Rdf,
i think it´s more related to the dimension of any effect. I´d suspect that auplater argues that any effect due to "wiring" (as a placeholder to any other) is so small that you should equally be concerned about changes in temperature, humidity and so on.
It´s sometimes surprising in which way arguments, that were otherwise dismissed as "mumbo jambo", lead to a total narrowminded approach to the test problem.
If and in what way a reduction of parts in the recording chain would gain better results would be an interesting research project too.
But clearly if an endproduct "music sample" is on the table we can´t accept that any further quality gets lost. If someone ever had the chance to compare master tapes or laquer cuts with the CDs or vinyls that consumers can buy in the end, he surely will be shocked about the loss in quality that already has happen.
Most of it in exchange for usability.
Normally we can´t get anything of this lost quality back in the reproduction system so therefore we have to try to squeeze the best out of it that suits our listening habits. Some are using tubes, some solid state, very different loudspeaker setups and rooms and some are using obviously carefully selected cables to get it.
As we are often talking about diy, it doesn´t depend on the price target, but gives the opportunity to choose the best cabling method for the system in place.
Reproduction systems are holistic approaches and diy allows things that were commercially not possible (in most cases).
Why in an existing system, thoughts/concerns about ground loops and RF issues, caused by a new part like a switch box, should be considered as absurd is beyond my understanding.
Wishes
P.S. A blind test for a switch box is a nice idea, but first why use it (the switch box) anyway if nothing is to gain as rdf already pointed out, and second the problems regarding the sensitivity of the test are still there.
i think it´s more related to the dimension of any effect. I´d suspect that auplater argues that any effect due to "wiring" (as a placeholder to any other) is so small that you should equally be concerned about changes in temperature, humidity and so on.
It´s sometimes surprising in which way arguments, that were otherwise dismissed as "mumbo jambo", lead to a total narrowminded approach to the test problem.
If and in what way a reduction of parts in the recording chain would gain better results would be an interesting research project too.
But clearly if an endproduct "music sample" is on the table we can´t accept that any further quality gets lost. If someone ever had the chance to compare master tapes or laquer cuts with the CDs or vinyls that consumers can buy in the end, he surely will be shocked about the loss in quality that already has happen.
Most of it in exchange for usability.
Normally we can´t get anything of this lost quality back in the reproduction system so therefore we have to try to squeeze the best out of it that suits our listening habits. Some are using tubes, some solid state, very different loudspeaker setups and rooms and some are using obviously carefully selected cables to get it.
As we are often talking about diy, it doesn´t depend on the price target, but gives the opportunity to choose the best cabling method for the system in place.
Reproduction systems are holistic approaches and diy allows things that were commercially not possible (in most cases).
Why in an existing system, thoughts/concerns about ground loops and RF issues, caused by a new part like a switch box, should be considered as absurd is beyond my understanding.
Wishes
P.S. A blind test for a switch box is a nice idea, but first why use it (the switch box) anyway if nothing is to gain as rdf already pointed out, and second the problems regarding the sensitivity of the test are still there.
Last edited:
I think it is required. In the current situation there is always the cop-out that the box hides the differences. Surely it would be a great step forward to know if this is true or not.
jd
What would interest me is to know how many wires, cables, switches, connectors etc are in your system anyway?
jd
The usual as any system has.Is this a reason why add twice(or more) as much in the signal path in order to compare two cables?Or is your opinion that all switches,wires,connectors etc....present in a piece of equipment do no cause any harm?
To your first point, that's ridiculous.
The idea of ABX is to remove non-audible influences in a convenient format, one which has been demonstrated to have excellent sensitivity to level, EQ, and phase/polarity. So to ask it to increase test sensitivity or to make me a martini is a total evasion. I'll ask for a second time: you mentioned confounding effects from RF and ground loops due to an ABX box. Do you have any data to support that?To your second point, at a constant humidity, the moisture uptake of two different cables could be different. Not that I personally believe that it makes any real difference (except for oddball nylon insulation), but if you want to bring up any confounding factor that you can think of, what's wrong with that one?
Nice twist. No, the argument was that the additional contacts and wires in an ABX-type box would hide cable differences. Knowing that there are an order of magnitude more contacts and wires in the system anyway, would they then not hide cable differences?
Would, say, 12 contacts not hide differences, but 14 would, to pick a few numbers (you can pick others if you want)?
Would, say, a total of 13 wire lengths inside the various components and speaker boxes and xovers not hide the differences, but the additional 3 in a box would?
jd
Hi Jakob, I understand that but it's a meaningless objection if not placed within the context of the test protocol. The subtle change in question is replacing a wire. The time required is either instant in the case of a switch box or seconds in the case of a manual change. By what mechanism can room humidity for example change quickly enough and to such an extent, and the system 'absorb' that change, and as to confound the results? Pathological scenarios perhaps where the speakers are positioned either side of double sliding doors to the hot tub, but since I'm rarely invited to Heff's for a listening session these days it's very unlikely.
