Okay I was bored so I actually did the re-record thing for anyone who is genuinely curious if cables have directionality. Just some normal 1/4" TRS Sam Ash cable with switchcraft connectors. I was too cheap to use two colors of tape so I just taped one end with black and left the other side blank. Same song (4 times) looped back and recorded in 44.1 24-bit. The file was ripped from my CD securely with EAC. I truncated the files so they are the exact same length and converted them to FLAC to save space on the upload. The song is Medeski, Martin, and Wood - Whatever Happened To Gushttp://www.megaupload.com/?d=7BQ9BKF6
181MB
Guess this is just on the honor system for you guys to use foobar and ABX or whatever you choose to see if you can hear a difference. I have no tried yet. I did give them a quick listen/scan just to make sure there wasn't any user error (cable half out or something like that).
Measurements to come
SY said:
But many of the audiophools say that if they can hear the difference only half the time it's worth the money. Some say if they can hear it 1/4 of the time it is worth the money. (They likely failed "Statistics 101" but there is some logic in thinking that anything that makes one out of four CDs in my collection sound better is worth having. You can't argue with someone so ignorant.
The bottom line is that there is a small class of people what feel good simply because they own expensive equipment. What it does is secondary.
That said, you can train your hearing. At my late age I'm learning music. Not long ago, less than a year ago I did know an E from a C and figured I was tone deaf. Now I can hear if a guitar string is slightly flat. I "just happens" if you spend a hour or so a day listening.
So these people who listen to stereo equipment, maybe they can hear things we can't
That said swapping cables end for and is an old joke. Even the true nut cases don't think it matters. Put it this way: If the cable WAS different one way from the other it would introduce large amount of second harmonics into the sound and would be a horrible cable.
I am not sure if you can wake up one day, listen to a frequency and determine if it is C or E, or whatever, you'd need something to compare it against, another sound, perhaps your own voice.
The half blind piano tuner who tuned my piano proceeded as follows: he started on the middle C with the aid of a tuning fork which he was biting with his teeth. Let's not forget that the middle C is actrually 3 strings, and most notes are 3 (or 2) strings on the piano and the same length of string can span adjacent notes, so when you tune, say, the 3rd of C# you are also affecting the D. But we digress.
So far so good. He then tuned the E, the G, and then the D, the F and the A and B on that same octave. Of course he could have used specific tuning forks, but he did not, so obviously I was curious, how does he know where say, the E is at, with reference only the C?
The answer was in harmonics, he counted the beats. When you hit two notes together you get a dischord, and unlike on the guitar where we try to eliminate the dischord by having 0 beats, on the piano he counts them and he knows he needs 7 beats per second or 11 beats per second or whatever depending on the interval, and that is how he knows what an E should sound like based on the C. It is not magic or intuition.
I tired to listen to the beats, and count, but it was impossible to tell 7 from say 10 beats per second whereas he could.
The high octaves were just a blur to me, but of course crystal clear to him.
When it comes to listening to music, where you have so many instruments and noises coming at you, I am not sure how one would detect (and be annoyed) at specific types of infidelities other than the most grossly obvious ones.
In 95% of cases, I personally am more annoyed at the music (see cacophony) that I am listening to rather than the system is being played on.
The half blind piano tuner who tuned my piano proceeded as follows: he started on the middle C with the aid of a tuning fork which he was biting with his teeth. Let's not forget that the middle C is actrually 3 strings, and most notes are 3 (or 2) strings on the piano and the same length of string can span adjacent notes, so when you tune, say, the 3rd of C# you are also affecting the D. But we digress.
So far so good. He then tuned the E, the G, and then the D, the F and the A and B on that same octave. Of course he could have used specific tuning forks, but he did not, so obviously I was curious, how does he know where say, the E is at, with reference only the C?
The answer was in harmonics, he counted the beats. When you hit two notes together you get a dischord, and unlike on the guitar where we try to eliminate the dischord by having 0 beats, on the piano he counts them and he knows he needs 7 beats per second or 11 beats per second or whatever depending on the interval, and that is how he knows what an E should sound like based on the C. It is not magic or intuition.
I tired to listen to the beats, and count, but it was impossible to tell 7 from say 10 beats per second whereas he could.
The high octaves were just a blur to me, but of course crystal clear to him.
