| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
tweaks and proof
With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to the person making the claims to prove them. In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof, an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself substantiates or proves nothing. For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms, there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an effect claimed. It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on. As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables, interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a better product than all of the guesswork done previously. This begs the question of how would one go about proving these unsubstaniated claims. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
That is not true of acoustics unless the signal being measured is the
acoustic output (room + signal). In other words, anything that is done to effect the acoustics (or mechanical isolation from acoustic feedback in the case of equipment) could be considered a tweek if it were not part of the original equipment but could also not be measured as part of the electrical signal only. Basically the original poster's (Rich's) idea is so broad as not to be able to be addressed. So broad in fact that it is obvious without any tests that many things that could be called tweeks would work well and measure well, while others would not. Then we could go on and say of the ones that did "work" (we'll say "have a real effect") that they may or may not have a "beneficial" effect. Just because something is different does not make it better, so we are left deciding what better means, ad nausem - a real can of worms that has been dented to death here and elsewhere. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Rich.Andrews" Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to the person making the claims to prove them. In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof, an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself substantiates or proves nothing. For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 v ariety available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms, there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an effect claimed. It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on. As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables, interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a better product than all of the guesswork done previously. This begs the question of how would one go about proving these unsubstaniated claims. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly make a difference in the sound. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message ...
For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms, there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an effect claimed. Measuring difference could be easy, but the measurements do not tell if this difference is desirable or not. We cannot evaluate even speakers based on measurements only, so how could we do this with tweaks? Lasse Ukkonen |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02...
What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'? Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'? Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound. It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter measurement.". I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then. Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
TChelvam wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02... What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'? Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'? Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound. It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter measurement.". I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then. Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was. AIUI, jitter had been known about before then, by the telecommunications industry. -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
TChelvam wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02... What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'? Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'? Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound. It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter measurement.". I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then. Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was. AIUI, jitter had been known about before then, by the telecommunications industry. -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message ...
With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to the person making the claims to prove them. Not exactly. A scientific 'claim' that is published in a peer-reviewed journal does require some supporting evidence, but if I'm simply saying that cable X sounds cleaner to me than cable Y, no such claim is being made, simply because it is not possible to have access to another's sensory. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Nousaine wrote:
(TChelvam) wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02... What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'? Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'? Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound. It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter measurement.". I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then. Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was. Actually jitter was a known and solved problem in telecommunications 20 years prior to that. The American public first used digital audio as early as 1962 when Westren Electric installed the first digital carrier systems in the long distance network in Illinois. As a former Bell Labs scientist explained to me about 1986; jitter can be a performance issue when you have a call that is placed from New Jersey and finally connected in Los Angeles after several alternate possible route-ings and multiple analog to digital and reverse conversions but it isn't an issue between your cd player and dac inboard or otherwise. But then, that would depend on the quality of the measurment. In phone conversation, we aren't looking for audiophile quality, so any jitter they find on the phone must be extreme. The jitter in audio is probably high enough to be bothersome to those "golden ears" but more than acceptable to phone conversations. CD |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/15/2004 5:35 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02 S888Wheel wrote: From: "Rich.Andrews" Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to the person making the claims to prove them. In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof, an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself substantiates or proves nothing. For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms, there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an effect claimed. It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on. As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables, interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a better product than all of the guesswork done previously. This begs the question of how would one go about proving these unsubstaniated claims. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly make a difference in the sound. What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'? Nothing I suppose. But one can always ask this someone what they think is not being measured. Who knows, maybe in some cases such people are actually right. Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'? People can claim anything they want to claim. I believe everything that can be heard by a human being can be measured. That doesn't mean it always is being measured when some one makes measurements. And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible. Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between two signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound with the same associated equipment. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:z80Ac.115232$Ly.18026@attbi_s01... "Rich.Andrews" wrote in message ... With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to the person making the claims to prove them. Not exactly. A scientific 'claim' that is published in a peer-reviewed journal does require some supporting evidence, but if I'm simply saying that cable X sounds cleaner to me than cable Y, no such claim is being made, simply because it is not possible to have access to another's sensory. Actually, we haven't gotten to the stage of having you prove to a third party that they can hear a difference, we'll settle for you proving that YOU can hear a difference. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
... From: "Rich.Andrews" Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to the person making the claims to prove them. In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof, an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself substantiates or proves nothing. For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms, there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an effect claimed. It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on. As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables, interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a better product than all of the guesswork done previously. This begs the question of how would one go about proving these unsubstaniated claims. r I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly make a difference in the sound. In the digital domain this is a reasonable statement. Alan |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Uptown Audio wrote in message news:eEOzc.47487$0y.2739@attbi_s03...
