| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
... *snip* Perhaps you did not note that the test was repeated ***several*** times. This was not just a wham-bam thing. I had owned the $50 Monster cable for a couple of years already, so any change from that was going to be noticed, as I was quite familiar with the sound. I listened carefully to the $100 cables and noted some very subtle differences. I then replaced the $50 cables and wondered what had happened to the sound. It was suddenly flatter and inferior. I reconnected the $100 cables and the sound improved a little again. I again traded for the $50 cables and again the sound deteriorated noticeably from the $100 cable. I performed this exchange several more times (maybe six times in all), every time without doubt as to any difference. At no time was there any confusion as to which was in the system. How could there have ever been any confusion? You were doing the switching and you, of course, knew which cables were in the system. I had the exact same experience as you describe several years ago. In fact, I was so certain that there were differences between cables and I so wanted to maximize the money I was about to spend that I got several sets of cables from The Cable Company and began writing listening notes on the different cables so I'd be able to sort out all of the subtle differences. While taking notes on the cables I thought I had put in the night before, I got up to switch back to my trusty Kimber 8TC for comparison purposes, and found that I was really listening to them all along, as I had been interrupted by a phone call the night before and hadn't actually completed the switch. So this time, I had my wife connect the cables without telling me what was in. Without being able to make reference to what I thought the given cables under review were supposed to sound like, I hadn't a clue what was in the system. Cardas Hexlink, Tara RSC, Kimber 8TC...they all sounded the same once I wasn't looking for the particular characteristic that I thought the cable was known for. You should try such an experiment some time. The results will astound you. The $100 cables are now in the system. The $50 cables are in the drawer gathering dust. If there had been no difference, I would have taken them back. I can, do, and did hear differences between cables. They are not earth-shattering, but they are discernible. I am frequently stunned by the detail in my system, especially since I got a set of Yamaha NS-1000M speakers, with their ultra-high clarity and speed. The possibility that inferior quality speakers and other components masks the differences in cables must be considered. When performing the above experiment, I had an Audible Illusions Modulus 3, a Music Reference RM-9 and Martin Logan Aerius speakers with a Meridian 566.24 DAC as source. The current system is a Modulus 3A, Plinius 8200P, Paradigm Studio 100 speakers and a Sony DVP-NS900 as digital source. The resolution of the system is not in question. Only the audibility of the cables is. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
|
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
ERRATUM Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
Huh? It's even worse now.
Not quite. The literary device used in this conclusion requires a contrast. Are you saying cable differences can be heard or not? I say yes. From this I cannot tell how you stand. I can hear them - no probs there. The primary meaning of the whole post is: "There is an audible difference between cables." ie. those who hear the difference are indeed hearing something real. "This is an engineering problem. A good engineering solution qualifies when it removes the audible difference between cables." ie. cables *should* not make a difference ie. it should be possible to design gear such that cheap and expensive cables indeed sound the same (have no "sound"). What I am trying to say here is that I've found to date only two mechanisms that produce measurable cable differences in the audio band (shield resistance in unbalanced cables and microphonics). It would seem to me that if we want to explain what we hear, it's best to look first at things that can be demonstrated. Microdiodes, dielectric effects etc have never been demonstrated, in spite of the great effort put in by many people to show them. Therefore, these two stand quite a chance of being the whole story. Also the microphony result surprised me in how pervasive it was ie. how low the source impedance had to be before it became unmeasurable. Reading between the lines it also helps to explain why most cable A/B tests using switch boxes don't seem to work: unless the cable is completely disconnected electrically (all conductors and shield) on both sides, and unless the relay resistance is low compared to the resistance of the cable under test, the signal on the receiving end is affected by both cables equally. Before such listening tests are used as ammunition to "prove" the inaudibility, they should be reviewed in the light of these findings. So my current conjecture ("working thesis") is that balanced connections (to counter the effect of shield currents) and ultralow source impedance can be combined into a transmission system that is sonically insensitive to the cable used. I'm in the process of designing a driver/receiver pair that perform up to these technical requirements while attaining/maintaining a high audiophile standard otherwise. If proven true (ie if the sonic differences disappear when using the new drivers), the whole affair should reconcile the opinions on the "subjectivist" and "objectivist" camp. I am surprised to find that many posters reply only to the bit that runs counter to their feelings while reading over the bit that supports "their" side of the argument. I was hoping that people would at least read the entire post carefully. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
Perhaps you should first establish the existence of *real* audible
differences, before scrabbling around for measurements to explain them. It's trivial to *measure* pretty large differences among cables, but *audible* differences seem to be non-existent, except under the most extreme cases of electrical difference. Thank you for your insight. I understand you do not believe balanced connections are worthwhile either, as "except under the most extreme cases of electrical difference" the ground loop noise will not affect our musical experience. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
|
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...