When it comes to listening to music, where you have so many instruments and noises coming at you, I am not sure how one would detect (and be annoyed) at specific types of infidelities other than the most grossly obvious ones.
In 95% of cases, I personally am more annoyed at the music (see cacophony) that I am listening to rather than the system is being played on.
I don't think the analogy holds up but I do get the underline point about learning to hear things.
off topic rant about tuning
I really don't think there was absolute values for any given note before recent history. It had to be pretty recent - the last 100 years or so and the development of computers (just a guess).
I don't even bother with tuners or computers really. I my guitar approximately to Eb. There is a region in there that just clicks in my brain - probably listened to way too much Hendrix as a teenager.
There is no such thing as a perfectly tuned string instrument imo. There is just no such thing not even with the best engineering, labor, and material a person could conceive. But there are certain ways to tune a guitar or a piano so that it will be approximately in tune for every key in the western tone system. Alternately you cab also get great results by tuning/tempering the instrument to the specific key you are playing in.
I struggled with this when I was a teenager until one day it just dawned on me
Why don't I just tune the guitar's strings all with the same note? Just like we would do in band class when tuning 5 different instruments. We wouldn't have the alto saxes tune to a D note reference, get the trombones using an E, the Tubas on another note etc... It would sound like crap just like the way I was tuning my guitar.
off topic rant about tuning
I really don't think there was absolute values for any given note before recent history. It had to be pretty recent - the last 100 years or so and the development of computers (just a guess).
I don't even bother with tuners or computers really. I my guitar approximately to Eb. There is a region in there that just clicks in my brain - probably listened to way too much Hendrix as a teenager.
There is no such thing as a perfectly tuned string instrument imo. There is just no such thing not even with the best engineering, labor, and material a person could conceive. But there are certain ways to tune a guitar or a piano so that it will be approximately in tune for every key in the western tone system. Alternately you cab also get great results by tuning/tempering the instrument to the specific key you are playing in.
I struggled with this when I was a teenager until one day it just dawned on me
Why don't I just tune the guitar's strings all with the same note? Just like we would do in band class when tuning 5 different instruments. We wouldn't have the alto saxes tune to a D note reference, get the trombones using an E, the Tubas on another note etc... It would sound like crap just like the way I was tuning my guitar.SY said:
It is not the cable - it is the fuse that matters
I am intrigued by this test.
Has anyone some explanation about the result?
Prova fusibili e... (Fuse test and ...)
http://motxam.interfree.it/fusibili.html
The test is fed by Marco Amboldi (who edited the paper) while Massimo Ambrosini is the guy undergoing the fuse "listening"
Massimo Ambrosini is also the owner of the web site listed above (some parts of the site are also in english but not the page I indicated)
Following I liberally translated some parts of the page in particular the paragraphs:
- PRIMA PROVA D'ASCOLTO: TEST DIREZIONE FUSIBILE (First listening test: Directionality of the fuse)
- CONCLUSIONI (Conclusion)
----- http://motxam.interfree.it/fusibili.html
....
The listener (the guy undergoing the fuse "listening") imposed the following constrains
1) Listening has to be performed in his own home
2) Listening has to be performed with his apparatus and his CDs
3) It is forbidden to insert any more apparatus
4) His own right to check any detail of the installation including (but not only) cable path.
5) Listening time and number of swaps of fuse direction as required (no limit)
Listening setup:
1) CD player CD960
2) Home made amplifier named LT (Linear Transfer)
3) Speakers Grunding SL1000
4) CD Tracy Chapman: Tracy Chapman
...
FIRST LISTENING TEST: DIRECTIONALITY OF THE FUSE (PRIMA PROVA D'ASCOLTO: TEST DIREZIONE FUSIBILE)
The guy states to be able to recognize (by listening (translator note)) the direction of insertion of the fuse in the IEC receptacle on the back of the amplifier. The test is a (single – not double (translator note)) blind test. During this test the guy has the ability to ask for the swap of the direction of the fuse without knowing the “absolute” direction of the fuse.
The guy, at the very beginning of the test, tells me (after some direction swaps) the “best sounding” direction of the fuse. I annote this direction (the direction of the fuse is checked against fuse marking)
The fuse is a standard one, glass type 5x20 (according european standard)
The test is performed as follows:
I insert the fuse without letting the guy know the fuse direction. The guy listen for some seconds the CD as his preference then ask me to swap fuse direction. I unplug power cord, swap fuse direction and plug again the amp. The guy listen again for few seconds and then ask me to perform the fuse direction swap.
