View attachment KLIPPEL - Copy.zip
Through Beyer DT250 headphones fed directly from my computer's speaker volume control headphone output.AJ,please don't ask me to use headphones again
Last edited:
Hold on a second, who say's science hasn't? Science says, based on solid, repeatable evidence, that perception, including hearing, is fallible. So when you "hear something" "unexplainable" in casual, uncontrolled, bias unsuppressed listening, there is an excellent probability that it is your perception/brain that is tricking you. The fact that you refuse to consider this possibility, i.e, figure it out - is the real question. Why?
So then you give equal weight to the argument that there is a tooth fairy, as you do that there is not?
So that means you are backtracking and no longer "skeptical". Nothing whatsoever wrong with my equipment. Cool.
Because you told me to "find someone who can 'hear' differences". I can certainly (demonstrate) hearing differences in soundwaves. Are you talking about other differences? If so, what other differences?
Better how? Certainly not audibly. Psychologically, maybe. So you admit that the dirt cheap Mogami cannot possibly color the sound/kill "details, etc. and is at least the equal (audibly) of your expensive cables. Basically price is irrelevant to sound (waves), but may have influence by other means. Cool.
At least we know now that my setup has nothing to do with it, my hearing (of soundwaves) has nothing to do with it, so what are we left with as far as reasons why I can't "hear" cables?
AJ,please don't ask me to use headphones again
First, let me thank you all for doing the test. I was hoping more of the believers would have done so by now, but you represent a decent sampling.
Unfortunately the actual music samples are long gone and only the test tones remain.
That said, there is a very clear glitch (a popping sound) in the undistorted sample of the 6" octave test you took, that allows you to identify it (cheat essentially) down to -45db. Yet none of you admitted this
.Now what does that mean? Was it ego...or did you not hear an easily and obviously identifiable sound? Naughty, naughty boys
cheers,
AJ
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll tell you this. I had no idea what you were talking about until I went back and listened to the tones several times all of the way through. I simply used the test that corresponded to what I was using - a 6" driver. That being said it just goes to show that you will never accept anything anyone else posts, no matter what. I find it ironic that you challenge people to take the test and then accuse them of cheating. That is so you to do so. Nothing is EVER good enough for you. That is what makes you ajinfla: the man, the myth the legend. I find that the ones that accuse others of some devious offense are those that would do the same, given the chance. Besides, how would someone even know about the glitch unless they had to listen all of the way through?First, let me thank you all for doing the test. I was hoping more of the believers would have done so by now, but you represent a decent sampling.
Unfortunately the actual music samples are long gone and only the test tones remain.
That said, there is a very clear glitch (a popping sound) in the undistorted sample of the 6" octave test you took, that allows you to identify it (cheat essentially) down to -45db. Yet none of you admitted this
Now what does that mean? Was it ego...or did you not hear an easily and obviously identifiable sound? Naughty, naughty boys
cheers,
AJ
Finally, I give up. You win. I am just a charlatan put here to keep you entertained.
Good grief! My buddy was right, you are a professional thread hijacker.
Dave
First, let me thank you all for doing the test. I was hoping more of the believers would have done so by now, but you represent a decent sampling.
Unfortunately the actual music samples are long gone and only the test tones remain.
That said, there is a very clear glitch (a popping sound) in the undistorted sample of the 6" octave test you took, that allows you to identify it (cheat essentially) down to -45db. Yet none of you admitted this
Now what does that mean? Was it ego...or did you not hear an easily and obviously identifiable sound? Naughty, naughty boys
cheers,
AJ
Yes,I have noticed the popping sound ,but through my headphones was not always from the undistorted sample.At first I thought it was,and frankly I thought someone would say I was "peeking" again....
Anyway it was fun.You didn't say anything about the popping sound either.You didn't expect any one to try?..........naughty boy.....hahaha
Last edited:
No the problem is you read like you listen. I've told you from the start I don't know any of your equipment. I've said I am sceptical about using pro-amps for critical listening, read again.