That is not true of acoustics unless the signal being measured is the acoustic output (room + signal). In other words, anything that is done to effect the acoustics (or mechanical isolation from acoustic feedback in the case of equipment) could be considered a tweek if it were not part of the original equipment but could also not be measured as part of the electrical signal only. Ironically I was thinking along similar lines, except taking it farther to say that the only conceivable way to measure alleged audible differences between Before & After "tweaks" would be to measure the acoustic output of the complete sound system in the room. It does no good (other than to assure some smug self-congratulatory backpatting amongst the naysayers) to measure the electrical signal at the output of a $200 interconnect cable & show that it is identical to the electrical output of a $4 interconnect cable; the tweakophile who claims he heard a difference heard it connected to the rest of his audio system in his listening room through his ears, *not* through some direct electrical connection to the cable. Perhaps that $200 cable interacts bizarrely with the rest of his components, causing them to perform differently? If so, one would be hard pressed to argue that difference is not a measurable difference. Time Domain Spectrometry and FFT can map some fairly refined acoustic phenomena, so why not measure the sum total net difference in acoustic output of a sound system, both Before & After the application of a "tweak" & compare the results? |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:17:03 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: "Rich.Andrews" wrote in message ... With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to the person making the claims to prove them. Not exactly. A scientific 'claim' that is published in a peer-reviewed journal does require some supporting evidence, but if I'm simply saying that cable X sounds cleaner to me than cable Y, no such claim is being made, simply because it is not possible to have access to another's sensory. While what you say is true in itself, you will find that claims made within these hallowed portals are rarely couched in such terms. Rather the claim will be that "cable X is cleaner than cable Y". That is a claim of a very different nature, and does require proof. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"I think it is up to
the person making the claims to prove them. Not exactly. A scientific 'claim' that is published in a peer-reviewed journal does require some supporting evidence, but if I'm simply saying that cable X sounds cleaner to me than cable Y, no such claim is being made, simply because it is not possible to have access to another's sensory. Which is why tests are done on several people to see if the individual perception is the product of their brain or can be demonstrated independent of their report of the experience. Using listening alone, this is how the benchmark for detecting no differences in amps and wire was established. Then when each new individual reports some perception, their report can be tested using the same as that for the benchmark and conclusions drawn accordingly. This same approach is used for such things as esp, astrology, etc. where that which is reported can not be experienced by another and tests are established to exclude the source of that report as something independent of the person's brain. As to providing support for claims, because the claims often originate in marketing, it is they who have the burden of providing support in some established way that can be independently confirmed. Else it is but the next clever notion of some marketing guy. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Steven Sullivan wrote:
S888Wheel wrote: From: "Rich.Andrews" Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to the person making the claims to prove them. In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof, an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself substantiates or proves nothing. For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms, there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an effect claimed. It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on. As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables, interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a better product than all of the guesswork done previously. This begs the question of how would one go about proving these unsubstaniated claims. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly make a difference in the sound. What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'? Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'? And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible. And I repeat, we cannot be sure that everything can be measured. No researcher in sound or signal processing could be taken seriously if he said otherwise, given the advances in measuring properties of the signal that are made each week and reported in the journals. Now, on the other hand, if two outputs produce exactly the same signal down to the 96 kHz sampled bit, then they are indeed "the same". Comparing two digitized signals can be done simply, just look at their matrices and see whether the cells all have the same numbers. But I don't think this is what people mean when they say there is "no measurable difference," they are usually talking about staring at some graph or chart or something that has been computed as a property of the signals. And there is good reason to try this, since the bit-identity of two signal waveforms is really not at all correlated with two signals seeming to "sound the same." Drastically different signals can be easily made which sound the same, because of the variety of effects to which the ear is not sensitive. But, alas, once you break away from simply comparing two signals (i.e. their matrices) to see whether they are in fact the same (not unlike using Unix 'grep' to compare two text files), you can no longer be certain of your assertions to the effect that your failure to measure any difference represents everyone's inability to hear any difference. -Sean |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
TChelvam wrote:
