I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[jneutron]

Oh, and don't forget guys...

If one uses either a single driver or a two way system, one has to take into account the physical location of the woofer, especially if it reproduces any of the signal of interest.

2 uSec of ITD is shall we say, incredibly small?

Sound travels 1137 feet per second at 25 C..13,644 inches per second. 73 microseconds per inch.

2 uSec is 2/73 inches, or 27 mils, .027 inches.

If the woofer is moving this much, it is dithering the arrival time of any higher frequency signal it is reproducing..

I don't know about anybody else, but I typically move the woofers a tad more than that..otherwise, where's the fun?...

Cheers, John

[ravon]

Originally posted by jneutron

...
IOW, how do we measure ITD and IID for the first arrival specific signal (female vocal from lowest harmonic to 10Khz) buried within the entire soundfield of a room?
...

We don't. It's obvious that spatial positioning of sound sources is something which is calculated rather than measured.

The relevance of spatial hearing with respect to audible cable differences seems very limited to me.

[thetubeguy1954]

Originally posted by fredex


That article did not convince me. At the end quote, "The subject of sound quality is not at all clear-cut....." This is wriggle room for all sorts of theories, surely sound quality for home reproduction is a measure of how closely the sound pressure in your room corresponds to the signal on your media. This can be measured. Whether instruments can decode signals to know if it is a Strad or not is a red herring.

Hello Again Fredex! I didn't expect the article to convince you or any other objectivist here. I don't mean that in a nasty way. It's just from what I've seen in the various audio forums 99.99999999999% of all objectivists are 100% postive that measurements & specs tell the whole story. In my almost 40 years in this hobby my anecdotal experience has "proven" to me that's just not the way it is, period! For Example: I've witnessed that amps can measure well but sound poor in comparision to an amp that measured less well. That's why I use a 40W/ch integrated SET amp.

I'm going to try and explain my audio POV to you. First and foremost my choice in audio equipment is based on my subjective opinion of what live, unamplified music sounds like. I attend symphonies, and as many outdoor concerts as I can ---{both unamplified & amplified}--- I also play acoustic guitar. My choices are made in this order; 1) cost, 2) sound quality and finally 3) visual appeal. Although I have a fairly expensive audio rig ---{Mastersound Reference 845 integrated SET, BlueNote Stibbert CDP, Aliante Pinafarina One speakers, Nordost BlueHeaven speakerwire, Stealth Audio M-21 Super Powercords and I've recently replaced $1800 ICs with a friends DIY, cheap and ugly ICs that sound better than any other IC I've ever heard}--- I actually listen via low-fi most of the time, which consists of music from my car's CDP 1 hour to and from work and 8-9 hours a day via a small transistor radio at work. For me it's the music first and foremost! However at home I want the best best possible replication of live, unamplified music I can afford.

Once I've "proven" something to myself ---{such as there are sonic differences in wires}--- I'm content that it's true and really don't care what the reasons are that might cause these audible differences! I'm not seeking neutrality or accuracy as an objectivist would define it. As far as I'm concerned my SET is more accurate than most solid state amps, NOT because it measures more accurately but, because it sounds more like what my subjective opinion tells me is an accurate replication of live, unamplified music!

I'm more interested in a listening experience I can enjoy, than proving I can hear differences or even understand why these sonic differences exist in the first place. That doesn't mean I have no interest in how something might work, or whether it really works or is imagined. Whether a device actually works as described or whether it's a placebo, doesn't really matter as long as it leads to a more enjoyable listening experience.

I believe wires and audio components sound different ---{not always, yet sometimes dramatically}--- and I believe that sometimes my ears are fooled ---{actually everytime I hear a soundstage, my ears have been fooled}--- the thing is this is a hobby and it's supposed to be fun, not work! For me and I believe most subjectivists, it is fun. Sadly I cannot say it seems that way for most objectivists. To me it seems that objectivists get more pleasure from attempting to prove subjectivists are wrong than they do from listening to their audio systems.

[ravon]

Originally posted by Jakob2
@ ravon,

we all have strong beliefs up to a certain degree.

In your case it seems that your strong belief is, that indeed we knew enough about our hearing ability to rely on pure (but somewhat) simple measurements.

In the end it is just a belief in psychoacoustical issues not so much in technical things.

Using the tool diffmaker it is quite easy to generate difference files using normal music samples. Of course, as mentioned before it should be done channelwise, because interchannel differences of the equipment will most likely set a lower border.

Try it for various interconnect and speaker cables and for sources or amplifiers as well.
You´ll find it hard to produce files containing just pure signal noise and even that could be further analyzed to ensure that no patterns are buried in the noise floor.

But if the difference signal contains something else than signal noise than would you ´believe´it is audible?

I have worked with Audio Diffmaker and ABX software just as you described. It can be helpful to create a differential signal with Diffmaker to get a clue for ABX listening tests.

Hoewever, to conclude that a difference between two signals is audible and of practical use, the difference must be audible in the original signal. If a difference is masked by the original music, it is not relevant.