(Stuart Stebbings) wrote in message ... (Mkuller) wrote in message news:ZRgxb.236842$275.886690@attbi_s53... Mike You are not answering the central point We can measure things like sub atomic particles we can measure minute tremors in the earths surface after an earthquake many many thousands of miles away. But that isn't the same thing as measuring my heartrate. It could be going up or down while you're measuring something else. I went to my internist and told him I didn't feel well. I suggested he measure my testosterone levels. He pooh-poohed the idea, and said that was very unlikely. He tested me for diabetes, liver problems, anemia, etc., telling me these were FAR more likely. The results came back negative for all of them. Finally, I asked him again him to test my testosterone level. It measured low. I was right all along. Why can we not measure something as simple as a cable and the various parameters that make up an audio signal. Not what matters, apparently. If as you claim cables do have a different sound, do you think the manufacturer knows why? Not necessarily. Would they have constructed the product knowing that doing "x" will give better bass response etc etc. If so how do they know this? Trial and error. How did they first find out about it.? Do you think they were doing R&D and found it out. I just dont believe that we are not able to measure this phenomenon. Now that is interesting. You are mkmuller are now diametrically opposed. But answer this then? If the manufacturers dont know, which is your premise and the fact that no 99.9999% copper wire will be chemically exactly the same, the impurities will be diffrent. how do these cable sellers make a consistant product? if it is trial and error with measurements then every set of cables will be different. wouldnt they? |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
ERRATUM Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:uTXxb.251689$ao4.894105@attbi_s51... "Bruno Putzeys" wrote in message ... ERRATUM The above shows that people who claim that cables do make a difference are living on another planet. However, those that say that cables *should* not make a difference when correctly used, are dead right. Should read: "The above shows that people who claim that cables do NOT make a difference are living on another planet. However, those that say that cables *should* not make a difference when correctly used, are dead right." My apologies to those who feel they belong to one "camp" and are now suddenly yanked into another. Huh? It's even worse now. Are you saying cable differences can be heard or not? I say yes. From this I cannot tell how you stand. I say it depends on the system. I currently have two systems set up. 1) Meridian CD-Quad 33/303/Quad ESL 2) Meridian CD-Quad 34/306/Lowther Acoustas with new EX2s. Cables make no difference at all to the ESL system but have a very significant and transforming effect on the Lowther system, particularly the mains cable. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
On 30 Nov 2003 16:02:57 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I can, do, and did hear differences between cables. They are not earth-shattering, but they are discernible. They are entirely in your imagination - guaranteed. I am frequently stunned by the detail in my system, especially since I got a set of Yamaha NS-1000M speakers, with their ultra-high clarity and speed. The possibility that inferior quality speakers and other components masks the differences in cables must be considered. I had those about twenty years ago - they're good, but not IMO exceptional. You are scrabbling around to justify your opinion in classic form, without ever simply *trusting* your ears in a blind test. We've sen this before, several times, and those 'obvious' changes *never* survive a blind test. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering That's true; including the Sunshine Trials, the Singh Challenge where the reference systems that were used to 'describe' the 'pretty amazing' differences were first heard. Or the Brice Trials where the subject had both comparative amplifiers (one which was his own) in the experimental set-up in his personal reference system for 5 weeks prior to the test. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
On 1 Dec 2003 17:24:03 GMT, "Bruno Putzeys"
wrote: Perhaps you should first establish the existence of *real* audible differences, before scrabbling around for measurements to explain them. It's trivial to *measure* pretty large differences among cables, but *audible* differences seem to be non-existent, except under the most extreme cases of electrical difference. Thank you for your insight. I understand you do not believe balanced connections are worthwhile either, as "except under the most extreme cases of electrical difference" the ground loop noise will not affect our musical experience. Nice attempt (not!) at a strawman argument, which is disappointing in someone who claims an engineering background. Of course, I never said any such thing. OTOH, I have a fairly benign EMC environment, and balanced operation does indeed make no audible difference. In other environments, this may not be the case. This does however have *nothing* to do with the fatuous claims of the 'high end' cable industry, which is based on psychobabble and numerology (yes, really!), and simply has *never* been able to show *any* audible difference under controlled conditions. Tell you what - if you can demonstrate that you can hear statistically significant differences among cables which measure to within +/- 0.1 dB from 100Hz to 10kHz at the speaker terminals (which won't affect any of the claims made for magical constructions and materials), I will award you the grand prize of £10,000, or 15,000 Euros if you prefer. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
ERRATUM Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
Bruno Putzeys wrote:
Huh? It's even worse now. Not quite. The literary device used in this conclusion requires a contrast. Are you saying cable differences can be heard or not? I say yes. From this I cannot tell how you stand. I can hear them - no probs there. The primary meaning of the whole post is: "There is an audible difference between cables." ie. those who hear the difference are indeed hearing something real. "This is an engineering problem. A good engineering solution qualifies when it removes the audible difference between cables." ie. cables *should* not make a difference ie. it should be possible to design gear such that cheap and expensive cables indeed sound the same (have no "sound"). What I am trying to say here is that I've found to date only two mechanisms that produce measurable cable differences in the audio band (shield resistance in unbalanced cables and microphonics). It would seem to me that if we want to explain what we hear, it's best to look first at things that can be demonstrated. Microdiodes, dielectric effects etc have never been demonstrated, in spite of the great effort put in by many people to show them. Therefore, these two stand quite a chance of