Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.
Bruno Putzeys
see what I could find that would explain the sonic differences that many
people, including myself, have grown accustomed to hearing. The test
equipment was an Audio Precision System 2 Cascade. Test objects were a
handful of cables of varying construction and claims to audiophile
performance.
Distortion: Not only sine wave, but also extremely complex full-spectrum
multitone testing (including signal sequences derived from actual music).
There was no difference between the cables tested.
Phase noise. While this would have shown up anyway in the above tests, it
was separately checked at frequencies well above the audio band. Nothing
showed up.
"Micro phase shifts". The AP2's resolution is so good you can read the
length of a 1m cable by measuring the phase difference between input and
output. Apart from this, nothing turned up.
In-Out difference. Actually, two different cables of equal length were fed
the above distortion test signals in opposite phase. The two outputs were
summed through a trimmable network to null the output. Well, the output
nulled completely (better than 120dB across the audio band).
In short, apart from a constant time delay of a few nanoseconds (depending
on length), an interconnect will have the same voltage at its output as at
its input.
Or will it? There's one well known (and usually ignored) effect in
unbalanced connections, which is that the same conductor that connects the
chassis also serves as reference to the signal. In a normal cable, these are
100% coupled, which means that the part of the chassis error voltage that
drops across the inductive part of the cable impedance (end-to-end impedance
of the shield) will couple into the conductor and be compensated 100% (Yes!
Unbalanced connections have got CMRR in some way); However, lower
frequencies will cause more voltage drop across the resistive component of
the shield, and this appears as an error voltage at the receiving end.
Take a coaxial cable and dress it in a number of extra layers of shield
salvaged from other cables. Hear the sound improve... it addresses the same
problem as "mains conditioners" but it does so much more effectively.
The intelligent solution however, is to use balanced connections. This will
remove this effect completely as the signal reference and chassis connection
functions are separated.
Next. There may not be a difference between what goes into a cable and what
comes out, but this does not mean that the presence of the cable can't
modify the signal. I'm talking about Microphonics of course.
This has two causes, triboelectric charging and modulation of the voltage
present on the cable. The former is the same effect that causes you to
accumulate electric charge when walking across a thick carpet in winter. The
charge is siphoned off to the terminating resistances of the cable (so it
doesn't create crackling discharges), and creates a voltage there as long as
the cable is moving.
The latter is the same thing that makes condenser microphones work. The
signal provides a constantly changing polarisation charge, and motion of the
conductors will change the cable capacitance, also changing the voltage this
charge represents. Applying a "bias voltage" as done by some cable companies
in a bid to linearise the dielectric (this purported nonlinearity does not
show up in any test) is extremely counterproductive in this respect!
Reducing triboelectric charging is done by using a dielectric/conductor duo
that produces little contact charge. Aluminium and paper are one such
combination, cotton and steel another. Unfortunately, paper and especially
cotton are quite soft, making the cable particularly susceptible to the
condenser-mic effect.
A method to reduce triboelectric noise in normal insulators consists of
lubricating the shield/insulator interface with graphite.
Reducing the condenser mic effect requires a tough (hard to deform)
dielectric. Teflon is a famous example. Unfortunately, teflon is incredibly
triboelectric against practically any other substance. In addition to this,
the stiffness of teflon and also silver makes the cable nearly lossless,
mechanically speaking. Measured microphonic impulse responses show
tremendous ringing in the upper audio band. This could explain the
"brightness" often attributed to silver/teflon cables.
Again, there's the good engineering solution: use a signal source with as
low as possible impedance. Charges generated and transferred because of
either effect are absorbed at the source and the receiving end never gets to
see it.
Summing up: to make cables disappear from the sonic equation, all that is
needed is balanced transmission combined with sub-1ohm output impedance line
drivers. I would like to propose this as a standard for audiophile equipment
makers.
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.
S888Wheel
cartridges/phono cables/ phono preamps.
TonyP
cables that were tested and the outcome of this testing and how it
relates to their "sonic" qualities. I have asked in the past, what is in
those boxes attached to say, a MIT cable. I have been told a bunch of
cheap resistors. Does that mean the MIT "dumbs down" their lower end
cables? Then there is Audioquest with batteries included. All these at a
price that makes one scratch his/her head if they are worth it outside
of bragging rights.
