I've been suggesting that over and over. Would be nice to actually design and run a test like that. But no one seems interested.
More fun to argue about it, I suppose...
I´d surely try to help.
For the beginning i think you´re suggesting just a confirmation that one single listener is able in his normal listening situation to detect a difference between two cables, right? (Sort of "there is at least one person in the world, that....")
AFAIR SY did give some recommendations to Andre Visser about a test protocol; why not start with that, replace the discrimination test routine by a preference test routine, throw some positive controls in (and a negative control as well) and let the person do some listening training under these blind test conditions.
Small difficulty is, that someone must be able to do measurements on the listeners system to evaluate the performance for both DUTs.
Wishes
The main reason for mentioning Schopenhauer was his piece on using of tricks to win a discussion; a bag of tricks that you´re using quite intensively, i´d say.
Whenever i notice that, it makes me already suspicious if the person is seeking some truth or is just trying to make some cheap points.
Please bear with me, but i still don´t get what you´re asking for.
Are you asking for suggestions about a proper test protocol or is it something else?
Two additional thoughts; first, i think the advise to avoid experimentator bias by doing controlled blind tests in _all_ cases is very specific.
Second, if you´re are doing a controlled blind test, the test has to be valid; if you´re not using positive controls, you can´t decide whether the listener can´t detect a difference in general or if the listenener only can´t detect a difference under the conditions of your controlled blind test.
That is the bottom line for any useful test, why that should be a "red herring" is beyond my understanding.
Wishes
Every test following the MUSHRA recommendations is using positive controls and the tests done on codecs using ITU-R **.1116 two; although in the latter case the controls were quite crude, the principle in general should be clear.
In the end it is in the experimentator´s responsibility to choose controls on a sufficient sensitivity level for the given task.
Just as a rough example, if you´re researching the audibility of small amplitude response errors of ~0.2 dB, then a control of 3 dB error wouldn´t be very useful.
If youre doing some training with your listeners, you could look if a learning curve exists and could use controls on different sensitiviy levels to have some extra data for correlation anaylsis.
Wishes
Yes. Audiosector has listed (at the chipamp form of DIYaudio.com) removal of the input in-series resistor ("RB" on page 1 of LM3875.pdf from National Semiconductor) as a clarifying measure. This omission causes the input load to be a plain load of 10k (depending on options), rather than a voltage divider.
And, I said, just out of the blue, with absolutely no proof other than I've tried it, that you can replace the input in-series resistor with a variable resistor. About 5k variable resistor (dial) should give the full swing of options, one of which is zero (clean).
Depending on the reactions of the DC blocking cap at the input (the manufacturer in this case has recommended a specific model), the soundfield depth will vary slightly via the dial that I have proposed. I have also tried this with several different makes of amplifiers and several different caps, all of which were quite clear to start with so that the dial could be useful.
Here we are in the loudspeaker forum and most are familiar with the concept of a padding resistor to change the sound of a midrange or tweeter.
It is the same concept at the input of an amplifier too. If that part is overdone, the amp is relaxing, laid back, distant, and slightly euphonic; therefore, if you have a botique amplifier, its probably overdone just a bit.
You may want have options rather than an arbitrary setting.
Check with your amplifier / preamplifier manufacturer. Sometimes a resistor is needed (no zero figures) and sometimes its value may be as low as 3.3 ohms (mentioned just in case you're going to DIY). 😉
The device you purchased, if cabled without any computer networking parts, would make a preamp.
These have more variety than interconnect cables.
What model audio wireless did you use?
I hear what you're saying, but I know you're lying, at worst, or deceiving yourself, at best. I know what I'm hearing, and you can't convince me otherwise.
Ah, even the average and expected difference of ears + rooms is more than the full swing of a large equalizer.
A really nifty DIY solution is to build a speaker to suit both yourself and the room. That way will give you a huge decrease of distortion.
What a large post. I just caught the the first few posts. In my opinion everything you can do to a signal changes it-although not on a scope or meter there are differences. We don't have the instruments yet to verify what makes a Krell sound better than a Apex but it's obvious it does. Although the Krell has better measurements,both have flat frequency response, both have signal to noise better than human hearing both have thd lower than human discearnment. Sure the Krell uses parts with better specs & ends up sounding better but both look very similar on a scope. There has to be another way of measuring audio mabye in 3 dimensions that would explain the differences in perceived sound. I think soume of the top sound companies may have such instruments that they use for prototypes. As far as cables are concearned-yes I hear a difference but the difference is miniscule compared to the cd player or amp it's connected to. I usually just buy a large cable with good sheilding.
OK Stinius, I've changed the 'direction' of my speaker cable several times while listening to two known tracks. Unfortunately with my bi-wire cables and four spade connectors on each side it take a while to change.
I will have to do some more testing but at this stage I'm quite positive that there are a bit more ambience and also a bit more 'flesh' to the instruments in one direction, interestingly the 'better' direction seems to be the reverse of the direction I always connected them. (The spades on one side fit on a larger dia speaker connector.) I will try with a few other CD's also and if I still feel the same, I will organise with my son to do a blind test. Will let you know what happen.
Hi Andre
Thank you for doing the test, I understand that it takes a while.
Anyway it looks like some interesting results so far.
I look forward to seeing your final results (that you will do together with your son).
Thanks again
stinius
The effect of cables can be measured.
I did that many many years ago but got a lot of hatemail that the differeces i measured where to small to be audible.
On the other hand some makers of expensive cables were extremely pleased with my results giving them something to argue.
The body of work is still accecible on SONICSONLINE - Audioequipment Lautsprechersystems Schallwandlersysteme der Marktführer
i myself am very sensitive to cablesound but i think it can be explained as an interaction between the dynamic impedances of the amplifier-cable-speaker chain.
my work also hinted at some low level artifacts but i had only 16 Bit resolution awaillable at that time. i have a good supply of cables around because i got a lot of samples from manufactures and i am happy with my current setup so for me the dust has settled and i am not planning to put more time and energy into finding even more supple differences. One way to go is off cause active speakers. Some cables cost so much that activating the speakers is cheaper but is has not much catched up in high end, most users still prefering their passive systems with expensive electronics and accesories. Ask them and they will say that their system sounds more musical, homogenious and "human" then technically more correct solutions.
God is in the details so this issue will never be fully settled.
I did that many many years ago but got a lot of hatemail that the differeces i measured where to small to be audible.
On the other hand some makers of expensive cables were extremely pleased with my results giving them something to argue.
The body of work is still accecible on SONICSONLINE - Audioequipment Lautsprechersystems Schallwandlersysteme der Marktführer
i myself am very sensitive to cablesound but i think it can be explained as an interaction between the dynamic impedances of the amplifier-cable-speaker chain.
my work also hinted at some low level artifacts but i had only 16 Bit resolution awaillable at that time. i have a good supply of cables around because i got a lot of samples from manufactures and i am happy with my current setup so for me the dust has settled and i am not planning to put more time and energy into finding even more supple differences. One way to go is off cause active speakers. Some cables cost so much that activating the speakers is cheaper but is has not much catched up in high end, most users still prefering their passive systems with expensive electronics and accesories. Ask them and they will say that their system sounds more musical, homogenious and "human" then technically more correct solutions.
God is in the details so this issue will never be fully settled.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.