planet10 said:
Let us examine what you are claiming. What I take to be a normal loudspeaker cable for domestic purposes, is one with a series resistance of perhaps 100 milli-ohms. The lowest output circuit resistance normally found (taking amplifier output impedance as 0) is the 5,6 ohm odd of the loudspeaker voice coil. The total resistance in the output circuit with a perfect (superconducting) cable would thus be 5,6 ohm, and with a normal cable 5,7 ohm.
OK? That would make a level difference of 0,15 dB. Measurable and audible?? The same goes for your reference to the quote where the neat French graphs were shown. I did not find an amplifier there (my French is non-existent except when I am cross), but what appeared to have been demonstrated there was something tending towards current feed, where cable resistance would matter even less.
Then a quick note on your sweeping reference to grey areas. Yes, I certainly do believe in grey areas, but I would have thought my point clearly referred to matters where there are no grey areas! Contrary to your general assumption, they aboud!
Where is the grey area or "somewhere in the middle" regarding Ohms Law? It is either correct or it isn't. Like a round earth, or the statement that 5+4=9, ad nauseam. All such facts are lines at the extreme to use your model. And not to ridicule you, but what about a pregnant woman? She either is or she is not. She cannot be somewhat pregnant - no grey area.
Regarding other posts:
Hopefully for the last time (until next time...aaarghh
) hearing responses (including the brain interpretation) has been investigated and tested. Someone asked how it is possible that the same "ears" can hear certain things sometime and not at other times: It has been tested! (unless we want to start calling each other liars and university tests fakes). It lies in the nature of that sense - and let us stop calling deviations faults. All our senses can compensate (also to repeat hopefully for the last time) - if such were not the case, we would find life unbearable.Regards (still not in French).
Edit:
Now it works!
Johan Potgieter said:Regarding other posts:
Hopefully for the last time (until next time...aaarghh
Hi Johan. I have no doubt the ear/brain system is subject to a wide range of variable responses to a single stimulus, it was at the core of my criticism of Meyer's demonstration. How can it be, and has it been, properly accounted for in cable listening tests? Academic citations related specifically to this topic would go a long way and be greatly appreciated. My search-fu is weak and I've had no luck with the AES paper search.
In the context of this discussion that can be read as 'the differences are real but disappear under improper test'. It's an agnostic objection. Have the listening tests of the kind under discussion properly and completely accounted for it? I can't see how, on the basis of their public statements on the mind's complex response to external influences, the ABX founders can say it has been in their work.
Hi Rdf!
This has nothing to do with ABX tests. I don't dispute the latter, although I think some of the arguments given here, though technically accurate, make things unnecessarily complicated where differences were purported to be significant. In fact, that has been part of the problem of this thread: Splitting hairs, as it were (though academically justified) where the same was not necessary to prove the practical point.
I merely indicated that people who came along indicating a perceived difference between two cables in most definite language: "Dramatic difference", "you must be deaf not to hear it"; that noticed by them when they knew what they were listening to, lost that ability when asked a moment later to repeatedly, say, point out the best cable when they did not know what they were listening to. Obviously, all else being the same. It was not a general test involving many subjects (although such was also conducted), only a test of those who claimed to hear a difference in the first place.
Regards.
This has nothing to do with ABX tests. I don't dispute the latter, although I think some of the arguments given here, though technically accurate, make things unnecessarily complicated where differences were purported to be significant. In fact, that has been part of the problem of this thread: Splitting hairs, as it were (though academically justified) where the same was not necessary to prove the practical point.
I merely indicated that people who came along indicating a perceived difference between two cables in most definite language: "Dramatic difference", "you must be deaf not to hear it"; that noticed by them when they knew what they were listening to, lost that ability when asked a moment later to repeatedly, say, point out the best cable when they did not know what they were listening to. Obviously, all else being the same. It was not a general test involving many subjects (although such was also conducted), only a test of those who claimed to hear a difference in the first place.
Regards.
planet10 said:
Really Dave, with all respect, do you not see what I am trying to say? I was taking worst case.
OK if you must, say amplifier output Z is negligible, or if you insist, make it say 0,2 ohm or whatever practical value you prefer. The influence of any cable resistance then only matters even less in the total picture.