This just show your ignorance, since when does speaker distortion have anything to do with hearing cable differences. If you bothered to learn something you would have noticed what aspects of the music can be influenced by cables.
AJ you must start a career of writing **** for comic books. I have not said anything you claim, send me a "dirt cheap Mogami" and I will tell you what I think of it.
Untill you stop trolling, don't expect any response from me again.
Well then you didn't cheat Dave. But that certainly calls into question your self assessed superior "hear something" listening ability no?
How could a "hear nothing"/can't "hear" wires rationalist easily pick out an obvious and blatant audible cue, when a "hear something" repeatedly missed it?
What's next, you are going to tell me you were wrong about your hearing assessment of loudspeakers and dipole bass?
Ok, then you are an excellent guesser
. The glitch is in the undistorted track only. Let me get to the point. It's not to show that you cheated or are deaf. It's to show that it is human nature (especially men) to exaggerate capabilities and use almost any means in the one upmanship game of who can "hear" what (in the mundane task of) listening to sound waves from their stereos. There is very good reason for rational folks to call into question anecdotal claims of "hearing" greatness (via self-assessment), given basic human nature. Thanks for assisting . Btw, the same humanity that plagues the believers, plagues the rationalists also. The difference is awareness and admission.Right. As with your other claims, without basis. No reasons given, just "I said I'm skeptical". So you admit that you have no basis to be skeptical of my equipment, despite your insistence that it must be "good". Equipment can only be "good" if Andre knows or says so? That would be what, less than 0.01% of electronics out there?
Speaker distortion can be heard via sound waves, as can all other forms of audible distortion of sound waves. So the influence of cables are outside the realm of sound waves? Then by what method are you "hearing" them?
Unless you meant "cheap" <24 cents/ft, "Good quality/not cheap" >25 cents/ft. Sorry if I misunderstood.
So anything above 24cent/ft is "good" quality. That should make a lot of rationalists happy. Home Depot copper wire is good enough. Thanks Andre
.cheers,
AJ
AJ, I suggest you first learn to understand basic english then you can try to learn to listen.
Well, there's a convincing argument.
No, I never got that deep into either sample. I switched back and forth between the two samples and listened for distortion artifacts, not to the samples themselves. That is what I mean about listening between the notes. I was not on either sample more than 2-3 seconds to prevent "target fixation" from setting in. I thought you knew how to listen critically. Guess not.Well then you didn't cheat Dave. But that certainly calls into question your self assessed superior "hear something" listening ability no?
How could a "hear nothing"/can't "hear" wires rationalist easily pick out an obvious and blatant audible cue, when a "hear something" repeatedly missed it?
What's next, you are going to tell me you were wrong about your hearing assessment of loudspeakers and dipole bass?
AJ
Dave
There are many valid goals, design challenges and competition among them, but if you're going to beat people over the head that cables are froo on the basis of an online test that shows distortion beneath ~0.5% is very difficult to discern, logical consistency rears its head when discussing CD vs. LP, SE vs. PP, tubes vs. solid state.
If a designer works from the premise the measurements we know fully describe a component's sound then it's rational to maximize measured performance at every point in the chain to minimize cumulative effects. Where inconsistency rears its head again is ignoring that cumulative possibility when challenging the audibility of, for example, capacitors by proposing a test which replaces just one. At the very least replacing them all guarantees maximum test sensitivity.
fredex, yep. My point exactly, unless it's those fibre-optical thingies from earlier in the thread.
I don't know anymore always what is being referred to in this monstrous thread but to answer the question up top performance on tests can be affected by stereotype threat. See first paragraph of this article:
On the Causal Mechanisms of Stereotype Threat:
Can Skills That Don’t Rely Heavily on Working
Memory Still Be Threatened?
http://hpl.uchicago.edu/Publications/papers_reprints/Beilock et al 2006 (PSPB).pdf
So the administrator doesn't have to know what the questions are. If for example one group of college women is told they are the best of the best, and that's why they're here at Rahrah College and, a second group is told the test is to determine gender differences in mathematical performance, the second group will not have as good results as the first.