What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'? Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'? Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound. It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter measurement.". I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then. Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was. Please be careful on what you mean by "we." Yes, many people in the high-end audio biz did not know about jitter, including a number of manufacturers who made and sold some very expensive and abysmally designed digital audio equipment. It's obvious, given such an example, that the high-end audio biz is NOT representative of the state of electronic art, because the issue of jitter was well understood and rather well handled DECADES before the high-end audio biz "discovered" it. It was even talked about in the context of digital audio years before the introduction of the CD. When you say "prior to 1985, we do not know what jitter was," are you aware, for example, of the following: Blesser, B. A., "Digitization of Audio: A Comprehensive Examination of Theory, Implementation and Current Practice," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol 26, no 10, pp 739-771, 1978 Oct. where the good Doctor devotes a goodly amount of his text SPECIFICALLY tp the topic of the effects of jitter? Which "we" are "we" talking about? Or, how about: Manson, W., "Digital Sound Signals: Subjective Effect of Timing Jitter," BBC Research Eng. Div, Great Britain, Monograph 1974/11, 1974. Gee, that's fully 11 years before some "we" discovered jitter. I would suggest that it was, indeed, people like Harry Pearson, the Absolute Sound, and a number of the high-end equipment manufacturers who were late, event negligent, in discovering jitter, a topic thoroughly investigated decades prior to their sudden "enlightment" in the telecommunications field and thoroughly investigated and documented at least 11 years prior to the magical enlightment of the high-end wonks. +---------------------------------------+ | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | +---------------------------------------+ |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Lasse" wrote in message
news:rrZzc.50078$0y.24971@attbi_s03... "Rich.Andrews" wrote in message ... For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms, there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an effect claimed. Measuring difference could be easy, but the measurements do not tell if this difference is desirable or not. If the FR is flat within human hearing capability and the distortion inaudible it is desirable. In fact it is as good as it need to be. We cannot evaluate even speakers based on measurements only We can't? Why not? Isn't the job of any audio component supposed to be that it reproduce the signal being fed to it without any audible distortion and with flat Frequency response? That is the definition of High Fidelity that I use. In the case of speakers you have interactions from the accoustic space they are being used in, but those can be manipulated by EQ and such. , so how could we do this with tweaks? We could measure what they do to the sound. Does the tweak make the response flatter? Does it redouce audible distortiion? These things are measureable and knowable. IMO there's far to much discussion of non-existing problems from the electronics and not nearly enough about how to make better speakers. My fantasy is that someday there will be a device that can measure the inroom response of a speaker across the entire frequency range and adjust it to flat so that we will finally be free to hear exactly what we are supposed to be hearing. Naturally such a device would need to ber defeatable, if for no other reason than comparison. Lasse Ukkonen |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Sean Fulop wrote:
And I repeat, we cannot be sure that everything can be measured. No researcher in sound or signal processing could be taken seriously if he said otherwise, given the advances in measuring properties of the signal that are made each week and reported in the journals. Now, on the other hand, if two outputs produce exactly the same signal down to the 96 kHz sampled bit, then they are indeed "the same". Comparing two digitized signals can be done simply, just look at their matrices and see whether the cells all have the same numbers. But I don't think this is what people mean when they say there is "no measurable difference," they are usually talking about staring at some graph or chart or something that has been computed as a property of the signals. And there is good reason to try this, since the bit-identity of two signal waveforms is really not at all correlated with two signals seeming to "sound the same." Drastically different signals can be easily made which sound the same, because of the variety of effects to which the ear is not sensitive. Seems to me you have it backwards. Two bit-identical tracks will very likely sound the same. Tus bit-identity is correlated to aural identity; more properly, it is *sufficient* for aural identity. That does not mean that *sounding the same* correlates as well to bit-identity. The relationship is not reciprocal, for the reason you state. Aural identity is not sufficient reason to conclude bit-identity. -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Codifus wrote:
Nousaine wrote: (TChelvam) wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02... What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'? Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'? Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound. It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter measurement.". I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then. Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was. Actually jitter was a known and solved problem in telecommunications 20 years prior to that. The American public first used digital audio as early as 1962 when Westren Electric installed the first digital carrier systems in the long distance network in Illinois. As a former Bell Labs scientist explained to me about 1986; jitter can be a performance issue when you have a call that is placed from New Jersey and finally connected in Los Angeles after several alternate possible route-ings and multiple analog to digital and reverse conversions but it isn't an issue between your cd player and dac inboard or otherwise. But then, that would depend on the quality of the measurment. In phone conversation, we aren't looking for audiophile quality, so any jitter they find on the phone must be extreme. The jitter in audio is probably high enough to be bothersome to those "golden ears" but more than acceptable to phone conversations. CD Even if that were to be true the original claim was Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was. Which is patently untrue. Also note that Mr Pierce made reference to a bbc paper published in 1974. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Dick Pierce wrote in message ...