Harry Lavo
news:B77vb.193311$mZ5.1434271@attbi_s54...
Seems to me also to say that in practice, it is possible for single-ended
cables to sound slightly different based on their shielding, construction
materials, and wire material (silver). Is that not so?
>
Steve Eddy
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>Recently I've done a collection of measurements on interconnect cables to
>see what I could find that would explain the sonic differences that many
>people, including myself, have grown accustomed to hearing. The test
>equipment was an Audio Precision System 2 Cascade. Test objects were a
>handful of cables of varying construction and claims to audiophile
>performance.
>
>Distortion: Not only sine wave, but also extremely complex full-spectrum
>multitone testing (including signal sequences derived from actual music).
>There was no difference between the cables tested.
You might be interested to know that John Curl claims to have measured
distortion (of the harmonic variety) differences in interconnect
cables, which he likes to say is evidence of the "micro diode" theory
promoted by the likes of van den Hul. That is, micro diodes within the
wire itself.
He says that this distortion doesn't manifest itself at typical test
levels but down around 30mV. And in order to achieve sufficient
dynamic range to show the distortion products, the fundamental must be
notched out (I mention this because Arny Krueger made some similar
measurements but they were dismissed because he didn't notch out the
fundamental).
I'm wondering if you might be interested in seeing if you can
duplicate Curl's results. His measurements were made using a modified
late 70s vintage Sound Technologies rig and it would be interesting to
see what results the same test would give on the System Two Cascade.
The following FFT plots were made by Curl by feeding the post-notch
output of his ST rig into his Macintosh's sound card using Mac The
Scope FFT software and 100 averages.
The cables are from Radio Shack (the worst), JPS Labs (next best) and
van den Hul (the best) respectively.
http://www.q-audio.com/images/rs.jpg
http://www.q-audio.com/images/jps.jpg
http://www.q-audio.com/images/vdh.jpg
se
Bruno Putzeys
AudioQuest story is a case of biasing the dielectric. The reasoning goes
that the dielectric is nonlinear around zero field strength, and it is
biased into a more favourable region. Few dielectrics are nonlinear. Those
that are, are nonlinear at high field strengths (tens of kilovolts per
centimeter), and are at their best around zero. The biasing may certainly
change the sound by increasing microphonics. If the difference is
detectable, it will be better without the bias.
The sonic colouration relates reasonably well with the microphonics. I
haven't got the full story yet because there is a significant difference
between flexure (as in travelling waves) and pressure. Also, the acoustic
impedance of any cable is very high (very stiff compared to air) so the
frequency response is different between reception of air-borne sound and
mechanically applied vibrations. All these things combine and make it
difficult to draw a 1:1 relationship between the measurements and the sound.
"TonyP" <arpi...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:Vk9vb.259857$Fm2.275491@attbi_s04...
Bruno Putzeys
leaving the rest for analysis. I have indeed done low-level distortion tests
(down to several uV), to no avail. The levels he's reporting are very high,
much higher than what is found with most amplifiers. I cannot tell what
caused the distortion in his test, but it didn't happen here. Quite likely
the ground loop between the distortion analyser and the computer is to blame
(the former having a grounded output and the latter having a grounded
input), in which case the shield resistance would be a factor. The
distortion was certainly not generated in the cable itself.
"Steve Eddy" <st...@q-audio.com> wrote in message
news:bpjg3...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Stewart Pinkerton
>"Bruno Putzeys" <bruno....@philips.com> wrote in message
>news:B77vb.193311$mZ5.1434271@attbi_s54...
>> 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.
>
>Seems to me also to say that in practice, it is possible for single-ended
>cables to sound slightly different based on their shielding, construction
>materials, and wire material (silver). Is that not so?
That's correct, except that silver makes no difference whatever, and
the other electrical problems may be addressed by the use of
industrial-grade cables which cost a maximum of $5 a metre. You might
be surprised to learn that studio-grade mic cable and patch cable at a
buck a foot is as good as it gets (Canare star-quad being about the
ultimate). Of course, that *shouldn't* surprise anyone.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
IIRC, that's already done the rounds, and was reckoned by the AP users
to be residuals in the test gear, not anything to do with the cables.