being the whole story. Also the microphony result surprised me in how pervasive it was ie. how low the source impedance had to be before it became unmeasurable. Reading between the lines it also helps to explain why most cable A/B tests using switch boxes don't seem to work: unless the cable is completely disconnected electrically (all conductors and shield) on both sides, and unless the relay resistance is low compared to the resistance of the cable under test, the signal on the receiving end is affected by both cables equally. Before such listening tests are used as ammunition to "prove" the inaudibility, they should be reviewed in the light of these findings. So, microphony and shield resistance are so variable that they account for the difference heard between virtually *every* cable ever reviewed in TAS and Stereophile? Most 'sighted' cable A/B tests work; most 'blind' ones don't. Is it the case that blind A/Bs where the cable switching was done manually show more 'positives' than tbhose using switchboxes? k |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
ERRATUM Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
On 1 Dec 2003 17:30:40 GMT, "Alan Murphy"
wrote: I currently have two systems set up. 1) Meridian CD-Quad 33/303/Quad ESL 2) Meridian CD-Quad 34/306/Lowther Acoustas with new EX2s. Cables make no difference at all to the ESL system but have a very significant and transforming effect on the Lowther system, particularly the mains cable. OK, so you have some low-level hum in your system which is revealed by the 20dB more sensitive Lowthers, and can be lowered below audibility by a $50 computer-grade shielded mains cable. Please explain how this has relevance to 'high end' cables...... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 29 Nov 2003 16:21:18 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: (Steve Eddy) wrote in message news:D1Nxb.247859$275.907017@attbi_s53... The idea that everything we 'hear' is due to acoustic stimuli is patently absurd. It's akin to claiming that people have no auditory imagination, which if true would be very sad. Fortunately, it isn't. Yes. There's a considerable amount of psychology behind our aural perceptions. Yet even when you can get some people to even acknowledge this fact, they insist that they're somehow immune. I am. No, you're not. *No one* is. Only when one is intimately familiar with the sound of one's system can one notice the slightest changes. Which is irrelevant to the point at hand. The problem with much testing is that the test subject is presented with two or more variables, not one of which is he intimately familiar. This does not apply to any of the classic trials, in particular to the 'Sunshine Trials', where the dealer's own reference system was used, the only variable being the introduction of another amplifier. When I listen in MY system, I know what it sounds like already. The change is blatantly obvious. Of course it is - because you *know* that something has changed. Why are you so afraid to *trust* your ears by using a blind test? I closed my eyes and listened. Is that 'blind' enough for you? |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:YqWyb.278194$275.997560@attbi_s53... (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: On 30 Nov 2003 16:02:57 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I can, do, and did hear differences between cables. They are not earth-shattering, but they are discernible. They are entirely in your imagination - guaranteed. I am frequently stunned by the detail in my system, especially since I got a set of Yamaha NS-1000M speakers, with their ultra-high clarity and speed. The possibility that inferior quality speakers and other components masks the differences in cables must be considered. I had those about twenty years ago - they're good, but not IMO exceptional. You are scrabbling around to justify your opinion in classic form, without ever simply *trusting* your ears in a blind test. We've sen this before, several times, and those 'obvious' changes *never* survive a blind test. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering That's true; including the Sunshine Trials, the Singh Challenge where the reference systems that were used to 'describe' the 'pretty amazing' differences were first heard. Or the Brice Trials where the subject had both comparative amplifiers (one which was his own) in the experimental set-up in his personal reference system for 5 weeks prior to the test. None of which negates the fact that if the very act of "switching and comparing and making a choice" creates a different ear-brain interaction than evaluative listening, the tests are invalid. And as Mike and I and Wheel and others have pointed out, a valid control test has never been done by those who believe the "null results" mean there truly are no discernable differences. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
||| ||| Of course it is - because you *know* that something has changed. Why ||| are you so afraid to *trust* your ears by using a blind test? || || I closed my eyes and listened. Is that 'blind' enough for you? No, you need a friend to connect the cables without you knowing which is which. You can then close your eyes or not as you desire. It is so simple. If you don't have friends, you can have your wife doing it. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy electronic hardware designer |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 04:35:16 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On 29 Nov 2003 16:21:18 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: (Steve Eddy) wrote in message news:D1Nxb.247859$275.907017@attbi_s53... The problem with much testing is that the test subject is presented with two or more variables, not one of which is he intimately familiar. This does not apply to any of the classic trials, in particular to the 'Sunshine Trials', where the dealer's own reference system was used, the only variable being the introduction of another amplifier. When I listen in MY system, I know what it sounds like already. The change is blatantly obvious. Of course it is - because you *know* that something has changed. Why are you so afraid to *trust* your ears by using a blind test? I closed my eyes and listened. Is that 'blind' enough for you? No, and don't be disingenous. You know *exactly* what is meant by 'blind' testing, you simply choose to believe that you of all humanity are somehow immune to sighted bias. Well, you're not, and your continued refusal even to *check* your belief is in itself revealing. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 06:41:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: None of which negates the fact that if the very act of "switching and comparing and making a choice" creates a different ear-brain interaction than evaluative listening, the tests are invalid. This of course applies to *any* comparitive situation, blind or sighted, and hence is irrelevant. And as Mike and I and Wheel and others have pointed out, a valid control test has never been done by those who believe the "null results" mean there truly are no discernable differences. Sure it has - but you, Mike and Ludo continually move the goalposts, so that you can *always* claim that blind tests are somehow invalid. It's interesting that none of you has *ever* shown a single shred of evidence in support of your own beliefs. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
