I think this will be a bit complicated to do IRL.
You must realise that most peoples acoustic memory is some what short. So a lot of changing, adjustments and other alterations needed, will make it more problematic to get to a clear conclusion.
I´d prefer this way:Wire World - Homepage
This is a way to detect if the interconnect or speaker cable at stake does have any sonic impact, if put into the signal path without removing anything.
Still the sonic impact should be looked at from 2 seperate viewpoints, namely the intrinsic sonic performance, and the impact on the components connected.
Kurt,
To me this is a good way to hear differences, but does nothing to allow for the brain to determine which difference is preferred. I guess that was what Jakob is suggesting is that the difference just be recognized though, so your approach might be good for that.
I do not believe that peoples memories are "short" though. I personally need to listen for at least one week, if not longer, to determine if the differences that I heard. will ultimately serve my system and make my system "more musically involving". I can not determine anything other than differences in short A/B comparisons. Many times these differences may be so small that a quick A/B does not allow the subtleties to come thru totally either. Not all differences are exaggerated or pronounced
Last edited:
@ SY,
Experimentator bias at its best.
Wishes
And not only that.Also the individual's RIGHT to choose to call anyone the way he wants.Afterall this is a free planet
No one can tell serious and worthwhile differences/preferences unless he has enough time to judge them.I agree with you that this needs days.Unfortunately for you and me and perhaps others who agree Curly,a DBT test would take weeks to do...............
Kurt,
To me this is a good way to hear differences, but does nothing to allow for the brain to determine which difference is preferred. I guess that was what Jakob is suggesting is that the difference just be recognized though, so your approach might be good for that.
I do not believe that peoples memories are "short" though. I personally need to listen for at least one week, if not longer, to determine if the differences that I heard. will ultimately serve my system and make my system "more musically involving". I can not determine anything other than differences in short A/B comparisons. Many times these differences may be so small that a quick A/B does not allow the subtleties to come thru totally either. Not all differences are exaggerated or pronounced
Well!
I always go for the least colouration, and that is precisely what the "insertion" test shows. If any colouration is needed in a system, this test is irrelevant.
Only if the idea of the ultimate cable would be "transmission without corruption" insertion will make sense.
Also I do not belive in "good" corruption of signals, although I do know some systems which IMHO has benefits from small amounts of colouration.
But then we are talking about opinions rather than science.
Do also have a look here: http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm Ingvar Öhman uses the ecxact same method to test poweramps with different loads.
Last edited:
@ Curly Woods,
of course you´re right at this point- if a preference is established a difference must exist.
IRL each test strategy brings its own bunch of problems which have to be addressed or better be solved.
Unfortunately quite often audio tests are discrimination tests polluted by experimentators bias or more generally unawareness.
@ Kurt von Kubick,
as posted before the difference in memory between the various senses isn´t that big if short and long term memory are concerned.
A difference exists in the very first state of sensory memory as it is called the echo memory for the hearing sense, which is according to the literature somewhere between 2 - 5 seconds long.
So it may and will vary between different individuals but if one notices that he has a very weak memory for auditory stimuli than he could end his search for any reproduction enhancement as it would be totally senseless.
Wishes
of course you´re right at this point- if a preference is established a difference must exist.
IRL each test strategy brings its own bunch of problems which have to be addressed or better be solved.
Unfortunately quite often audio tests are discrimination tests polluted by experimentators bias or more generally unawareness.
@ Kurt von Kubick,
as posted before the difference in memory between the various senses isn´t that big if short and long term memory are concerned.
A difference exists in the very first state of sensory memory as it is called the echo memory for the hearing sense, which is according to the literature somewhere between 2 - 5 seconds long.
So it may and will vary between different individuals but if one notices that he has a very weak memory for auditory stimuli than he could end his search for any reproduction enhancement as it would be totally senseless.
Wishes
Last edited:
Kurt,
Thank you for the links. I enjoy reading about how many people test their theories as to why people hear what they hear. I understand the importance of a control at all times, but I always trust what experience has taught me, more so that what a test says that I should experience. Again I do feel that tests have merit and I understand their need, but I can not base what I want to hear from my system, based upon a test setup.
Music is a personal experience and every seat in a symphony hall, has a different sonic signature. I want to be able to reproduce the sounds that I hear from the dress level, in the seat that I am familiar with, to the best of the systems abilities, is all.
Last edited:
The composition of a system can have its base in many different ideas.
Yours is just one. As a result of that anything is allowed, but is not science.