TChelvam wrote: Which "we" are "we" talking about? Or, how about: Manson, W., "Digital Sound Signals: Subjective Effect of Timing Jitter," BBC Research Eng. Div, Great Britain, Monograph 1974/11, 1974. Gee, that's fully 11 years before some "we" discovered jitter. The "we" I was refering to is people like me. Who is looking for great sound at reasonable price. Despite all the arguments for and against tweaks and High resolution format, we are yet to see any one audio engineer who could throw a challenge to whoever claim that their product improve sound. In the name of science, has any of audio engineering society hauled up people who sell Racing Diamond cones or green pen or snake oil? for misleading the public? Or, why can't someone with all the measurements and technical paper in hand come up with suggestions like the alternative for system of say, Amati Speakers, Krell Amplifier and Esoterik CD Player at 1/10 of its price or even 1/5. So the problem with people like us ( my type and not necessarily you) with a system of 1/10 of aforementioned resort to tweaks hoping they will get 5/10 of their dream system. Help us. Give us a definite answer. Make statement like "Buy $300 Sony Amplifier instead of $5000 Krell. The measurable difference is so small that it make no audible difference" or. "Stop wasting your money Amati , buy Benhinger (I misspelt that) for 1/20 of the price and the is no audible difference you can tell". The last I check, jitter measurements still have a lot of room for improvement and accuracy. See here ;- http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/6,640,193 |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Michael Scarpitti) Date: 6/16/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote in message ... I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly make a difference in the sound. Not supportable. What evidence do you have that 'everything audible' is the same set as 'everything measurable'? If one is hearing a difference then there is a measurable difference. Your ears are in effect measuring it. There are microphones and measuring instruments that are far more sensitive than our ear/brian. If the ear/brain can pick up a difference so can the right mic/bench equipment, it is measurable. I'd generally agree.But, in your opinion, what is the measurable mechanism that produces audible differences in amp/wire sound? |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
(TChelvam) wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote in message ... TChelvam wrote: Which "we" are "we" talking about? Or, how about: Manson, W., "Digital Sound Signals: Subjective Effect of Timing Jitter," BBC Research Eng. Div, Great Britain, Monograph 1974/11, 1974. Gee, that's fully 11 years before some "we" discovered jitter. The "we" I was refering to is people like me. Who is looking for great sound at reasonable price. Despite all the arguments for and against tweaks and High resolution format, we are yet to see any one audio engineer who could throw a challenge to whoever claim that their product improve sound. In the name of science, has any of audio engineering society hauled up people who sell Racing Diamond cones or green pen or snake oil? for misleading the public? As far as that goes the AES doesn'thave the resources to challenge every ridiculous claim (the AES is a collegal group of audio engineers not a R&D or laboratory facility) I've continually challenged those kind of claims and those type of people. Perhaps the most well known of people who have done so was David Clark who (along with David Carlstrom, Arny Krueger and several others) developed the original ABX protocol and comparitor in the early 80s. I've challenged manufacturers (refused to perform a promised test when I visited) and retailers (traveled to Florida at my own expense to proctor a challenge that said retailer would prove that he could easily "hear" amplifiers under bias-controlled conditions) and enthusiasts (assembled a fully-tweaked system and recruited subjects for a bias controlled listening test) yet have not found anyone (no single subject) who was able to reliably identify amps/wires and outboard DACs under bias controlled listening conditions. Or, why can't someone with all the measurements and technical paper in hand come up with suggestions like the alternative for system of say, Amati Speakers, Krell Amplifier and Esoterik CD Player at 1/10 of its price or even 1/5. So the problem with people like us ( my type and not necessarily you) with a system of 1/10 of aforementioned resort to tweaks hoping they will get 5/10 of their dream system. You can do that yourself. Just use your head. But anyway that's done all the time. Read any issue of Sound & Vision and you'll find such systems being evaluated. Help us. Give us a definite answer. Make statement like "Buy $300 Sony Amplifier instead of $5000 Krell. The measurable difference is so small that it make no audible difference" or. "Stop wasting your money Amati , buy Benhinger (I misspelt that) for 1/20 of the price and the is no audible difference you can tell". OK under bias controlled conditions a high-end retailer was unable to reliably identify his multi-kilobuck PASS Aleph monoblock amplifiers vs a used Yamaha integrated amplifier using in his personal reference system using his personally selected program material. A high-end salesman, under modest bias controlled conditions (cloth over speaker terminals) was unable to reliably identify upscale speaker cables from zip cord using the very system where he claimed that "pretty amazing" differences were audible. A group of audio enthusiasts was unable to distinguish a highly-regarded outboard DAC from the same signal coming from the analog outputs of the same cd player and re-routed through the analog inputs of a Marantz CDR-610 (in record mode) and taken from the headphone jack (the latter was needed to proivide level matching with the DAC) under blind conditions. These instances are so common I'm surprised that you haven't seen or heard about them. But there are so many claims that can be considered snake-oil they are impossible to keepupwith them all. And the less-responsible manufacturers/distributors just keep changing the goalposts once the claim is tested. They either dispute the results or just make up new claims and new 'reasons.' The last I check, jitter measurements still have a lot of room for improvement and accuracy. See here ;- http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...HITOFF&d=PALL& p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,640,193.WKU.