Certainly, I've not seen anything above -140dBW in any cable I've run
through some very expensive Marconi Instruments spectrum analysers.
Bruno Putzeys
> cables to sound slightly different based on their shielding, construction
> materials, and wire material (silver). Is that not so?
> >
Indeed. It bothered me. I consider such a situation an engineering problem
(others make money out of it), which is why I took it up. The message is
that it's better to solve the problem by implementing correct I/O circuitry
rather than treating the symptom.
Bruno Putzeys
I want to spend my life doing :-)
"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0n8vb.258185$Tr4.804144@attbi_s03...
Mike Prager
> Recently I've done a collection of measurements on interconnect cables
[...]
> Distortion: [...] > There was no difference between the cables tested.
> Phase noise.[...] Nothing > showed up.
[...]
> In short, apart from a constant time delay of a few nanoseconds (depending
> on length), an interconnect will have the same voltage at its output as at
> its input.
>
> Or will it? There's one well known (and usually ignored) effect in
> unbalanced connections, which is that the same conductor that connects the
> chassis also serves as reference to the signal.
>
> Next. [...] Microphonics of course.
OK, so you tested some items and then drew some hypotheses
about two other possible issues. Why don't you test those!
Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA
Steve Eddy
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>The AP's THD measurements work the same way - removing the fundamental
>leaving the rest for analysis.
Well, they can be done that way. More typically I see them done with
the fundamental left in.
> I have indeed done low-level distortion tests
>(down to several uV), to no avail. The levels he's reporting are very high,
>much higher than what is found with most amplifiers. I cannot tell what
>caused the distortion in his test, but it didn't happen here.
Ok.
> Quite likely
>the ground loop between the distortion analyser and the computer is to blame
>(the former having a grounded output and the latter having a grounded
>input), in which case the shield resistance would be a factor.
Mmmm. How exactly would a ground loop produce all those harmonics of
the 1kHz stimulus?
> The
>distortion was certainly not generated in the cable itself.
That's what I've been trying to verify.
Thanks.
se
Steve Eddy
wrote:
>IIRC, that's already done the rounds, and was reckoned by the AP users
>to be residuals in the test gear, not anything to do with the cables.
>Certainly, I've not seen anything above -140dBW in any cable I've run
>through some very expensive Marconi Instruments spectrum analysers.
Reckoning is one thing. Actually doing the same measurement under the
same conditions as Curl (i.e. 30mV 1kHz stimulus with the fundamental
notched out) is another. And up to this point I wasn't aware of anyone
who had done anything along those lines.
Arny did some measurements with a 30mV 1kHz stimulus but didn't notch
out the fundamental so Curl dismissed his results saying that Arny's
plots weren't measuring as far down as his were. His measurements were
also taken to task for the high levels of noise and other spuriae in
the plots.
I'd tried to enlist the help of a couple of individuals with AP rigs
to try and duplicate Curl's results but they have yet had the time to
do them. So I was rather pleasantly surprised to come across Bruno's
post and better, his saying he'd made distortion measurements using a
stimulus whose magnitude was as low and lower than Curl's 30mV. And
using AP's latest System Two Cascade.
se
Randy Yates
> [...]
> Again, there's the good engineering solution: use a signal source with as
> low as possible impedance. Charges generated and transferred because of
> either effect are absorbed at the source and the receiving end never gets to
> see it.
>
> Summing up: to make cables disappear from the sonic equation, all that is
> needed is balanced transmission combined with sub-1ohm output impedance line
> drivers. I would like to propose this as a standard for audiophile equipment
> makers.
Bruno,
Where in the world did you get value "sub-1 ohm"? Yes, lower is better from an
electrical point of view, but there are practical issues. What engineering
criteria could be used to rationally establish an upper limit to the output
impedance specification? Seems like the maximum current we're likely to
see from the various sources, along with a maximum resulting voltage error,
would establish the maximum required output impedance in a rational way.
However, I have no idea what thoses maximums would be.
