of what they write is unsupportable (worthless).


 
  Exactly. These people would have us believe we should trust their ears, since we're not present to hear what they're hearing. So if they "hear wires" that tells me their hearing is not as good as mine, and that they are delusional too.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

In the end, why make it a matter of belief in -other- people's opinion: if this bugs you, keep an eye out for the next headfi-type meet in your area, go there and -listen for yourself-! I'm sure there will be plenty of high-end equipment, connected by equally high-end cabling. Now they won't necessarily let you swap cables, but there may be someone with equipment you are familiar with, using fancy cables, for a comparison. And generally, the whole thing should be fun either way.
   
  I would think that IF cables do make a difference, the most obvious place for that would be the ones going straight to the headphone, which is also where the strongest statements, bordering on potentially verifiably audible, are made (ex.: silver cabling enhances treble, makes headphones "brighter") Maybe bring your own favorite headphones that are familiar-sounding, and see if you can try a pair of upgraded ones, or if yours have removable cabling, ask to swap.
   
  Generally, since I joined Head-Fi, I have read (and learned!) a lot to put things in perspective, and read between the lines of flowery prose for info that would be relevant to my listening experience. I also spent quite some money -_-;; on pretty decent equipment  (which I do enjoy a lot) to have a point of comparison when I read reviews or comments, and how much of a difference it would make to my own experience (Hint: at a certain price point, the difference will ALWAYS be (very) subtle, even or especially if somebody writes that the equipment (or cable) "wipes the floor" with every other similar piece... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) And like others wrote: similar opinions are not necessarily a reliable indication of the cable's performance...
   
  I personally have some upgraded cabling, for a number of reasons, but a change in sound quality isn't one of them. After many hours of listening, I still cannot hear any difference.
   
  However, since sound perception is a function of how the brain processes it, and if spending $$$$ makes one's brain think it sounds better and thus enjoy music more, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But I think it IS wrong to give people on a budget the impression that it's worth spending money on cables when they're better off putting it into components that have a -measurable- influence (Headphones first and foremost!!!, amps, DACs to a lesser extent...) or worse make them think that they can fix shortcomings in their current setup by swapping any cable in the chain... unless these are perceived, in which case the cable-swap may change that perception...


----------



## chrislangley4253

Quote: 





anetode said:


> Audio journalists are directly funded both by cable manufacturers and audio retailers. Any positive review of cables has a clear profit motive. If an audio journalist claims to hear a difference with a more expensive cable, they are either lying, self-deluded or stupid. I will note, however, that I for one would accept money to lie to people I don't know.


 
   
   
  false, false, false. It's not just people who are out to make a dollar that claim to hear a difference.
   
   
  Quote: 





kernmac said:


> You seem to have already formed an opinion regarding cables and therefore reliable/credible reviews.  As for empirical and scientific "proof", religions have been doing fine for thousands of years without the need.
> 
> Take most reviews with a grain of salt regardless of whether they rely upon cable change or not.  As for cables, you already know there is no proof (measurable or subjective opinion through blind testing under controlled situations) of them making any difference; however "credible" posters report that they hear a difference.  Maybe they do and maybe they suffer from some type of McGurk/placebo effect, however I think it is safe to conclude that significant improvement is a crock, and that very subtle change may occur at best.  If cables change FR then why can't it be measured?  Maybe they "open the sound stage" or have some other slight impact, but change a headphone from something "sibilant" to "tamed" or increase bass quality/quantity etc. to make a headphone change from "didn't like" to just short of perfect?
> 
> Don't ask people to tell you what *you should believe*, that isn't credible and will almost always result in differing opinions.


 
  +1
   
   
  Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> There's a lot of group think, that's for sure.  A good amount of audiophile mythology has a basis in reality though, but a lot doesn't.
> 
> I don't think that kooky language, discussions on audio quality of cables, etc. should be considered as disqualifying factors when looking at a review as opposed to another.  I mean, a lot more people would be reporting differences in cables if they tried listening themselves, if they already didn't know that the idea was ridiculous (because people are inclined to hear differences in general).  There's just a difference in expectations and the filtering and processing of one's thoughts, between members of the two camps—not anything like some fundamental difference in aural acuity or trustworthiness.
> 
> You can get some useful information if you think critically and don't take anything at face value.


 
  +5


----------



## wakibaki

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Seems like you are disqualifying the majority of the reviewers I have been reading. The natural question would be, who do you find credible? Is there a last bastion of Audio Sanity? Which reviewers moderate the amount of catch phrases that overtake content?
> 
> I ... am finding it hard to find good, solid reviews that give me a frame of reference. But these are respected members of the Head-Fi forums or respected reviewers in general.


 
   
  Try googling 'objective audio equipment reviews', or look for 'The Audio Critic'. Unfortunately the vast majority of contemporary reviewers are not credible, in my opinion. You could view Ethan Winer's (the same Ethan who has replied to your thread) AES Audio Myths Workshop on YouTube:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ. This doesn't consist of reviews, but the material provides a sound basis for evaluating reviews and reviewers.
   
  w


----------



## jgray91

IMO "fatiguing" still counts if it's in a review. I don't know about you wakibaki, but for some that are sensitive to treble, me including, using a treble forward can tire their ears, and sometimes are painful. Maybe I should word that better to indicate only me. I am still learning a lot, and would be happy to be proved wrong in a polite manner.


----------



## wakibaki

If a piece of equipment exhibits forward treble, then you say it has forward treble and leave yourself open to being proved wrong by somebody with measuring equipment.
   
  In which case everybody knows what the criticism is and has the opportunity to judge if it's valid.
   
  No. Fatigueing, (pardon my archaic spelling), is employed when critics (who may well be aware that the FR has no measurable anomalies) wish anyway to say something negative without leaving themselves open to contradiction.
   
  w


----------



## proton007

@DNZ
  You do see that the cable forum is marked as DBT Free, right? Its a world of magic and fairies and elves. They exist for those who "believe" in them, same for a lot of things in this world.


----------



## Magick Man

jgray91 said:


> IMO "fatiguing" still counts if it's in a review. I don't know about you wakibaki, but for some that are sensitive to treble, me including, using a treble forward can tire their ears, and sometimes are painful. Maybe I should word that better to indicate only me. I am still learning a lot, and would be happy to be proved wrong in a polite manner.



No, I agree with you. I have the same issue with cans that are bass heavy. It really bothers my eardrums after a while.


----------



## germanium

There are differences in cables & sometimes not so subtle but these diferences are not caused by the cables alone & some sources can be be nonresponsive to different cables whereas others can make quite a large difference. This mostly has to do with output impedance of the source. High capacitance cables on a high output impedance source or preamp can make the sound quite lifeless wheras the same cables on a lower output impedace source or preamp will show no difference at all.
   
  A note concerning ABX testing, the ABX testing equipment can in some cases offer too low of resolution to properly test these type of perameters but can be plainly audible in direct connected setups. I have seen in some situations stereo switch gear in retail stores for hifi equipment significantly degrade sound to the point that high end great sounding amps sounded no better than some really mediocre stuff even by midfi standards when hooked to the comparator switches. You will notice that most highend shops always direct connect there higher end amps & sources. Thier lower end stuff is usually but not always hooked to these swtches to make comparisons easy but not the really highend stuff because they want this equipment to put it's best foot forward
   
  When I was using a preamp & stand alone sources I made my own cables that were ultra low capacitance as that was the only way that I was able to get the life like sound I so craved. My curent setup is not cable sensitive at all. It has a low output impedance compared to my standalone sources & preamp did 100 ohms compared to over 600 ohms. This almost matched the characteristic impedance of most audio cables (50-75ohms). Iknow most people don't believe that that can make a difference but in some cases it can.
   
  My current system can match the sound heard in the studio from the instruments themselves, not just the studio playback equipment but the instruments themselves. That I am very pleased with my setup. I listened to recordings made at that studio on my system & compared it to the sound that I heard from the live piano (the recording used that same piano) & the sound is practically an exact match for the tonal & dynamic charactristics of that instrument. Everthing was there in it's proper proportions.
   
  Many times people use recording that were made poorly & many time have sounds that are clipped & think the equipment is bad because it didn't make it sound like the angels coming down from heaven. The equipment is fine in most cases. It's called garbage in, garbage out. Good equipment will reveal that wheras mediocre equipment will often times gloss over this bad sounding recordings but really bad equipment may not just reveal the problem but add it's own garbage as well or have so much of it's own garbage that  even the better portion of these recordings & even proper made recordings sound bad. Thats when you have a real problem.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> @DNZ
> You do see that the cable forum is marked as DBT Free, right? Its a world of magic and fairies and elves. They exist for those who "believe" in them, same for a lot of things in this world.


 
   
  Actually, I never did notice that... Only time I went was to ask for help on how to get rid of the really annoying microphonics on my cable and looked in awe as some people purchased cables worth more than their headphones.


----------



## Magick Man

germanium said:


> *There are differences in cables & sometimes not so subtle* but these diferences are not caused by the cables alone & some sources can be be nonresponsive to different cables whereas others can make quite a large difference. This mostly has to do with output impedance of the source. High capacitance cables on a high output impedance source or preamp can make the sound quite lifeless wheras the same cables on a lower output impedace source or preamp will show no difference at all.
> 
> A note concerning ABX testing, the ABX testing equipment can in some cases offer too low of resolution to properly test these type of perameters but can be plainly audible in direct connected setups. I have seen in some situations stereo switch gear in retail stores for hifi equipment significantly degrade sound to the point that high end great sounding amps sounded no better than some really mediocre stuff even by midfi standards when hooked to the comparator switches. You will notice that most highend shops always direct connect there higher end amps & sources. Thier lower end stuff is usually but not always hooked to these swtches to make comparisons easy but not the really highend stuff because they want this equipment to put it's best foot forward



That's never been proven in any test, ever. Not trying to sound harsh here, and from an aesthetic point of view I like nice cables, but until someone can show me real, peer-tested proof, I have to say that claims of audible differences are hogwash.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Actually, I never did notice that... Only time I went was to ask for help on how to get rid of the really annoying microphonics on my cable and looked in awe as some people purchased cables worth more than their headphones.


 
   
  You'll find buyers for anything if you can convince them. Whether you want to be that buyer is up to you. There's something in it for sure. Not quantifiable, but there's no substitute for mental satisfaction.


----------



## Magick Man

It's stuff like this that drives me crazy. :rolleyes:


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





magick man said:


> It's stuff like this that drives me crazy.


 
   
  I don't think anyone should concern themselves with stuff like this, thats the only way to maintain one's sanity.


----------



## jgray91

Quote: 





wakibaki said:


> If a piece of equipment exhibits forward treble, then you say it has forward treble and leave yourself open to being proved wrong by somebody with measuring equipment.
> 
> In which case everybody knows what the criticism is and has the opportunity to judge if it's valid.
> 
> ...


 
   
  A fair point, but if the reviewer states that, in this example, a headphone has a forward treble and because of his sensitivity that makes his ears hurt, I still think there's a chance that it is still valid point of view. I'm trying to think of a way to put this as nicely as possible, but just because you may not have problems with [insert frequency range here], doesn't mean others too doesn't have that problem; and for them that sensitivity can be tiring. I think a lack of proper description that makes it vague. 
   
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  This is interesting. I assume that it would be the air moved that's causing such discomfort from bass.
   
  Again, maybe my lack of knowledge and experience is in play here, and that's why I stay on this side of the fence; to learn.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





germanium said:


> There are differences in cables & sometimes not so subtle but these diferences are not caused by the cables alone & some sources can be be nonresponsive to different cables whereas others *snip*


 
   
  There is so much wrong with this entire post, that I almost despair.


----------



## akiroz

Cables IMO should not make any difference unless you're talking about a VERY long (over 100m), badly constructed cable.
 If you look at this from a electronics POV, any decent cable will have negligible impedance compared the the PCB traces in your audio equipments them selfs. So if cables DO distort the signal, it would've been distorted long ago inside your equipment, not to mention all the components your signal passes through.
  Incase you're using a very long badly constructed cable, things like EMI pickup would've been the biggest problem compared to the cable's impedance (as in cable acting as a capacitor to the ground and inductance from coiling the cable.).


----------



## Tilpo

akiroz said:


> Cables IMO should not make any difference unless you're talking about a VERY long (over 100m), badly constructed cable.
> 
> If you look at this from a electronics POV, any decent cable will have negligible impedance compared the the PCB traces in your audio equipments them selfs. So if cables DO distort the signal, it would've been distorted long ago inside your equipment, not to mention all the components your signal passes through.
> Incase you're using a very long badly constructed cable, things like EMI pickup would've been the biggest problem compared to the cable's impedance (as in cable acting as a capacitor to the ground and inductance from coiling the cable.).



This.

Also most equipment uses relatively low gauge copper hookup wire, and most of the wiring inside the headphone is just ridiculously low gauge.

Also from a psychological point of view it is also very easy to explain why people are hearing difference while there are none.


----------



## jgray91

Spoiler: Relevant%20quote



 

 Quote: 





jgray91 said:


> wakibaki said:
> 
> 
> > If a piece of equipment exhibits forward treble, then you say it has forward treble and leave yourself open to being proved wrong by somebody with measuring equipment.
> ...


 
   
   


   
  So Tilpo found out this to say about listening fatigue. I just thought I should share it with people here also. I'm open to more opinion on this one though. Thanks Tilpo.
   
   


tilpo said:


> I fount the following quote after a bit of googling:
> 
> (source)
> 
> ...


 

   
  Of course this is more to do with speakers than with headphones, but I thought some of the points in there seems relevant to headphones too.


----------



## anetode

Headphones have additional factors that contribute to listening fatigue, not the least of which is fit comfort.


----------



## jgray91

Well fit comfort and external ear comfort is very real, as any should now. I guess I didn't clarify much what I meant as listening fatigue in my experience. At least for me, listening fatigue is my eardrums in pain after a while listening to a particular headphones.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *wakibaki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> You could view Ethan Winer's (the same Ethan who has replied to your thread) AES Audio Myths Workshop on YouTube:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ. This doesn't consist of reviews, but the material provides a sound basis for evaluating reviews and reviewers.


 

 Thanks very much. Not to be too much of a shill, but my new book explains all of this in far more detail:
   
The Audio Expert
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Tilpo

ethanwiner said:


> Thanks very much. Not to be too much of a shill, but my new book explains all of this in far more detail:
> 
> The Audio Expert
> 
> --Ethan



I've been hoping for a long time that a book like that existed. Now I know it does. 
If only it weren't that expensive, since I would absolutely love to read it.


----------



## wakibaki

Quote: 





jgray91 said:


> IMO "fatiguing" still counts if it's in a review. I don't know about you wakibaki, but for some that are sensitive to treble, me including, using a treble forward can tire their ears, and sometimes are painful. Maybe I should word that better to indicate only me. I am still learning a lot, and would be happy to be proved wrong in a polite manner.


 
   
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> No, I agree with you. I have the same issue with cans that are bass heavy. It really bothers my eardrums after a while.


 
   
  So here is a case in point.
   
  jgray91 finds 'forward treble' fatiguing.
   
  Magick Man finds cans that are 'bass heavy' fatiguing.
   
  So What does 'fatiguing' mean when I read it in a review with no qualification? One place I have often seen this is when some forum pundit says that he finds amplifiers with a lot of global feedback fatiguing.
   
  It means that the reviewer wants to discourage you from liking or buying that product in favour of another product, we know *that* anyway. What we don't know is *why* and whether there is any basis for his remarks in reality, and we do know that either jgray91 or Magick Man has (or both have) been incorrectly advised against the product.
   
  w


----------



## Magick Man

It means my inner ear starts hurting. That's all.


----------



## DNZGamer

Hey look, I learned (or unlearned) what fatiguing really means now. I always thought it meant too much treble energy which apparently was fatiguing to some reviewers while others didn't say specifically why it was fatiguing so I always assumed it was too much treble.
    
   
  Yes, this makes it extremely hard for me to tell what part of reviews are actually accurate and which parts are psycho acoustics. There is absolutely no reason why psycho acoustics would be limited to just cables. If someone finds such dramatic differences where none should exist, how do I know that his musical enjoyment isn't as directly affected by the advertising, the brand (and what they are known for) or even the color of the headphones. 
   
  Quote:


tilpo said:


> This.
> Also most equipment uses relatively low gauge copper hookup wire, and most of the wiring inside the headphone is just ridiculously low gauge.
> Also from a psychological point of view it is also very easy to explain why people are hearing difference while there are none.


----------



## jgray91

Quote: 





wakibaki said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Woah woah, hold the freaking phone. What is it with you and "reviews" anyway. Calm down. 
   
  Okay you seem to have just ignored some things that other member(s) have pointed out to me what could be a factor for listening fatigue. There's this one that Tilpo showed me. Then there's Magick Man showing that listening fatigue is not only exclusive to forward treble, despite my understanding before. This to me that this "imagined problem" is differently affecting some people.
   
  I also described what my understanding of ear fatigue is to me, in addition to me sensitivity to forward treble, here.
   
  Yes I know there's quite a lot of shoddy reviews out there, especially the ones that read as a poem or a romance novel. I don't read those kinds of things. Heck I wish I could write as imaginative like them but for non-audio stuff.
   
  Overall, IMO this just shows me that I am sensitive to forward treble, and I have to be a little bit more cautious of that aspect as that could sully my enjoyment of any gear I decided to survey out. I'm just trying to understand what makes me (and others) tick a little bit more. I can't help it to be a bit more guarded with my spending regarding this hobby, since I have no practical way to audition headphones here and so people's review is the only way to gamble on things. So far, I already have mentally listed those who I can less sceptically trust of their reviews, and the way they recommend stuff when asked is also very deliberately thought out.
   
  I'm also perplexed at the implied amount of venom regarding this. My god. I'll just follow this thread quietly from now on.


----------



## Chris J

Interesting thread..............


----------



## Tilpo

I have done a tiny bit of research on what actually causes listening fatigue, and what I found is that there is a _physiological _and a _psychological _form of listening fatigue, both very different.
The _physiological _'auditory fatigue' is related to over exposure to loud and/or high frequency sound which causes temporary damage to the ear.
The _psychological _'listening fatigue' is related to our brain spending too much effort on processing the sound. Most often the cause of this is stated as (high frequency) distortion. 

Then there is also comfort of the headphones physically causing (minor) pain or irritation to the pinna and the surrounding skin.



Some relevant quotes

Wikipedia article on Auditory Fatigue (source)


> Auditory fatigue is defined as a temporary loss of hearing after exposure to sound. This results in a temporary shift of the auditory threshold known as a temporary threshold shift (TTS)





(source) The entire thread is quite interesting and relevant


> Easy as pie to explain. And you know what's coming: too much low level, high frequency distortion being spat out of the speakers, and your ear/brain can only take so much of trying to digest it before calling it a day. If you put on a difficult recording and it sounds pretty mediocre then your system is producing this muck whether you can pick it otherwise or not, playing your "good" recordings; here it is largely disguised because the system seems to sound so good. But this disturbing quality is still there, and your ear/brain does a good job ignoring it for quite some significant time, until finally the mental muscle doing the heavy lifting of filtering out this unwanted addition has had enough, and then you have it, listening fatigue.





> Too much of just about anything can make ponies tired. Get enough of it, you'd probably suffer from sex fatigue. The simplicity of that, however, will not deter audiophiles from declaring "listening fatigue" to be a very specific disease of that which they do not prefer, which is immediately cured by that which they are invested in. For reference, see Frank's posts - any of them, really - in which all problems pour forth from the same well of low level high frequency distortion which can be eliminated, making even your clock radio sound like Steve's Lamm/Wilson system, by any number of mysterious methods involving solder, concrete blocks and unplugging all the hair dryers from your neighborhood's power grid.




From the same thread I mentioned earlier to jgray (source)


> However, in addition, there is also ear fatigue This happens when the nerve endings in the ear have been so overwhelmed by loud sounds that they can no longer respond properly to the frequencies received.
> 
> Either "mental fatigue" or "ear fatiguge" should not be confused with a simply annoying sound system, whether caused by the original recording, the mix, the mastering or the playback system. Even aside from distortion factors (there are actually some times of distortion that our brains "like" - more on that below), if a system is very "peaky" in the 2-4KHz range, that can be very annoying. And sometimes a very unbalanced system, one that drops out the entire midrange, can sound quite pleasant.




A reasonable explanation by a fellow forum member (source)


> I think that fatigue stems mainly from what your ears are not used to, if you experience a new and unfamiliar headphone sound, it is more likely to be fatiguing.
> 
> Listening fatigue manifests in many ways depending on how wide one casts the net of its definition. The mane catagory would be that your ears or head start to hurt or feel acutely uncomfortable during listening. Discomfort or pressure from headphones which do not fit suitably, irritation from prolonged wearing. All of these are types of fatigue.


----------



## germanium

If cables didn't make any difference at all I would not have went to the effort of making my own when I had my seperates setup (Amps, preamp & sources). They did make a difference there for the reasons I gave & i said what the differences were. My current setup is not cable sensitive again for the reasons I gave. Why do you guys have such a problem with that. By the way I'm not talking of speaker wire that has adaquate dimentions as those can be quite long though bear in mind some poorly made amps can be very sensitive to some speaker wire configurations as well & some amp companies will only warrantee thier amps if you use thier speaker wire as a result as other wire can cause them instability. Kimber cable speaker wire has been known to cause stability issues with some amps for example.
   
  So the verdict in my head anyway is that wire can make a difference at least in some cases, not just sonically but with some speaker cable even loss of stability.


----------



## Tilpo

germanium said:


> If cables didn't make any difference at all I would not have went to the effort of making my own when I had my seperates setup (Amps, preamp & sources). They did make a difference there for the reasons I gave & i said what the differences were. My current setup is not cable sensitive again for the reasons I gave. Why do you guys have such a problem with that. By the way I'm not talking of speaker wire that has adaquate dimentions as those can be quite long though bear in mind some poorly made amps can be very sensitive to some speaker wire configurations as well & some amp companies will only warrantee thier amps if you use thier speaker wire as a result as other wire can cause them instability. Kimber cable speaker wire has been known to cause stability issues with some amps for example.
> 
> So the verdict in my head anyway is that wire can make a difference at least in some cases, not just sonically but with some speaker cable even loss of stability.



Don't feel offended or insulted, but my personal interpretation of the reason people hear differences between different cables is because of psychological factors related to sighted listening tests, esp. expectation bias.
How can you be sure that whatever differences you may be hearing aren't caused by the fact that you expect differences to be there? 

This effect readily explains why even large changes that are reported during sighted listening tests suddenly disappear when done blind, even when switched by hand without a switch box. Additionally, the effect of expectation bias is so big it can even make unreactive substances measurably improve a medical condition, i.e. the well known placebo effect. 

The fact that you hear differences does not mean there are differences. So out of honest interest I'm wondering how you are able to assert the differences you perceive as 'true', and not as a result of expectation bias.


Edit: and as liamstrain pointed out there are indeed cases where the cable has measurable negative effects on the system because it is not used as intended. But I think it's a fair assumption to make that those kind of situations don't occur in a normal audio chain with headphones.


----------



## liamstrain

Sorry Germanium - you have not presented any evidence at all to support your assertion. There is no evidence that has been presented by anyone, ever, to support that cables ever have, or are even capable of making a difference.* That you believe you heard differences does not mean that the cables actually made a difference. 
   
_* except for those instances where they are of insufficient gauge for the application, or otherwise made incorrectly and generating ground loops or etc._


----------



## Happy Camper

We all start off not believing because audio language is foreign and no references common to us noobs exist. It's when you start doing your own investigation that you begin to learn the language and magnitude of impact (if any). 

I have found cables and power cords to have some impact. The things it impacted was not what I had experience listening for. When I went from a test cable back to my baseline cable, I could tell some slight variances. I would say that ICs are like tone controls. And as has been mentioned, not every component will have the same impact using that IC. Power cords also have an effect on some devices, in particular amps. 

The big issue is whether the cost is worth the difference. The vast majority will conclude that no, it's not worth the cost. But taking price out of the equation and having the opportunity to try different setups at your leisure and with your gear is the only way to learn. I certainly wouldn't spend my money trying to find out. But if you get an opportunity to try some different items, it's worth trying for your own peace of mind. If the article or review has financial implications, keep that in mind. If a hobbyist is giving their experience and it's like a component upgrade, they are embellishing their purchase. But there are a lot of us that have found a difference worth change that don't have a bias other than liking the sound better. For those who need empirical data to tell them what to do or how to spend their money, buy a radio shack set and let live. Superman was a comic book character and couldn't save the planet, don't try.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> I have found cables and power cords to have some impact. The things it impacted was not what I had experience listening for. When I went from a test cable back to my baseline cable, I could tell some slight variances. I would say that ICs are like tone controls. And as has been mentioned, not every component will have the same impact using that IC. Power cords also have an effect on some devices, in particular amps.


 
   
   
  Do you have any testable evidence to back this up? Objective data of any kind?


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> We all start off not believing because audio language is foreign and no references common to us noobs exist. It's when you start doing your own investigation that you begin to learn the language and magnitude of impact (if any).
> I have found cables and power cords to have some impact. The things it impacted was not what I had experience listening for. When I went from a test cable back to my baseline cable, I could tell some slight variances. I would say that ICs are like tone controls. And as has been mentioned, not every component will have the same impact using that IC. Power cords also have an effect on some devices, in particular amps.
> The big issue is whether the cost is worth the difference. The vast majority will conclude that no, it's not worth the cost. But taking price out of the equation and having the opportunity to try different setups at your leisure and with your gear is the only way to learn. I certainly wouldn't spend my money trying to find out. But if you get an opportunity to try some different items, it's worth trying for your own peace of mind. If the article or review has financial implications, keep that in mind. If a hobbyist is giving their experience and it's like a component upgrade, they are embellishing their purchase. But there are a lot of us that have found a difference worth change that don't have a bias other than liking the sound better. For those who need empirical data to tell them what to do or how to spend their money, buy a radio shack set and let live. Superman was a comic book character and couldn't save the planet, don't try.


 
  I think you are missing the point. I am not attacking people who believe in cables as long as it gives them a better sound.

 I am talking about the REVIEWERS on this forum and otherwise. Respected individuals who influence the popularity of products and where people spend their hard earned money. If these reports are based on psycho acoustics more than reality then it reduces the credibility of the audio industry. There is a difference between one person not liking a certain bass presentation while another does. This is reporting on differences that don't even exist which is false reporting.
   
  Many of the blind test subjects who were audio professionals went completely back on what they said previously after blind tests and many choose the cheaper cables as the superior ones.
   
  An example of this issue that I have come across (and large part of why I made this topic as well):
   
  Reviewer reviews IEM X. Claims a $200 cable makes great differences and that the sound went from sibilant, fatiguing and thin to amazing so it is worth upgrading. Reviewer reviews another IEM that is supposedly better than the previous IEMs and cleans up on its faults including many listed to be solved by re-cabling. Those IEMs only cost $100+ more. If I never happened to stumble on the whole cable topic, I would have thought that cables were turning my headphones into the next price bracket. Also, what happens when someone else who also owns those headphones but non-recabled notices no differences and I am humiliated by how much I spent if he tries to blind test me? 

 Yes it is humiliating to realize you have been suckered...


----------



## Happy Camper

liamstrain said:


> Do you have any testable evidence to back this up? Objective data of any kind?




this circular argument is just that. You win, No effort to debate from me as I enjoy my music as I hear it, not how someone tells me I should. 

My point is not directed at the OP. It is directed at those that think that science has the world all packaged in neat, perfect explanations.


----------



## anetode

happy camper said:


> I would say that ICs are like tone controls.




They're not, unless you're speaking of ICs with gargantuan resistance.




happy camper said:


> But there are a lot of us that have found a difference worth change that don't have a bias other than liking the sound better.




While personal appraisals of worth are inescapably variable, I'm troubled by the lack of recognition of any bias on your behalf. I can think of a couple of the top of my head, leading with the classic of expectation bias. Indeed it's not the lack of electronics knowledge that frightens me so much with audiophiles but the lack of personal knowledge or understanding of psychology.



happy camper said:


> For those who need empirical data to tell them what to do or how to spend their money, buy a radio shack set and let live. Superman was a comic book character and couldn't save the planet, don't try.




Did you just attempt to portray a reliance on empirical observation as a _weakness_? That's rich! I think most people around here are talking about having some common sense rather than trying to be the next Ralph Nader.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Don't feel offended or insulted, but my personal interpretation of the reason people hear differences between different cables is because of psychological factors related to sighted listening tests, esp. expectation bias.
> How can you be sure that whatever differences you may be hearing aren't caused by the fact that you expect differences to be there?
> This effect readily explains why even large changes that are reported during sighted listening tests suddenly disappear when done blind, even when switched by hand without a switch box. Additionally, the effect of expectation bias is so big it can even make unreactive substances measurably improve a medical condition, i.e. the well known placebo effect.
> The fact that you hear differences does not mean there are differences. So out of honest interest I'm wondering how you are able to assert the differences you perceive as 'true', and not as a result of expectation bias.
> Edit: and as liamstrain pointed out there are indeed cases where the cable has measurable negative effects on the system because it is not used as intended. But I think it's a fair assumption to make that those kind of situations don't occur in a normal audio chain with headphones.


 
   
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Sorry Germanium - you have not presented any evidence at all to support your assertion. There is no evidence that has been presented by anyone, ever, to support that cables ever have, or are even capable of making a difference.* That you believe you heard differences does not mean that the cables actually made a difference.
> 
> _* except for those instances where they are of insufficient gauge for the application, or otherwise made incorrectly and generating ground loops or etc._


 
   
  While I agree that in many cases there is no scientific reason that there should be a difference other than the marketers say so & the reasons they give are not good scientific reasons, interaction of output impedance with cable capacitance in line level cabling is the primary diference that I was in fact able to hear. It was most easily heard with piano music which became lifeless with high capacitance cabling. The cables I made were under 100pf for one meter with connectors. All cables I tested that were available on the market & were in my price range had more than 125pf for one meter with connectors. These cables caused mild deadening of the piano sound & as I approached 200pf there was an increase in the deadening effect. My cables were 75pf with connectors for one meter & 56pf for 1/2 meter including connectors. You will not find any cables with lower capacitance on the market than my homemade cables. These were the cables that provided the most lifelike sound on piano. Piano is the most dificult instrument to reproduce as ther is a broad spectrum of harmonics & wide dynamicis in many cases. The losses are revealed very quickly on piano music more than any other. Some electric guitar works can also show it pretty well as well.The searing tone of an electric guitar that is played loud in it's upper registers gets lost pretty easily as well.
   
  By the way I'm not trying to sell anything here so I have no reason to trump up my claims & as you see I do not say that cabling makes a diffeence everywhere or that I have even heard a difference everwhere. Certainly not with my computer sound setup but certainly so on my seperates.
   
  My computer sound setup however is different as there is no difference in cabling sound  as far as I have been able to detect & the difference is a lower output impedance pushing these effects up beyond the audio range of human hearing. also the closer the output impedance is to the characteristic impedance of the cable the broader the frequency response of the system as a whole & the less cable sensitive your system will be. You want any visable on a scope sign of roll off to be well beyond human heaing as far as the cable-output impedance matchups are concerned


----------



## wakibaki

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Superman ... couldn't save the planet, don't try.


 
   
  Is that what you're going to teach your kids? Just roll over and show your yellow belly?
   
  You need to man up and stop swallowing the pap you're being spoonfed.
   
  w


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> "interaction of output impedance with cable capacitance in line level cabling is the primary diference that I was in fact able to hear."


 
   
   
  1. What is the theory that supports this will have an audible effect? 
   
  2. Did you do any blind testing to ensure you were level matching and eliminating bias? Or were you able to measure the signal changes (not just the impedance) to see if there were measurable differences?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> this circular argument is just that. You win, No effort to debate from me as I enjoy my music as I hear it, not how someone tells me I should.
> My point is not directed at the OP. It is directed at those that think that science has the world all packaged in neat, perfect explanations.


 
   
  You are free to enjoy your music. I do not intend to take that away from you. 
   
  However. Truth matters. If you are telling someone that a cable change affected your listening experience, I would expect you to be able to back that up - otherwise you are perpetuation a mythology that costs people millions of dollars needlessly (even if you, yourself, are not selling anything). The world may not be packaged in neat, perfect explanations - but that is neither a reason to suggest that some things cannot be measured or tested usefully, or that audio is somehow exempt from the rules that do bind so many other things. Perfect explanations may not be attainable - but we can strive for robust, workable, predictive ones. That's how we progress...something mythology has never done for us.
   
  I want to make audio better. Both for my personal enjoyment and the field as a whole. To do that, the first step is determining exactly where you actually can effect change. Rooting out money spent in the wrong areas, so it can be applied in the right ones is part of that step.


----------



## Happy Camper

Boys, these cable debates never end any differently. It becomes, prove it. The other side says, I don't care. It comes down to individual choice based on individual experience. Science tries to make a formula to explain the world around them and when it doesn't fit, they adjust their formula until it does. Art is in the eye (or ear) of the individual. Sometimes science has no explanation for it. There are literally thousands of these threads over the internet and they all end the same way. Oh yeah, says who? The scientist claims those not in conformance are foolish. Those that have found satisfaction in a difference don't give a rat's. 

Good day all.


----------



## anetode

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1tmkAFb_Os[/VIDEO]


----------



## akiroz

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> We all start off not believing because audio language is foreign and no references common to us noobs exist. It's when you start doing your own investigation that you begin to learn the language and magnitude of impact (if any).
> 
> I have found cables and power cords to have some impact. The things it impacted was not what I had experience listening for. When I went from a test cable back to my baseline cable, I could tell some slight variances. I would say that ICs are like tone controls. And as has been mentioned, not every component will have the same impact using that IC. Power cords also have an effect on some devices, in particular amps.
> 
> The big issue is whether the cost is worth the difference. The vast majority will conclude that no, it's not worth the cost. But taking price out of the equation and having the opportunity to try different setups at your leisure and with your gear is the only way to learn. I certainly wouldn't spend my money trying to find out. But if you get an opportunity to try some different items, it's worth trying for your own peace of mind. If the article or review has financial implications, keep that in mind. If a hobbyist is giving their experience and it's like a component upgrade, they are embellishing their purchase. But there are a lot of us that have found a difference worth change that don't have a bias other than liking the sound better. For those who need empirical data to tell them what to do or how to spend their money, buy a radio shack set and let live. Superman was a comic book character and couldn't save the planet, don't try.


 
  The differences you hear is most likely a phycological effect, I know because I've been there, try conducting some fair blind-testing yourself and you'd see what I mean.
  Either that or you have superhuman hearing abilities that I don't have.
   
  Power cables? Don't even get me started until you've re-cabled everything from your regional power plant all the way to your home and change all of the infrastructures in between. Incase you don't know, power companies don't use OFC or silver to make their cables, nor are the cables in your house or what ever you live in (Unless you've already re-cabled them.)
   
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  LOL, do keep in mind that cable capacitances are actually VERY small (in the magnitude of 1-10pF), This is smaller than the high-frequency filter capacitors used in amplifiers to remove unwanted supersonic frequencies and prevent oscillation in the amplifier (these capacitors are in the magnitude of around 100pF).
   
  Yes the theory and fair blind-testing results are very important if you're trying to prove something here, the phycological effects plays a large role in our listening experience.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Boys, these cable debates never end any differently. It becomes, prove it. The other side says, I don't care.





> *So one side has proof and one side doesn't... *





> It comes down to individual choice based on individual experience.





> *Its already proven that individuals don't experience this differently when not under external influences so this won't help the case either.*





> Science tries to make a formula to explain the world around them and when it doesn't fit, they adjust their formula until it does.





> *But in this situation, it is not the case. The science is extremely consistent and empirical on this subject.*





> Art is in the eye (or ear) of the individual.





> *Sounds like you are attempting to elevate your statements rather than prove them.*





> Sometimes science has no explanation for it.





> *What does this have to with our current discussion though? The science is very clear on this subject. No measurable differences and participants also proved no audible differences that the human ear can perceive beyond that of machines.*





> There are literally thousands of these threads over the internet and they all end the same way. Oh yeah, says who? The scientist claims those not in conformance are foolish. Those that have found satisfaction in a difference don't give a rat's.





> *What are you talking about now? Science took real people, the people who said there was a difference and tested them. Its the people who were tested that you should blame. They claimed there was a difference and failed to recognize them. You are coming off as a bit nutty right now. There isn't a bunch of four eyed nerds roaming around in lab coats telling people about cables. The proof has been documented by magazines, audiophiles, radio hosts, reviewers and audio professionals who previous advocated cables and a few scientists in the mix. *


----------



## DefQon

I've heard some slight differences in certain cables (Piccolino for one), but the difference is not day and night of what a lot of people claim to be. Those that claim that there new ALO cable has opened up the mids, made there listening experience less fatiguing and less bright is just a psychology effect in which there brain is telling them they want to believe in a difference between stock and there ALO cable when there isn't any. Unless your cable's by default has some defect in it or is badly constructed then you will hear a substantial amount of difference. 
   
  In the end, it's all about the aesthetics. You want to believe that there is a difference to make sure your new $500 cables are worth it, when there is no difference. It's sad to see that some spend 5x more on cables then there speakers or headphones.
   
  My 2c.


----------



## DNZGamer

Well I am not surprised people here differences (slight differences or otherwise) because I know how strong psycho acoustics can be. I was trying to ABX test some FLAC and MP3 files. At first I heard no differences and after awhile my mind started perceiving really great differences. I was quite confident I was recognizing differences when I heard the first two tracks. Then I heard the third and fourth and they ALL sounded really different... needless to say I failed the test even though I was confident there was differences even when none should have existed.
   
  I should also add that when it got to the point where I could recognize differences ( really low bit rate files), I realized I didn't know which one was better! Really sad but I think the minds perception will easily over weigh any minute audio quality changes.


----------



## akiroz

Quote: 





defqon said:


> I've heard some slight differences in certain cables (Piccolino for one), but the difference is not day and night of what a lot of people claim to be. Those that claim that there new ALO cable has opened up the mids, made there listening experience less fatiguing and less bright is just a psychology effect in which there brain is telling them they want to believe in a difference between stock and there ALO cable when there isn't any. Unless your cable's by default has some defect in it or is badly constructed then you will hear a substantial amount of difference.
> 
> In the end, it's all about the aesthetics. You want to believe that there is a difference to make sure your new $500 cables are worth it, when there is no difference. It's sad to see that some spend 5x more on cables then there speakers or headphones.
> 
> My 2c.


 
  $500 cable? this is just sad....
 A cable shouldn't cost more than around $20 because that's around the cost of cables used in professional audio (where the music is produced).
 *Note: when I say "cables used in professional audio" I'm talking about patch cables and interconnects under 10m in length, certainly not long microphone cables running 10's of meters.


----------



## DNZGamer

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Westone-UM3X-upgrade-cable-Baldur-MKII-/220744055558#ht_1002wt_1198
   
  I bought my UM3x for the same price as these cables. Why would I not just buy $500 earphones rather than spend $250 on cables and earphones?


----------



## proton007

To the OP:
  What would you rely more on? An eyewitness explaining a scene, or a video of the scene/CCTV?
  A camera doesn't lie, nor is it capable of bias and failure of recollection on its own.
  Same goes for audio.
  I think I read somewhere, the max you should consider spending on cables is 1-5% of your setup cost.


----------



## DNZGamer

Oh I have no interest in those cables. Just stating that there really are cables that cost as much as the products they are made for in the IEM realm. I think those cables look ugly anyways.
   
  The only reason I would every buy cables that cost a lot would be for portability, some innovative design, excellent aesthetic or issues with my normal cables. I am just saying that Psychoacoustics could affect enjoyment even more than actual improvements given the right circumstances. Obviously it will have limitations but they probably go a long way.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





akiroz said:


> LOL, do keep in mind that cable capacitances are actually VERY small (in the magnitude of 1-10pF), This is smaller than the high-frequency filter capacitors used in amplifiers to remove unwanted supersonic frequencies and prevent oscillation in the amplifier (these capacitors are in the magnitude of around 100pF).


 
  Cable capacitance is on a higher order than you think & just the connectors are typically between 5-10pf each. Like I said the lowest capacitance that I have measured on a commercial product was 125pf with connectors. Most are much more than that as in close to & even over 200pf. I have messed around with even the RF protection capacitor sizes & found they made an audible difference on an old Adcom GFA545 that I had modified. I settled on 100pf as going lower  resulted in too bright of sound. I had a set of Polk Audio SDS SRS speakers before that had a 1000pf silver mica cap bypassing the tweeter crossover capacitor which was a high quality metalized film unit already & this cap made quite a difference. Sound became duller when I removed it so I put it right back in. Bear in mind that this was in a low impedance circuit which according to you guys should not have made a difference given it's small size but it did & quite a pronounced one.What I am saying is that relatively small capacitances in high impedance circuits  can make quite a difference & in cableing it results in very subtle rolloffs tat you would have difficulty measuring with a scope but the audible effects go down into the midrange area causing instruments like piano to loose some of thier lively character thus making them sound bland & lifeless.
   
  Make note that I actually measured these cable capacitances & not just took someone elses word on it.


----------



## liamstrain

But you are expecting us to take your word on them making an audible difference, when there is nothing to suggest they would be able to, and you provide no objective evidence of audibility? No DBT, no measurements (which are more sensitive than ears, and less prone to bias). 
   
  Note - changing the speaker cap values willl affect sound - since that controls the crossover point. But not at the cabling levels.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> But you are expecting us to take your word on them making an audible difference, when there is nothing to suggest they would be able to, and you provide no objective evidence of audibility? No DBT, no measurements (which are more sensitive than ears, and less prone to bias).
> 
> Note - changing the speaker cap values willl affect sound - since that controls the crossover point. But not at the cabling levels.


 
  People like you will never understand things that are truthfully present untill you experience it your self. Being a modder i have to listen very closely fore extended periods of time before I determine if something is an improvement or not. There have been somethings that I discarded immediately on hearing the result because they were definately not the improvement I was looking for.going too low on the RF bleed cap was one of them & not because of instabilty as there was none, it was just too bright.
   
  On the speaker that I mentioned 1000pf is not enough to alter the crossover frequency as the normal tolerance of the metalized film caps would yield a much greater difference than these 1000pf caps i mentioned as far as crossover frequency so there was definately something else at play such as having lowered the impedance of the crossover at the veryhigh frquencies as that is where I heard the difference & this difference was very very quickly remedied by me as it was not what I was looking for, it was that pronounced. I returned the 1000pf cap to it's place in the circuit. Obviously they put it there for a reason & it was effective for that purpose in this case.


----------



## bmiamihk

If the IEM sounds bad well a nice good quality cable wont help much but if you like the IEMs and you pick the best material for that certain sound you prefer it will help. Copper upgrades and Silver cable upgrades will have a total difference sound. One will bring out the lower end sounds while the other will bring out the mids and highs. I went to a shop and I tried the cables without a care of the brand or materials for 2 hours and ended up getting a Silver cable ($120) for my MG6Pro because it made the Mids much more detailed.
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Ever since I got linked to that whole "cables" topic and read the ridiculous number of sources repeating that from basically regular listeners all the way to top audio engineers and reviewers could not distinguish cables in blind testing, I have been highly conflicted about reviews on this site.
> 
> Recently just read a review about another IEM and in it, the cables are being mentioned as enhancing the bass, helping with soundstage and imaging. Sounds like a big difference...
> 
> ...


----------



## liamstrain

People like me? I've done extensive listening tests on a huge range of audiophile and professional audio gear. I have experienced changes with many things, but never cables. 
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> Copper upgrades and Silver cable upgrades will have a total difference sound. One will bring out the lower end sounds while the other will bring out the mids and highs.


 
   
   
  No. Copper and Silver have no effect on the sound. The difference in resistance is negligible and that would be the only possible factor. Electricity simply doesn't move in such a way as to be selectively affected (highs, versus lows, etc.). Time and time again this has been shown to be true. Once you do a blind test, all those "differences" mysteriously vanish. No matter what system, or who the listeners are.


----------



## bmiamihk

If your ears didnt hear any difference then best stick with the stock cable and not waste your money. In my case I choose the cable that changed the sound. I also tried various cables for my Shure 535 which a upgrade Copper cable brought out the bass.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> People like me?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> If your ears didnt hear any difference then best stick with the stock cable and not waste your money. In my case I choose the cable that changed the sound. I also tried various cables for my Shure 535 which a upgrade Copper cable brought out the bass.


 
   
  Good advice. If your ears heard a difference it was because of something other than the cable though. You probably should have saved your money too. 
   
  But whatever, it's your money. I prefer to spend it on things that actually *can* affect the sound quality.


----------



## bmiamihk

If my ears heard a difference then what ever it was I am still enjoying the cable. If to me I enjoy the sound from a cable even if science says it makes no difference then to me it is good and to me the sound quality is better. have you bought a upgrade cable? If so was it worth it or a waste?
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Good advice. If your ears heard a difference it was because of something other than the cable though. You probably should have saved your money too.
> 
> But whatever, it's your money. I prefer to spend it on things that actually *can* affect the sound quality.


----------



## proton007

Take a look at this:
  http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p3.htm
  From this article : "1nF of cable capacitance with a preamp with an output impedance of 1k will be -3dB at 160kHz. Should the preamp have an output impedance of 10k, the -3dB frequency is now only 16kHz - this is unacceptable". 
   
  Silver vs copper has also been debunked, the difference is 2 Ohms for 24 Guage wire over 1000 feet. 
  No sonic difference, unless your output impedance is 10k Ohms, which is insane.
  There's a reason things are designed to meet certain requirements, and not put together anyhow.


----------



## bmiamihk

So if one cable that I tried made in my ears sound worse then the stock cables then after I tried another cable that improved the sound it was all my belief and in reality there was no sound difference? You can choose to believe that if it makes you feel smart. There is a big difference in reading and thinking then experience and knowing.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Take a look at this:
> http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p3.htm
> From this article : "1nF of cable capacitance with a preamp with an output impedance of 1k will be -3dB at 160kHz. Should the preamp have an output impedance of 10k, the -3dB frequency is now only 16kHz - this is unacceptable".
> 
> No sonic difference, unless your output impedance is 10k Ohms, which is insane.


----------



## Magick Man

liamstrain said:


> No. Copper and Silver have no effect on the sound. The difference in resistance is negligible and that would be the only possible factor. Electricity simply doesn't move in such a way as to be selectively affected (highs, versus lows, etc.). Time and time again this has been shown to be true. Once you do a blind test, all those "differences" mysteriously vanish. No matter what system, or who the listeners are.



I thought it made a subtle difference a while back, but ABX testing showed me otherwise. The difference is not audible.

Expectation bias is powerful, guys, don't feel bad about it.


----------



## bmiamihk

How can it make a subtle audible difference and then, as you mentioned?
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> I thought it made a subtle difference a while back, but ABX testing showed me otherwise. The difference is not audible.


----------



## Magick Man

bmiamihk said:


> How can it make a subtle audible difference and then, as you mentioned?



It didn't, it was all in my head. It's called expectation bias.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> So if one cable that I tried made in my ears sound worse then the stock cables then after I tried another cable that improved the sound it was all my belief and in reality there was no sound difference? You can choose to believe that if it makes you feel smart. There is a big difference in reading and thinking then experience and knowing.


 
   
  Unless you did an ABX test, I'm afraid yes, it was all in your brain.
  'Experience' is determined by what your senses and brain make of the signal, and they are the most fickle things around. If you've tried out a few of those optical illusions, I think you know what I mean. Your brain can make straight lines seem bent, and confuse the same colors to be different under varying conditions. Same goes with sound.
  The fact that we can produce a stereo signal digitally even if we do not record in stereo, 3D from 2D movies etc. means we're already using these illusions to an effect in audio/video already.


----------



## bmiamihk

So happiness comes from where? In your head so the upgrade cable made you happy. Enjoy and if you dont enjoy it stop doing what is not making you happy.
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> It didn't, it was all in my head. It's called expectation bias.


----------



## Magick Man

bmiamihk said:


> So happiness comes from where? In your head so the upgrade cable made you happy. Enjoy and if you dont enjoy it stop doing what is not making you happy.



I'd rather know the truth and decide for myself, better that than live in darkness believing that Apollo will hop in his chariot and start dragging the sun across the sky in the morning. I'm also happy that I have more money for headphones and music.


----------



## proton007

Agree with Magick Man. Thats the whole point. No one needs to spend $200 on cables to make them feel happy.


----------



## bmiamihk

Hehe you bringing mythology into music? How many headphones you need to be able to enjoy music? How do you know if one headphone sounds better then another? Do you also have some machine to test which one really sound better or do you trust your hearing?
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> I'd rather know the truth and decide for myself, better that than live in darkness believing that Apollo will hop in his chariot and start dragging the sun across the sky in the morning. I'm also happy that I have more money for headphones and music.


----------



## bmiamihk

Many would say that no one needs to spend $200 on a earphone to hear good music. Also some cant spend much on a cable.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Agree with Magick Man. Thats the whole point. No one needs to spend $200 on cables to make them feel happy.


----------



## bmiamihk

Should I not believe any reviewers who talk about cables or just ignore - Your answer is to ignore and if that makes you feel proud then ignore and if you enjoy upgrading for whatever reason then do it.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Many would say that no one needs to spend $200 on a earphone to hear good music. Also some cant spend much on a cable.


 
  True, I'm pretty sure there are better earphones for less than $200 compared to Beats. There's no correlation of cost to performance.


----------



## lee730

OP the only way for you to really find this out is to hear it for yourself. If you rather not go that route then fine. I can clearly hear a difference with my IE8 and IE80s using the silver cable and its enough of a difference to warrant the price. Initially the cable made my IE8s sibilant for a few days and really smoothed out after some burn in. Can someone imagine sibilance? Can sibilance be created with expectation? Give me a break guys...I didn't pay $200+ for the cable nor would I pay $1000+ for a picolino cable.
   
  The entire debate is subjective just as saying there is no way that we could hear the audible changes cables bring (this opinion is also subjective and not 100% objective). I can tell you from experience that a cable could also change the sound for the worse depending on synergy and the headphone/IEM. One such case is when using my FX700 with the included extension cable or even the Shure extension cable I bought. Going between the extensions and just plugging directly into the device leaves me disappointed. The extension kills the dynamics and makes the bass somewhat bloated. I'm not sure if this is due to resistance but it's quite disappointing.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Should I not believe any reviewers who talk about cables or just ignore - Your answer is to ignore and if that makes you feel proud then ignore and if you enjoy upgrading for whatever reason then do it.


 
   
  Well, pride has nothing to do with this. I'm sure people feel proud both ways.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Well, pride has nothing to do with this. I'm sure people feel proud both ways.


 
   
  If anything believe what you want. Just don't try to force your opinion on someone as if they are stupid or a fool. If you don't feel cables are worth it. Good for you. Do you have to step on someone to make yourself feel more adequate? It would be like saying "your hearing must be shot so you can't hear the difference lol". It goes both ways. (Proton I'm not directing this at you BTW, if anything I'm agreeing with you lol .)


----------



## proton007

I agree, thats why I never address my comments to any one person in general, or use big colored fonts.


----------



## liamstrain

Lee - I agree to an extent. But there is harm in propogating falsehoods. Persistent mythology costs real money, and damages the credibility of the field. Truth matters. And we are dealing with claims which can be tested. When people ignore objective data in order to maintain a position, it is irrational, and in the long run, hurts all of us.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> Can someone imagine sibilance?
> 
> *YES....*
> 
> ...


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Should I not believe any reviewers who talk about cables or just ignore - Your answer is to ignore and if that makes you feel proud then ignore and if you enjoy upgrading for whatever reason then do it.


 
   
  Pride? Don't see how that is involved. The topic is about the fact that consumers (like myself) trust reviewers. I've made many purchases based on reviews. Sure I've been burned twice now (Senn HD598 and UM3x really aren't for me) but that is expected when I am still in the exploration phase of discovering my audio tastes. But I would like to know that the people I am extracting information from aren't just out right making up things in their head.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Lee - I agree to an extent. But there is harm in propogating falsehoods. Persistent mythology costs real money, and damages the credibility of the field. Truth matters. And we are dealing with claims which can be tested. When people ignore objective data in order to maintain a position, it is irrational, and in the long run, hurts all of us.


 
   
  As an engineer I have to agree, but I guess truth is what someone believes it to be. I hold objective data and design as truth, some put their ears/brain in this position.


----------



## lee730

I agree. But it also goes hand in hand on the objective end. Although there is evidence that does prove there are some changes on a graph with various cables. People dismiss that as not possibly being audible? How is this objective? That is a subjective opinion being used against an objective experiment? Also the tools used to record this aren't 100% free of error.
  
  Now I do not agree with people taking advantage of people, making money on things that don't produce any benefit for the end user. On my end though I've been lucky thus far and don't feel like I've been taken advantage of.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Pride? Don't see how that is involved. The topic is about the fact that consumers (like myself) trust reviewers. I've made many purchases based on reviews. Sure I've been burned twice now (Senn HD598 and UM3x really aren't for me) but that is expected when I am still in the exploration phase of discovering my audio tastes. But I would like to know that the people I am extracting information from aren't just out right making up things in their head.


 
   
  The problem is, some really believe in the things in their head, and are quite serious about it, unlike marketing folk who'll make stuff up for the sake of it.


----------



## Tilpo

Could somebody please lock this thread? 

This discussion isn't actually going anywhere.


----------



## lee730

It never does...
  
   
  DNZ if you are that skeptical and you do have the right to be. It may be better for you to not take advice from anyone then and find your own path. That is at least what I'm gathering from your comment. And do expect to be burned because I have a couple times going on others opinions, but I've fine tuned my sound preference through these experiences. I've been pretty lucky thus far on my choices though.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> I agree. But it also goes hand in hand on the objective end. Although there is evidence that does prove there are some changes on a graph with various cables. People dismiss that as not possibly being audible? How is this objective? That is a subjective opinion being used against an objective experiment? Also the tools used to record this aren't 100% free of error.


 
   
  Are we just completely ignoring the fact that humans HAVE been tested? People did claim that measured differences were inaudible. That was the hypothesis and the DBTs were the experiment which proved it.
   
  Honestly, I think you guys are intentionally being selective of facts and completely ignoring information that you find unfavorable.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> I agree. But it also goes hand in hand on the objective end. Although there is evidence that does prove there are some changes on a graph with various cables. People dismiss that as not possibly being audible? How is this objective? That is a subjective opinion being used against an objective experiment? Also the tools used to record this aren't 100% free of error.
> 
> Now I do not agree with people taking advantage of people, making money on things that don't produce any benefit for the end user. On my end though I've been lucky thus far and don't feel like I've been taken advantage of.


 
  A lot of things can be designed one way or another, and still be perceived as same, if you've heard about Pentile vs RGB displays, you'll know what I'm saying. But this threshold of discernibility is also an objective standard.


----------



## proton007

I guess this thread has achieved its objective, as per the OP's question.


----------



## kiteki

dnzgamer said:


> Recently just read a review about another IEM and in it, the cables are being mentioned as enhancing the bass, helping with soundstage and imaging. Sounds like a big difference...
> 
> [/]
> 
> Someone tell me what to believe and make it simple!


 
   
  The most significant sonic difference in IEM cables is the impedance spec. (ohm / Ω).
   
  If a copper cable is 25 ohm and a silver cable is 100 ohm they'll sound totally different, so the reviewer could be tricked into thinking the silver cable sounds better due to the higher conductivity and lower resistivity of silver - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conductivity_of_metals#Resistivity_of_various_materials, when in fact he's hearing something else which can change the FR and soundspace/imaging on a case by case basis.
   
  You can it for yourself - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Etymotic-Headphones-ER4P-ER4S-75-Ohm-Convertor-Cable-/280732730536
   
   
  Anyway, the simple answer is you don't need fancy cables and you should spend that money on something else which actually does make a difference, like higher-end IEM's and your choice of DAC/Amp.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Are we just completely ignoring the fact that humans HAVE been tested? People did claim that measured differences were inaudible. That was the hypothesis and the DBTs were the experiment which proved it.
> 
> Honestly, I think you guys are intentionally being selective of facts and completely ignoring information that you find unfavorable.


 
   
  It seems you already have formed your opinion DNZ so why is this thread even up? Until you try it for yourself you will never really know and you'll be going off of opinions. I don't remember the name of the headier but he did run tests and measured differences between the cables, and according to him he could hear a difference in the sound. Of course people are gonna state that these differences are inaudible. But because it may be inaudible to one person is it objective to say it is inaudible to all? Is it impossible for someone to see better than another person? Is it impossible to have a higher IQ than another person? Can we come to the same conclusion regarding hearing?


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *proton007* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> A lot of things can be designed one way or another, and still be perceived as same, if you've heard about Pentile vs RGB displays, you'll know what I'm saying. But this threshold of discernibility is also an objective standard.


 
   
  A lot of people can't feel latency / input-lag in a PC monitor because they don't look for it / never seen zero latency, doesn't mean it's not there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
   
  The threshold of visual discernibility is not defined, btw.  In audio it kinda is, since it's important to musicians.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> A lot of people can't feel latency / input-lag in a PC monitor because they don't look for it / never seen zero latency, doesn't mean it's not there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Supposedly 60 FPS is the threshold which is bs. I play FPS and 120 Hz is way better and makes a world of a difference. I still have my reservations though regarding human audibility. There's more that meets-the-eye here and there's still more room for improvement.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> A lot of people can't feel latency / input-lag in a PC monitor because they don't look for it / never seen zero latency, doesn't mean it's not there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I think you mean response timing?


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> I guess this thread has achieved its objective, as per the OP's question.


 

 Yeah well seems like a lot of people just say outright not to trust reviewers who talk of dramatic cabling miracles. The only headphone I have that can be easily recabled is my vmoda m80. I would not mind testing this out myself if someone could recommend a cable that would supposedly contrast my current m80 stock cables. But to justify dropping the money for the experiment, please recommend a cable that at least looks nice so in the vent I don't notice a difference, I still end up with a nice fashion alternative.

 @Lee
   
  You consistently missed the actual question of this topic. This wasn't about "do cables make a difference". Its about what to do about reviewers and how to navigate towards smart purchases.
   
  Also, your points about difference in hearing is completely irrelevant. It has been done with people who have good and bad hearing already. It isn't set in stone but the likelihood that you have better hearing than all the people in the studies so far is quite implausible. If I was to use discretion based on existing information, it would be nothing but foolishness to believe you over far more intense studies across a much wider sample rate. You are attempting to dispel decades of scientific studies with nothing but anecdotal evidence here. 

 @Kiteki,
   
  I thought science already has proven people can perceive HUNDREDS of frames? The 60 frames was just a myth by marketers I think. It was never grounded in findings. In fact, science says that people do not perceive in frames to begin with.


----------



## lee730

That is also another important factor on a monitor. For FPS that millisecond will determine life or death (Quake 3 anyone .


----------



## Magick Man

bmiamihk said:


> Hehe you bringing mythology into music? How many headphones you need to be able to enjoy music? How do you know if one headphone sounds better then another? Do you also have some machine to test which one really sound better or do you trust your hearing?



There's already a huge amount of mythology in this hobby, if you hadn't noticed. I go by sound *and* by charts. Cables have never improved sound on an audible level, there's not a single peer-reviewed scientific test out there to show it, but buying new headphones often can.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Yeah well seems like a lot of people just say outright not to trust reviewers who talk of dramatic cabling miracles. The only headphone I have that can be easily recabled is my vmoda m80. I would not mind testing this out myself if someone could recommend a cable that would supposedly contrast my current m80 stock cables. But to justify dropping the money for the experiment, please recommend a cable that at least looks nice so in the vent I don't notice a difference, I still end up with a nice fashion alternative.


 
   
  What do you want to improve in the sound? I can't say silver cable will have the exact effect it did on my IE80s but it did add more treble sparkle and emphasis. Mid bass decreased and sub bass increased. The mid range was moved more forward. The sound stage slightly increased. Going back between a stock pair of IE80s I'm left underwhelmed and not impressed. When switching back to the IE80 with the cable things sound just right lol.


----------



## mikeaj

Ignoring for a moment what probably is or isn't audible, just for some realistic perspective...
   
  the kinds of differences we're talking about between cables are much much less than the differences between the R and L sides of most good headphones.  This suggests that the truly dedicated tweakers are better off spending a lot more time matching drivers, modding headphones, and so on (not to mention tweaks in software), compared to stuff that makes much less difference.


----------



## Magick Man

tilpo said:


> Could somebody please lock this thread?
> This discussion isn't actually going anywhere.



Why? This is the Sound Science forum and we're discussing cables, as per the OP's request. This isn't off topic at all.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Ignoring for a moment what probably is or isn't audible, just for some realistic perspective...
> 
> the kinds of differences we're talking about between cables are much much less than the differences between the R and L sides of most good headphones.  This suggests that the truly dedicated tweakers are better off spending a lot more time matching drivers, modding headphones, and so on (not to mention tweaks in software), compared to stuff that makes much less difference.


 
   
  Agree. Only if you know what you're doing, and what to expect.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> What do you want to improve in the sound? I can't say silver cable will have the exact effect it did on my IE80s but it did add more treble sparkle and emphasis. Mid bass decreased and sub bass increased. The mid range was moved more forward. The sound stage slightly increased. Going back between a stock pair of IE80s I'm left underwhelmed and not impressed. When switching back to the IE80 with the cable things sound just right lol.


 
   
  I don't want any improvement to sound. I want a cable with a drastic difference. I want to hear a difference, PERIOD and want the cables that will maximize my chances of doing so. 

 I should mention within a reasonable price range... I think $150 is the max I would spend on a cable and if I am gonna spend that much, it better look hot as hell! I'm talkin' like chicks will want to come up and wrap their fingers around it type hot.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> I don't want any improvement to sound. I want a cable with a drastic difference. I want to hear a difference, PERIOD and want the cables that will maximize my chances of doing so.


 
   

 Well I've been hearing a lot of good things about Picolino cable. But it is super expensive. If you can get the actual cable yourself and DIY you could save a lot of money. I bet it's still exorbitant in cost regardless. I would think silver cable (not silver plated) would be your best bet and if you can get wire where you DIY you'd save a lot of money.


----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> @DNZ
> You do see that the cable forum is marked as DBT Free, right? Its a world of magic and fairies and elves.


 
   
  Yeah, there are some fairies and elves in audio, talking about distant lands far away in their $1000 optical cables!
   

   
   
  So along comes the Knighthood of Charlemagne, to restore scientific rigour and justice!

   
   
  I don't think either side can find any common platform and tell the truth...
   
  solution: need more scientific fairies!


----------



## Tilpo

magick man said:


> Why? This is the Sound Science forum and we're discussing cables, as per the OP's request. This isn't off topic at all.



Not off topic, no, but not making much _progress_ either. 


Anyway, back to the actual OP;
I personally hate it when people are talking about cables in reviews of headphones/other equipment. Same goes for stuff like letting it burn in for hours before even listening to it once.
When I read stuff like that the reviewer at least in my opinion loses quite a bit of credibility. Doesn't mean I stop reading right there, but it does give me tendency to skip entire paragraphs and take the rest of what he wrote with an _extra_ grain of salt. And with an extra grain of salt I mean that I'm very careful in any case due to the highly subjective nature of reviews. I can make conclusions on reviews by drawing reasonable correlations between them.

Too many people underestimate the psychological factors far too much. Expectation bias is a very real thing, and has extraordinarily large effects. It doesn't just affect what we hear; it can also measurably_ improve a medical condition_. I don't see how people can think they are immune to it, when it actually affects everything everyone does.


If you ask me, what you ate for lunch probably has a bigger effect what we hear than changes in cables. 
Or rather, what would have an even bigger effect is whether or not we even ate lunch.


----------



## Magick Man

dnzgamer said:


> I don't want any improvement to sound. I want a cable with a drastic difference. I want to hear a difference, PERIOD and want the cables that will maximize my chances of doing so.




Try something fiber optic. You won't hear anything at all, but that *is* a big difference.  


Seriously fellas, if you'd seen the DBT tests I've seen and read the same studies on the limitations of human hearing, you'd all be cable agnostic too. I wish I lived in a world where they do make a difference, and I could change cables to tweak things and change the way music sounds. That would be incredibly cool. It just isn't objectively true.


----------



## DNZGamer

@Lee
   
http://jaben.net/shopping2/Crystal-cable-for-custome-IEMs-powered-by-Crystal-Piccolino.html
   
  What. The. Hell. I don't think I want to spend 7x the amount I paid for the m80 for these cables...................  Seriously, IEM cables? 
   
  Just so we are clear, my headphones, the vmoda m80 is only $200. The cable you are asking me to test is over $1000. Can I not get a reasonable difference within $150? 
   
  @Tilpo
   
  That actually makes me wonder if all professional reviews should be done blind!


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *DNZGamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> @Kiteki,
> 
> I thought science already has proven people can perceive HUNDREDS of frames? The 60 frames was just a myth by marketers I think. It was never grounded in findings. In fact, science says that people do not perceive in frames to begin with.


 
   


> Originally Posted by *lee730* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Supposedly 60 FPS is the threshold which is bs. I play FPS and 120 Hz is way better


 
   


> Originally Posted by *proton007* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I think you mean response timing?


 
   
  Response timing?  I'm talking about the perceptibilty of latency / input-lag which is typically averages 33ms on LCD monitors and is around 1ms on a CRT.
   
  Refresh rate is another one, yeah.
   
   
  @DNZGamer - As far as science is concerned with cables there is a lot of debate but impedance is clearly the most audible and will differ from cable to cable, there is also the possibility of making useless cables i.e. out of lead so they sound worse and cost $200 so they're perceived as better, get it?


----------



## mikeaj

dnzgamer said:


> I don't want any improvement to sound. I want a cable with a drastic difference. I want to hear a difference, PERIOD and want the cables that will maximize my chances of doing so.
> 
> 
> I should mention within a reasonable price range... I think $150 is the max I would spend on a cable and if I am gonna spend that much, it better look hot as hell! I'm talkin' like chicks will want to come up and wrap their fingers around it type hot.




Give me $100 and I'll put a resistor (hm or maybe a capacitor) in the make you a cable that sounds different. With some more effort, you could achieve the desired effect with the correct cable geometry, without actually putting inside a resistor or something like that.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> @Lee
> 
> http://jaben.net/shopping2/Crystal-cable-for-custome-IEMs-powered-by-Crystal-Piccolino.html
> 
> ...


 
  Exactly lol. I wouldn't spend that kinda money either. Of course I would love to hear what a difference it could bring but in no way in hell would I pay that premium lol. I hear you could acquire the wire yourself and save a lot of money but I'm not sure how you would go about getting just the actual wire in bulk.
   
  That is why I said silver cable (pure not silver plated). I'm not sure where you would buy this in bulk but it would be much cheaper than buying from these vendors...
   

 The link below may help. I'm not 100% sure though...
   


Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!



http://www.vhaudio.com/wire.html


----------



## kiteki

dnzgamer said:


> http://jaben.net/shopping2/Crystal-cable-for-custome-IEMs-powered-by-Crystal-Piccolino.html
> 
> What. The. Hell. I don't think I want to spend 7x the amount I paid for the m80 for these cables...................  Seriously, IEM cables?
> 
> Just so we are clear, my headphones, the vmoda m80 is only $200. The cable you are asking me to test is over $1000. *Can I not get a reasonable difference within $150? *


 
   
  You can get an amazing difference for $25, read my posts lol.  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Etymotic-Headphones-ER4P-ER4S-75-Ohm-Convertor-Cable-/280732730536


----------



## kiteki

mikeaj said:


> Give me $100 and I'll put a resistor (hm or maybe a capacitor) in the make you a cable that sounds different.


 
   
  Exactly, that's more audible than metal conductivity.
   
  p.s. No use to buy a silver cable unless the 3.5mm jack is silver too, imho.


----------



## Magick Man

> About Crystal Piccolino Cable:
> 
> Crystal uses a unique silver and gold combination which helps deliver better sound and signals.
> 
> ...




Sorry, but... I don't know what to say, I'm at a loss for words. I'm just gonna go sit in the corner with my magic stones and give this some thought.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> You can get an amazing difference for $25, read my posts lol.  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Etymotic-Headphones-ER4P-ER4S-75-Ohm-Convertor-Cable-/280732730536


 
   
  Don't have an E4RP exactly. I am just trying to replace my m80 cable. Are you saying that this head would improve my m80? Would be a pleasantly cheap test.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





magick man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  I'm more at a loss at how expensive it is... The marketing really does sound like a crock though lol .


----------



## Tilpo

kiteki said:


> Exactly, that's more audible than metal conductivity.
> 
> p.s. No use to buy a silver cable unless the 3.5mm jack is silver too, imho.



Contact resistance is different from conductivity. Silver would most likely perform worse than the most common material: brass.

Anyway, why would the material of the plug make a difference in sound quality when the traces on the PCB use a mixture of tin and lead for crying out loud.


----------



## kiteki

What's the point in crystal and gold in cables anyway?  I don't get it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity#Resistivity_of_various_materials
   
   
  Wikipedia used to say silver cables are used in satellites but I can't find it right now.
   
  I think Silver-plated copper is used in some kind of radio fields but doesn't offer an improved audio signal over copper.
   
  A lot of headphone manufacturers use 7N (high purity) copper, for some reason.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> What's the point in crystal and gold in cables anyway?  I don't get it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity#Resistivity_of_various_materials
> 
> 
> Wikipedia used to say silver cables are used in satellites but I can't find it right now.
> ...


 
   
  One reason is that it's cheaper. Bottom line is profit.


----------



## proton007

Make an RC filter to see how it makes a difference. Wont cost more than $2, and the difference will be audible.
  You only need a resistor and a capacitor.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Don't have an E4RP exactly. I am just trying to replace my m80 cable. Are you saying that this head would* improve* my m80? Would be a pleasantly cheap test.


 
   
  I'm not saying it'll improve it, I'm saying it'll make it sound different and you may perceive it as improved, or lessened.  You may need a portable amp to get the extra juice flowing.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





magick man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Sprinkle some pixie dust as well.


----------



## kiteki

tilpo said:


> Anyway, why would the material of the plug make a difference in sound quality when the traces on the PCB use a mixture of tin and lead for crying out loud.


 
   
  good luck melting silver with a soldering iron.   A lot of audiophiles use lead-free 4% silver 96% copper type mix.


----------



## Tilpo

kiteki said:


> good luck melting silver with a soldering iron.   A lot of audiophiles use lead-free 4% silver 96% copper type mix.



If you ask me, that's just stupid. 

Nothing wrong with good old lead/tin solder. If it means anything, hi-tech scientific apparatus use it, as well as the military (of which people seem so fond with the over use of the term 'military-grade').


----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> Make an RC filter to see how it makes a difference. Wont cost more than $2, and the difference will be audible.


 
   
  well, I think that's how the early synth music was created, with Non-sinusoidal_waveform's


----------



## kiteki

tilpo said:


> Nothing wrong with good old lead/tin solder. If it means anything, hi-tech scientific apparatus use it, as well as the military (of which people seem so fond with the over use of the term 'military-grade').


 
   
  but not satellites, which use silver, according to Wikipedia, however it may be deleted now, can't find it.
   
  Edit:  Just a moment lol... http://www.*lunar*pedia.org/index.php?title=Electrical_Conductors


----------



## DNZGamer

Well at least I got some affordable suggestions out of this. Will see if I can get my hands on a cheap silver cable as well. Frankly, I had no idea that simple IEM cables could ever cost that much. I would love to get the makers of that cable into a blind test !!!!!


----------



## lee730

Even if it sounded really good I'm still not sure if it would warrant the premium lol ($1000+) But if I was able to get the cable in bulk for a few hundred and DIY for several cables, I would think it to be well worth it. Now that is depending on how good it sounds, and if it does make a difference .


----------



## kiteki

dnzgamer said:


> Well at least I got some affordable suggestions out of this. Will see if I can get my hands on a cheap silver cable as well. Frankly, I had no idea that simple IEM cables could ever cost that much. I would love to get the makers of that cable into a blind test !!!!!


 
   
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Neotech-Wire-UPOCC-Solid-Core-7N-Silver-24AWG-Teflon-/320776968036
   
  Edit:  Make a cheap DIY one for your curiosity if you can, spend your real money on a better IEM.
   
  just my 2 yen.


----------



## bmiamihk

Truth is in the eye of the beholder and your eye views that spending money on a cable will not improve the sound and well great now you can save your change.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Lee - I agree to an extent. But there is harm in propogating falsehoods. Persistent mythology costs real money, and damages the credibility of the field. Truth matters. And we are dealing with claims which can be tested. When people ignore objective data in order to maintain a position, it is irrational, and in the long run, hurts all of us.


----------



## bmiamihk

Why fiddle around if you have some spare change and you are able to spend it then do it. If you cant the accept reality or find away to get it if so desired.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Neotech-Wire-UPOCC-Solid-Core-7N-Silver-24AWG-Teflon-/320776968036
> 
> Edit:  Make a cheap DIY one for your curiosity if you can, spend your real money on a better IEM.
> 
> just my 2 yen.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Truth is in the eye of the beholder and your eye views that spending money on a cable will not improve the sound and well great now you can save your change.


 
  I thought it was beauty...


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Why fiddle around if you have some spare change and you are able to spend it then do it. If you cant the accept reality or find away to get it if so desired.


 
  As kiteki said, if you have spare money spend it on IEM, difference for sure.


----------



## kiteki

bmiamihk said:


> Why fiddle around if you have some spare change and you are able to spend it then do it. If you cant the accept reality or find away to get it if so desired.


 
   
  Because I think people should spend their spare change on IEM's instead since copper cables have already fulfilled at least 95% of their task.


----------



## bmiamihk

What ever you value open your thinking it can be beauty and it can be anything you choose to believe.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> I thought it was beauty...


----------



## bmiamihk

After buying 1, 2, 3, 10 IEM then people move onto more things while some stay at what is acceptable.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Because I think people should spend their spare change on IEM's instead since copper cables have already fulfilled at least 95% of their task.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> What ever you value open your thinking it can be beauty and it can be anything you choose to believe.


 
  Thats why I said earlier, magic, fairies, elves and pixie dust as well.


----------



## kiteki

bmiamihk said:


> After buying 1, 2, 3, 10 IEM then people move onto more things while some stay at what is acceptable.


 
   
  I'll let you know what silver sounds like when I'm listening to the UE18Pro and JH16 then!


----------



## bmiamihk

JH16 wont need a silver cable at all 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I'll let you know what silver sounds like when I'm listening to the UE18Pro and JH16 then!


----------



## kiteki

Happy ending!


----------



## proton007




----------



## DNZGamer

Man... I could use more money.


----------



## DefQon




----------



## kiteki




----------



## Lorspeaker

would i be able to swim....??  or drown...?? lets sit down and discuss...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
   
  i guess everyone who is interested in sound...music...audio...should just *listen* for himself if any/ additional cable works for him...
  would that cable *change* the sound...? personally i would say very likely YES....
  would the change in sound be *euphonic* to my ears...? its a shot in the dark.
  Have i regretted buying the cables....so far i am very pleased with what i have.
  That's me... u have to go jump into the water, or carry on discussing.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





defqon said:


>


 
   
  Ask DefQon about the Picolino. He knows a lot about it .


----------



## bmiamihk

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> Ask DefQon about the Picolino. He knows a lot about it .


 
  In my opinion a cable costing more then $200 US Dollars is way too much but if they have a lot of money well the cost for them or her might be nothing.


----------



## lee730

I'd have no qualms with demoing one. I'd like to find out though about acquiring the actual wire in bulk though and how much that would cost....


----------



## bmiamihk

I demod many for free at the shop some cost around $400 but didnt seem better then the $150 but there were built better.
  Quote: 





lee730 said:


> I'd have no qualms with demoing one. I'd like to find out though about acquiring the actual wire in bulk though and how much that would cost....


----------



## lee730

I'm specifically talking about the Picolino cable though.


----------



## bmiamihk

HEHE I didnt ask for that and they might not have that one.
  Quote: 





lee730 said:


> I'm specifically talking about the Picolino cable though.


----------



## lee730

They'll probably charge you $500 to demo it


----------



## bmiamihk

Haha I will ask them, when I go to the shop I never care of the brand just attach them and hear. I did notice the quality of the connectors and ends.
  Quote: 





lee730 said:


> They'll probably charge you $500 to demo it


----------



## lee730

Also be sure to demo the FX700. Don't knock it until you heard it lol. The timbre and bass texture/depth is very euphoric. The thing is the isolation isn't very good on them at all since the design is open. If you are a bass lover the FX700s are one of the very best dynamic universal IEMs.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> In my opinion a cable costing more then $200 US Dollars is way too much but if they have a lot of money well the cost for them or her might be nothing.


 
  The cable costs more then $200, 400 or 500.
   
  lol 
   
  You should search up the price of the current in production Piccolino cables on google, I'm sure you'll have your jaws dropped to the floor when you look at the dollar figure. I know I did when a "member" here first mentioned and posted pictures of it. Out of all the custom cables I've tried, including DIY ones by me and other's, there is simply no cable that has made a bigger difference to sound then the Picco's, it's not day and night difference just fyi, but its extremely rare, expensive and will cause any audiogeek to simply drop down to the floor and bow down to the Picco's.
   
  FWIW: I thinking of buying some right now


----------



## lee730

Let me know if you can find the wire in bulk and how much it costs compared to selling ones organs .


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> Let me know if you can find the wire in bulk and how much it costs compared to selling ones organs .


 
   
  There is no way I or anybody else from what I know can find the wire in bulk, Krystal Kables that use to manufacture the cable to the public or so (maybe be wrong) stopped production and there are very few like scarce manufacturers that produce it, Jaben is the only one that has the cable from what I know. 
   
  If I was to go buy some I would need to get in contact with a "member" to buy it, yet again I don't even know for sure he will sell me some. Been awhile.
   
  Prices is about $300-400 for 3/4ft?


----------



## kiteki

defqon said:


> Prices is about $300-400 for 3/4ft?


 
   
  Do they use it at NASA?  Somehow I don't think IEM's should have superior cables to spaceships...


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Do they use it at NASA?  Somehow I don't think IEM's should have superior cables to spaceships...


 
  NASA doesn't use cables. They use photon-laser emitting diodes to get electrons from one source to another.
   
  The Piccolino isn't just for IEM's, it's just for general audio applications, speakers, ic's, recabling headphones, iem etc etc.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Do they use it at NASA?  Somehow I don't think IEM's should have superior cables to spaceships...


 

 rflmao^


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Truth is in the eye of the beholder and your eye views that spending money on a cable will not improve the sound and well great now you can save your change.


 
   
  No. Truth is not subjective. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.


----------



## spkrs01

Chesky Records' studio is completely cabled with Crystal, if that says or mean anything.................


----------



## liamstrain

Aye (though I thought he used Nirvana cables), but there are plenty of fantastic recording and mastering studios that use bog standard Mogami/Belden/Canare and produce records of equal or better quality. David Chesky has marketed himself and his label as an "audiophile" producer. He's free to spend his money how he likes - and doing that probably does increase his sales for a limited market. I have not seen that it has any effect on his records though. 
   
  It's like those speaker makers who put and market that they use Nordost wire for the 8" of cable inside the speaker. I guarantee if you get those engineers in a room sworn to secrecy, they'll tell you it's not for the sound, but because doing so gives them caché in the market, and some salespeople/buyers use that as a selling point. If the cable makers are smart (and they are) - they'll give away cableing to well reputed high-end makers, in exchange for a mention in the literature. Instant credibility.
   
  So ultimately, it doesn't matter much what cable Chesky uses, since - among other things, we don't know *why* he uses what he does (did he get a discount? Is he supporting the business of a friend? Does he believe there actually is a difference? Does he have evidence? We don't know.) - and even if we did know why, his use of them alone is not evidence of their benefit ...just an appeal to authority (a common fallacy).


----------



## bmiamihk

My fact is that I noticed a change in sound with a Silver cable. Another fact is that I like the change.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> No. Truth is not subjective. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.


----------



## wakibaki

If you do change the cable, how are you going to test that there's a difference?
   
  At the very least you need to
   
  1) disguise the cables so that they look superficially identical
   
  2) have someone else change the cable or not, depending on a coin toss
   
  3) have them leave the phones in a room *and leave themselves without having contact with you *before you come in.
   
  Then you listen to the phones and write down which cable you thought was in use.
   
  You have to do this multiple times, the assistant recording which cable was actually used and which cable you thought it was, A or B.
   
*No cheating.*
   
  This is just to prove that you can hear a difference, never mind that one cable is better.
   
  If you want to show that one cable is better, then you need multiple listeners, and they all have to write down 'better' or 'worse'
   
  All you guys who insist there is a difference are wasting your time unless you have done something as rigorous as this, because it's well known that tests of all kinds involving human beings suffer from bias unless special measures are taken to exclude the possibility of it occurring. They have to do this with _*pills*_ to avoid getting false results.
   
  That's all she wrote. There's no point in coming on here and blathering on about what you can hear, how if we only tried it ourselves etc., etc., we've all got closed minds, science is rubbish...
   
  If it wasn't for science you wouldn't _*have*_ headphones or cables.
   
  Put _*that*_ in your pipe and smoke it.
   
  w


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> My fact is that I noticed a change in sound with a Silver cable. Another fact is that I like the change.


 
   

  ... whether the change you noticed was because of the cable, or because of your psychoacoustic bias (since you did not do blind testing to determine the cause of the change), is the debate. You have no facts which support that it is because of the cable, and all the ones that do exist suggest it was not.  
   
  Glad you are happy with the change.


----------



## kiteki

liamstrain said:


> No. Truth is not subjective. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.


 
   
  I agree, truth is objective, even beauty to a certain extent.


----------



## firev1

I love this place.


----------



## bmiamihk

Exactly just hear random cables, the shop lets me try them as long as I like and I did for 2 hrs at a time.
  Quote: 





wakibaki said:


> If you do change the cable, how are you going to test that there's a difference?
> 
> At the very least you need to
> 
> ...


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> I love this place.


 
   
  We're not allowed to have this discussion anywhere else on the board. So dead horse or no, some people are new to it, and won't otherwise learn about the debate. You are free to ignore it. Most people do. More's the pity.


----------



## bmiamihk

Blind yep. Cables handed to me without brand, material or price. Hearing same 5 tracks. same volume. Picked the one that I liked without even knowing the price, rand , or material of the cable.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


>


----------



## bmiamihk

Science but not your science. You have some equipment to test if the sound changes? Or do you read a science book or surf the internet for science articles and read it and repeat what you read?
  Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Exactly just hear random cables, the shop lets me try them as long as I like and I did for 2 hrs at a time.


----------



## kiteki

wakibaki said:


>


 
   
  The problem is the end user thinks the subtle differences may not always show up in a complicated blind test, which has been the case in the past.
   
  The cable manufacturers should have enough free time to perform one here or there though and be able to localise the differences, I think the resuts would most likely look something like this... http://www.laventure.net/tourist/caps.htm
   
  Anyway, copper is in abundance and fulfills at least 95% of it's task, the differences are not striking, we can spend money on different components, it's simple. =p


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Blind yep. Cables handed to me without brand, material or price. Hearing same 5 tracks. same volume. Picked the one that I liked without even knowing the price, rand , or material of the cable.


 
   
  That is not a blind test.


----------



## bmiamihk

True I have eyes and have you dont a blind test? How many cables did you try?
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> That is not a blind test.


----------



## liamstrain

I've tried dozens over the years. Including 4 as part of a *properly conducted* blind test. I have done comparisons on headphone cables, speaker cables, usb cables, and interconnects. Both for my own personal system, and for professional mastering systems. 
   
  At this point, I feel confident in the experience I have had, and the science and measurements that exist, that I no longer feel compelled to try the next variation on the same old thing, that someone brings to my attention. 
   
  When your experiences mesh with the scientific theory, and the objective data on the subject - then by all means use them. When experience differs from all the rest, is when you need to look deeper at why there is a discrepancy. It is rare that you discard the data until you've done all you can to eliminate possible errors and biases in experiential testing. Something you have not even attempted.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I've been hoping for a long time that a book like that existed. Now I know it does.
> If only it weren't that expensive, since I would absolutely love to read it.


 
   
  I understand, and I didn't set the price. But it's a huge book with 739 pages (including three bonus chapters online), plus 3-1/2 hours of video. So it's still a great value IMO. You could spend 50 times that at a recording school and leave with less knowledge. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  --Ethan


----------



## Tilpo

ethanwiner said:


> I understand, and I didn't set the price. But it's a huge book with 739 pages (including three bonus chapters online), plus 3-1/2 hours of video. So it's still a great value IMO. You could spend 50 times that at a recording school and leave with less knowledge.
> 
> --Ethan



Very true. I will definitely buy it, maybe next month or so, but at the moment I need my money for other things. 

Looking forward to reading it.


Edit: I just pre-ordered it from Amazon UK, it is estimated to be delivered in 10 days.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Blind yep. Cables handed to me without brand, material or price. Hearing same 5 tracks. same volume. Picked the one that I liked without even knowing the price, rand , or material of the cable.


 
   
  People can easily make up differences when listening to the same cable, let alone cables they already know are different. Mind cannot be trusted for such measurements.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The evidence strongly suggests that any difference is in the mind of the listener and is not inherent of the cable itself. So any review is only really a descriptive of what the reviewer heard and is not guaranteed to be replicated in any way. So another person may hear no difference. Another may hear a 'brighter sound' rather than the reviewer's descriptive of a 'darker sound'.
   
  It is true that people have listened to the same cable in ABX blind testing and reported differences.


----------



## avkdh

Why do some insist that one MUST try  different cables personally and then decide? There´s no need to try everything personally to be convinced if something is true or not,  it´s quite irrational to suggest so.


----------



## liamstrain

If your preferred method of dealing with the world is to ignore facts, then it makes sense that every possible variation on the same idea, would be a new mystery and full of possibility. _"This cable, might be different!"_ These are the people who will constantly shift goal posts, and require a refutation for every example they dream up - they will never accept theory backed by data, deduction, logic or inference. Only personal experience matters, and with no other criteria - every single possible thing must be tested personally - otherwise _"how can you know for sure?"_


----------



## Warpkitty

There's an old stereophile interview with Bob Carver:

http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/290bob_carver/index.html

"I've done a series of converging experiments, the results of which teach me that copper wire may well be equivalent to silver wire. But I'll tell you, in the case of the Silver Seven, if there was even the remotest possibility, unseen by me and undetectable by me, that silver would be better, I know one thing for sure:
 There's no better wire than silver wire!"

So even though Bob can't measure a difference he just "knows" it will be better!

This means to me that the psychoacoustic effects of cables, tweaks, and whatever play a pretty large role in how a listener perceives sound. So I suspect that has a lot to do with the debate.

For me, when I was younger I got pretty sucked into the Naim and Linn thing and put together a system based on being sold, what I now consider to be, a bill of goods.

Great sounding system sure, but I probably could have done it up with a cheaper Technics and Sansui thing ... Keeping the speakers the same. Yet I'm compelled to want to believe good quality interconnects make a difference as do fancy amps and source components.

But before I pull the trigger on high end stuff I like to read the objectivist arguments like those done by he who cannot be named and the Audio Critic. What I tend to do now is only take seriously the reviews of gear that have been through a dScope or Audio Precison system and I can see the specs. Unfortunately that makes the hobby somewhat boring. Saves me money though.

Of course I still go to the subjectivist side now and then. FedEx informs me that my Woo WA2 will be delivered sometime tomorrow. And I've spent the morning researching RCA to 1/4 inch adapters and cables to hook up the amp to my MOTU audio interface, when I really ought to have just gone to the local guitar shop and bought some $1.29 adapter and called it a day.


----------



## juantendo8

Quote: 





avkdh said:


> Why do some insist that one MUST try  different cables personally and then decide? There´s no need to try everything personally to be convinced if something is true or not,  it´s quite irrational to suggest so.


 
   
  Well, it's not like anyone is obligated to try equipment before they buy it, but it is the rational thing to do when one is buying something expensive and/or as controversial as aftermarket cables. The main two reasons IMO are:
   
  1. Different people really do hear different things. It may very well be a matter of the brain rather than of the ears.
  2. You (the buyer) and specifically your wallet are the ones with much to lose if you end up buying gear that is ineffective, inappropriate, or just not enjoyable.


----------



## avkdh

Quote: 





juantendo8 said:


> Well, it's not like anyone is obligated to try equipment before they buy it, but it is the rational thing to do when one is buying something expensive and/or as controversial as aftermarket cables. The main two reasons IMO are:
> 
> 1. Different people really do hear different things. It may very well be a matter of the brain rather than of the ears.
> 2. You (the buyer) and specifically your wallet are the ones with much to lose if you end up buying gear that is ineffective, inappropriate, or just not enjoyable.


 
   
  The rational thing to do would be to try different products that we know can make a difference in sound, from a rational perspective there´s no need to personally try expensive cables because there's no evidence to support the idea that they can make a difference in sound (unless of course the cable had some serious flaw or it was intentionally build to be less accurate than a normal "good enough" cable).  I don't have to go to space and personally see the earth shape to know it's round...


----------



## Tilpo

Here's a bit of controversy for your brains to digest:


People can buy cables if they want to. If they think it will makes an improvement, and after noting they do hear improvements, then let them be. They will physically hear improvements, there is no single doubt about that. I think that cable believers suffer from epidemic lying is highly improbable. 

Whether or not this perceived improvement is a manifestation of some form of expectation bias is irrelevant. As long as the buyer himself is satisfied with the product there is no problem, and will only serve as useful money circulation in the economy. 



The ones who have become convinced that cables do not cause improvement in sound quality can just peacefully ignore the believers and live happily ever after. 



Perhaps the only ones at a loss are the middle group that is unsure which side of the argument to believe. They may feel as if they lack something without buying better cables, while at the same time feeling that buying cables might be a waste of money.


----------



## avkdh

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Here's a bit of controversy for your brains to digest:
> People can buy cables if they want to. If they think it will makes an improvement, and after noting they do hear improvements, then let them be. They will physically hear improvements, there is no single doubt about that. I think that cable believers suffer from epidemic lying is highly improbable.
> Whether or not this perceived improvement is a manifestation of some form of expectation bias is irrelevant. As long as the buyer himself is satisfied with the product there is no problem, and will only serve as useful money circulation in the economy.
> The ones who have become convinced that cables do not cause improvement in sound quality can just peacefully ignore the believers and live happily ever after.
> Perhaps the only ones at a loss are the middle group that is unsure which side of the argument to believe. They may feel as if they lack something without buying better cables, while at the same time feeling that buying cables might be a waste of money.


 
  It becomes relevant when they start recommending others to buy such cables. 
   
  example: "This is a problem with the cable in the box. Good quality third party cables really sort this problem out. Sennheiser should really be ashamed of shipping that cable with such a premium pair of headphones. A good, relatively cheap upgrade option would be the Cardas cable." 
   
http://www.head-fi.org/t/608699/does-it-get-much-better-than-the-hd800/45


----------



## Tilpo

avkdh said:


> It becomes relevant when they start recommending others to buy such cables.
> 
> example: "This is a problem with the cable in the box. Good quality third party cables really sort this problem out. Sennheiser should really be ashamed of shipping that cable with such a premium pair of headphones. A good, relatively cheap upgrade option would be the Cardas cable."
> 
> ...



People who do not believe cables make a difference ignore such statements. People who do believe in cables might welcome such statements, or at the very least find them relevant. 

Like I said. This is only a problem to the people who are 'in the middle' and not sure which side to believe. They might feel unsure whether or not cables make a difference, and this insecurity can definitely affect listening experience. 
If they in the end buy the cable and find the perceived improvement in sound quality to be reasonable for the amount of money spent, then they, as a consumer, are satisfied. No harm done. 

The only situation in which there is harm is when someone buys a cable, but reports no differences, or at the least not large enough to warrant the purchase of the cable. But experience tells me that this group is a rather rare one.


----------



## liamstrain

There is harm in that such statements damage Senn's reputation unfairly (at least to newcomers to the field), and continues to perpetuate a mythology that cables are some magic sauce worth spending the money. Some smaller companies (Audeze/Hifiman) might start spending resources on "correcting" the "problem" driving up prices for no sonic benefit, rather than on actual research and development - which ends up hurting all of us, not just cable believers and undecideds. 
   
  There is nothing to be gained from perpetuating mythology, unless you run a cottage (or major - ahem Monster) industry catering to it.


----------



## DNZGamer

@Tilpo
   
  That is just poor reasoning to say the least...
   
  Cable believers are made believers by what they read. Most people who believe in cables are regular consumers who don't delve into the science and studies and just takes what people say because these are audio reviewers who are suppose to guide them towards there purchases. Walk into Bay and Bloor Radio and the salesmen will tell you the amazing sonic differences of superior cables which don't exist. My dad at 71 isn't gonna browse the internet to find out exactly how true that is.
   
  There is a small demographic of cable believers who are hard headed enough to know of scientific findings and ignore them. There is almost no demographic of cable believers after blind testing because they just make a fool of themselves by failing those tests.
   
  Now we are gonna make companies focus on elements of a headphone that don't make a difference? 

 Also, the vast majority of consumers are the uneducated ones and telling them lies is harmful for the entire industry because once they've invested in cables, they will be inclined to defend them as well and so people end up wasting money on useless things which they will defend like their honour because the last thing any person who takes pride in his hobby wants to know is that he is completely ignorant and a sucker. This is probably why so many people are avidly defending cables, ignoring facts and refuse to subjugate themselves to scientific experimentation to prove its validity. 
   
  Please stop discussing the issue of "let people do what they want". This has nothing to do with what anyone is talking about. The focus of this topic has been on reviewers because these people heavily influence the market. There is nothing harmless about spreading misinformation.


----------



## jgray91

If solely focusing on the real issue presented by the OP, that is should he believe any reviewers who talk about cables, IIRC Tilpo said how he handled it. For me, I just add another tablespoon worth of salt, in addition to the grain of salt needed for any review. For cable believers, cable sections interest them so much, while non-believers should just add that spoonful. Or just stop reading it and mentally note who that was. You decide it yourself if you want to read any other poetry review that reviewer ever written or will write.


----------



## DNZGamer

Which really limits my review choices... would be striking off many of the people I have made purchases based on too. The topic itself was just me trying to get a discussion going regarding the quality of reviews and possible filters to apply when attempting to extract relevant information from reviewers while ignoring the fluff.
   
  Topic was overall informative though. This is my first time really reading the points of views from both sides so now I feel more informed.


----------



## bmiamihk




----------



## Warpkitty

Quote: 





warpkitty said:


> Of course I still go to the subjectivist side now and then. FedEx informs me that my Woo WA2 will be delivered sometime tomorrow. And I've spent the morning researching RCA to 1/4 inch adapters and cables to hook up the amp to my MOTU audio interface, when I really ought to have just gone to the local guitar shop and bought some $1.29 adapter and called it a day.


 
   
  Which is indeed what I just did


----------



## bmiamihk

New material I will use to upgrade my earphone bud cable.


----------



## germanium

I would look for reviewers that have similar sonic preferances as you. Most reviewers will at some point tell you what they look for in sound. If they look for the same type of preferances as you then check out some of thier recommendations to see if they in fact egree with your preferances, If they do then they may be someone that you can at least have some trust in. Not complete trust as some reviewers preferances evolve over time. I for one know that cables in some situations can make a difference & in others not so your milage will definately vary. If a reviewer starts telling you to buy some expensive rocks to put on top of your speakers to make them sound better or some clock that majically lines up the electrons in your house wiring as making a real difference that reviewer is not to be trusted for anything.


----------



## kiteki

There is probably a scientific reason behind why certain IEM cables sound different, as a valid example the various Etymotic ER-4 cables sound extremely different due to impedance and capacitance.


----------



## DNZGamer

I actually purchased that 75ohm converter head you linked me. Free shipping but apparently is gonna take like 3 weeks to arrive ><. Will work on getting a silver cable next.


----------



## Citan

Well I stopped reading Inner Fidelity after Tyll recommended an after market cable (I think for the HD 800), he likely still has some great insight into headphones and such, but It is just way too difficult for me to take what he writes seriously after that.


----------



## bmiamihk

Some short of self censorship huh?
  Quote: 





citan said:


> Well I stopped reading Inner Fidelity after Tyll recommended an after market cable (I think for the HD 800), he likely still has some great insight into headphones and such, but It is just way too difficult for me to take what he writes seriously after that.


----------



## mikeaj

kiteki said:


> There is probably a scientific reason behind why certain IEM cables sound different, as a valid example the various Etymotic ER-4 cables sound extremely different due to impedance and capacitance.




Is there significant capacitance in that cable?


For the record, most people saying things about (standard) cables not making a difference aren't including cables with resistors in them, like the Etymotic adapter. And really, that's not so much a cable as a cable + resistor. It's not the cable construction or materials themselves or the "cable part" that's responsible for the difference. The different behavior is in accordance with theory.

Cables are passive devices. For standard cables in standard audio applications, R / L / C values are all small enough to be insignificant, there's no EMC issues, ground loops, noise, etc. In those situations (almost all home audio scenarios) there shouldn't be audible differences.




citan said:


> Well I stopped reading Inner Fidelity after Tyll recommended an after market cable (I think for the HD 800), he likely still has some great insight into headphones and such, but It is just way too difficult for me to take what he writes seriously after that.




I understand where you're coming from, but that's not enough to discourage me. You've got to filter everybody anyway. There are still going to be some good insights, like you say.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Is there significant capacitance in that cable?
> For the record, most people saying things about (standard) cables not making a difference aren't including cables with resistors in them, like the Etymotic adapter. And really, that's not so much a cable as a cable + resistor. It's not the cable construction or materials themselves or the "cable part" that's responsible for the difference. The different behavior is in accordance with theory.
> Cables are passive devices. For standard cables in standard audio applications, R / L / C values are all small enough to be insignificant, there's no EMC issues, ground loops, noise, etc. In those situations (almost all home audio scenarios) there shouldn't be audible differences.


 
   
  As for the capacitance, I posted a link a few pages back. The effect of cable capacitance is negligible at audible frequencies, and becomes significant (-3 dB) at >100 kHz.
  Apart from that, something else might be causing these changes, as you say, maybe there is extra resistance added etc.


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *mikeaj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Is there significant capacitance in that cable?


 
   
  Sorry I meant the ER-4 cables differ with resistors and capacitors, there is an after-market cable in China which lets you switch between ER-4P/S/B on the fly.
   
   


> Originally Posted by *mikeaj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> For the record, most people saying things about (standard) cables not making a difference aren't including cables with resistors in them, like the Etymotic adapter. And really, that's not so much a cable as a cable + resistor. It's not the cable construction or materials themselves or the "cable part" that's responsible for the difference. The different behavior is in accordance with theory.
> 
> Cables are passive devices. For standard cables in standard audio applications, R / L / C values are all small enough to be insignificant, there's no EMC issues, ground loops, noise, etc. In those situations (almost all home audio scenarios) there shouldn't be audible differences.


 
   
  I think the possible different behaviour of various cables can be in accordance with theory, only with these differences hidden in the cable, such as impedance, I've seen one 50 ohm silver coax cable, they're supposed to be 75 ohm I think?
   
  I see your point that people are discussing the cable construction and material.  - I'm still not clear on why the 3.5mm jacks on these cables are standard, not silver (or crystal etc.) when at the same time they place importance on the headphones being recabled internally under the cups...


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I see your point that people are discussing the cable construction and material.  - I'm still not clear on why the 3.5mm jacks on these cables are standard, not silver (or crystal etc.) when at the same time they place importance on the headphones being recabled internally under the cups...


 
  I doubt they can be made from silver, the jack needs to be rigid to withstand regular usage/wear-tear. Silver is too soft for the purpose, but silver/gold plating is common.


----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> As for the capacitance, I posted a link a few pages back.


 
   
this part was funny.
   
  "Digital / Optical Interconnects
 Recently I have seen adverts and reviews on fibre optic digital interconnects. Some are supposedly far superior to others, despite the fact that 1s and 0s (light present, light not present) are all that is passed. IMHO, it would take truly monumental incompetence to design any digital interconnect that was incapable of passing a digital signal without corruption. Since fibre optics (non-audiophile grade) are used to carry phone calls and data all 'round the world, with very low error rates and over huge distances, it is ludicrous to assume that any commercial digital interconnect will make any difference over a distance of a metre or so."


----------



## mikeaj

kiteki said:


> I think the possible different behaviour of various cables can be in accordance with theory, only with these differences hidden in the cable, such as impedance, I've seen one 50 ohm silver coax cable, they're supposed to be 75 ohm I think?
> 
> I see your point that people are discussing the cable construction and material.  - I'm still not clear on why the 3.5mm jacks on these cables are standard, not silver (or crystal etc.) when at the same time they place importance on the headphones being recabled internally under the cups...




Be very careful to not confuse impedance with characteristic impedance, which are very different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line

Characteristic impedance is a quality of interest when looking at high-frequency signals or low-frequency signals traveling long distances (think signal transmissions between high-speed digital logic on PCBs like on computer mainboards, or antennas for the former; and power line distribution for the latter). Well really, it's if the signal paths are within an order of magnitude of the wavelength (like more than 1/10th, as a rough rule of thumb). In those applications you have to consider electricity as a wave motion; it's always that way, but if you zoom in really close on a wave, it's pretty much just a straight line so you don't really need to sweat those details in a lot of scenarios, like for audio. Characteristic impedance is not relevant at audio frequencies unless you're looking at ridiculously long cables.

People quoting 20, 40, 50, 75, 120 ohms or whatever, usually are talking about characteristic impedance of the cable itself. The electrical impedance of those cables is low and usually negligible.


----------



## Astrozombie

It puts up red flags for sure....i've moved on to budget speakers for my PC/HT setups and i look around for reviews n such, usually i will just skip ahead. Hey maybe it gives them piece of mind to have such expensive equipment hooked up with - if nothing else - fancy looking wiring.
   
  What's funny is this dude is trying to trade with me and in his profile it says "We don't need no stinkin cables!" then i see he is trying to sell snake oil products.........


----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> I doubt they can be made from silver, the jack needs to be rigid to withstand regular usage/wear-tear. Silver is too soft for the purpose, but silver/gold plating is common.


 
   
  They exist.
   
  p.s. Italian silver hand-drawn at low temperatures, made in Japan link =o
   
  p.s. This one is pretty CuTe


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> They exist.
> 
> p.s. Italian silver hand-drawn at low temperatures, made in Japan link =o
> 
> p.s. This one is pretty CuTe


 
   
  Wow. Expensive as they are, I wonder if they're fragile as well.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> this part was funny.
> 
> "Digital / Optical Interconnects
> Recently I have seen adverts and reviews on fibre optic digital interconnects. Some are supposedly far superior to others, despite the fact that 1s and 0s (light present, light not present) are all that is passed. IMHO, it would take truly monumental incompetence to design any digital interconnect that was incapable of passing a digital signal without corruption. Since fibre optics (non-audiophile grade) are used to carry phone calls and data all 'round the world, with very low error rates and over huge distances, it is ludicrous to assume that any commercial digital interconnect will make any difference over a distance of a metre or so."


 
   
  True, I guess digital has made the lives of cable makers slightly difficult.


----------



## bmiamihk




----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> Wow. Expensive as they are, I wonder if they're fragile as well.


 
   
  Ok I found one, pretty expensive - http://www.mains-cables-r-us.co.uk/xlr-phono-rca-connectors/89-oyaide-slsc-rca-plugs-set-of-4-5052408650139.html
   
  I think from what I've seen even cable believers tend to say it should be the last component in a system to upgrade, so I think spending so much on cables most commonly looks or prestige, I prefer to focus on more realistic components, need to try these...... - http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/diy/OPA/OPAEN.htm
   
   


mikeaj said:


>





> Be very careful to not confuse impedance with characteristic impedance, which are very different:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line
> 
> ...


 
   
  Thanks for the links and info, I'll read more about characteristic impedance.
   
   


proton007 said:


> True, I guess digital has made the lives of cable makers slightly difficult.


 
   
  I think so, unless someone has already spent $70,000 on a system then good-looking optical or USB cables are pocket change, so that market will continue to exist, perhaps - http://squarewave-eshop.com/index.php?route=product/category&path=35_44


----------



## kiteki

When browing through sites like http://www.*mains-cables-r-us*.co.uk/7_oyaide it does make you start thinking "damn these look good" and "ABX?"
   
  I mean... ?


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Ok I found one, pretty expensive - http://www.mains-cables-r-us.co.uk/xlr-phono-rca-connectors/89-oyaide-slsc-rca-plugs-set-of-4-5052408650139.html


 
  Pretty cheap. These was one signature series one on ebay while ago that I was bidding on for a pair went up to $1700.


----------



## proton007

Well if you're charging $700 for a USB cable or $2k for power conditioner then you better make it good looking. Prestige has no price. Some will pay just for the heck of having it and showing it off.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





germanium said:


> I would look for reviewers that have similar sonic preferances as you. Most reviewers will at some point tell you what they look for in sound. If they look for the same type of preferances as you then check out some of thier recommendations to see if they in fact egree with your preferances, If they do then they may be someone that you can at least have some trust in. Not complete trust as some reviewers preferances evolve over time. I for one know that cables in some situations can make a difference & in others not so your milage will definately vary. If a reviewer starts telling you to buy some expensive rocks to put on top of your speakers to make them sound better or some clock that majically lines up the electrons in your house wiring as making a real difference that reviewer is not to be trusted for anything.


 

 I that just made my day germanium awesome .


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Well if you're charging $700 for a USB cable or $2k for power conditioner then you better make it good looking. Prestige has no price. Some will pay just for the heck of having it and showing it off.


 
   
  Exactly.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Well if you're charging $700 for a USB cable or $2k for power conditioner then you better make it good looking. Prestige has no price. Some will pay just for the heck of having it and showing it off.


 

 At a certain point I would be more ashamed to show it off 
   
  If it really benefits me in no way then I see no need to waste money. But everyone has their own preferences regardless...


----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> Well if you're charging $XXX for X cable or $2k for power conditioner then you better make it good looking. Prestige has no price. Some will pay just for the heck of having it and showing it off.


 
   
  To be honest there are only two reasons I'd consider buying a silver custom IEM cable
   
  - looks
  - curiosity
   
  Sometimes science says we can't perceive above 60Hz refresh rate, that titanium and paper speakers sound the same, that all op-amps or DAC's sound the same, etc... so that anti-quasi-science curiosity is always there, however at the same time I think everyone should know that cables are the least important part of any audio system, that they're a passive component and Copper already sounds like nectar from wings of Athena.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> To be honest there are only two reasons I'd consider buying a silver custom IEM cable
> 
> - looks
> - curiosity


 
   
  For me the looks may have a miniscule chance, that too severely limited by price, but I'd definitely stay away from conducting experiments this expensive.


----------



## DNZGamer

Hey, women spend thousands on shoes that are neither comfortable nor functional so looks is a very legitimate reason to get cables.


----------



## lee730

Mens jewelry .


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Hey, women spend thousands on shoes that are neither comfortable nor functional so looks is a very legitimate reason to get cables.


 
   
  And bags....you should have a look at the amount of $$$ my miss spends on handbags and dresses, they are all the same thing, but its the looks, brand and quality that you want to boast over and show off at the end of the day. :/


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> Mens jewelry .


 
   
  hey lee, go to the cable FS section, you have Piccolino cable's waiting for you there.


----------



## lee730

If I win the lottery I'll take you up on that lol.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> If I win the lottery I'll take you up on that lol.


 
   
  lol if the person who pm'd before me doesn't end up buying it, I will make an IEM cable out of it with the IE8 connector's and I'll send it to you on a loan. :]


----------



## proton007

For those who do not own speakers, or haven't considered them seriously, would you rather spend this amount on a good set of speakers? I mean if I had $2k to splurge I'd go for a pair of Dynaudio monitors rather than the cable.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> For those who do not own speakers, or haven't considered them seriously, would you rather spend this amount on a good set of speakers? I mean if I had $2k to splurge I'd go for a pair of Dynaudio monitors rather than the cable.


 
   
  If I already have good high end headphone system with some decent speakers and had $2k floating around, I'd spend that on a holiday over anything else.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





defqon said:


> lol if the person who pm'd before me doesn't end up buying it, I will make an IEM cable out of it with the IE8 connector's and I'll send it to you on a loan. :]


 

 I'd love that . At least I'd be able to determine for myself if its really worth it. Then again I'd be bargain shopping like you and try to get it in bulk.


----------



## kiteki

defqon said:


> If I already have good high end headphone system with some decent speakers and had $2k floating around, I'd spend that on a holiday over anything else.


 
   
  probably a smart idea...


----------



## DNZGamer

I should just buy my wife a Pico for a necklace. Its silver crystals and gold and costs no less than a silver necklace at Tiffany's!


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> I should just buy my wife a Pico for a necklace. Its silver crystals and gold and costs no less than a silver necklace at Tiffany's!


 
  You can terminate one of the ends to a IEM, so she can not only look good with the necklace, but also listen to some sweet Crystal tunes!


----------



## kiteki

If you like fancy materials that actually make a difference in sound (kinda), try a ceramic or steel high perforamnce op-amp replacement - http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/IC-1x-AD827AQ-Cerdip-High-Speed-Low-Power-Dual-Op-Amp-/260753621301


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> If you like fancy materials that actually make a difference in sound (kinda), try a ceramic or steel high perforamnce op-amp replacement - http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/IC-1x-AD827AQ-Cerdip-High-Speed-Low-Power-Dual-Op-Amp-/260753621301


 
  I was actually just looking at that before, I've done bit of looking around and apparantly there's like 3 versions of the AD827, AD827, AD827A, AD827BZ or something........


----------



## bmiamihk

If it sounds good and it only comes in PINK I will take it.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> To be honest there are only two reasons I'd consider buying a silver custom IEM cable
> 
> - looks
> - curiosity
> ...


----------



## bmiamihk

Well most of those women dont buy them because they are smart. They have various men buy them for them or after 6 dates they save up cause the men pay for the dates.
  Quote: 





defqon said:


> And bags....you should have a look at the amount of $$$ my miss spends on handbags and dresses, they are all the same thing, but its the looks, brand and quality that you want to boast over and show off at the end of the day. :/


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Well most of those women dont buy them because they are smart. They have various men buy them for them or after 6 dates they save up cause the men pay for the dates.


 
  I'm well past that point....lol trust me


----------



## liamstrain

I know what good high heels do to show off my wife's legs. 
   
   
  Worth. Every. Penny.


----------



## bmiamihk

What do you do with the look of long legs?
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I know what good high heels do to show off my wife's legs.
> 
> 
> Worth. Every. Penny.


----------



## TMRaven

I'd believe said reviewer if they noticed differences going from copper to silver cable, and 100ft+ to 5ft cable (which will never happen with headphones), but if he or she starts talking differences about different grades and construction of copper or silver cable making differences, then I'd disregard their review.
   
  The same goes for burn-in, which seems to be a disturbingly popular belief on head-fi.  I'd be ok with a reviewer saying they hear slight differences within the first 5-10 hours, but anything after that is just ridiculous.  No headphone should get better after 300 hours.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





tmraven said:


> I'd believe said reviewer if they noticed differences going from copper to silver cable, and 100ft+ to 5ft cable (which will never happen with headphones), but if he or she starts talking differences about different grades and construction of copper or silver cable making differences, then I'd disregard their review.
> 
> The same goes for burn-in, which seems to be a disturbingly popular belief on head-fi.  I'd be ok with a reviewer saying they hear slight differences within the first 5-10 hours, but anything after that is just ridiculous.  No headphone should get better after 300 hours.


 
  Agree.


----------



## DNZGamer

I actually was gonna ask about Burn In too since I can't tell the differences. I did not notice the first time I got my m80 and I tried to notice again when I got a brand new one under warranty. It sounded great as soon as I put them on.

 But there seems to be more science backing that burn-in does exist compared to the cables thing. Apparently people (professionals) did recognize subtle differences. Its funny because when I bought my Grado they even have an intro sheet that says to allow them to burn in.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> I actually was gonna ask about Burn In too since I can't tell the differences. I did not notice the first time I got my m80 and I tried to notice again when I got a brand new one under warranty. It sounded great as soon as I put them on.
> 
> But there seems to be more science backing that burn-in does exist compared to the cables thing. Apparently people (professionals) did recognize subtle differences. Its funny because when I bought my Grado they even have an intro sheet that says to allow them to burn in.


 

 Burn in will vary from headphone/component and in some cases the differences can be quite uncanny.


----------



## liamstrain

Burn in at least makes some sense and can be backed by theory and objective measurement (though it seems to be MUCH less of a change than people think - not dramatic shifts in performance or characteristic). Especially as pads change (soften or absorb skin oils, etc.)
   
  The worst is people who think cables need to burn in.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> What do you do with the look of long legs?


 

 I could tell you what I would do but I don't think its appropriate for this forum.


----------



## Tilpo

liamstrain said:


> Burn in at least makes some sense and can be backed by theory and objective measurement (though it seems to be MUCH less of a change than people think - not dramatic shifts in performance or characteristic). Especially as pads change (soften or absorb skin oils, etc.)
> 
> The worst is people who think cables need to burn in.



This. 

Tyll's measurement of burn-in of the Q701 show small differences of which the audibility is questionable. This does not mean it's not audible, but it's definitely not going to be a huge difference at all. Additionally, the frequency response devitations are even _within a margin of error_
, so things like_ 'the bass really became more pronounced after burn-in'_ or _'wow, burning this can really removed the veil and made them more bright' _ are all in the reviewers head. Hence the actually quite applicable term 'mental burn-in'

However, ear pads definitely do change over time. Just looking at my 1-year-old HD650 pads already shows what wear can do to earpads, and I can't imagine this _not _having an effect on the sound.


----------



## DNZGamer

Burn in sounds more like part mental adjustment, part loosening of the drivers and part changes in the earpads. Could just be that people are mistakenly attributing all the changes to one factor and does seem quite different from the cable situation.


----------



## jgray91

I still am quite undecided on mechanical burn/break in. One the one hand, there's many other physical items that really does have break ins, e.g. shoes, clothes etc. meaning this suggests that driver breaking in is real; on the other hand, there's so much "ZOMG THIS [insert hyperbole verb] AFTER [insert hyperbole time frame] OF BREAK IN!!!!11111eleventy11!" and just stating not going to listen to it before said hyperbolic time frame. There's a Headfonia post on this phenomenon. I don't know, but I can wrap around the idea that me myself is getting used to the sound signature.
   
  Personal quibble though, I can't see how anyone that can stand waiting for a headphone to break in for 4 days or more in your own house. I can see being patient when it's on route (if you're buying online and such), but not when it's within arm's reach (or near enough that distance is not a problem).


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> What do you do with the look of long legs?


----------



## proton007

Personally I'd say that there can be two types of reviewers, the artsy type and the nerdy type.
  The first types will usually care about sound aesthetics, and write a review that reads like a prose, without really discussing any technicalities. Maybe they have their setup done by someone else.
  The second type are the ones who publish graphs and use software to analyze signals, but do not talk about sound as much or do so in a very technical manner.
  Now it depends on the reader, we all have different mindsets and preferences, and might prefer a style of reviewing over another. This means we also have a potential group of customers who'll buy stuff without caring about the technicalities underneath. ( Why do you think apple sells so much hardware? Its not about the hardware/performance alone.) 
  Although the design of electronics is a matter of setting a specification and meeting it, there's a lot many aspects of the human mind that can be utilized to make a sale. For thought, consider how many home theater systems are sold every day, most of them are 70-80 dB S/N. For that same customer, will it matter if I improve the specs? Maybe not, but it'll definitely sell for a higher price if I make it look better and aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## bmiamihk

Which kind do the women want and whch kind the women will need?
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Personally I'd say that there can be two types of reviewers, the artsy type and the nerdy type.
> The first types will usually care about sound aesthetics, and write a review that reads like a prose, without really discussing any technicalities. Maybe they have their setup done by someone else.
> The second type are the ones who publish graphs and use software to analyze signals, but do not talk about sound as much or do so in a very technical manner.
> Now it depends on the reader, we all have different mindsets and preferences, and might prefer a style of reviewing over another. This means we also have a potential group of customers who'll buy stuff without caring about the technicalities underneath. ( Why do you think apple sells so much hardware? Its not about the hardware/performance alone.)
> Although the design of electronics is a matter of setting a specification and meeting it, there's a lot many aspects of the human mind that can be utilized to make a sale. For thought, consider how many home theater systems are sold every day, most of them are 70-80 dB S/N. For that same customer, will it matter if I improve the specs? Maybe not, but it'll definitely sell for a higher price if I make it look better and aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Which kind do the women want and whch kind the women will need?


 
   
  Maybe someone with experience in this regard can reply...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  But I think nerdy women are a rarity.


----------



## Magick Man

proton007 said:


> But I think nerdy women are a rarity.




and sexy as ****.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Maybe someone with experience in this regard can reply...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Muppetface


----------



## bmiamihk

Haha but in Hong Kong most of the women are nerdy
   
  Quote:


magick man said:


> and sexy as ****.


----------



## Parall3l

I don't want a doctor that thinks vaccines are made by the illuminati, nor do I want to read reviews by reviewers who think cables can affect frequency response.


----------



## bmiamihk

Placebo does work.
  Quote: 





parall3l said:


> I don't want a doctor that thinks vaccines are made by the illuminati, nor do I want to read reviews by reviewers who think cables can affect frequency response.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Placebo does work.


 
   
  Same as $500 cables.


----------



## Chris J

I got a pair of Q701s, they sounded same before and after burn-in.

BTW, this thread is a lot cheaper that psychotherapy.


----------



## bmiamihk

or $5 dollar one if you are broke.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Same as $500 cables.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Placebo does work.


 
   
  Sometimes. But there is a reason you are not allowed to label a bottle of water as medicine.*  
   
   
  *except for homeopathy, which is a whole other level of idiocy.


----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> The second type are the ones who publish graphs and use software to analyze signals, but do not talk about sound as much or do so in a very technical manner.
> Now it depends on the reader, we all have different mindsets and preferences, and might prefer a style of reviewing over another. This means we also have a potential group of customers who'll buy stuff without caring about the technicalities underneath. ( Why do you think apple sells so much hardware? Its not about the hardware/performance alone.)
> Although the design of electronics is a matter of setting a specification and meeting it, there's a lot many aspects of the human mind that can be utilized to make a sale.


 
   
  Apple computers are a valid example of form over function which applies to sectors of audio like cables, elegant speakers and 25kg CD players, however I don't think your analysis applies in all cases such as headphones and IEM's since some technical reviewers understand that software and microphones don't share enough information to evaluate the complete sound.
   
  Remember the USB cable thread where I linked to the Sony ZX700 and Apple earbud graphs, a technical reviewer can't evaluate the sound of either one by 2D software analysis alone, you have to listen to them.  Audio isn't like PC monitors which we can evaluate prior to seeing them.
   
  In my experience technical reviewers will praise the technical performance of an IEM and often overlook the tonality, natural sound, etc.  The Etymotic ER-4 and J-Phonic K2 SP are examples of high technical performance with weak tonality, both sounding quite digital respectively lifeless, not very true to music.  The FI-BA-SS has average technical performance and extremely good tonality and natural sound.  If what I'm saying isn't true and software and microphones can tell us everything then the Etymotic ER-4S should still be the most popular IEM, since it says so on paper, and not the Sony EX1000, JH16, et cetera.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Apple computers are a valid example of form over function which applies to sectors of audio like cables, elegant speakers and 25kg CD players, however I don't think your analysis applies in all cases such as headphones and IEM's since some technical reviewers understand that software and microphones don't share enough information to evaluate the complete sound.
> 
> Remember the USB cable thread where I linked to the Sony ZX700 and Apple earbud graphs, a technical reviewer can't evaluate the sound of either one by 2D software analysis alone, you have to listen to them.  Audio isn't like PC monitors which we can evaluate prior to seeing them.
> 
> In my experience technical reviewers will praise the technical performance of an IEM and often overlook the tonality, natural sound, etc.  The Etymotic ER-4 and J-Phonic K2 SP are examples of high technical performance with weak tonality, both sounding quite digital respectively lifeless, not very true to music.  The FI-BA-SS has average technical performance and extremely good tonality and natural sound.  If what I'm saying isn't true and software and microphones can tell us everything then the Etymotic ER-4S should still be the most popular IEM, since it says so on paper, and not the Sony EX1000, JH16, et cetera.


 
   
  Yeah, I agree, thats why I said analysis via software (works well for sources/amps and headphones/IEMs) + a technical evaluation of sound by listening (works well for headphones/IEMs).


----------



## liamstrain

Of course, the Ety ER-4 is generally considered one of the most accurate, and useful for professional audio (recording/mixing), of the IEMs. Linkwitz uses them as a his reference set, and except for the fact that I hate IEMs, I enjoyed mine - I'll probably end up with another pair at some point.
   
  *shrug* I think you would be surprised at how often the technical data is born out in practice too.


----------



## bmiamihk

You believe that? Have you done a blind test?
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Of course, the Ety ER-4 is generally considered one of the most accurate, and useful for professional audio (recording/mixing), of the IEMs. Linkwitz uses them as a his reference set, and except for the fact that I hate IEMs, I enjoyed mine - I'll probably end up with another pair at some point.
> 
> *shrug* I think you would be surprised at how often the technical data is born out in practice too.


----------



## liamstrain

What are you, 12?


----------



## bmiamihk

45 and thats a fact.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> What are you, 12?


----------



## liamstrain

There was nothing to "believe" in my statement. I have been involved with professional audio for over a dozen years - the ER-4 has consistently been used, abused, loved and respected in that world for its accuracy and isolation. This experience is also born out by the measurement data. Since they are not in conflict, I have little reason to question it. 
   
  You need to act closer to 45 then, you do yourself a disservice.


----------



## bmiamihk

The point is you want to believe that earphone is as you say it is but wheres the proof?


----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> Yeah, I agree, thats why I said analysis via software (works well for sources/amps and headphones/IEMs) + a technical evaluation of sound by listening (works well for headphones/IEMs).


 
   
   
  Yeah, precision 2D software works well for sources/amps, after all that's how they're made... like designing a CPU chip... then the audiophiles look for the chips with the highest specs evar and start listening.
   
  As technology advances more headphones, speakers, IEM's and musical instruments will be designed with precision software.
   
  The UERM wasn't made on a computer. =p


----------



## TMRaven

Break in always seems to 'cure' problems with headphones.  I always hear bass becoming stronger after 300 hours with K701, treble becoming airier after 300 hours with HD650 and mids becoming more present after 300 hours with D2000.  Of course the most popular I hear is how certain infamously sibilant headphones becomes less sibilant after 300 hours.  Seldom do I hear people actually complain about the effects of 'burn-in.'  That's enough to tell me that its majority psychological.  Pads compressing over time changing sound I could definitely believe, but it would be so minimal that I question how people would memorize how a headphone sound upon first getting them and say how they changed 300 hours later.


----------



## Magick Man

bmiamihk said:


> The point is you want to believe that earphone is as you say it is but wheres the proof?



Appears that way to me.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/EtymoticER4PT.pdf


----------



## bmiamihk

Wow a graph nicely drawn well it must be real then especially if it is from the internet. There are many accurate earphones.
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> Appears that way to me.
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/EtymoticER4PT.pdf


----------



## kiteki

liamstrain said:


> Of course, the Ety ER-4 is generally considered one of the most accurate, and useful for professional audio (recording/mixing), of the IEMs. Linkwitz uses them as a his reference set, and except for the fact that I hate IEMs, I enjoyed mine - I'll probably end up with another pair at some point.


 
   
  I'm not aware of any technical data showing why the Ultimate Ears UERM is considered better than the Etymotic ER-4S for professional audio (recording/mixing) applications.
   
  There is some data saying the ER-4S should sound_ better_ though, as per multi versus single.
   



   
   
  The post I stole that from said audio measurement science is in the _dark ages._


----------



## liamstrain

Here is a nice conversation between Tyll and Steve Guttenberg on the usefulness of both objective and subjective audio impressions.
  http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/are-objective-headphone-measurements-relevant-audiophiles-subjective-experience
   
  As for "proof" of the neutrality of the ER4 - here is the frequency response data, showing relatively flat performance up to 1000, then moderate (and easily compensated) peaks up through the usable range of highs. This compares favorably with the DT880/600 (my mastering set) and Sony V6, two other popular pro audio headphones. 
   

   
  This coincides with my impressions (having owned and used all of them for a number of years). 
   
  What proof would you accept? There is not an effective way to ABX or Blind Test IEMs versus full size headphones, unfortunately. So we'll have to proceed from observation and inference from the available data.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Wow a graph nicely drawn well it must be real then especially if it is from the internet.


 
   
  What can I even say to that!
  If thats your stand...


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I'm not aware of any technical data showing why the Ultimate Ears UERM is considered better than the Etymotic ER-4S for professional audio (recording/mixing) applications.


 
   
  Is it? I have not seen many of them around or seen much mention of them, but that doesn't really mean much. I've not heard the UERM or seen data on them, but I'll dig around. If they are not as uncomfortable as the ETY, I might take them for a spin (edit: oy. customs and 1k +, I don't have enough need to justify that - I'd rather buy another mic).


----------



## Magick Man

bmiamihk said:


> Wow a graph nicely drawn well it must be real then especially if it is from the internet. There are many accurate earphones.



Not *that* accurate for *that* price.

Tyll is very well respected for his testing standards, there's no reason to call into question his integrity.


----------



## proton007

Guys, we're debating cables here, not headphones.
  The scope for objectiveness is ever more present in cables than headphones. If you're looking for subjectivity, or prefer a biased headphone, there's no point looking at the specs. Specs started out primarily as the tool of the engineeer, and engineers have always strived to set standards in perfecting reproduction, not biasing it. The fact that these specs can be translated into sonic characteristics means they can be used to represent the sound of the headphone.


----------



## Magick Man

There is no cable debate. There's no proof whatsoever that they change anything, unless they're assembled by blind chimps.


----------



## bmiamihk

True and it seems there are people who do not want to buy cables because they either do not believe, never or have tried a up grade cable, or have not seen a graph that a upgrade cable will improve the sound from their earphone or headphone and there are people who have tried and believe that the up grade cable has improved the sound. Seems you hold firmly that a up grade doese not improve the sound and are here just to attack anyone that believes otherwise.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Guys, we're debating cables here, not headphones.
> The scope for objectiveness is ever more present in cables than headphones. If you're looking for subjectivity, or prefer a biased headphone, there's no point looking at the specs. Specs started out primarily as the tool of the engineeer, and engineers have always strived to set standards in perfecting reproduction, not biasing it. The fact that these specs can be translated into sonic characteristics means they can be used to represent the sound of the headphone.


----------



## Parall3l

I need to write a book called The Cable Delusion. that'll be a controversial new best seller among the audiophiles.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> True and it seems there are people who do not want to buy cables because they either do not believe, never or have tried a up grade cable, or have not seen a graph that a upgrade cable will improve the sound from their earphone or headphone and there are people who have tried and believe that the up grade cable has improved the sound. Seems you hold firmly that a up grade doese not improve the sound and are here just to attack anyone that believes otherwise.


 
   
  Back to the same point we argued a few pages back. Whether something exists or not has nothing to do with whether you believe it exists, or see it, or hear it. Your brain is pretty powerful at making you believe than you think, but also very limited in its sensory perception.
   
  Anyways, I liked this point from the inner fidelity article:
   
   
  Quote: 





> Measurements provide an alternative to the common wisdom (which may be right or wrong) for evaluating the array of headphones available. Measurements put a more objectively reliable stake in the ground around which people can calibrate their search and appreciation of headphones.


 
  If anything, it seems measurements can provide you with a focused approach when evaluating anything.


----------



## bmiamihk

You can choose to read what another wrote with a skill to write well and feel you know more than another.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Back to the same point we argued a few pages back. Whether something exists or not has nothing to do with whether you believe it exists.
> 
> Anyways, I liked this point from the inner fidelity article:
> 
> ...


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> True and it seems there are people who do not want to buy cables because they either do not believe, never or have tried a up grade cable, or have not seen a graph that a upgrade cable will improve the sound from their earphone or headphone and there are people who have tried and believe that the up grade cable has improved the sound. Seems you hold firmly that a up grade doese not improve the sound and are here just to attack anyone that believes otherwise.


 
   
  I stated earlier that I had listened to a great many "upgrade" cables. I found that they did not improve the sound in subjective listening, nor did they in a properly run double blind test. These observations coincide with the theory and the measurements.
   
  You are the one asking us to abandon objective data in favor of your opinion, without your even attempting to eliminate basic biases in your own listening.
   
  You are taking the unreasonable and unsupported position here. Believe all you want, but do not expect anyone in a sound science forum, to take you seriously.


----------



## bmiamihk

I am trying to say it clearly, if you cannot hear a difference then you are correct and if another can hear a difference then that person is correct. Hopefully both are happy being correct.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I stated earlier that I had listened to a great many "upgrade" cables. I found that they did not improve the sound in subjective listening, nor did they in a properly run double blind test. These observations coincide with the theory and the measurements.
> 
> You are the one asking us to abandon objective data in favor of your opinion, without your even attempting to eliminate basic biases in your own listening.
> 
> You are taking the unreasonable and unsupported position here. Believe all you want, but do not expect anyone in a sound science forum, to take you seriously.


----------



## kiteki

I'm pretty sure the UERM is considered better for studio use than the ER-4S these days, I don't think it's just advertising.  Even if it is advertising I'm sure the UERM sounds a lot more impressive.
   
   


magick man said:


> Not *that* accurate for *that* price.


 
   
  The Vsonic GR07, Sony MDR-7550/EX800ST and Hifiman RE272 will all have much more natural tone, the Shure SE425, CK10, UE700 etc. will have more holographic and accurate layering and imaging.
   
  The ER-4 is too expensive for $299 these days, so they released the HF5 which is pretty much the same IEM except it's made in China.


----------



## DNZGamer

No someone who is crazy and sees floating objects around doesn't mean his perception is correct. This logic is a joke. The differences do not exist. You are challenging someone who HAS done objective testing and you are questioning all the sources that have also done such testing while you haven't done squat. The most ironic part is that you attack us for believing professionals and the VAST amount of scientific and non-scientific studies while you suggest we substitute our confidence in these findings for your anecdotes and limited experience.
   
  Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> I am trying to say it clearly, if you cannot hear a difference then you are correct and if another can hear a difference then that person is correct. Hopefully both are happy being correct.


----------



## bmiamihk

If you see it how can I say you dont? I dictate what everyone sees and dont see?
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> No someone who is crazy and sees floating objects around doesn't mean his perception is correct. This logic is a joke. The differences do not exist. You are challenging someone who HAS done objective testing and you are questioning all the sources that have also done such testing while you haven't done squat. The most ironic part is that you attack us for believing professionals and the VAST amount of scientific and non-scientific studies while you suggest we our confidence in these findings for your anecdotes and limited experience.


----------



## bmiamihk




----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> I am trying to say it clearly, if you cannot hear a difference then you are correct and if another can hear a difference then that person is correct. Hopefully both are happy being correct.


 
   
  That is not the nature of truth. They either affect the sound, or they do not. All the *evidence* thus far presented suggests they do not. If someone believes they make a difference, there is a _slight_ chance they *_might_* be right, but the evidence (pesky word), combined with the very well documented flaws in biased listening, suggests they are mistaken. Any sound change they hear is most likely due to something other than the cables (expectation bias being the most likely culprit - though there are many others).
   
  So, to clarify. I do not doubt that you hear a change. I am saying that the change is most likely not actually due to the cables, but to what your brain expects the cables to do (the change is in your head, not the actual sound).


----------



## DNZGamer

So it seems your problem is that you don't understand even what is being discussed. You seeing ilusions is PERCEPTION. No one is denying the effects of perception and in fact, we have been confirming that perception influences enjoyment and what one hears and sees. Almost all the posters here have at one point said that allowing the placebo affect to increase your enjoyment is perfectly VALID.
   
  What you are missing is the fact that someone with schizophrenia is seeing things that AREN'T THERE. No one is telling them not to enjoy those delusions or is telling them they aren't seeing those things. People are telling them it is not real.
  Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> If you see it how can I say you dont? I dictate what everyone sees and dont see?


----------



## bmiamihk

POSSIBLE
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> That is not the nature of truth. They either affect the sound, or they do not. All the *evidence* thus far presented suggests they do not. If someone believes they make a difference, there is a _slight_ chance they *_might_* be right, but the evidence (pesky word), combined with the very well documented flaws in biased listening, suggests they are mistaken. Any sound change they hear is most likely due to something other than the cables (expectation bias being the most likely culprit - though there are many others).


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> You are taking the unreasonable and unsupported position here. Believe all you want, but do not expect anyone in a sound science forum, to take you seriously.


 
   
  Agree. There's no point to an argument if you don't really give any thought or reasoning to someone's points. Putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalala" is not going to help.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> POSSIBLE


 

 No, PROVEN.


----------



## bmiamihk

Ok it (the upgrade cable) does not affect the sound coming out of my earphones. My perception says it does so I use it and I am happy. You believe and accept it as a fact so you do not buy it nor tried it yourself? True that person is seeing it and for that person he is not enjoying what he and only he is actually seeing. He actually believes he is seeing. OK on paper no difference in the real world a lot of difference.
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> So it seems your problem is that you don't understand even what is being discussed. You seeing ilusions is PERCEPTION. No one is denying the effects of perception and in fact, we have been confirming that perception influences enjoyment and what one hears and sees. Almost all the posters here have at one point said that allowing the placebo affect to increase your enjoyment is perfectly VALID.
> 
> What you are missing is the fact that someone with schizophrenia is seeing things that AREN'T THERE. No one is telling them not to enjoy those delusions or is telling them they aren't seeing those things. People are telling them it is not real.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> No, PROVEN.


 
   
  Reminds me of the Southpark episode about Thanksgiving.
  "There's no evidence to say aliens were not present during the first thanksgiving, hence we can say that aliens in fact might've started the tradition."


----------



## Parall3l

These arguments are surprisingly similar to a theological debate. LOL Personally, I won't accept cables as a way to objectively improve sound unless credible evidence is given. There are plenty of people who haven't heard a difference and plenty of people who claim that they have. No measurements have been presented to me to show that cables work, instead the opposite has been shown to me. Why is it that I never see enough measurements when it comes to a cable debate?


----------



## bmiamihk

You can. The difference would be if you were there when it happened.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Reminds me of the Southpark episode about Thanksgiving.
> "There's no evidence to say aliens were not present during the first thanksgiving, hence we can say that aliens in fact might've started the tradition."


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> OK on paper no difference in the real world a lot of difference.


 
   
  Actually, in the real world also no difference, in your brain a lot of difference.


----------



## kiteki

parall3l said:


> I need to write a book called The Cable Delusion. that'll be a controversial new best seller among the audiophiles.


 
   

  I'm sure it will sell like hot cakes ...


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> You can. The difference would be if you were there when it happened.


 
  Oh, so if I were there, and I told you I saw aliens, you'd believe me?


----------



## bmiamihk

What is interesting is that within a 2 hr stretch of tring cables some actually ruined the sound while another cable improved the sound so why is that?
  Quote: 





parall3l said:


> These arguments are surprisingly similar to a theological debate. LOL Personally, I won't accept cables as a way to objectively improve sound unless credible evidence is given. There are plenty of people who haven't heard a difference and plenty of people who claim that they have. No measurements have been presented to me to show that cables work, instead the opposite has been shown to me. Why is it that I never see enough measurements when it comes to a cable debate?


----------



## bmiamihk

You want to think so.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Actually, in the real world also no difference, in your brain a lot of difference.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I'm sure it will sell like hot cakes ...


 
   
  This is amazing.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> What is interesting is that within a 2 hr stretch of tring cables some actually ruined the sound while another cable improved the sound so why is that?


 
   
  Maybe your brain is broken?
   
  Or the cable was.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> What is interesting is that within a 2 hr stretch of tring cables some actually ruined the sound while another cable improved the sound so why is that?


 
  There are a lot of ways to ruin the sound if you ask me, but not many to make it better.


----------



## bmiamihk

Maybe so either way I am enjoying the sounds coming from the over priced wires.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Maybe your brain is broken?
> 
> Or the cable was.


----------



## Parall3l

bmiamihk said:


> What is interesting is that within a 2 hr stretch of tring cables some actually ruined the sound while another cable improved the sound so why is that?




First. back up that claim with evidence. Also, if a cable actually ruined the sound, there will be a measurable result.


----------



## bmiamihk

I enjoy playing 1 vs 4 wannabes in Basketball and actually be able to take it.


----------



## liamstrain

As I've said - if you are cool with having paid for a psycho-acoustic benefit, more power to you. Just don't argue that the cable actually did it.


----------



## bmiamihk

Evidence my brain.
  Quote: 





parall3l said:


> First. back up that claim with evidence. Also, if a cable actually ruined the sound, there will be a measurable result.


----------



## bmiamihk

Ok the upgrade sounds better then when I have the stock so what should I say caused the better sound?
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> As I've said - if you are cool with having paid for a psycho-acoustic benefit, more power to you. Just don't argue that the cable actually did it.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Evidence my brain.


 
  But the evidence is broken!


----------



## bmiamihk

If you have to place names on me and try to make me as crazy or physcho it just really exposes your mental imbalance.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> Ok the upgrade sounds better then when I have the stock so what should I say caused the better sound?


 
   
   
  Bias, placebo, psycho-acoustic phenomena not related to the cable, but rather to your own brain.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Ok it (the upgrade cable) does not affect the sound coming out of my earphones. My perception says it does so I use it and I am happy. You believe and accept it as a fact so you do not buy it nor tried it yourself? True that person is seeing it and for that person he is not enjoying what he and only he is actually seeing. He actually believes he is seeing. OK on paper no difference in the real world a lot of difference.


 
   
  In the real world it has proven to make no difference. You missed it again. The only thing that has proven to make a difference is perception and that is mental, not physical, which is the point. You are arguing all over the floor. We have all pretty much acknowledged possible differences based on psycho acoustics that makes a real difference to the perceiver. That does not mean it is a real physical difference. The people who buy $1000 cables and enjoy them more CAN enjoy them more. That does not change the fact that they are suckers who spent the money on no actual gain but compensated for it only in his mind. Sometimes it is hard for those people *cough* to admit that there is a chance that they really didn't have a clue when they made those choices.


----------



## Parall3l

bmiamihk said:


> Evidence my brain.




Your "evidence" is flawed. It does not show what changed the sound you perceived.


----------



## bmiamihk

You can say that but either way it sounds good. Why would one cable make the same song sound worse then the stock cable then another up grade cable make it sound better?
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Bias, placebo, psycho-acoustic phenomena not related to the cable, but rather to your own brain.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> You can say that but either way it sounds good. Why would one cable make the same song sound worse then the stock cable then another up grade cable make it sound better?


 
   
  If something made the sound worse, even the stock cable will make it feel better.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> You can say that but either way it sounds good. Why would one cable make the same song sound worse then the stock cable then another up grade cable make it sound better?


 
   
http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html
   
  Before advertising your brain as hard evidence, please apply it.
   
  Btw, I saw the Old Hag first.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> You can say that but either way it sounds good. Why would one cable make the same song sound worse then the stock cable then another up grade cable make it sound better?


 
   
   
  1. Without an ABX, you really don't know if it did. 
  2. My same response answers this. Bias, placebo, psycho-acoustic phenomena not related to the cable, but rather to your own brain. These are largely unconscious. You cannot control how you will react - so if you really want to know if something like this works, you have to try to eliminate the biases when doing your listening. Otherwise, you are just shooting blindly.


----------



## bmiamihk

Ok it totally is. I agree. I am glad I entertained you.
  Quote: 





parall3l said:


> Your "evidence" is flawed. It does not show what changed the sound you perceived.


----------



## DefQon

This thread is mass lol's. 
   
  I will conclude this thread discussion until my Piccolino cable's come in the next few weeks or so, if this thread isn't closed by then.


----------



## bmiamihk

I am glad to bring smiles to the people!
  Quote: 





defqon said:


> This thread is mass lol's.
> 
> I will conclude this thread discussion until my Piccolino cable's come in the next few weeks or so, if this thread isn't closed by then.


----------



## liamstrain

Looking forward to it DefQon - if you can arrange an ABX or blind test of some sort, we'd all appreciate the results.


----------



## DNZGamer

I cannot imagine anyone spending $1k on cables and not hearing a differences. I would hear liquid gold pouring into my ears if I had those cables.
  Quote: 





defqon said:


> This thread is mass lol's.
> 
> I will conclude this thread discussion until my Piccolino cable's come in the next few weeks or so, if this thread isn't closed by then.


----------



## bmiamihk

Is this a robot or a human asking the same questions?
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Looking forward to it DefQon - if you can arrange an ABX or blind test of some sort, we'd all appreciate the results.


----------



## bmiamihk

Imagination was highly respected by most scientists.
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> I cannot imagine anyone spending $1k on cables and not hearing a differences. I would hear liquid gold pouring into my ears if I had those cables.


----------



## kiteki

bmiamihk said:


> You can say that but either way it sounds good. Why would one cable make the same song sound worse then the stock cable then another up grade cable make it sound better?


 
   
  Here, let me help you - http://www.head-fi.org/t/564978/13-custom-iem-tf10-cables-reviewed-uber-muzik-v5f-added-1-03-2012


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> Is this a robot or a human asking the same questions?