If one wants to compose a system that is of solely reproductive character, objectivity is very necessary.
First of all, you cannot use the idea of creating the sound, heard in the seat you are familiar with. You´ll have to go for the sound at the transitionpoint, where acoustics meet electronics, and that is ecxactly at the point where the mike(s) is/are placed. From there on only non colouring components should find their way into the system, or at least as little colouration as possible.
IMHO that can be done only to fight colouration where ever it might occur, as you cannot cancel out one colouration with another. You´ll never get it right anyway. But as mentioned, the goals and philosophy for composing the system can be completely different.
To me it does not make sence to try to point out the cable one likes best in a certain system, I´d rather look for the cable with the least intrinsic colouration, this is done the easiest and most secure way, with insertion method. A tapeloop can be used for IC´s, for speaker cables it is a bit more complex, but it can be done.
If you for a start get just one component right, then the next will soon follow. You can do this with both preamps, and poweramps. The problems left are the source and the transducer, but at least you do not have to consider every component, when making changes in your system. Your dealer won´t like it, but it might make your life easier on the long run
.The composition of a system can have its base in many different ideas.
Yours is just one. As a result of that anything is allowed, but is not science.
If one wants to compose a system that is of solely reproductive character, objectivity is very necessary.
First of all, you cannot use the idea of creating the sound, heard in the seat you are familiar with. You´ll have to go for the sound at the transitionpoint, where acoustics meet electronics, and that is ecxactly at the point where the mike(s) is/are placed. From there on only non colouring components should find their way into the system, or at least as little colouration as possible.
IMHO that can be done only to fight colouration where ever it might occur, as you cannot cancel out one colouration with another. You´ll never get it right anyway. But as mentioned, the goals and philosophy for composing the system can be completely different.
To me it does not make sence to try to point out the cable one likes best in a certain system, I´d rather look for the cable with the least intrinsic colouration, this is done the easiest and most secure way, with insertion method. A tapeloop can be used for IC´s, for speaker cables it is a bit more complex, but it can be done.
If you for a start get just one component right, then the next will soon follow. You can do this with both preamps, and poweramps. The problems left are the source and the transducer, but at least you do not have to consider every component, when making changes in your system. Your dealer won´t like it, but it might make your life easier on the long run
So who decides what is "accurate"? This is the 24 thousand dollar question. I sold audio for over 20+ years, so I am familiar with all types of quality audio. The differences just among the different amplifiers and preamplifiers are just the tip of the iceberg in achieving a sound that meets with ones expectations, let alone the speakers, source and cabling options. It is not a cut and dried case by any means.
Well!
Which one is the more acurate is the one that to your ears has the least sonic impact on the signal.
I.e. if a cable cannot be heard when inserted into the reference system, one of two things has happened, either the cable has no effect what so ever on the sound, or you reached the limits of resolution for your system as a whole.
The only one to decide this is of course the listener, who in this case would look for i.e. an IC without any sonic signature.
This method guides you in a direction, where you as securely as possible will not try to create synergy in a system, but rather try to create a system that need no synergy.
Kurt,
I am trying to understand how we reach what is universally termed as "accurate" to all listeners. This is my point.
Measurements alone have done nothing to bring a consensus of what accurate reproduction is to all people yet. No one audio system has yet to mimic the sound one would hear at a live unamplified musical event. So we each have biases as to what areas of the reproduction we focus on that helps us to gain the "emotional" connection to the music.
There is no one thing that makes each person's listening experience the same. I understand that science does all it can to identify the obvious things to make a "proper" functioning piece of audio electronics, but there is obviously something more that has not been addressed with our current thinking processes. If we were all robots, we would all listen to one stereo from one manufacturer. All that I am saying that there is more to musical reproduction and listening than is being addressed today with our known standards. Maybe it will never be fully addressed or understood.
That's absolutely true, but it's not so much a matter of "not thinking" as it is a matter of practicality and convention. We're taking a complex 3-d soundfield, sampling at only two points (or so) with imperfect transducers, then sticking two other transducers with a totally different size, shape, frequency response, and polar pattern in a different space, a far smaller one. Then we feed two transducers the pitifully incomplete sampled signal and try to fool the ear/brain into thinking there's some sort of musician in some sort of other space. It's a miracle that this works at all!
And people worry about WIRE?
No argument from me Sy. Without further understanding and finding a means to the ultimate end though, people have to deal with what we have available to us, at this time. Everything in the chain has a signature, regardless how small. People will search for improvements in any and all ways possible. It is just human nature.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.