By the way, accolades to you for taking the time and initiative to do this
testing. Your results do not surprise me in the least, and it is great to
see good, solid engineering expertise applied to this issue.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Steve Eddy
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>The AP's THD measurements work the same way - removing the fundamental
>leaving the rest for analysis. I have indeed done low-level distortion tests
>(down to several uV), to no avail. The levels he's reporting are very high,
>much higher than what is found with most amplifiers. I cannot tell what
>caused the distortion in his test, but it didn't happen here. Quite likely
>the ground loop between the distortion analyser and the computer is to blame
>(the former having a grounded output and the latter having a grounded
>input), in which case the shield resistance would be a factor. The
>distortion was certainly not generated in the cable itself.
By the way, I passed this all along to John Curl and he's dismissed
your measurements saying that the Audio Precision System Two Cascade's
distortion measurement capabilities aren't able to match the
resolution of his 25 year old Sound Technologies 1700B feeding a
separate spectrum analyzer (which includes his Mac's sound card using
Mac The Scope software).
He says he's upgraded the opamps in the 1700B but I find it a bit hard
to believe that Audio Precision's most advanced measurement system
can't even equal let alone exceed a 25 year old distortion analyzer
(even with upgraded opamps) and a built-in computer sound card.
You may find Curl's remarks on this issue here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/6780.html
se
Bruno Putzeys
> the other electrical problems may be addressed by the use of
> industrial-grade cables which cost a maximum of $5 a metre.
Not quite. The microphonics were tested on good cable too. A low source
impedance is also required to get rid of that problem. Good cable is not
enough. Once you've got low-impedance drive (and balanced wiring) the
standard cable should do. At least that's what I'm contending :-)
As for silver, if the insulation is Teflon, triboelectricity is a tiny bit
less if the conductor is silver(ed) compared to copper. Having said that,
the most spectacularly microphonic cable I've ever tested was a
teflon/silver coax. It appears teflon is out of the running for serious use,
unless you like to use acoustic feedback to colour the sound.
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bpld...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Bruno Putzeys
> about two other possible issues. Why don't you test those!
Exactly the plan. The shield issue is something you can try out for
yourself. The difference is startling (in cable terms), and needs little
further proof. Again, have a shot at modifying an existing coax using extra
shields and hear for yourself.
For microphonics, the idea is to take (or if necessary, make)
1) Two [sets of] cables of very different construction but very low
microphonics.
2) Two cables as identical as possible in construction but different in
microphonics. This can be done using one cable with graphite lubrication
between shield and insulator and one cable without. I would expect such two
cable types to be directly available from Belden.
For this test, balanced connection with a normal drive impedance (50 to 100
ohms) will be used, in order to eliminate the shield issue witout affecting
the microphonic problem under test.
The same test will then be redone using low drive impedance (<1 ohm).
Bruno Putzeys
the 20 ohm setting of the AP2, microphonics were still detectable (noise
floor around 7nV/rtHz). So I "sez" to myself let's undercut this 20 ohm
figure with a margin.
Now I'm designing a "universal" (ie floating) balanced line driver to match
the specs I put forward. These specs also include unconditional stability
and low distortion (<1ppm at 20kHz). It is a bit challenging but the spice
simulations look promising.
Steve Eddy
thread below.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/6776.html
se
Michael Scarpitti
>
> 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.
If your tests doesn't show differences, and I can hear differences,
you're testing the wrong things. I can hear differences between
cables.
Steve Eddy
Scarpitti) wrote:
>If your tests doesn't show differences, and I can hear differences,
>you're testing the wrong things. I can hear differences between
>cables.
But why, in the over 20 years that this claim has been made, has no
one yet been able to demonstrate this to actually be the case? It's
just one more empty claim to be tossed upon the mountain of empty
claims that have been made for so many years.
That's not to say that it's impossible for there to be actual audible
differences. But why has there not been any clear and convincing
evidence of this by now? Decades ago we were able to show clear and
convincing evidence establishing the existence of subatomic particles.