ERRATUM Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 1 Dec 2003 17:30:40 GMT, "Alan Murphy" wrote: I currently have two systems set up. 1) Meridian CD-Quad 33/303/Quad ESL 2) Meridian CD-Quad 34/306/Lowther Acoustas with new EX2s. Cables make no difference at all to the ESL system but have a very significant and transforming effect on the Lowther system, particularly the mains cable. OK, so you have some low-level hum in your system which is revealed by the 20dB more sensitive Lowthers, and can be lowered below audibility by a $50 computer-grade shielded mains cable. Please explain how this has relevance to 'high end' cables...... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Not $50 and not even a shielded mains cable. Just a few poundsworth of ferrite cores from Maplin. And incidentally there was no hum, low level or otherwise.... Regards, Alan. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
ERRATUM Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
On 3 Dec 2003 16:35:09 GMT, "Alan Murphy"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 1 Dec 2003 17:30:40 GMT, "Alan Murphy" wrote: I currently have two systems set up. 1) Meridian CD-Quad 33/303/Quad ESL 2) Meridian CD-Quad 34/306/Lowther Acoustas with new EX2s. Cables make no difference at all to the ESL system but have a very significant and transforming effect on the Lowther system, particularly the mains cable. OK, so you have some low-level hum in your system which is revealed by the 20dB more sensitive Lowthers, and can be lowered below audibility by a $50 computer-grade shielded mains cable. Please explain how this has relevance to 'high end' cables...... Not $50 and not even a shielded mains cable. Just a few poundsworth of ferrite cores from Maplin. Er, just how does this translate to the mains cable having a 'very significant and transforming effect'? And incidentally there was no hum, low level or otherwise.... So what was the difference? And is it observable when you don't *know* what cable is connected? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 06:41:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: None of which negates the fact that if the very act of "switching and comparing and making a choice" creates a different ear-brain interaction than evaluative listening, the tests are invalid. And as Mike and I and Wheel and others have pointed out, a valid control test has never been done by those who believe the "null results" mean there truly are no discernable differences. Could you explain to me how "switching and comparing and making a choice" is fundamentally any different than the way in which people routinely evaluate changes made to their systems? I mean, let's say you go buy a new set of interconnects. You bring them home, plug them in and listen. How do you then go about determining whether they've made an improvement, made things worse, or didn't make any difference? And how do you go about doing this fundamentally different from what you describe above? se |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 30 Nov 2003 16:02:57 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I can, do, and did hear differences between cables. They are not earth-shattering, but they are discernible. They are entirely in your imagination - guaranteed. I am frequently stunned by the detail in my system, especially since I got a set of Yamaha NS-1000M speakers, with their ultra-high clarity and speed. The possibility that inferior quality speakers and other components masks the differences in cables must be considered. I had those about twenty years ago - they're good, but not IMO exceptional. You are scrabbling around to justify your opinion in classic form, without ever simply *trusting* your ears in a blind test. We've sen this before, several times, and those 'obvious' changes *never* survive a blind test. These differences were *just barely* discernible, but consistent. It could also be that I have more sensitive hearing than many people. You have to be able to identify and pick out what's different. You have that sudden 'wow' factor kick in when listening to an old familiar recording (that's essential, of course). When listening to an old familiar recording on equipment that you're comfortable with, even the slightest difference stands out. Change any one component and I guarantee it will be noticeable. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
ERRATUM Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 3 Dec 2003 16:35:09 GMT, "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 1 Dec 2003 17:30:40 GMT, "Alan Murphy" wrote: I currently have two systems set up. 1) Meridian CD-Quad 33/303/Quad ESL 2) Meridian CD-Quad 34/306/Lowther Acoustas with new EX2s. Cables make no difference at all to the ESL system but have a very significant and transforming effect on the Lowther system, particularly the mains cable. OK, so you have some low-level hum in your system which is revealed by the 20dB more sensitive Lowthers, and can be lowered below audibility by a $50 computer-grade shielded mains cable. Please explain how this has relevance to 'high end' cables...... Not $50 and not even a shielded mains cable. Just a few poundsworth of ferrite cores from Maplin. Er, just how does this translate to the mains cable having a 'very significant and transforming effect'? And incidentally there was no hum, low level or otherwise.... So what was the difference? And is it observable when you don't *know* what cable is connected? -- I was disappointed with the Lowther system on first hearing. Although it was incredibly detailed it lacked warmth and was light in the bass. I experimented with running them in parallel with a pair of Tannoy dual concentrics and was seriously thinking of adding a subwoofer. The difference after applying the ferrite cores was instant and obvious. I was immediately satisfied with the sound and have been ever since. My method of evaluation after a system change is to listen to a variety of music over a period of a few days and I have not checked to see whether I could identify which cable is connected if I did not *know*. I did however do a series of comparisons on the same passages of music against the ESL system before and after the change and was satisfied that the Lowther system moved much closer to the Quad in warmth and remained more revealing. Regards, Alan. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
ERRATUM Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
On 4 Dec 2003 16:26:31 GMT, "Alan Murphy"