 
   
   
  My wife says only one part of me is like it is made of metal. 
   
  Since I'm not convinced you are not a minor, I'll go ahead and say it is my brain.


----------



## bmiamihk

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Here, let me help you - http://www.head-fi.org/t/564978/13-custom-iem-tf10-cables-reviewed-uber-muzik-v5f-added-1-03-2012


 

 Thanks, Average joe reviews and ask him about the up grade cables or PM him for deeper details.


----------



## bmiamihk

I was thinking that exactly about you. A thin lanky kid with fat big glasses.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> My wife says only one part of me is like it is made of metal.
> 
> Since I'm not convinced you are not a minor, I'll go ahead and say it is my brain.


----------



## Magick Man

bmiamihk said:


> What is interesting is that within a 2 hr stretch of tring cables some actually ruined the sound while another cable improved the sound so why is that?



I don't know, but it probably has to do with your psychological makeup. My neighbor says she can talk with fairies and that some are nicer than others. It's in her head, I'm not sure how she works it out.


----------



## kiteki

dnzgamer said:


> I cannot imagine anyone spending $1k on cables and not hearing a differences. I would hear liquid gold pouring into my ears if I had those cables.


 
   
  I'm sure many people have spent $1k on a bottle of wine and can't taste any difference.


----------



## bmiamihk

Haha very true and other weirder things.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I'm sure many people have spent $1k on a bottle of wine and can't taste any difference.


----------



## DNZGamer

I don't drink but I understand it as more of an issue of status. Thats why I have some fine wines that I've never touched but leave around for possible guests. 
   
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I'm sure many people have spent $1k on a bottle of wine and can't taste any difference.


----------



## bmiamihk

I like how you use words to attack another person state of mind. Nice how without being forwards you took a female way of beating around the bush by comparing me to a neighbor you have at the clinic you are staying at.
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> I don't know, but it probably has to do with your psychological makeup. My neighbor says she can talk with fairies and that some are nicer than others. It's in her head, I'm not sure how she works it out.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> I cannot imagine anyone spending $1k on cables and not hearing a differences. I would hear liquid gold pouring into my ears if I had those cables.


 
   
  Funny you say that, you should know well that I'm not stupid enough to spend that much on cables, I got mine at dealers price. And I've auditioned IEM's (my IE8) using the Piccolino cable's, it was and is evident enough that there was a distinguishable difference, not to me, but among a group of 4 audiophile's as well (I'm not an audiophile so I'm not included). Equipments used were:
   
  Not mine: RSA Predator > Piccolino mini to mini w/Viablue 3.5mm termination > Custom Piccolino IE8 cable > IE8's x2 (one mine, other was another member from diyaudio)
  Mine: E11 > Piccolino mini to mini (borrowed) > Custom Piccolino IE8 cable > my IE8
   
  Impressions amongst 5 people including me: Was there was a very well distinguishable difference, not day and night or anything like turning **** music into godly creamy music, but the qualities the cable added was enough to say and backup that there was a difference the cable made throughout the auditioning process.
   
  I've heard many cables, Moon Audio, ALO, various Cryo'd OFC copper and OCC silver cable's and none of them gave me the impression that they were worth the price asking for, until I heard the Piccolino's which is why I never buy expensive aftermarket cables (except few) from big companies such as ALO or Moon Audio because I didn't hear any differences between them and my stock cables. The only time there was a difference was an illusion cast in my brain that said ok, I think there is a small difference, but I don't know or switching between Pure silver and ofc copper cables (the copper added more warmth and the silver sounded slightly thin, but nothing that boasted the sound characteristics).
   
  Those that own the Piccolino or have auditioned it given that it has been properly terminated provides a difference between stock and the CC cable.


----------



## liamstrain

We seem to have devolved for the evening. 
   
  I'm going to log out before this gets locked. Maybe we'll have new information to discuss in the morning. Good night all.


----------



## bmiamihk

I am not talking about extremes but a $90 dollar cable can improve the sound compared to a free one  just as a $100 dollar earphone can improve the sound from the free earbud that comes with the Ipod.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I'm sure many people have spent $1k on a bottle of wine and can't taste any difference.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Haha very true and other weirder things.


 
   
  Funny how you seem to agree when its wine, and not when its cables.


----------



## bmiamihk

If you are such a mature adult supporting a wife and kids why are you debating with a minor? I guess you have an office job.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> We seem to have devolved for the evening.
> 
> I'm going to log out before this gets locked. Maybe we'll have new information to discuss in the morning. Good night all.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> If you are such a mature adult supporting a wife and kids why are you debating with a minor? I guess you have an office job.


 
   
  Please do not make personal comments about anyone. Everyone here has respected you and your opinions, I'd appreciate if you do the same.


----------



## bmiamihk

really? Comon many have been passively attacking my mental state, age and intelligence and you focus only on me wow you are so unbiased.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Please do not make personal comments about anyone. Everyone here has respected you and your opinions, I'd appreciate if you do the same.


----------



## DNZGamer

Yes, I am gonna stop responding to bmiami. The frustration is certainly degrading my manners.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> We seem to have devolved for the evening.
> 
> I'm going to log out before this gets locked. Maybe we'll have new information to discuss in the morning. Good night all.


 
   
  Interesting. There could very possibly be a legitimate reason why Picolino is so far above (price wise) to the other cables. Really looking forward to you getting the cables and doing some ABX tests. Maybe once I've hit my end-game setup (not very expensive, just want JH13 or UERM) I might consider blinging myself up with something like that 
   
  Quote: 





defqon said:


> Funny you say that, you should know well that I'm not stupid enough to spend that much on cables, I got mine at dealers price. And I've auditioned IEM's (my IE8) using the Piccolino cable's, it was and is evident enough that there was a distinguishable difference, not to me, but among a group of 4 audiophile's as well (I'm not an audiophile so I'm not included). Equipments used were:
> 
> Not mine: RSA Predator > Piccolino mini to mini w/Viablue 3.5mm termination > Custom Piccolino IE8 cable > IE8's x2 (one mine, other was another member from diyaudio)
> Mine: E11 > Piccolino mini to mini (borrowed) > Custom Piccolino IE8 cable > my IE8
> ...


----------



## Magick Man

bmiamihk said:


> I like how you use words to attack another person state of mind. Nice how without being forwards you took a female way of beating around the bush by comparing me to a neighbor you have at the clinic you are staying at.



Clinic? Huh? She's a Wiccan and she says she can see faeries and talks with them, it's no different than Christians who speak to God and see angels. Not sure how that's an attack unless you're feeling very insecure. I'm saying that you've setup a very elaborate process in your mind sorting out how to judge these cables. I'm sure it isn't random, there is definitely a trigger involved that is swaying your bias one way or the other. It would be interesting to test and study.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> really? Comon many have been passively attacking my mental state, age and intelligence.


 
  Yes, after you made comments about them.
  Its not a game of who started this first. You can choose not to respond, just as many have done against your comments. Try to stay on topic.


----------



## bmiamihk

My point from the start is if one person says this brand of ice cream taste better then the other then who has the right to say his choice of ice cream is wrong? All I stated was I heard a difference in the sound from a Silver cable. I did not say it is a scientific fact but that I enjoy the difference. If you or another person tried some cables and heard no difference then I respect that belief. if others read articles but did not try the cables themselves then I respect their choice.
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> Clinic? Huh? She's a Wiccan and she says she can see faeries and talks with them, it's no different than Christians who speak to God and see angels. Not sure how that's an attack unless you're feeling very insecure. I'm saying that you've setup a very elaborate process in your mind sorting out how to judge these cables. I'm sure it isn't random, there is definitely a trigger involved that is swaying your bias one way or the other. It would be interesting to test and study.


----------



## bmiamihk

You are correct I went off topic but that user has been stating that I must be 12 years old so I went through the door he opened.  Here is my point from the start is if one person says this brand of ice cream taste better then the other then who has the right to say his choice of ice cream is wrong? All I stated was I heard a difference in the sound from a Silver cable. I did not say it is a scientific fact but that I enjoy the difference. If you or another person tried some cables and heard no difference then I respect that belief. if others read articles but did not try the cables themselves then I respect their choice. If I went left or right of it then my bad I should have ignored the users who wanted to chime in and have fun.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Yes, after you made comments about them.
> Its not a game of who started this first. You can choose not to respond, just as many have done against your comments. Try to stay on topic.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> You are correct I went off topic but that user has been stating that I must be 12 years old so I went through the door he opened.  Here is my point from the start is if one person says this brand of ice cream taste better then the other then who has the right to say his choice of ice cream is wrong? All I stated was I heard a difference in the sound from a Silver cable. I did not say it is a scientific fact but that I enjoy the difference. If you or another person tried some cables and heard no difference then I respect that belief. if others read articles but did not try the cables themselves then I respect their choice. If I went left or right of it then my bad I should have ignored the users who wanted to chime in and have fun.


 
   
  So coming back to the question, would you put your trust in someone who reviews cables and says one sounds better than the other? He's asking you to believe his ears/brain, would you do that?
  I'd say "Glad you enjoyed them", but I wouldn't trust them to recommend headphones.


----------



## Magick Man

bmiamihk said:


> My point from the start is if one person says this brand of ice cream taste better then the other then who has the right to say his choice of ice cream is wrong? All I stated was I heard a difference in the sound from a Silver cable. I did not say it is a scientific fact but that I enjoy the difference. If you or another person tried some cables and heard no difference then I respect that belief. if others read articles but did not try the cables themselves then I respect their choice.



I'm just saying that out of the mountains of tests, measurements, and studies, an audible difference in cables has never been found. Ever.


----------



## DefQon

Sometimes ignorance is bliss my friend. Everyone has there own opinions and experiences with different thing's, forums are for people to gather and discuss and share insightful experiences with one another, not argue or bicker over thing's that are not worth the hassle or effort of replying back with an f-u or so. 
   
  Let's keep this thread positive, no more insults and keep the topic of the OP on track. 
   
  Really don't want this thread to be closed by a mod or admin.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Interesting. There could very possibly be a legitimate reason why Picolino is so far above (price wise) to the other cables. Really looking forward to you getting the cables and doing some ABX tests. Maybe once I've hit my end-game setup (not very expensive, just want JH13 or UERM) I might consider blinging myself up with something like that


 
  Will do, as soon as Hennyo ships the cables to me.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> You are correct I went off topic but that user has been stating that I must be 12 years old so I went through the door he opened.


 
   
  I answered your snark ("Did you do tests, did you ABX" - reasonable in some circumstances, but not there, and not from you given your opinions on those tests) with snark of my own relating to the maturity I thought you were demonstrating. 
   
  I apologize if it hurt you. And I apologize to everyone else in the thread if it contributed to our getting off topic, and away from civil discourse.


----------



## DNZGamer

I think this is an extremely great assessment of how to treat reviews.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> So coming back to the question, would you put your trust in someone who reviews cables and says one sounds better than the other? He's asking you to believe his ears/brain, would you do that?
> I'd say "Glad you enjoyed them", but I wouldn't trust them to recommend headphones.


----------



## proton007

Would you trust a cable reviewer if he's able to pass blind tests?
  The fact that this hasn't happened tells a lot.


----------



## kiteki

magick man said:


> she can see faeries


 
   
  and some visual scientists can only see in black and white, so they'll dismiss colour as shades of grey.
   
   
  Anyway let's move on to some further reading perhaps...
   
  custom IEM cable reviews... - http://www.head-fi.org/t/564978/13-custom-iem-tf10-cables-reviewed-uber-muzik-v5f-added-1-03-2012
  some blind test links... - http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/194882-double-blind-auditions-thread.html
  - http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/45178-its-official-all-cables-sound-same.html
  controversy of blind testing... (i.e. you need to know what to listen for) - http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1


----------



## kiteki

bmiamihk said:


> My point from the start is if one person says this brand of ice cream taste better then the other then who has the right to say his choice of ice cream is wrong? All I stated was I heard a difference in the sound from a Silver cable. I did not say it is a scientific fact but that I enjoy the difference.


 
   
  It's because we are all escaping from reality into Hi-Fi sound reproduction and colouration, enjoying music through audio channels closer to heaven.
   
  I'm happy to tell someone I like the JH11 or the OPA627 because I believe the differences are actually there.
   
  I like Häagen-Dazs.
   
  From what I've read copper cables achieve at least ~95% of their task, and it's the last component to considering improving, so I'd rather recommend or listen to something else.


----------



## garetz

All you have to do to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, is first get your hearing tested, and see what your range of hearing is. If you have damaged hearing then you have your answer, if you are old and your hearing has deprecated due to age, you have your answer again. ie, your opinion isnt biased, your hearing just isnt that good.

 The best way to prove to yourself beyond any doubt that quality of cables makes a difference, is get a good source, get some hd 650s, you have your stock cable, get an equinox upgrade, and a cardas upgrade. I try not to use an amp, as that may change things considerably, but keep your source, amp/dac (if you chose to use one) constant for testing all 3 cables and you will have your answer.

 I have done this test, and the sound of the 650s changes with each cable mentioned previously. Obviously this doesnt mean every single cable will make a difference, as quality and synergy do also dictate your experience.

 From me, my own experiences, i would say headphones account for 75% of what constitutes good listening, 20% is the amp/dac and 5% is the power source/cabling/synergy.
 For some people that 5% makes all the difference, for other people, they cant even discern that 5% difference.

 Just like some people have super tasting taste buds, some people also have superior hearing. I would like to see some studies on that, before arguing about what you can and cant hear.


----------



## bmiamihk

exactly, so you have no "dilemma" you wont so you will never have to buy a cable and you will enjoy the stock cable that comes with the earphone. My choice is I will read the review and neither believe nor find fault but I will give it a try and then go from there.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> So coming back to the question, would you put your trust in someone who reviews cables and says one sounds better than the other? He's asking you to believe his ears/brain, would you do that?
> I'd say "Glad you enjoyed them", but I wouldn't trust them to recommend headphones.


----------



## bmiamihk

I read this and I agree with him why cause I EXPERINCED this myself. Also my hearing is destroyed by live concerts, night clubbing and car stereo systems with 10,000 watts (28 yrs of this)
  Quote: 





garetz said:


> All you have to do to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, is first get your hearing tested, and see what your range of hearing is. If you have damaged hearing then you have your answer, if you are old and your hearing has deprecated due to age, you have your answer again. ie, your opinion isnt biased, your hearing just isnt that good.
> 
> The best way to prove to yourself beyond any doubt that quality of cables makes a difference, is get a good source, get some hd 650s, you have your stock cable, get an equinox upgrade, and a cardas upgrade. I try not to use an amp, as that may change things considerably, but keep your source, amp/dac (if you chose to use one) constant for testing all 3 cables and you will have your answer.
> 
> ...


----------



## bmiamihk

Not about feelings but what level you choose to go. I am ok if you want to go down or up but I only stated I did hear a difference then you replied with a comment that led to trash talking. All in all a great way to pass the time in a office.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I answered your snark ("Did you do tests, did you ABX" - reasonable in some circumstances, but not there, and not from you given your opinions on those tests) with snark of my own relating to the maturity I thought you were demonstrating.
> 
> I apologize if it hurt you. And I apologize to everyone else in the thread if it contributed to our getting off topic, and away from civil discourse.


----------



## bmiamihk

Wow I had the JH13 but found it too neutral and the bass sounded fake due to the BA Drivers.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> It's because we are all escaping from reality into Hi-Fi sound reproduction and colouration, enjoying music through audio channels closer to heaven.
> 
> I'm happy to tell someone I like the JH11 or the OPA627 because I believe the differences are actually there.
> 
> ...


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> and some visual scientists can only see in black and white, so they'll dismiss colour as shades of grey.
> 
> 
> Anyway let's move on to some further reading perhaps...
> ...


 
   
  Boring, skip....


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





garetz said:


> The best way to prove to yourself beyond any doubt that quality of cables makes a difference, is get a good source, get some hd 650s, you have your stock cable, get an equinox upgrade, and a cardas upgrade. I try not to use an amp, as that may change things considerably, but keep your source, amp/dac (if you chose to use one) constant for testing all 3 cables and you will have your answer.


 
   
  Unfortunately, though you have eliminated some external variables, this does not eliminate bias (not just hearing problems) in yourself. The only way to do that, is via double blind testing (or at least an ABX, to minimize some). Whether this comparison is good enough for you to make a decision, is up to you.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





garetz said:


> All you have to do to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, is first get your hearing tested, and see what your range of hearing is. If you have damaged hearing then you have your answer, if you are old and your hearing has deprecated due to age, you have your answer again. ie, your opinion isnt biased, your hearing just isnt that good.
> 
> The best way to prove to yourself beyond any doubt that quality of cables makes a difference, is get a good source, get some hd 650s, you have your stock cable, get an equinox upgrade, and a cardas upgrade. I try not to use an amp, as that may change things considerably, but keep your source, amp/dac (if you chose to use one) constant for testing all 3 cables and you will have your answer.
> 
> ...


 
   
  I can't help but to completely agree with this post. Another option is to have multiple people involved in a group blind test, your test audience should be mixed of audiophiles and general non-audiophile's. If more then 3/5 people agree that a cable provides change and difference between stock cable then your final concensus is that their is a slight change to the cable throughout the testing procedures.


----------



## kiteki

garetz said:


> From me, my own experiences, i would say headphones account for 75% of what constitutes good listening, 20% is the amp/dac and 5% is the power source/cabling/synergy.


 
   
  Then I may as well divide my money 75% speaker/headphone/IEM, 20% dac/amp, 5% cables.
   
   


garetz said:


> for other people, they cant even discern that 5% difference.
> 
> Just like some people have super tasting taste buds, some people also have superior hearing. I would like to see some studies on that, before arguing about what you can and cant hear.


 
   
  That is a potential issue, yes, which you can read about in the Meyer & Moran criticism or this article which discusses a study on the transparent audio compression of 256kbps MP2.
   
  However... if the golden ears experts say the difference in cables is only 5% or less then I'll keep improving my dac/amp either way, just like I'd rather spend my money on steak than expensive 5% improved red wine.
   
  In short I'd like to eliminate my curiosity about SACD/DSD and silver cables but it seems like the correct path is a JH16 and $2500 beryllium speakers from either side of the coin...


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Then I may as well divide my money 75% speaker/headphone/IEM, 20% dac/amp, 5% cables.


 
   
  Thats what most audio experts would agree on.


----------



## kiteki

bmiamihk said:


> Wow I had the JH13 but found it too neutral and the bass sounded fake due to the BA Drivers.


 
   
  You can assert preference, the fact remains a JH11 will sound a significant level above a TF10, while a TF10 with silver cable will not.
   
  If you like dynamic drivers then you can go recable a Sony EX1000 or something.


----------



## bmiamihk

Had the EX100 and was too bright and no bass compared to other earphones.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> You can assert preference, the fact remains a JH11 will sound five times better than a TF10, while a TF10 with silver cable will not.
> 
> If you like dynamic drivers then you can go recable a Sony EX1000 or something.


----------



## kiteki

bmiamihk said:


> Had the EX100 and was too bright and no bass compared to other earphones.


 
   
  You didn't recable it did you.


----------



## bmiamihk

Haha nope. I only recabled the Shure 535 and the Future Sonics MG6Pro.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> You didn't recable it did you.


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *DefQon* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Boring, skip....


 
   
  Yeah I know, soooo much reading and nothing definitive as usual, I was just hoping someone would find an overlooked interesting study.
   


proton007 said:


> > Originally Posted by *kiteki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > Then I may as well divide my money 75% speaker/headphone/IEM, 20% dac/amp, 5% cables.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Or more recently... spend $200(?) on an ODAC->O2 for the DAC/Amp section, until someone proves you wrong with an ABX...


----------



## kiteki

bmiamihk said:


> Haha nope. I only recabled the Shure 535 and the Future Sonics MG6Pro.


 
   
  Looking forward to your SE535 cable blind test... make a new thread for it and link us to it? =]


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Or more recently... spend $200(?) on an ODAC->O2 for the DAC/Amp section, until someone proves you wrong with an ABX...


 
   
  For $5-600 headphones, or for someone stuck with laptop audio, a pretty good deal for a dac+amp, don't you think? 
  About 20% of the total cost.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





defqon said:


> Will do, as soon as Hennyo ships the cables to me.


 
   
  If that IE8 cable is good enough you better sell it to me .


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





garetz said:


> All you have to do to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, is first get your hearing tested, and see what your range of hearing is. If you have damaged hearing then you have your answer, if you are old and your hearing has deprecated due to age, you have your answer again. ie, your opinion isnt biased, your hearing just isnt that good.
> 
> The best way to prove to yourself beyond any doubt that quality of cables makes a difference, is get a good source, get some hd 650s, you have your stock cable, get an equinox upgrade, and a cardas upgrade. I try not to use an amp, as that may change things considerably, but keep your source, amp/dac (if you chose to use one) constant for testing all 3 cables and you will have your answer.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Be careful now... The non-believers may take that as an attack lol. Although it is a possibility to consider and a humbling one from their point of view. I can say that Dannybai and I both experienced sibilance issues with the IE8 when we initially got our silver cables. Could any of you come up with an explanation for this? Obviously there was a change in sound to change a silky smooth IEM into a sibilant monster for a few days. I don't necessarily believe the cable underwent burn in as I believe the IEM underwent burn in again. Dannbai and I musts have some serious brain power if we can create sibilance out thin air no?
   
  Keep in mind guys I didn't know what to expect with this cable upgrade. I was skeptical as well. I was down right P'd off when my IE8s sounded like complete rubbish. I was even sending the seller some nasty emails demanding a refund lol.


----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> For $5-600 headphones, or for someone stuck with laptop audio, a pretty good deal for a dac+amp, don't you think?
> About 20% of the total cost.


 
   
  For someone with a $500-1000 headphone stuck with laptop audio an 0DAC->02 should knock their socks off.  Then they can spend $50 on a DIY pure silver cable...
   
  The Zero DAC fulfills that price sector too, or the iBasso D-Zero if you need a portable DAC/Amp.
   
  Lots of zeros.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> If that IE8 cable is good enough you better sell it to me .


 
  Time will tell and so will my ear's. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> For someone with a $500-1000 headphone stuck with laptop audio an 0DAC->02 should knock their socks off.  Then they can spend $50 on a DIY pure silver cable...
> 
> The Zero DAC fulfills that price sector too, or the iBasso D-Zero if you need a portable DAC/Amp.
> 
> Lots of zeros.


 
   
  Kiteki seem's like you really like the 0DAC > O2 configuration. Will you be getting one to complement your T5P?


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





defqon said:


> Time will tell and so will my ear's.


 
   
  Either your ears or your head lol .


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> Either your ears or your head lol .


 
  I don't trust my head I will have to isolate it from my ears, let the ear's be the judge.


----------



## kiteki

defqon said:


> Kiteki seem's like you really like the 0DAC > O2 configuration. Will you be getting one to complement your T5P?


 
   
  I have the O2 lying around in bits and pieces, I have two very nice sounding DAC's (AKD-23S and DIY AK4396) but I'll be picking up the ODAC to compare to them to see what it's like.
   
  I like the T5p with AK4396->OPA627 so I don't suspect it will be an ideal match with the ODAC.  You can come listen if you live near North Melbourne.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> You can come listen if you live near North Melbourne.


 
  That sounded like a very odd invitation....more like a trap......it's happened once before....lol
   
  Trap's aside, the 0DAC will most likely undergo a lot of revision's over nwavguy's experimenting timespan like the O2 which the first prototype didn't sound up to par to his expectation's and so the final release was the revision he was content with and sounded best. I still need to buy the component's for it and build it myself, I have the JDS Lab pcb lying around somewhere.
   
  Yay for 800th post.


----------



## bmiamihk

I will bite! Upgrade cable (dont know the brand) increased the limited bss on the SE535.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Looking forward to your SE535 cable blind test... make a new thread for it and link us to it? =]


----------



## bmiamihk

Its obvious and I will play the game.
  Quote: 





defqon said:


> That sounded like a very odd invitation....more like a trap......it's happened once before....lol
> 
> Trap's aside, the 0DAC will most likely undergo a lot of revision's over nwavguy's experimenting timespan like the O2 which the first prototype didn't sound up to par to his expectation's and so the final release was the revision he was content with and sounded best. I still need to buy the component's for it and build it myself, I have the JDS Lab pcb lying around somewhere.
> 
> Yay for 800th post.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Its obvious and I will play the game.


 
  Play what game?


----------



## bmiamihk

Game of cables and if they actually improve the sound. I tried some cables that actually did not improve the sound and a few that did.
  Quote: 





defqon said:


> Play what game?


----------



## jgray91

This thread turned out quite optimistic. For a moment, after the snarky posts started flying around I expected the mods to descend on this thread to lock it down. Glad that some common ground were found. Personally I am inclined to believe the scientific side, but I would like to bolster that belief with my own experience. Since there's nobody near me to do that and I'm such a cheapskate college student; unless I hit the jackpot and feel like spending said money, I am more inclined towards more concrete change that could be had, e.g. other headphones, various amps that adds coloration or not, etc.
   
  Also I've been mulling this recently: wouldn't expectation bias work the other way around? For example, take myself, who are inclined more towards the objective and scientific side. Wouldn't going to go to try different cable with my expectation of not hearing any different would in some way affect the outcome, just as much that any other person that expected to hear a difference would? I see a lot of one-sided expectation-bias-makes-you-hear-difference, but not the other way around. Also, I've so far seen that the subjectivists side didn't brought this up when they were confronted. Maybe I'm wrong though.
   
  Here's hoping the flowers and sunshine stays.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





jgray91 said:


> This thread turned out quite optimistic. For a moment, after the snarky posts started flying around I expected the mods to descend on this thread to lock it down. Glad that some common ground were found. Personally I am inclined to believe the scientific side, but I would like to bolster that belief with my own experience. Since there's nobody near me to do that and I'm such a cheapskate college student; unless I hit the jackpot and feel like spending said money, I am more inclined towards more concrete change that could be had, e.g. other headphones, various amps that adds coloration or not, etc.
> 
> Also I've been mulling this recently: wouldn't expectation bias work the other way around? For example, take myself, who are inclined more towards the objective and scientific side. Wouldn't going to go to try different cable with my expectation of not hearing any different would in some way affect the outcome, just as much that any other person that expected to hear a difference would? I see a lot of one-sided expectation-bias-makes-you-hear-difference, but not the other way around. Also, I've so far seen that the subjectivists side didn't brought this up when they were confronted. Maybe I'm wrong though.
> 
> Here's hoping the flowers and sunshine stays.


 


 Not necessarily jgray. I initially wasn't expecting to hear a difference with my cable upgrade. I was more so skeptical myself and wanted to wade through the BS. The experience started out as a negative and ended on a positive note surprisingly. But you are right that having a negative expectation could lead to undesired results as well. I still can't attribute that to the sibilance I initially heard though .


----------



## jgray91

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> Not necessarily jgray. I initially wasn't expecting to hear a difference with my cable upgrade. I was more so skeptical myself and wanted to wade through the BS. The experience started out as a negative and ended on a positive note surprisingly. But you are right that having a negative expectation could lead to undesired results as well. I still can't attribute that to the sibilance I initially heard though .


 
   
  Interesting. Personally, I think the mindset of believing in cables that change the sound is okay, as long as you, me, or anybody that is believing it can accept that maybe it's just in your head. This hobby is after all, quite subjective. Of course, for a new hobbyist/enthusiast like me should go looking for more concrete, readily proven gear that have a higher chance of difference than go on about trying to cure anything I don't like because of said headphone/amp/DAC with cables. I think that once you (or me or anybody else) settles down and you still feel like changing stuff up, then maybe one could start considering cables. This also reminds of that article I saw while lurking in the Diary Thread. The one where a study found that people have longer lasting happiness with appreciating what you currently have compared to people that keeps recalling and compare what they have currently to what they have before, having shorter time span of happiness.
   
  Here's hoping I get a chance to entertain my curiosity of cables in the future.


----------



## lee730

can't argue there. Then again I'm not very tech savvy when it comes to headphones and really don't plan on doing these cables mods to headphones that don't have detachable cables . My first major purchase was the IE8 and that happened to be my sound preference luckily. But the mid bass was ridiculous and left me craving more. The IE80 has solved that, but I am always looking forward to improving and trying different things to keep things fresh. I still doubt I'll be able to part with my IE80s though.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jgray91 said:


> Also I've been mulling this recently: wouldn't expectation bias work the other way around?


 
   
  Yes, in theory. But it is harder to argue that it is truly a bias when it is supported by the evidence as well (e.g. you expected not to hear anything, and didn't, but that is probably because there was nothing to hear). The problems come in when observation does not agree with objective evidences and theory.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Yes, in theory. But it is harder to argue that it is truly a bias when it is supported by the evidence as well (e.g. you expected not to hear anything, and didn't, but that is probably because there was nothing to hear). The problems come in when observation does not agree with objective evidences and theory.


 
   
  I think kiteki posted links a while back, the amplifier DBT was a pretty nice read.
  A consistent bias towards one amp was found to be caused due to a phase shift. Once fixed, most of the odds fell in 50-60% range.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> Not necessarily jgray. I initially wasn't expecting to hear a difference with my cable upgrade. I was more so skeptical myself and wanted to wade through the BS. The experience started out as a negative and ended on a positive note surprisingly. But you are right that having a negative expectation could lead to undesired results as well.* I still can't attribute that to the sibilance I initially heard though *.


 
   
  Doesn't seem any different than other reports of psycho acoustics. I heard very different results while ABX testing FLAC and MP3 files and I could clearly hear 4 different files even though there was only two different files present. Sibilance is extremely subjective to begin with. Lots of people complain about sibilance on cans that I feel have no sibiliance. Actually, I've never had a problem with sibilance before.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

After much research my view is
   
  1 - the real question is "*why do cables sound different to some people some of the time with some kit and not to others*?" It is wrong to say cables do not sound different and cannot sound different as there have been far too many credible reports of such.
   
  2 - the only evidence of cables inherently being able to cause hifi systems to sound different are the subjective reports of people who know what they are listening to. Then there is a huge inconsistency between those reports.* If you are going to make your case based on such evidence alone then you must believe UFOs with intelligent life have been to earth, because some people say they have experienced such.  *
   
  3 - cable makers are very good at suggesting reasons why their cable sounds better than others. But none has shown how that can be in a verifiable, repeatable experiment. There are no endorsements by any University or other recognised body of any claim by a cable maker that their way of making a cable, or what is is made of changes sound quality. There is no link between say braiding of a cable and sound stage, capacitance and bass. Indeed the audiophile cable makers rely on the science of transmission of electricity down cables as first developed in the C19th. *Where is the direct verifiable link between a cable and sound quality?*
   
  4 - Blind comparison and ABX testing of cables yield the same results again and again. People cannot identify or tell the difference between cables when they do not know what they are listening to. *That shows us sight and knowledge of the product has an influence on sound quality.*
   
  5 - the golden ears argument is a poor one for the believer side. Despite so many different people taking so many different blind tests no one has passed one. Then there is the issue of no audibly measureable difference in cables or a link between the way a cable is made or what it is made of and sound quality. *So I would argue that the true golden ears are the ones who cannot tell the difference between cables as their ears are accurately picking out no audible sound quality difference between cables. *
   
*So the reason why some people hear a difference with cables is not caused by the cable itself, what it is made or nor how it was made. *


----------



## DNZGamer

@Lee
   
  Also, you should read the links Kiteki posted. Read the second article about blind tests. The subject, Tiefenbrunn(?), kept hearing differences even though the test was broken and the switch did not actually change the cable [Edit: It was not a cable, was something else, point is nothing changed] the entire time. This was a person who previously claimed the extreme inadequacies of the system he was testing and saying it is degrading the hi-fi industry or something along those lines so he is an adamant believer and makes a living off of these supposed differences. People's minds can create far more than sibilance and having a pre-determined bias really has little to do with it. If you don't have a bias you may still hear differences. That is how inconsistent the mind is.


----------



## Magick Man

prog rock man said:


> After much research my view is
> 
> 1 - the real question is "*why do cables sound different to some people some of the time with some kit and not to others*?" It is wrong to say cables do not sound different and cannot sound different as there have been far too many credible reports of such.
> 
> ...




Yep, that's pretty much spot-on. I've found out the same. Further, I'll add that I believe certain people when they say they hear differences, but it's on a subjective level and based on expectation (either conscious or subconscious). These people aren't nutty, just like I don't believe religious folks are fruitcakes, they're just creating those changes for themselves. The mind is amazingly powerful and effects like this are common, they happen to everyone every single day.


----------



## garetz

Quote: 





jgray91 said:


> Also I've been mulling this recently: wouldn't expectation bias work the other way around? For example, take myself, who are inclined more towards the objective and scientific side. Wouldn't going to go to try different cable with my expectation of not hearing any different would in some way affect the outcome, just as much that any other person that expected to hear a difference would? I see a lot of one-sided expectation-bias-makes-you-hear-difference, but not the other way around. Also, I've so far seen that the subjectivists side didn't brought this up when they were confronted. Maybe I'm wrong though.


 
   
  I agree with this, that is why i didn't mention the psychological aspect in my original post, i think that cuts both ways, people who expect to hear nothing will have that bias, and those that expect to hear something also has a bias towards that expectation.
 However if you recognise and understand that the bias exists, i think you can account for it by being aware that everyone is biased, and you are no exception. I reckon double blind tests are ridiculous, as people then are put under pressure to want to support their biased opinion, which ends up them not being honest and ruining the validity of the double blind test anyway. Also everyone is unique, of the people participating in the blind test, maybe only 10% of the people can accurately hear the changes, and that skews the results instantly. Cause if 90% cant discern that 5% change in sound quality, then its a moot point anyway. Of course 90% of people will say they cant hear anything in my example, because they physically are unable to do so possibly due to damaged hearing or biology. Obviously my numbers are just for arguments sake and there are no studies i can find to base my opinion on.


----------



## avkdh

Quote: 





garetz said:


> I agree with this, that is why i didn't mention the psychological aspect in my original post, i think that cuts both ways, people who expect to hear nothing will have that bias, and those that expect to hear something also has a bias towards that expectation.
> However if you recognise and understand that the bias exists, i think you can account for it by being aware that everyone is biased, and you are no exception. I reckon double blind tests are ridiculous, as people then are put under pressure to want to support their biased opinion, which ends up them not being honest and ruining the validity of the double blind test anyway. Also everyone is unique, of the people participating in the blind test, maybe only 10% of the people can accurately hear the changes, and that skews the results instantly. Cause if 90% cant discern that 5% change in sound quality, then its a moot point anyway. Of course 90% of people will say they cant hear anything in my example, because they physically are unable to do so possibly due to damaged hearing or biology. Obviously my numbers are just for arguments sake and there are no studies i can find to base my opinion on.


 
   
  How would that ruin the validity of the  DBT?  If the sound difference of cables was actually there and the listeners had a bias to "want to hear a difference" then they should actually pick it up... but they consistently don't hear any difference.


----------



## garetz

Quote: 





avkdh said:


> How would that ruin the validity of the  DBT?  If the sound difference of cables was actually there and the listeners had a bias to "want to hear a difference" then they should actually pick it up... but they consistently don't hear any difference.


 


 Exactly, so even if you do hear a slight difference, if you are already entrenched in your  beliefs, you aren't going to change them for any reason. Your belief will override any other compunction to be honest. If you already have an opinion, you are going to want to support that opinion, not destroy it by being honest with yourself or anyone else.Obviously alot of people would be honest, but i think alot of people also will not be honest because of this expectation bias. They will simply believe to refuse it, and that is what constitutes their reality.
  Does belief create reality or does reality create belief. This may be a conscious decision, or even an unconscious one, where your bias is so deep that you cant possibly disagree with it.
 This affects both sides of the argument equally.


----------



## avkdh

Quote: 





garetz said:


> Exactly, so even if you do hear a slight difference, if you are already entrenched in your  beliefs, you aren't going to change them for any reason. Your belief will override any other compunction to be honest. If you already have an opinion, you are going to want to support that opinion, not destroy it by being honest with yourself or anyone else.Obviously alot of people would be honest, but i think alot of people also will not be honest because of this expectation bias. They will simply believe to refuse it, and that is what constitutes their reality.
> Does belief create reality or does reality create belief. This may be a conscious decision, or even an unconscious one, where your bias is so deep that you cant possibly disagree with it.
> This affects both sides of the argument equally.


 
   
  yeah, but cable believers are compelled to be honest on a DBT (because they hear a difference and think its caused by the cable), and even so they cant tell expensive from cheap cables apart. 
   
  Belief most definitive does NOT create reality, how could 2 contradictory beliefs coexist if that was the case?


----------



## jgray91

Quote: 





garetz said:


> I agree with this, that is why i didn't mention the psychological aspect in my original post, i think that cuts both ways, people who expect to hear nothing will have that bias, and those that expect to hear something also has a bias towards that expectation.
> However if you recognise and understand that the bias exists, i think you can account for it by being aware that everyone is biased, and you are no exception. I reckon double blind tests are ridiculous, as people then are put under pressure to want to support their biased opinion, which ends up them not being honest and ruining the validity of the double blind test anyway. Also everyone is unique, of the people participating in the blind test, maybe only 10% of the people can accurately hear the changes, and that skews the results instantly. Cause if 90% cant discern that 5% change in sound quality, then its a moot point anyway. Of course 90% of people will say they cant hear anything in my example, because they physically are unable to do so possibly due to damaged hearing or biology. Obviously my numbers are just for arguments sake and there are no studies i can find to base my opinion on.


 
   
  But scientific methods are strict and rigorous for a reason: to eliminate as much unneeded variable as much as possible to measure the needed variable as accurate and untainted as possible. Setting hidden human motives aside, doing a double-blind test is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, experimenter's bias, etc). I agree thought that to make an almost truly impervious double-blind test is a monumental task; seeing that older aged participants may likely skew the results just by aging naturally and losing some aspect of hearing; or younger participants that have damaged hearing due to concerts, working environments, etc.; just thinking of it as a test can make some people uneasy; for a more accurate average result, the test would need a lot of participants which may be hard to get.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





garetz said:


> Exactly, so even if you do hear a slight difference, if you are already entrenched in your  beliefs, you aren't going to change them for any reason. Your belief will override any other compunction to be honest. If you already have an opinion, you are going to want to support that opinion, not destroy it by being honest with yourself or anyone else.Obviously alot of people would be honest, but i think alot of people also will not be honest because of this expectation bias. They will simply believe to refuse it, and that is what constitutes their reality.
> Does belief create reality or does reality create belief. This may be a conscious decision, or even an unconscious one, where your bias is so deep that you cant possibly disagree with it.
> This affects both sides of the argument equally.


 
   
  You see, the point of the dbt, is that you don't know if you have a cable you like or not currently playing. You cannot decide based your belief about any given cable - because you don't know which one you are hearing. So you have no choice but to answer with what you hear. Even if you make up answers, you cannot make them up in favor one way or the other. 
   
  This is also why no single test is assumed to prove or disprove anything. It is the combined weight of many tests, many testers, and many subjects - peer reviewed, and the results and experimental conditions reproducible by others. This is what we mean by a preponderance of evidence. One, two, or fifty dishonest listeners will not statistically affect the results when these are done right.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> You see, the point of the dbt, is that you don't know if you have a cable you like or not currently playing. You cannot decide based your belief about any given cable - because you don't know which one you are hearing. So you have no choice but to answer with what you hear. Even if you make up answers, you cannot make them up in favor one way or the other.
> 
> This is also why no single test is assumed to prove or disprove anything. It is the combined weight of many tests, many testers, and many subjects - peer reviewed, and the results and experimental conditions reproducible by others. This is what we mean by a preponderance of evidence. One, two, or fifty dishonest listeners will not statistically affect the results when these are done right.


 
   
  Plus, good tests will always ask the subjects if they are satisfied with the test setup, before and after the test.


----------



## bmiamihk

Agreed "if" they already are leaning to a yes it does or no it does not but the third choice is "prove it" and try it out yourself with an open mind with no expectations.
  Quote: 





garetz said:


> Exactly, so even if you do hear a slight difference, if you are already entrenched in your  beliefs, you aren't going to change them for any reason. Your belief will override any other compunction to be honest. If you already have an opinion, you are going to want to support that opinion, not destroy it by being honest with yourself or anyone else.Obviously alot of people would be honest, but i think alot of people also will not be honest because of this expectation bias. They will simply believe to refuse it, and that is what constitutes their reality.
> Does belief create reality or does reality create belief. This may be a conscious decision, or even an unconscious one, where your bias is so deep that you cant possibly disagree with it.
> This affects both sides of the argument equally.


----------



## kiteki

prog rock man said:


> After much research my view is
> 
> 1 - the real question is "*why do cables sound different to some people some of the time with some kit and not to others*?" It is wrong to say cables do not sound different and cannot sound different as there have been far too many credible reports of such.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  I know you've researched cables a lot and you made some good points there.
   
  I see your point that the true golden ears will hear no difference in cables, however I think the argument is actually very valid in blind testing.  In order for someone to hear the difference between MP3 320kbps and FLAC, they'll need to practice and know what to look for, without any practice using the general populace you could easily 'prove' MP3 320 and FLAC are identical.
   
  This is one of the reasons I don't agree with the Meyer & Moran findings, for example the results differed between Audio Engineers and the general populace in their tests, yet they dismissed that statistical difference, read post #139 on page 14 - http://sa-cd.net/showthread/42987/42987/y


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> This is one of the reasons I don't agree with the Meyer & Moran findings, for example the results differed between Audio Engineers and the general populace in their tests, yet they dismissed that statistical difference, read post #139 on page 14 - http://sa-cd.net/showthread/42987/42987/y


 
   
  That's the nice thing about science. It does self correct. That Meyer & Moran did reference or deal at all with the Journal of Neurophysiology paper by Oohashi et al., is problematic. And while we can use their data as one data point - it doesn't meet many of the criteria of peer review, and should not be considered conclusive results (due not only to this, but also some issues in their methodology). 
   
  No one study is the end all on any issue. They are all data points. But when the VAST majority of them trend in one direction, we can with more certainty say we are understanding something.


----------



## anetode

garetz said:


> I agree with this, that is why i didn't mention the psychological aspect in my original post, i think that cuts both ways, people who expect to hear nothing will have that bias, and those that expect to hear something also has a bias towards that expectation.
> 
> However if you recognise and understand that the bias exists, i think you can account for it by being aware that everyone is biased, and you are no exception. I reckon double blind tests are ridiculous, as people then are put under pressure to want to support their biased opinion, which ends up them not being honest and ruining the validity of the double blind test anyway. Also everyone is unique, of the people participating in the blind test, maybe only 10% of the people can accurately hear the changes, and that skews the results instantly. Cause if 90% cant discern that 5% change in sound quality, then its a moot point anyway. Of course 90% of people will say they cant hear anything in my example, because they physically are unable to do so possibly due to damaged hearing or biology. Obviously my numbers are just for arguments sake and there are no studies i can find to base my opinion on.




While expectation bias certainly cuts both ways, I think you are reaching a poorly justified conclusion on the validity of DBT. To begin with, the best designed DBTs put little or no pressure on test subjects. Often test subjects are told that they are being tested on another variable, which remains constant and draws their attention (& inherent bias) away from the true change. And ABX testing can be carried out by a subject using an automated routine at their leisure, with the time between trials taking anywhere from seconds to days.

It is also possible to design a series of tests to identify "golden ears", even here at head-fi we've run across some testers who preform consistently well on deciphering between compressed and lossless audio formats. With cables this isn't the case, tests have not found the golden eared cable champions.



bmiamihk said:


> Here is my point from the start is if one person says this brand of ice cream taste better then the other then who has the right to say his choice of ice cream is wrong?




Not exactly. The point is that you're saying buy this 100$ per cup ice cream made with white truffles because it's better for you. Then someone points out that, nutritionally, they're more or less the same. You counter with, "well, I eat it and I feel healthier". Great, but that's not good grounds for recommending overpriced gourmet ice cream as a health food.



kiteki said:


> and some visual scientists can only see in black and white, so they'll dismiss colour as shades of grey.




Fascinating aside: some birds are pentachromats. They're also incredibly stupid.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





anetode said:


> The point is that you're saying buy this 100$ per cup ice cream made with white truffles because it's better for you. Then someone points out that, nutritionally, they're more or less the same. You counter with, "well, I eat it and I feel healthier". Great, but that's not good grounds for recommending overpriced gourmet ice cream as a health food.


 
  A good rebuttal, I must say.


----------



## bmiamihk

Haha but doesnt holds cause my statement - "if one person says this brand of ice cream taste better then the other then who has the right to say his choice of ice cream is wrong?" Is between two different brands not two different (extreme in his self created case) price range.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> A good rebuttal, I must say.


----------



## bmiamihk

How about this way. Two brands of ice cream same price neither healthier and I like one over the other. Now if you say but this one is made from here or they both have the same ingredients does it make me not believe I like one brand over the other?
  Quote: 





anetode said:


> While expectation bias certainly cuts both ways, I think you are reaching a poorly justified conclusion on the validity of DBT. To begin with, the best designed DBTs put little or no pressure on test subjects. Often test subjects are told that they are being tested on another variable, which remains constant and draws their attention (& inherent bias) away from the true change. And ABX testing can be carried out by a subject using an automated routine at their leisure, with the time between trials taking anywhere from seconds to days.
> It is also possible to design a series of tests to identify "golden ears", even here at head-fi we've run across some testers who preform consistently well on deciphering between compressed and lossless audio formats. With cables this isn't the case, tests have not found the golden eared cable champions.
> Not exactly. The point is that you're saying buy this 100$ per cup ice cream made with white truffles because it's better for you. Then someone points out that, nutritionally, they're more or less the same. You counter with, "well, I eat it and I feel healthier". Great, but that's not good grounds for recommending overpriced gourmet ice cream as a health food.
> Fascinating aside: some birds are pentachromats. They're also incredibly stupid.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> No one study is the end all on any issue. They are all data points. But when the VAST majority of them trend in one direction, we can with more certainty say we are understanding something.


 
  I think thats the basis of science, and why it works. Most will ensure the opposite direction studies are adequately refuted.


----------



## anetode

bmiamihk said:


> Haha but doesnt holds cause my statement - "if one person says this brand of ice cream taste better then the other then who has the right to say his choice of ice cream is wrong?" Is between two different brands not two different (extreme in his self created case) price range.




Are you asking me to stick to a literal analysis of a metaphor? Er, ok then:

Brand A ice cream is a delicious vanilla. Brand B is a delicious vanilla, but unlike Brand A, this ice cream is teflon insulated and packed in a rhodium tin. You're saying that the 500$ upcharge for Brand B is justifiable as it makes the ice cream taste better.


----------



## bmiamihk

If both taste the same to me ofcourse the higher price brand is not worth it. If the higher brand taste much better to me then for ME it is worth it.
  Quote: 





anetode said:


> Are you asking me to stick to a literal analysis of a metaphor? Er, ok then:
> Brand A ice cream is a delicious vanilla. Brand B is a delicious vanilla, but unlike Brand A, this ice cream is teflon insulated and packed in a rhodium tin. You're saying that the 500$ upcharge for Brand B is justifiable as it makes the ice cream taste better.


----------



## Parall3l

I have nothing against free placebo that make me feel good, but I'd never pay for a placebo.


----------



## bmiamihk

Never?
  Quote: 





parall3l said:


> I have nothing against free placebo that make me feel good, but I'd never pay for a placebo.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Never?


 
   
  Not when you know. 

 Also, please drop the terrible ice cream analogy. It doesn't work because different ice creams actually taste different. Different cables don't actually sound different. People aren't gonna fail to differentiate between straw berry and vanilla in a blind test no matter what they believe. The differences are not placebos.
   
  If a brand sold two ice creams that were completely identical but just charged more for another one and said it is the premium version, people can enjoy it more if they really believe. That does not mean they aren't being duped.


----------



## bmiamihk

Well if you tried all the brands of ice cream and cables then you might have a point but that point will only be for you.
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Not when you know.
> 
> Also, please drop the terrible ice cream analogy. It doesn't work because different ice creams actually taste different. Different cables don't actually sound different. People aren't gonna fail to differentiate between straw berry and vanilla. The differences are not placebos.
> 
> If a brand sold two ice creams that were completely identical but just charged more for another one and said it is the premium version, people can enjoy it more if they really believe. That does not mean they aren't being duped.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Not when you know.
> 
> Also, please drop the terrible ice cream analogy. It doesn't work because different ice creams actually taste different. Different cables don't actually sound different. People aren't gonna fail to differentiate between straw berry and vanilla in a blind test no matter what they believe. The differences are not placebos.
> 
> If a brand sold two ice creams that were completely identical but just charged more for another one and said it is the premium version, people can enjoy it more if they really believe. That does not mean they aren't being duped.


 
   
  And this is exactly what cable manufacturers do. People come up with all types of analogies, and they always fail.


----------



## bmiamihk

All of them do that? Where did you get that information from? Your head? Need some investigation.
  Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> And this is exactly what cable manufacturers do. People come up with all types of analogies, and they always fail.


----------



## liamstrain

So we are back to you not believing that there are objective truths we can learn about things.


----------



## bmiamihk

back to allowing a person to choose what to buy or not buy.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> So we are back to you not believing that there are objective truths we can learn about things.


----------



## liamstrain

Nobody ever suggested you couldn't buy what you wanted. What we are arguing against is presenting opinion as truth, and denying fact on its face.


----------



## bmiamihk

Ok you are correct I am wrong. Thank you for your knowledge.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Nobody ever suggested you couldn't buy what you wanted. What we are arguing against is presenting opinion as truth, and denying fact on its face.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Well if you tried all the brands of ice cream and cables then you might have a point but that point will only be for you.


 
   
  Actually that is incorrect. I would only need to do this to DISPROVE scientific findings. That is what YOU are trying to do, not me. It is already vastly studied, proven and documented by believers and non-believers under various circumstances that may not even involve the knowledge of the nature of the test. 

 So basically, you need to go do a DBT and prove to us that somehow you are perceiving differences at a consistent rate where all others have failed. If indeed you can do this, we are more than willing to take you seriously. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe why you are special and is hearing differences that are beyond what is created in your mind. No one is telling you you aren't hearing differences. We are just telling you that the difference is not inherent in the cable but rather your mind.


----------



## bmiamihk

Ok thank you for your research and the information you have given to me is highly appreciated.
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Actually that is incorrect. I would only need to do this to DISPROVE scientific findings. That is what YOU are trying to do, not me. It is already vastly studied, proven and documented by believers and non-believers under various circumstances that may not even involve the knowledge of the nature of the test.
> 
> So basically, you need to go do a DBT and prove to us that somehow you are perceiving differences at a consistent rate where all others have failed. If indeed you can do this, we are more than willing to take you seriously. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe why you are special and is hearing differences that are beyond what is created in your mind. No one is telling you you aren't hearing differences. We are just telling you that the difference is not inherent in the cable but rather your mind.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> Ok thank you for your research and the information you have given to me is highly appreciated.


 
   
  Are you being sarcastic and implying that I am responsible for your education on the subject matter?


----------



## bmiamihk

I got what you are saying and I do not have a different view.
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Are you being sarcastic and implying that I am responsible for your education on the subject matter?


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> All of them do that? Where did you get that information from? Your head? Need some investigation.


 
  I'm sure if you read through all of the cable threads, you will find plenty of analogies for cables. And every analogy ends up being wrong.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> I got what you are saying and I do not have a different view.


 

 Cool


----------



## proton007

A cable analogy is like saying that one analogy is better than the other, even when they represent the same things, a cable.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





garetz said:


> I agree with this, that is why i didn't mention the psychological aspect in my original post, i think that cuts both ways, people who expect to hear nothing will have that bias, and those that expect to hear something also has a bias towards that expectation.
> However if you recognise and understand that the bias exists, i think you can account for it by being aware that everyone is biased, and you are no exception. I reckon double blind tests are ridiculous, as people then are put under pressure to want to support their biased opinion, which ends up them not being honest and ruining the validity of the double blind test anyway. Also everyone is unique, of the people participating in the blind test, maybe only 10% of the people can accurately hear the changes, and that skews the results instantly. Cause if 90% cant discern that 5% change in sound quality, then its a moot point anyway. Of course 90% of people will say they cant hear anything in my example, because they physically are unable to do so possibly due to damaged hearing or biology. Obviously my numbers are just for arguments sake and there are no studies i can find to base my opinion on.


 
   
  I think is is correct that expectation bias cuts both ways. But here we have a situation where it only has an effect in one of the ways it cuts. There is nothing to say that cables inherently affect sound quality and a lot to say they cannot. So if the expectation is the cable will not affect sound quality we have nothing of nothing. But if the expectation is it will and it does then we have something. It is not as if cables do affect sound quality and then expectation bias removes that affect. Hence here expectation bias can only cut one way.
   
  The pressure argument against blind testing I say is a fail for a number of reasons. First, it should discredit all testing where there is some pressure. Second it assumes all blind tests are conducted under pressured conditions. Read about blind tests and you will see some are pressured and others are in a nice relaxed atmosphere. Fact is they still produce the same results. Third it assumes somehow pressure affects hearing ability in a negative way. Could it not make people's hearing more sensitive? It seems natural to say when the pressure is no our senses become more acute, not less.
   
  Regarding having a biased opinion in the first place. Again there are blind tests where people have been asked about their opinion before hand and the record shows no difference in result between believer and non believer. Furthermore in some blind tests people report hearing a difference. Then once their results are tallied they did not better than guessing. But they said they still heard a difference. Could that be their expectations still at work? I think it is and it shows their expectations are flawed, not the test. Then you get tests where the listener admits they hear no difference at all and would be guessing the results. That is what happened with me and an Australian blind test where true to the national stereotype they gave up and had some beers!
   
  The 10% can hear a difference, or Golden Ears argument does not work for me either. Firstly as I said before the golden ears are on fact the people who hear no difference where their is none. So they have more accurate hearing and are not so affected by expectation bias or placebo or whatever is the cause of hearing a difference. Secondly there have been enough blind tests with enough people involved to say that we have had a good selection of good hearing in such testing. Evidence for that is corroborated by the blind testing of violins. Such tests produce exactly the same results as comparison blind testing of cables where once people do not know which violin they are listening to the brand no longer affects sound. So the Stradivarius came last in one of the tests! The people doing the tests were professional musicians, so no hearing issues there.
   
  Garetz, please don't take it that I am having a go at you, it is just your post raised the issues I also wanted to


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> 5 - the golden ears argument is a poor one for the believer side. Despite so many different people taking so many different blind tests no one has passed one. Then there is the issue of no audibly measureable difference in cables or a link between the way a cable is made or what it is made of and sound quality. *So I would argue that the true golden ears are the ones who cannot tell the difference between cables as their ears are accurately picking out no audible sound quality difference between cables. *


 
   
  Wong. With the Piccolino setup amongst me and 4 other's, there was a noticable difference.


----------



## Magick Man

defqon said:


> Wong. With the Piccolino setup amongst me and 4 other's, there was a noticable difference.



I'm sure there was, but that doesn't mean it's objectively true.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





magick man said:


> I'm sure there was, but that doesn't mean it's objectively true.


 
   
  Possibly, but we'll see until I receive the cables in about 3 weeks time or so and try to get some measurements out of the cables, since no one has done measurements with Piccolino other then Gaby from Crystal Cable's herself.


----------



## proton007

I just feel we're running in circles. A few pages of discussion, and we still present the same arguments again.


----------



## kiteki

I really doubt a professional violinist wouldn't be able to hear their _own violin_ in a blind test.  If certain brands are the Prada and Gucci of that society is a seperate issue, you have to take all these blind tests with some salt.
   
   
  The "golden ears are the ones which hear no difference" I think only applies to cases where you have evidential reason to believe there should be no difference, i.e. such as ABX'ing the exact same equipment or exact same cables, only painted different colours, for example.
   
  bmiamihk is saying we should be able to sell/buy any ice-cream for any price and not tell others not to buy that ice-cream, that seems more like politics or social etiquette than audio afaik...


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> I just feel we're running in circles. A few pages of discussion, and we still present the same arguments again.


 
  Unfortunately some people never stand down.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





defqon said:


> Unfortunately some people never stand down.


 
   
  Especially unfortunate that it usually seems to be the people who do not have hard evidence...


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Especially unfortunate that it usually seems to be the people who do not have hard evidence...


 
   
  Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## liamstrain

But not a kind of bliss I want. (And if true, why are there not more happy people in the world?)


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> But not a kind of bliss I want.


 
  Not good for the health of this thread, which I feel will be closed down soon. Oh well.....


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





defqon said:


> Wong. With the Piccolino setup amongst me and 4 other's, there was a noticable difference.


 
   
  Is that sighted, blind comparison or ABX tested? If it was sighted I am not wrong because the difference was in yourselves and not inherent in the cable.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





defqon said:


> Possibly, but we'll see until I receive the cables in about 3 weeks time or so and try to get some measurements out of the cables, since no one has done measurements with Piccolino other then Gaby from Crystal Cable's herself.


 
   
   
  Great, please post your results. But once you have measured the cables you then need to evidence a direct link between that measurement and an effect on sound quality. So far no cable company, and I am going back to the 1970s when audiophile cables started to appear, has show a direct link between how a cable measures and affect on sound quality.
   
  So far the one potential link is down to attenuation, which affects volume and slightly louder tends to sound better as dynamics and clarity are clearer. Oddly attenuation does not attract the same level of interest.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





defqon said:


> Not good for the health of this thread, which I feel will be closed down soon. Oh well.....


 
   
  Sorry I should have multiquoted. I hope the thread does not close down, but if it does it is because many people can only ask the same questions and get the same answers and hardly anyone bothers to do any research. Us audiophiles strike me as being of average intelligence or above, holding down good jobs or in further education with many scientists and technology workers amongst us. Yet as Wapiti in my signature states it is very odd how a hobby based on science has science regularly ignored or held in suspicion.


----------



## kiteki

prog rock man said:


> Us audiophiles strike me as being of average intelligence or above, holding down good jobs or in further education with many scientists and technology workers amongst us. Yet as Wapiti in my signature states it is very odd how a hobby based on science has science regularly ignored or held in suspicion.


 
   
  The science in audio is all over the place.  I asked Wapiti how to measure sound-stage and he posted screenshots of digital reverb processing and told me I'd have to read 10 books to understand his field.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> The science in audio is all over the place.  I asked Wapiti how to measure sound-stage and he posted screenshots of digital reverb processing and told me I'd have to read 10 books to understand his field.


 
   
  That doesn't mean the science is all over the place  - just that in some aspects, it may be quite complex and evolving. 
   
  By and large, the science in audio agrees on the majority of issues.


----------



## Lorspeaker

soundstage is the audio triangulation of soundsource thru the two ears vs binocular triangulation of distances thru the two eyes..


----------



## kiteki

liamstrain said:


> By and large, the science in audio agrees on the majority of issues.


 
   
  Perhaps the minority come under the spotlight.
   
  Look at diyaudio.com, there is _a lot_ of science there and not very much agreement.  Hydrogenaudio won't let you post an opinion without an ABX to back it up, and yet the latest thread I looked there, a university ABX study, mostly elicited rude and dismissive comments, even though the author actually came by to post in the thread.


----------



## kiteki

lorspeaker said:


> soundstage is the audio triangulation of soundsource thru the two ears vs binocular triangulation of distances thru the two eyes..


 
   





 http://www.taket.jp/bpp/bpp_e.html


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Perhaps the minority come under the spotlight.
> 
> Look at diyaudio.com, there is _a lot_ of science there and not very much agreement.  Hydrogenaudio won't let you post an opinion without an ABX to back it up, and yet the latest thread I looked there, a university ABX study, mostly elicited rude and dismissive comments, even though the author actually came by to post in the thread.


 

 I had a look on Hydrogen audio, which ABX test are you referring to?


----------



## wakibaki

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I really doubt a professional violinist wouldn't be able to hear their _own violin_ in a blind test.  If certain brands are the Prada and Gucci of that society is a seperate issue, you have to take all these blind tests with some salt.


 
   
  Some recent tests showed that a variety of listeners, including violinists, were unable to distinguish between Stradivarius and less ...expensive violins.
   
  If you google 'blind test Stradivarius' you will see that this issue has been tested on numerous occasions down the years.
   
  It's particularly interesting because of the close relation between the blind identification of violins and the blind identification of cables, particularly with regard to the enormous price differentials in both cases.
   
  You may feel that there are problems with blind tests, but they're all we've got, and anyone who wants to take sighted listening as evidence over blind tests is simply burying their head in the sand. (burying their head in the sand!!! lol rofl LMAO)
   
  w


----------



## DNZGamer

Haha, thats so cool. I've always wondered if the whole Stradivarius thing was just a BS placebo effect ever since I found it in Fallout 3.


----------



## Lorspeaker

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> http://www.taket.jp/bpp/bpp_e.html


 
  wear a harness with a 4ft stick and dangle the BPP radiator right out infront of you.
   

   
  or try the hd800 v2


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Is that sighted, blind comparison or ABX tested? If it was sighted I am not wrong because the difference was in yourselves and not inherent in the cable.


 
   
  Well I didn't know it was Piccolino (having never seen Piccolino in real life before this other then pictures) at the start of the audition and the guy handed me at initial what looked like standard pure silver cable's in a clear heatshrink jacket. So I started the listening and the first thing that I realised is that my IE8's sounded somewhat bit different, I don't know what other Piccolino cable user's describe its characteristics but the sound sounded smooth? Like liquid smooth and mellow but not removing other sound characteristics nor did it boasted it (no bs like what other user's say like omg my bass is boasted now, omg the bright end's are gone now, crap like that). At the end of about 15-20 minutes the guy told me that the cable used was Piccolino and bam I suddenly realised what I was listening to having read few impression's from other Pico owner's here. So I guess this is a blind test in a way which was then used for the next 3 people including my dad who is an ex-audiophile nut when it comes to speakers. 
   
  I did a sighted test again after the whole talk, listen and walk session and did quick comparison between the stock and Picco and again, the same slight difference, it didn't boast any specific sound characteristics but made everything liquid smooth to listen to. To date I haven't heard any cable that has offered this kind of difference, having so even purchasing the pure silver Galaxy cable which lee370 recommends with the IE8/80 series that mellows out the treble and sibilance a bit recently for about 100 bucks hasn't even provided any kind of difference between the stock cable to my ears.
   
  Having so said, when it comes to cable's etc, I'am not a complete believer that aftermarket high end cables can get rid of crap of bad headphones/iem's and make it sound stellar, there's no way in believing this kind of crap which a lot of people acclaim to or adding specific qualities to things such as mids, highs, bass and the treble, I don't believe according to my ears that certain little characteristics of sound can be boasted by a cable change, but a cable change can possibly make the sound produced from the headphone as a whole (can I call this sound signature?) slightly different, again I'm one of those people that believes in or say's "omg, the bass is tighted from using these new Canare cable's blah blah blah".
   
  Another thing is that the slight variance of sound change in using different cables on headphones or iem's is more noticable then speakers, having heard and owned few speaker's myself, the distance between your ears and your headphone drivers/iem's is more noticeably closer then your ears and your speakers, those that say using $10k cables for there Paradigm or Wharfedale speaker's provides a change is more like a hype wagon thing of better aesthetic's then actually a sound change, which I have not heard from using different cables for speakers at all.


----------



## proton007

Usually we won't carry our measuring instruments around, would we? I mean for example if I make a cable that deliberately increases impedance, or capacitance, I *may* be able to produce changes in sound.
  So its too complex to carry out tests on your own, because then you also need to measure these cables to see if there really is any difference in their electrical characteristics. At shops etc its not feasible when you're already out to buy a cable.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Usually we won't carry our measuring instruments around, would we? I mean for example if I make a cable that deliberately increases impedance, or capacitance, I *may* be able to produce changes in sound.
> So its too complex to carry out tests on your own, because then you also need to measure these cables to see if there really is any difference in their electrical characteristics. At shops etc its not feasible when you're already out to buy a cable.


 
   
  I'm curious though proton. Could it be possible that the equipment itself can't pick up these changes? Where it is not accurate enough to do so? Maybe there is a range where the equipment can't pick up and the human can? Food for thought... After all humans did create these machines and even machines that create machines. Is it not possible for there to be fallibility on the objective side of things?


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> I'm curious though proton. Could it be possible that the equipment itself can't pick up these changes? Where it is not accurate enough to do so? Maybe there is a range where the equipment can't pick up and the human can? Food for thought... After all humans did create these machines and even machines that create machines. Is it not possible for there to be fallibility on the objective side of things?


 
  There's a limit to the resolving ability of every sensor, but its pretty minute.
  But my point was more towards large changes. I mean what if I have a cable that adds another 10-50 ohms? Its possible it'll produce some changes.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> There's a limit to the resolving ability of every sensor, but its pretty minute.
> But my point was more towards large changes. I mean what if I have a cable that adds another 10-50 ohms? Its possible it'll produce some changes.


 
  How about there being a possibility of the cable adding sensitivity to the IEM as well?


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





lee730 said:


> How about there being a possibility of the cable adding sensitivity to the IEM as well?


 
  What would you mean by 'sensitivity' ?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> I'm curious though proton. Could it be possible that the equipment itself can't pick up these changes? Where it is not accurate enough to do so? Maybe there is a range where the equipment can't pick up and the human can?


 
   
   
  Sure it is possible. But human hearing is a pretty limited thing, both compared to other animals, and compared to instrumentation. 
   
  There may be processes the brain does with audio data that we have not yet learned to replicate (or know how to interpret the information we have), but from a shear sensitivity/range/discrete difference standpoint, instrumentation blows human ears (even the best of them) out of the water.


----------



## lee730

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> What would you mean by 'sensitivity' ?


 

 Sources are more revealing, which includes more hiss in cases where the source has hiss. It's more audible (louder) than with stock cable. Also due to this I can have the volume lower and obtain higher volume levels (more efficient). Not sure how that is but something I've noticed with extensive usage. It's not a humongous difference BTW but clearly audible to me.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Usually we won't carry our measuring instruments around, would we? I mean for example if I make a cable that deliberately increases impedance, or capacitance, I *may* be able to produce changes in sound.
> So its too complex to carry out tests on your own, because then you also need to measure these cables to see if there really is any difference in their electrical characteristics. At shops etc its not feasible when you're already out to buy a cable.


 
   
  Quote: 





lee730 said:


> I'm curious though proton. Could it be possible that the equipment itself can't pick up these changes? Where it is not accurate enough to do so? Maybe there is a range where the equipment can't pick up and the human can? Food for thought... After all humans did create these machines and even machines that create machines. Is it not possible for there to be fallibility on the objective side of things?


 
   
  Yet the audiophile cable companies claim to have spent great deals of money and time on R&D over the past 40 years and they have not isolated any electrical characteristic which is directly related to sound quality. Indeed they rely on the characteristics that have been known since the C19th. I put my hands up and accept they may be something as yet undiscovered, but I think that is highly unlikely.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> I just feel we're running in circles. A few pages of discussion, and we still present the same arguments again.


 
   
  Yup. This circle's been going 'round and 'round for over 30 years now. No reason to expect it will ever change.
   
  se


----------



## garetz

I'm glad my post fostered some positive discussion, and i very much enjoyed reading all the responses.

 I do agree that there are just too many variables to consider, and it would take a great deal of study of each variable to come to a conclusive consensus. Its pretty much all conjecture at this point.

 However the people who have already decided that it doesn't exist have their minds closed to the possibility, i like to keep an open mind whatever my own opinion may be on the matter.
 I also like to play the devil's advocate. In the end we may never have a definitive answer, but there is always faith and hope, that one day we will find out beyond doubt.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





garetz said:


> I'm glad my post fostered some positive discussion, and i very much enjoyed reading all the responses.
> 
> I do agree that there are just too many variables to consider, and it would take a great deal of study of each variable to come to a conclusive consensus. Its pretty much all conjecture at this point.
> 
> ...


 
   
  As someone who has made up their mind I object to the claim I am closed minded. I have made up my mind having changed it based on evidence. I disagree it is pretty much all conjecture, there is science if you are prepared to look for it. If something comes along that is an electrical effect inherent in cables that is shown to directly affect sound quality, I will look at the evidence for that.


----------



## Citan

Quote: 





garetz said:


> I'm glad my post fostered some positive discussion, and i very much enjoyed reading all the responses.
> 
> I do agree that there are just too many variables to consider, and it would take a great deal of study of each variable to come to a conclusive consensus. Its pretty much all conjecture at this point.
> 
> ...


 
  Honestly where did you get the idea that there is no conclusive consensus/definitive answer?  The science behind all this stuff is absolutely well understood and the only place where there is any disagreement is in audiophile circles with people who have little to no scientific backgrounds.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The ability to harness and transmit electricity and turn it into something useful is just about the biggest and most influential scientific step taken by mankind. The likes of Benjamin Franklin, Alessandro Volta and Thomas Faraday were conducting experiments and learning how to harness the power of electricity in the 18th and 19th centuries. Various laws of electricity have been known for a good length of time, such as Ohms Law published first in 1827 and have not found to be flawed.

 The electric power that we need to power our hifis was first distributed to houses in NY in 1882, though before that individual wealthy people had their own power supplies.  Since then with the likes of the  current war between AC and DC, experience of and knowledge about the transmission of electricity down a cable has increased dramatically. But we are still using the original discoveries of the 19th century as the basic principles of transmitting electricity down a cable, such skin effect first noted in 1883.
   
  The issue of being open minded to new discoveries about electrical transmission in a cable and sound quality is the same as being open minded to ancient spacemen having built the pyramids. If you are prepared to be open minded about the science I do not see any way of not concluding cables cannot inherently affect sound quality and the differences are caused in the mind of the listener.


----------



## BobJS

Speaking of pyramids, do some of these magic high-end cables come with included pyramids within which the formerly wealthy listener may enjoy even more enhanced SQ ?


----------



## anetode

You can purchase the following gold-plated audiophile seat cushion



which will add some much needed depth to the music, at the expense of the occasional piercing high


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

Quote:


anetode said:


> You can purchase the following gold-plated audiophile seat cushion
> 
> which will add some much needed depth to the music, at the expense of the occasional piercing high


 
  2 thumbs up for somehow bringing origami (another fave pastime of mine) into an audio debate 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Alas this one may not supply the proper rigidity, sharpness and above all purity of a real solid gold pyramid and we all know how important these characteristics are!


----------



## anetode

Umm... that was a working prototype, the final version will be CNC'd from 100kg of solid bullion and cryo-treated prior to being shipped to Mickey Fremer. He's proven that his posterior has the necessary headroom to handle it.


----------



## BobJS

No, the pyramid must be large and hollow.... so we can go inside and listen.  Let's take that bullion and make solid gold cables!!  No, wait.... the gold is too soft.... perhaps an alloy with snake oil?


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





garetz said:


> I'm glad my post fostered some positive discussion, and i very much enjoyed reading all the responses.
> 
> I do agree that there are just too many variables to consider, and it would take a great deal of study of each variable to come to a conclusive consensus. Its pretty much all conjecture at this point.
> 
> ...


 
  Thanks for posting that.
  For me, this may the most rational thing posted in this whole thread.
  Personally, I am a massive cable agnostic/sceptic.
  I've read too much info proving that cables do not make a difference, OTOH, I've been "fooled" too many times by different sounding cables to make myself firmly believe that they all sound the same. 
   
  P.S.   If you have any pure gold or silver cables, please send them to me for analysis!


----------



## DefQon

Some of you guys are beating around the bush and saying no cable difference is backed up and proved by "science". I've search through a few threads and forums and reviews online through Google with invalid confirms on this, except for a few zip line vs audiophile cable comparison's, someone care to link me to one that actually has frequency graphs, distortion and noise balance etc of said cables making no difference? I'm not waving for either said, but I haven't found any credible sources (besides bias reviews and forums) saying such and such.
   
  Anyway I found this: http://www.coreaudiotechnology.com/blog/?p=34 which is somewhat a slight interesting read.


----------



## bmiamihk

OOO well if a person believes that amaterial in a cable will not affect the sound they will choose not to read that article and only search for the articles that will back their beliefs.
  Quote: 





defqon said:


> Some of you guys are beating around the bush and saying no cable difference is backed up and proved by "science". I've search through a few threads and forums and reviews online through Google with invalid confirms on this, except for a few zip line vs audiophile cable comparison's, someone care to link me to one that actually has frequency graphs, distortion and noise balance etc of said cables making no difference? I'm not waving for either said, but I haven't found any credible sources (besides bias reviews and forums) saying such and such.
> 
> Anyway I found this: http://www.coreaudiotechnology.com/blog/?p=34 which is somewhat a slight interesting read.


----------



## anetode

defqon said:


> Some of you guys are beating around the bush and saying no cable difference is backed up and proved by "science". I've search through a few threads and forums and reviews online through Google with invalid confirms on this, except for a few zip line vs audiophile cable comparison's, someone care to link me to one that actually has frequency graphs, distortion and noise balance etc of said cables making no difference? I'm not waving for either said, but I haven't found any credible sources (besides bias reviews and forums) saying such and such.
> 
> Anyway I found this: http://www.coreaudiotechnology.com/blog/?p=34 which is somewhat a slight interesting read.




You're looking in the wrong place. First, try going to a library and look up some books about this whole "science" thing. Many libraries also allow you free access to journal databases, otherwise you could purchase some articles through online databases (the AES is a good start).


----------



## jcx

few people actually say that no cable material/construction whatsoever never makes a difference with any signal, equipment
   
  people who have the engineering background and experience in precision measurements will say that cables can have effects - and conventional LCR, and coupling/shielding effectiveness numbers combined with signal, source and receiver circuit details can "explain" differences - "transfer impedance" describes shielding effectiveness against EMI - in high impedance, DC measurements triboelelctric and "induced piezeo-electric" effect with high polarizing V "microphonics" are also known
   
  in audio, at consumer line levels the biggest difference in SE cables like RCA/coax is the resistance and coverage factor of the shield - use better grade video cable with heavy shield and not much more can be done
   
  for speaker cable LCR, skin effect can give measurable differences - but at or below most accepted psychoacoustic estimates of JND frequency response thresholds
   
https://passlabs.com/articles/speaker-cables-science-or-snake-oil


----------



## liamstrain

Here is one article with extensive measurements. The summary - with exception of one poorly designed speaker cable (whose problems were measurably bad - and does affect sound quality, causing a roll-off of the highs due to excessive inductance - a cable that wouldn't pass electronics 101) they all are dandy. 
   
  http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/cables/speaker-cable-face-off-1
   
  e.g. cables can negatively affect sound in the audible range if they are so poorly designed as to not do their job (high resistance attenuates all frequencies, high inductance attenuates proportionally to the frequency, high/low capacitance doesn't really affect audio). A properly made cable - especially at headphone and interconnect lengths, really doesn't have an effect*.
   
  *again - assuming someone didn't design a cable like a bonehead.


----------



## rroseperry

defqon said:


> Some of you guys are beating around the bush and saying no cable difference is backed up and proved by "science". I've search through a few threads and forums and reviews online through Google with invalid confirms on this, except for a few zip line vs audiophile cable comparison's, someone care to link me to one that actually has frequency graphs, distortion and noise balance etc of said cables making no difference? I'm not waving for either said, but I haven't found any credible sources (besides bias reviews and forums) saying such and such.
> 
> Anyway I found this: http://www.coreaudiotechnology.com/blog/?p=34 which is somewhat a slight interesting read.




Postulating a cause isn't science, nor is a hypothetical equation.

just sayin'


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jcx said:


> https://passlabs.com/articles/speaker-cables-science-or-snake-oil


 
   
  Some good and interesting information in there, though I do not necessarily agree with his conclusions. It seems more of a "might as well for insurance, you've already spent the other money" rather than a definitive reason to do so (aside from the obvious avoiding electrical problems and series impedance - which you should do, but does not require specific or expensive cables, just paying attention).


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





defqon said:


> Anyway I found this: http://www.coreaudiotechnology.com/blog/?p=34 which is somewhat a slight interesting read.


 
  I have measured cables, as have other members here, they do not multiply distortion to any significant degree, poorly shielded cables will pick up some noise but still at a very low level (-85db or so) , measured differences I found between cables (seven different designs) even a factor of 70x different in price were at vanishingly low magnitudes...


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





anetode said:


> You're looking in the wrong place. First, try going to a library and look up some books about this whole "science" thing. Many libraries also allow you free access to journal databases, otherwise you could purchase some articles through online databases (the AES is a good start).


 
  Pretty broad nor helpful, I know Libraries have books on these type of audio ethical discussions and so does Google but I was pointing out since you guys seem to know all about cables not providing any difference etc and have read a lot of sources then me, could be more specific with a single source or whatever that would prove being informative to me of what the current endless discussion is all about with reference to measurements...since measurements afterall is part of science...right?
   
  Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> Postulating a cause isn't science, nor is a hypothetical equation.
> just sayin'


 
   
  Nor did I say it was, it was just a somewhat interesting read.
    
  Quote:
   


jcx said:


> https://passlabs.com/articles/speaker-cables-science-or-snake-oil


 
   
  Interesting.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> I have measured cables, as have other members here, they do not multiply distortion to any significant degree, poorly shielded cables will pick up some noise but still at a very low level (-85db or so) , measured differences I found between cables (seven different designs) even a factor of 70x different in price were at vanishingly low magnitudes...


 
   
  Yeah which pretty much comes to the point where paying 5x only equates to about less then 1% (if not lower) performance increase. What I want to see is someone measure some so called high end $9k speaker cables against a zip line, coat hanger, a regular cable and some slightly higher end then generic custom cables. This arises another thing which I think is total BS is upon my discovery of so called "cryo'd power cables by Valabs" or whatever that costs about $4k and supposedly transforms the sound output throughout your amp to speakers or headphones to another level....any opinion's on this if its true or not?


----------



## TrollDragon

Some interesting reads here on Interconnects, Silver Wire, and "Power Cords"
   
  http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/the-truth-about-interconnects-and-cables
   
  Quote: The Article...


> _Beware! _ If there is any suggestion that the cable needs to be 'broken in' before you hear the difference, the salesperson is lying! At this point, you should immediately let them know that you know that they are lying, and leave the shop. Cable 'break-in' is a myth, and is perpetuated by those with something to hide - no-one has _ ever _ been able to show that there is any scientific justification to the claim, nor shown that the performance has changed in any way whatsoever. Cable break-in is real, and occurs between the ears of the listener - nowhere else (most certainly not in the cable).


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





defqon said:


> Yeah which pretty much comes to the point where paying 5x only equates to about less then 1% (if not lower) performance increase. What I want to see is someone measure some so called high end $9k speaker cables against a zip line, coat hanger, a regular cable and some slightly higher end then generic custom cables. This arises another thing which I think is total BS is upon my discovery of so called "cryo'd power cables by Valabs" or whatever that costs about $4k and supposedly transforms the sound output throughout your amp to speakers or headphones to another level....any opinion's on this if its true or not?


 
   
  What are these more expensive cables meant to do (or claim to do) that their less expensive brethren did not? What makes them different and worth testing independently? Just the price? or do they claim some electrical performance difference that makes them worthy of that attention (and what makes their claims more reliable)?
   
  The effects of the big 3 cable properties (resistance, capacitance, and inductance) are well known and predictable. Various metals performance in those areas is likewise known and predictable. 
   
  If their claims do not significantly overturn known science in those areas, they are going to have a long row to hoe to show they are worth the bother (and dollars).


----------



## bellsprout

the facts that were presented were:
   
  1. cables don't introduce distortion. this is true, as an LCR circuit can't.
   
  2. cables multiply distortion. true, but it multiplies everything. it can't differentiate between what's signal and what's distortion. it simply does a frequency dependent magnitude and phase transformation.
   
  so the conclusion about measuring equipment not being able to pick up distortion by not providing any is bogus. that's suggesting that if the signal is more noisy, only the noise component will be amplified by the cable, which is of course not the case, because that would require the cable to not only exhibit non-linear, but also intelligent capability.
   
  Quote:


defqon said:


> Anyway I found this: http://www.coreaudiotechnology.com/blog/?p=34 which is somewhat a slight interesting read.


----------



## kiteki

The last time I bought a blu-ray player the salesman asked if I need a cable and said "No point using blu-ray if you don't have a cable!", I think their HDMI cables cost in a similar order to the blu-ray player itself.  Obviously salesmen and retailers can extract more profit from cables, just like they do with overpriced headphones and speakers.
   
  These HDMI cables which are sold for more than $100 probably cost less than $10 for the shop.  It's clear that many consumers would be enjoying the exact same quality audio/visual with a $10 HDMI cable and they just threw $90 into the ocean.
   
  If a gas station was selling regular gasoline for $10 and another identical gasoline with different marketing for $15 they'd most likely be dealt with somehow while audio/visual retailers are not.
   
  So, in the case where two USB, HDMI, speaker or IEM cables are _100% identical _underneath their external looks or marketing, then the salesmen are in fact selling $100 tap water or gasoline with fancy marketing and the same specs.  Clearly this type of selling technique has overflowed into headphones and speakers as well.  The result is that all these cables act/sound 100% identical and almost all headphones and speakers under let's say $400 from these retailers sound pretty much the same.  So, from this the typical consumer may deduct that there is nothing special about audio (it all sounds similar), that it's overpriced, and that it's full of marketing.  From their experience, they'd be correct on all counts.
   
  Now, what do you think this typical consumer would think if they saw an LCD-2 headphone with a pure silver cable?  They most likely say it's junk and marketing, and if countered with some "audiophile jargon" like air, decay, attack, sound-stage, speed, tonality, voicing, realism, dynamic range and so on, they'd say that's all junk, marketing, poetry and psychoacoustics, and you can assess audio in totality with some basic scientific principles we've had about cables since the 19th century, and measuring the frequency response and THD+N of a headphone/speaker/IEM (or in extreme cases, something like CSD + IR).
   
  So... I think that point of view makes sense, from the lesser experienced and salesman deceived consumer, however I don't know why it's so prevalent on head-fi (?).
   
  Likewise I don't think users which keep attacking the scientists with ethical comments like "I like my expensive cables and I can hear a difference, so what's it to you?!" are really helping anything either, since they're overlooking the ethical sales issue like $100 tap water and by supporting it are sortof deceiving audio.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> The result is that all these cables act/sound 100% identical and almost all headphones and speakers under let's say $400 from these retailers sound pretty much the same.  So, from this the typical consumer may deduct that there is nothing special about audio (it all sounds similar), that it's overpriced, and that it's full of marketing.  From their experience, they'd be correct on all counts.
> 
> Now, what do you think this typical consumer would think if they saw an LCD-2 headphone with a pure silver cable?  They most likely say it's junk and marketing, and if countered with some "audiophile jargon" like air, decay, attack, sound-stage, speed, tonality, voicing, realism, dynamic range and so on, they'd say that's all junk, marketing, poetry and psychoacoustics, and you can assess audio in totality with some basic scientific principles we've had about cables since the 19th century, and measuring the frequency response and THD+N of a headphone/speaker/IEM (or in extreme cases, something like CSD + IR).
> 
> So... I think that point of view makes sense, from the lesser experienced and salesman deceived consumer, however I don't know why it's so prevalent on head-fi (?).


 
   
  1. You are presuming that somewhere above that price point, there are cables which can and do sound better than those which cost under that price point. This is not born out by any objective evidence. ever. This is not a limitation of the experience of the consumers (essentially you are just arguing that we haven't tried *good enough* cables to hear/measure the differences). The fact is many of us have, and have still not heard the differences, or seen evidence of them. There is no need to test every possible new cable that comes to market unless they are proposing some vastly new technology (and backing up those claims) which supercedes our knowledge of how electricity actually works. 
   
  2. It is prevalent on head-fi because all evidence to date, supports it.


----------



## kiteki

You really need to read my post again, you concluded stuff from it completely different to what I was saying.  For starters what's this about price point?  I've said in earlier posts that a DIY silver cable actually costs relatively little and provided links.  I'm making a differentiation between selling tap water for $100 and selling purified water for $5, do you get it?  Also I never said the purified cable is actually going to sound better, I'm just making an important differentiation. 
   
  Also as for "2." in the USB cable thread you eventually admitted don't have any evidence/it doesn't exist and were going to send around a survey to your friends and peers.
   
  When some people say "to date all evidence supports it" they're sometimes referring to a $2 radioshack versus $200 monster cable test, they're _not _referring to using $5/foot silver cable at diyaudio.com.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> "The result is that all these cables act/sound 100% identical and almost all headphones and speakers under let's say $400 from these retailers sound pretty much the same.  So, from this the typical consumer may deduct that there is nothing special about audio (it all sounds similar), that it's overpriced, and that it's full of marketing.  From their experience, they'd be correct on all counts."


 
   
  The price point was yours. Perhaps that is not what you intended, but it was how it came across to me.
   
  Correct, I am still sending around that survey (though it dealt with different data and suppostitions than this - regarding the ability to determine sonic signatures and performance from datasheets on headphones), but you were the one saying the idea was prevalent on Head-fi. I simply agreed. It may be we are mis-communicating. 
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> When some people say "to date all evidence supports it" they're sometimes referring to a $2 radioshack versus $200 monster cable test, they're _not_ referring to using $5/foot silver cable at diyaudio.com.


 
   
   
  Sure they are. For one, why would a silver cable perform any differently - it has only slightly reduced resistance for the same length and gauge - all other factors are identical. At BEST that means a slight difference in volume, nothing more.


----------



## DNZGamer

I don't like working in absolutes. I think for me, it only matters that cables are generally proven to make differences so miniscule, it is almost impossible to reliably distinguish. In this situation, the DBTs are the most important source of information for me.
   
  If they cannot be reliably distinguished, it means the pricing of high end cables is meaningless and pointless for sound quality which strikes it off of my consideration for audio equipment. It also strikes off the credibility of reviewers who discuss cables with very clear effects like better bass extension, bla bla bla. 
   
  I personally am not concerned about the science behind it as I am not gonna educate myself on a new science just to confirm peoples findings. I only care that extremely discerning listeners cannot discern cables even with the most ridiculous high end setups that I can only dream of having and hence it makes up for most likely less than 1% of the SQ of any setup.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> I don't like working in absolutes. I think for me, it only matters that cables are generally proven to make differences so miniscule, it is almost impossible to reliably distinguish. In this situation, the DBTs are the most important source of information for me.
> 
> If they cannot be reliably distinguished, it means the pricing of high end cables is meaningless and pointless for sound quality which strikes it off of my consideration for audio equipment. It also strikes off the credibility of reviewers who discuss cables with very clear effects like better bass extension, bla bla bla.
> 
> I personally am not concerned about the science behind it as I am not gonna educate myself on a new science just to confirm peoples findings. I only care that extremely discerning listeners cannot discern cables even with the most ridiculous high end setups that I can only dream of having and hence it makes up for most likely less than 1% of the SQ of any setup.


 
   
  Well Said.
  Just to add, more focus needs to be brought to other characteristics that a lot of listeners seem to miss, like room acoustics etc.


----------



## DefQon

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> What are these more expensive cables meant to do (or claim to do) that their less expensive brethren did not? What makes them different and worth testing independently? Just the price? or do they claim some electrical performance difference that makes them worthy of that attention (and what makes their claims more reliable)?
> 
> The effects of the big 3 cable properties (resistance, capacitance, and inductance) are well known and predictable. Various metals performance in those areas is likewise known and predictable.
> 
> If their claims do not significantly overturn known science in those areas, they are going to have a long row to hoe to show they are worth the bother (and dollars).


 
  What I was saying is that most of the hype of so called "audiophile cables" are those that use $5k+ cables in their sound systems or relaying it between their source to amp to speakers. I haven't seen measurement's of these taken but would like to if there is one and my point of view is that it's worth testing them due to their price and so called claim's of what the cables can do, this way it will shut everyone up if what the company acclaims is false and no difference detected. From what I see most of this is just all debating.
   
  This whole discussion is nothing but beating around the bush, it's sort of like those "Apple vs Android" thread's you see in other tech forum's and the likelyhood to get a proper answer without being questioned is putting me off and I'm leaning against neither sides. I'm not saying you expect a difference out of every cable, heck I've tried almost every cable under the tree (except those expensive high-end speaker cables and few other cables such as from Stefan Audio) and so far 1 cable has put out enough difference to crush the claims of cable's being a worthy of no difference (of course that is if you really want to spend 10x the price for return of 5% performance etc).
   
  /unsubscribed.


----------



## Magick Man

defqon said:


> What I was saying is that most of the hype of so called "audiophile cables" are those that use $5k+ cables in their sound systems or relaying it between their source to amp to speakers. I haven't seen measurement's of these taken but would like to if there is one and my point of view is that it's worth testing them due to their price and so called claim's of what the cables can do, this way it will shut everyone up if what the company acclaims is false and no difference detected. From what I see most of this is just all debating.
> 
> This whole discussion is nothing but beating around the bush, it's sort of like those "Apple vs Android" thread's you see in other tech forum's and the likelyhood to get a proper answer without being questioned is putting me off and I'm leaning against neither sides. I'm not saying you expect a difference out of every cable, heck I've tried almost every cable under the tree (except those expensive high-end speaker cables and few other cables such as from Stefan Audio) and so far 1 cable has put out enough difference to crush the claims of cable's being a worthy of no difference (of course that is if you really want to spend 10x the price for return of 5% performance etc).
> 
> /unsubscribed.




There's no "beating around the bush", we've been saying that *they make no difference* since this started. Seems rather direct to me. :rolleyes:

Personally, I'll say there is a chance that they do, it's about the same likelihood that aliens have visited the Earth and abducted humans for probing. Which is probably a little better than angels imprinting the face of the Virgin Mary on toast, or massive cold water loving dinosaurs living in Scottish lakes.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





defqon said:


> I haven't seen measurement's of these taken but would like to if there is one and my point of view is that it's worth testing them due to their price and so called claim's of what the cables can do, this way it will shut everyone up if what the company acclaims is false and no difference detected. From what I see most of this is just all debating.


 
   
  *shrug*
   
  We have mountains of data showing no difference on all manner of cables and a wide range of prices, theories, and "proprietary connectors" etc. All that data countering false claims hasn't shut people up yet, I don't expect this would be any different...sadly.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> *shrug*
> 
> We have mountains of data showing no difference on all manner of cables and a wide range of prices, theories, and "proprietary connectors" etc. All that data countering false claims hasn't shut people up yet, I don't expect this would be any different...sadly.


 
   
  You feel its only for cables? Its existed in most fields. "Upgrades" that no one has been able to prove actually work. But it is sad.


----------



## Chris J

defqon said:


> Some of you guys are beating around the bush and saying no cable difference is backed up and proved by "science". I've search through a few threads and forums and reviews online through Google with invalid confirms on this, except for a few zip line vs audiophile cable comparison's, someone care to link me to one that actually has frequency graphs, distortion and noise balance etc of said cables making no difference? I'm not waving for either said, but I haven't found any credible sources (besides bias reviews and forums) saying such and such.
> 
> Anyway I found this: http://www.coreaudiotechnology.com/blog/?p=34 which is somewhat a slight interesting read.





You bring up some excellent points, the anti-cable camp seems to think they need not offer any evidence whatsoever.

However, that article is filled with BS, I don't even know where to start......the tube comments maybe?


----------



## Chris J

kiteki said:


> You really need to read my post again, you concluded stuff from it completely different to what I was saying.  For starters what's this about price point?  I've said in earlier posts that a DIY silver cable actually costs relatively little and provided links.  I'm making a differentiation between selling tap water for $100 and selling purified water for $5, do you get it?  Also I never said the purified cable is actually going to sound better, I'm just making an important differentiation.
> 
> Also as for "2." in the USB cable thread you eventually admitted don't have any evidence/it doesn't exist and were going to send around a survey to your friends and peers.
> 
> When some people say "to date all evidence supports it" they're sometimes referring to a $2 radioshack versus $200 monster cable test, they're _not_ referring to using $5/foot silver cable at diyaudio.com.




+1


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





chris j said:


> You bring up some excellent points, the anti-cable camp seems to think they need not offer any evidence whatsoever.


 
   
  The "anti-cable camp" is almost entirely about evidence. It is the pro-cable crew that has never produced evidence. If you've gotten this far into this thread and still say this with a straight face, I don't think we can have a useful conversation.


----------



## KT66

my evidence, - put my hand in my pocket, lots of Nordost and Townshend isolda in my main system, but then new it would cost $40k
   
  2 wrong things posted here
   
  1) Retail margin on cables is 25-45%  - no more unless they make them themselves
  2) Audio engineers are not a way to measure anything, nor is there opinion to be trusted, I've done the job myself, play any new CD from the past 10 years and you'll easily realise
  they don't give a fug about how music sounds.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> You feel its only for cables? Its existed in most fields. "Upgrades" that no one has been able to prove actually work. But it is sad.


 
  I don't think it is for only cables. I would put money on someone not being able to tell the difference between a $30 Walmart dvd player and a $10,000 CD transport if both are built properly.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kt66 said:


> 2) Audio engineers are not a way to measure anything, nor is there opinion to be trusted, I've done the job myself, play any new CD from the past 10 years and you'll easily realise
> they don't give a fug about how music sounds.


 
   
  If you think the engineers have much say in what goes out the door, you misunderstand the industry.


----------



## jgray91

Quote: 





kt66 said:


> my evidence, - put my hand in my pocket, lots of Nordost and Townshend isolda in my main system, but then new it would cost $40k
> 
> 2 wrong things posted here
> 
> ...


 
   
  Not an effective way to argue, IMO. I don't suppose you'd believe in a cult recruiter when he's saying you're not happy and you should join his cult to be happy? Also, the thing with "experience", "I do this longer than you", "you must listen it for yourselves", etc. is that it puts in the most obvious factor and variable in the arguments: that is each one of us is inherently different. Measurements are a way to eliminate/reduce this kinds of unstable variables/factors and provide a common ground for a lot of people.


----------



## bellsprout

thats cuz consumers dont give a ****
   
  Quote:


kt66 said:


> 2) Audio engineers are not a way to measure anything, nor is there opinion to be trusted, I've done the job myself, play any new CD from the past 10 years and you'll easily realise
> they don't give a fug about how music sounds.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





kt66 said:


> my evidence, - put my hand in my pocket, lots of Nordost and Townshend isolda in my main system, but then new it would cost $40k
> 
> 2 wrong things posted here
> 
> ...


 

 I don't get how 2) is relevant to anything being discussed. 

 First of all, it is a terrible and unfounded statement that you expect us to take your word for. Apparently no audio-engineers care about music and you have proof of this? Why are you complaining about scientific methods when your arguments aren't even founded in observable trends?

 Secondly, measurements have nothing to do with music. It doesn't even have to be music. The point is whether there is an AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE of any kind and music isn't necessarily the best way to detect this.

 Lastly, when has all scientific findings been limited to just audio engineers? Considering the amount of studies conducted with specifically audiophiles, musicians, regular consumers and any other relevant demographic, I don't understand why we are discussing audio engineers exclusively. 
   
  Please provide evidence that:

 a) audio engineers don't like music
  b) people who love music could distinguish between cables. You offered what you considered proof, to play any CD. Maybe you can make me understand how my Born to Die album is clearly a demonstration of this as I clearly do not know what I am looking for.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Yup. This circle's been going 'round and 'round for over 30 years now. No reason to expect it will ever change.
> 
> se


 
  You got that right.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Here is one article with extensive measurements. The summary - with exception of one poorly designed speaker cable (whose problems were measurably bad - and does affect sound quality, causing a roll-off of the highs due to excessive inductance - a cable that wouldn't pass electronics 101) they all are dandy.
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/cables/speaker-cable-face-off-1
> 
> ...


 
  While there is some good content there, it is still important to consider what is the underlying reason for the article and even the website.  Going from the measurements to conclusions may not be really supported scientifically.  The same applies to IC's  and PC's used in an unbalanced system
   
  j


----------



## Prog Rock Man

This article is a classic example of what the cable makers produce
   
  https://passlabs.com/articles/speaker-cables-science-or-snake-oil
   
  It measures differences in cables. But then it fails to show those differences are audible and that the differences have a causal difference on variations in sound quality. It includes a biased sighted test and avoids blind testing.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





magick man said:


> There's no "beating around the bush", we've been saying that *they make no difference* since this started. Seems rather direct to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> *shrug*
> 
> We have mountains of data showing no difference on all manner of cables and a wide range of prices, theories, and "proprietary connectors" etc. All that data countering false claims hasn't shut people up yet, I don't expect this would be any different...sadly.


 
   
   
  This is why we keep going round in circles. It is wrong to say cables make no difference, they do at least to some people in some systems, where that difference is not consistent. The real issue is what causes that to work?


----------



## DNZGamer

Why do we care if there is an electrical difference or not? If cables really had any *significant* effect then there must be at least at least some cases where people could blindly identify them. The bottom line is expensive cables are simply not a sound purchase. 
   
  You guys have moved away from the practical purpose of cable differences to things that are inconsequential to any known demographic of people listening to music.


----------



## jnjn

I see far too many articles out there purporting to "expose" the fallicies and the snake oil, and far too many claiming pseudoscience.
   
  The AH and Pass articles are interesting, but there is more to it.
   
  j


----------



## DNZGamer

No matter what they claim, if you don't believe them then and believe otherwise, simple testing will solve the question for you personally. I don't get why there is so much discussion on science and other things that just don't matter to the average listener. It only takes one person to prove that cables actually do make a difference yet with all the pro-cable audiophiles out there, not one has come out to refute this theory?
   
  Again, whatever difference cables make it is obviously not worth any significant amount of money. I think running around in circles discussing semantics on whether there is a registered electrical difference or theoretical super senses is pointless.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> This is why we keep going round in circles. It is wrong to say cables make no difference, they do at least to some people in some systems, where that difference is not consistent. The real issue is what causes that to work?


 
   
  You're playing semantics. The cables themselves are not responsible for any audible difference. This is what the data shows. If people hear differences, it is some factor other than the material/construction/properties of the cable.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> No matter what they claim, if you don't believe them then and believe otherwise, simple testing will solve the question for you personally. I don't get why there is so much discussion on science and other things that just don't matter to the average listener. It only takes one person to prove that cables actually do make a difference yet with all the pro-cable audiophiles out there, not one has come out to refute this theory?
> 
> Again, whatever difference cables make it is obviously not worth any significant amount of money. I think running around in circles discussing semantics on whether there is a registered electrical difference or theoretical super senses is pointless.


 
  What exactly would I test? Testing is not "simple" despite what you may read.  Even Nelson's setup is sub par, especially when the discussion turns to t-line.
   
  Why is it "science and other things that just don't matter to the average listener"???  If you do not wish "science" to be invoked, then perhaps asking the question in the "Sound Science" forum is a mistake.
   
  Do _*not*_ ask a question in the Sound Science forum then state that science just doesn't matter.
   
  I personally do not consider large dollar cables worth it.  Honestly, I can design and make any cable to have any inductance, capacitance, or impedance I wish, so I've no need to purchase any pre-manufactured product.
   
  As to "registered electrical difference", I can discuss that both in theory and in practice.  If you wish to do so, let me know.
   
  j


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> You're playing semantics. _*The cables themselves are not responsible for any audible difference*_. _*This is what the data shows*_._* If people hear differences, it is some factor other than the material/construction/properties of the cable.*_


 
_*Honestly, that may not be accurate.*_
   
_*What data?  If you mean electrical test data, I'm not that sure.  If you mean audibility data, I'm not sure.*_
   
_*There is always expectation bias, as well as the possibility that the audibility test regimen is inconsistent with normal listening.*_
   
  j


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> _*Honestly, that may not be accurate.*_
> 
> _*What data?  If you mean electrical test data, I'm not that sure.  If you mean audibility data, I'm not sure.*_
> 
> ...


 
   
  I'd love to see information to correct my position. Honestly. Aside from those instances I noted above, where cables were made with very high inductance and caused frequency dependent attenuation, I have not seen data to countermand my statement. 
   
  Likewise, I have not seen anything which effectively counters that test conditions (which are hugely variable) cannot be consistent with normal listening - or that the results, even if the conditions are inconsistent, affects the accuracy of the data.
   
  I am always willing to learn, though. And will happily adjust my position if there is good reason to.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> *I'd love to see information to correct my position*. Honestly. Aside from those instances I noted above, where cables were made with very high inductance and caused frequency dependent attenuation, I have not seen data to countermand my statement.
> 
> Likewise, I have not seen anything which effectively counters that test conditions (which are hugely variable) cannot be consistent with normal listening - or that the results, _*even if the conditions are inconsistent, affects the accuracy of the data.*_
> 
> I am always willing to learn, though. And will happily adjust my position if there is good reason to.


 
_*As would I. *_
   
  The listening tests are not designed to consider the human adaptability with respect to image generation and localization.  Since this is a time varying adaptation response, and is not considered, the test designers are not considering all the confounders.
   
  In any statistical design where the "desired outcome" is the prediction of the general population's response, it is extremely important the design be an absolute duplicate of the normal environment.  I see many audio test setups which do not meet this criteria.  When the setup does not do so, the use of the statistical analysis results of the test cannot be used to describe the general population.
   
_*Your statement "even if the conditions are inconsistent" and "accuracy of the data" can be mutually exclusive.  At the very least, the first guarantees the unreliability of the second.  Not that the data is guaranteed incorrect, just that it may not be reliable.  Even stating that amongst a scientific crowd would garner chuckles..*_
   
  While high inductance can indeed cause rolloff, I consider that to be a poorly designed cable.  There can be far bigger issues with a low L cable when the terminating impedance unloads below open loop unity gain frequency of the amplifier.
   
  j


----------



## liamstrain

While I see your point - _if_ human audibility as a measure is shown to be more or less listening condition independent (aside from lets say, base background noise levels), my statement would not elicit chuckles. Which is what I think most of the data shows. We see fairly consistent results, regardless of listening conditions (amount of time allowed, listening room set up, etc.) - which supports the null-hypothesis, the results should be inconsistent, if listening conditions contribute significantly.  
   
  Unless you are arguing that our very attempt to objectively measure people (ABX or DBL) presents a sort of heisenberg uncertainty principle of audio, and negates their ability to hear equipment differences. In which case, I'd like to see support that testing automatically biases the results (especially more than the known biases introduced by sighted and casual listening).


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> While I see your point -_* if human audibility as a measure is shown to be more or less listening condition independent *_(aside from lets say, base background noise levels), my statement would not elicit chuckles. _*Which is what I think most of the data shows*_. _*We see fairly consistent results, regardless of listening conditions (amount of time allowed, listening room set up, etc.) - which supports the null-hypothesis, the results should be inconsistent, if listening conditions contribute significantly.  *_


 
   
_*The problem is, it has not been shown listening condition independent.  It has been assumed.  That is not good scientific method.*_
   
_*I've seen no studies whatsoever which were intended to test the listening condition independency of a small datagroup with respect to the larger general population.  It is always wise to question the validity of a dataset derived from a test which has not been proven identical to that in the "wild".*_
   
_*When a human localizes a naturally occurring sound stimulus, they use the as wired and learned response.  When we try to reproduce that using two independent drivers, we rely on our ability to re-program (as it were) our brain to localize the new synthetic stimulus.*_
   
  Nobody considers that switchover when performing tests, nor it's depth, or rate of change.  That is not consistent with good science.
   
  The outcome may indeed be the same regardless, but I certainly cannot state such with any confidence.
   
  j


----------



## liamstrain

Fair enough - and I agree that I should not overstate my position. However, scientific uncertainty (which is always subject to review of the best data at the time) should not be construed as an admission that the alternate position is really all that likely. Just that it cannot be entirely disproven.


----------



## anetode

defqon said:


> Pretty broad nor helpful, I know Libraries have books on these type of audio ethical discussions and so does Google but I was pointing out since you guys seem to know all about cables not providing any difference etc and have read a lot of sources then me, could be more specific with a single source or whatever that would prove being informative to me of what the current endless discussion is all about with reference to measurements...since measurements afterall is part of science...right?




The problem is that most readily available online diatribes on the subject are written to suit a purpose, whether product promotion or mythbusting. Academic sources provide the least biased accounts of signal transmission science and the most reliable cable DBTs. Sorry to be broad but one of the reasons so many audiophile myths propagate is because people take their information from the internet.

You touch on an interesting point, these "audio ethics" debates are mainly an audiophile phenomenon. The fields of research and business ethics are vibrant and oft subject to heated debate, whereas electronics engineering is generally pretty mundane (imho). What most audiophiles argue about has more to do with consumer psychology than any great scientific controversy.


----------



## anetode

jnjn said:


> The listening tests are not designed to consider the human adaptability with respect to image generation and localization.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Does this matter in a context where the audio image is an artifice conceived in the mixing room? Sometimes the most effective tests aren't the ones that replicate the full set of natural circumstances but ones that strip all unnecessary complexity in order to more effectively isolate one variable.


----------



## Chris J

liamstrain said:


> The "anti-cable camp" is almost entirely about evidence. It is the pro-cable crew that has never produced evidence. If you've gotten this far into this thread and still say this with a straight face, I don't think we can have a useful conversation.




Your arrogance is mindblowing


----------



## bmiamihk

Relax thats how it is and it will not change.
  Quote: 





chris j said:


> Your arrogance is mindblowing


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





chris j said:


> Your arrogance is mindblowing


 
   
  So is your credulity. I've tried to be circumspect and respectful (by and large) - you have not presented one shred of useful information relating to how it is possible for a properly made cable to have any audible effect. I have posted several sources showing measurement data that demonstrate it does not seem to, which is generally backed by human abx and dbt testing as well. 
   
  I may be incorrect, and if provided with good evidence am happy to revise my position. To date, I have not seen it. If you want to call my position arrogant, you are free to. But at least I have the available evidence on my side. I find it much more arrogant to expect me to believe something which goes against objective measurements and abx/dbt data because of a sighted subjective experience which didn't even give the barest of attempts to remove bias.


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> What exactly would I test? Testing is not "simple" despite what you may read.  Even Nelson's setup is sub par, especially when the discussion turns to t-line.
> 
> Why is it "science and other things that just don't matter to the average listener"???  If you do not wish "science" to be invoked, then perhaps asking the question in the "Sound Science" forum is a mistake.
> 
> ...


 
   
  How is testing not simple? People can hear differences in headphones and amps when blind (although not always accurately but the difference is detectable in DBT conditions). Why is it so complicated to get a cable tested to see if it makes a significant difference sonically? If it is so hard to pick up then it isn't a worthy way to spend your money. 

 The science on science forum is just a fallacy. There is no need to discuss this hard science in detail at all. We are looking for appreciable differences to recommend to consumers which is the discussion of the topic.


----------



## kiteki

Comparing the Tesla T5p to the Denon D5000 today and it reminded me of how little importance a cable has.


----------



## jnjn

Quote:


liamstrain said:


> Fair enough - and I agree that I should not overstate my position. However, scientific uncertainty (which is always subject to review of the best data at the time) should not be construed as an admission that the alternate position is really all that likely. Just that it cannot be entirely disproven.


 
  Nicely stated.
   
  Many take my statements as proof that a difference will always be there, and will always be audible, and that is incorrect on their part.  You have distinguished yourself as above that error.
  Quote: 





anetode said:


> The problem is that most readily available online diatribes on the subject are written to suit a purpose, whether product promotion or mythbusting. Academic sources provide the least biased accounts of signal transmission science and the most reliable cable DBTs. Sorry to be broad but one of the reasons so many audiophile myths propagate is because people take their information from the internet.
> You touch on an interesting point, these "audio ethics" debates are mainly an audiophile phenomenon. The fields of research and business ethics are vibrant and oft subject to heated debate, whereas electronics engineering is generally pretty mundane (imho). What most audiophiles argue about has more to do with consumer psychology than any great scientific controversy.


 
  I disagree.  Electronic engineering is awesome...  Jackson is a_* page turner..
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



*_
   
  Seriously, it can get mundane..that's why I cross-train...mechanical, motion control, antique clock repair...gotta stimulate them neurons.
  Quote: 





anetode said:


> Does this matter in a context where the audio image is an artifice conceived in the mixing room? Sometimes the most effective tests aren't the ones that replicate the full set of natural circumstances but ones that strip all unnecessary complexity in order to more effectively isolate one variable.





>


 
   Yes it does.  Remember, the image was created on a specific set of speakers, spaced a specific distance apart, with a specific horizontal dispersion pattern, using the interchannel amplitude difference (pan pot) to position the images.  How many home systems have the exact same set of equipment, in the exact same conditions, exact same ears, exact same time-integrated sound exposure, exact same hearing acuity or training.    It is very important to understand what the test is actually designed to do, vs what the test was supposed to do.  The distinction may not be small.
   
  Quote:


dnzgamer said:


> How is testing not simple? People can hear differences in headphones and amps when blind (although not always accurately but the difference is detectable in DBT conditions). Why is it so complicated to get a cable tested to see if it makes a significant difference sonically? If it is so hard to pick up then it isn't a worthy way to spend your money.
> 
> The science on science forum is just a fallacy. There is no need to discuss this hard science in detail at all. We are looking for appreciable differences to recommend to consumers which is the discussion of the topic.


 
  Some of the variables I have stated above.  I could go into some heavier and more scientific detail, but you seem to be averse to science (even on a science forum).  For example, would you understand the equational and spacial relationship between two images where one had originally been placed 30 degrees to the right of a central image, then double channel time shifted 5 uSec and level shifted .5 dB with respect to the central image?..  Testing this is not simple, yet it is required in order to measure an image angular and depth placement as a result of a symmetrical system change within the arena of human capabilities.  What is even more problematic, is that the testing device (humans) have a logarithmic stimulus/response function, and the "images" we try to achieve are being created by a synthetic acoustic wavefront pattern.  Imagine for example, measuring a DC voltage using an autoranging DVM, but not being allowed to view the decimal point. 
   
  Everybody seems to assume that a symmetrical change (shifting both speaker amplitude/phase/time delay response) is image invariant.  It is not.
   
  You are more than welcome to ignore science, it matters not to me.  Just don't bellyache when you ask a question on a forum named as a place for science discussion.
   
  Honestly, you have fixated on the vendor marketing schpiels and ridiculous prices, and consequently, are ignoring the real world.
   
  The vast bulk of those marketing "white papers" are just fiction, you must get over it.
   
  j
  ps..my apologies for getting a tad technical..I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Sadly, my spelling errors were plentiful..


----------



## KT66

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> I don't get how 2) is relevant to anything being discussed.
> 
> First of all, it is a terrible and unfounded statement that you expect us to take your word for. Apparently no audio-engineers care about music and you have proof of this? Why are you complaining about scientific methods when your arguments aren't even founded in observable trends?
> 
> ...


 
  ***
   
  a) listen to any CD released by a main label over the past 10 years
  b) What are you talking about? I voted by buying them because I can hear a CLEAR difference.
   
  this on a forum who thinks that bass boost and a smiley eq is a good thing,
   
  ps I think Born to Die is a terrible record.
   
  what to listen for is NOISE FLOOR, does the new cable make you want to turn it up, or do the tune dem,
   
  pps Science has nothing to do with music


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





kt66 said:


> ***
> 
> a) listen to any CD released by a main label over the past 10 years
> b) What are you talking about? I voted by buying them because I can hear a CLEAR difference.
> ...


 
_*You mean.....it isn't??
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*_
   
_*Of course it does.  It the means to an end.  And it must be transparent to the end user.  And, it should not be necessary for the user to understand the science. (while I believe ALL should be good in science, I am a realist.).*_
   
  j


----------



## kiteki

Lots of talk and no cigars, just link to these cable blind tests already... positive or negative.
   
  If they're negative, we can discuss if the blind test was valid or not, how extensive it was, if it was fair, etc.
   
   
  Lee730 suggested he can hear a volume difference in his silver IE8 cable, Liamstrain suggested that volume can be a difference in cable material.  Rapid-switching ABX is very effective for discerning differences in volume, under 1dB.
   
  The question is, is there any rapid-switching cable ABX's out there, or not....


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Lots of talk and no cigars, just link to these cable blind tests already... positive or negative.
> 
> _*If they're negative, we can discuss if the blind test was valid or not*_, how extensive it was, if it was fair, etc.
> 
> ...


 
_*Discussion of the validity of the test is independent of the outcome*_.  It can be no other way.
   
  j


----------



## kiteki

Can you rephrase that I didn't catch on...
   
  You mean discussion of the validity of a test is seperate from the outcome of the test?  If yes, this entails what exactly?


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Can you rephrase that I didn't catch on...
> 
> You mean discussion of the validity of a test is seperate from the outcome of the test?  If yes, this entails what exactly?


 
  My apologies for the confusion.
   
  You stated:
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Lots of talk and no cigars, just link to these cable blind tests already... positive or negative.
> 
> If they're negative, we can discuss if the blind test was valid or not, how extensive it was, if it was fair, etc.


 
  Your statement implies that if they are positive, the tests were valid and above discussion.  That cannot be the case.  If a test comes out positive, it is extremely important to subject it to even MORE scrutiny, as it is significantly diverges from a large body of negatives.
   
  j


----------



## proton007

I guess a lot of us have exhausted our list of arguments. Too bad there's no agreement still.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> My apologies for the confusion.
> 
> You stated:
> Your statement implies that if they are positive, the tests were valid and above discussion.  That cannot be the case.  If a test comes out positive, it is extremely important to subject it to even MORE scrutiny, as it is significantly diverges from a large body of negatives.
> ...


 
   
  As jj used to say, getting a positive result is EASY. It's negative results that are difficult.
   
  By that he meant that there are many things which can conspire to give false positive results. Which is why as you say such results should be subject to even more scrutiny.
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> You're playing semantics. The cables themselves are not responsible for any audible difference. This is what the data shows. If people hear differences, it is some factor other than the material/construction/properties of the cable.


 
   
  I have continually stated that there is no difference caused inherently by the cable. There is no difference caused by the way it is made, what it is made of or any of the electrical properties it has. But, a cable can still make an audible difference due to its brand, image, understanding of what is made of (such as sliver sounds brighter).
   
  That is why I object to claims that "cables make no difference" as that is wrong, they do. I have been avoiding that phrase for ages now to try and move the debate on to having a greater understanding about how cables work.


----------



## liamstrain

I guess my problem is the use of the word audible. That is an objective measure. It either makes a measurable change, or does not. If the difference is not audible (objective) then I do not think we should use the term. 
   
  Cable marketing/packaging/expectation makes a difference to the way some people process sound in their heads, but not to the actual sound. We should avoid confusion.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Lots of talk and no cigars, just link to these cable blind tests already... positive or negative.
> 
> If they're negative, we can discuss if the blind test was valid or not, how extensive it was, if it was fair, etc.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Positive tests here http://www.head-fi.org/t/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results
   
  Negative tests here http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
   
  The test of cables only appear in the negative list. I have been very careful to only include properly conducted tests.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I guess my problem is the use of the word audible. That is an objective measure. It either makes a measurable change, or does not. If the difference is not audible (objective) then I do not think we should use the term.
> 
> Cable marketing/packaging/expectation makes a difference to the way some people process sound in their heads, but not to the actual sound. We should avoid confusion.


 
   
   
  I understand and accept there are semantics involved. But I think that saying a cable difference is not audible causes confusion as to many they are. Hence the circular argument starts.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> _*I have continually stated that there is no difference caused inherently by the cable. There is no difference caused by the way it is made, what it is made of or any of the electrical properties it has. But, a cable can still make an audible difference due to its brand, image, understanding of what is made of (such as sliver sounds brighter).*_
> 
> _*That is why I object to claims that "cables make no difference" as that is wrong, they do*_. I have been avoiding that phrase for ages now to try and move the debate on to having a greater understanding about how cables work.


 
_*For IC's and PC's this is entirely inaccurate.  For speaker wires, this may not be the case.*_
   
_*The electrical parameters of the speaker wire, the load characteristics, and the length of the wire will conspire to alter the transfer speed of information to the speaker.  For example, if a speaker wire is designed with a characteristic impedance of 8 ohms, and is delivering power to an 8 ohm load, the effective propagation velocity will be roughly half lightspeed, delays in the tens of nanoseconds..  If the cable is 100 to 150 ohms, like zip, the effective prop velocity will be roughly three orders of magnitude slower, especially if the speaker has 2 or 4 ohm dips in impedance.  This brings the cable delay into the realm of human localization capability.*_
   
_*I cannot state with confidence that speaker cables can make no difference, nor can I state that they do.  All I can state is that they are capable of altering the signal at levels which have been demonstrated to be audible by humans.*_
   
  j


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> _*For IC's and PC's this is entirely inaccurate.  For speaker wires, this may not be the case.*_
> 
> _*The electrical parameters of the speaker wire, the load characteristics, and the length of the wire will conspire to alter the transfer speed of information to the speaker.  For example, if a speaker wire is designed with a characteristic impedance of 8 ohms, and is delivering power to an 8 ohm load, the effective propagation velocity will be roughly half lightspeed, delays in the tens of nanoseconds..  If the cable is 100 to 150 ohms, like zip, the effective prop velocity will be roughly three orders of magnitude slower, especially if the speaker has 2 or 4 ohm dips in impedance.  This brings the cable delay into the realm of human localization capability.*_
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  I accept that extreme lengths may impact on cables. But it more do they work or not?
   
  Please show examples of cables altering the signal at audible levels.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I accept that extreme lengths may impact on cables. But it more do they work or not?
> 
> Please show examples of cables altering the signal at audible levels.


 
  I do not speak of extreme lengths.
   
  When a cable has a characteristic impedance of 150 ohms, and the load drops to 2 ohms, there will be hundreds and hundreds of back and forth reflections in the system before the load has anywhere near the current level that the source wishes.  This brings the response into the ~10 microsecond range of delay even for reasonable cable lengths, which is within the realm of audible (nordmark demonstrated  1.2uS sensitivity back in 72.
   
  The primary misconception everybody has, is that the propagation velocity of a cable defines the delay from one end of the cable to another.  In reality, the ONLY signal that can propagate down a cable at the cable's prop velocity, is a signal which has the voltage to current relationship of the cable.  If you send a 100 volt pulse down a 100 ohm cable, the signal that travels at prop speed is a signal of 100 volts and 1 ampere.  If the load is 2 ohms, at the end of the first pass, there will NOT be 100 volts across the load.  That takes many reflections.
   
  As I have stated in previous posts...I can neither confirm nor deny the audibility of any particular cable, speaker, or amplifier combination.  What I _*can do *_is show how the level of effect of a speaker wire falls into the realm of human capability.  This is contrary to the generally held INCORRECT assumption that speaker wires cannot possibly impact audibility, and this is due to the erroneous understandings of transmission line theory and application on the part of, well, darn near everyone.
   
  The lumped element analysis should lead to the same result if the number of elements is 10 or more, but it's not so good if you select 1 cap and 1 inductor.  Nor does the lumped element model portray accurately the reflection and charging sequence of the line.  T-line understandings provide far more useful realizations.
   
  edit:  it must be noted, I have found NOBODY on the web, on any site, in any publication, who can even test speaker impedance level signals accurately enough to distinguish signal alterations in the 10 uSec domain buried within a musical signal.  The primary issue is the low impedance and high current slew rates.  They can't even buy a resistor capable of accurate measurement of currents at that speed, and they don't know how to make one.  (not hard, btw).
  j


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *jnjn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ....  This is contrary to the generally held INCORRECT assumption that speaker wires cannot possibly impact audibility, and this is due to the erroneous understandings of transmission line theory and application on the part of, well, darn near everyone.
> 
> ........


 
   
  So in theory the assumption is incorrect, but in practice.......what?
   
  Sorry jnjn, but at the moment you are behaving like cable companies by suggesting audibility without proving such, let alone showing a direct link between a difference and sound quality.


----------



## jnjn

EDIT:  Please accept my apologies for coming in so strong.  It's not you exactly, but rather, a mindset which needs addressing.  For way too long, too many people have considered this topic as one of two "factions" separated by the fence. _* I will not play by those rules..*_
   
  Quote:


prog rock man said:


> So in theory the assumption is incorrect, but in practice.......what?
> 
> Sorry jnjn, _*but at the moment you are behaving like cable companies *_by suggesting audibility without proving such, let alone showing a direct link between a difference and sound quality.


 
  I have been very clear in my postings, you will find all this in the last two days on this particular thread.
   
  1.  Should a positive result (cable makes a difference) be found, THAT test MUST be heavily scrutinized because the results contradict what is normally found.
   
  2.  I do not believe the high cost justifiable to the end user.  While the cost of manufacture may be consistent with the tag price, I still do not consider it worth it.
   
  3.  I do not consider manufacturer white papers science.  It is generally manufactured verbage used to sell product, many times with little or no scientific accuracy.
   
  4.  The statement that a speaker cable CANNOT possibly alter the sound and physics proves it....is uncontestably WRONG.  Physics does not prove it.  MIS-application of physics may, but reality is a different ball game.
   
  5.  I have explained how the electrical parameters of a cable can alter the signal delay to the speaker, and how that can arise to the levels humans are capable of discerning.
   
   
  The fact that the correct application of physics may be inconsistent with what you have been "taught" is not my problem, but rather, yours.  I am not a cable vendor, I do not work for one, I do not recommend cables beyond the #12awg zip I've used (editr even the #24 awg I use) or the IC's and PC's that come with the equipment.
   
  So to come out saying that I am acting like a cable vendor, is simply your way of attempting to discredit the message I've presented.  Which is:  GET THE SCIENCE RIGHT.
   
  The chances of you (generic you, not specific) understanding the physics properly based on what you have read or been taught, while not zero, is not 100%.  You want to read all those websites created by all them ele guru's, that's fine.  But remember, they miss quite a lot, promote their own beliefs, and get a lot of it incorrect.  To add insult to injury, they position themselves such that they can never admit errors.
   
  Now ask me about IC's and PC's.  Man, the misunderstandings out there...sheesh
   
  j


----------



## jcx

the time delay argument is both missing the conditions of the tests, and failing to apply real world physics - the tests are done with headphones, special tone burst signals, not loudspeakers
   
  the reason not to use loudspeakers for such subtle timing tests is that the air path difference corresponding to 10 us is 3 mm - no home listener has 3mm accurate/repeatable positioning in their "sweet spot", many loudspeakers have a zoo of early diffractions from driver design, radiating surface edges, mounting, baffle edges even before the room propagation issues are added
   
  that said I have posted a link to Pass Labs speaker cable tests - the measured results do appear to be on the edge of conventional estimates of audible frequency response variations - "the no cable ever makes a difference" is an overstatement


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jcx said:


> that said I have posted a link to Pass Labs speaker cable tests - the measured results do appear to be on the edge of conventional estimates of audible frequency response variations - "the no cable ever makes a difference" is an overstatement


 
   
  I only saw measurable differences from the Pass Labs data in the audible range was with the cables they indicated had abnormally high inductance, causing roll-off with the high frequencies (like a secondary high-pass crossover). Which is why I usually use the caveat - no "properly made" cable, should make an audible difference.


----------



## DNZGamer

@jnjn
   
  You seem overly concerned with hyperboles here. How many people care about the possibility of miniscule audio differences that cannot be reliably identified? We are discussing the audible difference to sound quality and the science forum does not mean you have to discuss hardcore science. I have no idea why you think this is logical.

 That it can produce an audible difference to the human ear is unclear, but the tests show that whatever differences are present in cables it is clearly overshadowed by issues with how we perceive sound to the point that it is completely negligible after a relatively low level of quality has been met. What is the argument you are trying to bring in here? You keep making this fallacious science argument that has really nothing to do with the topic. Please stop using rhetoric instead of evidence.

 If you want to say audio engineers don't like music, prove it. For someone who consistently requires scientific confirmation, you are making statements that you ask us to take at face value. I enjoy my modern recordings, what am I looking for in something like Born To Die to distinguish the issues of audio engineers not liking music? It is a legitimate question and you did not answer it. How are people suppose to be aware of these issues if questions regarding these issues are just met with pretentious and condescending insults?


----------



## proton007

Quote:


dnzgamer said:


> @jnjn
> 
> You seem overly concerned with hyperboles here. How many people care about the possibility of miniscule audio differences that cannot be reliably identified? We are discussing the audible difference to sound quality and the science forum does not mean you have to discuss hardcore science. I have no idea why you think this is logical.


 
  I agree with you. But I have serious doubts about jnjn's science as well. 
  And seriously, where do audio engineers come into the picture?


----------



## bmiamihk

You guys put a lot of energy into nothing.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> You guys put a lot of energy into nothing.


 
   
  Better than putting a lot of money into nothing!


----------



## bmiamihk

What is your goal? The goal that one day no one will ever buy a cable thinking it will improve on the sound but that it will only look pretty? The goal of putting every company that claims that their cables will improve the sound out of Business? Or the goal is to waste time that you have cause you have nothing better to do then repeat like a parrot what you read over and over and over. I guess its a modern way men are able to interact with other humans and some kind of competition which also is a form of feeling alive in their solitude righteous life.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bmiamihk said:


> What is your goal? The goal that one day no one will ever buy a cable thinking it will improve on the sound but that it will only look pretty? The goal of putting every company that claims that their cables will improve the sound out of Business? Or the goal is to waste time that you have cause you have nothing better to do then repeat like a parrot what you read over and over and over. I guess its a modern way men are able to interact with other humans and some kind of competition which also is a form of feeling alive in their solitude righteous life.


 
  Neither. You can buy whatever you want, and there exists a seller for every demand.
  For a lot others out there, who are on a limited budget/ do not know better, misleading them into spending money is a big ethical issue.


----------



## bmiamihk

Thanks for helping.
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> Neither. You can buy whatever you want, and there exists a seller for every demand.
> For a lot others out there, who are on a limited budget/ do not know better, misleading them into spending money is a big ethical issue.


----------



## Magick Man

bmiamihk said:


> What is your goal?




To inform people that cables don't make an objective audible difference. 



> The goal that one day no one will ever buy a cable thinking it will improve on the sound but that it will only look pretty?


 

Look pretty and provide a more appealing length.



> The goal of putting every company that claims that their cables will improve the sound out of Business?


 

Not out of business, but provide other goods and services to make up the difference. When/if the truth becomes accepted, those companies are going to need to be a little more creative to make profits.



> Or the goal is to waste time that you have cause you have nothing better to do then repeat like a parrot what you read over and over and over.


 

Sometimes repetition is the only thing that works. People have posted links to studies and offered up scientific evidence to show the effect of psychoacoustics on perception, but some people still want to hold on to the illusion. But hey, that's fine, just as long as new up-and-coming audio enthusiasts get to hear both sides and judge for themselves. 



> I guess its a modern way men are able to interact with other humans and some kind of competition which also is a form of feeling alive in their solitude righteous life.




Or, we could just be snarky and take shots at people who are simply having a civil conversation to pass the time. *shrug*


----------



## bmiamihk

Nice to know you care about others, keep it up.
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> To inform people that cables don't make an objective audible difference.  Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kiteki

prog rock man said:


> > Originally Posted by *kiteki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> >
> > Lots of talk and no cigars, just link to these cable blind tests already... positive or negative.
> ...


 
   
  Thanks a lot for the links you've compiled.
   
   
   


> Originally Posted by *jnjn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  My thought process was there's a certain number of negative results and no positive ones.
   
  People keep referencing these cable blind tests without being specific, like your above post "a large body of negatives", well when someone links to a negative then we can discuss how valid / extensive / fair it is.  We don't currently need to discuss the positive results if there aren't any. =p  However, we can dicuss the reasons why there aren't any.
   
  My hunch and experience on the situation is that the cable subject is more about the scientific view of how cables work plus the lack of positive blind-test results, which has led to the view that they all sound the same.  My hunch is that the amount of cable blind-tests with negative results is limited and most of the tests are flawed.  The reason I think so is that I see people speak of "countless tests" a lot without referencing any specific tests, and when I do see links to specific tests they're usually flawed.  
   
  So, here's an example to illustrate my point.
   
  When people actually do reference specific blind tests, I've seen this test linked to / held in high esteem - http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
   
  Ok so for starters, the speaker cables used on both rigs are exactly the same, so they're not testing speaker cables in this case.  Now let's skip straight to the test results...
   

 The results showed:   38 persons participated on this test 14 chose the "A" system as the best sounding one 10 chose the "B" system as the best sounding one 14 were not able to hear differences or didn't choose any as the best.
   
  This means 38 people were involved in the test, each person was given 1 choice as to which system they considered to "sound the best".
   
  So, from these results we see 24 individuals claimed to hear a difference, and 10 of them 'correctly' identified the more expensive system as the better sounding one.  I'd assume you'd then take those 10 individuals to the side and keep testing them, right?  To see if they can continue to identify which system is which, with a statistical outcome beyond chance.
   
  Instead, they leave these results as they are, satisfied that 14 participants declined, 24 claimed to hear a difference and only 10 selected the expensive system as different.  I'm assuming these results, to them, indicate that the differences in the expensive rig are too subtle for any further investigation, they write "Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?"
  
  In the right situation, you could compare DVD and blu-ray and get 14 people not seeing a difference, 14 preferring how DVD looks, and then discard the 10 which selected blu-ray as the best looking one.
   
  In this case, it's much closer to comparing analog film reel to digital blu-ray, actually it's much more subtle than that, but if I go to the cinema I can't tell which one is playing, until I look behind me at the projector booth and see the actual tape reel.  That's doesn't mean there's no difference, just that I can't see it or don't care very much, like 99% of the population that goes to the cinema to watch a movie!  The 1% or less of the population which are videophiles and can tell the difference / care / are more sensitive to the differences (i.e. since they go to the cinema every day and have a fetisch for minor video presentation differences) can't be diluted into the same data pool as the 99% that don't care or can't see a difference like myself.
   
  So, this particular blind test came up with a 'negative result', however... all it really proved is that
   
  - Audican power cord (power cord)
  - Lovan CDP rack (furniture)
  - MIT Terminator 3 proline XLR (interconnect cable)
  - Wadia 6, VRDS transport, 20 bit (CD player)
  - YBA 2A (power conditioner)
  - Classe CAP-80 (the speaker amplifier)
   
  was favoured by 10 guys over another system in Somolinos, Guadalajara, Spain.
   
  The other system was
   
  - standard power cord
  - standard furniture
  - standard red/white RCA interconnect cables
  - standard CD player
  - no power conditioner
  - Behringer A500 speaker amplifier
   
  The only interesting components here from my personal point of view are the speaker amplifiers.
   
  I'm not surprised 14 people couldn't hear a difference and 10 preferred the Behringer!
   
  I'm not cherry-picking a flawed test here, I just covered this particular one because I've seen it linked to many times (for example on an objectivist blog) along with the Meyer & Moran study (which is an equally flawed study, for different reasons).
   
  kiteki


----------



## proton007

Can a company survive by just making audio cables? Its pretty amazing. They have to be pulling in massive profits per cable.
   
  You can check out some of the blind tests here: http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com/2010/06/blind-test-results.html (some cables, some amps)
  http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm


----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> Can a company survive by just making audio cables? Its pretty amazing. They have to be pulling in massive profits per cable.


 
   
  I don't know what the niche market of power cables is like but I'd assume that HDMI cables and interconnects (coax, optical, rca) which you see in normal electronics stores are the most successful.  I think Monster has had much more success with their headphones though.  I mean wearing a black Prada suit with an iPhone 4S and flagship Monster headphone seems to be one of "the" status symbols right now, whereas I don't think many people will care if you have a $500 imitation leather snake lying on the floor behind your stereo receiver.  Just speculation.
   
   


proton007 said:


> You can check out some of the blind tests here: http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com/2010/06/blind-test-results.html  (some cables, some amps)
> http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm


 
   
~djcarlst
   
  - $2.50 blister pack phono cable vs. PSACS Best
  - $418 Type "T1" Biwire vs. 16 Gauge Zip Cord
  - Type "Z" Biwired Speaker Cable vs. 16 Gauge Zip Cord
  - $990 "T2" Speaker Cable vs. 16 Gauge Zip Cord
   
  The first test is interconnects, the next three are from "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", I think that's a magazine, if the study isn't actually available the results are semi-fictional.  I went looking for it and found this thread, someone said they couldn't find the magazine, Idk... amusing thread =p http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184&page=10
   
redspade-audio
   
  - amp
  - pre-amp
  - spanish matrix hifi test (in my previous post)
  - monster vs opus speaker cables - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184
Looks interesting, but I can't find any info on the cables apart from the brand name, and it says they stopped after 8 tests, while playing pool and eating pizza.
  - AC power cords
  - CD player comparison ($300 Sony versus $1800 player).
  - CD "digital transports" CEC vs Marantz
  - Stereophile amplifier comparison (Adcom versus VTL) - http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html
  - "Front end" comparison
  - Integrated amplifier comparison
   

 So, there wasn't really any blind testing here of speaker/IEM/headphone cables.  Apart from the Monster vs Opus one (flawed) and the missing magazine.
   
  When looking for the Chicago magazine thing, I found this document which was sortof interesting, like claims (on page 5) from Cardas Audio on how to measure a cable... http://andreconsulting.com/Audio%20Equipment%20Snake%20Oil.pdf
   
  Cardas says...
   
  resistance
  capacitance
  inductance
 conductancev
  elocity of propagation
  RF radiation and bsorption
  mechanical resonance
  strand interaction
 hysteresish
  igh filtering
  wavy serial impedance and refections
  electrical resonance
  dissipation factors
  envelope delay
  phase distortion
  harmonic distortion
 piezoelectric effectsh
  hall effect
  field effect
  voltage and current tracking
  thermoelectric phenomenon effects
 structural return loss
  skin effect
  corrosion
  cross-talk
 bridge-tap
  interaction of all the above


----------



## kiteki

Ok, I found the ~djcarlstrom ABX Chicago magazine thing - http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf
   
  Haven't read it yet.
   
   
  Edit:  Lol ok this is funny
   

```
[size=14px]Experiment 1[/size]
```
   
  It starts with "Mr. B" as he's called, a 46 year-old jazz-lover, using $416 USD worth of "exotic bi-wired speaker cable" referred to as "Type T1" thereafter.
   
  When starting the ABX Mr. B says "Tom,  I gotta admit I cannot tell them apart.  There's no reason to continue" lol.
   
  "Let me remind you Mr. B, you were to do 10 trials!"
   
  So... Mr. B was pushed into continuing the test, which lasted for an hour and a half.  He scored 3 out of 10 correct.
   
  "After the session, Mr. B looked crushed, likening the experience to his wife cheating on him.  He declined my offer to continue the test without the ABX box, insisting that it was the most sensitive method and further investigation was fruitless"
   
  Give me a break... Mr. B!
   
  My conclusion:  He had no idea what to look for.  The test is flawed since they don't say what the speaker cable is apart from "exotic bi-wire" whatever that is.
   
   

```
Experiment 2
```
   
  This man is called "Mr. C"... how quaint.
   
  "He's a thirty-something year old audio salesman from a nearby high-end shop"
   
  In this test we are once again using "Type Z" exotic biwired speaker cables (whatever that is)
   
  Mr. C said the differences were vanishingly small and failed the ABX.
   
  Moving on...
   
   

```
Experiment 3
```
   
  Now we're presented with "A 21-year old female with musical tastes ranging from Charlie Parker to Mozart"
   
  Who's Charlie Parker?  Isn't that the guy in Spiderman...
   
  This time we're using a "$990 Type T2 speaker cable" (how informative)
   
  After a de-briefing on the high-end speaker and amplifier equipment, the test results for Miss 21 are "1/5, 2/4, 7/16" and the author scored 9/16, "all well within the bounds of chance", yes.
   
   
  The post analysis says everything was within chance and the 16-gauge "zip cord" (USD $15) could not be distinguished from the expensive cables (with names like T2 or Type Z to keep the cables anonymous and not assassinate the companies I'm guessing).
   
  I think this test was performed in 1994 (18 years ago!), it used three subjects and the information cited at http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm is in conflict with these results, most likely fictional.
   
  The magazine says four people (including the author) were involved in the tests, ~djcarlst says "1, 7, 2" and for the second test (Type Z cable) says "70 / 139 = 50%" (??)
   
  The magazine article says the Type Z cable test was "12 trials in 45 minutes", that's it.  So the ABX data at ~djcarlst is most likely fictional, and thus would invalidate all data at that site and linking to it, not only speaker cables.
   
   
  Well that was fun way to spend half my Wednesday... looking forward to the next speaker cable blind-test / ABX link out of the the supposed ocean of negative results.


----------



## udauda

I can conduct a binaural ABX comparison test- only if I could somehow obtain some product samples from cable manufacturers for HD650, that is.


----------



## proton007

This one looks recent : https://sites.google.com/site/audiosocietyofminnesota/Home/april-2012-speaker-cable-listening-test


----------



## kiteki

proton007 said:


> This one looks recent : https://sites.google.com/site/audiosocietyofminnesota/Home/april-2012-speaker-cable-listening-test


 
   
"Before this test 69% of our test subjects thought that speaker cables could make a significant difference. After this test, 86% believe that speaker cables can make significant differences. 
   
Since no statistical tests of significance have been applied to the results it is not possible to demonstrate that one set of cables was found to be superior to any others in an objective sense. Subjectively, however, it was shown that cable C received more preference votes than the others with cable D, the prototype silver/Teflon, running in second place. Cable B fell more or less in the middle of the rankings. Cable A, the zipcord, was not preferred on any of the three comparison tests in which it was included, suggesting that, yes, these cheap and commonly used cables do not sound as good as cables designed for the audiophile market. Based on the results of this informal but honest attempt to address the questions posed earlier, it does appear that in this case at least, there was a preference for the expensive cables and a definite non-preference for the cheap zipcord. So cables do make a difference."
   
  [size=12pt]Not sure if this is statistically valid, anyway it's not a negative result lol.  Next...[/size]


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *jnjn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


 
   
  Please clarify 4 which states both physics proves and does not prove. Please show in 5 how signal delay affects sound quality.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





jcx said:


> _*the time delay argument is both missing the conditions of the tests, and failing to apply real world physics - the tests are done with headphones, special tone burst signals, not loudspeakers*_
> 
> *the reason not to use loudspeakers for such subtle timing tests is that the air path difference corresponding to 10 us is 3 mm - no home listener has 3mm accurate/repeatable positioning in their "sweet spot*", many loudspeakers have a zoo of early diffractions from driver design, radiating surface edges, mounting, baffle edges even before the room propagation issues are added
> 
> _*that said I have posted a link to Pass Labs speaker cable tests - the measured results do appear to be on the edge of conventional estimates of audible frequency response variations - "the no cable ever makes a difference" is an overstatement*_


 
_*Nordmark used very specific stimulus and headphones to discern the lower limit of human threshold.  He found 5 uSec discernment when the signal was NOT dithered, and 1.2 uSec when dithered, with response out to 12 Khz.  As such, he measured lateralization, not localization.  The intent of the headphones was to eliminate the confounding variable "head position", which you allude to in paragraph 2.  My statement does not fail to apply physics, but explains the measured lower limit of human capability.  It is important to understand that we are capable of discernment at such extremely low differentials, but NOT capable of response of a bandwidth consistent with the inverted time differential, or about half a Mhz.*_
   
  There is no reason not to use loudspeakers.  _*However, it is very important that the uncertainty of the listening position be considered and accounted for.  Your concerns here are EXTREMELY VALID, and point out WHY many contrived listening tests are abject scientific failures.*_
   
_*To use loudspeakers properly in image perturbation tests, the researcher must establish a reference position in space.  This can be done via the speaker signals, or it can be done via a 3rd source (as Greisinger did).*_
   
  Your concerns about wavefront propagation/dispersion are also quite valid, and do indeed differ from those of the studio monitors used for the mixdown.  They also affect the image stability should the listener move sideways.  It is possible to make the image move with the direction of movement, opposite the movement, and stable.
   
  Your last statement....  You have presented data inconsistent with what appears to be your stance.  I admire that.  It is wonderful to see another do so, thank you.  
  Quote:


dnzgamer said:


> @jnjn
> 
> _*You seem overly concerned with hyperboles here. How many people care about the possibility of miniscule audio differences that cannot be reliably identified*_? We are discussing the audible difference to sound quality and the science forum does not mean you have to discuss hardcore science. I have no idea why you think this is logical.
> 
> ...


 
*The target market for the cable vendors*.  And the lack of scientific rigor on the side of the audio establishment provides them a hole the size of the grand canyon within which  they can convince their market of the capability of their wares.
   
_*That's the whole point dude. Do you think I am here to support the cable vendor pseudoscience???  Don't be silly.  the end result of my foray into this cable stuff is the complete elimination of high cost cables.. *_
   
_*Who is WE?  are you speaking for the entire human race, for every sound system on the planet, under all listening conditions?*_
   
_*When you are sitting in front of and listening to a speaker system which presents a virtual image strong enough to make you think the artists are in the room and the speakers have dissapeared, then get back to me, you will have some interesting things to speak about.*_
   
_*It is obvious you fear science.  Perhaps another forum where nobody understands it would be a better fit to you.*_
   
  Your last paragraph is inconsistent with everything I have said.  Who were you addressing it to?
  Quote: 





proton007 said:


> I agree with you. _*But I have serious doubts about jnjn's science as well. *_
> And seriously, where do audio engineers come into the picture?