These steps are performed until the guy states: “this is the right direction”
At this point I check that this direction is the same beginning “best sounding”
These are the (10) test results:
1) Starting direction SX swaps 4 Listening time (each swap seconds ) 40,40,40,60 result: TRUE
2) Starting direction SX swaps 2 Listening time 40,20 result: TRUE
3) Starting direction DX swaps 1 Listening time 40 result: TRUE
4) Starting direction SX swaps 2 Listening time 50,40 result: TRUE
5) Starting direction DX swaps 3 Listening time 40,30,0 result: TRUE
6) Starting direction SX swaps 2 Listening time 40,50 result: TRUE
7) Starting direction DX swaps 2 Listening time 30, 20 result: FALSE
8) Starting direction SX swaps 2 Listening time 40,60 result: TRUE
9) Starting direction DX swaps 2 Listening time 30,20 result: FALSE
10) Starting direction SX swaps 4 Listening time 50,60,60,20 result: TRUE
Overall result 8 TRUE of 10
Listening time are approximate
CONCLUSION
Data are surely meaningfully.
Obviously it is required further inspection in order to increase the statistical confidence. The protocol has to be polished too.
….
I think that the overall result 8 TRUE of 10 is a good starting point to consider this test worth of attention
No, it's not. There were no meaningful controls and about a million ways the subject could be cued. It's certainly possible to structure a test, but not the way they did it. Unlike the piano tuners (an excellent example of the sorts of things the ear can be trained for), they're making a claim that violates fundamental physics, so the standards of evidence need to be slightly better than "almost no control."
Thank you! I will copy the last sentences from that article:
****************************
****************************
****************************
How can it be possible that a basic system with such a price difference against the "reference" one, poorly placed, using the cheapest signal cables found, couldn't be distinguished from the more expensive one?
And, most of it all, how come the cheap system was chosen by so many people as the best sounding of the two?
Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?
****************************
****************************
****************************
And this is the truth. When I drove the Volvo V70 I thought "what a well made, sturdy car, it reeks of quality". But then I drove the Mercedes E-class and I thought "no, this is a well made car, the Volvo is flimsy in comparison".
There is a price difference but there is also a distinctive quality difference to the car (either that or my Volvo is busted).
For stereo systems it amazes me that people are prepared to pay how much for nothing objectively shown to be true. In that photo, the power cable, why does it need to be "special" if then to only connect to the same extension cord as the "cheap" cable.
****************************
****************************
****************************
How can it be possible that a basic system with such a price difference against the "reference" one, poorly placed, using the cheapest signal cables found, couldn't be distinguished from the more expensive one?
And, most of it all, how come the cheap system was chosen by so many people as the best sounding of the two?
Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?
****************************
****************************
****************************
And this is the truth. When I drove the Volvo V70 I thought "what a well made, sturdy car, it reeks of quality". But then I drove the Mercedes E-class and I thought "no, this is a well made car, the Volvo is flimsy in comparison".
There is a price difference but there is also a distinctive quality difference to the car (either that or my Volvo is busted).
For stereo systems it amazes me that people are prepared to pay how much for nothing objectively shown to be true. In that photo, the power cable, why does it need to be "special" if then to only connect to the same extension cord as the "cheap" cable.
diy_audio_fo said:
Absolutely NOT. The test is seriously flawed. There is an easy psychological explanation.
The only way for the test to be valid is that each time the listener asks that the fuse be swapped the person doing the swap flips a coin and lets the coin decide which direction the fuse should go. This will mean the listener will never know if the fuse was flipped or not.
Key said:
We are so used to computers that we can't think of any other way of doing things. Many years ago, before there were computers there were "tuning forks". I think they came into common use well before the "classical" period. They are made using the same technology as church bells, cast bronze. Also you can make a kind "standard" organ pipe or flute and cut it to an exact length and it can serve as a reference. They call them a "pitch pipe" and they can be accurate if well made
I agree you will never get a stringed instrument in "perfect" tune. Hitting the string with a pick or fretting it changes the length and tension. All notes start out slightly sharp then flatten as they sustain.
Point is that you can learn to hear this. Most musicians can hear it but at some point they were beginners and couldn't.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.