Hi,
If cables x and y share the same constants and the only variable is the type of metal then what could be the cause of the difference between the two?
Cheers,
Do you mean the actual difference, or what would cause someone to prefer a silver cable when they know it's being swapped in?
Agreed on both counts, Jan, but the same applies to both sides. Over the years, I'm sure you have come across quite a bit of pseudo scientific experiements, all sexed up to fool the masses.
I had an argument about such a test done by some guys from Poland. The test was obviously slanted from the get-go: they WANTED to prove that current feedback is inherently superior to voltage feedback. They constructed a circuit well suited to CFB, and then made the VFB circuit run under the same conditions. One size fits all.
Not even a mock up of trying to optimize the VFB circuit for what would be its real maximum performance. And instantly, because they put in a lot of graphs, that became the God's own truth to a surprisingly large number of people.
They too call themselves objectivists.
My point is, there are rotten apples in BOTH camps, and they are the ones who are muddying the waters.
1 The recorder itself is not changed, its not a variable.
2 99,9% of all modern music is recorded with computer based recorders.
3 You can spend lots of money on the actual ADC if you think that's necessary to show a audible difference. My point: Not all are crappy. And in fact most used today are very good. Google MOTU, Apogee, Benchmark, Prism, Lavry engineering to name just a few from the top of my head.
And the computers most of us have is full of high quality, high price digital sound cards, are they?
Or are they all perfect because they are all digital?
Hi,
Not trying to device a test protocol here.
Just two identical cables with only the type of metal conductor used as a difference.
Same L, C and almost R, same geometry, length, etc. ,etc.. (I suppose we can disregard the small difference in conductivity of 13 micro Ohm/cm provided we keep the cable short enough?)
Cheers,
Not trying to device a test protocol here.
Just two identical cables with only the type of metal conductor used as a difference.
Same L, C and almost R, same geometry, length, etc. ,etc.. (I suppose we can disregard the small difference in conductivity of 13 micro Ohm/cm provided we keep the cable short enough?)
Cheers,
Back to the usual, I see, you are "proving" points nobody disputed.
Oh, wait - I did, I did! It's all fine and well if you own such a high grade ADC card, I never doubted that some of them are very good, even excellent, the only problem is having them.
Also, the last I heard, high quality microphones are not exactly cheap. I mention them because I've been taping things since 1970 and I'm only too well aware of how good a simple recording, direct mic to tape deck link without even a mix in between, can sound. Practically the same as live, BUT one does need excellent microphones and a tape deck capable of good dynamic range.
A few of us have bothered to compare direct mike feed with "crappy computer recorders." And as one who has done the comparison, I will never go back to "crappy analog tape."
The excuses and rationalizations get lamer and lamer. Though I admit it's hard to beat the, "Wah-wah-wah, I have to read a journal paper! No fair!"
The excuses and rationalizations get lamer and lamer. Though I admit it's hard to beat the, "Wah-wah-wah, I have to read a journal paper! No fair!"
Hi,
Not trying to device a test protocol here.
Just two identical cables with only the type of metal conductor used as a difference.
Same L, C and almost R, same geometry, length, etc. ,etc.. (I suppose we can disregard the small difference in conductivity of 13 micro Ohm/cm provided we keep the cable short enough?)
Cheers,
I was trying to get to the real meaning of the word "prefer". If someone says they prefer a silver cable that's easy to quantify. It's because they can see that it's made of silver, and that visual information changes what they hear.
I think the general disdain for computers is a popular idea amongst audiophiles who like to live on fantasy island, where every recording is a microphone connected directly to a record lathe. In reality, nearly every modern recording passes through a computer at least half a dozen times on it's way from microphone to master.
I think Dejan , myself and many others can remember the 1970's and amplifiers that reduced distortion to new lows. Mostly these sounded very poor. reasons were found and the quest was then to apply the new knowledge. These days I see a drift back to complexity and wonder if the mistakes of the past will come back to take us down the same roads? Although speaker distortion and amplifier distortion are not exactly the same thing just by quantity alone it begs questions. Some think ever lower distortion bound to sound better or as good. I will say how does best case 0.8% for a speaker come into things? I am assuming the microphone to be perfect which it isn't. Perhaps 2.5 % THD typical overall for a system? I always get the idea reading people here that they can hear 0.001% and look forward to 0.0001%.