&OS=PN/6,640,193 &RS=PN/6,640,193 IMO measurement of jitter hasn't been a problem. But you can check some of this stuff for yourself. Just find 2 devices you think sound different and then have another person help you to test whether the differences can still be heard when you don't know which of the two devices is playing. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible. Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between two signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound with the same associated equipment. The problem, of course, is that usually there is a measureable difference between two components, since our measuring instruments are so sensitive. Take two cables of the same make, one 3 ft long and one 3.1 ft long. There is a measureable difference. Heck, the lengths are clearly different. And we can certainly resolve the 0.1 nanosecond or so in delay. It would take an extreme subjectivist, however, to claim that there is a sonic difference between those two. The crux of the problem is in the disagreement on what differences are detectible via listening only. Past research indicates that level differences of less than 0.3 dB over the audio band are not detectible by listeners. Let's be generous and tighten that to 0.2 dB. If we would agree that this is the threshold of audibility, then we can prove fairly easily that 99% of the cables and interconnects do sound the same. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news:kn4Ac.45987$eu.38549@attbi_s02...
We can't? Why not? Isn't the job of any audio component supposed to be that it reproduce the signal being fed to it without any audible distortion and with flat Frequency response? That is the definition of High Fidelity that I use. Well, knowing what is perfect is way different than ranking two imperfect measurements. Consider that there is two speakers with almost linear FR. However, other has slight bump in 3k region and other has similar bump in 5k region. How can we tell which is better without listening? Lasse Ukkonen |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
Codifus wrote: But then, that would depend on the quality of the measurment. In phone conversation, we aren't looking for audiophile quality, so any jitter they find on the phone must be extreme. The jitter in audio is probably high enough to be bothersome to those "golden ears" but more than acceptable to phone conversations. CD Even if that were to be true the original claim was Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was. Which is patently untrue. Also note that Mr Pierce made reference to a bbc paper published in 1974. Well, when I said "we' I was refering to the digital audio world in particular to CD sound reproduction. When CD player manufacturer and the audio engineer paid significant attention to address jitter? 1974, 1985 or early 1990? |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Buster Mudd wrote:
Before & After "tweaks" would be to measure the acoustic output of the complete sound system in the room. It does no good (other than to assure some smug self-congratulatory backpatting amongst the naysayers) to measure the electrical signal at the output of a $200 interconnect cable & show that it is identical to the electrical output of a $4 interconnect cable; the tweakophile who claims he heard a difference heard it connected to the rest of his audio system in his listening room through his ears, *not* through some direct electrical connection to the cable. Perhaps that $200 cable interacts bizarrely with the rest of his components, causing them to perform differently? If so, one would be hard pressed to argue that difference is not a measurable difference. Time Domain Spectrometry and FFT can map some fairly refined acoustic phenomena, so why not measure the sum total net difference in acoustic output of a sound system, both Before & After the application of a "tweak" & compare the results? Buster, you are wrong here, if there is any measurable difference at the output of the system, it will already show up at the output of the interconnect. The whole system works at exactly the same operating point and the single components will multiply their transmission functions. It is like 6x5= 5x6= identical. So no matter where you tweak, the difference will be there in the chain after the tweaked component and will go on being there exactly alike (as long as the system is linear) down the chain until the output. If you have applied several different tweaks, the final output will be exactly the product of each individual one and will be measurable after each changed component. Your argumentation is not valid, it is governed by your belief and utterly unscientific. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