I have been trying for a long time to get down to real, practical values instead of the weary old bleat (not by you): Every cable has L, C and R, therefore must make a difference. Nobody ever said those parameters do not play a role in cables - full stop. But here we are talking of audio only.
planet10 said:
Hi again Dave,
I hesitate to hijack here to discuss amplifiers, but since you made the point and are a moderator, I guess I am safe for a brief reply!
In the sense that there are always mutual influences you are correct. But though my knowledge of commercial amplifiers is limited, I have never seen an amplifier spec. where one is warned against certain cables or loudspeakers. I am not sure what you mean by exploration of the fringes, but I think my point is bourne out by many well-known designs: They can and are designed to cope flawlessly with most loudspeakers, say going between 5 and 20 ohms for an 8 ohm system, and +/- 45 degrees of phase shift. (It has already been shown that the contribution of practical domestic cable parameters is negligible compared to this.)
It has been reported by respected members that certain cables caused instability in certain amplifiers, which I then must accept. But I do not understand why and yes, I must respectfully question such designs regardless of reputation (not that they cannot sound perfectly good - until the trouble starts). This is probably encountered with high NFB over-compensated limited open loop gain types, where perhaps liberties were taken with basic stability requirements with respect to phase angles.
It is possible to design a totally stable amplifier with open loop response as high as 36 KHz and some 28 dB global NFB, presenting no compromises worth considering in audio. [This with any load from infinity (open output) to say 2 ohms.] I cannot think of any practical advantage to be gained by going to compromised stability measures.
That in a nutshell.
Regards.
Johan Potgieter said:
Obviously a failure to communicate. I was not referring to grey areas, but to the fact that in any argument like this with 2 extreme positions, the truth invariably lies in the middle.
Are you arguing that there should be no sonic difference between my OFC 24 g solid core wire & SY's (probably 12g) Home Depot extension cables?
Would you use either interchangably? What do you actually use in your system?
dave
SY said:
LOL!
I can predict responses to this already forming: "of course you can't tell the difference, you're "listening" to the resistor now!", and perhaps even "it would depend on what end of the cable you put the resistor, and whether or not you used silver solder."
Is the resistor wire-wound, film or carbon? etc. etc.
The earth must be really flat where you're from
That makes the argument stronger- the terrible resistor is in series with the cheap Home Depot cable; comparing it to the unsullied golden 24 gauge wonder, the differences should be even more striking, no?
Interestingly, current drive amps like the First Watt or my little experimental tube unit are supposed to take the cable out of the picture, so the series resistance differences could even go away with that sort of amp used in the test.
FWIW, I do use silver solder, especially with silver wire. But there's a good engineering reason to do so.
Interestingly, current drive amps like the First Watt or my little experimental tube unit are supposed to take the cable out of the picture, so the series resistance differences could even go away with that sort of amp used in the test.
FWIW, I do use silver solder, especially with silver wire. But there's a good engineering reason to do so.
Johan Potgieter said:Hopefully for the last time (until next time...aaarghh
I do not share your feeling in this regard.
ITD/IID threshold studies are a start(Zwislocki and Feldman, '56...Nordmark, '76,) But threshold studies do not describe our functions, just lower limits of a threshold.
IID pointers/ITD target (Schiano, '86) is also a start. It tends to correlate the variation of ONE variable AGAINST another, not a study of both in concert..It therefore tests one stimulus NOT FOUND in nature, against another not found in nature.
SAM tones (Blauert, '82) compare ITD with directionality, but again, a stimulus that does not occur in nature.
Transposed SAM (Bernstein and Trahiotis, 2001) again, tests only ITD thresholds.
The closest I've seen so far is Griesinger, his aes pan pot paper, fig 6 (incorrectly called fig 5) displays the frequency disparity of ITD as a result of IID sine law panning at the head. This is the closest I've seen to date towards a more accurate understanding of the issue..
All done and understood? No.
Johan Potgieter said:
Someone asked how it is possible that the same "ears" can hear certain things sometime and not at other times: It has been tested! (unless we want to start calling each other liars and university tests fakes). It lies in the nature of that sense - and let us stop calling deviations faults. All our senses can compensate (also to repeat hopefully for the last time) - if such were not the case, we would find life unbearable.
Regards (still not in French).
Edit:
The research does not directly address that of imaging of a two driver system. That leap is, alas, across a wider chasm than is believed.
Cheers, John
John,
Thanks for that contribution (your # 976 in case others come along while I type here).
