I think that in a direct A-B, louder can be discerned. Also, the ear tends to have a different frequency sensitivity at different levels. That is why, long ago, we use to use variable frequency volume controls (loudness control) to make low level played music sound more like high level played music. These references have little or nothing to do with the way that Curly listens to cables, but it is a good attack strategy to get everyone else to doubt his opinion.
I looked into it. Reading the abstract it appears to be a study into the mechanism of how acoustic vibrations get transformed into electrical signals that are send to the brain. Interesting, but totally unrelated to what we have been discussion here, which was the difference between 'hearing' (those vibrations that get transformed into signals to the brain) and the final resulting perception of the listener. This perception, in case you or anybody else have missed it, is an integrated 'picture' put together by the brain out of all avalialable sensory inputs plus the body state. It is this integrative action that, for example, can cause a signal that is just a dB stronger than another to sound more preferable, more balanced in tone. Just an example.
jd
You read the whole thing, ALREADY? Wow, you are a fast reader. The abstract is only a little bit of the story. What it shows is that it is in fact POSITIVE feedback that gives the ear an advantage. It shows why the ear can detect info that most test equipment would have trouble resolving. Important? I think so.
Last edited:
No, I said I read the abstract. Isn't that clear?
John, I understand that the ear is very, very sensitive, and I wouldn't be surprised it is even more sensitive than some of our test equipment. I haven't studied that, I don't know, but from what I've read I can see that it might be possible.
Also if you would have read my posts, you would remember that I mentioned a positive feedback mechanism in the ear-brain system ohh, probably several years ago right here in this forum. In fact, I mention it on my website since several years as well.
But that wasn't the point in these recent discussions at all, wasn't it?
jd
Last edited:
There's lots of evidence that our eyes/ears/brains are not always trustworthy.
There are visual and auditory illusions that demonstrate this fact.
An auditory example would be the shepard's tones.
See:
Musical Illusions - Science News
Cheers.
ZAP
There are visual and auditory illusions that demonstrate this fact.
An auditory example would be the shepard's tones.
See:
Musical Illusions - Science News
Cheers.
ZAP
Last edited:
Bollocks. The level differences between a couple of cables of similar gauge and length (especially at line level) is going to be very small. The ELC between say 85 and 85.1dB are trivial.
Well I tend to do a lot of experimentation with introducing distortions into my playback. I have found that it's easy to fool yourself into thinking you have found some "new thing" when there are actual measurable distortions present that you would think should have an effect. Now take the undistorted original signal and level match it with the objectively distorted signal and wow it's magic you can't tell the difference.
Exactly! Different levels make the sound different in character. So, if you don't match level, you have already a difference in sound even with the same cables! What you DON't want to do is to change levels between cable swaps, or (gasp!) run the level down and then up again hoping you can get it to the same point...
jd
John, the problem seems to be that some apply so much negative feedback, even before (or without 😱 ) listening that the poor brain get very little information from the ears to work with. 😀
I would have doubted that it would take you much longer than the messages composed to Curly, and you might learn something new, as well.
So Jan you think that these infinitesimal level difference are responsible for the differences that I am hearing with regards to image dimensions and stability? I find this extremely hard to swallow, as most everyone here believes that the frequency range differences are imperceivable.
They can be yes. But it's more that sometimes when 2 things aren't compared on an even playing field the perceived differences can be exalted.
Imaging is usually a manipulation of volume and EQ along with pre-delay.
I vary the volume at random levels for all tests just as I would when I listen to music. If volume level is the issue, how could I do this so randomly and always come to the same conclusions? This makes absolutely zero sense, with what you are trying to state as fact. The sheer randomness of the volume settings over a period of time would at least skew the findings, if the cables in question were really identical in sound, as many feel that they are according to science.
Absolute prime top-grade bulltish! The antithesis of reason and science. You believe what you WANT to believe and no one will change that.
Frank
You really like that word "bulltish". I know what i hear, not what someone says that I can or can not 😀
Seems to me that the problem with measuring what Curly is referring to is more data presentation than anything. Spatial cues are phase sensitive. There are two phase mechanisms at work in a listening system. One is radial and is the primary corruption found in loudspeakers and is a direct result of inefficient coupling of driver to air. The other is lineal and is a result of time train corruption in the internal structure of information. This corruption arises from electrical field displacement between metal carrier and surrounding dielectrics. An obviouds example is the speed of an electrical signal across a circuit on a PCB. Another is the reflections in cable terminations and propagation's through cables influenced by the dielectric constant (a complex number) that the E Field portion of the electrical wave is being subjected to.
Where, in all of our test regimens, is a depiction of either of these two forms of phase corruption, in a format that would show how much corruption is responsible and necessary for an alteration of perceived field placement, of a source of sound location, in an audio reproduction?
I seem to remember someone attempting this sort of test long ago. I have no doubt the information is in what testing we do. However, just as with an EnaBL'd driver, it is very difficult to find due to most presentation protocols having been directed at loudest and first arriving signals, rather than relationships among signals that might provide these representations.
I do not think you can successfully argue against Curly's position until you have these protocols in hand. Not because the test data is insufficient either. Just that how it is presented and what is being looked for is not applicable to what Curly is pointing to.
Bud
Where, in all of our test regimens, is a depiction of either of these two forms of phase corruption, in a format that would show how much corruption is responsible and necessary for an alteration of perceived field placement, of a source of sound location, in an audio reproduction?
I seem to remember someone attempting this sort of test long ago. I have no doubt the information is in what testing we do. However, just as with an EnaBL'd driver, it is very difficult to find due to most presentation protocols having been directed at loudest and first arriving signals, rather than relationships among signals that might provide these representations.
I do not think you can successfully argue against Curly's position until you have these protocols in hand. Not because the test data is insufficient either. Just that how it is presented and what is being looked for is not applicable to what Curly is pointing to.
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.