 
_*That is certainly a reasonable and quite acceptable stance*_.  Please, if you do not understand something I have stated, just ask.  Be aware however, that DNZgamer will have a conniption if you ask me to explain transmission line theory, line to load mismatch, permittivity, acoustic lateralization and localization theory, or even high bandwidth low b-dot (mutual inductance) resistor design.  (The topic we discuss has significant reach into all of these disciplines, something I do not see the "guru's delve into.)
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> So, from these results we see 24 individuals claimed to hear a difference, and 10 of them 'correctly' identified the more expensive system as the better sounding one.  I'd assume you'd then take those 10 individuals to the side and keep testing them, right?  To see if they can continue to identify which system is which, with a statistical outcome beyond chance.
> 
> Instead, they leave these results as they are, satisfied that 14 participants declined, 24 claimed to hear a difference and only 10 selected the expensive system as different.  I'm assuming these results, to them, indicate that the differences in the expensive rig are too subtle for any further investigation, they write "Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?"
> 
> ...


 
  You have provided a very astute observation here, well done. 
   
  j


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Please clarify 4 which states both physics proves and does not prove. Please show in 5 how signal delay affects sound quality.


 
  I apologize for the lack of clarity.
   
  Given cables with reasonable inductance and resistance...(no frequency rolloff)
   
  When somebody claims that a speaker cable cannot possibly change the sound and physics proves it, it doesn't.  There has been only an acceptance that somebody else who said it must be correct.  No rigor, no understandings, just blind acceptance.  I note you accepted the statement that the line to load mismatch can delay the signal, I can embellish if you wish, but will discuss as if it is a given.
   
  1.  Take a system, run a mono signal, sit in the sweet spot such that the image is localized to the exact geometric center of the speakers.
   
  2. Take ANY cable pair whatsoever, add them in (assume a 10 uSec across the board delay (it will NOT be such of course, the speaker has varying impedance))
   
  Repeat step 1.
   
  For a mono signal, the cable change will NOT cause a side movement of the image.  The most you can possibly discern will be a front to back image shift, symmetry guarantees that.  For this test, all you could do is try to discern the changing image depth.
   
  3.  Take the origional system, drive it in stereo where there is a centrally located image (I will call that the reference image). 
   
  4.  Identify all image locations relative to the central reference image while in the sweet spot.
   
  5.  Cable swap.  Repeat 4. (note that the sweet spot and reference image are used to normalize the setup, this makes head in vice arguments moot as you are forcing the subject to locate the reference then compare it to the target image.)
   
  Off center images will shift relative to the reference image when both channels are equally delayed.  This is a consequence of a two source synthetic soundfield.
   
  My recommendation to all is this:
   
  If you suspect that a speaker cable can affect your system, do this trivially simple test. 
   
  1.  Connect BOTH speakers to one amplifier channel. (this guarantees identical speaker drives and mono content)
   
  2.  Listen at the sweet spot to see that your speakers are symmetrical and identical.  Drifting of any frequency content away from one central image must be removed as a factor.
  3. Swap ONE cable.
  4.  Listen at the sweet spot. Listen for side shift of any content.
   
  If the image remains stable and centered for all frequency content, the cable you tested DOES NOT make a difference you can hear.  AND IT NEVER WILL.
   
  If some of the content shifts off center, then the cable DID make an audible difference. (but you are not done)
   
  The real question then becomes, if you use both cables, will the return to at least some symmetry cause the change to become inaudible.
   
  j


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I get from that, different speaker cables will cause the sweet spot to be in different places. Is that correct?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Kiteki, I cannot get your post to quote so copy and pasting instead......
   
   
  "Ok so for starters, the speaker cables used on both rigs are exactly the same, so they're not testing speaker cables in this case.  Now let's skip straight to the test results...
   

 The results showed:   38 persons participated on this test 14 chose the "A" system as the best sounding one 10 chose the "B" system as the best sounding one 14 were not able to hear differences or didn't choose any as the best.
   
  This means 38 people were involved in the test, each person was given 1 choice as to which system they considered to "sound the best".
   
  So, from these results we see 24 individuals claimed to hear a difference, and 10 of them 'correctly' identified the more expensive system as the better sounding one.  I'd assume you'd then take those 10 individuals to the side and keep testing them, right?  To see if they can continue to identify which system is which, with a statistical outcome beyond chance."
   
   
*I agree that further testing of those who do make correct identifications is needed. Further testing is needed to see if there really are golden ears who can reliably pick out which system is which.*
   
  "Instead, they leave these results as they are, satisfied that 14 participants declined, 24 claimed to hear a difference and only 10 selected the expensive system as different.  I'm assuming these results, to them, indicate that the differences in the expensive rig are too subtle for any further investigation, they write "Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?"
   
*Yes, I agree the expectation is it will be as easy in blind testing to pick out differences found in sighted. People get a big shock when that does not happen*.


----------



## CrystalT

I outright ignore anyone who mentions anything regarding cables, or "burn-in." Especially since burn-in isn't even the correct term for what's happening. 

Sent from my LG-VM670 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I get from that, different speaker cables will cause the sweet spot to be in different places. Is that correct?


 
  No.
   
  The term "sweet spot" refers to the location in space which provides the centering of the image we perceive, assuming all frequencies in a mono signal are at the same spot..
   
  The assumption that the sweet spot is independent of frequency, that is the question.  My single channel image test looks specifically at that.
   
  If for example, the speaker tweeters do something such that one cable really causes a big delay while another doesn't, the sibilance of a female vocal would leave the sweet spot, you'll "see" that as an "out of body" sibilance...  Like setting one channel of an eq arbitrarily high at 10Khz, so that a central vocal sibilance shifts towards one side.
   
  In one important way, the test I've detailed is an absolute...If, using one amp channel with one wire A, one wire B, no detection of a shift of any frequency content is heard, then there is absolutely no difference that can possibly be caused by cable B with respect to A.  None, zip.  Nada.  (the amp must behave of course)
   
  j


----------



## Prog Rock Man

So one part of the overall sound will shift out of the sweet spot?


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> So one part of the overall sound will shift out of the sweet spot?


 
  Yes, IFF (if and only if) one cable has caused a change of sufficient magnitude.  Remember, this requires the same amplifier channel used on both speakers, so that any affect on the amplifier is eliminated as a possibility, be it distortion, phase or amplitude funnies, or even oscillation or instability.  It also assumes a reasonable damping factor as well.
   
   
  The fastest possible cable is one which has an impedance equal to the load, but doing so requires inductances in the 10 nH per foot  and 380 pf per foot area.  As the speaker unloads at higher frequencies, the amplifier will begin to see the capacitance of the cable so may have problems.  This is important if the amplifier open loop frequency response remains above unity gain while the speaker has unloaded...this can oscillate a "hot" amplifier.
   
  Since many of these boutique cables sell themselves as matched z, or low inductance, whatever, it's important to make sure the amplifier reaction doesn't confound the test.
   
  john


----------



## DNZGamer

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> _*Who is WE?  are you speaking for the entire human race, for every sound system on the planet, under all listening conditions?*_
> 
> _*When you are sitting in front of and listening to a speaker system which presents a virtual image strong enough to make you think the artists are in the room and the speakers have dissapeared, then get back to me, you will have some interesting things to speak about.*_
> 
> ...


 
   
So basically, you are now bashing me for not having amazing speakers when I started a topic about Headphones. Just proof that you have no idea what is going on here. Why don't you get back to me once you are on the same page. When you can reliably distinguish cables with an HD800 then I will care.
   
Fear science? We have discussed science a long time since you started ranting about things no one cared about. Can you make one post where the foundations aren't just blatant fallacies?
   
Also why are you talking to Proton about me being adverse to science? I have had Proton explain a lot of things to me in the past. The difference between you and him is that I have yet to find any of your claim at science relevant to this discussion and half of it is just completely unfounded claims that you declare as fact. When asked for an explanation, you continually deflect, make insults and make non-sense statements about me.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> I don't like working in absolutes. I think for me, it only matters that cables are generally proven to make differences so miniscule, it is almost impossible to reliably distinguish. In this situation, the DBTs are the most important source of information for me.
> 
> If they cannot be reliably distinguished, it means the pricing of high end cables is meaningless and pointless for sound quality which strikes it off of my consideration for audio equipment. It also strikes off the credibility of reviewers who discuss cables with very clear effects like better bass extension, bla bla bla.
> 
> _*I personally am not concerned about the science behind it as I am not gonna educate myself on a new science just to confirm peoples findings.*_ I only care that extremely discerning listeners cannot discern cables even with the most ridiculous high end setups that I can only dream of having and hence it makes up for most likely less than 1% of the SQ of any setup.


 
   
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> No matter what they claim, if you don't believe them then and believe otherwise, simple testing will solve the question for you personally. _*I don't get why there is so much discussion on science *_and other things that just don't matter to the average listener. It only takes one person to prove that cables actually do make a difference yet with all the pro-cable audiophiles out there, not one has come out to refute this theory?
> 
> Again, whatever difference cables make it is obviously not worth any significant amount of money. I think running around in circles discussing semantics on whether there is a registered electrical difference or theoretical super senses is pointless.


 
   
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> How is testing not simple? People can hear differences in headphones and amps when blind (although not always accurately but the difference is detectable in DBT conditions). Why is it so complicated to get a cable tested to see if it makes a significant difference sonically? If it is so hard to pick up then it isn't a worthy way to spend your money.
> 
> _*The science on science forum is just a fallacy. There is no need to discuss this hard science in detail at all.*_ We are looking for appreciable differences to recommend to consumers which is the discussion of the topic.


 
   
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> @jnjn
> 
> You seem overly concerned with hyperboles here. How many people care about the possibility of miniscule audio differences that cannot be reliably identified? We are discussing the audible difference to sound quality _*and the science forum does not mean you have to discuss hardcore science*_. I have no idea why you think this is logical.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> So basically, you are now bashing me for not having amazing speakers when I started a topic about Headphones. Just proof that you have no idea what is going on here. Why don't you get back to me once you are on the same page. When you can reliably distinguish cables with an HD800 then I will care.
> 
> Fear science? We have discussed science a long time since you started ranting about things no one cared about. Can you make one post where the foundations aren't just blatant fallacies?
> 
> Also why are you talking to Proton about me being adverse to science? I have had Proton explain a lot of things to me in the past. The difference between you and him is that I have yet to find any of your claim at science relevant to this discussion and half of it is just completely unfounded claims that you declare as fact. When asked for an explanation, you continually deflect, make insults and make non-sense statements about me.


 
  Bashing???  Really?  Where?  Show us.
   
  Who said anything about amazing speakers?
   
  You have been ranting about your desire that science not be discussed.  Would you like me to copy your words verbatim??  It's what, 4 or 5 posts of rants?
   
  What you consider relevant is immaterial.  You've been avoiding the discussion of science like a luddite.  Your claiming that a "sound science" forum should not have any science discussed.  REALLY??
   
  As I've stated, I can back up anything I've stated, but you have to ask.
   
  j
   
  ps..weird, the posts did come along for the ride...I'll hilight the interesting rants..
   
  pps.  Had you been paying attention, you would have learned that in headphones, we can hear at the 1.2 uSec interchannel level.  Even if the impedances are scaled, the problem is still there.  Meaning, science must be involved. Sorry..


----------



## DNZGamer

So a bunch of quotes that state I do not personally concern myself with the science and only the practical real world differences in terms of sound as to avoid a constant debate regarding the possible existence of minute and irrelevant differences between high end cables and regular ones means that I have an aversion to science?

 Why is it that you are the only one in this topic who has come to this conclusion? Again, you aren't fooling anyone. You said you would back up anything you say yet the things I specifically asked you to back up, you have completely ignored and buried under your fallacious interpretations of my posts.


----------



## anetode

jnjn: Nordmark, 1972, are you referring to this? I'm quite amazed there was any result from a sub-10us difference, aside from perhaps localization, and I'd like to understand the leap from that to your claim that these delays would introduce an audible difference of any import.



liamstrain said:


> I guess my problem is the use of the word audible. That is an objective measure. It either makes a measurable change, or does not. If the difference is not audible (objective) then I do not think we should use the term.




How about "psychoacoustic difference"? Audible implies a verifiable, consistently detectable change.



kt66 said:


> pps Science has nothing to do with music




I agree, let's work to get rid of this "sound science" subforum, it's clearly missing the point of audiophilia.



bmiamihk said:


> You guys put a lot of energy into nothing.




That's how the Universe came about. I take your condemnation as a compliment.



bmiamihk said:


> I guess its a modern way men are able to interact with other humans and some kind of competition which also is a form of feeling alive in their solitude righteous life.




...and I take your projection as transparent as 7N OCC silver.


----------



## anetode

kiteki said:


> People keep referencing these cable blind tests without being specific, like your above post "a large body of negatives", well when someone links to a negative then we can discuss how valid / extensive / fair it is.  We don't currently need to discuss the positive results if there aren't any. =p  However, we can dicuss the reasons why there aren't any.
> 
> My hunch and experience on the situation is that the cable subject is more about the scientific view of how cables work plus the lack of positive blind-test results, which has led to the view that they all sound the same.  My hunch is that the amount of cable blind-tests with negative results is limited and most of the tests are flawed.  The reason I think so is that I see people speak of "countless tests" a lot without referencing any specific tests, and when I do see links to specific tests they're usually flawed.




Your hunch runs contrary to the obvious conclusion. You've found that people who are familiar with cable DBT results refer to the evidence as voluminous and one-sided, but your personal bias leads you to offer the alternative hypothesis is that there really aren't that many such tests and that most of them are flawed. This is pseudoskepticism.

If you're wondering about all these countless tests, take my previous advice in this thread and go to a library and look them up in a database (otherwise, some links don't come cheap). There you will find properly designed and peer reviewed DBTs accompanied by thorough statistical analyses. Sticking to internet-only sources puts you at a disadvantage. Not only that, but it sometimes comes across like you're asking others to do all the research legwork for you and claiming that they're wrong if they don't.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> Yes, IFF (if and only if) one cable has caused a change of sufficient magnitude.  Remember, this requires the same amplifier channel used on both speakers, so that any affect on the amplifier is eliminated as a possibility, be it distortion, phase or amplitude funnies, or even oscillation or instability.  It also assumes a reasonable damping factor as well.
> 
> 
> The fastest possible cable is one which has an impedance equal to the load, but doing so requires inductances in the 10 nH per foot  and 380 pf per foot area.  As the speaker unloads at higher frequencies, the amplifier will begin to see the capacitance of the cable so may have problems.  This is important if the amplifier open loop frequency response remains above unity gain while the speaker has unloaded...this can oscillate a "hot" amplifier.
> ...


 
   
   
  Thanks for bearing with me. Does this happen much in the real world of speaker cables? I have certainly never come across any previous discussion of this.
   
  With regards to science, I have high school qualifications and a high regard for it. I have a career based on evidence. So whilst not always getting the science I see it as the means of providing the evidence.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> So a bunch of quotes that state I do not personally concern myself with the science and only the practical real world differences in terms of sound as to avoid a constant debate regarding the possible existence of minute and irrelevant differences between high end cables and regular ones means that I have an aversion to science?
> 
> _*Why is it that you are the only one in this topic who has come to this conclusion?*_ Again, you aren't fooling anyone. You said you would back up anything you say yet the things I specifically asked you to back up, you have completely ignored and buried under your fallacious interpretations of my posts.


 
  Statements such as this aren't helping your case:
   
_*The science on science forum is just a fallacy.*_
   
_*My first guess would be because you've decided to make up things about what I've said, you've mis-represented what I'm all about, you make up silly things like fallacious interpretations, you aren't fooling anyone, you completely ignored...*_
   
_*So I would venture a guess that nobody else wants to become the target of your venom.  But hey, that's only the content of ONE post. You're the schoolyard bully.*_
   
  j


----------



## DNZGamer

And who have I been bullying? Your reasoning is just getting more and more ludicrous. The only person that has been ragged on around here in recent memory is Bmiami and DefQon (although it was more heated disagreement for the latter). Neither of those instances by me...
   
  You are the only one making these accusations and you are still completely ignoring all the statements you made previously. The only other person who chimed in on my opinion was proton and he did not have any issues with my lack of interest in measurements and my focus on real world differences that have been observed in headphone DBTs. 
  

 What were you trying to prove with the audio engineer comments and where IS the proof?
   
  What am I looking for in modern recordings that proves audio engineers definitively do not like music?
   
  You claim that tests are always skewed because testers and testees always look for certain results yet that says nothing to us except that you assume all tests were skewed in this manner. 
   
  The only reason I mentioned to stop focusing so much on science is because a bunch of half informed science been thrown around mixed with semantics has been the only discussion that has taken place in the last few pages. Unless your privy to something that we already don't know regarding sound quality and cables and can prove it, you can get off that high horse.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





anetode said:


> jnjn: Nordmark, 1972, are you referring to this? I'm quite amazed there was any result from a sub-10us difference, aside from perhaps localization, and I'd like to understand the leap from that to your claim that these delays would introduce an audible difference of any import.
> .


 
  edit:  anetode, I removed some of your statement, as it did not apply to me..hope you don't mind.
   
  No.  Well, at least I don't think so.  I am speaking of Binaural time discrimination, Jan O. Nordmark, Journal  Acoustic Society of America, Vol 60, no. 4, October 1976.  Pages 870-879.
   
  OOPS, I did say 1972 didn't I.  My apologies, it's been years since I've looked at this paper
   
  I agree, I was amazed at the level.  Prior to that paper, I would have expected something in the 50 uSec, inverted 20 Khz at best.
   
  I have not made a leap.  I have pointed out what humans have been measured to be sensitive to, and shown that a bad choice of cable and load characteristics will cause delays in partial content _*which are at and above the level of demonstrated human thresholds*_.
   
  I have NOT claimed that it will always be audible.  I have however, provided a more controlled human based test which can be used to test for that.  As I said, if the first pass (one amp channel, two cables) provides a negative result, the test is over..
   
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Thanks for bearing with me. Does this happen much in the real world of speaker cables? I have certainly never come across any previous discussion of this.
> 
> With regards to science, I have high school qualifications and a high regard for it. I have a career based on evidence. So whilst not always getting the science I see it as the means of providing the evidence.


 
  No problem, you've been very nice.
   
  You will not find previous discussions on this site, but the have been many good ones on other forums. (other than my posts and graphs and equations. 
  The primary reasons this is not generally discussed by most being:
   
  1. I find very very few audio engineers have even applied (or even studied) lateralization or localization to what humans receive via two or more channels of audio reproduction to produce images.  David Greisinger is a very notable exception, the work of his I've read is top notch. (well, except where he labelled figure 6 as figure 5)...go figure..
   
  2. He (David) makes a living doing this stuff.  If I were in that position, I would also not give the ship away..
   
  3. Transmission line theory is terribly misunderstood by the electrical engineering people in general.  Several reasons..first, getting the ele people to remain awake in that particular class...second, we were taught *engineering approximations *as well as the full blown theory and equations, so guess what we choose to use???  Humans are a lazy sort, ele engineers being no exception (me too).  One of those approximations is that once the wavelength is greater than the cable length, go lumped element.  Well, that works just fine if you're not worried about delays in the tens of microseconds.  Unfortunately, humans discern at that level.
   
  edit:ah, forgot #4..
   
  4.  In the mixdown, there is no use of the interchannel delay to move the sound image from one side to the other.  The pan pot is amplitude only based.  When I asked jj johnson why this was so, he stated that it was because of the compatibility with monophonic reproduction.  If interchannel delays are used, the mono summation will be chock full of comb filter like effects. Called phasing/flanging, it is a neat sound effect I've used in my dj days back in '79, using two copies of a song simultaneous, using my hand to timeshift one relative to the other.  I believe Inna Gotta Da Vita uses it in the drum solo.  So my feeling is that interchannel time delay (ITD) is the orphan child when it comes to stereo reproduction, and it has been completely forgotten.
   
   
  A science degree is not necessary to engage in a pleasant discussion, as you clearly show. 
   
  j


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> And who have I been bullying? Your reasoning is just getting more and more ludicrous. The only person that has been ragged on around here in recent memory is Bmiami and DefQon (although it was more heated disagreement for the latter). Neither of those instances by me...
> 
> You are the only one making these accusations and you are still completely ignoring all the statements you made previously. The only other person who chimed in on my opinion was proton and he did not have any issues with my lack of interest in measurements and my focus on real world differences that have been observed in headphone DBTs.
> 
> ...


 
  I believe you are confusing me with another.  What audio engineer comment?  And what comment about audio engineers do not like music??
   
  I believe you would be best served by going back and re-reading the thread. I suspect you will continue to shoot yourself in the foot as long as you attribute to me the statements of others.
   
  j


----------



## jnjn

DNZgamer:  this is my first post in this thread.  You only have to read from this point on to review what I actually stated.
   
  Cheers, John
  Quote: 





jnjn said:


> You got that right.
> While there is some good content there, it is still important to consider what is the underlying reason for the article and even the website.  Going from the measurements to conclusions may not be really supported scientifically.  The same applies to IC's  and PC's used in an unbalanced system
> 
> j


----------



## arcticears

@jnjn
   
  You make a good point and make it well.  Thanks for making me think.  You rightly point out that it is in the realm of  possibility for speaker cables to sound different.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





arcticears said:


> @jnjn
> 
> You make a good point and make it well.  Thanks for making me think.  You rightly point out that it is in the realm of  possibility for speaker cables to sound different.


 
  No problem.  The exact same relations occur with headphones of course, but it is important to consider the impedances involved.  For me, I consider the best wire to be one in the middle of the impedance range of the load.  And, perform the listening test I described.  If it doesn't show up with only one cable swapped, it just isn't going to make a difference.  And pay attemtion only to L, R, C of the cable and the frequency dependent load impedance.  Nothing else matters, not silver, not fancy dielectric, not grain boundaries, sheesh..
   
  The vast majority of my listening is via headphones, so I'm always taking the sound apart, testing what I hear... 
   
  I must reiterate...I see no need for expensive cables, either for speakers or headphones.  And, I recommend all who read some of that shall we say, "interesting" marketing verbage of the vendors, take it with a grain of salt.  A lot of the writings and white papers I see are pure garbage. 
   
  j


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *jnjn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> And pay attemtion only to L, R, C of the cable and the frequency dependent load impedance.  Nothing else matters, not silver, not fancy dielectric, not grain boundaries, sheesh..


 

  
  THANK YOU!


----------



## arcticears

@jnjn
   
  Yes, L, R, C are the important factors in a speaker or headphone cable and as long they are kept within reasonable limits the cable should work fine.  It is possible to make a cable which sounds different if you screw things up enough, you have to try hard though.  A good link on speaker cables and effects of L, R, C on them can be found at http://sound.westhost.com/cable-z.htm.


----------



## anetode

jnjn said:


> I have not made a leap.  I have pointed out what humans have been measured to be sensitive to, and shown that a bad choice of cable and load characteristics will cause delays in partial content _*[COLOR=FF0000]which are at and above the level of demonstrated human thresholds[/COLOR]*_.




*[COLOR=FF00AA]OK[/COLOR]*. I'd argue that discernible and audible are two different things in this case, being that I'm not sure in what qualifiable way this effect changes the sound itself or what variations in delay are seen as acceptable in common comparison testing. I'm also curious to find out whether this discernment is the result of neural processing of interaural differences. Looking forward to reading Nordmark's work.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> No problem.  The exact same relations occur with headphones of course, but it is important to consider the impedances involved.  For me, I consider the best wire to be one in the middle of the impedance range of the load.  And, perform the listening test I described.  If it doesn't show up with only one cable swapped, it just isn't going to make a difference.  And pay attemtion only to L, R, C of the cable and the frequency dependent load impedance.  Nothing else matters, not silver, not fancy dielectric, not grain boundaries, sheesh..
> 
> The vast majority of my listening is via headphones, so I'm always taking the sound apart, testing what I hear...
> 
> ...


 
   
  Yes I agree with the L C R componant making a difference & largely only that making the difference though in one case though unfortunately I didn't have the equipment to test the capacitance of the cable at the time but that was one cable that I'm not sure why but it sounded absolutely horrible. It went by the wayside in less than a day it sounded so bad. None of the other cable I tried sounded remotely that horrible. I have never head even high capacitance cables sound that bad. I do believe it was the properties of the dielectric in this case. Perhaps a really bad batch of it. Do to the L C R properties of commercially available cables being not as low as I needed when I was running a passive preamp I made my own cable that were super low in capactance (about 75pf for  meter with ends) 7 these cable were superior sonding to the commercial cable in my aplication. I continue to make my own cable for high output impedance devices as my cable just couldn't be beat in that application. In low output impedance or matched output impedance to the cable characteristic impedance I found there to be no difference as there shouldn't be.
   
  By the way my cable are very very cheap to make. The costliest part of them are the ends which I get for around 20 dollars for the ends sufficient for one stereo pair of cables so you see I don't elieve in expensive cable either.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





germanium said:


> I didn't have the equipment to test the capacitance of the cable at the time but that was one cable that I'm not sure why but it sounded absolutely horrible....I do believe it was the properties of the dielectric in this case. Perhaps a really bad batch of it.


 
   
  It is much more likely that it was a problem in manufacture - bad soldering, or something. I cannot imagine how the dielectric would affect the conductors, unless it was so bad thy were touching and causing a short. But perhaps I'm missing some hidden property here.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





arcticears said:


> @jnjn
> 
> Yes, L, R, C are the important factors in a speaker or headphone cable and as long they are kept within reasonable limits the cable should work fine.  It is possible to make a cable which sounds different if you screw things up enough, you have to try hard though.  A good link on speaker cables and effects of L, R, C on them can be found at http://sound.westhost.com/cable-z.htm.


 
  +1.
  Most cables from $20 to $2000 fall within 'reasonable limits', and it is perfectly possible to screw up the signal and it will affect the sound. Just that the $20 cable won't sound that different from the $2000 one if they are not screwing up.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> It is much more likely that it was a problem in manufacture - bad soldering, or something. I cannot imagine how the dielectric would affect the conductors, unless it was so bad thy were touching and causing a short. But perhaps I'm missing some hidden property here.


 
   
  Different dielectrics have different permittivity which is pretty important in determining the capacitance of the finished cable.
   
  That said you actually have to try pretty hard to cram enough capacitance into a short cable to bother a decent amplifier.  Of course there are some amps out there that are already borderline unstable and might actually sound different with varying, but reasonable to expect, amounts of cable capacitance.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Different dielectrics have different permittivity which is pretty important in determining the capacitance of the finished cable.
> 
> That said you actually have to try pretty hard to cram enough capacitance into a short cable to bother a decent amplifier.  Of course there are some amps out there that are already borderline unstable and might actually sound different with varying, but reasonable to expect, amounts of cable capacitance.


 
   
  Thanks for the clarification - I forgot that the overall cable capacitance is affected. But you'd have to screw up a good bit, to get it high enough to mess with the high frequencies...especially if you were already designing for low cap.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Thanks for the clarification - I forgot that the overall cable capacitance is affected. But you'd have to screw up a good bit, to get it high enough to mess with the high frequencies...especially if you were already designing for low cap.


 
   
  It's possible to get some amazingly high capacitance if you manage to do everything wrong.  Using something with a poor dielectric constant/relative permittivity like silicone rubber, with some multi-stranded fancy looking braid, and then hooking it up to an amp with a high output impedance you could probably make a low pass somewhere in the audible range.
   
  I was talking about how a poorly designed amp circuit could go into some kind of oscillation based on the capacitance of the attached cable and then rain down extra distortion products into the audible range which is a different mechanism.  That would make the cables sound different, but only because the amp driving it is essentially defective.


----------



## liamstrain

Ah - I see what you are after. Makes sense.


----------



## arcticears

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> +1.
> Most cables from $20 to $2000 fall within 'reasonable limits', and it is perfectly possible to screw up the signal and it will affect the sound. Just that the $20 cable won't sound that different from the $2000 one if they are not screwing up.


 
  Correct, I did not mean to imply that the difference would be any more than noticeable if that, certainly not enough to justify the expense.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





arcticears said:


> @jnjn
> 
> Yes, L, R, C are the important factors in a speaker or headphone cable and as long they are kept within reasonable limits the cable should work fine.  It is possible to make a cable which sounds different if you screw things up enough, you have to try hard though.  A good link on speaker cables and effects of L, R, C on them can be found at http://sound.westhost.com/cable-z.htm.


 
  Rod's a nice guy.  Unfortunately, some of the content is not correct.
   
  1.  His loudspeaker model is not reality.  Close enough for a lot of work, but lacking frequency dependent resistance.  When a coil of wire has dc current flowing, the cross sectional current density is uniform, the resistance of the wire will be that of the wire off the coil.  When you start to increase the frequency of the current, proximity effect will rear it's ugly head.  This effect (a consequence of maxwell's equations) causes the current to use less of the conductor.  When this happens, the effective resistance of the coil will increase.  Nowhere in the model is this effect considered.  And, it is not a small effect.  ALSO not present is anything which represents eddy currents.  All metals, when subjected to time varying magnetic fields, will produce internal currents which fight the intrusion of the external time varying fields.  The magnetic structure of any electrodynamic driver will do this, using ferrite or laminations are two good ways to reduce this effect.  So, as a linear lossless model, it's great.  But it's not reality.  edit:  BTW, when modelling and testing an inductor, I typically use the Rs/Ls model. From the end terminals, the proximity and eddy current losses show up as an increase in the series resistance.  In fact, any losses in the inductor show up as an increase in Rs.  This applies for phono carts all the way up to the ITER central solenoid for fusion initiation (4 meters diameter and 13 meters tall.
   
  2.  His t-line discussion is terribly inaccurate, misleading, and should be changed..
   
  Quote: 





anetode said:


> *OK*. I'd argue that discernible and audible are two different things in this case, being that _*I'm not sure in what qualifiable way this effect changes the sound itself or what variations in delay are seen as acceptable in common comparison testing*_. _*I'm also curious to find out whether this discernment is the result of neural processing of interaural differences. Looking forward to reading Nordmark's work.*_


 
_*Nobody is.   The connection has been studied in the field of neuro, but there is no formal education on it available to audio engineers. *_
   
_*Hmm, not sure how to call it...Neural processing of Interaural differences? chicken and egg?*_
  Quote: 





germanium said:


> Yes I agree with the L C R componant making a difference & largely only that making the difference though in one case though unfortunately I didn't have the equipment to test the capacitance of the cable at the time but that was one cable that I'm not sure why but it sounded absolutely horrible. It went by the wayside in less than a day it sounded so bad. None of the other cable I tried sounded remotely that horrible. I have never head even high capacitance cables sound that bad. I do believe it was the properties of the dielectric in this case. Perhaps a really bad batch of it. Do to the L C R properties of commercially available cables being not as low as I needed when I was running a passive preamp I made my own cable that were super low in capactance (about 75pf for  meter with ends) 7 these cable were superior sonding to the commercial cable in my aplication. I continue to make my own cable for high output impedance devices as my cable just couldn't be beat in that application. In low output impedance or matched output impedance to the cable characteristic impedance I found there to be no difference as there shouldn't be.
> 
> By the way my cable are very very cheap to make. The costliest part of them are the ends which I get for around 20 dollars for the ends sufficient for one stereo pair of cables so you see I don't elieve in expensive cable either.


 
  Are these headphone cords or interconnects?
  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Different dielectrics have different permittivity which is pretty important in determining the capacitance of the finished cable.
> 
> That said you actually have to try pretty hard to cram enough capacitance into a short cable to bother a decent amplifier.  _*Of course there are some amps out there that are already borderline unstable and might actually sound different with varying, but reasonable to expect, amounts of cable capacitance.*_


 
  When making a cable, the following equation applies.
   
  LC = 1034* EDC
   
  L is inductance in nanohenries per foot
  C is capacitance in picofarads per foot
  EDC is the effective dielectric permittivityof the geometrical construction. For a constrained cable design, this is equal to the relative dielectric permittivity of the insulator.  For an unconstrained cable design, this is the lower limit of what can be built, actual cables will be higher.
   
  A constrained cable is designed for little external magnetic field.  Coax is one, high count braid where return and send intermingle, ribbons against each other where the insulator is more than ten times wider than thick.
   
  Typical dielectrics not foamed have a value about 3.  Foamed runs 1.05 to 1.5
  Typical zip cords run from 4 to about 10 EDC.
   
  If you have vendor numbers for L and C, use this equation to calculate the EDC.  If the EDC is less than 1, one or both of the values is incorrect.  EDC less than 1 is superluminal propagation velocity, so unless the vendor has a nobel prize, it ain't happening.  The prop velocity of a cable is 1/sqr(EDC).  If EDC is 4, velocity is half lightspeed.
   
_*This is a consequence of the amplifier's open loop unity gain fequency and how the load decouples as frequency goes up.  A high capacitance cable will NOT look like a capacitor as long as the load retains an impedance close to the cable.  Once the load decouples, the energy storage of the cable will look more and more like capacitance, and the phase shift will marginalize the output..it'll oscillate*_.
   
  j


----------



## arcticears

@jnjn
   
  Thanks, again you make me think.  In the post, he does state he is using a simplified equation.  While not  giving the "whole" picture, do you not agree that for cables used in for audio frequencies, that it gives usable information?  As for T-lines, I will dig a little deeper.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





arcticears said:


> @jnjn
> 
> Thanks, again you make me think.  In the post, he does state he is using a simplified equation.  While not  giving the "whole" picture, do you not agree that for cables used in for audio frequencies, that it gives usable information?  As for T-lines, I will dig a little deeper.


 
  Yes, what he presents is very useful.  It is great for the first pass when analyzing the system.  The concern of imaging, soundfield recreation, and localization/lateralization is beyond the scope of the simplified or approximation equations.  As I stated earlier, I never even thought we were able to discern much below 50 uSec, nevermind 5 or even 1.2.. 
   
  We are taught the approximations simply because if we used the analytically accurate equations, nobody would get anything done.  Imagine trying to hash out bessel solutions for skin depth??  I couldn't...so I use the exponential approximation for basic calculations, but understand it represents a simplification.  Should a problem require deeper analysis that the exponential provides, I can at least understand the limitations.
   
  T-lines are very difficult to really understand if you have been taught the approximations and use them.  Sometimes you have to stand back and re-analyze.  Once I realized the issues concerning the line to load imbalance (as well as experience with 400 volt per nanosecond hardware build and use), I sat back and worked out the problems caused by using approximations and rule of thumbs.
   
  Let me know if you have any questions, I'll answer what I can.
   
  j


----------



## arcticears

@jnjn
   
  Thanks, what you say in true about all approximations, they should only be used if you keep their limitations in mind.  I am still digging on the T-line thing.


----------



## germanium

To your question jnjn,Are these headphone cords or interconnects?
   
  I was speaking of interconnects as headphone amps have low enough output impedance to make the cable capacitance of no consequence though if you go to low of output impedance you could get problems with oscillation on poorly designed amps with high capcitance cables. It could also cause some problems for wide band amps which are already on the verge of oscillation with normal loading


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *jnjn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> You have provided a very astute observation here, well done.
> 
> j


 
   
  Thanks, and thanks for the civilised comments.
   
   


> Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I agree that further testing of those who do make correct identifications is needed. Further testing is needed to see if there really are golden ears who can reliably pick out which system is which.


 
   
  Then you should add a note in your compilation thread that the test was limited or flawed, right?  My issue is with studies like that one being linked to over and over as evidence, for example at places like the NwAv blog or Wikipedia.
   
   


> Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Yes, I agree the expectation is it will be as easy in blind testing to pick out differences found in sighted. People get a big shock when that does not happen.


 
   
  Nothing in the study mentioned sighted differences, the NwAv blog has said audiophile differences disappear "when you throw a sheet over the rig" and provided that study as evidence.
   
  So, where does the study mention sighted differences?  If they sound the same with a sheet over them they'll sound the same without a sheet, isn't that more sensical?  The study doesn't mention which component is supposed to sound better either, and for what reason.  Are they saying the expensive CD rack was actually supposed to sound better than the wooden chair, or... are you saying that the CD rack does or could sound better to some people when sighted?
   
   


anetode said:


> Your hunch runs contrary to the obvious conclusion. You've found that people who are familiar with cable DBT results refer to the evidence as voluminous and one-sided, but your personal bias leads you to offer the alternative hypothesis is that there really aren't that many such tests and that most of them are flawed. This is pseudoskepticism.
> 
> If you're wondering about all these countless tests, take my previous advice in this thread and go to a library and look them up in a database (otherwise, some links don't come cheap). There you will find properly designed and peer reviewed DBTs accompanied by thorough statistical analyses. Sticking to internet-only sources puts you at a disadvantage. Not only that, but it sometimes comes across like you're asking others to do all the research legwork for you and claiming that they're wrong if they don't.


 
   
  I don't have any desire to support fake science or flawed studies only since they refer to what's labelled by some as an "obvious conclusion".  Such labels are derived from personal opinion, intuition or scientific theory, in this case it seems not listening tests or statistical evidence.  Ill-quoting flawed statistical evidence only makes the scientific viewpoint look too narrow or like wishful thinking.
   
  Perhaps with cables it's not so vital and you want to call it pseudo-skepticism, but it's clear that people with a certain attitude towards cables will most likely have a similar attitude towards all other audio components as well, even if those components are more advanced.
   
  If someone says cables have been disproven with a huge body of statistics, and ill-quote papers, then when they say something like all DAC's sound the same or all microphones above $1000 are snake-oil I have no scientific reason to believe them in that instance either.
   
   
  The link you provided is an article from 1987, the preview goes into a lot of detail about the vinyl rig and electrostatic speakers, however it says nothing about the cables or number of listeners in the test, it did say they think ABAB versus AAAA could be more accurate than ABX though, which I definitely think could be true in some cases and I'd like to see a Foobar plug-in supporting that testing method, or similar same-different method.
   
  Is there any evidence that rapid switching ABX is the best method?  No, and please don't say it's hidden somewhere in a library and "sticking to internet-only sources puts you at a disadvantage".
   
  This is the information age and information is free, you can't say locked university vaults have proven this or that. =)
   
  p.s. If you think the audio field is full of people making millions on $500 Beats headphones and EE / AE's saying the CD format is statistically / scientifically proven as 100% transparent, then imagine what other fields like history must be like!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Is there any evidence that rapid switching ABX is the best method?


 
   
  Is there evidence that rapid switching ABX is the only kind of ABX we are recommending? I have no problem with more flexible test formats to allow for more natural listening.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Kiteki.
   
  I do not think that since no tests have progressed to further test those who 'passed' means they can be described as limited or flawed. The reason for that is the proliferation of such tests all getting the same results. Past results show that taking the 10 who 'passed' will result in another random 'passes' and you could go on until you had just the one who has 'passed' then all. But now prove that is nothing more than random itself.
   
  I was comparing the general results of blind to sighted tests when I said "differences found in sighted tests", not that one test. There are thousands of sighted test result, just read What Hifi for dozens each month into all sorts of hifi products from cables to speakers. My research into blind testing has found two results
   
  1 - a very consistent outcome whereby sighted finds the differences, blind comparison finds differences which are now smaller than before and are not dependent on the price/image of the product (so cheap can do as well as if not out perform expensive) and ABX where the differences vanish.
   
  2 - that different parts of the hifi chain perform differently. So no cable has ever passed an ABX test and they do badly in blind comparison, amps get mixed results, bit rates do better again and speakers do best of all in both blind comparison and ABX tests.
   
  The clear conclusion is spend your money on speakers/headphones and not on cables.
   
  With regards to quick and slow changes with ABX, the various tests find no difference at all. The results are the same no matter how quickly or slowly you change cables.


----------



## kiteki

Hmm the quote system isn't working right now.
   
"*liamstrain* - Is there evidence that rapid switching ABX is the only kind of ABX we are recommending? I have no problem with more flexible test formats to allow for more natural listening."
   
  Not anyone in this thread I think, sorry if it came across like that, but I think I've seen at least one person insist on a volume-matched 0.1 second rapid switch ABX format for detecting differences in their amplifier versus more upmarket ones, or a modified version of the same amp.
   
  I think rapid switching ABX is very likely the best method for detecting minor differences in volume, but it seems dangerous to extrapolate on that to all perceivable sonics.  As a sensory analogy, if you rapid switched between two different perfumes, you could be tricked into perceiving them as the same, while if you took a very quick break or smelled coffee inbetween perfume A and perfume B, you could more correctly identify the subtle differences.  If you took a 10 minute break, they could smell different due to the more typical reasons like expectation bias via visual impact, price, etc.
   
   
"*Prog Rock Man* - Past results show that taking the 10 who 'passed' will result in another random 'passes' and you could go on until you had just the one who has 'passed' then all. But now prove that is nothing more than random itself."
   
  You can't incorporate previous test results into future tests.  You can assume the 10 who passed were only guessing, but that is purely an assumption and not statistics or science.
   
  Let alone one of those 10 who passed might have said "wow system A sounded so good!" when he left the room, or pointed violently at the left system while in the room, influencing others to choose the left system.  If it dispelled some myths about super expensive audiophile CD players and CD racks not introducing very audible differences, then OK that's fine, but I still view the test as a novelty...
   
"There are thousands of sighted test result, just read What Hifi for dozens each month into all sorts of hifi products from cables to speakers."
   
  I see your point there.  I'm not familiar with What HiFi, but perhaps they _can't_ hear the differences?, i.e. they're just fabricating them for other incentives like profit, or suffering from the visual impact, price, or other emotional influences...
   
If you think more reviews should be conducted blind without having any idea what the product is, I have no issues there at all!  I think most people have decided if they like the car or not before they've turned the engine on, and someone decided audio should be all expensive leather and chrome too, not just sound.  So, some people think audio _is_ mostly just expensive leather and chrome, which isn't true!
   
"2 - that different parts of the hifi chain perform differently. So no cable has ever passed an ABX test and they do badly in blind comparison, amps get mixed results, bit rates do better again and speakers do best of all in both blind comparison and ABX tests."
   
  bit rates do well because their digital nature makes them convinient to ABX, unlike physical components, people can _practice_ bit rates and eventually find the differences.
   
  There are people (like myself) which have a hard time with ABX'ing bit rates, and Wikipedia says that 256kbps MP2 is 100% transparent, i.e. _no one_ can hear the difference versus CD quality, proven by extensive blind-testing, actually they write "in the most critical conditions ever implemented" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1#Quality
   
  I think the ABX study they're referring to involved 61 listeners with something like 20,000 trials, in the end only 1 of them could detect a difference, that should underline that you _can't collect the data and dismiss the positive results._
   
  Another case in point, Wikipedia says more and more people now _prefer_ MP3 compression to lossless - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Audio_quality, which means you_ can't dismiss preference._
   
  The Pras & Gustavino study took that into account.  Basically, some subjects kept selecting the wrong answer with such significance, that it becomes statistically significant, like losing money at a roulette table until it reaches a 1/1000 chance of losing with such significance.  Most studies don't take that into account. 
   
   
"The clear conclusion is spend your money on speakers/headphones and not on cables."
   
  Yes.


----------



## anetode

kiteki said:


> I don't have any desire to support fake science or flawed studies only since they refer to what's labelled by some as an "obvious conclusion".  Such labels are derived from personal opinion, intuition or scientific theory, in this case it seems not listening tests or statistical evidence.  Ill-quoting flawed statistical evidence only makes the scientific viewpoint look too narrow or like wishful thinking.
> 
> Perhaps with cables it's not so vital and you want to call it pseudo-skepticism, but it's clear that people with a certain attitude towards cables will most likely have a similar attitude towards all other audio components as well, even if those components are more advanced.




I did not mean "obvious conclusion" in the way that you took it. The statement referred to obvious in the Occam's Razor sense, as the simplest conclusion rather than one which is correct by necessity. What I was saying is that you conclusions were more complicated than need be because of several predispositions. As in, give a man a pile of bricks and tell him to build a chimney. One man, the common laborer who has to move on to the next project, will be more economical and use just enough bricks to construct something functional and structurally sound. A different man, taking this as a leisure project, will use more bricks and embellish his way to a beautiful chimney, but without the experience of the laborer he might compromise on the structural stability for aesthetics. This analogy is meant to apply to your approach to considering studies. You're applying too much philosophy (waxing about attitudes and such), too many preconceptions, which mean that you are trying to come up with a solution that you can admire rather than just accept. Hence why I refer to your approach as pseudo-skepticism.



kiteki said:


> If someone says cables have been disproven with a huge body of statistics, and ill-quote papers, then when they say something like all DAC's sound the same or all microphones above $1000 are snake-oil I have no scientific reason to believe them in that instance either.




Perfect example of the above. How do you know that they are ill-quoting papers? Why are you extending something they say about one subject, i.e. cables, to others, like DACs or mics? And finally, why do you refer to your subsequent distrust as being prompted by "scientific reason" when it is nothing more than methodological snobbery (at best, or a deeper ideological prejudice at worst)?




kiteki said:


> The link you provided is an article from 1987, the preview goes into a lot of detail about the vinyl rig and electrostatic speakers, however it says nothing about the cables or number of listeners in the test, it did say they think ABAB versus AAAA could be more accurate than ABX though, which I definitely think could be true in some cases and I'd like to see a Foobar plug-in supporting that testing method, or similar same-different method.




Which is why my point was that you'd need more than a free online preview 



kiteki said:


> Is there any evidence that rapid switching ABX is the best method?  No, and please don't say it's hidden somewhere in a library and "sticking to internet-only sources puts you at a disadvantage".
> 
> This is the information age and information is free, you can't say locked university vaults have proven this or that. =)




On the contrary, librarians take great care to arrange information for maximum ease of accessibility in libraries, it is the internet which obscures useful info with piles of random crap. As for your second point, I refer you to the other part of the oft quoted maxim by Steward Brand that "information wants to be free":

"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. "

Good info is worth spending money and effort on, just like good music. Please don't take my suggestion to look beyond internet sources as evidence of some sort of ivory tower elitism, I'm also a huge wikinerd. And, like most other wikinerds, I eagerly admit that most online info, as mirrored by most wikipedia info, is unverifiable tripe.


----------



## kiteki

I'll answer that post later, not sure if serious or not.
   
  p.s. in post #585 you said I "want others to do all the legwork" (?)  I just look at the studies which are_ presented _as science and evidence, and check if that holds true.
   
  If you have found "properly designed and peer reviewed DBTs accompanied by thorough statistical analyses" at your local library no one is stopping you from sharing it with us.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





anetode said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  i do too 
   
  Quote: 





anetode said:


> Audio journalists are directly funded both by cable manufacturers and audio retailers. Any positive review of cables has a clear profit motive. If an audio journalist claims to hear a difference with a more expensive cable, they are either lying, self-deluded or stupid. I will note, however, that I for one would accept money to lie to people I don't know.


 
   
  I probably would too   Most of us probably would.  In fact, most salesmen HAVE to...!


----------



## hyogen

this is a very interesting thread... I had no idea there was any question about whether or not different cables make the sound different.  I've been enjoying my TF10 for a few years now, and am expected to receive my first upgraded cable tomorrow...Null Audio Lune (silver)....  Very curious to hear the difference for myself. 
   
  Technically, the Cowon J3 and D3 should sound the same - there were quite a few people who reviewed them as sounding different.
   
  Like someone else said, the expectation bias was very strong...even though i had only sold my J3 a week ago, the D3 at first sounded diffferent to my ears (I first tried it in my car).  Very different, in fact.  What I realized later was that I had never heard the J3 without EQ settings in my car and upon receiving the D3, I hooked it up to my car audio and listened to it without the settings. 
   
  After putting the same EQ settings on the D3, I realized that indeed it sounded the same. 
   
  I even read this before I received the D3.  An admin over at iaudiophile.net that seemed to know what he was talking about and linked to RMAA measurements.
   
   
  http://iaudiophile.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39305
   
  Quote: 





> This tired old placebo topic seems to crop up with every new player being released, just the people claiming to hear "huge differences" are changing...
> 
> The J3 and D3 sound exactly the same - which also is exactly the same as any other modern Cowon (or any other non-broken player, for that matter). People claiming they hear a difference are talking complete nonsense. Or maybe they indeed have a broken player - or don't know how to volume-match two players for a honest AB comparison.
> 
> ...


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> If you have found "properly designed and peer reviewed DBTs accompanied by thorough statistical analyses" at your local library no one is stopping you from sharing it with us.


 
   
  Actually the TOS are because sharing is no longer caring.  Just ask the RIAA...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Kiteki (copy and paste as quote not working)
   
"There are thousands of sighted test result, just read What Hifi for dozens each month into all sorts of hifi products from cables to speakers."
   
  I see your point there.  I'm not familiar with What HiFi, but perhaps they _can't_ hear the differences?, i.e. they're just fabricating them for other incentives like profit, or suffering from the visual impact, price, or other emotional influences..."
   
  I am absolutely sure they do hear differences, I do not believe for one moment they are fabricating them. The differences vary from 'real' with speakers and whole systems to 'perceived' with cables. That is where this issue becomes more complicated in that we have to separate the real from the perceived. That is where ABX comes in to play.


----------



## hyogen

Hmm...just got my Null audio Lune silver cables for my TF10... did a really quick test...  first impression.........can't tell any difference...............both sound amazing.  perhaps the lune cable sounds a tiny bit more smooth?  perhaps this is what "tamed treble means"     I also have no idea what the term "rolled off means", but i imagine this is what is meant by it.   again, just a really quick first impression.   Loving the ergonomics of the new cable so far....but wow, the exposed top half of the cable is extremely thin!!!
   
   
   
  I'll have to check it out some more.  I literally only tried for about 15 seconds each.  gotta go out to eat D:


----------



## Citan

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Hmm...just got my Null audio Lune silver cables for my TF10... did a really quick test...  first impression.........can't tell any difference...............both sound amazing.  perhaps the lune cable sounds a tiny bit more smooth?  perhaps this is what "tamed treble means"     I also have no idea what the term "rolled off means", but i imagine this is what is meant by it.   again, just a really quick first impression.   Loving the ergonomics of the new cable so far....but wow, the exposed top half of the cable is extremely thin!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to check it out some more.  I literally only tried for about 15 seconds each.  gotta go out to eat D


 
  Unless either cable is damaged or poorly constructed there is no good reason they should sound different from one another, sorry bout your wallet.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





citan said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  no worries.  I got them for cheap ($70) and would gladly have paid that for better ergonomics.  Got them used with probably less than 15-20 hours on them. 
   
  aaaactually, I might be hearing more of a difference with this one song in particular...   I feel like there is a littttle more resolution with the silver cables (more clarity).  And the bass doesn't sound as boomy. 
   
  kinda crazy--I was just about to dismiss that there could be a difference.   Wow, starting to notice it just a little more.  Bass seems more tight/less boomy.  The highs aren't AS sharp (I never had issues with too harsh of highs),--the lune cable sounds a little more refined in the highs.  These cables have been reviewed by some to bring the mids more forward.  I haven't really listened for that yet.   I also tried pairing with my E17 amp and turned up the treble all the way....the lune cable was more bearable, while it kinda hurt to listen to the stock cable by a very slight margin. 
   
  For one, I might have been looking for a huge change.....but honestly, there really isn't anything to fix with the TF10....they're so perfect to me as it is. 
   
  The song I"m listening to now and hearing more of a difference is:  Menno De Jong - Turtle Paradise (original mix).  a quite bassy/energetic trance song.
   
   
  I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm hearing things or fooling myself...but as science has shown over and over--it's not always perfect either


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I am absolutely sure they do hear differences, I do not believe for one moment they are fabricating them. The differences vary from 'real' with speakers and whole systems to 'perceived' with cables. That is where this issue becomes more complicated in that we have to separate the real from the perceived. That is where ABX comes in to play.


 
   
  I think most people deem ABX as unnecessary since they're already convinced there is a difference or there isn't, which would explain the lack of ABX or the fishy ABX results.
   
  Like anetode was saying, he's decided on the simplicity and equality of cables, so he thinks looking too deep into the studies isn't necessary, the result is the same anyway, you implied that as well saying if you take the 10 positive reults to the side, they'll turn out to be chance in the end anyway.
   
  The differences you're saying are actually audible in cables or other compoents however not real, must have to do with price, looks and reading other reviews or spec sheets, your expectation on how X component should sound in X system, right?
   
  Well, sometimes components will sound 180° different than you expected too, like when I heard the Hifiman HM-601 for the first time.  I find it pretty strange that even anythingbutipod has latched on to the all devices sound the same thinking
   
Hifiman HM-901 "will anybody make out any audible difference at all, considering almost all digital sources available are transparent and linear to human ears?
   
  Then again they do like fancy equalizer effects (Cowon), bass enhancement (Digizoid Zo) and seem to idolize RMAA graphs, so I guess it makes sense.
   
  I think someone wrote a long article last year about 15 things RMAA does not measure and noted lots of potential defects in the software, the same guy says all op-amps sound the same since music has already passed through so many in the studio, so idk.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I think most people deem ABX as unnecessary since they're already convinced there is a difference or there isn't, which would explain the lack of ABX or the fishy ABX results.
> 
> Like anetode was saying, he's decided on the simplicity and equality of cables, so he thinks looking too deep into the studies isn't necessary, the result is the same anyway, you implied that as well saying if you take the 10 positive reults to the side, they'll turn out to be chance in the end anyway.
> 
> ...


 
  Although I never really visited anythingbutipod(somehow my connection goes floozy there), from the couple of times I went there, I find that they do have a reason to believe that the mp3's really do sound the same. I mean, look at the HM-801 for example, its sold as a premium audiophile DAP not sold as fancy equalizer effects, or a treble rolloff, and pay 800usd for it? you got to be kidding me. 
   
  On another note, while RMAA is full of bugs and what not but if more than one indicator shows a bad product, it usually is.


----------



## kiteki

If you focus on music and lyrics, and use equalizers and effects a lot, and have some clever idea that all sound-cards should sound exactly identical, apart from the data you can find via software and instruments (since they can't lie), then you could trick yourself into thinking they all sound identical.
   
  The Hifiman DAP's aren't really high performance, they have hiss and low battery life and all that, but the people which want that particular type of sound accept the flaws for some reason.
   
  There are significantly cheaper experiments you can try to see what you think of NOS sound - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mini-Decoder-DIR9001-TDA1543-4-Parallel-Connection-NOS-DAC-Power-Adapter-/221017837343


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





germanium said:


> To your question jnjn,Are these headphone cords or interconnects?
> 
> I was speaking of interconnects as headphone amps have low enough output impedance to make the cable capacitance of no consequence though if you go to low of output impedance you could get problems with oscillation on poorly designed amps with high capcitance cables. It could also cause some problems for wide band amps which are already on the verge of oscillation with normal loading


 
  Ah, thanks.
   
  Interconnects have an entirely different set of problems and interactions which can be system dependent.  Of note also is the fact that most loads for IC's are much higher impedance than the cable or driving source.  When a cable to load is mismatched with load significantly higher that line, the cable immediately starts out as a capacitive load to the source, whereas for amp outputs to low z loads, the cable starts out inductively to the amp. 
   
  Whenever a system is dependent on the choice of interconnect or power cord, the first thing one must look at is ground loop currents.  VERY FEW equipment designers consider EMC when designing equipment...very few even think that a source component can be ground loop current sensitive on it's output..
   
  That will change over time.
   
  j


----------



## liamstrain

jnjn - from a sound standpoint what would such an IC impedance mismatch sound like? Would it fit under standard effects for high inductance/capacitance effects?


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> jnjn - from a sound standpoint what would such an IC impedance mismatch sound like? Would it fit under standard effects for high inductance/capacitance effects?


 
  The math for an ic mismatch is generally the same as that of a speaker cable mismatch.  All we're talking about is tens of microseconds delays maximum.  For an IC however, the mismatch is consistent across the bandwidth, so if there is indeed a delay, it is identical interchannel and frequency invariant, ie no change in the sound as a result of t-line effects. Speakers do not behave in that fashion.  So gross inductance and capacitance would be the main issue if the cable or electronics were not designed well.
   
  The more important issue with ic's is the fact that any ground loop currents can get into the audio stream at the low level points in the electronics.  As such, the more important issues are consistent with EMC concerns.  Most of the issue is taken care of (to a point) in the pro balanced arena, very little in the unbalanced consumer product.  I say to a point in the pro arena, as they still have a ways to go as well.
   
  j


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> The math for an ic mismatch is generally the same as that of a speaker cable mismatch.  All we're talking about is tens of microseconds delays maximum.  For an IC however, the mismatch is consistent across the bandwidth, so if there is indeed a delay, it is identical interchannel and frequency invariant, ie no change in the sound as a result of t-line effects. Speakers do not behave in that fashion.  So gross inductance and capacitance would be the main issue if the cable or electronics were not designed well.
> 
> The more important issue with ic's is the fact that any ground loop currents can get into the audio stream at the low level points in the electronics.  As such, the more important issues are consistent with EMC concerns.  Most of the issue is taken care of (to a point) in the pro balanced arena, very little in the unbalanced consumer product.  I say to a point in the pro arena, as they still have a ways to go as well.
> 
> j


 
  Its sad to see some manufactures pay so little attention to ground loops and EMC, that is why I see stories of multi thousand dollar amps(both valve and SS) picking up radio waves and such. To me if a system is so dependent on cabling and esoteric cords for night and day difference in sound, there is something wrong with the amp/dac itself. With ground loops though, the pro arena uses professional transformers(ISO-MAX for example) to help solve ground problems.
  Quote:


kiteki said:


> If you focus on music and lyrics, and use equalizers and effects a lot, and have some clever idea that all sound-cards should sound exactly identical, apart from the data you can find via software and instruments (since they can't lie), then you could trick yourself into thinking they all sound identical.
> 
> The Hifiman DAP's aren't really high performance, they have hiss and low battery life and all that, but the people which want that particular type of sound accept the flaws for some reason.
> 
> There are significantly cheaper experiments you can try to see what you think of NOS sound - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mini-Decoder-DIR9001-TDA1543-4-Parallel-Connection-NOS-DAC-Power-Adapter-/221017837343


  I will note the day I need a DAC that distorts. For casual listening I have no idea how using devices with plenty of distortion mechanisms could be better than EQ/ effects, if anything it is worse. All the epeen you get is " HEY I use "hardware eq" how cool is that!". So to that, I will keep to oversampling ones for now.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> Its sad to see some manufactures pay so little attention to ground loops and EMC, that is why I see stories of multi thousand dollar amps(both valve and SS) picking up radio waves and such. To me if a system is so dependent on cabling and esoteric cords for night and day difference in sound, there is something wrong with the amp/dac itself. With ground loops though, the pro arena uses professional transformers(ISO-MAX for example) to help solve ground problems.


 
  Agreed.  Unbalanced signal transfer is not really so bad, but the devil is in the details.  Even pro equipment is designed with some foibles.
   
  1.  Most designers seem to either ignore ground loop current, or believe that shunting it to the chassis will suffice, without regard to where the current is going.
  2.  Whitlock historically has dealt with it in pro equipment _*inputs*_ as simple IR drop, neglecting induction.  Source component outputs must also be considered, they are not.
  3.  Far too much reliance on star grounding, which is really a _*high impedance *_circuit technique.  Toto, I don't think we're in _*tubeland*_ anymore.
  4.  A lack of control over the magnetic fields and coupling within the chassis of a power amp.  The plus and neg rails must be co-mingled with the return ground current such that there is little or no radiated field internal to the chassis.
  5.  The supply capacitance input to output mutual inductance must be dealt with, or the high frequency output currents will couple through and into the line cord.
   
  For starters of course.  There are quite a few more problems not addressed.
  j


----------



## kiteki

firev1 said:


> For casual listening I have no idea how using devices with plenty of distortion mechanisms could be better than EQ/ effects
> 
> HEY I use "hardware eq" how cool is that!".  So to that, I will keep to oversampling ones for now.


 
   
  You're the first person I've seen call NOS distortion or hardware eq, it's usually the other way 'round (?)  If you think equalizers and effects are more important than audio components, esp. for casual listening, then that's your decision, you can use a Cowon and Apple earbuds / logitech and be happy.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> You're the first person I've seen call NOS distortion or hardware eq, it's usually the other way 'round (?)  If you think equalizers and effects are more important than audio components, esp. for casual listening, then that's your decision, you can use a Cowon and Apple earbuds / logitech and be happy.


 
   
  I wish I'm the first, would be swimming in money by now  Arguing NOS dacs is the same as arguing for 192khz audio as they work around the principles of filtering, which I'm sure Kiteki, must have seen my arguments of lower DAC/amp overall performance due to lack of filtering/difficulties in filter design for audio. Of course if you are a casual listener then it is of no consequence. 
   
  Although I'm a advocater for the use of DSP in audio, for mixing purposes, I would not(and do not) apply too much of it. DSP is great for fine tuning and balance and just even a bit of it can change the sound for the system for the better, and you guess what is the best bit? Yes, it is adjustable unlike hardware distortion based EQ.
   
  Ed Meitner, one of the best DAC designers of his time, said that the oversampling converter gets closes to the analogue arena, of course, things has change and the delta-sigma converter is mainstream as its performance was proven over time, with his DAC's performance back in the day is now affordable for less than $1000(or with the ODAC, maybe lesser?). He also envisioned the use of DSP to improve playback experience from the computer, doing everything from crossovers(active speakers) and equalisation and delays(which is now a reality), when computers weren't even common place. Fyi, he is one of the forerunners in analysing jitter before it was widely accepted in AES.
   
  Quote: 





jnjn said:


> Agreed.  Unbalanced signal transfer is not really so bad, but the devil is in the details.  Even pro equipment is designed with some foibles.
> 
> 1.  Most designers seem to either ignore ground loop current, or believe that shunting it to the chassis will suffice, without regard to where the current is going.
> 2.  Whitlock historically has dealt with it in pro equipment _*inputs*_ as simple IR drop, neglecting induction.  Source component outputs must also be considered, they are not.
> ...


 
  Would be nice if I could get hold of some resources on this to learn more, any place I could start? Revising my math all over to deal with amplifier circuit design and would like to get as many resources as possible.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> Would be nice if I could get hold of some resources on this to learn more, any place I could start? Revising my math all over to deal with amplifier circuit design and would like to get as many resources as possible.


 
  Bill Whitlock published on the pin 1 and ground loop issues.  I have not yet seen him or anyone else publish on induction effects, consideration of the source, nor where chassis currents go vs frequency.
   
  Tom Van Doren has taught on EMC considerations, he stresses control of currents, details where currents go as frequency increases, considers mutual induction.
   
  I've not seen anything published which indicts star grounding as a high impedance technique, that seems to be just me.  You can work from Van Doren and mutual inductance into it of course, but nobody's really discussed it other than myself.
   
  IEEE-1050 was pretty good, went into much of the victim/agressor thing.  Unfortunately, it was retired and apparently not superceded by anything.
   
  j


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> Bill Whitlock published on the pin 1 and ground loop issues.  I have not yet seen him or anyone else publish on induction effects, consideration of the source, nor where chassis currents go vs frequency.
> 
> Tom Van Doren has taught on EMC considerations, he stresses control of currents, details where currents go as frequency increases, considers mutual induction.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Have not studied anything on EMC I think. Indeed Whitlock only dealt with receiver end of things, maybe he thinks it is sufficient to breaking ground loops?


----------



## kiteki

firev1 said:


> I wish I'm the first, would be swimming in money by now  Arguing NOS dacs is the same as arguing for 192khz audio as they work around the principles of filtering, which I'm sure Kiteki, must have seen my arguments of lower DAC/amp overall performance due to lack of filtering/difficulties in filter design for audio. Of course if you are a casual listener then it is of no consequence.


 
   
  Link to your arguments on filters, if it's in a different thread.  I'm interested in the discussion of NOS, filters, DSD etc.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Link to your arguments on filters, if it's in a different thread.  I'm interested in the discussion of NOS, filters, DSD etc.


 
  Can't seem to find it, or I imagine it, if so, oops sorry. Then I shall write them here, NOS dacs, generally has problems at the analog reconstruction filter. A filter operating at Nyquist (no oversampling) has poor phase response due to the difficulty of building a filter that keeps a flat response till 20khz yet rejecting high frequencies above ~24khz. Oversampling on the other hand, has a much higher allowable range above the audible to construct a filter for.
   

  credit:xiph.org  A Digital Media Primer for Geeks
   
  The right picture is a oversampling dac, which with its gentler roll off, is much easier to construct a filter for than the left NOS dac, which a very sharp roll off filter has to be constructed for, reducing fidelity as many analog filters are unable to meet the demand of such a roll off while maintaining a phase response. Also NOS dacs can't deal with noise the way oversampling can, which is spreading the noise over the entire spectrum. The filter constructed will then be able to remove out of band noise, giving a very good in audio terms, "black background"
   
  Oh, and do you realise, that DSD and the sigma-delta DACs they use to increase dynamic range and reduce noise also relies a lot on the oversampling principle? It can't be compared to PCM directly though. I'm not really knowledgeable about this but due to the lack of low pass filters(DSD dacs don't apply much filters at all), amplifiers/speakers are unable to cope with the high frequencies giving lower overall performance. 
   

  credit:dcollins prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> I wish I'm the first, would be swimming in money by now  Arguing NOS dacs is the same as arguing for 192khz audio as they work around the principles of filtering, which I'm sure Kiteki, must have seen my arguments of lower DAC/amp overall performance due to lack of filtering/difficulties in filter design for audio. Of course if you are a casual listener then it is of no consequence.


 
    
  NOS can be "emulated" by resampling the 44100 Hz audio to 176400 Hz with low quality interpolation and filtering. This produces NOS-like effects such as no ringing in the impulse response, rolled off treble, and large amounts of ultrasonic garbage.
   
    
   
  Quote:


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> with his DAC's performance back in the day is now affordable for less than $1000


 
   
  Even a <$100 DAC or sound card can be potentially "good enough" (in the sense of sounding the same as an "ideal" DAC in a DBT) now and perform better than much more expensive models in the past, although audiophiles will never admit it


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Even a <$100 DAC or sound card can be potentially "good enough" (in the sense of sounding the same as an "ideal" DAC in a DBT) now and perform better than much more expensive models in the past, although audiophiles will never admit it


 
   
  True that, sadly we are not swimming in perfectly transparent dacs yet. To explain the couple of graphs above, as NOS dacs use a very sharp low pass filter which is very hard to design, one of the problems occur is that the filter almost always eat into the treble band. The problem of ultrasonic crud can be made worst when aliasing occurs, when the low pass filters can't attenuate HF content properly, thus sound either euphonic, or utter crap. I think current NOS designs have compromises in treble response in other to prevent aliasing, it can explain the "analog" sound typical of such DACs, which in a way is similar to the sound of Wadia receivers and the HiFiman DAPs(treble rolloff).


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> True that, sadly we are not swimming in perfectly transparent dacs yet.


 
   
  I think there are some, even at low prices, but the availability of measurements is lacking, and audiophiles tend to avoid ABX tests when there is a good chance of a negative result, so it is hard to tell for sure in most cases for a particular product (especially without even having it) if it is transparent or not.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Ever since I got linked to that whole "cables" topic and read the ridiculous number of sources repeating that from basically regular listeners all the way to top audio engineers and reviewers could not distinguish cables in blind testing, I have been highly conflicted about reviews on this site.
> ...
> So then should I believe the rest of what these people say or is it just as likely to be as inaccurate? Or do cables still make a difference beyond just peoples imaginations?
> 
> ...


 
   
  Quote: 





wakibaki said:


> If people are writing unsupportable (in evidence terms) stuff about cables, the chances are very high that the rest of what they write is unsupportable (worthless).


 
   
   
  Just saw this thread- hilarious OP.  This is also something I noticed after reading many, many reviews.  It is a clear symptom of someone who hears with too much top-down (expectancy-based) processing.  I too have a long and growing mental list of head-fiers who have drunk too much kool-aid.  Or as EthanWiners describes them, the delusional ones.


----------



## kiteki

eucariote said:


> It is a clear symptom of someone who hears with too much top-down (expectancy-based) processing.  I too have a long and growing mental list of head-fiers who have drunk too much kool-aid.  Or as EthanWiners describes them, the delusional ones.


 
   
  Well to return to the thread title for a moment, the last time I heard someone 'rave' about cables in a review was a custom IEM, his impressions of the CIEM versus others didn't match up with mine, so I wrote a few "?!??" as did someone else, eventually it became evident he had never heard any other CIEM's and was just hyping the one he was reviewing.
   
  On the other hand, user average_joe is the most prolific custom IEM reviewer in English, he should have around 20 and reviews all of them, and he reports differences in cables - http://www.head-fi.org/t/564978/13-custom-iem-tf10-cables-reviewed-uber-muzik-v5f-added-1-03-2012
   
  I haven't heard any of those cables so I can't know for sure.  Personal experience is a good indicator, for example I really didn't like the Ultrasone Edition 8, so if someone raves about it I'll apply heavy salt to all headphone they talk about.


----------



## kiteki

wakibaki said:


> Trust your instincts and reasoning.
> 
> If people are writing unsupportable (in evidence terms) stuff about cables anything, the chances are very high that the rest of what they write is unsupportable (worthless).


 
   
  You've written in the past audio is only rarefactions and compressions in air, and that it's 100% measurable in every instance.  That isn't true or supportable (in evidence terms), so I apply salt to everything else you write too.  I asked you how to measure sound-stage and you linked to reverb processing software, saying sound-stage is all fake anyway.
   
  When the scientific side appears too pseudo-factual and narrow, then some people become confused / disenchanted and turn to the human evaluation side instead.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> You've written in the past audio is only rarefactions and compressions in air, and that it's 100% measurable in every instance.  That isn't true or supportable (in evidence terms), so I apply salt to everything else you write too.  I asked you how to measure sound-stage and you linked to reverb processing software, saying sound-stage is all fake anyway.
> 
> When the scientific side appears too pseudo-factual and narrow, then some people become confused / disenchanted and turn to the human evaluation side instead.


 
  I'm afraid to say that soundstage is mostly fake, it is the mixing/mastering that creates soundstage, not just the room. I read a article on Positive Feedback once on how the writer went to a small room restaurant/bar with a live jazz band. Because it was a small room, instruments that were meant to play in a larger hall sounded bad and there was all the audience noise as well, but the recording/mastering engineer managed to recreate a the song without the room resonances. Ultimately, a mix or mastering engineer's job isn't just to create balance and mix among the instruments, it is a recreate a pleasing soundstage as well.  
   
  Think about it, if soundstage is real, why are recording mic positions never placed in the audience positions? Why place it at the source of the music? It may shock you, but artificial reverb is used a lot to recreate soundstage. Of course there is the use of multiple ambient mics for the best recordings as well but even then, selected mics are selected to recreate the soundstage. So even then, ALL soundstage you hear is somewhat recreated, "fake" in a sense. 
   
  As for measuring soundstage, a nice 300Hz/500Hz squarewave is indicative of a good soundstage. Headphones like HD800 for example, exhibit this property perfectly and it correlates with other's impressions/reviews of it. I personally tried the Shure 535s for a bit and indeed it has one of the best headstage of an IEM I heard and that can be correlated again to the measurements.
   
  Generally I don't really disregard reviews even with cables in them but I do try to find the writer's point of neutrality first to see whether headphone A or B is the one I want.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> Think about it, if soundstage is real, why are recording mic positions never placed in the audience positions?


 
   
   
  Many classical recordings have the primary mics in audience position. Jazz as well. Additional detail mics may be added into the mix, but the overall stereo imaging comes from that master recording position.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Many classical recordings have the primary mics in audience position. Jazz as well. Additional detail mics may be added into the mix, but the overall stereo imaging comes from that master recording position.


 
  I find reverbs used a lot to recreate soundstage still in both recordings, whether Jazz or classic, these were mainly done with ambient mics but artificial reverbs are used quite a bit as well but mastering engineers to give you that room/hall size.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> I'm afraid to say that soundstage is mostly fake, it is the mixing/mastering that creates soundstage, not just the room. I read a article on Positive Feedback once on how the writer went to a small room restaurant/bar with a live jazz band. Because it was a small room, instruments that were meant to play in a larger hall sounded bad and there was all the audience noise as well, but the recording/mastering engineer managed to recreate a the song without the room resonances. Ultimately, a mix or mastering engineer's job isn't just to create balance and mix among the instruments, it is a recreate a pleasing soundstage as well.
> 
> Think about it, if soundstage is real, why are recording mic positions never placed in the audience positions? Why place it at the source of the music? It may shock you, but artificial reverb is used a lot to recreate soundstage. Of course there is the use of multiple ambient mics for the best recordings as well but even then, selected mics are selected to recreate the soundstage. So even then, ALL soundstage you hear is somewhat recreated, "fake" in a sense.
> 
> ...



  
 Gotta agree that most of the time "soundstage" is created by the mix engineer with sound processing.
 I've heard it in a few multi-tracked, overdubbed rock recordings, so in that case, it must be fake.
  
 However, there are a few (and I do mean a few) classical recordings recorded with 2 or 3 microphones only, by outstanding recording engineers, where they were able to make a recording with a "realistic, natural" soundstage.
 You could easily argue that this is fake too, who knows what the engineers _actually_ did in the mixing/mastering phase to enhance the effect?
  
 You could also argue that the mic placement is somewhat artificial:
  - the mics are usually hung several feet above and in front of the orchestra, which is obviously a place where no one sits so it is not very representative of what the audience (or even the conductor) really hears. 
  
 But when done properly, it sounds magnificent!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> You've written in the past audio is only rarefactions and compressions in air, and that it's 100% measurable in every instance.  That isn't true or supportable (in evidence terms), so I apply salt to everything else you write too.  I asked you how to measure sound-stage and you linked to reverb processing software, saying sound-stage is all fake anyway.


 
   
  "measuring soundstage" is a red herring.
   
  With regard to audio, "soundstage" is really little more than an illusion created in our brains.
   
  Just to give a simple example, take a mono signal and play it back through two loudspeakers spaced apart in front of you with each playing the mono signal at equal amplitudes.
   
  If you have two good ears, you'll perceive the source of the sound to be coming from directly in front of you, even though there is no sound source coming from that location. Change the relative amplitudes of the signal and you can get the source to appear to be coming from various locations between the speakers, but as before, there's no actual sound source coming from any of those locations. The apparent location of the sound source is all an illusion created in our brains.
   
  And while I don't know exactly what wakibaki has written in the past, what I will say is that the electrical domain, the audio signal is nothing more than changes in voltage and current over time. And we can measure differences in those changes to levels far far below any known human thresholds of audibility. So any difference in the signal which would result in a difference in the perception of soundstage (save for what may be going on in the acoustical environment which is a whole other matter) would manifest itself as a difference in the change of voltage and current over time which would be rather trivially easy to measure.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Chris J* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> However, there are a few (and I do mean a few) classical recordings recorded with 2 or 3 microphones only, by outstanding recording engineers, where they were able to make a recording with a "realistic, natural" soundstage.
> You could easily argue that this is fake too, who knows what the engineers _actually_ did in the mixing/mastering phase to enhance the effect?


 
   
  Even if you recorded using just two microphones instead of pan-potting, "soundstage" is still just an illusion. There is no sound source coming from between the loudspeakers, save for reflections off the wall. The mind creates the illusion of sound sources coming from between the loudspeakers.
   
  se


----------



## Chris J

steve eddy said:


> Even if you recorded using just two microphones instead of pan-potting, "soundstage" is still just an illusion. There is no sound source coming from between the loudspeakers, save for reflections off the wall. The mind creates the illusion of sound sources coming from between the loudspeakers.
> 
> se




You edited out the part about it sounding magnificent!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





chris j said:


> You edited out the part about it sounding magnificent!


 
   
  No I didn't. It's in there.
   
_Eve*n* *i*f y*ou* recor*d*ed u*sing* ju*st* two *mic*ropho*ne*s ins*t*e*a*d of pan-potting, "soundstage" is still just an illusion. There is no sound source coming *f*rom between the loudspeakers, save for reflections off the wall. The mind creates the illusion of sound sources coming from between the loudspeakers._
   
  se


----------



## liamstrain

It is an illusion caused by measurable, and predictable/manipulatable audio information though (reverb, channel timing, etc. Something true regardless of whether it is due to mic placement or mixing board skill, or DSP/plugin) - so we should distinguish it from auditory illusions which are entirely psycho-acoustic.


----------



## kiteki

steve eddy said:


> "measuring soundstage" is a red herring.
> 
> With regard to audio, "soundstage" is really little more than an illusion created in our brains.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Yes I think you've addressed it concisely.  That all makes sense as far as the soundstage in the recording is concerned, (or in the electrical components like a DAC) ...
   
  Like you said the acoustical environment is a whole other matter, like how well the microphone captures the information acoustically, and how proficient the speakers or IEM's are at handling the stereo imaging, or how narrow / wide / high they sound and how the room acoustics sound when listening to a mono signal.
   
  How an IEM renders the electrical signal and converts it acoustically varies a lot from model to model, single-driver units like the Etymotic ER-4 tend to lack in seperation, the music is more decidedly left<->right, other IEM's like the Shure SE425/535 will sound more spherical, the Sony XBA-3 has hazy imaging like an out of focus TV, while the UE700 or ATH-CK10 is more pinpoint like small laser dots.
   
  So, if speakers and IEM's were video, then the recording would be the video content, how sharp it looks, the resolutions and colours etc., the speaker and IEM is the TV / LCD monitor / projector.  We can take pretty accurate photos (or videos) of LCD monitors and measure effects like colour tint / luminance quite well which would be the equivalent of frequency response in a speaker or IEM I think, since colours are different Hertz rates, at varying intensity (volume).
   

   
  Then comes effects like ghosting 


   
  sharpness of high-resolution playback 
   
  - pixel latency (the response time of black->white->black, or grey->grey)
   
  - flicker
   
  - input latency (Wikipedia says below 30ms is not noticeable which is nonsense)
   
  - black levels / contrast / brightness
   
  Then there are interferences like viewing angle, screen material (glass, matte, glossy etc.), however, you can avoid sunlight and turn the lights off (audio equivalent = perfectly acoustically treated room).
   
  This is all in the 2D realm, TV's aren't 3D like audio, if they were holographic or a virtual reality device then that's more akin to an IEM or speaker, akin to the effects of the stereo imaging illusion, and the accuracy of said illusion, which would inherently vary from one to VR device to the next.  You could also down-convert the stereo signal to mono, and still discuss how high / wide / deep the image is, how hazy it is, how sharp, how much information it extracts, how many layers it has, how natural it looks.
   
  So my take on it is acoustic (not digital / electrical) audio is very difficult to measure, and in 2012, limited, so statements like it's "only rarefactions and compressions over time" is some kind of simplified pseudo-science, it's like saying a cinema or theme-park is "just photons".
   
  Another note is a high contrast, high sharpness and blue tinted TV doesn't look very good, since they're already pretty accurate.  Since sound is of lower and varying quality, such enhancements can sound good (to compensate), and come across as sonic art and involving.  No one wants pulsating red lines (bass) on their TV, lots of violet (clarity), lots of blue (focus on the singer), or high sharpness / contrast (detail enhancement).
   
  If the quality of a 'normal' speaker or IEM looks something like this ...
   

   
  There's no harm in trying to make it look (sound) like this ...
   

   
  kiteki


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> [/]


 
   
  For you comment that you think that other site has reason to believe "All mp3's sound the same" my answer is here - http://www.head-fi.org/t/610374/a-dap-philosophy-perspective/15#post_8404990
   
  For your comments on NOS, in a nutshell yes oversampling DAC's do seem to sound a lot better overall for x, y and z reasons from my limited experience, which is why it's pretty standard now I imagine.  My Asahi AK4396 DAC operates at 128x oversampling according to the .PDF.
   
  Still there are advocators and theories surrounding NOS and filter-less design which extend further than what you posted, it's not 1984 now comparing CD players, there's more sophisticated NOS design now in 2012 I think.
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> [/]
> 
> As for measuring soundstage, a nice 300Hz/500Hz squarewave is indicative of a good soundstage. Headphones like HD800 for example, exhibit this property perfectly and it correlates with other's impressions/reviews of it. I personally tried the Shure 535s for a bit and indeed it has one of the best headstage of an IEM I heard and that can be correlated again to the measurements.


 
   
  Do you have any kind of evidence (or ABX) to correlate to that, or are you just assuming nice square-wave = nice soundstage?  You're in my pseudo-science salt shaker land now.
   
  Sony Qualia 010
   

   
   
  Shure SE535


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> For you comment that you think that other site has reason to believe "All mp3's sound the same" my answer is here - http://www.head-fi.org/t/610374/a-dap-philosophy-perspective/15#post_8404990
> 
> *If you put it like that, then I would have to agree with you, however I still don't really understand why would people pay for poor performers like the HM DAPs, when measuring DAP's like the clip+ series or even the already reasonably well measuring iDevice(which that other site refuses) are readily available. *
> 
> ...


 
  EDIT: non-oversampling*
  EDIT2: making the thread less spammy


----------



## kiteki

firev1 said:


> If only it were that way, I have not seen any non-oversampling DACs with good specs around


 
   
http://www.nosminidac.nl/downloads/octavehificritic.pdf


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> http://www.nosminidac.nl/downloads/octavehificritic.pdf


 
  The IMD is 0.08% and THD of 0.098% which is pretty mediocre, not to mention the treble roll off. The question is which one of the errors is more forgivable, the frequency domain or time domain distortions?   I suspect the former is more audible.


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The IMD is 0.08% and THD of 0.098% which is pretty mediocre, not to mention the treble roll off. The question is which one of the errors is more forgivable, the frequency domain or time domain distortions?   I suspect the former is more audible.


 
   
  I'm not sure how significant IMD and THD are anyway - http://www.gearslutz.com/board/geekslutz-forum/410239-beyond-thd-n-how-does-your-power-amplifier-really-perform.html
   
  I think a slight volume deviation (-2.3dB at 20kHz á 16/44.1kHz) is fine if the sound of this particular DAC is more natural (see: transparent ...) than conventional modern audio design...
   
  As you noted, I think the Hifiman HM-601 sounds like junk, I'm not an expert on D/A, Im just leaving a window open for this one, and the theoretical advantages of DSD and newer NOS design's.
   
  I mean, we are exposed daily to the sun (ultraviolet poisoning) and the flicker of fluroescent tubes (stress?), and not consciously aware of it, the same could apply to certain techniques in audio.
   
  In post #652 here I showed why I don't believe in the totality of measuring acoustic audio, and in this post I touch on subliminal effects and that ABX is a case by case study, #1359


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> *As for the R10, it is just like the Thunderpants in a way, they both measure badly but sound extremely euphonic and musical. *


 
   
  Actually the T50RP driver measures amazingly well in CSD/waterfall plots though it does have fairly high THD and most mods don't end up having the smoothest FRs either.  Its more a question of tradeoffs.  I'll easily take a little extra harmonic distortion over the modal driver ringing that most other headphones have while other people may choose to go the other way.
   
  Also that graph was the Qualia and not the R10.  I've never heard it but the Qualia is reputed to have an amazing soundstage which is probably why kiteki posted it.  When talking about soundstage on headphones there are many important qualifications.  Pretty much all music is mixed on speakers so it need to be played on speakers to get the soundstage that was mixed into it in the first place.  Headphones are a whole different ballgame.  They loose the assumed acoustic crosstalk between channels and the sound wave interactions with the outer ear are completely different.
   
  Lots of these issues like interaural level and timing differences can't be addressed by a transducer but some can.  The FR can try to compensate for a generic HRTF which can help any headphone.  Full size headphones can also improve soundstage by allowing for more interaction with the listeners own ear since no HRTF is better than your own.  There are probably other tricks that actual experts can pull as well.  Getting a good soundstage from a stereo mix played over headphones is like transcoding a bluray so you can play it on your phone.  You have to change it in a very particular way.
   
  IME, square waves don't really correlate with soundstage though the 300/500hz waves do have a decent correlation with precise imaging.  The size of the stage could probably be measured pretty well but it would be a lot more complicated than just a square wave test.  You'd probably have to play some sort of test signal over a reference level speaker system, record it with a HATS, and compare the same signal played over headphones on the HATS.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> [/]


 
  Indeed, maybe comparing the two square waves with HATS maybe a better method in predicting soundstage. On the other note, oops for mixing Qualia and R10, thought they were the same since they seem so similar.
   
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> [/]
> 
> I mean, we are exposed daily to the sun (ultraviolet poisoning) and the flicker of fluroescent tubes (stress?), and not consciously aware of it, the same could apply to certain techniques in audio.* everyone has been poisoned by noise pollution(listening fatigue,deafness) and bass(skewed response towards neutral phones,many consumers asking for really bass heavy phones)-my opinion*
> 
> [/]


 
  While I think audio in general have ways to improve in measurement technique. Also, on time domain measurements, John Atkinson(hope I spelt his name correct) has documented on Stereophile on measurements with loudspeakers, and while he admits that a speakers with perfect time domain measurements have the edge in imaging, frequency domain measurements play a bigger role in speaker preferences(from the statistics he gathered with the flatter speaker being preferred).
   
  For the gearslutz thread, if you had not read Ethan's responses, do so, it pretty much details what I want to say, which has been repeated too by nwavguy and Self as well a lot. 
   
  For #652 that is why earphones are never EQed to flat but to a certain ear-response, I think we may have some ways(not sure, custom headphones in the future?) to improve on that but since many mastering engineers have been getting good mixes of headphones these days, I think we are close. 
   
  Lastly on non-blind listening, I assumed you read Harmon's article on it? It reveals the flaws inherent on non blind testing. Sighted testing is heavily coloured by perception and other psychological stuffs. I really don't want to go into that as it has been repeated over and over in the other threads.


----------



## AKG240mkII

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> In post #652 here I showed why I don't believe in the totality of measuring acoustic audio,


 
  Who's measuring 'acoustic audio' other than speaker-builders and the like?
  You don't measure a electronic device in the signal-chain by placing microphones in front of a speaker and measure the vibrating air-molecules ('acoustic sound'),
  you measure electrical signals !  You don't believe it's possible to measure if a component changes a calibrated signal ??
  I guess all those frequency-analyzers are all wrong then ..
   
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> If I don't believe that cables make a difference, then I am assuming they are talking out of their ass when it comes to sound and that anything they say is probably worthless!


 
  So, why do you need anyone to tell you what to think when you have already figured it out on your own ?
  You assume correctly, they are and it is !


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> Pretty much all music is mixed on speakers so it need to be played on speakers to get the soundstage that was mixed into it in the first place. Headphones are a whole different ballgame. They loose the assumed acoustic crosstalk between channels and the sound wave interactions with the outer ear are completely different.
> 
> Lots of these issues like interaural level and timing differences can't be addressed by a transducer but some can. The FR can try to compensate for a generic HRTF which can help any headphone. Full size headphones can also improve soundstage by allowing for more interaction with the listeners own ear since no HRTF is better than your own. There are probably other tricks that actual experts can pull as well. Getting a good soundstage from a stereo mix played over headphones is like transcoding a bluray so you can play it on your phone. You have to change it in a very particular way.


 
   
  That's all soundstage in the recording, the illusion of binaural, crossfeed etc.  That's seperate from the natural soundstage / imaging / layering / seperation in an Apple earbud, STAX or $1k custom IEM, which will _vary quite violently_, making them sound like completely different products (fancy that...).
   
  The fact some people try to convince you this effect _doesn't even exist_, i.e. "less psycho-acoustics － more FR / CSD / IR / SWR / isolation / impedace vs phase / THD+N" translation -> "if you hear something which isn't in a textbook or visible in software / hardware, you're hearing voices" is a testimony to the monochromatic vision and pseudo-science in audio at times.
   
   


maverickronin said:


> IME, square waves don't really correlate with soundstage though the 300/500hz waves do have a decent correlation with precise imaging.


 
   
  Then NOS DAC's should result in more precise imaging I imagine, in case you missed it... http://www.nosminidac.nl/sample__squarewave.html
   
  In essence a square-wave is a sound, you can find it in synthetic music like trance and chiptunes.  It seems possible you can assign SWR and IR to imaging quality though I'd like to see a detailed explanation and a list of correlated cases.
   
   


> Originally Posted by *maverickronin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The size of the stage could probably be measured pretty well but it would be a lot more complicated than just a square wave test. You'd probably have to play some sort of test signal over a reference level speaker system, record it with a HATS, and compare the same signal played over headphones on the HATS.


 
   
  Sounds like a good idea!  For sale in January 2040... =p
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> For the gearslutz thread, if you had not read Ethan's responses, do so, it pretty much details what I want to say, which has been repeated too by nwavguy and Self as well a lot.


 
   
  I haven't read all 7 pages yet, on the first page in the sixth post EthanWiner says subliminal advertising is a complete myth, does that sound scientific to you ?!
   
  NwAv is a very clever guy, performs extensive testing with expensive equipment, a level above the rest of the audio nihilists and with more noble intentions for the audio community, still... select parts of what he says or links to are definitely hinting at black/white vision & pseudo-science all the same IME.
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> For #652 that is why earphones are never EQed to flat but to a certain ear-response


 
   
  The ER-4, UERM and LCD-2 are all tailored in FR for different theories on ear response, other headphones like a high-end Audio Technica will be tailored in FR for a theory on music response, the interaction of music and listener (sonic art), let's see what NwAv says on this point... "Music is an emotional art form and some argue music reproduction is also an art.  They argue there’s more to it than just numbers and science.  And, even in my virtual lab coat with virtual pocket protector, I agree."
   
  That's what I tried to illustrate in post #652 where audio deviates from visual.  For example, a useless speaker like in a laptop or TV, even with a flat FR, will sound uninspiring, so you use an equalizer to enhance them.  A nicer sound system, like a car with a quality sub-woofer and titanium tweeters, will sound much nicer with flat FR.  There is science / theory why titanium will sound different than paper (or silk, beryllium, plastic film, et cetera), but_ it doesn't show up in FR or CSD, _you'll only find hints and clues, like X difference, not a total perceptivity of Z / X / C / V difference.  If the text books and software / hardware had total perceptivity, you could look at the data and _reverse_ it, knowing exactly how a system will sound prior to actually listening to it.
   
  In _video_, with a sufficient number of specs and information, I think you'll have a pretty good idea of how a PC monitor or TV will look prior to seeing it.  However, they are 2D, they're all pretty similiar looking (compared to audio devices), and none of them are striving for visual art, i.e. they're all aiming for a perfect lifelike image (afaik).  In audio high-end speakers come the closest to recreating lifelike audio if that's your incentive, headphones and in my view especially IEM's by their nature deviate into an alternate sonic presentation.  I don't have a marble living-room to put a $10,000 sound system in, I like listening to music outside and find the nature of IEM's quite acute, intimate, inspiring and uplifting.
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Lastly on non-blind listening, I assumed you read Harmon's article on it? It reveals the flaws inherent on non blind testing. Sighted testing is heavily coloured by perception and other psychological stuffs. I really don't want to go into that as it has been repeated over and over in the other threads.


 
   
  I haven't read the Harmon article, I've seen it referenced in relation to the (suspect) 0.1 second ABX switch.  I don't think sighted testing is better than blind testing, listening is by it's nature... blind.
  I'm just saying blind testing needs to be advanced and held suspect, not deviate into statistical error, account for the limitations of the total system used, account for the acuity of the participants, account for subliminal processing (_if_ you want to get into differences that subtle).
   
  I mean, if I told you specific visuals from a movie on the right monitor can cause altered consciousness, how do I prove it?  Are you going to dismiss every perception in life which isn't proven on paper yet?  That could take 1000 years.  What if I said playing Tetris can cure PTSD?  If there was no science to support it = dismissed, right?  You have to look at theories with intuition and experience them for yourself.
   
  How about audio/visual input latency on a TV or monitor, that'd be very difficult to ABX to find the human perceptivity threshold, totally system and user acuity dependant.  Can I react to visual cues in less than 225ms?  I don't think so.  Can I sense input latency under 20ms? Yes.  Can a 'golden eye' react to a visual cue much faster than 225ms?  Actually _yes._
   
  The list continues.


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *AKG240mkII* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Who's measuring 'acoustic audio' other than speaker-builders and the like?


 
   
http://sonove.angry.jp/Log.html etc.
   
  Actually you don't build high-end speakers (or pianos, guitars, flutes, whatever) with hardware and software ...
   
   


> Originally Posted by *AKG240mkII* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> You don't measure a electronic device in the signal-chain by placing microphones in front of a speaker and measure the vibrating air-molecules ('acoustic sound'),
> you measure electrical signals ! You don't believe it's possible to measure if a component changes a calibrated signal ??
> I guess all those frequency-analyzers are all wrong then ..


 
   
  I didn't say they're wrong, I said they're... analyzing frequency (hmm...).


----------



## bigshot

dnzgamer said:


> The dilemma here is that if I was to take these reviewers seriously, it would mean that I believe in cables making a difference despite all the empirical and scientific findings... If I don't believe that cables make a difference, then I am assuming they are talking out of their ass when it comes to sound and that anything they say is probably worthless!




There are several clear indications that a reviewer doesn't know what they're talking about. Whenever someone says equipment makes sound more "musical" I know for sure they're full of it. Vague, artistic descriptions of sound mean that the person doesn't have the vocabulary to clearlydescribe sound. Another red flag is lots and lots of numbers and charts with no indication of human thresholds of perception. Numbers don't matter if you can't hear them.

That said, most reviewers online are full of crap. When you find a good one, pay attention.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> That's all soundstage in the recording, the illusion of binaural, crossfeed etc.  That's seperate from the natural soundstage / imaging / layering / seperation in an Apple earbud, STAX or $1k custom IEM, which will _vary quite violently_, making them sound like completely different products (fancy that...).
> 
> The fact some people try to convince you this effect _doesn't even exist_, i.e. "less psycho-acoustics － more FR / CSD / IR / SWR / isolation / impedace vs phase / THD+N" translation -> "if you hear something which isn't in a textbook or visible in software / hardware, you're hearing voices" is a testimony to the monochromatic vision and pseudo-science in audio at times.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Are you going out of your way to misinterpret what I'm saying?  You even responded to what I said about how to measure a headphone's effect on the perception of soundstage but now I'm supposed to be saying that all headphone sound the same.  What?  Seriously I don't know what else to say...
   
  Also, if you're talking about square waves, frequency is pretty important.  It's not like all those nice acoustic square waves on innerfidelity or headroom were fed from an NOS DAC.  The reason square wave tests are useful isn't because music is full of square waves but because they are diagnostic of other traits.  Besides that, how common are actual pure square waves in synthesized music?  I know that many subtractive synthesizers _start _with square waves but how many actually make it through?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Actually you don't build high-end speakers (or pianos, guitars, flutes, whatever) with hardware and software ...


 
   
  High end speakers which act more as pieces of functional art, rather than precision devices, yes. But many many high end speaker builders do use complex mathematics to determine very precise cabinet sizes, port sizes (or horn and waveguide geometries and volumes), not to mention crossover design. 
   
  Pianos too, are very much a science - with some art mixed in, but still science. Luthiers and violin makers are another thing altogether, I agree. But I think anyone would agree that the art of making music (and musical instruments) is more art, than the "art" of reproducing it precisely.


----------



## kiteki

@maverick I may have appeared like I was countering what you wrote, I was just following up on it and the psychoacoustics / hearing voices part wasn't aimed at _you_ sorry._  _I know you don't think they all sound the same / only listen to what's on paper since you own the PFE232 and you were contemplating the EX1000 at one point looking for good soundstage for movies, or even contemplating the FI-BA-SS once iirc, and suggested your speakers->HATS idea.
   
  My viewpoint was aimed at when I mention soundstage (or various other sound characteristics) and people like to pretend 1. it's hidden in FR / CSD / SWR / IR / THD+N, or 2. It doesn't exist / pix plox or it didn't happen / sighted listening = illusion.
   
  My point was if some people's mindset is denying the existence of something as _colossal_ as soundstage, it's no wonder the_ subtle _differences are whisked away into 1 or 2.
   
  It may be annoying to those with an incentive for the position science = totality, especially when audio _is_ littered with inane illusions and fake reviews which would be nice to alt+F4 all the time, but you can't just put on raw data sunglasses and only see forest for it's leaves.
   
   
  Pure square-waves are fairly common in synthetic music, I'll take a screenshot next time I see them...


----------



## bigshot

If you want proper soundstage, get some nice speakers.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> If you want proper soundstage, get some nice speakers.




I have nice speakers, but nothing touches the detail of great headphones. At least not without spending 6 figures.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I haven't read all 7 pages yet, on the first page in the sixth post EthanWiner says subliminal advertising is a complete myth, does that sound scientific to you ?!
> *No comment but in his defence, he is quite the expert on recording audio. I can at least say that whatever he says on audio is pretty true and is peer reviewed in AES.*
> 
> NwAv is a very clever guy, performs extensive testing with expensive equipment, a level above the rest of the audio nihilists and with more noble intentions for the audio community, still... select parts of what he says or links to are definitely hinting at black/white vision & pseudo-science all the same IME.
> ...


 
  Although it looks like it, I'm not a hardcore objectivist, but I really like the objective stand to things since it helps to understand ourselves and audio in general better. Time to get back to my tube amp project.
   
  On soundstage: when has anyone ever denied it? Look at the HD800 and Isone for instance, they are the very example of soundstage and HRFT quantified. Agreed with Bigshot though, nothing beats a nice pair(or 3 cheap ones in my case) for good soundstage.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





magick man said:


> I have nice speakers, but nothing touches the detail of great headphones. At least not without spending 6 figures.


 
  I think this to be quite untrue. I have speakers that though stock were ok have been raised to a level of performance that I could only wish for with headphones & guess what , they didn't cost a fortune. $300 for the stock speakers + $50 in modifications + $250 for sub + $5 for modifications. Mod costs are for parts only, all work done by myself. I prefere the sound of these to any headphones I have ever heard. Not quite as detailed as the ER4P but very very close & have the body that the ER4P lacks thus giving a better you are there feel to the sound. Note though that the ER4P's are excellent headphones that I would compare any other to for accuracyof tone only lacking very slightly compared to my speakers in capuring the body of the sound. My speakers with sub go down lower without sounding in any way bloated.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> If you want proper soundstage, get some nice speakers.


 
  agreed


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

Quote:


magick man said:


> I have nice speakers, but nothing touches the *detail* of great headphones. At least not without spending 6 figures.


 
  Amen to that.
   
  Yes, speakers are clearly better in terms of soundstage because they actually physically put in front of you, and I have not heard a binaural recording or headphone surround solution that manages that... sideways yes, up and down yes, but very little front-back... maybe an expensive solution like the Smyth Realizer actually manages that but I'm not going to put my money on it (esp. since it doesn't bother me much in the first place)
   
  Yes, speakers are clearly better in terms of bass sensation, the lower and louder it gets, the more physical it gets. And headphones only involve the ears... My much-liked LCD-3s have probably as much well-balanced quality bass as headphones can have but yet even small monitors beat them at that.
   
  But in terms of detail, simply by virtue of the speaker being right on your ear insulated from the outside by pads (or even in-ear), they transfer more detail than I have ever heard in any speaker demo (so far). Nothing gets absorbed, reverberated or altered by room acoustics (the biggest and most overlooked factor compared to fancy interconnects etc.) Maybe in a properly treated room with a high-end setup yes (6 figures is a good estimate) but not in a generic living room.
   
  Nothing beats the physicality of speakers and I miss it due to apartment living, but in terms of intimacy, headphones really have it: the slightest inhale, the quietest lip smack, the smallest foot shuffle, the suppressed cough of the guy in the back, the quiet clacks of the sax keys, the fingerslide across the strings, the tickle of the harpsichord keys under the actual note being played...  and unfortunately the slightest hiss, lowest feedback buzz, the whosh of the organ's air pump, worsened "digital glare" & loudness fatigue. Headphones giveth and taketh (enjoyment of your favourite tracks)
   
  Either way, I think both are complementary to me rather than competing (and to be a bit more on topic, IMHO of course, cables come dead last in either in terms of influence on the overall sound quality)


----------



## stv014

Quote:  





> Besides that, how common are actual pure square waves in synthesized music?  I know that many subtractive synthesizers _start _with square waves but how many actually make it through?


 
   
  Pure square waves or other basic waveforms are at best very rare in actual music, synthetic or not, unless it is made with 1980's 8-bit computers. Waveforms in typical synthetic music are complex due to all the filtering and effects applied.


----------



## kiteki

germanium said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > If you want proper soundstage, get some nice speakers.
> ...


 
   
  The soundstage in IEM's is completely different, which is why I always refer to it as soundspace.  It's not recreating a stage.  I'm not very interested in applying binaural algorithms, crossfeed or reverb processing like isotope ozone to IEM's etc.
   
   


firev1 said:


> On soundstage: when has anyone ever denied it? Look at the HD800 and Isone for instance, they are the very example of soundstage and HRFT quantified.


 
   
  See above.  When soundstage comes up, the discussion diverts immediately to reverb processing, like you just did, that is something completely different, and usually someone eventually says soundstage is "only in the recording" or like_ you_ said "visible in square-wave response" which I showed you is not true at all.
   
  The point is for example a custom IEM like the JH11 or UM Miracle has a completely different presentation to, say... Stax SR-404, HD800 etc., it's more interactive like excited fireflies and will make an Audio Technica sound completely thin, which is why I sold my A2000X, even if it did have more source transparency and nice titanium reverb and a positive natural sound for string instrument reference.  One more time, none of this is documented in any software, hardware, papers or textbooks.  You won't find it in CSD no matter how hard you look at it, a completely fruitless pursuit, I know this intuitively by looking at FX500 versus FX700 for example.
   


Spoiler: fx500%20versus%20fx700%20CSD



 

 *HA-FX700　（上：2.5ｍｓレンジ、下24.6msレンジ）*








 *HP-FX500　（上：2.5ｍｓレンジ、下24.6msレンジ）*








   


   
  Like I already pointed out, just because you fell for some fake marketing about euphoric amp's, doesn't mean you should put on monochrome sunglasses and filter out everything else.
   
  I'd venture cheap amp's fulfill 90%+ of their task, and cheap copper cables most likely 97%+.  I don't believe NwAv's conclusion that NE5532 is as transparent as any other op-amp though, the AD797 does sound different and I don't care if he can't find the difference on his dScope or in the .pdf documents, he just has to look harder, or spend his money on more source transparent transducers than his lone HD650, or stop listening to elevator jazz, or 'listening to' what he sees in the .PDF files, etc...
   
   


stv014 said:


> Pure square waves or other basic waveforms are at best very rare in actual music, synthetic or not, unless it is made with 1980's 8-bit computers. Waveforms in typical synthetic music are complex due to all the filtering and effects applied.


 
   
  That's not true, I see them in the oscilloscope in Foobar from time to time, I listen to a lot of synthetic music though.
   
  Can you explain your earlier post how you can 'emulate' a NOS DAC with weak upsampling?  I want to know if the lack of pre-echo, post-ringing and purer square-waves in NOS is real or not.


----------



## Chris J

germanium said:


> agreed




Hey!
I agree too!


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> The point is for example a custom IEM like the JH11 or UM Miracle has a completely different presentation to, say... Stax SR-404, HD800 etc., it's more interactive like excited fireflies and will make an Audio Technica sound completely thin, which is why I sold my A2000X, even if it did have more source transparency and nice titanium reverb and a positive natural sound for string instrument reference.  One more time, none of this is documented in any software, hardware, papers or textbooks.  You won't find it in CSD no matter how hard you look at it, a completely fruitless pursuit, I know this intuitively by looking at FX500 versus FX700 for example.


 
  From what I know, soundstage(or real life hearing) is created by phase and delays in the in the audio to create a sense of space. How Jerry Harvey or the others, I'm not aware but it can be quantified(or at least differentiated in blind).  That is why the bigger your listening room(cinemas or concert halls) the perceived soundstage is very huge, because of phasing between the speakers and our ears. I don't know how phasing is optimised in IEMs but Jerry Harvey always mentions how adjusting phase for something like the JH16 can be very difficult. The way our outer ears and inner ears interface with sound very very differently which explains why CIEMs are different from Headphones. 
   
  And the main reason why soundstage ALWAYS diverts to reverb processing, because soundstage IS made by reverb, no reverb, no soundstage. I explained in the earlier post, how soundstage is made in recordings.
   
  I have also explained how soundstage, or accurate imaging to say, can be told in part by square waves(which are a infinite summation of sine waves like music) because of the time domain through. CSD from what I know, just looks at the phenomenal of delayed acoustic resonances, I don't really know how to read one though. 
   
  Anyways, why be quick to refute the science of audio when it is with measurements, guys like JH and the people at Stax and Sennheiser can create something so good?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Pure square waves or other basic waveforms are at best very rare in actual music, synthetic or not, unless it is made with *1980's 8-bit computers*. Waveforms in typical synthetic music are complex due to all the filtering and effects applied.


 
   
Chiptune...


----------



## Magick Man

germanium said:


> I think this to be quite untrue. I have speakers that though stock were ok have been raised to a level of performance that I could only wish for with headphones & guess what , they didn't cost a fortune. $300 for the stock speakers + $50 in modifications + $250 for sub + $5 for modifications. Mod costs are for parts only, all work done by myself. I prefere the sound of these to any headphones I have ever heard. Not quite as detailed as the ER4P but very very close & have the body that the ER4P lacks thus giving a better you are there feel to the sound. Note though that the ER4P's are excellent headphones that I would compare any other to for accuracyof tone only lacking very slightly compared to my speakers in capuring the body of the sound. My speakers with sub go down lower without sounding in any way bloated.



I'm sure they sound nice, but there's no way, at all, they can touch high end stats in terms of detail.


----------



## bigshot

firev1 said:


> From what I know, soundstage(or real life hearing) is created by phase and delays in the in the audio to create a sense of space.




That's artificial soundstage. Real soundstage is created by the careful placement of microphones, with the intent of preserving the dimensional spread of instruments in front of the listener. You can't get real soundstage by potting left and right and adding slight reverb tweaks.


----------



## bigshot

magick man said:


> I'm sure they sound nice, but there's no way, at all, they can touch high end stats in terms of detail.




Detail isn't the goal with speakers, natural presentation is. Headphones and speakers are like the difference between looking at a painting from three inches away with a magnifying glass, and looking at it from eight feet away as it hangs on the wall of a gallery with perfect lighting. The magnifying glass may show more detail, but it doesn't represent the totality of the image.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> That's artificial soundstage. Real soundstage is created by the careful placement of microphones, with the intent of preserving the dimensional spread of instruments in front of the listener. You can't get real soundstage by potting left and right and adding slight reverb tweaks.


 
  I was referring to the headphones/ IEMs definition of soundstage creation. Otherwise if you look at my previous post on recording with mics, I did explain how real soundstage is created. In real life, we get a sense of of space by the phasing of sound and diffusion of sound as it reaches the ears.


----------



## bigshot

Soundstage is a term that is almost always used incorrectly around here. It isn't the same as sound placement in a mix. Soundstage is pretty complex, using a bunch of psychoacoustic principles. Reflected sound, left right placement, phase, frequency response, reverberation dynamics, everything comes into play to create a realistic spread in front of the listener. It's the auditory equivalent of perspective in art.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> From what I know, soundstage(or real life hearing) is created by phase and delays in the in the audio to create a sense of space.


 
   
  And further aided by the delayed crossover hearing from left to right (that is, your left ear hears data from the right speaker slightly later - and visa versa). Something crossfeed tries to emulate in headphone listening which otherwise unnaturally segregates the channels.


----------



## kiteki

firev1 said:


> And the main reason why soundstage ALWAYS diverts to reverb processing, because soundstage IS made by reverb, no reverb = no soundstage. I explained in the earlier post, how soundstage is made in recordings.


 
   
  Listen to a mono signal (with no reverb or processing), from a Nintendo with pure square waves, on an Apple earbud, a STAX SR-009, an HD800, and in a cinema with 7.1 surround 800W speakers... and JH Audio JH16, Skullcandy Aviator and...
   
  ...let me know how they sound to you.
   


Spoiler: -



??


   
   


firev1 said:


> CSD from what I know, just looks at the phenomenal of delayed acoustic resonances, I don't really know how to read one though.


 
   
  You don't even need to know how to read one, the JVC FX500 and FX700 which I linked look very similar in CSD (and FR) ... at first I thought they must have the exact same driver ...
   
   


firev1 said:


> Anyways, why be quick to refute the science of audio when it is with measurements, guys like JH and the people at Stax and Sennheiser can create something so good?


 
   
I am very interested in audio science! + blind listening, it's advancement, and the reality, transparency and art of sound.
   
  I'm avert to fake science, especially when it's gushing in spades, cherry picking, or pretending audio science = complete / total / finished in 2012!
   
  Stax and JH used measurements and data, yes...
   
  Look, there's all kinds of data, it's not skin deep, and you need intuition and creativity _in order to invent something to measure _in the first place.
   
  Complete random example, titanium sounds better than plastic, I don't care if it's not visible in FR or an ABX test, it _just - sounds - better_, you find the truth first and look for the data later, the _so called_ objectivists believe in _data first and truth later, _it's like a bear trying to find honey in Alaska.
   
  If you want to assert the sound of titanium is expectation bias, psychoacoustic, overpriced, shill reviews, etc... then uh, good luck with the honey 'k.
   
   


firev1 said:


> > A lot of what he says is pretty true and is peer reviewed in AES.


 
   
  So peer review in AES is your qualifier?  I'll assume you believe in this then - http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> John Atkinsons article on Measuring Loudspeakers yet? /// Look at Harmon's Dr Sean Olive's AES presentations


 
   
  It's taking me too long to find them, do you mean this? http://seanolive.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
   
  I don't even need to read that, everyone knows sighted listening is less accurate.
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> As many have said or studied before, fast time switches eliminate subliminal processing, maybe long periods and short period testings should be used instead? I'm not one to talk to on psychoacoustics.


 
   
  No they don't, smell two similar perfumes very quickly and they'll smell 'very' similar. Smell coffee inbetween and they'll smell more different, so a break, or coffee interval, will have more successful results in ABX, at the very least, _in theory._
   
  So_, _is there any reason an ABX _has_ to be under 0.1 second switching, if a 6 second switch is, err... more difficult? The 0.1 second switch will hear differences in intensity (volume) and frequency deviations much more precisely. As usual, I don't see why this should be extended to _all_ sound characteristics, especially when the test is volume matched and listening to components with identical FR_ already._
   
   


> _kiteki_
> 
> I mean, if I told you specific visuals from a movie on the right monitor can cause altered consciousness, how do I prove it? Are you going to dismiss every perception in life which isn't proven on paper yet? That could take 1000 years. What if I said playing Tetris can cure PTSD? If there was no science to support it = dismissed, right? You have to look at theories with intuition and experience them for yourself.
> 
> ...


 
   
  You didn't answer what I said on visuals causing altered consciousness, tetris and PTSD, input latency ABX, and human reaction times.
   
  To unknowing customers, you just need to indicate which devices change the sound, if the effects are very subtle, or violent, what the price / performance ratio is like in different areas, I do that all the time.  For example studio headphones like Fostex T50RP, Sony CD900ST, KRK KNS 6400 and Shure SRH-940 all seem to have good price / performance ratio with vivid differences.
   
  If I told you cables and amps had vivid differences then I'm lying... OK, so a lot of companies are lying, so?  Then I should lie via pseudo-science instead?


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> Detail isn't the goal with speakers, natural presentation is. Headphones and speakers are like the difference between looking at a painting from three inches away with a magnifying glass, and looking at it from eight feet away as it hangs on the wall of a gallery with perfect lighting. The magnifying glass may show more detail, but it doesn't represent the totality of the image.




He's the one that claimed his speaker setup was more detailed than the best headphones, I was simply pointing out that he's incorrect.


----------



## bigshot

Good speakers are more accurate than the best headphones.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> Good speakers are more accurate than the best headphones.




Not without spending much more on the speakers.


----------



## bigshot

kiteki said:


> is there any reason an ABX _has_ to be under 0.1 second switching, if a 6 second switch is, err... more difficult?




If you're talking about a time gap between samples, the answer is a psychoacoustic principle called "auditory memory". Human ability to compare similar sounds drops like a stone after a few seconds. The best way to compare is with level matched A/B switching.


----------



## bigshot

magick man said:


> Not without spending much more on the speakers.




Quite true. $100 headphones sound better than $100 speakers, but multiply that by ten and it's the other way around.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





magick man said:


> I'm sure they sound nice, but there's no way, at all, they can touch high end stats in terms of detail.


 
  Having more detail does not nessessarily make for better or more realistic sound. I have never really been all that impressed by electrostats myself. Yes they sound nice but do they sound real? To me the answer has been no. Speakers done right still sound more real to me. Listening to live instruments & comparing the sound of the live instruments to recordings of the same instruments without undue proccessing is the only way to tell for sure if the sound your getting isn't just nice because of the earphones or speakers editorializing of if the sound is truely accurate to the live sound. My speakers passed that test for me.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> Quite true. $100 headphones sound better than $100 speakers, but multiply that by ten and it's the other way around.




I don't want to argue, I really don't. However, there are no speakers that have ESP/950 levels of detail for $700, same goes for HD800s for $1500. IMO, the same holds true for STAX 007/009s at $2500 and $4500, respectively. I have revealing monitors, specifically B&W N802s, and they can't compete with my STAX in that way. However, they do smash them in soundstage (compared to "headstage") and presence. The _1812 Overture_ may be engaging with my stats, but it's visceral and almost bone-jarring with the N802s. I see them as two different tools for two different needs.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Quite true. $100 headphones sound better than $100 speakers, but multiply that by ten and it's the other way around.


 
  I will agree with that. The sad thing is is that relatively low cost speakers can perform quite well given good amplification but agreed that at 100 dollars that just isn't going to happen & usually at that price the drivers aren't even capable of good sound let alone great sound. The good thing is you don't have to go much higher to get good speakers that will leave most headphones behind.


----------



## kiteki

> If you're talking about a time gap between samples, the answer is a psychoacoustic principle called "auditory memory". Human ability to compare similar sounds drops like a stone after a few seconds. The best way to compare is with level matched A/B switching.


 
   
  Not proven.  The 0.1 switch could introduce an illusion, especially in time-aligned + level-match, see perfume example.  You need to test with a 0.1 space and several second space, or the participants choice.
   
  Interesting that 24 bit / 88.2 kHz content was discernable with a 0.75 second switch, a lot longer than 0.1.  Foobar needs different kinds of ABX in the comparator, and a random USB switching device too, so we can connect two DAC's at once into the same amplifier etc.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Complete random example, titanium sounds better than plastic, I don't care if it's not visible in FR or an ABX test, it _just - sounds - better_, you find the truth first and look for the data later, the _so called_ objectivists believe in _data first and truth later, _it's like a bear trying to find honey in Alaska.


 
   
  Care to explain to how anyone could actually _know _that and not just _believe _it?


----------



## mike1127

This debate is often framed as the one side (let's say the "standard skeptic/scientist/sound engineer") is interested in evidence and the other side has no evidence.
   
  Measurements are a big part of the evidence. But if you look carefully at where measurements come from, you will see that any measurement takes place by modeling the system. A model is never reality. The question is: how close does the model come to reality?
   
  To my way of perceiving things, the main evidence that the model fails is that analog is supposed to be less accurate than digital, when to my ears analog is more accurate. I don't think there's much dispute that analog and digital can sound noticeably different... but the "standard skeptic/scientist/etc." says that I like the euphonic distortions whereas I say it's more accurate.


----------



## jcx

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> ...To my way of perceiving things, the main evidence that the model fails is that analog is supposed to be less accurate than digital, when to my ears analog is more accurate. I don't think there's much dispute that analog and digital can sound noticeably different... but the "standard skeptic/scientist/etc." says that I like the euphonic distortions whereas I say it's more accurate.


 
   
  the only way to really cleanly test this is to put a SOTA ADC+DAC in line with your favored analog source - can you tell when its switched in or out?
   
  most analog vs digital source comparisons do not have the same mastering  - they simply aren't the same recording - has been shown to be the case even on some SACD/Hybrid where both are digital
   
  another issue is if they aren't precisely level matched - really needs a ADC in there somewhere to measure level/frequency response


----------



## bigshot

Why do people insist on counting fractions of seconds and setting up convoluted tests. Just balance the levels using a preamp and switch the line input back and forth and see if you hear a difference. If you have trouble discerning a difference, it doesn't matter. Move on to something that does.


----------



## bigshot

magick man said:


> I don't want to argue, I really don't. However, there are no speakers that have ESP/950 levels of detail for $700, same goes for HD800s for $1500.




You aren't reading my replies. I didn't say detail. I said accuracy in presentation. Speakers sound more like the way the band sounded in the studio. Headphones exaggerate detail at the expense of accuracy, soundstage and presence.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> To my way of perceiving things, the main evidence that the model fails is that analog is supposed to be less accurate than digital, when to my ears analog is more accurate.




That is an easy one to disprove. Take the best analogue recording you can find, capture it to digital using a high quality capture device, burn it to CD and do a line level matched A/B comparison between the original analogue recording and the CD copy.

I've done this test. Guess what? No difference.

Accuracy depends on the frequency response balance, dynamics and distortion in the *music*, not the format it's recorded on. A 24 track master recorded at 15ips sounds fantastic. So do CDs. same same.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> You aren't reading my replies. I didn't say detail. I said accuracy in presentation. Speakers sound more like the way the band sounded in the studio. Headphones exaggerate detail at the expense of accuracy, soundstage and presence.




I was talking about detail with someone else and I said, "headphones are more detailed". You're trying to argue about issues that I wasn't arguing in the first place. :rolleyes:

Whether you want to say "headphones exaggerate detail" is irrelevant, they *are* more detailed. I enjoy the way headphones reproduce audio, and imagine most other people around here do too. Otherwise, the majority of us wouldn't spend so much time and money on them and head-fi.org probably wouldn't exist.


----------



## kiteki

bigshot said:


> Why do people insist on counting fractions of seconds and setting up convoluted tests. Just balance the levels using a preamp and switch the line input back and forth and see if you hear a difference. If you have trouble discerning a difference, it doesn't matter. Move on to something that does.


 
   
  Very subtle differences can be more important than they appear at first glance, which is why I used subliminal examples like Tetris and PTSD, visuals like fluroescent lights causing stress, etc.
   
  If you are looking for vivid differences and speaker accuracy, then OK, but some of us are looking for purity, have you noticed how many use FLAC/lossless?  An old ABX study failed to find the difference between 256kbps MP2 and FLAC, that doesn't mean the difference isn't there, hm?  I am looking for purity, higher resolution, _truths_, etc.
   
  Your comments on speaker (extreme) presence, accuracy in presentation and realistic sound-stage are correct, and these are vivid differences.  Some people confuse what's subtle and what's vivid, and become disenchanted by taking the subtle path or marketing path into nothingness, so their reaction is suddenly "It all sounds the same, audio is the medicinal equivalent of sugar pills to treat depression and they are throwing their money into the river LOL" wrx.


----------



## kiteki

Magick Man, I have not heard electrostatic speakers, but electrostatic headphones have a different experience in soundstage (or what I call soundspace) than speakers at the same price level.
   
  Likewise, I think custom IEM's have a very different experience in soundspace / imaging / layering (= detail in a sense) than an LCD-2 at the same price.
   
  So what we have at the $1000 mark is speakers, STAX, LCD-2 and custom IEM's, all with a_ very different presentation.  _If science can't show me these differences, then it needs to _keep looking._  I won't accept CSD / SWR / IR / THD+N or anything like that until it's _correlated to the listening experience / data.  _I don't accept random pseudo-science theories from thin air, like pure square-waves from a Nintendo = imaging.  That, alon with impulse response, seem like okay intuive _theories_, however they don't have any scientific _data_.  So I'm not sure why people are complaining that I'm acting anti-science here.


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > Complete random example, titanium sounds better than plastic, I don't care if it's not visible in FR or an ABX test, it _just - sounds - better_, you find the truth first and look for the data later, the _so called_ objectivists believe in _data first and truth later, _it's like a bear trying to find honey in Alaska.
> ...


 
   
  That bears eat honey?


----------



## Magick Man

I. wasn't. arguing. about. soundstage.

Damn, this is actually starting to make me laugh. It's very funny.


----------



## kiteki

Okay, you said detail, the discussion is revolving around science & soundspace.  I think detail and soundstage is a bit intertwined, anyway if we assess detail alone, can you prove that STAX have more detail, with science?


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Magick Man, I have not heard electrostatic speakers, but electrostatic headphones have a different experience in soundstage (or what I call soundspace) than speakers at the same price level.
> 
> Likewise, I think custom IEM's have a very different experience in soundspace / imaging / layering (= detail in a sense) than an LCD-2 at the same price.
> 
> So what we have at the $1000 mark is speakers, STAX, LCD-2 and custom IEM's, all with a_ very different presentation.  _If science can't show me these differences, then it needs to _keep looking._  I won't accept CSD / SWR / IR / THD+N or anything like that until it's _correlated to the listening experience / data.  _I don't accept random pseudo-science theories from thin air, like pure square-waves from a Nintendo = imaging.  That, alon with impulse response, seem like okay intuive _theories_, however they don't have any scientific _data_.  So I'm not sure why people are complaining that I'm acting anti-science here.


 
  My teachers used to always tell, making music is math and to make out anything out of data is require's some analysis. It is true that many got creative to achieve ground breaking headphones, but it is almost usually verified by measurements TOGETHER with listening test. Square wave or the other test looks at fidelity to the source in a electrical method, our brains ain't AP analysers and can't decipher the data the way a scope does. Don't believe in HAT models? Binaural would not exist without it(together with that superb imaging). I think the current HATs models and AP analysers are necessary and able to somewhat(not totally) correlate with listening data, or else why sound engineers choose them if its pseudo-science as you said? There may have been new perceptual models used my audio engineers to test products that I may not be aware of though it is possible that they are a lot more accurate in THD and IMD in relating results to subjective evaluation. Never hurt to have accurate gear though.
   
  Have you read the story of the Yamaha NS-1? It's a great example of how a speaker that was unpopular with the consumer market back in the day managed to make its way to top studios, as it measured well in terms of group delay(phase). It was measured after quite some time since its inception into the speaker market. If you don't accept IR and SWR theories(since both are interrelated*), I guess stuff like NOS/SACD/192khz has no real case either, all seem like pseudo science after all. 
   
  Also for the 44.1khz and 88.2khz paper, if you read the paper, DAC performance maybe playing a part(lack of preference for 44.1khz native vs 44.1khz downsampled and the troubling statistics analysis) 
   
  As for titanium vs plastic, I think metals sound better too, plastics just don't have the stiffness of titanium. Keep in mind the natural frequency of metals are vastly different from plastic. I do like nice old paper cone drivers though. 
   
  For speakers vs headphones vs IEMs, they all interact with the ear differently. Headphones are more head size and position dependent, a slight shift could really upset that nice tonal balance unlike IEMs, I don't really like something sticking in my ear though(I has no customs) I think though, given a good budget of 10k(or even just 5k or less) for either SR-009 system(or other flagship system) or a good pair of monitors, I will always head for the latter. Even with my low-mid fi system(the R2000Ts), they give serious detail when setup with proper EQ and good soundstage. Even something like my NAD system will give serious detail with proper acoustic treatment (I once pissed my family of clearing the living room to setup them up properly, since then I used them sparingly in my room lol)
   
  Edit: Looking forward to anyone peer reviewing the paper though, since one other paper seems to have contradicting results in terms of high-res formats is concerned.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Are you going out of your way to misinterpret what I'm saying?  You even responded to what I said about how to measure a headphone's effect on the perception of soundstage but now I'm supposed to be saying that all headphone sound the same.  What?  Seriously I don't know what else to say...


 
   
  I just decided to stop saying anything.
   
  se


----------



## kiteki

firev1 are you even reading my answers?  Like in post #684?  I've given you clear examples which you averted, and now you've resorted to twisting what I've said.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> Have you read the story of the Yamaha NS-1? It's a great example of how a speaker that was unpopular with the consumer market back in the day managed to make its way to top studios, as it measured well in terms of group delay(phase). It was measured after quite some time since its inception into the speaker market. If you don't accept IR and SWR theories(since both are interrelated*), I guess stuff like NOS/SACD/192khz has no real case either, all seem like pseudo science after all.


 
   
  Not trying to start an argument, but on the whole, most people (including recording engineers) think that the NS-1 sounds terrible.
  They are really just a tool to help a mix engineer (not a recording engineer or mastering engineer) pull a mix together.


----------



## bigshot

kiteki said:


> Very subtle differences can be more important than they appear at first glance,.




There are huge issues in achieving great sound and there are minute ones. Too many audiophools focus on differences that only exist on paper and avoid dealing with the things that really do matter.

If you want really good sound, get really good speakers, set up your listening room well, and equalize to correct for response imbalances. Those are the things that really matter, but most people don't do that.


----------



## bigshot

kiteki said:


> So what we have at the $1000 mark is speakers, STAX, LCD-2 and custom IEM's, all with a _very different presentation. _ If science can't show me these differences, then it needs to _keep looking._




You're making it way too complicated for yourself. You don't need science at all, just your ears.

Here's what you should do... Go to a chamber music concert. Sit fourth row center and pay attention to how it sounds. Afterwards, come home and put on a well recorded CD of a strong quartet. Listen to it on a good speaker setup, and with various headphones. Choose the one that sounds most like the live concert you attended.

I know what you'll end up choosing... the same thing engineers and sound mixers all use.


----------



## bigshot

chris j said:


> Not trying to start an argument, but on the whole, most people (including recording engineers) think that the NS-1 sounds terrible.
> They are really just a tool to help a mix engineer (not a recording engineer or mastering engineer) pull a mix together.




Every studio I've ever worked in used JBL studio monitors and they sounded fantastic when calibrated to the room.


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> My teachers used to always tell, making music is math


 
   
  Not sure if you're joking.  So anyway, you mean like 16 year olds that skip every math class and become very successful / talented musicians? 
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It is true that many got creative to achieve ground breaking headphones, but it is almost usually verified by measurements TOGETHER with listening test.


 
   
  That's exactly what I wrote?  "Stax and JH used measurements and data, yes... － Look, there's all kinds of data, it's not skin deep, and you need intuition and creativity _in order to invent something to measure_ in the first place."
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Don't believe in HAT models? Binaural would not exist without it(together with that superb imaging). I think the current HATs models and AP analysers are necessary and able to somewhat(not totally) correlate with listening data, or else why sound engineers choose them if its pseudo-science as you said?


 
   
  - I never said I don't believe in HAT models.
  - binaural in HATS has nothing to do with the imaging I presented to you very clearly.
  - I never said HAT models are pseudo-science.
  - You haven't presented any correlation to listening data, I presented the FX500 versus FX700 CSD as an example, I also presented the Qualia 010, Shure SE535, Sony MDR-7550 and Audeze LCD-3 in post #653, I have several more and I've elucidated what I've called pseudo-science, you're twisting it to say I'm calling HATS models pseudo-science ー then why am I looking at sites like http://sonove.angry.jp all the time.
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> There may have been new perceptual models used my audio engineers to test products that I may not be aware of though it is possible that they are a lot more accurate in THD and IMD in relating results to subjective evaluation.


 
   
  That isn't scientific data.  I looked at the Harman study of relating a speaker with flat FR to speakers with deviated FR to teenagers from America and Japan and their listening impressions favoured the flat FR model.
   
  That makes sense since flat FR is desirable, however the speakers were different models, what if the flat FR speaker just sounds better, like the STAX SR-009 does?  What if I showed the teenagers the Sony MDR-EX700 versus the EX1000?  We already have the listening data on this one actually.
   





   
   
  You missed the point on laptop speakers and TV speakers versus a car audio system with a quality sub-woofer and titanium tweeters.
   
  If I equalized the car audio system to look shocking in FR, and equalized my laptop speakers to look as flat as possible... which one sounds better to you?
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Have you read the story of the Yamaha NS-1? It's a great example of how a speaker that was unpopular with the consumer market back in the day managed to make its way to top studios, as it measured well in terms of group delay(phase). It was measured after quite some time since its inception into the speaker market. If you don't accept IR and SWR theories(since both are interrelated*), I guess stuff like NOS/SACD/192khz has no real case either, all seem like pseudo science after all.


 
   
  I accept IR and SWR, I don't accept the unverified theories surrounding them, until you can link to some evidence, that's called science, isn't it?
  NOS/SACD/192kHz is for a different thread.
   
  I accept that a transducer with a perfect SWR is truer to the source, and thus more accurate, however not sure exactly where the accuracy lies, for my intuitive / spatial conclusion on what square-waves should represent, and for data such as...
   







   
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Also for the 44.1khz and 88.2khz paper, if you read the paper, DAC performance maybe playing a part(lack of preference for 44.1khz native vs 44.1khz downsampled and the troubling statistics analysis)


 
   
  Yes I read the analysis, not the entire paper yet, the statistics aren't perfect however...
   
  "Collapsed results of all 16 subjects showed significant different for 88.2 vs native 44.1 Orchestral excerpt (p =.01)"
   
  This study isn't perfect however it is at the very least more scientific and intact than the Meyer & Moran study, where I have read the entire paper and statistical post-analysis.
   
  For example check post #139 here - http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/42987//y?page=14, this thread is directly interactive with the author of the test.
   
  The Meyer & Moran study uses flawed logic to 'prove' the transparency of the A/D/A (A/DC->D/AC) transfer as well.  If anything, if the A/D/A transfer is totally transparent, then they could have devised an A/D/A/D/A/D/A/D/A/D/A/D/A/D/A/D/A transfer with total transparency.
   
_However..._ the results would still be subject to the transparency of the playback system (no transducer is totally transparent, they all instill their own sound into the final signal), the participants acuity, and the blind testing setup ー which I've covered earlier in this thread, with examples like the perfume switch... and... how to ABX fluroescent lamps?  How to ABX UVA/UVC light?  How to ABX a visual which changes consciousness?  How to ABX Tetris versus PTSD?  How to ABX audio/visual input latency?  How to find human reaction speed?  How to account for pattern identification? etc.
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> As for titanium vs plastic, I think metals sound better too,


 
   
  Then you've made a human listening evaluation, show me why titanium has more detail / velocity / shine whatever in the FR / SWR / IR, etc!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> So what we have at the $1000 mark is speakers, STAX, LCD-2 and custom IEM's, all with a_ very different presentation.  _If science can't show me these differences, then it needs to _keep looking._  *(Agree)* I won't accept CSD / SWR / IR / THD+N or anything like that until it's _correlated to the listening experience / data. _*(Agree with the caveat below)*_  _I don't accept random pseudo-science theories from thin air, like pure square-waves from a Nintendo = imaging.  *(Agree)* That, alon with impulse response, seem like okay intuive _theories_, however they don't have any scientific _data_.* (Agree - but if they mesh with predicted behavior, should be investigated not dismissed)* So I'm not sure why people are complaining that I'm acting anti-science here.


 
   
  I actually don't disagree with you in principle here. I agree, we need more data, and correlation to listener experience with the measurement data we do have will be important. However, we do not yet have that correlation (that I know of - certainly not demonstrated here - though we do have many good theories on how they are applied), and we do have ample data that listener experience is highly variable and subject to many biases and flaws from a scientific standpoint. 
   
  So in the meantime - do we simply ignore the objective data we do have? Simply because we are not yet able to say with certainty what it means? That leaves us with nothing (user experience being too unreliable).
   
  The scientific view, would be to keep collecting the data, and then develop a theory that explains the data we have (and offers predictive value) - then experiment to test the hypothesis and see. Not to walk away from it until it is 100% proven. 
   
  We say you are being anti-science here because you are looking for an answer, not a process. Science is a process, and can offer insight and useful tools, even before it "knows" the answer you are looking for.


----------



## kiteki

> You're making it way too complicated for yourself. You don't need science at all, just your ears.
> 
> Here's what you should do... Go to a chamber music concert. Sit fourth row center and pay attention to how it sounds. Afterwards, come home and put on a well recorded CD of a strong quartet. Listen to it on a good speaker setup, and with various headphones. Choose the one that sounds most like the live concert you attended.


 
   
  That's why I bought the Audio Technica A2000X because that's exactly what the listener did.  Your posts are all making sense to me however I like the differences which I can't find on paper and subtle differences which you whisk off, like information above 16kHz?  Plus, I like the sonics of IEM's (however feel free to recommend a pair of bookshelf speakers with pristine crystal clarity)...
   
  The pseudo-science clientele are saying "paper first, truth later", clearly they are looking for honey in Alaska.
   
  You need to experience audio for yourself and then pinpoint the experience on paper.  Maverickronin attested he has heard an inherent soundstage in speaker / HP / IEM's seperate from the audio signal, and devised a theory of reference speaker->HATS to possibly find it on paper in the future,
   
so... a vivid difference is okay for him, a subtle difference needs evidence first?
   
  If there is no scientific evidence of something so colossal, no paper or correlation to listening anywhere, then how can audio science at the same time cover all the very slight differences?
   
?


----------



## liamstrain

http://www.alaskabirchsyrup.com/rawalwiho1lb.html
   
  Alaskan honey. Not sure how that came to be the analogy.


----------



## bigshot

kiteki said:


> You need to experience audio for yourself and then pinpoint the experience on paper.




You've got that exactly backwards. The idea is to understand how sound works first, then do the listening to try to identify the things you've read about. If you had done that, you would know exactly what sound above 16kHz sounds like and just how subtle subtle is. If you listen first and try to chase down what you heard, you'll go down a rabbit hole of a dozen different explanations and not know which one is what you're actually hearing.


----------



## kiteki

Jeez, I'll ABX 16kHz+ for you, it's _very_ easy.


----------



## bigshot

Not test tones. Music. Listen to what sort of information there is above 16kHz in music. I think you'll be surprised.


----------



## kiteki

Yeah anyway I'll ABX it with music and I _don't_ have it backwards, pseudo-science has it backwards, I listen first and go down the rabbit hole that's exactly how real science works.
   
  I mean for example subliminal advertising existed long before it was proved, that's rabbit hole territory right?, and the pseudo-science audio avengers on their high horse of sine-waves and voltage levels would say "subliminal advertising is complete nonsense" <-- until you can ABX it. <-- which is impossible <-- lol.


----------



## maverickronin

What does subliminal advertising have to do with _anything_ we're discussing here...


----------



## germanium

I find it kind of funny that some of the same people that claim to hear a difference with different programs playing the same files at the same resolution can sound different but cables can't even though there is scientific reasons for the cables to potentially sound different in some cases & there not being any scientific reason for the programs to sound different at all. To my ears I don't hear any difference between programs but do on cables under the circumstances I mentioned earlier in this thread.
   
  Sound cards buffer the samples & release data acording to a local usually high precision clock. The DAC's themselves convert the samples from PCM to a bitstream of much higher clock speed which is at minumum 64X thus making the DAC pretty much impervious to input jitter. All data on the computer is sent in bursts with completely unrelated timing to the sample rate & at several times the speed of the sample rate in most cases (USB1.0 excepted & even that is sent in bursts but just barely faster than the sample rate). Samples are then buffered at the soundcard & released according to the local clock. The program sould not be able to affect the sound unless it doesn't keep the buffer full or tries to overfill the buffer in which case you will gett hickups in the sound which will be obvious. As long as the buffer is properly maintained there should be no difference in sound. Yet many of you posting in this thread claim to be able to hear a difference with different programs but can't seem to conceive of the possabilty that someone could possably hear the difference in different cable designs. I find that mighty strange indeed since my experience has been exactly opposite.
   
  Will I be able to in every case pass a ABX test on this ? No but I'm sure that there are certain portions of songs that I would be able to accurately identify the correct cable with at least 75% accuracy given the right conditions. Those being hgh output impedance source & comparing low capacitance to high capacitance cables. I know the types of sound they cause under those conditions. Super high resolution monitoring is required though to reveal it though, not your average setup.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> there not being any scientific reason for the programs to sound different at all


 
   
  There is actually some reason - having to with 1. the decoding and transmit algorythms used (especially for compressed formats), as well as the integration with the operating systems sound components and resource allocation (internal memory, in particular). 
   
  It's not night and day, but there is good theory behind at least some limited sound differences. 
   
  Cables - with very few exceptions, however have much more limited capability to affect sound, and almost never the way they are commonly spoken of here - especially digital cables.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> there not being any scientific reason for the programs to sound different at all





   
  There is actually some reason - having to with 1. the decoding and transmit algorythms used (especially for compressed formats), and 2. the integration with the operating systems sound components and resource allocation (internal memory, in particular). 
   
  It's not night and day, but there is good theory behind at least some limited sound differences. 
   
  Cables - with very few exceptions, however have much more limited capability to affect sound, and almost never the way they are commonly spoken of here - especially digital cables.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> A 24 track master recorded at 15ips sounds fantastic. So do CDs. same same.


 
  Not to my ears. Generally speaking an analog format is far more accurate, although both formats can vary in quality. That's the way my brain hears it. Obviously our brains process sound in different ways, if you think that CDs are essentially the same quality as good analog.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Not sure if you're joking.  So anyway, you mean like 16 year olds that skip every math class and become very successful / talented musicians?
> *Not kidding, even if you are not into math, music has math inherent all over it.*
> 
> That's exactly what I wrote?  "Stax and JH used measurements and data, yes... － Look, there's all kinds of data, it's not skin deep, and you need intuition and creativity _in order to invent something to measure_ in the first place."
> ...


 
   
   
  Quote: 





chris j said:


> Not trying to start an argument, but on the whole, most people (including recording engineers) think that the NS-1 sounds terrible.
> They are really just a tool to help a mix engineer (not a recording engineer or mastering engineer) pull a mix together.


 
  I actually thought it was a really mixed bag with them. Some still seem to love them though.


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> What does subliminal advertising have to do with _anything_ we're discussing here...


 
   
  Saying "What" instead of explaining your stance in post #715 is not helping your case at all.
   
  Subliminal advertising is an example of something which was not evidenced and not even possible to ABX, so my question is, does that render it _untrue?_
   
_(firev1 will answer your post later can't type on h-f all day)_


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Subliminal advertising is an example of something which was not evidenced and not even possible to ABX, so my question is, does that render it _untrue?_


 
   
  There is nothing preventing it from being tested via other methods. DBT, for one. With large sample sizes, and good control groups, there are many ways to test the effectiveness of subliminal advertising.


----------



## Magick Man

kiteki said:


> Okay, you said detail, the discussion is revolving around science & soundspace.  I think detail and soundstage is a bit intertwined, anyway if we assess detail alone, can you prove that STAX have more detail, with science?




I probably could look around and find something, but I don't feel like it. Unless you're going to sit with your ears pressed against your monitors, headphones are going to provide more detail. Is that natural? Dunno, don't care. I like the small subtle things you can find, like the soft brush of fingers on strings, the faint sound of a pedal depression, the flick of a switch as a guitarist changes to the bridge pickup. All of those things add to the scene and flesh out a performance. 

Speakers have their place, as do headphones. If you love music you likely use them both, if not then you're missing out on part of the experience.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> That's the way my brain hears it. Obviously our brains process sound in different ways,




I try to listen with my ears. I don't make up my mind how things sound without them. I know that's the exception when it comes to folks in this thread.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> There is nothing preventing it from being tested via other methods. DBT, for one. With large sample sizes, and good control groups, there are many ways to test the effectiveness of subliminal advertising.


 
   
  I doubt any researcher is interested in DBT anymore for cables and audio products. Its solely a consumer business, I don't see there's any point in proving it, but there's certainly a big benefit in using the understanding of placebo and acoustic theory to make money.


----------



## Chris J

firev1 said:


> I actually thought it was a really mixed bag with them. Some still seem to love them though.




I know this isn't very "scientific", but I have only met one person who says they liked the sound of them.
She was a professional singer.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I try to listen with my ears. I don't make up my mind how things sound without them. I know that's the exception when it comes to folks in this thread.


 
  Are you saying you don't have an auditory cortex attached to your ears?


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Are you saying you don't have an auditory cortex attached to your ears?


 
  I can't speak for Mike 1127 but........
  Personally I have replaced my primitive human brain with an Advanced Technology T-1000 Terminator Neural Processor Network reprogammed to process musical stimuli AND protect John Connor form other Terminators from the future.
  Don't tell anyone.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





chris j said:


> I know this isn't very "scientific", but I have only met one person who says they liked the sound of them.
> She was a professional singer.


 
  Soundonsound asked what engineers thought about it and it ranged from "music shredder" to "I'm loving them the more I use them!". I have never heard the NS-1 before but if Studio Aqua does it right, it is getting the job done nicely all right!


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *Chris J* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Personally I have replaced my primitive human brain with an Advanced Technology T-1000 Terminator Neural Processor Network reprogammed to process musical stimuli AND protect John Connor form other Terminators from the future.
> Don't tell anyone.


 
   
  ...and that's exactly why modern audio science techniques are currently very limited / incomplete.
   
  When a school system tells people "music is math" and teaches languages via 95% grammar / rules, so it takes a university student 4 years to learn Spanish fluently, and a 10 year old kid six months (_with completely zero idea about grammar_) then you find individuals with all kinds of black/white vision and can't see a forest for it's leaves.
   
  Even in a mathematics / science field like say... chess... the highest level players are typically the fairy tale, creative kind - http://www.brain.riken.jp/shogi-project/project_en/relation.html
   
   
  ...subjective versus objective has took on a new meaning in audio than their actual definitions (at least, from what I've seen), it's akin to "human's lie, machines don't", and while this is all well and true, it's then extended to "machines are all-seeing deities <-- within my subjective parameter system <-- I'm not lying"
  
  At this point it's rendered to subjective versus subjective.  For example, what happened in world war II?  History books are subjective, what actually happened is an _unvarying truth_, if you only consider video footage of the events as evidence and discard all history books, then that's your parameter system.
   