Interesting would be to investigate if audiophiles are more influenced by the knowledge of the existence of masked differences than other people. Information about the system certainly has a psychological effect while listening to music.

[jneutron]

Originally posted by ravon
We don't. It's obvious that spatial positioning of sound sources is something which is calculated rather than measured.

This has been my point all along. We cannot measure the spatial positioning using current state of the art instrumentation.

But yet, humans do it without computation, all the time.

How do we correlate what a reproduction system can do with respect to image stability and placement if we cannot measure it?

As you stated, we calculate it.

So given that, where are the calculations? Who has even defined the problem??

Originally posted by ravon
The relevance of spatial hearing with respect to audible cable differences seems very limited to me.

So given the daunting challenge of spatial imagery via two channel reproduction systems, and interaction between cabling, the response is....no relevance?

Well, that's one approach. But that is certainly not universal.

I have pointed out but a few confounders to the accurate reproduction of a spatial image, and these are the trivially easy ones. Imagine the difficult ones..

Cheers, John

[ravon]

Originally posted by jneutron
This has been my point all along. We cannot measure the spatial positioning using current state of the art instrumentation.

But yet, humans do it without computation, all the time.

There's nothing wrong with calculating things. Our brains do it all the time. You seem to forget that a brain is a sophisticated neural computer.

How do we correlate what a reproduction system can do with respect to image stability and placement if we cannot measure it?

As you stated, we calculate it.

So given that, where are the calculations? Who has even defined the problem??

Well, without being able to oversee the complete picture, there are people working in this area: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~robust/Papers...ownChapter.pdf
I didn't find a single word about the influence of cables.

So given the daunting challenge of spatial imagery via two channel reproduction systems, and interaction between cabling, the response is....no relevance?

In my opinion, the challenge of two channel sound reproduction should be to reproduce the recording.
The illusion of spatial sound imagery is what Philips used to build in their gettoblasters in the eighties and nineties

[Jakob2]

@ ravon,

yes a valid listening test is the way it should be done.
Accompanied by proper measurements to assure that every piece is working as intended.

[jneutron]

Originally posted by ravon
There's nothing wrong with calculating things.

You've no need to state that to a geek..ask me about transmission lines......

Originally posted by ravon
Our brains do it all the time. You seem to forget that a brain is a sophisticated neural computer.

No, I did not forget that. The point is, we cannot duplicate that computational aspect with measurement equipment yet.

But yet, some will claim that rudimentary measurements (which is current SOTA) is sufficient to determine all the parametrics that the neural computer we are born with uses to determine spacial imaging. Silly things like single channel uncorrelated spectral analysis..pffft.

Originally posted by ravon

Well, without being able to oversee the complete picture, there are people working in this area: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~robust/Papers...ownChapter.pdf
I didn't find a single word about the influence of cables.

You won't find anything about cables there.. Did you expect them to mention cables???? All the high level researchers I spoke with run the other way at the mention of cables. Seems they all consider the topic as idiotic, stupid, ridiculous, insane.. Quite honestly, I cannot blame them, given what I've seen touted as "scientific explanations"..

Nor, solid state vs tubes, nor even something as simple as the assymetrical AC transfer function caused by an overhung voice coil.

None of those are within their statement of work, not their concern. They've laid the foundation of understanding which guys like US should apply to the task at hand..

Nice link, lots of stuff I knew, but plenty of things to learn as well..twill keep me busy...

Originally posted by ravon
In my opinion, the challenge of two channel sound reproduction should be to reproduce the recording.

Agreed...but...

What is the recording? It is two channels of amplitude only, with image placement governed by simple IID...no ITD?

And in reproducing the recording, should we ignore effects which can alter some of the recording delay 2 uSec and some small intensity difference, say .2 dB?

Honestly, I ignore any and all interchannel effects when I play my system...but it is not so important to me. But others consider image placement of interest to them..

Originally posted by ravon
The illusion of spatial sound imagery is what Philips used to build in their gettoblasters in the eighties and nineties

As I recall, there was no illusion..definitely in your face imagery.....

Cheers, John

[Andre Visser]

Originally posted by ravon
The relevance of spatial hearing with respect to audible cable differences seems very limited to me.

Is that the easiest way to prove your point or are we trying to get real answers?

[AJinFLA]

Originally posted by AJinFLA
So the psychogenic crowd believe that the phenomena they "hear" exists in physical reality, but "it's" properties cannot be measured eh?
Pray tell, how does one design and engineer a widget to have these properties?

Anyone?
Is it classified top secret information, where you would have to kill us after telling us?
(There is no shame in admitting "Don't really know but still believe")

Originally posted by jneutron
Finding a difference does not necessarily mean the IC's were the primary culprit.

Then I'm even more amazed by the vast knowledge and skill of the designers/engineers of such cables, since they should have no idea what equipment the end user will attach these between. They put Miss Cleo to shame.

cheers,

AJ