Perhaps my error in trying to be brief: I did not say (or certainly not mean) that everything or even most of it was tested or understood. I was simply referring to the tendency to regard the hearing faculty as so standard and repeatable that some do not hesitate to feel that scientific measurements et al may be disregarded when their hearing seems to indicate such. I simply referred to hearing tests that supported that, and about which there is little doubt.
Similarly, in the simple test where someone failed to display the same discriminating qualities in a second test that he ostensibly had in one immediately before, there must be a simple message there. That is all I was trying to indicate.
I envy you with those records of tests, and am wondering whether I could find them anywhere at present to read up. Can you kindly help?
My own statements in this regard referred to articles I read all of 30+ years ago in Journal AES and other reports, at the time available from the CSIR where I worked; all long lost now. I still have access to the AES Journal, but those editions are archived somewhere by now and probably unavailable for quick scrutiny. This also in reply to the member who could not find much in recent records, both the Journal and on the web; my experience likewise. I recall (under correction) some research at a university in Uppsala, and other work by Prof. Bengt Sorenson, etc.
Regards.
Thanks for that contribution (your # 976 in case others come along while I type here).
Perhaps my error in trying to be brief: I did not say (or certainly not mean) that everything or even most of it was tested or understood. I was simply referring to the tendency to regard the hearing faculty as so standard and repeatable that some do not hesitate to feel that scientific measurements et al may be disregarded when their hearing seems to indicate such. I simply referred to hearing tests that supported that, and about which there is little doubt.
Similarly, in the simple test where someone failed to display the same discriminating qualities in a second test that he ostensibly had in one immediately before, there must be a simple message there. That is all I was trying to indicate.
I envy you with those records of tests, and am wondering whether I could find them anywhere at present to read up. Can you kindly help?
My own statements in this regard referred to articles I read all of 30+ years ago in Journal AES and other reports, at the time available from the CSIR where I worked; all long lost now. I still have access to the AES Journal, but those editions are archived somewhere by now and probably unavailable for quick scrutiny. This also in reply to the member who could not find much in recent records, both the Journal and on the web; my experience likewise. I recall (under correction) some research at a university in Uppsala, and other work by Prof. Bengt Sorenson, etc.
Regards.
Johan Potgieter said:
Ooooooh................nevermind...
Johan Potgieter said:
I can give you the citations, they would probably make the searching a bit easier...I did have most of the stuff electronically, but I can't find them right now. At least I put them in a notebook so I could refer to them..(yes, I admit, actual paper...)
Cheers, John
Changing the series resistance of the cable will not only affect the overall level - but it should affect the speaker Q- right?
That would sound different. But that should be easily imitated by a resistor in series with a low R cable.
Just mentioning this because there were a couple of posts talking about the minimal influence of 100 mili-ohm cables vs. higher R cables. The higher series R shouldn't affect a purely resistive load, but a reactive load would be another matter. Right?
That would sound different. But that should be easily imitated by a resistor in series with a low R cable.
Just mentioning this because there were a couple of posts talking about the minimal influence of 100 mili-ohm cables vs. higher R cables. The higher series R shouldn't affect a purely resistive load, but a reactive load would be another matter. Right?
Johan,
I think no one regarded his hearing faculty as so standard so as to consider scientific measurements of no importance.On the contrary everyone should regard them as valid and serious.However when someone chooses something after comparing it to another option-yes even using his hearing-it is not easy either to convince him/her that they are just imagining things that are not there.Does this mean that some areas of science deny that some people may have better/worse hearing than others?To my mind it is like denying human nature,and I don't find this a real scientific approach.It is you the scientists those who will and should try to find answers and if you can't find them today,and until you find them,you shouldn't take the easy path of considering that some are just imagining things that are not there,or,even worse,to throw to them the suspicion that they might for any reason,be liars.
I think no one regarded his hearing faculty as so standard so as to consider scientific measurements of no importance.On the contrary everyone should regard them as valid and serious.However when someone chooses something after comparing it to another option-yes even using his hearing-it is not easy either to convince him/her that they are just imagining things that are not there.Does this mean that some areas of science deny that some people may have better/worse hearing than others?To my mind it is like denying human nature,and I don't find this a real scientific approach.It is you the scientists those who will and should try to find answers and if you can't find them today,and until you find them,you shouldn't take the easy path of considering that some are just imagining things that are not there,or,even worse,to throw to them the suspicion that they might for any reason,be liars.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.