  The ones which clamor to the videos have found happiness in their microcosm of truth.  So, when threatened with seven history books all pointing to the same event not on video, they'll say "this and this video indicate that event" or they'll say "all those books are psycho-historic, the human mind is very weak".
   
  In audio there is a lot of 'history books', there is also a lot of 'video footage'.  The funny part is the video's apparently have covered every single event in world war II, so when I ask "where's Hiroshima?" you're met with "This and that video indicate..." or "It never existed, just like all other psycho-historics, (see: Atlantis)".
   
  So when I ask "Where's soundstage?" I'm met with "This and that square-wave indicate..." or "It never existed, just like all other psycho-acoustics, (see: Euphoria)".
   
   
  In a more recent example, I asked for the difference in Sony EX700 versus EX1000, JVC FX500 versus FX700, or Audeze LCD-3 versus Skullcandy Mix Master Mike.
   
  There are ample amounts of listening data on these all over the internet.
   
  So, if each pairing has very similar FR, CSD, very similar square wave response, very similar impulse response, inaudible THD+N, very similar IMD, dismissive isolation differences, then where is the difference?
   
   
  The pseudo-science clientele likes to pretend it's hidden within the lines _("this and that indicate..."), _with no science or evidence to support their theory, so it's complete theory_ pretending to be science._
   
_Why would anyone want to do that?_  Because _they don't want their microcosm of truth to be violated_, so they have a _fantasy_ science has covered every single possible aspect of audio.
   
This is all in the acoustic realm _however, the thought process extends to digital theory, amplifiers, DAC's and similar audio equipment._
   
(apparently it even extends to music itself or how to make a flute or a violin)
   
   
  I'm not writing this to _defend subjectivists that defend sighted listening_, or expensive cables sold by loan sharks, or shill reviewers, etc.
   
  Just sayin' there's too much '_cherry science'._


----------



## bigshot

You are disconnected from the rest of the people in this conversation, I'm afraid. You might want to reel yourself in a bit. Just a friendly suggestion.


----------



## Chris J

He's entitled to an opinion and a voice.
This isn't a peer reviewed Scientific Journal.


----------



## kiteki

firev1 said:


> > Originally Posted by *kiteki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > That makes sense since flat FR is desirable, however the speakers were different models, what if the flat FR speaker just sounds better, like the STAX SR-009 does?  What if I showed the teenagers the Sony MDR-EX700 versus the EX1000?  We already have the listening data on this one actually.
> > *What listening data? *
> > ...


 
   
  Edit:  Answers in purple.


----------



## bigshot

chris j said:


> He's entitled to an opinion and a voice.
> This isn't a peer reviewed Scientific Journal.




It isn't his comments. It's the non sequeters. He isn't having a conversation, he's babbling to himself.


----------



## kiteki

^My conversation with you is I've agreed with ~90% of what you've written in this thread and asked for a speaker recommendation if you had one.  I will do a Foobar ABX of 16kHz+ later.
   
  The non-sequitur is for everyone to read, at the very least this thread moved on from cables and the discussion become much more insightful.


----------



## bigshot

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. You keep taking left turns into completely different topics and responding to other people with replies that don't relate to their comments. If you slowed down a bit and focused, people would be able to follow your train of thought better.

This isn't a criticism, I'm just giving you a heads up that you might not be coming across the way you think you are.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Saying "What" instead of explaining your stance in post #715 is not helping your case at all.
> 
> Subliminal advertising is an example of something which was not evidenced and not even possible to ABX, so my question is, does that render it _untrue?_


 
   
  So in other words it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
   
  You seem to be severely misunderstanding what science is.  Science is not just a body of facts.  Science is a method of testing a hypothesis about reality against reality itself.  If you were actually claiming something coherent we could probably put together a test to determine if you right or not but pretty much all you have is scattershot of mostly irrelevant criticisms which you seem to be using as an excuse to believe whatever you want instead.  Even if all you criticisms of methods, experiments, and papers were true that doesn't advance your position much.  If you demonstrated them to be valid most scientifically minded skeptics would just end up saying, "I guess the last century or so of work on audio reproduction was crap and we _don't really know_ what people can or cannot hear.  Time to get to work"  What ever else you're claiming would still need it's own evidence before it's worth believing because belief should be apportioned to evidence.
   
  Of course not having good evidence of a phenomenon doesn't make it untrue but it does generally make it unworthy of belief and it should obvious why.  There are far more false ideas than true ones and believing anything that hasn't been demonstrated to be false results in a far less coherent picture of reality than only believing things which have been demonstrated to be true.  If you have an anecdote which supports the existence of a phenomenon then formulate a hypothesis and test it or just believe it and keep it to yourself but don't go around telling other people it's true when there's no evidence to support it and quite a bit of evidence against it.
   
  Also, do I _seriously _have to tell you that the nature of a claim determines how one should go about testing it?  Trying to ABX the effectiveness of subliminal advertising makes about as much sense as trying to ABX E=MC^2 or asking a photon what C is and expecting a response.  This is another reason why I think you don't understand the scientific method.  Just asking this demonstrates that you don't understand the concept and are only parroting what you've seen scientists do without understanding why.
   
  The basic idea behind an experiment is to create a situation where if hypothesis X is true we should expect result Y to happen while if hypothesis X was untrue we should expect result Z.  Then you do your best to make sure that no other variables besides what is being specifically tested interfere with the test.  You get from that to an ABX test pretty simply.  If people can really perceive a difference in sound between A and B then they should be able to reliably identify A and B by sound _alone_.  If they can then it indicates there is a real audible difference in the signal chain.  If they can't it indicates that any perceived differences are not due to sound.  If you have a better idea to test that sort of thing I'm all ears.
   
  Using an ABX test isn't some sort of religion or dogma that applies to all of science.  It's used in situations where it works.  Those situations are usually when it is necessary to collect controlled data on people's ability to identify things based on subjective sensory experience.  Why does the fact that one protocol can't test for everything count against it or count against the idea of testing things in general?  I don't really know or care much about this topic but because I understand how to form a hypothesis and test it I can give you a basic outline for testing the effectiveness of subliminal advertising off the top of my head.  You take a commercial for a particular product show it to one group, add some subliminal message to it and show it to another group, then track the spending habits of both groups for a period of time and see if the subliminal group is more likely to buy the product in question.  An actual psychologist or sociologist would have a lot more to say on how you hide the purpose of the study from the participants to avoid spurious influences, randomize the groups, collect the data, and all that but the basic idea isn't too hard.
   
  If X then Y.
   
  In not X then Z.
   
  If you can hear a difference that current data suggest should be inaudible then how do you go about demonstrating it?


----------



## Citan

As usual, very well said maverick.


----------



## kiteki

Maverick the thing is most people believe in either X science or Y science and they don't care to prove the difference with an ABX, they're just self-convinced via their personal experience or the theory they've read.
   
  For example 16/44.1 versus 24/192 and such, even though this is applicable in a Foobar ABX which is relatively easy there is an extremely low level of actual tests, why?  Anyway I've done one myself so I'm not misunderstanding or uninterested in any scientific method.
   
  When there are results such as the Meyer & Moran study and the Pras & Gustavino you don't just cherry pick which one suits your personal agenda you have to look at both.
   
  When it comes to oversampling versus non-oversampling the testing procedure becomes much more difficult to implement than 16/44.1 versus 24/192.  Since you need two physical DAC's and at least two people present.  I suggested such a test "well, the ODAC versus any DAC really" in the ODAC thread and the responses were lazy "just record the DAC and upload the file and listen to it"
   
  I don't know about you but I don't think recording DAC's and uploading them to mediafire makes much sense, do you?  If you think it does then you can defend that, however I think it would continue on to some limited parameters like THD+N and that human can't hear below 80dB.  You can't decide what a DAC is, it is what it is, especially when it comes to a test.
   
  Further NE5532 versus OPA627 would be an interesting test, or a cheaper op-amp like AD797.  Once again people believe in one or the other, I haven't seen much experimentation.  I suggested to NwAvGuy you could "paint" all the op-amps black so you don't know which is which (on the top), but he said the shades of grey or size of the op-amps could differ, making it a bit difficult.
   
  Then there is the Sony EX700 versus EX1000 or the JVC FX500 versus FX700 where a test isn't required, the listening data exists in abundance and it's up to the measurements to localize where the differences are and correlate them to listening data, by extrapolating on the data to other IEM's which exhibit the same sound characteristics in line with the data.  As per the Qualia 010 that didn't work for square waves = sound-stage, for example.
   
  Another one would be titanium versus plastic, or paper.
   
  Your method on testing for subliminal advertising looks correct and I think it was done in movie cinemas, in the gearslutz thread I linked to someone said it never happened and it's a myth, on the first page, sixth post.
   
  Not sure why someone would want to dispell a scientific fact like that unless it poses a threat.


----------



## frenchbat

Maverickronin, I see you're still trying. That's nice of you, hope you'll be heard (or read).

The subliminal hypothesis is fascinating, and has been tested in the 70's I think, on people shopping in supermarkets. From what I remember, the results were showing that the spendings were increasing, but not on a specific product. It's been a long time though, so my memory is bit sketchy.

On a different topic, I've been wondering lately if it wouldn't be useful to have a thread dedicated to the scientific method. I could write part of it if I had time, but I'm not even remotely qualified enough to touch everything. Especially on applied science.


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> So in other words it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.


 
   
  It's completely relevant to what we're discussing because you attest to measured data or a successful ABX before one should believe in any audio differences and that you're defending the null hypothesis.
   
  At the same time you believe in sonic traits such as soundstage inherent to transducers even though it hasn't been proven on paper nor via ABX, which you attested to as well, why?  I'm assuming because the difference is, via listening, readily apparent, however, you are saying the less apparent differences require your 'scientific method' first, as such you've drawn your own personal line.
   
   
  Another ABX would be the source transparency of transducers.  Clearly a Skullcandy smokin' bud isn't 100% transparent, and neither is the LCD-3, they all instill their own signature into the final signal, so that is an issue when 'proving' transparency = you can't, it's limited to the transducer.
   
  So, you have to at the very least try to measure the transducer for source transparency, not something people seem to care about prior to claiming total transparency, it seems?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Yes I read the analysis, not the entire paper yet, the statistics aren't perfect however...
> 
> "Collapsed results of all 16 subjects showed significant different for 88.2 vs native 44.1 Orchestral excerpt (p =.01)"


 
   
http://mil.mcgill.ca/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/pras_sampling_2010.pdf - I took the data from the paper and ran statistical tests myself. Ignoring the egregious cherry picking of the data, when you combine the cases you find that the ability to correctly detect between 88.2 and 44.1 or 88.2 and 88.2 downsampled or 44.1 and 88,2 downsampled simply does not exist for these participants. The lead ears results are well within probability expectations as well (16 x 5 x 3 = 240) and each set of trials is no more than 4 ABBA tests. As you can guess from 0 - 4 out of 4 trials then every 16th set of trials will give you a seemingly significant (4/4 or 0/4) result by chance alone (however even this does not cut it as the probability is still over 6%, and removing these 3 outliers from the 1st graph is unforgiveable (I review scientific papers for a living) . I ran the stats for all 16 subjects on each segment/condition test (15) two managed significant results inc the orchestral (88.2 vs 44.1) and Guitar (88.2 vs 88.2 downsampled) . However for both of these n=16 and the number of trials is a mere 64 ( 4 per person) , compare this with M and M (n=557 and subjects = 60). For the other 13 combinations there was no significant result and when combined all the significant results go away.


----------



## kiteki

By the way Maverick here is another example that I'm interested in 'science' - http://www.head-fi.org/t/533716/shure-srh-940/3405#post_8419773
   
I don't even believe in cables but would be interested to test just for the hell of it, so my question is why don't you do that?


----------



## kiteki

nick_charles said:


> http://mil.mcgill.ca/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/pras_sampling_2010.pdf - I took the data from the paper and ran statistical tests myself. Ignoring the egregious cherry picking of the data, when you combine the cases you find that the ability to correctly detect between 88.2 and 44.1 or 88.2 and 88.2 downsampled or 44.1 and 88,2 downsampled simply does not exist for these participants. The lead ears results are well within probability expectations as well (16 x 5 x 3 = 240) and each set of trials is no more than 4 ABBA tests. As you can guess from 0 - 4 out of 4 trials then every 16th set of trials will give you a seemingly significant (4/4 or 0/4) result by chance alone (however even this does not cut it as the probability is still over 6%, and removing these 3 outliers from the 1st graph is unforgiveable (I review scientific papers for a living) . I ran the stats for all 16 subjects on each segment/condition test (15) two managed significant results inc the orchestral (88.2 vs 44.1) and Guitar (88.2 vs 88.2 downsampled) . However for both of these n=16 and the number of trials is a mere 64 ( 4 per person) , compare this with M and M (n=557 and subjects = 60). For the other 13 combinations there was no significant result and when combined all the significant results go away.


 
   
  Thanks for the link so I can finally read the whole paper.
   
  I will look at what you and Pio2001 have to say about the statistics.
   
  I see you're comparing it to M&M, did you look at the thin tail in that test and run a statistical analysis on that?
   
  Also interested in what you have to say about the evidence of subliminal stimuli... via fMRI... sound familiar to another 24/192 test?


----------



## bigshot

It's ironic that people go back and forth reading statistical data when a simple test on their own would show them that even if there is a difference, it doesn't add up to a hill of beans. If you want great sound, pay attention to your speakers and room, and choose well engineered music to listen to. Nothing else matters nearly as much as that.


----------



## kiteki

bigshot said:


> It's ironic that people go back and forth reading statistical data when a simple test on their own would show them that even if there is a difference, it doesn't add up to a hill of beans. If you want great sound, pay attention to your speakers and room, and choose well engineered music to listen to. Nothing else matters nearly as much as that.


 
   
  That is true, and that was a conclusion in the M&M study as well, that SACD releases "sound almost universally better than their CD counterpart", they theorised, on a recording / mastering level.
   
  So, if you buy SACD's you'll get better sound, even if you only listen to the CD layer.  If that's true, then what's all this about so called high-rez nonsense?
   
  I have a few SACD's and I listen to the CD layer, one day I'll listen to the DSD layer when I have access to that equipment... something M&M completely overlooked, downsampling CD to CD?
   
  There are a lot of high-rez releases which are just er... not high-rez, CD->SACD->CD achieves nothing, especially when trying to prove the inaudibility of 24/192 / DSD.
   
  In the thread I linked to earlier, Moran took notes of "pure DSD" titles to test them in a future test, however it seems like that never happened?


----------



## bigshot

kiteki said:


> So, if you buy SACD's you'll get better sound, even if you only listen to the CD layer.  If that's true, then what's all this about so called high-rez nonsense?




If that was true, it would be easy. Unfortunately, not all remastering for SACD is an improvement (Rolling Stones) and not all hybrid SACDs have the same master on both layers. In fact, I found that just about all of the legacy title rock SACDs I bought had CD layers that appeared to be deliberately compressed. Some even had different mixes. I think they hobble the redbook layer to give the impression that SACDs sound better than CDs.

The only recording I found that clearly had the same mastering on both layers was a DSD classical CD on the Pentatone label. You're probably safe buying ter SACD hybrids.

By the way, SACD is not the same as DSD.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> It's completely relevant to what we're discussing because you attest to measured data or a successful ABX before one should believe in any audio differences and that you're defending the null hypothesis.
> 
> At the same time you believe in sonic traits such as soundstage inherent to transducers even though it hasn't been proven on paper nor via ABX, which you attested to as well, why?  I'm assuming because the difference is, via listening, readily apparent, however, you are saying the less apparent differences require your 'scientific method' first, as such you've drawn your own personal line.


 
   
  As much as you try to hide it by cherry picking a few similar looking graphs, headphones measure _far _more differently than most solid state amps or DACs so it's not unreasonable to assume that differences heard from them are likely real.  It's simple probability based on what else I know about the world.  If someone says they have a pet dog I'm probably not going to ask them for evidence since such a claim is unremarkable but if they tell me they have a pet dragon I'm going to ask for some.
   
  ABXing most headphones is impossible because they feel and fit differently so a level matched sighted A/B is as good as _anyone _can get with them.  It's not perfect but given what we know about differences in measurements it's reasonable to conclude there is real effect there even if we don't know it's true size.  Also just because I lack a complete understanding a phenomenon such as the perception of soudstage that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to conclude it exists at all.  The argument for calling a piece of equipment transparent is that if they measure the same to below some number like -80dB or whatever dB then there should be no differences that human ear is sensitive enough to detect.  Headphones don't come anywhere close to that and they are much more difficult to measure as well.  Beyond that, headphones can measure fairly similarly but sound different due to psychoacoustic (this is _real _psychoacoustics, like you make a lossy codec that still outputs something recognizable (_not _transparent) after throwing away 95%+ of the data) factors that cause some small changes to the signal have a large effect on perception.  That's where soundstage in headphones is hidden.  This doesn't apply to amps and DACs because those differences in measurement of gear said to be transparent to human ears are below the ability of people to detect _at all_.
   
  Keep in mind that while this is about differences it still has to be loud enough to be heard at all.  A given artifact could be at -10db on headphone X which sounds great but only .5dB louder on headphone Y which sounds like crap.  This is because the ear itself and the model the brain uses to process sound is not perfectly linear like an audio analyzer.  The same artifact could be 20dB louder on amp A than amp B but if it's at -100dB on amp A and -120dB on amp B you won't be able to hear it either way so the difference is irrelevant.  Those small differences have to be at an audible level in the first place.
   
  Once again if anyone has a better method I'm all ears...
   
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> By the way Maverick here is another example that I'm interested in 'science' - http://www.head-fi.org/t/533716/shure-srh-940/3405#post_8419773
> 
> I don't even believe in cables but would be interested to test just for the hell of it, so my question is why don't you do that?


 
   
  I have.
   
  I've tried rolling opamps in a couple different devices.  At first I though I heard something but when I later tried a more through A/B test (instead of just swapping them and listening to whatever I was going to listen to anyway) the differences disappeared.
   
  I regularly make my own cables and ICs for purposes of ergonomics and convenience.  Since I'd gone to the trouble of making them I might as well see if they sound different.  My basic sighted tests didn't reveal any differences despite the different types of wire, dielectric, plugs, and geometry so I didn't think a blind test was worth the effort since they already had all the advantage they were going to get.
        
  Except for one.  I made one that was fine at first but started sounding like crap one day.  It even _measured _like crap too.  Further investigation revealed a single strand of wire somehow worked it's way loose in the body of the plug and was making contact with the other channel.  Mystery solved.  It was defective because I screwed up.
   
  Am I supposed to repeat these completely uninteresting results in every thread about this sort of thing?
   
  I'm even on record here on head-fi saying that I wish cables did make a difference.  It would be the easiest upgrade ever to my T50RPs.  It would be awesome if I though that an amp or DAC more expensive than my Objective2/ODAC would be a good way to increase the SQ from my T50RPs because the only closed headphone I haven't head, has actual isolation, and that I'd give a high probability of sounding better than a modded T50RP is the Stax 4070.  I could buy a lot of amp or DAC for my T50RP for the price of a 4070 and the required 'stat amp so I'd love it if there was an upgrade which was cheaper than a 4070 rig or quicker than refining my mods bit by bit.
   
  I'd like most of this stuff to actually be true but I just don't have any reason to believe that it is.  I've never heard it myself and I've never seen any evidence that anyone else has either.  Just show me the evidence.  Being all wrong about this is a small price to pay for opening up a new upgrade path.


----------



## kiteki

> [/] not all hybrid SACDs have the same master on both layers. In fact, I found that just about all of the legacy title rock SACDs I bought had CD layers that appeared to be deliberately compressed. Some even had different mixes. I think they hobble the redbook layer to give the impression that SACDs sound better than CDs.
> 
> The only recording I found that clearly had the same mastering on both layers was a DSD classical CD on the Pentatone label. You're probably safe buying ter SACD hybrids.
> 
> By the way, SACD is not the same as DSD.


 
   
  Ok If that's true then you have to actually play the SACD layer in order to get the better sound... right?
   
  Ideally, rip it to a computer via the DVD drive and play the .DSF file via a USB DAC which supports DSD.  That saves you $200 in buying a blu-ray player which plays SACD these days, yes?
   
  Naturally the advocators of 'science' resent 24/192 | SACD | DSD | DVD-A even though they keep linking to the statistically flawed test which said "virtually all the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CD's ー sometimes much better" (exact quote).
   
  If you defend the null hypothesis then you believe that a failed test is an isolated incident and only failed to disprove a hypothesis.
   
  In that case why aren't the null hypothesists using OPA627 / discrete, NOS, DSD, Titanium speakers, custom IEM's, special capacitors, parallel DAC chips, etc.?
   
  As far as I know, _none of these have even failed a test _to start with (since clearly no one is interested in experimentation, science or the advancement of audio and looking for more data).
   
  ^At the very least it appears like the 'objectivists' are the_ least _interested.
   
  In 2170 they'll laugh at the audio of today.  All this "in 2012 audio science = finished" and "audio = electricity / air, which can be 100% measured" is a completely nonsensical cynical stasis, most likely only to satisfy some kind of polished diamond feeling which is in reality only quartz. =]
   
   
  I'm happy there are companies using _real science_, pioneering, invention, creativity, intuition, art and so on so audio _continues to advance._
   
  Not just number theory and copycats.
   
   
  Look here is an example I discovered today JVC is releasing a new IEM - http://www3.jvckenwood.com/accessory/headphone/inner/ha-fxd80/index.html
   
  Are there any significant data specs surrounding it?
   
  Yes, kinda, like this...
   

   
   
  Can JVC quantify the above effect on paper?  No.
   
  Can anyone?  No.
   
  Can a filter-less NOS DAC... hypothetically... quantify subliminal satisfaction?  No.
   
  Can OPA627 account for it's performance in theory?  Yes.
   
  Can Beryllium?  Yes.
   
  et cetera.
   
   
  I am pretty much finished discussing this topic of pseudo-science for now, one day a kid will step on it like a paper tiger origami. =]
   
  Ja ne.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> Can JVC quantify the above effect on paper?  No.
> 
> *Why not? That they didn't publish it in marketing materials doesn't mean they are unable to demonstrate the effect objectively.*
> 
> ...


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> If someone says they have a pet dog I'm probably not going to ask them for evidence since such a claim is unremarkable but if they tell me they have a pet dragon I'm going to ask for some.


 
   
  If lots of people talk about shark fin soup as a delicacy in independant cases then it's quite likely approaching truth.  If a lot of people say the AD797 is delicate then that seems more likely than NE5532 = ultimate reference, especially when there are hints of evidence to support the first claim.  As long as there are hints of evidence on one side and a lack of evidence on the other then I favour the hints.  The same applies to Titanium in speakers etc.
   
  My listening experience mirrors the above two cases.


----------



## frenchbat

How could you put any credibility in that PDF ? It's all THD+N ... 



kiteki said:


> If lots of people talk about shark fin soup as a delicacy in independant cases then it's quite likely approaching truth.  If a lot of people say the AD797 is delicate then that seems more likely than NE5532 = ultimate reference, especially when there are hints of evidence to support the first claim.  As long as there are hints of evidence on one side and a lack of evidence on the other then I favour the hints.  The same applies to Titanium in speakers etc.
> 
> My listening experience mirrors the above two cases.


----------



## kiteki

On AD797 it says ー "This leads to an amplifier with best overall distortion performance of all tested IC opamps"
   
  As long as there is _something_ hinting at a difference then it's fine.  The measuring equipment found _something _unique about shark fin soup, so I have more reason to believe in that soup now, rather than think it's just any other fish soup.  If science says "No, that noise is completely irrelevant" well that's what science said about ultraviolet light too until people starting dying from it.


----------



## frenchbat

Did you read the part where they say, they had to modify the test apparatus to make the performance worse, by running them at a very high gain, because all the opamps were way below the noise floor of the scope in a regular system ?


----------



## kiteki

Yes the best op-amps tested at -160dB.
   
  Put a cheap video op-amp with everything under -100dB and tell me how it sounds to you?


----------



## frenchbat

But that -160dB is still in THD+N, right ?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Yes the best op-amps tested at -160dB.
> 
> Put a cheap video op-amp with everything under -100dB and tell me how it sounds to you?


 
   
  That would be an interesting test. To see if you actually could hear the difference when blind testing them.


----------



## frenchbat

Yes definitely, but unfortunately he thinks THD+N is a broken measurement. According to what he wrote in another post.



liamstrain said:


> That would be an interesting test. To see if you actually could hear the difference when blind testing them.


----------



## kiteki

frenchbat said:


> Yes definitely, but unfortunately he thinks THD+N is a broken measurement. According to what he wrote in another post.


 
   
  If Shark Fin soup has the lowest levels of Mercury -160dB of any soup ever then it has _a difference._  Saying Mercury is _what defines the taste of soup _is quite different.
   
   


liamstrain said:


> That would be an interesting test. To see if you actually could hear the difference when blind testing them.


 
   
  Yes you're right, I will find some cheap video op-amps and A/B them to AD8620.


----------



## frenchbat

I'll bite 

If the scale for the measurement of the mercury is broken, how can you be sure that the result is not inverted or just not true ? Remember you're looking for truth, not half-truth or a quarter-truth !


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Why do you people waste time with this guy kiteki?  Are you kidding me?  The best opamps tested at -160db?  That's over 26 ENOBs!  Someone call the press!  We have a record here!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Yes you're right, I will find some cheap video op-amps and A/B them to AD8620.


 
   
  A/B/X or DBT - a regular sighted A/B won't tell us anything useful.


----------



## firev1

Wow, a hell lot of stuff went on, read the posts but could not reply cus of exams.
   
  On me glorifying FR:
  Measurements needed to be looked at as a whole, why do you bother cherry picking FR(ex1000 vs ex700 or THD and IMD(mix master vs LCD 3) graphs individual without posting all of them(FR+THD+IMD+SRW) all at once. Especially for Mdr-ex700, it seems I can't find the rest of the performance besides for FR. FR hides time information, Impulse response hides FR info while SQW has some parts of both in it, which is why you have to look at it as a whole. 
   
  As for the 2 sounding different, it is because of other factors, again, you have to look at measurements as a whole. ^^^^
   
  On ABX comparisons with Headphones:
  As many have said before me, it is undoable to test deviation in response or whatever with headphones due to the way they interface with the head.
   
  On me not looking at FR, you are totally wrong! I built a response graph before I posted my post(hey, its a simple google right), i assume anyone could do it so why would I need to do it? If you want, look at the treble response and bass response of the Mix Masters, they are VASTLY different and as a whole, they may not have as tight a bass as LCD-3 has. As for THD, Tyll's graphs came out slightly different with the Mix Masters starting out with something like 5% THD @ 20hz at 100db rolling of slowly whereas for LCD 3, it dropped right after 20hz to 1%. "because your pseudo-scientific view is so inflexible to it's own self-defined parameters."    <---- How so? I think something like "oh, these measurements pseudo-scientific because my hearing does not align with whats on the graph" and imposing self theories on everything with what seems like little understanding(I hope you do have some understanding) on the scientific method is even worse if anything.
   
  Discounting FR(beryllium vs mylar, laptop vs car audio), there are still more perspectives to look at. Please look at measurements as a WHOLE, looking at just 1 graph of FR isn't going to tell you anything, which is why if I can, I would try before buying. 
   
  On 44.1 downsampled vs 44.1native: It removed the question of DAC performance at the 2 sampling frequencies. Some DACs I know(and probably you know) have vastly different performances at the 2 rates for some weird reason.
   
  I will try with speaker cones then, titanium vs paper seems like a nice place to start. Or maybe even silk dome vs aluminium!
   
  Also I noticed that somehow with you and maverick(nice points there!) it somehow swinged to op-amps. I think its plain stupid to base amp performance on the opamp itself(even more pseudo scientific). If it has been optimised with a 5532 or 2227, I would stick with it. Sticking a pair of 627 into 5532 optimised amps is only gonna give more distortion if anything else. Of course, you like said musicality, stick with it.
   
  Sticking random op-amps in circuit environments they are not meant to be in is a meaninglessly stupid test, so for once I say, NO, don't ABX them unless you know how to build your own amps.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Thanks for the link so I can finally read the whole paper.
> 
> I will look at what you and Pio2001 have to say about the statistics.
> 
> ...


 
   
  If you read the paper fully paying attention to the recording and playback stages there are numerous points of difference in the routines not just the sample rate, all of these add extraneous variables. For instance different clocks on the two ADCs, different capture devices on different systems, a playback DAC that switches sample rate on the fly . From the 1984 BAS expt it is seen that switching can provide subtle but audible cues to the listener independent of the variable under test. All of these weaken the expt as a direct comparison of A vs B.
   
  The refusal (I and others have asked the authors repeatedly) to provide raw data (or even sensibly rolled up numbers, all we get are their % figures and aggregated n= for the different segments),  they have 16 subjects they could easily have put the individual data in an appendix, and yes M&M should also have done this) , the use of only 4 trials per test which is insufficient to get statistical significance (1/16 = 6.25%)
   
  Dubious scale points on the graphs (try zooming the PDF to 2400% and see if you think the 63% line is where it should be, hint it is not it is at 62.5% at best, this is mildly misleading as it shifts the significant results more above the threshold, *this is a minor point admittedly*), No N=16 graphs, the choice of graph type hiding data points (the data screams out for a clustered column chart) . With such a small amount of data and so many ways to pick it apart it is highly likely you can get significant results if you look hard enough. *Incidentally I estimate a P of 0.025 not 0.01 for the orchestral segment *but without the raw data it is hard to confirm this.
   
  There are also potential *(albeit minor)* issues with the downsampling routine http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=82264&view=findpost&p=714947
   
  Back to the orchestral segment. Subjects could detect the difference between 44.1 and 88.2 (the potentally biggest difference) , not between 88.2 and 88.2 downsampled and not between 44.1 and 88.2 downsampled, *but downsampling from 88.2 allows better anti-alias filtering compared to recording at 44.1 so the benefit of recording at 88.2 should not be wholly lost in the downsampling to 44.1* but it appears to have been as they cannot be told apart.
   
  But for the guitar the only significant result *was* the 88.2 vs 88.2 downsampled the *least* potentially differentiable difference if the downsampling routine was kosher.
   
  There were no samples where 44.1 vs 88.2 downsampled was detectable, so we could just say record at 88.2 and downsample to 44.1 and everything is cushty 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  But seriously the data is oddly inconsistent which rings alarms for me but I really want to see the raw data, and I would suggest that they redo the study with a simpler design and more trials per test.
   
   
  EDIT: Stats in the M & M study. For 10 trials there are 1024 possible combinations of correct/incorrect answers (2^10 = 1024) , there is precisely 1 chance of 0/10 and 1 of 10/10 or 1 in 1024, there are 10 chances of 1/10 or 9/10 (1 in 102) , for 2/10 and 8/10 there are 45 combinations each (1 in 22.75) so statistically with an N=60 (they say about 60) *we should get 2 scores of 8/10*, M and M got 1, this is a bit out but not terribly so given the small sample. This is why big numbers are better !


----------



## bigshot

liamstrain said:


> A/B/X or DBT - a regular sighted A/B won't tell us anything useful.




For the purposes of home stereos, a sighted comparison should be fine. If the difference is so slight (or nonexistent) that a DBT is needed, it probably doesn't matter. Better to address bigger fish.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> For the purposes of home stereos, a sighted comparison should be fine. If the difference is so slight (or nonexistent) that a DBT is needed, it probably doesn't matter. Better to address bigger fish.


 
   
  SIGH......Where are we Steve ?
   
  The point of not relying on sighted tests is that *knowing what you are listening to introduces all sorts of biases which we as mere mortals are prone to*, you might as well nip down to Tweeters and get the nice young man there to show you just how much better Monster cables are with their shiny teflon coatings and how this big expensive amp which he is controlling the volume of is so much better than the cheap one played at a significantly lower volume...


----------



## bigshot

I'm really only interested in making changes that significantly improve the quality of the sound in my system. I'm not up for chasing down phantoms. I can get the info I need from a line level matched A/B comparison. If the samples are very very close, I don't need to go any further. I want something that makes a difference, not something I have to strain to hear.

It's a little different if I'm getting paid to engineer, but even there, the problems are usually a matter of broad strokes, not niggling detail. I've gone the extra mile in the past, but it never ends up being worth the effort because the slight differences always end up being no difference at all.


----------



## kiteki

Nick_charles, I'm reading the paper now, can we move this particular topic to a different thread please.
   
http://www.head-fi.org/t/561552/*hypersonic-effect-discussion*/90#post_8421241
   
   


nick_charles said:


> the use of only 4 trials per test which is insufficient to get statistical significance (1/16 = 6.25%)


 
   
  ?
   
  So from reading the paper your take on it is flipping a coin 4 times with 4 tails results = 1/16 chance.  Then can I ask why there are statistics in it such as p=0.006?
   
  Plus... why is it then a peer reviewed study in the AES journal?  Which seems to be 'the' qualifier for 'science' along with dScopes, blind testing and null hypothesis, if I'm taking in all the recent hype correctly.
   
   


nick_charles said:


> EDIT: Stats in the M & M study. For 10 trials there are 1024 possible combinations of correct/incorrect answers (2^10 = 1024) , there is precisely 1 chance of 0/10 and 1 of 10/10 or 1 in 1024, there are 10 chances of 1/10 or 9/10 (1 in 102) , for 2/10 and 8/10 there are 45 combinations each (1 in 22.75) so statistically with an N=60 (they say about 60) *we should get 2 scores of 8/10*, M and M got 1, this is a bit out but not terribly so given the small sample. This is why big numbers are better !


 
   
  How did you arrive at this?
   
  Several conclusions have noted 1% chance or much lower...
   


stv014 said:


> Well, it does not seem to be as unlikely as winning the lottery, I simulated 1000000 experiments with a simple program (assuming that all subjects are always randomly guessing), and the results are:
> - 55 subjects, score_7 <= 2, score_8 <= 1, score_9 == 0, score_10 == 0: 4632 (0.4632 %)
> - 50 subjects, score_7 <= 2, score_8 <= 1, score_9 == 0, score_10 == 0: 9195 (0.9195 %)
> - 55 subjects, score_7 + score_8 + score_9 + score_10 <= 3: 9744 (0.9744 %)
> - 50 subjects, score_7 + score_8 + score_9 + score_10 <= 3: 19216 (1.9216 %)


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I will try with speaker cones then, titanium vs paper seems like a nice place to start. Or maybe even silk dome vs aluminium!


 
   
  Yes do that, that's called experimenting, if you want you can pick up a microphone while you're at it to at least _try_ to measure what you're hearing, and then you'll eventually stop pretending everything is hidden within the lines.
   
  With a mic you can also witness how much information the mind is constantly _filtering_ - http://www.head-fi.org/t/510526/how-does-fidelity-relate-to-musical-enjoyment#post_6904141
   
  You said you can't 'ABX' headphones due to shifts in position, I'm not sure how you're arriving at all these points.  Comparing the Skullcandy MMM with the LCD-3 is like comparing Jamaica with East Africa, the travel book is full of all sorts of black and white lines, on some pages the lines even look identical, they don't really make a lot of sense versus the destination.  The deviations in THD+N at 20Hz or whatever are under what you've already defined as the human perceptivity threshold so why are you reversing your position now?  The FR is more similar than different, if you want to call it vast, link the graph in this thread and show me where it's vast.
   
  Yes, I am cherry picking measurement data that looks similar to prove a point, if the data looks similar and the speaker/IEM/HP sound different, you know... like Brazil versus Switzerland... then uh, that's the only way I can convey my message to you.
   
   


firev1 said:


> How so? I think something like "oh, these measurements pseudo-scientific because my hearing does not align with whats on the graph" and imposing self theories on everything with what seems like little understanding(I hope you do have some understanding) on the scientific method is even worse if anything.


 
   
  The measurements aren't flawed or pseudo-scientific, I'm not saying anything of the sort, I'm saying they're limited in scope.  I've told you before measurements are not skin deep and exist in other areas, which I'm linking to here as an example - http://www.head-fi.org/t/612299/jvcs-micro-hd-line-revamped-for-2012-ha-fxd80-70-60#post_8421073
   
  Pretending measurements are _total_, defining subjective parameters on your perception of the _totality of sound_, and making exactly what you will of random lines, is what I'm calling pseudo-scientific ー especially since there isn't any _scientific evidence _on the totality of the data in the first place.  If audio data was total, it would be easily _reversible_, you could look at the data and know what to hear, like squeezing Colgate and expecting toothpaste, has that ever happened to you?
   
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Also I noticed that somehow with you and maverick(nice points there!) it somehow swinged to op-amps. I think its plain stupid to base amp performance on the opamp itself(even more pseudo scientific). If it has been optimised with a 5532 or 2227, I would stick with it. Sticking a pair of 627 into 5532 optimised amps is only gonna give more distortion if anything else. Of course, you like said musicality, stick with it.
> 
> Sticking random op-amps in circuit environments they are not meant to be in is a meaninglessly stupid test, so for once I say, NO, don't ABX them unless you know how to build your own amps.


 
   
  I don't need to comment on this because looking at your signature I know exactly where you read it.
   
  Feel free to give me a technical example of "optimised for NE5532" where OPA627 will not suit the circuit though.
   
  To be honest I think even if the circuit was unsuited, purchasing random op-amps without reading _anything_ on them, or having expectations of how they 'should' sound via the .PDF, slew rates current etc., would be the most accurate _sighted_ test you can find.
   
  The point is firev1 to locate a statistically significant difference in sound via blind testing, if AD797 has significantly different sound (which thousands of people believe it does) than a basic op-amp like err, JRC 072D, or a video op-amp, you can look for the scientific reason _later.  _You find the truth first and evidence later, not evidence first truth later, then you're putting on very dark shades.
   
  In the case of AD797 there is no blind test via listening to prove it's performance so I went with the Shark Fin soup analogy since there's no blind test on that either, is there?


----------



## kiteki

bigshot said:


> For the purposes of home stereos, a sighted comparison should be fine. If the difference is so slight (or nonexistent) that a DBT is needed, it probably doesn't matter. Better to address bigger fish.


 
   

```
[b] , .'; .-'` .' ,`.-'-.`\ ; / '-' | \ ,-, \ '-.__ )_`'._ '. ``` ``'--._ .-' , `'-. '-'`-._ (( o ) `'--....(`- ,__..--' '-'`[/b][b][color=#ffffff]aying a guitar ]=- 6/97 [/color][/b]
```


----------



## kiteki

blindinoneear said:


> Why do you people waste time with this guy kiteki?  Are you kidding me?  The best opamps tested at -160db?  That's over 26 ENOBs!  Someone call the press!  We have a record here!


 
   
  It's called citing the most extensive testing on op-amps ever performed afaik? - http://www.sg-acoustics.ch/analogue_audio/ic_opamps/pdf/opamp_distortion.pdf
   
  Look at page 7 (page 9 / 436 in the .pdf)
   
  On page 40 and 45 you'll find the op-amps intended for video use, AD826 and AD829, click to buy and listen, I'm not the only one that supposed to be looking for differences in sound here.
   
/offline


----------



## kiteki

Just listened to JRC 072D versus AD8620, differences are definitely there, wish I had someone which could perform a blind test on me since I don't know how to do it myself, other than swap op-amps in pitch darkness... hmmmmmm... that could work.  Will create a seperate thread for this at some point, or report failing to find differences via blind.


----------



## bigshot

Describe the differences (frequency response, distortion, dynamics?) and roughly quantify them (dB, frequency, %THD). It isn't good enough to hear a difference. You need to be able to define it if you want to chase it down. If you just hear a difference, but can't pin down what the difference is, either there is no difference and you're imagining it, or it just doesn't matter.

When you know what the difference is, you'll know wher to look in the measurements to find it. When you quantify the difference, you indicate to others the scale.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

I don't know if this has been posted on this site before, but Harman's How to Listen is a useful tool to work with to train yourself with regard to learning how to quantify audible differences in equipment, speakers and headphones.  It runs on Windows and Mac.  The only real complaint I've got with it is you get tired of the song samples pretty quickly. 
   
  http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/


----------



## kiteki

bigshot said:


> Describe the differences (frequency response, distortion, dynamics?) and roughly quantify them (dB, frequency, %THD). It isn't good enough to hear a difference. You need to be able to define it if you want to chase it down. If you just hear a difference, but can't pin down what the difference is, either there is no difference and you're imagining it, or it just doesn't matter.
> 
> When you know what the difference is, you'll know wher to look in the measurements to find it. When you quantify the difference, you indicate to others the scale.


 
   
  I don't think there is any difference in frequency response, they should all be identical there afaik, distortion is very very low in all of them unless it's interacting with the high volume music (like Mercury poisoning or whatever).
   
  The differences usually revolve around concepts like analog, sterile, speed, tone, character, quality etc.  In December of 2011 I bought a 'mystery box' of 10 different op-amps without having any idea how they should sound.  Including the one I already had in my DAC, I think two were monolithic so total = 9.  I listened to all of them and my favorites were NE5532 and OPA2134.  The NE5532 isn't crystal clear however it had high sound quality and presents music with a certain tone or character, for example I found violin sounded the best on NE5532, I can't tell if violins are _supposed_ to sound like that or it's the effect of NE5532, it's subtle however it is there.
   
  The OPA2134 seemed to have a higher speed than all other op-amps in the box, I try to look for it in the oscilliscope and frequency response on my computer with curve duration set to 100ms and Asio / Kernel Streaming, however it's difficult to know if you can see it or not since it's more of a feeling rather than seeing cheese and chalk.
   
  When I started reading about op-amps online after the experiment I was impressed the NE5532 and OPA2134 were the most popular ones in the box (along with OPA2604), the others seem relatively unknown, so my listening was actually in line with others which reinforced my conception the differences in all of them are fairly (not faery) real.
   
  If I remove OPA2604 from the test (since I was already familiar with it) and I remove OPA134 (which is OPA2134), the result is hitting 2 correct out of 7, not counting order or repetition this results in 21 possible combinations


Spoiler: chance



{NE5532P,OPA2134AP} {NE5532P,1} {NE5532P,2} {NE5532P,3} {NE5532P,4} {NE5532P,5} {OPA2134AP,1} {OPA2134AP,2} {OPA2134AP,3} {OPA2134AP,4} {OPA2134AP,5} {1,2} {1,3} {1,4} {1,5} {2,3} {2,4} {2,5} {3,4} {3,5} {4,5}


   
  So the level of chance in this experiment results in 1 / 21.  It's a bit vague though since it wasn't _pure_ chance, there could be subliminal marketing expectation involved like NE should sound better than JRC, not something you can know in a sighted test.  However they all cost the same price and they all look pretty much identical, so the only significance in deviation is letters like NE, JRC, and pretty numbers like 741JN, inducing me to expect it to 'sound like the numbers 741'.  However that deviation is only significant if the listening data of the other testers and industries which favour the sound of NE5532 and OPA2134 over the JRC's are suffering from the exact same letter / number induced subliminal effects via sighted listening ...
   
  If price and letter/number are indicators of subliminally induced sound quality I moved on to the AD797, OPA627 which are more expensive, however I don't exclusively use them.  If .pdf sheets are an indicator I should like the sound of the high current and high voltage OPA552 ($9.40) however my listening didn't find anything significant there, naturally even that is subect to psychology like expecting a 10/10 movie and finding it lackluster at 7/10 ...
   
  Users like x and y will say "show me these differences in FR or THD+N (or they don't exist)".  I don't need to satisfy anyone's paramater system of finite values, especially since they haven't been aligned to the listening data.  I don't consider this scientific, it's not comparing concrete with sand, it's comparing a theory and unverified assertion of concrete with sand.
   
  FR is the dispersion of volume across Hz, and THD+N is looking for noise.  I don't think 'volume and noise = sound quality' seems very realistic (?).  Let alone should not be reversed into a parameter system 'sound quality = volume and noise (= total = if you hear anything else = unicorns) + (= if you hear deviations in volume and noise = less accuracy = your version of musicality).
   
  Sound (electricity -> air) is just as complex as visuals (electricity -> photons).  I don't see anyone saying visuals are only flat FR (colour evenness), and distortion (static, flicker etc.? not sure).
  There is
  - accuracy of colour (natural / lifelike)
  - resolution (vhs versus blu-ray)
  - black levels, contrast ratio etc.
  - speed
  | - how fast the _pixels_ alternate
  | - refresh rate (60Hz versus 120Hz)
  | - ghosting (time-smear in audio? NOS / DSD? pre-echo / post-ringing?)
  | - audio/visual sync (which you can _feel_ down to 20ms or even lower)
  | - audio/audio sync (like ASIO for musicians, which they can feel down to, idk... 5ms?)
   
  Then you even have subliminals like say, ultraviolet light (like addiction to a tanning salon), red/blue flicker (like altered consciousness in that Pokemon episode) and subliminal advertising.
   
  For the record since this thread title is cables, I don't think it's likely a video cable should have much affect on any of these.
   
   
  Copy pasting from the JVC thread...
   


inks said:


> 4 criteria of diaphragm quality?  (<-- sound familiar?)
> 
> Hardness (harder is better)
> Flexibility (more is better)
> ...


 
   


a_recording said:


> Actually, I have a book which goes into this. It actually has a table that lists the material properties of a whole number of materials suitable for driver diaphragms, including Bextrane, Beryllium, Boron, Carbon fibre composite, Copper, Diamond, Magnesium, Wood, etc.
> 
> The science of it all is way over my head, but it specifically notes that:
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Sound has definable qualities... Frequency response is the balance of the timbre. Distortion is the accuracy of the reproduction. Dynamics are the loudness/softness and degree of compression. Speed and pitch are interrelated to describe the time element. Every sound in the world can be described by these attributes. So can every problem with sound. If you can't describe your problem with sound using these terms, and have to resort to the flowery language of stereo salesmen, it may very well be that.your problem doesn't exist. It doesn't really matter anyway, because until you can define your problem in a concrete way, you can't begin to correct it.

Frequency response problems are the most common. Flat response is desirable, but not always easy to achieve, and a lot of manufacturers goose the sound with spikes to fool unsuspecting and unsphisticated consumers.

Next most common is distortion. There are numerous ways that artifacts can be introduced in digital audio. These artifacts can have a wide variety of forms, and can follow certain aspects of the signal. But distortion isn't just noise, it's also accuracy, which is related to resolution.

Dynamic problems are usually a problem with mastering, not hardware. High bitrate sound can offer broader dynamics, but regular old CDs contain more than enough of a range to contain even the most dynamic music.

Time is the biggest McGuffin. Digital audio is time locked, and any significant deviation would be immediately and clearly noticeable. Golden eared audiophools like to talk about jitter and other similar things, but these artifacts take place at a scale that is well below the threshold of perception. People have the hardest time conceptualizing time and resort to analogies that describe the deviation, but don't at all reflect the scale. Stereo salesmen pounce on this and exploit it to get folks to buy equipment they don't need.


----------



## kiteki

bigshot said:


> Sound has definable qualities... Frequency response is the balance of the timbre. Distortion is the accuracy of the reproduction. Dynamics are the loudness/softness and degree of compression. Speed and pitch are interrelated to describe the time element. Every sound in the world can be described by these attributes.


 
   
  Which magazine did you read that in.


----------



## bigshot

kiteki said:


> Which magazine did you read that in.




I believe it was in the Standard Handbook of Radio and Audio Engineering. There are several good books on the topic of sound reproduction.

By the way, masking is related to frequency response. Spikes in the midrange can mask the frequency an octave up. This is common when an engineer EQs to emphasize upper mids incorrectly and ends up masking the treble. It can make sound dull and muffled. It's not a subtle effect. Pretty dramatic.

Also, the design of speakers is the art of compromise. All of the aspects of speaker design have benefits and drawbacks. The mechanics of excursion creates all sorts of randomness that has to be contained somehow by trading off something else. Acoustics are much more complex to address by the average hifi nut than electronics.


----------



## kiteki

Sorry but your definition of distortion is very vague and all-encompassing.  It's accuracy versus inaccuracy.  You have pretty much said every single audio component in the world is "distorted" since they all fall within subsets of artificial sound and none of them are 100% true to reality (/accuracy).
   
  In that case, following your system, I can call one op-amp less distorted than the other, and I can call 16/44.1 more distorted than DSD,  I'll also call the Apple earbud "more distorted" than the STAX SR-009, and I'll call the iPod Nano "more distorted" than some high-end DAC/Amp with Sabre ESS ES9018.
   
  Clearly this is very vague, so I'll have to sub-divide your category of "distortion" and introduce some real world values so we can communicate more coherently on these issues of inaccurate sound reproduction.
   
(Note: This new "distortion" is seperate from THD+N and IMD)
   
  So using the Apple earbud versus Stax SR-009 as an example there's ample ways to describe their in/accuracy in sound here - http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary
  With an electrical component such as an op-amp, I said "analog, sterile, speed, tone, character, quality etc.".
   
  The OPA552 despite costing me $9.40 and having positive specs on paper, just doesn't sound as good as the rest, so it's more "distorted", now I've delivered my concrete value to you (within your system), what's next?
   
   


bigshot said:


> Sound has 4 definable qualities...
> 
> - Frequency response is the balance of the timbre.
> - Distortion is the accuracy of the reproduction.
> ...





> Next most common is distortion. There are numerous ways that artifacts can be introduced in digital audio. These artifacts can have a wide variety of forms, and can follow certain aspects of the signal. But distortion isn't just noise, it's also accuracy, which is related to resolution.


----------



## bigshot

Distortion is measured by the percentage of amount of difference between the signal and the reproduced signal. That's what distortion is.

If you say the item you're comparing is more distorted, what form does that distortion take? Is it intermittant, or affected by the signal, or spread overall? When you know that, you can start looking for ways to measure it. When you've measured it, you can compare those measurements to established thresholds of human perception. Then you know how important it is.

All reproduced sound has some degree of distortion. Some is so low it doesn't matter.

If the published specs don't correspond to your personal experience, either the published specs are wrong or you are. If you are the only one who can perceive the difference and it can't be measured in a way that reflects your experience, my money is on the latter.


----------



## kiteki

bigshot said:


> Distortion is measured by the percentage of amount of difference between the signal and the reproduced signal. That's what distortion is.


 
   
  Finally an interesting comment, will answer this later, but I think you should be saying inaccuracy or anti-neutrality, using the term distortion you are confusing it with THD+N and IMD which is not what you are saying.
   


bigshot said:


> When you've measured it, you can compare those measurements to established thresholds of human perception. Then you know how important it is.
> 
> All reproduced sound has some degree of distortion. Some is so low it doesn't matter.


 
   
  1.  I can't measure it.  If anyone can measure the OPA445 or OPA2134 it's Texas Instruments, which they've already done, all I can do is blind test them into a realm of significance, which I've partially done.
  2.  The "established thresholds of human perception" are complete junk.  As I've pointed out several times now video is a far more accurate industry than audio, and _they can't even get the thresholds correct there._
  3.  If you think sound above 11kHz is not very important, you definitely won't think AD797 is either, you can keep to your $1k speakers, room acoustics and chamber music.
   


bigshot said:


> If the published specs don't correspond to your personal experience, either the published specs are wrong or you are. If you are the only one who can perceive the difference and it can't be measured in a way that reflects your experience, my money is on the latter.


 
   
  I am far from the only one, industries have selected certain op-amps in their products for a reason = they think they sound good.  I'm just more vocal about it.
   
  Just because you think shark-fin soup tastes good doesn't mean you have to write about it on a vegetarian forum which is pretty much what I'm doing.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Finally an interesting comment, will answer this later, but I think you should be saying inaccuracy or anti-neutrality, using the term distortion you are confusing it with THD+N and IMD which is not what you are saying.


 
   
  You seem to be the only one getting confued about it...


----------



## kiteki

Maverick what exactly is it you're defending?  I believe in objectivity (the truth) as much as you do, at least I thought so.


----------



## bigshot

kiteki said:


> stuff.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Maverick what exactly is it you're defending?  I believe in objectivity (the truth) as much as you do, at least I thought so.


 
   
  You seem to have a misunderstanding of the scientific method it appears we may have some irreconcilable difference regarding epistemology as well.  Let me try to boil it down to the essentials.
   
  If we lived in a hypothetical world where all audio equipment sounded exactly the same large numbers of people would still report audible differences due to various quirks psychology and neurology.  Given this knowledge and the fact that people's money is on the line how do we go about deciding what perceived differences are real and which are illusory?


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> If we lived in a hypothetical world where all audio equipment sounded exactly the same large numbers of people would still report audible differences due to various quirks psychology and neurology.


 
   
  Yes.
   


maverickronin said:


> Given this knowledge and the fact that people's money is on the line how do we go about deciding what perceived differences are real and which are illusory?


 
   
  Via differences in the raw data ー or significant differences in design / interface.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> or significant differences in design / interface.


 
   
  Why should we - a priori - assume that matters?  Shouldn't we decide that it matters from the data, either measured or collected from controlled observation?
   
  A person should judge a car by more than just it having a 427ci V8 or a 2L inline 4, right?  In that example a person would just be using displacement to infer horsepower and using horsepower to infer the power to weight ratio.  Sometimes that works but other times it doesn't so wouldn't it be better to skip to the end and just measure the power to weight ratio?


----------



## bigshot

If we are going to decide that there are automatically differences with different designs, we might as well just judge sound quality by price. Both measures are just as arbitrary.

These circular arguments always come around to someone being convinced that they discern a difference in quality that can't be measured and can only be detected by their own golden ears, despite normal human perceptual thresholds. Pointless.


----------



## Lorspeaker

i just bought a chord crimson plus rca ...oooooo...happy happy am i.,..delicious.
  yes and my hyundai drives like a volvo..when both are at the stoplights.
  all cables sound alike when the power is...cut.
   
  ok back to u guys..


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> Why should we - a priori - assume that matters?  Shouldn't we decide that it matters from the data, either measured or collected from controlled observation?
> 
> 「／」  Sometimes that works but other times it doesn't so wouldn't it be better to skip to the end and just measure the power to weight ratio?


 
   
  No reason to skip to the end when a vast number of audio companies designing all our top flight products don't so I'm following their science.
   
  Looking at all the specs of a car you'll have an idea of how it will perform prior to the race track ー looking at FR, THD+N, IR, SWR, CSD etc. you have little concept of what you're about to hear,
   
  This could be very easily verified by altering the frequency response and increasing distortion levels in something like a STAX SR-009 so it looks like the Apple earbud on paper, you show someone the data and ask "please tick these boxes on what you're about to hear" and maybe they'd tick "Skullcandy" or "harshness", "not very much bass", "limited imaging" and so on, then they listen to the SR-009 and say "oh..."
   
  The point is this doesn't need to be verfied it's up to science to verify you can correlate the data to the human listening data if you wan't to connect the two with a link.  If the data is total you squeeze Colgate and expect toothpaste I've said this already.  The individual in the hypothetical test was expecting Coke with ice and was served lemonade with rubies, etc.
_ _
  Looking at the ever in conflict and ever changing university papers very often with a latent economic or emotional incentive to reach a result isn't a reliable way to derive performance either.  For example subliminal advertising wasn't academically proven until recently, so if we were having a discussion on it 10 years ago you'd most likely say it doesn't exist and it's pixie dust.  Isn't this relevant to audio since you are defining some of your parameters via someone which still denies it's existence despite the evidence?
   
   


bigshot said:


> 1. If we are going to decide that there are automatically differences with different designs, we might as well just judge sound quality by price. Both measures are just as arbitrary.
> 
> 2. These circular arguments always come around to someone being convinced that they discern a difference in quality that can't be measured and can only be detected by their own golden ears, despite normal human perceptual thresholds. Pointless.


 
   
  1.  What does price have to do with anything we're discussing, apart from pseudo-science always resorting to "audio salesmen" in defense of their position?  If that is the case then this is ethics or politics and not audio science.  Is the AD797 which we were discussing at ~$10 a piece really such a scandal to you anyway?
   
  2.  Everything I've heard a difference in can be measured in some form of raw data, where it can't be measured is within your extemely strict parameter systems which you read in an audio journal or academic papers.  I pointed out video is a much more accurate field than audio -> and yet the threshold moved from 60Hz as the human limit to above 200Hz, I also found the Wikipedia entry on input latency as ridiculously high.  In audio 10 years ago 256kbps MP2 was 100% transparent in an extensive study with 60 professional listeners, and now it's shifted to 320kbps MP3 is not transparent with much better encoding, so why are you strictly limiting yourself to the academia of 2012?  In 2070 they'll only laugh at how completely flawed it is on all levels.


----------



## bigshot

You keep shooting scatter shot all over the subject being discussed.  Originally, I thought you were just typing too fast and not focusing your thoughts. Now, I think you're deliberately obfuscating.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Looking at all the specs of a car you'll have an idea of how it will perform prior to the race track ー looking at FR, THD+N, IR, SWR, CSD etc. you have little concept of what you're about to hear,


 
   
  I don't have too hard a time with that actually...


----------



## bigshot

maverickronin said:


> I don't have too hard a time with that actually...


 
   
  Me neither.


----------



## kiteki

Then you guys can feel free to prove that just like liamstrain said he'll try to.  There is a severe lack of evidence on your part.
   
  In the meantime I'll try to identify op-amps in the dark.


----------



## maverickronin

Sounds interesting.  What would you consider good evidence?


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> Sounds interesting.  What would you consider good evidence?


 
   
  I don't know, some kind of mystery box and significant statistics.


----------



## liamstrain

My plan - though I have not fully fleshed it out (or had the time to shop it around to my industry friends) is to have two separate tests. Suggested improvements are appreciated, as I don't have much time to devote to really defining this well. 
   
  1. To have them listen to 3 different headphones with a fairly wide range of frequency/performance differences - and have 3 sets of chart data (Frequency/Square waves/etc.) unlabeled. And see if they are able to accurately identify which headphone goes with which set of measurements based on their listening. (Known problem - there is no way to have the headphone portion truly blind, but some attempts will be made to mask the identity of the headphone as well, to prevent guesses or familiarity with the charts ahead of time). 
   
  2. To have them evaluate, based on the measurements, what they think the unlabeled measurement set would sound like if described (e.g. bright, detailed, muddy, etc.) - and check that against the head-fi impressions of those headphones, even without knowing which headphone or listening to them.


----------



## judomaniak

I was sceptical about wires also until i bought some cardass cables  to replace the crappy one that came with my senn  hd 600. A huge differnce in bass output and the hi's but the most inportant part was the cable ends actually staid in the headphones


----------



## bigshot

Perhaps the poor contacts on the old one were the problem, not the wires.


----------



## firev1

I do use a couple of mics somewhat compensated Idevice, I compared them to real measuring mics and they seem okay but not high res enough for real equalisation and adjustments for my room. I have somewhat, gotten a "wider" "soundspace" as a result, what truly happens with timing however I don't know. Headphones wise, I pointed out the way they interface with the head(eg. comfort, earpads, blah balah blah) as being impossible to abx, something like the difference in DBT 2 LCD 2s with different THD would be a better test.  On another note, a lot of people used that thread as a reference but I have read it many times over sheesh!  
   
  Since when I reversed my position? THD of 1% and slowly rolling off for MM may be audible. 
   
  More similar than different are you sure? treble roll off at 10khz and frequency response in the mids/treble area look more different then similar.

   
   
On NE5532, I'm not a electrical person though I understand the math(I take physics), will be happy to search up. From what I know though, the differing impedances of NE5532(0.3ohms) vs OPA627(25ohms) is one of them when running NE5532 in as a buffer or even without using a buffer (2-stage amp). Slew rate compensation is another problem that may happen and haphazardly soldering decoupling caps without circuit considerations does happen some times. Also there is of course, the external dc offset compensation external of the 5532 which may induce drift in the OPA627. Of course, don't take my word for it, take a look at Analog Device's books about Op-amps and Analog design, I been meaning to get a couple of their books but I lack the funds.
   
"To be honest I think even if the circuit was unsuited, purchasing random op-amps without reading _anything_ on them, or having expectations of how they 'should' sound via the .PDF, slew rates current etc., would be the most accurate _sighted_ test you can find."
   
  I think personally, its unfair test, I won't make a expectation on how they sound but putting them in mismatched environments is worst then not testing at all. Its like pairing up HD800s or HE-6 with a ipod, or Fiio E9 and saying it sucks afterwards.  
   
"The point is firev1 to locate a statistically significant difference in sound via blind testing, if AD797 has significantly different sound (which thousands of people believe it does) than a basic op-amp like err, JRC 072D, or a video op-amp, you can look for the scientific reason _later. _ You find the truth first and evidence later, not evidence first truth later, then you're putting on very dark shades."
  Without looking for a reason first, I assure you, they will have very different sounds based on what I said just now about circuit environments. As for video op-amps, I haven't take a look but I do think they are unsuitable anyways. 
   
  While I certainly don't get you on that link there, I still think they used roughly the same measurement method coupled with hearing test. You mean perception of timbre right? Its somewhat related to harmonics/inharmonics and time as well(oh my god I just made myself look like a hardcore objectivist). I remember a audio engineering article about delay and time(read it somewhere) about cutting out the first few ms of 2 wind instruments(rise or attack) to find out that they sound the same afterwards in a A/B or blind test, if its related. I agree its somewhat hard to associate tonality with current measurements we see these days, but with something like FR or imaging, it is not so hard right? That is why ultimately, with the best measurements in hand, final product tuning is done with audio manufacturers. Anyways about Colgate, its not toothpaste?! I'm using Aquafresh though.
  
 "The measurements aren't flawed or pseudo-scientific, I'm not saying anything of the sort, I'm saying they're limited in scope.  I've told you before measurements are not skin deep and exist in other areas, which I'm linking to here as an example - http://www.head-fi.org/t/612299/jvcs-micro-hd-line-revamped-for-2012-ha-fxd80-70-60#post_8421073
  
 Pretending measurements are _total_, defining subjective parameters on your perception of the _totality of sound_, and making exactly what you will of random lines, is what I'm calling pseudo-scientific ー especially since there isn't any _scientific evidence_ on the totality of the data in the first place.  If audio data was total, it would be easily _reversible_, you could look at the data and know what to hear, like squeezing Colgate and expecting toothpaste, has that ever happened to you?"


----------



## bigshot

Why not show them a thermometer reading 102 degrees and ask them if it's hot, liamstrain? Or perhaps put them in a car going 110 miles an hour and show them the speedometer and ask them if they think they are going too fast? Make sure you cover up all the logos so they don't know what make of car it is!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Why not show them a thermometer reading 102 degrees and ask them if it's hot, liamstrain? Or perhaps put them in a car going 110 miles an hour and show them the speedometer and ask them if they think they are going too fast? Make sure you cover up all the logos so they don't know what make of car it is!


 
   
  heh... the purpose of the excercise is to demonstrate a predictable correlation on paper... not just my experience.


----------



## bigshot

What point are measurements if they don't relate to the sound? Of course you can tell pretty much what something sounds like if you look at specs. If you can't it's because you probably don't know what the units of measurement represent. How much is a decibel? What does 6 kilohertz sound like? What is the distance between loud and soft with a 70dB dynamic range? If you know these things, you can read specs meaningfully.

The problem is, most people look at numbers on a piece of paper and never relate them to the real world. "A bigger number sounds better, right?"


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The problem is, most people look at numbers on a piece of paper and never relate them to the real world. "A bigger number sounds better, right?"


 
   
  Or a smaller number as the case may be.
   
  While people talk a lot about "sound," much of the industry is still just a "numbers game." It's like the "spec wars" of the 70's all over again.
   
  se


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> What point are measurements if they don't relate to the sound? Of course you can tell pretty much what something sounds like if you look at specs. If you can't it's because you probably don't know what the units of measurement represent. How much is a decibel? What does 6 kilohertz sound like? What is the distance between loud and soft with a 70dB dynamic range? If you know these things, you can read specs meaningfully.


 
   
  I don't disagree with you. 
   
  The charge was to demonstrate that what we expect from the measurements, correlates to what we actually hear. 
   
  I certainly feel it does, but I did not have data to demonstrate it beyond the intuitive conclusion. That's all.


----------



## bigshot

If it didn't there wouldn't be much point making measurements, wouldn't it?


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> While people talk a lot about "sound," much of the industry is still just a "numbers game." It's like the "spec wars" of the 70's all over again.




When technology approaches perfect reproduction, companies have to do something to diffentiate themselves in the market. The truth is, digital sound has gotten to the point where it can't get much more faithful to the original signal. For "Amalgamated Digital" to get a leg up on "Auditory Technology Inc", they have to point at *something* about their product that is better. If everything is manufactured from the same basic components and designs, and ears can't detect differences, they appeal to the OCD of consumers... Telling them that their "numbers" need improving. The whole market, including this internet forum, is set up to serve that purpose.

If achieving good sound was the goal, we'd be talking about acoustics, not electronics.


----------



## bigshot

To be honest, I'd really like to find a place where acoustics and psychoacoustics is discussed with the same degree of thoroughness as DACs and high end cables are iscussed here.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I don't know, some kind of mystery box and significant statistics.


 
   
  You mean mystery headphones?


----------



## bigshot

Mystery headphones make music darker and more ominous. The mystery isn't measurable but I can feel it in my bones.


----------



## kiteki

firev1 said:


> Since when I reversed my position? THD of 1% and slowly rolling off for MM may be audible.


 
   
  Missing points as usual.  Increase the THD of the LCD-3 to 5%, next?
   


firev1 said:


> More similar than different are you sure? treble roll off at 10khz and frequency response in the mids/treble area look more different then similar.


 
   
  When you look at these graph's 100Hz to 10kHz is the only so called "safe zone", so we can discard the deviation under 25Hz and above 12kHz, now let's use a basic parametric equalizer to make the LCD-3 looks as close to the Skullcandy as possible, 600Hz +3, 1.5kHz -2, 3kHz +2, 4khz -2, 6kHz +3 should do the trick, apparently I just saved you $1700 USD, you're welcome, next?
   
   


firev1 said:


> "kiteki:  The point is firev1 to locate a statistically significant difference in sound via blind testing, if AD797 has significantly different sound (which thousands of people believe it does) than a basic op-amp like err, JRC 072D, or a video op-amp, you can look for the scientific reason _later. _ You find the truth first and evidence later, not evidence first truth later, then you're putting on very dark shades."
> 
> Without looking for a reason first, *I assure you, they will have very different sounds* based on what I said just now about circuit environments. As for video op-amps, I haven't take a look but I do think they are unsuitable anyways.


 
   
  The only person you're assuring is yourself.  You have the O2 in your signature, is it a circuit environment exempt from what you just said on circuit environments?  I just made you another $500, you're welcome.
   
   


bigshot said:


> What point are measurements if they don't relate to the sound? Of course you can tell pretty much what something sounds like if you look at specs. If you can't it's because you probably don't know what the units of measurement represent.
> - How much is a decibel?
> - What does 6 kilohertz sound like?
> - What is the distance between loud and soft with a 70dB dynamic range?
> ...


 
   
  Hello again.
   
  - The decibel's are of equal volume
  - 6kHz is matched
  - The dynamic range is competely flat (using modern loudness enhanced music + d.range comp)
   
  Now... I just made a $200 speaker sound like $2000.  Let me speculate, the rest of the differences fall into your fourth parameter of "THD+N / IMD", correct?  I'll just add some noise to the signal.
   
  Next?
   
   


liamstrain said:


> My plan - though I have not fully fleshed it out (or had the time to shop it around to my industry friends) is to have two separate tests. Suggested improvements are appreciated, as I don't have much time to devote to really defining this well.
> 
> 1. To have them listen to 3 different headphones with a fairly wide range of frequency/performance differences - and have 3 sets of chart data (Frequency/Square waves/etc.) unlabeled. And see if they are able to accurately identify which headphone goes with which set of measurements based on their listening. (Known problem - there is no way to have the headphone portion truly blind, but some attempts will be made to mask the identity of the headphone as well, to prevent guesses or familiarity with the charts ahead of time).
> 
> 2. To have them evaluate, based on the measurements, what they think the unlabeled measurement set would sound like if described (e.g. bright, detailed, muddy, etc.) - and check that against the head-fi impressions of those headphones, even without knowing which headphone or listening to them.


 
   
  1.
   
  HP1=data1, HP2=data2, HP3=data3
  HP1=data1, HP2=data3, HP3=data2
  HP1=data2, HP2=data1, HP3=data3
  HP1=data3, HP2=data1, HP3=data2
  HP1=data3, HP2=data2, HP3=data1
  HP1=data2, HP2=data3, HP3=data1
   


Spoiler: chance%20%3D



 



   
  2.
   
  Ok, how does this headphone sound?


----------



## kiteki

bigshot said:


> To be honest, I'd really like to find a place where acoustics and psychoacoustics is discussed with the same degree of thoroughness as DACs and high end cables are iscussed here.


 
   
  It's called blind testing.  Almost everyone, yourself included, is very convinced of their own position on DAC's and cables, often self-labelling themselves with an "-ist", so audio science falls into politics and is rendered a pseudo-science of lavish marketing versus limited / skewed data.  The average consumer takes the lesser of two evils and believes the shop keeper to acheive peace of mind in his audio system.  So in essence, the objectivists are... helping the audio salesmen, my hypothesis.


----------



## bigshot

You have a communication problem. You're conducting a conversation, but it sure isn't with me. Your reply to my comments totally ignore what I was talking about and march merrily off into non sequiter. Try to focus your thoughts and I'll continue. Go off in weird tangents and I'll be forced to reply with posts like this one again.


----------



## kiteki

Truth has nothing to fear from investigation.
   
  Please continue.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Ok, how does this headphone sound?


 
   
  Congratulations.  You've just identified why this is hard to test like you want to.  I identified that as the RE272 from memory because I follow all of Tyll's graphs and consult them regularly.  If I was dishonest I could have just gone and looked up you impressions of them (since you owned them) and spit them back at you but I'm a little more honest than that.  Blinding this sort of thing properly would be an issue.
   
  I don't know how well this is documented for headphones, but people regularly build good speaker systems relying on 3rd party driver measurements to mostly design them on paper, order the parts, and then build it, getting good results.


----------



## kiteki

> If I was dishonest I could have just gone and looked up you impressions of them (since you owned them) and spit them back at you


 
   
  Even so that wouldn't have worked, I'd be curious how you arrived at those sonic impressions and you'd have to disclose your analysis, like which line indicates which sound.  Then, you could start looking for those lines in different headphones, to see if the 'language' is real or coincidence.  If you think you have a language for how to read the lines, write an essay on it and use five headphones for each line example.  Naturally it would be subject to refutation.


----------



## maverickronin

You'd probably need a pretty big selection of headphones to catch me in some kind of lie though.  The real problem with doing it that way is that asking for a description is much harder to score.  Differences are ofter described in relative terms which depend on preferences (eg. what's your definition of "neutral") and uses flowery and inexact language that can be fudged either way.
   
  The easier way to demonstrate this is to match headphones with unlabeled graphs.


----------



## Tilpo

maverickronin said:


> You'd probably need a pretty big selection of headphones to catch me in some kind of lie though.  The real problem with doing it that way is that asking for a description is much harder to score.  Differences are ofter described in relative terms which depend on preferences (eg. what's your definition of "neutral") and uses flowery and inexact language that can be fudged either way.
> 
> The easier way to demonstrate this is to match headphones with unlabeled graphs.



This.

If someone for example describes two headphones -- let's call them X and Y for now -- and he would compare them in this way:
X sounds warmer than Y, Y is a bit sterile sounding. 
X is slightly less resolving than Y, but it does sound more musical. 
X has better PRaT than Y, because every time I listen to X I'm always bopping my head to the rhythm.
Y has more energy than X. 


Comparisons like that are useless. After reading this all I know is that the reviewer probably prefers X, but I still have no idea how either sounds.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Missing points as usual.  Increase the THD of the LCD-3 to 5%, next?
> 
> 
> When you look at these graph's 100Hz to 10kHz is the only so called "safe zone", so we can discard the deviation under 25Hz and above 12kHz, now let's use a basic parametric equalizer to make the LCD-3 looks as close to the Skullcandy as possible, 600Hz +3, 1.5kHz -2, 3kHz +2, 4khz -2, 6kHz +3 should do the trick, apparently I just saved you $1700 USD, you're welcome, next?
> ...


 
  On that headphone, sadly, I too is familiar with the Hifiman in-ear graphs. Matching hearing impressions with graphs seems like a better test though.


----------



## bigshot

How do you measure frequency response with in ear monitors. It seems to me that the shape of your ear canal would make a difference. But I don't know much about them, I'd never go that route myself. It would be like listening to music in a vacuum or at the bottom of the ocean. I like to be in the fresh air and sunshine and share music with my friends around me.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> How do you measure frequency response with in ear monitors. It seems to me that the shape of your ear canal would make a difference. But I don't know much about them, I'd never go that route myself. It would be like listening to music in a vacuum or at the bottom of the ocean. I like to be in the fresh air and sunshine and share music with my friends around me.


 
   
  Using a HATs or a standard IEC simulated ear coupler works fine.  Usually what matters is the volume of air trapped in between the the tip and your eardrum.  On many models the tips can fairly significant difference to the FR and others are picky about fit.  If their shape doesn't match your ear's well enough you may not be able to insert it to the proper depth and never get the right sound.  It all varies from model to model.
   
  Getting custom molded IEMs with ear impression from an audiologist experienced in making impressions for the purpose of molding IEMs usually bypasses all that.
   
  I agree about preferring speakers to headphones but speakers aren't practical in my situation.  IMO even fairly inexpensive IEMs are better than all but the very best headphones everywhere except the size of the soundstage.  IEMs are also great for blocking out noise and saving your hearing.  You don't need to listen as loudly to hear everything clearly.


----------



## kiteki

> maverickronin said:
> 
> 
> > You'd probably need a pretty big selection of headphones to catch me in some kind of lie though. The real problem with doing it that way is that asking for a description is much harder to score. Differences are ofter described in relative terms which depend on preferences (eg. what's your definition of "neutral") and uses flowery and inexact language that can be fudged either way.


 
   
  Not really.  Look at the frequency response of the Hifiman RE272 versus the JH13, look up a collection of impressions of bass on both, it's easy.
   
  The same applies to JVC FX500 versus FX700 etc.
   
  firev1 correlated exact square-wave response to soundstage and imaging using HD800 and SE535 as his data, I didn't need a collection of headphones to unravel a lie only the Qualia 010.
   
   


firev1 said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > Missing points as usual. Increase the THD of the LCD-3 to 5%, next?
> ...


 
   
  I didn't ignore the time factor they have 97% identical SWR at 500Hz remember?  The results may shock?  It seems like the only thing I've convinced you with my efforts is you can buy a Skullcandy MMM and turn it into an LCD-3 with parametric EQ.
   
   


firev1 said:


> > Originally Posted by *kiteki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > The only person you're assuring is yourself. You have the O2 in your signature, is it a circuit environment exempt from what you just said on circuit environments? I just made you another $500, you're welcome.
> > Of course not, its compensated without the requirements of higher speed OPA series, you sir, need to spend less on audio gear and read up. If you would like to justify the amount you just spent on your various amps, fine by me, I am already satisfied by my O2(looking for a portable setup though) and NAD receiver setups


 
   
  I think you are the one doing too much reading "music is made via mathematics" etc.  Just buy the Mix Master, silk and Titanium speaker domes, and various op-amps for your O2 or sound-card / DAC already.
   
   


firev1 said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, how does this headphone sound?
> > Besides the fact of the graph being too small to look at it properly(can't seem to mag it in browser). As maverickronin said, using flowery language to describe sound does not help either. Matching impressions with graphs seems like the better way to go. High end market sadly by the way, is dominated by customers who sometimes know next to nothing about speakers/room acoustics but choose to push their setups higher in the price ceiling. Its not that objectivist are helping sales, it is that salesmen are purposely(or unknowingly) describing what does that other 0 does without giving a understanding on what it actually means. That, kiteki, is pseudo-science.


 
   
  JH13 versus RE272 in super floral descriptors gives a more accurate picture of the sound prior to listening than the graphs, in my experience, and I've read a lot of reviews and looked at every graph at http://sonove.angry.jp/, so my issue is the pseudo-science pretending graphs and objective data (including university studies) have reached some kind of totality.  In fact the audio data is only something like 50%.
   
  Of course there are shills and marketing out there but you keep using that as an excuse.  It's like saying there are overpriced shampoo's out there so we should all use this one.


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> > Originally Posted by *kiteki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > The magnetic flux density is certainly one of them since it surpasses all Tesla models afaik, nearing on what you use in fMRI.
> >
> ...


 
   
  Just copying from the other thread so it wouldn't go off topic.
   
  Two questions,
   
  1.  Why would Beyerdynamic go to all that effort just to make an overkill driver?
   
  2.  While I admit this guy is a bit over the top in the link coming up, why are people reporting differences in op-amps at such a level?  You see, in cables, they vary in looks and prices (a lot) which can induce expectation bias or elitism w/e to say silver sounds "shiny", power cables sound more "direct" ...
   
  However, in IC they all look the same, and the prices are fairly even, so that effect shouldn't really exist.  See link -  http://www.head-fi.org/t/397691/audio-gd-discrete-op-amps-reviewed-opa-earth-opa-moon-opa-sun-v-2
   
  I think it's more a case of vanishing differences rather than no differences.
   
  For example, bigshot values room acoustics as more important than vanishing information above 11kHz!  I have one of my favorite albums in 96kbps MP3 (nothing above 11.05kHz) and it'd sound annoying on any system.
   
  Another example the Sony XBA-4 is too annoying to me due to it's overlapping frequencies, I'm pretty sure this is called phase shift, p.s. how do we measure this?  How do I prove I can hear it?  etc...


----------



## kiteki

By the way I admit there is something really wrong with the self-labelled subjectivists too.
   
   
 Hi there  Conversation between censored and you
  
[img]http://cdn.head-fi.org/b/ba/38x38px-ZC-ba5eccdb_kitekiquestion.jpeg[/img]
kiteki
 [size=x-small]May 21, 2012 at 7:53 pm[/size]

    
  Hi there,
   
  I noticed you sell cables! There is a lot of talk recently about all cables sounding the same and no blind tests have ever been passed, and anyone that buys them are idiots, etc.
   
  I haven't heard an IEM cable yet but do you have any thoughts on the issue?
   
  Thanks,
   
  kiteki
   


    [size=x-small]censored May 21, 2012 at 11:07 pm[/size]

   Sorry, i don't get involved in such discussions.
   
  Regards,
   
  xxxx

   
   


[img]http://cdn.head-fi.org/b/ba/38x38px-ZC-ba5eccdb_kitekiquestion.jpeg[/img]
kiteki
 [size=x-small]May 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm[/size]

    
  That's a shame, if you were involved then people would buy a lot more cables from you! =(
   
   


[img]http://cdn.head-fi.org/b/ba/38x38px-ZC-ba5eccdb_kitekiquestion.jpeg[/img]
kiteki
 [size=x-small]May 21, 2012 at 11:30 pm[/size]

    
  If you did a blind test then maybe your sales would increase 300%?
   
  That's the feeling I get from head-fi anyway.
   


    [size=x-small]censored May 22, 2012 at 12:25 am[/size]

   Yes i am sure it would, you do one and let me know how it goes.

   
   


[img]http://cdn.head-fi.org/b/ba/38x38px-ZC-ba5eccdb_kitekiquestion.jpeg[/img]
kiteki
 [size=x-small]May 22, 2012 at 2:58 am[/size]

    
  I am the customer here, asking about the product which I don't have access to!


----------



## liamstrain

If that is who I think it is - he does not advertise that his cables affect the sound in any way. He tells you what he makes them out of, and describes aesthetic and usability decisions, but makes no claims.
   
  Our biggest beef is with those who make claims of audible differences, without providing evidence showing audible differences.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> If that is who I think it is - he does not advertise that his cables affect the sound in any way. He tells you what he makes them out of, and describes aesthetic and usability decisions, but makes no claims.


 
   
  I don't think that's who you think it is if who you think it is is who I think you think it is. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Not really.  Look at the frequency response of the Hifiman RE272 versus the JH13, look up a collection of impressions of bass on both, it's easy.
> 
> The same applies to JVC FX500 versus FX700 etc.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Seriously kiteki...
   
  Making good headphones is a lot more difficult than making good amps or DACs because you can't just shrink the non linearities until they're all inaudible..  You have to look at the right measurements.  One graph won't tell you everything but it will tell you something useful.
   
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Two questions,
> 
> 1.  Why would Beyerdynamic go to all that effort just to make an overkill driver?


 
   
  Probably some idiots were complaining that they couldn't deafen themselves from their ipods and the 32 ohm 880/990s and Beyer wants to make some money off the live loud, go deaf young generation.
   
  I have no Idea what 2 is supposed to be about...
   
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> By the way I admit there is something really wrong with the self-labelled subjectivists too.


 
   
  Hypothesis A:  He knows they don't do jack for the sound.
   
  Hypothesis B:  He's honestly convinced that blind tests don't work for unexplained and magical reasons.
   
  Hypothesis C:  He's just an complete idiot because he refuses to demonstrate this completely new electrical phenomenon and claim his Nobel Prize.


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> Seriously kiteki...
> 
> Making good headphones is a lot more difficult than making good amps or DACs


----------



## bigshot

We stand a better chance of helping consumers make informed choices than we do forcing retailers to be honest in directions that cut into their profit margins. But sometimes even informing consumers seems like an uphill battle.


----------



## kiteki

As soon as there is a perfect analog lifelike system so basically
   
   
  concert hall A --------- [ADC / DAC] --------- concert hall B
   
   
  You put speakers where the performers are in concert hall B.
   
   
  If the audience can't tell which is real and which is fake, then everyone will be quiet.
   
   
  Until then there is no hope.


----------



## bigshot

kiteki said:


> Until then there is no hope.




I came to the conclusion that there is no hope a page back.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> As soon as there is a perfect analog lifelike system so basically
> 
> 
> concert hall A --------- [ADC / DAC] --------- concert hall B
> ...


 
   
  No hope of what exactly? Who says the only valid music is that performed in a concert hall?
   
  It's kind of funny really. I mean, the "concert hall" and the large orchestras that typically perform in them, are ultimately the result of the mass marketing of music. In order to get a crapload of people in one place, you need a large venue. And in order to fill that large venue with enough acoustical energy that everyone can hear it, you need a crapload of instruments playing. The instruments themsleves changed too, making them louder and louder. And in the process, I think they lost a lot of their soul and character.
   
  se


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> I don't think that's who you think it is if who you think it is is who I think you think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  HAH! You think?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> HAH! You think?


 
   
  Yup. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## firev1

After reading the last few post, I understand your point of eh non-totality of measurements. But there are cases where the stuff engineers do are to be recognised. Measurements as well has to be looked as a whole. As for the Qualia 010, sure soundstage may be large and all, but is the image accurate? By altering my speaker's/room EQ, I can achieve very large imaging too but the image ain't the most accurate one. 97% same SWR@500hz? Strange, as maverickronin has already linked. The measurements of MM vs LCD 3 looks very different on Tyll's graphs. 
   
  As for acoustic phase, as for now, it is indeed difficult to measure, it should reveal in part in SWR graphs though.'
   
  As for 2, I'm guessing euphonic distortions and poor circuit implementations for the tested opamps.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> After reading the last few post, I understand your point of eh non-totality of measurements.


 
   
  Is that the point you're trying to make kiteki?
   
  I'll pretty much agree with you on that.  While products like Symth Realiser demonstrate that all relevant properties of something's "sound" can be measured and copied, displaying that that data in an understandable and human readable format is not yet perfected.  The standard measurements that most sites post certainly can't tell you everything but they do tell you lots of useful information if you put some effort into understanding them and correlating them to what you hear.


----------



## bigshot

That was my point a while ack when I said that it's important to know what measurements sound like... How much is a decibel? What do specific frequencies sound like? But that flew right past and was replaced by a non sequiter reply.


----------



## frenchbat

I think we here, would pretty much all agree about what FireV1 is saying (EDIT: w. regards to the "non-totality of measurements")

I don't know about Kiteki though, as in another thread I told him I was not thinking everything was measurable yet, and it didn't seem to distract him in any way from his crusade against pseudo-science.


----------



## kiteki

firev1 said:


> 97% same SWR@500hz? Strange, as maverickronin has already linked. The measurements of MM vs LCD 3 looks very different on Tyll's graphs.


 
   
  Sorry?
   

   
   
  Yes I can see the difference... they used to be identical at 500Hz, now they're identical at 300Hz!!
 
I don't think you put enough pseudo-science in your coffee this morning.
   
   


firev1 said:


> As for 2, I'm guessing euphonic distortions and poor circuit implementations for the tested opamps.


 
   
  You said there's no point ABX'ing op-amps unless you can build your own amplifier.
   
  In the thread I linked you to, he builds his own amplifiers (and he is an EE), I've seen him comment on circuit design and specs in a few threads.
   
  You said at one point I'm only writing this to self-justify spending $XXX on amplifiers.  Actually I haven't done that, and either way this is cheaper than your ODAC+O2 as an example - http://www.ebay.com/itm/DAC-w-Tube-OP-Amp-output-Preamp-and-Headphone-Amp-/200769968753
   
  Like I said just buy your Skullcandy w/ golden equalizer, Titanium, silk and AD797 already.


----------



## frenchbat

Given that even Audeze seems to have trouble getting all the units of LCD3 to sound similar, I'm not sure it's the best point of comparison here. 

Not that I think it matters to argue over one single measurement, but I thought I'd put this out there. You can go back to your cockfight now ...


----------



## kiteki

steve eddy said:


> No hope of what exactly? Who says the only valid music is that performed in a concert hall?
> 
> It's kind of funny really. I mean, the "concert hall" and the large orchestras that typically perform in them, are ultimately the result of the mass marketing of music. In order to get a crapload of people in one place, you need a large venue. And in order to fill that large venue with enough acoustical energy that everyone can hear it, you need a crapload of instruments playing. The instruments themsleves changed too, making them louder and louder. And in the process, I think they lost a lot of their soul and character.
> 
> se


 
   
  The venue or type of acoustic music isn't very important, only it's perfect replication.
   
  Until an entire audio system is completely transparent (via such an example), I see little hope in convincing any significant number of people that certain links in the chain are.
   
  The design concepts of advanced microphones, A/DC, NOS, DSD, advanced amplifiers and advanced transducers usually revolve around trying to achieve more natural sound.
   
  Then there is
   
  - selling overpriced junk
   
  - synthetic music and coloured / enhanced sound
   
  Which I think are seperate categories, however they are usually swept together like there is only one ideal, one totality of science, and one audio sales shark.  Not really reality from my viewpoint.


----------



## kiteki

frenchbat said:


> Given that even Audeze seems to have trouble getting all the units of LCD3 to sound similar, I'm not sure it's the best point of comparison here.


 
   
  You better hurry up and alert the LCD-3 thread some sound like the Mix Master.


----------



## frenchbat

You said it, not me  Don't put your dirty deeds on me. 

Or to be more precise, arguing over a single measurement is pointless, as you have to see the whole set of measurements to begin seeing some correlations. You're the one trying to pin down the truth, remember ? I'm just the pseudo science-guy that tries to find the steps between the absence of knowledge and the understanding of a phenomenon, AKA the facts.  



kiteki said:


> You better hurry up and alert the LCD-3 thread some sound like the Mix Master.


----------



## kiteki

> ...


 
   
  It's entertaining how you twist comments.  It's stated between the lines I think the Skullcandy MMM and LCD-3 sound completely different (to be fair I've only heard the LCD-2).
   
  I used an entire set of similar looking data to elucidate the point the data is incomplete, I just got lucky with two random headphones.  I have several other examples like the RE272 versus JH13 bass response.
   
  The ones desperate to think the data is complete and music is mathematics say it's "vastly different" when it's not, or "the LCD-3 vary from model to model" instead of accepting the data for what it is.
   
  Frequency response / CSD
   

   
   
  THD+N / IMD
   

   
   
  Resolution ?
   
  Refresh rate ?
   
  grey to grey ?
   
  Luminance ?
   
  Contrast ratio ?
   
  Soundstage / imaging / layering ?
   
   
  Naturally the ODAC is different since it's a DAC, but if the ES9023 chip_ is totally transparent_, someone should probably send an email to Sabre ESS and ask why the ES9018 is more expensive and where it performs better. =)


----------



## frenchbat

There's nothing wrong with the data, as far as you take it for what it is, and it's only the conclusion you want to draw from it that's not correct. It's the exact same thing Maverickronin, Firev1, and others have been telling you.

You keep trying to throw punches through smoke, by saying over and over that we're saying everything is measurable. Just show me where it has been said by any of your debaters here. It's only your conclusion, from what they have been trying to explain you, quite nicely actually. It's not what they told you.

Last but not least, the LCD3 is so notorious for being inconsistent, that Tyll's been taking measurements for, not one, not even two, but no less than four different units. Even our dear moderator in this forum, Currawong had to sent his unit back for replacement. I'm sorry but this was just a wrong pick for your comparison, and I've been pointing out why.

Now you can go on arguing with whomever you want, have your fun


----------



## mikeaj

300 Hz square wave doesn't indicate much more than just relative magnitude and phase response at 300 Hz, 900 Hz, 1500 Hz, 2100 Hz, etc., with less and less effect from higher frequencies, and maybe some info on potential resonances at those frequencies.  You can see the majority of it already from the FR graphs, which already indicate that you should expect the LCD-3 and Mix Masters to behave similarly for the 300 Hz square wave.  Similar 300 Hz square wave responses then indicate that the frequency responses in the midrange are mostly the same, not too much more. I think a lot of people are guilty of overinterpretation of the square wave responses, particularly if they're just eyeballing them.
   
  There's also the issue of how many effects are masked in such a graph.  For example, what if one headphone had say -40 dB 2nd order harmonic distortion at 300 Hz input?  That should be audible and it would actually show up in the data, but it would be really hard to see by just eyeballing the square wave response.  That's not to mention all of the characteristics that don't get tested in such a scenario.

 So they're pretty similar in some respects, but not so much in others.  Therefore they don't sound the same.
   
   
  Audio reproduction (people aren't saying music, so cut out the distortions?) can be characterized very well through some key performance metrics, many of which can be measured with decent-enough precision and relevancy to draw meaningful conclusions.  Are people claiming a whole lot more than that?
   
   
   
   


kiteki said:


> Naturally the ODAC is different since it's a DAC, but if the ES9023 chip_ is totally transparent_, someone should probably send an email to Sabre ESS and ask why the ES9018 is more expensive and where it performs better. =)


 
   
  'Cause they want to make money selling something with better performance, and people will buy the better stuff because it's better?  I don't see how this is a counterargument.  Whether or not even better performance is necessary just for audio playback purposes, isn't that important to them.  People don't buy things they need, but what they want.  The pros are more likely to use what's necessary rather than what's fashionable, but it's not like they know everything themselves, and their usage cases are different than the home users'.  You can note, for example, which kinds of op amps are inside most studio gear and how they are being used in those scenarios (yeah, cost is a concern, but if it were critical, then...?).


----------



## kiteki

mikeaj, if the LCD-3 and MMM have near-identical SWR at 300Hz and 500Hz, and the THD+N / IMD isn't very relevant to the final sound in music, what do we have left apart from the FR which we can tailor with an equalizer?
   
   
  On the ODAC and amplifiers, it's fine saying the ES9018 or OPA627 are Ferrari's which are useless in city traffic, but that's not the case.  What's being parroted is the ES9018 and OPA627 are beyond something anyone could ever hear so they're useless, and the ODAC (or even Clip+) have reached total transparency - if that's true, they may as well send an email to Sabre ESS and say the ES9018 is useless, not for city traffic, but for all applications!
   
  The NE5532 sounds very good and it's cheap which is why it's used a lot in studio equipment instead of the AD797 or whatever.
   
  Like designers have noted, I don't believe it sounds completely pure though, it does have _some _kind of colour, that's the truth as far as I'm currently concerned so that's what I'll parrot, that's all.
   





  4out of5
  By KGOTO  

(read all my reviews)

    
  Sound character is unique
  Posted on:August 5, 2010
    "We use this op-amp as differential output driver for audio devices. That's sound is unique. It has a color in mid-range frequency, but give us warm and smooth sound. Cost performance is good."


   
  Was this review helpful to you?Yes Yes No No (Report Inappropriate Review) (Report Inappropriate Review)


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> mikeaj, if the LCD-3 and MMM have near-identical SWR at 300Hz and 500Hz, and the THD+N / IMD isn't very relevant to the final sound in music, what do we have left apart from the FR which we can tailor with an equalizer?


 
   
  I don't know what others have said, but if the THD, IMD, and noise aren't low, they will definitely be relevant to the final sound as perceived by people—unless maybe it's just 2nd harmonics that aren't really low.  One of the points of my previous post was that the SWR may look similar on paper, but may actually be hiding significant and audible differences because the y-axis is zoomed out so much, and the effect of the FR is so dominating on what the squiggles look like.  I wouldn't really say that the SWRs are nearly identical, but that the graphs look similar from a geometric point of view.  Anyway, how about 40 Hz square waves, 2000 Hz square waves, and so on?
   
  By "equalizer" are you talking about an equalizer in the traditional sense, or something more involved?  I think you're talking about the latter.
   
   
   


kiteki said:


> On the ODAC and amplifiers, it's fine saying the ES9018 or OPA627 are Ferrari's which are useless in city traffic, but that's not the case.  What's being parroted is the ES9018 and OPA627 are beyond something anyone could ever hear so they're useless, and the ODAC (or even Clip+) have reached total transparency - if that's true, they may as well send an email to Sabre ESS and say the ES9018 is useless, not for city traffic, but for all applications!


 
   
  Some applications don't involve a single DAC in an audio playback chain.  If there are multiple D/A and/or A/D operations involved, or additional processing after a certain stage, these operations need to be cleaner than what's really needed for home playback.  Also, it's better to be safe (going overkill) than sorry (going cheap) in some circumstances.  Like I said earlier, even for personal use, people like knowing they have the best or at least something very good, regardless of practicality.  ESS is also catering to a valid (IMHO) "I want something nice because I can" application.
   
   
  The point you make about today's notions of transparency being based on currently-available playback gear has some merit though.  We have imperfect transducers mucking up all our listening tests.  Maybe they're masking issues that would otherwise be audible.  I think some people are taking the whole transparency idea too seriously anyway.  It's just a guideline for what's probably right based on what we currently know, that helps people who aren't obsessive perfectionists have some kind of benchmark for comparison's sake, maybe a goal to strive for and be satisfied with.


----------



## kiteki

frenchbat said:


> Last but not least, the LCD3 is so notorious for being inconsistent, that Tyll's been taking measurements for, not one, not even two, but no less than four different units.  I'm sorry but this was just a wrong pick for your comparison, and I've been pointing out why.


 
   
  So some models sound like a Skullcandy or what are you saying.  What do you mean my comparison? (no s = singular?)  I've given at least 5 data comparisons by now.
   


frenchbat said:


> There's nothing wrong with the data, as far as you take it for what it is, and it's only the conclusion you want to draw from it that's not correct. It's the exact same thing Maverickronin, Firev1, and others have been telling you.


 
   
  It's the conclusions Maverick, Firev1 and you have been drawing from the data, and not looking at the data for what it is, which I've been pointing out to you with all kinds examples countless times (like video monitor performance).
   
  Just today Maverick said Beyerdynamic can't make headphones due to ringing in the T70p CSD, firev1 thinks the Qualia 010 has horrific imaging, do I really need to provide these examples?
   


frenchbat said:


> You keep trying to throw punches through smoke, by saying over and over that we're saying everything is measurable. Just show me where it has been said by any of your debaters here. It's only your conclusion, from what they have been trying to explain you, quite nicely actually. It's not what they told you.


 
   
At this point it's clear all your posts are jokes ...
   
  In the ODAC thread you kept insisting everything is measurable, i.e. it's transparent since we can't hear THD+N under -80dB etc.  Plus I've already linked you to threads like this http://www.head-fi.org/t/573853/dac-with-wide-soundstage-v-good-depth-and-holography/75#post_7793463 and threads like this http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4439380-post9.html
   
I'm posting examples to answer your question this time, but seeing as how twisted your posts are constantly, I'm not continuing this in future.  See you!!
   


Spoiler: examples



 


maverickronin said:


> "I guess the last century or so of work on audio reproduction was crap and we _don't really know_ what people can or cannot hear.  Time to get to work"
> If you can hear a difference that current data suggest should be inaudible then how do you go about demonstrating it?


 
   


maverickronin said:


> The argument for calling a piece of equipment transparent is that if they measure the same to below some number like -80dB or whatever dB then there should be no differences that human ear is sensitive enough to detect.


 
   


bigshot said:


> Sound has definable qualities...
> - Frequency response is the balance of the timbre.
> - Distortion is the accuracy of the reproduction.
> - Dynamics are the loudness/softness and degree of compression.
> - Speed and pitch are interrelated to describe the time element. Every sound in the world can be described by these attributes. So can every problem with sound. If you can't describe your problem and have to resort to the flowery language of stereo salesmen, it may very well be that your problem doesn't exist.


 
   


maverickronin said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at all the specs of a car you'll have an idea of how it will perform prior to the race track ー looking at FR, THD+N, IR, SWR, CSD etc. you have little concept of what you're about to hear,
> ...


 
   


liamstrain said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > What point are measurements if they don't relate to the sound? Of course you can tell pretty much what something sounds like if you look at specs. If you can't it's because you probably don't know what the units of measurement represent.
> ...


----------



## kiteki

mikeaj said:


> I don't know what others have said, but if the THD, IMD, and noise aren't low, they will definitely be relevant to the final sound as perceived by people—unless maybe it's just 2nd harmonics that aren't really low.  One of the points of my previous post was that the SWR may look similar on paper, but may actually be hiding significant and audible differences because the y-axis is zoomed out so much, and the effect of the FR is so dominating on what the squiggles look like.  I wouldn't really say that the SWRs are nearly identical, but that the graphs look similar from a geometric point of view.  Anyway, how about 40 Hz square waves, 2000 Hz square waves, and so on?


 
   
  That could all be well and true, 40Hz and 2000Hz square waves, and the geometric point of view, I don't disagree there, however given that perspective - the data we currently have at hand and the level of introspect required to find the differences between the MMM and LCD-3 renders the current data pretty useless.
   
  There are more examples like I can't stand the Sony XBA-4 due to not having crossovers, this is not in the data.  I just look at the* technology *and usually find all the correct answers there.  The data also doesn't tell you the size, distance or shape of the transducers.  Let alone it doesn't show you resonance (like brass, titanium, wood etc.), perhaps that shows up in CSD ringing, however only looks like a negative effect.
   
  Then, the data doesn't test for source transparency, how the transducers "ink" the signal with their own sound - all the time.
   
  Let alone I haven't found any common pattern in the data of BA drivers, dynamic drivers, ortho and stax, there really should be a common pattern for these, since it's so audible within 5 seconds via listening, right?
   
  FR is useful for volume across frequency (=colour balance), THD+N for noise (like a weak TV channel signal) - IR for what, refresh rate, attack and decay, resonance? Idk.
   
  A lot of people are attached to the idea data is total in _all fields of science_, so if it's not on paper = it doesn't exist.  I've tried to hit home this point with examples like subliminal advertising or human reaction times and it's just not working in[size=small] "› [/size]Sound Science[size=small] › [/size]Dilemma".
   
   


> *Originally Posted by mikeaj /img/forum/go_quote.gif*
> *The point you make about today's notions of transparency being based on currently-available playback gear has some merit though.  We have imperfect transducers mucking up all our listening tests.  Maybe they're masking issues that would otherwise be audible.  I think some people are taking the whole transparency idea too seriously anyway.*


 
   
  Exactly.
   
  Thanks!  Now I'm leaving this thread.


----------



## frenchbat

Kiteki, I'm really wondering why you keep referring to my posts if you think they're jokes. Although I have to admit I'm using irony in my answers, but only when you're referring to me as "pseudo-science follower", or someone that "twists comments", which could be clearly seen as ad hominem arguments. However, for once, you tried to really answer my question, and I thank you for that, at least you read my post this time.

I'm just gonna focus on the quotes, because it's the basic point of disagreement here. You say your debaters are backing up the following ideas : "Everything is measurable right now" and "We already know everything about music".

But at no point they have actually backed up such ideas, what they are backing up is that :
1. Even though we don't know everything about audio, it doesn't disqualifies the phenomenons that have been evidenced by the audio science. 
2. Science is not static, but that doesn't mean that all previous results are invalidated by the results of the last experience. 
3. I would add that they're also backing up the idea that one single measurement is not enough to describe everything. As MikeAJ said earlier, you can't take one single measurement and call it a day. Headphone A might look similar to headphone B in test X, but there're also tests Y, Z, etc ... to compare. it's only when you take all the measurements, that you can begin making correlations, which again are not total descriptions.

As a consequence, with regards to the previous ideas, they are backing up that measurements are a valuable tools that should correlate to what we hear, i.e. show a relation between measurements and audio reproduction, not describe it in totality as you are saying they imply. One doesn't imply the other. They are also backing up that we probably don't know everything about audio, Maverickronin in particular, but also that until proven otherwise, the actual science stands. That's why they are asking for experiences showing results contradictory to the actual science. I'm actually pretty sure they'd die for results that could extend our knowledge of audio reproduction in any way.

It's quite rare to have an experience invalidating a whole chunk of science, and in another thread I gave you the example of one the last big science revolutions, Einstein's relativity, which has not invalidated the results of the previous big theory from Newton, but put them in a different perspective. All the while extending our knowledge of physics. 

All they are saying here is : Let's not throw away the baby with the water of the bath, shall we ?

Ok that said, I'll be out of the country for 10 days, so my dear Kiteki you'll be able to discuss freely with anyone without me twisting anything. Enjoy !!


----------



## kiteki

_*pat pat*_
   


frenchbat said:


> but only when you're referring to me as "pseudo-science follower"


----------



## frenchbat

I thought you were out of here 

 (All credits to XKCD for this wonderful piece). 



kiteki said:


> _*pat pat*_


----------



## kiteki

and I thought you were in Korea to revalidate your... POV.
   
  have fun with the... ramen.


----------



## frenchbat

No can do Sir ! I prefer tonkotsu ramen, as my wife actually. Especially Hakata ramen.



kiteki said:


> and I thought you were in Korea to revalidate your... POV.
> 
> have fun with the... ramen.


----------



## kiteki

-


----------



## liamstrain

Quote:


> if it's not on paper = it doesn't exist.


 
   
   
Wrong. We say if it is truly audible, it can be shown on paper. There is a difference.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Wrong. We say if it is truly audible, it can be shown on paper. There is a difference.


 
   
  I suppose you could argue that we may not have figured out how to measure everything yet.
   
  For example:
  It took the world a while to catch up with Jitter, it's effects and how to measure it.
   
  it took the world a while to catch up with how bad the first SS amps sounded. Have you ever heard of an SS stereo amp from the Sixties being a collector's item?


----------



## Tilpo

chris j said:


> I suppose you could argue that we may not have figured out how to measure everything yet.
> 
> For example:
> It took the world a while to catch up with Jitter, it's effects and how to measure it.
> ...



The effects of jitter tend to approximate to noise when playing music, and is usually below the audible threshold. Therefore it is not really worth the trouble trying to measure it, since usually the noise floor of the other components tends to be higher at a given frequency.

Also, as far as I know mathematical models of the effects of jitter exist for a very long time, and are very accurate.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





chris j said:


> I suppose you could argue that we may not have figured out how to measure everything yet.
> 
> For example:
> It took the world a while to catch up with Jitter, it's effects and how to measure it.
> ...


 
   
  I suppose you could argue it, but I don't know how convincing an argument it would be. 
   
  Jitter, for example, I do not consider audible (it is below the noise floor of almost all components ever made), and we have been able to map it very well without measurements. 
   
  Yes - but we can now (and could then) measure the first SS amps - you can see on paper how bad they are - so far, you are proving my point.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





chris j said:


> I suppose you could argue that we may not have figured out how to measure everything yet.
> 
> For example:
> It took the world a while to catch up with Jitter, it's effects and how to measure it.
> ...


 
  That being said, I wonder what is next. Come to think of it, I think one other place we have yet to touch into deeply is the shape of acoustic wavefronts, which one yields a more natural sound in headphones? I think it has been explored by the likes of Sennheiser/Stax/blah somewhat but not documented yet.
   
  Jitter really took a long time to be accepted by AES, but continuous objective proof and test change their minds eventually. 
   
  I do agree with you on the XBA-4 kiteki, when I first tried it, I was disappointed with the midrange. Steve says they are good but I really have to disagree when the XBA-3 sounds better. On another note,is the data on XBA-4?  
   
  ps. I have silk tweeters ready, anyone would like to donate a titanium one?
   
  Edit: Thanks frenchbat for summarising everything up for us.


----------



## Magick Man

chris j said:


> I suppose you could argue that we may not have figured out how to measure everything yet.
> 
> For example:
> It took the world a while to catch up with Jitter, it's effects and how to measure it.
> ...




There are some McIntosh's from that era which are, but not that many.


----------



## bigshot

Some people make a fetish of Marantz equipment too, but I suspect it's for reasons other than sound


----------



## El_Doug

While your point is coming across loud and clear, from a purely logical perspective, there IS NO DIFFERENCE  
   
  A=>B is the same as ~B=>~A
   
  thus, "If it is truly audible, then it can be shown on paper" is equivalent to saying, "If it can't be shown on paper, it is not truly audible." 
   
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Wrong. We say if it is truly audible, it can be shown on paper. There is a difference.


----------



## bigshot

There is a little difference. He's pointing out that science is based on documenting observable behavior and coming up with a theory to explain it, not just selectively looking for evidence that backs up a preexisting theory.


----------



## liamstrain

duplicate post


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> While your point is coming across loud and clear, from a purely logical perspective, there IS NO DIFFERENCE
> 
> A=>B is the same as ~B=>~A
> 
> thus, "If it is truly audible, then it can be shown on paper" is equivalent to saying, "If it can't be shown on paper, it is not truly audible."


 
   
  Aside from my point being about observation first... it also extends to the difference between audible and existing. Something may well exist, but if it is not audible, I am less concerned about whether it shows up on paper.* If it is audible*, it certainly would be measurable since human hearing is significantly restricted compared with measurement devices (and the ability to use computers to do dense comparative analysis between two signals). SO yes, I agree with your framing. If it cannot be shown on paper, it is not truly audible is a good summary of my feelings on the subject. 
   
  Now - whether we know how to interpret the measurements and analysis, is another matter... but I guarantee it's in there.


----------



## mikeaj

Nevermind, liamstrain beat me to it.
   


Spoiler: useless%20text



 
  Just to be clear...
   


kiteki said:


> A lot of people are attached to the idea data is total in _all fields of science_, so if it's not on paper = it doesn't exist.  I've tried to hit home this point with examples like subliminal advertising or human reaction times and it's just not working in[size=small] "› [/size]Sound Science[size=small] › [/size]Dilemma".


 
   
   


liamstrain said:


> Wrong. We say if it is truly audible, it can be shown on paper. There is a difference.


 
   


el_doug said:


> While your point is coming across loud and clear, from a purely logical perspective, there IS NO DIFFERENCE
> 
> A=>B is the same as ~B=>~A
> 
> thus, "If it is truly audible, then it can be shown on paper" is equivalent to saying, "If it can't be shown on paper, it is not truly audible."


 
   
   
  No (to El_Doug), rephrasing as the contrapositive wasn't the only change made.  "it exists" is quite different than "truly audible".
   
  Even on a macroscopic level—not even talking about Heisenberg uncertainty—there's a limit to measurement accuracy.  Furthermore, there should be a distinction between measurements that can be done easily, those that can be done if we theoretically had an infinite amount of time to run experiments, those that are impractical so aren't done in practice, and so on.  Many effects should exist yet not show up on paper; they could be attributes that can't be directly measured, or they can't be picked up by current instrumentation because of the accuracy.
   
   
  A more proper or careful phrasing is this, though maybe somebody else has a better formulation:
   
_If there is an audible difference or phenomenon, some measurement will produce different results.  [a measurable change, so it will show up in the data, or "on paper"]_
   
  (if the right tools are used and the correct measurements taken.  "audible" is a key word because the instrumentation may not be good enough for some other fields.)
   
  or
   
_If there is no change is detected in every possible measurement, there will be no audible difference._


----------



## bigshot

Thresholds of human audibility should be posted along with the specs for every piece of equipment. Of course then just about every CD player would be essentially the same.


----------



## Tilpo

bigshot said:


> Thresholds of human audibility should be posted along with the specs for every piece of equipment. Of course then just about every CD player would be essentially the same.



Now that would be something awesome.

Though you would still be stuck with approximates.


----------



## bigshot

No different than the suggested daily nutritional requirements on food.


----------



## kiteki

I think you guys need to study this.
   
  Acoustic measurement - http://en.goldenears.net/388
  How to read it - http://en.goldenears.net/KB_Columns/456
   
  Digital - http://en.goldenears.net/405
  How to read it - http://en.goldenears.net/KB_Columns/467


----------



## Tilpo

kiteki said:


> I think you guys need to study this.
> 
> Acoustic measurement - http://en.goldenears.net/388
> How to read it - http://en.goldenears.net/KB_Columns/456
> ...



What of it?
It just describes how to interpret measurements. I think most of us already knew that.

The question is how significant the measurements are when using it to predict (some aspect of) real life performance.
And with amps and DAC's it is important to consider at which point the various specs become so high that we are unable to distinguish them from on another. The article just says stuff like 'smaller is better', but not to what extent it is better, or at what point you've crossed the border of audibility.


----------



## kiteki

liamstrain said:


> el_doug said:
> 
> 
> > While your point is coming across loud and clear, from a purely logical perspective, there IS NO DIFFERENCE
> ...


 
   
  Human hearing in acoustic audio can detect dozens of variables more quickly and accurately than the $20,000+ equipment I linked above.
   
  You and others are so adamant with "paper first - truth later".  I don't see why － other than some castle in the sky.
   
_In theory_ you are correct that science can reveal everything which we can hear, however it's subject to ...
   


mikeaj said:


> _Even on a macroscopic level—not even talking about Heisenberg uncertainty—there's a limit to measurement accuracy. Furthermore, there should be a distinction between_
> 
> _1. measurements that can be done easily._
> 
> ...


 
   
   
   


bigshot said:


> No different than the suggested daily nutritional requirements on food.


 
   
  Medicine is a much better example here imho.  Especially since the placebo effect exists there and the scientific methods surrounding medicine.


----------



## Tilpo

kiteki said:


> Human hearing in acoustic audio [COLOR=0000FF]can detect dozens of variables more quickly and accurately than the $20,000+ equipment I linked above.[/COLOR]
> 
> You and others are so adamant with "paper first - truth later".  I don't see why － other than some castle in the sky.
> 
> _In theory_ you are correct that science can reveal everything which we can hear, however it's subject to ...



Can you back the statement in blue up by a source?
Because honestly my knowledge of psychoacoustics predicts the opposite. That is, when talking about factors such as frequency response, noise, distortion, etc. (stuff that _can_ be measured). 
If you're talking about stuff such as soundstage then sure. Spacial perception of sound is very complicated.


----------



## kiteki

tilpo said:


> ［／］
> The article just says stuff like 'smaller is better', but not to what extent it is better, or at what point you've crossed the border of audibility.


 
   
  Exactly, is the -150dB distortion versus -100dB on a DAC or op-amp chip relevant?  Have they both crossed the border which we've drawn on thin air, or not?  If they have and Electrical Engineers detect differences via listening etc., where in the chip do the differences lie?  In the THD+N or somewhere else?  Where have the thresholds of audibility been defined?  Are the thresholds accurate?  Within which parameters?  Are those parameters total?  Via which evidence? Etc.
   
  Like I said there's no hope until you can record venue A, play it in venue B, and they sound identical, haha.


----------



## Tilpo

kiteki said:


> Exactly, is the -150dB distortion versus -100dB on a DAC or op-amp chip relevant?  Have they both crossed the border which we've drawn on thin air, or not?  If they have and Electrical Engineers detect differences via listening etc., where in the chip do the differences lie?  In the THD+N or somewhere else?  Where have the thresholds of audibility been defined?  Are the thresholds accurate?  Within which parameters?  Are those parameters total?  Via which evidence? Etc.
> 
> Like I said there's no hope until you can record venue A, play it in venue B, and they sound identical, haha.



If you want to know that, then read up on basic neuroscience and then read a book on psychoacoustics. That's what I'm doing right now.

Just because the information isn't everywhere does not mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Exactly, is the -150dB distortion versus -100dB on a DAC or op-amp chip relevant?  Have they both crossed the border which we've drawn on thin air, or not?  If they have and Electrical *Engineers detect differences via listening etc., where in the chip do the differences lie? * In the THD+N or somewhere else?  Where have the thresholds of audibility been defined?  Are the thresholds accurate?  Within which parameters?  Are those parameters total?  Via which evidence? Etc.
> 
> Like I said there's no hope until you can record venue A, play it in venue B, and they sound identical, haha.


 
   
  Experiments indicate it's in their head...


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *Tilpo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Can you back the statement in blue up by a source?
> Because honestly my knowledge of psychoacoustics predicts the opposite. That is, when talking about factors such as frequency response, noise, distortion, etc. (stuff that _can_ be measured).
> ...


 
   
  Of course equipment is vastly more accurate in seeing exact FR and THD+N.
   
  Talking about spatial stuff like Apple earbud versus STAX, or IEM driver placement like here
   


,
   
  and this, this.


----------



## Tilpo

kiteki said:


> Of course [COLOR=0000FF]equipment is vastly more accurate in seeing exact FR and THD+N.[/COLOR]
> 
> Talking about spatial stuff like Apple earbud versus STAX, or IEM driver placement like here
> 
> ...



Yes.

But spacial perception is very much a psychoacoustical phenomenon. Trying to analyze it using measuring equipment is close to impossible. 
This is a fact which we have to accept. 

Can you other than spacial perception -- which is immensely complicated -- give another example?


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, is the -150dB distortion versus -100dB on a DAC or op-amp chip relevant?  Have they both crossed the border which we've drawn on thin air, or not?  If they have and Electrical *Engineers detect differences via listening etc., where in the chip do the differences lie? * In the THD+N or somewhere else?  Where have the thresholds of audibility been defined?  Are the thresholds accurate?  Within which parameters?  Are those parameters total?  Via which evidence? Etc.
> ...


 
   
  Sometimes Chinese medicine is in your head, sometimes it's not.  You need to experiment to find out.  Link to experiments on ES9023 versus ES9018, or NE5532 versus AD797 / OPA627, afaik they don't exist.  So the medicine is... not tested. =p


----------



## kiteki

tilpo said:


> Yes.
> 
> But spacial perception is very much a psychoacoustical phenomenon. Trying to analyze it using measuring equipment is close to impossible.
> This is a fact which we have to accept.
> ...


 
   
this, this.
   
  For example - http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/whitePaper/DS668WP1.pdf


----------



## Tilpo

kiteki said:


> [COLOR=800080]this[/COLOR], [COLOR=FF0000]this.[/COLOR]
> 
> For example - http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/whitePaper/DS668WP1.pdf



Those two posts do not really prove to the initial statement. You claimed that _"Human hearing in acoustic audio can detect dozens of variables more quickly and accurately than the $20,000+ equipment I linked above."._
Making comparisons to visual stimuli, although a nice metaphor, is just flawed. Hearing is completely different from vision. You could just as well start comparing it to taste/smell or to touch. 

The article you linked just shows that there are even more measurable factors that can be audible than most people would commonly think of. The measurements themselves are still relatively easy to make.


----------



## bigshot

I can see better than an electron microscope, dammit!


----------



## kiteki

tilpo said:


> Making comparisons to visual stimuli, although a nice metaphor, is just flawed. Hearing is completely different from vision.


 
   
  So are you saying NwAv's various comparisons to video, and articles like this, are just flawed? - http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_s
   
  Or, is video a good example, when it suits you?  Video is electricity -> photons, Audio is electricity -> air, they operate at Hertz rates, which you can find in christmas lights, or Skullcandy headphones, this is called _frequency response_, are you following me so far?
   

   
   


> Those two posts do not really prove to the initial statement. You claimed that _"Human hearing in acoustic audio can detect dozens of variables more quickly and accurately than the $20,000+ equipment I linked above."._


 
   
  Can you link to evidence on your statement that spatial differences exist between the Apple earbud and SR-009 or are we just playing with unvalidated theory now?
   
  If you want another example, a human can identify 100,000 unique voices played back via videos much faster than you'll be able to identify them to the correct persons with your data, do you want me to link to evidence on this?  Data first truth later right?


----------



## kiteki

Oh look I just found the differences between AD797 and OPA627
   
  Why is it not in the THD+N or FR oh noes my snow kingdom of science in the sky is melting help meeee


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> If you want another example, a human can identify 100,000 unique voices played back via videos much faster than you'll be able to identify them to the correct persons with your data


 
   
   
The point of measurements is not to match a unique voice to its specific person. The data can tell the specific differences between them faster and more accurately. Who it is, is irrelevant for the purposes we need from them (that's an exercise in something other than measurement - pattern/voice recognition for instance...not just finding and cataloging the type and amplitude of differences). 
   
To use an instrument example of what I am saying. Two violins are compared and the measurements show clear differences in frequency, harmonics and sustain. Those are measurable, precise, and repeatable. That you or I could identify *which* of them is the Yamaha versus the Stradivarius, is irrelevant to the measurements, which remain as exact as before - and which are more precise than what you or I could ever identify - despite our human ability to recognize the owner of that sound.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Yes.
> But spacial perception is very much a psychoacoustical phenomenon. Trying to analyze it using measuring equipment is close to impossible.
> This is a fact which we have to accept.
> Can you other than spacial perception -- which is immensely complicated -- give another example?


 
   
  It's hard but not impossible.  It's about how inter-aural time and level differences vary with the position of the source.
   
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Sometimes Chinese medicine is in your head, sometimes it's not.  You need to experiment to find out.  Link to experiments on ES9023 versus ES9018, or NE5532 versus AD797 / OPA627, afaik they don't exist.  So the medicine is... not tested. =p


 
   
  I have personally conducted thousands of studies on such matters, including all the chips you mention, which prove you wrong.  Unfortunately I'm not allowed to show them to you for contractual reasons.  They still exist until you prove they don't.
   





   
  Maybe the reason that opamps sound different to you is because your home is built over an underground colony of Audio Gnomes that tinker with your gear whenever you're not home.  Have you set up hidden cameras to test for that?  You can't rule it out until you do!
   




   
  See how that kind of thing works?  There's no reason to expect some previously unknown difference to appear when any two chips are tested against each other because we already have plenty of evidence supporting the idea that making the usual THD, IMD crossover distortion, ensuring a high enough slew rate, etc good enough is what actually matters and that people readily "hear" imaginary differences between even the same thing heard twice when provided with the proper stimulus.  Do we have to drain Loch Ness before we say that people looking for a monster in it are wasting their time or is the fact that the lake doesn't contain enough food for a breading population of such large animal enough to draw a reasonable conclusion?  Is my claim about a large body of confidential research too suspiciously ad hoc to be believed?  Is the fact the the existence of gnomes has not been confirmed and is not likely based on what we know of biology enough to discount them as a potential factor?
   
  You could be right kiteki.  Any madman with a sandwich board on a street corner proclaiming the end of the world _could_ be right.  The question isn't just why should anyone believe you but why anyone should even bother taking you seriously.  Would you even bother to thoroughly investigate the ravings of a madman before discounting them as crap?  Most people usually require some evidence before even spending a small portion or their mortality on investigating some random assertion and rightly so.  Most new ideas turn out to be wrong.
   
  That doesn't mean you should never accept new ideas, only that they should be supported by evidence first and that the amount of evidence required should be proportional to the idea's implications.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't test new ideas either but there are still standards.  Testing every stupid idea that someone comes up with regardless of it's plausibility is not only boring but a massive waste of resources.  If you think there's a decent chance of finding something new or if you're just interested in doing it then go ahead and test it yourself.  If you can't then convince someone else that it's worth testing.  Calling someone out for testing an implausible claim themselves is like calling someone out for ignoring the madman proclaiming the end of the world and not thoroughly investigating his doomsday scenario.  In both cases prior experience predicts a general trend.  The probability of any individual claim being true along with the general exclusivity of the individual claims mean that due to the miniscule chance of any one being true you're better off treating it as false until someone else demonstrates otherwise.
   
  That may sound complicated but that's really how most people deal with such things even if only unconsciously.  That's why I used the "madman on the street example".  They're mostly ignored and people are correct in doing so.  Of course discoveries can be made by madness that pursues avenues everyone else rightly assumes are improbable based on current data as well as genius which sees what no one else saw before but that's hardly an argument for madness as productive tool of discovery given it's hit rate.  The bottom line is that if you want to prove that everything we think we know about audio reproduction is wrong then you're going to need some rather interesting evidence just to get most people to take your claim seriously.
   
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Oh look I just found the differences between AD797 and OPA627
> 
> Why is it not in the THD+N or FR oh noes my snow kingdom of science in the sky is melting help meeee


 
   
  Do you even know what those graphs mean kiteki?


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Do you even know what those graphs mean kiteki?


 
   
  My thoughts exactly.  Unless the joke's on us.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> Jitter really took a long time to be accepted by AES, but continuous objective proof and test change their minds eventually.


 
   
  Yep, that's what I was getting at.
  Thanks for the comment!
  Quote: 





el_doug said:


> thus, "If it is truly audible, then it can be shown on paper" is equivalent to saying, "If it can't be shown on paper, it is not truly audible."


 
   
  Yes sir, that's basically what I was _trying_ to say.
  Thanks for the clarification.
  If you can't measure it, then it doesn't exist? Puh-leeeeze!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> If you can't measure it, then it doesn't exist? Puh-leeeeze!


 
   
   
  No, that is NOT what I am saying. I'm saying if you cannot measure it, then it is not audible.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> No, that is NOT what I am saying. I'm saying if you cannot measure it, then it is not audible.


 
  I'll stick with my first answer.


----------



## liamstrain

Then the burden is on you to show that there are things which *are* audible, which we cannot measure.


----------



## bigshot

The voices in my head are audible but can't be measured!


----------



## liamstrain

*backs away slowly
   
  (though, you could probably correlate the amount of lithium needed to make them go away, as an audibility measurement)


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> My thoughts exactly.  Unless the joke's on us.


 
   
Must be.
   
  Are you screwing with us kiteki?


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Then the burden is on you to show that there are things which *are* audible, which we cannot measure.


 
   
  Didn't The Band have a song about this?


----------



## Tilpo

kiteki said:


> So are you saying NwAv's various comparisons to video, and articles like this, are just flawed? - http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_s
> 
> Or, is video a good example, when it suits you?  Video is electricity -> photons, Audio is electricity -> air, they operate at Hertz rates, which you can find in christmas lights, or Skullcandy headphones, this is called _frequency response_, are you following me so far?



Actually not electricity -> photons strictly. Ever heard of the wave-particle duality of light? 

And just because NwAvGuy used it as a metaphor doesn't make it less flawed. Actually it's just that: a metaphor. A linguistic tool useful for explaining the phenomenon to people who do not yet understand it. But I think it's safe to say that everyone in this thread has a good understanding of simple concepts like harmonic distortion and frequency response.


----------



## mike1127

I believe that my current digital setup (modified PS Audio transport, custom DAC by K Works) is far superior to a basic CD player (by "basic" I mean, say, a commonly available CD player which measures with vanishingly low distortion) and I'd be willing to blind-test that if anyone in the LA area wants to help run the experiment.
   
  EDIT: it would help if some of the professional audio folks here suggest such a "basic" CD player that I could find at a Best Buy or similar store, something they feel confident has practically perfect performance. I guess CD players aren't sold any more. Is an ipod playing a WAV file "practically perfect"?


----------



## bigshot

Why not set up a line level matched A/B switchable test first. Then at least you'll have an idea of how big of a difference you think you hear. Honestly, if something requires a blind test to determine if it actually exists, it probably doesn't matter even if there is a difference.


----------



## mike1127

Well, first of all, I need to know what kind of source is considered "measured perfect" so I don't waste my time with a source that is already known to have audible defects.
   
  2nd, the goal is to prove to myself and/or others that I really hear a difference, so a blind test must be done and I need help with that.
   
  3rd, I'll explain something. It's about the way I perceive the characteristic sound of something, and I believe many audiophiles hear things the same way. My transport/DAC has positive audible characteristics that I hear in a generalized way across many CDs at many volume levels. I haven't heard these in cheap CD players. I'm not saying I am above the possibility of placebo effect, just explaining how the sound is perceived.
   
  It's the same way that analog sources have certain positive characteristics that are not typical of digital, taken as a class of perceptual phenomena across many recordings at many volume levels.
   
  It's the same way that live music has beauty and power that I've never heard from *any* audio reproduction.


----------



## bigshot

Sometimes I wonder if people enjoy playing scientist more than just figuring out practical ways to improve their stereo systems. It's very simple. You do balanced A/B comparisons and try to eliminate the variables that might affect the outcome. If there isn't much difference, it doesn't matter. Look for ways to improve your sound that you can clearly hear without jumping through hoops.

"Generalized improvements" across long terms of listening and different music and listening volumes is a big fat red flag. Vague things like that almost always completely dissolve when you rack up a $50 Coby CD player and a fancy ass player side by side with balanced line levels. Usually if there really *is* a difference, you can clearly discern exactly what it is.

"Beauty" and "power" are aspects of performance, not sound reproduction.


----------



## mike1127

I've got something to point out. I am not interested in a flame war here -- I'll maintain a respectful tone, and anyone who tries to flame me will be ignored.
   
  This is related to what Katei is saying. It's about epistemology, about the question of how we decide what it means to "know" something and how knowledge is acquired.
   
  A measurement is a parameterized model, and models are never reality. E.g., to measure the frequency response, you model the system as linear, and perform a measurement to approximate the response at a series of frequency points. The system isn't actually linear but you get an answer anyway. And there is nothing in your answer that could possibly show your model is wrong.
   
  Next point, a model is a way of predicting the behavior of the system. About prediction: to predict the behavior of a system that consists of audio equipment, your ear, and your brain, you need to predict the system's behavior for a broad set of inputs -- and the inputs of interest are musical signals (not test signals). If we say a system is "accurate" we are essentially saying something about its future behavior with respect to all musical input signals under a general set of operating conditions for all future time.
   
  I've got about six more points but let's start with these.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Sometimes I wonder if people enjoy playing scientist more than just figuring out practical ways to improve their stereo systems. It's very simple. You do balanced A/B comparisons and try to eliminate the variables that might affect the outcome. If there isn't much difference, it doesn't matter. Look for ways to improve your sound that you can clearly hear without jumping through hoops.
> "Generalized improvements" across long terms of listening and different music and listening volumes is a big fat red flag. Vague things like that almost always completely dissolve when you rack up a $50 Coby CD player and a fancy ass player side by side with balanced line levels. Usually if there really *is* a difference, you can clearly discern exactly what it is.


 
  You are misreading my use of the word "generalized". They are specific improvements, but heard across many signals, which makes them a different perceptual phenomenon than a difference heard on one signal.
   
  I would think nearly anyone would know what I mean about live music vs. audio. Look, I think anything needs to be blind tested for proof, but I think most people know what I'm talking about when I say live music has certain characteristics that one never hears in audio. Everyone perceives differently, so perhaps some don't perceive this.
   
  Weird, audiophiles who claim improvements but haven't done blind tests are told they need a blind test to prove it, but now that I'm asking for help with a blind test I'm told I'm "playing scientist".
   
  Small differences do matter because a bunch of small differences makes a large difference.


----------



## bigshot

I'm not flaming. I'm trying to drag your quest for good sound down to earth. Ten dollar words like "epistemology" and flowery descriptions of the "power and the grandeur" of the music won't do jack squat to make your stereo sound good. All this kind of stuff can do is serve to convince you of things that are purely theoretical and haven't been practically identified and put to work yet.

This isn't a test to see who is smarter and can speak the fanciest. It's the search for better sound. That comes from taking one piece of technology and directly comparing it to another with a level playing field.

Which one sounds better? What part of the sound does it improve? By how much? These are really simple questions and you don't need access to a PHd or a particle accellerator to answer them. But if you never bother to ask them, or refuse to answer them without a bunsen burner and a peer review, your stereo will never sound any better than it does now.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> You are misreading my use of the word "generalized". They are specific improvements, but heard across many signals, which makes them a different perceptual phenomenon than a difference heard on one signal..




No. It's the *same* improvement, just spread across a lot of unfocused listening... So much generalized listening that you can't even identify the qualities of the improvement or if it even exists. The place to start is to try to hear the improvement side by side so you can identify it and determine how big of an improvement it is. Odds are, there may very well be no difference. The improvement came as a phantom from your generalized unfocused listening.

Live music has all sorts of factors that don't even relate to recorded music. It's apples and oranges. Completely irrelevant to what we are talking about here. I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole with you on that one.

In sound reproduction, the small differences do not add up to much. It's the main issues that always are a problem. It's silly to claim you want to dot every i and cross ever t for accurate sound and listen to tiny little speakers jammed in your ears. You're starting out from a place that is inaccurate on a whole level of magnitude greater.


----------



## mike1127

bigshot, I don't think you are flaming me. I think you have good points, but I disagree with them.
   
  I do have a practical attitude. I choose components that make a big difference. I work with a designer/tech, to do modifications, who has a theoretical understanding of what he is doing that serves us phenomenally well. We make price/performance compromises. Etc.
   
  The only thing is that we don't use blind tests. If I do a blind test and prove my "audible big differences" don't exist, that would save me a ton of money. So it's a very practical thing.
   
  Theoretical understanding is very important and very practical. The ability to make predictions about performance is very practical. For instance, Ethan Winer wrote a book giving advice about choosing components. Not every audiophile can do blind tests of everything in their system-- and virtually no one can do quick-switch/blind tests of speakers. Giving broad advice is practical.
   
  Hence, an analysis of the various paradigms and how they are arrived at is very important. There is an epistemology behind everything whether you are aware of it or not. *You *have an epistemology and/or paradigm or whatever we might call it. For instance, you believe that "if something requires a blind test to determine if it actually exists, it probably doesn't matter even if there is a difference." That's an operational paradigm. That's about making predictions of the behavior of a system.
   
  And as far as "power and grandeur" (actually I wrote "power and beauty") -- all I can say is that this is the reason music exists -- for me anyway. *The very reason music exists* is a pretty darn important concept. How would you describe the things you like about music?


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> No. It's the *same* improvement, just spread across a lot of unfocused listening... So much generalized listening that you can't even identify the qualities of the improvement or if it even exists. The place to start is to try to hear the improvement side by side so you can identify it and determine how big of an improvement it is. Odds are, there may very well be no difference. The improvement came as a phantom from your generalized unfocused listening.


 
   
  I'm not sure what you mean by "generalized unfocused listening".
   
  I can identify the qualities of improvement easily. I can make a few points about that, but I wanted to address one thing at a time. But just to name one quality: microdynamic resolution
   
  Quote: 





> Live music has all sorts of factors that don't even relate to recorded music. It's apples and oranges. Completely irrelevant to what we are talking about here


 
   
  This is part of your paradigm but I couldn't disagree more. I listen to recorded music in order to have experiences similar to listening to live music. So the most important factors are shared. For instance, one can evaluate the microdynamic resolution of live music as well as recorded music. The m. r. in live music varies and is affected by the hall acoustics and the skill of the players, among other factors. It just seems like we are in such different places you don't recognize *any* of the concepts that I consider critical to music reproduction. I'm a musician and I have a B.S. E.E. and believe me, this stuff couldn't be more obvious to me.
   
   
  Quote: 





> In sound reproduction, the small differences do not add up to much.


 
  Again, that's your experience but not mine. Something about the way we perceive sound, the qualities we listen to, is so different that we come to opposite conclusions.


----------



## bigshot

When I say "generalized unfocused listening" i mean listening without making sure that you've eliminated as many variables that might skew your impression as possible... Specifically, putting two sound samples side by side with balanced levels and switching back and forth to allow you to identify the difference and its size. Just sitting in a chair with a glass of wine listening to Mozart isn't specific focused listening.

Significant dynamic differences are very easy to detect with balanced line levels. But if the two sounds you are comparing aren't at the exact same level, the louder one is going to always sound more dynamic than the softer one. It's unlikely that any CD player performing to spec is gong to have different dynamics than another CD player. Redbook sound by definition has a MUCh broader dynamic range than any music could possibly take advantage of. The internal dynamics of the music are a function of the performance and recording engineering, not playback.

If you want your recorded music to sound exactly like a live performance, you should move into a night club or concert hall. The acoustics of a live venue and PA system is something that recorded music can't duplicate. Recorded music has its own properties that can be exploited, but expecting two speakers to replicate the complex reflections and directionality in sound one experiences in a jazz club or arena rock concert just isn't going to happen. Those differences are to "microdynamics" as the planet Jupiter is to a grain of sand.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> The only thing is that we don't use blind tests. If I do a blind test and prove my "audible big differences" don't exist, that would save me a ton of money. So it's a very practical thing.




Do you do any kind of controlled testing at all? Because depending entirely on subjective impressions is only one jot above random chance in effectiveness.

Every time I get a new piece of equipment, I do A/B testing to see what it can do. When I got a CD burner, I compared a CD burned and ripped ten times to the original CD. When I got an equalizer I spent a month testing it and experimenting before I patched it into my system. When I got an iPod I did a line level matched comparison with my CD player. Then I did comparison tests with various codecs and bitrates. When I got an SACD player, I did a line level matched comparison with my CD player.

I know *exactly* what my equipment sounds like and what I can expect from it. I've learned that electronics are damn near perfect. When you plug in the speakers or headphones, *that's* where the trouble starts. I focus on the big things i can clearly hear, not the details that I have to convince myself that *maybe* I can hear if I do the right kind of double blind test.


----------



## Tilpo

bigshot said:


> I know *exactly* what my equipment sounds like and what I can expect from it. I've learned that electronics are damn near perfect. When you plug in the speakers or headphones, *that's* where the trouble starts. I focus on the big things i can clearly hear, not the details that I have to convince myself that *maybe* I can hear if I do the right kind of double blind test.



I completely agree with this, and to be honest I wish others did. 

I prefer to chase giants over chasing fairies.


----------



## scud80

Doing blind tests of your equipment isn't very expensive (actually cheap compared to the typical costs of the components involved), or very difficult.  All you need are some cables, switch boxes, an accurate voltmeter, and a friend.  I don't even do blind tests, because I can't tell a difference between well-made components (regardless of price point) in a sighted test.  Doing blind tests of speakers isn't as critical, because the differences between speakers (and headphones) are usually quite large.  A/B comparisons are still important (and kind of a pain), but they don't need to be blind.
  Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Not every audiophile can do blind tests of everything in their system-- and virtually no one can do quick-switch/blind tests of speakers.


----------



## bigshot

If you can't tell the difference between components in a sighted test, it doesn't matter. They're effectively the same. If you enjoy going the extra mile, that's fine. But if you can't hear a difference unless you do the aural equivalent of squinting really really hard, it isn't going to make your music sound any better.

Sometimes folks lose sight of the goal. It isn't to prove that you have exceptional powers of hearing or to justify the large cash outlay on equipment you've made. It's to make your music sound better.


----------



## kiteki

I haven't read the latest posts in detail yet, however it seems like bigshot's black/white vision is so unrelenting he doesn't notice the 'flaming', he thinks he's helping save the audio society.
   
   


bigshot said:


> depending entirely on subjective impressions is only one jot above random chance in effectiveness.
> 
> Every time I get a new piece of equipment, I do A/B testing to see what it can do.
> - When I got a CD burner, I compared a CD burned and ripped ten times to the original CD.
> ...


 
   
  None of these components make any difference anyway.  If you hear differences from one CD burner to the next you are hearing voices, so?
   
  You experimented with five fake medicines so now you say all medicine is fake.  It doesn't work like that.  You tried to define medicine with four strict parameters and those didn't work at all either, since "distortion" encompassed the entire in sound from laptop speakers to a live concert.


----------



## kiteki

bigshot here is a blind test for you - http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_ppec.htm
   
  This test compared lots of unnecessary components, most likely very difficult to hear in a system, what we have here is.
   
  - A decent CD player
  - A decent studio level stereo amplifier
  - Decent cables
  - Chair
   
  versus
   
  - Lots of unnecessary high-end components (without documenting exactly what they are, or where the differences should lie)
   
   
  So the result of this advanced blind test is all subjectivist audio and marketing is fake... is it?  In my view this test proves nothing at all.  It's only a selection of fake Asian medicine to demonstrate that no Asian medicine works at all. 


Spoiler: result%20spoiler



 
  Comically however, the results show that 26% _selected the correct system.  _They didn't take that 26% to the side to further test them, they just 'assumed' it was pure luck.  In other words a completely nonsense test pretending to be on a snow mountain of science dispelling all the fairy tale voices in audio to back up cynical theories as usual.
   
  Linking to flawed data such as in these tests and holding them up as 'evidence' only hurts your position.
   


   
   
  Next we have the Meyer & Moran test.
   
  Bigshot when you said you tested your new CD burner in post #916, you said you ripped and burned a CD 10 times and then compared it to the original CD right?  That's good.  So essentially you performed a *D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D* loop to test for transparency and fidelity there.
   
  Now let's look at the M&M study. - http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
   
  The title says "Audibility of a CD-Standard *A/DA/A* Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback"
   
  Clearly they were too lazy to perform an *A/D/A/D/A/D/A/D/A/D/A *loop, you know, after buying all that multi-thousand dollar equipment and testing so many people over a year or two, they couldn't rip and burn a CD a few times, or it just never struck them to do so.
   
  The statistics were completely flawed anyway.
   
  As mikeaj mirrored, you can't test for transparency with non-transparent transducers, and they played the original versus the duplicate CD in the same system.  So the duplicate CD is not only as transparent as the transducers yet the system as well.
   
   
  So, when I look at all the articles on a couple self-labelled objectivist blogs, which link to these two tests as the current standard of scientific endeavour and evidence, and advocators like Maverickronin follow suit, I can't help but question what kind of science they're supporting.  All I know is I'm not supporting it.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *kiteki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Comically however, the results show that 26% _selected the correct system.  _They didn't take that 26% to the side to further test them, they just 'assumed' it was pure luck.  In other words a completely nonsense test pretending to be on a snow mountain of science dispelling all the fairy tale voices in audio to back up cynical theories as usual.


 
   
  It's also a little comical that you are phrasing it like that, instead of 74% either thought the cheaper system sounded better, or could detect no difference between them. 
   
  74% is a much more impressive number, if you are talking about statistical significance.


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> tilpo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...


 
   
  Why are you two supporting spatial perception in transducers and the smyth realiser etc.?  It's purely subjective and anecdotal so it's supposed to be in polar conflict with your defined viewpoints on the furtherance and acceptance of scientific fact.
   
   


maverickronin said:


> [/]
> 
> You could be right kiteki. Any madman with a sandwich board on a street corner proclaiming the end of the world _could_ be right. The question isn't just why should anyone believe you but why anyone should even bother taking you seriously. Would you even bother to thoroughly investigate the ravings of a madman before discounting them as crap? Most people usually require some evidence before even spending a small portion or their mortality on investigating some random assertion and rightly so. Most new ideas turn out to be wrong.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Talking about sea monsters, madmen on street corners and "new ideas" is not helping your case at all.
   
  I don't have any "new ideas", whatever I believe in or try to believe in in audio is supported by most likely tens of thousands of enthusiasts and various companies pursuing these paths.
   
  If anything you are believing in a sea monster of transparency, strict audio parameters and totality of data representation which are lacking in evidence or listening data to support themselves so it's just as pseudo-science anything else you try to attack so why should I take your ideals seriously, especially when you define epistemology as the facts we have in 2012 and not looking into the future?
   
  In what you outlined I also doubt many things would have been discovered in science such as subliminal advertising since you would have said it's a "massive waste of resources" to look for right?
   
   


maverickronin said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > Oh look I just found the differences between AD797 and OPA627
> ...


 
   
  They represent *differences *in raw data.  (x was 3ms and y was 1mV)
   
  If two medicines are 100% equal down to the chemical level then they are equal.  If there are differences in composition or chemicals it becomes likely they could have different chemical reactions.  That's why I look at technology and design in audio and for differences in raw data, instead of completely useless academic papers.


----------



## kiteki

liamstrain said:


> 74% is a much more impressive number, if you are talking about statistical significance.


 
   
  I'm sure much less than 26% of people can hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 128kbps so I don't care for the finding.


----------



## scud80

i don't think that's true at all.  my hearing tops out at 17-18khz now and i don't have any trouble discerning those two when paying attention, but i also know what sort of sounds to listen for to decide.  if you took some well-chosen tracks and 15 minutes to educate an average person i think they could differentiate pretty reliably between 128kbps and lossless.  it gets much harder with 160kbps and higher though.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I'm sure much less than 26% of people can hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 128kbps so I don't care for the finding.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> They represent *differences *in raw data.  (x was 3ms and y was 1mV)
> 
> If two medicines are 100% equal down to the chemical level then they are equal.  If there are differences in composition or chemicals it becomes likely they could have different chemical reactions.  That's why I look at technology and design in audio and for differences in raw data, instead of completely useless academic papers.


