That's a very nice comment.........for a change
For a change?
Most (not all) of my posts are nice. I think my screen name makes me seem more obnoxious than I actually am. (Note country of origin and join date for a clue as to my state of mind when choosing it.) It is unfortunate when trying to solicit help from strangers, to come off as obnoxious before I even open my mouth. But, I am mostly a lurker, so it's not worth creating a new membership.On the other hand...
@ RDF
I am starting to think all your post are obfuscatory and contradictory on purpose, so as not to be able to be pinned down on anything.
Where is the logic? These devices are available and suitable? Or said devices would all mask cable effects, thus rendering special cables moot?
Exactly what are you trying to say there, if I am mis-interpreting you?
Start with the claim: interconnects between high quality pieces of equipment can be audible. Obvious conclusion: a piece of equipment, say an integrated amp, exists of sufficient quality to reveal differences between cables. If that piece of equipment has source selection, then it's already 'type approved'. There is no need to demonstrate the audibility or non of an intermediate switch box, the question is dealt with a priori. Is no existing piece of equipment of sufficient resolution? Game over, our task is done.
Now to the source side. Do two identically manufactured and designed pieces of equipment sound more alike than different cables? If yes, there should be no objection to two identical sources driving different cables into a single device capable of revealing differences between cables. Don't like two sources? How about one with two separately buffered outputs? Don't like two outputs? Now the claimed differences between different cables is beneath the difference between two identical outputs on a single piece of gear that is purported to sound different than another identical piece of equipment.
See the pattern? Its works within uncontested parameters towards a reductio ad absurdum. At the end of this logical road is the final complaint: the difference between all cables is swamped by the difference in sound of every output of every existing piece of source equipment (presumably left and right outputs too), at which point 'who cares then?' is a valid conclusion.
This is one suggestion, others work too. It should be possible to structure a similar scenario in which an interconnect is compared to, say, the jumper between an integrated amp's RCA input and the motherboard. The trick isn't absolutism but slicing at magnitude of claimed difference to the 'who cares?' point.
This is worlds away from from ignoring every claim by every cable manufacturer regarding materials, geometries, etc. and throwing a box of switching mid-path. It's a logical, strategical difference based in the claims under test instead of discarding them on the basis that 'everyone knows...'.
I gotta say RDF that I too get confused by your reasoning.
maybe I am dumb.
Your entire post I agree with, but that cannot be correct?? surely.
Re the beleivers objection to a switch box. I too have often pointed out that a pre amp contains 'audiophile approved switches' ..but I am sure you don't agree with my position re audibilty of cables??
Re the effects of cables, I too believe they are an order of magnitude below everything else in the chain, so would have no objection to two identical sources driving a switch in an audiophile preamp...but we surely do not agree???
That IS my pattern and cables very swiftly fall into a negligable category..but we do not agree??
So your 'sarcasm or irony' (is it?) goes way over my head.
I'm sorry, but I must not grasp your argument.
maybe I am dumb.
Your entire post I agree with, but that cannot be correct?? surely.
Re the beleivers objection to a switch box. I too have often pointed out that a pre amp contains 'audiophile approved switches' ..but I am sure you don't agree with my position re audibilty of cables??
Re the effects of cables, I too believe they are an order of magnitude below everything else in the chain, so would have no objection to two identical sources driving a switch in an audiophile preamp...but we surely do not agree???
That IS my pattern and cables very swiftly fall into a negligable category..but we do not agree??
So your 'sarcasm or irony' (is it?) goes way over my head.
I'm sorry, but I must not grasp your argument.
I actually would stop ignoring them completely if they could reach any consensus on wire type, size, material or construction. DIY cable makers are all over the map too.
Also, wires are not really magic. No way they can make the sound better. If all of the other cables/circuits in the recording chain, let enough detail through, to where your better cable makes an audible difference, then the cables in the entire recording chain become, by definition better than your common cable.
Sorry for the run-on sentence there. IOW, no cable can "repair" the damaged signal, so the crappiest connection in the chain dominates. If differences were audible, then all commercial recordings would sound terrible....er....worse than they already do.
Your last post was much clearer, but seemed to be almost of the conclusion that cables are inaudible. Your posts confuse me by using arguments better suited to the opposition argument, than your own. But I think I've got you now.
For a change?
A lurker you may be,but you seem to have fallen asleep
You missed the joke,but it may be my English again
I don't understand this. If you agree with the reasoning in that post (which was A-OK), how can you not accept the conclusion? That conclusion may be at odds with your previous opinion, but thats' what they call 'learning'
jd
Terry_j,
i don´t know why you draw that conclusion as no one of the three points couldn´t be avoided?!