Last edited:
A system sounds the way it does including the necessary evils inside.No need to add any more.But,if you claim that you can't hear any difference between your interconnect cable alone or in line with two more cables+switches etc....I have no reason not to believe you.You know I'm a "believer"
To your first point, that's ridiculous.
The ITU approach to audibility tests of small impairment obviously does not include a ABX switch box, so it seems to be possible to test without?!
Do you really want to dismiss a reasonably explanation for audible differences in an audio system after the exchange of cables?
It is a somewhat distorted scientific approach; what, nobody else did investigate this factor before? Well then we shouldn´t do it either.
Whishes
Last edited:
An interesting twist as usual. Much has been made here of the fallability of "instant" switching ABX, DBT, etc. protocols in revealing the subtle nuances being discerned by believers, and how such methods create undue stress as an uncontrolled confounder, making results unreliable; hence the need for extended listening to truly sort it all out...
Now you discount humidity because the switching is instantaneous? How many ways can one twist in the wind w/o looking like a troll?
To your first point, that's ridiculous.
I try my best. The question might have gone sideways, do you have any ABX proof that adding cables in series enhances the test? I don't need a reason to discount a scenario that's very rarely seen in a normal audio system. Those advancing it need to justify it.
No, I discount it because in your preferred protocol there's simply no way it can change quickly enough to matter.
A system sounds the way it does including the necessary evils inside.No need to add any more.But,if you claim that you can't hear any difference between your interconnect cable alone or in line with two more cables+switches etc....I have no reason not to believe you.You know I'm a "believer"
Haha! I'm not claiming anything. Just trying to get you and others to do some logical thinking, but that is elegantly avoided by suggesting I claim something I didn't even mention. OK, I get the message.
jd
OK.When I connect my cd player to my amp,I have a pair of interconnects,that is two runs of a cable and four soldered rca plugs
To do the same connection through the infamous box I need an extra interconnect from cd to box and one extra from box to amp.That is another two pairs of cables,extra eight soldered rca plugs.Now,there will be another four pairs(at least) of soldered rca sockets on the box,with their internal wiring,switch,and extra wiring for the switch.How did you count 2-3 extra contacts/wires?
Each extra connector is an extra contact+extra wire+extra soldering right?
Last edited:
twisting, twisting
Do you ever comprehend what is posted? I was specifically commenting on NOT using "my preferred protocol" (presumably some form of bias controlled testing I guess), as in Panicos K's "golden ear" revelations...
My post had little to do with instantaneous switching.
Do you ever comprehend what is posted? I was specifically commenting on NOT using "my preferred protocol" (presumably some form of bias controlled testing I guess), as in Panicos K's "golden ear" revelations...
My post had little to do with instantaneous switching.
May i ask a question? Something has just occured to me & i'd like an answer if possible
This concerns the switchbox used in this AB or ABX testing.
Assuming that we are dealing with interconnect cables & only ONE input on an amplifier lets say & a single output of a CD player it seams to me as though you'd need two boxes.
After all you don't want to be connecting 2 pairs of cables into a pair of lets say phono inputs via a "Y" connector as this would leave cables connected that we want out of the way. Ok, they may only be connected at one end but it's just not right IMO. They ought to be completely out of the loop.
So this AB/X switchbox... Is there one that connects to the source & a second that connects to the amp input (in this stated case) or not
I'd even be extremely dubious about only a single box being used to test speaker cables as well, simply because it'd leave a nice length of speaker cable (that isn't being used) still connected at one end & liable to pick up RF or other crap
So what exactly is the connection scheme?
E2A:- I'd want both centre conductor & screen of any cable totally broken at both ends of any cable that wasn't being listened to. Be it interconnect or loudspeaker cable. Totally out of the loop
Thanks in advance.
This concerns the switchbox used in this AB or ABX testing.
Assuming that we are dealing with interconnect cables & only ONE input on an amplifier lets say & a single output of a CD player it seams to me as though you'd need two boxes.
After all you don't want to be connecting 2 pairs of cables into a pair of lets say phono inputs via a "Y" connector as this would leave cables connected that we want out of the way. Ok, they may only be connected at one end but it's just not right IMO. They ought to be completely out of the loop.
So this AB/X switchbox... Is there one that connects to the source & a second that connects to the amp input (in this stated case) or not
I'd even be extremely dubious about only a single box being used to test speaker cables as well, simply because it'd leave a nice length of speaker cable (that isn't being used) still connected at one end & liable to pick up RF or other crap
So what exactly is the connection scheme?
E2A:- I'd want both centre conductor & screen of any cable totally broken at both ends of any cable that wasn't being listened to. Be it interconnect or loudspeaker cable. Totally out of the loop
Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.