 
   
  In case you missed it that was a graph of the _*harmonic distortion*_ leftover after subtracting the fundamental.  That's what it means when it says "residual".
   
  Looking up the difference between time and frequency domains might be helpful too...


----------



## mikeaj

kiteki said:


> You experimented with five fake medicines so now you say all medicine is fake.  It doesn't work like that.  You tried to define medicine with four strict parameters and those didn't work at all either, since "distortion" encompassed the entire in sound from laptop speakers to a live concert.


 
   
  This isn't addressed to me, but just to be more careful here, you can take "distortion" in this context to mean any change from the original.  So that will encompass any change in sound from laptop speakers compared to a live concert, by definition.  If you're talking about a couple canned THD benchmarks at a given output level and frequency, then obviously not.  However, it should be noted that while some THD benchmarks don't encompass all possible measurements, they do provide a good idea of the amount of nonlinearity in the device tested.  It's a useful measure in of itself, but it's also an _indicator_ of something more significant.  Particularly with some electronics, if the linear distortion is vanishingly low and the nonlinear distortion is vanishingly low with a decent variety of test signals, scenarios, and so on, there's a good chance that any input signal contained within a certain set of parameters will be pretty faithfully reproduced on the output.  That's how it works.
   
   
  The Matrix HiFi test is mostly just an example that a lot of audiophiles can be deluded, because the system that should have been obviously better (to some at least), was probably not, in actual listening.  It's not particularly the best-run, most-vigorous experiment.  However, I'm not much seeing some highly-vigorous, extensive studies proving certain controversial aspects of audiophile mythology?  You've got to work with the evidence that's available, whatever quality it is, and wonder why some doesn't exist.
   
   
   


kiteki said:


> I'm sure much less than 26% of people can hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 128kbps so I don't care for the finding.


 
   
  Check this:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-evidence-that-kids-even-japanese.html
   
  70% of trials were correct in identifying 128 kbps mp3 (LAME 3.97) from CD audio, by high school and college kids.  That's just one study though, and run by somebody with an interest in showing that people appreciate high fidelity.
   
   
  Even if your figure were true, the philistines in the other 74% must have conspired to all pick the wrong answer?  Actually, I think some are assuming that the more expensive system actually has higher fidelity or sounds better to most people, which may not be true.


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> In case you missed it that was a graph of the _*harmonic distortion*_ leftover after subtracting the fundamental.  That's what it means when it says "residual".
> 
> Looking up the difference between time and frequency domains might be helpful too...


 
   
  So?  Here's plenty more differences for you
   
  - http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/data_sheets/AD797.pdf
  - http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa627.pdf


----------



## kiteki

mikeaj said:


> [/]
> The Matrix HiFi test is mostly just an example that a lot of audiophiles can be deluded, because the system that should have been obviously better (to some at least), was probably not, in actual listening.  It's not particularly the best-run, most-vigorous experiment.  However, I'm not much seeing some highly-vigorous, extensive studies proving certain controversial aspects of audiophile mythology?  You've got to work with the evidence that's available, whatever quality it is, and wonder why some doesn't exist.


 
   
  All evidence that's available are isolated incidents, the matrix study proves exactly what it tested for, there is nothing scientific about extrapolating on the Matrix Hifi test to cover components which were not featured in the test.  That is like saying medicine A, B, C, D, E from China doesn't work so F~Z is unicorns as well.  It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
   
  As for the second test not furthering the A/D/A loop, it's furthering loops _to find non-transparency _which is the testing scenario in favour for the non-transparency of high-end buffers and op-amps (+A/D, D/A chips too ideally).
   
  So I don't see your point.
   
  Edit:  I do see your point about wondering why some don't exist.  I think it's usually a case of the time+difficulty in setting up a valid test, and the fact that 99% of individuals decide to believe or not believe, they are pre-convinced and don't see the experimentation or inquisition as necessary.  Maverick's excuse is sea monsters, however that's his very subjective viewpoint.  As an example a few years ago he could have called subliminal advertising a sea monster or madman on the street all just the same.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> When I say "generalized unfocused listening" i mean listening without making sure that you've eliminated as many variables that might skew your impression as possible... Specifically, putting two sound samples side by side with balanced levels and switching back and forth to allow you to identify the difference and its size. Just sitting in a chair with a glass of wine listening to Mozart isn't specific focused listening.


 
   
  First, I would never question your love of music--I'm sure there are very meaningful experiences that you get from it. (I would be interested in how you describe these.) Because we love music and use reproduction systems, we have a lot in common. What I _will _say is that different people take away different experiences from music, so it is entirely likely that you and I listen for different things, or we are moved in different ways. In fact every person in this thread has a unique way of hearing and processing music.
   
  What I want to explain is the idea that sensory experiences can be abstracted. In the domain of visual facial recognition, we probably all agree that people's brains are very good at recognizing the face of a familiar person. The face may appear at different angles, different lighting, different emotions on the face... even photographs of the same person at different ages. All of these images are _concrete_ images that are very different, yet there is an _abstraction_ that unites them all -- "this is my brother" -- or whoever. Scientists have explored the problem of facial recognition algorithms and have successfully imitated a lot of the brain's processing.
   
  Musicians spend thousands of hours listening to and performing music. The concept of microdynamic resolution is one that many musicians are interested in. (They might call it something else-- the term is more common in audio-- but it's the same thing.) The concept applies both to an evaluation of a live performance (where it is about the hall acoustics, the skill of the player, and so on) and an evaluation of a reproduction. To a musician, this concept is as obvious as facial recognition is to most people. It's something that they practice perceiving (as well as controlling in their own performance).
   
  I only know you through your words here, so I would not presume to know for a fact what is going in on. But your words sound like you are someone who was, metaphorically, born without the part of the brain that recognizes faces, and now claiming that facial recognition under varied conditions is nonsense. It gives the impression you haven't studied and practiced music intensively. I get the same impression from someone like Ethan Winer who claims that Pace, Rhythm and Timing (PRaT) is nonsense. All I can say is that he hasn't learned to perceive it yet.
   
   
  Quote: 





> If you want your recorded music to sound exactly like a live performance, you should move into a night club or concert hall. The acoustics of a live venue and PA system is something that recorded music can't duplicate. Recorded music has its own properties that can be exploited, but expecting two speakers to replicate the complex reflections and directionality in sound one experiences in a jazz club or arena rock concert just isn't going to happen. Those differences are to "microdynamics" as the planet Jupiter is to a grain of sand.


 
   
  No, I think that live acoustics vs. reproduction are equivalent to lighting a face differently. It's the same face. Scientists find this equivalent problem interesting and have worked on it. Also recognition of emotion as an abstraction across many faces. It's a problem you can sink your teeth into, not "nonsense" at all. Your general paradigm -- shared by many engineers on this forum -- is bizarre, in a way, to a musician.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> When you plug in the speakers or headphones, *that's* where the trouble starts. I focus on the big things i can clearly hear, not the details that I have to convince myself that *maybe* I can hear if I do the right kind of double blind test


 
   
  Everything I'm saying applies to all stages in the audio system. Okay, I'll concede for now that CD players are essentially alike. Speakers and microphones and microphone positions, etc., affect things like microdynamics.
   
   
  Quote: 





> I know *exactly* what my equipment sounds like and what I can expect from it


 
  I know that also, but I learn that through listening to a variety of music at varied volume levels.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





scud80 said:


> Doing blind tests of your equipment isn't very expensive (actually cheap compared to the typical costs of the components involved), or very difficult.  All you need are some cables, switch boxes, an accurate voltmeter, and a friend.  I don't even do blind tests, because I can't tell a difference between well-made components (regardless of price point) in a sighted test.  Doing blind tests of speakers isn't as critical, because the differences between speakers (and headphones) are usually quite large.  A/B comparisons are still important (and kind of a pain), but they don't need to be blind.


 
   
  I think there are some puzzling inconsistencies here.
   
  I agree with many engineers on this forum that people can be misled by expectation. But why would it only make the illusion of differences? Couldn't it give the illusion of sameness? For example, if you are attached to the belief that CD players sound alike, wouldn't your sighted evaluation be unreliable?---because a difference is something you don't want to find.
   
  Also, this idea that a test should be run by the following steps:
   

 listen sighted to hone in on the specific difference
 do a blind test
   
  It seems to me that you have to acknowledge that you could be "honing in on" an illusory difference even when there is a real difference. Then your blind test would be useless, because you aren't listening for the right thing.
   
  EDIT: same problem comes up when you say you don't do blind tests of speakers. Expectation is still at work.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> If you can't tell the difference between components in a sighted test, it doesn't matter. They're effectively the same. If you enjoy going the extra mile, that's fine. But if you can't hear a difference unless you do the aural equivalent of squinting really really hard, it isn't going to make your music sound any better.
> *Sometimes folks lose sight of the goal. It isn't to prove that you have exceptional powers of hearing or to justify the large cash outlay on equipment you've made. It's to make your music sound better.*


 
  I don't know anyone who buys expensive stuff for these two reasons ("to prove you have exceptional power...", "justify large cash outlay..."). I think you are projecting them on people.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> I agree with many engineers on this forum that people can be misled by expectation. But why would it only make the illusion of differences? Couldn't it give the illusion of sameness? For example, if you are attached to the belief that CD players sound alike, wouldn't your sighted evaluation be unreliable?---because a difference is something you don't want to find.


 
   
  Nah, there's no inconsistency.  Most people who point out expectation bias (at least me and most here), will say it goes both ways, as you say.  Somebody not expecting to hear differences will be predisposed not to report differences.  There's a further possibility of potential lying and intentional sandbagging—dishonest reporting—by those who know what's actually being tested (A and B in general, not which is which).
   
   
  On a complete side note, I'm fairly sure that "microdynamic resolution" is not part of the vocabulary or jargon of musicians.  I hope you don't further bring up qualifications or experiences into the discussion, because that's not very productive, and you may find that some people have different backgrounds than you might assume.


----------



## scud80

Nobody said this should be the procedure.  Regardless, I had no expectation of sameness.  In fact, I had an expectation of difference after reading so many reviews on here talking about how different their different pieces of gear sounded.  Hearing none was a surprise.
  Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Also, this idea that a test should be run by the following steps:
> 
> listen sighted to hone in on the specific difference
> do a blind test


 
   
  And sure, there is bias with speakers, however the difference is that speakers measure very differently from each other whereas amps/dacs/cables/etc do not (well, they do, but differences are usually -70dB or less).  Yes, blind tests would be better, but they're much less practical for speakers.  Other components can just be switched in place, basically instantaneously, but speakers would have to be moved around for each trial, which is why nobody does it.


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure much less than 26% of people can hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 128kbps so I don't care for the finding.
> ...


 
   
  You have raised the point now (thanks) the 'philistines' could have decided to pick the wrong answer, since in the testing scenario they were all in the same room on chairs (see picture), the individual choices were decided by pointing a finger at which system was which.  Clearly someone could have pointed in the opposite direction of someone else in the room they were familiar with, or same direction.  I don't feel like dissecting it anymore because it's a completely useless test, apart from 'proving' that some random Ikea furniture, power cables, power conditioners, and mystery stereo amplifier _(with mystery insides) _will only be audible to 24% of people at a Spanish audio convention, so the conclusion is -> you better not buy mystery systems if you want to convince more people than 24%.
   
  It's not like I'm defending random power conditioners, just pointing out why should this be held up as evidence of anything?  It's only injuring the so called objectivist view and making it look cynical, which in turn, ushers people to subjectivism when the science is so ill.
   
   
  As for your MP3 link.
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1#Quality_2
   
_"Subjective audio testing by *experts*, in the most critical conditions ever implemented, has shown MP2 to offer *transparent* audio compression at* 256 kbit/s* for 16-bit 44.1 kHz CD audio using the earliest reference implementation (more recent encoders should presumably perform even better).[size=x-small][1][/size][size=x-small][48][/size][size=x-small][49][/size][size=x-small][54][/size]"_
   
  So if you believe in _peer reviewed papers and critical test conditions_, shouldn't you be saying MP2 at 256 kbps* is transparent* and the rest is mythology?  That's what Wikipedia and the ABX tests of expert listeners indicate, yes?


----------



## kiteki

scud80 said:


> Yes, blind tests would be better, but they're much less practical for speakers.  Other components can just be switched in place, basically instantaneously, but speakers would have to be moved around for each trial, which is why nobody does it.


 
   
  Several types of speakers connected to the same stereo receiver is actually pretty easy.  _Blind evaluation_ of several types of speakers is most likely pretty common, and should be performed more.  You don't "get what you pay for" in audio, so, it would be nice to have a magazine which _only blind evaluates_, don't you think?
   
  Some people have their senses all mixed up, in their neural pathways, they see colours with numbers, the number 5 is orange, and they see sounds with visuals, it's probably fairly common since they don't know any different, they just think everyone sees like that, just like black/white vision people don't know any different either.
   
  I think the only variable everyone should at least be able to agree on is blind evaluation, you don't need to know how much something costs if you have any idea what sound performance should sound like.  Plus, I think the vast majority of people when presented with the same sound will say it's the same.  Using someone who has no idea and says two identical sounds are different is not a case study of subjective fantasy, it's just a case study of some random individual who had no idea, so when he tasted Coke versus Coke he said one was Pepsi.
   
  Using him as a case study to conquer subjectivity just makes 'objective' audio look more and more ill.
   
   
  Of course the alternative to objective audio isn't fantastical delusion, it's something called err_, reality._
   
  Everything in audio and any field of science has a real truth to it, truth is not subjective it only exists, pretending you've found it with a dScope and Wikipedia is h*******t.
   
  If anyone has any more useless academic papers to present I'd be happy to refute them with more conflicting studies or statistical error.
   
  p.s. Nick_charles never answered on how subliminal advertising was proven (fMRI) and how 24bit /192kHz was 'proven' (fMRI).  So just a side note isn't the scientific method to replicate a test and come to the same or a contrary finding?  If a study hasn't been replicated it still stands, according to the 'scientific method', unless you want to cherry pick papers to suit your own agenda, right?


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> So if you believe in _peer reviewed papers and critical test conditions_, shouldn't you be saying MP2 at 256 kbps* is transparent* and the rest is mythology?  That's what Wikipedia and the ABX tests of expert listeners indicate, yes?


 
   
  Some people overinterpret the data or for simplicity's sake (of wording, not throwing in the usual caveats), maybe make looser claims than appropriate.  Sure.  Anyway, as many have already pointed out, null results don't prove anything.
   
   
  I'm saying that peer-reviewed papers are preferable to non-peer-reviewed papers, and experiments with proper controls are better than experiments without proper controls.  It includes blinding, to control for potential biases.  That said, a lot of experiments that do blind testing or even double-blind testing, may be junk in other ways.
   
   
  A lot of audiophile claims being made don't really make much sense in the context of the engineering analysis, so current evidence consists of much more than just listening tests, for the record.  
   
  I'd just point out that statements like these:
   


kiteki said:


> If two medicines are 100% equal down to the chemical level then they are equal.  If there are differences in composition or chemicals it becomes likely they could have different chemical reactions.  That's why I look at technology and design in audio and for differences in raw data, instead of completely useless academic papers.


 
   
  seem to reflect a popular sentiment—that different designs / whatevers should sound different.  It's not just you.  However, the reality is that very different topologies and circuits can produce very similar results, so your intuition from other fields is hurting you.  That's one danger of running too many analogies without understanding how they all apply.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> On a complete side note, I'm fairly sure that "microdynamic resolution" is not part of the vocabulary or jargon of musicians.  I hope you don't further bring up qualifications or experiences into the discussion, because that's not very productive, and you may find that some people have different backgrounds than you might assume.


 
  Musicians are concerned about the same thing. They might call it dynamic shading or shaping. It's commonly discussed. Musicians that do it well are praised or lauded. Etc.
   
  Experiences should be part of the discussion, and it should be acknowledged that people tend to hear the things they have practiced hearing, and tend not to hear things they haven't practiced.
   
  I assume nothing about anyone's background -- in fact I have said repeatedly that we all hear uniquely, and this is obviously affected by background. I would be glad if anyone here wants to describe what is valuable to them in music. I've mentioned microdynamic resolution, PRaT, and beauty. No one else has mentioned what they enjoy about music since I joined this discussion.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





scud80 said:


> Nobody said this should be the procedure.  Regardless, I had no expectation of sameness.  In fact, I had an expectation of difference after reading so many reviews on here talking about how different their different pieces of gear sounded.  Hearing none was a surprise.


 
   
  It has been said many times on this forum that this should be the procedure. Maybe you didn't say it. That's fine. But how can you know you had no expectation of sameness? Those "deluded audiophools" who do sighted listening of cables would say they have no expectation of difference. It's unconscious. It's easy to imagine someone attached to the idea of sameness -- if they like the idea of having a nice, neat understanding of audio, and that understanding predicted two CD players should be the same, then they would have a motivation to hear sameness. Maybe they unconsciously don't try hard enough to hear a difference, giving up too soon.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> What I want to explain is the idea that sensory experiences can be abstracted.




The reason we're talking at cross purposes here is that we are talking about two entirely different things... You're talking about listening for the purposes of appreciating music, which is probably everyone's eventual purpose. But I'm talking about an intemediary step. Listening for the purpose of comparing audio equipment for purposes of determining the faithfulness of the sound reproduction.

With face recognition, a stylized and caricatured painting of a face might be a truer likeness as a photograph. But you don't pick a camera by how well it caricatures. You pick it for how faithfully and accurately it reproduces an image. The first step is simple mechanical reproduction, and that is a very cut and dried thing.

Once you've established that a camera provides a clear, undistorted image, you can hand it to an artist and he can create whatever kind of image he wants... Even unclear and distorted ones. But the basic performance of the camera is the benchmark where that creativity starts.

Recording engineers do the same thing. They start with very carefully calibrated equipment that hits an established benchmark... Flat response, broad dynamics, low distortion... Then they add their own aesthetic choices about the equalization, compression and fuzziness of the sound. When we buy their CD, they have made all of those creative choices, and if our system matches the calibration of theirs, we hear the creative statement they're making.

I understand that the reproduction of music involves all sorts of aesthetic choices, but playing back a CD isn't the place for aesthetics. That's where all you want is accuracy. Once a sound engineer has achieved the first step of accuracy, he can create his sound. When he's happy with it, he passes it along to us, hoping we follow his lead in playing it back with accuracy.

The way we achieve that is by carefully listening to our equipment with the goal of matching the benchmark calibration. That's an achievable goal. Once you get to that point and hear what is intended, you can feel free to get creative with the sound yourself. EQ it however you want, run it through a digital delay to simulate an ambience, or remap the sound to multiplespeakers instead of just two. You always have those options. But if you choose equipment that isn't calibrated to be accurate, you've got no clear benchmark to start from.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> I don't know anyone who buys expensive stuff for these two reasons ("to prove you have exceptional power...", "justify large cash outlay...").




You should meet more audiophiles!


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The reason we're talking at cross purposes here is that we are talking about two entirely different things... You're talking about listening for the purposes of appreciating music, which is probably everyone's eventual purpose. But I'm talking about an intemediary step. Listening for the purpose of comparing audio equipment for purposes of determining the faithfulness of the sound reproduction.


 
  It would be nice if you made some kind of response to my point about abstracted perception, because you seem to deny it exists.
   
  And no, we are talking about the same thing. If I sit in a studio and listen to a musician perform, I might listen for something like the microdynamic resolution. And when I listen to the same performance as a reproduction, I listen to the dynamics and can make a judgment about whether they are faithfully reproduced. It appears that you reject this possibility entirely, which is because, as far as I can tell, you reject the notion of abstracted perception (but it would be nice if you addressed it).


----------



## kiteki

bigshot has been meeting the wrong audiophiles.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You should meet more audiophiles!


 
  I probably should.


----------



## bigshot

mikeaj said:


> Most people who point out expectation bias (at least me and most here), will say it goes both ways, as you say.  Somebody not expecting to hear differences will be predisposed not to report differences.




It depends on what you are listening for. Expectation bias has an effect on determining the difference between two very similar things. But if you don't care about very similar things and you're looking for significant differences, simple controlled observation should do the trick. I really don't care about gnat hairs- just things that make a difference.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> Musicians are concerned about the same thing. They might call it dynamic shading or shaping. It's commonly discussed. Musicians that do it well are praised or lauded. Etc.
> 
> I've mentioned microdynamic resolution, PRaT, and beauty. No one else has mentioned what they enjoy about music since I joined this discussion.




We're talking about sound reproduction, not sound creation, and none of those things have anything to do with circuit boards and wires. That's all a product of flesh and blood musicians.

I regularly discuss music in the music forum as well as on my blog and several music forums.


----------



## kiteki

mikeaj said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > So if you believe in _peer reviewed papers and critical test conditions_, shouldn't you be saying MP2 at 256 kbps* is transparent* and the rest is mythology? That's what Wikipedia and the ABX tests of expert listeners indicate, yes?
> ...


 
   
   
  I'm honestly not following you here.  If I believed in the peer reviewed DBT / ABX AES expert listener wikipedia links / papers whatever I'd believe that MP2 256kbps is transparent.
   
  If I look at the differences in data / technology / design and trust my hearing, and several others reporting the_ exact same differences_, I'd believe it's not transparent.  So which is closer to the _truth_ here, the first or second.
   
  ?


----------



## kiteki

By the way Mikeaj I did a vague blind-test on op-amps with 1/21 significance that I could have arrived at the results via chance, which do you think is more convincing to me, random dScope lifeblood theories on the internet, or that my listening arrived at very similar results to others via 1/21 chance?


----------



## kiteki

mikeaj said:


> Anyway, as many have already pointed out, null results don't prove anything.


 
   
  I think you (or Maverick) really need to explain this part too.  If the "null results" don't prove anything, why are they defended so violently, calling the other theories pixie dust, subjective hallucination, sea monsters, audio salesmen, elitism, or preaching that no one should believe, take seriously, or invest resources into?
   
  If anything, shouldn't the extremely negative track record of the "null results" make _not believing in their current 2012 status _a more scientific viewpoint.
   
  ?


----------



## kiteki

mike1127 said:


> I believe that my current digital setup (modified PS Audio transport, custom DAC by K Works) is far superior to a basic CD player (by "basic" I mean, say, a commonly available CD player which measures with vanishingly low distortion) and I'd be willing to blind-test that if anyone in the LA area wants to help run the experiment.


 
   
  Not familiar with your DAC or anything, but you can buy the ODAC from here if you want - http://www.jdslabs.com/item.php?fetchitem=39, and find someone in the LA area with a new thread, to help your experiment.
   
  With two laptops and two different DAC's, connected to the same amplifier or stereo receiver with a "Y cable" or "piggyback cable", someone presses play X or Y computer at random by rolling a dice, you directly identify which DAC is playing.
   
  Or, the same DAC is played 4 times in a row (YYYY) versus mixed (XYXY), you identify if it was the same or mixed.
   
  Have fun.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I think you (or Maverick) really need to explain this part too.  If the "null results" don't prove anything, why are they defended so violently, calling the other theories pixie dust, subjective hallucination, sea monsters, audio salesmen, elitism, or preaching that no one should believe, take seriously, or invest resources into?
> 
> If anything, shouldn't the extremely negative track record of the "null results" make _not believing in their current 2012 status _a more scientific viewpoint.


 
   
  Didn't I explain the idea of a null hypothesis to you before?


----------



## mikeaj

kiteki said:


> I'm honestly not following you here.  If I believed in the peer reviewed DBT / ABX AES expert listener wikipedia links / papers whatever I'd believe that MP2 256kbps is transparent.
> 
> If I look at the differences in data / technology / design and trust my hearing, and several others reporting the_ exact same differences_, I'd believe it's not transparent.  So which is closer to the _truth_ here, the first or second.
> 
> ?


 
   
   
  I didn't say to fully take "peer reviewed DBT / ABX AES expert listener wikipedia links / papers" as truth, but as potential evidence, data points to consider or throw out.  Unless you've been trolling us hard, it doesn't particularly seem like you understand the data or technology very well, but if you've done proper listening tests of your own, that counts as potential evidence too.  I would say that a study that is rigorous enough to pass peer review is less likely to have fatal flaws, but peer review doesn't screen everything questionable out, and some good studies don't get through the process.  It's not perfect by any means.  The publication and research quality in some fields are better than in others, too.
   
   


kiteki said:


> By the way Mikeaj I did a vague blind-test on op-amps with 1/21 significance that I could have arrived at the results via chance, which do you think is more convincing to me, random dScope lifeblood theories on the internet, or that my listening arrived at very similar results to others via 1/21 chance?


 
   
   
  I don't think what's most important is what's most convincing to you (as in you specifically), or to anybody in particular.  [To answer the question, it seems to be the latter.]  But _in general _(not talking about any particular test) I would say that people rely on personal experience far, far too much.  People that don't have the educational background are less able to figure out which theories have more merit than others, based on the theoretical merits.  It seems like you're treating all theories equally, or without the proper weighting, and are just going by empirical data—dismissing many as just "random dScope lifeblood theories on the internet".  Maybe this assessment is off the mark though.
   
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I think you (or Maverick) really need to explain this part too.  If the "null results" don't prove anything, why are they defended so violently, calling the other theories pixie dust, subjective hallucination, sea monsters, audio salesmen, elitism, or preaching that no one should believe, take seriously, or invest resources into?
> 
> If anything, shouldn't the extremely negative track record of the "null results" make _not believing in their current 2012 status _a more scientific viewpoint.
> 
> ?


 
   
  Null results don't _prove_ anything, but they're evidence.  If a null result comes from some well-run experiment, it means a lot.  If a null result comes from a mediocre experiment, it means less, but still something.  People are saying that you shouldn't be throwing out results as if they don't mean _anything_.  That said, many audio-related studies are not run nearly as well as they could be, and some could use some more rigorous statistical analysis as well.
   
  Null results mean that we probably need some more evidence of positive results to start believing the hypothesis.
   
  Anyhow, some people make a lot stronger (too strong, too loose, and maybe less accurate) statements than I do, in my estimation.  I try not to overinterpret data, with some moderate success.


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> Didn't I explain the idea of a null hypothesis to you before?


 
   
  Yes and it's clear you don't believe in it.


----------



## maverickronin

It's clear you didn't understand it...


----------



## kiteki

mikeaj said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > I'm honestly not following you here. If I believed in the peer reviewed DBT / ABX AES expert listener wikipedia links / papers whatever I'd believe that MP2 256kbps is transparent.
> ...


 
   
  Sorry but this doesn't answer the question.  I didn't say listening tests I just said my hearing, and we can assume I completely don't understand the technology of codecs or any of the data.
   
  Now which was more reliable in finding the transparency in 256kbps in this case - the peer reviewed papers or just my hearing alone?
   
   


> Originally Posted by *mikeaj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It seems like you're treating all theories equally, or without the proper weighting, and are just going by empirical data—dismissing many as just "random dScope lifeblood theories on the internet". Maybe this assessment is off the mark though.


 
   
  I try to weight everything with it's evidence and likelihood of correctness as much as possible.  If someone says the Clip+ sounds the same as the iBasso DX100 due to RMAA, what do _you _think?
   
   


> Originally Posted by *mikeaj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> If a null result comes from a mediocre experiment, it means less, but still something. People are saying that you shouldn't be throwing out results as if they don't mean _anything_. That said, many audio-related studies are not run nearly as well as they could be, and some could use some more rigorous statistical analysis as well.


 
   
  In that case, the last time I checked the NwAv articles they are only referencing_ "less, but still something".  (such as Matrix Hifi and M&M etc.)_
   
  Did you miss my comments about the A/D/A loop instead of A/D/A/D/A/D/A^12 when they had so much time on their hands?  The transparency of transducers and the playback system aside, if an A/DC and D/AC are perfectly clean, they'll still be clean after 200 conversions, or 200,000 conversions, right?


----------



## mikeaj

kiteki said:


> Sorry but this doesn't answer the question.  I didn't say listening tests I just said my hearing, and we can assume I completely don't understand the technology of codecs or any of the data.
> 
> Now which was more reliable in finding the transparency in 256kbps in this case - the peer reviewed papers or just my hearing alone?


 
   
  Between those two options, in this case it's your hearing.  I would also look at the test conditions, equipment used, and so on.
   


kiteki said:


> I try to weight everything with it's evidence and likelihood of correctness as much as possible.  If someone says the Clip+ sounds the same as the iBasso DX100 due to RMAA, what do _you _think?


 
   
  That it's not something RMAA can determine, particularly not with a single run, and looking at the numbers only (not the graphs).  Given enough data with a legitimate audio analyzer and other test gear, if it's demonstrated that two devices are similar enough in enough ways in a given usage scenario—no matter what the devices are or their topology—I could be reasonably convinced that they would sound pretty much the same and maybe be indistinguishable.  If two devices are not close to transparent for practical purposes, it's not too likely that they should be indistinguishable, since there are many ways to deviate from ideal:  it's not particularly likely that two devices would deviate in the exact same ways.
   


kiteki said:


> Did you miss my comments about the A/D/A loop instead of A/D/A/D/A/D/A^12 when they had so much time on their hands?  The transparency of transducers and the playback system aside, if an A/DC and D/AC are perfectly clean, they'll still be clean after 200 conversions, or 200,000 conversions, right?


 
   
  I did miss that.
   
  But what do you mean by "perfectly clean"?  If they're literally ideal with no change at all (impossible for any real-world system), then you can make as many loops as you want.  If one loop is audibly transparent for practical purposes on a given setup, multiple loops will eventually not be.  Errors start compounding until they're audible after a sufficient number.  The number of loops it takes will depend on the listener, listening setup, and so on.  It might be two, or ten.  It would be one for a lower-quality A/D or D/A.
   
  I hope you weren't implying that one loop being audibly transparent implies that any number of loops will be?


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> We're talking about sound reproduction, not sound creation, and none of those things *[microdynamics, PRaT, and beauty] *have anything to do with circuit boards and wires. That's all a product of flesh and blood musicians.
> I regularly discuss music in the music forum as well as on my blog and several music forums.


 
  Yes they do -- speakers, microphones, and miking techniques (among other things) either get those things right or mess them up.
   
  Still no response to my point about abstracted perception. As far as I can tell, that's the biggest gulf between my experience of sound/music and yours-- that you seem to think it doesn't exist. Not only does it exist, musicians couldn't function without it. If there were no abstracted perception, a musician wouldn't be able to recognize his own technique the first time he plays in a new room. A pianist would fall to pieces the first time they use an unfamiliar piano.
   
  I'll check out the music forum.


----------



## bigshot

We're talking about playback, not creating recordings, right? I'm talking about how to make recordings sound good on your home stereo, not how to record and perform music. Those are two different things.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> We're talking about playback, not creating recordings, right? I'm talking about how to make recordings sound good on your home stereo, not how to record and perform music. Those are two different things.


 
  I always try to talk about the whole chain, the whole system. But even if the discussion is playback only, and even if I grant you modern electronics are 100% transparent, you still have to choose speakers/headphones somehow. I choose headphones that do a good job of getting right the aspects of music that are most important to me, all of which happen to be
   
  ....
   
  here it comes
   
  ..
   
*abstracted perceptions*


----------



## bigshot

Speakers and headphones are really the only thing worth discussing. It's tricky too because the best sounding speakers in the store might sound lousy in your living room. I wish I knew more about room acoustics. I do know that equalization helps a LOT.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Speakers and headphones are really the only thing worth discussing. It's tricky too because the best sounding speakers in the store might sound lousy in your living room. I wish I knew more about room acoustics. I do know that equalization helps a LOT.


 
   
  I giggle a little bit to myself, when someone is spending thousands of dollars on cables, and not a dime on room treatment.


----------



## bigshot

I don't know how much experience folks have doing a good sounding speaker installation. I have only done it myself a couple of times, and from my limited experience it seemed to me that every room requires a different approach. Some rooms are like echo chambers full of flat hard surfaces, and others are like resonant woofy wooden boxes. There isn't a one size fits all solution.

The other factor, which never gets mentioned is liveability. Few of us have the resources to turn over the main room in our house to a dedicated listening room. We have to temper the adjustments we make to the functionality of the room for other purposes.

Because of this, I think the approach to room treatment you'd take if you were building a home mixing stage is going to be different than the one you might take for a stereo in your living room.

In my theater/listening room, I was faced with a room panelled floor to ceiling in beautiful golden knotty pine. There was absolutely no way I was going to hang big black diffuser panels over that. So I focused on how I arranged the speakers and furniture in the room and balanced the EQ for not just the main listening point, but several seating positions in the room.

What I found was that in a normal sized room, phase is not an issue unless there's a lot of reflection going on. My room was fairly dead, except for the slab floor, so the time problems weren't a big issue. As long as it isn't extreme, your ear adjusts, because the soundstage of the speakers is the same spread as a real band. Any shaping of the sound caused by the room is the same as if a live band was playing, or if you spoke in the room. Pretty natural, even if it isn't acoustically clean.

Equalization went a long way to taming resonances. My room had a bass note that would make the walls shake. A little higher and it was fine. A little lower was fine too. So I just pulled that back and I could pump more volume into the room without buzz.

I have a combination 2:1 and 5:1 system, depending on the source. Both had to sound good, so I really focused on getting the front mains just right. Balancing the rest of the speakers to the front two was a lot of back and forth. Not easy. EQing all those channels was a real chore. I'm still not totally happy. I'm trying to get my sound engineer friend over to help me.

In any case, room treatments and EQ involve a million tradeoffs and compromises. That's where the rubber meets the road. The electronics part is easy. That's why I'm amazed at how much time people spend finessing their cables and DACs. That stuff doesn't matter at all compared to the transducer end.

Does anyone know any plain speak tutorials on room treatment? The ones I've found are way too technical for me.


----------



## kiteki

^After seeing that post your POV does make more sense.  You think CD burners and CD players are near perfect (they are) and regular stereo receivers versus Marantz receivers are near identical (they are).  Then you've spent a lot of time with... physical speakers, adjusting an equalizer, and room acoustics.
   
  For me, I pretty much stopped using equalizers around two years ago, and don't need to focus on room acoustics since I use IEM's and headphones.
   
  Sometimes I use speakers, the floorstanding speakers in this room sound a little worse than when they were in a different (smaller) room, where they seemed cleaner, now they're a bit dislocated, I'd have to experiment and move all the furniture around to get them more precise, I'd also like to set up 5.1 again, to play some DVD-A albums, but I just don't care right now, I live in an apartment and like using IEM's outside, or right at my laptop.
   
  My internal sound-card versus my AckoDAC connected to my stereo receiver->speakers makes the more important difference, the kind I'm interested in, I find more clarity and more realism, a piano or vocal sounds a bit more lifelike, the pure tones are a level above my sound-card.
   
  Advanced equalizers and special effects can _only enhance weaker systems_, most of us are interested in purity and performance, the inherent technology and it's character etc.  You can upscale a DVD or overclock electronics but not to the same level as the higher end ones.  Even though firev1 was borderline convinced he could hear the LCD-3 in the Skullcandy MMM.
   
  If you spend most of your time aligning speakers and trying to make an anechoic chamber in your house you have a different interest than most people around here, but in a sense you are correct and I should probably listen to more 5.1 DVD-A and move the speakers around, it's most likely just the knowledge that you can't improve the pure signal, you're just tweaking the final result to sound nicer ...


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> In any case, room treatments and EQ involve a million tradeoffs and compromises. That's where the rubber meets the road. The electronics part is easy. That's why I'm amazed at how much time people spend finessing their cables and DACs. That stuff doesn't matter at all compared to the transducer end.
> Does anyone know any plain speak tutorials on room treatment? The ones I've found are way too technical for me.


 
  Not really but there is Ethan Winer's video on Acoustic Treatment Exposed(NSFW) that is really basic stuff but covers the major devices used in room treatments. I remember Lunatique mentioning about studio building forums, perhaps you should visit them?
   
  I'm still convinced that there is a measurable difference between the LCD 3 and Skullcandies, whether its acoustic phase or the driver wavefront I don't really know though. Even after doing all the discarding off <=25hz info and =>12.5khz info, I'm convinced that there is something to revealed partially in 300hz SWR measurements since both graphs are pretty flat in the area, there must be some other stuff going on at that fundamental frequency, going by calculations, it should be in the audible. But whether it really sounds the same or not, I would really like to try it myself sometime.
   
  "Advanced equalizers and special effects can _only enhance weaker systems_," 
   
  Oh hohohoho, how wrong you are, how very wrong. For my example, I can keep my desktop clean, optimise its performance and reduce downtime by regular maintenance and cooling+overclock, and it will still be better than a gaming rig in the hands of someone who does not know how to get the best out of his rig. It is exactly the same in audio. I did my measure and help EQ(by borrowing a mic) for my friend and it helped with his speaker tons. Problem these days(and yesteryears, last century) is that not many realise that the room is a HUGE part or speaker system and don't know how to get it optimised. This also explains why many hate speakers with a flat response, I sometimes see in them in rooms with concrete walls and corners and reflective furnishings and those speakers do a GREAT job at revealing those problems. Your room in the first place, is not a master control room and adds its own signature(thus distortion) to the sound, you don't need to built a anechoic chamber to do that. Some bass traps and diffusers will do the trick, at a much cheaper price than replacing speakers or buying esoteric components.
   
  ps. moving around all your furnishings usually helps but does not solve the main problem of the rooms characteristics and reflections as well.


----------



## kiteki

maverickronin said:


> It's clear you didn't understand it...


 
   
  You are defending the null hypothesis as a scientific method of discovery.  A body of evidences approaching on truth (not reaching it), and subject to refutation if someone can, subject to third party assessment and replication.  So basically, if someone thinks they have "something new" they can devise a test to refute the body of knowledge, and so the science continues.
   
  The issue is you're referring to audio in the context that it's like how the human eye and vision works, or that ghosts don't exist.  So, if someone thinks they have a new theory on how the human eye works, or can prove ghosts exist, all they have to do is prove it and then everyone will believe in the new evidence.  That isn't the case at hand.  Audio is more like medicine with peaks and valleys of discovery, and a lot of knowledge on how acoustics work without the measured data available, or the textual code not deciphered (like your example of binaural, and spatial effects via the transducer).
   
  Tilpo asked for another example so I said voice recognition, any human can identify thousands of voices (not accents) in movies to the actor faster than you'll be able to find the differences in the raw data.  Clearly there are direct parallels here to identifying speaker materials, character or tone etc., which I kept telling firev1 was not in the FR / CSD / THD+N / IMD / SWR / IR.  So where is it?  It's in code emitted by the transducer, just like the code you can identify in 1/100 instruments, in 1/1000000 human voices.  If hardware and software can't directly tell the difference in quality between a casio synthesizer and a real piano it's not like you'll totally identify all these qualities such as of speakers or IEM's directly on paper either and the designes know this, they just use FR to level match the channels and make sure all units are identical.  Just because the Etymotic ER-4S has a 92% accuracy in FR doesn't mean it has a 92% accuracy in natural tones, it actually sounds pretty digital and two dimensional.
   
  Anyway the body of evidences you're referring to in audio are all strictly on a case by case basis and a lot of them are completely flawed.
   
  So, given the conflicting data and peaks and valleys trajectory path of these scientific discoveries in audio, adhering purely to the facts of 2012 doesn't seem like a very statistically valid model, it's more likely that in 2017 and 2027 there'll be newer findings, new evidence and dispelled facts.
   
  In this sense audio is a lot more like medicine, not how the human eye works or ghost hunting.  If I defended the null hypothesis of medicine in 1970 it's not like I'd be defending the truth.
   
  This is where the placebo effect comes in too, if you give placebo A, placebo B and placebo C to a significant number of people, and you notice an unusual trend with placebo A, it's likely that one could have some actual real chemical impact.
   
   


mikeaj said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > I try to weight everything with it's evidence and likelihood of correctness as much as possible. If someone says the Clip+ sounds the same as the iBasso DX100 due to RMAA, what do _you _think?
> ...


 
   
  Do you know where the most significant differences versus the DX100 should show up versus the Clip+ in a legitimate audio analyzer?  The last time I checked at NwAv the Clip+ appeared to be "perfectly clean" if you know what I mean.
   
   


mikeaj said:


> kiteki said:
> 
> 
> > Did you miss my comments about the A/D/A loop instead of A/D/A/D/A/D/A^12 when they had so much time on their hands? The transparency of transducers and the playback system aside, if an A/DC and D/AC are perfectly clean, they'll still be clean after 200 conversions, or 200,000 conversions, right?
> ...


 
   
  That all makes perfect sense, except the last part.  A lower quality A/D or D/A doesn't need one loop, it needs zero, it's already non-transparent i.e. lower quality than perfect.  I think a lot of people are led to believe 16/44.1 sounds worse than 24/96 simply because the 24/96 A/D's are usually higher quality.
   
   


mikeaj said:


> I hope you weren't implying that one loop being audibly transparent implies (to them) that any number of loops will be?


 
   
  There is only one kind of transparency, if 10 loops aren't transparent then 1 loop isn't either.  Transparency in X system to Y humans with V volume with Q room acoustics on T speakers and V cables with C capacitors, D Dac chip and S power supply, P circuit board and A listening acuity, drinking H coffee via Z type of ABX box, with M music is just... (no).
   
  NwAv referenced some guy that "strung together 10 cheap op amp buffers in series to effectively multiply their flaws" so they sounded horrible, until it was reduced to 6 when he could no longer 'hear them'.  He also compared a $300 capacitor and $1 one and they sounded identical to him in a blind test too.
   
  Jeez, I hope that's true so I don't ever have to worry about capacitors or buffers, but you know, didn't NwAv_ say " I literally tested more than 100 variations of components, including different brands of capacitors, to get the most out of the ES9023" _and_ "Audiophile preferred polyphenylene capacitors performed worse than less expensive types." ?_
   
  However_ in the midst of total uncertainty _he is funny at least. =]
   


Spoiler: on%20youtube%20lol



No, it wouldn't help silence the critics even if there was such a video. As has already been pointed out, they would just claim I (or whoever was wearing the headphones) was "sandbagging" and pretending not to hear any difference.

 What WILL help silence the critics is doing such a YouTube video with one of the critics wearing the headphones. But not one has come forward and volunteered to do so. Go find me some critics who are not camera shy and I'll do my best to arrange a credible properly supervised blind test for them to take.


   


Spoiler: hallucination



Neurologists, brain experts, hearing experts, and audio experts, all agree the human hearing system, by necessity, discards around 99.99% of what arrives at our ears. Our “reptile brain” is actively involved determining what gets discarded. For example when you’re listening to someone at a noisy restaurant, the brain does its best to deliver just their voice. And, multiple studies demonstrate, _when you’re listening to audio gear the brain also does its best to filter your hearing in the way it thinks you most want._ If you’re expecting Gear A to sound different from Gear B the brain filters each differently so you indeed hear a difference even when there isn’t one. This auditory issue has many names.


   
  ^I mean jeez, could you possibily find a more convenient argument than this or what.  Come on.  99.99%?  Is there a link to this data?  Seriously I have no idea what he's talking about.  I've never heard the sound of a cat and seen a dog in my life.  There are probably more optical illusions than auditory lol.


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I'm still convinced that there is a measurable difference between the LCD 3 and Skullcandies, whether its acoustic phase or the driver wavefront I don't really know though. Even after doing all the discarding off <=25hz info and =>12.5khz info, I'm convinced that there is something to revealed partially in 300hz SWR measurements since both graphs are pretty flat in the area, there must be some other stuff going on at that fundamental frequency, going by calculations, it should be in the audible. But whether it really sounds the same or not, I would really like to try it myself sometime.


 
   
  Just remember, the mind filters out 99.99% and you hear what you're expected to hear, make sure you're not expecting to hear the LCD-3 in the Skullcandy after the golden EQ or you... will.
   
  ?
   


> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> "Advanced equalizers and special effects can _only enhance weaker systems_,"
> 
> Oh hohohoho, how wrong you are, how very wrong. For my example, I can keep my desktop clean, optimise its performance and reduce downtime by regular maintenance and cooling+overclock, and it will still be better than a gaming rig in the hands of someone who does not know how to get the best out of his rig. It is exactly the same in audio. [/]


 
   
  Ok, I'm wrong, equalizers make non-flat speakers flat, cancel out concrete wall reflections ,and turn Skullcandies into golden gems.  Everyone needs an equalizer, preferably installed in the side of your head, buy yours today!


----------



## kiteki

After thinking some more about that 99.99% comment I now think a lot of NwAv's articles are a _social experiment.  _It's quite entertaining really.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *firev1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I'm still convinced that there is a measurable difference between the LCD 3 and Skullcandies


 
   
  Of course, there is. Looking at these graphs, the LCD-3 has better extension at both ends of the spectrum, lower bass distortion at high volume, less ringing on the impulse response and 300 Hz square wave (the Skullcandy rings in the kHz range, which is likely audible), the bass response is much less sensitive to the positioning of the headphone, and, quite importantly, the frequency response does not have the dips at 650 Hz, 3 kHz, and 5.5 kHz. There are likely differences in the imaging, but those depend on the frequency and phase response in non-intuitive ways, and cannot be read from the graphs. One might argue how important the above differences are, but all are greater than the difference between the Benchmark DAC1 and a decently implemented Realtek audio codec chip on a currently available PC motherboard.


----------



## kiteki

Maybe we should make a seperate thread for Skullcandy MMM versus LCD-3 lol.
   
  The point was using an advanced equalizer you can make the FR identical and they don't differ so much in other ways no?


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Just remember, the mind filters out 99.99% and you hear what you're expected to hear, make sure you're not expecting to hear the LCD-3 in the Skullcandy after the golden EQ or you... will.
> 
> ?
> 
> ...


 
  Sure, I can, I expect them to be diff from the beginning though 
   
  Not cancel reflections but decrease the audibility of it, sure it can't be wiped out but EQ is more convenient that moving your furnishing everywhere or spending another 6 figure sum on amp. And I do assume you have flat speakers to begin with, of course, with a lot of regular customers these days, that is never the case. For the rest, there is room acoustics, oh my I just saved you another grand on another DAC!
   
   
   


stv014 said:


> Of course, there is. Looking at these graphs, the LCD-3 has better extension at both ends of the spectrum, lower bass distortion at high volume, less ringing on the impulse response and 300 Hz square wave (the Skullcandy rings in the kHz range, which is likely audible), the bass response is much less sensitive to the positioning of the headphone, and, quite importantly, the frequency response does not have the dips at 650 Hz, 3 kHz, and 5.5 kHz. There are likely differences in the imaging, but those depend on the frequency and phase response in non-intuitive ways, and cannot be read from the graphs. One might argue how important the above differences are, but all are greater than the difference between the Benchmark DAC1 and a decently implemented Realtek audio codec chip on a currently available PC motherboard.


 
  Agreed  except for headphone out, I still do get output impedance problems with my laptop mobo .


----------



## mike1127

For the record I think electronics matter enormously. For instance my current digital setup is vastly superior to anything else I tried, and what that means is much greater resolution and more music. It resembles analog. But am I imagining it? I'm willing to put it to the test.
   
  EDIT: oh regarding the idea that speakers/headphones are the only things that matter -- I'm one of the nutcase audiophools who says that if you buy very good headphones and mass-market electronics, then what is you get is high-resolution headphones telling you how bad your electronics are.


----------



## avkdh

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> For the record I think electronics matter enormously. For instance my current digital setup is vastly superior to anything else I tried, and what that means is much greater resolution and more music. It resembles analog. But am I imagining it? I'm willing to put it to the test.
> 
> EDIT: oh regarding the idea that speakers/headphones are the only things that matter -- I'm one of the nutcase audiophools who says that if you buy very good headphones and mass-market electronics, then what is you get is high-resolution headphones telling you how bad your electronics are.


 
  Why would mass market electronics necessarily sound bad?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> That all makes perfect sense, except the last part.  A lower quality A/D or D/A doesn't need one loop, it needs zero, it's already non-transparent i.e. lower quality than perfect.  I think a lot of people are led to believe 16/44.1 sounds worse than 24/96 simply because the 24/96 A/D's are usually higher quality.
> 
> There is only one kind of transparency, if 10 loops aren't transparent then 1 loop isn't either.  Transparency in X system to Y humans with V volume with Q room acoustics on T speakers and V cables with C capacitors, D Dac chip and S power supply, P circuit board and A listening acuity, drinking H coffee via Z type of ABX box, with M music is just... (no).


 
   
  By corollary, one atom is invisible to the naked eye so trillions of them must also be invisible to the naked eye.
   
  See where you're going wrong yet?


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Do you know where the most significant differences versus the DX100 should show up versus the Clip+ in a legitimate audio analyzer?  The last time I checked at NwAv the Clip+ appeared to be "perfectly clean" if you know what I mean.


 
   
  No idea, without seeing more data on both of them.  But the Clip+'s noise level wasn't spectacular, and there were a few marginal issues.  I doubt the difference would be too large, anyway, at least compared to differences between most headphone models.
   
   


kiteki said:


> That all makes perfect sense, except the last part.  A lower quality A/D or D/A doesn't need one loop, it needs zero, it's already non-transparent i.e. lower quality than perfect.


 
   
  Sorry:  I made a typo or brain fart, I forget which.  Thanks for catching it.  One bad operation (zero loops?  I guess it depends on how you look at it) already mucks things up.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> No idea, without seeing more data on both of them.  But the Clip+'s noise level wasn't spectacular, and there were a few marginal issues.  I doubt the difference would be too large, anyway, at least compared to differences between most headphone models.


 
   
  I've never seen any numbers on the DX100 but I wouldn't be to surprised if it actually measured worse than the Clip+.  "Audiophile" DAPs don't have the best track record...


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> EDIT: oh regarding the idea that speakers/headphones are the only things that matter -- I'm one of the nutcase audiophools who says that if you buy very good headphones and mass-market electronics, then what is you get is high-resolution headphones telling you how bad your electronics are.




I believed that too, until I did a line level matched comparison of a highly regarded $900 SACD player and a $125 average CD player. Not only were they identical when playing CDs, when the SACD layer was the same mix and master as the redbook layer, the SACD was no better either.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

I agree.  I think a lot of modestly priced gear sounds perfectly fine.  In a way this is a golden age for audio as electronics have become so good for so little money.  To me the main stumbling blocks left to worry about are transducers, and if you are using speakers, room acoustics. 
   
  Wouldn't you know it?  The hardware industry is really learning how to get the issues sorted and along comes the "loudness war" to screw up so much of the current software.


----------



## bigshot

If transducers are the trick, why are people still worrying about wires, DACs, amps and players?


----------



## BlindInOneEar

You've got me!  Frankly, I don't!  I think that once you get to a certain level of competence in your gear, the word "transparent" comes to mind, that it's not worth fussing about it any more.
   
  Oddly enough, now that I've quit worrying about FOTM gear I find I'm listening much more to my system and having much more fun with it than I did before.  Go figure.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> If transducers are the trick, why are people still worrying about wires, DACs, amps and players?


 
   
  Because there'd be nothing left of this "hobby" (talking about _equipment_ here, not music) otherwise. There'd be no obsessions with inexplicable aims. Pick a few headphones for different tasks and be done. Oh, these people would be quite bored. And of course then there's inexplicable, unexaminable claims from the manufacturers which some people believe to be true. Just like some people believe in UFOs or Bigfoot. Crazy, but true. </rant>


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Because there'd be nothing left of this "hobby" (talking about _equipment_ here, not music) otherwise. There'd be no obsessions with inexplicable aims. Pick a few headphones for different tasks and be done. Oh, these people would be quite bored. And of course then there's inexplicable, unexaminable claims from the manufacturers which some people believe to be true. Just like some people believe in UFOs or Bigfoot. Crazy, but true. </rant>


 
   
  What?  I do believe you're trampling over many a poor chap's journey to audio nirvana.  Maybe lighter pocketbooks are the key to enlightenment.


----------



## Freefallr4545

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> You've got me!  Frankly, I don't!  I think that once you get to a certain level of competence in your gear, the word "transparent" comes to mind, that it's not worth fussing about it any more.
> 
> Oddly enough, now that I've quit worrying about FOTM gear I find I'm listening much more to my system and having much more fun with it than I did before.  Go figure.


 
  Well Said


----------



## bigshot

mikeaj said:


> What?  I do believe you're trampling over many a poor chap's journey to audio nirvana.  Maybe lighter pocketbooks are the key to enlightenment.




If that's the case, I'd be happy to help people reach smadhi. Just send me Amazon gift cards! My wish list for music is a mile long.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Because there'd be nothing left of this "hobby" (talking about _equipment_ here, not music) otherwise. There'd be no obsessions with inexplicable aims. Pick a few headphones for different tasks and be done. Oh, these people would be quite bored. And of course then there's inexplicable, unexaminable claims from the manufacturers which some people believe to be true. Just like some people believe in UFOs or Bigfoot. Crazy, but true. </rant>


 
   
  See, I figured out the trick:  Spend more time with another hobby!  :-D
   
  Let's not forget actually listening to music either.


----------



## mike1127

This is kind of off-topic, but you know what bugs me about these sorts of disagreements, is that people act "tribal." I mean people band together in a group in order to oppose another group. I do not present myself as a specially enlightened human who is above this stuff, but I really enjoy dissolving barriers more than erecting them. Certain memes get repeated endlessly. Each side has standard jokes with standard punchlines about the other side, and they aren't particularly funny jokes to anyone not in the tribe. They are just "tribe bonding" jokes.


----------



## Albedo

Much of this remind me of witch trials that was a-priori... 
   

   
   
   
  Quote: 





> From The Skeptics Dictionary
> 
> Research has…shown that the nocebo effect can reverse the body’s response to true medical treatment from positive to negative. (Root-Bernstein 1998)
> 
> ...


----------



## Hoax

Sorry I haven't read the entire thread but the topic is interesting, I have been doing some research myself and I asked a pro about what he thought about this. Usually when I read threads about cables all people talk about is this or that cable sounding better than the other but nobody seems to know why which is why others point their fingers and say it must be the placebo effect then.
   
  Now according to the guy I talked to, he explained to me that some of the high end cables for example are made out of pure silver or the best quality copper. Both these materials have different characteristics when passing through frequences that really can slightly change the sound of the actual headphone.
   
  For example silver would make more bright (trebbled) frequencies and take away some from the bass (also because the headphone gets a little brighter some people exprience their headphone as more open as well), While copper does the opposite. So I think that people who have been changing cables might actually find a sound that they prefer more over what they were hearing over their stock cables or other cables they made a switch from.
   
  Ofcourse a better sound would all come down the individual preferences, but I do believe people can hear differences
   
  Just my 2 cents


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





hoax said:


> Now according to the guy I talked to, he explained to me that some of the high end cables for example are made out of pure silver or the best quality copper. Both these materials have different characteristics when passing through frequences that really can slightly change the sound of the actual headphone.
> 
> For example silver would make more bright (trebbled) frequencies and take away some from the bass (also because the headphone gets a little brighter some people exprience their headphone as more open as well), While copper does the opposite. So I think that people who have been changing cables might actually find a sound that they prefer more over what they were hearing over their stock cables or other cables they made a switch from.


 
   
  Unfortunately, the "pro" you talked to, does not understand the electrical properties of metals, or how audio signals are transmitted.
   
  There are a few things that can affect the sound, but not the difference between copper, high quality copper, silver, etc.


----------



## Hoax

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Unfortunately, the "pro" you talked to, does not understand the electrical properties of metals, or how audio signals are transmitted.
> 
> There are a few things that can affect the sound, but not the difference between copper, high quality copper, silver, etc.


 
   
  Hmm why not ? And what would you say could affect the sound in a cable? And yeah poorly shielded cables would degrade sound quality for sure but what other points you say matter more than being a copper or silver cable?


----------



## liamstrain

A high capacitance, or inductance (inductance, especially) will affect the sound. High inductance will roll off the high frequencies.
   
  The only difference between silver and copper, however, is resistance - which affects overall volume, but not highs versus lows, or detail/brightness/etc. And over short cables (like headphone cables and interconnects) the amount of difference in resistance is extremely small. To the point of not mattering at all.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





hoax said:


> Hmm why not ? And what would you say could affect the sound in a cable? And yeah poorly shielded cables would degrade sound quality for sure but what other points you say matter more than being a copper or silver cable?


 
   
RLC


----------



## bigshot

hoax said:


> Now according to the guy I talked to, he explained to me that some of the high end cables for example are made out of pure silver or the best quality copper. Both these materials have different characteristics when passing through frequences that really can slightly change the sound of the actual headphone.




I'll bet you five bucks the pro you spoke to worked in consumer electronics and not the recording industry. (How do I know that?? Wow! Must be ESP!)


----------



## Hoax

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I'll bet you five bucks the pro you spoke to worked in consumer electronics and not the recording industry. (How do I know that?? Wow! Must be ESP!)


 

 Yeah he did lol.. But after he told me this and i digged some deeper i saw tons of sites where audiophiles were discussing cables and where people were recommending specific brands to go for if you want "that type of sound" using a type of cable that was made out of copper or silver .. So this is all wrong then? I dont know much about this stuff other than what people tell me and what I read .. The only thing I could do is try for myself I guess, dont really feel the need to do so though
   
  anyways, thanks for the info guys


----------



## bigshot

Yes, that info is wrong. The reason people say that is they want you to spend a lot of money on cables, because there is a huge markup on them. Audiophiles repeat what salesmen have told them, and it just confuses things more.

If you want to not spend money you don't need to, you need to be an educated consumer.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> RLC


 
   
  A lot of the objections come from misapplication of transmission line theory (which is more accurate and appropriate for some purposes), not just the usual lumped-element model analysis as in the link on RLC circuits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line
   
  At audio frequencies at typical hookup distances, like for interconnect cables, those effects are trivial and can be ignored.  In general this can be ignored for audio purposes.  Sometimes for some specific purposes you need to be a little bit more careful though.
   
  Anyway, you can try for yourself if you're interested.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> A lot of the objections come from misapplication of transmission line theory (which is more accurate and appropriate for some purposes), not just the usual lumped-element model analysis as in the link on RLC circuits.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line
> 
> At audio frequencies at typical hookup distances, like for interconnect cables, those effects are trivial and can be ignored.  In general this can be ignored for audio purposes.  Sometimes for some specific purposes you need to be a little bit more careful though.
> ...


 
   
  Yeah, they're usually to small to have any effect.  You can make them matter in standard audio cables if you _really _try of just screw something up but what I meant is that if there is a difference you'll find it the RLC of the cable and not some sort of sympathetic magic relating to a specific material.
   
  Capacitance can matter a lot for electric guitar cables and ICs between phono cartridges and preamps but off the top of my head that's only time and end user would ever have to worry about the electrical properties of the usual pack-in cables not being up to the task.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Yeah, they're usually to small to have any effect.  You can make them matter in standard audio cables if you _really _try of just screw something up but what I meant is that if there is a difference you'll find it the RLC of the cable and not some sort of sympathetic magic relating to a specific material.
> 
> Capacitance can matter a lot for electric guitar cables and ICs between phono cartridges and preamps but off the top of my head that's only time and end user would ever have to worry about the electrical properties of the usual pack-in cables not being up to the task.


 
  While it is less sensitive at audio frequencies if you ignore transmission line theory you can not completely ignore it even in audio. The effects of getting it right may seem subtle but I have found that if you get closer to what transmission theory would dictate as correct  it brings new life to music that previously sounded somewhat dulled. The dulling of the sound may appear on the surface to be very mild but the effect on the overall sound especially on piano & electric guitar can be profound when you get closer to what transmission line theory would dictate as correct. Piano & lead electric guitar solos take on a new life that truely gives you the feeling that you are there in the live situation rather than listening to a recording.
   
  It is for this reason I have made my own cables, especially when using home audio componants with higher output impedance. Computer soundcards in general do not suffer as much due to having an output impedance that closely matches the characteristic impedance of the cable though some get lopsided the opposite way. Asus cards out thier line out gets fairly close to matching the cables impedance characteristic. When direct couped they take you very close to that live expeience & with minor power supply upgrades will take you all the way. Sound cards are not very sensitive to different cable designes due to thier closer match & as a result you will not hear much if any difference in cable designes with computer soundcards, at least that has been my experience. Home componant audio can suffer quite greatly with the wrong cables I have found. The frequency response will seem to be there but the sound is dulled on piano & electric guitar solos


----------



## maverickronin

I can't say I've ever noticed that but I'm open to new information.
   
  Do you have anything more concrete, like some sort of measurements?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> I can't say I've ever noticed that but I'm open to new information.
> 
> Do you have anything more concrete, like some sort of measurements?


 
  + 1 - or better still measurements correlated with carefully proctored blind tests, it is pretty easy to measure _small_ diffferences in FR in cables but verifying that these differences are _audible_ is a different matter...


----------



## Magick Man

Was reading Stereophile and they were talking about swapping interconnects to "add warmth and smoothness". Seriously, why do I still have a subscription with them?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





magick man said:


> Seriously, why do I still have a subscription with them?


 
   
  The pretty pictures.


----------



## Magick Man

Well, it is good for crapper reading.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





germanium said:


> While it is less sensitive at audio frequencies if you ignore transmission line theory you can not completely ignore it even in audio.


 
   
  If you're going to apply transmission line theory at audio frequencies, then your load impedance must also be matched to the line impedance, otherwise, the whole exercise is rather pointless. What good is it to have say, a 100 ohm output impedance driving a 100 ohm line, only to have that line terminated with a 10k ohm load? Are you also modifying your equipment so that their input impedances match the line impedance?
   
  And at what frequency are you determining the line's "characteristic impedance"? A cable won't start approaching it's mathematical "characteristic impedance" until you're pretty well out of the audio range. Below that, the cable's impedance continuously rises.
   

  se


----------



## kiteki

I see this thread has skillfully returned back to cables.  Ok, well the rest was fun while it lasted!
   
    
  CAT5e as a speaker cable.
   





   
  source:  http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=9a169021bbd958cd122c1385a8c5e9aa&showtopic=14082&st=0, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=14732
   


Spoiler: commercial%20application%20in%20audio



 
  "Use twisted pair wiring, such as you can find inside any CAT5 ethernet cable or similar."
   



   


   
  Aha.


----------



## maverickronin

I see you're continuing your wonderful impression of a chatbot which can only associate specific words without understanding the meaning behind them.


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> it is pretty easy to measure _small_ diffferences in FR in cables [/]


 
   
  FR is only a single aspect.  If you twist lead, tin, copper, rosemary and thyme together the electrical signal will be altered, however still retaining a flat FR.


----------



## Chris J

steve eddy said:


> If you're going to apply transmission line theory at audio frequencies, then your load impedance must also be matched to the line impedance, otherwise, the whole exercise is rather pointless. What good is it to have say, a 100 ohm output impedance driving a 100 ohm line, only to have that line terminated with a 10k ohm load? Are you also modifying your equipment so that their input impedances match the line impedance?
> 
> And at what frequency are you determining the line's "characteristic impedance"? A cable won't start approaching it's mathematical "characteristic impedance" until you're pretty well out of the audio range. Below that, the cable's impedance continuously rises.
> 
> ...




1. show the fellas a reference for the chart
2. a fine point here, but those exact values only work for a 75 ohm cable, move the lines on the chart up or down for other characteristic impedances
3. in the audio bandwidth, kinda hard to hit a moving target, aint't it?
4. For an interconnect.....a 100 ohm load?:rolleyes: better have a VERY large coupling capacitor.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> I see this thread has skillfully returned back to cables.  Ok, well the rest was fun while it lasted!
> 
> 
> CAT5e as a speaker cable.
> ...


 
   
  All this relates to gauge and RLC - not material or dialectric or cryo or any of the other gunk usually thrown around. Nobody doubts that you need an appropriate conductor gauge for those applications. We doubt that swapping to silver changes anything fundamentally over using copper with a similar RLC spec.


----------



## kiteki

Even if silver or 7N copper sounds amazing you can't fit a fat cat through a skinny pipe.  The 3.5mm jack has to be silver / ofc too, then there is the soldering, and ideally even the IC chips.  I suppose the battery is less important.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Even if silver or 7N copper sounds amazing you can't fit a fat cat through a skinny pipe.  The 3.5mm jack has to be silver / ofc too, then there is the soldering, and ideally even the IC chips.  I suppose the battery is less important.


 
   
  Actually you can if the skinny section of pipe is short enough.
   
  Haven't we had this discussion before?  Electrons aren't just tiny little spheres and you can't treat them as such.


----------



## kiteki

I suppose electronics are more like Sonic the Hedgehog rather than Garfield then ...
   
   
  Anyway, if someone wants to actually_ test _speaker cables or receivers this looks suitable to me -
   
http://www.ebay.com/itm/8-Zone-Premium-Speaker-Distribution-Controller-System-With-Headphone-Output-/350516469305
   
  (you connect 1 and 2 to the _same speaker, _then switch)
   





Have fun!


----------



## anetode

kiteki said:


> Like anetode was saying, he's decided on the simplicity and equality of cables, so he thinks looking too deep into the studies isn't necessary, the result is the same anyway, you implied that as well saying if you take the 10 positive reults to the side, they'll turn out to be chance in the end anyway.




Decided to catch up on the thread and ran across this gem. kiteki: no. Reading up on cables has allowed me to learn about concepts I was completely unfamiliar with, like skin effect, impedance coupling, etc. If anything I now regard the physics of cables as a complex topic calling for a variety of different designs to account for different implementations. And I have no idea where you got the whole "looking too deep into the studies isn't necessary" comment when I've already spent time on this thread trying to convince you to do the opposite. I'm actually surprised that I'm offended at how much you've missed the point, please don't pretend to paraphrase anything that I've said ever again.


----------



## kiteki

I think most of the studies I've looked at are flawed in some way, for example these often quoted statiscs http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm are all completely made up, when you look at the real study they're referring to.
   
  Yes the Pras and Gustavino study looks flawed too.
   
   


anetode said:


> [/]
> I have no idea where you got the whole "looking too deep into the studies isn't necessary" comment


 
   
  Um, looking back at page 41...
   


> Originally Posted by *anetode* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> the simplest conclusion rather than one which is correct by necessity. /
> 
> ...


 
   
  etc...


----------



## anetode




----------



## kiteki

Yes, good luck with that.


----------



## drez

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet - but this is a very interesting article: http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=KB_Columns&document_srl=1301
   
  Basically with cables, the more I read, the more I realise how little I actually understand electronics.  Another interesting cable review with measurements: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_4/legenburg-zeus-cables-12-2007.html
   
  I am starting to worry - I just bought $60 worth or rectangular OCC copper for a HE-6 recable (mostly because stock cable is oxidising) but I am starting to think I would have been better off using round wires in star quad, just keeping the gauge under 26 AWG (in order that the wire is less than 20 kHz skin depth - at least if I got my calcs correct).  Anyway I'm glad I didn't buy ROCC silver which would have cost me about 5 times more...
   
  So star quad seems to be the geometry which most pro-audio companies use for their cables?  I can do this construction with my rectangular wire and just hope the capacitance isn't too high.
   
  As far as I can get my head around it, phase and temporal distortion seems to be the main concerns in designing audio cables, but for the life of me I don't see how conductor metallurgy has anything to do with this, but then again I am not really an expert in any field which would cover this.  From my understanding, conductor purity/metallurgy has an influence over signal propagation speed, but I have no idea how this would affect critical performance metrics (in my understanding) such as phase distortion.
   
  You would think that cable manufacturers, given how ready they are to publish scientific justifications for their cable products, would participate more in threads such as this.  Presumably, given their marketing material, they must employ _at least_ a couple of engineers or scientists.  When people start wrongly representing other products, more often than not a rep from the company notices and chimes in to set things straight.  Maybe we just need to drop a few company names?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *drez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> From my understanding, conductor purity/metallurgy has an influence over signal propagation speed, but I have no idea how this would affect critical performance metrics (in my understanding) such as phase distortion.


 
   
  Not sure where you got that understanding from. Velocity of propagation depends on the permittivity of the medium the signal is propagating through. Since there's no electric field below the surface of a conductor, this means that it's dependent on the medium surrounding the conductor.
   
  Cables are minimum phase, so they won't cause phase distortion.
   
  se


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





drez said:


> Not sure if anyone has posted this yet - but this is a very interesting article: http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=KB_Columns&document_srl=1301
> 
> Basically with cables, the more I read, the more I realise how little I actually understand electronics.  Another interesting cable review with measurements: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_4/legenburg-zeus-cables-12-2007.html
> 
> ...


 
   
  Velocity of propagation relates to the geometry and the insulation of the cable.
   
  In most interconnects the LCR is far too low to be of any consequence, i.e. it will not act as a low pass filter of any significance in the audio bandwidth.
   
  If worrying about skin depth keeps you up at night, then 26 AWG solid core is a good choice. 
   
  Try to find some comments from JNJN in this thread, he had some interesting stuff to say about all that.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> These are really simple questions and you don't need access to a PHd or a particle accellerator to answer them.


 
  Yah, but it helps..  Both electron accelerators, and heavy Ion..
  Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> At audio frequencies at typical hookup distances, like for interconnect cables, those effects are trivial and can be ignored.  In general this can be ignored for audio purposes.  Sometimes for some specific purposes you need to be a little bit more careful though.


 
  One of these days, I'm going to have to fix that wiki page..sigh..
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> Was reading Stereophile and they were talking about swapping interconnects to "add warmth and smoothness". Seriously, why do I still have a subscription with them?


 
  Because IC's can and do affect the sound.
   
  When you have two IC's, one for left, and one for right, and the right channel puts 1 volt into the cable, pushing 100 microamps of current into the 10k load at the amp end, what path do you think that current takes to get back to the preamp?
   
  If it's RCA's unbalanced with class 2 equipment, the return is 50% via the right shield, and 50% left shield at low frequency.  If there are safety grounds and 3 prong IEC's, the bulk of the current goes via the third pin of the power cords at lf, changes to 50/50 in the IC's as frequency goes up, and to the signal braid at much higher frequency.
   
     Quote:


steve eddy said:


> If you're going to apply transmission line theory at audio frequencies, then your load impedance must also be matched to the line impedance, otherwise, the whole exercise is rather pointless. What good is it to have say, a 100 ohm output impedance driving a 100 ohm line, only to have that line terminated with a 10k ohm load? Are you also modifying your equipment so that their input impedances match the line impedance?
> 
> And at what frequency are you determining the line's "characteristic impedance"? A cable won't start approaching it's mathematical "characteristic impedance" until you're pretty well out of the audio range. Below that, the cable's impedance continuously rises.
> 
> ...


 
  Darn, was gonna add something...no need.
   
  Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Not sure where you got that understanding from. Velocity of propagation depends on the permittivity of the medium the signal is propagating through. Since there's no electric field below the surface of a conductor, this means that it's dependent on the medium surrounding the conductor.
> 
> Cables are minimum phase, so they won't cause phase distortion.
> 
> se


 
  Vprop depends also on the permeability of the medium, unless the magnetic field is unconstrained.  Then you have to use EDC.  Of course, when half the return current is via the other ic's shield, the distributed inductance goes in the crapper, and the centroids of the paths open the system up to all kinds of loop area based interference..everybody seems to think that two parallel shielded cables connected between two chassis somehow tells the electrons which way to go..  You, buddy, I'm a left-channel electron, I ain't goin down that right hand braid..
  Quote: 





chris j said:


> Velocity of propagation relates to the geometry and the insulation of the cable.
> 
> In most interconnects the LCR is far too low to be of any consequence, i.e. it will not act as a low pass filter of any significance in the audio bandwidth.
> 
> ...


 
  Nah, that joker doesn't know a thing..
   
  jnjn


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> Because IC's can and do affect the sound.
> 
> When you have two IC's, one for left, and one for right, and the right channel puts 1 volt into the cable, pushing 100 microamps of current into the 10k load at the amp end, what path do you think that current takes to get back to the preamp?


 
   
  With the majority of consumer and professional audio equipment, and "regular" construction of commercial rca cables - would you say this is still a concern?


----------



## Magick Man

jnjn said:


> Because IC's can and do affect the sound.
> 
> When you have two IC's, one for left, and one for right, and the right channel puts 1 volt into the cable, pushing 100 microamps of current into the 10k load at the amp end, what path do you think that current takes to get back to the preamp?
> 
> If it's RCA's unbalanced with class 2 equipment, the return is 50% via the right shield, and 50% left shield at low frequency.  If there are safety grounds and 3 prong IEC's, the bulk of the current goes via the third pin of the power cords at lf, changes to 50/50 in the IC's as frequency goes up, and to the signal braid at much higher frequency.




and none of matters as long as you have a well built cable, whether it be Monoprice, Blue Jeans, or $5,000 Audioquest. I've been in multiple DBTs over the years, all of them came to the same conclusion: cables only matter if they're defective. I wish they did alter sound, it would make things more interesting, but they don't.


----------



## proton007

I hope the OP has received his answer, and a lot more.


----------



## kiteki

IC = Integrated Circuit, not InterConnect.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> Nah, that joker doesn't know a thing..
> 
> jnjn


 
   
Is this meant to be an insult?  Why don't we have a discussion about acrchitecture so I can return the favor?   Thank you for exmplaining Steve


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





drez said:


> Is this meant to be an insult?  Why don't we have a discussion about acrchitecture so I can return the favor?


 
   
  Um, jnjn was referring to _himself_ when he said that, not you. 
   
  se


----------



## drez

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Um, jnjn was referring to _himself_ when he said that, not you.
> 
> se


 
   
  Thanks for explaining that Steve.  I guess I ruled out such modesty too quickly


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





drez said:


> Thanks for explaining that Steve.  I guess I ruled out such modesty too quickly


 
   
  You just need to get to know that know-nothing joker jnjn a bit better is all. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> If you're going to apply transmission line theory at audio frequencies, then your load impedance must also be matched to the line impedance, otherwise, the whole exercise is rather pointless. What good is it to have say, a 100 ohm output impedance driving a 100 ohm line, only to have that line terminated with a 10k ohm load? Are you also modifying your equipment so that their input impedances match the line impedance?
> 
> And at what frequency are you determining the line's "characteristic impedance"? A cable won't start approaching it's mathematical "characteristic impedance" until you're pretty well out of the audio range. Below that, the cable's impedance continuously rises.
> 
> ...


 
   
  In audio you only have to approach this characterisic impedance at the source end to be effective. All you are trying to do is minimize the effect of cable capacitance which you do by lowering the output impedance to close to the characteristic impedance of the cable. In audio you are not concerned with reflections as you are with RF. The wave lenths are too long, much longer than any audio frequency wire, even at the 40% reduced speed of the electrons in wire. Trying to do this at both ends (source & receiver) means you will loose 1/2 your voltage drive which is ok if you have enough gain to start with but you still have to take into account the fact that some recording are recorded way soft to begin with. The effects of capacitance may seem very subtle of the surface until you experience what reducing it to the absolute minimum on equipment that has a high source impedance. This not so critical on equipment that approches the impedance characteristic of the cable at it's source like Asus soundcards do ( they get very close, an order of manatude closer than most audio componants. Not quite a perfect match but close enough to no longer be an issue. I can now concentrate on other things like my power supply mods that I have aleady done)
   
  Coupling is not a problem for me as I D.C. coup[e everything in my system I.E. I have no coupling caps anywhere in my system except for my tweeter amp crossover which cannot be eliminated for obvious reasons. Even that amp though is capable of amplifying D.C. if it were allowed to reach it. I found this arrangement to be the most transperant that when used along with my powersupply mods does a credible job of recreating the sound that I hear from live instruments, even from my small speakers in my room. I've don same type mods to my subwoofer & now have usable response to 16Hz, Flat to 20Hz.
   
  I would imagine that most people don't have the resolution capabilities in thier system that mine does. My system has very high resolution & I can hear differences in wiring with this system when used with normal audio componants which have high output impedance (600ohms or higher).


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> With the majority of consumer and professional audio equipment, and "regular" construction of commercial rca cables - would you say this is still a concern?


 
  Yes.  For unbalanced equipment, there is a total lack of control over where the currents are going.  That makes equipment sensitive to AC and hums, buzz, clicks..equipment transients such as HVAC units, nearby lightning discharges due to high rate di/dt.  For pro balanced equipment, they are addressing the pin 1 problem, but to date, only consider the issue to be that of an IR drop.  Everybody I've read has ignored the rate of change of the current in the ground loop.  And, they also ignore the source component output section as being sensitive to ground loop current.
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> and none of matters as long as you have a well built cable, whether it be Monoprice, Blue Jeans, or $5,000 Audioquest. I've been in multiple DBTs over the years, all of them came to the same conclusion: cables only matter if they're defective. I wish they did alter sound, it would make things more interesting, but they don't.


 
  Incorrect.  See above.
  Quote: 





kiteki said:


> IC = Integrated Circuit, not InterConnect.


 
  I used IC to mean Interconect Cable.  A common nomenclature is important.
  Quote: 





germanium said:


> In audio you only have to approach this characterisic impedance at the source end to be effective. All you are trying to do is minimize the effect of cable capacitance which you do by lowering the output impedance to close to the characteristic impedance of the cable. In audio you are not concerned with reflections as you are with RF. The wave lenths are too long, much longer than any audio frequency wire, even at the 40% reduced speed of the electrons in wire. Trying to do this at both ends (source & receiver) means you will loose 1/2 your voltage drive which is ok if you have enough gain to start with but you still have to take into account the fact that some recording are recorded way soft to begin with. The effects of capacitance may seem very subtle of the surface until you experience what reducing it to the absolute minimum on equipment that has a high source impedance. This not so critical on equipment that approches the impedance characteristic of the cable at it's source like Asus soundcards do ( they get very close, an order of manatude closer than most audio componants. Not quite a perfect match but close enough to no longer be an issue. I can now concentrate on other things like my power supply mods that I have aleady done)
> 
> Coupling is not a problem for me as I D.C. coup[e everything in my system I.E. I have no coupling caps anywhere in my system except for my tweeter amp crossover which cannot be eliminated for obvious reasons. Even that amp though is capable of amplifying D.C. if it were allowed to reach it. I found this arrangement to be the most transperant that when used along with my powersupply mods does a credible job of recreating the sound that I hear from live instruments, even from my small speakers in my room. I've don same type mods to my subwoofer & now have usable response to 16Hz, Flat to 20Hz.
> 
> I would imagine that most people don't have the resolution capabilities in thier system that mine does. My system has very high resolution & I can hear differences in wiring with this system when used with normal audio componants which have high output impedance (600ohms or higher).


 
  Not entirely correct.  In audio, the biggest issue is the load impedance and the mismatch to the line.
   
  When the load (Z) is equal to the line, all events at the output are over after one transit at the propagation velocity of the cable.  Nanoseconds.
   
  When the load z is several orders of magnitude different than the line, then several hundred reflections are required until the load settles down to the current and voltage that the load needs to satisfy the source.  For example, a 4 ohm load with a 150 ohm zip cable..If the amp steps 40 volts, 10 nanoseconds or so later, the load will be hit with 40 volts, but the cable can only supply 40/150 amperes maximum at this hit.  After hundreds of reflections, the load current will indeed rise to the 10 amperes expected, unfortunately that timeframe is getting into the regime of demonstrated human localization sensitivity.
   
  For IC's, it is another ballgame entirely, given that there is really no control over the current path of the ground.  You have no idea (well, you might) how difficult modelling two IC's between components is, given that roughly half the signal return is via the coax driven, the other half is via the other cable braid, and the ratio is slew rate dependent.
   
  jnjn


----------



## Tilpo

jnjn said:


> I used IC to mean Interconect Cable.  A common nomenclature is important.



I too find your acronym confusing with integrated circuit, especially because both are relevant terms in audio.
Just say "cable" or "interconnect" to avoid confusion; they aren't long words.


----------



## Magick Man

jnjn said:


> Incorrect.  See above.




I have no doubt at all that you *hear* a difference, a great many people do.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I too find your acronym confusing with integrated circuit, especially because both are relevant terms in audio.
> Just say "cable" or "interconnect" to avoid confusion; they aren't long words.


 
  Where's the fun in that???
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> I have no doubt at all that you *hear* a difference, a great many people do.


 
  STOP RIGHT THERE..hold your horses...stop the presses...
   
  Where did I say I _*hear*_ a difference?
   
  I have pointed out exactly where the_* flaws in thinking *_are for all those engineering types who incorrectly state a wire is a wire, all that matters is LRC.  The fact of the matter is, unbalanced equipment BY DESIGN, is an EMC debacle.  For far too long, too many really bad assumptions have ruled the roost.  And buried is that flawed understanding is unbalanced consumer grade audio equipment.
   
  Not on my watch anymore.  The audio community needs to be dragged into this century.  It is happening slowly, but inexorably.  Tom Van Doren is one of the few who really get it.
   
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/archive/2004/October/Experimental_Demo.pdf
   
  There may be two very small errors in this link, but they are certainly not show stoppers..I haven't critically reviewed it since his demo, so don't hold me to it..
   
  The difference_* I have heard *_is the susceptibility of the system to external E/M  influences.  But given what humans are sensitive to, I certainly could not rule out audibility.  But sitting in the sweet spot by myself (speakers) attempting to discern image changes, that's just not my cup of tea..but that's just me, not everybody.
   
  jnjn


----------



## Magick Man

Measurable differences? Yes, that can be said. Audible differences? No DBT has shown any proof of that. As long as the cables aren't defective, and are of a proper gauge, they'll sound the same. I'll keep saying that until proper, and pier reviewed, ABX tests are published that show otherwise.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





magick man said:


> Measurable differences? Yes, that can be said. Audible differences? No DBT has shown any proof of that. As long as the cables aren't defective, and are of a proper gauge, they'll sound the same. I'll keep saying that until proper, and pier reviewed, ABX tests are published that show otherwise.


 
  Measurable differences?  I also did not say that.
   
  DBT's?  You gonna hang your hat on dbt's for interconnects?  _* REALLY*_?
   
  Man, have I got a bridge to sell you.
   
  ps..You have a very very long wait for proper PEER reviewed tests to be presented.  It first requires adherence to basic statistical precepts.....make sure your test regimen is _*without confounders *_such that the results of the analysis can be applied to the general population..  I have hilited the relevant "buzz words" as it were...
   
  jnjn


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





germanium said:


> In audio you only have to approach this characterisic impedance at the source end to be effective. All you are trying to do is minimize the effect of cable capacitance which you do by lowering the output impedance to close to the characteristic impedance of the cable.


 
   
  If all you're trying to do is minimize the effect of cable capacitance, then you don't need to invoke such things as characteristic impedance. You just make your output impedance as low as is practical. Simple as that.
   
  Quote: 





> I would imagine that most people don't have the resolution capabilities in thier system that mine does. My system has very high resolution & I can hear differences in wiring with this system when used with normal audio componants which have high output impedance (600ohms or higher).


 
   
  Sorry, but vanity and ego (not to mention condescension) don't make for effective arguments in the Sound Science forum.
   
  se


----------



## Magick Man

jnjn said:


> Measurable differences?  I also did not say that.
> 
> DBT's?  You gonna hang your hat on dbt's for interconnects?   _*REALLY*_?
> 
> ...




Yes, I readily "hang my hat" on them, as DBTs are the *scientific standard* and I'll trust them before anyone's sighted tests. FYI, Double Blinding is used to greatly reduce confounding variables and pier review aids to eliminate procedural anomalies. You're not the first around here to make such comments about them, and you won't be the last.

Without proper testing, you might as well use cable elevators, magic crystals, and fairy dust too. They'll do you about as much good.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





magick man said:


> Yes, I readily "hang my hat" on them, as DBTs are the *scientific standard* and I'll trust them before anyone's sighted tests. FYI, Double Blinding is used to greatly reduce confounding variables and pier review aids to eliminate procedural anomalies. You're not the first around here to make such comments about them, and you won't be the last.
> Without proper testing, you might as well use cable elevators, magic crystals, and fairy dust too. They'll do you about as much good.


 
  You clearly do not know me.  You've a learning curve ahead, and it may be rather steep.  Ask questions if you do not understand, as you've been shooting first, yet asking no questions.
   
  A scientific standard is one that is _*invariant *_of the conditions.
   
  A DBT using interconnects requires the changing of the wires via some method.  If one uses simple swaps, then one is subject to the resistance of the contact connections and the loop area of the wires..NEITHER are controlled. 
   
  Two interconnects between two chassis form a ground loop which allows the currents to take the path of lowest impedance.  There is NO control, period.
   
  And both loop area and contact resistance are significant in terms of the current path that the source's signal will take getting back.  And that's only for class 2 devices.  It gets worse with safety bonded units.  Going differential removes a very significant amount, but even there inductive coupling is ignored.
   
  Now, consider the use of an ABX box.  How does that control the path of the return current?
   
  Quite honestly, everything I've seen to date has been done with virtually NO control over current path.
   
  Is it any wonder audio is lacking rigor?
   
  Now are you ready to discuss details of EMC problems with unbalanced equipment, Faraday's law of induction, Amperes, Lenz's law, and electromagnetic compatibility.  Or are you just coining blurbs you've gleaned from forums and wannabe "experts".
   
  ps..do you really believe that poorly designed "tests" which confirm preconceived notions is a "scientific standard"?  Your "bar" is far lower than mine.
   
  pps.  oh, forgot to add..I already know and understand most of the "approximations" that have been taught, well past the phd level, in the e/m subject I am discussing here.  It is very important to understand where the approximations are useful, where they fall apart.  Please ask questions instead of shooting yourself in the foot.
   
  cheers, jnjn


----------



## drez

Quote: 





magick man said:


> Yes, I readily "hang my hat" on them, as DBTs are the *scientific standard* and I'll trust them before anyone's sighted tests. FYI, Double Blinding is used to greatly reduce confounding variables and pier review aids to eliminate procedural anomalies. You're not the first around here to make such comments about them, and you won't be the last.
> Without proper testing, you might as well use cable elevators, magic crystals, and fairy dust too. They'll do you about as much good.


 
   
  So good engineering should hang on being verified by DBT?  Do you really thin that is reasonable or even beneficial to the progress of audio technology?  I don't think anyone is saying DBT's are a bad thing - just at the moment most of them seem to be backyard setups which are not up to academic research standards (most of them are nowhere near.)  If you really don't trust your sighted hearing or that of other people, then DBT's can be a useful way to provide practical objective data, but other people are quite happy to live with uncertainty of sighted listening compensated by measurements from electronic instruments, and use their on reasoning ability to fill in the gaps.  That's fine either way - to each their own, just be sure to keep in mind the quality of the double blind testing  being done when insisting on the veracity of the data.


----------



## Magick Man

drez said:


> So good engineering should hang on being verified by DBT?  *Do you really thin that is reasonable or even beneficial to the progress of audio technology*?




If they're properly conducted and verified, yes I do.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think the problem is expectation bias. I think the problem is ego. You could do a million perfectly handled scientific tests and it wouldn't please some people, because they have so much invested in their anecdotal, purely subjective opinion that they can't stand being wrong.

I've seen a pattern. The people who cling to the fairy tales the hardest and get the maddest if someone points out their errors are the folks for whom audiophilia isn't a way to listen to music, but rather a vehicle for self pride. No amount of money is too much, because they aren't spending money on electronics and wires- they're spending it on building themselves up. What they really want is for everyone t be impressed by their accomplishment.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





magick man said:


> Too bad your PhD program didn't include lessons in polite discourse, though it does appear that you did very well in Egotism 101.
> Despite the filibuster, proof that there is an audible difference in cables has not been found. Not surprising, after 25 years in this hobby I've not seen or heard any yet.


 
  Polite discourse?  All along you've been treating me in a not so pleasant fashion.   You and many others tend to classify individuals in one of two categories, those that agree with you, and those that have their heads screwed on backwards.
   
  Go back and review your posts.
   
  Now, the salient point.  Do you really think that unscientifically uncontrolled, idiotic tests repeated a thousand times, is proof that there is not an audible difference??  And when I explain the physics behind why those tests are uncontrolled, you bolt from a technical discussion.
   
  Discuss technical issues if you can.  I note you did not, but rather you attack the individual.
   
  I've got news for you.  I'm not your enemy.  Your incomplete understanding of the scientific method, you lack of understanding of where all the audio testing fails that method, and your inability to realize that.... is.
   
  jnjn


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I don't think the problem is expectation bias. I think the problem is ego. You could do a million perfectly handled scientific tests and it wouldn't please some people, because they have so much invested in their anecdotal, purely subjective opinion that they can't stand being wrong.
> I've seen a pattern. *The people who cling to the fairy tales the hardest and get the maddest if someone points out their errors are the folks for whom audiophilia isn't a way to listen to music, but rather a vehicle for self pride.* No amount of money is too much, because they aren't spending money on electronics and wires- they're spending it on building themselves up. What they really want is for everyone t be impressed by their accomplishment.


 
  Unfortunately, I see that on both sides of the argument.    I must admit however, that in my experience, a higher percentage of the subjective people are more willing to listen to why they may be in error when faced with a well constructed scientifically based argument, whereas I see far too many objective people cling desperately to their unsupported or inaccurate understandings, and resort instead to personal attacks like the ego card just exercised.
   
  cheers, jnjn


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> in my experience, a higher percentage of the subjective people are more willing to listen to why they may be in error when faced with a well constructed scientifically based argument, whereas I see far too many objective people cling desperately to their unsupported or inaccurate understandings, and resort instead to personal attacks like the ego card just exercised.


 
   
  Oddly - that is the exact opposite of my experience. 
   
  Regardless - though I do not understand it fully, I thank you for your expertise and efforts to bring us better knowledge about the science surrounding these topics. I too am skeptical of the audibility, but always willing to learn.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *jnjn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Now, the salient point.  Do you really think that unscientifically uncontrolled, idiotic tests repeated a thousand times, is proof that there is not an audible difference??  And when I explain the physics behind why those tests are uncontrolled, you bolt from a technical discussion.


 
  Feel free to provide more scientifically, more controlled, less idiotic tests that show audible differences. Good luck.
   
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Oddly - that is the exact opposite of my experience.
> 
> Regardless - though I do not understand it fully, I thank you for your expertise and efforts to bring us better knowledge about the science surrounding these topics. I too am skeptical of the audibility, but always willing to learn.


 
  Same here.


----------



## jnjn

Ya know, I missed this....sorry.
  Quote: 





drez said:


> Not sure if anyone has posted this yet - but this is a very interesting article: http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=KB_Columns&document_srl=1301
> 
> Basically with cables, the more I read, the more I realise how little I actually understand electronics.  Another interesting cable review with measurements: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_4/legenburg-zeus-cables-12-2007.html
> 
> ...


 
_*The exponential skin depth approximation is not very good, you really need to use the bessels in this regime, and I don't wish that on anybody.  At 20Khz, the current density drop of even a 1mm diameter wire is not that much*_.  So the resistivity of the conductor and the internal inductance just isn't changing significantly, nor will the cable impedance or prop velocity.
   
_*The capacitance of a constrained cable is defined by a simple equation..  *_LC = 1034 * DC.  L in nH per foot, C in pf per foot, DC is the relative dielectric coefficient of the insulation.  (3 is typical for many non foamed plastics.)
   
  For an unconstrained cable, you have to substitute the tern EDC, or effective dielectric coefficient, for DC.  Typically, a zip will run in the 4 to perhaps 6 range, based on the conductor spacing.
   
  EDC cannot be below 1, as the prop velocity is V = Cv /sqr(EDC),  (Cv being lightspeed)
   
  In general, a wire pair close together will have an L per foot of about 180 nH. 
   
  In the star quad geometry done right, you can halve the inductance figure, or about 90 nH per foot...capacitance will be still defined by the equation with EDC about 4-6.  edit:  Done right, the star quad has the current in the wires such that the magnetic fields of each pair do not add, but are orthogonal.  Once orthogonal, the inductances are in parallel so do not enhance the field.  It's like putting two inductors in parallel....the end terminal inductance becomes half as long as the inductors do not communicate magnetically.
   
_*Cable vendor white papers many times are not written by a technical person.*_  Marketing is the primary source...there are of course exceptions.  THere is no advantage to a cable vendor going on forum to defend what they've written, and much to lose.  So they will not engage.
   
  Sometimes, the papers are written by a technical person, but even then there is no guarantee that they have any understanding of what they've written.
   
  jnjn


----------



## Freefallr4545

LOL These discussions are funny. ....Just my 2 cents (lovingly) Science is very limited


----------



## Magick Man

jnjn said:


> Polite discourse?  All along you've been treating me in a not so pleasant fashion.   You and many others tend to classify individuals in one of two categories, those that agree with you, and those that have their heads screwed on backwards.
> 
> Go back and review your posts.




I did go back and read them, I was thoroughly polite, even going out of my way to do so. 

My stance is that an audible difference between properly made cables has never been proven, which is correct, and you counter by brow-beating and attempting to drown me out. If there are peer reviewed results that show otherwise, I'd be more than happy to amend my statements.


----------



## bigshot

jnjn said:


> Unfortunately, I see that on both sides of the argument.




A person who is investing his self worth in a stereo system is going to have much more reason to defend non-existent differences between cables or CD players. A person who is more interested in scientific testing will probably care less about people who believe cables have a sound than people who dismiss the value of scientific testing.

I'm with you, though. The back and forth is due to the way both sides frame their arguments. I wish the focus was on how to make significant improvements to the sound quality of stereo equipment instead of pissing matches about testing methodology and undefined numbers on a page. Even if one believes there is a difference between cables, the fact that no one has been able to decisively prove that indicates that the difference is going to be so small, it probably doesn't matter.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> _*Oddly - that is the exact opposite of my experience*_.
> 
> Regardless - though I do not understand it fully, I thank you for your expertise and efforts to bring us better knowledge about the science surrounding these topics. I too am skeptical of the audibility, but always willing to learn.


 
_*I believe it is because I am an equal opportunity skeptic. *_ Despite the nature of the claim presented, I believe it important to question the validity of it.  To me, it is even more important to question technical claims, as that is where I come from.
  Quote: 





xnor said:


> Feel free to provide more scientifically, more controlled, less idiotic tests that show audible differences. Good luck.


 
  It's trivial to provide the electrical tests, I've done that over the years.  It is more difficult explaining those tests and why they are important.
   
  For audibility, that is far more difficult.  Nature of the beast is one thing.  Human adaptation to localization cues is not clearly defined with respect to timeframe, integrated exposure, or even the time constant for the adaptation.  Greisinger has done some good work, some others are doing some really interesting work on time dependency of localization vs sweep speed through the listener's field..  But given the methodology of level only pan pot image location, I see many hurdles which are not going to be easy to solve.
   
  For interconnects, the most important thing we need to do is understand why the equipment is sensitive to them, and fix the equipment...now that's something to take a bite of.
   
  cheers, jnjn


----------



## bigshot

jnjn said:


> For audibility, that is far more difficult.




Audibility is the only thing that matters. The rest is all hot air.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Audibility is the only thing that matters. The rest is all hot air.


 
  No, no, no.   That is a terribly wrong attitude.  Fix the problem, don't ignore it.
   
  Interconnects absolutely do affect the equipment by virtue of the design of the equipment.
   
  Power cords also do the same, for the exact same reason.
   
  When people find differences and ask for answers, they get the standard "it's in your head", or wire is wire, or miles and miles, or links to silly things by pseudoexperts proclaiming mythbuster quips..
   
  Fix the equipment.  Get rid of the sensitivity.
   
  Unless of course, you prefer another 25 years of back and forth..
   
  Me, if I read another one of those pseudoscience explanations as to why the metallurgy of _*my power cable *_makes a world of difference, I'm gonna puke..I swear it..
   
  jnjn


----------



## scud80

it's funny (to me) that i basically agree with both bigshot and jnjn here.  audibility *is* the only thing that matters, but electronics should also be designed to keep unwanted elements as far from audibility as possible.  there's no audible difference if noise introduced by your equipment is -80dB vs. -90dB compared to your signal, but it is a very real difference and if two options are otherwise identical i'm certainly opting for -90dB.
   
  cables that are designed and constructed well *should not* affect the sound that comes out the transducer at the end.  i haven't seen any measurements which show that they do to a level at which the difference is noticeable.  if they change a frequency response by .001dB i don't really care, but .0001dB would certainly be better.  if anybody can point me towards a paper that shows otherwise i'd be very interested to read it.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> Me, if I read another one of those pseudoscience explanations as to why the metallurgy of _*my power cable *_makes a world of difference, I'm gonna puke..I swear it..


 
   
  This we certainly agree on.


----------



## bigshot

Wire *is* wire. Fix the things that count.

Imagine if you hired a cleaning lady to clean your house and she started by taking a toothbrush and scrubbing the back corners of your closet. Wouldn't you want to tell her to mop the floors and clean the bathrooms instead?


----------



## bigshot

scud80 said:


> there's no audible difference if noise introduced by your equipment is -80dB vs. -90dB compared to your signal, but it is a very real difference and if two options are otherwise identical i'm certainly opting for -90dB.




How much more are you willing to pay for that theoretical peace of mind? Some people pay tens of thousands of dollars for incremental inaudible improvements.

I'm not in this to satisfy my OCD or for the sheer joy of buying little black boxes with tiny little lights and nice big shiny dials. I'm in it for the music. I want to spend money on things I can hear. Because honestly, if my audio issues are dealt with, I can get on to the real purpose... appreciating music.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> Audibility is the only thing that matters. The rest is all hot air.




This. I've seen many papers detailing electrical differences between various cables and interconnects, but no one has been able to determine if there is an audible difference. As you said before, if there is it's likely so very small that it makes no difference.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





scud80 said:


> _*it's funny (to me) that i basically agree with both bigshot and jnjn here*_.  audibility *is* the only thing that matters, but electronics should also be designed to keep unwanted elements as far from audibility as possible.  there's no audible difference if noise introduced by your equipment is -80dB vs. -90dB compared to your signal, but it is a very real difference and if two options are otherwise identical i'm certainly opting for -90dB.
> 
> cables that are designed and constructed well *should not* affect the sound that comes out the transducer at the end. _* i haven't seen any measurements which show that they do to a level at which the difference is noticeable.  if they change a frequency response by .001dB i don't really care, but .0001dB would certainly be better*_.  if anybody can point me towards a paper that shows otherwise i'd be very interested to read it.


 
_*Welcome to my world*_.  Do you hear the voices also??  I usually ignore them.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  A cable tested on the bench using normal test equipment will show absolutely nothing significantly different from any other cable on the same bench.  Other than really crappy cables of course...
   
  The problem is _*when the cable is put in the field.*_  _*That's when parameters which should not make a difference do*_.  Things like geometry of construction, contact resistance, characteristic impedance (yah, line cords as well).
   
  It's a rediculous state of affairs. _* Line cords and interconnects are not supposed to change the sound.  Period...*_
   
  jnjn
   
  .


----------



## scud80

not a lot, which is why i said if the options are otherwise identical.  that means in cost as well, though i suppose the amount i'd pay for such a difference is more than zero.
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> How much more are you willing to pay for that theoretical peace of mind? Some people pay tens of thousands of dollars for incremental inaudible improvements.
> I'm not in this to satisfy my OCD or for the sheer joy of buying little black boxes with tiny little lights and nice big shiny dials. I'm in it for the music. I want to spend money on things I can hear. Because honestly, if my audio issues are dealt with, I can get on to the real purpose... appreciating music.


----------



## bigshot

People spend vast amounts of time in this forum debating and discussing the technical minutiae of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Folks vomit out cut and paste from scientific studies and doctoral thesises, and none of it means a tinker's damn.

The things that *really* matter... speaker design, equalization and room treatment seldom get discussed, and when they do, it's either with vomiting out scientific cut and paste, or in general vagueries that don't help anyone.

I read person after person saying, "room treatment is important" (myself included) but I have yet to see anyone post that has a general grasp of the subject (myself included again). People love to put on white coats and goggles and say, "Trust me, I'm a doctor!" but they don't seem to be able to sit down and discuss things that really matter with clarity and directness.

I don't have a lot of patience with people who make things unduely complicated. Just now, I saw a thread that asked if CDs were lossless or were they made from MP3s. The answer is simple. "Yes! CDs are lossless." But instead the answer was "I don't know. They're normally downsamples from 24 bit..." and links to articles on hot mastering,

Sometimes I think people are deliberately trying to confuse things.

"If I buy fancy cables, will my headphones sound better?"
"What about expensive power cords?"
"Do amps and CD players have an individual sound signature?"
"Do vinyl records sound better than CDs?"
"Does lossless sound better than high bitrate MP3s?"
"Do standalone DACs sound better than the ones built into in iPods and CD players?"
"Do I need to mod my equipment to replace op amps?"

Now, I'm sure a legion of boy geniuses could spend days debating those seven questions, but if your intent is to listen to great sounding music, I can cut to the chase with two letters.

no


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> How much more are you willing to pay for that theoretical peace of mind? Some people pay tens of thousands of dollars for incremental inaudible improvements.
> I'm not in this to satisfy my OCD or for the sheer joy of buying little black boxes with tiny little lights and nice big shiny dials. I'm in it for the music. I want to spend money on things I can hear. Because honestly, if my audio issues are dealt with, I can get on to the real purpose... appreciating music.


 
  Zero.
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> This. I've seen many papers detailing electrical differences between various cables and interconnects, but no one has been able to determine if there is an audible difference. As you said before, if there is it's likely so very small that it makes no difference.


 
  As I told scud.  There is no difference in the cables that can be measured on the bench.  It's the darn equipment in the field that is sensitive to the various cables.
   
  jnjn


----------



## Tilpo

jnjn said:


> As I told scud.  There is no difference in the cables that can be measured on the bench.  It's the darn equipment in the field that is sensitive to the various cables.
> 
> jnjn




It's a fact that differences under ideal circumstances (that is, on the bench) tend to be smaller than under actual application. But if absolutely no difference, or only very teeny tiny ones are measured, why would be expect there to suddenly be a huge difference in the real world? 

I say get a speaker setup and place microphone at the normal listening position. Secure it in such a way that it absolutely cannot move the slightest (for control). 
In theory the microphone + ADC should be more precise than the human ear, and I think this is a reasonable assumption to make. 

Then get a couple different interconnects and do detailed measurements with each. Then switch back to the first one and run the measurement procedure a second time to get some idea of the accuracy of the measurement. 
Compare results, and see how big the differences are.

This would give measurements of the cable's real life performance. If differences detected are well below audible thresholds, then I it has been proven that under real-life circumstances cables do not make a difference.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> _*I believe it is because I am an equal opportunity skeptic. *_ Despite the nature of the claim presented, I believe it important to question the validity of it.  To me, it is even more important to question technical claims, as that is where I come from.
> It's trivial to provide the electrical tests, I've done that over the years.  It is more difficult explaining those tests and why they are important.
> 
> For audibility, that is far more difficult.  Nature of the beast is one thing.  Human adaptation to localization cues is not clearly defined with respect to timeframe, integrated exposure, or even the time constant for the adaptation.  Greisinger has done some good work, some others are doing some really interesting work on time dependency of localization vs sweep speed through the listener's field..  But given the methodology of level only pan pot image location, I see many hurdles which are not going to be easy to solve.
> ...


 
  I fear you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. The basic question being addressed is "is cable X in a given circuit audibly different from cable Y in an otherwise identical circuit" - the precise nature of how the cables differ in topoplogy is not important to the listener, if there is something really amiss in the deisgn of either cable it may or may not show up in listener testing but the listener and the experimenter do not care as that is not the question they are asking. When you get to the point where you can reliably show audible differences then you can worry about why. The core of the experiment is to change one variable only, in the case the cable, and see what difference it makes, the precise cable interactions with both ends can be disregarded (black box) for now. To worry excessively about other variables means you will never be able to do any experiment as there is always potentially something different between two tests such as the time of day, temperature, humidity, listener state of attention/relaxation, primacy/recency, test # and so on. You get round these objections as best you can by repetition, big numbers and variations, such as Cable X and Y in Circuit A,B,C......
   
  The real problems arise with humans , humans are relatively crap at distinguishing small differences in signals and the human short term audio memory is very short compared to visual memory. Echoic memory is a few 100 ms and short term store is a few seconds, the longer term auditory storage (which allows us to recognize our mothers voice on the phone or Von Karajan vs Solti) does not have the same characteristics, though it is capable of storing quite fine discriminations for voices , a useful evolutionary thing. Consequently a 5 minute gap for a cable swap is going to hide all but the grossest of differences.
   
  You make an issue of the problems of creating transparent i.e non intefering ABX boxes. I am a bit skeptical that they would make that much difference to the final audio signal. I did a number of crude experiments where I lashed together two 3' cables with $1.50 connectors or used a switch box to connect two 3' cables or a single 6' cable (same grade/manufacturer/model)  or one of the 3' cables alone and recorded samples using the analog output of a my CD player into a recording device. I was unable to find any combination that was markedly different from any other in FR terms. _I had the same results measuring a number of very different 3' cables but that is another story_. Granted my experiments were very crude but if the differences were so small that they were occluded by a 16 bit A/D process I am inclined to think that someone can probably engineer an ABX box that is largely non-intrusive in terms of audio parameters(volume,frequency etc)


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> It's a fact that differences under ideal circumstances (that is, on the bench) tend to be smaller than under actual application. But if absolutely no difference, or only very teeny tiny ones are measured, why would be expect there to suddenly be a huge difference in the real world?.


 
  Consider edit: (_*four)*_ shielded cables, one with a shield resistance of 5 milliohms, another with a shield resistance of 50 milliohms, the third with 500 millohms, the fourth 5 ohms. Assume they've all been optimized for very low capacitance such that the cable impedance is 300 ohms.  Identical core wire and dielectric.
   
  Using class two equipment, at what frequency will 90% of the return current travel through the same cable as the signal being fed to the amp.  Remember, the break frequency for ground return  will vary based on the shield loop resistance in comparison to the characteristic impedance of the cable.  And, how effective the cable is as a shield is ABSOLUTELY dependent on ALL the signal current returning via the shield of the source current.
   
  It will also depend on how the amplifier deals with it's star ground topology.  Star grounding techniques are not directly applicable to low impedance circuits, it's a vacuum tube technology that's been stolen for use..
   
  For the first three, I don't think even I could find any real difference, the test is not an easy one.  I might be able to find the hf loss of the distributed shield resistance on the last one, but I'm not a gambling man..
   
  The problem gets significantly worse when the equipment has a 3 pin IEC power cord, because for the higher resistance shield, most of the return current will be via the darn duplex outlet.  And that is not something that can be measured on the bench for all the various types of equipment out there.
   
  jnjn


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> _*I fear you are making this more complicated than it needs to be.*_ The basic question being addressed is "is cable X in a given circuit audibly different from cable Y in an otherwise identical circuit" - the precise nature of how the cables differ in topoplogy is not important to the listener, if there is something really amiss in the deisgn of either cable it may or may not show up in listener testing but the listener and the experimenter do not care as that is not the question they are asking. When you get to the point where you can reliably show audible differences then you can worry about why. The core of the experiment is to change one variable only, in the case the cable, and see what difference it makes, the precise cable interactions with both ends can be disregarded (black box) for now. To worry excessively about other variables means you will never be able to do any experiment as there is always potentially something different between two tests such as the time of day, temperature, humidity, listener state of attention/relaxation, primacy/recency, test # and so on. You get round these objections as best you can by repetition, big numbers and variations, such as Cable X and Y in Circuit A,B,C......
> 
> The real problems arise with humans , humans are relatively crap at distinguishing small differences in signals and the human short term audio memory is very short compared to visual memory. Echoic memory is a few 100 ms and short term store is a few seconds, the longer term auditory storage (which allows us to recognize our mothers voice on the phone or Von Karajan vs Solti) does not have the same characteristics, though it is capable of storing quite fine discriminations for voices , a useful evolutionary thing. Consequently a 5 minute gap for a cable swap is going to hide all but the grossest of differences.
> 
> _*You make an issue of the problems of creating transparent i.e non intefering ABX boxes. I am a bit skeptical that they would make that much difference to the final audio signal. *_I did a number of crude experiments where I lashed together two 3' cables with $1.50 connectors or used a switch box to connect two 3' cables or a single 6' cable (same grade/manufacturer/model)  or one of the 3' cables alone and recorded samples using the analog output of a my CD player into a recording device. I was unable to find any combination that was markedly different from any other in FR terms. _I had the same results measuring a number of very different 3' cables but that is another story_. Granted my experiments were very crude but if the differences were so small that they were occluded by a 16 bit A/D process I am inclined to think that someone can probably engineer an ABX box that is largely non-intrusive in terms of audio parameters(volume,frequency etc)


 
_*Actually, I'm guilty of trying to keep it too simple*_.
   
  The mechanism described is totally keboshed with an ABX box.  Where do the shield/return current go once an ABX box is included?
   
  Don't forget.  I am not saying that all interconnects and line cords sound different.  I'm saying the equipment being connected is responsible for the sensitivities to cable, and that the cables may alter sound as a result.
   
  A negative result as you report does not mean it doesn't happen, unfortunately.  Just that it didn't.
   
  The real crux of my argument is simple..  Cables can make a difference, but only because the equipment designers did not take into account the concept of current control.   EMC engineering, consistent with the Tom Van Doren link I provided.
   
  ps...I am not Tom Van Doren.
   
  cheers, jnjn


----------



## bigshot

nick_charles said:


> You make an issue of the problems of creating transparent i.e non intefering ABX boxes.




I have yet to see a stereo system that doesn't include a switching preamp.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> No, no, no.   That is a terribly wrong attitude.  Fix the problem, don't ignore it.
> 
> Interconnects absolutely do affect the equipment by virtue of the design of the equipment.
> 
> Power cords also do the same, for the exact same reason.


 
  Temperature absolutely does affect equipment.
   
  Humidity also affects my headphone's drivers.
   
  I just cannot hear it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
  Quote: 





> When people find differences and ask for answers, they get the standard "it's in your head", or wire is wire, or miles and miles, or links to silly things by pseudoexperts proclaiming mythbuster quips..


 
  Only few make it into the sound science forum to ask such questions. The rest.. well bigshot explained it pretty well before.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Fix the equipment.  Get rid of the sensitivity.
> 
> Unless of course, you prefer another 25 years of back and forth..


 
  Nothing wrong with that if there's doubt that it might cause audible differences, imho.


----------



## Currawong

Guys, I've deleted a few posts which were abusive. Science certainly doesn't back itself up with personal attacks and neither should any of you either.
   
  The problem with these discussion is that most people aren't here to attempt to learn anything new and develop a deeper understanding, but only to argue in whatever way they can that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It'd be more useful if people approached the discussion of science in the first way, as the purpose of it IS so that we gain a better understanding of our lives, the world and the universe around us, not fight people over beliefs.


----------



## bigshot

Please don't delete any posts that are abusive towards me. I'm a grown up. I can take it. To be honest, I don't think this forum really needs moderating. The slips into ad hominem reveal as much as the logically considered arguments.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Please don't delete any posts that are abusive towards me. I'm a grown up. I can take it.


 
   
  All right! PILE ON BIGSHOT! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Quote: 





> To be honest, I don't think this forum really needs moderating. The slips into ad hominem reveal as much as the logically considered arguments.


 
   
  I tend to agree.
   
  se


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Please don't delete any posts that are abusive towards me. I'm a grown up. I can take it. To be honest, I don't think this forum really needs moderating. The slips into ad hominem reveal as much as the logically considered arguments.


 
   
  You may not care, but other people read threads to find useful information, not fighting between people. If you wish to engage in that, do it via PM.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote: 





thegrumpyoldman said:


> In the end, why make it a matter of belief in -other- people's opinion: if this bugs you, keep an eye out for the next headfi-type meet in your area, go there and -listen for yourself-! I'm sure there will be plenty of high-end equipment, connected by equally high-end cabling. Now they won't necessarily let you swap cables, but there may be someone with equipment you are familiar with, using fancy cables, for a comparison. And generally, the whole thing should be fun either way.
> 
> I would think that IF cables do make a difference, the most obvious place for that would be the ones going straight to the headphone, which is also where the strongest statements, bordering on potentially verifiably audible, are made (ex.: silver cabling enhances treble, makes headphones "brighter") Maybe bring your own favorite headphones that are familiar-sounding, and see if you can try a pair of upgraded ones, or if yours have removable cabling, ask to swap.
> 
> ...


 
  There is your answer   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   
  Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Ever since I got linked to that whole "cables" topic and read the ridiculous number of sources repeating that from basically regular listeners all the way to top audio engineers and reviewers could not distinguish cables in blind testing, I have been highly conflicted about reviews on this site.
> 
> Recently just read a review about another IEM and in it, the cables are being mentioned as enhancing the bass, helping with soundstage and imaging. Sounds like a big difference...
> 
> ...


 
   
   
   
   
  Maybe the subject of drugs would be a little more radical. Half the world say don't try em, you can see the pitfalls others have experienced and even if you try them once it could lead into trouble. There were a group of teens recently who wreaked a car the very first night when trying drugs. With a persons choice of cables, it is as easy as going to a fellow Head-Fi'ers house or to a meet and experiencing for yourself. The really dumb thing is to take others options with-out a couple of tests. 
   
  There is due cause at Head-Fi to be hyper-critical of what some say, as there are many expensive tweeks that end up being worthless and completely ridiculous in the end. The part that I could never understand is how folks who don't believe in something like cables get on their soap-box and insist that it can't be proven to their ears or by modern scientific testing and there for doesn't exist.
   
  I did not believe in cables when I joined in 08, but I had an open mind to learn and listen to all sides. At my first meet I found proof of cable changes which confirmed beliefs that had started to congeal at home. Later I became a true believer that each part of the signal chain is just as important as the rest. If it really is a placebo effect why would it last years on end? I will use whatever makes my systems sound the best even using super inexpensive cables in places and set-ups that warrant it.
   
  At first I thought it was cool to get into these round and round discussions here, even seeing light at the end of the tunnel, the results were always the same in the end with no hard facts ever being for or against this issue. Many heated debates even cost long time members their status when they were banned for being out of line. So in the end I put in my two cents every couple of months just for fun. 
   
  I would think any new member would realize there must be something there to at least try, so they can take part in the debate themselves. In the end I don't think I'm wrong but maybe my rigs would be looked at as unbalanced with having spent more money on cables than headphones. I was ultimately looking for a certain sound signature that I ended up finding in the end partially due to not listening to people tell me what to do, but listening to my ears and instincts.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> If it really is a placebo effect why would it last years on end?.


 
   
  Because you're still the same human being you were all those years and likely have only had your biases reinforced by yourself and others throughout those years.
   
  se


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Because you're still the same human being you were all those years and likely have only had your biases reinforced by yourself and others throughout those years.
> 
> se


----------



## bigshot

A noisy hotel ballroom with a CD you're probably not familiar with isn't going to prove anything. If you want to find out for sure, buy a fancy cable that has a 90 day return policy, set up a pair of preamps to balance line levels, and check for yourself. But the most important part of what I said there is the 90 day return policy.


----------



## jcx

people don't really seem to have an appreciation of how secondary, filtered and delayed our "conscious" experience of the world is
   
  our brains are deeply hardwired to filter, censor, edit every piece of sensory input to manage our "awareness" to reinforce our egos, confirm our pre-existing bias/world views, secure our position in our social groups
   
  this is absolutely beyond our conscious control - not a matter of "simple honesty", little affected by contrary experience once we have formed "workable" opinions, particulary after we determine that there is social reforcement for these beliefs
   
   
  these insights are a staple of modern perceptual psychology, specific to audio we have over a century of psychoacoustic perceptual research using the Scientific Method
   
  read peceptual psychology studies, books, procedures - admit you are also human, also subject to these reasoning, perceptual errors, illusions
   
  start using controls,level matching, Blinding in your listening evaluations - then report back to us what you "really" perceive


----------



## drez

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> People spend vast amounts of time in this forum debating and discussing the technical minutiae of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Folks vomit out cut and paste from scientific studies and doctoral thesises, and none of it means a tinker's damn.
> The things that *really* matter... speaker design, equalization and room treatment seldom get discussed, and when they do, it's either with vomiting out scientific cut and paste, or in general vagueries that don't help anyone.
> I read person after person saying, "room treatment is important" (myself included) but I have yet to see anyone post that has a general grasp of the subject (myself included again). People love to put on white coats and goggles and say, "Trust me, I'm a doctor!" but they don't seem to be able to sit down and discuss things that really matter with clarity and directness.
> I don't have a lot of patience with people who make things unduely complicated. Just now, I saw a thread that asked if CDs were lossless or were they made from MP3s. The answer is simple. "Yes! CDs are lossless." But instead the answer was "I don't know. They're normally downsamples from 24 bit..." and links to articles on hot mastering,
> ...


 
   
  "If I buy fancy cables, will my headphones sound better?"
 "What about expensive power cords?"
 "Do amps and CD players have an individual sound signature?"
 "Do vinyl records sound better than CDs?"
 "Does lossless sound better than high bitrate MP3s?"
 "Do standalone DACs sound better than the ones built into in iPods and CD players?"
 "Do I need to mod my equipment to replace op amps?"
  Now, I'm sure a legion of boy geniuses could spend days debating those seven questions, but if your intent is to listen to great sounding music, I can cut to the chase with two letters.
  no
   
  Don't you think this is a gross oversimplification, especially when you do not qualify the justification for this statement (my guess is along the lines "because differences have not been shown in double blind tests")
  I could take this statement, go and hook up my ipod (or even my other DAC) to my amplifier and you say it will sound the same?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I wish it sounded the same - then I would sell my equipment and take a holiday.
  I don't find gross oversimplifications very convincing.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> If all you're trying to do is minimize the effect of cable capacitance, then you don't need to invoke such things as characteristic impedance. You just make your output impedance as low as is practical. Simple as that.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but vanity and ego (not to mention condescension) don't make for effective arguments in the Sound Science forum.
> ...


 
  No vanity or condescension was intenended. I have never heard a system with the resolution mine has no matter the cost. Even systems costing 100's of thousands of dollars fall short in key areas. They generally lack that sound you get in live situations. Not my system. And I didn't even spend $3,000. It comes down to knowing how to get the sound you are looking for & avoiding the pitfalls. I don't claim to hear things I can't hear but do claim what I can. I have listened to countless programs for playing music using files that are full resolution & cannot hear any difference but I do hear a difference in interconnects when componants are used with high output impedance & not when the ouput impedance is reasonably low.
   
  My cap mods & D.C. coupling do actually work wonders to get that live sound I look for. Having a friend that owns a studio & having the ability to listen to recordings of the very instruments I heard live helps emmensely in giving me direction as to what sound tolook for in those instruments & if they sound correct then everything will sound as intended by the engineers.


----------



## bigshot

It isn't a gross simplification. It's the facts based on the application. For the purposes of playing back music in a home setting, none of that matters. If you have to run cable from one end of the Hollywood Bowl to the other, you might need to consider how you go about doing that. But running a cable from CD player to amp and from amp to speakers on the other side of the living room, it makes no difference whatsoever.
   
  Have you tested the line out of an iPod against the output of your DAC? I compared my iPod playing an AIFF file to a well regarded, quite expensive SACD player playing the original CD. Once I had balanced the levels the two sounded identical. I haven't tested against a standalone DAC myself. Feel free to try it.It takes a bit of work to balance the levels, but I bet you'll find the same thing I did.
   
  You don't know until you've done the test yourself. I have done the test. I know.


----------



## jcx

yes there are many "crude DBT" - and no amount of testing will "prove" the negative proposition "no one can hear X"
   
  this still doesn't give any reason to support "naive, just listen" opinions made without controls, Blinding - in ignorance of or even active hostility towards well established perceptual psychology, human limitations


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





germanium said:


> They generally lack that sound you get in live situations.


 
   
  The main difference between live sound and the sound of my stereo is the effect of the hall on the sound. Getting even remotely close to what it sounds like in a concert hall full of people is very difficult to pull off, even with a very good 5:1 system. If I was going to go about trying to replicate that, I would be focusing on the acoustics of the room my speakers are in and the arrangement and balance of the surround speakers. Then I'd try to find a decent synthetic hall ambience... It wouldn't be easy by any means.
   
  Using interconnects and op amp modifications to try to recreate live sound would be like trying to fly to the moon by putting a saddle on a mosquito.


----------



## bigshot

A friend of mine designs and builds high end sound systems for live venues. He was doing a big show at an outdoor arena that was over 100 miles out of town. As he was setting up, he realized that one run of his speaker wire was missing. He had forgotten to load it in the truck. He sent his assistant to the local Home Depot and told him to buy a whole roll of lamp cord and a big pile of duct tape. He ran the lamp cord from his mixing booth to the stage and taped it down with duct tape because he didn't have the mats to cover the cabling on one side. So one side was his industrial grade speaker cabling, and the other was the stuff on your table lamp at home. When he went to set up his EQ, he was expecting to have to compensate for the crappy cabling. But lo and behold, both sides performed the same. He wouldn't use lamp cord if he didn't have to, but not for sound reasons... rather because it's harder to cover up so people don't trip over it.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It isn't a gross simplification. It's the facts based on the application. For the purposes of playing back music in a home setting, none of that matters. If you have to run cable from one end of the Hollywood Bowl to the other, you might need to consider how you go about doing that. But running a cable from CD player to amp and from amp to speakers on the other side of the living room, it makes no difference whatsoever.
> 
> Have you tested the line out of an iPod against the output of your DAC? I compared my iPod playing an AIFF file to a well regarded, quite expensive SACD player playing the original CD. Once I had balanced the levels the two sounded identical. I haven't tested against a standalone DAC myself. Feel free to try it.It takes a bit of work to balance the levels, but I bet you'll find the same thing I did.
> 
> You don't know until you've done the test yourself. I have done the test. I know.


 
   
  Well I don't have a LOD made for my ipod yet, nor knowledge of how to match the line levels.  However with my DAC's both are able to be configured to have the same gain and output voltage, and they do not sound the same, but this could be because one or the other is designed to be coloured.  Possibly something like a Rein X-DAC or Benchmark DAC-1, or Grace M903 would be more difficult to tell apart as they are designed to be transparent.  I should note that my impressions are sighted, so you can feel free to dismiss them, but for my own decision making I consider them adequate.  If I had a chance to compare an ipod line out to any other [neutral] source I could very well come to the same conclusion, but given my subjective, sighted experience with audio gear I would find it hard to believe at this point, but that is just my opinion at this point.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The main difference between live sound and the sound of my stereo is the effect of the hall on the sound. Getting even remotely close to what it sounds like in a concert hall full of people is very difficult to pull off, even with a very good 5:1 system. If I was going to go about trying to replicate that, I would be focusing on the acoustics of the room my speakers are in and the arrangement and balance of the surround speakers. Then I'd try to find a decent synthetic hall ambience... It wouldn't be easy by any means.
> 
> Using interconnects and op amp modifications to try to recreate live sound would be like trying to fly to the moon by putting a saddle on a mosquito.


 
   
  Note I have not changed any opamps as I already knew that was not the answer as I 've been down that road before. Interconnect are not the answer in my situation either as my output impedance is sufficiently low to make it a non factor.  D.C. coupling & power supply cap mods were my answer. No need for artificial ambience here as ambience retreaval is supurb here with out the adding anything artificial. Recordings where there is natural ambiance sounds very wet with ambience already to the point of being soaked.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> The main difference between live sound and the sound of my stereo is the effect of the hall on the sound. Getting even remotely close to what it sounds like in a concert hall full of people is very difficult to pull off, even with a very good 5:1 system. If I was going to go about trying to replicate that, I would be focusing on the acoustics of the room my speakers are in and the arrangement and balance of the surround speakers. Then I'd try to find a decent synthetic hall ambience... It wouldn't be easy by any means.
> 
> Using interconnects and op amp modifications to try to recreate live sound would be like trying to fly to the moon by putting a saddle on a mosquito.




Yeah, the room treatments alone would be very expensive, or the room would have to be built from scratch with just this in mind (even more expensive). I know a guy who did this, a very wealthy attorney. He had the room designed for his audio system, a custom Infinite Wisdom setup. It's better than anything else I've ever heard in my life. With certain recordings you can move around the room and actually hear different aspects of the performance, just as if you were there. It's mind-blowing, however, even this $500k setup has its limitations. Those are mostly related to the recordings themselves, extreme resolution has its drawbacks.


----------



## bigshot

drez said:


> However with my DAC's both are able to be configured to have the same gain and output voltage, and they do not sound the same, but this could be because one or the other is designed to be coloured.




Can you still get your money back on the one with the nonstandard response curve? If so, I would do that while you still can if I was you. A DAC is a lousy place to hardwire tone control settings.


----------



## bigshot

germanium said:


> No need for artificial ambience here as ambience retreaval is supurb here with out the adding anything artificial. Recordings where there is natural ambiance sounds very wet with ambience already to the point of being soaked.




Are you running a 5:1 or 7:1 system? You must be doing multichannel to be able to get a natural sounding hall ambience. How big is your room? It can't be too big with smallish speakers like that. How have you managed the correct meshing of the surround channels? How do you prevent reflection? Are all four (or six) speakers the same make and model?

I'm interested, because I have a really good two channel setup, but I haven't been able to come up with a fully satisfactory surround setup. I get an inkling of what's possible with the reproduction of hall ambiences, but it isn't consistent from recording to recording. Too many multichannel mixes treat the rears like another set of mains... I don't want the guitar solo behind me, dammit!


----------



## bigshot

magick man said:


> It's mind-blowing, however, even this $500k setup has its limitations. Those are mostly related to the recordings themselves, extreme resolution has its drawbacks.




It isn't so much a matter of resolution, it's getting the precise balance and phase between channels to get the whole thing to mesh into a solid grid. I've found that every speaker you add to a system squares the difficulty in getting it all to mesh properly. Inconsistent and sloppy surround mixes compound the problem.

I have a few classical music and opera blurays with 5:1 sound that work very well. You can really feel the space and get a sense of the spread in front of you and how it relates To the hall around you. But most movies either just put chirping birds or walla back there or mickey mouse the hell out of it with stuff flying all around. I recently saw Yellow Submarine on bluray and the disk sounded great but the surround mix was way overdone.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Are you running a 5:1 or 7:1 system? You must be doing multichannel to be able to get a natural sounding hall ambience. How big is your room? It can't be too big with smallish speakers like that. How have you managed the correct meshing of the surround channels? How do you prevent reflection? Are all four (or six) speakers the same make and model?
> I'm interested, because I have a really good two channel setup, but I haven't been able to come up with a fully satisfactory surround setup. I get an inkling of what's possible with the reproduction of hall ambiences, but it isn't consistent from recording to recording. Too many multichannel mixes treat the rears like another set of mains... I don't want the guitar solo behind me, dammit!


 
   
  I'm using only stereo  It really depends on how it is miked as to whether sounds like it's coming from all around or just on the frontal plane. With miking that capture interchannel phase differences the ambience can come from all sides & so can instruments. Blumlien miking is incredible for this trait (surround from only 2 speakers without artificial enhancement).


----------



## mikeaj

Seems like I haven't visited this thread for too long, so I'm late.
    
  Quote:


jnjn said:


> One of these days, I'm going to have to fix that wiki page..sigh..


 
   
  As I'm sure you're well aware, it's not only on wikipedia.  I've seen it many other places and heard about it several times in real life, so if it's a misconception, it's pretty pervasive.  The problem is that I'm clueless on EMC, and so are most people, unless they work on very specific things.  On the flip side, I've heard from one guy that this makes consulting on EMC problems somewhat lucrative.
   
  I'm not particularly convinced that uncontrolled current return paths, loop areas, etc. will make a difference in practice for most unbalanced audio systems (and particularly for headphone systems, which operate with generally shorter cables, lower power, etc.), which is why everybody including the designers and consumers can generally afford to be lazy or ignorant on this issue.  To be honest, most consumers are probably better off not worrying and assuming everything will be fine, since it should except in the fringe cases.
   
  Broad oversimplifications are not good science, I'll concede.  We should be more careful.


----------



## bigshot

germanium said:


> I'm using only stereo  It really depends on how it is miked as to whether sounds like it's coming from all around or just on the frontal plane.




Your listening room is fairly small? I know what you're talking about. A good two channel system should be able to do that. Getting the full hall ambience of a live performance is a little different sort of a trick. I'm trying to pull that off, but it's complicated. My problem is that my room doubles as a screening room, so the main listening position has to be close to the rear of the room. The rear channels aren't far enough away, and they're smaller than the mains. It gives a good effect for movies, but it isn't easy to create a multichannel ambience with them. I found a good Yamaha receiver that has decent synthetic ambiences, so I'm a little closer. It still sounds better than any theater sound I've ever heard... Except for one pesky narrow high frequency spike that I can't seem to pinpoint. I need my soundmixer friend's help for that.


----------



## kiteki

jnjn said:


> A scientific standard is one that is _*invariant *_of the conditions.
> 
> ps..do you really believe that poorly designed "tests" which confirm preconceived notions is a "scientific standard"?  Your "bar" is far lower than mine.


 
   
  Yes, I think this a key point, a lot of the tests are fishy, dissecting them* is* the scientific standard.
   
   


magick man said:


> drez said:
> 
> 
> > So good engineering should hang on being verified by DBT?  Do you really thin that is reasonable or even beneficial to the progress of audio technology?
> ...


 
   
  He meant, should engineering* wait* for everything to be verified by DBT?  In some cases the evidence just isn't there yet.  You can't spend your life waiting for _everything_ to be proven.
   
  There's a constant flux of theories and prove/disprove, so a lot of people opt for overkill and achieve peace of mind like that, especially in audio since overkill isn't very expensive.
   
   


bigshot said:


> I don't think the problem is expectation bias. I think the problem is ego. You could do a million perfectly handled scientific tests and it wouldn't please some people, because they have so much invested in their anecdotal, purely subjective opinion that they can't stand being wrong.
> 
> I've seen a pattern. The people who cling to the fairy tales the hardest and get the maddest if someone points out their errors are the folks for whom audiophilia isn't a way to listen to music, but rather a vehicle for self pride. No amount of money is too much, because they aren't spending money on electronics and wires- they're spending it on building themselves up. What they really want is for everyone t be impressed by their accomplishment.


 
   
  You keep attacking marketing, audio salesmen and rich people.  I've told you before this is _seperate_ from audio science, you intertwine them like it's the very essence of the conversation.  Just because audio salesmen sharks and high profit cuts exist, it doesn't suddenly invalidate the technology.  It's like saying a certain $600 component is an empty "vehicle for self pride" with no significant sonic differences, so this suddenly necessitates that *all components *of the same nature should be set on fire.
   
   


> Originally Posted by *jnjn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Discuss technical issues if you can.  I note you did not, but rather you attack the individual.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Yes, this part.
   
   


jnjn said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > The people who cling to the fairy tales the hardest and get the maddest if someone points out their errors are the folks for whom audiophilia isn't a way to listen to music, but rather a vehicle for self pride.
> ...


 
   
  Indeed some of the objectivists seem to cling very hard to their totality of instrumentation, data and evidence.  Sometimes it feels like, if the evidence or data isn't there, it just doesn't exist.  I wouldn't really call that objectivism at all, it's more like some kind of skepticism and strict adherence to raw data, then to enhance this belief system, the raw data is crystallized to levels beyond what it ever meant in reality.  So it's not objectivism and science, it's skepticism and raw data crystallization.  Then, contrary to what bigshot was saying, it feels like they want to polish their system like a pride of science, well sometimes they are polishing synthetic quartz and not real diamonds.
   
   


bigshot said:


> jnjn said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, I see that on both sides of the argument.
> ...


 
   
  I'll just admit you could be right here and a lot of these people could exist, which invest into expensive audio only to serve as a pretty mirror to look at, but I still don't this should be intertwined with whether the components have _real differences _or not, in some cases they do, in some cases not.
   
   


bigshot said:


> The things that *really* matter... speaker design, equalization and room treatment seldom get discussed, and when they do, it's either with vomiting out scientific cut and paste, or in general vagueries that don't help anyone.
> 
> I read person after person saying, "room treatment is important" (myself included) but I have yet to see anyone post that has a general grasp of the subject (myself included again).


 
   
  You have _personally decided _that speaker design, equalizers and room treatment is what matters.  First speaker listeners are a minority on this forum, so you should probably ask some questions here - http://www.stereophile.com/forum.  Second equalizers and room treatment are only _tweaking the end signal.  _A lot of people are devoted to improving the signal itself, which makes sense.
   
   


> It's a fact that differences under ideal circumstances (that is, on the bench) tend to be smaller than under actual application.


 
   
  That's not a fact.
   
   
  Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> [/]
> The real problems arise with humans , humans are relatively crap at distinguishing small differences in signals and the human short term audio memory is very short compared to visual memory. Echoic memory is a few 100 ms and short term store is a few seconds, the longer term auditory storage (which allows us to recognize our mothers voice on the phone or Von Karajan vs Solti) does not have the same characteristics, though it is capable of storing quite fine discriminations for voices , a useful evolutionary thing. Consequently a 5 minute gap for a cable swap is going to hide all but the grossest of differences.


 
   
  In other words, the ultra short term audio memory is more accurate with 0.1dB shifts in FR, and the long term audio memory is more accurate at Von Karajan versus Solti.  I see your point relative to cables, since they are passive components with a simple task, however the more intricate and complicated electronics could start to have subtle character differences, which is why certain companies spend so much time listening to electronics in x-fold different combinations.
   
  This is just an example, I'm not supporting the Colorfly C4, but I don't think they - or anyone else - is actually expecting the Cirrus Logic CS4398, various capacitor choices, precision clock, and AD823 differences in sound to show up in frequency response, or pretty much _anything visible in RMAA, _imho.
   
   


jcx said:


> start using controls,level matching, Blinding in your listening evaluations - then report back to us what you "really" perceive


 
   
  I agree there is an acute lack of blind listening evaluation.
   
   


bigshot said:


> Have you tested the line out of an iPod against the output of your DAC? I compared my iPod playing an AIFF file to a well regarded, quite expensive SACD player playing the original CD. Once I had balanced the levels the two sounded identical. I haven't tested against a standalone DAC myself. Feel free to try it.It takes a bit of work to balance the levels, but I bet you'll find the same thing I did.
> 
> You don't know until you've done the test yourself. I have done the test. I know.


 
   
  I have done tests like that a lot, and there is definitely a difference.
   
   


bigshot said:


> A friend of mine designs and builds high end sound systems for live venues. He was doing a big show at an outdoor arena that was over 100 miles out of town. As he was setting up, he realized that one run of his speaker wire was missing. He had forgotten to load it in the truck. He sent his assistant to the local Home Depot and told him to buy a whole roll of lamp cord and a big pile of duct tape. He ran the lamp cord from his mixing booth to the stage and taped it down with duct tape because he didn't have the mats to cover the cabling on one side. So one side was his industrial grade speaker cabling, and the other was the stuff on your table lamp at home. When he went to set up his EQ, he was expecting to have to compensate for the crappy cabling. But lo and behold, both sides performed the same. He wouldn't use lamp cord if he didn't have to, but not for sound reasons... rather because it's harder to cover up so people don't trip over it.


 
   
  Look at post #1004.
   
  A lot of people actually use CAT5E or lamp cord since "all wires sound the same".
   
  If I didn't have a link to evidence that they actually sound / measure different, I'm sure most users in this thread would assert they sound the same - http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=14082&view=findpost&p=148578
   
  It's a scientific system based on streamlining everything to the scope of which has been already evidenced.  With such a system, I imagine advancement to be extremely thin tailed.


----------



## Chris J

currawong said:


> You may not care, but other people read threads to find useful information, not fighting between people. If you wish to engage in that, do it via PM.




I agree with you, I am not interested in reading abusive posts and catty remarks.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Guys, I've deleted a few posts which were abusive. Science certainly doesn't back itself up with personal attacks and neither should any of you either.
> 
> The problem with these discussion is that most people aren't here to attempt to learn anything new and develop a deeper understanding, but only to argue in whatever way they can that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It'd be more useful if people approached the discussion of science in the first way, as the purpose of it IS so that we gain a better understanding of our lives, the world and the universe around us, not fight people over beliefs.


 
  I agree.  However, it appears you've deleted at least one of m's posts directed at me.  As far as I am concerned, he wrote what he saw, and went no further.  While my intent was not what he thought, he still had a valid opinion.  Until we know each other better, that's gonna happen.  No problem with the deletions of course, my posts as well..
   
  jnjn


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Seems like I haven't visited this thread for too long, so I'm late.
> 
> As I'm sure you're well aware,_* it's not only on wikipedia.  I've seen it many other places and heard about it several times in real life, so if it's a misconception, it's pretty pervasive.*_  The problem is that I'm clueless on EMC, and so are most people, unless they work on very specific things.  _*On the flip side, I've heard from one guy that this makes consulting on EMC problems somewhat lucrative.*_
> 
> ...


 
  Sigh..._*Yes, I see lots of it everywhere. *_ The problem is that analytical solutions can get so difficult, that using them would mean nothing gets done..The approximations allow good work to be done, but many either didn't understand the tradeoffs, or were never told.  And yes, EMC consulting is very lucrative.  It's a young discipline, so the early on guys can really make a name and fees.
   
_*That's ok.  For the bulk of the equipment out there, it makes no difference.*_  I personally use off the shelf inexpensive stuff all unbalanced, as well as the free cords that come with the equipment.  If I come across an EMC based problem, I generally just reroute the cords.  My favorite of all time was running a 125 foot unbalanced pair of interconnects and wrapping them around the extension cord to remove hum and noise being picked up in the building.  Even the EMC consultant that gave a presentation here didn't think that would work...
   
_*In the high end audio world, the desire to maintain some semblance of soundstage imaging coupled with the boutique power amplifiers/sources conspires to give owners systems which are interconnect and power cord sensitive..The mainstream masses like us?  When a manu builds 100 thousand units, they tend to iron out the problems first.*_
   
  jnjn


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> _*In the high end audio world, the desire to maintain some semblance of soundstage imaging coupled with the boutique power amplifiers/sources conspires to give owners systems which are interconnect and power cord sensitive..The mainstream masses like us?  When a manu builds 100 thousand units, they tend to iron out the problems first.*_
> 
> jnjn


 
   
  For example,
   
  I used to own a pair of mono Sonic Frontiers Power Amplifiers with 3 pin power cords.
  When used straight out of the box the system had a very loud, noisy 60 Hz based hum.
  If I remember correctly the product was CSA approved.
  I had to re-wire the chassis ground wiring in the power amps to eliminate the hum.
  No I didn't cut the ground pin off the the power cords.
   
  Anyway, I could not imagine a mainstream audio company releasing a product like that.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





magick man said:


> This.


 
  Magick Man
   
  I have continued to review the course of our dialogue.  I am not happy with what I said as the discourse ramped up.
   
  You have my sincere apologies..You were quite reserved in your responses.
   
  jnjn


----------



## Samehada

somtimes i just feel like the whole audio business is a scam ,
   
  I have 2 different aftermarket cables for my LCD2 , i got them for free from my brother as he went for a balanced setup with his LCD3
  ... i cant hear a difference (same goes for my miracles)
   
  I have/heard like 4 different DACs: HM602 , Yunlong D100 , V-DAC II  , Benchmark DAC 1
  ... all fed the same amps (o2 , LD I+ , Wa2 ) and i couldn't hear a difference
   
  i basicly stopped buying gear and just get new phones once in a blue moon.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





samehada said:


> i basicly stopped buying gear and just get new phones once in a blue moon.


 
   
  Transducers are usually the most important part of the chain because they tend to vary more than the rest of the gear.


----------



## Tilpo

samehada said:


> somtimes i just feel like the whole audio business is a scam ,
> 
> I have 2 different aftermarket cables for my LCD2 , i got them for free from my brother as he went for a balanced setup with his LCD3
> ... i cant hear a difference (same goes for my miracles)
> ...




You, good sir, are the image of the ideal head-fier in my honest opinion.


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

Quote:


tilpo said:


> You, good sir, are the image of the ideal head-fier in my honest opinion.


 
  Amen to that. Less worrying about components and more enjoying the music!


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Transducers are usually the most important part of the chain because they tend to vary more than the rest of the gear.


 
  Tranducers even though far from perfect can also reveal shortcomings in the electronics & source material. They are basically garbage in garbage out. It is amazing what excellent electronics can do even with relativly inexpensive speakers which is why other than lack of money I buy inexpensive stuff but stuff with a lot of potential & modify the electronics to bring the best out of it. My speakers are bi-amped. I could hear a lot of potential with them that was unrealized when I bought them & right away I knew most of what I needed to do to get them to perform up to snuff. I could tell by the sound they were producing stock what was wrong with the electronics in them. Now combined with my souncard mods they sound absolutely amazing to all that hear them.
   
  Don't be fooled by the notion that inexpensive speakers are in any way the cause of all bad sound. They are not always the issue in fact I have found the opposite more often is true that the electronics are holding back the system as a whole. Often it is the electronics that need attention more than the speakers but not always.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> You, good sir, are the image of the ideal head-fier in my honest opinion.


 
   
  Get a room lol


----------



## bigshot

germanium said:


> Don't be fooled by the notion that inexpensive speakers are in any way the cause of all bad sound. They are not always the issue in fact I have found the opposite more often is true that the electronics are holding back the system as a whole.




The biggest offender when it comes to lousy sound with cheap speakers is the speakers. There's no question about that. Those tiny satellite systems with dinky mains and a honkin' subwoofer put out sound with huge firebreak bands of nothing in the crossover between the mains and the sub. Almost every cheap set of speakers I've heard have holes in the upper low range. Old style cabinet speakers can be gotten second hand for not too much more, and they sound a million times better.