TChelvam wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote in message ... TChelvam wrote: Which "we" are "we" talking about? Or, how about: Manson, W., "Digital Sound Signals: Subjective Effect of Timing Jitter," BBC Research Eng. Div, Great Britain, Monograph 1974/11, 1974. Gee, that's fully 11 years before some "we" discovered jitter. The "we" I was refering to is people like me. Who is looking for great sound at reasonable price. Despite all the arguments for and against tweaks and High resolution format, we are yet to see any one audio engineer who could throw a challenge to whoever claim that their product improve sound. In the name of science, has any of audio engineering society hauled up people who sell Racing Diamond cones or green pen or snake oil? for misleading the public? Have you seen anyone from AMA hauled up people who advertize pills and patches that extend certain parts of your anatomy? Or do you believe that those treatments work because the AMA really hasn't hauled anybody up? Have you seen any scientific society hauled up the flat-earthers? Or the psychics? Does that lack of action lead you to believe that the earth may be flat? Or that psychics really work? I used to work in audio instrumentation. I am pronouncing the green pen as snake oil based on my technical expertise. Is that enough proof for you? |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Sean Fulop" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Rich.Andrews" Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to the person making the claims to prove them. In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof, an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself substantiates or proves nothing. For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms, there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an effect claimed. It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on. As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables, interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a better product than all of the guesswork done previously. This begs the question of how would one go about proving these unsubstaniated claims. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly make a difference in the sound. What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'? Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'? And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible. And I repeat, we cannot be sure that everything can be measured. Then you can't be sure it can't be either. Everything I've seen on the subject says that we have the ability to measure everything hearable. Unless youhave some proof that the right things or everything isn't being measured, you're just making a blank assertion. No researcher in sound or signal processing could be taken seriously if he said otherwise, given the advances in measuring properties of the signal that are made each week and reported in the journals. It's true we can measure things we can't hear, so what? Now, on the other hand, if two outputs produce exactly the same signal down to the 96 kHz sampled bit, then they are indeed "the same". Comparing two digitized signals can be done simply, just look at their matrices and see whether the cells all have the same numbers. But I don't think this is what people mean when they say there is "no measurable difference," they are usually talking about staring at some graph or chart or something that has been computed as a property of the signals. If there is no measurable difference there is no audible difference. And there is good reason to try this, since the bit-identity of two signal waveforms is really not at all correlated with two signals seeming to "sound the same." Drastically different signals can be easily made which sound the same, because of the variety of effects to which the ear is not sensitive. Then it doesn't matter, if they sound the same they are the same to the listener. But, alas, once you break away from simply comparing two signals (i.e. their matrices) to see whether they are in fact the same (not unlike using Unix 'grep' to compare two text files), you can no longer be certain of your assertions to the effect that your failure to measure any difference represents everyone's inability to hear any difference. Which is why tools like ABX are valuable. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
I'm sure the one who did the test will give details as he has here before,
if measurement includes a listening alone test of a serially tweeked system of good repute, as to it's gear, and one made as unlike it as is practicable, then this notion can not be confirmed. The highly tweeked system could not be distinguished from that set up to violate as many tweek guidelines as possible. If you have applied several different tweaks, the final output will be exactly the product of each individual one and will be measurable after each changed component. Your argumentation is not valid, it is governed by your belief and utterly unscientific. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Ban,
You may be overlooking the effect of the acoustic output on the system mechanically and the effect of room acoustics. There are some tweeks such as a form of isolation that will have both audible and measurable results. Obviously not all components would be effected the same way and thus a given form of isolation may only work well on one portion of the system, where it would not have an audible effect on another. You do have to look at the system as a whole to get the acoustic output, plus the loop feedback and room response. I see where you are going with this, but it does limit the measurements to specific components. A good example of a situation where a tweek could not be measured at a cable termination would be an acoustic wall treatment, which could be considered a tweek as it would also effect the sound, but it could not be measured anywhere but in the room of course. It would just be easier to measure what you hear in the room at that point to compare it to what you are hearing for a 1:1. I like the 1:1 scenario best as it allows you to hear and read the results simultaneously and you can be confident that you are actually measuring what you are hearing (or not hearing)... Using a mic in the room, you could verify graphically what was being done with a tweek (a laptop would be easiest to read and have at the listening position). It would also provide rather convincing evidence of the effectiveness of a particular tweek as the original poster had pondered. It