Yet simply establishing actual audiblilty of cable differences seems
to be even more elusive.
se
Bruce
unless it is very long and/or has an exceptionally small guage. However,
it is possible that a good cable's small, inherent inductance may
interact with an amplifier's feedback loop and create marginal
instability or ultrasonic ringing. Depending on the amplifier and
speakers, that oscillation or ringing may have subtle audible
consequences. In such a case, would you blame the cable or the
amplifier? I would blame the amplifier- the problem should be avoidable
through good circuit design.
jjn...@sonic.net
There isn't an excuse for such behaviour in modern amps, but back when the bandwidth
of power transistors was more limited, it was often unavoidable if the designer
wanted to maintain feedback ratios at high frequencies to keep distortion down.
Mkuller
>Scarpitti) wrote:>
>>If your tests doesn't show differences, and I can hear differences,
>>you're testing the wrong things. I can hear differences between
>>cables.
>
>st...@q-audio.com (Steve Eddy) wrote:>
>But why, in the over 20 years that this claim has been made, has no
>one yet been able to demonstrate this to actually be the case? It's
>just one more empty claim to be tossed upon the mountain of empty
>claims that have been made for so many years.
>
Like the claim of most amplifiers sounding different?
>That's not to say that it's impossible for there to be actual audible
>differences. But why has there not been any clear and convincing
>evidence of this by now?
I guess it depends on what you consider "clear and convincing evidence". If
you're looking for measurements that relate to the audible differences, perhaps
Mike Scarpitti is correct and you are measuring the wrong things.
If it's dbts you're looking for as proof, there is no actual scientific
evidence they work on open-ended audio equipment comparisons with music without
getting in the way of subtle audible differences, in spite of all those who
protest to the contrary. So if you hear audible differences between cables (or
amps), it's a good possibility they are real.
Regards,
Mike
Michael Scarpitti
It's not elusive. I bought Monster $50 cables (interconnect) a few
years ago. I then bought $100 Monster cables. I then switched them in
and out of my system several times. The difference was subtle, but
consistent. The more expensive cable offered deeper bass and better
imaging, with better clarity on transients as well. Every time. The
difference was much more apparent when I removed the more expensive
ones and replaced the cheaper ones into the system: the deterioration
in the sound was quite obvious. This phenomenon also calls for
explanation.
Steve Eddy
Scarpitti) wrote:
But that's simply your sighted, subjective perception which is known
to be unreliable and doesn't in itself establish actual audibility. It
only establishes that you subjectively perceived some difference.
If you read my reply to Mkuller I mentioned that people have reported
hearing significant improvements in their systems after placing
photographs of themselves and their equipment in their freezers. So
does this constitute clear and convincing evidence that placing
photographs in our freezers produces actual audible differences?
se
Stuart Stebbings
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.
Why can we not measure something as simple as a cable and the various
parameters that make up an audio signal.
If as you claim cables do have a different sound, do you think the
manufacturer knows why?
Would they have constructed the product knowing that doing "x" will
give better bass response etc etc. If so how do they know this? 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.
Steve Eddy
>>mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
>>Scarpitti) wrote:>
>>>If your tests doesn't show differences, and I can hear differences,
>>>you're testing the wrong things. I can hear differences between
>>>cables.
>>
>
>>st...@q-audio.com (Steve Eddy) wrote:>
>>But why, in the over 20 years that this claim has been made, has no
>>one yet been able to demonstrate this to actually be the case? It's
>>just one more empty claim to be tossed upon the mountain of empty
>>claims that have been made for so many years.
>>
>
>Like the claim of most amplifiers sounding different?
Sure, you can lump that in as well if you like.
>>That's not to say that it's impossible for there to be actual audible
>>differences. But why has there not been any clear and convincing
>>evidence of this by now?
>
>I guess it depends on what you consider "clear and convincing evidence". If
>you're looking for measurements that relate to the audible differences, perhaps
>Mike Scarpitti is correct and you are measuring the wrong things.
Well, I don't see what good measurements are until it's first been
established that there is in fact is some audible difference. If the
perception is solely due to psychological phenomena, you can measure
from now 'til Doomsday and not get anywhere.
>If it's dbts you're looking for as proof, there is no actual scientific
>evidence they work on open-ended audio equipment comparisons with music without
>getting in the way of subtle audible differences, in spite of all those who
>protest to the contrary. So if you hear audible differences between cables (or
>amps), it's a good possibility they are real.