I've had expensive CD players and cheap ones. They all sounded exactly the same, and the expensive one was more funky and picky about playing certain disks after a few years than my $45 Coby. With amps, I've found the main consideration is power. After that, features. Sound doesn't matter.

I have a kick ass system that can roar and purr as the music calls for it. The great sound it produces is 100% a result of having great speakers.

Well playing great recordings has a lot to do with it too.


----------



## anetode

jnjn said:


> You clearly do not know me. You've a learning curve ahead, and it may be rather steep. Ask questions if you do not understand, as you've been shooting first, yet asking no questions.
> 
> A scientific standard is one that is _*invariant*_ of the conditions.
> 
> ...




If _you_ were to control for those variables in constructing a DBT, how would you go about it? Maybe incorporate the switchbox at the transducer.

What's the total distortion and timing error that these variables may introduce? Are we talking less than a tenth of a db and less than a microsecond? Earlier on you discussed evidence of fine human discernment of interaural differences but admitted that there was no evidence that this had a specific effect on audibility.



jnjn said:


> When people find differences and ask for answers, they get the standard "it's in your head", or wire is wire, or miles and miles, or links to silly things by pseudoexperts proclaiming mythbuster quips..




Now you're ignoring a whole different field of testing. Faux AB tests have been conducted without any actual change beside presentation and the style of instruction. I'm not speaking strictly of DBT cable tests, but of the verified body of knowledge on the power of suggestion. So on the one hand we have evidence that the human mind is very picky about how it might interpret the exact same stimulus based on a variety of "mindsets" (beliefs, priming, physiological states like fatigue). On the other hand we have DBT tests (which you appear to discount outright) that fail to show positive results past well-established thresholds.



redcarmoose said:


> Maybe the subject of drugs would be a little more radical. Half the world say don't try em, you can see the pitfalls others have experienced and even if you try them once it could lead into trouble. There were a group of teens recently who wreaked a car the very first night when trying drugs. With a persons choice of cables, it is as easy as going to a fellow Head-Fi'ers house or to a meet and experiencing for yourself. The really dumb thing is to take others options with-out a couple of tests.




Having been to at least one concert in my life I can attest to the fact that drugs are some of the most commonly used audio tweaks and their effects are greater than those of any cable. Unfortunately I am having trouble finding any published DBT results and will have to ask the government for a grant to fund supplies for my own study.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The biggest offender when it comes to lousy sound with cheap speakers is the speakers. There's no question about that. Those tiny satellite systems with dinky mains and a honkin' subwoofer put out sound with huge firebreak bands of nothing in the crossover between the mains and the sub. Almost every cheap set of speakers I've heard have holes in the upper low range. Old style cabinet speakers can be gotten second hand for not too much more, and they sound a million times better.
> I've had expensive CD players and cheap ones. They all sounded exactly the same, and the expensive one was more funky and picky about playing certain disks after a few years than my $45 Coby. With amps, I've found the main consideration is power. After that, features. Sound doesn't matter.
> I have a kick ass system that can roar and purr as the music calls for it. The great sound it produces is 100% a result of having great speakers.
> Well playing great recordings has a lot to do with it too.


 
  Note that I carefully avoided the word cheap wich has the implication of poor quality where as inexpensive does not have that implication. Reasonably low price is not nessearily sign of poor quality & as such can be a revelation when hooked to high quality amps & yes they can & do sound different even if they have the same specs. It is true that as move up though the midfi amps they for the most part sound the same but get to the high end & companies spend lots of time & money voicing thier amps to sound a certain way & most companies in the high end have whats called a house sound & it becomes very obvious what that house sound is when you listen to thier various amps on the same speakers as a different highend companies amp. Yes I have heard those differences So please don't tell me or others that they don't exist because they do & they are intended to exist by the manufacturer. They conduct extended listening sessions with trained listeners to arrive at that sound. It is called voicing the amp stage of developement. during this voicing they make changes to the design till it achieves the sound they want & the funny thing is you could never tell by the specs what they did to change  the sound.
   
  Again if all amps & sources sound the same I would have no reason to mod the amps & sources that I have done as there would be no benefit to doing so but the fact is there is a benefit so I will continue to do so just as many others do on this forum.


----------



## bigshot

High end equipment is the most likely to be deliberately colored. I've heard those too. The first thing I'd do if I was saddled with an amp with a non standard response would be to EQ the "house sound" right out of it. That stuff is overpriced junk designed to appeal to rich people who just want to buy whatever's most expensive. Sucker bait.

Hooking up reasonably inexpensive speakers to a high end colored amp is an extremely inefficient way to improve sound quality. Take the extra money you were going to invest in the fancy amp and get an average receiver and use the rest to keep your options open for better speakers. You'll get much more bang for your buck. That's the truth.


----------



## bigshot

Little dinky silver half dollar sized speakers don't sound as good as an 8 inch bookshelf speaker. And the 8 inch won't sound as good as a 10 inch 3 way cabinet speaker. And a ten inch cabinet speaker won't sound as good as 12 inch studio monitors. You pay your money and you get better sound.

High end speakers that are flat as pancakes or look like flying saucers are the bunk too. They have to sacrifice and pour uneccessay money into the parts to get those weird cabinet shapes. Box speakers give the best sound for the least money. If you can get away with a really good two speaker setup, go for it. Subs help with larger rooms, but they introduce problems of their own.

Good studio monitors in an acoustically complementary normal sized living room will sound fantastic. The amp doesn't matter as long as it can push them.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> I've had expensive CD players and cheap ones. They all sounded exactly the same, and the expensive one was more funky and picky about playing certain disks after a few years than my $45 Coby. With amps, I've found the main consideration is power. After that, features. Sound doesn't matter.
> I have a kick ass system that can roar and purr as the music calls for it. The great sound it produces is 100% a result of having great speakers.
> Well playing great recordings has a lot to do with it too.




Agreed, for the most part. I tend to buy solid, well built transports, but I've yet to hear any difference in sound. Amps, especially tube amps, can and do sound different, but the change is minor compared to changing speakers and headphones


----------



## germanium

It's kind of funny that even magazines that follow the objectivist ideology once in a great while find amps that for no explanable reason sound better than other amps that spec the same or even better & even they get all gaga over them. It is actually quite rare that they do but it does happen. What seperates at least some high end amps from the rest of the pack is not nessessarily coloration but the ability to dig deeper into the soundfield & bring ou details that other amps obscure without otherwise scewing the sound in one direction or anouther. Amps that have passed that muster that even the objectionist view magazines have gushed over have been the Threshold, Mark levinson & Halcro designed amps. Each has raised the bar to some new level of performance. The best amps that I ever heard that are commercially available have been the Mark Leveinson amps but to my ears only the monoblock ones ($30,000 a pair). They seemed to offer a resolution that others didn't offer. I have not heard the Halcro or the Threshold amps in order to comment on them but the Halcro designs offer the best specs of any design available to date They have distortion specs that are so low that they cannot even be measured by even the most modern test equipment!! What I read they offer resolution that is positively devine that even the magazines that adhere to the all amps sound the same mentality suddenly find one that stands head & shoulders above the rest in terms of resolution and not sounding in any way colored in doing so.


----------



## Tilpo

germanium said:


> It's kind of funny that even magazines that follow the objectivist ideology once in a great while find amps that for no explanable reason sound better than other amps that spec the same or even better & even they get all gaga over them. It is actually quite rare that they do but it does happen. What seperates at least some high end amps from the rest of the pack is not nessessarily coloration but the ability to dig deeper into the soundfield & bring ou details that other amps obscure without otherwise scewing the sound in one direction or anouther. Amps that have passed that muster that even the objectionist view magazines have gushed over have been the Threshold, Mark levinson & Halcro designed amps. Each has raised the bar to some new level of performance. The best amps that I ever heard that are commercially available have been the Mark Leveinson amps but to my ears only the monoblock ones ($30,000 a pair). They seemed to offer a resolution that others didn't offer. I have not heard the Halcro or the Threshold amps in order to comment on them but the Halcro designs offer the best specs of any design available to date They have distortion specs that are so low that they cannot even be measured by even the most modern test equipment!! What I read they offer resolution that is positively devine that even the magazines that adhere to the all amps sound the same mentality suddenly find one that stands head & shoulders above the rest in terms of resolution and not sounding in any way colored in doing so.



I don't really see how amps would be able to increase resolution. 
Resolution is mainly defined by the frequency selectivity of the basilar membrane, and the intensity selectivity of the auditory system. The resolution in terms of frequency and intensity is _far_ greater in almost all amps, so how could an amp increase resolution? 

I would argue that it is more likely that perceived increases in resolution are caused by psychological factors which in turn may be a result of e.g. increased treble response. But then it'd be easier to do it with an EQ than with an amp.

I'm not attacking your statement, I'm simply wondering what physical factor might lead to an increase in perceived detail.


----------



## drez

My guess would be lower distortion and faster transient response, maybe a well designed power supply as well.  If the amp had a coloured frequency response it would be pretty easy to measure.  I don't think I will ever spend 30 grand on an amplifier though - I will probably be old and deaf before I can afford to spend that much


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





anetode said:


> If _you_ were to control for those variables in constructing a DBT, how would you go about it? Maybe incorporate the switchbox at the transducer.
> What's the total distortion and timing error that these variables may introduce? Are we talking less than a tenth of a db and less than a microsecond? Earlier on you discussed evidence of fine human discernment of interaural differences but admitted that there was no evidence that this had a specific effect on audibility.
> Now you're ignoring a whole different field of testing. Faux AB tests have been conducted without any actual change beside presentation and the style of instruction. I'm not speaking strictly of DBT cable tests, but of the verified body of knowledge on the power of suggestion. So on the one hand we have evidence that the human mind is very picky about how it might interpret the exact same stimulus based on a variety of "mindsets" (beliefs, priming, physiological states like fatigue). On the other hand we have DBT tests (which you appear to discount outright) that fail to show positive results past well-established thresholds.
> Having been to at least one concert in my life I can attest to the fact that drugs are some of the most commonly used audio tweaks and their effects are greater than those of any cable. Unfortunately I am having trouble finding any published DBT results and will have to ask the government for a grant to fund supplies for my own study.


 
  Greisinger did some great stuff where he measured and provided information on how humans violate the "pan pot" law.  Basically, if an image is placed off center during mixdown, one would expect all of the image to be in the exact same location in space, a nice tight spread as it were.  David provides a plot showing measured results where the placement of the image is frequency dependent.  In other words, a frequency dependent horizontal smearing of the image.  He uses a third reference speaker to do this work.
   
  My biggest concerns are:
  1.  Other than Davids work, why has this effect not been spoken of in any literature, any testing?
  2.  It is of course speaker dependent, I dont think I need to list those variables.
  3.  The mixdown is system dependent.  I don't think anybody believes that the monitor setup in a studio is the same as the target system.
  The most important issue to me is:
  4.  Mixdown does not use interchannel temporal shifts.  Intensity only.  This is not how humans evolved.  We use both parametrics to discern image location.
   
  Stereo is an artificial construct of sound wavefronts being used to fool humans into thinking a source is at a specific location.  Most testing is not designed to worry about that, but rather, just toss a whole lot of synthetic environment at us and say, can you hear a difference?
   
  Greisinger at least contrasted the difference between one speaker as a source imaged correctly by a human, and the synthetic field produced by two speakers. IOW, what he did was create a true reference image, then had the subject compare the virtual location of the synthetic image with a real one.
   
  This conversion from a real image to a synthetic one requires humans adapt to the different stimulus construct. How long does this take humans, is it different for each human, is it learnable, does it depend on history.
   
  Think of those computer generated 3-D images.  To view the image, you have to maintain focus at the plane of the paper, yet rotate the eyes as if you are looking at an object far away.  You are defying the natural mechanism of "point and look". Breaking the automatic connection between angular positioning of the eyes and constriction of the lens.  We do it in a real environment without thinking, but can force ourselves to break the link.  And, we can clearly tell how long it takes to get the image, even practice to do it faster..
   
  Listening to stereo is the exact same thing, but I do not believe we can control it.  We do not measure it.  We do not acknowledge it exists.  We do not produce program material consistent with how we hear.
   
  Given all of this uncontrolled stuff, I personally cannot embrace a claim that simple listening/comparison tests are rigorous enough that the results of the test are statistically robust such that they can be applied to the general population as a predictor of outcome..
   
  The interchannel timing we can discern is 1.5 uSec minimum (measured).  Within a complex soundfield, I do not know what the number is, I would expect 5uSec as a reasonable number.
   
  Interchannel intensity, I've seen nothing with respect to image stability, but certainly could not rule out .1dB either.
   
  Both variables, I can only provide reasonable guesses for.  Nobody I'm aware of has takent the trouble to measure.
   
  I've not ignored any field of testing.  I understand expectation bias, sighted bias, wallet bias, and even bias bias..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Personally, I wanted the gov't to fund _*my *_personal audio testing, specifically the rigorous discernment of synthetic image placement with martini's being the controlled factor.
   
  They did not respond to my repeated funding proposals...go figure.
   
  If every test being done produces a null, but every test ignores human responses, does that mean they are all valid? 
   
  I do not claim everything makes a difference, I question the validity of the tests.  My basic thinking is, _*always question*_.
   
  I understand that proponents of _*everything makes a difference *_could possibly use my argument to bolster their stance even if their stance is inaccurate.  But should I not question because it might "aid and abet the enemy"?? (quite a few have hit me for that)
   
  Sorry for the length..
   
  jnjn


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> I understand that proponents of _*everything makes a difference *_could possibly use my argument to bolster their stance even if their stance is inaccurate.  But should I not question because it might "aid and abet the enemy"?? (quite a few have hit me for that)


 
   
  I don't think you should stop questioning. But perhaps there is a different way to present the question - even if it is couching them within a framework. Because of the technical specificity of what you are questioning, it very quickly moves out of the understanding of the majority population. So it may be that for one audience, you frame the questions differently, than you do for a science/engineering audience. 
   
*For example.* I call myself an atheist. If, however, I were speaking to philosophers, or students of religion, I would probably have to call myself an agnostic, because I do not think I can make a positive pronouncement that there is no god - there is always a very slim chance (scientific uncertainty) that there is, and I cannot logically disprove the existence of yaweh, or thor, or zeus, or any of them. Most christians, in fact, would probably have to admit they were philosophically/scientifically agnostic regarding zeus, or thor as well, under that rigorous definition.  BUT - for the layman, to better communicate my feelings on the subject where I think the odds so infinitely small - the word Atheist - while incorrect philosophically, is actually more accurate and useful in conversation with that audience - where the word agnostic is taken to mean truly undecided, or that they are equally likely outcomes - and that is not the case.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I don't think you should stop questioning. But perhaps there is a different way to present the question - even if it is couching them within a framework. Because of the technical specificity of what you are questioning, it very quickly moves out of the understanding of the majority population. So it may be that for one audience, you frame the questions differently, than you do for a science/engineering audience.


 
  I absolutely agree.  I have this problem when I give tours or talks or presentations .  Sometimes it's 5th graders, sometimes it IVY league engineering prof's, sometimes individuals well above that.  Without the face to face, it's impossible to distinguish a 5th grader with google from a nobel laureate.  Sigh. (I like the 5th graders the best followed by the really high up theres...high schoolers, general public, and university students aren't as much fun)
   
  Sometimes when I dumb it down I am accused of insulting someone's intelligence, if I don't, I'm accused of ego or strutting..  It's a no win situation..  So I don't worry about it.  (that's probably very obvious..)
   
  jnjn


----------



## bigshot

[quote="Magick].. Amps, especially tube amps, can and do sound different, but the change is minor compared to changing speakers and headphones[/quote]


i was thinking of solid state amps when I said that. They're designed to adhere to a standard response, and their distortion levels are all pretty much so low you can't hear it. It's no wonder they all sound the same. They're supposed to.


----------



## bigshot

germanium said:


> It's kind of funny that even magazines that follow the objectivist ideology once in a great while find amps that for no explanable reason sound better than other amps that spec the same or even better & even they get all gaga over them. It is actually quite rare that they do but it does happen. What seperates at least some high end amps from the rest of the pack is not nessessarily coloration but the ability to dig deeper into the soundfield & bring ou details that other amps obscure without otherwise scewing the sound in one direction or anouther.




I think it's more like the amp manufacturer dug deeper into their wallet to encourage reviewers to come up with flowery vagueries like "digging deeper into the soundfield".

I learned about the difference between amps when I was in college. My brother had a complete Macintosh system which I admired greatly, but couldn't afford myself. All I could afford was a Sanyo 50 watt amp. I was babysitting his house while he was on vacation once and I patched my amp in, bypassing his power amp and preamp. I was expecting a huge difference, but it sounded the same.

The difference was, my Sanyo amp burned out after ten years, and my brother's Macintosh system is still going strong. But I could buy a new cheap amp every ten years for a century and still not spend as much as my brother did.


----------



## bigshot

drez said:


> My guess would be lower distortion and faster transient response, maybe a well designed power supply as well.  If the amp had a coloured frequency response it would be pretty easy to measure.




Even inexpensive solid state amps perform well below the threshold of audibility on all those aspects. High end audio components are sometimes deliberately colored... Usually a high end rolloff designed to give suckers that "nice warm analogue sound". It's certainly measurable, but a + or - of 3dB on the response specs can hide a multitude of sins.


----------



## bigshot

jnjn said:


> Sometimes when I dumb it down I am accused of insulting someone's intelligence, if I don't, I'm accused of ego or strutting..  It's a no win situation..  So I don't worry about it.  (that's probably very obvious..)




Sometimes things that seem complex in theory are very simple in practice. You talked about stereo imaging and lost me in the dust with your science. But if you want to know about stereo imaging, I can tell you very simply where the problem lies in most peoples' systems. People have a tendency to think that speakers should be placed at roughly the width of the room. This isn't true. For normal sized rooms, the main speakers shouldn't be more than eight feet apart.

I've seen folks who spend good money on nice stereos and then completely undermine the sound by putting the speakers on their extreme right and left. Then, just to make everything neat and tidy, they shove the speakers up against a wall. Speakers need to be freestanding in the room and they should be close enough together that the sound overlaps a bit in the middle. This is what produces "soundstage". Not tiny slivers of time or micro details.

The real problem with achieving good stereo imaging has less to do with science and more to do with the arrangement of furniture that the wife will allow in the living room.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I'm not attacking your statement, I'm simply wondering what physical factor might lead to an increase in perceived detail.


 
   
  One way is to add a small amount of high frequency distortion like an exciter DSP does.  It's an interesting psychoacoustic trick but it's obviously less accurate.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> _*Sometimes things that seem complex in theory are very simple in practice*_. You talked about stereo imaging and lost me in the dust with your science. But if you want to know about stereo imaging, _*I can tell you very simply where the problem lies in most peoples' systems.*_ People have a tendency to think that speakers should be placed at roughly the width of the room. This isn't true. For normal sized rooms, the main speakers shouldn't be more than eight feet apart.
> I've seen folks who spend good money on nice stereos and then completely undermine the sound by putting the speakers on their extreme right and left. Then, just to make everything neat and tidy, they shove the speakers up against a wall. Speakers need to be freestanding in the room and they should be close enough together that the sound overlaps a bit in the middle. _*This is what produces "soundstage". Not tiny slivers of time or micro details.
> The real problem with achieving good stereo imaging has less to do with science and more to do with the arrangement of furniture that the wife will allow in the living room.*_


 
*[size=12pt]You're not married, are you[/size]*[size=12pt]...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


[/size]
   
*[size=12pt]I absolutely agree.  Until the speaker/room stuff is done, complete with treatments and such, worrying about silly wires is just, well, silly.  I always defer to experts when it comes to the room[/size]*[size=12pt].[/size]
   
*[size=12pt]Actually, the speakers and room set the stage for soundstage.  When you finally have a really hot room so to speak, then ya MAY have to worry about the little slivers of time (little to me anyway), dispersion characteristics, flatness, group delays, all that yada yada stuff.  Problem is, nobody really understands all that garbage.[/size]*
   
  [size=12pt]Ask a salesman or vendor who makes a living selling stuff to assist in fixing small perceived or even real defects???sheesh.  Please, here's my wallet....it was too heavy anywhoo..[/size]
   
  [size=12pt]Seriously though, To me, the perfect world would be one where the equipment has been designed to eliminate all EMC issues.  Then out of the box, no hum, no noise, no buzz from lights, no clicks or pops from HVAC or fridges, and most importantly, a system with a sound that is entirely invarient to line cords, interconnects,  power conditioners, loads or progarm..  That's the way it should be...[/size]
   
  [size=12pt]jnjn[/size]


----------



## bigshot

I can't get married... I'd have to get rid of all my stuff!


----------



## Tilpo

bigshot said:


> I can't get married... I'd have to get rid of all my stuff!



That's what we call 'being married to your gear'.


----------



## anetode

jnjn said:


> My biggest concerns are:
> 1.  Other than Davids work, why has this effect not been spoken of in any literature, any testing?
> 2.  It is of course speaker dependent, I dont think I need to list those variables.
> 3.  The mixdown is system dependent.  I don't think anybody believes that the monitor setup in a studio is the same as the target system.
> ...




On points 3/4, it's more of a majority issue. There exist less popular approaches to both recording and playback that account for both.



jnjn said:


> Stereo is an artificial construct of sound wavefronts being used to fool humans into thinking a source is at a specific location.  Most testing is not designed to worry about that, but rather, just toss a whole lot of synthetic environment at us and say, can you hear a difference?




Yes, those studies are easier to carry out and so they dominate. Specific concerns can be allayed by a later meta-analysis that could make recommendations for novel study design. I think this hits on one of the important differences between your skepticism and that of other posters to this thread. You're pointing out the flaws in synthesizing audio image localization and it is indeed a complex field. Leaving it on the back burner for a bit, there's still value in conducting simple tests based on the tonal changes in mono or (gasp!  ) panned-mono stereo.



jnjn said:


> Given all of this uncontrolled stuff, I personally cannot embrace a claim that simple listening/comparison tests are rigorous enough that the results of the test are statistically robust such that they can be applied to the general population as a predictor of outcome..




Bingo! Which is why I think it's fair to suggest that most high-end cable manufacturers' internal "studies" are even less worthwhile. This is also why it's worthwhile to suggest to people asking for advice that they stay away from cables designed by science mysticism rather than science. Finally, it is also why my skepticism leads me to conclude that the default conclusion is that psychological processes play a greater role than physical changes. Notable changes produced by cables would be far easier to find, and indeed they are, when there's a clearly audible deficit (noise, drop-outs and the like).




jnjn said:


> Personally, I wanted the gov't to fund _*my*_ personal audio testing, specifically the rigorous discernment of synthetic image placement with martini's being the controlled factor.








liamstrain said:


> *For example.* I call myself an atheist. If, however, I were speaking to philosophers, or students of religion, I would probably have to call myself an agnostic, because I do not think I can make a positive pronouncement that there is no god - there is always a very slim chance (scientific uncertainty) that there is, and I cannot logically disprove the existence of yaweh, or thor, or zeus, or any of them. Most christians, in fact, would probably have to admit they were philosophically/scientifically agnostic regarding zeus, or thor as well, under that rigorous definition. BUT - for the layman, to better communicate my feelings on the subject where I think the odds so infinitely small - the word Atheist - while incorrect philosophically, is actually more accurate and useful in conversation with that audience - where the word agnostic is taken to mean truly undecided, or that they are equally likely outcomes - and that is not the case.




Very good point. I pretty much do the same.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I don't really see how amps would be able to increase resolution.
> Resolution is mainly defined by the frequency selectivity of the basilar membrane, and the intensity selectivity of the auditory system. The resolution in terms of frequency and intensity is _far_ greater in almost all amps, so how could an amp increase resolution?
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Better power supply caps providing a better return path fr the signal coming back from the speakers or source. On most amps the power supply is in the direct signal path. Two amps can spec the same yet sound quite different as specs  don't tel how the amp responds to complex signals, only simple signals are used to test amps for distortion & such. The ear can in some cases pick up on what scopes miss. The biggest differences I hear with my mods is when I modify the power supplies for lower output impedance across as much of the audio band as possible, that is after D.C. coupling that is. The differences are quite huge yet frequency response plots still show the frequency response is still flatter than the proverbial pancake.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Even inexpensive solid state amps perform well below the threshold of audibility on all those aspects. High end audio components are sometimes deliberately colored... Usually a high end rolloff designed to give suckers that "nice warm analogue sound". It's certainly measurable, but a + or - of 3dB on the response specs can hide a multitude of sins.


 
  I know of no high end solid state amp that measures anything but flat in the audio band yet listening tels a different story though the story has nothing to do with frequency response but perceived resolution or the ability to seperate out different sounds in an extremely complex soundfield. These so called colored amps that these high end amp manufacturers are making still measure flatter than a pancake in frequency response tests yet still sound different. The reason that most, not all, midfi stuff sounds the same is that cost constraints dictate than they all use the same quality level of componants in thier amps & sources, especially powersupply & coupling caps.


----------



## bigshot

http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx


----------



## Tilpo

germanium said:


> Better power supply caps providing a better return path fr the signal coming back from the speakers or source. On most amps the power supply is in the direct signal path.
> [...]
> The ear can in some cases pick up on what scopes miss. The biggest differences I hear with my mods is when I modify the power supplies for lower output impedance across as much of the audio band as possible, that is after D.C. coupling that is.



I still don't see how that could affect the sound quality, and especially not how it can lead to a perceived increase in detail. 
Besides, what effect would a better return path have? Higher slew rate and less ringing? That should be measurable.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





anetode said:


> On points 3/4, it's more of a majority issue. There exist less popular approaches to both recording and playback that account for both.
> Yes, those studies are easier to carry out and so they dominate. Specific concerns can be allayed by a later meta-analysis that could make recommendations for novel study design. I think this hits on one of the important differences between your skepticism and that of other posters to this thread. You're pointing out the flaws in synthesizing audio image localization and it is indeed a complex field. Leaving it on the back burner for a bit, there's still value in conducting simple tests based on the tonal changes in mono or (gasp!
> 
> 
> ...


 
_*I read the vendor written science papers for comic relief.*_
  Quote: 





germanium said:


> Better power supply caps providing a better return path fr the signal coming back from the speakers or source. On most amps the power supply is in the direct signal path. Two amps can spec the same yet sound quite different as specs  don't tel how the amp responds to complex signals, only simple signals are used to test amps for distortion & such. The ear can in some cases pick up on what scopes miss. The biggest differences I hear with my mods is when I modify the power supplies for lower output impedance across as much of the audio band as possible, that is after D.C. coupling that is. The differences are quite huge yet frequency response plots still show the frequency response is still flatter than the proverbial pancake.


 
  Testing on the bench with a resistive load does not take the amplifier into 4 quadrant operation.  Half of the amplifier's responsibilities are ignored that way.  Since mids and highs are riding on a (hopefully) large bass current, it is important to characterize the amplifier with a real load from the field.
  Quote: 





tilpo said:


> I still don't see how that could affect the sound quality, and especially not how it can lead to a perceived increase in detail.
> Besides, what effect would a better return path have? Higher slew rate and less ringing? That should be measurable.


 
  The supply cap and surrounding ground topology will certainly affect what the amplifier does.  Even if it doesn't reduce rail ripple, changes can indeed affect the ground.  If the star point is not very good, it  _*could*_ be heard.
   
  jnjn


----------



## Tilpo

jnjn said:


> The supply cap and surrounding ground topology will certainly affect what the amplifier does.  Even if it doesn't reduce rail ripple, changes can indeed affect the ground.  If the star point is not very good, it  _*could*_ be heard.




Don't most amps have a large power supply rejection ratio? Meaning that small ripples in rail voltages should have close to zero effect on sound.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Don't most amps have a large power supply rejection ratio? Meaning that small ripples in rail voltages should have close to zero effect on sound.


 
  Yes, they do.
   
  The issue is, current ripple.  The caps can have lots of capacity, they can have low ESR and ESL, but how the supply is arranged can also impact the system.  PSRR shouldn't be affected by the load impedance, but it can be.  And it gets more difficult when the load returns energy to the amp.
   
  jnjn


----------



## proton007

I see a lot of science/formulas being thrown around. I'm no audio expert, but I do have this question: whatever we are discussing here, has it been used in audio theory elsewhere? Any papers/books/references you've read?
  I mean how serious are the scientific folks when it comes to audio? My guess is not much. Hence the lack of resource and tests.
  Or maybe its all been figured out ages ago. We can argue all we want, but at the end its just one post against the other.
  I seriously do feel though, and I think I repeated this in a similar thread, if there's any advantage to be had from using a better cable, the audio maker would happily embrace it, as it can enhance the product. The fact that they don't or are silent on this issue seems to say something.


----------



## Magick Man

proton007 said:


> I see a lot of science/formulas being thrown around. I'm no audio expert, but I do have this question: whatever we are discussing here, has it been used in audio theory elsewhere? Any papers/books/references you've read?
> I mean how serious are the scientific folks when it comes to audio? My guess is not much. Hence the lack of resource and tests.
> Or maybe its all been figured out ages ago. We can argue all we want, but at the end its just one post against the other.
> I seriously do feel though, and I think I repeated this in a similar thread, if there's any advantage to be had from using a better cable, the audio maker would happily embrace it, as it can enhance the product. The fact that they don't or are silent on this issue seems to say something.




I remember talking to a Krell engineer at an event some 10 years ago and they were demoing their TOTL stereo and mono-block amps. While they weren't using pack-in cables, they weren't anything special either. The interconnects in particular were a heavy gauge Acoustic Research cable that retailed for about $100 at the time and the speaker cabling was just bulk 10AWG wire. I asked him about that and he told me that exotic/boutique cables were vanity products and marketing and from a functionality standpoint were unnecessary.


----------



## ktm

All reviews are skewed by the very nature of who does them. It's ok to read all of them, use what seems to be valid points of comparison, and
  narrow down your choices. The point is, what gear they liked or disliked, and what was the criteria  used by the person.
  It's like listening to Fox news or reading the New York Times.You can pull useful information without buying into the whole
  thing. I don't believe rap is music(yes, I'm an ARRP member!) but that doesn't mean I discount reviews with that in there.
  Beating up the whole audio hardware industry isn't going to help anyone pick a good set of cans.
  If you don't like gear because it's $$$, get over it and move on. I use middle of the road audio gear and cable( no high or low end) and enjoy it immensely.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





magick man said:


> I remember talking to a Krell engineer at an event some 10 years ago and they were demoing their TOTL stereo and mono-block amps. While they weren't using pack-in cables, they weren't anything special either. The interconnects in particular were a heavy gauge Acoustic Research cable that retailed for about $100 at the time and the speaker cabling was just bulk 10AWG wire. I asked him about that and he told me that exotic/boutique cables were vanity products and marketing and from a functionality standpoint were unnecessary.


 
  I looked at the Krell website, they make power cords..  Here's their verbage:  I've hilited the more interesting stuff.
   
_*You will instantly hear *__*improvements in bass definition and control*__*. Image outlines are *_*more defined with greater elegance and finesse in the upper octaves*_*. Use Vector HC in your video system and the results are equally compelling.*_
_*Technology Highlights
 Engineered like signal cables, *__*Hot and Neutral leads are twisted together at a precise rotational angle and twist rate, optimizing the relationship between resistance, capacitance, and inductance.*__* Inductance, enemy of high current demand events, resists changes in current flow. *__*Vector HC minimizes inductance insuring unimpeded access to the available AC wall current*__*. Simultaneously, capacitance is increased to reject high frequency noise voltage. For minimal noise emission and maximum noise rejection the two main conductors are wrapped in a foil shield as opposed to generic braided wire shield employed in many designs. *__*A foil shield is more effective than a braided wire at shielding the frequency ranges that affect audio components*__*. *__*The ground conductor runs outside this power delivery package for better RF/EMI immunity*__*.*_
_*Construction
 Three Conductors of finely stranded Oxygen-free 11 AWG Copper make up the conductor complement. Each conductor is separately*__* insulated in a Teflon based material providing a linear and predictable dielectric constant.*_
   
  And they make interconnects.
   
_*CAST technology expands the usable audio signal bandwidth well over 2 MHz; ensuring harmonic reflections are virtually immeasurable in the audible frequency range. CAST allows signal transmission over extended lengths of interconnect cable, allowing flexible placement for your components, without signal degradation.*_
_*The Voltage Signal Transmission and the Traditional Audio System
 Traditionally, signal is transmitted in the voltage domain between two components. In an audio system, each component is a discrete entity with unique characteristics that act upon the musical signal independently. Each component is unaware of the other components in the system. The cables that connect the components also have their own electrical characteristics, which affect the sonic presentation of the entire system. CAST transmission unifies individual components and interconnects into an electrically linked whole. The original signal remains unaltered from source to speaker.*_
_*CAST Basics
 Here's how a CAST audio system works. Internally, each CAST source transfers, or amplifies, current using Krell Current Mode circuitry. This current signal is then output using CAST circuitry. When the signal is received by a CAST input, Krell Current Mode circuitry again takes over until the signal reaches the loudspeaker. By maintaining the musical signal in the current domain from beginning to end, an entire CAST system behaves as if it is one component. With CAST, circuit board properties and signal transmission aberrations between components are eliminated. Cable impedances and their effects on the transmitted signal are non-existent.*_
_*How CAST and Krell Current Mode Interact
 While CAST is a new method of transferring the musical signal between components, its origin stems from Krell Current Mode, the technology developed to transfer the musical signal within a component. CAST combined with Krell Current Mode takes circuitry signal transmission to the next evolutionary level. In essence, Krell Current Mode maintains the integrity of the signal within the component and CAST preserves the transmitted signal between components. Together, CAST and Krell Current Mode technologies unify separate Krell components into a single global circuit. Krell Current Mode technology enjoys bandwidth increases up to an order of magnitude greater than their voltage based counterparts. This dramatic increase in circuit bandwidth delivers near perfection in the audible band that typically suffers from phase distortions in voltage circuits.*_
_*Evolution CAST
 By employing radical current mirror circuitry, the Evolution components elevate the CAST technology to another level. This advanced use of the technology increases the linearity, transient speed, and bandwidth of the Evolution components while reducing the distortion by an order of magnitude.*_
_*The Best Musical Performance
 When you operate a CAST system, you will hear significant improvements in every performance area: speed, precision, dynamic range, depth and width of the sound stage, transient impact, tonal balance, harmonic distortion, and more. The goal for CAST is the same company goal used for all Krell products. Krell strives for the delivery of the best performance of a musical event for you, using the full expression of technology to date.*_
_*CAST® MMF Interconnect Cable
 The Krell CAST MMF cable jointly developed by Krell Industries, LLC and Nordost has taken this concept a step further using Nordost's proprietary Micro Mono-Filament Technology. This technology uses spiral spacing and extruded FEP in a unique construction that creates a virtual air dielectric. The cable uses four silver plated 99.99999% OFC conductors in a Micro Mono-Filament FEP (Fourinated Ethylene Propylene) construction with a dual served shield. The revolutionary Krell CAST MMF cable design combines ease of use with very wide bandwidth and very efficient signal transmission at high speeds by reducing insulation contact with the conductors by more than 80%. The sonic improvements with the Krell CAST MMF cable are immediate - performances emerge from absolute blackness, with the speed, depth and dynamics realized only through the absence of ambient noise.*_
   
  Krell's current  line cord and interconnect stuff is being touted as the cure for line cord and interconnect problems.   The CAST system does look like it may be balanced, which would be good. But their current products don't seem to be in line with the guy you spoke to.
     
  jnjn


----------



## Magick Man

Seems they've decided to jump into the boutique cable market and the profits to be had there. Doesn't surprise me, most will sell out if the money is right.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





magick man said:


> Seems they've decided to jump into the boutique cable market and the profits to be had there. Doesn't surprise me, most will sell out if the money is right.


 
  As far as that CAST stuff, it may be that they've developed a nice signal method.  The picture looked  to have sufficient pincount for differential drive, and I think current drive might be more immune to loop voltages caused by ground currents. since it's proprietary, they may also have removed a pin 1 issue.
   
  For the line cord, I'm really not sure what to think.  The material descriptors is shall we say, interesting?  But I'm also not sure about their topology, they've brought the safety bond ground outside the foil shield, but don't say if it follows the twist of hot/neutral or runs along the cable. 
   
  Of course, a foil shield doesn't stop the magnetic field of the hot/neutral..but neither did a copper braid.
   
  jnjn


----------



## Clarkmc2

I have to say that proton007 is on to something. This thread is so far off the rails. A couple of the contributors are going on and on, and around and around, about possible phenomenon for which not a shred of evidence has been presented about its audibility. This is Sound Science, a term in two parts. Science - present non anecdotal, provable demonstrable evidence - of it being audible by listeners - sound.
   
  Not only has there been no physical evidence, say an o scope trace, of the existence of these conjectural phenomenon, but no demonstration of their audibility at all. Take it to the High End forum please and leave Sound Science to its titular domain. The High End forum is full of unsubstantiated conjecture about everything from break in to hearing jitter, no evidence required.
   
  If posting here is in a member's future, reading something like Ethan Winer's book should be a prerequisite. Shouldn't be, but judging from this thread it seems to be a present reality. Speaking of sound and hearing, it is starting to sound a lot like posters enjoying hearing the sound of their own voice around here. The lession I have taken from this thread has altered my initial take on the initial question. At first my charitable nature and curiosity favored simply ignoring the ignorant sections, but after the brutal bull session that this thread has become I would be wary of anything written by the same authors. In other words, ignore the entire review. It will not be a trustworthy source of information _or_ opinion.


----------



## mike1127

People sometimes define science as "evidence-based" but I think that leaves out a discussion of
   

 what is considered evidence?
 what methods are considered valid to collect it?
 what paradigms are accepted?
   
  I think there are some valid challenges to the paradigm generally espoused here. One of them is my observation that quick-switching ABX listening tests obscure features of sound that are experienced over time rather than in one instant.


----------



## anetode

mike1127 said:


> One of them is my observation that quick-switching ABX listening tests obscure features of sound that are experienced over time rather than in one instant.




Cool, let's call that your hypothesis. How would you go about testing it? What background info might be useful from prior studies?


----------



## dallan

Pretty funny, the thread starter with the question hasn't posted here in over four weeks, you guys are like a top, pull the cord and let it spin.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





anetode said:


> Cool, let's call that your hypothesis. How would you go about testing it? What background info might be useful from prior studies?


 
  Well that question, how would I test it, brings up several issues. There are some more fundamental issues that need to be tested first.
   
  Here are my observations from experience. All of this would be interesting to formulate more precisely and test.
   
  Professional musicians develop their perception of sound and arrive at the ability to perceive what could be called "abstractions."
   
  Consider the realm of vision: consider that the human brain is good at identifying a face under many lighting conditions, angles of view, emotional expressions on the face, etc. We could call this a perception of an abstraction. The concept of "Bob's face" is an abstraction which can be recognized in different concrete instances.
   
  Musicians perceive the same kinds of abstracted concepts except in the domain of hearing. A simple example is the ability to recognize a particular player's sound, in different acoustic environments, different musical compositions, different distances and volume levels, etc.
   
  Scientists who study vision have an interested in things like facial recognition. They not only acknowledge the brain can do it, but have developed algorithms to imitate it.
   
  But in the domain of audio, in a paradigm such as Ethan Winer's, there seems to be a total lack of interest in (or acknowledgement of) abstracted concepts.It's rather a primitive science by comparison.
   
  Okay, finally arriving at my original point: it is the direct experience of musicians that a perception such as the sound of a particular player is sometimes a perception that takes in details over time, such as an entire musical phrase.
   
  So first there needs to be some work on how abstracted perceptions work, and from that point we can proceed to a study of what features of them play out over time.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> But in the domain of audio, in a paradigm such as Ethan Winer's, there seems to be a total lack of interest in (or acknowledgement of) abstracted concepts.It's rather a primitive science by comparison.


 
  Not necessarily. When you crystalize your statements about the hypothesis, why don't you ask him about it? By the way, I was not speaking about you when I mentioned a couple of posters. You ask interesting questions, some of which may end up falling outside sound science, but interesting. It is some of the unending responses that were prating on about nothing.


----------



## anetode

mike1127 said:


> So first there needs to be some work on how abstracted perceptions work, and from that point we can proceed to a study of what features of them play out over time.




There is a large body of work in cognitive science devoted to some of the things you've mentioned.

First, it is important to recognize the quantifiable role of consumer satisfaction. Given two comparably performing products, a consumer's long term impression will be heavily influenced by factors like ergonomics and appearance. Seemingly superficial factors like comfort, ease of use and the flavor of visual design will be along for the ride in the cognitive feedback loop which will help establish how a consumer thinks their headphones sound.

Then there's the consumer themself. Even without any significant hearing defect people will hear differently. Some have a propensity for liking certain types of linear and/or non-linear distortion. Say that you play a wood instrument. You are used to a specific arrangement of harmonics, resonances, so even when a component fails and colors the sound, you may still see the result as preferable to a neutral rendition of the recording. Or you may have weird dumbo-ears that fly in the face of the common HRTF. Furthermore, you can't ignore outright bias that only grows stronger with compounded listening (e.g. I have what's supposed to be the best headphone in the world --> I have the best headphone in the world!).

It's the cumulative effect of cognitive processes which, imho, actually serves to undermine long-term listening. The more you listen to a component the more your brain will adjust to it, not even at a metaphorical level but as manifested in synaptic growth. This type of learning is essential to a human brain and it is why it is likely that you will remember and cherish your mother's voice for your entire life.

The flaws in long-term listening are particularly obvious in journalistic testing. Here we have the perfect storm: a journalist will receive a product on extended loan, marketing literature to go along with the product and the monetary incentive to think about that product for the term of the loan due to the obligation of having to write about it.

There may well be benefits to long-term testing but you will have to sort them out from the pitfalls.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Not necessarily. When you crystalize your statements about the hypothesis, why don't you ask him about it? By the way, I was not speaking about you when I mentioned a couple of posters. You ask interesting questions, some of which may end up falling outside sound science, but interesting. It is some of the unending responses that were prating on about nothing.


 
  I did mention it to Ethan, and his reply was that my statements and questions indicated I knew nothing about audio. I think I am justified in saying he lacks interest, even completely and totally lacks interest and even seems to lack comprehension, seeing as a few sentences on my part led him to judge me as ignorant.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





anetode said:


> There is a large body of work in cognitive science devoted to some of the things you've mentioned.
> First, it is important to recognize the quantifiable role of consumer satisfaction. Given two comparably performing products, a consumer's long term impression will be heavily influenced by factors like ergonomics and appearance. Seemingly superficial factors like comfort, ease of use and the flavor of visual design will be along for the ride in the cognitive feedback loop which will help establish how a consumer thinks their headphones sound.
> Then there's the consumer themself. Even without any significant hearing defect people will hear differently. Some have a propensity for liking certain types of linear and/or non-linear distortion. Say that you play a wood instrument. You are used to a specific arrangement of harmonics, resonances, so even when a component fails and colors the sound, you may still see the result as preferable to a neutral rendition of the recording. Or you may have weird dumbo-ears that fly in the face of the common HRTF. Furthermore, you can't ignore outright bias that only grows stronger with compounded listening (e.g. I have what's supposed to be the best headphone in the world --> I have the best headphone in the world!).
> It's the cumulative effect of cognitive processes which, imho, actually serves to undermine long-term listening. The more you listen to a component the more your brain will adjust to it, not even at a metaphorical level but as manifested in synaptic growth. This type of learning is essential to a human brain and it is why it is likely that you will remember and cherish your mother's voice for your entire life.
> ...


 
  You mention consumer satisfaction. The general consumer has very little development of musical perception compared to an average professional musician. The "body of work" you speak of -- well if we made an analogy to the visual domain and facial recognition, it would be like the scientists developed a "facial recognition" algorithm that imitates people who've had strokes and can no longer see faces, only pretty colors and grayscales. You mention nothing that has to do with the really interesting stuff to a musician. This is why, from the point of view of a musician, the state of audio science just looks primitive and irrelevant. You are interpreting my statement about "factors that play out over time" in a specific way, but not the way I intended and not the way that is interesting to a musician. I'm speaking of the way a phrase is shaped over time. You can't hear one second of Mozart and judge the rhythmic quality of the players. You have to hear at least one phrase.
   
  I think the problem is this. In the visual domain, nearly everyone is born able to recognize faces and so everyone agrees it's a valid field of study. However, in music, only a few people train to the level that they can recognize things like
   

 the particular rhythmic feel and quality of a certain player
 the timbres that are particular to certain makes of instruments
 the factors that contribute to the sense of pacing and tempo, including articulation, and very important-- hall reverberation.
   
  So when I mention to Ethan that the signature sound of something like a microphone or speaker affects the rhythmic quality (which I called Pace, Rhythm, and Timing), I was told that I was spouting nonsense. Wow. That leads me to wonder if Ethan can even perceive rhythmic qualities and how they can be reproduced faithfully and/or corrupted.
   
  All I can say is Wow! What a total lack of interest in the most important abstract concepts.


----------



## anetode

mike1127 said:


> You mention consumer satisfaction. The general consumer has very little development of musical perception compared to an average professional musician. The "body of work" you speak of -- well if we made an analogy to the visual domain and facial recognition, it would be like the scientists developed a "facial recognition" algorithm that imitates people who've had strokes and can no longer see faces, only pretty colors and grayscales. You mention nothing that has to do with the really interesting stuff to a musician. This is why, from the point of view of a musician, the state of audio science just looks primitive and irrelevant. You are interpreting my statement about "factors that play out over time" in a specific way, but not the way I intended and not the way that is interesting to a musician. I'm speaking of the way a phrase is shaped over time. You can't hear one second of Mozart and judge the rhythmic quality of the players. You have to hear at least one phrase.
> 
> I think the problem is this. In the visual domain, nearly everyone is born able to recognize faces and so everyone agrees it's a valid field of study. However, in music, only a few people train to the level that they can recognize things like
> 
> ...




Any musician who purchases something is acting as both a musician _and_ a consumer. Their skill does not unburden them from being subject to consumer psychology. I am mentioning this precisely because you did not intend to address it and I do not think that you speak on behalf of all musicians in saying that consumer psychology is uninteresting.

What I see here is that you regard musicians as these ethereal humans with supernatural aural acuity, privy to the sort of subtleties that an untrained person could never hope to appreciate, much less a dry grouchy scientist. Consider for a second that this is not the case, that the reason you think that audio science looks primitive and irrelevant may be because, as Ethan mentioned, you don't know that much about it. I'm not trying to insult you by saying this, I'm trying to challenge your preconception.

You mention that few people are trained musicians, that they may not have been studied as much because they are in the minority. This is incorrect. On the contrary, people who by training or gift or accident turn up as statistical outliers are the very bread and butter of research in the cognitive sciences. There are many approaches to studying what happens when musicians think about or play music. For instance, some of these have provided interesting results like fMRI studies showing activation in the same areas of the brain whether a musician is listening to music, playing it or merely thinking about it, indeed similar patterns in neural activity show up whether or not the subject happens to be a musician. When I say that there is a large body of research in this field I am aware of where you are coming from. There are wonderful books that comment on some of this research that I think you might like, such as Sacks' "Musicophilia" and Jensen's "Music with the Brain in Mind".


----------



## 7nationarmy

IMO what is important is whether you yourself can notice the difference. If some say a $1000 cable improve SQ while you cannot notice the difference why bother to believe that? In simple words your ears speak for yourself. Trust them. Same thing, some non-audiophiles cannot notice the difference between $100 and $500 IEMs, so there is no point for them upgrading. The problem is that many people have this mindset "these are great because other people say so". This is why people should audition before buying. In the end your ears are the ones who will be enjoying the music, not other people's.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *anetode* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I am mentioning this precisely because you did not intend to address it and I do not think that you speak on behalf of all musicians in saying that consumer psychology is uninteresting.


 
   
  Okay I speak for myself, and I haven't formally interviewed musicians to see what they care about. But look, I know people who have practiced for 20,000 hours on their instruments, and do you think they are focusing their efforts on how good they look on stage? No, can we agree they focus their efforts on the *sound* they make? Is this not obvious?
   
  Quote: 





> What I see here is that you regard musicians as these ethereal humans with supernatural aural acuity, privy to the sort of subtleties that an untrained person could never hope to appreciate, much less a dry grouchy scientist.


 
  No, this is a parody of what I said. I admit, I don't know a lot about the total field of cognitive science. What I mainly know is how the scientists here respond when I mention simple ideas. It's telling that you can't repeat my statement back to me accurately, without making a parody of it.
   
  Here's why it is a parody. Would you say that a human that can recognize, say, an emotion on a face, requires "supernatural visual acuity"? Ordinary visual acuity suffices. Just please think about this analogy.
   
  "dry grouchy scientist" is just a ridiculous parody of what I said. A scientist can learn to hear abstracted rhythmic quality as easily as anyone else if they train themselves. On the other hand, if a scientist dismisses the whole idea, it leads me to have lowered expectations.
   
  Are you trying to say that the 10,000 hours of training a musician is insubstantial and irrelevant compared to a person who has no training? Why is it so  implausible that they can perceive things an untrained person can't? Why isn't it obvious that an autistic person can't perceive emotions on a face?
   
  Quote: 





> Consider for a second that this is not the case, that the reason you think that audio science looks primitive and irrelevant may be because, as Ethan mentioned, you don't know that much about it. I'm not trying to insult you by saying this, I'm trying to challenge your preconception.


 
   
  I'm willing to consider it. That's fine. Maybe I should say that the things that interest me (and don't try to tell me "it's only me" because they are the same things that interest my teachers, my fellow students, the professionals I've talked to) -- well, I don't see any consideration of these things.
   
  I read Musicophilia and it's a fun book, but it doesn't have much to do with the specific things I'm talking about here.
   
  fMRI's of musicians can tell you a little.
   
  I am familiar with some of the fMRI studies of meditation masters. I practice Buddhist meditation. What scientists have learned from fMRI studies will not help anyone learn to meditate. There's a huge gulf between the details of a skill as someone experiences it while learning it, and fMRI pictures.
   
  I haven't read the fMRI studies of musicians, but I would ask the question: do these fMRI pictures help anyone learn to make and perceive music in the first person? That's the kind of enormous gulf we are talking about between the attempts of scientists to gather objective (i.e., 3rd-person, outside view) data on music-making, and the act of learning to make and perceive music directly.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





7nationarmy said:


> IMO what is important is whether you yourself can notice the difference.


 
  This brings up a point. So much audio science seems to be devoted to the question of whether device/codec/whatever A sounds different than device B.
 Not *characterisizing* the difference or *identifying* A and B -- just, "do they sound different?"
   
  When Navy Seals raided the Bin Laden compound and used their scanner to take an image of Bin Laden's face and confirm his identity, do you think they were concerned with the question of whether the image of his face looked different than another militant standing nearby? No, they wanted to *identify* the *specific *face.
   
  This is why all this emphasis on the question "do they sound different" seems odd to me, and only a small part of a bigger picture.


----------



## anetode

mike1127 said:


> Okay I speak for myself, and I haven't formally interviewed musicians to see what they care about. But look, I know people who have practiced for 20,000 hours on their instruments, and do you think they are focusing their efforts on how good they look on stage? No, can we agree they focus their efforts on the *sound* they make? Is this not obvious?




Err, I wasn't talking about how musicians look on stage. I was saying that musicians are humans and prone to human behavioral patterns, like those of consumerism.



mike1127 said:


> No, this is a parody of what I said




Yes it was. Hyperbole, to be specific. I don't necessarily think that was what you meant but it was an expedient way of explaining what aspect of your response I disagreed with.



mike1127 said:


> Are you trying to say that the 10,000 hours of training a musician is insubstantial and irrelevant compared to a person who has no training? Why is it so  implausible that they can perceive things an untrained person can't? Why isn't it obvious that an autistic person can't perceive emotions on a face?




Not what I said or implied at all. Musicians develop unique skills, their learning processes and perceptions have been fertile grounds for study.



mike1127 said:


> fMRI's of musicians can tell you a little.
> 
> I am familiar with some of the fMRI studies of meditation masters. I practice Buddhist meditation. What scientists have learned from fMRI studies will not help anyone learn to meditate. There's a huge gulf between the details of a skill as someone experiences it while learning it, and fMRI pictures.
> 
> I haven't read the fMRI studies of musicians, but I would ask the question: do these fMRI pictures help anyone learn to make and perceive music in the first person? That's the kind of enormous gulf we are talking about between the attempts of scientists to gather objective (i.e., 3rd-person, outside view) data on music-making, and the act of learning to make and perceive music directly.




That was a popular example of the sort of research that goes on. By tracing metabolic connections between portions of the brain and between the CNS and the body researchers learn more about how human beings result to specific stimuli, it's only one avenue of research and only gains meaning when incorporated into the larger picture. Cognitive neuroscience is a relatively new field and there remains much to be done, meanwhile acoustics research has really flourished since the early 20th century and since slowed around the middle of the century; work on combining the two (& music theory) has already resulted in notable findings as summarized in the two books I mentioned.

To go back to my original reply to you, my point is to suggest that many of the differences attributed to measurably identical products have to do with the human mind. If you plan on studying human predilections over the long term, as opposed to response to rapidly switching between stimuli in brief trials, you have to factor in many complexities. Couple that with evidence that human auditory memory doesn't test well past some seconds and you have the competing hypothesis that long-term product comparisons may be subject to greater bias.

To finish up, the most important lesson I've learned from cognitive science is that most things we take for granted, like the continuity of consciousness or the ability to pay attention to more than a small portion of sensory input at any one time, are illusory. That's one of the main reasons that people are hostile to DBTs - they shatter illusions.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *anetode* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Yes it was. Hyperbole, to be specific. I don't necessarily think that was what you meant but it was an expedient way of explaining what aspect of your response I disagreed with


 
  It's the least clear way I could imagine of explaining what you "disagreed with" because now I have no idea what you disagreed with. You are going to have to explain it again, but just *explain* it. You did make one statement that is a common misconception, which is that musicians develop "acuity" of hearing. This is wrong for the same reason that claiming autistic people can't recognize emotions is because they need glasses. If this is not what you actually think, you are going to have to clarify.
   
   
  Quote: 





> that most things we take for granted, like the continuity of consciousness or the ability to pay attention to more than a small portion of sensory input at any one time, are illusory. That's one of the main reasons that people are hostile to DBTs - they shatter illusions.


 
  Meditation also demonstrates that continuity of consciousness or the features of attention are illusory, but it goes one step further and shows how perceptual experiences are altered through training.
   
  It would be really interesting if you had made any specific statements addressing any of my specific points. You have totally failed to address my analogy to facial recognition. You have said nothing about abstracted perceptions. You've made the error of thinking that musical training is about developing "acuity" of hearing. I'll be more impressed when someone can at least make a specific answer to these very simple points.


----------



## Chris J

tilpo said:


> Don't most amps have a large power supply rejection ratio? Meaning that small ripples in rail voltages should have close to zero effect on sound.




Keep in mind that PSRR decreases as frequency goes up.
The power supply may or may not be designed to reject powerline conducted EMI/RFI.

There's another guy floating around in this thread who can explain this better than me.


----------



## Chris J

dallan said:


> Pretty funny, the thread starter with the question hasn't posted here in over four weeks, you guys are like a top, pull the cord and let it spin.:veryevil:




Are you surprised?


----------



## dallan

No, just amused.


----------



## bigshot

I can't decide which argument is more amusing.... The tl/dr discussions of thick scientific theory without any mention of audibility, or the zen argument that double blind tests are invalid because all perception is illusion, or the SHOCKING! Shocking lack of interest in abstract concepts!

We're all crazies on this bus.

(lobbing anothe grenade into the nuthatch) Hey guys! Do cables make a difference? Thanks in advance for your replies!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> We're all crazies on this bus.


 
   
  I thought we were all Bozos on this bus.
   

   
  se


----------



## bigshot

I was going to say that but Bozos are more fun.


----------



## dallan

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I can't decide which argument is more amusing.... The tl/dr discussions of thick scientific theory without any mention of audibility, or the zen argument that double blind tests are invalid because all perception is illusion, or the SHOCKING! Shocking lack of interest in abstract concepts!


 
  Actually perception is based on your opinion or the viewpoint that you focus on.  In a communications class i took at UCLA years ago there was an example based on the old tv show "all in the family".  It gave the perception of Edith, Archie and Michael(meathead) when a guy pulled out a knife to help them open a package.  Archie saw a huge bowie knife, Edith saw a regular pocket knife and Michael saw a tiny pen knife all of them due to their viewpoint of the person pulling it out-African American.  It showed how skewed perceptions can be.  As far as audio goes it's back to-to each his own.  As far as DBX, i have always found those who suggest it are just grasping for ways to devaluate or dismiss other peoples opinions.  But whatever, just feels like i can go to any thread in this forum over the years and see the same arguments that draw on for months after the original poster has disappeared and lost interest.


----------



## bigshot

But what about how to make a stereo sound better?


----------



## Clarkmc2

I am all for a separate psychoacoustics forum. Not that I would spend any time there, but it would cut down the chaff here by 90% or so.
  
  That would limit Sound Science to frequency response, noise, distortion and time based errors. All demonstrable and all actually about sound. The human element is really a very separate issue, despite the marathon attempts here to bond it to sound reproduction.


----------



## dallan

Good enough, i am all about what i am hearing not about actually measuring it so carry on.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





dallan said:


> Good enough, i am all about what i am hearing not about actually measuring it so carry on.


 

 Me too, but while the psychoacoustic landscape is ever shifting and an amalgam of nearly endless fluid elements, the sound coming out of my stereo is scientifically controllable in a predictable manner stable over useful time frames.
   
  As a practical matter there seems to be an almost zero chance here of a discussion of the latter without being overwhelmed by the noise of the former. Human perception has zero effect on the sound that actually emanates from my rig. TOTALLY separate fields of inquiry.


----------



## Tilpo

clarkmc2 said:


> Me too, but while the psychoacoustic landscape is ever shifting and an amalgam of nearly endless fluid elements, the sound coming out of my stereo is scientifically controllable in a predictable manner stable over useful time frames.
> 
> As a practical matter there seems to be an almost zero chance here of a discussion of the latter without being overwhelmed by the noise of the former. Human perception has zero effect on the sound that actually emanates from my rig. TOTALLY separate fields of inquiry.



Not totally separate.

It is a very meaningful question to ask how the measurements correlate to human perception. It offers us the ability to make some judgement of the relevance and importance of measurements, which is very meaningful.


----------



## mike1127

I know I'm a bit crazy, but I'm still waiting to find one crazy sound scientist to directly address my points. My wait continues...


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Not totally separate.
> It is a very meaningful question to ask how the measurements correlate to human perception. It offers us the ability to make some judgement of the relevance and importance of measurements, which is very meaningful.


 
  Yes, for example it is meaningful to ask what effect speakers and microphones have on the music that one perceives.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Good grief. Yes, but not in the same conversation. A discussion of WHAT the frequency response of audio gear is and how to correct it to a standard of realism has nothing to do with HOW we might establish that standard. One is electronics and acoustics. One is physiology, sociology, psychology and a whole lot more I suppose.
   
  Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to establish scientifically and inquire about what is actually coming out of an amplifier and be subjected to endless discussions of perception? Not mention that almost all "I know I heard a difference" situations where there is a difference in the actual sound can be demonstrated to be due to comb filtering?
   
  This "noise" gets old really fast. That is why splitting the Forum would relieve both new forums from this endless off topic babble.
  
   
  Quote: 





> Yes, for example it is meaningful to ask what effect speakers and microphones have on the music that one perceives.


 
  Mike, that sentence says it all. The *effects* speakers and microphones have on sound are acoustic, electronic and measurable. *Perceiving* music is about perception (root word) and has no link to equipment. None whatsoever. If you want to design equipment to suit your perception, that is fine. Introduce any distortion you want to. In other words, audio equipment has zero link to perception. Linking those two is the source of all your confusion. Ethan stated your lack of knowledge of how audio works based on your insistence on your apples and oranges linking of the two. Believe me, please, that this is not a position you can develop. There is no link. It does not exist. Your reasoning about this is flawed on a fundamental level.


----------



## JadeEast




----------



## Tilpo

clarkmc2 said:


> Good grief. Yes, but not in the same conversation. A discussion of WHAT the frequency response of audio gear is and how to correct it to a standard of realism has nothing to do with HOW we might establish that standard. One is electronics and acoustics. One is physiology, sociology, psychology and a whole lot more I suppose.
> 
> Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to establish scientifically and inquire about what is actually coming out of an amplifier and be subjected to endless discussions of perception? Not mention that almost all "I know I heard a difference" situations where there is a difference in the actual sound can be demonstrated to be due to comb filtering?
> 
> This "noise" gets old really fast. That is why splitting the Forum would relieve both new forums from this endless off topic babble.



Fair enough.

In that case we would need an "Electronics and acoustics" forum and an "Auditory perception" forum.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Mike, that sentence says it all. The *effects* speakers and microphones have on sound are acoustic, electronic and measurable. *Perceiving* music is about perception (root word) and has no link to equipment. None whatsoever. If you want to design equipment to suit your perception, that is fine. Introduce any distortion you want to. In other words, audio equipment has zero link to perception. Linking those two is the source of all your confusion. Ethan stated your lack of knowledge of how audio works based on your insistence on your apples and oranges linking of the two. Believe me, please, that this is not a position you can develop. There is no link. It does not exist. Your reasoning about this is flawed on a fundamental level.


 
  Your sentence says it all, too. You have a strong paradigm. It's an assumption. You assume or belief -- you essentially choose first -- to use a paradigm which draws a line between perception and equipment behavior. Then what you believe about audio follows from that paradigm.
   
  What you don't realize is that you have no way to show that your paradigm is ultimately more true than any other paradigm. You assume it. You like it. It fits your gut feeling.
   
  I have a different paradigm. I think yours is a surefire way to lead to bad recordings and playback, and this is demonstrated in numerous recordings made by engineers who follow this paradigm and numerous books giving advice about assembling playback systems.
   
  Mike


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Mike, that sentence says it all. The *effects* speakers and microphones have on sound are acoustic, electronic and measurable. *Perceiving* music is about perception (root word) and has no link to equipment. None whatsoever. If you want to design equipment to suit your perception, that is fine. Introduce any distortion you want to. In other words, audio equipment has zero link to perception. Linking those two is the source of all your confusion. Ethan stated your lack of knowledge of how audio works based on your insistence on your apples and oranges linking of the two. Believe me, please, that this is not a position you can develop. There is no link. It does not exist. Your reasoning about this is flawed on a fundamental level.


 
  By the way your understanding of what musicians do when they develop their perception is flawed on a fundamental level, and when I pointed this out you silently dropped the topic. Still waiting for an answer...


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> By the way your understanding of what musicians do when they develop their perception is flawed on a fundamental level, and when I pointed this out you silently dropped the topic. Still waiting for an answer...


 

 Forgive me, I don't recall that. Either my memory has failed me or I am being confused with another poster.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Your sentence says it all, too. You have a strong paradigm. It's an assumption. You assume or belief -- you essentially choose first -- to use a paradigm which draws a line between perception and equipment behavior. Then what you believe about audio follows from that paradigm.
> 
> What you don't realize is that you have no way to show that your paradigm is ultimately more true than any other paradigm. You assume it. You like it. It fits your gut feeling.
> 
> ...


 
   


 Mike, I never said or implied anything about *how* to record something. Equipment doesn't behave, we tell it what to do. If you are implying a link between some "nature" of equipment and listeners, good luck with that but no, I will not attribute any x-factor to inanimate objects. If that is part of your paradigm, prove it, talk about it, bond with it, do whatever you want. But I hope I have misunderstood you on that point because that is truly outside of science. Trying to redefine what science is won't help either. I really hope I have misunderstood that thesis.


----------



## anetode

clarkmc2 said:


> I am all for a separate psychoacoustics forum. Not that I would spend any time there, but it would cut down the chaff here by 90% or so.
> 
> 
> That would limit Sound Science to frequency response, noise, distortion and time based errors. All demonstrable and all actually about sound. The human element is really a very separate issue, despite the marathon attempts here to bond it to sound reproduction.




Not a chance, science is science. Without the human element all sound science would be pointless, why would the 20-20,000 threshold or low distortion even matter otherwise? Separating psychoacoustics from electrical engineering for the sake of sound science is like castrating to promote population growth.



mike1127 said:


> It's the least clear way I could imagine of explaining what you "disagreed with" because now I have no idea what you disagreed with. You are going to have to explain it again, but just *explain* it. You did make one statement that is a common misconception, which is that musicians develop "acuity" of hearing. This is wrong for the same reason that claiming autistic people can't recognize emotions is because they need glasses. If this is not what you actually think, you are going to have to clarify.




No I did not, said misconception was part of the whole hyperbolic critique of what you said. I'm sorry you did not find that clear, but at first you went off on me for parodying what you said and now you're going off on me for you taking the parody too literally.



mike1127 said:


> It would be really interesting if you had made any specific statements addressing any of my specific points. You have totally failed to address my analogy to facial recognition. You have said nothing about abstracted perceptions. You've made the error of thinking that musical training is about developing "acuity" of hearing. I'll be more impressed when someone can at least make a specific answer to these very simple points.




I did not address your analogy to facial recognition because I did not feel that it applies. You're talking about different perceptual mechanisms so there's every chance of tripping up from a technical point of view. Take the origins of facial recognition, it is a skill that develops very soon after birth and requires no conscious effort or training. The finer points of language processing kick in later and form the foundation for perceiving elements of music (pitch, rhythm, etc.). If you mean to talk about pattern recognition in listening to and performing music, then you're talking about more complex patterns of learning. (to be continued...)


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





anetode said:


> Not a chance, science is science. Without the human element all sound science would be pointless, why would the 20-20,000 threshold or low distortion even matter otherwise? Separating psychoacoustics from electrical engineering for the sake of sound science is like castrating to promote population growth.


 
  Well, that is a point of view. Mine is that if a tree falls in the woods and no human is around to hear it, it DOES make a sound. The engineer who wishes to consider sound reproduction to be an unaltered as possible reproduction of what entered the recording device or microphone has a point too. When each reproduction device can sense the psychacoustic requirements of a listener at each precise moment and modify the clean output accordingly, there will be an application beyond conjecture for your point of view re: equipment. In the meantime, I'm seeing the engineers as being the practical ones given the human listener and the electromechanical devices we have to accomplish the task.
   
  Talk about YMMV! I used to laugh at the statement, "Everyone seems to like their own taste in distortion." Now I think it applies to almost everyone, myself included. When I switch from tubes to JFETs or the other way around, I need time to make the adjustment. But I end up finding each in turn to have its charms.


----------



## bigshot

Relating measurements to the thresholds of human perception is exactly what's lacking from both sides around here.

Some folks might be interested in the minutiae of electrical engineering, and others may like making up artistic poetry to describe sound, but neither of those things do a thing to help me make my stereo sound better. I want to know exactly what the difference is and how much a difference it makes to my ears. Then if it is actually important, I want to know exactly what I need to do to address the problem.

99% of the posts around here are as useless as teats on a bull hog.


----------



## Clarkmc2

I find it easier and more productive of my time to start with flat reproduction, as much as possible, and experiment from there. It has worked for most sound seekers I have encountered. Now,if you would be so kind, any advice to help me in my similar quest?
   
  I'm not into anything but audibility. I don't care how many sound waves can dance on the head of a pin.


----------



## bigshot

Flat response is the one thing that I've found to be useful. Frequencies are what I listen to. Jitter, distortion, phase, speed and bitrates above redbook mean very little to me. They've never been an audible issue.


----------



## Clarkmc2

I have some pretty accurate equipment but old man hearing. Maybe it's the combination, but I have never heard anything sound better than Redbook, given equal care in recording and mastering.
   
  I came to the Sound Science forum because I was so weary of reading endless discussions of jitter, transports, high bitrates, expensive DACs, etc. on the High End forum. I admit I'm in no mood to put up with it here. Or endless discussions of flaky theory about the audibility of the inaudible.


----------



## mike1127

Forgive me, I didn't get much sleep last night and have confused posters and been a little too cranky. Let me start over.
   
  First, I don't consider myself to an expert on anything, but since I have been told I am ignorant, let me at least explain what I know. I have a B.S. with an electrical engineering major. I designed speakers and measured speakers and amplifiers. I was given assignments such as proving parts of Fourier theory. Am I an expert? No, I haven't used this much since. I had a job for about 15 years working for NASA in the spacecraft navigation section, at which I learned a lot about inferential statistics. In particular this kind of work drives home the difference between a model of reality and reality itself. Now I am in music school studying to become a professional composer. I have recorded players -- I experimented with different microphones and microphone positions. I edited multiple takes down to a finished recording. I only did it twice so I wouldn't call myself a "recording engineer". However, what I am trying to say is that I'm not engaging in idle armchair speculation. I got out there and did it.
   
  Let's assume electronics are perfectly transparent. That leaves microphones and speakers as the devices in the record/playback chain which have audible distortion. I am interested in microphones and speakers which are most accurate. So I would do the following. Let's say we are recording an ensemble. I would sit in the hall and listen to musical aspects of the their performance. These could include qualities of rhythm, such as noting how the articulation, tempo, and hall reverberation combine to create a certain feeling in the rhythm. These could include dynamics, in particular the subtle shaping of phrases, but also the large scale pattern of dynamics. We would choose a miking, then record the performance. We would choose speakers for playback. I would sit in front of the speakers, listen, and judge how closely the rhythmic quality and dynamics match what the players intentionally did.
   
   
  Okay, I know I've got all sorts of objections coming here, but let's try to address them *one at a time.* If you are only interested in telling me I'm ignorant, then I'm not interested. What's the point? I'm trying to have a real discussion here.


----------



## Clarkmc2

No, I am probably not understanding exactly what you are saying. There is the recording environment. The pickup transducer(s). The electronics of capture, storage, retrieval and playback. And the output transducer(s) and playback space acoustics.
   
  It seems to me you are looking for something from the output of this process that can be described in non audio terms. As an example of what I consider a non audio term, PRaT. Or musical. As I see it, there is nothing so mysterious to pick up with a microphone or play back that it cannot be displayed or demonstrated by the sound profile of the signal. Just sound. The performance is sound and only sound, be it a brilliant or a not so brilliant performance. The playback is likewise just sound, be it faithful or unfaithful or perfect re: the performance.
   
  It follows that if the qualities like pace, rhythm and timing are part of the music, they are purely made of sound. It is logical to find them presented properly or not in the playback, but there is no mystery or x-factor outside of regular, everyday sound waves. If they do not reproduce properly it lies in the same elements that do or do not reproduce the sound of a clay ball hitting a brick wall.  Sound is sound.
   
  So do you find this exposition of the audio reproduction process incomplete or faulty?


----------



## bigshot

Dynamics are part of the recording process, but rhythm is part of the performance itself. I think the problem is the language. You're describing things in musical terms rather than sound terms.

If you carefully mike a performance using a good mikes like the Neumann U87 or similar, distortion and dynamics aren't going to be the problem. The problem is always balance. Balance creates clarity. That requires careful mixing and equalization of your various channels.

This is probably a different subject though.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Clarkmc2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> No, I am probably not understanding exactly what you are saying. There is the recording environment. The pickup transducer(s). The electronics of capture, storage, retrieval and playback. And the output transducer(s) and playback space acoustics.


 
  Yeah, I consider everything in the chain, from the acoustics of the hall, to the acoustics of the playback room, to be part of one big system. The goal is to evaluate the behavior of that system. I leave out electronics, however, just to avoid controversy. Whether electronics are perfectly transparent has nothing to do with my point, so I just leave them out.
   
   
  Quote: 





> It follows that if the qualities like pace, rhythm and timing are part of the music, they are purely made of sound. It is logical to find them presented properly or not in the playback, but there is no mystery or x-factor outside of regular, everyday sound waves. If they do not reproduce properly it lies in the same elements that do or do not reproduce the sound of a clay ball hitting a brick wall.  Sound is sound.


 
   
  I'm not saying they aren't made of sound, but I'm saying that there are certain patterns. Let me give an analogy in the visual realm. Let's say we are taking photographs of faces, but the camera distorts the image visibly. Let's say we are interested in ideas like identifying the face (is it Bin Laden's?) or identifying the emotional expression on the face. I think we all agree these are objective concepts. I know there has been research in recognizing faces, and probably there has been research in recognizing emotions. Emotional expression and abstracted facial characteristics are things that can be described with precisely formulated models.
   
  Let's say you use the camera to photograph a black-and-white grid. Does that tell you what it does to distort the expression or identity of a face? Not very well. It makes a lot more sense to photograph a face and evaluate that.
   
  Likewise putting the sound of a "thud" into the system might not be a very good way to evaluate what it does to music.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Dynamics are part of the recording process, but rhythm is part of the performance itself. I think the problem is the language. You're describing things in musical terms rather than sound terms.


 
  In my paradigm, it is absolutely necessary to use musical concepts to evaluate the behavior the "big system" (the system is everything from recording acoustics to playback room acoustics and everything in-between). Because wanting to experience music is the whole point for me. There is no other sensible way to evaluate the behavior. However, other people have other paradigms. I understand that. I can't see that they would make good recordings that way. But it works for them.


----------



## Clarkmc2

OK. But how does your method of evaluation alter the process for better or worse? That is what I am not getting. Being a a position to better perceive the result of a system has what to do with how the system works? Evaluating the result in a personal or unique manner could be terrific for spotting what needs changing. How does it inform a new way to EMPLOY the system to your ends?


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> OK. But how does your method of evaluation alter the process for better or worse? That is what I am not getting. Being a a position to better perceive the result of a system has what to do with how the system works? Evaluating the result in a personal or unique manner could be terrific for spotting what needs changing. How does it inform a new way to EMPLOY the system to your ends?


 
  If you want a good system you have to evaluate the behavior of it. If you want to fly from Los Angeles to New York you need a compass or GPS. I don't understand the distinction you are making. Have you designed audio equipment and made recordings?


----------



## Clarkmc2

No, what I am asking is how does your evaluation inform improvements YOU may make in the system differently from any other person evaluating it in another way. What is the end result for the one using your method. That is, you?
   
  What your answer could inform me of is the why of this whole exercise for you. And why anyone else might care, which I hope they will of course.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> No, what I am asking is how does your evaluation inform improvements YOU may make in the system differently from any other person evaluating it in another way. What is the end result for the one using your method. That is, you?
> 
> What your answer could inform me of is the why of this whole exercise for you. And why anyone else might care, which I hope they will of course.


 
  The end result is an accurate system. If someone else uses a different method of evaluating accuracy they end up with a different system. From my point of view, any attempt to evaluate accuracy in a manner that is divorced from the musical concepts is absurd, but of course we know that is not the prevailing view here.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Thank you. Now I understand what you are saying. I know you will be suffering the slings and arrows of others because your system is not quantifiable. There is nothing I can do about that, unfortunately. I will leave it to others to issue further editorial comment, thanks for the explanation.
   
  It might help your cause to explain that you are not ignorant of the science of recording and reproduction, but you prefer another approach to the evaluation of results. There should be less contention that way. For what it is worth, even Jim Anderson still uses his ears and musical experience. Every good recording pro does.


----------



## drez

My issue with most DBT is that you are placing extra stress on human auditory memory, which is already tenuous to begin with, and then unsurprisingly come up with consistent null results.  If you gave a maths problem from advanced mathematics course from university to the general population, you would also get  consistent null results.  I don't think all DBT are flawed, ABX where test subject has labelled options and can change between them at leisure is one method I have found to produce non-null results.  But honestly what is the purpose of DBT - if you hear something, you hear it whether it is imaginary or not - proof or disproof, especially using null-prone DBT, is all but irrelevant - if other people also perceive it, then they also perceive it.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> From my point of view, any attempt to evaluate accuracy in a manner that is divorced from the musical concepts is absurd,




That is the drop dead EASIEST audio problem to solve... If you want to improve the musicality of your system, get better music.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> That is the drop dead EASIEST audio problem to solve... If you want to improve the musicality of your system, get better music.


 
  Do you remember that I define "system" as the entire chain from recording hall and microphones, to playback speakers and room?


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Thank you. Now I understand what you are saying. I know you will be suffering the slings and arrows of others because your system is not quantifiable. There is nothing I can do about that, unfortunately. I will leave it to others to issue further editorial comment, thanks for the explanation.


 
  There is no reason it can't be quantifiable. Again with the visual analogy, suppose we are interested in making copies of images of faces that preserve the emotion on the face. The "emotion on the face" is a matter for objective study, something that everyone agrees is an objective concept. For me, the kinds of things in music that matter are potentially quantifiable-- the only problem is that certain scientists ignore them, probably because those scientists can't perceive them. There is no reason that PRaT can't be broken down into quantifiable/measurable concepts, but that's not going to happen when the likes of Ethan Winer call it nonsense. Facial expressions are regarded as a matter for scientific study because everyone except autistic people find them so obvious.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





anetode said:


> I did not address your analogy to facial recognition because I did not feel that it applies. You're talking about different perceptual mechanisms so there's every chance of tripping up from a technical point of view. Take the origins of facial recognition, it is a skill that develops very soon after birth and requires no conscious effort or training. The finer points of language processing kick in later and form the foundation for perceiving elements of music (pitch, rhythm, etc.). If you mean to talk about pattern recognition in listening to and performing music, then you're talking about more complex patterns of learning. (to be continued...)


 
  Okay, I am talking about pattern recognition in listening/performing music. The facial recognition analogy is not about the deep brain structure -- it has two points. (1) to drive home the point for people like Bigshot who don't seem to understand musical pattern recognition. (2) to try to explain that certain types of musical pattern recognition become very concrete, specific, and widespread when they are trained, analogous to the way everyone understands facial recognition. But also analogously, some people cannot recognize faces, and people without musical training can't recognize these patterns nor even, apparently, imagine what it would be like to recognize them.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





drez said:


> If you gave a maths problem from advanced mathematics course from university to the general population, you would also get  consistent null results.


 
   
  This analogy doesn't work. A lack of knowledge about how to solve a problem, does not invalidate the problem itself. This is a different issue than determining if something is objectively audible, or if something is affected by various psychoacoustic factors. There is no "knowledge" about audio that would lead to an ability to hear an extended frequency range, for instance. I do not doubt, however that someone could be trained to listen to compression artifact's, and similar elements - if that is what you are getting at. 
   
   
  Quote: 





> I don't think all DBT are flawed, ABX where test subject has labelled options and can change between them at leisure is one method I have found to produce non-null results.  But honestly what is the purpose of DBT - if you hear something, you hear it whether it is imaginary or not - proof or disproof, especially using null-prone DBT, is all but irrelevant - if other people also perceive it, then they also perceive it.


 
   
  If you mean the options are labeled A, and B, or something that doesn't given any information about what product/sample they are reviewing, I see no problem with this. Nor do I have problems with the reviewer controlling the switching time and frequency. The purpose of the DBT is to determine if what you are hearing is the result of an actual audible change to the output, or if it is the result of psychoacoustic factors. Whether that distinction is important to you, is another matter entirely. 
   
  Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Okay, I am talking about pattern recognition in listening/performing music. The facial recognition analogy is not about the deep brain structure -- it has two points. (1) to drive home the point for people like Bigshot who don't seem to understand musical pattern recognition. (2) to try to explain that certain types of musical pattern recognition become very concrete, specific, and widespread when they are trained, analogous to the way everyone understands facial recognition. But also analogously, some people cannot recognize faces, and people without musical training can't recognize these patterns nor even, apparently, imagine what it would be like to recognize them.


 
   
  Of course, even the person who does not immediately recognize the emotion being displayed, can still see the face, describe its features. Likewise with sound - not recognizing the pattern doesn't mean they cannot hear the notes - e.g. that inability to understand the pattern, does not affect perceived audibility.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> Do you remember that I define "system" as the entire chain from recording hall and microphones, to playback speakers and room?




Some parts of that chain are going to affect certain aspects than others. If you don't like the melody, changing the power plug won't help.

(By the way, in your chain, you forgot the musicians.)


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Of course, even the person who does not immediately recognize the emotion being displayed, can still see the face, describe its features. Likewise with sound - not recognizing the pattern doesn't mean they cannot hear the notes - e.g. that inability to understand the pattern, does not affect perceived audibility.


 
  That is a different topic. You are using the analogy the wrong way. The topic I'm talking about is evaluating or characterizing the behavior of devices for which there is no controversy there is audible change, such as (1) recording hall, (2) miking technique (positions and mike choices), (3) playback speakers and room acoustics.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Some parts of that chain are going to affect certain aspects than others. If you don't like the melody, changing the power plug won't help.
> (By the way, in your chain, you forgot the musicians.)


 
  We're not trying to evaluate the musicians or the music; we are trying to evaluate the behavior of the system that is used to get the music from point A to point B.


----------



## bigshot

You said you can't separate the sound from the musical aspects. So you should include the source of the music in your chain.

If you find your headphones lack rhythm, I'd suggest replacing the drummer.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> This analogy doesn't work. A lack of knowledge about how to solve a problem, does not invalidate the problem itself. This is a different issue than determining if something is objectively audible, or if something is affected by various psychoacoustic factors. There is no "knowledge" about audio that would lead to an ability to hear an extended frequency range, for instance. I do not doubt, however that someone could be trained to listen to compression artifact's, and similar elements - if that is what you are getting at.


 
   
  From memory quite a few DBT's used audio professionals eg. sound engineers and musicians etc, which from the general population should be the people best equipped to discern small differences in audio, and DBT scientific methods should in theory help to assure that test subjects do not take the proverbial stroll down the garden path in terms of cognitive biasing, but to me I find some of the DBT test results puzzling, but then again I have not heard the test setups used in order to say whether I would also be duped into hearing differences that are not there.  To me any DBT should be accompanied by measurements taken of the equipment in order to better evaluate the results.  A DBT null result by itself could indicate a number of causal scenarios - the equipment might have no measurable differences, or the differences might be measurable but too small to be reliably discerned in the given test conditions - to me it is important to identify which of these two scenarios has actually occurred before offering the results as evidence of any particular theory.
   
  For cables it could well be that metallurgy has no influence and that if all other factors are kept the same there will be no difference.  On that though I was wondering if I could clarify some of the questions I raised earlier:
   
  -That metallurgy does not affect the speed at which signals pass through cables (white papers from boutique cable mfrs claim it does eg with cryo, OCC but the consensus here is that it has more to do with construction and dielectric.)  
  -Is it impossible for metallurgy to affect reactive impedance or any other consequential metric of cable performance? (boutique cable mfrs often quote different measurements for different metallurgy - is this just slight of hand ie are they changing wire gauge etc?)
  -That inductance and capacitance cannot affect signal phase as the cable is in minimum phase.
  -That skin effect has inconsequential effect on signal phase and frequency response (I'm not sure what order of magnitude we are taking about in real world applications)


----------



## BlindInOneEar

I wonder.  I'm not very knowledgeable about TVs so perhaps some of the wiser minds here could help me out.  Let's imagine I see a film in a theater, one that wins Oscars for best picture, best actor and best actress among other accolades.  Now if I want to enjoy that film again, but this time in the comfort of my home, do I need to worry that my TV is somehow going to change the performances in the film when I watch it again?  I'm not talking about obvious issues, such as the smaller screen size at home as opposed to a theater, or problems such as lip syncing or color aberrations.  No, I'm talking about a more insidious issue, where a properly functioning TV is seemingly capably playing back the film, but is also altering the performances in the film itself.  Scenes that crackled with emotion and energy in the theater are now plodding and pedestrian.  Those Oscar winning performances are now dull and uninspired.  The direction itself now seems off, as if Francis Ford Coppola was replaced by Woody Allen.     
   
  Has anyone experienced anything like that?  
   
  Are there TV sets out there that are better at capturing the emotion and feeling that the actors tried to put into the scene?  That reveal more of the pace the director worked so hard to infuse into a gripping chase scene?  That are better at capturing the rhythm in a dialog between two actors?  That better reveal the timing in a series of cuts?  I guess more importantly, are there TV sets out there that while ostensibly working correctly, still manage to rob films of the pace, rhythm and timing that was present when the film was first played in theaters?  Or do all sets pretty much play back the film the way it originally ran?


----------



## germanium

When you get the source, amp & speaker design correct you will start to hear more subtle musical cues as well as improved dynamics in that instruments & voices will sound correct even in cercumstances that may seem less than ideal. To me the most imprtant parts to get right are the source & the amps. Failure to get these correct will always lead to a disatisfied listener as there will alway be the feeling of being short changed. This is no matter how much your system costs. Speakers in spite of being on the surface the most variable componant in an audio system can still reveal whats wrong else where in the system. Once you have a source & amp that has the capability that is required the speaker can do what it does best which is to convert the electrical signal to to an acoustic signal you will find that it does not take a massively expensive speaker to arrive at a convincing sound.
   
  I mod my equipment & have posted my mods here on this site & others have tried them & came back & agreed with my assesment of the mods when they did the same to thier system. I do not charge for the information & I do not offer to do or sell anything for money or trade here. In other words I have no conflict of interest here. It is my only wish that those that are capable of doing these things try them for themselves as at least in my case they have brought my system to the point that I can truely say that listening to top notch recordings gives me the sense of what is actually going on in the studio as if I were there with the live instruments & singers as the engineer intended them to be heard. You cannot discount the fact that there can be differences in amps & sources no matter how close they measure because I have made such amps & sources to sound quite different yet measure exactly the same.
   
  This is what Bob Carver characterized as transfer function. Bob carver actually did develope a means of copying said tranfer function from one amp to anouther of dissimilar design. He actually did achieve that goal though the companies amps that were said to have been modiffied in that manor never quite lived up to the promise because in the production environment they did not achieve a deep enough null like he did in his amp challenges, -45-50db instead of -70db that he achieved in his amp challenges. I heard one of the production amps compared to the amp that he was supposed to have copied the transfer function from & sorry to say it was no contest which was which. The difference was in the sound of the cymbles, it was easily heard. The modified tranfer function amp sounded considerably more coarse than the actuall amp that he copied from so no cigar for him in this case.
   
  I want to take time here to point out that having a good room to start with can be a great help at acieving the best sound & even though this is important I still have to say that garbage in, garbage out is still the lesson of the day even with the best speaker-room interactions. If the speaker aren't getting the best signal from the amp or source you are still way underwater in your sonic investment. If you still can't feel as if you are there on the best recordings then something is definately wrong. I have heard systems that cost over 100,000 dollars that really  did not cut it & yet I have relatively inexpensive stuff that did cut it. While room interaction was a part of the equation in the systems that didn't cut it, It to me sounded far more pervasive in the problems than just room interaction. There was a lifelessness to the music that went far beyond the room interaction.


----------



## bigshot

Nope. I haven't experienced that at all.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Nope. I haven't experienced that at all.


 
  Maybe you need to start thinking outside the box & learn what really matters when it comes to arriving at that sound.
   
  Nothing ever gets accomplished by accepting tired old arguments that on the surface may seem valid but when you dig deeper they fall flat. While I don't like all of Bob carvers products he ever did he was indeed able to do things others thought impossible because he though outside the box. A perfect example is the sunfire subwoofer. A small sub that can play very low & loud & still not draw a lot of power even though it did require a powerfull amp to accomplish. Something that would seem quite impossible going by Thiel Small calculations but is indeed very possible with Bob's calculations.
   
  The world is full of possabilities that are waiting to be discovered & while much in the audio field has been discovered there is still the possability of discovering new levels of performance that can indeed be mind boggling once experienced. Retieving all the sublies in recorded music to the limits of human hearing is possible but rarely achieved even with super highend gear. I have achieved with my system what few have achieved. These differences are plainly audible to all who have heard my system. Yet my system measure Identically up to the amps in my speakers. they measure differently due to the removal of the subsonic filter which was poorly implimented to begin with, it cut in too early & even cut off some of the body of lower midrange instruments. Other than that frequency response from 200Hz up is identical. frequecy response of all amp sections is flat to D.C. with the exception of the tweeter amp which is capable of flat to D.C. response but is blocked by the crossover. It is with this system that I have achieved my best results to date & it does really give me the feeling of being there in the studio with the musicians.
   
  One must be able to hear differences in different componants & figue out what causes those differences in order to correct them as I have done. For this reason you can not tell me that I can't hear differences that I have heard because not only have I heard the differences but have been able to provide corrective measures to achieve the desired result without changing measured performance such as in the case of my soundcard for example. The difference with just my last soundcad modifications are so pronounced that even my room mates which have no audiophile credentials at all & have no desire to have heard the difference & appreciated that difference as being significantly better. Yet it measues identically.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> I am all for a separate psychoacoustics forum. Not that I would spend any time there, but it would cut down the chaff here by 90% or so.
> 
> That would limit Sound Science to frequency response, noise, distortion and time based errors. All demonstrable and all actually about sound. The human element is really a very separate issue, despite the marathon attempts here to bond it to sound reproduction.


 
   
  The general consensus seems to be that our visual senses are the most developed and reliable. Hence everything has a visual representation, even abstract concepts, because thats the most easily verifiable representation. Thats how we analyze signals as well, because when you convert it into visual, its definitive.
  Take some time to think about this, the Gestalt theory of perception defines the principles of grouping:  Proximity, Similarity, Closure, Good Continuation, Common Fate, and Good Form.
  This is what most of our scientific analysis is based on, the search for patterns, outliers, periodic waves, signals, continuity and hence signal theory.
  So while we can argue about auditory perception all you want, the fact is that visual analysis has been the key to most of our science so far, and I don't see the possibility that anyone in the scientific circle will trust their ears more than their eyes.
  Hence, audiophiles and audiophoolery has always been a minority, same as wine tasting (that make use of taste/smell, and I'm sure you've seen similar arguments being made there as well, the kind of glass and cork used in bottles and grape seasons and terroir what not affecting the taste of the wine.) Ultimately I feel its an argument in futility.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Well, that is a point of view. _*Mine is that if a tree falls in the woods and no human is around to hear it, it DOES make a sound*_. The engineer who wishes to consider sound reproduction to be an unaltered as possible reproduction of what entered the recording device or microphone has a point too. When each reproduction device can sense the psychacoustic requirements of a listener at each precise moment and modify the clean output accordingly, there will be an application beyond conjecture for your point of view re: equipment._* In the meantime, I'm seeing the engineers as being the practical ones given the human listener and the electromechanical devices we have to accomplish the task.*_
> 
> Talk about YMMV! I used to laugh at the statement, "Everyone seems to like their own taste in distortion." Now I think it applies to almost everyone, myself included. When I switch from tubes to JFETs or the other way around, I need time to make the adjustment. But I end up finding each in turn to have its charms.


 
_*Everybody believes this, so it cannot be used as a demarcation between you and others.*_
   
_*That is all we can do.  The primary problems stems from the question:what are we sensitive to?  If we assume the world is monophonic, then all that matters is FR, distortion, and gross phase.*_
   
_*If we wish a synthetic image, we must consider what is required to do that.  Considering only FR, distortion, and gross phase ignores quite a bit unfortunately.*_
    
  Quote:


drez said:


> _*-That metallurgy does not affect the speed at which signals pass through cables (white papers from boutique cable mfrs claim it does eg with cryo, OCC but the consensus here is that it has more to do with construction and dielectric.)  *_
> -Is it impossible for metallurgy to affect reactive impedance or any other consequential metric of cable performance? (boutique cable mfrs often quote different measurements for different metallurgy - is this just slight of hand ie are they changing wire gauge etc?)
> -That inductance and capacitance cannot affect signal phase as the cable is in minimum phase.
> -That skin effect has inconsequential effect on signal phase and frequency response (I'm not sure what order of magnitude we are taking about in real world applications)


 
_*The atomic structure of a metal will not alter the speed of signal propagation.  Cryo treating also does not.  *_
   
_*Changing the permeability of the conductor can increase the inductance, which will slow the signal down..  The velocity is proportional to 1/sqr (LC) or 1/sqr(mu*epsilon).  If the conductor is kept non magnetic, there will be no real change.  It is possible to lower the inductance at frequency by increasing the conductivity, but the maximum effect is 15 nH per foot, and that doesn't happen within the audio band.*_
   
_* *_
_*L and C will always affect the signal phase if they change.  The concern is level of effect.  If the change is below human thresholds, 2 to 5 uSec, there will be no audibility issue.*_
   
_*Skin effect doesn't change phase and frequency response in the audio band, contrary to that '85 "blurb".  Proximity effect can change L and C for wide conductors and foil inductors, but I've seen no hard data to show intrusion into human audibility domains.*_
   
  jnjn


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





germanium said:


> ..For this reason you can not tell me that I can't hear differences that I have heard because not only have I heard the differences but have been able to provide corrective measures to achieve the desired result *without changing measured performance *such as in the case of my soundcard for example. The difference with just my last soundcad modifications are so pronounced that even my room mates which have no audiophile credentials at all & have no desire to have heard the difference & appreciated that difference as being significantly better. *Yet it measues identically*.


 
   
  You have of course verified this with careful level matched blind tests where human bias, priming (Clever Hans) and expectation do not come into play ?.  I also assume that your room mates where both wholly unaware of your making any modifications and all spontaneously noticed the differences without your suggesting that they hear what your mods had done ? The audio world is full of dog and pony show "demonstrations" of superior technology where what we want to hear we hear. In any case simply playing music a bit louder fools us in to thinking it is somehow better. I have a switch box which allows me to switch between my CD players analog output and the CD player digital output decoded by my Entech 203.2, the Entech *always *sounds better, it is however about 1.7db louder and when I record the outputs and level match I can no longer tell them apart.
   
  I am reminded of John Atkinson's diatribe against DBT where he recalled how much he wanted a Tube amp but was unable to tell it apart from a cheaper SS amp, he bought the SS amp but hated it so bought the Tube amp and was happy. Atkinson erroneously uses this to prove that DBT is invalid whereas all it proves is that he wanted a tube amp based on certain preconceptions and was not happy until his irrational desires were met even in the face of hard evidence.
   
  A funnier one was where two audio pals were comparing amps. Audio pal A brings along his beloved and expensive boutique amp, they both listen to it and they love it. Then Audio Pal B puts his cheap Onkyo amp into the picture. Audio pal A hates it and describes in great detail its many and various flaws compared to his amp. Audio Pal B goes up to the Onkyo and turns it off, the music keep playing. The Audiophile amp had never been disconnected from the speakers, Audio Pal A expected to hear crap and so he heard crap even from his beloved amp !


----------



## bigshot

I was actually responding to the previous poster, but I guess it fits your comment too if you wish.

The reason I know that amps and CD players and SACD players sound the same is because I've compared them. Every piece of equipment that comes by me gets a thorough comparison. I have yet to find an amp or CD player that doesn't sound like every other amp or CD player. From Macintosh to Marantz, Coby to Sanyo... All identical.

If I hadn't done all those comparisons, horse sense would have led me to believe that expensive things probably sound better. But my own informal testing showed me that that wasn't the case.

By the way, I have the top of the line Sunfire sub in my system. It's great.


----------



## ktm

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> .
> I am reminded of John Atkinson's diatribe against DBT where he recalled how much he wanted a Tube amp but was unable to tell it apart from a cheaper SS amp, he bought the SS amp but hated it so bought the Tube amp and was happy. Atkinson erroneously uses this to prove that DBT is invalid whereas all it proves is that he wanted a tube amp based on certain preconceptions and was not happy until his irrational desires were met even in the face of hard evidence.


 
  Tube amp and SS sounding the same? That's a stretch.
  Very different technologies. And different sounds.
  Any one who has ever played guitar knows that if you drive a SS amp into distortion, everyone will cover their ears.
  If you drive your tube amp into distortion, you're a guitar hero. Note: Hendrix fan in the house!


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





ktm said:


> Tube amp and SS sounding the same? That's a stretch.
> Very different technologies. And different sounds.
> Any one who has ever played guitar knows that if you drive a SS amp into distortion, everyone will cover their ears.
> If you drive your tube amp into distortion, you're a guitar hero. Note: Hendrix fan in the house!


 
   
  This is straight from the mouth of John Atkinson who tested the amps blind when he was a young graduate engineer back in the late 70s
   
  Quote: 





> Over 10 years ago, for example, I failed to distinguish a Quad 405 from a Naim NAP250 or a TVA tube amplifier in such a blind test organized by Martin Colloms (footnote 2). Convinced by these results of the validity in the _Consumer Reports_ philosophy, I consequently sold my exotic and expensive Lecson power amplifier with which I had been very happy and bought a much cheaper Quad 405—the biggest mistake of my audiophile career!......
> 
> However, over time I began to realize that even though the sound of my system with the Quad was the same as it ever had been, the magic was gone. Listening to records began to play a smaller role in my life—until I replaced the 405 with an M&A tube amplifier two years later.


 
   
  my memory was not quite perfect


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *ktm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Any one who has ever played guitar knows that if you drive a SS amp into distortion, everyone will cover their ears.
> If you drive your tube amp into distortion, you're a guitar hero. Note: Hendrix fan in the house!


 
   
  That's why we don't drive our amps into distortion. We don't want to distort the signal, we want to reproduce it accurately.


----------



## ktm

Quote: 





xnor said:


> That's why we don't drive our amps into distortion. We don't want to distort the signal, we want to reproduce it accurately.


 
  I think that one went over your head. Tubes and SS amps are different animals This was just an example of
  how that difference manifests itself.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





ktm said:


> I think that one went over your head. Tubes and SS amps are different animals This was just an example of
> how that difference manifests itself.


 
  Just because they sound differently when overdriven, which btw is not the normal operating range for an power/headphone SS amp (which is what I've been trying to communicate above), doesn't mean they sound differently when they are not. That's plain old logic in action.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





ktm said:


> Tube amp and SS sounding the same? That's a stretch.
> Very different technologies. And different sounds.


 
   
  I agree, I ain't buyin' it.
  Most tube amps sound different than SS amps.
  Tube amps have higher damping factor and more distortion.


----------



## El_Doug

That's actually not as true as you may think.  For instance, if you run a SS amp as a single transistor into an output transformer (single ended), you will get those same even-order harmonics that we get with 300b SET amps.  At the same time, with an OTL push-pull tube amp, those even-order harmonics disappear, and you get a similar distortion profile to most modern SS amps. 
   
  Topology plays a far bigger role than whether you use tubes or transistors
   
  Quote: 





ktm said:


> I think that one went over your head. Tubes and SS amps are different animals This was just an example of
> how that difference manifests itself.


----------



## maverickronin

Tubes can sound just like transistors but it takes a lot more work to make them sound like that so with the exception of 'stat amps which can make use of tube's high voltages most manufacturers don't bother making $3K tube amps that sound exactly like $300 transistor amps.


----------



## ktm

This is why I don't normally get into these discussions.
  There can be  overlap in sound, but for the most part tubes and SS are different designs.
  And the difference in how they do their job are audible.
  Both my SS and tube amp sound good, but what they sound best with differs.
  I had 7 sets of speakers in the house at one time, and I tried all sorts of combos until I had
  what I thought was the best sound. I finally got down to a couple sets of speakers, then lost my 2 channel room
  due to my youngest son moving back home. Good thing I had some good headphones.
  I've got an exstata hybrid and a srm-1mkII. They don't sound the same, either.
  I don't consider either to be better, Unfortunately it means I couldn't bear to sell either one.
  Throwing money at gear doesn't always make for improvement. But I certainly hear differences between amps.
  And even more so with preamps, The most expensive preamp I tried was a Halcro.. Hated it. Kept a
  preamp that was a fraction of the price. The owner of the Halcro sold it on ebay for many times the price
  I could of had it for. I fully understand why many here don't believe in pricey gear. Too much hype, too much money.


----------



## mike1127

I am confident that any person who learns to play Mozart well, in particular differentiating rhythmic qualities of different phrases, will become interested in how accurately microphones and speakers (as well as recording acoustics, etc.) reproduce their thoughtful and artistically mature understanding of what makes Mozart's rhythm delightful.


----------



## bigshot

What you're calling rhythm is better referred to as dynamics. Dynamics are adjusted in the mix using compression. Digital audio has incredibly accurate and broad dynamics.

Frequency response balance in the range of bass drums and snare drums can also affect the way rhythm is reproduced. That's what gives drum hits punch.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> What you're calling rhythm is better referred to as dynamics. Dynamics are adjusted in the mix using compression. Digital audio has incredibly accurate and broad dynamics.
> Frequency response balance in the range of bass drums and snare drums can also affect the way rhythm is reproduced. That's what gives drum hits punch.


 
  I am confident that if you learned to perform the nuances of both rhythm and dynamics in, say, a piano sonata of Mozart's, you would agree that quality of rhythm is important (the word "quality" refers to a things we mainly don't have words for) and that refinement of dynamics are important too, and that these are distinct concepts. Forget digital versus analog. We are talking about speakers and microphones and acoustics. I am confident you would discover the wonder of clearly communicating small shades of dynamic change, as well as the way that both a whisper and a thunderclap can have expressive power.


----------



## bigshot

I'm telling you the aspects of sound reproduction that are responsible for creating the effect you describe. It's three things... The performance of the musician, the compression of the soundmixer, and the frequency response of your stereo system.


----------



## mikeaj

I've heard plenty of different rhythms—in say, a Mozard piano sonata or something else—between different performances, different parts of the same performance, different performers in the same performance that are supposed to be playing together yet aren't really, etc.
   
  but never from different audio playback gear.
   
  Sure, there can be small differences in timing, some smearing of some sounds, maybe some ringing artifacts created by the playback mechanism, and so on, but for that to affect something on as long as a time scale as musical rhythm...?  I mean, a 32nd note at 180 bpm (assuming quarter note beat, so 1/8th of a really fast beat of 1/3 of a second) is 41.67 ms long.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I'm telling you the aspects of sound reproduction that are responsible for creating the effect you describe. It's three things... The performance of the musician, the compression of the soundmixer, and the frequency response of your stereo system.


 
  "Performance of the musician" is not part of the system we are evaluating. It's the *input* to the system. We need to get this clear. You need to distinguish between the system and the input.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> I've heard plenty of different rhythms—in say, a Mozard piano sonata or something else—between different performances, different parts of the same performance, different performers in the same performance that are supposed to be playing together yet aren't really, etc.
> 
> but never from different audio playback gear.
> 
> Sure, there can be small differences in timing, some smearing of some sounds, maybe some ringing artifacts created by the playback mechanism, and so on, but for that to affect something on as long as a time scale as musical rhythm...?  I mean, a 32nd note at 180 bpm (assuming quarter note beat, so 1/8th of a really fast beat of 1/3 of a second) is 41.67 ms long.


 
  It sounds like you are talking about "tempo" and/or the markings on the page (the pattern of quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc.). I'm talking about the quality of the rhythm, the feel of it. This is something not in the sheet music. As a composer I am vividly aware of that.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> It sounds like you are talking about "tempo" and/or the markings on the page (the pattern of quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc.). I'm talking about the quality of the rhythm, the feel of it. This is something not in the sheet music. As a composer I am vividly aware of that.


 
   
  Rhythm has to do with relative timing, which I addressed.  To relate relative timing to fixed time units like seconds, you need to know the tempo, which is why I gave a pretty fast one as an example.
   
  If by "rhythm" you mean something more like "quality of the rhythm [meaning...?]" or "feel [perception of?]", then be more specific about it.  Sure, perceptions of whatever can be influenced by aspects not really relating to the rhythm itself.  If you're going to include details of articulation and dynamiics, timbre shifts, or whatever else is making an effect, then mention those things.
   
  Or are you implying that different playback gear can have significant enough differences as to impact the timing of when notes start (by any non-trivial amount), or something along those lines?


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Or are you implying that different playback gear can have significant enough differences as to impact the timing of when notes start (by any non-trivial amount), or something along those lines?


 
   
  Not implying that. It might be part of the feel of the rhythm in some cases, and not others.
   
  Quote: 





> If by "rhythm" you mean something more like "quality of the rhythm [meaning...?]" or "feel [perception of?]", then be more specific about it.  Sure, perceptions of whatever can be influenced by aspects not really relating to the rhythm itself.  If you're going to include details of articulation and dynamiics, timbre shifts, or whatever else is making an effect, then mention those things.


 
   
   
  I am confident that if you spent thousands of hours learning to conduct an orchestra, you would become intrigued by the difference in feel between the rhythm of Dudamel and the rhythm of Esa-Pekka Salonen, and that you would begin to appreciate just how far beyond words these differences are, yet how vital they are to getting the music to sound right to you. I am willing to bet you would discover that the feel is something perceived holistically rather than as separate components.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> I am confident that if you spent thousands of hours learning to conduct an orchestra, you would become intrigued by the difference in feel between the rhythm of Dudamel and the rhythm of Esa-Pekka Salonen, and that you would begin to appreciate just how far beyond words these differences are, yet how vital they are to getting the music to sound right to you. I am willing to bet you would discover that the feel is something perceived holistically rather than as separate components.


 
  Listening since the mid 1950's, hanging with serious Jazz musicians for some years now and attending countless live performances, yes I have a pretty good feel and appreciation of the subtleties of music, its performance and its playback.
   
  Since everything you are discussing is evident in a low rez mp3 of a 1930's orchestra, what is your point? These qualities would require terrible recording and playback to be masked from the listener. Fidelity in any normally encountered sense is not an issue here. Even terrible mike placement would recede or advance the loudness of a musician and his instrument, but it could not mask the aspects of the performance you are alluding to.
   
  This is like PRaT. Those aspects of music are fully embedded in the simplest recordings. Fidelity is about detail of frequency response, lack of noise and distortion, and freedom from time based errors. None of which affect expression as performed by musicians re: feel, as you put it. That is frankly why Ethan thought you did not understand the process of audio. PRaT, expression and feel have nothing to do with audio reproduction unless is so botched as to be almost unintelligible.
   
  Try heavy Jazz. You could have recorded Coltrane or Bill Evans through a wall and from under a bushel basket, and a listener would know in three notes who it was. Stop talking to us like we just fell off a truck full of turnips.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Since everything you are discussing is evident in a low rez mp3 of a 1930's orchestra, what is your point?


 
  And you know this how?


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> And you know this how?


 

 Because if all I can get of a performance is a 96mp3 from the 1930's, that is what I listen to. It's called experience, and you are not the only one on this website that has it in abundance.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Because if all I can get of a performance is a 96mp3 from the 1930's, that is what I listen to.


 
  This is not a contest about who has more experience, but certainly people have different experience. You appear to have different experience than me. You have different tastes than me, no doubt. You have probably spent your time listening to different patterns than I have.
   
  [EDIT: I can see that by putting "thousands of hours" I made it seem like it's about having *more* experience, but I am sure most people on this website have thousands of hours experience with music. What's more relevant is the specific thing I was mentioning .. so for example, performing a Mozart sonata with emphasis on differentiating rhythmic quality. And the essential point is that different people have different experience so they hear different patterns.]
   
  You didn't answer my question. Let's start with the first half of your statement. You referred to "all the aspects I am discussing." Why don't you define "all the aspects I am discussing" so we can see if we are on the same page.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Look. I have to go to bed so I can get up for work. I'm not going to discuss anything now. But, to answer, read your own recent posts, as I have. You have been going on about stuff like this:
   
  Quote: 





> I am confident that if you spent thousands of hours learning to conduct an orchestra, you would become intrigued by the difference in feel between the rhythm of Dudamel and the rhythm of Esa-Pekka Salonen, and that you would begin to appreciate just how far beyond words these differences are, yet how vital they are to getting the music to sound right to you. I am willing to bet you would discover that the feel is something perceived holistically rather than as separate components.


 
  It seems to escape you that many, many long time listeners of music know exactly what you are talking about. What you have been doing is assuming that when someone does not agree with your take on these matters and their importance or lack of it in this thread topic, that they do not understand what you are trying to tell them. This is not the case as far as I can see with most who have responded to you. They just don't agree at all with your ideas. I don't either and have said so. I have read everything you have posted here and I really don't think YOU understand how this all works. I have stated why I feel that way, and I am probably not going to respond much to you beating what is now a dead horse. I have said my peace, and you can continue on without me. Frankly, you are starting to come off as arrogant and condescending. Changing your tone may win you more converts here than continually assuming they don't understand you. Nothing personal.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> It seems to escape you that many, many long time listeners of music know exactly what you are talking about.


 
   
   
  Your statement that people could tell apart two jazz greats if poorly recorded is evidence you don't understand what I'm talking about. The quickest way to get on the same page is for you to paraphrase what I said and then I could clarify it. Some people here seem to understand what I'm talking about. I'm only responding to the evidence in front of me-- do they distort my words? misinterpret my meaning? respond with irrelevancies? Some are, some aren't. Earlier, you understood some of what I said, but with regard to rhythmic quality, it doesn't appear to be the case. It appears to me that we could work it out, but I have found from experience that there are so many variations in how these words are interpreted that it works much better for you to paraphrase what you think I'm saying and go from there.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> "Performance of the musician" is not part of the system we are evaluating. It's the *input* to the system. We need to get this clear. You need to distinguish between the system and the input.




May I quote you on that?


----------



## ktm

Good performances properly recorded and mastered are important to gear testing.
  To much music in the last decade is so compressed it's hardly listenable.
  Picking a few choice test tracks creates a baseline to compare gear.
  A bad track can really throw a red herring into the process.


----------



## JadeEast

Can someone summarize what the issue or propositions that are being discussed in this thread are? I've been trying to follow but seem a bit unclear on the central issue.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think you're the only one.


----------



## Tilpo

bigshot said:


> I don't think you're the only one.



I concur to this statement. I lost track of the purpose of this discussion about 70 pages back.


----------



## knucklehead

To mike1127 - I'm just wondering if you have ever heard an example of this system you are talking about that is capable of reproducing the "emotion" of the music ... Or is it something you feel hasn't been achieved yet?


----------



## ktm

Quote: 





knucklehead said:


> To mike1127 - I'm just wondering if you have ever heard an example of this system you are talking about that is capable of reproducing the "emotion" of the music ... Or is it something you feel hasn't been achieved yet?


 
  Wow. Member since 2004 and that's your 1st post?
  I guess this thread has reached it's end!


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





ktm said:


> Wow. Member since 2004 and that's your 1st post?
> I guess this thread has reached it's end!


 
   
  8 years of lurking? Wow...


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





ktm said:


> Wow. Member since 2004 and that's your 1st post?


 
  Perhaps he had nothing to say?
   
  jnjn


----------



## bigshot

That is an admirable trait, and should stand as a shining example to a couple of people in this thread.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> The quickest way to get on the same page is for you to paraphrase what I said and then I could clarify it.


 
  No, the quickest way to get on the same page would be for you to state your case in a way that is intelligible to the reader.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





ktm said:


> Good performances properly recorded and mastered are important to gear testing.
> To much music in the last decade is so compressed it's hardly listenable.
> Picking a few choice test tracks creates a baseline to compare gear.
> A bad track can really throw a red herring into the process.


 
  This I can totally agree with. It also helps(or I should say nessessary) if you know how the instrument itself sounds in the studio without all the electronics involved in recording. You can not evaluate a recording nor the reproduction of it with at least some first hand knowledge of how the instrument actually sounded in the recording environment. I fortunately have some though admittedly light exposure to such but it was enough to get a good impression in my mind as to how it sounded in his environment &  having heard recordings of that instrument in that environment & reproduced on my home system was as close a match as I have ever heard.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Your statement that people could tell apart two jazz greats if poorly recorded is evidence you don't understand what I'm talking about.


 
  No Mike, *who* it was, not *which* it was. A prerequisite to understanding a post is to read it carefully. That would be who out of all the musicians one might have ever heard on that instrument.*** This is not an unusual or golden eared ability. You seem to have little faith in popular music fans' ability to understand your insights into listening. Well, almost any Rock fan can instantly tell David Gilmour's playing. Or Carlos Santana's. Or Robert Johnson's. Or Spider Geraldo's. Or just about anyone's. Very distinctive, even on a cheap radio.
   
  You may need to step out of the limited perspective of the European tradition with which you keep defining your understanding. It seems to be limiting you more than it seems to be educating you. I am conversant in more than one genre of music on that level, and so are many here. My favorite Twentieth Century American composer was Milton Babbitt. My favorite contralto was Kathleen Ferrier. My favorite baritone was Lawrence Tibbett. My favorite current singer is Maria Pia De Vito, the best voice I ever heard from a popular music singer was Laura Branigan. My two most outstanding live musical experiences in all my years have been, so far, a concert seated five feet from the Chicago Symphony String Quartet in an acoustically perfect tiny theater in the round, and a second row seat to the Brad Mehldau/Joshua Redman duo (that would be improvisational Jazz). They would be the most outstanding because of the level the musicians were operating on, not because of my seating. I added that to indicate I got a very good listen. The Jazz was the greater of the two because improvisation is more powerful a musical tool than interpretation. By the way, the European "Classical" world has been thus hobbled since even cadenzas have been written out, which occurred in the nineteenth century.
   
***Coltrane played tenor and soprano saxophones and Bill Evans played the piano. If you had known anything, anything at all about music and the musicians outside of one tradition, you would have known at least that about them. Bill Evans and Glenn Gould mutually admired each others work and artistry, greatly, so they were certainly not working in isolation from other musical forms and genres. Neither should you.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> No Mike, *who* it was, not *which* it was. A prerequisite to understanding a post is to read it carefully. That would be who out of all the musicians one might have ever heard on that instrument.*** This is not an unusual or golden eared ability. You seem to have little faith in popular music fans' ability to understand your insights into listening. Well, almost any Rock fan can instantly tell David Gilmour's playing. Or Carlos Santana's. Or Robert Johnson's. Or Spider Geraldo's. Or just about anyone's. Very distinctive, even on a cheap radio.
> 
> You may need to step out of the limited perspective of the European tradition with which you keep defining your understanding. It seems to be limiting you more than it seems to be educating you. I am conversant in more than one genre of music on that level, and so are many here. My favorite Twentieth Century American composer was Milton Babbitt. My two most outstanding live musical experiences in all my years have been, so far, a concert seated five feet from the Chicago Symphony String Quartet in an acoustically perfect tiny theater in the round, and a second row seat to the Brad Mehldau/Joshua Redman duo (that would be improvisational Jazz). They would be the most outstanding because of the level the musicians were operating on, not because of my seating. I added that to indicate I got a very good listen. The Jazz was the greater of the two because improvisation is more powerful a musical tool than interpretation. By the way, the European "Classical" world has been thus hobbled since even cadenzas have been written out, which occurred in the nineteenth century.
> 
> ***Coltrane played tenor and soprano saxophones and Bill Evans played the piano. If you had known anything, anything at all about music and the musicians outside of one tradition, you would have known at least that about them. Bill Evans and Glenn Gould mutually admired each others work and artistry, greatly, so they were certainly not working in isolation from other musical forms and genres. Neither should you.


 
   
  Actually I'm glad to try to discuss this because you seem interested, and as you may know, some people on the Sound Science forum are only here to mock. Let's give each other the benefit of the doubt as far as interpretation, okay? "who" or "what" was not critical to my point. Either one, my point is the same.
   
  It's not a question of who has bigger/broader/badder experience, but can we agree that different folks have different experience and therefore listen for different patterns? For me, it's not classical that primarily influences so much as it is *making* music and studying it academically.
   
  In talking about quality of rhythm, I emphasize small changes along with large ones. A jazz great or any other master has put together a technique that has large differentiations from others, so that's fine.
  In my music-making experience, big changes come about by navigating small changes. Big changes come from hearing and evaluating a series of small changes. That is why small changes are important. Even the most mind-blowing artist has put together their transcendent technique from long hours of practicing with sensitivity to small changes.
   
  But a large change is the difference between hearing an acoustic ensemble live at close range and hearing a mediocre recording of it. This can be heard as obfuscation if not an outright change in quality of rhythm, but an "orthogonal dimension" to what you are talking about. You can still recognize Bill Evans but he isn't as fun to listen to.
   
  Mike


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> This can be heard as obfuscation if not an outright change in quality of rhythm, but an "orthogonal dimension" to what you are talking about. You can still recognize Bill Evans but he isn't as fun to listen to.


 
   
  I think the recording has to be really poor before you start to seriously cut into my enjoyment of a recording, from that standpoint. And as has been pointed out - that the only existing recordings of some past masters are terrible re-masters of 1930's originals, doesn't take away from our ability to appreciate them. Would we prefer better recordings? Of course! Does it fundamentally affect our ability to appreciate their musicality? No.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I think the recording has to be really poor before you start to seriously cut into my enjoyment of a recording, from that standpoint. And as has been pointed out - that the only existing recordings of some past masters are terrible re-masters of 1930's originals, doesn't take away from our ability to appreciate them. Would we prefer better recordings? Of course! Does it fundamentally affect our ability to appreciate their musicality? No.


 
  That may be true for you, but I assure you, given my experience and the kinds of pattern-recognition that my experience has developed, there is much less music perceivable in a recording than in a live hearing, or in a poor recording vs. a good one. And it can fundamentally alter the presentation of the musicality.
   
  I am aware that most people here on Sound Science don't hear things that way, but that is a matter of the specific patterns they've trained themselves to recognize.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> That may be true for you, but I assure you, given my experience and the kinds of pattern-recognition that my experience has developed, there is much less music perceivable in a recording than in a live hearing, or in a poor recording vs. a good one.
> 
> *No arguments. I can assure you, given my experience and pattern recognition, that I agree with this assessment. *
> 
> ...


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> *Musicality shows through pretty well barring really destructive artifacts. Again, I'd prefer better quality recordings, but I'll take what I can get with some performers. *


 
  Words like "musicality" aren't precisely defined. As an example of what I mean, consider a chamber ensemble that chooses a tempo for a string quartet by combining their instincts about the hall reverberation, the quality of energy they want to convey, and the articulation they are using. For the tempo to sound "right" it has to express the way those things interrelate. Now listen to this live, then on a recording. If the recording alters the perceived length of hall reverberation, the intensity of articulation, or anything else, it can make the tempo sound "wrong."
   
  Does that mean I burn the recording? Does it mean I look down my nose at all those sadly misinformed audiophiles who like it? No, if it's the only one I've got, I'll listen, but I don't forget just how much better it can sound, how much more "right" it can sound, when performed live or properly recorded.


----------



## liamstrain

Ok - we don't fundamentally disagree. I think your chosen language to try to convey this concept, is throwing people off.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Ok - we don't fundamentally disagree. I think your chosen language to try to convey this concept, is throwing people off.


 
  That could be. One thing I sense about this forum, and I don't know if this is true -- but I'm interested in "degrees", "shades" of things like musicality, which is something critical to music-making. You have to evaluate small changes reliably. Whereas the people reading this might mostly associate "musicality" with distinct concepts, like "Coltrane's sound" vs. someone else's sound. Evaluating changes reliably is part of sound engineering, too-- in choosing mike technique, monitor speakers, and the like.


----------



## rroseperry

mike1127 said:


> That could be. One thing I sense about this forum, and I don't know if this is true -- but I'm interested in "degrees", "shades" of things like musicality, which is something critical to music-making. You have to evaluate small changes reliably. Whereas the people reading this might mostly associate "musicality" with distinct concepts, like "Coltrane's sound" vs. someone else's sound. Evaluating changes reliably is part of sound engineering, too-- in choosing mike technique, monitor speakers, and the like.




Ok, that's pretty clear. What hasn't been clear in your posts is how this specific type of musicality can be affected by a competent, working system. It shouldn't be, as far as I can tell, unless something is broken.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> Ok, that's pretty clear. What hasn't been clear in your posts is how this specific type of musicality can be affected by a competent, working system. It shouldn't be, as far as I can tell, unless something is broken.


 
  Do you think that recorded music in general has less impact than live acoustic music? If so that's an example of a functioning system affecting musicality.


----------



## rroseperry

mike1127 said:


> Do you think that recorded music in general has less impact than live acoustic music? If so that's an example of a functioning system affecting musicality.



Generally yes, but I've heard remarkable recordings and sat in live venues with terrible mixing and crap acoustics. 

They're fundamentally different experiences of music. I'm not sure how useful a comparison is.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Actually I'm glad to try to discuss this because you seem interested, and as you may know, some people on the Sound Science forum are only here to mock.


 
  Hey!  I resemble that remark!
   
  All kidding aside, how about sharing some insights with the board with regard to what you have learned over the years?  I'd be most curious to know what speakers or headphones you've found to be the most transparent.  I'd also be curious to know what the rejects were you discarded along the way, and why.  What should I be looking for when I'm shopping for new gear?
   
  Thanks in advance for your advice!


----------



## germanium

A good recording should be able to accurately convey the energy of the live event even if one cannot achieve live volume levels & one should not actually even try for live volume levels as that is damaging to hearing except with live unamplified  instruments & voices. If your system faithfully can reproduce live unamped instruments & voices then you should be able to get the best out of all recordings. The volume does not nessessarily need to be as loud as a live event in order to perceive the energy of the live performace in a system that accurately reproduces the sound of live unamped instruments. Many people assume that you need volume that closely matches the live event to get the impression of energy present in the live performance.
   
  Am I against the use of compression? No, but in the way it is used in many recordings it is way way overdone & detracts from the energy of the live event whether it be in the studio or live event. Compression used wisely actually can enhance the sense of the live energy when properly used but must be used with subtleness. In other word one should not be aware that compression was even used even though it was.
   
  A large part of what makes a recording sound its best is that the impresion of dynamics is not lost. The whole recording & playback chain must be able to accurately be able to convey dynamics in order to have that feeling that you are there at the live event. Precious few systems or recording are capable of reproducing to that level. You do not need to have an audiophile recording to get a well recorded album.  Wynton Marceles Magic Hour is an incredable recording that truely give you the feeling that you are there in the studio with them. It has that incredible live energy sound & with my system I feel as though I am in the same venue with them. This is not an audiophile recording but a standard issue one that was incredibly well recorded.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> the best voice I ever heard from a popular music singer was Laura Branigan.


 
  I've been tossed over the years.  Teena Marie was the one who impressed me the most, her speed and accuracy.
   
  jnjn


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Do you think that recorded music in general has less impact than live acoustic music? If so that's an example of a functioning system affecting musicality.


 
   
  Mike, if I boiled down your position would it look like this?
   
  1) Live sound is the benchmark.
  3) A good recording chain will be more musical than a poor one.
  4) A good playback chain will be more musical than a poor one.
  5) A good playback chain reproduces the experience of listening live.
  6) Musicality is the way to asses both the recording chain and the playback chain.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> 6) Musicality is the way to asses both the recording chain and the playback chain.


 
   
  Barring, of course, a way to directly compare the recording/playback with the live performance (even memory of the same performance as the recording is flawed) - making the assessment a floating point, at best.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> Mike, if I boiled down your position would it look like this?
> 
> 1) Live sound is the benchmark.
> 3) A good recording chain will be more musical than a poor one.
> ...


 
   
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Barring, of course, a way to directly compare the recording/playback with the live performance (even memory of the same performance as the recording is flawed) - making the assessment a floating point, at best.


 
   
  I know of lots of examples where people chase their own proverbial tail seeking to remedy a lack of musicality by modifying the playback chain in the wrong place.  I think the target experience of live music is quite compelling, but regarding dynamics in my opinion if you are trying to recreate the subjective experience of a live event at a lower sound level you could possibly end up with gear that overemphasizes macrodynamics.  However if you are methodical in how you measure and/or modify your equipment I'm sure that dynamic range can be improved for example by reducing phase distortion, improving power supply, properly engineering equipment line input/output stages and cabling etc (unfortunately the last one is beyond what I can hope to understand at this point)
   
  Aside from this, today I was reading the Wireworld website, and they seem to be promoting some ABX comparator switchbox, no links to any actual test results (perhaps unsurpisingly) yet - just hot air for now.  Might be worth contacting them to see if they are actually planning to do anything with this equipment or just talk about having it...  Might be interesting to send them an email to see if they are sending these out to distributors, but I'm probably being a little too hopeful here.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> That may be true for you, but I assure you, given my experience and the kinds of pattern-recognition that my experience has developed, there is much less music perceivable in a recording than in a live hearing, or in a poor recording vs. a good one. And it can fundamentally alter the presentation of the musicality.




Your perception of musicality is dependent on accurate dynamics and frequency response.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





drez said:


> Aside from this, today I was reading the Wireworld website, and they seem to be promoting some ABX comparator switchbox, no links to any actual test results (perhaps unsurpisingly) yet - just hot air for now.  Might be worth contacting them to see if they are actually planning to do anything with this equipment or just talk about having it...  Might be interesting to send them an email to see if they are sending these out to distributors, but I'm probably being a little too hopeful here.


 
   
  This is an old thing they have been touting for several years. It was basically a passive switch box with two cables and a direct connection and a switch. The link to the device is now been broken. They claim a University study has used it in DBTs to prove cable audibility and will be demonstrating this on an upcoming  "home theater cruise" ??? I'll reserve judgment till I see more concrete data.


----------



## bigshot

drez said:


> However if you are methodical in how you measure and/or modify your equipment I'm sure that dynamic range can be improved for example by reducing phase distortion, improving power supply, properly engineering equipment line input/output stages and cabling etc




No. You're barking up the wrong tree. If there are problems with dynamics it is MUCH more likely to have been mixed into the recording itself. The next culpret would be frequency response around the percussion. Lastly, reducing the noise floor of your listening room would help.

There is a reason that we have volume and tone controls, but no dynamics control. If the recording captures it, and your system is faithfully reproducing the other aspects of sound, you don't need to mess with it.

Monkeying with cables and power supplies won't help.


----------



## bigshot

drez said:


> Aside from this, today I was reading the Wireworld website, and they seem to be promoting some ABX comparator switchbox,




Makes sense. They sell grossly overpriced cables,they might as well sell grossly overpriced switchboxes to test them with.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





germanium said:


> A good recording should be able to accurately convey the energy of the live event even if one cannot achieve live volume levels & one should not actually even try for live volume levels as that is damaging to hearing except with live unamplified  instruments & voices. If your system faithfully can reproduce live unamped instruments & voices then you should be able to get the best out of all recordings. The volume does not nessessarily need to be as loud as a live event in order to perceive the energy of the live performace in a system that accurately reproduces the sound of live unamped instruments. Many people assume that you need volume that closely matches the live event to get the impression of energy present in the live performance.
> 
> *Am I against the use of compression? No, but in the way it is used in many recordings it is way way overdone & detracts from the energy of the live event whether it be in the studio or live event. Compression used wisely actually can enhance the sense of the live energy when properly used but must be used with subtleness. In other word one should not be aware that compression was even used even though it was.*
> 
> A large part of what makes a recording sound its best is that the impresion of dynamics is not lost. The whole recording & playback chain must be able to accurately be able to convey dynamics in order to have that feeling that you are there at the live event. Precious few systems or recording are capable of reproducing to that level. You do not need to have an audiophile recording to get a well recorded album.  Wynton Marceles Magic Hour is an incredable recording that truely give you the feeling that you are there in the studio with them. It has that incredible live energy sound & with my system I feel as though I am in the same venue with them. This is not an audiophile recording but a standard issue one that was incredibly well recorded.


 
   
  Well said. Compression is a legitimate technique used in recorded music. The engineer is not supposed to aim for 100% fidelity. The goal is create a piece of recorded music that maintains the originality and dynamics, while also being listenable on playback equipment.


----------



## Katun

From my _very minimal_ experience with cables, I actually find it makes more of a notable difference than switching between amps, IMO.
   
  (Pro 900 stock cable vs Blue Dragon, HD600 stock cable vs HD650 cable -- Asgard, Valhalla, P650, M-Stage, LD MKIII, EF5)


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





katun said:


> From my _very minimal_ experience with cables, I actually find it makes more of a notable difference than switching between amps, IMO.
> 
> (Pro 900 stock cable vs Blue Dragon, HD600 stock cable vs HD650 cable -- Asgard, Valhalla, P650, M-Stage, LD MKIII, EF5)


 
  Kind of depends on which amps & which cables you compare  Back some time ago I compared a similarly powered Adcom to a Krell (same power class but huge price difference) 300watt/channel monoblock amps. The Krell was definately the winner in this contest as it had a much less muddled low level sound than the Adcom proving at least in this case that you get what you pay for though there is a huge premium & the laws of deminishing returns definately applies here as most people would definately still be happy with the adcom ( for me it would have been a good candidate for modification as the potential was there ). This difference was definately more than I hear from most cable comparisons.
   
  I have to admit though that I have heard some really bad cables like the ones that came with my Adcom GFA 545 amp when I had that. That amp when I got it was no great super revealing amp but even as bad as it was stock it's provided interconnect cables were even worse than the amp. With my mods on that amp it performed sonically similar to the Krell. The Adcom cables went into the garbage almost as soon as I tried other cables & no there was nothing physically wrong with these cable they just sounded really really bad. I eventually made the best sounding cables that I ever used with that amp out of copper tubing which I used for both interconnect & speaker wire though larger size for the speaker wire. Capacitance  on that cable was almost nonexistant. Only the RCA connectors contributed any meaningfull capacitance. Other than the insulators in the RCA connectors the only dielectric used with these cables was air. Air other than vacumm has the lowest dielectric constant of any material that can be used as a dielectic meaning it contributes the least to making capacitance of any material.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:  





> Capacitance  on that cable was almost nonexistant.


 
   
  So then you must have had the conductors widely spaced, making them highly inductive.
   
  se


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> So then you must have had the conductors widely spaced, making them highly inductive.
> 
> se


 
  I bet retrofitting the equipment to SMA's was also expensive..
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  jnjn


----------



## bigshot

germanium said:


> Back some time ago I compared a similarly powered Adcom to a Krell (same power class but huge price difference) 300watt/channel monoblock amps. The Krell was definately the winner in this contest




In a controlled double blind test, the Krell lost to a $120 Pioneer amp. But the vote tally was close enough to be statistically the same.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> In a controlled double blind test, the Krell lost to a $120 Pioneer amp. But the vote tally was close enough to be statistically the same.


 
   
  Link ?


----------



## bigshot

It's in the thread with all the links to tests in the first post.


----------



## stv014

Yes, it is here, linked from this thread.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> I bet retrofitting the equipment to SMA's was also expensive..


 
   
  HA!
   
  se


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Yes, it is here, linked from this thread.


 
  Oh !, I have that article, but the Krell is not one of the amps tested (Futterman,NAD,Hafler, Pioneer, Mark Levinson,Counterpoint)


----------



## Clarkmc2

Apparently Katun and germanium have not read the title of this thread. Gosh, should I ignore only these posts about cables or everything they say? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Could have sworn I was in the Sound Science forum...


----------



## mike1127

I have avoided putting my whole paradigm in one post because mostly people here take potshots at one or two elements of it. However, because we've got a few folks who are actually interested, I'll go ahead.

 pattern recognition

     People have an ability to recognize patterns in sound.
     What patterns I can hear depend on my training and experience.
     Different people have different training and experience, and therefore might possibly hear different patterns.
 
 live vs. recorded

     There are plenty of patterns which can be abstracted over both live and recorded music; for instance, rhythmic quality.
     Therefore live and recorded music are comparable experiences; at least given the patterns which my training has led me to pick up.
     To evaluate playback, I ask "How close is it to what the musicians intended in their live performance?" That's a matter of accuracy. (I'm primary concerned with live acoustic music; please don't bring into it the fact that some performances are assembled from close-miked instruments performing at different times, so there is no "original performance." Okay, fine. That's a different paradigm. Not relevant here.)
 
 the whole system

     The whole record/playback system consists of microphones, A/D, D/A, playback amp, speakers. And also recording hall acoustics can be considered part of the system, as well as playback room acoustics.
     Controversies over the audibility of cables or amps or A/D or whatever don't need to come into it. Let's talk about acoustics, microphones and speakers.
 
 comparing A and B
   

     It's important to have an ability to compare two systems, A and B.
     I'm interested in accuracy; that is, which system gets closer to reproducing the patterns that I heard live.
   

     Folks here like to say that accuracy is about measurements. Well, not so fast. There will come a time when you have two systems A and B, both of which have audible measured deviations from accuracy (remember we are talking about speakers and microphones) and you have to ask "Which is more accurate?" Basically you have a complex set of measurements, and neither A nor B is superior in all measurements. To put it in a much oversimplified way, maybe A is superior in distortion but B is superior in frequency response. Actually that question is frequency-dependent with a different answer at each frequency or frequency band. You have many measurements; you have multiple curves which criss-cross. So you have to listen in order to determine which one is more accurate, which one is closer to what the musicians intended -- I would use the kinds of pattern-recognition my experience has developed to answer that question
     Just in case that leaves you in doubt, how about miking technique? A lot of choices there, and no way to make those choices but to listen.
 Using my pattern-recognition abilities, I sense distortion in the system as changes to the musical performance. That, I believe, is the proper way to evaluate equipment, because after all, musical performance is the reason it exists


----------



## bigshot

If the goal is to improve your stereo, you need to separate the deviation from accurate that is within your control (your system and listening room) from those that are not (miking, mixing, and recording hall acoustics).

But the theme of this thread is, how can we trust any opinion from someone who talks about cables making a huge difference? Going back to that, I would have to answer that we can't.


----------



## Tilpo

bigshot said:


> If the goal is to improve your stereo, you need to separate the deviation from accurate that is within your control (your system and listening room) from those that are not (miking, mixing, and recording hall acoustics).
> 
> But the theme of this thread is, how can we trust any opinion from someone who talks about cables making a huge difference? Going back to that, I would have to answer that we can't.



After more than one thousand posts the OP was finally responded to.


-- The end.


----------



## Katun

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Apparently Katun and germanium have not read the title of this thread. Gosh, should I ignore only these posts about cables or everything they say?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Pardon me.


----------



## JadeEast

Mike, thanks for laying out your perspective.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Apparently Katun and germanium have not read the title of this thread. Gosh, should I ignore only these posts about cables or everything they say?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  This thread has been off topic for quite a while. HoweverThe fact that I'm saying there can be a difference & so is Katun saying that there can be I think that the verdict according to us is that they need to come up with better testing methodology & acknowledge that these amplifier & cable companies are not all charletans as some actually do listening tests with trained listeners that can in fact be able to point out flaws so the engineers can correct them before going to market. Harman Karden actually has an advanced listener training program that teaches people how the detect even certain types of distortion accurately with 80% minimum correct answers before they are accepted to be trained listeners. So the basic thing I'm saying is go with what your ears tell you is best & not some reviewer or study using techniques that are ofquestionable value.
   
  Studies can be conducted in very misleading way whether intended or not. I have seen situations where my modded Adcom amp I did several years ago sounded no different that anouther low quailty amp because the source was poor quality to begin with but in other situations it was a clear winner when the source was better. I tested many different wire configurations with that amp & settled on the copper tubing as having the best sound with that amp. Yes that amp was very senstive to the qualty of the interconnects, Though the differences on the surface seemed subtle the overall effect as you listended to a wide variety of music was the better wiring preserved more of that sound that gave the music life. This was especially noticable on piano music.
   
  Just to let you know I do not poo poo science. There was a reason for those differences & I have discused them adnausium here. I do not go after the majic clocks that configure all the electrons in your house nor do I go after those majic rocks that you see in some of the subjetive reviewers magazines. However I do not poo poo everything that subjective reviewers say either as there are real differences that I have heard in amps & wiring. Objective science & subjective impression need to be reconciled in order for the benefits of both to be brought forward & there are benefits to both. Subjective revewers that go ga  ga over the latest overpriced piece of gear do a diservice the public they serve but so do the objectivists that poo poo all suposed diferences as differences do exist.


----------



## bigshot

Just because your informal impression is that cables and amps have a sound, it doesn't invalidate more rigorous tests. The testing methodology isn't faulty. It's the same methodology used to test all sorts of things. Science can't prove something doesn't exist. It's up to you to prove it does. You might want to consider thinking about how you might better reach conclusions about how sound reproduction works. The first step is to not base your opinion on sales tear sheets and magazine advertorial from manufacturers.

The sales pitch and "science" behind magic crystals and green marker pens is *exactly* the same as that used by high end cable companies... Throw around a little legit science, avoid relating it to thresholds of human perception. When questioned, throw out a smokescreen of pseudo science and point to informal, anceotal testamonials, claiming they must be hearing something science doesn't know about yet.

Oh! I forgot the big one... Avoid double blind tests at all costs, and if you can't avoid it, just muddy the waters by going into circular theoretical arguments about the technicalities of testing procedures.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The sales pitch and "science" behind magic crystals and green marker pens is *exactly* the same as that used by high end cable companies... Throw around a little legit science, avoid relating it to thresholds of human perception. When questioned, throw out a smokescreen of pseudo science and point to informal, anceotal testamonials, claiming they must be hearing something science doesn't know about yet.


 
   
  And the logic used in this argument about as good as that used  by the green marker pens and magic crystals.  Plenty of cable manufacturers do things that make sense from a scientific standpoint - just some seem to think that these properties will not cause significant audible differences - this and magic crystals seems quite different to me.  Suggesting that everything that has not been conclusively proven is nonsense is absurdly  bad reasoning - you may as well tell everyone doing any form of research that has not yet been proven - medical science, physics, mathematics - they are all the same as the man selling magic crystals?


----------



## bigshot

Well, if you come up with a method to prove a negative, I'll happily employ it.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Well, if you come up with a method to prove a negative, I'll happily employ it.


 
  That seems all you are trying to do is prove a negative, a negative result to any possible difference & DBT seems to be your method of choice when DBT stresses people in unnatural ways. I have heard differences & can explane why they exist after much experimentation . I don't need people touting DBT or ABX telling me they do not exist. I also in the past caught a manufacturer trying to trump up a difference between two different ouputs of the same unit which I caught just by listening & being observant. Other people in the room did not catch it but I did. That did not mean that there wasn't a real difference in the outputs. Most everyone in the room picked up the difference but I correctly picked up what in part was causing the difference by ear. Everyone thought that the difference was an improvement but not me, it sounded worse & the reason was the amp was being pushed beyond its limits for clean output. Not quite to clipping but definately where distortion started to pick up & even the manufacturer acknowledged it.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> If the goal is to improve your stereo, you need to separate the deviation from accurate that is within your control (your system and listening room) from those that are not (miking, mixing, and recording hall acoustics).





>


 
  That's a practical issue, but I think it's important to understand what we mean when we say "a system is accurate." We mean the entire chain from recording to playback is accurate. There is no way to evaluate the recording without getting playback involved.
   
  As a *practical* matter, most recordings are made understanding there is a plethora of playback systems to be used. The engineer employs some kind of understanding of the playback system he is targeting. In essence, a model in his head or on paper is substituting for the actual playback system. But we should understand that is a model.
   
  Likewise a playback system is put together knowing a range of recordings will be played.
   
  But to keep our understanding nice and straight, we have to understand there is no way to evaluate accuracy without an entire chain.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Using my pattern-recognition abilities, I sense distortion in the system as changes to the musical performance. That, I believe, is the proper way to evaluate equipment, because after all, musical performance is the reason it exists


 
  Mike, this is the part that I still don't understand. Without having heard the actual performance that was recorded, how could one tell what was off (or on) in the end result? The permutations of musical performance, and so also the patterns it creates that we might recognize, are infinite or nearly so. A catalog of "stock" patterns recognized from experience would always fall short.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





katun said:


> Pardon me.


 

 Please don't take offense. I was unable to generalize the remark any further and still refer to something recognizable. It struck me as amusing that cable talk came up in a thread named as this one is.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Mike, this is the part that I still don't understand. Without having heard the actual performance that was recorded, how could one tell what was off (or on) in the end result? The permutations of musical performance, and so also the patterns it creates that we might recognize, are infinite or nearly so. A catalog of "stock" patterns recognized from experience would always fall short.


 
  You have a great point. This is why I talk of a whole chain. You should be there for the recording -- sit live in the hall, and then listen to the playback. I've made recordings myself and sat in on a couple of pro recordings.
   
  This is the *central* understanding of accuracy. In other situations, it's about using some form of understanding, some form of model -- whether an intuitive understanding or a precise measurement model -- to approximate this central understanding.
   
  I think it's important to make clear the epistemology -- a term from philosophy describing how we know things. It describes how we obtain knowledge and what we consider to be valid evidence and all that.
   
  Obviously we are compromised most of the time. I put together my current headphone system by listening to recordings I know well. There are some patterns which are a reliable guide I think, such as dynamics with impact. But that's all a model, an approximation, a guess, a gut-feeling, or whatever it might be in the particular case.


----------



## nick_charles

Never mind !


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





germanium said:


> Most everyone in the room picked up the difference but I correctly picked up what in part was causing the difference by ear. Everyone thought that the difference was an improvement but not me, it sounded worse...


 
  Doesn't this statement throw the value of subjectivity under the bus?


----------



## bigshot

germanium said:


> I have heard differences & can explane why they exist after much experimentation.




Great. Tell us about YOUR testing procedures that lead you to believe that amps and cables have a sound.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> As a *practical* matter, most recordings are made understanding there is a plethora of playback systems to be used. The engineer employs some kind of understanding of the playback system he is targeting. In essence, a model in his head or on paper is substituting for the actual playback system. But we should understand that is a model.




That isn't true. Every professional recording studio I've worked in employs a house engineer whose job it is to keep the equipment in good repair and calibrated. They go to great effort to establish a standard, so if you start recording in Los Angeles, and continue in New York, it will sound the same.

Home recording setups don't take this kind of care, but pro studios do.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> Doesn't this statement throw the value of subjectivity under the bus?


 
  The anecdote seems to illustrate a few things.
   
  Firstly the demonstrator primed the audience to hear a difference and so of course they heard a difference whether it was there or not, secondly the difference appeared to be in output level i,e it got louder and this is almost always perceived  as better, thirdly the op deduced what the difference really was and therefore was able to hear the apparent distortion.
   