would still not provide a "better or worse" evaluation from a subjective standpoint, just a result. Hey, some people love their tube amps and peculiar speakers... -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Ban" wrote in message ... Buster Mudd wrote: Before & After "tweaks" would be to measure the acoustic output of the complete sound system in the room. It does no good (other than to assure some smug self-congratulatory backpatting amongst the naysayers) to measure the electrical signal at the output of a $200 interconnect cable & show that it is identical to the electrical output of a $4 interconnect cable; the tweakophile who claims he heard a difference heard it connected to the rest of his audio system in his listening room through his ears, *not* through some direct electrical connection to the cable. Perhaps that $200 cable interacts bizarrely with the rest of his components, causing them to perform differently? If so, one would be hard pressed to argue that difference is not a measurable difference. Time Domain Spectrometry and FFT can map some fairly refined acoustic phenomena, so why not measure the sum total net difference in acoustic output of a sound system, both Before & After the application of a "tweak" & compare the results? Buster, you are wrong here, if there is any measurable difference at the output of the system, it will already show up at the output of the interconnect. The whole system works at exactly the same operating point and the single components will multiply their transmission functions. It is like 6x5= 5x6= identical. So no matter where you tweak, the difference will be there in the chain after the tweaked component and will go on being there exactly alike (as long as the system is linear) down the chain until the output. If you have applied several different tweaks, the final output will be exactly the product of each individual one and will be measurable after each changed component. Your argumentation is not valid, it is governed by your belief and utterly unscientific. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Actually, that is exactly what I was saying about the acoustic output
of the system in the room and including the room acoustics, but I would not go as far as to call cables a tweek - a necessity perhaps. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Buster Mudd" wrote in message ... Uptown Audio wrote in message news:eEOzc.47487$0y.2739@attbi_s03... That is not true of acoustics unless the signal being measured is the acoustic output (room + signal). In other words, anything that is done to effect the acoustics (or mechanical isolation from acoustic feedback in the case of equipment) could be considered a tweek if it were not part of the original equipment but could also not be measured as part of the electrical signal only. Ironically I was thinking along similar lines, except taking it farther to say that the only conceivable way to measure alleged audible differences between Before & After "tweaks" would be to measure the acoustic output of the complete sound system in the room. It does no good (other than to assure some smug self-congratulatory backpatting amongst the naysayers) to measure the electrical signal at the output of a $200 interconnect cable & show that it is identical to the electrical output of a $4 interconnect cable; the tweakophile who claims he heard a difference heard it connected to the rest of his audio system in his listening room through his ears, *not* through some direct electrical connection to the cable. Perhaps that $200 cable interacts bizarrely with the rest of his components, causing them to perform differently? If so, one would be hard pressed to argue that difference is not a measurable difference. Time Domain Spectrometry and FFT can map some fairly refined acoustic phenomena, so why not measure the sum total net difference in acoustic output of a sound system, both Before & After the application of a "tweak" & compare the results? |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
(TChelvam) wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote in message ... TChelvam wrote: Which "we" are "we" talking about? Or, how about: Manson, W., "Digital Sound Signals: Subjective Effect of Timing Jitter," BBC Research Eng. Div, Great Britain, Monograph 1974/11, 1974. Gee, that's fully 11 years before some "we" discovered jitter. The "we" I was refering to is people like me. Who is looking for great sound at reasonable price. Despite all the arguments for and against tweaks and High resolution format, we are yet to see any one audio engineer who could throw a challenge to whoever claim that their product improve sound. In the name of science, has any of audio engineering society hauled up people who sell Racing Diamond cones or green pen or snake oil? for misleading the public? Why is it the job of science to disprove the outrageous claims and technichal bunkum of a buch of johoshes from a backwater industry? EVERYWHERE else in engineering and science, the obligation of proof is on those making the claims to begin with, NOT on everyone else to prove those claims wrong. Why are these people in the high-end audio business getting off the hook? WHat did they do to deserve release from their obligation? Why are THEY so privileged? The point of my reply was not to expose this faker or that dillitant, but rather to dispell the notion that things like jitter were only "discovered" recently, that it took rags like Absolute Sound to "expose" these problems. Frankly, Absolute Sound has been one of the WORST things for the true advancement of audio, what with its anti-science, anti-knowledge, bunkum, hokum and personality-driven agenda. The fact is that the high-end audio biz is DECADES behind the leading edge of technology. It hasn't got the background and knowledge of human audio perception that was studied back in the 1930's, it "discovered problems" that were described in the definitive peer- reviewed technical