wrote: - I was disappointed with the Lowther system on first hearing. Although it was incredibly detailed it lacked warmth and was light in the bass. I experimented with running them in parallel with a pair of Tannoy dual concentrics and was seriously thinking of adding a subwoofer. The difference after applying the ferrite cores was instant and obvious. I was immediately satisfied with the sound and have been ever since. My method of evaluation after a system change is to listen to a variety of music over a period of a few days and I have not checked to see whether I could identify which cable is connected if I did not *know*. I did however do a series of comparisons on the same passages of music against the ESL system before and after the change and was satisfied that the Lowther system moved much closer to the Quad in warmth and remained more revealing. Just an observation, but the Lowthers are by their very nature extremely revealing in the midband, but they do lack warmth and have very little bass. That's an inevitability of their design, whereas the Quad 'stats are famously smooth and natural throughout the audio range, lacking only the sheer volume capacity of the Lowthers. To imply that this fundamental sound balance was changed by the removal of mains-borne 'hash' - the only possible effect of the ferrites - is to stretch credulity to breaking point. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
On 4 Dec 2003 01:26:01 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On 30 Nov 2003 16:02:57 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I can, do, and did hear differences between cables. They are not earth-shattering, but they are discernible. They are entirely in your imagination - guaranteed. I am frequently stunned by the detail in my system, especially since I got a set of Yamaha NS-1000M speakers, with their ultra-high clarity and speed. The possibility that inferior quality speakers and other components masks the differences in cables must be considered. I had those about twenty years ago - they're good, but not IMO exceptional. You are scrabbling around to justify your opinion in classic form, without ever simply *trusting* your ears in a blind test. We've sen this before, several times, and those 'obvious' changes *never* survive a blind test. These differences were *just barely* discernible, but consistent. It could also be that I have more sensitive hearing than many people. I wondered how long it would take you to make such a claim! You have to be able to identify and pick out what's different. You have that sudden 'wow' factor kick in when listening to an old familiar recording (that's essential, of course). When listening to an old familiar recording on equipment that you're comfortable with, even the slightest difference stands out. Change any one component and I guarantee it will be noticeable. Change the cable and I guarantee it won't. Note that I back my guarantee with cold cash, whereas you simply handwave about how you hear 'obvious', changes and hence don't need to prove those differences really exist in a blind test. You are wrong. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On 30 Nov 2003 16:02:57 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I can, do, and did hear differences between cables. They are not earth-shattering, but they are discernible. They are entirely in your imagination - guaranteed. I am frequently stunned by the detail in my system, especially since I got a set of Yamaha NS-1000M speakers, with their ultra-high clarity and speed. The possibility that inferior quality speakers and other components masks the differences in cables must be considered. I had those about twenty years ago - they're good, but not IMO exceptional. You are scrabbling around to justify your opinion in classic form, without ever simply *trusting* your ears in a blind test. We've sen this before, several times, and those 'obvious' changes *never* survive a blind test. These differences were *just barely* discernible, but consistent. It could also be that I have more sensitive hearing than many people. This supposition runs the usual gamut. But you seem to be adding another twist at the end. Usually the course runs like this: First, Anybody can hear it 2nd: Only those who listen carefully enough can hear it 3rd: Only those who care about 'enough' about music can hear it 4th: Only those with the right equipment can hear it 5th: Those of us who are sensitive-enough can hear it. and now the new twist: Those who are familiar enough with their system can hear it. You have to be able to identify and pick out what's different. You have that sudden 'wow' factor kick in when listening to an old familiar recording (that's essential, of course). When listening to an old familiar recording on equipment that you're comfortable with, even the slightest difference stands out. Change any one component and I guarantee it will be noticeable. I'll guarantee that those with enough coaching will 'say' they hear something. Nay, practically everybody will "report" differences when given 2 identical sound presentations. But, who has been able to verify those with even modest listening bias controls implemented? Let's just say with cables that would be exactly "nobody." |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
These differences were *just barely* discernible, but consistent. It
could also be that I have more sensitive hearing than many people. You have to be able to identify and pick out what's different. You have that sudden 'wow' factor kick in when listening to an old familiar recording (that's essential, of course). When listening to an old familiar recording on equipment that you're comfortable with, even the slightest difference stands out. Change any one component and I guarantee it will be noticeable. Seldom, if truly accurate level-matching is used. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
Change the cable and I guarantee it won't. Note that I back my
guarantee with cold cash, whereas you simply handwave about how you hear 'obvious', changes and hence don't need to prove those differences really exist in a blind test. You are wrong. I totally agree with Stewart's comments. JohnD. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
"Johnd1001" wrote in message
... These differences were *just barely* discernible, but consistent. It could also be that I have more sensitive hearing than many people. You have to be able to identify and pick out what's different. You have that sudden 'wow' factor kick in when listening to an old familiar recording (that's essential, of course). When listening to an old familiar recording on equipment that you're comfortable with, even the slightest difference stands out. Change any one component and I guarantee it will be noticeable. Seldom, if truly accurate level-matching is used. I've noticed that when someone is listening for a possible improvement, they turn the volume up a bit higher than they're used to listening at. This gives the new equipment an unfair advantage. Since few people are set up to measure the exact SPL, this is a common problem. Norm Strong |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
|
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
"normanstrong" wrote in message news:x91Eb.582259$Fm2.540440@attbi_s04...