  However beyond this we know not much more. How much distortion was there with the different output 0.1%, 1%, 10% ? - Was the difference heard by the op really there or just a product of expectation , what was the amp/speaker -what was the load, was it a tweako cultist design driven far beyond capability into unstable speakers - who know ?


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> The anecdote seems to illustrate a few things.
> 
> Firstly the demonstrator primed the audience to hear a difference and so of course they heard a difference whether it was there or not, secondly the difference appeared to be in output level i,e it got louder and this is almost always perceived  as better, thirdly the op deduced what the difference really was and therefore was able to hear the apparent distortion.
> 
> However beyond this we know not much more. How much distortion was there with the different output 0.1%, 1%, 10% ? - Was the difference heard by the op really there or just a product of expectation , what was the amp/speaker -what was the load, was it a tweako cultist design driven far beyond capability into unstable speakers - who know ?


 
  The distortion is what caused me to look for it's cause & when I seen the meter that showed the power supply energy drop ( It was a Carver Silver Seven vacumm tube amp which has a power supply energy meter on the front of the power supply chassis, Carver liked to do things different from everyone else) I knew why I heard the sound as being worse.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Please don't take offense. I was unable to generalize the remark any further and still refer to something recognizable. It struck me as amusing that cable talk came up in a thread named as this one is.


 
  Before one can answer whether the reviewers have any merit one has to decide whether they think that there would be any difference in cables. If not then the reviewers are blowing smoke but if so then they may have some points to consider, however even if there is a difference one still has to decide for themselves if it is a difference that works for them. Here the reviewr can help only marginally at best & not at all if ones view of how things should sound are significantly different from the reviewers.
   
  For example I myself look for sound that is as close as possible to known live instruments in a known environment. If it does not come very very close then it is no cigar for me. Now if I do get that sound under the circumstances I just listed then I know that what ever I listen to will closely match what the engineer intended for me to hear. If it makes poor recordings sound bad then that is ok because unfortunately someone in the recording or production decided that is what it should sound like. It it has harsh syllabants then that is what they intended & I don't want to try to cover that up as to do so would ruin the sound of my better recordings that are full of life yet smooth & highly detailed.
   
  Some people hear any harshness especially on syllabants & they get thier ire up as if there isn't these types of sound in live music which there is, especially in live amplified music. If harshness improves when you improve detail then the harshness was due to the loss of low level detail and body that supported the more spikey elements of instruments like cymbals. One of the very things that makes cymbals sound harsh also takes the life out of other instruments like piano & lead guitar, that is the low level detail that gets lost in low grade electrolytic coupling caps. Subtituting metalized film caps or direct coupling often mostly fixes these issues. Power supply mods seem to fix the rest of but will not help at all without the first mods listed.
   
  Often times though live amplified recording qualty cannot be totally fixed with these mods as these distortions were caused by the PA amps & speakers & possible poor miking used in the live concert & were just faithfully picked up by the recording micrphones.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

You know, it finally occurred to me what's been bugging me about this thread.  It seems like half the posters here can't enjoy their rigs unless they're "perfect" or "accurate" or some such adjective. 
   
  Boy, am I ever glad I'm an untutored troglodyte! 
   
  I picked out my rig based on the specs looking good and the thing making me tap my toes when I listen to it.  Should I be ashamed that I have a ball each time I fire it up?  
   
  Folks, take a step back from this discussion.  It's the weekend.  Whatever floats your boat, spend some time with it over the next few days and have some fun with this hobby of ours!  That's why we're here, right?
   
  All the best!


----------



## Clarkmc2

I'm with you. My audio hobby, which I am passionate about, is listening to music. Not equipment.
   
  I have already established that I am OK listening to a low rez lossy file if that is what is available. I think enjoyment is nearly 100% what music you listen to, a few percent how well it is recorded and a tiny bit left over for how well your rig plays it. That would leave no room for dubious tweaks like wire and boutique capacitors. I have amassed a fairly revealing rig which a Bose Wave owner would consider expensive, but my quest was to get the best out of whatever I ask it to play. Revealing but not at the expense of forgiving.
   
  At work this week a guy came in who believes only direct to disk vinyl sound good. While it is easy to demonstrate that vinyl is far less resolving than digital, what took the cake for me was that he had locked himself into letting the availability of music for his very limited format dictate what he truly enjoyed listening to. Let me admit that he and I are 180 degrees apart on our music priorities.
  
  The moral of my tale? If you want a richer listening experience, listen to better music. If you like what a musician is doing, rather than looking for better recordings played through more expensive rigs, seek musicians who do what he does even more to your liking.


----------



## mike1127

Blind in one ear -- You might be surprised to learn that when you compose or interpret music, make recordings, or design audio systems, you have to use your *brain*! I guess you can be thankful that the people who designed your equipment used theirs.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> That isn't true. Every professional recording studio I've worked in employs a house engineer whose job it is to keep the equipment in good repair and calibrated. They go to great effort to establish a standard, so if you start recording in Los Angeles, and continue in New York, it will sound the same.
> Home recording setups don't take this kind of care, but pro studios do.


 
  You're taking much too narrow a view. The recording doesn't exist solely to be played back on the calibrated system; it exists to be widely sold and played, and in that sense the recording engineer is aiming at a hypothetical system.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> I have already established that I am OK listening to a low rez lossy file if that is what is available. I think enjoyment is nearly 100% what music you listen to, a few percent how well it is recorded and a tiny bit left over for how well your rig plays it. That would leave no room for dubious tweaks like wire and boutique capacitors. I have amassed a fairly revealing rig which a Bose Wave owner would consider expensive, but my quest was to get the best out of whatever I ask it to play. Revealing but not at the expense of forgiving.


 
  This could be an interesting poll question: how do we divide up the sources of enjoyment?
   
  You assign nearly 100% to "what music you listen to." I would agree in the sense that I get no enjoyment out of music that doesn't interest me no matter how well recorded it is. But given that I'm only going to be listening to something I enjoy anyway, I must also say that I enjoy it many times more at a high quality level (and even more so, live) -- and at a poor level it becomes annoying and painful, so I would say I give 15% to "what music you listen to," 30% to recording quality and 55% to playback quality.
   
  The 15% is a way of saying, if it's a piece I love but at poor quality, then I will enjoy it only 15% of what could be possible.
   
  I give more weight to playback but that's also a reflection of the fact I have more control over playback, not necessarily a statement that playback matters more than recording (if one could have control over both).


----------



## bigshot

germanium said:


> Some people hear any harshness especially on syllabants & they get thier ire up as if there isn't these types of sound in live music which there is, especially in live amplified music. If harshness improves when you improve detail then the harshness was due to the loss of low level detail and body that supported the more spikey elements of instruments like cymbals.




Harsh high frequencies are response imbalances and are easily corrected with an equalizer.


----------



## bigshot

clarkmc2 said:


> I'm with you. My audio hobby, which I am passionate about, is listening to music. Not equipment..




Equipment can be fun too. I love my Victrola! I just got some great Caruso records and I'm having a great time cranking and listening.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *BlindInOneEar* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I picked out my rig based on the specs looking good and the thing making me tap my toes when I listen to it.


 
   

   
  HEATHEN!
   
  se


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> You're taking much too narrow a view. The recording doesn't exist solely to be played back on the calibrated system; it exists to be widely sold and played, and in that sense the recording engineer is aiming at a hypothetical system.




I've supervised many sound mixes. No engineer mixes for something in his head. He doesn't even mix for what the meters show him on the board in front of him. He mixes for what he can *hear*. You can't mix any other way. The monitor is everything.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> I would say I give 15% to "what music you listen to," 30% to recording quality and 55% to playback quality.




Good lord! I thought you said you were a musician.

Hopefully, someday you'll discover the wonders of music and hearing Caruso on 78s or dim live recordings of Charlie Parker will give you goosebumps too.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> I must also say that I enjoy it many times more at a high quality level (and even more so, live) -- and at a poor level it becomes annoying and painful, so I would say I give 15% to "what music you listen to," 30% to recording quality and 55% to playback quality.


 
  Mike, if what music you listen to scores less than 51% your interest lies less in listening to music than in recording and playback. That DOES make you someone to whom music is secondary to equipment. Are you not familiar with the saying "It's all about the music" as the rationale for the audio hobby/pursuit?
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Good lord! I thought you said you were a musician.
> Hopefully, someday you'll discover the wonders of music and hearing Caruso on 78s or dim live recordings of Charlie Parker will give you goosebumps too.


 
  What a coincidence. One of the defining moments for me (along with blasting Beethoven 78s in the 1950s) was a close encounter with a wax cylinder player and a good sized box of cylinders in a basement. It was Caruso's voice emanating from that horn that cemented for me that it is indeed all about the music. It did sound a bit like it was coming out of a tunnel, giving me the impression that it was traveling through time to reach me. That is, after all, a decent explanation of what the purpose of sound recording is. Enabling the recreation in time of a sonic moment. The fact that we can do it at all is always going to be more important than how well we do it, even though anything worth doing is doing well. The music itself is, of course, the reason why it is worth doing, not the means we employ to do it.
   
  This also reminds me that it is sound recording, not strictly music recording. A Winston Churchill speech is also worth transporting through time. Any theory or practice of recording and playback that addresses something about music separate from sound is at the least suspect and almost certainly irrelevant. Sorry Mike, but that is why I think your system's place in recording and playback practices is not essential or even useful, just interesting.
   
  There is no difference at all, technically, in the reproduction of music or any other complex or simple sound. That is a fact. As Steve Eddy if he would design a "high fidelity music amplifier" differently from a "high fidelity sound" amplifier. The difference between PA and Hifi equipment has everything to do with required inputs, required power and impedance and required level of fidelity. Nothing to do with whether it is to deal with music or sound. It is as if you are trying to tell us that the speaking voice is different in some basic and vital aspect from the singing voice, and I'm not buying that.


----------



## bigshot

My brother has a brown wax cylinder of John Phillip Sousa's band playing Stars and Stripes Forever. This was before cylinders could be mass produced. They would line up a bank of recording phonographs in a room, bring the band in and have them play the song. When they finished, they'd change the wax cylinders for blanks and run through it again. They'd play through the same song dozens of times in an afternoon. Every recording was a unique performance from a unique perspective, and every cylinder was in the room with Sousa!


----------



## mike1127

It's fine if you aren't sensitive to recording/playback quality, but to me it's a bit like this: suppose a guy says "I'm a heterosexual through and through" and then you find out he enjoys blow-up dolls equally to real women. When I point out that I like real women better, I am told "someday you'll discover the wonders of women."
   
  I have to laugh about the irony of the story of wax cylinders: you guys are forgetting that I think analog is superior to digital. I know why you were so impressed. I haven't heard a wax cylinder player myself but a guy with similar tastes to mine described it as very good and a revelation about how musical a recording made with simple means can be.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> There is no difference at all, technically, in the reproduction of music or any other complex or simple sound. That is a fact. As Steve Eddy if he would design a "high fidelity music amplifier" differently from a "high fidelity sound" amplifier. The difference between PA and Hifi equipment has everything to do with required inputs, required power and impedance and required level of fidelity. Nothing to do with whether it is to deal with music or sound. It is as if you are trying to tell us that the speaking voice is different in some basic and vital aspect from the singing voice, and I'm not buying that.


 
  The requirements on microphones, hall acoustics, playback speakers, and playback acoustics need to be evaluated, and the system may be better for some sounds than others. Some test sounds may not be particularly revealing of the sorts of distortions that will affect music; a sustained tone for example.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> My brother has a brown wax cylinder of John Phillip Sousa's band playing Stars and Stripes Forever. This was before cylinders could be mass produced. They would line up a bank of recording phonographs in a room, bring the band in and have them play the song. When they finished, they'd change the wax cylinders for blanks and run through it again. They'd play through the same song dozens of times in an afternoon. Every recording was a unique performance from a unique perspective, and every cylinder was in the room with Sousa!


 

 I remember an anecdote from my music teacher.  It was too expensive for Sousa to tour with a full marching band, instead he used local bands wherever he went.  However he always took on tour with him his bass drum player.  Sousa wanted to be certain that the band played in time.  Even back then people worried about jitter!


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Mike, if what music you listen to scores less than 51% your interest lies less in listening to music than in recording and playback. That DOES make you someone to whom music is secondary to equipment. Are you not familiar with the saying "It's all about the music" as the rationale for the audio hobby/pursuit?


 
  I thought of something that needs clarification. Would you think for a moment of the absurdity of saying I'm less interested in music than in recording/playback? What would I be doing with my audio system if I weren't listening to music on it? Nothing!
   
  I think were are getting confused because you weren't treating the 15% like a multiplier; that is, when it is zero, the result is zero, not 85%. If the music has zero interest for me, that doesn't mean the system is still 85% interesting to me. I explained that. With zero-interest music the system has zero interest. However, with performances that I want to listen to, the enjoyment can range from small to large depending on the quality.
   
  Yes, musicians are very interested in shades and degrees of quality and aren't content with just anything; it's the only way to be able to make music. Thank goodness Stradavarius cared about the sound of his violins and wasn't just content for a great player to use any old chunk of wood -- "it's about the player" wasn't his motto.
   
  EDIT:I thought of a better way of putting all of this. I should have used percentages; that is what led to all the confusion.
   
  I will use multipliers.
   
  enjoyment = M * R * P
   
  where M is amount that I am enjoying the music, ranges from 0 to 1.
  R is the record quality, ranges from 0 to 2.
  P is playback quality, ranges from 0 to 4.
   
  And live music is a special case of R=2, P =10.
   
  OMG! I just found math useful in describing enjoyment! (shudder) I guess that means I need to get out more, and I can't possibly be a real music-lover.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> It's fine if you aren't sensitive to recording/playback quality, but to me it's a bit like this: suppose a guy says "I'm a heterosexual through and through" and then you find out he enjoys blow-up dolls equally to real women.




DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Congratulations! You've won the prize for today's most ludicrous analogy!


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> Would you think for a moment of the absurdity of saying I'm less interested in music than in recording/playback? What would I be doing with my audio system if I weren't listening to music on it? Nothing!




I'm sure you could find some music that would be worse than nothing.



mike1127 said:


> OMG! I just found math useful in describing enjoyment! (shudder) I guess that means I need to get out more, and I can't possibly be a real music-lover.




Not much to say to that but "nice try, kid".


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!
> Congratulations! You've won the prize for today's most ludicrous analogy!


 
  Thanks, where do I collect my prize?


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> You know, it finally occurred to me what's been bugging me about this thread.  It seems like half the posters here can't enjoy their rigs unless they're "perfect" or "accurate" or some such adjective.
> 
> Boy, am I ever glad I'm an untutored troglodyte!
> 
> ...


 
  & what's wrong with wanting to hear things as the engineer intended? I think it is laudable goal & one I sought after for years. It doesn't mean I can't enjoy lesser quality  but that I definately prefer to hear what the engineer intended me to hear. I have arrived at my goal & at a price that I could live with. I didn't spend 100's of thousands dollars or even 10's of thousands. What I spent most of was my effort mentally to figure how to get it, lots of listening time & the abilty to ascertain what I'm missing to arrive at how to draw out whats missing & time spent tracing circuits to find what mods will achieve my goals.
   
  Yes my system definately has both the accuracy & the abilty to convey the emotion & intensity of the music & does get my foot tapping. No I can't brag how much money I spent to get there as I didn't spend a lot & in fact couldn't spend a lot. I had to accomplish what i did while living within my means.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





germanium said:


> & what's wrong with wanting to hear things as the engineer intended? I think it is laudable goal & one I sought after for years. It doesn't mean I can't enjoy lesser quality  but that I definately prefer to hear what the engineer intended me to hear. I have arrived at my goal & at a price that I could live with. I didn't spend 100's of thousands dollars or even 10's of thousands. What I spent most of was my effort mentally to figure how to get it, lots of listening time & the abilty to ascertain what I'm missing to arrive at how to draw out whats missing & time spent tracing circuits to find what mods will achieve my goals.


 
  Exactly, it takes some smarts and mental effort to figure this out. Especially when you are balancing performance with price.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Come'on guys. We all do that sooner or later. The best fidelity we can figure out how to put together is everyone's goal here. But listening for how well the equipment sounds when we are playing music should stop until we ponder trying some other equipment. The complaint you are responding to is that it tends to sound on most audio forums like the posters are ALWAYS listening to the performance of their rig.
   
  I tend to agree. The way posters go on about this stuff, it seems they do spend more time and attention listening to their equipment than the music. Mike, if you really can't enjoy music unless the fidelity of the reproduction exceeds a certain criteria, I feel sorry for you. The reason I said almost all of the enjoyment comes from what music we listen to? Crap music perfectly reproduced is crap. Sublime music poorly reproduced is still superb music. Once the gear, recording and playback, dictates what we like to hear, we have lost our way. Our hobby is then audio equipment, not listening to music. It is like thinking about your hiking shoes when walking through Yosemite Valley. They would have to be really hurting you to intrude; it would be very difficult to find audio equipment that bad. If the shoes are doing their job and you are fretting over not having bought an even better pair, that is completely an attitude problem.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Clarkmc2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Once the gear, recording and playback, dictates what we like to hear, we have lost our way.


 
  I never said the gear dictates what I like to hear. I like to hear Mozart and pay a lot to hear his music live, pay a lot to hear it well-reproduced, and don't really care to hear it poorly reproduced. I like Bach, Boulez, and Beethoven. Etc. Most jazz is not to my taste. Etc. It's that simple. How hard is this? You are doing a lot of projection; maybe you would lose your way if you felt like that, but you are just speaking about yourself.
   
  EDIT: plus all this reasoning and thinking that I do, which you have said doesn't interest you, is necessary for someone who designs audio equipment or does recordings. It's also similar to the kinds of thought processes a composer uses. Maybe you don't do any of these things; maybe your temperament is not suited to them.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Mike, I said it IS interesting. I also said I still don't see how it could possibly be relevant. I cannot see how, even theoretically, it would lead to better recordings and playback than what is done currently. That is, when current methods  are done well. Just as great vinyl beats crappy digital, a lot of recording paradigms done well could certainly best orthodoxy done badly.
   
  The reason why I thought you felt that way is because you have gone on so about it here. We will agree to disagree on the threshold of unsatisfactory reproduction. That is a very individual perception indeed.
   
  I tend to hang with a lot of Jazz musicians. Perhaps that will go a little way towards explaining me, who knows?


----------



## bigshot

germanium said:


> & what's wrong with wanting to hear things as the engineer intended? I think it is laudable goal & one I sought after for years. It doesn't mean I can't enjoy lesser quality  but that I definately prefer to hear what the engineer intended me to hear.




Then you'll want a system that mirrors what sound engineers use to monitor their mixes. That would be studio monitor speakers, not headphones, calibrated to completely flat frequency response using both room treatment and equalization.


----------



## bigshot

You don't really know Beethoven's Diabelli Variations if you won't listen to Artur Schnabel's recording, one of the most notoriously bad recordings from a sound quality standpoint in classical music. You'll also never hear the like of Caruso or Galli Cuci if you only listen to stereo/hifi recordings. Or Duke Ellington's Jungle Band, Louis Armstrongs Hot Fives and Sevens, Django Reinhardt, Charlie Parker, Maria Callas, Hank Williams, the Carter Family.... Without mono recordings, you can't even know half of the great music from the past century. Music transcends sound.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You don't really know Beethoven's Diabelli Variations if you won't listen to Artur Schnabel's recording, one of the most notoriously bad recordings from a sound quality standpoint in classical music. You'll also never hear the like of Caruso or Galli Cuci if you only listen to stereo/hifi recordings. Or Duke Ellington's Jungle Band, Louis Armstrongs Hot Fives and Sevens, Django Reinhardt, Charlie Parker, Maria Callas, Hank Williams, the Carter Family.... Without mono recordings, you can't even know half of the great music from the past century. Music transcends sound.


 
  I could also argue you'll never know Beethoven's Diabelli Variations if you haven't spent some time playing or imagining it in your own interpretation. Or spent some time analyzing it. I could make a case that it's a healthier musical diet to listen exclusively to live performances, which are always unpredictable and unique (as everyone was forced to do before the invention of audio).
   
  In the end there's just not time for everything.


----------



## Chris J

bigshot said:


> DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!
> Congratulations! You've won the prize for today's most ludicrous analogy!




Where can I get a good blow up doll?


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> I could also argue you'll never know Beethoven's Diabelli Variations if you haven't spent some time playing or imagining it in your own interpretation. Or spent some time analyzing it. I could make a case that it's a healthier musical diet to listen exclusively to live performances, which are always unpredictable and unique (as everyone was forced to do before the invention of audio).




You don't need a stereo for any of that, so you can just send me your old unneeded one. Thanks!

You're young though. Plenty of time to wise up and stop making excuses for your ignorance of the great artists who lived many years before you were born.

You'd particularly like Artur Schnabel. He resisted recording, even though he was one of the greatest interpreters of Beethoven of all time. When he was asked why he didn't record more he said, "I can't bear the thought that somewhere someone might be listening to me play the great Hammerklavier sonata wearing a bathrobe and eating a ham sandwich."

So next time you put on a CD, remember to put on a plain dark suit first out of respect to Beethoven!


----------



## eugenius

Beethoven, I listened to him on the crapper the other day. I felt my soul was more attuned to the universality of his music and the message permeated my consciousness like never before. Not to mention the crescendos helped with the bowel movement.


----------



## knucklehead

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> I have avoided putting my whole paradigm in one post because mostly people here take potshots at one or two elements of it. However, because we've got a few folks who are actually interested, I'll go ahead.
> 
> pattern recognition
> 
> ...


 
  Hey mike! I'm still curious to know if you feel you have ever heard a good working example of this "whole system" you are talking about.
  People have been known to chase mirages, or imaginary pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, with not so great results -- any chance you might be doing something like that?


----------



## bigshot

There's one problem with his theory there. You rarely trade off distortion specs against frequency response specs. Distortion is well below the range of audibility on even the cheapest amps and CD players. Frequency response is never a problem either, because electronics measure flat. The only place where either of those is an isue is with speakers, and almost always, frequency response is a problem on an order of magnitude greater than distortion. The only time distortion becomes an issue is with clipping, and that is usually due to crappy mastering, which is beyond the ability of a home stereo enthusiast to do anything about.

Frequency response is NOT a matter of specs. It's a matter of calibration. Once you reach a certain level of quality of speakers, the devil is in the settings more than the equipment. Configuration of the room is important too. Really, specs aren't much help in getting good sound. It requires a scientific, systematic approach to addressing acoustical problems, not electronic ones.


----------



## knucklehead

Regardless of his theory, I haven't been able to make out if he's talking about something he thinks he's actually heard, or something he thinks it might be possible to hear.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> There's one problem with his theory there. You rarely trade off distortion specs against frequency response specs. Distortion is well below the range of audibility on even the cheapest amps and CD players. Frequency response is never a problem either, because electronics measure flat. The only place where either of those is an isue is with speakers, and almost always, frequency response is a problem on an order of magnitude greater than distortion. The only time distortion becomes an issue is with clipping, and that is usually due to crappy mastering, which is beyond the ability of a home stereo enthusiast to do anything about.
> Frequency response is NOT a matter of specs. It's a matter of calibration. Once you reach a certain level of quality of speakers, the devil is in the settings more than the equipment. Configuration of the room is important too. Really, specs aren't much help in getting good sound. It requires a scientific, systematic approach to addressing acoustical problems, not electronic ones.


 
  Are they really below audibilty??  I have had amplifiers that measure well but sound horrible (my Adcom GFA 545 amp when stock). Bass sounded weak (caused by low grade electrolytic going to ground to from the negative feedback circuit, changed to 100uf metalized film & got much improved bass energy & clearer sound throughout the audible range), grainy texture to sound (traced to 22pf stabilization cap of monollthic ceramic type, changed to 22pf  silver mica & got rid of most of the grainyness) & a host of other mods I won't go into here. The frequency response still measured flat & distortion was still by all intents & purposes should be below audibility. The amp was so much improved by the time I got done that an engineer friend of mine said that it was the best sounding solid state amp he has heard.


----------



## bigshot

Weak bass is a frequency response problem. Grainy texture is either spikes in the response or perhaps masking of harmonics. Were you monitoring the sound with headphones or speakers?

Improving sound isn't magic. There are causes and effects. All of it is measurable.


----------



## jcx

if the ceramic was C0G/NP0 formulation then even on the "audiophile" cap criteria of dielectric absorption the silver mica is likely measurably worse - really should read Bateman, Pease, Hofer on Capacitor "quality" - not just 25-30 yr old Jung/Curl articles


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Weak bass is a frequency response problem. Grainy texture is either spikes in the response or perhaps masking of harmonics. Were you monitoring the sound with headphones or speakers?
> Improving sound isn't magic. There are causes and effects. All of it is measurable.


 
  Frequency response measured flat in both cases as to the grainyness it didn't show anything in the audio band that should have caused this sound but yet it was there & I did manage to get rid of it without significantly altering the specs.


----------



## El_Doug

How can bass be weaker, if the bass is equally represented in the frequency response? 
   
  Quote: 





germanium said:


> Frequency response measured flat in both cases as to the grainyness it didn't show anything in the audio band that should have caused this sound but yet it was there & I did manage to get rid of it without significantly altering the specs.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





jcx said:


> if the ceramic was C0G/NP0 formulation then even on the "audiophile" cap criteria of dielectric absorption the silver mica is likely measurably worse - really should read Bateman, Pease, Hofer on Capacitor "quality" - not just 25-30 yr old Jung/Curl articles


 
  Note that the GFA555 amp from adcom used the silver mica cap in that location. The GFA555 is the next model up from the GFA545 & lacked the grainy sound of the GFA545. I discovered this after trying various caps in that location & settled on the silver mica before I found that the GFA 555 used silver mica cap. Silver mica is not a audiophile cap but they are much higher quality than most all ceramics. Still you have to use what works best in the circuit in question. The highest qualty by most peoples opinion may not be the best in a particulr circuit. It is still cut & try to get best results.


----------



## bigshot

el_doug said:


> How can bass be weaker, if the bass is equally represented in the frequency response?




That is a much nicer way of saying it than the way I was going to. I doubt you'll get a satisfactory response.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> That is a much nicer way of saying it than the way I was going to. I doubt you'll get a satisfactory response.


 
  While I can't really explane why all the mods I've done seem to improve appearant frequency response without actually changing measured frequency response. Bob Carver figured out how to characterize it without resorting to graphs. It's called tranfer function. Truth is you cannot as yet characterize what an amp will sound like by looking at graphs or specs. There are still things that designers can do to alter the sound that is unseen in graphs & specs. CD players can still sound different even if they measure identically. I have heard quite radical differences in older players but even newer ones though more subtle still have differences. Take the best of the best & mod the power supply & you will get a true wake up call as they will sound different without showing in the specs at all. None of my CD player mods has ever altered the measured frquency response yet they all sounded quite different when the power supply was modded. Bear in mind that the power supply in most cases is in the direct signal path.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Lee - I agree to an extent. But there is harm in propogating falsehoods. Persistent mythology costs real money, and damages the credibility of the field. Truth matters. And we are dealing with claims which can be tested. When people ignore objective data in order to maintain a position, it is irrational, and in the long run, hurts all of us.


 
  Persistant mythology may be whats needed to get this economy working again. Someones got to start putting people to work. If it's creating what many feel to be nonexistant improvements so be it. I happen not to 100% feel that way as I have done enough experimentation to satisfy myself that differences can be heard that are real differences & understand the reasons why. Yes there are some charletans out there but there are also reputable manufacturers that have done massive testing with trained listeners that know what to listen for & could with reasonable assurance seperate them out in blind testing as that is how they are in fact trained & must be at least 80% accurate in thier identification in order too be on the listener panel. Harmon Kardon has such a panel.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Have you tried Harman's "How to Listen" app?  It's actually pretty interesting to play with.  http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/


----------



## chris719

Has anyone found distortion measurements comparing PPS to C0G/NP0?


----------



## bigshot

germanium said:


> While I can't really explane why all the mods I've done seem to improve appearant frequency response without actually changing measured frequency response.




OK. I'll say it... I don't think you measured the frequency response before and after your tweaks. I think you're just saying that to make your point. I doubt if there was any audible difference at all. But even if there was a difference, enough time would have passed that you wouldn't be able to remember exactly what it originally sounded like anyway, and there would be no way to level match or do a direct A/B comparison. The only way to really know if there was an improvement is if you had two identical amps- one with the mod, one stock- and directly compared them.


----------



## germanium

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> OK. I'll say it... I don't think you measured the frequency response before and after your tweaks. I think you're just saying that to make your point. I doubt if there was any audible difference at all. But even if there was a difference, enough time would have passed that you wouldn't be able to remember exactly what it originally sounded like anyway, and there would be no way to level match or do a direct A/B comparison. The only way to really know if there was an improvement is if you had two identical amps- one with the mod, one stock- and directly compared them.


 
  As a matter of fact I did as well as distortion both before & after & no measurable difference.Sound is both clearer & better bass no matter the volume. I'm going to make this my last post in this thread as it is mostly a pointless thread anyway not that the original poster asked a pointless question but that a fair amount of the thread is both off target & highly opinionated as to what is in fact audible & it seems that some  can't even fathom that someone can actually hear a difference as well as others when standard measurements don't show any difference. Note; I said standard measurements.


----------



## bigshot

See:
Line level matched
A/B comparison
Auditory memory


----------



## drez

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> How can bass be weaker, if the bass is equally represented in the frequency response?


 
   
  The sound of equipment often has nothing to do with frequency response, my best bet is it is to do with temporal performance - as manifest in such characteristics such as impact and decay.  If you want to witness the impact a power supply can have on an amplifier the easiest test is to load the [power] cable with a large ferrite, or use a 25 meter heavy duty extension cable coiled up on itself and I can [almost] guarantee you will hear a difference against a sensibly specced cable.
   
  Distortion by itself is a fairly mute specificatoin, IMO it depends on the nature of the distortion.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





germanium said:


> ...off target & highly opinionated as to what is in fact audible & it seems that some  can't even fathom that someone can actually hear a difference as well as others when standard measurements don't show any difference. Note; I said standard measurements.


 
  Dogmatic subjectivists fall into solipsism believing what they perceive not only correlates but determines what is true; Dogmatic objectivists claim providence over truth and collapse all meaning to that which can be quantifiably measured.
   
  I don't have an answer but it seems that issues like cables and capacitors point towards deeper conflicts about the nature of the world, truth, perception, and consciousness.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> Dogmatic subjectivists fall into solipsism believing what they perceive not only correlates but determines what is true; Dogmatic objectivists claim providence over truth and collapse all meaning to that which can be quantifiably measured.
> 
> *I don't have an answer but it seems that issues like cables and capacitors point towards deeper conflicts about the nature of the world, truth, perception, and consciousness.*


 
   
  Mind = Blown


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> Dogmatic subjectivists fall into solipsism believing what they perceive not only correlates but determines what is true; Dogmatic objectivists claim providence over truth and collapse all meaning to that which can be quantifiably measured.
> 
> I don't have an answer but it seems that issues like cables and capacitors point towards deeper conflicts about the nature of the world, truth, perception, and consciousness.


 
  They certainly reveal differences in epistemology between "camps"; and for those who don't know what "epistemology" means, I guarantee you have one. Most people just don't articulate it.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





knucklehead said:


> Hey mike! I'm still curious to know if you feel you have ever heard a good working example of this "whole system" you are talking about.
> People have been known to chase mirages, or imaginary pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, with not so great results -- any chance you might be doing something like that?


 
  Everyone uses the "whole system." Audio exists only to be heard, so it eventually passes through an entire chain from microphone to headphone/speaker.
   
  I don't really know what you mean by "chase mirages."
   
  Sheffield Lab is a recording studio that uses a philosophy like this. Actually, just about any audiophile label would. I discovered a label called "Albany Records;" heard their recording of a trombone quartet. Fantastic, and almost certainly they put an emphasis on listening as the only true way to evaluate equipment. It's hard to imagine getting such a result without that.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





drez said:


> The sound of equipment often has nothing to do with frequency response, my best bet is it is to do with temporal performance - as manifest in such characteristics such as impact and decay.


 
   
  Bass generally has a very long decay. The attack exists several octaves up from the bass note fundamental. I think he's making it up. Bass imbalances are easily measurable as frequency response.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Sheffield Lab is a recording studio that uses a philosophy like this.


 
   
  Sheffield Lab can only control the recording end of the chain. If I choose to play my copy of Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Collegues Vol 2 on a Califone suitcase phonograph, they have no control over how it's going to sound. Likewise, in my stereo system, I can only control my playback equipment. If the engineer selects an EQ or compression setting, I have to live with it.
   
  Recording is a different kettle of fish from playback.


----------



## knucklehead

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Everyone uses the "whole system." Audio exists only to be heard, so it eventually passes through an entire chain from microphone to headphone/speaker.
> 
> I don't really know what you mean by "chase mirages."
> 
> Sheffield Lab is a recording studio that uses a philosophy like this. Actually, just about any audiophile label would. I discovered a label called "Albany Records;" heard their recording of a trombone quartet. Fantastic, and almost certainly they put an emphasis on listening as the only true way to evaluate equipment. It's hard to imagine getting such a result without that.


 
  All I'm asking is if you have heard a system that you feel has been able to adequately reproduce the patterns that you have been talking about. That's a different situation than if you haven't been able to.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





knucklehead said:


> All I'm asking is if you have heard a system that you feel has been able to adequately reproduce the patterns that you have been talking about. That's a different situation than if you haven't been able to.


 
  Sure, I've heard it. Most of my own system was put together by intuition and guesses so it's not proof, but I did have an opportunity to be present for a recording session by a fellow associated with Sheffield Lab, using the philosophy I have outlined here--- that is a much better way to assess the usefulness of a particular philosophy. I also did some audio design projects under his guidance. This is what gave me my original thoughts, and the rest is common sense.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Sheffield Lab can only control the recording end of the chain. If I choose to play my copy of Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Collegues Vol 2 on a Califone suitcase phonograph, they have no control over how it's going to sound. Likewise, in my stereo system, I can only control my playback equipment. If the engineer selects an EQ or compression setting, I have to live with it.
> 
> Recording is a different kettle of fish from playback.


 
  You're right they have no control over playback (except their own monitor system), but a method of assessing fidelity applies to either playback or recording. It's not a "different kettle of fish."


----------



## bigshot

It's not a different method that I'm advocating. I'm suggesting that it's a very good idea to isolate the aspects of the sound quality that you *can* control, so you don't make adjustments to your playback settings based on problems with the recording of a specific piece of music.

Ideally, you choose a CD that is well recorded and exhibits a wide variety of types and textures of sound. Then you play it on your system and focus solely on how well your system reproduces the CD. If you start listening for things that are part of the miking or mixing, you'll be led down a lot of blind alleys before you find the solution to your problem.


----------



## knucklehead

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Sure, I've heard it. Most of my own system was put together by intuition and guesses so it's not proof, but I did have an opportunity to be present for a recording session by a fellow associated with Sheffield Lab, using the philosophy I have outlined here--- that is a much better way to assess the usefulness of a particular philosophy. I also did some audio design projects under his guidance. This is what gave me my original thoughts, and the rest is common sense.


 
  There ya go! Like bigshot said, now you don't have to worry about where the mikes were, because for your purposes, they were obviously in the right place! 
   
  I believe you mentioned that you use headphones a while back. What headphones have you used that reproduced your patterns, and what recording was it?


----------



## bigshot

Doug Sax is an interesting character. At the beginning of digital audio, he was very vocal about the superiority of vinyl. He wrote borderline hysterical articles about how vinyl had "infinite sampling rates" that audiophools still parrot blindly. He clearly wasn't open to learning how digital audio worked. Time marched on right past him, and he was forced to catch up. His last few projects were recorded digitally, and he seemed to have wised up.

I don't know the engineer behind it, but around the same time Doug Sax was diddling with direct to disk and half speed mastering, Dave Grusin made some experimental albums with JVC Japan using very early digital technology that completely matched, if not topped what Sheffield Lab was doing. Whoever was behind those albums was a true visionary. I only have those records on vinyl, but I bet on CD, they're spectacular.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Doug Sax is an interesting character. At the beginning of digital audio, he was very vocal about the superiority of vinyl. He wrote borderline hysterical articles about how vinyl had "infinite sampling rates" that audiophools still parrot blindly. He clearly wasn't open to learning how digital audio worked. Time marched on right past him, and he was forced to catch up. His last few projects were recorded digitally, and he seemed to have wised up.
> I don't know the engineer behind it, but around the same time Doug Sax was diddling with direct to disk and half speed mastering, Dave Grusin made some experimental albums with JVC Japan using very early digital technology that completely matched, if not topped what Sheffield Lab was doing. Whoever was behind those albums was a true visionary. I only have those records on vinyl, but I bet on CD, they're spectacular.


 
   A lot of use still think vinyl is superior to digital. Have you considered that making digital recordings now is a *practical* matter, not necessarily about superior sound quality?


----------



## jcx

Quote: 





> A lot of use still think vinyl is superior to digital. Have you considered that making digital recordings now is a *practical* matter, not necessarily about superior sound quality?


 
  and none of "you" have taken up Meyer/Moran on their offer to work with any "Golden Ear" who is certain they can distinguish a good, modern ADC/DAC inserted in their "magic" audio reproduction chain


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It's not a different method that I'm advocating. I'm suggesting that it's a very good idea to isolate the aspects of the sound quality that you *can* control, so you don't make adjustments to your playback settings based on problems with the recording of a specific piece of music.
> Ideally, you choose a CD that is well recorded and exhibits a wide variety of types and textures of sound. Then you play it on your system and focus solely on how well your system reproduces the CD. If you start listening for things that are part of the miking or mixing, you'll be led down a lot of blind alleys before you find the solution to your problem.


 
  Well, I'm talking about how one comes to know things about audio, and I think that the knowledge one gains is most useful by experiencing the whole chain; being present for the recording and listening on a monitor system, then listening on one's own system. I got a chance to do this once. I'm saying that's probably the most useful and secure way of learning what you are doing and what patterns to listen for. Everything else is a guess, although this guessing must be done (usually) when putting one's playback system together.


----------



## rroseperry

mike1127 said:


> A lot of use still think vinyl is superior to digital. Have you considered that making digital recordings now is a *practical* matter, not necessarily about superior sound quality?




What do you mean by superior? From what I can tell, you can get greater dynamic range with digital.


----------



## JadeEast

I'm going to guess that his idea of superiority is based on a judgement of musicality through pattern recognition as compared to a live musical event, unless I've misunderstood his posts so far.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> Well, I'm talking about how one comes to know things about audio, and I think that the knowledge one gains is most useful by experiencing the whole chain; being present for the recording and listening on a monitor system, then listening on one's own system. I got a chance to do this once.




I've done that quite a few times. I've learned a great deal from the artists and recording engineers I've worked with.


----------



## bigshot

mike1127 said:


> A lot of use still think vinyl is superior to digital. Have you considered that making digital recordings now is a *practical* matter, not necessarily about superior sound quality?




I've recorded analogue and I've recorded digital. They're both about both practicality and sound quality. I'm not sure I understand your point.

You'll be interested to hear about another test I conducted... I captured a pristine copy of Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Collegues Vol 2 to digital and burned it to a CD. I did a direct comparison between the CD and the original vinyl.... No difference. Digital is capable of reproducing everything vinyl can. Properly engineered, it can even sound better because the distortion is significantly lower, and the dynamic range is greater. No surface noise. No inner groove distortion. No pops and clicks. Just music.


----------



## arcticears

@bigshot:  Love those early Sheffield Labs records, I have several and also have several of the matching CD's.  Both are good but it is more about the quality of the recordings than the vinyl/CD thing.


----------



## bigshot

Exactly. Both formats are capable of great sound. Digital is capable of a bit better than vinyl.


----------



## arcticears

A bit better, or do you mean a byte better?


----------



## jcx

a byte better would be the difference between 72 dB and 120 dB - only a few Audio ADC can manage


----------



## arcticears

Thanks JCX, that is a bit more, pun intended.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Bass generally has a very long decay. The attack exists several octaves up from the bass note fundamental. I think he's making it up. Bass imbalances are easily measurable as frequency response.


 
   
  Interesting point but I don't have a background in music production/recording, only music playback so to me the ability to fix bass balance in an audio mix by boosting a particular frequency is mostly irrelevant.  If there is a problem with the bass response it is either due to the digital side of my system or the analog side, I am running orthodynamic headphones so impedance matching is not important, only the capabilities of my amplifier to drive a low impedance, low efficiency headphone.  I can EQ in a lot of bass but that wont fix a hypothetical problem with my gear.


----------



## knucklehead

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> Well, I'm talking about how one comes to know things about audio, and I think that the knowledge one gains is most useful by experiencing the whole chain; being present for the recording and listening on a monitor system, then listening on one's own system. I got a chance to do this once. I'm saying that's probably the most useful and secure way of learning what you are doing and what patterns to listen for. Everything else is a guess, although this guessing must be done (usually) when putting one's playback system together.


 
  mike - Just in case you're not aware of it, you're delivering a "Turn on, tune in, drop out" message in what is supposed to be a science forum. Nothing wrong with you experiencing things with whatever approach you find the most enjoyable, be it "holistic" or whatever -- but if you want to discuss it here, you should be willing to try to apply a bit of reductionism to what you are talking about.


----------



## JadeEast

What's the appropriate level of reductionism for discussion here?


----------



## knucklehead

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> What's the appropriate level of reductionism for discussion here?


 
  Good question. I don't know the answer.
   
  This isn't actually a science forum. It seems more a forum about sound science.
   
  The other non-science forums have a ban on DBT discussions, so it would seem appropriate to think discussions here in the science forum should at least make some effort to apply a bit of reductionism to their subject.
   
  I do think mike's "new paradigm" should be a separate thread, and folks could discuss what it may, or may not, have to do with with science.


----------



## bigshot

drez said:


> I can EQ in a lot of bass but that wont fix a hypothetical problem with my gear.




I don't know about hypothetical problems, but if your gear is producing weak bass, a correction to the EQ curve will totally fix it. Equalization is the second most important setting on your stereo, right after the volume control. If you don't EQ, it's very likely that you aren't getting the most out of your equipment. This is more true for speakers than headphones, but even headphones can benefit from EQ.


----------



## bigshot

knucklehead said:


> The other non-science forums have a ban on DBT discussions, so it would seem appropriate to think discussions here in the science forum should at least make some effort to apply a bit of reductionism to their subject.




I kinda thought that we were being given the opportunity to answer the question posed in the thread title for ourselves.


----------



## knucklehead

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I kinda thought that we were being given the opportunity to answer the question posed in the thread title for ourselves.


 
  How many posts here have strictly been about the question posed in the thread title? And if they're not based on science ... why bother calling this a science forum? 
  By the way - I consider this an interesting -- if rambling -- thread, and I appreciate your posts and informed pragmatic approach.


----------



## bigshot

I live a rambling life!


----------



## JadeEast

I do think that sometimes thread drift can bring out interesting ideas, and while I don't necessarily agree with Mike's vision I do think that there is something about the music/sound and the subjective/objective divisions worth exploring- maybe this thread isn't the place. As far as the censoring of DBT as a model to follow for this sub-forum, I disagree. Limiting modes of argumentation and subject matter can make an echo chamber. If that's the expected group norm I'll follow, but I think it unnecessarily weakens the scope of discussions.


----------



## bigshot

Personally, I think banning the discussion of controlled listening tests from the other forums renders them completely useless. What good is talking about sound quality without talking about hearing? I haven't participated in any of the other forums since that wrong-headed rule was put in place.

I would hope that even the most illogical magical thinking would be fair game to post here. It can only lead to more folks changing the way they think for the better. In a classical music forum I participate in, a fella posted and just about everything he had to say.was audiophool nonsense. After about five exchanged posts and some links, he did a complete turnaround and started offering things he had learned in the research the discussion had inspired him to make.


----------



## knucklehead

Yikes! I'm certainly not promoting censorship as a model to follow.
  Just whatever ideas might be brought up here should be considered in the light of how do they fit in with current scientific understanding -- or if they clash with that, how could they be examined in a way that might possibly add to current scientific understanding. I think that would have to involve reductionism.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





knucklehead said:


> mike - Just in case you're not aware of it, you're delivering a "Turn on, tune in, drop out" message in what is supposed to be a science forum. Nothing wrong with you experiencing things with whatever approach you find the most enjoyable, be it "holistic" or whatever -- but if you want to discuss it here, you should be willing to try to apply a bit of reductionism to what you are talking about.


 
  There's no reason that the brain's pattern recognition can't be investigated by scientists. I know I said that ultimately listening must be employed to determine accuracy, but I should clarify that by saying that listening means using the brain's pattern recognition. What is observed by listening can be investigated. But there is another side to what I am saying, which is that using science to investigate audio has its limitations. To the extent I discuss the limitations of science, I'm still talking about sound science. I'm presenting a challenge to it. Seems to me it belongs on this forum.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





knucklehead said:


> mike - Just in case you're not aware of it, you're delivering a "Turn on, tune in, drop out" message in what is supposed to be a science forum. Nothing wrong with you experiencing things with whatever approach you find the most enjoyable, be it "holistic" or whatever -- but if you want to discuss it here, you should be willing to try to apply a bit of reductionism to what you are talking about.


 
  By way, where do you get the "drop out" part? what does "drop out" mean anyway? I don't I'm saying anything like that.


----------



## knucklehead

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> By way, where do you get the "drop out" part? what does "drop out" mean anyway? I don't I'm saying anything like that.


 
  Tim Leary
   
  You must be young ....


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





knucklehead said:


> Tim Leary
> 
> You must be young ....


 
  Okay, I'm an infant. What does "drop out" mean?


----------



## bigshot

It's hippie schiit... "Like WOW, man! Check out that chick's Karma!"


----------



## Eee Pee

Not Karma, it's about the aura.  The cool colors that a person gives off, man. 
   
  You must not have ever done drugs.


----------



## knucklehead

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> There's no reason that the brain's pattern recognition can't be investigated by scientists. I know I said that ultimately listening must be employed to determine accuracy, but I should clarify that by saying that listening means using the brain's pattern recognition. What is observed by listening can be investigated. But there is another side to what I am saying, which is that using science to investigate audio has its limitations. To the extent I discuss the limitations of science, I'm still talking about sound science. I'm presenting a challenge to it. Seems to me it belongs on this forum.


 
  I'm pretty sure that the brains pattern recognition ability has been, and continues to be investigated. I also think that it is already recognized by pretty much everyone that people have varying levels of ability to notice patterns in sound:
   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qXM0nZq0RA
   
  I also question your categorical dismissal of scientists and engineers as being blind to these patterns that you're talking about --- none of them study or play music seriously? ... or have even talked to or studied serious musicians before???
   
  I agree that if you have a special ability that it should be studied so that it might advance our understanding. There is also the possibility that the study might wind up showing that what you perceive as a special ability might be a misinterpretation on your part.


----------



## JadeEast

Dropping out, I think, referred to a conscious choosing of an alternate way of living life different from what may have been expected by society.
  * eta- I'm not sure how the phrase was used as a criticism earlier.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





knucklehead said:


> I'm pretty sure that the brains pattern recognition ability has been, and continues to be investigated. I also think that it is already recognized by pretty much everyone that people have varying levels of ability to notice patterns in sound:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qXM0nZq0RA
> 
> ...


 
  It's not "level of ability" -- different people have *different patterns* they respond to.
   
  I'm responding primarily to the scientists on this forum or those here on this forum who present the science orthodoxy
   
  For instance when I discuss "Pace, rhythm, and timing" I get people who simply dismiss it (Ethan Winer) or numerous people who resist my attempt to describe it. Yet it's almost universally recognized by the "audiophools" I hang out with and universally recognized by the musicians I hang with (although they would speak more of quality of rhythm).
   
  What can I say? Something so universal among musicians is received here with resistance or  misunderstanding. What do you want me to say?


----------



## rroseperry

mike1127 said:


> It's not "level of ability" -- different people have *different patterns* they respond to.
> 
> I'm responding primarily to the scientists on this forum or those here on this forum who present the science orthodoxy
> 
> ...




I'm not a musician, but if you're talking about pace, rhythm, and timing wrt to a performance, it makes perfect sense. But if you're talking about equipment, it's mysticism, unless you can show how it's perceives or show how it can be measured.


----------



## bigshot

Your problem is that you insist on using vocabulary that may have some meaning to you, but has very little meaning to anyone else. If you made an effort to understand how sound works, and learned the vocabulary used to describe different aspects of sound, you would probably get a better reaction from people.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> I'm not a musician, but if you're talking about pace, rhythm, and timing wrt to a performance, it makes perfect sense. But if you're talking about equipment, it's mysticism, unless you can show how it's perceives or show how it can be measured.


 
  It can't be measured until a scientist takes it seriously enough to work on it. My point that it is not taken seriously here on this forum has just been partially confirmed.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Your problem is that you insist on using vocabulary that may have some meaning to you, but has very little meaning to anyone else. If you made an effort to understand how sound works, and learned the vocabulary used to describe different aspects of sound, you would probably get a better reaction from people.


 
  It has lots of meaning to the people I hang with. My point again is partially confirmed.


----------



## rroseperry

mike1127 said:


> It can't be measured until a scientist takes it seriously enough to work on it. My point that it is not taken seriously here on this forum has just been partially confirmed.




I did say I took it seriously in a particular context, just to be clear here.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> I did say I took it seriously in a particular context, just to be clear here.


 
  What is generally dismissed on this forum is the idea that an audio system can change the quality of a performance. Yet this is obvious stuff among the people I hang with.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> What is generally dismissed on this forum is the idea that an audio system can change the quality of a performance. Yet this is obvious stuff among the people I hang with.


 
  Can you point out a system that's so bad that it changes the quality of a performance? Would my iPhone and stock earbuds be bad enough?


----------



## bigshot

Poor sound can certainly mar the enjoyment of a performance by not presenting it well. But the performance is still the performance.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Personally, I think banning the discussion of controlled listening tests from the other forums renders them completely useless. What good is talking about sound quality without talking about hearing? I haven't participated in any of the other forums since that wrong-headed rule was put in place.
> I would hope that even the most illogical magical thinking would be fair game to post here. It can only lead to more folks changing the way they think for the better. In a classical music forum I participate in, a fella posted and just about everything he had to say.was audiophool nonsense. After about five exchanged posts and some links, he did a complete turnaround and started offering things he had learned in the research the discussion had inspired him to make.


 
   
  The controlled listening test discussion had (and still do have) a tendency to sink into personal attacks, name calling, etc.
  The rule was added in an attempt to keep discussion on a civil level.
  IMOH the Science forum seems to be a place where subjectivists are fair game for ripping to shreds, i.e. magical, illogical thinking is forbidden.


----------



## mike1127

Any audio system changes the quality of the performance to some degree. Just listen to it. Obvious among the people I hang with. Show me one scientist who perceives that, and then there is some hope that it would be investigated. Otherwise it's not going to be investigated. This confirms one of my beliefs which is that even people who go by measurements at some level are going by their ears. When their way of hearing, when the specific patterns they recognize, are described well by standard measurements, then they believe measurements are useful. But other people hear other patterns. It's not "golden" ears, just different ears.


----------



## knucklehead

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> Dropping out, I think, referred to a conscious choosing of an alternate way of living life different from what may have been expected by society.
> * eta- I'm not sure how the phrase was used as a criticism earlier.


 
  I've been stuck looking at YouTube Leary clips trying to get a simple answer for him, and I wound up getting reacquainted with Gretchen Fetchin The Slime Queen ...
   
  Yeah, it was presented as a positive choice - reject conformity and authority -- think for yourself!


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





chris j said:


> The controlled listening test discussion had (and still do have) a tendency to sink into personal attacks, name calling, etc.


 
  It had something to do with the meltdown a junior representative of a high end cable company had in the cable forum, I believe. Bad for business to have the objectivists mixing with the customers.


----------



## jcx

a group "consensus" can be far from "reality"
   
  Witchcraft, Satan Worship, Magic were "Real" enough in Renaissance Europe to cause torture, execution of tens of thousands with legal trials, with rules of evidence, eyewitness testimony, judges
   
   
  a quick scan through GearSlutz or other recording forums, blogs will suggest there are many recording "engineers" with uneven,  poor, outright wrong understanding of the technology they use
   
  they are much more interested in getting a project done than in Scientific Understanding - simple heuristics, word of mouth, reputed "quality" let them get the job done in finite time - but that the process produces pleasing commercial product doesn't "prove" that every production, mastering participant's opinions, decisions have Scientifically valid basis
   
  fortunately today, in audio debates neither side is allowed to burn the other at the stake


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





jcx said:


> a group "consensus" can be far from "reality"
> 
> Witchcraft, Satan Worship, Magic were "Real" enough in Renaissance Europe to cause torture, execution of tens of thousands with legal trials, with rules of evidence, eyewitness testimony, judges
> 
> ...


 
  I don't know if you are responding to me, but I'll say

 I agree with you
 It's totally irrelevant to anything I've said


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> When their way of hearing, when the specific patterns they recognize, are described well by standard measurements, then they believe measurements are useful. But other people hear other patterns. It's not "golden" ears, just different ears.


 
   
  Ok, lemme try this out.
  Step 1 : I use a set A of measurements to design a system. I confirm that the system performs as I designed it. I know how this set A translates to audible differences. So yes, I go by my ears *because* I know what made that difference.
  Step 2 : If you can describe those *other patterns*, they can be added to this set A, and repeat Step 1.
   
  In a few iterations, I'm pretty sure you'll have an awesome system.
  The only trouble is this. No one knows what these *other patters* are. Is it inside your head? Is it being caused by the shape of your ears (maybe??). Is it because of your listening ability (or disability ?). Its like asking a group of art enthusiasts to describe a painting. They'll all have something different to say.
  Most of the times I think its just these external variables, not some new patterns that've not been discovered yet.
  The fact that a system performs differently under different external conditions is a well known fact, and needs to be considered in its design. Yes, it can be made resilient to these variabilities, but only to a well defined extent.


----------



## rroseperry

mike1127 said:


> Any audio system changes the quality of the performance to some degree. Just listen to it. Obvious among the people I hang with. Show me one scientist who perceives that, and then there is some hope that it would be investigated. Otherwise it's not going to be investigated. This confirms one of my beliefs which is that even people who go by measurements at some level are going by their ears. When their way of hearing, when the specific patterns they recognize, are described well by standard measurements, then they believe measurements are useful. But other people hear other patterns. It's not "golden" ears, just different ears.




No, what a scientist would need to investigate this is a reasonable hypothesis for the differences in perception, based in the physical differences in equipment and the variations among listeners. It wouldn't depend or her or him actually hearing the difference personally.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

And what this board needs to do is read the synopsis of "the Emperor's New Clothes" at Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> And what this board needs to do is read the synopsis of "the Emperor's New Clothes" at Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes


 
   
  Most head-fi'ers should do so. The objectivists know that tale of old.


----------



## mike1127

A scientist doesn't literally need to perceive the nuances of rhythmic quality in order to work on the problem of measuring it, but it would certainly help.
   
  Here's how I look at the problem.
   
  What is rhythmic quality and where does it come from? Let's talk live music, let's talk what musicians do. A musician interested in Mozart probably has no trouble sensing the nuances of rhythmic quality that apply to Mozart's music (typically of Mozart is the need to differentiate phrases but using a different quality). Musicians are doing subtle things with varying time and dynamics. These things can vary on a micro level or a macro level. Also involved, possibly, is variation in timbre. When multiple instruments are playing, they may be doing slightly different things.
   
  But can a musician describe exactly what they are doing in terms that can be measured? Probably not. However, I know of one guy who has investigated this. (There are probably more.) He is Manfred Clynes and he wrote software to try to imitate musicians. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Clynes. His software puts in variations in tempo and dynamics, on both micro and macro scales using a kind of fractal structure.
   
  I am not 100% impressed with Clynes' work. I think he oversimplifies it, and he's in a hurry to claim a revolutionary discovery. But anyway it suggests lines of future investigation.
   
  Now consider the distortions in audio reproduction introduced by microphones and speakers. Mike positioning also changes the sound.
   
  I hear these changes/distortions as messing with the rhythmic quality, and so do many people. The same way my brain perceives rhythmic quality in live music, the same pattern-recognition circuits, get involved in evaluating reproduced sound. Seems to me factors like group delay, tonal balance, direct-to-reflected-sound ratio, and transient compression could affect perceived rhythmic quality.
   
  So how do we go about measuring rhythmic quality? It almost certainly will be a multi-dimensional measurement (more than one number). We start by making some guesses what it involves. Start with measuring variations in time and dynamics. Say we perform a bit of music in ten ways, X1, X2, .. X10. Using their brain, we have someone group these by similarity. Maybe X1, X3, X8 are similar. X2,X4 are similar. Etc.
   
  Then we look for a multi-dimensional measurement that, in essence, groups X1 through X10 in a similar way. If we hear X1, X3, etc as similar, and the measurement gives close sets of numbers for each of those, then we are onto something.
   
  We might have to proceed more slowly, looking for one dimension at a time.
   
  Now I predict someone is going to tell me that audio systems can't change tempo or introduce subtle timing variations. Folks, it's about how it is *perceived*. A system can certainly obscure or overemphasize transients. Group delay could smear a transient. The perception of rhythmic quality is essentially a perception of a pattern across a bunch of transients. If you obscure or overemphasize a few of those, you change how they are perceived.
   
  I'm not saying that a system can make a piece sound like a faster tempo. But it can affect whether that tempo makes musical sense.


----------



## knucklehead

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> It's not "level of ability" -- different people have *different patterns* they respond to.
> 
> I'm responding primarily to the scientists on this forum or those here on this forum who present the science orthodoxy
> 
> ...


 
  FWIW, I suspect that a big part of the problem you are having here is that you are tying up your own theories about your perceptions up with your perceptions themselves.
   
  If you feel you are perceiving what you are calling these "different patterns" in some instances of playback (which is what I was trying to get a solid answer from you before), then they can be studied. 
  Forget about naming them, and forget about theorizing about them for now ---  if in controlled blind testing conditions, you can reliably point and grunt yes or no to when you actually hear them or not, then the situation can be analyzed by scientific method.


----------



## JadeEast

I have a hunch that in a way you're trying to approach a phenomenological experience through reductionism (although you've been accused of not being reductionist enough.) I think it may be a dead end.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> I have a hunch that in a way you're trying to approach a phenomenological experience through reductionism (although you've been accused of not being reductionist enough.) I think it may be a dead end.


 
  I love it! Philosophy! When it comes to composing or performing a piece of music, I don't want to use measurements-- it's about perception all the way.
   
  That doesn't stop music theorists from analyzing things ex post facto. Whether they are analyzing the notes written in the score (what the composer does), or measuring tiny variations in rhythmic performance, lots of folks do that.
   
  A guy named David Cope is working on software that generates tonal compositions:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/music_box/2010/05/ill_be_bach.html
   
  This doesn't interest me a whole lot because, again, it's all about perception. But a *lot* can be analyzed.


----------



## bigshot

I've said this twice in this thread already, but I'll say it again. Mike's "rhythmic quality" is related to dynamics and the frequency balance around the attack of the rhythmic instruments. Digital audio is locked to speed, so it isn't speed fluctuations.

Compression applied in the mixing stage and attenuated frequency response around the range of the attack of the instrument would dull the rhythmic quality of music. Since we can't do anything about compression, the logical culpret is frequency response.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





knucklehead said:


> FWIW, I suspect that a big part of the problem you are having here is that you are tying up your own theories about your perceptions up with your perceptions themselves.


 

 If I understand, this is a good point. The mechanism underlying the perception may be quite surprising and we need to be open.
   
  I'm just giving examples of where to start. And where other people have done work. Manfred Clynes does great work, although, as I said, I think he's too much in a hurry to call the problem "solved."


----------



## bigshot

I watched a monkey at the zoo sit in the corner of his cage and quietly shock mothers of small children once.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Compression applied in the mixing stage and attenuated frequency response around the range of the attack of the instrument would dull the rhythmic quality of music. Since we can't do anything about compression, the logical culpret is frequency response.


 
  It seems like you are not thinking about the whole system. We can do something about compression, and we can experiment with its relation to rhythmic quality.
   
  Quote: 





> I've said this twice in this thread already, but I'll say it again. Mike's "rhythmic quality" is related to dynamics and the frequency balance around the attack of the rhythmic instruments.


 
  And you know this how? Don't you think we need to get some data before drawing conclusions?
   
  EDIT: maybe this will help. What we need is a measurement that will group examples of rhythmic quality by similarity. Declaring it is dynamics and frequency balance helps us how?


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I watched a monkey at the zoo sit in the corner of his cage and quietly shock mothers of small children once.


 
  Did you avert your eyes?


----------



## bigshot

The monkey was lost in a world of his own- it was as if no one else was there.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I've said this twice in this thread already, but I'll say it again. Mike's "rhythmic quality" is related to dynamics and the frequency balance around the attack of the rhythmic instruments. Digital audio is locked to speed, so it isn't speed fluctuations.
> Compression applied in the mixing stage and attenuated frequency response around the range of the attack of the instrument would dull the rhythmic quality of music. Since we can't do anything about compression, the logical culpret is frequency response.


 
   
  In my experience phase distortion (from computer latency/jitter) in unbuffered digital transport/DAC setups can significantly affect the rhythmic qualities of the music playback, at least in my experience with the [asynchronous] JKSPDIF USB to SPDIF converter.  My experience is not so black and white with analog components, other than when using balanced amplifiers in single ended mode, which as I understand it halves the corner frequency and has a noticeable influence on the transient response, and also with my HE-6 headphone being driven by different amplifiers where some simply headphone amplifiers can't deliver adequate bass drive/impact, but neither of these last two examples has anything much to do with cables (unless the cable has excessive reactive impedace eg. because it is shielded and fairly long, or [possibly] has significant [read: excessive] imbalance between capacitance and inductance (eg. widely spaced conductors, too many conductors etc.)


----------



## bigshot

You've got no sense of scale there. Rhythm in music is to jitter as an ant is to the planet Jupiter. In the grand scheme of things, a picosecond and a half a second are light years apart.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You've got no sense of scale there. Rhythm in music is to jitter as an ant is to the planet Jupiter. In the grand scheme of things, a picosecond and a half a second are light years apart.


 
   
  I didn't use back of envelope calculations to hear the differences, and also latency variations in a Windows computer can typically be around 15 us under normal conditions.  As for cabling reactive impedance and [same] amplifier single ended/balanced differences again I do not have the magnitude differences in front of me to discuss them, and I do not have the proper equipment to level match between setups, so you may take those observations with a grain of salt.  The digital side of things is much easier to DBT though as level matching is not necessary, and may well just be pointing to how poor a fairly standard windows computer is as a music server, and the necessity for a hardware buffer in the USB transport.


----------



## bigshot

Simple solution... Get a Mac!


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You've got no sense of scale there. Rhythm in music is to jitter as an ant is to the planet Jupiter. In the grand scheme of things, a picosecond and a half a second are light years apart.


 
  Just being picky, but you've got the analogy reversed.
   
  Anyway, my interest in rhythmic quality can be investigated quite well with various microphones and speakers... no need to get into controversial subjects about the audibility of jitter or whatever. I would want to pick a digital source and DAC that makes everyone happy but otherwise leave it fixed during the experiments.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

OK, I'll bite.  What are these various "microphones and speakers?"  Don't be coy.  You've no problem with spamming the board with your "theories,"  why do you suddenly get shy when people ask you what the wonderful gear is that your training and sixth sense have allowed you to pick out?


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> OK, I'll bite.  What are these various "microphones and speakers?"  Don't be coy.  You've no problem with spamming the board with your "theories,"  why do you suddenly get shy when people ask you what the wonderful gear is that your training and sixth sense have allowed you to pick out?


 
  dude, you are very edgy and hostile.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

And you still aren't answering the question.  What are these wonderful "microphones and speakers?"


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> And you still aren't answering the question.  What are these wonderful "microphones and speakers?"


 
  I'll answer questions by people who've made an effort to understand. that includes all the people who are challenging me such as BigShot and knucklehead. but not you.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> I'll answer questions by people who've made an effort to understand. that includes all the people who are challenging me such as BigShot and knucklehead. but not you.


 

 LOL!!!  That's it?  That's the sum of your response?  You meet a skeptic and suddenly you're tongue tied?   Sheesh, I should post more often! 
   
  I had no idea the truth was such a delicate commodity.  Indeed, I thought the truth was something people would want to shout from the rooftops. Not in the wacky world of mike1127!  There the truth is a mewling little worm that must be sheltered from the sunlight and kept in its little fertilizer lined box.
   
  You have babbled in this forum for weeks.  I ask you now, straight out, what's the point of your ramblings?  How are we, the uneducated denizens of the Sound Science forum to make use of them?  I am literally all ears.   What practical advice can you give us?


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> LOL!!!  That's it?  That's the sum of your response?  You meet a skeptic and suddenly you're tongue tied?   Sheesh, I should post more often!
> 
> I had no idea the truth was such a delicate commodity.  Indeed, I thought the truth was something people would want to shout from the rooftops. Not in the wacky world of mike1127!  There the truth is a mewling little worm that must be sheltered from the sunlight and kept in its little fertilizer lined box.
> 
> You have babbled in this forum for weeks.  I ask you now, straight out, what's the point of your ramblings?  How are we, the uneducated denizens of the Sound Science forum to make use of them?  I am literally all ears.   What practical advice can you give us?


 
  Now you've got me LOL. Maybe someday it will dawn on you what a hostile person you are and why someone might not be interested in having a discussion with you.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

And still you won't answer the question.  What use can the board at large make of your "philosophy?"  I know you don't like me, but why be so niggardly to the other members of the Sound Science forum?
   
  Mike1127, when it comes to debating, I'm a pushover.  All I ask is a coherent, cogent argument that actually comes to a point.  Give me one of those and I'll respond with respect and the best points I can muster.
   
  On the other hand, behave like a "stand up philosopher" and you'll earn my scorn. 
   
  You can dismiss my complaints all you want.  It doesn't mean your postings are any less of a shining example of "stand up philosophizing."


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





knucklehead said:


> Regardless of his theory, I haven't been able to make out if he's talking about something he thinks he's actually heard, or something he thinks it might be possible to hear.


 
  I should have answered this. Yes, I've heard fantastic equipment. And I've talked to some of the designers. They evaluate equipment in a way like I describe, as far as I can tell. I should make no secret of the fact that I think DACs and amps matter a whole lot, even though the "orthodoxy" here is that they don't matter once they measure close to perfect. You can read my discussions of those on other threads. But I also think speakers, microphones, and acoustics matter a whole lot, so we can discuss those.
   
  The idea that you use the same neural circuits to evaluate a recording as you use to listen to a live performance -- this idea is foreign to the Sound Science board, but it's common sense among the people I hang with.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> I should have answered this. Yes, I've heard fantastic equipment. And I've talked to some of the designers. They evaluate equipment in a way like I describe, as far as I can tell. I should make no secret of the fact that I think DACs and amps matter a whole lot, even though the "orthodoxy" here is that they don't matter once they measure close to perfect. You can read my discussions of those on other threads. But I also think speakers, microphones, and acoustics matter a whole lot, so we can discuss those.


 
  And yet you never do.  At least not in Sound Science. 
   
  Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> The idea that you use the same neural circuits to evaluate a recording as you use to listen to a live performance -- this idea is foreign to the Sound Science board, but it's common sense among the people I hang with.


 
  Yet you keep posting in the Sound Science board!  Why not take your neural circuits and go hang out with the people who think they are common sense?  Or any kind of sense, for that matter?


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> And yet you never do [discuss speakers].  At least not in Sound Science.


 
  In fact I mentioned a measurement which is most commonly associated with speakers and suggested it's a good place to explore how distortions affect rhythmic quality. Now go learn enough to find where I mentioned it.


----------



## bigshot

Eventually, all the moms had dragged their kids away from the cage. It was just me and the monkey. I wondered if scientists had ever studied monkey rhythm.


----------



## rroseperry

bigshot said:


> Eventually, all the moms had dragged their kids away from the cage. It was just me and the monkey. I wondered if scientists had ever studied monkey rhythm.




All the time


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





mike1127 said:


> I should have answered this. Yes, I've heard fantastic equipment. *And I've talked to some of the designers. They evaluate equipment in a way like I describe, as far as I can tell.* I should make no secret of the fact that I think DACs and amps matter a whole lot, even though the "orthodoxy" here is that they don't matter once they measure close to perfect. You can read my discussions of those on other threads. But I also think speakers, microphones, and acoustics matter a whole lot, so we can discuss those.
> 
> The idea that you use the same neural circuits to evaluate a recording as you use to listen to a live performance -- this idea is foreign to the Sound Science board, but it's common sense among the people I hang with.


 
   
  I find this hard to believe. Electrical engineers who design and build audio electronics do not worry about this abstract rhythmic philosophy. They design the unit using hard math and measurements. It's the marketing/public side of things which feed all the ethereal nonsense to the so called audiophiles.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





ojneg said:


> I find this hard to believe. Electrical engineers who design and build audio electronics do not worry about this abstract rhythmic philosophy. They design the unit using hard math and measurements. It's the marketing/public side of things which feed all the ethereal nonsense to the so called audiophiles.


 
  As a blanket statement, this is false. I don't know where you get this.


----------



## JadeEast

Mike do you know anyone who does design with the pattern recognition/rhythmic method? Or are you saying that listening is based on this pattern recognition and if anyone "uses their ears" to design they are using this method?


----------



## liamstrain

I think we are conflating design, with evaluation. Though honestly, without robust measurements in the evaluation stage as well as listening tests, making design changes in response would be a lot of guesswork.


----------



## bigshot

There's two different types of thinking that go into a mix or recording session.... Technical thinking, where the engineer sets up his equipment and systems to reproduce the sound faithfully; and creative thinking, which involves the nuances of performance and balancing the various elements. Usually, the former is taken care of before the session, and is put into action at the session itself by the recording engineer. The latter is implemented by the performers and A&R man or producer. Everybody has their own specific job to do. Ideally, you don't want to be worrying too much about technical aspects while you're recording. It has to run like a well oiled machine, because time is money.

When we sit down and play a CD on our stereo, we hopefully have already worked out the technical issues, so we can focus on the performance and not be distracted by the mechanics. We aren't performing a creative act ourselves, we're simply consumers of creativity. It's an entirely different sort of process than recording. When we listen to music, we just have to enjoy it as a complete finished process.

All this talk about microphones and recording philiosophy may be interesting to some people, but it's completely irrelevant to being a consumer of music. All we as passive consumers care about is if we are getting an accurate reproduction of the package that the performers and producers have put together for us.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> Mike do you know anyone who does design with the pattern recognition/rhythmic method? Or are you saying that listening is based on this pattern recognition and if anyone "uses their ears" to design they are using this method?


 
  Any evaluation by listening is pattern recognition. Quality of rhythm is just one example of a pattern that many people listen for. The reason I am putting it in such abstract terms ("pattern recognition") is that I'm trying to emphasize that different people listen for different patterns. Someone might say PRaT is nonsense; but it's just another pattern. If someone says that PRaT is nonsense then they probably haven't trained themselves to hear it. I'm sure they hear other patterns.
   
  So, yes, I'm talking about using listening as part of the design process. But more specifically, I'm talking about someone who sees live music and recorded music as closely related things that can be evaluated with the same pattern-recognition. Also, I'm talking about the way that evaluating accuracy is ultimately a matter of listening, not measurements. See my post a few pages back where I listed about 12 bullet points.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I think we are conflating design, with evaluation. Though honestly, without robust measurements in the evaluation stage as well as listening tests, making design changes in response would be a lot of guesswork.


 
  I didn't agree with your statement until you added the edit. There's no step in design that isn't accompanied by evaluation -- even without using listening. Every choice, right down to choosing a resistor value, in some way incorporates an evaluation.


----------



## mike1127

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> All this talk about microphones and recording philiosophy may be interesting to some people, but it's completely irrelevant to being a consumer of music. All we as passive consumers care about is if we are getting an accurate reproduction of the package that the performers and producers have put together for us.


 
  This is more or less true, although evaluation by listening (i.e. "pattern recognition") applies to choosing playback equipment too (non-controversially to speakers or headphones and room acoustics). If you can detect a pattern, then it becomes part of your evaluation process.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> Every choice, right down to choosing a resistor value, in some way incorporates an evaluation.


 
   
  With the caveat, that often that evaluation is simply the voltage requirements of a circuit, evaluated via schematic and voltage tests. And so the word "evaluation" should be used cautiously, to avoid confusion (and unnecessary equivocation). Not all choices incorporate listening tests...


----------



## Sonic Defender

Quote: 





wakibaki said:


> Trust your instincts and reasoning.
> 
> If people are writing unsupportable (in evidence terms) stuff about cables, the chances are very high that the rest of what they write is unsupportable (worthless).
> 
> ...


 
   
  That seems like a very broad stroke your painting with my friend. While I understand what you are trying to say, and I certainly agree in part with you, in my opinion your are generalizing. What does curry taste like? Describe it for me. Did you use words like spicy, hot, tasty? What do you mean, what does spicy taste like? Describing what we hear, or experience to another is very challenging, we all live in perception isolation from each other. There is not a single human being alive today, or ever has there been, who can experience what another person experiences. Still, we have constructed elaborate rituals and languages in an attempt to bridge this divide. When a reviewer says fatiguing, I understand what they mean because I have a frame of reference that fills in the blanks for me. Others may not have this same frame, but they can certainly work toward interpreting what a person reviewing a headphone means when they say the sound was fatiguing. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it works well enough. Would you not accept somebody telling you Sarah is a very nice person, you'll like her. That description is quite vague and subjective, but in context it is full of meaning, not to mention you can seek clarification can't you?
   
  Imagine how dull reviews of equipment would be if all the reviewers were allowed to do was talk about the frequency here, the voltage swing there, endless technical jargon. For some that would be wonderful, but for others it would be a barrier and not provide them any useful information. You may discount the efforts of others who communicate in a style you consider fluff, but that in and of itself does not make your assertion correct. I have read many reviews here at head-fi, taken from them what I could and then purchased the equipment in question. Most of the time these vague and frilly descriptions had substance and my subjective experience of the equipment could find ties into how others attempted to relate their experiences through words. I'm sure you don't think it is easy to review audio experiences. Try this, describe for us your mothers voice without any vague descriptors, use only technically valid language. This should be easy shouldn't it? You have heard your mothers voice all of your life, surely it should be easy to describe. Like most reviewers, you won't have access to the diagnostic equipment required to construct a technical description of your mothers voice, just as most of us only have our ears, our subjective experience, and a language at our disposal. The fact that people bother and try to share in the face of such daunting challenges I applaud. I know I try to review equipment and I find it very difficult, but I will try, and I will try to be more precise and understandable with each new effort. That is the best I can hope for.


----------



## bigshot

Actually the sense of taste is much more definable than sound. The tongue has been mapped with a limited number of tastes... Sweet, salty, bitter, etc. tastes can be described in those ways, but some people still resort to flowery meaningless words to describe it. Go figure!


----------



## Pingupenguins

I'm not sure this is right on CURRENT topic, but here is my two cents.
   
  I think cables are important in the way that they feel and look (Aesthetics and Ergonomics). So I wouldn't mark off every single aftermarket cables. I also think that aftermarket cables are generally built better, because you've got someone who is dedicated to a cable, and not really thinking about the entire picture (Specialization of labor). Even Sennheiser sends it's Hd800 cable to be manufactured by another company (not sure about the current state, but it's what I saw a while back), to Sennheiser specs, but the other company undoubtedly had SOME input since they specialize in cables.
   
  I don't think that SQ is going to change from cable to cable (same elements), and I like how a .00009% improvement on purity (OFC vs. UP-OCC) equates to fundamentally better sound.
   
  It's all in your head. I think its the mind trying to justify what we just spent hard earned cash on. I know, I have a cMoy BB and it really doesn't sound much different from stock headphone out, but I remember when I first bought it I thought it just made everything better. Smoother tone, fuller sound, all those lovely poetic words. Now I use it to amp up phones that don't drive well directly from my ipod.
   
  Just my two cents...


----------



## kickassdude

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Actually the sense of taste is much more definable than sound. The tongue has been mapped with a limited number of tastes... Sweet, salty, bitter, etc. tastes can be described in those ways, but some people still resort to flowery meaningless words to describe it. Go figure!


 
  Because you also taste with your sense of smell.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





pingupenguins said:


> I'm not sure this is right on CURRENT topic, but here is my two cents.
> 
> I think cables are important in the way that they feel and look (Aesthetics and Ergonomics). So I wouldn't mark off every single aftermarket cables. I also think that aftermarket cables are generally built better, because you've got someone who is dedicated to a cable, and not really thinking about the entire picture (Specialization of labor). Even Sennheiser sends it's Hd800 cable to be manufactured by another company (not sure about the current state, but it's what I saw a while back), to Sennheiser specs, but the other company undoubtedly had SOME input since they specialize in cables.
> 
> ...


 
   
  At least OCC copper has durability advantages
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  As you say though the magnitude of differences is so infinitesimally small that and claims about metallurgy affecting sound are very unlikely.


----------



## Pingupenguins

Quote: 





drez said:


> At least OCC copper has durability advantages
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Sorry, was that sarcastic or serious? Durability advantages? How so?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:  





> Sorry, was that sarcastic or serious? Durability advantages? How so?


 
   
  You took the words right out of my mouth.
   
  se


----------



## drez

Closest I could find to a study of OCC copper strength is this article: http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-8984/22/6/065404/
  To be honest though I am not basing my opnion on this article - the strength and durability benefits of single crystal and billet milling are used in applications such as high stress engine componenets etc.  My own limited experience working with OCC wire compared to regular copper is that OCC copper seems to be less prone to strand breakage when stripping wire etc.  If one wanted to I'm sure you could stress test some OCC and other wire of comparable gauge to see if there is any difference.  From a theory standpoint the larger crystals of OCC copper should be stronger in a similar way that diamonds are stronger than graphite.


----------



## bigshot

Bulletproof!


----------



## sunninho

I can't read all 97 pages of this thread, but I'm interested in knowing if there is a scientific or "expert" consensus on the effect of cable composition (i.e. copper, silver and all of their special variations) on the sound quality or sound signature when using custom cables with headphones.
   
  Is there even a miniscule improvement/difference or is it just not possible (electricity passing through a wire is just that, nothing more)?


----------



## Pingupenguins

Quote: 





sunninho said:


> I can't read all 97 pages of this thread, but I'm interested in knowing if there is a scientific or "expert" consensus on the effect of cable composition (i.e. copper, silver and all of their special variations) on the sound quality or sound signature when using custom cables with headphones.
> 
> Is there even a miniscule improvement/difference or is it just not possible (electricity passing through a wire is just that, nothing more)?


 

  I'm sure there are improvements, but probably not something anyone can here. Like I said, 0.00009% improvement on purity justifies fundamentally better sound? I don't think so.
   
  But take a second to think, if there was a definite answer for or against, then why would cables be such a controversy? So the answer is no one knows.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





pingupenguins said:


> But take a second to think, if there was a definite answer for or against, then why would cables be such a controversy? So the answer is no one knows.


 
   
  No. There are "controversies" around creationism versus evolution and that same argument is used by the creationists to justify it. That people do not understand science and perpetuate mythology is not a justification to say we don't know. It just means some people don't accept or understand what is known. 
   
  There are good reasons to look further at differences in construction (Resistance/Capacitance/Inductance) but not which metal, or how pure provided that they do at least conduct reasonably well (e.g. Copper/Silver/Aluminum) - there is no reason to think (neither evidence or any theory to support) that cables which measure the same R/L/C but are made of different metals, will sound any different at all.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Funny, today I served a customer of mine again who is an electrical engineer with many years of experience. Currently his company is designing electrostatic speakers here in Ottawa that he feels will be industry leaders so this man knows what he is talking about. We talked about cables and his thought was up to a sensible point cable upgrades made sense, in terms of proper gauge of wire, capacitance and basic build quality. He said with absolute certainty there can be no possible sonic difference that can actually be measured for all these wild claims, and there should be no difference based on copper versus silver. He attends all of the audio trade shows and is an audiophile so his knowledge in this area is quite high. I can see spending a few hundred dollars, but beyond that, can't imagine there is a difference. I guess for some they have so much money that even the most remote chance at any sonic improvement is worth it. Each to their own as they say.


----------



## Pingupenguins

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> No. There are "controversies" around creationism versus evolution and that same argument is used by the creationists to justify it. That people do not understand science and perpetuate mythology is not a justification to say we don't know. It just means some people don't accept or understand what is known.


 
   
   
  "*Controversy* is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion"
   
  I believe this is a controversy as you stated there is no evidence for or against, only testimonials or "opinion"


----------



## bigshot

sonic defender said:


> I can see spending a few hundred dollars, but beyond that, can't imagine there is a difference. I guess for some they have so much money that even the most remote chance at any sonic improvement is worth it. Each to their own as they say.




You didn't ask the right question. When he was talking about gauge, capacitance and build quality, he was probably talking about a ten dollar cable, not a two hundred dollar one.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You didn't ask the right question. When he was talking about gauge, capacitance and build quality, he was probably talking about a ten dollar cable, not a two hundred dollar one.


 
   
  I guess whatever it takes to purchase a cable with RCL ideal specs and length.  I guess for an analog interconnect if metallurgy is not important a Belden coaxial cable of suitable length should be hard to fault, but then another cable might have better dielectric material, an unshielded design etc which may have different electrical properties - lower inductance, capacitance, shorter length etc. which may or may not matter depending on the equipment being used.  Could also be more durable, ergonomic or aesthetically pleasing as well.  Silver wire in clear dielectric may not be worth the price in performance alone, but it can look pretty sweet in a headphone cable if you like a little bling.  Personally I would rather direct money toward furniture but for the flaneur among us headphones/earphones are a credibly fashion accessory.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





pingupenguins said:


> there is no evidence for or against, only testimonials or "opinion"




   
  On the question of if the metal makes a difference - there is plenty of evidence (blind testing and measurement data) and scientific theory against (both electrical theory, and psychoacoustics) - the only opinions and testimonials without evidence to the positive, are coming from you (broadly, the subjectivists).
   
  If there is a _controversy_, it is because you do not understand or accept the evidence that does exist, not because there is no evidence. That is to say, there is no true controversy. Just as there is no true controversy about climate change or evolution - regardless of the opinion of creationists, etc.


----------



## drez

The analogy with creationist evolution and Darwinian model is only valid in that one model complies with current research and the other does not, in my opinion though the fields of modern biology and sound science are not directly comparable specifically in the scope and depth of research.  Resistance (against frequency) Capacitance and inductance along with other properties are important factors in the design of an electrical circuit and can have demonstrable influences over sound quality - the main scientifically based theses against the audibility of cables is that these values are not high enough in most standard cable designs and applications to warrant further consideration.  
   
  In other words in theory cables can have influence over the sound reproduction, but the magnitude of the differences are too small to be verified by scientific testing.  This is a valid proposition given current body of research, which incidently is far from what I would consider worthy of the value of exhaustion or completion which it appears is being attributed to it in your argument.  Let's face it sound science is not curing cancer - there simply isn't much public interest or money to be made in putting a handful of audiophile snake oil outfits out of business.  The scientific body of knowledge behind Darwinian evolution is hardly comparable to that of sound science.
   
  The controversy comes in because _so many_ people hear unmistakable differences between cables which are beyond that which they consider to be the a margin of doubt.  If 80% of the population started seeing ghosts, yes that would be a controversy.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





drez said:


> In other words in theory cables can have influence over the sound reproduction, but the magnitude of the differences are too small to be verified by scientific testing.


 
   
  I do not disagree (and indeed in some circumstance, there measurements can verify the differences, especially regarding high inductance) - I've been corrected, and seen new research to corroborate. What we are specifically discussing is whether the METAL chosen (silver versus copper, for instance) makes one whit of difference if the other mechanical and electrical properties (RLC) remain equal. 
   
  This, there is no theory or measurement, or other evidence to support - and plenty in support of the negative.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> The controversy comes in because _so many_ people hear unmistakable differences between cables which are beyond that which they consider to be the a margin of doubt.


 
   
   
  Except that they only hear them when they make no attempt to correct for bias. When they do, most of those differences vanish without a trace - which makes me think most people don't understand what the "margin of doubt" needs to include in order to be a valid tool.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





drez said:


> The controversy comes in because _so many_ people hear unmistakable differences between cables which are beyond that which they consider to be the a margin of doubt.  If 80% of the population started seeing ghosts, yes that would be a controversy.


 
   
  If you went to say, an NAACP convention, where probably better than 90% of those in attendance would be black, would you assume that 90% of the population was black?
   
  Of course not.
   
  So now why would you attempt to equate a number of people who hang out on audio forums purporting to hear unmistakable differences between cables with 80% of the general population purporting seeing ghosts?
   
  se


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





drez said:


> The controversy comes in because _so many_ people hear unmistakable differences between cables which are beyond that which they consider to be the a margin of doubt.


 
  The controversy persists because we appear to experience a shared world through the phenomenon of perception, and that perception is a primary experience. Anyone will tell you that the straws in the photo only look broken but isn't really broken. Yet, despite the knowledge light refraction and an understanding of the fallibility of our perception, we can't get around the primary experience of seeing it as broken.


----------



## Pingupenguins

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> The controversy persists because we appear to experience a shared world through the phenomenon of perception, and that perception is a primary experience. Anyone will tell you that the straws in the photo only look broken but isn't really broken. Yet, despite the knowledge light refraction and an understanding of the fallibility of our perception, we can't get around the primary experience of seeing it as broken.


 
   
  Nice. Anyway, the bottom line is, to the person who asked what the consensus was, is it's a controversy yet to be settled. I'm not exactly sure what liamstrain is so fervently believing this doesn't rate on the controversy scale even though its been argued for decades.


----------



## bigshot

It would rise to the level of controversy if there was a shred of actual evidence to indicate that cables have a sound. Sales pitch and subjective impressions don't count. Someone has to prove they can consistently hear a difference. No one has been able to do that yet. They've all tried and failed.

It's to the salesmen's interests to keep people guessing. Expensive cables are the biggest profit center in most audio businesses. They have a vesed interest to keep the waters murky.

By the way, what does BTG Audio specialize in?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Sales pitch and objective impressions don't count.


 
   
  Don't you mean subjective impressions?
   
  se


----------



## bigshot

Brainphart! Thanks


----------



## Pingupenguins

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It would rise to the level of controversy if there was a shred of actual evidence to indicate that cables have a sound. Sales pitch and subjective impressions don't count. Someone has to prove they can consistently hear a difference. No one has been able to do that yet. They've all tried and failed.
> It's to the salesmen's interests to keep people guessing. Expensive cables are the biggest profit center in most audio businesses. They have a vesed interest to keep the waters murky.
> By the way, what does BTG Audio specialize in?


 
   
   
  TBH, I don't see that in the dictionary definition at all. It's any dispute protracted over a long period of time.
   
  Also, I'm not sure why so many people call gay marriage a controversial issue then if there's no scientific "facts" as to why gays should have equal rights. Sure the constitution protects religion and freedom, but it works for both sides and is therefore null and void. It's a matter of popular opinion, no "evidence" as you put it.
   
  Was that a hit at me? Or are you genuinely interested in what I do. Either way, I'm not allowed to comment on my business, and this isn't a thread for personal arguments. If you wish to discuss this further, then send me and email and I'll gladly show you the road...


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





pingupenguins said:


> Nice. Anyway, the bottom line is, to the person who asked what the consensus was, is it's a controversy yet to be settled. I'm not exactly sure what liamstrain is so fervently believing this doesn't rate on the controversy scale even though its been argued for decades.


 
   
  Simple.
   
  Those who take measurements, use testable and falsifiable methods, understand metallurgy, understand electronics and electrical engineering, and science in general, do not think which metal is used in the cable makes a difference provided that the RLC remains equivalent - and have both solid theory built on observation and inference, and objective test results to back up that position. 
   
  Those who sell cables, read forums and magazine reviews (and sales materials), and do 'tests' where they do not control for bias or use any objective methods whatsoever, think they do. 
   
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> I'm not exactly sure what liamstrain is so fervently believing this doesn't rate on the controversy scale even though its been argued for decades.


 
   
   
  That the "controversy" has persisted for a long time, doesn't make it a real controversy. Again. See creationism - not really a controversy, despite its millennia long history. You can believe what you want to believe, but you cannot pretend the two viewpoints are on anything resembling equal footing, or "just opinions no facts." That may accurately represent your side of the issue... but not mine.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Simple.
> 
> Those who take measurements, use testable and falsifiable methods, understand metallurgy, understand electronics and electrical engineering, and science in general, do not think which metal is used in the cable makes a difference - and have both solid theory built on observation and inference, and objective test results to back up that position.
> 
> ...


 
   
  I agree with this - *my theory* is that people do hear differences - but the are hearing differences caused by resistance, capacitance, inductance etc (possibly cognitive bias) and not metallurgy.  Ideally though this should not be happening as no cable should have a "sound" to it.
   
  Currently I have two 24 AWG HE-6 cables which I *think* sound different and in theory should have pretty similar resistance (not considering any other forms of loss to do with cable/wire construction) - if one was willing to overlook objective level matching I *think* I would be able to discern them in a blind test.  But as you say sighted differences have a habit of disappearing in blind tests.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> That the "controversy" has persisted for a long time, doesn't make it a real controversy. Again. See creationism - not really a controversy, despite its millennia long history. You can believe what you want to believe, but you cannot pretend the two viewpoints are on anything resembling equal footing, or "just opinions no facts." That may accurately represent your side of the issue... but not mine.


 
  Nowhere I've seen does the term "controversy" mean arguments are on equal footing.


----------



## bigshot

Throwing up smoke to prevent a self evident conclusion from being inevitably reached doesn't qualify as a controversy. I would call that a self serving fallacy.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> Nowhere I've seen does the term "controversy" mean arguments are on equal footing.


 
   
  No, but that is what Piper is stating with his "there is no consensus or facts, both sides just have opinion" statement.
   
  Going by rigorous definitions *any* public dispute could be named a controversy - regardless of merit. One loud guy shouting "The earth is flat! That's how it looks!" Technically is creating a controversy. But from a usage standpoint, the word takes on other baggage - typically that both sides can be argued in good faith as legitimate positions without clear consensus. And that is not really the case here. At least not when you are asking about consensus from those who know the subject versus those who do not. In that case, as with the man shouting about the flat earth, it is what I would consider a false controversy. One generated without legitimate reason.


----------



## drez

Put it this way I have no personal interest in throwing up smoke - If someone wants to believe that they can predict what they can and cannot hear based on extrapolation from prior research I don't mind.  I also don't mind insistance on objectively veritable testing as evidence in the sound science forum.  Personally I find insistence on the exclusive validity of one's own point of view (without acknowledging limitations in scope or accuracy) to be self serving if anything is...


----------



## liamstrain

That's not unreasonable, Drez. Always recognizing that new evidence and uncertainty are a factor. But we also shouldn't say that because we cannot say with 100% certainty about an issue (and indeed, in science, we cannot really on ANY issue), that we should ignore the 99% certainty we do have, and recognize that the 1% of possibility is a reasonable position to take, barring supporting evidence.


----------



## Pingupenguins

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> No, but that is what Piper is stating with his "there is no consensus or facts, both sides just have opinion" statement.
> 
> Going by rigorous definitions *any* public dispute could be named a controversy - regardless of merit. One loud guy shouting "The earth is flat! That's how it looks!" Technically is creating a controversy.


 
   
   
  Going by what you just said, you need to read a dictionary, or at least google the word. But telling by the lack of recognition from my blatant copying of the dictionary definition of the word, it looks as if I may have to post it a second time.
   
  "*Controversy* is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion"
   
  Operative word being "prolonged" like this argument you started. Another key word is "opinion".
   
   
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> But from a usage standpoint, the word takes on other baggage - typically that both sides can be argued in good faith as legitimate positions without clear consensus. And that is not really the case here. At least not when you are asking about consensus from those who know the subject versus those who do not. In that case, as with the man shouting about the flat earth, it is what I would consider a false controversy. One generated without legitimate reason.


 
   
  Are you saying Drez'z point of view in believing to tell differences between his stock and rectangular Up-OCC cable is not legitimate? I may not support his point of view, but I am not going to force it down his throat whether or not he is wrong. I will simply put my opinion on the matter on the table and let those pick and choose if they accept my opinion or not. Perhaps offer constructive criticism.
   
  I came here to share ideas and understand what the arguments for and against cable were. Just like I would read the bible to gain a bit of knowledge as to why so many devote their life to a religion, even though I'm not religious.
   
  I did not come here to argue semantics.


----------



## Magick Man

pingupenguins said:


> Going by what you just said, you need to read a dictionary, or at least google the word. But telling by the lack of recognition from my blatant copying of the dictionary definition of the word, it looks as if I may have to post it a second time.
> 
> "*Controversy* is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion"
> 
> Operative word being "prolonged" like this argument you started. Another key word is "opinion".




Some opinions have more merit than others, no matter how prolonged a debate has raged on. My uncle is an Evangelical pastor who believes that the Earth is a little over 6,000 years old and that God literally created the universe in 6 days. He's family, and I love the guy, but... umm...

Anyway, I don't put him down, but I will always have semi-heated discussions with him during the holidays. It's just so much fun.


----------



## Magick Man

*double post*


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





pingupenguins said:


> Another key word is "opinion".


 
   
   
  And I have conceded you are offering opinion for your side... my side is offering tests, measurements, and good scientific theory. Not opinion. Which is why I do not think this is a true controversy. But as you say, this is semantics. I believe the issue on whether a metal has a sonic signature and affects the sound is a reasonably (consensus) settled matter. The preponderance of evidence and theory strongly suggests it does not. Barring good evidence to the contrary, this is not opinion, but a factual conclusion drawn from scientific inquiry.
   
   
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> Are you saying Drez'z point of view in believing to tell differences between his stock and rectangular Up-OCC cable is not legitimate?
> 
> I came here to share ideas and understand what the arguments for and against cable were. Just like I would read the bible to gain a bit of knowledge as to why so many devote their life to a religion, even though I'm not religious.


 
   
   
  No. There may well be differences in his cable, but it seems clear that the metal used, is not responsible for them - but rather differences in RLC, if indeed there are any. And without blind testing, or some other objective measure, it is hard to say that Drez did actually hear differences caused by the cable, rather than psycho-acoustic functions. I am not comfortable saying one way or the other whether his belief is supported by fact, since we have none. What we do have, however, makes me skeptical of the claim.  
   
  Understanding is good. But in the sound science sub-forum, you need evidence, or at least solid theoretical footing and logic to defend statements. Not opinions. Sharing and understanding is great, but don't expect us to abandon science. The truth matters. This is not a theology discussion where things cannot be falsified or tested meaningfully so all opinions must be evaluated fairly - audible claims are by their nature testable and can be evaluated using objective means. Not just feel good conversations about biased and uncontrolled "hearing impressions."


----------



## zorin

I will deal with the annoying and internet clogging story of  ' the quality cables vs the coat hangers' test. On the internet "the audio professionals" and "the audio engineers" are mentioned with the reference to the test. First, how reliable are the views of the sound studio professionals if, as some say, they did the test or repeated it later. 
  The quality of the sense of hearing is not the same for everybody. There are various degrees of the ability and of the talent not only to make musical sound or music but also to hear it. The ability to properly hear belongs also to the realm of talent. Being a "sound engineer" and working in a recording studio does not guarantee the ability to hear properly, to distinguish and to evaluate the sound. Quite the opposite. Witness the sonic trash, that is the low audio quality of the many, some would say the majority, of the compact discs that audio professionals has been making up to now. Many of the sound engineers in the studios rely on the visual cues and information instead of the aural ones. In other words, for their recording decisions they rely on the visual information from the screens and from the display panels of the sound studio technical equipment and not on their hearing ability. Indeed many of them are not capable of that. Many years in the studio is many years of the loud noise through the headphones and the resulting inner ear damage. This damage shows itself in the reduced ability to hear the higher frequencies properly, in the reduced ability to properly separate the frequencies and to hear the pitch and the tonal differences. My view is that an average audio professional is on the same level in his 'audio' ability and judgement as an average well self taught 'audiophile' amateur of some years of experience and dedication to his/her[a bit less so] hobby. There is therefore no need to emphasize, in order to push an argument, the fact that 'a professional' says this or that on this or that subject.
  Take the " the coat hanger test" with a spoon of salt. The "audio professionals" in the "high quality speaker cables" vs. the coat hangers audio test were [to quote his words] : "First of all, I’m a new (61 year old) kid on this block who has been involved in hi-fi for over 45 years” and his 'in the autumn of their lives' pensioner 'baby boomer' buddies. "...has been involved in hi-fi for over 45 years" in this case can simply mean that for all these years he has been listening to his loud home stereo system. Some 5 decades of 'rock' music blasting their ears must have done the work of damage to their sense of hearing. Aside from them, there are many that are in their 20s of their lives and whose hearing is so damaged by the 'over-cranked' volume through headphones that their damaged hearing is on the level of hearing of 80 or 90 years old people. This is the 1st variable in the test in question and most importantly it was not tested and treated as a parameter of the test itself. Myself, I would have first properly tested the ability to simply hear of all of this merry group of 'experts'. The 2nd variable in the test is the age of the 'audio experts'. With the advancing age the ability to hear declines. 60 + years old baby boomers plus the decades of numbing noise prefered, generally, by the loud generation of the 1960's and the 1970's with the resulting inner ear damage equals the sense of hearing on the level of those that are 80 to 90 years old. The age related hearing ability and 'the track record' of their aural health were the second variable in the test. Again, untested and not regarded as a parameter in the test. The 3d variable is the source of the signal / the current. Was it some 'el cheapo' hi-fi component or was it some decent machine capable of generating and processing a signal of good quality ? There does not seem to be any information on this component of the test. The 4th variable are the speakers. Not a word on them either, at least I did not find any. The 5th variable are 'the wires' themselves. "The top quality" audio cables that were used were the "Monster cable/s". I am not familiar with this product but somebody described them as coat hanger wires with shielding. This judgement might seem to be a bit harsh but maybe not so because nothing is known about the 6th variable in the test, the infamous coat hangers themselves. Were they made from steel ? Were they the ones with the annealed steel core wrapped in an annealed copper or were they made from the solid annealed copper ? If the 'Monster cables' are made simply from the annealed copper, as many cables are, then the notion that these cables are simply glorified coat hanger wires is not far from the truth. In this case the buddies doing the test shot themselves in their drunken feet because they tested coat hangers against coat hangers. Here we come to the interesting variable in this test. The author of the report on the experiment first cites "5 buddies" doing the experiment. As the test progresses the number then grows to "12 buddies". Was there a drinking party and "buddies" were arriving, one by one, and imbibing ? Were there alcoholic drinks fuelling the testing activity and how many of them ? How reliable are the human senses, in this case the audiophile standard of hearing, when they are not in the 'sharp' mode but are 'relaxed' instead ? Who supervised the test to ensure the proper testing procedure and standards ? Who gave them alcohol breathalyser test ?
This test was a joke, yet now it lives a life of fame on the internet. It has acquired the status of an urban legend - "The Audio Professionals test the High End Audiophile Cables against the Humble Coat Hangers". This hi-fi urban legend is on the level of the tale of an alligator that lives in the sewers of New York and devours, for the nourishment, some unfortunate city of New York sanitation employees that wander into its hunting grounds underneath the paved roads and streets of the city. 
The veracity of the now famous test lies on the bottom of a bottle. 
Anybody for repeating, with proper and technical supervision, the test ?


----------



## bigshot

You might want to look into how various audio cables work and do a few controlled tests of your own instead of getting hung up on hangers. What you'll find out will surprise you and perhaps even make the coat hanger story more believable to you.

It's more important to know the truth of the matter than it is to simply try to discredit. Whether or not someone is 60, the specific qualifications of people described as "professionals", what someone told you about Monster Cables, the "low quality" of many CDs and many of your other points don't do anything to address the core issue... They only throw up smoke regarding one particular test.

The fact is, a properly constructed cable of any price sounds just like any other. If you're interested in the truth, do your own tests and keep focused on determining that. I've already done considerable research and testing into this subject. I know the answer. But feel free to find out for yourself.


----------



## JadeEast

I thought the coat hanger test was suspicious when I read it the first time based the length of wire supposedly produced. 
   


> We also rigged up 14 gauge, oxygen free Belden stranded copper wire with a simple PVC jacket. Both were 2 meters long. They were connected to an ABX switch box allowing blind fold testing. Volume levels were set at 75 Db at 1000K Hz. A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass). None of us had heard this group or CD before, therefore eliminating biases. The music was played. Of the 5 blind folded, only 2 guessed correctly which was the monster cable. (I was not one of them). This was done 7 times in a row! Keeping us blind folded, my brother switched out the Belden wire (are you ready for this) with simple coat hanger wire! Unknown to me and our 12 audiophile buddies, prior to the ABX blind test, he took apart four coat hangers, reconnectd them and twisted them into a pair of speaker cables.


 
  Original test cables were 2 meters, but were replaced by 4 coat hangers. There isn't more than 100cm in a coat hanger and for a "pair of speaker cables" would mean that the length would be limited to 1 meter aside. It could be an interpretation error on my part, but it stood out to me when I read the report.


----------



## 7keys

I just bought a silver cable for my Magnums, at the very least it will help the resale value of my headphones.


----------



## bigshot

Strapping ingots of 24kt gold to the headband is a better investment.


----------



## bigshot

jadeeast said:


> Original test cables were 2 meters, but were replaced by 4 coat hangers. There isn't more than 100cm in a coat hanger and for a "pair of speaker cables" would mean that the length would be limited to 1 meter aside.




The difference between 1 meter and 2 meters makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Unless you're planning on putting your stereo at opposite ends of your 5 bedroom house, you don't have any reason to worry about the length.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Strapping ingots of 24 carat gold...

All that weight insures they cannot blow away. Great selling point, as worth the money as any audio claim.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The difference between 1 meter and 2 meters makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Unless you're planning on putting your stereo at opposite ends of your 5 bedroom house, you don't have any reason to worry about the length.


 
  Agreed, but this is a particular case and my suspicion was raised about the test because of the claim of making a 2 meter stereo pair out of 4 coat hangers. Nothing to do with the plausibility of the cables sounding great, just that the numbers didn't add up as described in the post. Honestly, I'd love for it to be a rock solid test and was disappointed that it wasn't documented better. 
   
  http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html


----------



## bigshot

Why would anyone worry about the testing methodology behind using coathangers as audio cables? The fact that they work at all is the point.


----------



## JadeEast

Because I would have loved to have the test be well documented and bullet proof as a solid example of how little cable performance effects performance; however, I try not to accept things as true just because I like the conclusion.
   
  I care about the argument and it's validity, and I care about the way people make claims and arguments. For me, it would be disingenuous to dismiss the error I saw in the report just because I- personally -like the conclusion.
   
  This particular test has come up many times online and I see a big flashing red neon sign saying, "somethings not quite right." I'm not going to ignore it or dismiss it with a wave of a hand. I care because I see a big hole in something I would like to be able to point to and say, "there's your proof dude" but I can't- there's a big flashing neon sign sitting on top of the anecdote.


----------



## bigshot

There are lots of rigorous tests comparing high end cables to Radio Shack. Ultimately that's a lot more relevant than how well coat hnagers perform. The fact that a reasonably good signal came through at all tells you what you need to know about that.


----------



## eucariote

It happened again..  While reading about sonic comparisons of two very expensive headphones to help me with a purchase decision, the very well-respected and prolific head-fi author makes an aside about how silver cables provide more fluid mids and highs.  Ag.


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





eucariote said:


> It happened again..  While reading about sonic comparisons of two very expensive headphones to help me with a purchase decision, the very well-respected and prolific head-fi author makes an aside about how silver cables provide more fluid mids and highs.  Ag.


 
  Your profile pic makes me think of the Angel episode "Smile Time"; silver cables make me think of anti-werewolf conspiracy (it makes more sense than "more fluid mids"); and you end your post with a pun nerdy enough for Willow Rosenberg. This seems to much for coincidence - maybe we should all be buying anti-werewolf garrottes?


----------



## NA Blur

There are definitely differences in audio cables, but can we hear these differences?  The test should be easy enough.
   
  Tyll Hertsens over at InnerFidelity.com is working on something regarding cables so keep your ears open.
   
  As for measurements these tests can also be done.  Many cables I see in the market have claims, but the only measurements I have seen that make sense are the instantaneous current draw curves.  Different cables differ by up to 50 microseconds, but I have no idea whether I would hear that or not.  The simplest test is to to the cable swap yourself or record something through each cable and see if you can hear the difference in playback.  Better yet do the old inverse polarity trick and add the two together.
   
  Most gear I have tested sounds very similar especially DAC units.  I have had a few amps that sound different, but I expect that from an amp more than a DAC.  The amp controls the speaker after all and impedance becomes such an important roll at that point.
   
  There are honest people out there that say they can hear the difference which means we should be able to as well.  There is no doubt that the standard cable upgrade is one of the easiest ways to increase profit and I hear people doing it at audio outlets all of the time who have no right to say it.  I usually go with a well built cable and leave it at that.  Take my PBJ RCA cables.  They cost $100 or so for an RCA cable, but to me it was worth it because I have had so many poorly made RCA cables that are noisy or have poor connectors.  Now spending more than that depends upon budget.  You can look at it another way.  If we had unlimited funds which cable would you buy knowing nothing about actual sound quality?  You would tend towards the more expensive because you assume some of that cost goes into labor and components.  In the end we all buy what we can afford and what we like.
   
  Sound quality is more of hobby for many of us and in the long run it is more about the journey than the results in the end.


----------



## ukon16

Quote: 





na blur said:


> There are definitely differences in audio cables, but can we hear these differences?  The test should be easy enough.
> 
> Tyll Hertsens over at InnerFidelity.com is working on something regarding cables so keep your ears open.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Yep, I wonder if this cable nonsense started in stores..... "that guy works for an audio store, he must be like...an audio genius or engineer!"
   
  Reminds me of the Lens protectors debate in Cameras. Stores push lens protection filters becuase of insane Profit margin.
   
  Pros and smarter amatuers point out the stupidity of putting a $25-$100 piece of glass to put over a $500-$1000+ piece of glass to "protect" it.
   
  Meanwhile, the included Lens hoods(actually improves Image quality and protection) get chucked out by amatuers who argue online about the dangers of not have lens "protection" filters.
   
_[Mod Edit: Moved the reply outside of the quote.]_


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





ukon16 said:


> Pros and smarter amatuers point out the stupidity of putting a $25-$100 piece of glass to put over a $500-$1000+ piece of glass to "protect" it.


 
   
  Not true at all. Pro's I've known have always used a UV filter. You have to understand that a $1000 len will have, oh, 9 elements. Some of them will be *very* complex grinds and they have to be held in precise alignment relative to each other. The filter otoh is just a flat piece of glass! Delivering flat pieces of glass is easy; grinding multi element aspherical fluoride lenses (although these are more like a $2000 cost I think) is hard. So it is quite possible to have a $25-ish filter that won't reduce image quality:
   
http://www.lenstip.com/113.15-article-UV_filters_test_Hoya_72_mm_HMC_UV-0.html
   
  Oh - and the protective benefit of a UV filter is not in case of severe impact, but to prevent damage to the coating and possibly microscopic scratches, so the argument that a filter is a poor shock absorber is not a good one.


----------



## drez

Lol you learn something every day. Regarding reviewers, absolutely if you find you agree with them about some components then why not take what they say about cables seriously. A lot of good reviewers wont put their neck out about cables, mostly not to have to deal with backlash from positivist minds. Best advice though is to not believe any reviews or opinions. Just because someone else hears something doesn't mean you will.

FYI this thread has been shut down soooo many times, I wonder how long it will last this time


----------



## BobJS

Quote: 





eucariote said:


> It happened again..  While reading about sonic comparisons of two very expensive headphones to help me with a purchase decision, the very well-respected and prolific head-fi author makes an aside about how silver cables provide more fluid mids and highs.  Ag.


 
   
  I assume it was no coincidence you decided to exclaim "Ag" regarding silver?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





scuttle said:


> Not true at all. Pro's I've known have always used a UV filter. You have to understand that a $1000 len will have, oh, 9 elements. Some of them will be *very* complex grinds and they have to be held in precise alignment relative to each other. The filter otoh is just a flat piece of glass! Delivering flat pieces of glass is easy; grinding multi element aspherical fluoride lenses (although these are more like a $2000 cost I think) is hard. So it is quite possible to have a $25-ish filter that won't reduce image quality:
> 
> http://www.lenstip.com/113.15-article-UV_filters_test_Hoya_72_mm_HMC_UV-0.html
> 
> Oh - and the protective benefit of a UV filter is not in case of severe impact, but to prevent damage to the coating and possibly microscopic scratches, so the argument that a filter is a poor shock absorber is not a good one.


 
   
  No pros I know (nor will I - and I'm a pro) will use a UV filter unless they are shooting in the mountains or aerially. A lens hood is better protection and doesn't induce flare the way even the best multi-coated flat pieces of glass do.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> No pros I know (nor will I - and I'm a pro) will use a UV filter unless they are shooting in the mountains or aerially. A lens hood is better protection and doesn't induce flare the way even the best multi-coated flat pieces of glass do.


 
  I know pros who use the filter and pros that don't.  Mostly it's situational.  If the physical size of a hood is a problem and they don't want to fiddle with a cap the filter is a good compromise if protection is needed.  Otherwise, there is a small optical advantage to using not filter.  Small, and again, situational.  
   
  Here's the thing.  For non-pro shooters a lens is an investment, not a tool or piece of business equipment.  It's probably not insured, or underinsured.  Sometimes increasing the physical protection at the very slight, often immeasurable, loss of image quality is a way if avoiding a very expensive repair.  A pro, on the other hand, should have an annual equipment budget that covers wear, repair, and replacement as part of his business model.  He's being paid for his work, so make no compromises would be important.  
   
  Or, just go filter-less, and take the damage as an upgrade opportunity.


----------



## liamstrain

heh. No arguments. I shoot in a lot of adverse location lighting for some of my work. Flare is a huge problem in those conditions, so I made a choice in that direction. And yes, it is a budget item, and things routinely go in for service, etc., so it is a bit rough to compare a pro to an amateur from an equipment and expectation standpoint. Good points.


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> heh. No arguments. I shoot in a lot of adverse location lighting for some of my work. Flare is a huge problem in those conditions, so I made a choice in that direction. And yes, it is a budget item, and things routinely go in for service, etc., so it is a bit rough to compare a pro to an amateur from an equipment and expectation standpoint. Good points.


 
   
  It might be worth looking at that link: the better UV filters shouldn't add noticeably to flare. But the real answer to flare of course  is a lens hood - but I don't think I've seen amateur use one since the switch to digital; they're in danger of becoming the subject of a "Lost Secrets Of The Ancients" type thing...


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





bobjs said:


> I assume it was no coincidence you decided to exclaim "Ag" regarding silver?


 
   






 He He.


----------



## bigshot

I use a clear filter as a lens cap. When I shoot on the street, I keep my camera in a plain side bag because I want to be inconspicuous. When I'm ready to shoot, I scoop the camera out of the bag, shoot quick and put it back. It helps to not have to take the lens cap off every time, but I don't want the front element to get all beat up from bouncing around in the bag.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I use a clear filter as a lens cap. When I shoot on the street, I keep my camera in a plain side bag because I want to be inconspicuous. When I'm ready to shoot, I scoop the camera out of the bag, shoot quick and put it back. It helps to not have to take the lens cap off every time, but I don't want the front element to get all beat up from bouncing around in the bag.


 
  Huh.  And I thought lomography was in...you know, that dirty, scratchy, cheap plastic lens look people are after.
   
  I've taken some of my best shots with the lens cap on.  They're a little underexposed though.
   
  I've also given up trying to be inconspicuous in my old age.  I just grab my camera out of my huge camera bag, jump right in front of people, shove my lens in their face and scream "Booga-Booga!" and shoot.  I got a great portfolio of very expressive faces juxtaposed against shots the inside of police stations.


----------



## bigshot

Ha! I'll try booga booga next time!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> I've also given up trying to be inconspicuous in my old age.  I just grab my camera out of my huge camera bag, jump right in front of people, shove my lens in their face and scream "Booga-Booga!" and shoot.  I got a great portfolio of very expressive faces juxtaposed against shots the inside of police stations.


 
   
  Bruce Gilden? Is that you? (see around 32 seconds)
   




   
  I love street photography, but damn.


----------



## jaddie

liamstrain said:


> Bruce Gilden? Is that you? (see around 32 seconds)
> 
> 
> I love street photography, but damn.




Great stuff. But he's not shocking enough. And no jail photos. If you don't get arrested you ain't tryin' hard enough.


----------



## ukon16

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Huh.  And I thought lomography was in...you know, that dirty, scratchy, cheap plastic lens look people are after.
> 
> I've taken some of my best shots with the lens cap on.  They're a little underexposed though.
> 
> I've also given up trying to be inconspicuous in my old age.  I just grab my camera out of my huge camera bag, jump right in front of people, shove my lens in their face and scream "Booga-Booga!" and shoot.  I got a great portfolio of very expressive faces juxtaposed against shots the inside of police stations.


 
   

 As a Nightlife photog, that was kinda of my job.....if you get a chance, try that on Koreans or Japanese: fun times.


----------



## Steve Eddy

*trods off to Camera-Fi in search of a good audio discussion...*
   
  se


----------



## drez

Aw it was much more interesting than most discussions on this thread...


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





drez said:


> Aw it was much more interesting than most discussions on this thread...


 
   
  I won't entirely disagree. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## leogodoy

I'd say maybe there's more than psychoacoustics. I am a journalist and have worked with several reviewers of different areas (cars, gadgets, games, movies, you name it). I am not familiar with the hi-fi press industry, but in other areas (cars, mostly) it is amazing how can some reviewers have their judgment affected by schwag and junketts. A car that would be "meh" by any rational standard becomes a "contender for a top spot in its market slice" if you take the journalist across the globe to a nice hotel in Japan before they can tour the factory and test drive the car.

Boy I hate my colleagues.


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





leogodoy said:


> I'd say maybe there's more than psychoacoustics. I am a journalist and have worked with several reviewers of different areas (cars, gadgets, games, movies, you name it). I am not familiar with the hi-fi press industry, but in other areas (cars, mostly) it is amazing how can some reviewers have their judgment affected by schwag and junketts. A car that would be "meh" by any rational standard becomes a "contender for a top spot in its market slice" if you take the journalist across the globe to a nice hotel in Japan before they can tour the factory and test drive the car.
> 
> Boy I hate my colleagues.


 
   
  Well, yes. That plus ad spending - I've known people make very direct threats to get reviews amended,"corrected" or postponed.


----------



## leogodoy

I have never faced threats from advertisers, but I have seen reporters ask if they should touch a subject because "well, you know, they are advertisers here".


----------



## leogodoy

Had a great time reading this, I think most of you will enjoy as well 
   
  http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-or-sound


----------



## xnor

I saw the article a few days and couldn't force myself reading it after spotting the first comments:
  Stop embarrassing yourself ...
  So stop wasting your time with infidels ...
  Stop the nonsense ...
   
  I finally read the article, and what can I say, the comments were spot on. What a delusional, arrogant, *********** *******.


----------



## Steve Eddy

How 'bout this instead? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   




   
  se


----------



## doublea71

"Lastly I swapped out the stock cable for the TWag2 cable (after three days using the stock cable) , here I will note I would not spend this much on a custom cable for an iem costing $300 but already had these for my JH16’s so was rude not to try them as they share the same connectors!
   
Straight away treble was really sparked with them sounding the most realistic I have heard them through the 3Ai’s all week and the cohesion between the bass to mid-range to highs was improved and decay of vocals and instruments was improved with the tinkle of ivory’s on the piano sounding more  real in the timbre of each key.  I had started to take the custom cable for granted until I went back to the stock cable for first time in a long time and is apparent good as this stock cable is it is a bottle neck restricting what the 3Ai is capable of by a fairly large margin."
   
  From recent review of Heir 3Ai iems. Bottleneck.


----------



## uchihaitachi

I remember reading somewhere that an expensive cable makes the electrons change shape and transform into more pure electrons through the wiring system. Funniest thing I have heard in a long time!


----------



## BobJS

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> I remember reading somewhere that an expensive cable makes the electrons change shape and transform into more pure electrons through the wiring system. Funniest thing I have heard in a long time!


 
  I can't stand the sound from electrons with impurities.   Simply the worst .....


----------



## doublea71

My electrons are both grass-fed and free-range AND sourced from an organic region of the Big Bang.


----------



## zorin

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> I remember reading somewhere that an expensive cable makes the electrons change shape and transform into more pure electrons through the wiring system. Funniest thing I have heard in a long time!


 
  That is a snake oil sales pitch. We do not know if electrons "change shape" because we do not know their shape in the first place. No electron has ever been directly observed.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





zorin said:


> That is a snake oil sales pitch. We do not know if electrons "change shape" because we do not know their shape in the first place. No electron has ever been directly observed.


 
  It was heavily entrenched in sarcasm....


----------



## drez

I need to unsubscribe from this subforum, audio skeptic humour is wasted on me -.-


----------



## stijn

Here's a similar dillemma: looking into Meier Audio products they looked quite nice, then I came across http://www.meier-audio.homepage.t-online.de/tipstricks.htm.. First point: break-in of drivers. So now I have no idea what to think of it. Is that stuff written by the engineers who make the amps? Is it sarcastic? Is it a way to attract believers?


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Quote: 





stijn said:


> Here's a similar dillemma: looking into Meier Audio products they looked quite nice, then I came across http://www.meier-audio.homepage.t-online.de/tipstricks.htm.. First point: break-in of drivers. So now I have no idea what to think of it. Is that stuff written by the engineers who make the amps? Is it sarcastic? Is it a way to attract believers?


 
  I thought you meant software drivers in my first read through of your post lol, that would've been something mindblowing
   
  some drivers can change with burn in but not all, more likely it is due to your ears getting used to the sound sig


----------



## Joong

Hi guys,
   
  I had long been not believer in cable, but I recently ordered a toxic cable for my He-5le.
  The inductance of the usual cable can be roughly 50 uH, when the cable is straight in usual length.
  However the cable is twisted, which can reduce the inductance that can impede higher frequency band in the context of capacitance loading if there is any.
   
  In short I was not believer of cable but of twisted cable to kill some inductance.
  But I should confess that I become a little bit believer in cable quality in general.


----------



## uchihaitachi

If you actually measured the inductance of your magical cable vs a normal one, there won't be a difference. Even if there is, it would be negligible to the point that I don't think even a bat will be able to hear the difference.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> If you actually measured the inductance of your magical cable vs a normal one, there won't be a difference. Even if there is, it would be negligible to the point that I don't think even a bat will be able to hear the difference.


 
  +1
   
  No science involved in that one.  No cable twist changes reactive parameters enough to affect anything audible.
   
  However, reducing resistance very definitely can be audible, something like changing from 18ga to 12ga over 50' or so.  Depending on the speaker load, that change could be audible.  But without much wire resistance you have to have a TON of L and C to audibly change much around an 8 ohm load with a near zero ohm source.


----------



## Joong

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> +1
> 
> No science involved in that one.  No cable twist changes reactive parameters enough to affect anything audible.
> 
> However, reducing resistance very definitely can be audible, something like changing from 18ga to 12ga over 50' or so.  Depending on the speaker load, that change could be audible.  But without much wire resistance you have to have a TON of L and C to audibly change much around an 8 ohm load with a near zero ohm source.


 
  There is science in twist due to generate magnetic dipole or multi-pole of opposite winding neighboring pairs.
  However I do not know the reduction due to more than magnetic multi-pole is enough audible amount or not.
   
  I think reactance of cable can be combined with that of driver ( especially dynamic phone) in such that the combination makes a filter to affect sound.
  Here I am very interesting in relating to the 2nd or higher order amount of electrical quantity to SQ.
  The fundamental order quantity can be easily charted and understood in terms of SQ like THD, IMD, or resistance etc.
  However even harmonics impact to SQ is questionable because it is an octave higher.
   
  I want this thread to keep going.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





joong said:


> There is science in twist due to generate magnetic dipole or multi-pole of opposite winding neighboring pairs.
> However I do not know the reduction due to more than magnetic multi-pole is enough audible amount or not.
> 
> I think reactance of cable can be combined with that of driver ( especially dynamic phone) in such that the combination makes a filter to affect sound.
> ...


 
  Yes, twisting conductors reduces inductance...but, if the cable inductance is already down quite low, making it a tiny bit lower wouldn't result in an audible change.
   
  Here are some numbers.  
   
  16ga flat wire has about .18uH per foot inductance.  
  16ga twisted wire has about .15uH per foot inductance.
   
  In order to detect an audible change we need to affect at least a .25dB change over a 1/3 octave in the mid band.  Since inductance has more effect as frequency goes up, lets look at what it might take to change 20KHz by .25dB.  Every speaker is different, but it's not unusual for impedance to be rising above 10KHz.  Many speakers end up at around 10 or 11 ohms at 20KHz.  So, just working with 10 ohms as an example, for there to be a .25dB loss we would need .29 ohms of inductive reactance at 20KHz.  That would be 2.32uH, or 12ft of flat wire, or 15ft of twisted wire.  To put it another way, 12ft of flat wire could possibly produce a .25dB loss at 20KHz while 12ft of twisted wire could possible product a .19 dB loss.  Thats a difference of .07dB.  
   
  The problem is, we can't hear a .25dB change at 20KHz!  We only have that kind of sensitivity in the mid frequencies.  So, we need a MUCH larger difference in inductance for it to produce an audible effect.  And, as you can see, just twisting the same gauge wire won't make nearly enough difference. 
   
  You can always say that a speaker with a much lower impedance at 20KHz will produce a more dramatic change.  Well, it would have to.  We can't hear .25dB difference, so we sure can't hear a .07dB difference.  If you had 10 times the wire length, we could talk about it.  Otherwise, wire twist, while reducing inductance, doesn't reduce it enough to be audible.  
   
  As a footnote, the two wire types used in the examples are manufactures data, and while they are the same conductor gauge, and differ in the fact that one is flat and the other is twisted, conductor spacing has a large effect on inductance as well.  The greater the space between conductors, the more inductance.  I found it pretty much impossible to find two wires with identical conductor spacing, but differing only in twist.  But that fact can practically be ignored, because the figure you need to concern yourself with is the inductance per foot of any wire, twisted, flat, ribbon, or coat-hanger.  That, of course, being completely secondary to DC resistance.


----------



## mat-t

truly a science. Thanks for sharing guys! loads to learn


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





joong said:


> Here I am very interesting in relating to the 2nd or higher order amount of electrical quantity to SQ.
> The fundamental order quantity can be easily charted and understood in terms of SQ like THD, IMD, or resistance etc.
> However even harmonics impact to SQ is questionable because it is an octave higher.


 
  While it's true that harmonics add character to the fundamental,  it is also true that the range of human hearing is limited to 20KHz for good hearing, as high as 24KHz for exceptional young ears before their first concert, and below 15KHz for older adults.  Hearing response is not a hard limit, but a slow roll-off in sensitivity.  When we say that a young person can hear 24KHz, that means that is the highest detectable frequency, and the level at which that frequency must be presented is much louder than it would be it it were a harmonic in music.  Though music has measurable high frequency information, it's a simple fact that it isn't audible above our own individual maximum audible frequency, and in practice, quite a bit below that.  So, the second harmonic of 20KHz is 40KHz, way out of our hearing range.  The second harmonic of 10KHz is 20KHz, which is just in our hearing range.  This means that harmonics above 10KHz add little if anything to the SQ.
   
  The argument in favor of higher bandwidth audio usually centers around some form of high bit rate audio, like 96KHz, which has a theoretical maximum usable frequency of 48KHz.  Unfortunately, the comparisons that are usually made are mostly invalid because when comparing an "original CD" and a "high rate file", we have no idea of the total audio path.  We are not simply comparing the result of higher bandwidth, we are comparing the entire audio chain that gets to the file, and the playback chain too.  Those who have had the rare opportunity to compare the same analog signal sampled simultaneously by two identical A/D converters, but run at two different rates, have shocked by how little, if any, difference there is.  
   
  The second pro high-bandwidth argument usually includes a comparison between some digital format an an analog one.  The same problem exists, though, as again you aren't comparing just the difference in the final medium, but the difference in the entire path to the final medium. 
   
  But in reality, if someone can't hear 20KHz, then he can't hear the second harmonic of 10KHz either.  Or the third harmonic, or any others.


----------



## mikeaj

Maybe I'm just misinterpreting things, but I'll just throw it out there that in some audio circles, people talk about 2nd-order and 3rd-order effects not in terms of harmonic frequencies but in a more general sense.
   
  But anyway, if we're talking about 2nd harmonics, there really aren't a lot of tones out there in music with fundamentals anywhere around 10 kHz anyway.  Ear-piercing piccolo stuff is say 2-4 kHz fundamental.  It's the more broadband sounds, and mostly weak higher harmonics, that breach 10 kHz.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Maybe I'm just misinterpreting things, but I'll just throw it out there that in some audio circles, people talk about 2nd-order and 3rd-order effects not in terms of harmonic frequencies but in a more general sense.


 
   Yes, I know.  A lot of people choose to deal with things only in the "general sense", which allows enough room to be vague and still be sort of right.
   
  Quote:


mikeaj said:


> But anyway, if we're talking about 2nd harmonics, there really aren't a lot of tones out there in music with fundamentals anywhere around 10 kHz anyway.  Ear-piercing piccolo stuff is say 2-4 kHz fundamental.  It's the more broadband sounds, and mostly weak higher harmonics, that breach 10 kHz.


 
  Percussion gets up there pretty high.  A triangle hit goes will into utrasonics.  A lot of what's heard in the top octave is transients in support of lower sounds.  That's why if you take off the octave above 10KHz things sound sort of papery and dull, but you don't have a problem identifying instruments.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *jaddie* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> So, just working with 10 ohms as an example, for there to be a .25dB loss we would need .29 ohms of inductive reactance at 20KHz.


 
   
  And even that is only true if the speaker impedance is purely inductive. If the 10 Ω impedance is 8 Ω resistance and 6 Ω serial inductance, for example, then 0.475 Ω of additional serial inductance would be needed for a 0.25 dB loss.


----------



## doublea71

You guys are speaking a language that I can't comprehend 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, but I still appreciate it and try to glean anything I can from it. On another note, a funny post that I read recently was made in which the poster said that their new mini-to-mini connector was "the best sounding and increased the clarity, tightened the bass, etc..." and this was a very short piece of cable, perhaps 10-12 cm in length. It was connected to about $2,000 worth of portable high-end gear. It struck me as a whole new level of expectation bias...


----------



## uchihaitachi

I am surprised this thread isn't closed yet. Doesn't everything here go VERY against the sponsors lol?


----------



## anetode

Sure there's an occasional raid on the ghetto, but the sponsors don't care so much about this place as compared to the headphone or cable subforums.


----------



## doublea71

hahaha raid on the ghetto lmao


----------



## Joong

Hi guys
   
  do you know that toxic cable has some trouble?
  That company is known to make a quality cable with Helix wound type to improve SQ?
  This company has a strong belief that SQ is strongly depending on what they are doing.
   
  I am not sure what they do, even though I ordered He-500 cable 3 months ago, but they still require me of great patience.
   
  I need to rethink in order to return to the solid science based on the facts on this thread.


----------



## xnor

I heard they have problems in their unicorn horn and fairy dust supply chain.
   
  On a more serious note, I wouldn't even consider buying from a site that doesn't show proper legal notice.


----------



## Joong

Alas! when I changed from the 1meter long Western electric RCA cable (40 USD) to cheap and shorter (30cm)  RCA cable, SQ noticeably improved.
  It is very obvious that the cost of the cable does not matter but the length of the cable does matter.
   
  For this experiment, the common science stands and speaks.
  In terms of impedance change, it must be negligible!!!!!


----------



## xnor

Well I agree that cost doesn't matter, nor does how fancy the cable looks. All it needs to be is well built and not excessively long.
   
  Rod Elliot measured some interconnects:
  The resistance (0.12 to 0.38 Ohm) and inductance (0.6 to 1.2 uH) "may be considered negligible at audio frequencies".
  The capacitance was the dominant influence. A single core cable had only 77 pF per meter, but even with an unrealistic output impedance of the source of 10 kOhms "this will be 3dB down at 207kHz".
   
  Line outs usually have an output impedance of a few hundred Ohm max, so even higher capacitance shouldn't matter at audio frequencies.


----------



## anetode

Quote: 





joong said:


> Alas! when I changed from the 1meter long Western electric RCA cable (40 USD) to cheap and shorter (30cm)  RCA cable, SQ noticeably improved.
> It is very obvious that the cost of the cable does not matter but the length of the cable does matter.
> 
> For this experiment, the common science stands and speaks.
> In terms of impedance change, it must be negligible!!!!!


 
   
  Next logical upgrade:


----------



## xnor

Takes a lot of force though to plug this into an RCA jack, but once it's in it holds the plug quite securely. Also, I've never heard such magical silence before.


----------



## Joong

Very informative is your statement!!!
   
  For the load side of the system of change of devices which are the power, interconnections, and cable; the impedance of output must depend on the type of headphone.
  The planar type of headphone like He-5les have lower inductance than HD650 which has motor coil in many uni-directional turns.
   
  Therefore the planar type of headphones can be less dependent than dynamic phone in terms of reactance impact on SQ.
  Because the capacitance does not impact the filter function on load-side frequency range.
   
  I need to apply the common sense level thinking to this subtlety 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





driven head-fier domain.
  In this way I need to sort out the secondary from primary effect of engineering parameters on SQ.
   
  Consequently leading to my money control for SQ pursuance.
   
  Thanks xnor


----------



## Joong

Quote: 





anetode said:


> Next logical upgrade:


 
  Thanks,
   
  I did.
  In this case I spend 30 USD for gold connector with 1 meter long from Comp to DAC.


----------



## anetode

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Takes a lot of force though to plug this into an RCA jack, but once it's in it holds the plug quite securely. Also, I've never heard such magical silence before.


 

 Apparently I've grown dyslexic.
   
  And now I give you, the Ultimate USB Cable:


----------



## Joong

In the larger scope, the filter system should include the electro- mechanical filter of my ear.
  I do not understand the information channel from my outer ears to the ear-drum, which feeds to the transducer to deliver the acoustic energy to the brain as electric energy.
   
  This part of the channel can generate some mystical dependence to the 2nd order or higher order quality.


----------



## Joong

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Takes a lot of force though to plug this into an RCA jack, but once it's in it holds the plug quite securely. Also, I've never heard such magical silence before.


 
  The resistance does strongly depends on the pressure, the area, and the depth / softness of oxidation layer.
  It is not necessarily the gold interface.
   
  I totally agree on that whenever tight engagement has been done it must be OK regardless of the cost of the cables.


----------



## xnor

anetode, a good rule of thumb is that if the interconnect cannot lift your amp it's way too flimsy.
   
  Kidding, of course.
   
   
  Joong, I don't think "the impedance of output must depend on the type of headphone", but maybe I misunderstood you. The general rule is an output impedance of 1/8th or 1/10th of the headphones' impedance, so even if your cable had 1 Ohm you'd still be fine with a 2 Ohm amp and 30+ Ohm headphones as load.


----------



## Joong

I see. thanks.


----------



## zorin

Quote: 





dnzgamer said:


> Ever since I got linked to that whole "cables" topic and read the ridiculous number of sources repeating that from basically regular listeners all the way to top audio engineers and reviewers could not distinguish cables in blind testing, I have been highly conflicted about reviews on this site.
> 
> Recently just read a review about another IEM and in it, the cables are being mentioned as enhancing the bass, helping with soundstage and imaging. Sounds like a big difference...
> 
> ...


 
 *"...audio professionals can't tell the difference between $10 cables and $1000 cables or even coat hangers* in the most extreme case..."
That assertion is a silly urban legend. This 'talk' is an interesting one - http://www.audioquest.com/pdfs/aq_cable_theory.pdf


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





zorin said:


> *"...audio professionals can't tell the difference between $10 cables and $1000 cables or even coat hangers* in the most extreme case..."
> That assertion is a silly urban legend. This 'talk' is an interesting one - http://www.audioquest.com/pdfs/aq_cable_theory.pdf


 
   
  Seems very long on words and ideas, but scant on details.  For all the talk of added distortion, potential pitfalls, etc., any reason for the complete avoidance of throwing out figures for_ how much_ distortion (in audio band) is created due to things like skin effect, dialectrics absorbing miniscule parts of the signal, and so on?  Some grasps and wishful thinking too, it seems.
   
   


> *Directionality*: All cables are directional, from hardware store electrical cable to the ﬁnest pure silver cables. All AudioQuest cables are marked for direction. With other cables it might be necessary to simply listen to the cables in one direction and then the other. The difference will be clear-in the correct direction the music is more relaxed, pleasant and believable. While cable directionality is not fully understood, it is clear that the molecular structure of drawn metal is not symmetrical, providing a physical explanation for the existence of directionality.


 
   
   


> • As for comparisons where there seem to be only “insignificant” differences between components, this is usually proof of a faulty context and/or methodology. This is most obvious in the discussion of ABX testing.
> 
> In an ABX set-up, the listener does not know whether or not there has been any equipment change at all. ABX testing is not a question of how a fixed but blind “A” compares to a fixed but blind “B”. Because there are too many unknowns, the ABX test becomes primarily an opportunity for embarrassment. Context is everything, and the ABX set-up is one very distorted context, much too far removed from the purpose of an audio system. ABX fans believe that a lack of repeatable hierarchy proves there are no valid differences. Others of us believe the same evidence proves that the ABX test is an invalid methodology.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





zorin said:


> *"...audio professionals can't tell the difference between $10 cables and $1000 cables or even coat hangers* in the most extreme case..."
> That assertion is a silly urban legend. This 'talk' is an interesting one - http://www.audioquest.com/pdfs/aq_cable_theory.pdf


 
  Interesting, yes.  But for all the claims, there are no specifics, no quantities.
   
  If a cable causes distortion of any kind, how much, how long, what parameters...nothing was offered.  
   
  The directional thing...ok, but audio is bi-directional.  Everything about that signal in the wire is going both ways all the time.
   
  But you can ignore all of the claims, because there's been no proof supplied, just a lot of verbiage. On the other hand, those that have actually conducted ABX tests on cable do seem to support the silly urban legend.


----------



## xnor

"Material Quality: It's visible. It's explainable. It's audible."
   

   
  Oh and of course they reject ABX/blind tests, or reject results that don't confirm their expectations anyway which isn't so different from rejecting blind tests altogether, if you think about it.


----------



## jaddie

Sure, we're a bunch of crotchety skeptics.  But all we really ask is, if a product or item provides a benefit, that benefit should be clearly identifiable as a difference in a double-blind test.  If not, there's reasonable doubt that it is of any benefit.


----------



## julian67

...coathangers



zorin said:


> ......
> That assertion is a silly urban legend.




It's not really an urban legend but has been referenced so many times without its origin being linked that the original 2004 description of the event gets obfuscated. It can be found at http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/general-av-discussions/2512-speakers%3B-when-good-enough-enough-3.html#post15412

It's a test that could be repeated by anyone conducting a similar blind test. Being so extreme it's quite an interesting comparison. If it could be reliably performed with the same result then that is the "I hear cables" position torpedoed and sunk with no survivors, so people who put some effort into dismissing cable theory ought to be interested. And any manufacturer or vendor who has even an atom of confidence in their products should be completely unafraid to put their product up against a coathanger.


----------



## jaddie

julian67 said:


> ... And any manufacturer or vendor who has even an atom of confidence in their products should be completely unafraid to put their product up against a coathanger.



Which is precisely why no exotic cable manufacturer has ever published that kind of test data, but rather publishes verbose and non-specific diatribes loosely based on misapplied science.

Oops, sorry, guys. Was that a bit too strong?


----------



## julian67

I'm not quite sure about calling the usual marketing stuff "diatribes" but apart from that I'm sympathetic to skepticism on the subject once it's established that a cable is of sufficient gauge/conductivity and properly insulated.

Recently I needed a new cable for my Shure IEMs. After seeing the price of the Shure product here in UK I looked at third party products. On ebay I came across http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Furutech-Shure-upgrade-cable-SE535-SE425-SE315-SE215-UE900-in-White-/251252018608?pt=UK_Home_Garden_CD_DVDStorage_SM&hash=item3a7fc98db0

From the description:



> Characteristics: Dramatically improves sound quality without altering original characteristics. Compact and Solid Mid Frequencies, Filling Mid Frequencies, Exquisite and transparent High Frequencies. Improve blurred sound.




Dramatically improves sound quality without changing it. Brilliant. Genuine magic.

I believe Furutech do make perfectly good and sensibly priced cables that don't require their vendors to transcend physics. But the vendor is in Hong Kong so the holy object would take a few weeks to arrive by non-magical surface mail and I instead bought a genuine Shure cable from a non-mystical dealer in Canada. He used plain old gravity defying airmail for a quick delivery. I do believe in aeroplanes but I worry about fly-by-wire controls using cable that fails to exceed natural laws - is it really adequate?


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> I'm not quite sure about calling the usual marketing stuff "diatribes"..





>


 
  Yes, of course.  That diatribe comment was pointed at that Audioquest paper...or whatever it was.


----------



## Happy Camper

I had this discussion with a store manager today about the issue of imaging in components, ICs, etc. and what numbers one needs to study in order to identify these traits and he was honest to say there are none. You have to hear it for yourself. The goal is to remove any influence on the sound so it can be as pure as possible. But keep in mind that even the source material is someone's creation and not a true reflection of a real life presentation. Electronic and amplified music is useless for comparing gear. The true acoustic instruments and vocals are the most representative sound to use. If you've had the fortunate experience to hear it in real life, you can get a feel of a system's capability. The vast majority don't want the accurate sound but sound biased to their personal taste. Nothing wrong with that but it's not a "true" representation. 

Science still is no more than trying to put numbers to the world around us. I know people have put a life and fortune into their careers with the world of numbers but it's still an estimation trying to explain the world around us. Way more often than not, it's wrong and has to be redefined until it finally fits and audio is no different. This guy has been in audio/video as a career and I respect his experience in having all this gear to experiment with. He said varnished transformer wire has blown him away as well as complex geometry, pure metals, insulation, etc. so if the music brings the emotion intended by the artist, that's a well implemented system. Some gear has consistent performance and can be confidently repeated in other systems. A lot of that gear is specially designed with commissioned parts designed for that purpose and not shelf parts. Audio Note and Simaudio are two that come to mind. 

At the end of the day, if the music has you engaged and is in the forefront of your attention and not the background, it works. I've experienced both with expensive and inexpensive gear, simple design and theoretically complex gear. There is an influence with everything in the chain or we'd all listen to the same cheap systems. Trying to justify otherwise is opinionated judgment of self biased views. When someone wants to throw in the abx, abc, efg bs, I'll turn them off as quickly as someone extolling the virtues of their new found cure for audio cancer. There is an in between if you're willing to learn for yourself but it takes effort. If you are lead by a forum of opinionated novices, put your money in your pocket and be glad with what you have. Audio forums attract all kinds but seem to be a soapbox for the most obnoxious and degrading types to chirp the loudest . When there are so many ignorant customers open to learning, it's natural to side with the loudest that sides with your biases. Without experiencing for yourself, shame on you for being lazy. You'll never learn and maybe you don't really want to but want validation of your biases. 

IMO of course.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> At the end of the day, if the music has you engaged and is in the forefront of your attention and not the background, it works. I've experienced both with expensive and inexpensive gear, simple design and theoretically complex gear. There is an influence with everything in the chain or we'd all listen to the same cheap systems. Trying to justify otherwise is opinionated judgment of self biased views. When someone wants to throw in the abx, abc, efg bs, I'll turn them off as quickly as someone extolling the virtues of their new found cure for audio cancer. There is an in between if you're willing to learn for yourself but it takes effort. If you are lead by a forum of opinionated novices, put your money in your pocket and be glad with what you have. Audio forums attract all kinds but seem to be a soapbox for the most obnoxious and degrading types to chirp the loudest . When there are so many ignorant customers open to learning, it's natural to side with the loudest that sides with your biases. Without experiencing for yourself, shame on you for being lazy. You'll never learn and maybe you don't really want to but want validation of your biases.
> 
> IMO of course.


 
  Didn't bother to quote the entire thing because...
   
  Hey, Happy, you've got quite an opinion there!  Seems to bunch a lot of us into a group of obnoxious and degrading types that haven't experienced "it" for ourselves, being all lazy and all.
   
  Could be the pot calling the kettle, though.  Do you have any idea of who some of us are?  What our backgrounds are?  How many years we've put into audio and the quest for perfection?  How much live music we've listened to, recorded, etc.?  How many circuits and devices we've designed, thrown out, and redesigned?  I'm not talking just about myself, there are several others that post here that have actually put their life, not just in numbers for numbers sake, but in attempting to glean a deep understanding of "why" stuff works, and "how" to make it work better and actually reliably and verifiably achieve the very goals you claim can't be defined by science.  Science is not just putting numbers on the world around us.  Science asks the question, "Why does it sound better?"  and "How can we make it sound even better?".  Science isn't just about discrediting hokum, though that does often happen in the course of searching for truth.  
   