Why is it a good possibility that they are real when it's been well
established for quite some time that differences can be perceived even
in the absence of any actual difference?
People have reported significant improvements in the sound of their
sytems (and, strangely enough, every other system they listen to) by
placing photographs of themselves and their equipment in their
freezers. Carol Clark wrote about this Peter Belt tweak in
audioMUSINGS and others have reported hearing similar
differences/improvements.
So does this mean that it's a good possibility that placing
photographs of ourselves and our equipment in our freezers really does
have a physical effect (Belt claims that this is a quantum mechanical
effect) that we're able to perceive?
se
chung
Mr. Curl's measurement results are highly unexpected, to say the least.
One thing that comes to mind is that he is using a sampling scheme. If
the sampling frequency is exactly a multiple of the fundamental, in this
case 1 KHz, certain sampling artifacts may appear as harmonic
distortion. I would recommend that he moves the fundamental frequency to
something like 950 Hz on the Sound Technology 1700B, and repeat the
measurements. He may find that the spurious signals now are no longer at
harmonics of the fundamental. This is what I would do first. Another
thing worth trying is borrowing an analog audio spectrum analyzer and
look at the residuals at the output of the ST1700. I have done that many
times, and I do not recall ever seeing the comb lines that he saw.
Also, he should try to put an amplifier in front of the sound card, like
a 20dB amp for example. If the distortion components do not go up by
20dB, we can be sure that they come from the sound card and not caused
by the cable.
jjn...@sonic.net
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.
Mkuller
>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.
>
>Why can we not measure something as simple as a cable and the various
>parameters that make up an audio signal.
>If as you claim cables do have a different sound, do you think the
>manufacturer knows why?
>Would they have constructed the product knowing that doing "x" will
>give better bass response etc etc. If so how do they know this? 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.
>
Stuart,
I didn't say we are not able to measure these things. I said
> If
> you're looking for measurements that relate to the audible differences,
perhaps
> Mike Scarpitti is correct and you are measuring the wrong things.
>
Here on RAHE, most of the engineers will tell you the only measurements that
matter with cables are R, L and C. If you talk to high end cable designers
they will talk about their more sophisticated models of measurements that
correlate to their designs. Some of it is marketing hype, but the fact that
they can tailor the sound of the cables shows there might be something to it.
I'll leave it to the engineers to read their "white papers" and try to provide
an explanation that is easy to understand. In the mean time, like many
audiophiles, I will listen and compare the sound of the cables before I buy
them.
Regards,
Mike
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>mku...@aol.com (Mkuller) wrote in message news:<ZRgxb.236842$275.886690@attbi_s53>...
>> >mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
>> >Scarpitti) wrote:>
>> >>If your tests doesn't show differences, and I can hear differences,
>> >>you're testing the wrong things. I can hear differences between
>> >>cables.
Not when you don't *know* which one is connected, you can't!
>> >st...@q-audio.com (Steve Eddy) wrote:>
>> >But why, in the over 20 years that this claim has been made, has no
>> >one yet been able to demonstrate this to actually be the case?
Because there *is* no audible difference?
>> > It's
>> >just one more empty claim to be tossed upon the mountain of empty
>> >claims that have been made for so many years.
>> >
>> Like the claim of most amplifiers sounding different?
Yup, just like that one.................
>> >That's not to say that it's impossible for there to be actual audible
>> >differences. But why has there not been any clear and convincing
>> >evidence of this by now?
>>
>> I guess it depends on what you consider "clear and convincing evidence". If
>> you're looking for measurements that relate to the audible differences, perhaps
>> Mike Scarpitti is correct and you are measuring the wrong things.
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.
>> If it's dbts you're looking for as proof, there is no actual scientific
>> evidence they work on open-ended audio equipment comparisons with music without
>> getting in the way of subtle audible differences, in spite of all those who
>> protest to the contrary. So if you hear audible differences between cables (or
>> amps), it's a good possibility they are real.