"Johnd1001" wrote in message ... These differences were *just barely* discernible, but consistent. It could also be that I have more sensitive hearing than many people. You have to be able to identify and pick out what's different. You have that sudden 'wow' factor kick in when listening to an old familiar recording (that's essential, of course). When listening to an old familiar recording on equipment that you're comfortable with, even the slightest difference stands out. Change any one component and I guarantee it will be noticeable. Seldom, if truly accurate level-matching is used. I've noticed that when someone is listening for a possible improvement, they turn the volume up a bit higher than they're used to listening at. This gives the new equipment an unfair advantage. Since few people are set up to measure the exact SPL, this is a common problem. I agree! SPL matching is important. Keep the level difference within a few centi-bels. Otherwise, what has the listening test proven, other than that a level difference is audible, and that the high SPL sounds better? Similar things apply to frequency response. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
|
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
(Steve Eddy) wrote in message news:Z39Eb.74700$8y1.279100@attbi_s52...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:35:55 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Try this test. Take a very accurate thermometer and prepare two pails of water at two different temperatures, say 68F and 70F. Plunge your hand into one, then another. Can you tell them apart? If not, increase the difference until you can just barely distinguish them. Do not place both hands in the two pails, just one, alternating between the pails. You should have no doubt that you can tell them apart: that is the point of the test. Make the spread enough that you can tell them apart, but no more. Now, wait half an hour or so, then have someone prepare another pail of water at one of the two established temperatures, and without telling you what it is, you plunge your hand into it. What is the temperature? 68F? 70F? Can you tell? If you fail more than you succeed, does that mean that you could not tell them apart half an hour earlier? Of course not. How is failing more than you succeed different from a statistical standpoint as succeeding more than you fail? The point is that the second instance is 'blind'. What was clearly discernible as a difference in the first test is of no help in determining which temperature the second pail is at a later time. This is clearly anaologous to the cable testing. I could tell the difference between two cables when I switch them in and out, but I may not be able to tell which is which in isolation. The set-up with two water-pails is intended to offer a clear but just barely detectable difference. It is clear that the test of discriminating between two things is not the same test as identifying one of them later in isolation. Our senses are better at descrimination than identification. All of them. We can distinguish between two colors easily but could not reliably identify them in isolation. Either one would be an indication that there's something more than guessing going on. Statistically speaking, if you're just guessing, one would expect as many successes as failures. Getting 10 out of 10 wrong would be just as statistically significant as getting 10 out of 10 correct. But in any case, what's the relevance of this "test" given that we already know that our aural memory is rather poor and because of this blind testing strives to make the switching between A and B is instantaneous as possible? Who's doing blind listening tests with switching intervals on the order of half an hour? Half an hour allows any sensory memeory to dissipate, I should think, for this test. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
On 18 Dec 2003 16:23:08 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: (Steve Eddy) wrote in message news:Z39Eb.74700$8y1.279100@attbi_s52... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:35:55 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Try this test. Take a very accurate thermometer and prepare two pails of water at two different temperatures, say 68F and 70F. Plunge your hand into one, then another. Can you tell them apart? If not, increase the difference until you can just barely distinguish them. Do not place both hands in the two pails, just one, alternating between the pails. You should have no doubt that you can tell them apart: that is the point of the test. Make the spread enough that you can tell them apart, but no more. Now, wait half an hour or so, then have someone prepare another pail of water at one of the two established temperatures, and without telling you what it is, you plunge your hand into it. What is the temperature? 68F? 70F? Can you tell? If you fail more than you succeed, does that mean that you could not tell them apart half an hour earlier? Of course not. How is failing more than you succeed different from a statistical standpoint as succeeding more than you fail? The point is that the second instance is 'blind'. What was clearly discernible as a difference in the first test is of no help in determining which temperature the second pail is at a later time. This is clearly anaologous to the cable testing. I could tell the difference between two cables when I switch them in and out, but I may not be able to tell which is which in isolation. The second instance is more than just blind, you also threw in a 30 minute time element that wasn't there in the first instance. In the first instance, you have both pails which you can quickly and alternately dip your hand into one or the other. In the second instance, you're presented with one pail to dip your hand in, and then 30 minutes later, another pail to dip your hand in. To say that the second instance was the same as the first only blind is wildly incorrect and not even remotely analogous to cable testing. The set-up with two water-pails is intended to offer a clear but just barely detectable difference. It is clear that the test of discriminating between two things is not the same test as identifying one of them later in isolation. But again, this doesn't describe typical cable testing. You're not waiting 30 minutes before you can compare one element to another. With the ABX method that Tom uses for example, the comparison can be made virtually instantaneously. And indeed, most every blind listening test strives to keep the switching times to an absolute minimum. So I fail to see why you added this 30 minute interval. Our senses are better at descrimination