SY said:
You forget the Polk's best trick of all. The construction was essentially 'big Litz', overlapping layers of magnet wire of opposite polarity in a clear poly sheath. Walk on it enough times and layers short. The effective capacitance of a dead short; now that's a theoretical/theological conundrum. Pretty cable though.
Correct. It's potentially a quality of system matching. SY's example was simple enough. A high cap cable with a very high Zout source will sound dull, with a low Zout source (taking the Objectivist stance) won't have any sound. Is the cable neutral or dull?
I used Sy as an example as his posts are extremely rational in his approach, therefore I could not imagine him making the sort of 'wax lyrical' subjective comments.Andre Visser said:
SY?
http://www.vdctrading.com/content.asp?SubSectionID=49Andre Visser said:My experience, based on listening tests which count for nothing, is that a smaller dia conductor will sound better than a larger dia conductor, therefore silver make sense because of its lower resistance. There are other possible influences also but I dont want to go there.
Going one gauge either side has a far greater effect than the 6% difference for silver.
Give me a good reason why it could.hihopes said:
Are you being serious? I can give a whole host of reasons why two tubes from the same line and batch would measure differently, let alone those from different decades and different factories, even if they are nominally the same type.hihopes said:
Power cables make no difference. I find it an absurd assertion that a well designed component would have a significant difference from having a single strand of silver included in the construction of it's power cable.hihopes said:
Alan Hope said:
Absolutely not. ABX tests is very good at highlighting audible differences in different gear and procesing, it's done with good success often, by many amateurs and pro's.
The fine things is that you exclude the possibility of being influenced by mumbo jumbo, snake oil, outer apearance of the DUT, its price and so on. Only if there is a real difference it will be perceived.
Mind telling the results and how the test was done?
Ok, if the test was performed correct and you actually identified the IC's.. did you analyze the situation, performing measurements to se if there was a logic explanation to the differene in sound?
I actually thought so before as well but I do not think the answer can be found there.
/Peter
Re: Audio Lies - Audio Myths
I´m sorry, but in fact a ABX at first seperates only those who are used to do ABX tests from those who do not really have any experience in doing blind tests.
If people are conducting double blind tests, they normally all agree, that even quite big differences remain undetected in an ABX-Test (or other discrimination tests), if the participants are not trained to do a test like that.
That´s one reason, why the two "official" blind test protocols (ITU-BS1116 and MUSHRA) are both preference tests.
Wishes
lineup said:
I´m sorry, but in fact a ABX at first seperates only those who are used to do ABX tests from those who do not really have any experience in doing blind tests.
If people are conducting double blind tests, they normally all agree, that even quite big differences remain undetected in an ABX-Test (or other discrimination tests), if the participants are not trained to do a test like that.
That´s one reason, why the two "official" blind test protocols (ITU-BS1116 and MUSHRA) are both preference tests.
Wishes
fredex said:
There is no such system.The more I read threads like this the more I am convinced that "believers & non believers"are saying the same thing,that is ,cables "sound" different,but no one knows 100% why.RLC and shielding are now well understood even by the "foolest" of audiofools.What next?Or are there any
"golden RLC meters" out there and not all know about it yet?
The logic "I won't pay these thieves $200 for a cable"is well understood,but does not prove cables do not "sound"different.Mind can play such games too you know.
An "all in one"junk system might be a good and safe choice:It does not give you the chance to change cables at all.All has been competently designed and calculated.
Finally,the "quest" is not so much about the most revealing system,but more about a system that will please the ears of its owner.I am begining to hate my mind:It has never given me a cheap illusion
Hi hihopes
I fully endorse lineup's advice to you on the previous page. It is the best advice that you can imagine, although like bitter medicine it is not agreeable to take.
Also, note that all the (millions of lines of) audiophile anti-DBT and anti-ABX argumentativeness is the biggest waste of space in the audio enthusiasts' domain. These people are well intentioned (mostly), but really all they want to do is attack the messenger who brought them the unwelcome news that all their discoveries through informal sighted listening procedures are useless, and generally imaginary. As is all the advice they relied on for purchases, sprouting from the keyboards of the high priests of audio in the print and online media, who almost never use a proper listening test method.
I can totally guarantee you that, whatever weakness may or may not exist in controlled testing methods, the weaknesses of uncontrolled sighted listening are many thousands of times greater. Where these two test methods lead to different conclusions, there is really no contest, it is a no-brainer decision which to believe.
By all means trust your ears. But not sighted. That is 100% invalid.
Also read my signature below, and good luck in your quest for audio truth!