First paragraph continues,
The paper is long, describes three experiments in an attempt to answer this question, is as far as I can tell a good job, and I’m sure I’m doing violence to it in my use of it but I don’t have a lot of time these days to do a good job and my interest is in the mechanism of skill impairment. So here goes.
(1)Some skills, such as solving mathematical problems, require lots of currently working memory from a subject. To the degree the working memory is used up by concerns extraneous to the task, performance will be impaired.
(2)Other skills, such as putting a golf ball or playing a piece of music, rely on highly proceduralized components which run off automatically with minimum contribution from working memory. To the degree that the subject turns attention to the components rather than the global task, performance will be impaired. (Sporting jargon,”choking”).
If someone can hear the differences in reproduced sound caused by use of different audio components (including cables) then I think skills required are mostly in the region (2) although the comparative aspect of the skill may require contribution from working memory. My justification for claiming such is the large number of variables involved in the discrimination cannot consciously be assembled and compared.
(Even with easily distinguished sound qualities, such as the difference between that of an early fortepiano and a modern piano the discrimination is unconscious although we can after the fact explain the differences. Distinguishing between a modern Steinway and Boesendorfer on the other hand might be difficult for many but probably not for a hot professional pianist).
Anyway, if I were to subject myself to comparative listening tests of things such as
wires and cables, I think I’d want to train myself first with examples of gross differences and work my way to finer and finer differences.
Bielock et al’s paper is worth a read if you’re interested in reasons for “less-than-optimal skill execution” in testing situations and some possible ways of alleviating it. I found it easier reading the Introduction and General Discussion at the end and then reading about the experiments.
Wires?!
The biggest problem I have seen with wires is that a better quality wire will not come loose at the point where the wire attaches to the connector. This is especially true when talking about PA systems and musical instruments. (I'm a bass player.) With poor quality wire, the connectors (plugs) come loose more often, and the shielding frays and doesn't shield. Once, at my church, the PA system started picking up local police radio calls for that reason, not to mention the orders from the local Taco Bell. Wires can fray, and cheap wires usually fray faster. But I suppose it won't make much difference on a home hi-fi or stereo that does not get moved and shoved around much.
Thats my 2 cents.
Thanx
The Happy Hippy
The biggest problem I have seen with wires is that a better quality wire will not come loose at the point where the wire attaches to the connector. This is especially true when talking about PA systems and musical instruments. (I'm a bass player.) With poor quality wire, the connectors (plugs) come loose more often, and the shielding frays and doesn't shield. Once, at my church, the PA system started picking up local police radio calls for that reason, not to mention the orders from the local Taco Bell. Wires can fray, and cheap wires usually fray faster. But I suppose it won't make much difference on a home hi-fi or stereo that does not get moved and shoved around much.
Thats my 2 cents.
Thanx
The Happy Hippy
Wait, you need to see and hear it to know if it is "cheap", even though I gave you the price? In dollars and cents? If it isn't the price that makes it cheap, what does? Are you suggesting that there are "cheap" and "expensive" (sound?) waves? Well there isn't. So clearly, it isn't price or sound waves that make them "cheap". So what are we left with Andre?
Btw, you want to know the most fascinating part? That you don't already know what Mogami "sounds" like
. It raises rather serious alarm about the "transparency" and lack of "coloration" in your system. Or else you would already know .The nice thing Dave, is that anyone here can take the test and then determine for themselves the likelihood of you not hearing the glitch.
So 2-3 seconds is all that is required for "critical" listening eh? Not the days and weeks (months) audiophiles claim are needed to acclimate and "hear" differences in components, wires, rocks, whatever? So the (repeated - in this thread alone) claims by audiophiles that DBT's are done much too quickly to "hear" differences....is completely bogus?
Jeez, it would be nice if you guys could come to even the slightest consensus, instead of complete disarray as to what is what. I imagine that's tough for you all to do?
Or perhaps I shouldn't use the word imagine......
cheers,
AJ
- Status
- Not open for further replies.