than identification. All of them. We can distinguish between two colors easily but could not reliably identify them in isolation. Yes. Which is why blind listening tests strive to keep switching times as short as possible seeing as we can't simultaneously compare two sounds the way we can simultaneously compare two colors. Either one would be an indication that there's something more than guessing going on. Statistically speaking, if you're just guessing, one would expect as many successes as failures. Getting 10 out of 10 wrong would be just as statistically significant as getting 10 out of 10 correct. But in any case, what's the relevance of this "test" given that we already know that our aural memory is rather poor and because of this blind testing strives to make the switching between A and B is instantaneous as possible? Who's doing blind listening tests with switching intervals on the order of half an hour? Half an hour allows any sensory memeory to dissipate, I should think, for this test. But if you want to establish actual audible differences you DON'T WANT sensory memory to dissipate unless you intentionally want to create a blind test which would give a null result even when it involves differences known to be audible. You want the listener to retain as much sensory memory as possible. And that's why blind listening tests strive to keep the switching times as short as possible. So again, I completely fail to understand why you seem to think that this 30 minutes to allow sensory memory to dissipate is in ANY WAY analogous to cable testing. This would be the ANTITHESIS of any competent cable test. se |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
(Steve Eddy) wrote in message news:j6nEb.595284$Fm2.545906@attbi_s04...
On 18 Dec 2003 16:23:08 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: (Steve Eddy) wrote in message news:Z39Eb.74700$8y1.279100@attbi_s52... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:35:55 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Try this test. Take a very accurate thermometer and prepare two pails of water at two different temperatures, say 68F and 70F. Plunge your hand into one, then another. Can you tell them apart? If not, increase the difference until you can just barely distinguish them. Do not place both hands in the two pails, just one, alternating between the pails. You should have no doubt that you can tell them apart: that is the point of the test. Make the spread enough that you can tell them apart, but no more. Now, wait half an hour or so, then have someone prepare another pail of water at one of the two established temperatures, and without telling you what it is, you plunge your hand into it. What is the temperature? 68F? 70F? Can you tell? If you fail more than you succeed, does that mean that you could not tell them apart half an hour earlier? Of course not. How is failing more than you succeed different from a statistical standpoint as succeeding more than you fail? The point is that the second instance is 'blind'. What was clearly discernible as a difference in the first test is of no help in determining which temperature the second pail is at a later time. This is clearly anaologous to the cable testing. I could tell the difference between two cables when I switch them in and out, but I may not be able to tell which is which in isolation. The second instance is more than just blind, you also threw in a 30 minute time element that wasn't there in the first instance. Yes, of course. Make it 15 minutes if you want, or 10. In the first instance, you have both pails which you can quickly and alternately dip your hand into one or the other. Yes, just like sighted testing, no? In the second instance, you're presented with one pail to dip your hand in, and then 30 minutes later, another pail to dip your hand in. Just like blind testing, no? To say that the second instance was the same as the first only blind is wildly incorrect and not even remotely analogous to cable testing. Of course it analogous. The set-up with two water-pails is intended to offer a clear but just barely detectable difference. It is clear that the test of discriminating between two things is not the same test as identifying one of them later in isolation. But again, this doesn't describe typical cable testing. You're not waiting 30 minutes before you can compare one element to another. With the ABX method that Tom uses for example, the comparison can be made virtually instantaneously. And indeed, most every blind listening test strives to keep the switching times to an absolute minimum. So I fail to see why you added this 30 minute interval. Try it with less time and see if it matters. Really, try the test and see how you fare. Our senses are better at descrimination than identification. All of them. We can distinguish between two colors easily but could not reliably identify them in isolation. Yes. Which is why blind listening tests strive to keep switching times as short as possible seeing as we can't simultaneously compare two sounds the way we can simultaneously compare two colors. Either one would be an indication that there's something more than guessing going on. Statistically speaking, if you're just guessing, one would expect as many successes as failures. Getting 10 out of 10 wrong would be just as statistically significant as getting 10 out of 10 correct. But in any case, what's the relevance of this "test" given that we already know that our aural memory is rather poor and because of this blind testing strives to make the switching between A and B is instantaneous as possible? Who's doing blind listening tests with switching intervals on the order of half an hour? Half an hour allows any sensory memeory to dissipate, I should think, for this test. But if you want to establish actual audible differences you DON'T WANT sensory memory to dissipate unless you intentionally want to create a blind test which would give a null result even when it involves differences known to be audible. You want the listener to retain as much sensory memory as possible. And that's why blind listening tests strive to keep the switching times as short as possible. So again, I completely fail to understand why you seem to think that this 30 minutes to allow sensory memory to dissipate is in ANY WAY analogous to cable testing. This would be the ANTITHESIS of any competent cable test. The fact is that all of our senses are better at discrimination than identification, and that failing identification tests means nothing as a way of disproving discrimination tests. se |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:42:19 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: (Steve Eddy) wrote in message news:j6nEb.595284$Fm2.545906@attbi_s04... On 18 Dec 2003 16:23:08 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: (Steve Eddy) wrote in message news:Z39Eb.74700$8y1.279100@attbi_s52... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:35:55 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Try this test. Take a very accurate thermometer and prepare two pails of water at two different temperatures, say 68F and 70F. Plunge your hand into one, then another. Can you tell them apart? If not, increase the difference until you can just barely distinguish them. Do not place both hands in the two pails, just one, alternating between the pails. You should have no doubt that you can tell them apart: that is the point of the test. Make the spread enough that you can tell them apart, but no more. Now, wait half an hour or so, then have someone prepare another pail of water at one of the two established temperatures, and without telling you what it is, you plunge your hand into it. What is the temperature? 68F? 70F? Can you tell? If you fail more than you succeed, does that mean that you could not tell them apart half an hour earlier? Of course not. How is failing more than you succeed different from a statistical standpoint as succeeding more than you fail? The point is that the second instance is 'blind'. What was clearly discernible as a difference in the first test is of no help in determining which temperature the second pail is at a later time. This is clearly anaologous to the cable testing. I could tell the difference between two cables when I switch them in and out, but I may not be able to tell which is which in isolation. The second instance is more than just blind, you also threw in a 30 minute time element that wasn't there in the first instance. Yes, of course. Make it 15 minutes if you want, or 10. Why make it any minutes in particular? There's absolutely nothing about blind listening which would require any greater length of time than sighted listening. This time element you're throwing in here hasn't anything to do with whether the listening is done blind or sighted. In the first instance, you have both pails which you can quickly and alternately dip your hand into one or the other. Yes, just like sighted testing, no? Sure. But just like blind testing as well. In the second instance, you're presented with one pail to dip your hand in, and then 30 minutes later, another pail to dip your hand in. Just like blind testing, no? Just like sighted testing as well if one chooses to require a 30 minute time element. Again, the time element has absolutely nothing to do with whether the testing is done sighted or blind. It could be 30 minutes or instantaneous whether sighted or blind. To say that the second instance was the same as the first only blind is wildly incorrect and not even remotely analogous to cable testing. Of course it analogous. Seeing as a blind test can be done just the same as a sighted test and the time element you add here has absolutely nothing to do with whether the test is sighted or blind, no, it's not analogous. The set-up with two water-pails is intended to offer a clear but just barely detectable difference. It is clear that the test of discriminating between two things is not the same test as identifying one of them later in isolation. But again, this doesn't describe typical cable testing. You're not waiting 30 minutes before you can compare one element to another. With the ABX method that Tom uses for example, the comparison can be made virtually instantaneously. And indeed, most every blind listening test strives to keep the switching times to an absolute minimum. So I fail to see why you added this 30 minute interval. Try it with less time and see if it matters. Really, try the test and see how you fare. What has this to do with whether the test is sighted or blind? Our senses are better at descrimination than identification. All of them. We can distinguish between two colors easily but could not reliably identify them in isolation. Yes. Which is why blind listening tests strive to keep switching times as short as possible seeing as we can't simultaneously compare two sounds the way we can simultaneously compare two colors. Either one would be an indication that there's something more than guessing going on. Statistically speaking, if you're just guessing, one would expect as many successes as failures. Getting 10 out of 10 wrong would be just as statistically significant as getting 10 out of 10 correct. But in any case, what's the relevance of this "test" given that we already know that our aural memory is rather poor and because of this blind testing strives to make the switching between A and B is instantaneous as possible? Who's doing blind listening tests with switching intervals on the order of half an hour? Half an hour allows any sensory memeory to dissipate, I should think, for this test. But if you want to establish actual audible differences you DON'T WANT sensory memory to dissipate unless you intentionally want to create a blind test which would give a null result even when it involves differences known to be audible. You want the listener to retain as much sensory memory as possible. And that's why blind listening tests strive to keep the switching times as short as possible. So again, I completely fail to understand why you seem to think that this 30 minutes to allow sensory memory to dissipate is in ANY WAY analogous to cable testing. This would be the ANTITHESIS of any competent cable test. The fact is that all of our senses are better at discrimination than identification, and that failing identification tests means nothing as a way of disproving discrimination tests. But most every blind test I'm aware of has tested based on discrimination. Even the ABX tests that Tom has administered. With ABX testing, all you have to do is discriminate. If you're able to discriminate, then identification takes care of itself by way of simple logic. For example, if you switch between A and B and discern some difference, any difference, then if you switch between A and X and are also discern a difference, then simple deductive logic says that X must be B. So you don't have to make any sort of identification while listening. You just have to discriminate. se |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Richman's ethical lapses | Audio Opinions | |||
| cabling explained | Car Audio | |||
| Digital Audio Cable Question(s) | High End Audio | |||
| Comment about speaker cables/interconnects | High End Audio | |||
| Testing speaker cable. | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