I really don't mind people saying they enjoy building a very low distortion amplifier. It is just possible a simple design that does not exceed 0.01% at 10 watts and 0.1% at 100 watts will exceed any listener on the planet. What if there are hidden types of distortion and this obsession may cause many to take the wrong path? My valve amp is 1% at 7 watts and 0.2% at 1 watt ( virtually all 2nd and then nice harmonic shape above 1 watt ) . I suspect on a blind test it would be mistaken for an ultra low distortion amp. Reason is the amplifier adds in a way that resembles music. There is no loop or local feedback apart from the output device being triode. There is a bit of trickery going on to do that. It would be about 5% if not.
The thing I noticed on my amp that should have been obvious is the the waves look perfect on the scope right up to clipping. It is only with reference to the input wave that the the wave top is wider. I had another 1% wave up that wasn't as nice from a saturated transformer used as limiting. It looked nothing like the original . This may be very simplistic. If the shape is hard to pick out as wrong by eye it might be equally hard by ear? Why should a crude device like the ear not be happy with that? The THD of the ear is about 30%. It has ways of working out what it needs and can resolve very small deviations. It is like a digital system with servo feedback. The servo speed is 2 MHz I was told. This might account for what I am sure most of us have heard in that bandwidth well above 20 kHz can be heard. Not as a frequency but as something that should not be thrown away.
I really don't mind people saying they enjoy building a very low distortion amplifier. It is just possible a simple design that does not exceed 0.01% at 10 watts and 0.1% at 100 watts will exceed any listener on the planet. What if there are hidden types of distortion and this obsession may cause many to take the wrong path? My valve amp is 1% at 7 watts and 0.2% at 1 watt ( virtually all 2nd and then nice harmonic shape above 1 watt ) . I suspect on a blind test it would be mistaken for an ultra low distortion amp. Reason is the amplifier adds in a way that resembles music. There is no loop or local feedback apart from the output device being triode. There is a bit of trickery going on to do that. It would be about 5% if not.
The thing I noticed on my amp that should have been obvious is the the waves look perfect on the scope right up to clipping. It is only with reference to the input wave that the the wave top is wider. I had another 1% wave up that wasn't as nice from a saturated transformer used as limiting. It looked nothing like the original . This may be very simplistic. If the shape is hard to pick out as wrong by eye it might be equally hard by ear? Why should a crude device like the ear not be happy with that? The THD of the ear is about 30%. It has ways of working out what it needs and can resolve very small deviations. It is like a digital system with servo feedback. The servo speed is 2 MHz I was told. This might account for what I am sure most of us have heard in that bandwidth well above 20 kHz can be heard. Not as a frequency but as something that should not be thrown away.
Quite often is an understatement, I have mentioned one or two things from the prehistoric world of electronic design that is not home audio based and often get ripped to pieces or pulled down, one reason I don't spend as much time here as I used to, there are far to many who's belief in the esoteric side of audio is far to extreme, often made worse by their total lack of being open to contrary information to their beliefs....PCB grounding and decoupling comes to mind, there is a whole wealth of information covering the subjects, yet it is largely ignored for some radical esoteric audiophile belief...Then there is the magic properties of cables....
As to CAD, the main area CAD is used is for PCB design, schematic capture programs require the engineer to input the circuit, but even in PCB design the tool is an aide most layout these days in again manual (autorouters are a fantasy).
My gripe is I would like a very simple PCB tool like my old Niche Software one that ran in Windows 3.1. I run a 3.1 emulator so as to be able to still use it ( Windows 8 won't, XP would). I can draw a PCB in 20 minutes with it. All I want is it to convert to Gerber files and that's all. So called Easy PC isn't.
This is an interesting example. You just proved that you need to know at least somewhat about the subject to judge the validity of whatever is claimed. You did, and you realised the 'test' was not apples-apples.
In fact, they gave enough info on the test that you could judge it.
Now if the same claim was made without any back up or details, I at least wouldn't give it a second thought. But if I would mention here that I wouldn't give it a 2nd thought, I would be accused of closed-mindedness. So it goes.
Jan
I'm in that audience....
Jan
Haha, awesome. There's a lot of good information in the two AES videos Ethan has up, and pretty much lays out my general opinions on what we can / do hear, and speaks fairly clearly about the premise of this thread.
Edit:
Yeah, just like when he runs a track through a cheap Sound Blaster card 25 generations deep, rendering it so loaded with artifacts and distortion that it's destroyed! Oh, wait no...it's pretty much the same.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.