  I take offense at your generalization, and your presumptuous categorizing anyone into your definition of scientists on the opposite side of your issues.  Really, we all have the same goal, its just that some of us would like to actually understand why something sounds better so that we can take the next step forward.  If, in doing so, we find out something else makes little or no difference, that, too, is taking a step forward.  
   
  You are up against quite a stack of volumes of research into human bias of perception, though.  And pardon us if we try to eliminate variables like that and find out what is really coming out of the speakers and headphones, and not just what someone suggested will be coming out of the speakers/headphones.  Elimination of expectation bias is critical to all scientific research.  Yes, sometimes the reality ain't that fun, but the next step forward just might be.  
   
  And, I, for one, simply hate spending what little money I have on stuff that doesn't benefit me.  I hate being fooled and lied to, even if the fooler and liar is just one more link in a long chain of liars and foolers, and knows no better.  Others are welcome to love it, of course.
   
  And I take exception to the whole "Science is Evil" thing.  You wouldn't have one bit of what you now cherish as "fine audio" without evil science.
   
  Thanks for listening, I'm off to ABX something before I go nuts.


----------



## doublea71

> Science still is no more than trying to put numbers to the world around us.


 
   
  You're right, science is nothing but numbers and cannot be applied to the world around us.


----------



## sethsez

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Science still is no more than trying to put numbers to the world around us.


 
  No, science is why you're able to hear music performed decades ago on the other side of the world with tiny things that fit in your ears while discussing the relative merits of that with strangers from all around the world in an instant.


----------



## mikeaj

You know, all the important points aside (which jaddie pretty much covered originally; no need for me to belabor the points), I'm a bit on the fence on another assertion.
   
  I've seen this opinion plenty of times, that sounds from acoustic instruments are better for doing (subjective) evaluations of audio reproduction gear:
   


> Electronic and amplified music is useless for comparing gear. The true acoustic instruments and vocals are the most representative sound to use. If you've had the fortunate experience to hear it in real life, you can get a feel of a system's capability.


 
   
   
  I wonder if familiarity with the _actual_ sound of the instruments (voices, etc.) actually isn't a hindrance?  I mean, it's introducing a different reference point.  If you want to compare gear X and Y, you might unintentionally (or intentionally) be thinking about how X and Y stack up against previous expectations and experiences, the actual sounds.  It could distract you or otherwise complicate things.  At least, personally I tend to think and reference the actual sounds, and I'm not sure if that really helps—especially if the conclusion is that, say, both don't sound all that much like the real thing in some context you've had before.
   
  That said, in practice, most synthesized / heavily processed / "electronic" / "amplified" / whatever you want kind of sounds are on recordings that are kind of lower fidelity, maybe dynamic range compressed, maybe EQed a bit funkily, etc.  So this may make subjective gear evaluation more difficult?  If so, that doesn't imply that it's the cause, just that there's the correlation.


----------



## Happy Camper

sethsez said:


> No, science is why you're able to hear music performed decades ago on the other side of the world with tiny things that fit in your ears while discussing the relative merits of that with strangers from all around the world in an instant.


Science is a language of nature and we have taken what we've learned and made life much better for ourselves. That's human creativity and ambition. Science has explained very convincingly the complex characteristics of audio. So why do we still have so much misunderstanding and no formulas answering something so simple as audio reproduction? If the simplistic view is if it makes music, there's nothing more to it, then all else is biased in other areas than the sound. But it's not that simple and the outcomes are proof that there's still ignorance because experience says there is more to it. I live in the world of science and make a living with it. That's reality as that defines the world around us. But I shake my head that in a mere 40 years, often what was taught as fact in school was in fact wrong. We learn from our mistakes and make better educated stabs at our proofs but the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't understand. If all pertinent things relating to the science of audio reproduction were compartmentized and locked away as absolute, there'd be no opportunity for us ignorant explorers to be fooled. We could rely on our science to tell us the rights and wrongs and all things would be peachy. Instead, we have our selves to learn by experience and we try to find research through science for understanding. By the constant stalemates in the discussions on who's right and who's not, it's obvious there's some truth from both sides and still no absolute understanding. So science is a great analytical tool but only part of the explanation. Human perception still has it's needs and not every formula has a correct answer.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Science is a language of nature and we have taken what we've learned and made life much better for ourselves. That's human creativity and ambition. Science has explained very convincingly the complex characteristics of audio. So why do we still have so much misunderstanding and no formulas answering something so simple as audio reproduction? If the simplistic view is if it makes music, there's nothing more to it, then all else is biased in other areas than the sound. But it's not that simple and the outcomes are proof that there's still ignorance because experience says there is more to it. I live in the world of science and make a living with it. That's reality as that defines the world around us. But I shake my head that in a mere 40 years, often what was taught as fact in school was in fact wrong. We learn from our mistakes and make better educated stabs at our proofs but the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't understand. If all pertinent things relating to the science of audio reproduction were compartmentized and locked away as absolute, there'd be no opportunity for us ignorant explorers to be fooled. We could rely on our science to tell us the rights and wrongs and all things would be peachy. Instead, we have our selves to learn by experience and we try to find research through science for understanding. By the constant stalemates in the discussions on who's right and who's not, it's obvious there's some truth from both sides and still no absolute understanding. So science is a great analytical tool but only part of the explanation. Human perception still has it's needs and not every formula has a correct answer.


 
  I can't say I disagree with most of that, except for the polarization.  I think what's being said is really pointed, not at science itself, but at some of the strong and seemingly polarized positions taken on the forums.  This part of the thread was, I think, triggered by the cable discussion. 
   
  Rather than polarize the issue, how about realizing that if something like a cable makes a significant difference, hopefully an improvement, in the final result, should that difference not be audible if taken away?  And if that's true, then shouldn't the difference be detectable even if the listener didn't know what or if something was changed?  See, that's not taking any shots at what's happening in the cable, or attempting to explain the cause of the difference, it's just trying to make certain that the difference is there.  There are no formulae involved.  All we are doing is eliminating expectation bias and seeing if the difference is real.  
   
  We have plenty of formulas explaining audio reproduction, which is not simple, by the way.  And, more formulas are being developed all the time.  In the case of audio, what's been taught in school for 40 years isn't wrong, it's incomplete.  There's a big difference there.  It's not like we were teaching the world is flat, then discovered otherwise.  Nothing about the science of audio reproduction is compartmentalized and locked away as absolute. The study of human perception is also a science, and one currently developing quickly.  For example, within the past year two studies have been published regarding human preference for a type of sound presentation. Contrary to the idea that people pick speakers they like the sound of, and it's all individual taste, the studies show that people prefer uncolored and neutral sound.  It took a long time to establish that didn't it?  But doesn't it explain a few things?  Does that mean our early "scientific" concept was wrong? Or does it show our earlier concept wasn't very scientific?  
   
  When an idea, like a special cable making an improvement, is presented as fact without test support, then it's being supported only by biased opinion, and mostly that of the company marketing the product, or those selling it.  If the improvement is real, we don't have a problem.  But what if it's not real?  How would anyone know?  Then, the support science that is presented is flawed, and indicates not that the difference is real, but that we have a lot of expectation bias at work.  And now a little logic.  If the cable difference were real, and detectable without expectation bias, wouldn't that be the best possible way to sell the product?  Wouldn't a study of a hundred listeners, all identifying the difference with even 60% accuracy be one of the best marketing tools anyone could ever have?  So why don't they publish it? It's not the cost of the study, that's nothing compared to a run of print ads.  It's not that it can't be physically done.  
   
  By extension, if such a study was done and proved 60% reliability in a statistically significant number of trials and listeners, then science could begin the task of explaining why and what's going on.  And once it was figured out, we could develop even better cables, even less expensive, etc.  As it is, without evidence, there's more scientific theory and principle to explain why there is little detectable difference than a lot.  
   
  It's a shame you place the scientific and science-minded community squarely in the black of your black and white analysis.  No real scientist is in the black, ever.  Everything is under question and scrutiny. We don't simply point a finger at something and apply 100 year old physics and say "that can't be true".  There's always the question of application, and if there's some gap in knowledge, or a blind spot to clear up.  There are some concepts in audio, though, that remain to this day in a position of "claim only", without bias-less proof.  In something as simple as a cable, the lack of claim support is alarming.  It should be there, and it's not.  One well-done test would silence all of "us" once and for all.  But it's not done. Why not?  Is it that the fault of narrow-minded scientists?  You tell me...and us.


----------



## doublea71

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
   
   Neil DeGrasse Tyson


----------



## uchihaitachi

To those of you who believe that cables do indeed make a difference. Do you see an improvement in video playback quality if you use special HDMI cables?
   
  Funny things is most people would scoff at the latter, yet fight to the bitter end for the former.


----------



## ThinkAwesome

I'm not a believer in audio cables, but unlike audio cables, an HDMI cable that works should have the exact same signal come in one side that goes out the other. It is a digital connection with an impressive amount of error correction. Either you get the signal for a picture that is 100% perfect, or you don't get a picture at all. HDMI cables making a difference is much harder to argue for than audio cables.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





thinkawesome said:


> I'm not a believer in audio cables, but unlike audio cables, an HDMI cable that works should have the exact same signal come in one side that goes out the other. It is a digital connection with an impressive amount of error correction. Either you get the signal for a picture that is 100% perfect, or you don't get a picture at all. HDMI cables making a difference is much harder to argue for than audio cables.


 
  It is an analogy rather than a direct comparison.... But science dictates that a 100% functioning HDMI cable does what it should, and the same applies for audio both for a very reasonable price.


----------



## ThinkAwesome

The same does not apply for audio. The cable affects the signal, just at a level that should be imperceptible. An HDMI connection is 100% perfect, if it isn't, no picture. An audio cable is 99.999%, while the .001 should not make a difference, it is much easier for people to believe it does.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Note the word 'analogy'. What do you mean by an audio cable is 99.9999%, this statement in itself makes no sense. Percentage of what? Purity? For all intents and purposes a functioning audio cable is 100% and that is that, even if you were a bat. And regarding your statement about HDMI, that in fact is not true:
   
It is commonly stated that all HDMI cables are created equal because it is a digital signal. While this is close to the truth when the spec is followed, it's not *always* true. The one major thing that can really destroy your signal quality is the length of the HDMI cable. It's true that HDMI signals are digital, and digital signals are 1's and 0's. The problem is that there is no such thing as a 1 or a 0 in digital electronics. It is represented in various ways. Lack/Presence of a signal, a positively magnetically charged or negatively magnetically charged medium, voltage at a certain value, etc... For instance a hard drive stores data using magnetism. The signal stored is read against an expected value range. For instance a 1 can be stored at a signal strength of 10 (while a zero is -10). A signal strength of 9.6 will also be read as 1. This is how overwritten data can be recovered. While a hard drive will read something as a definite 1 or 0. The signal strength can be used (with the help of sensitive equipment) to approximate what the previously written value was.
Here is a chart from wikipedia detailing the phenomenon:

```
[size=14px]Analog signal: +11.1 -8.9 +9.1 -11.1 +10.9 -9.1 Ideal Digital signal: +10.0 -10.0 +10.0 -10.0 +10.0 -10.0 Difference: +1.1 +1.1 -0.9 -1.1 +0.9 +0.9 Previous signal: +11 +11 -9 -11 +9 +9 [/size]
```
 How does this relate to your HDMI cable? As the length of the cable increases, not only does the signal strength decrease but so does the differentiation between each subsequent bit. If the signal quality is so bad that the machine at the other end cannot tell where one bit starts and another ends, it can guess (based on the signal strength) an incorrect value. The resulting signal is still digital, is it not? And yet it is incorrect. A poorly constructed cable’s signal degradation is affected by this problem, while high-quality cables often have active boosters. Thanks to this the signal strength stays at values that can be properly read (as a 1 and a 0) and will not blend with their neighboring bits.


----------



## chewy4

That's totally different from analog cables. It's a good analogy for digital audio cables, but not for things like headphone cables.
   
  While any competently constructed analog cable is just fine, unlike HDMI cables there can be something in between a perfect signal and no signal. It's possible to cut off some of the high frequencies for example, some cables do this intentionally. It's not an all or nothing signal.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> That's totally different from analog cables. It's a good analogy for digital audio cables, but not for things like headphone cables.
> 
> While any competently constructed analog cable is just fine, unlike HDMI cables there can be something in between a perfect signal and no signal. It's possible to cut off some of the high frequencies for example, some cables do this intentionally. It's not an all or nothing signal.


 
  My point is that, as an analogy whether the cable is analog or digital, default stock ones do what they should do with inaudible differences unless as you say there are cables intentionally designed to cut off high frequencies. Digital cables also 'degrade' in certain ways as stated above, but we are talking about minute differences same for audio cables. All I am trying to draw a parallel is that, you go out buy a HDMI cable it does the job. You go out and buy a stock cable that is not defect it does the job for audio.


----------



## julian67

uchihaitachi said:


> All I am trying to draw a parallel is that, you go out buy a HDMI cable it does the job. You go out and buy a stock cable that is not defect it does the job for audio.




That's not an analogy, it's a truism. Like "You buy coffee mug that isn't porous and it does the job for holding coffee". It doesn't inform, or explain anything that isn't self evident.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> My point is that, as an analogy whether the cable is analog or digital, default stock ones do what they should do with inaudible differences unless as you say there are cables intentionally designed to cut off high frequencies. Digital cables also 'degrade' in certain ways as stated above, but we are talking about minute differences same for audio cables. All I am trying to draw a parallel is that, you go out buy a HDMI cable it does the job. You go out and buy a stock cable that is not defect it does the job for audio.


 
  Well any degradation bad enough in a digital cable that it causes flipped bits results in blatantly obvious artifacts or dropouts since it's pretty much corrupting the image/audio data. Anyone who has used a digital antenna knows what that's like.This is unlike analog, where for example you can get a static filled image but still be able to see what it is.
   
  I do agree with your point that most stock cables do the trick regardless of whether they're digital or analog so sorry if I appear to be attacking that point, I just think the two kinds of cables are way too different to be compared.


----------



## uchihaitachi

If you read the previous posts carefully, I never compared the cables. Merely said that arguing about high end audio cables is equally ludicrous to say arguing about HDMI cables. The whole point is that they either do the job or they do not. Then a member said that signal in HDMI does not degrade so I provided him with an example where this actually happens.

The parallel I wished to illustrate was that people fighting to the bitter end about high end audio cables are like people in AV forums arguing about silver HDMI cables and how this magically improves resolution. Pointing out the fact that there is ZERO scientific basis in both camps. I hope that clears it up.


----------



## ThinkAwesome

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> If you read the previous posts carefully, I never compared the cables. Merely said that arguing about high end audio cables is equally ludicrous to say arguing about HDMI cables. The whole point is that they either do the job or they do not. Then a member said that signal in HDMI does not degrade so I provided him with an example where this actually happens.
> 
> The parallel I wished to illustrate was that people fighting to the bitter end about high end audio cables are like people in AV forums arguing about silver HDMI cables and how this magically improves resolution. Pointing out the fact that there is ZERO scientific basis in both camps.


 
  I said that HDMI is all or nothing, which it is, which is very different from audio cables. Of course the end result is the same since we can't perceive the effects that the audio cable causes anyways. 
   
  The point isn't whether they do the job or not, but how easy it is to believe that they do not do the job. A working HDMI cable gives you a literally perfect signal. The zeros and ones will be correct, and if they aren't, you will most definitely know. 
   
  It's not about scientific basis, it is about casual believability. While neither HDMI cables or audio cables really matter, it is a lot more believable for the average person that someone has golden ears that can hear the differences in cables, than it is that the zeros and ones of one HDMI cable are better than the exact same zeros and ones of another.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





thinkawesome said:


> I'm not a believer in audio cables, but unlike audio cables, an HDMI cable that works should have the exact same signal come in one side that goes out the other. It is a digital connection with an impressive amount of error correction. Either you get the signal for a picture that is 100% perfect, or you don't get a picture at all. HDMI cables making a difference is much harder to argue for than audio cables.


 
   
  If only this were true. In reality an HDMI cable has a very measurable impact on the signal, and how much damage it does depends on the cable design, and length.  The result may seem to be that it either works perfectly or it doesn't work at all, but the reality is there are a lot of in-between conditions where the connection works most of the time, but the picture blanks occasionally, or it works well with one pair of devices but not another.  
   
  The reason is that the signals carried on HDMI are very high frequency data signals that depend on signal integrity so the sink device (usually a display) can decode everything.  Turns out, the actual picture signals are pretty robust.  You won't see big differences in picture quality with different HDMI cables. But the hand-shaking signals, HDCP and EDID, are actually a bit fragile, and can take a hit with a marginal cable.  The results can be unpredictable, and the problems actually quite difficult to isolate.  And cable quality can and does make a difference.
   
  What's not true is that a good HDMI cable results in better color, image or sound, once we get past the absurd.  It's mostly a reliability and stability issue.
   
  What is true is that the cost of an HDMI cable doesn't correlate to its ability to carry signals without damage.  Cheap HDMI cables can be just fine. So can expensive ones, and vice-versa. 
   
  To compare HDMI to analog audio, we can say that the real difference is in the signals they carry.  Analog audio is very low frequency, very robust, and can be carried on cables without regard to impedance match until we try for some very long (miles) lengths.  HDMI carries signals in the RF region, where source Z, sink Z and cable Z all make a big difference and need to be matched.  Cable losses do impact the signal being carried, and need to be considered at the design phase.  The HDMI and analog audio signals are in two different worlds.  The cables they work with are completely different in design, of necessity.  The failure modes of each are very different as well, and the impact a cable can have on each is worlds apart.  
   
  Please don't equate the two, they are not comparable.


----------



## sethsez

The thing with an HDMI cable is that when it isn't working properly, it's _blatant._  With an audio cable it's easier for people to convince themselves of slight differences because it's not an all-or-nothing proposition like HDMI.
   
  WITH THAT SAID... there are people who think a better HDMI cable will give them a better, more three-dimensional picture with deeper blacks and higher contrast.  So yeah, that nonsense exists in video as well.
   
  The whole "I want my speakers to reproduce frequencies I couldn't possibly hear" thing doesn't really have a video comparison, though.  Nobody's clamoring for a TV that displays accurate ultraviolet and infrared.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





sethsez said:


> The thing with an HDMI cable is that when it isn't working properly, it's _blatant._  With an audio cable it's easier for people to convince themselves of slight differences because it's not an all-or-nothing proposition like HDMI.


 
   The point I was trying to make before is that HDMI_* isn't *_all or nothing. It can be marginal, and the insidious part is, the fact that it's marginal may remain hidden, masquerading as working perfectly under some conditions, then randomly cause a glitch, dropout, or snow-burst.  This is a very sore point for me, as I work with HDMI on a daily basis, and have situations where I can set everything up, test it all, walk away, and get called back because something randomly glitched, often due to a marginal HDMI cable that didn't manifest itself for hours, even days.  I dearly wish it was all or nothing, but it's not.  It just acts that way to goof with our heads.  No, it's not a slight degradation in the blacks or image smear, or color shift, and yes it is a rather blatant problem when it finally does happen, it's just that it might not happen when you're looking.
   
  Quote:


sethsez said:


> WITH THAT SAID... there are people who think a better HDMI cable will give them a better, more three-dimensional picture with deeper blacks and higher contrast.  So yeah, that nonsense exists in video as well.
> 
> The whole "I want my speakers to reproduce frequencies I couldn't possibly hear" thing doesn't really have a video comparison, though.  Nobody's clamoring for a TV that displays accurate ultraviolet and infrared.


 
  Agreed, those that think they see a difference, usually in a more expensive cable, will swear to it, but sadly, there's no good way to actually ABX an HDMI cable because it takes so long for re-sync.  Yes, it's nonsense.  And don't nobody get me a-rantin' on power conditioners...
   
  But now we've gone and done it!  I can hear it already, "I read on a forum that with a better HDMI cable I can get more ultraviolet and infrared out of my TV.  I want one of them cables!  I know I can't actually _see_ ultraviolet, but having it there maintains the purity and impact of the other colors."  Sheesh.  Did ya hafta??  oops, or did I?


----------



## sethsez

Oh, I know that the problems with HDMI can be numerous, but the ways in which they _manifest themselves_ aren't subtle.  You can't pretend you're seeing a slightly flatter image as the result of a defective HDMI cable.
   
  And yeah, whenever I start getting too into audiophile stuff and start thinking "maybe there's something to this whole golden ears thing..." I just replace "hear 30,000khz" with "see ultraviolet" and go on my merry way.


----------



## BobJS

Quote: 





sethsez said:


> Oh, I know that the problems with HDMI can be numerous, but the ways in which they _manifest themselves_ aren't subtle.  You can't pretend you're seeing a slightly flatter image as the result of a defective HDMI cable.
> 
> And yeah, whenever I start getting too into audiophile stuff and start thinking "maybe there's something to this whole golden ears thing..." I just replace "hear *30,000khz*" with "see ultraviolet" and go on my merry way.


 
   
  Now, hearing 30 Mhz  would really be something ......


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





sethsez said:


> Oh, I know that the problems with HDMI can be numerous, but the ways in which they _manifest themselves_ aren't subtle.  You can't pretend you're seeing a slightly flatter image as the result of a defective HDMI cable.
> 
> And yeah, whenever I start getting too into audiophile stuff and start thinking "maybe there's something to this whole golden ears thing..." I just replace "hear 30,000khz" with "see ultraviolet" and go on my merry way.


 
  I was just reading an article on seeing ultraviolet:
  http://www.extremetech.com/computing/118557-the-eyes-have-it-seeing-ultraviolet-exploring-color


----------



## Greenleaf7

Not sure if anyone has seen this already, but i found it to be a rather interesting read.
   
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html


----------



## Greenleaf7

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> That's not an analogy, it's a truism. Like "You buy coffee mug that isn't porous and it does the job for holding coffee". It doesn't inform, or explain anything that isn't self evident.


 
  I believe what he's trying to say, in terms of a coffee mug analogy, is that your coffee will taste the same irrespective of what mug is used as long as it isn't broke. In other words, it's like saying that an "upgrade snake oil gold reference coffee mug" will not make the coffee taste any better at all.


----------



## Greenleaf7

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Sure, we're a bunch of crotchety skeptics.  But all we really ask is, if a product or item provides a benefit, that benefit should be clearly identifiable as a difference in a double-blind test.  If not, there's reasonable doubt that it is of any benefit.


 
  I couldn't agree more.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





greenleaf7 said:


> Not sure if anyone has seen this already, but i found it to be a rather interesting read.
> 
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html


 
  Can't put my finger on the reference (probably from David Clark, though) but the switching time between choices is inversely proportional to the ability to detect small differences.  Less switch time, higher ability to detect small differences.  You need to keep switching time down to a few milliseconds for highest reliability in comparison, and ideally, near zero.  Their cable switch time as as much as 75 seconds, and the test was technically single-blind. But otherwise, a study in guessing.  I got a chuckle out of their aversion to "sound-compromising switching apparatus" in favor of long switch times.  Essentially, making the comparison much harder in leu of a power switch (a sound-compromising power switch).


----------



## zorin

Quote: 





greenleaf7 said:


> I believe what he's trying to say, in terms of a coffee mug analogy, is that your coffee will taste the same irrespective of what mug is used as long as it isn't broke. In other words, it's like saying that an "upgrade snake oil gold reference coffee mug" will not make the coffee taste any better at all.


 
  That is baloney. A rusty, plasic, styrofoam, plain dirty and so on cup or mug will affect the taste of coffee. Do the little monkeys lack common sense ?


----------



## El_Doug

the analogy still works - youre referring to broken cups, and broken cables also affect sonics negatively.  no one disputes this. 
   
  Quote: 





zorin said:


> That is baloney. A rusty, plasic, styrofoam, plain dirty and so on cup or mug will affect the taste of coffee. Do the little monkeys lack common sense ?


----------



## Greenleaf7

I didn't make this, though I thought it was hilarious. 
   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Rqo8jI8dk


----------



## julian67

greenleaf7 said:


> I didn't make this, though I thought it was hilarious.




It's brilliant, thanks for the link.


----------



## doublea71

^ lmao


----------



## duncan1

I am not fully convinced about "the sound of cables" but what cant be argued against and doesn't seem to be mentioned is that any cable carrying a very low level signal that has has a high amount of inductance/capacitance  has  been proved scientifically to effect the frequency response of the signal . This isn't "pie in the sky" but completely proven with test equipment and the higher the frequency the higher the change. One of those cables looking into a sensitive amp will be seen as a "tuned circuit" that's why many old tube amps with a high input impedance  picked up radio signals till stubber caps were fitted.


----------



## xnor

These interconnects are a few inches long and connect the source with an impedance of ~100 ohms with the amp's input with an impedance of ~10 kOhms... How much capacitance would it take to get an audible roll-off?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> I am not fully convinced about "the sound of cables" but what cant be argued against and doesn't seem to be mentioned is that any cable carrying a very low level signal that has has a high amount of inductance/capacitance  has  been proved scientifically to effect the frequency response of the signal .


 
   
  The level of the signal is irrelevant. And you'd have to pretty much go out of your way to design a cable with enough inductance or capacitance to result in any meaningful rolloff of high frequencies. Either that or be using unusually long lengths of cable.
   
  se


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> One of those cables looking into a sensitive amp will be seen as a "tuned circuit" that's why many old tube amps with a high input impedance  picked up radio signals till stubber caps were fitted.


 
  The RFI problem was that the cable acts as an antenna, and the first stage acts as a detector. No tuned circuit necessary for that to happen, and just some RF proofing right at the input jack solves the problem.  It would happen with any cable regardless of C, I or R.


----------



## duncan1

The level of signal is  irrelevant ? The most sensitive part of an audio system is the preamp I have built plenty. A high inductance/ capacitance has a direct effect on a very small signal like the input for a MC cart Do you not know 2 wires twisted together constitute a value of capacitance. Like a Hallicrafters SX28 I repaired which had 2 wires twisted together to INDUCE a transfer/ injection of a BFO signal to the local oscillator or is that great company Hallicrafters wrong too? In the 1980s I built John Lindsay Hoods -shunt feedback preamp as the signals were so low I noticed just moving the PS wires changed the induced noise so I ran the preamp wires using co-axial cable the outer sheath earthed to the star earth cured the problem I wrote the same to EW/WW at the time and had it printed in their letters page. Comments were --Good idea-never thought of it many now use that method to supply the power.to sensitive circuits.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> The level of signal is  irrelevant ? The most sensitive part of an audio system is the preamp I have built plenty. A high inductance/ capacitance has a direct effect on a very small signal like the input for a MC cart Do you not know 2 wires twisted together constitute a value of capacitance. Like a Hallicrafters SX28 I repaired which had 2 wires twisted together to INDUCE a transfer/ injection of a BFO signal to the local oscillator or is that great company Hallicrafters wrong too? In the 1980s I built John Lindsay Hoods -shunt feedback preamp as the signals were so low I noticed just moving the PS wires changed the induced noise so I ran the preamp wires using co-axial cable the outer sheath earthed to the star earth cured the problem I wrote the same to EW/WW at the time and had it printed in their letters page. Comments were --Good idea-never thought of it many now use that method to supply the power.to sensitive circuits.


 
  Signal level is obviously relevant to the result in some cases, irrelevant in others, but not specifically relevant to the mechanism itself.  In phono preamps the cable C does have an impact because we're often dealing with a MM cartridge that works into a 47K resistive load. Some cartridges didn't handle extra C very well, but the last time I looked, most modern MM cartridges are fairly insensitive to capacitive loading.  In the case of MC cartridges, they are usually a very low source impedance device requiring much higher voltage gain than MM carts.  But that also means they are less sensitive to  cable C.  
   
  Let's not get all wound up in IF cable C exists or in general IF it's a problem.  Each application is different, and in some cases cable C is an issue, in others it's not.  It's a question of degree and the surrounding circuit.  Examples of stray inductive or capacitive coupling causing problems aren't really helpful in the discussion, though they were no doubt real in the specific instance.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> The level of signal is  irrelevant ?


 
   
  Yes.
   
  Quote: 





> The most sensitive part of an audio system is the preamp I have built plenty.


 
   
  Great.
   
  Quote: 





> A high inductance/ capacitance has a direct effect on a very small signal like the input for a MC cart


 
   
  Hasn't anything to do with the level of the signal.
   
  Quote: 





> Do you not know 2 wires twisted together constitute a value of capacitance.


 
   
  Yes, I do.
   
  Do you know that that value of capacitance doesn't give a rat's sphincter about the signal level?
   
  Quote: 





> Like a Hallicrafters SX28 I repaired which had 2 wires twisted together to INDUCE a transfer/ injection of a BFO signal to the local oscillator or is that great company Hallicrafters wrong too?


 
   
  What has that to do with what we're discussing?
   
  Quote: 





> In the 1980s I built John Lindsay Hoods -shunt feedback preamp as the signals were so low I noticed just moving the PS wires changed the induced noise so I ran the preamp wires using co-axial cable the outer sheath earthed to the star earth cured the problem I wrote the same to EW/WW at the time and had it printed in their letters page. Comments were --Good idea-never thought of it many now use that method to supply the power.to sensitive circuits.


 
   
  Great. But again, what has that to do with what we're discussing?
   
  The cutoff of a low-pass filter doesn't care about signal level. It cares about source and load impedances as they relate to the resistance, inductance and capacitance of the cable, but not signal level.
   
  You should brush up on some basic electronics sometime.
   
  se


----------



## duncan1

It sounds like you are "splitting hairs"-okay in some not in others" that's so general even I cant criticize it. I stated a specific example that was correct not just in my eyes but a large US communication company  Why do you  think [as I posted elsewhere] That manufacturers to save money on design and hardware fit fuses to the internals of audio equipment instead of a stabilized PS  and at the output of the amp  a fuse that heats up and cools down creating harmonics that can be seen on a spectrum  analyzer. and so degrades the fidelity of the reproduced music.? so they make low sensitivity amps so that noise is so far down it  isnt  heard  thats taking the easy option. In the equipment I have repaired very small amounts of noise can be heard due to the  openness     of the circuit.[no filters/ comp caps/ tone controls etc]  That you are not going to hear  in nicely rounded tube technology and no I am not criticisng tubes I have built plenty  of tube amps  in the past to me they are relatively easy to work on But  you have to admit SS can go down to a very low level of detail thats why they are heavily criticised  because minute amounts of distortion can be heard.if the circuit isnt of the very top quality >In the past SS amps were dumbed down to sound like tube technology but they could never compete in the same level.


----------



## Steve Eddy

So what have fuses to do with your claim that the low pass filter function of a cable is level dependent?
   
  se


----------



## duncan1

Yes the low pass filter function is level dependent -not just my opinion but many others if you read back issues of EE mag over the years. Fuses were brought up by a poster and I replied in mechanical terms to the comment They are an imperfect scientific invention a stop gap for something better and should be removed from  hardware like amps and replaced with electronic units which now have a fast response time and why not? $$$$$ thats the answer. Its the same with automobiles they can be made to run on hydrogen many people in the UK proved just that but what happened to their invention- You may well ask after the publicity talks in newspapers of  the public saving $1000s  and then silence. Bought off springs to mind. You know the reason why. So fuses will be with us as long as autos use gas.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> Yes the low pass filter function is level dependent -not just my opinion but many others if you read back issues of EE mag over the years. Fuses were brought up by a poster and I replied in mechanical terms to the comment They are an imperfect scientific invention a stop gap for something better and should be removed from  hardware like amps and replaced with electronic units which now have a fast response time and why not? $$$$$ thats the answer. Its the same with automobiles they can be made to run on hydrogen many people in the UK proved just that but what happened to their invention- You may well ask after the publicity talks in newspapers of  the public saving $1000s  and then silence. Bought off springs to mind. You know the reason why. So fuses will be with us as long as autos use gas.


 
   
  I have read all the back issues of EE mag over the years and there are no such articles.
   
  So there. I've just countered your claim.
   
  Now if you'd care to cite a _specific_ reference, I'd be happy to look into it.
   
  In the meantime, I've designed and built a number of passive filters over the years, and I've never noticed their cutoff frequencies changing with signal level.
   
  Quote: 





> Fuses were brought up by a poster and I replied in mechanical terms to the comment They are an imperfect scientific invention a stop gap for something better and should be removed from  hardware like amps and replaced with electronic units which now have a fast response time and why not? $$$$$ thats the answer.


 
   
  And that was in a different thread on a different subject and I'm still left wondering what that has to do with what we are currently discussing in this thread.
   
  se


----------



## duncan1

So you don't believe me when I say that a very low level signal can be heavily influenced by induced /radiated noise/hum?? and is also affected by inductance/capacitance. Thats easy to prove wind two wires together get out your high grade LCR meter and it will measure at least a couple of PF and that the conditions for a tuned circuit cant happen to a length of wire with a lot of inductance/ capacitance RF design engineers would be interested in your reply. Ever worked on a vhf/uhf tuner I am talking of the old type before they made it easy by making it fully integrated.and digital. One quarter  inch of wire would change the set frequency.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> So you don't believe me when I say that a very low level signal can be heavily influenced by induced /radiated noise/hum??


 
   
  You're bringing up a completely different issue. You said nothing about noise previously. You made specific reference to_ frequency response._
   
  Let me refresh your memory:

_*I am not fully convinced about "the sound of cables" but what cant be argued against and doesn't seem to be mentioned is that any cable carrying a very low level signal that has has a high amount of inductance/capacitance  has  been proved scientifically to effect the frequency response of the signal .*_
   
  To which I responded that the level of the signal is irrelevant. The cable's effect on the frequency response will be the same regardless of level. You apparently disagreed, but have yet to substantiate your claim with anything meaningful. And now you change the subject to something completely different.
   
  se


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> So you don't believe me when I say that a very low level signal can be heavily influenced by induced /radiated noise/hum?? and is also affected by inductance/capacitance. Thats easy to prove wind two wires together get out your high grade LCR meter and it will measure at least a couple of PF and that the conditions for a tuned circuit cant happen to a length of wire with a lot of inductance/ capacitance RF design engineers would be interested in your reply.


 
  The fact that a high level signal can, in some cases, be introduced into a cable carrying a low level signal via capacitive or inductive coupling is true, but to evaluate the effects of a specific set of conditions, you need to know a lot more about the circuit. It would not be correct to assume that any capacitive or inductive coupling always results in a problem with a low level circuit.  It's a question of degree of coupling, impedance of the circuit being coupled to at the frequency of the signal being coupled, and the ability of the next stage to reject the unwanted signal versus detect it or pass it.
   
   Your examples are irrelevant in the context of this particular thread, though might be relevant in some other.  Discussing cables here, not old radios. 
  Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> The cable's effect on the frequency response will be the same regardless of level.


 
   
  + > or =1  
   
  Steve is dead on.  It's a passive low pass filter, it don't care about no signal level. Sort of the honey-badger of filters.  Same cutoff frequency, same attenuation regardless of signal level. A signal level modified filter would pretty much take an active and variable element, not simply cable LRC. 
   
  And why are we talking about this?  Oh yeah.  We done? I'm buying you all a virtual round of beers, then the virtual designated driver can virtually drive us home.


----------



## redrum42

So I was just reading this thread because I have always wondered about the cable debate. You guys seem to be talking about capacitance and inductance, and whether that has any effect. I'm not sure about that, but it seems to be that impedance would effect frequency response anyway. I studied physics at uni but its been a while. I've been trying to remember what I used to know to think about how impedance would effect frequency response. Here is what I got:
   
  So, when you are dealing with DC, you can characterise the response of a component like a cable in terms of a constant quantity - resistance. For a cable, resistance will be a function of area, length and material, but for a given cable it will be a constant. This would have no effect on the signal transmitted: you merely increase the power of whatever is driving current through this component to compensate for the added series resistance that it presents.
   
  But with AC everything is different. There is no constant quantity that can characterise a given cable like resistance. The closest thing is impedance. Impedance, like resistance is a function of area, length and material, but importantly it is also a function of frequency. The same cable presents a different load to different parts of the frequency spectrum. If I remember right, the reason for this is that AC signals don't travel "through" the cable in the way DC ones do. AC signals actually propagate along the surface of a wire, only penetrating a small way into its interior. The amount they penetrate is called the skin depth. Now skin depth IS a function of frequency. The upshot of this is that because some frequencies penetrate deeper into the wire, they experience a greater effective cross sectional area, and so a decreased impedance. So different frequencies will be attenuated differently as they travel down the wire, and the wire will change the signal.
   
  The skin depth varies a lot for different materials (I think it is much greater for silver, which might explain why silver cables don't attenuate highs so much), and I don't think there is any straight forward relationship between frequency and skin depth. It would be complicated and possibly vary greatly between different cables.
   
  This all sounds very plausible to me, and makes me very open to the idea of different cables changing the sound quite a lot (especially in the high frequencies, where the skin depth is much less). Can anyone comment on this explanation - have I got the science right?
   
  Interested in this debate...


----------



## Steve Eddy

You left out proximity effect, which is arguably a "worse" offender than skin effect.
   
  You have the basic physics right, but it's a matter of degree. And to date, no one has demonstrated that the effects of cable impedance, skin effect and proximity effect in a reasonably well designed cable rise to the level of audibility.
   
  se


----------



## BobJS

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> You left out proximity effect, which is arguably a "worse" offender than skin effect.
> 
> You have the basic physics right, but it's a matter of degree. And to date, no one has demonstrated that the effects of cable impedance, skin effect and proximity effect in a reasonably well designed cable rise to the level of audibility.
> 
> se


 
   
  .... at audible frequencies with reasonable length cables.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bobjs said:


> .... at audible frequencies with reasonable length cables.


 
   
  Well yes. Was hoping that didn't have to be said. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## jaddie

It's also a question of what's driving the cable (is it a low Z amp, or a high Z output), what kind of load the cable feeds (is it a speaker with a complex impedance, or a high Z amp input) , and of course, how long it is (5 feet, 30 feet, 10,000 feet, 5 miles, etc.).


----------



## Speedskater

Skin effect only enters the discussion with very large diameter wires or very high frequencies. For the cables involved in hi-fi it's not much of a factor.  The cables self inductance is a much larger factor at high audio frequencies.


----------



## stv014

Having a quick look here reveals that skin effect has a depth of about 0.5 mm at 20 kHz in a copper wire, or, in other words, it becomes an issue when the diameter of the wire is at least ~1 mm. So, it is obviously not relevant to anything other than speaker cables in audio. Even then, it only increases the impedance which may very well still not be high enough to have an audible effect anyway at usual lengths.


----------



## DrikTheTroll

Isn't it simpler just to try a particular cable and see if it makes a difference to an individual listener?
   
  Regardless of the theoretical issues discussed previously, wouldn't the typical variances in audio perception be larger than any arguable effect?
   
  Your ears = the truth for you.


----------



## bigshot

I imagine that depends on how much it is going to cost to ignore the facts and trust my ears.
   
  Human perception generally has fixed limits. It's possible that an individual will have impaired hearing, but it's highly unlikely that they are going to have superhuman hearing.


----------



## DrikTheTroll

Kobayashi Issa (18th century Japanese Haiku master) - "The world of dew is the world of dew indeed - and yet, and yet"
   
  Relevance: we are trapped in a world which is recognizably subjective and  transient, and yet we still aspire to meaning in the ephemeral.
   
  We trust our ears .. and yet .. and yet


----------



## bigshot

Snatch the pebble from my hand, grasshopper!


----------



## DrikTheTroll

You see a pebble - I see an empty space. Should I grasp at nothing? If I fail, I have nothing - if I succeed I have nothing. Stillness and movement are one and the same.
   
  Cable discussions and metaphysical discussions have a striking similarity, no?


----------



## dvw

Emptyness has its own fullness. Nothingness encompasses everything. Willingness to accept what is is.
   
  In a metaphysical world, there is no meaning of quality. Everything has its own charm. you do not need cable in this world. There is no difference if it's not measurable for they do not exist. The metaphysical world is not subjective my friend. You do not have to try doggie doo to know it stinked. Logic and the rule of physics is the way to find the way.


----------



## bigshot

For me philosophy goes only as far as "How much for a hot dog and a coke?"


----------



## DrikTheTroll

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> For me philosophy goes only as far as "How much for a hot dog and a coke?"


 
   
  $2.95 at Target unless you have a coupon!


----------



## Speedskater

One good thing about metaphysical discussions, there are no financial issues involved.


----------



## duncan1

We are all different. Each person is a biological World of their own different from the next person. By observation rules on the human body have been made up over 1000s of years.People like to live by rules it makes them feel more secure  Audiologists admit we all hear differently due to ear structure and nervous system to our brains. Who can say there is a standard set of values when every day someone emerges who defies that logic by their ability to see/hear/act not to set scientific values.Science isn't perfect --even scientists admit that-can they cure the common cold or flu viruses that change year to year to counteract human deterrents . Our body cells not only change --they learn-The government is still trying to make robots that can do that.So we progress biologically from day to day well ahead of any science values.But we are more than "human beings" we don't just have a body we have a soul/spirit. We are more than what you see. The mind is just the reaction to the World but the soul learns and progresses itself.If you don't believe then you must believe that when you die that's it-zero-the END-blackness that in itself is non-logical it doesn't make sense.There would be no point in existence . Death is just another door opening to another World better than this "corrupt" one. Cosmologists talk now of "other dimensions" and now some even say---shock/horror- there might be a "superior being"  Science is not  even a "minor" god yet it cant provide all the answers robots hear zeros and ones--humans hear and FEEL the music and their spirit is lifted.


----------



## bigshot

I wish I loved my own words that much.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> Who can say there is a standard set of values when every day someone emerges who defies that logic by their ability to see/hear/act not to set scientific values.Science isn't perfect --even scientists admit that-can they cure the common cold or flu viruses that change year to year to counteract human deterrents . Our body cells not only change --they learn-The government is still trying to make robots that can do that.So we progress biologically from day to day well ahead of any science values.But we are more than "human beings" we don't just have a body we have a soul/spirit. We are more than what you see. The mind is just the reaction to the World but the soul learns and progresses itself.If you don't believe then you must believe that when you die that's it-zero-the END-blackness that in itself is non-logical it doesn't make sense.There would be no point in existence . Death is just another door opening to another World better than this "corrupt" one. Cosmologists talk now of "other dimensions" and now some even say---shock/horror- there might be a "superior being"  Science is not  even a "minor" god yet it cant provide all the answers robots hear zeros and ones--humans hear and FEEL the music and their spirit is lifted.


 
  What a bunch of backwards assertions and illogical statements. All of course without providing even a shred of evidence, and off topic anyway.
   
  But you've improved from using weird punctuation and indentation to a wall of text. Oh and there are even some complete sentences here and there. Keep it up.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I wish I loved my own words that much.


 
   
  I wish he'd have used a couple of paragraphs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## duncan1

I don't "love my words " .I speak with conviction and total belief. and all you can do is make snide comments without putting in great detail why you think I am wrong.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> I don't "love my words " .I speak with conviction and total belief. and all you can do is make snide comments without putting in great detail why you think I am wrong.


 
   
  Doesn't require any great detail. It's a simple as "This isn't the religion forum."
   
  se


----------



## bigshot

duncan1 said:


> I don't "love my words " .I speak with conviction and total belief. and all you can do is make snide comments without putting in great detail why you think I am wrong.




I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you had a point. If you'd like to state it clearly, I'd be happy to respond. I thought that was some sort of Beat poetry.


----------



## duncan1

And you have made it a neo-philosophical forum in many of your posts in  Head- Fi. If you can bring philosophy/ phycology   into Head  Fi -well I can AS WELL . If you cant answer with a rebut of my philosophical/spiritual comments then stick to technical hi-fi comments which I don't mind commenting on.


----------



## bigshot

I don't know what you're talking about, I'm afraid.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Spirituality and philosophical talks in a science forum? 

That is more than off-topic even for this thread


----------



## duncan1

Don't you  read the posts in the "objectivists  cafe" They go into the realms of  phycology -read them again. Putting forward theories as to why human beings are  not complying with scientific theory and that science in relation to hi-fi is ""perfect""  and its humans that "not perfect" if they dont agree with the purely scientific view point and are therefore heavily criticised on a phycological level. Its time there was a "subjectivists cafe" giving back what is given out there.and sticking up for human beings which some here dont think they are.


----------



## jcx

it really seems the subset I call the "naive subjectivists" are the ones with comic book super hero beliefs about their perception - the ones denying what it means to be human
  
  Science tells us lots about the fallibility, malleability of conscious interpretation of our sense inputs, our memory of them


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





jcx said:


> it really seems the subset I call the "naive subjectivists" are the ones with comic book super hero beliefs about their perception - the ones denying what it means to be human
> 
> Science tells us lots about the fallibility, malleability of conscious interpretation of our sense inputs, our memory of them


 

 You get my applause for this comment.  Bravo.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> Don't you  read the posts in the "objectivists  cafe" They go into the realms of  phycology


 
   
  Psychology is a big part of perception. What we believe we hear can affect what we think we hear, whether it's true or not. Contrary to popular opinion, psychology is a science!
   
  Feel free to create a subjectivists cafe in one of the non-scientific forums. That's a fine idea. I'll donate some patchouli to the cause!


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> Don't you  read the posts in the "objectivists  cafe" They go into the realms of  phycology -read them again. Putting forward theories as to why human beings are  not complying with scientific theory and that science in relation to hi-fi is ""perfect""  and its humans that "not perfect" if they dont agree with the purely scientific view point and are therefore heavily criticised on a phycological level. Its time there was a "subjectivists cafe" giving back what is given out there.and sticking up for human beings which some here dont think they are.


 

 Scientific theory about human hearing as it relates to hi-fi was based upon the response of human hearing to sound.  So this isn't humans not complying.  The science as far as it goes fits humans as that was how it developed. 
   
  Now on the other hand, people claiming to hear things that aren't real just because they subjectively perceive them for other reasons is not failing to comply.  It is simply what happens to human perception under certain well known conditions.  There is a goodly amount of science on that aspect also. 
   
  It actually seems duncan1, perhaps the misplaced idea of perfection is behind your viewpoint.  You seem to think human perception is perfect and infallible.  That is actually a not very human idea.  Scientists aren't out to dehumanize human beings.  Just unravel what can objectively be unraveled.  Humans are wonderful, incredible creatures.  Perfect they aren't, nor are their senses of perception.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

the study of human psyche is science though....


----------



## DrikTheTroll

If a tree falls in a forest ...
   
  and no one is there ...
   
  Does it produce a boosted response at 1.2Khz?


----------



## duncan1

Don't you realize that the comments in "objectives" cafe are a phycology exercise     that is followed by a group of people and that by default that makes "objectivity" a philosophy and a philosophy is a "higher" esoteric belief.in something insubstantial.  followed by even more people. Its a case of what philosophy you believe in.I believe in human beings -robots will never reach the level of the spirit in man.that enjoys music and calms "the savage beast" and makes people more "at one" with each other in other words -quote from Rabbie Burns--that man to man the World over shall brothers be for all that--end quote. Its as far from being achieved now as it was in his day.


----------



## DrikTheTroll

Getting back to the practical, the only way to decide whether to listen to someone's opinion on anything audio is to compare your personal experience with theirs over time.
   
  If you find a good match over time, then you can probably use their opinions as a guide in the future.
   
  There is just too much "personal preference" in headphones for any shortcuts.
   
  There are people who post in these forums with thousands of posts, who clearly know far more than I ever will about audio equipment, and whose opinions I find entirely useless because their ear does not match mine (no disrespect intended).


----------



## anetode

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> And you have made it a neo-philosophical forum in many of your posts in  Head- Fi. If you can bring philosophy/ *phycology*   into Head  Fi -well I can AS WELL . If you cant answer with a rebut of my philosophical/spiritual comments then stick to technical hi-fi comments which I don't mind commenting on.


 
   
  Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> Don't you  read the posts in the "objectivists  cafe" They go into the realms of  *phycology* -read them again. Putting forward theories as to why human beings are  not complying with scientific theory and that science in relation to hi-fi is ""perfect""  and its humans that "not perfect" if they dont agree with the purely scientific view point and are therefore heavily criticised on a *phycological* level. Its time there was a "subjectivists cafe" giving back what is given out there.and sticking up for human beings which some here dont think they are.


 
   
  Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> Don't you realize that the comments in "objectives" cafe are a *phycology* exercise     that is followed by a group of people and that by default that makes "objectivity" a philosophy and a philosophy is a "higher" esoteric belief.in something insubstantial.  followed by even more people. Its a case of what philosophy you believe in.I believe in human beings -robots will never reach the level of the spirit in man.that enjoys music and calms "the savage beast" and makes people more "at one" with each other in other words -quote from Rabbie Burns--that man to man the World over shall brothers be for all that--end quote. Its as far from being achieved now as it was in his day.


 
   
  So what is it with you and the science of algae?


----------



## DrikTheTroll

Maybe a new trend in modding?
   
  Algae stuffed pads? Who knows how good the sonic properties might be!


----------



## doublea71

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> Don't you realize that the comments in "objectives" cafe are a phycology exercise     that is followed by a group of people and that by default that makes "objectivity" a philosophy and a philosophy is a "higher" esoteric belief.in something insubstantial.  followed by even more people. Its a case of what philosophy you believe in.I believe in human beings -robots will never reach the level of the spirit in man.that enjoys music and calms "the savage beast" and makes people more "at one" with each other in other words -quote from Rabbie Burns--that man to man the World over shall brothers be for all that--end quote. Its as far from being achieved now as it was in his day.


 
  Until you have command of the language, put a sock in it.


----------



## ab initio

doublea71 said:


> Until you have command of the language, put a sock in it.




Ah! You speaketh of the sock mod


----------



## ev13wt

A little story of a German hifi guy and his path:

Once upon a time zer was sis German who love audio. He was a very scientific based person. On the hifi-forum in Germany he was known to jump into any cable (and other things like amp sound / sounding and digital vs vinyl et cetera) and demand proof of cable sound. He would argue for pages and pages trying to disperse "audio myths". He was well respected and loved. Important to note is that the forum in question is a very "realistic" forum. When people jump in, mostly new guys, and talk about cables and interconnects, they always get educated quick. It is so realistic that subjects worthy of discussion, like amp sounding, usually don't get very far anymore.

Fast forward 6 years. Today he is the editor in chief of Germanys biggest "audiophile" forum. His account is very inactive. The latest cover of the magazine showcases an article about usb cable tests. Now, bear in mind we are talking about digital transmission, jitter values way below the threshold of human hearing capabilities and so on and so forth.

The test goes on and the testers "hear" differences in the usb cables, with the most expensive getting a 9 out of 10 rating. This is the "best sounding cable". They also state that they couldn't actually measure the differences heard, but the will "keep at it". Note that there wasn't a 10 out of 10 cable. 

So why did I tell this story? Well, it just goes to show that the audio hobby is a marketplace and people are trying to sell things. So when a new audio person enters the hobby, they mostly start out reading magazine reviews. Thus, they are already biased before entering any forums. They rate a magazines opinion much higher than any "typical uninformed users" opinion and as such, a flame war starts.


----------



## duncan1

And when somebody has been repairing analogue electronic equipment for 50 years -Has read ""hi- fi""" mags since the 50s and electronic mags the same length  of time . Followed the rise of hi-fi and built much audio equipment over many decades had arguments with your "god" --DS-- in which others  agreed with me  that he was arrogant/condescending/and rude. Even his teacher wrote into EE apologizing for ---Quote--letting him loose on the world--end quote  only HIS designs were """perfect"" in HIS eyes---the """Blameless""" power amp . Would brook  no opposition -younger ADEs who came up with non-standard power  amp designs -which in my eyes were ground breaking in their unusual design were torn  to pieces bit by bit -Why because they weren't up to HIS specs. of dis.=0.001 % . And yet in 2013 MANY audio  designs have 20DB and more WORSE than his-Take tube design as an example- and sound GREAT!  so his """philosophy """ is faulty. So far I am the only one who is not afraid of him but MANY back me up "behind the scenes".


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> And yet in 2013 MANY audio  designs have 20DB and more WORSE than his-Take tube design as an example- and sound GREAT!  so his """philosophy """ is faulty. So far I am the only one who is not afraid of him but MANY back me up "behind the scenes".


 
  Ignoring the tirade about D. Self, it might be useful to know that tube amps with worse measurements sound GREAT! because of their particular colorations.  They have measurably lower fidelity to the input signal.  Yet sometimes sound subjectively better.  It is due to the particular colorations of tube designs.  So it doesn't show that very low distortion amps being considered audibly transparent is a faulty philosophy.  If one studies the p*s*ychophysics of human hearing, one might learn that.


----------



## bigshot

Most equipment """sounds""" better than we can hear. That's why perception thresholds are just as important as equipment specs.


----------



## duncan1

The tirade against D,Self is NOTHING to his tirade against John Lindsay Hood in the pages of Electronic World in which he castigated him for his choosing   Mos-Fets as  apposed to BJTs . He went  on for article after article till John  was forced to reply but he was too much of a gentleman  to give out what was given to him and now he comments on John on a web page using his prestige as I notice many others do as Johns family don't sue. He cut young blokes to pieces and yet HE used a STANDARD Linn design to which he made variations unlike the other  design engineers who came up with   ground breaking circuits BUT weren't in D. Self's eyes up to scratch. So he pulled them apart on paper --not nice--I am the only person who tells the truth when it comes to him. Open up the pages of EW from 1985 up to 2006 and you will find I am telling the truth!


----------



## Steve Eddy

What the hell's Doug have to do with this discussion anyway?
   
  se


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> The tirade against D,Self is NOTHING to his tirade against John Lindsay Hood in the pages of Electronic World in which he castigated him for his choosing   Mos-Fets as  apposed to BJTs . He went  on for article after article till John  was forced to reply but he was too much of a gentleman  to give out what was given to him and now he comments on John on a web page using his prestige as I notice many others do as Johns family don't sue. He cut young blokes to pieces and yet HE used a STANDARD Linn design to which he made variations unlike the other  design engineers who came up with   ground breaking circuits BUT weren't in D. Self's eyes up to scratch. So he pulled them apart on paper --not nice--I am the only person who tells the truth when it comes to him. Open up the pages of EW from 1985 up to 2006 and you will find I am telling the truth!


 

 Look, we aren't discussing or interested in some issue you have with Douglas Self.  Unless he posts here it has no place.  Your tirade against him or his against someone else on some other forum or publication really adds nothing to this.


----------



## bigshot

I think no response is the best response


----------



## doublea71

I can't think of anything worse right now than thumbing through 21 years worth of magazines to confirm some loon's incoherent babble. Anyways, let's get back on topic about how cables are snake oil.


----------



## CantScareMe

This is something that I have noticed over the years at headfi. All the population here can be segmented into these categories.
   
  Person 1:
  This person believes in cables and says that it makes their system better. When he talks about cables he most often, calmly, not rudely, shares his opinions/finding with others.
   
  Person 2:
  This dood doesn't believe in cables. When he talks about cables, he most often just rips into anyone who actively states that they believe in cables. Rude. Disrespectful. Pretty nasty. 
   
  Person 3:
  Someone who believes/doesn't in cables, but never really says much about it. 
   
   
   
  It's similar to those that believe/don't in burn in. 
  My point is, for those that find themselves in the second segment - why do you guys feel the need to get so worked up about stuff like this? I just find it interesting, that's all. 
   
   
   
   
Just for the record, for me the most important things as far as cables go are for it to be of ideal length, maximum flexibility, low price and free from physical defects (e.g. loose connectors)


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Quote: 





cantscareme said:


> This is something that I have noticed over the years at headfi. All the population here can be segmented into these categories.
> 
> Person 1:
> This person believes in cables and says that it makes their system better. When he talks about cables he most often, calmly, not rudely, shares his opinions/finding with others.
> ...


 
  no clue, i'm in number 3, although there should be 2 more categories
   
  one, a skeptic that still has no opinions, the other is one that believes but dismisses overwhelming evidence against his belief.


----------



## bigshot

It seems to me that most cable faithfuls are quite calm and nice. The only ones who aren't are the ones who march into Sound Science with a chip on their shoulder ready for a fight. The Sound Science regulars generally get blamed for their bad behavior. Thankfully, those troublemakers are few.


----------



## CantScareMe

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It seems to me that most cable faithfuls are quite calm and nice. The only ones who aren't are the ones who march into Sound Science with a chip on their shoulder ready for a fight. The Sound Science regulars generally get blamed for their bad behavior. Thankfully, those troublemakers are few.


 
   
  Fair enough.
  I just see too much ganging up on someone who says a cable has changed their system for the better (regardless of whatever reasoning the give). Monotonous.


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





cantscareme said:


> Fair enough.
> I just see too much ganging up on someone who says a cable has changed their system for the better (regardless of whatever reasoning the give). Monotonous.


 

 Well, if you are of the group that know of no known measurable difference in cables, and therefore don't see the possibility for them to sound different what does that leave?
   
  I have as have others been told how rude it is to say someone is wrong.  There are not many excellent ways to say that. No matter how courteously one tries the reaction is often not that good by the other party.  But if you are trying to be rational, reasonable, and scientific the evidence says cables can't sound different (within your normal uses).  In cases where the cable can effect sound (capacitance interacting with cartridges on a tonearm for instance) you find it is down to LCR effects.
   
  So were you of the firm opinion cables don't sound different, have good technical reason for thinking so, have the experience others quite typically accuse you of not having, and still have that opinion what approach can you take?
   
  I have tried many variations, and found none that work well.    And yes, among friends, acquaintances, enemies, supporters or whatever, not everything is relative.  Not every opinion is equally grounded, and in fact sometimes the facts say you are wrong.  With cables and so much in audio it always seems to come down to "trust your ears" vs those who aren't willing to trust only their ears because they know how they can give you incorrect or even illusory perceptions.  Not that hearing always is wrong just that it can be fooled. 
   
  As for the ganging up on someone, it seems to me much more often the ganging up is by those who hear great differences in cables most everywhere other than this sub-forum.  Don't know of forums where having the opinion cables sound different can get you banned or your comments deleted (with only one exception I am aware of).  Having the obverse opinion, can, has, and will get you banned from a number of places among the online fora.


----------



## CantScareMe

Quote: 





esldude said:


> Don't know of forums where having the opinion cables sound different can get you banned or your comments deleted (with only one exception I am aware of).


 
   
  Neither do I.
   
  But I know of a forum where having the opinion cables sound different pretty much gets you slated...


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





cantscareme said:


> Fair enough.
> I just see too much ganging up on someone who says a cable has changed their system for the better (regardless of whatever reasoning the give). Monotonous.


 
   
  This is the Sound Science forum. We try to understand the reasons why things happen, and we try to verify results. There really isn't much point marching in, claiming something and belligerently refusing to play by the rules of science. There are a bunch of other forums in Head-Fi for that. Knowing why Sound Science exists, why would anyone come in here and do that unless they *wanted* to provoke the inevitable requests for proof?
   
  The response isn't monotonous, the incessant trolling is.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





cantscareme said:


> Neither do I. But I know of a forum where having the opinion cables sound different pretty much gets you slated...


 
   
  I guess his point wasn't stated clearly enough.
   
  In every forum on head-fi except this one, you can get banned for saying cables all sound the same and providing evidence to back up what you say.
   
  In this forum, if you say you hear a difference in cables, you get people disagreeing with you and providing evidence to show you are mistaken.
   
  If you ask me, we aren't the ones that are the problem.


----------



## BobJS

Reading the last few pages made me think of people having a debate regarding the existence of God.  The scientific, evidence-requiring skeptics vs the faith-based believers.  A believer saying , "I know there is no hard scientific evidence for God's existence, but he speaks to me, or "I can feel him", being analogous to, "I don't care if there is no scientific justification in cables, I can HEAR the difference!"
   
  Not sure where I'm going with this; just popped into my head.  For anyone curious, I'm somewhere between atheist-agnostic regarding God, and skeptical regarding cables, though I DO believe I've heard the difference for myself, however I can't find the scientific justification, and I'm fully aware of the power of expectation bias.


----------



## EthanWiner

bigshot said:


> In every forum on head-fi except this one, you can get banned for saying cables all sound the same ... If you ask me, we aren't the ones that are the problem.




I agree. I am always polite, and stick to the facts, and I never insult anyone until they have insulted me several times. The most insulting people are those who have beliefs about audio that they can't back up, and they hate it when you explain the facts, no matter how politely. There's a thread at an audiophile forum about tweaks. It's up to 673 posts, and many contain insults such as this gem from yesterday:


"You're acting non-sensical as usual. You're either a baby that needs a milk bottle or tit delivered straight to your mouth before you drink or you're trying to set yourself up in some imaginary ivory tower pretending to be some highly-educated intellectual type where others must prove anything to you ... you continue to show that you're educated far beyond your intelligence when you think you can sit there in your baby stroller or imaginary ivory tower demanding that others provide Professor Ethan sufficient proof before he lifts a finger. Let's be honest, Ethan. You and your ilk are nobodies, just like the rest of us are nobodies ... I think there's a lot of laziness involved here too ... climb up out of your baby stroller or climb down from your imaginary ivory tower ... Or you can just play dumb and lazy the rest of your life and continue wasting everybody's time."​
Pretty bad, eh? This is in response to my saying I'll be glad to consider the value of "power" products as soon as someone shows an improvement at the output of the connected audio device. The fact that a forum will ban you for your opinion shows they _know_ they have no rebuttal, so all that's left is censorship.

--Ethan


----------



## bigshot

I sympathize. No one should have to put up with that. But folks who actually know what they're talking about are better able to deal with that stuff I guess. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
   
  I think we live in an age where people live in their own heads, entertain themselves with their own words and have no clue about how they look to others. These people are incapable of reading other people's emotions and motives and they react in ways that just plain aren't appropriate. There's a medical term for it, but I see it as a societal shift, not a medical one.


----------



## CantScareMe

I work in a client based environment, where all in this office deal with clients directly every day. If any one here sent to a client a single email like that one addressing Ethan, our company will go bust.
  Yep.
  Literally bust. 
   
  The guy who wrote that is an advanced version of the typical youtube beieber basher. Waste of time reading it/responding.


----------



## esldude

Wow Ethan, that is some kind of reply you got there.  As an outsider not taking part it actually is pretty funny to read.


----------



## krismusic

Back to cables. I am pretty non technical so please bare with me. Would I be right in thinking that the most ardent believer in cables would not expect a cable to impart a quality to the sound that was not in the original recording? If so, what would sound "better" 1 inch of "inferior" cable or 1ft. of "superior" cable?


----------



## ev13wt

In that German forum I was talking about earlier, every cable thread gets moved to the voodoo subforum by the mods.

It's the biggest forum over there btw.


----------



## Steve Eddy

ethanwiner said:


> I agree. I am always polite, and stick to the facts, and I never insult anyone until they have insulted me several times. The most insulting people are those who have beliefs about audio that they can't back up, and they hate it when you explain the facts, no matter how politely. There's a thread at an audiophile forum about tweaks. It's up to 673 posts, and many contain insults such as this gem from yesterday:
> 
> 
> "You're acting non-sensical as usual. You're either a baby that needs a milk bottle or tit delivered straight to your mouth before you drink or you're trying to set yourself up in some imaginary ivory tower pretending to be some highly-educated intellectual type where others must prove anything to you ... you continue to show that you're educated far beyond your intelligence when you think you can sit there in your baby stroller or imaginary ivory tower demanding that others provide Professor Ethan sufficient proof before he lifts a finger. Let's be honest, Ethan. You and your ilk are nobodies, just like the rest of us are nobodies ... I think there's a lot of laziness involved here too ... climb up out of your baby stroller or climb down from your imaginary ivory tower ... Or you can just play dumb and lazy the rest of your life and continue wasting everybody's time."​
> Pretty bad, eh? This is in response to my saying I'll be glad to consider the value of "power" products as soon as someone shows an improvement at the output of the connected audio device. The fact that a forum will ban you for your opinion shows they _know_ they have no rebuttal, so all that's left is censorship.




And I'll say it again. You're acting non-sensical as usual... 

se


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





krismusic said:


> Back to cables. I am pretty non technical so please bare with me. Would I be right in thinking that the most ardent believer in cables would not expect a cable to impart a quality to the sound that was not in the original recording? If so, what would sound "better" 1 inch of "inferior" cable or 1ft. of "superior" cable?


 

 I think your asking the wrong group actually.  Not trying to be a smart aleck.  If you think some cable loses part of the signal or louses it up it would depend on how big the difference.  Superior one foot could be better if that were the case.  But it really is a useless question as both one inch and one foot will transfer the signal unmolested.


----------



## krismusic

Yes. That makes sense. Just thought I had something there for a minute! 
There is going to be a blind cable challenge at the next London meet. 
I will be very interested to try it as I am neutral tending toward sceptic. 
I can't help thinking that psychoacoustics are more remarkable than the attributes of a piece of cable...


----------



## GSARider

I posted up a week or so back on my conclusions on the vertere d-fi USB cable vs an Amazon Basics Cable ( which btw, is nicely made) - zero audible difference sighted and on a blind test. I couldn't tell them apart, on the blind tests, it was just guessing. Used on HDVD800 / HD800 / MBPR / Audioirvana running lossless files.


----------



## Happy Camper

Numbers don't lie so I won't try. 

Convenient excuse to be lazy or cheap. Either way, your choice. If you put the effort into listening instead of refuting, you may understand what the other side has found. To accuse them of self delusion is the biggest laugh. It's all a decision each of us makes. Some can't tell a difference between a 128k ipod and a $5k dac. I'd say they aren't very well educated in the art of listening. And no, 50 years of listening to music isn't the same as critical listening, I'm learning that at 57. 

I just learned another lesson yesterday. I was listening to some hi end amps at the dealer with my DAC/laptop/headphones. I had been on this amp for the better part of an hour when my friend handed me a USB cable to try. No coaching, no comments at all. All things were equal in the setup (including volume) and I just swapped out the USB cable. I was not expecting to hear a difference since it is in the digital domain. I walked out with a new USB cable. Since it's a hidden cable, I had no bias toward looks, elitism of cost, and a bit of a skeptical attitude about the digital domain having an impact. I was proved wrong. There was an improvement and it was immediate. The biggest issue in this debate is more about value of improvement. If you can hear a difference, is it worth the cost? To a hungry person, no way. To a connoisseur, perhaps.


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Numbers don't lie so I won't try.
> 
> Convenient excuse to be lazy or cheap. Either way, your choice. If you put the effort into listening instead of refuting, you may understand what the other side has found. To accuse them of self delusion is the biggest laugh. It's all a decision each of us makes. Some can't tell a difference between a 128k ipod and a $5k dac. I'd say they aren't very well educated in the art of listening. And no, 50 years of listening to music isn't the same as critical listening, I'm learning that at 57.
> 
> I just learned another lesson yesterday. I was listening to some hi end amps at the dealer with my DAC/laptop/headphones. I had been on this amp for the better part of an hour when my friend handed me a USB cable to try. No coaching, no comments at all. All things were equal in the setup (including volume) and I just swapped out the USB cable. I was not expecting to hear a difference since it is in the digital domain. I walked out with a new USB cable. Since it's a hidden cable, I had no bias toward looks, elitism of cost, and a bit of a skeptical attitude about the digital domain having an impact. I was proved wrong. There was an improvement and it was immediate. The biggest issue in this debate is more about value of improvement. If you can hear a difference, is it worth the cost? To a hungry person, no way. To a connoisseur, perhaps.


 

 This is the all too typical response.  Plenty here have gotten it many times.  We have put in the effort to listen.  You can't hear a difference when none exists except by some sort of artifact of your perception.
   
  Did not the offer of the USB cable have an unspoken communication that it might be better or sound different?  Otherwise why would your friend have bothered?  You heard a difference yet one no one has been able to explain.  One which likely will disappear were you to audition the USB cables blind.  If you passed the blind auditioning reliably then something must be happening.  Otherwise it simply is most likely a placebo effect. Yes, even if you sat there thinking you wouldn't hear a difference.


----------



## bigshot

I was auditioning speakers at a high end audio store once. I caught the salesman shifting the tone controls behind his back to add extra bass to the speakers he wanted me to buy. I NEVER trust comparison tests done at audio equipment stores. That's like trusting the mechanic at a used car lot to find all the potential problems in a car you're considering buying. Always find out the truth from a disinterested party.
   
  As for learning to hear things no one else can hear... Discernment is something with taste in music. But we all have human ears. We can't learn to hear beyond the range of human hearing no matter how hard we try. We might as well try to sprout wings and fly.
   
  Some people may not bother to pay attention closely enough to hear artifacting in low bitrate compressed music, but they can still hear it if they don't background the music. They don't learn to hear, they either pay attention or they don't. I'm pretty sure that everyone in this forum is paying attention.


----------



## Happy Camper

Sorry, the difference is noticed immediately. If there was no difference, it would have sounded the same or minimal at best. It was substantial enough for me to purchase it after my listening session. I am as big a tightwad as the next guy so I don't come off a C note easily. Your pseudo science reasoning is not going to convince those who've given a listen and heard differences in performance any doubt. If it keeps others from trying, shame on them for being so easily convinced. If they choose not to at least try, it's their loss. For you to say there is no difference, I call BS. Wireworld Starlight USB cable vs a Radio Shack USB cable.


----------



## mikeaj

happy camper said:


> Sorry, the difference is noticed immediately. If there was no difference, it would have sounded the same or minimal at best. It was substantial enough for me to purchase it after my listening session. I am as big a tightwad as the next guy so I don't come off a C note easily. Your pseudo science reasoning is not going to convince those who've given a listen and heard differences in performance any doubt. If it keeps others from trying, shame on them for being so easily convinced. If they choose not to at least try, it's their loss. For you to say there is no difference, I call BS. Wireworld Starlight USB cable vs a Radio Shack USB cable.




I've tried things before, including cables, and not heard differences. I've also tried things, thought I heard differences, tested some more, and failed to reliably hear those things. Also tried and consistently heard things for other stimulus. Is there an implication that people are living too much in theoryland?

Anyway, which part of which reasoning is "pseudo science" according to you?

Just to make sure we're on the same page, you're not trying to imply that you're backed by or making any scientifically sound claims, right? Are you saying that nobody has any authority on these matters, nobody here does, or who or what else?

Also, which RadioShack USB cable? What DAC and what kind of computer? In general, excepting certain parts of "high end" where some are making things bad on purpose, there should be more difference between low-priced products as there are more places for problems and things to go wrong. Specificity of which RadioShack USB cable should be important, unless there really is some supposed property of the Wireworld Starlight which you're sure is not found in any cheaper common cables found at RadioShack? A bad loudspeaker could be bad in a wide number of different distinguishable ways, for example. Also, usually the characteristics of a cable—supposing they have some reasonable effect on the system—should be manifested in different ways depending on which systems you're connecting together, right? Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I'm curious of the thought process.


----------



## xnor

This screams like a boatload of bias.
   
  Happy Camper, have you tried the Brilliant Pebbles by machina dynamica? If you say they are just stones I'm gonna reply with:
  Quote: 





happy camper said:


> [...]
> Your pseudo science reasoning is not going to convince those who've given a listen and heard differences in performance any doubt. If it keeps others from trying, shame on them for being so easily convinced. If they choose not to at least try, it's their loss. For you to say there is no difference, I call BS. Wireworld Starlight USB cable vs a Radio Shack USB cable.


 
  Shame on people being so gullible/deceptible.
   
   
  What differences did you hear?


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Sorry, the difference is noticed immediately. If there was no difference, it would have sounded the same or minimal at best. It was substantial enough for me to purchase it after my listening session. I am as big a tightwad as the next guy so I don't come off a C note easily. Your pseudo science reasoning is not going to convince those who've given a listen and heard differences in performance any doubt. If it keeps others from trying, shame on them for being so easily convinced. If they choose not to at least try, it's their loss. For you to say there is no difference, I call BS. Wireworld Starlight USB cable vs a Radio Shack USB cable.


 

 Been there done that Happy Camper.  I even sometimes think there are differences, and more careful or blind comparisons turn up nothing.  As Bigshot has said, you cannot hear beyond human hearing abilities.  There simply is nothing going on at that level that is audible.  Your response is one repeated thousands of times.  But your perceptions are more easily swayed than perhaps you realize is possible.  I have been there and had the same experience.  It is one that can leave you with a queasy feeling in your gut. 
   
  Now this is "Sound Science".  Just saying I heard it and trust my hearing won't cut it here when what you heard is so unlikely to be part of physical reality. 
   
  Does Wireworld give a reasonable, rational or testable explanations for what their USB does better?  In digital audio signals there is timing and bit values.  Get those right and there is no room for a difference.  The Wireworld USB doesn't transmit different bits as that has been tested.  It doesn't alter the timing as that has been tested too.  So what is going on, how could it sound different?
   
  Of course maybe we are missing something, and it does sound really different.  That is where the blind testing comes in to check up on how real the difference is you are hearing.


----------



## Happy Camper

The only difference in the setup was the cable. Not even the volume control was adjusted. 

Sony i3 using foobar/ASIO output to a Hilo Lynx DAC, balanced out to a Simaudio Moon 340i amp into HE-6. Material was flac from CD and vinyl rips @ 24/96. 

I'm not making any claim for science but I'm not taking science doubletalk to tell me I'm either lying (which is often insinuated) or fooled. 

The Radio Shack is a $10 two meter cable. Sorry, can't quote the model of the cable but it was a 2.0 USB a to b cable. 

I believe the difference in cable geometry and silver clad wire on the signal lines reduces jitter and improved the timing. Whatever the reasoning, I did hear a difference in sound quality for the better.


----------



## bigshot

Did the salesman at any time touch the equipment or stand near it?
   
  Was it your Radio Shack cable, or did the store provide it?
   
  Did the amp have any sort of switch to adjust impedance or to apply or disable tone controls?


----------



## Happy Camper

No. He took it from the package and handed it to me. I finished listening to the song I was listening to and put the cable in and repeated that song with the new cable. I was not expecting anything. The equipment was mine except for the amp and I was the only one in the room with the gear. I'm telling you, there was no trickery and no other influence to this experience. I am now listening to it at home with my amps and am hearing the same improvements heard there. Live recordings are what I use for testing and I hear a better and more resolving sound from this cable. Since this is science and you demand proof, I'll step back. But all this banter about not having an impact is calling a huge number of hobbyists wrong by many a method and I think it's as inconclusive as our impressions seem to you. I'll leave it at that because I don't want this locked.


----------



## Happy Camper

bigshot said:


> Did the salesman at any time touch the equipment or stand near it?
> 
> Was it your Radio Shack cable, or did the store provide it?
> 
> Did the amp have any sort of switch to adjust impedance or to apply or disable tone controls?




The sales person did not touch the gear and left the room once he handed me the cable. 

The Radio Shack cable was mine and has been in use since January in this system. 

The amp had no tone controls or impedance adjustments. Model is listed above.


----------



## xnor

Doesn't matter what the salesman did or didn't. It's just another anecdote of another uncontrolled comparison.
   
  Happy Camper, ask the hobbyists and _pros_ at hydrogenaudio what they think of USB cables causing different sound. My guess is most of them think alike esldude, or bigshot. If you want to play the numbers game I have to disappoint you, since most people find stuff like expensive/audiophile USB or ethernet cables to clearly belong to the "nutty" part of audiophilia.


----------



## Happy Camper

xnor said:


> Doesn't matter what the salesman did or didn't. It's just another anecdote of another uncontrolled comparison.
> 
> Happy Camper, ask the hobbyists and _pros_ at hydrogenaudio what they think of USB cables causing different sound. My guess is most of them think alike esldude, or bigshot. If you want to play the numbers game I have to disappoint you, since most people find stuff like expensive/audiophile USB or ethernet cables to clearly belong to the "nutty" part of audiophilia.


So that's where it will lay. I'm nuts. :rolleyes:

To me, this science forum has as much credibility as your claims to the contrary. It's your pros vs their pros. 

So hydrogenaudio is any more or less qualified as this or any other audio forum? Experience is all any of us have to give personal views of a contentious topic. Coming into this hobby, I had the same non beliefs as those of you. In the 7 years of time here, I've got to experience all sorts of things first hand. I've been proved wrong in my beliefs by these experiences. But again, this is a science forum and I can't prove other than my honest impression that is recent. Controlled to me is leaving the entire rig static except changing out the cable. Same gear, same song, same volume control setting. That's as good as I can do to be impartial.


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> So that's where it will lay. I'm nuts.


 
  Many jump to this conclusion too, and that is not it.  You are not nuts.  I never thought you were lying.  You are very .....human.  
   
   
  It happens all the time.  Not because you aren't careful, not because you aren't honest, not because you are nuts.  You aren't fooling yourself, but you were fooled by the very common foibles of human hearing, and the ease with which things near limits of perception can be biased without your realizing it.


----------



## bigshot

Since you now own both the cable and the radio shack cable, it would be very easy for you to set up a blind comparison test with a friend.


----------



## Happy Camper

If the cable can lower the noise floor, it exposes those parts of the signal that were being masked. It's the micro details that become exposed. No, a cable can't make things appear that aren't there. But I see gear, all components, as putting some form of resistance (masking) to the signal. Better gear can bring out more of that signal but it's rare to impossible to get everything out of the original. Every part we can improve will expose more of that signal. Digital sound is even more influenced by software, conversions, physical limitations, etc. I feel even minor influences can have an impact on what we hear. It's not as cut and dry as it seems. With that, I'll back out and let this thread continue in a different direction. Just wanted to share an experience that changed my perceptions.


----------



## bigshot

A USB cable either passes the packets along, or it doesn't. The difference between a properly functioning USB cable and one that wasn't would be noticeable, not subtle. With a USB cable, the noise floor can't be lower or higher than the specs for the file you're listening to. All you would hear is clicking and pops if one cable was not as good as another.

Try a blind test. See what happens. Maybe your friend will give you a refund if you do it quickly and find out for sure.

By the way, masking is something entirely different. That has to do with frequencies that pair. Imagine a middle C playing at the same time as a higher C. You would hear them as one note, not two.


----------



## esldude

I asked earlier if Wireworld has an explanation.  I looked and they don't have any that are convincing to me.  They do have a page showing what they say is waveform error for generic USB vs theirs. 
   
  http://wireworldcable.com/Image_Library.html  Look at the January 2013 white paper under "product sheets".
   
  Here they say they played a music waveform through one cable and then differenced it against their USB cabled.  I am assuming they recorded the result and subtracted one waveform from another.  Just happens I spent some time doing just that with USB, and analog cables a bit over a year ago.  I still have the files.  Here is a screenshot of my result. 
   
  One file was a 96 khz recording of a Clark Terry song using a friend's Wireworld USB (was either Ultraviolet or Starlight didn't record which).  Then again using a 33 foot monoprice USB extender the end of which was using a generic USB cable that came in an HP printer.   I even changed the scale to match what Wireworld has best I could tell.  They appeared to have it at 25%.  Even if I zoomed in like their second picture it looks like a flat line.  Zoomed in 5 times closer it looks a bit fuzzy.   This isn't a zero.  Doing the FFT on it, there is a peak of -107 db at 60 hz.  Everywhere else is around -115db to 118 db.  That is the basic noise level of the equipment on hand.  Later with quieter equipment got the same result between USB cables just the noise floor was lower by 8-10 decibels.  I didn't have the Wireworld on hand at that later time.
   
  As there appears to be no difference greater than -100 db I dont' know how you could hear that.  I also don't know the details of why they show a different result.  I had only good consumer level equipment yet get far better performance than they are showing.


----------



## bigshot

I would think that when you hear a difference where there really shouldn't be a difference, you'd be interested in finding out why. When I compare equipment, I want to know *why* something sounds better than something else. If I don't understand that, how am I going to continue to improve my system? Just plain old luck is too slow. I only have a lifespan of a normal human being. (and hearing to match!)


----------



## Happy Camper

http://www.wireworldcable.com/categories/usb_cables.html

You guys are correct. Data transfer is free of timing issues.

This is from Wireworld

There is a fundamental difference between the transfer of computer data and USB crossection
digital audio signals. Computers are able to transfer digital data without loss, because the data moves in the robust form of blocks, which do not depend on specific timing between the sending and receiving devices. However, digital audio signals are continuous streams of data, which are quite fragile, since the digital processor must remain perfectly locked onto the timing of the signal to avoid data losses.
The Limitations of digital audio processors and cables create timing errors known as jitter, which remove portions of the audio signal and replace them with noise and distortion. Cables tend to round off the square waveforms of the signal, making them less clear to the processor, thus increasing jitter. This rounding effect varies greatly among cables and a truly superior digital audio cable can make great improvements in sound quality.
WireWorld digital audio cables utilize unique designs specifically developed to minimize jitter by providing sharper, cleaner leading edges on the digital waveform.


----------



## bigshot

What is wireworld? A company that sells high end cables?

Because I know about jitter, and it isn't a problem because the DAC has a buffer that makes sure the digital stream goes through smoothly. Jitter as it occurs in even the cheapest digital audio equipment is as much as 100 times below the threshold of audibility.

This has been discussed extensively here. You've been around for a long time. I'm sure you've read about all this stuff before.

What's wrong with doing a controlled blind listening test? It isn't that hard really. I think they're kind of fun.

.


----------



## Happy Camper

Do I have a choice? I want to know as well but I think it would be more about my audio memory ability. But I can and will give er a spin with another head fier in the near future. Argh......


----------



## bigshot

The nice thing about blind tests is you know for sure if there is a difference you can really hear. If not... you just saved a bunch of money!


----------



## ab initio

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> http://www.wireworldcable.com/categories/usb_cables.html
> 
> You guys are correct. Data transfer is free of timing issues.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Even usb audio is sent in packets, not as a continuous stream of bits. Using my google-fu, I've identified a more in depth article on how usb audio is implemented. Be sure to read the 2nd and 3rd pages as well!
   
  Only the poorest of designs (or most outdated!) have any dependance on timing cues from the computer. Modern DACs operate in asynchronous mode, where the DAC asks the computer to send data packets when the DAC is ready for it. The actual clocking of the conversion of bytes to audio happen within the DAC using its own (and hopefully sufficiently stable!) clock. There is simply no mechanism for jitter from the computer or the usb cable to affect the output jitter of a modern asynchronous DAC. Any defect in the data stream is because one of the components in the chain (CPU->USB port->cable->USB port->DAC) is operating _outside of specification_ and should be considered broken. All USB cables which meet the USB standard transfer data equally well.
   
  Somewhat ironically, the only device that could even be argued to potentially benefit from a fancy USB cable would be one of exceedingly poor design and quality. You're better off spending money on a modern asynchronous DAC (like a $99 Modi---and I'm sure there are cheaper, too) than buying wireworld USB cables (of which the _cheapest_ 1-meter cable is ~ $80 USD).
   
  Hope this helps!
  Cheers!


----------



## Chromako

Quote: 





ab initio said:


> Even usb audio is sent in packets, not as a continuous stream of bits. Using my google-fu, I've identified a more in depth article on how usb audio is implemented. Be sure to read the 2nd and 3rd pages as well!
> 
> Only the poorest of designs (or most outdated!) have any dependance on timing cues from the computer. Modern DACs operate in asynchronous mode, where the DAC asks the computer to send data packets when the DAC is ready for it. The actual clocking of the conversion of bytes to audio happen within the DAC using its own (and hopefully sufficiently stable!) clock. There is simply no mechanism for jitter from the computer or the usb cable to affect the output jitter of a modern asynchronous DAC. Any defect in the data stream is because one of the components in the chain (CPU->USB port->cable->USB port->DAC) is operating _outside of specification_ and should be considered broken. All USB cables which meet the USB standard transfer data equally well.
> .....


 
   
  Ya. USB audio is packetised and buffered... but that changes with I2C connections and SPDIF (hence why asynchronous DAC's are nice). Is that why people get confused?  
   
  Shielded USB cables with secure connectors = good. Those cost like $10. TOSLINK / Coax cables with good SNR and durable connectors = good. Those cost like $20. Double that if you want them to look blingy and shiny. Then again, those previous recommendations are in most cases, for peace-of-mind than anything else. 
   
  If you want to sell unobtanium digital cables... then just go out and say that you should buy them because they look cool! _I'm totally fine with that- you're being honest._
   
  Then there's this %£$@ where we have a $200 ribbon "_coaxial"_ cable _that isn't shielded_.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Then again, this is the same place with this gem: 
   
   


> • *DO NOT USE ANY BREAK-IN DEVICES OF ANY KIND ON OUR WIRES!!* Doing so will degrade the sound of our cables. Use only music to break in our wires, preferably music with strong transients (i.e. music with lots of percussion and/or plucked instruments).


 
   
  .


----------



## ev13wt

happy camper said:


> The only difference in the setup was the cable. Not even the volume control was adjusted.
> 
> Sony i3 using foobar/ASIO output to a Hilo Lynx DAC, balanced out to a Simaudio Moon 340i amp into HE-6. Material was flac from CD and vinyl rips @ 24/96.
> 
> ...





See how you said: "I believe". That is what you are doing. And you are allowed to do that. I think even most of the salesmen that sell these things also "believe". You see, the thing is that humans often believe things that are just not true. The more people, the more this effect runs rampant. When the people thought the earth was flat and you would say it was round, you would have gotten lynched by the church.

If you take time to learn about how a DAC works, or for that matter even a CD transport, you would see that there is such a thing as a data buffer. This data buffer takes the stream of data and stores it, AFTER it has gone through the USB cable. As such, it is impossible to hear any usb cable sound on that fact alone. Why? Because the jitter and timing "problems" you are "hearing" would happen between the buffer and the dac.

Now, I am not saying you are lying - you DID hear something. But you just placed it in the wrong area. It wasn't in the cable. USB cable sound is, scientifically speaking, close to fuel magnet scams. 

Another example: You see, every time I change the oil in my truck, I always feel it's running smoother and more efficiently and I used to buy the best oil I could (read expensive). But, there is a certain weight of oil that is best for the way the engine (oil pump, oil passages, spray nozzles, main crankshaft bearing tolerances. You only need 5w 50 if you actually own a race engine with those tolerances and temps. A normal engine, when cold, will just wear down faster with the thin oil. And 90% of all wear happens at startup.


----------



## zorin

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> This is the Sound Science forum. We try to understand the reasons why things happen, and we try to verify results. There really isn't much point marching in, claiming something and belligerently refusing to play by the rules of science. There are a bunch of other forums in Head-Fi for that. Knowing why Sound Science exists, why would anyone come in here and do that unless they *wanted* to provoke the inevitable requests for proof?
> 
> The response isn't monotonous, the incessant trolling is.


 
   
  The " Sound Science " is deaf.


----------



## Chromako

Unobtanium digital cables don't improve _t_he _sound._ They do improve the _music (your experience)_.
   
   Remember the saying. "I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any difference."

  Quote: 





ev13wt said:


> Now, I am not saying you are lying - you DID hear something. But you just placed it in the wrong area. It wasn't in the cable. USB cable sound is, scientifically speaking, close to fuel magnet scams.
> 
> Another example: You see, every time I change the oil in my truck, I always feel it's running smoother and more efficiently and I used to buy the best oil I could (read expensive). But, there is a certain weight of oil that is best for the way the engine (oil pump, oil passages, spray nozzles, main crankshaft bearing tolerances. You only need 5w 50 if you actually own a race engine with those tolerances and temps. A normal engine, when cold, will just wear down faster with the thin oil. And 90% of all wear happens at startup.


 
   
  To elaborate all this..as ev13wt is saying... Placebo is _real_ (and is a major thing complicating medical research, to my frustration, for example.)
   
  Perception of music and enjoyment of it is just as much about engineering physics as it is about psychology. 
   
  Expensive, shiny unobtanium USB cables may make for better _perceived_ PRaT and Transients and soundstaging and whatever despite it not making an actual objective difference. 
   
  ...Unless you're scientifically minded and whatnot... being scientifically minded in this case is actually sort of a shame, if you think about it in a certain way.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





esldude said:


> One file was a 96 khz recording of a Clark Terry song using a friend's Wireworld USB (was either Ultraviolet or Starlight didn't record which).  Then again using a 33 foot monoprice USB extender the end of which was using a generic USB cable that came in an HP printer.   I even changed the scale to match what Wireworld has best I could tell.  They appeared to have it at 25%.  Even if I zoomed in like their second picture it looks like a flat line.  Zoomed in 5 times closer it looks a bit fuzzy.   This isn't a zero.  Doing the FFT on it, there is a peak of -107 db at 60 hz.  Everywhere else is around -115db to 118 db.  That is the basic noise level of the equipment on hand.  Later with quieter equipment got the same result between USB cables just the noise floor was lower by 8-10 decibels.  I didn't have the Wireworld on hand at that later time.


 
   
  Did you use the same USB device for both playback and recording ? Not that I believe in USB cables sounding different, but if the DAC and ADC share the same clock (as it likely is the case if they are in the same device), then the loopback recording will not show all the jitter that is there in the analog output of the DAC. Otherwise, a difference signal of less than -100 dB is difficult to achieve even when both recordings are made under the same conditions (same cables etc.), since the clock frequency does tend to have a small amount of slow random variation (an example can be seen here).


----------



## Chromako

Quote: 





esldude said:


> I asked earlier if Wireworld has an explanation.  I looked and they don't have any that are convincing to me.  They do have a page showing what they say is waveform error for generic USB vs theirs.
> 
> http://wireworldcable.com/Image_Library.html  Look at the January 2013 white paper under "product sheets".
> 
> Here they say they played a music waveform through one cable and then differenced it against their USB cabled.  I am assuming they recorded the result and subtracted one waveform from another.  Just happens I spent some time doing just that with USB, and analog cables a bit over a year ago.  I still have the files.  Here is a screenshot of my result.


 
  For some reason, I find that graph to be absolutely hilarious. (And I'd cry shenanigans if you got anything different.)
   
  Then I cried a bit inside. Those uber cables are so shiny and now I won't be able to justify getting them... *sniffle*
   
  Edit: sv014 has a rather fascinating point. Not that I think it'd make a difference to our graph, but it is interesting.


----------



## Torr

I have quite a few friends who are fitness or bodybuilding enthusiasts. Flip through their bodybuilding magazines or visit some of their web forums and you will find all manner of snakeoil being sold as "supplements". They have a wide variety of supplements that are marketed for a number of purposes using a lot of junk science. These things get really expensive and even though none of them have been scientifically proven to work and all of them make grandiose claims that they can't back up, they still sell this stuff for hundreds of dollars. In fact, it seems there is not only a link between the cost of a supplement and its perceived effectiveness, but there is also a sense of pride that comes with using the best, most expensive supplements.
   
  But you have to realize one thing. Despite the fact that they believe all this junk science and push expensive supplements that don't work, a lot of the people who review these supplements and write the articles for those magazines and forums are, without a doubt, HUGE! They may buy into a lot of junk science and waste hundreds (or even thousands) on products that don't work, but a lot of the other things they teach about bodybuilding do work and give great results as can be seen from looking at their bodies. So, do we ignore everything they say because they buy into the junk science behind the supplement industry? No, there's a lot these people do know about. We just happen to know more than they do about supplements; that doesn't change the fact that when it comes to designing an optimal meal plan or workout they may know far more than we do.
   
  Our own hobby is the same way. There's a lot of junk science and snake oil in our hobby, especially when it comes to cables and interconnects. But just like we wouldn't claim Mr. Olympia is completely unreliable because he believes in supplements (in fact, the current Mr. Olympia does), we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater when judging reviewers in our field of interest either. They may have been suckered in by the junk science of the interconnect industry, but that doesn't automatically mean they can't be trusted when it comes to their opinion on other equipment.


----------



## Chromako

> So, do we ignore everything they say because they buy into the junk science behind the supplement industry? No, there's a lot these people do know about. We just happen to know more than they do about supplements; that doesn't change the fact that when it comes to designing an optimal meal plan or workout they may know far more than we do.
> 
> Our own hobby is the same way. There's a lot of junk science and snake oil in our hobby, especially when it comes to cables and interconnects. But just like we wouldn't claim Mr. Olympia is completely unreliable because he believes in supplements (in fact, the current Mr. Olympia does), we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater when judging reviewers in our field of interest either. They may have been suckered in by the junk science of the interconnect industry, but that doesn't automatically mean they can't be trusted when it comes to their opinion on other equipment.


 
  Wise words, indeed, dear Ma'am or Sir.  
   
  Just be careful, and use logic (that's what all ye peeps do here in Sound Science, right?)
   
  Example: I've, shockingly, gotten some nice information from the notorious 6Moons site... once the magniloquent prose an nonsense gobbledygook is excised (albeit there's depressingly little left after that endeavour.)


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





chromako said:


> being scientifically minded in this case is actually sort of a shame, if you think about it in a certain way.


 
  You mean in the ignorance is bliss kinda way? :-/


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> http://www.wireworldcable.com/categories/usb_cables.html
> 
> You guys are correct. Data transfer is free of timing issues.
> 
> ...


 

 Adding to ab initio's reply, it is quite sad that companies have to resort not only to outdated stuff, but exaggerating to the point of making nonsense of otherwise sound science, except for the points which are of course nonsense.
   
  Any USB 2.0 cable has to be able to transmit test patterns within stringent specifications. See the USB 2.0 spec section 7. Any larger "rounding of square waves" or transmission jitter will cause transmission errors, and a flipped bit on the receiver side (DAC) will cause a very noticeable audible difference (drop out, burst of noise, click, distortion ...).
   
  They are clearly confusing transmission jitter and digital audio jitter. Transmission jitter can add up to a couple ns. In a worst case where you string together a couple of hubs and long cables you will still get error-free transmission to the DAC, and a proper DAC will buffer the data and clock it based on its own clock. One without a buffer would have dropouts like a dozen times per second.
   
   
  Whenever I read pseudoscientific explanations by cable companies, especially USB and other digital ones, I'm wondering: *do their cables meet the respective spec, i.e. USB 2.0?*
  A simply way to check this is to look for the connector: does it look like a standard USB plug, does it have the USB logo?
  If not, you can very likely *throw it into the trash can *with clean conscience. See USB 2.0 spec section 6 for more details.
   

   
  Nonstandard, nonconforming digital cables might also explain transmission errors and the resulting audible differences, but plain old bias and placebo seems to prevail most of the time.


----------



## krismusic

All this concern about cables is predicated in the belief that the essence or emotion of music resides in the last N percent of the audible range. Is this a provable truth? Could it be that as long as the equipment is at least pretty good it will reproduce the music well enough to convey the intentions of the artist?
What is this critical listening? A grandiloquent phrase meaning "nitpicking", or "evaluating equipment". We are not involved in scientific research here. Just listening to some music in an attempt to enjoy ourselves.


----------



## preproman




----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





krismusic said:


> All this concern about cables is predicated in the belief that the essence or emotion of music resides in the last N percent of the audible range.


 
   
  I've found that the people that worry about the last 1% usually haven't bothered to deal with the other 99% yet.


----------



## krismusic

preproman said:


>



I take it that you think my post a bit of a waste of time. Maybe you are right. 
I thought long before I posted because I am very aware that this is a Sound Science forum and there are some very knowledgable technically minded people posting on here. There has been a bit of digression recently though and I also thought that I would try to put forward a less esoteric view. 
I have had various systems over the years and headed down the "high end" route and got into cables. 
Spent quite a lot of money with Russ Andrews. 
Recently I realised that I was enjoying my music less than I did when I was a teenager with a music center ( remember them?)  
I sold the lot. 
I've got a portable set up that I am confident is way ahead of the Beats straight out of a phone that I see everywhere. 
I just bought a Sonos system for home. 
I am listening to more music rather than fretting about equipment. 
This is not to denigrate those with fantastic systems but maybe don't lose sight if what it is all for. 
Or accept that a lot of it is enjoyment of beautifully made gear. 
I really apologise if this is not the place for these thoughts.


----------



## bigshot

I agree with you Krismusic. I used to spend a lot more on equipment than I used to. But the difference now isn't that I don't care any more or that I'm not listening carefully. The difference is that mid and low price electronics have become so good, that when it comes to sound quality, there is absolutely no reason to pay more.
   
  Why should I buy a $2000 CD player when a $120 Sony blu-ray player sounds just as good AND plays just about any format I throw at it?
   
  Why do I need expensive power amp/pre amp combinations when my Yamaha receiver sounds just as good AND it has 5:1 DSP features high end amps lack?
   
  Why do I need an expensive DAC and amp for my portable rig when I can just carry an iPod Touch or iPhone and get so much more functionality all in one little package?
   
  People sometimes seem to think that high price tags, stripped down features and complicated connections of multiple little black boxes makes for better sound. It isn't true. Better sound is better sound. And right now, you can get that cheap.


----------



## laon

I don't have any high end dac or amp but I'd rather cheap chinese dac than use idap, they sound genuinely awful. Of course YMMV, so I won't force it to everyone.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





krismusic said:


> I take it that you think my post a bit of a waste of time. Maybe you are right.


 
   
  That's just me subscribing to this thread sir.  Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## krismusic

I was just a bit paranoid as I was expecting a ticking off for waffling in the Science forum!


----------



## bigshot

We're friendly around here as long as you're honest and straightforward. Welcome to Sound Science!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





preproman said:


> That's just me subscribing to this thread sir.  Nothing more, nothing less.


 
   
  *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough*
   
  Sorry. Swallowed some water the wrong way. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Did you use the same USB device for both playback and recording ? Not that I believe in USB cables sounding different, but if the DAC and ADC share the same clock (as it likely is the case if they are in the same device), then the loopback recording will not show all the jitter that is there in the analog output of the DAC. Otherwise, a difference signal of less than -100 dB is difficult to achieve even when both recordings are made under the same conditions (same cables etc.), since the clock frequency does tend to have a small amount of slow random variation (an example can be seen here).


 
   
  Two different devices, but with locked clocks.  A laptop fed a USB to SPDIF converter which fed an external DAC.  That fed a second computer which had its clock locked. 
   
  I am familiar with the issue of clock drift.  You can get a slowly repeating pattern or just a bigger difference as you go.  Jitter by itself though would not look like what Wireworld is showing.  It looks more like a timing shift from drifting clocks.  Which brings up the matter of which one you show.  I can do a short test with unlocked clocks 10 times, and some will just happen to be sampled near the same time while others will be further off.  I have done long runs of test signals and music for 10 minutes at a time.  I found no correlation between any given USB cable vs another.
   
  One way to test if such sub-sample timing shift is the cause of the residual is to record two tones an octave apart.  Say 2khz and 4 khz combined in a test signal.  Record it twice and compare.  If the residual of the higher tone is 6.02 db higher than the lower tone it is due to timing shift.  You'll get this same 6 db difference regardless of the size of the shift as long as the residual is timing.  If the two tones have the same residual difference it is due to level differences.   You can put one sample to max to create a impulse and usually see how closely aligned things are as well by zooming in and looking at the individual bits.
   
  Below is residual I did quickly using a piano playing Gershwin.   This is a bit over a minute of music.  The level of the music is pretty consistent for this whole time.  I have found piano to be hardest to null.  I fed a netbook line out to a laptop line in.  You will see how the alignment was better at the beginning (where the null was 70-75 db) and clocks drifted enough to get worse near the end with nulls of merely 30-35 db.  I could show the result near the beginning and it looks more like 'superior' usb, and show the one near the end and say it was 'inferior'.  I know from having done this I could do it a dozen times and pick any 5 seconds I wished to compare and pretty much make it look anyway I wished.  I don't know that is what they did, but it could have been.  Record a dozen runs with each cable and then show the best two for theirs and the worst two for the generic.


----------



## esldude

As a further example I ran the music file and subtracted the difference 3 more times.  Same equipment as earlier today.  One file looked almost like the first I posted reversed left to right.  Here is one that started out a bit out of sync got pretty good in the middle and worse again at the end.  So assuming Wireworld did the same test without locked clocks their graphs really show you nothing.  As it will drift all around.  Better clocks etc. will drift less perhaps, but all drift enough to upset the result.  And even with the perfect clocks you cannot make sure you start recording sample one at the perfect time sample one is played.  Do it several times though and just through luck some will be better than others.
   
  Another way to monkey with it is the analog cables.  Make the cable twice as long during one recording vs the other and you have altered the relative timing by a few hundred picoseconds.  Enough the samples line up less well.


----------



## esldude

Decided to post the other comparison.  I recorded this music 4 times.  Lets call them A, B, C, and D.
   
  The first I posted is A vs B.  The second is A vs C and this one is A vs D.  You can see the results vary from run to run due to random timing differences between the clocks.  Wireworld would have had the same issues.  I get different results if I compare B vs C, and B vs D as well as C vs D.  All these from just 4 runs of the same file on the same equipment.


----------



## goodvibes

Why ask for an opinion on an opinion? Get two cables that supposedly sound different and hook them up to something recognized to be very revealing by subjectivists and see what you think. If your hear a difference, and it mimics a review, you've got someone to trust. If you don't, you've saved some money. Of course, you can believe more strongly in placebo than your ears and your objectivity in which case you should just go and watch TV.


----------



## Happy Camper

http://www.audiostream.com/content/draft

"People talk about USB and Firewire jitter being an issue and it can cause data errors. But really this is not the audio related jitter error that is most important."

Also how do we get the data there is a whole other topic to be taken on. We are basically packing audio data up into finite packets of bytes and then sending them over some serial link, one bit at a time and then rebuilding this data into a format for which the DAC chip will accept. People talk about USB and Firewire jitter being an issue and it can cause data errors. But really this is not the audio related jitter error that is most important. That has to do with the way the DAC receiver formats output data to the DAC chip and the associated audio master clocks and audio serial format (I2S, left justified, right justified, DSD, etc...). Then there is flow control over the network from the computer to the DAC. I don't know if any of you are looking at this... I have and it's not a pretty sight. So just doing this on average is not a good thing and there is an appreciable difference in sonics depending on the way you handle this.

Anyone who feels it's only "1" and "0" is missing a ton more variables that need to be addressed.



AS: Since there's no such thing as 1s and 0s in digital transmission, what is being sent over our USB/Firewire/Ethernet cables when we play back music files?

CH: An ANALOG signal!

Steve Silberman: I think this is where things get misconstrued. The signals we think of abstractly as “digital” are in fact high-speed analog square waves, susceptible to all of the same damage and distortions as any other analog signal.

AS: So when we talk about digital music playback, we're talking about a continuous system as opposed to a discrete system. In effect, once we hit play, our data is transformed from a discrete state into a continuous state which is, for all intents and purposes, governed by the laws of the analog world. And one of the most critical aspects of this continuous music playback system is time/timing errors/jitter.

GR: One thing that people have to realize is that these type of interfaces all work differently. I think that cable companies had to overcome when computer audio hit the market was... this stuff is all different than an S/PDIF cable. Which was really the only digital cable most of these companies had any experience with.


----------



## xnor

So are you trying to imply now that cables cause digital audio jitter?
   
   
  edit:
   
  There sure is some nonsense in that article, such as applications sounding different, saying that the cause of glitches with DACs is a cable of poor quality (it's usually DPC latency or other software related issues, but I agree that *if there are cable problems it causes plainly audible glitches*), again the confusion of jitter of transmission and D/A conversion, the attempt at making data transmission look like sorcery, ..
   
  They are right that most cable companies had no idea how to properly build digital cables to spec, and some of them still don't, but that doesn't stop them from selling them for hundreds of dollars.
   
  50 foot USB cables: of course they will cause problems, they are not built according to the USB spec.
   
  ... stopped reading when they started talking about the "digital brain".


----------



## bigshot

Jitter as it occurs in even the cheapest home audio equipment is as much as 100 times below the threshold of perception. You aren't hearing jitter with human ears.

deja vu
http://www.head-fi.org/t/668878/jitter-correlation-to-audibility/30


----------



## ev13wt

happy camper said:


> CH: An ANALOG signal!
> 
> Steve Silberman: I think this is where things get misconstrued. The signals we think of abstractly as “digital” are in fact high-speed analog square waves, susceptible to all of the same damage and distortions as any other analog signal.




This IS where it gets miscontrued. Of course the signal in a cable is analog. The way he say that is very misleading. The way he is trying to tweak people minds... See, even a square wave that is REALLY distorted, something that would sound aweful if it where an audio analog signal is still seen on the other side of an analog digital signal transmission as a 1. 

Ok, that is very simply said. (The faster you try to push data, the more important the cable gets. For instance, a cable bus extension system for a PCIe bus x8 can only be about 2 feet long, and that only using fat redrivers. A PCIe x16 signal will have a possible transmit length of 12 inches in a well calculated trace before it needs redrivers, jitter cleaners, reclocking, buffers et cetera) (At those PCIe speeds, all the traces need to be the same length even, so the data arrives simultaniously. This is why, on motherboards for instance, you sometimes see traces that are looping around all over, instead of just a straight short line to the slot.

None of the PCIe stuff applies to USB audio, as USB audio is sooooo vevryyy slooooow. But a smart manufacturer of audio cables could twist the trace length idea, and offer usb cables that have exact tolerances length wise, and state how this perfect matching enables much better clarity, timing and rythem because all the digital signals are arriving at the proper instant in the total time domain.... Ya know? Send me money I'll build you one,




Another example. Analog audio in a cable is like you talking on a phone. (bear with me here) If you talk and say onethousandandone and the connection is really bad, the other person won't understand it. It might have breakups or it is just impossible to understand beacuse the audio quality is so bad.

Now, in a digital transmission, think of it like this: A 1 is a minute long beeep tone of a high frequency, and a 0 is a minute long beep of a middle frequency. If you have a really REALLY bad connection, the other person can still reconstruct the 4 minute transmission fully. Then he can reconstruct the analog signal and can say out loud: One thousand and one in perfect audio quality.

If nobody understand anything at all, then use smoke signals.


----------



## ab initio

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> CH: An ANALOG signal!


 
   
  This is incorrect. A digital signal is not the same as an analog signal.
   
  An analog signal contains infinite information in the instantaneous amplitude of the signal and for an infinite number of instances in time. Think of this as infinite bit depth at infinite sampling rate.
   
  A digital signal is limited in both the amplitude resolution and the temporal resolution. Namely, the information can only take on a limited number of discrete values at discrete times.
   
  In the case of the (serial) transmission of binary data in a wire (let's call it the transmission wire), there are two things that are important: 1) the sampling rate and 2) the voltage threshold between a "high" and a "low" value (let's call this V_thresh)
  1) the sampling rate is usually determined by a parallel wire (or differential wire pair) that sends a clock signal. Only the master device would send the clock signal, and it would provide the timing reference for the slave device. Usually, the rising edge of the clock signal tells the slave device to sample the voltage on the transmission wire.
  2) when the device samples the voltage on the transmission wire, it asks whether or not the voltage is greater or less than V_thresh. if the voltage at that instant is greater than V_thresh, then that bit was a "high" or a 1. if the voltage at the instant of sampling is less than V_thresh, then the bit is a "low" or a 0. The exact shape of the voltage signal is irrelevant to the transmission of data. Either the voltage on the transmission wire is greater than the threshold value, or it isn't.
   
  I hope this helps clear up the issue 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  some links:
Wiki "digital signal"
Wiki "analog signal"
   
  Cheers!


----------



## Happy Camper

So a cable manufacturer and two DAC designers give their views and you guys all pick them apart. 

Cables have an effect on what we hear. To those reading this, they have information both for and against. They get to choose. 

Debate class dismissed (bye).


----------



## duncan1

Happy camper -and so  is the digital and analogue design of my very expensive  audio equipment bought from Cyrus Audio a well known and highly thought of company in the UK . Run not by business men but by digital design engineers and analogue design engineers  which is OWN designed and OWN built and that includes the disc platform with minute amounts of jitter. Seemingly they are wrong.I hope they will email the company to tell them they are "doing it wrong" And contrary to the thinking about me I am not 100 % convinced about cables but when 2 -6 inches of connecting wire are twisted together my Wayne Kerr LCR meter tells me its --13 PF.But that doesn't matter does it?


----------



## ev13wt

happy camper said:


> So a cable manufacturer and two DAC designers give their views and you guys all pick them apart.
> 
> Cables have an effect on what we hear. To those reading this, they have information both for and against. They get to choose.
> 
> Debate class dismissed (bye).




Wait a minute. The company I work for designs software defined radios using high speed dacs and adcs for military use. Just saying. I'm no engineer by any stretch, but I do understand the basics.

Nobody here is picking anything apart, we are just filling in the blanks that they left out (intentionally to fool you). If you don't want to see the entire picture, feel free to believe in the easter bunny if you wish - but don't get all huffy and puffy about it. It seems you had your opinion formed even before entering this thread. Why can't you just understand that other people have a different view than your (obviously technically limited) view?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> So a cable manufacturer and two DAC designers give their views and you guys all pick them apart.


 
  It doesn't matter who these guys are but _what _they are saying, unless you don't understand what they are saying, then you kinda have to put faith in them that what they are saying is right because of who they are.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Cables have an effect on what we hear. To those reading this, they have information both for and against. They get to choose.


 
  Homeopathy (placebos) also has an effect on some people. It's considered a "sham" and "quackery".
   
  Reality just is, you cannot choose it away. You cannot choose that you believe you can fly, nor that you will be able to hear differences in a blind test. All you can choose is to fool yourself in an uncontrolled comparison.


----------



## bigshot

The difference is, there isn't a buy it now button and an order form under what we say.


----------



## duncan1

Bob Carver---Not an audio design engineer but a physicist --a man who  uses the words like Holistic and many more which would get him banned on this forum--an American who is on many website lists as "one of the all time great audio designers" ---Who's equipment is listed in many audio websites as  some of the "all time best audio amps in the World"..In many "top tens" lists. A man who goes not by straight line science but takes into account that people listen to music with  human ears not a frequency response meter--level bridge--spectrum analyzer or THD meter.Sadly "fails" at the first post here.OH well maybe he should go back to university and learn more so that he is up to the "equivalent" here.


----------



## bigshot

What makes you think human perception isn't part of sound science? Carver has been discussed here many times. He's the one that proved that solid state amps can be adjusted to sound like tube amps by just coloring the output in the proper way.
   
  Sound Science folks are the ones saying that the specs of solid state components are so good today, even the cheapest CD player exceeds our ability to hear. The ones who point to infinitely small numbers and claim they make a difference are the subjectivists.


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> Bob Carver---Not an audio design engineer but a physicist --a man who  uses the words like Holistic and many more which would get him banned on this forum--an American who is on many website lists as "one of the all time great audio designers" ---Who's equipment is listed in many audio websites as  some of the "all time best audio amps in the World"..In many "top tens" lists. A man who goes not by straight line science but takes into account that people listen to music with  human ears not a frequency response meter--level bridge--spectrum analyzer or THD meter.Sadly "fails" at the first post here.OH well maybe he should go back to university and learn more so that he is up to the "equivalent" here.


 

 Failing to see your point.  Did you leave off a conclusion?
   
  This is the same Bob Carver that made his $400 amp mimic a huge and expensive tube amp.  Later made his own huge and expensive tube amp.  A man who uses plenty of instrumentation.  Where you got the idea Mr. Carver was all into this gestalt of holistic listening was probably reading some of those "trust our ears" based magazines when they reviewed his equipment or interviewed him.  You definitely picked the wrong guy as an example of someone not going by "straight line science". 
   
  Why do you think a man who successfully replicated sound of a $10k+ tube amp with $400 solid state amp later made such very expensive amps himself?  I think there lies a clue there.


----------



## duncan1

Bob Carver built equipment that put it up against  many well thought of audio equipment. His  sounded good to the human ear  not specifically to scientific measurement there is a difference as this thread disputes and discounts the "human" side of things in audio  only allowing purely electronic view points to be the accepted thing. It seems to be a case of "self denial" that we are human and that humans can do what robots cant and that's FEEL the music. Its an illogical fact and something that robots will never achieve. No robot can hear of feel the "spirit in music".and never will because they can never get beyond logic. It is non productive  to constantly "put down" human beings because they can hear more in music than a piece of electronics can. That's patronizing  and only has a basis in non human electronics  .Science is made to assist man not "standards" which are based on machines. There is no "standard" human beings some people get diseases that others don't and not because they don't eat such and such to make them ill but because their whole DNA  is different from person to person. Rules were made for man not man for rules. Science is not perfect and is a long way from being so so it isn't a "standard" on which to judge human beings.They keep on getting it wrong viruses   change and build up defenses to anti biotics .Humans change from generation to generation in a biological sense . But electronics no matter how good can never compete no matter how many SF films Hollywood throws out.. So if some people can hear differences in audio equipment it doesn't mean it doesn't exist because others don't. Our perception is different from person to person.And even though I cant hear all the things that are said I don't put down others that say they do. Capacitance/inductance/ resistance in connecting wires /active components all "gang up" to make it harder to design a stable and low distortion power amp. What works just fine on a bread board can oscillate to -ell in a beautiful PCB .I proved this by building a power amp whose components were "squashed together" just the high current output kept at a distance and I didn't need a compensation cap---but it looked Terrible.


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> Bob Carver built equipment that put it up against  many well thought of audio equipment. His  sounded good to the human ear  not specifically to scientific measurement there is a difference as this thread disputes and discounts the "human" side of things in audio  only allowing purely electronic view points to be the accepted thing. It seems to be a case of "self denial" that we are human and that humans can do what robots cant and that's FEEL the music. Its an illogical fact and something that robots will never achieve. No robot can hear of feel the "spirit in music".and never will because they can never get beyond logic. It is non productive  to constantly "put down" human beings because they can hear more in music than a piece of electronics can. That's patronizing  and only has a basis in non human electronics  .Science is made to assist man not "standards" which are based on machines. There is no "standard" human beings some people get diseases that others don't and not because they don't eat such and such to make them ill but because their whole DNA  is different from person to person. Rules were made for man not man for rules. Science is not perfect and is a long way from being so so it isn't a "standard" on which to judge human beings.They keep on getting it wrong viruses   change and build up defenses to anti biotics .Humans change from generation to generation in a biological sense . But electronics no matter how good can never compete no matter how many SF films Hollywood throws out.. So if some people can hear differences in audio equipment it doesn't mean it doesn't exist because others don't. Our perception is different from person to person.And even though I cant hear all the things that are said I don't put down others that say they do. Capacitance/inductance/ resistance in connecting wires /active components all "gang up" to make it harder to design a stable and low distortion power amp. What works just fine on a bread board can oscillate to -ell in a beautiful PCB .I proved this by building a power amp whose components were "squashed together" just the high current output kept at a distance and I didn't need a compensation cap---but it looked Terrible.


 

 Mr. Carver's amps sounded the way he wanted them to sound.  The human side of things is most specifically what is not being discounted here.  There are a few simple colorations that enhance the perceived sound quality of music to many people (though everyone probably has slightly different preferences).  There are very human limits to hearing . Some parts of the electronic reproduction chain exceed those limits handily.   There is no 'spirit in the music' if two different boxes reproduce the same signal exactly enough.  The spirit is in the human who perceives it.  The qualia of human musical experience most likely varies much more than equipment of good fidelity except perhaps when it comes to speakers/rooms. 
   
  So despite your opinion sound science is about deprecating humans I think you are mistaken.  It is about understanding humans.  To simply put a stamp on human perception as infallible is in fact devaluing them in my view.  Understanding what effects qualia of musical experience and what doesn't is to put more value on the human part.
   
  No one here has told you some people can't hear better than others.  Rather that sometimes there isn't any difference to be heard.  In those cases some will think they hear a difference when none physically exists.  It might appear that is claiming human experience is of no value.  I rather believe it simply shows an understanding of it. I fail to see advancing understanding as being an act of devaluation.


----------



## xnor

@duncan1: You still don't seem to understand that DBTs are _subjective_ tests.
   
  If we go the pragmatic route then what you can _really_ perceive is _all_ that matters, even if that means wobbly and rolled-off frequency response, distortion products above -60 dB, higher crosstalk etc.
   
   
  This thread does not dispute and discount the human side of things. It just points out that perception is not an objective measurement and as such is subject to loads and loads of _bias_. Nobody here denies that we are human, quite the opposite actually.
   
   
  As for "standards": every person is different, right, but does that mean that antifebriles won't work on like the majority of people in the world? Nope. Similarly, you can try as hard as you want, most (and I dare to say all, under normal circumstances) people won't be able to hear a different roll-off at X kHz beyond the hearing limit when switching cables. Sure, we all evolve, but you won't grow bat ears over night, nor over your entire lifetime.
   
  And as for science not being perfect, well nothing really is, but it's considered the best method for making useful and practical additions to human knowledge. If you know of more perfect methods, we're all ears.
   
   
  Your point "if some people can hear differences in audio equipment it doesn't mean it doesn't exist because others don't" can be easily turned around: Imagine giving placebos (_inert _pills) to 100 people, and it works for a _few _like let's say 10. You are arguing that the pills are _not inert_ but effective, because it triggered some effect for 10 people despite this phenomenon being well known as placebo effect.
   
  It's the same with, for example, digital cables really. Physically there is no improvement of what's coming out of your transducers, but psychologically it can cause a difference for a _few _people. Write some rave reviews in a forum or magazine and some "special" people will believe you, biasing them towards also hearing differences where there are none. When someone cannot hear the difference just call him deaf. If someone fails in a blind test just discredit science and instead of thinking critically and rationally just disable that part of the brain, point to positive (subjective) reviews and bathe in confirmation bias. Then there are also people who will just buy the stuff for fear they might not squeeze the last percent out of their system as they were told, telling their peers they also hear a small difference to prevent to be labeled deaf. It's a vicious circle.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





xnor said:


> @duncan1: You still don't seem to understand that DBTs are _subjective_ tests.


 
   
  Still doesn't seem to understand that paragraphs make things easier to read either.
   
  se


----------



## GSARider

steve eddy said:


> Still doesn't seem to understand that paragraphs make things easier to read either.
> 
> se





+1 why the heck do folk do this? Is it a copy & paste job?


----------



## bigshot

duncan1 said:


> Bob Carver built equipment that put it up against  many well thought of audio equipment. His  sounded good to the human ear  not specifically to scientific measurement




You're missing the point of his experiment. He took a $400 solid state amp that measured clean, and he added coloration that made it sound like a tube amp. He wasn't trying to improve the solid state amp. He was trying to prove that tube amp distortions were possible to exactly duplicate by simply hobbling an acoustically transparent solid state amp.

Anyone can make solid state sound like anything they want, because they are starting from a baseline that measures and sounds perfectly flat and perfectly clean. The differences between other amps that don't measure perfectly flat and perfectly clean can be exactly duplicated through sound processing.

Why not start with clean and THEN muddy it up to your personal taste. It makes no sense to start with a colored amp that has the coloration hardwired into its design. Coloration should be adjustable to personal taste. That's the concept behind DSPs, equalizers and tone controls.


----------



## bigshot

esldude said:


> No one here has told you some people can't hear better than others.




Actually, I will go out on a limb and say that.

There is a big difference between "some people hear better than others" and "some people don't hear as well as others". The limits of human perception are clearly established as fact. People may hear below that level but no one hears beyond it.


----------



## ev13wt

gsarider said:


> +1 why the heck do folk do this? Is it a copy & paste job?




Emotional response. No time to think, needs to write feeling down fast. In rl they are the guys that talk too loud and fast, thinking that that will get a point across. They usually cut off your sentences early too.


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Actually, I will go out on a limb and say that.
> 
> There is a big difference between "some people hear better than others" and "some people don't hear as well as others". The limits of human perception are clearly established as fact. People may hear below that level but no one hears beyond it.


 

 Yes, that was my point.  Actually physical hearing ability varies.  Experience has some small effect though it won't enhance an ability to hear something that cannot be heard.  Limits of hearing in the main are well established.  20 khz is quoted and in fact beyond early adulthood few can manage even that.  Everyone's hearing ability declines with age.  Some develop ringing and difficulty dealing with loud sounds over their life.  That was what I meant about hearing varying.


----------



## ev13wt

Many people don't even realize what 20KHz is. There isn't even a lot going on up there in actual music. Heck, 15 KHz is a pretty darn high tone already! 

A pianos higest note: 4186 Hz
A violin can do aprox. 10000 Hz
Guitar: 1319 Hz

Of course there are overtones, harmonics etc. But generally, I'd say much of this "flat till 20.000 is overrated.


----------



## CantScareMe

Quote: 





krismusic said:


> I take it that you think my post a bit of a waste of time. Maybe you are right.
> I thought long before I posted because I am very aware that this is a Sound Science forum and there are some very knowledgable technically minded people posting on here. There has been a bit of digression recently though and I also thought that I would try to put forward a less esoteric view.
> I have had various systems over the years and headed down the "high end" route and got into cables.
> Spent quite a lot of money with Russ Andrews.
> ...


 
   
  Listening to music is a hobby.
  Collecting/experiencing varieties of headphone gear mainly in the pursuit of _sound quality_ is another.
   
  I see them as both distinct (and independent), but not mutually exclusive. There's 7 billion people on earth, and a large chunk of them will call listening music one of their hobbies, at one time of their life at least. Let's say 5 billion.
   
  I find nothing wrong in being proud of a hobby that is not so common as 'listening to music.'  It's not synonymous with the act of buying crap gear just because it costs a lot. If one spends 10 years in this hobby and then decides to quit, they must have enjoyed it in large parts - otherwise it was 10 years of self inflicted hell and the best course of action immediately would be to see a psychotherapist/psychiatrist.


----------



## Chromako

Quote: 





xnor said:


> You mean in the ignorance is bliss kinda way? :-/


 
  You said it! 
   
  I mean, them uber-cable buying peoples are enjoying stuff, while we are kvetching. There is a certain benefit, if you think about it, of being blissful and unknowing.


----------



## Chromako

Question all: 
   
  Peoples spend so many hundreds on fancy asynchronous USB interfaces and proprietary reclockers... 
   
  Firewire supports _native_ asynchronous data transfer (20% of the bandwidth is always reserved for it). It's also peer to peer, and is hardware based (very little CPU load to _theoretically_ add stuttering). That's 160Mb/s... _way_ more than required for 24/192 stereo. Implementing Firewire is less than $5 in hardware.
   
  And it's bragging rights. Only few multi kilobuck DACs support Firewire, so you, the manufacturer, could brag that you have a feature shared by just kilobuck and professional recording artists for such a low, low price of... anything. 
   
  Frankly, I use Firewire whenever I can. It's so much more reliable in my experience. 
   
  You could even have a cheap USB as a backup for the philistines. It all makes me so sad.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

I don't see the question out of all that


----------



## esldude

Actually Firewire is not asynch by default.  I found out the hard way.  My firewire interface has various glitches and dropouts etc.  My USB (which is asynch) has none of that.  Even when using a lowly netbook as a music server.  You are right.....it does  make me sad when I use firewire.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> We're friendly around here as long as you're honest and straightforward. Welcome to Sound Science!



Thanks for the reassurance.  
I am very interested in what you say about cheap gear being capable of great performance. 
I formed the opinion that one of the biggest frauds of Hi Fi and the prime area for snake oil merchants to operate is in gulling the "What Hi Fi" crowd ( I was once of their number)
That budget components could give "a taste of the high end" if only the "right" selection of components could be assembled. 
If superb sound did not ensue then cables and accessories could correct the problem.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





ev13wt said:


> But generally, I'd say much of this "flat till 20.000 is overrated.


 
   
  Flat to 20kHz is infinitely preferable to having a good sized spike in the FR at the edge of hearing. Instant listening fatigue!


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





krismusic said:


> I am very interested in what you say about cheap gear being capable of great performance.


 
   
  There are things that make a difference, and things that don't. Just about every player, DAC and amp that is performing to spec is capable of spectacular sound. The wild card is the speakers/headphones. Money put there is wisely spent.
   
  The best way to improve an existing system is through proper application of EQ and DSPs. That will make a HUGE difference in even humble sound systems.


----------



## krismusic

I had a very sophisticated car system which had a lot of DSP options. It was the best sound I have ever had.
On my portable set up I have cross feed and treble boost activated on my Arrow to good effect. 
Home DSP only seems available as a very expensive option.


----------



## ferday

krismusic said:


> I had a very sophisticated car system which had a lot of DSP options. It was the best sound I have ever had.
> On my portable set up I have cross feed and treble boost activated on my Arrow to good effect.
> Home DSP only seems available as a very expensive option.




There is a lot of software DSP for home that is very good and is not expensive (sometimes free). You don't need hardware DSP


----------



## krismusic

This is where we bump up hard against the limits of my tech knowledge! Of course the Sonos is stuffed full of DSP but sadly not user configurable except for very basic tone controls.
Maybe back on topic though!


----------



## bigshot

My Yamaha amp has a lot of great DSP settings built in. It wasn't at all expensive.


----------



## krismusic

That ship has sailed for me for the time being. I am committed to the route I have chosen. After a lifetime (I'm 57) of chasing audiophile perfection, albeit on a budget, which didn't help! I got hacked off with sitting there wondering "am I having fun yet". 
I decided to go for benefits that I could see and touch. I love Spotify and have a premium account. 
The Sonos is remarkable functionally. Sits in my living room unobtrusively and accesses a phenomenal amount of music wirelessly via the Internet and my 'phone.
Ok it doesn't sound like a £10,000 Hi Fi but it doesn't sound like a £200 boom box either!
Similarly with my portable system. 
Custom moulded tips that fit properly and an amp that I can slip into my pocket with specific features such as cross feed and bass and treble boost. 
All in all I am happy with what I have done but feel a bit like a recovering addict! 
Part of posting on here is therapy. Not wanting to think that I am missing out by not having fancy cables. 
Maybe I will start up Audiophiles Anonymous.


----------



## duncan1

Krismusic- A philosophically HAPPY hi-fier-rare on the ground here- You have reached your own Nirvana! -Well done!


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> Krismusic- A philosophically *HAPPY hi-fier-rare on the ground here-* You have reached your own Nirvana! -Well done!


 
   
  If by 'here' you mean the gear forums in general, maybe you're right.
  If you mean this sub forum, ask yourself this question: Who's more likely to have nagging thoughts about cable upgrades, new gear that is praised in _subjective _reviews (after much hype measurements often show not so amazing performance), new FOTMs, new tube rolling or op-amp swapping ideas etc.? I personally can be happy with what others here would consider low-fi, as long as I have my music library (!) and DSPs such as EQ, crossfeed etc.
   
   
   
  Back to topic, when I see a review that includes a section where the reviewer says he can hear differences, for example, between different USB cables using the common vague subjective terms, I know I cannot trust that person. The guy/gal may be completely sincere, but to come back to my previous example, it's like a patient that is being treated with inert pills telling you that those pills cure diseases.


----------



## duncan1

It seems even praising a hi-fi enthusiast  here - as in Judge Judy--"no good deed goes unpunished"  As I have said before I am not 100% convinced about "the sound of cables" but we are  all different why try to mold people into one set ideal. What one person hears another cant --that's a physically proven fact . my wife's hearing is acute a lot better than mine. Why try to apply physiological limits  to human beings just because they don't fit in with science. Is there a great fear  that if science is proved wrong  [and it has many times]  that the "sky will fall down"   that's bordering on a type of fascism. If somebody has a different view to me then that's life. I could put a viewpoint but never in a "I know better manner". Kids at school get picked on and called names if they are fat--WHY because they don't "conform" to societies "ideal"--society is wrong in that respect as that can harm a child for life and give them " complexes" something that nobody can do to me as I don't accept societies "ideals" and would fight to the death for that cause.


----------



## radiofrog

@duncan1:
   
  The reason I was drawn to this sub-forum over all the others here is because it touted the application of science to this hobby.  I still don't comprehend those that seem "scared" of science, to the point of reflexively refuting scientific results whenever it conflicts with their "beliefs."  Science has endured for a reason.  All our modern comforts (like our sound systems) are direct evidence of its efficacy.  What's the point of just saying it's wrong when it doesn't jibe with your world view?  Which of the two is more likely skewed?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> It seems even praising a hi-fi enthusiast  here - as in Judge Judy--"no good deed goes unpunished"


 
  I'm not punishing anyone. Saying that happy people are rare here is not exactly a "good deed".
   
   
  Quote: 





> As I have said before I am not 100% convinced about "the sound of cables" but we are  all different why try to mold people into one set ideal. What one person hears another cant --that's a physically proven fact . my wife's hearing is acute a lot better than mine.


 
  And when it's physically proven that there is no difference but _some _people still hear differences it has nothing to do with how good their hearing is.
   
  It was proven in multiple studies that the placebo effect is real. "The placebo effect points to the importance of *perception *and the *brain*'s role in physical health." If the placebo effect can improve your subjective condition, it can easily change what you hear.
  Some studies suggest that there's still a chance of the placebo effect occurring even if the patients were told about it beforehand. In other words even if people are told that two cables perform identically (and physically really do perform identically), some might still hear differences.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Why try to apply physiological limits  to human beings just because they don't fit in with science. Is there a great fear  that if science is proved wrong  [and it has many times]  that the "sky will fall down"   that's bordering on a type of fascism. If somebody has a different view to me then that's life. I could put a viewpoint but never in a "I know better manner". Kids at school get picked on and called names if they are fat--WHY because they don't "conform" to societies "ideal"--society is wrong in that respect as that can harm a child for life and give them " complexes" something that nobody can do to me as I don't accept societies "ideals" and would fight to the death for that cause.


 
  You really, really should read a book about science, maybe start with the Wikipedia article. What societal ideals have to do with any of this, I have no freaking clue.
   
  Anyway, when you see new members asking for advice because they're not happy with their new headphones and you see some people suggesting to get/upgrade to a dedicated amp, external DAC (because internal often doesn't fit the audiophile "ideal") and sometimes even cables, instead of just suggesting to return the headphones or try to spend a bit more time with it, you know what the "ideal" headphone audiophile is expected to own.


----------



## Happy Camper

You'd think you could buy a cable pretty easily with all the commentary of this thread. Whiplash, Norse and Toxic are swamped. Norse and Toxic aren't taking any new orders to catch up with backlogs and wait times are in the months. ALO has made a thriving business of wire. Must be a fashion thing.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> You'd think you could buy a cable pretty easily with all the commentary of this thread. Whiplash, Norse and Toxic are swamped. Norse and Toxic aren't taking any new orders to catch up with backlogs and wait times are in the months. ALO has made a thriving business of wire. Must be a fashion thing.


 
   
  From Wikipedia:
  Quote: 





> Henry K. Beecher, in a paper in 1955, suggested placebo effects occurred in about *35% of people*.


 
   
  So no, you would not.


----------



## ferday

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> You'd think you could buy a cable pretty easily with all the commentary of this thread. Whiplash, Norse and Toxic are swamped. Norse and Toxic aren't taking any new orders to catch up with backlogs and wait times are in the months. ALO has made a thriving business of wire. Must be a fashion thing.


 
   
  so quality is based on sales success?
   
  i'm returning all my gear and buying some Beats in that case!


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> You'd think you could buy a cable pretty easily with all the commentary of this thread.


 
   
  Have you had a chance to do a blind comparison of your USB cables yet?


----------



## krismusic

duncan1 said:


> Krismusic- A philosophically HAPPY hi-fier-rare on the ground here- You have reached your own Nirvana! -Well done!



Thanks Duncan1. As they say. One day at a time!


----------



## Happy Camper

bigshot said:


> Have you had a chance to do a blind comparison of your USB cables yet?


No. I will when I go into Cincy next time with time to visit prepro. That's 100 mi


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





duncan1 said:


> It seems even praising a hi-fi enthusiast  here - as in Judge Judy--"no good deed goes unpunished"  As I have said before I am not 100% convinced about "the sound of cables" but we are  all different why try to mold people into one set ideal. What one person hears another cant --that's a physically proven fact . my wife's hearing is acute a lot better than mine. Why try to apply physiological limits  to human beings just because they don't fit in with science. Is there a great fear  that if science is proved wrong  [and it has many times]  that the "sky will fall down"   that's bordering on a type of fascism. If somebody has a different view to me then that's life. I could put a viewpoint but never in a "I know better manner". Kids at school get picked on and called names if they are fat--WHY because they don't "conform" to societies "ideal"--society is wrong in that respect as that can harm a child for life and give them " complexes" something that nobody can do to me as I don't accept societies "ideals" and would fight to the death for that cause.


 

 duncan1,
   
  If we had a sound science comedy forum, your post would be aces. 
   
  Why try to apply physiological limits to human beings?????? LOL, maybe because human beings actually have physiological limits? (surely I jest)
   
   It isn't like anyone gets together and specifies what those limits will be to limit humans.  More like scientists will investigate what their innate limits are for understanding's sake.    The reason you haven't heard about humans running the 2 minute mile isn't because of scientists.  It is because that feat is factually beyond the limits of human physiology.  And if some better human comes along and runs the two minute mile, scientists won't try and limit that.  They will celebrate it, study it, and learn from it.
   
  If somebody has a different view to you beyond being life, it also could be they have more knowledge than you do.   But that isn't a permanent condition, one can always learn.


----------



## ab initio

Quote: 





esldude said:


> duncan1,
> 
> If we had a sound science comedy forum, your post would be aces.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Dude, didn't you know that Chuck Norris ran a mile in 1:53, but only because he didn't feel like running harder? Also, Chuck Norris can hear the noise floor of 24bit/96kHz while listening to highly compressed pop at 0dB full scale, ABX 200 ps jitter at 100% success.
   
  Be careful what limits you try to place on _all _humans!
   
  :trollface:


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





ab initio said:


> Dude, didn't you know that Chuck Norris ran a mile in 1:53, but only because he didn't feel like running harder? Also, Chuck Norris can hear the noise floor of 24bit/96kHz while listening to highly compressed pop at 0dB full scale, ABX 200 ps jitter at 100% success.
> 
> Be careful what limits you try to place on _all _humans!
> 
> :trollface:


 

 Since when is Chuck Norris human?  Even Superman (who we know is not human) had to concede:
   
 Chuck Norris and Superman once fought each other on a bet. The loser had to start wearing his underwear on the outside of his pants.   
   
  And there is this:
   
 Chuck Norris can do a roundhouse kick faster than the speed of light. This means that if you turn on a light switch, you will be dead before the lightbulb turns on.   
  Heck digital signals in digital cable rarely travel faster than 85% the speed of light, sure for Chuck Norris doing the jitter thing is no big deal. 
   
  But there is humanity, and then there is Chuck Norris.   He only appears human due to his awesomeness.


----------



## duncan1

As the human race "advances" -till it blows up the World Human physiology advance by becoming immune to diseases that kill others because the body learns and puts up protection. This is automatic unlike robots who need "upgrading"But it seems anything on a  higher level is going backwards . We are being morally and spiritually "downgraded" -unless it is before our eyes -it doesnt exist . We are reduced to a number on a government computer and judged on how much money we make for the government.during our life  time . We are told-buy-buy-buy.and many never get beyond that level.If some person comes on Head-Fi and says he is VERY happy  with the set up he has. You cannot leave that alone because --he is NOT supposed to be happy with less than you or anyone  is the "correct" level . Because it isnt "playing the game" not allowed. OH! what will it do to our sale of expensive products. It seems you will not be HAPPY for him --But that is being altruistic  and we cant have that here can we??


----------



## ev13wt

^^ While I sort of understand what you are trying to say and agree, could you PLEASE work on typing slower and using proper form? If you form complete sentences, many more people would actually listen to you. That up there is so hard to read...

I am totally happy with my main stereo rig from 1977. http://i52.tinypic.com/143nc6t.jpg
I am happy with my headphone stuff, but would like to buy more for the fun of it - not for the sound quality. I buy amps because I like their look. Performance is important, but for me: Good enough is good enough.





bigshot said:


> Flat to 20kHz is infinitely preferable to having a good sized spike in the FR at the edge of hearing. Instant listening fatigue!




True, true.


----------



## krismusic

I too understand and agree with what Duncan is saying. 
I don't really mind his typing layout although it is a bit difficult to read. 
Circumstances kind of forced me to re evaluate my priorities which led me to this kind of thinking. Although some of it is making a virtue of necessity! 
I do think we should get back on topic though and continue the attempts to answer the central question. 
Do cables make a worthwhile improvement to listening enjoyment ???


----------



## xnor

I understand what he's saying in the first part, and it's utterly off-topic and partly nonsense.
  The second part about happiness is garbage as well and a complete straw man.
   
  Add to your reading list websites about netiquette, especially grammar (you're more likely to learn this in an English course or book), formatting and readability.


----------



## ev13wt

krismusic said:


> Do cables make a worthwhile improvement to listening enjoyment ???




Yes.

While they don't improve "sonics" they are:

- Great to look at
- Have a nice build quality (mostly )
- Cater to our inner customization child
- Feel good to touch (again, mostly)

So all this is part of the "audio experience" aka listening enjoyment to a sense I think.


----------



## krismusic

Hmmm. We seem to have reached a point where this no longer belongs in Sound Science!


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





ev13wt said:


> I am totally happy with my main stereo rig from 1977. http://i52.tinypic.com/143nc6t.jpg
> I am happy with my headphone stuff, but would like to buy more for the fun of it - not for the sound quality. I buy amps because I like their look. Performance is important, but for me: Good enough is good enough.


 
  Good looking gear is part of the experience for many, and is completely valid.  For example, in your picture, great looking Technics 1500!  What a great focal point, and if it's working, it's worth gold (you probably know).  It's unique, retro, vintage, visually stimulating, and in its day, as well as now, a very respectable unit.  Way "beyond good enough", though.  Nice focal point!


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





ev13wt said:


> Yes.
> 
> While they don't improve "sonics" they are:
> 
> ...


 
   
  Quote: 





krismusic said:


> Hmmm. We seem to have reached a point where this no longer belongs in Sound Science!


 
  No, it's dead on here.  Just a difference science.  ev13wt makes valid points: the gear we end up with sometimes pings a pleasure center that has nothing to do with sonics, but still affects perception.


----------



## bigshot

ev13wt said:


> While they don't improve "sonics" they are:
> 
> - Great to look at
> - Have a nice build quality (mostly )
> ...




Just getting a girlfriend will satisfy three out of four.


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> Just getting a girlfriend will satisfy three out of four.



Yes, but those can often be a lot more expensive than even very high end gear


----------



## krismusic

Ha Ha! Classic.


----------



## Speedskater

I have put a couple of 'duncan's' posts into the Word spelling and grammar checker and other than some missing spaces here and extra spaces there,  Word is happy.  But I still don't have a clue about what he is trying to say.


----------



## HalidePisces

speedskater said:


> I have put a couple of 'duncan's' posts into the Word spelling and grammar checker and other than some missing spaces here and extra spaces there,  Word is happy.  But I still don't have a clue about what he is trying to say.


*It's the run-on sentences and lack of grammar. His spelling is spot on, so I assume he's from an English-speaking country. His Judge Judy reference makes me think he's from the US. He is likely simply a victim of poor language education (common among a disturbing number of people I know from the UK and the US) and/or is simply typing in the manner he would speak. You can try reading his posts slowly and imagine someone is speaking to you in a face-to-face conversation, rather as if you were reading a passage from a newspaper article. I'll "translate" one of his posts and see if that helps.*


duncan1 said:


> It seems even praising a hi-fi enthusiast here - as in Judge Judy--"no good deed goes unpunished" As I have said before I am not 100% convinced about "the sound of cables" but we are all different why try to mold people into one set ideal. What one person hears another cant --that's a physically proven fact . my wife's hearing is acute a lot better than mine. Why try to apply physiological limits to human beings just because they don't fit in with science. Is there a great fear that if science is proved wrong [and it has many times] that the "sky will fall down" that's bordering on a type of fascism. If somebody has a different view to me then that's life. I could put a viewpoint but never in a "I know better manner". Kids at school get picked on and called names if they are fat--WHY because they don't "conform" to societies "ideal"--society is wrong in that respect as that can harm a child for life and give them " complexes" something that nobody can do to me as I don't accept societies "ideals" and would fight to the death for that cause.






> It seems even praising a hi-fi enthusiast here is like, as in Judge Judy, "no good deed goes unpunished". As I have said before, I am not 100% convinced about "the sound of cables". But we are all different; why try to mold people into one set ideal? What one person hears, another can't -- that's a physically proven fact. My wife's hearing is acute - a lot better than mine. Why try to apply physiological limits to human beings just because they don't fit in with science? Is there a great fear that if science is proved wrong (and it has many times), that the "sky will fall down"? That's bordering on a type of fascism. If somebody has a different view to me, then that's life. I could put a viewpoint, but never in a "I know better manner". Kids at school get picked on and called names if they are fat. WHY? Because they don't "conform" to society's "ideal". Society is wrong in that respect as that can harm a child for life and give them "complexes", something that nobody can do to me as I don't accept society's "ideals" and would fight to the death for that cause.



*EDIT: As for the topic question, I'd say take it with a grain of salt. I think it's more important if the reviewer has similar musical tastes and preferences as yourself (classical, chill out, dubstep, rock, basshead, treble freak, etc.).*


----------



## Joong

happy camper said:


> You'd think you could buy a cable pretty easily with all the commentary of this thread. Whiplash, Norse and Toxic are swamped. Norse and Toxic aren't taking any new orders to catch up with backlogs and wait times are in the months. ALO has made a thriving business of wire. Must be a fashion thing.



I ordered Toxic Hifiman headphone cable through ebay in last January, and I did not have.
Furthermore I could not contact Frank who is the owner.
I lost my patience completely.
 
Even worse he did not respond my emails so many emails....
I finally gave up.
Do not put any order with him.


----------

