Thanks Passion, that is quite an interesting statement, I believe few here will claim that there are no audible differences between DACs and pre-amps.
Passion,
Do you really think your measurements represent reality?? They are plain wrong and very misleading!
It is like using a rangefinder to take two measurements, one gives 1.001Km and the other 1.002Km and then confidently stating that the two measurements are a meter apart!
Surely as an "audio engineer" you have a feel for what a 20dB difference is? This aint it
Cliff
Cliff,
Based on your "meter apart" example I'm sure you didn't understand my measurements at all (either that, or yours is not a good example). I'll repeat what I said a few times: Losses in some interconnect cables can be ten times larger than those in other cables (very small losses, but still, quite different from cable to cable). These measurements represent reality in an accurate way, even if they are difficult to understand or to accept to a few people. Up to you to decide whether this is audible.
I know what 20dB is, thank you. Among other things, is the difference in the magnitude of losses you can find when measuring two different cables. Please read carefully.
Cheers,
R
OK, clear.
But I would maintain that this is meaningless:
There is no 20dB loss at any time in the "system", which would be meaningful, IMO and very audible.
Your measurements show that there are very very tiny differences between the cables you measured, but you have expressed that in a way that makes them appear enormous but which have no meaning to someone listening to them in the same system environment.
You are obviously convinced that it means something. I am not. But there is nothing more to add, so I'll shut up!
Thanks for the explanation.
Cliff
R,
You don't have to apologize to anyone. One poster here (from the "pure engineering" camp) stated once that the receiver he used was superior to others due to slight differences he measured in the the noise floor at -130dB or thereabouts. Nary a har-har from anyone. These debates are nearly 100% political in nature. There is a great deal of data presented on this forum (from both sides) that falls squarely in the category of thesis-driven research.
John
You don't have to apologize to anyone. One poster here (from the "pure engineering" camp) stated once that the receiver he used was superior to others due to slight differences he measured in the the noise floor at -130dB or thereabouts. Nary a har-har from anyone. These debates are nearly 100% political in nature. There is a great deal of data presented on this forum (from both sides) that falls squarely in the category of thesis-driven research.
John
Key, his measurements are probably correct (they look correct to me), it's his manner of defining frequency response and level changes that is misleading. Again, if you look at actual level changes as measured at the load (which is what one actually cares about), the differences are less than a thousandth of a dB. The huge dB number come from the odd definition used here.
Here's another way to look at it. Suppose you have a 0R1 interconnect resistance with that 10k load. Now add a 1R series resistor. You change the level at the receiving end by a totally negligible 0.0008dB. Using Passion's definition, you've changed the error by a horrible-looking 20dB. That's the tricky thing about dB measures- you always have to ask, "dB with respect to what?"
All that's being done here is measuring series resistance, which is not particularly relevant at these levels. Taking the next step and suggesting that these <<0.001dB frequency response changes are audible is, IMO, astonishing.
Here's another way to look at it. Suppose you have a 0R1 interconnect resistance with that 10k load. Now add a 1R series resistor. You change the level at the receiving end by a totally negligible 0.0008dB. Using Passion's definition, you've changed the error by a horrible-looking 20dB. That's the tricky thing about dB measures- you always have to ask, "dB with respect to what?"
All that's being done here is measuring series resistance, which is not particularly relevant at these levels. Taking the next step and suggesting that these <<0.001dB frequency response changes are audible is, IMO, astonishing.
For Andre
Thanks for your words, Andre. As we know, some people will never accept some facts, no matter how we present them. What can we do...? (rhetorical question
)
Thanks again,
R
Thanks for your words, Andre. As we know, some people will never accept some facts, no matter how we present them. What can we do...? (rhetorical question
)Thanks again,
R
Surely it seems to be too small to make a difference but remember we are mainly talking about changes in detail and soundstage, I would not expect to see large differences with 'normal' measurements.
I also belief that the way our brain perceive sound and the way we measure doesn't represent a true comparison, we can measure anything we want but if it doesn't correspond with our perception of sound it is of little value.
SY
SY,
Please accept the fact that, not knowing it, many people on Earth prefer interconnects with very low losses when they listen to their favorite music. We don't know for sure whether the low losses make cables sound better to their ears, or there are other unknown factors that affect their perceived quality, but I know quite a few smart, open-minded, honest, sane people who can hear an obvious difference. My measurements are showing a common characteristic of "preferred" interconnects: low losses (again, maybe there is more).
I'm perfectly fine if you don't agree, but as I said, life is short, so I'm not interest in a futile argument about your "astonishing" statements.
R
SY,
Please accept the fact that, not knowing it, many people on Earth prefer interconnects with very low losses when they listen to their favorite music. We don't know for sure whether the low losses make cables sound better to their ears, or there are other unknown factors that affect their perceived quality, but I know quite a few smart, open-minded, honest, sane people who can hear an obvious difference. My measurements are showing a common characteristic of "preferred" interconnects: low losses (again, maybe there is more).
I'm perfectly fine if you don't agree, but as I said, life is short, so I'm not interest in a futile argument about your "astonishing" statements.
R
The biggest question that is always on my mind is when someone can hear a difference what controls are in place to remove the BIAS?
I can hear differences all the time when I put product A up against product B. Its obvious my brain has already made some conclusions on which product SHOULD be better.
Now do the same test in a controlled experiment and WOW!! I couldnt hear those differences.
Conclusion....our ears are just tools and our brains make 100% of the conclusions!!! Eliminate the extra variable tainting the results and THEN AND ONLY THEN will you have an honest answer to what you heard.
Just do the proper tests, that is all I ever ask!!
heck I have 10 $100 bills that sit ready on my end table for anyone to take it from me in any of these cable tests....Im not alone in offering money but suprisingly you guys can not win it ......you hate to realize the truth but its out there.
btw, You or anyone else can not hear the difference in .001dB either! Nice measurements though!
Last edited:
I would put the litmus test on any subjective opinion. I do not care if you can't hear or can hear something different. All that ever matters is the fact that the listening test has to have valid controls involved.
Do you not agree with this?
as a side note...surprisingly people that subjectively can not hear a difference are not online posting stubborn POVs with zero science behind them over and over
I will side with science myself but that is just me....others have belief systems to work it all out
Last edited:
Doug, why is that people when put into situations where they must make decisions, fail? There must ne some psychological reason for this phenomena? Has that ever crossed your mind, rather than calling people names or calling them out because you can not prove what they hear? I simply find it odd that many of you get so ballistic over something that you do not believe, and lose your minds with rage when it is suggested as possible. I think Passion, myself and others are as interested as anyone to find out the basis for the differences that we hear. There is simply far too many people that hear differences for it to be a mass brainwashing of music lovers.
Last edited:
For jlsem
Thanks for your words, John. I'm sure a few open-minded people will be interested in the test method and the results of the experiment.
Learning a lot of new and interesting things has been the most rewarding consequence of designing and building this instrument. That's more than enough for me.
Cheers,
Ricardo
Thanks for your words, John. I'm sure a few open-minded people will be interested in the test method and the results of the experiment.
Learning a lot of new and interesting things has been the most rewarding consequence of designing and building this instrument. That's more than enough for me.
Cheers,
Ricardo
I would agree with that. I was just responding to the apparent attempt to tie supposed sonic differences to your most-likely-accurate frequency response and level measurements.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.