If you are using sighted listening, then it's much better possibility
that they are *not* real, for reasons given ad nauseam. Why is it that
you guys keep howling for us to 'trust our ears', and yet this is the
one thing that you refuse to do yourselves?
>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.
>
>Why can we not measure something as simple as a cable and the various
>parameters that make up an audio signal.
>If as you claim cables do have a different sound, do you think the
>manufacturer knows why?
>Would they have constructed the product knowing that doing "x" will
>give better bass response etc etc. If so how do they know this? 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.
What 'phenomenon'? That's the whole point - if you don't *know* which
cable is connected, then there simply *is* no audible difference among
cables, unless there is a *gross* electrical difference causing a dB
or more difference at the speaker terminals.
Until someone can demonstrate an ability to *hear* differences among
cables when they don't actually *know* which one is connected, then
there *is* no 'phenomenon', and hence no need to chase around looking
for exotic differences to explain it.
Bruno Putzeys
> 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.
Steve Eddy
Yes. Certainly it's known that poor contacts can cause nonlinearities,
but John seems to believe that this distortion is being produced by
the wire itself, something he said he was first turned on to by A.J.
van den Hul who according to John did similar measurements over 20
years ago using just as old equipment. Van den Hul attributes this to
"micro diodes" in the copper wire.
I've been skeptical of these measurements, or rather the notion that
it's being caused by the wire because while I can see how it MIGHT
have escaped notice of the audio community I thought it rather odd
that such non-linear behavior would have seemingly wholly escaped the
materials science researchers all these years.
One would think that if copper wire exhibited such non-linear behavior
at the levels John is measuring, that it would have been well
documented in the literature by now. But I haven't been able to find
any evidence that it has.
>One thing that comes to mind is that he is using a sampling scheme. If
>the sampling frequency is exactly a multiple of the fundamental, in this
>case 1 KHz, certain sampling artifacts may appear as harmonic
>distortion. I would recommend that he moves the fundamental frequency to
>something like 950 Hz on the Sound Technology 1700B, and repeat the
>measurements. He may find that the spurious signals now are no longer at
>harmonics of the fundamental. This is what I would do first. Another
>thing worth trying is borrowing an analog audio spectrum analyzer and
>look at the residuals at the output of the ST1700. I have done that many
>times, and I do not recall ever seeing the comb lines that he saw.
>
>Also, he should try to put an amplifier in front of the sound card, like
>a 20dB amp for example. If the distortion components do not go up by
>20dB, we can be sure that they come from the sound card and not caused
>by the cable.
Thanks for the advice.
However I should mention that John says that he has done the same
measurements using a variety of spectrum analyzers including an analog
model and essentially gets the same results. So it wouldn't appear to
be due to the spectrum analyzer. So if it's an equipment problem (or
just simple equipment limitations) it would appear to be in the 1700B.
The reason I only mentioned the Mac sound card and Mac The Scope
software is because the plots I provided are the only plots publically
available (all else is just John's own accounts) and those were done
with that combination.
se
Steve Eddy
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.
se
Steve Eddy
Yes. There's a considerable amount of psychology behind our aural
Bruno Putzeys
in the original text, I hear these differences too. Unfortunately the
conclusion was typographically disabled from correctly conveying the meaning
of the rest of the text.
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XOSwb.304198$HS4.2716225@attbi_s01...
Michael Scarpitti
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.
Michael Scarpitti
> mku...@aol.com (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.
Michael Scarpitti
> >
> >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. Only when one is intimately familiar with the sound of one's
system can one notice the slightest changes. 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. When I listen
in MY system, I know what it sounds like already. The change is
blatantly obvious.
Steve Eddy
Scarpitti) wrote:
Yet Tom Noisaine has said that he's administered blind tests to
individuals using their own systems in their own homes over periods as
long as months. Can't get much more familiar than that. Yet the
results haven't turned up anything yet.
So at this point there doesn't seem to be any evidence that intimacy
with one's audio system somehow makes one less susceptible to biases.
Perhaps you should get in touch with Tom and see if he'd be willing to
set you up in a similar fashion (i.e. using your own system in your
own home) and see if you can be the first to demonstrate actual
audible differences.