I fully endorse lineup's advice to you on the previous page. It is the best advice that you can imagine, although like bitter medicine it is not agreeable to take.
Also, note that all the (millions of lines of) audiophile anti-DBT and anti-ABX argumentativeness is the biggest waste of space in the audio enthusiasts' domain. These people are well intentioned (mostly), but really all they want to do is attack the messenger who brought them the unwelcome news that all their discoveries through informal sighted listening procedures are useless, and generally imaginary. As is all the advice they relied on for purchases, sprouting from the keyboards of the high priests of audio in the print and online media, who almost never use a proper listening test method.
I can totally guarantee you that, whatever weakness may or may not exist in controlled testing methods, the weaknesses of uncontrolled sighted listening are many thousands of times greater. Where these two test methods lead to different conclusions, there is really no contest, it is a no-brainer decision which to believe.
By all means trust your ears. But not sighted. That is 100% invalid.
Also read my signature below, and good luck in your quest for audio truth!
@ tnargs,
any dbt produces as easily false results as every other test routine.
That´s the reason why one has to use controls to show that the test results are meaningful and valid.
And otherwise a sighted listening can produce perfectly correct results, but unfortunately an observer can´t know about it.
If you train some listeners for reaching good results under blind test conditions, you´ll quite often see, that they will be able afterwards to confirm previous results from sighted tests.
Otherwise, if you do not train your dbt participants, you´ll quite likely provide a lot of false negatives on test subjects that are well known to be audible.
Thats the basic rule of science; your own (strong) beliefs just can be used to provide working hypothesis but any proof has to provided following accepted scientific routine.
For good reasons it shouldn´t be a matter of believe. Both test methods are prone to false results, so only proper scientific methodology does help to get some confidence in any result.
Wishes
any dbt produces as easily false results as every other test routine.
That´s the reason why one has to use controls to show that the test results are meaningful and valid.
And otherwise a sighted listening can produce perfectly correct results, but unfortunately an observer can´t know about it.
If you train some listeners for reaching good results under blind test conditions, you´ll quite often see, that they will be able afterwards to confirm previous results from sighted tests.
Otherwise, if you do not train your dbt participants, you´ll quite likely provide a lot of false negatives on test subjects that are well known to be audible.
Thats the basic rule of science; your own (strong) beliefs just can be used to provide working hypothesis but any proof has to provided following accepted scientific routine.
For good reasons it shouldn´t be a matter of believe. Both test methods are prone to false results, so only proper scientific methodology does help to get some confidence in any result.
Wishes
Cheers Frank. You have obviously put in the time and effort to investigate these things thoroughly. That, to my way of thinking, is the real scientific method. We have never met, have never even spoken to one another, yet, working independently, on different sides of the globe, we have produced exactly the same results. That seems pretty fair proof of accuracy to me.
Logic may provide a starting point for a theory, but without actual experiment, it can never be more than a theory. Those who have never heard the difference a cable can make will probably continue to swear that they cannot make a difference (except possibly in the most extreme cases), and those who have taken the time to try out different types of cable will know that they can make a difference and no amount of argument or attitude will convince them otherwise, because they are no longer working from logic, but from direct, repeatable observation.
The passage of electrons through various conductors is bound to be affected by the molecular structure of those conductors. Maybe this could be a starting point for understanding the differences in the sounds of various conductors.
Logic may provide a starting point for a theory, but without actual experiment, it can never be more than a theory. Those who have never heard the difference a cable can make will probably continue to swear that they cannot make a difference (except possibly in the most extreme cases), and those who have taken the time to try out different types of cable will know that they can make a difference and no amount of argument or attitude will convince them otherwise, because they are no longer working from logic, but from direct, repeatable observation.
The passage of electrons through various conductors is bound to be affected by the molecular structure of those conductors. Maybe this could be a starting point for understanding the differences in the sounds of various conductors.
cables... or not
Maybe the power companies should be convinced to replace all that lousy copper and aluminum wire strung throughout the world with higher quality "boutique" materials so that we can listen to music uncontaminated by the "grain"and "fog"of generator and transmission line insults?
After all, there is much more wire in anyone's system that is connected to the power grid than from the power socket to your speakers.
John L.
Maybe the power companies should be convinced to replace all that lousy copper and aluminum wire strung throughout the world with higher quality "boutique" materials so that we can listen to music uncontaminated by the "grain"and "fog"of generator and transmission line insults?
After all, there is much more wire in anyone's system that is connected to the power grid than from the power socket to your speakers.
John L.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.