literature decades earlier, it promotes incompetent and defective designs. You don't like hearing that? You don't believe me? Well, just take the two references I supplied, track them down, follow the bibliograhpies and find out for yourself. Want to fix the situation? How about you absolutely refuse to pay for the nonsense written in many of the high-end rags? Boycott the bunkum. Run the bums out of town on the rails. Maybe when we get the high-priests of audio out of audio, it will stop being a religion. Expose these magazine charlatains for what they are. Or, event better, let them die the slow, ignominious economic starvation death they so richly deserve. "We" worry about jitter, because these idiots TOLD "us" to worry about it. Because they haven't a clue what its all about. They sent "us" out on a wild goose chanse, and generated whole generations of expensive products, many of which made the problem WORSE, and got praise for their amazing "transparency." +---------------------------------------+ | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | +---------------------------------------+ |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
(TChelvam) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message ... Codifus wrote: But then, that would depend on the quality of the measurment. In phone conversation, we aren't looking for audiophile quality, so any jitter they find on the phone must be extreme. The jitter in audio is probably high enough to be bothersome to those "golden ears" but more than acceptable to phone conversations. CD Even if that were to be true the original claim was Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was. Which is patently untrue. Also note that Mr Pierce made reference to a bbc paper published in 1974. Well, when I said "we' I was refering to the digital audio world in particular to CD sound reproduction. When CD player manufacturer and the audio engineer paid significant attention to address jitter? 1974, 1985 or early 1990? Well they didn't have to; because jitter is not now, nor has it ever been, a "problem" with digital recording and playback. But back to the original posting----- there was never a "time" when jitter was not known or hadn't addressed in an engineering sense. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 6/17/2004 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible. Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between two signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound with the same associated equipment. The problem, of course, is that usually there is a measureable difference between two components, since our measuring instruments are so sensitive. It is not a problem for the instances in which there is no measurable differrence. My point is that there are very few instances where there is no measureable difference, because of the sensitivity of our test instruments. Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable? One saves themselves the rigor of doing any further testing. So it still makes sense to start there. Only in principle. Not in practice. Take two cables of the same make, one 3 ft long and one 3.1 ft long. There is a measureable difference. Heck, the lengths are clearly different. And we can certainly resolve the 0.1 nanosecond or so in delay. A delay is not inherently a difference in the signal. Why not? What about a difference in phase shift? What about the 0.001dB in level due to the difference in resistance? How about the differences in resistance, capacitance and inductance? Heck you can measure differnt components days apart and there is a substantial delay but the signal is what it is each time. No, the analogy is incorrect. One could measure those two cables at any time, at any place, with any set of accurate instruments and get the same difference in measurements. These differences are repeatable, and objective. It would take an extreme subjectivist, however, to claim that there is a sonic difference between those two. It would take a mistake in one's impression to say there is an audible difference if the only measurable difference is a nano second delay. There, you are beginning to make the point for me. You are providing a juegment call that a nanosec. delay does not cause an *audible* difference. Just like I may say that a difference in level of 0.1 dB is not an audible difference, but would everyone agree? Of course, I agree that that delay is not audible, but nonetheless there is a *measureable* difference. The difficulty is in agreeing what is an inaudible but measureable difference. Another example. Two preamps of the same make, model and specs. One has an output impedance of 200 ohms. The other 202 ohms. Clearly there is a measureable difference. Is it audible? Even if the comparisons are supposed to be syncronized. If they are not syncronized there is no measurable difference is there since such delays are irrelevent to the content of the signal. You are making a judgment call on what constitiutes an audible difference. By the way, that is the kind of calls that a lot of the more scientific-minded have tried to make (like one can't tell differences in level finer than 0.1dB, or one can't hear above 20 KHz), and a lot of so-called golden-ear audiphiles do not agree with. The crux of the problem is in the disagreement on what differences are detectible via listening only. Past research indicates that level differences of less than 0.3 dB over the audio band are not detectible by listeners. Let's be generous and tighten that to 0.2 dB. If we would agree that this is the threshold of audibility, then we can prove fairly easily that 99% of the cables and interconnects do sound the same. I said never said measurable differences were the end, only the start. If there is no measurable difference it is the start and end. In some cases some time and effort can be saved. Very, very few cases. It's better to go straight to controlled listening tests, IMO. |
Linear Mode