Your success would certainly save a lot of time wasted on speculative
arguments which have been raging for decades now. And I think there
are still a couple of standing offers of cash rewards to the first
person who can demonstrate actual audible differences. And hey,
Christmas is just around the corner. :)
se
Michael Scarpitti
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 06:36:05 GMT, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
> Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> >st...@q-audio.com (Steve Eddy) wrote in message news:<bq1dp...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >It's not elusive. I bought Monster $50 cables (interconnect) a few
> >years ago. I then bought $100 Monster cables. I then switched them in
> >and out of my system several times. The difference was subtle, but
> >consistent. The more expensive cable offered deeper bass and better
> >imaging, with better clarity on transients as well. Every time. The
> >difference was much more apparent when I removed the more expensive
> >ones and replaced the cheaper ones into the system: the deterioration
> >in the sound was quite obvious. This phenomenon also calls for
> >explanation.
>
> But that's simply your sighted, subjective perception which is known
> to be unreliable and doesn't in itself establish actual audibility. It
> only establishes that you subjectively perceived some difference.
>
> If you read my reply to Mkuller I mentioned that people have reported
> hearing significant improvements in their systems after placing
> photographs of themselves and their equipment in their freezers. So
> does this constitute clear and convincing evidence that placing
> photographs in our freezers produces actual audible differences?
>
> se
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. 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.
Bruce Abrams
*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.
Stewart Pinkerton
Scarpitti) wrote:
>st...@q-audio.com (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?
Bruno Putzeys
> 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.
Stewart Pinkerton
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.
Bruno Putzeys
> 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.
Stuart Stebbings
I have been working with designing and analizing the data that comes
down cables for 20 years
I have never heard such rubbish.
What do you mean by "sophisticated models of measurement"? why hasnt
anyone else that uses cables i.e the IT Industry of the medical
equipment people ever heard of this?
they are only audio cables.
Do you realise how simple it is to design a cable to pass and audio
signal?
Without being too unkind, it isnt that difficult to design a data
cable that will cope with 1063 mps sustained data rate.
Stuart Stebbings
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?
Alan Murphy
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.
Nousaine
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.
Stewart Pinkerton
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
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.
Steven Sullivan
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
Stewart Pinkerton
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......
Nousaine
Michael Scarpitti
I closed my eyes and listened. Is that 'blind' enough for you?
Harry Lavo
news:YqWyb.278194$275.997560@attbi_s53...
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.
Stewart Pinkerton
Scarpitti) wrote:
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<bqft6...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>> On 29 Nov 2003 16:21:18 GMT, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
>> Scarpitti) wrote:
>>
>> >st...@q-audio.com (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.
Ban
|||
||| 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
Stewart Pinkerton
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.
Alan Murphy
news:bqim8...@enews2.newsguy.com...
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.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bqim8...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> On 1 Dec 2003 17:30:40 GMT, "Alan Murphy" <afm...@btinternet.com>
>> 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?
Steve Eddy
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
Michael Scarpitti
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.
Alan Murphy
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.
Stewart Pinkerton
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
Scarpitti) wrote:
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<bqft8...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>> On 30 Nov 2003 16:02:57 GMT, mikesc...@yahoo.com (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.
Nousaine
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
>news:<bqft8...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>> On 30 Nov 2003 16:02:57 GMT, mikesc...@yahoo.com (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."
Johnd1001
>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.
Johnd1001
>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.
normanstrong
news:brnr6...@enews4.newsguy.com...
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
>
Michael Scarpitti
>
> 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."
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.
Svante
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.
Steve Eddy
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? 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?
se
Nousaine
I'm not sure I get the analogy. If I have a level matched cable with 0.1 dB
difference and I can't tell then apart; and then I increase the level
difference to 1 dB and then hear the difference. But then later cannot hear 0.1
again means only that I can't hear level matched differences; it doesn't mean
that changing a non-sonic difference (level matching) to threshold level
somehow means that cables possess inherent sonic differences.
Michael Scarpitti
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:35:55 GMT, mikesc...@yahoo.com (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.
Steve Eddy
Scarpitti) wrote:
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
Michael Scarpitti
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.
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
Steve Eddy
Scarpitti) wrote:
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?
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