Please remember that every test set up creates a somewhat artificial environment for the participant/listener.
So we have to consider at each point if it has an (possible) influence on the test result.
And furthermore if we want to change the reproduction system for which the claim was made, it raises additional problems and again we should ask for every step if it is really mandatory or could be avoided.
And of course the efforts depend on the hypothesis that will be tested, and furthermore on the more generalized conclusion that should be drawn from the results.
It is very different if you are testing only one person or a group; in TG´s case it is not that complicated.
He will do some training under the blind test protocol, so let´s see if he feels comfortable with it.
Wishes
I support the RFI influence idea, and IMO this is a key reason why cables do 'sound' different, especially signal cables.
And yes, I measured many times 10 - 20 dB increase of the RFI content after insertion of the A-B switchbox into the audio chain.
My take on sound difference is RFI, not microdiodes.
And yes, I measured many times 10 - 20 dB increase of the RFI content after insertion of the A-B switchbox into the audio chain.
My take on sound difference is RFI, not microdiodes.
Last edited:
First of all the possibility is common knowledge for electronic systems.
The sheer possibility is enough at that point to avoid any additional variable.
It´s like with possible influences that an unblinded experimenter does influence the result. In most cases you can´t show that he did/would, but the sheer possibility.....
So if they prefer that, which way was the rapid switching done before to establish the preference?
Or are you talking about a specific case, where the experimenter thinks that it must be better to use rapid switching but doesn´t want to test this point?
Normally it should depend on the hypothesises that will be tested, which way to test.
And of course the experimenter takes the responsibility that the test results were not influenced by the test methods.
The burden of proof is on the experimenter.
Wishes
That turns out not to be the case.[/QUOTE]
Do not know what you mean "which one".
It was an A-B box with relays to switch 2 pairs of signal link cables. Need to say that the box was unshielded.
I made quite a lot of measurements on EMI/RFI content for different signal cables, measured at the output of preamplifiers and power amplifiers. It is absolutely sure that signal cables do make a huge difference in the EMI/RFI content, both level and spectrum. This is usually overlooked or deprecated by audio people, usually strictly oriented only to stationary averaged measurements not exceeding 20kHz.
Or, what the documentation of a lot of dbts using an official ABX switch box shows, that no profound measurements were taken with and without the switch box, sometimes it is even questionable if any measurements were done (see for example Meyer/Moran).
It is simply a questionable scientific approach.
Wishes
Last edited:
Speaker cables and voice coils serve different purposes, I fail to see the relevance.
Before i go any further let me say that i'm going to nearly sit on the fence with the cable arguement. I'm more inclined to believe that cables do make a difference seeing as i changed some of the interconnects between my CD transport, DAC & pre amp with nice results However i digress....
Ok, having had a think about the switchbox here are a few observations
A stereo interconnect (assuming it's phono) will have a total of 8 connections, 4 ground connections (2 each end) & likewise for the signal.
Having thought about the most minimal number of connections possible that are going to be inserted with the test box/s it comes to quite a few. In fact for each mono phono cable it comes to 8 new connections at each cable end (remember there are two switchboxes).
My breakdown worked like this:- Ignoring the phono plug that the test cable connects to as it'd be connected to either source or amp lets say.
Connection (2) from the phono socket on test box to relay connections
Relay contacts themselves (2) for both signal & ground
Connection of output cable (no output socket) to relay connections (2 again)
Connection of cable to phono plug (2)
So on a mono cable at just one end the minimum number of new connections is 8, with a stereo pair that'd be 16 & connections at both ends make 32 (remember there are two boxes). This is assuming that a cable is run in & out of the test boxes, if there is a phono socket out of the test box then add another 16 to the total when listening to a pair of stereo cables
Of course we don't know the quality or anything else about the cable that is coming out of the test box either, or the phono plug for that matter. I'm sure it'll be as short as possible & of the best quality available so it has the least amount of influence on the cables under test
It just those 32 connections (or more) that are added to what on it's own would have been 8 that kind of makes me wonder about the efficacy of this kind of test.
I'd rather use cheap cable than add at least 32 connections into a pair of stereo cables, i'll be honest
However i digress....Ok, having had a think about the switchbox here are a few observations
A stereo interconnect (assuming it's phono) will have a total of 8 connections, 4 ground connections (2 each end) & likewise for the signal.
Having thought about the most minimal number of connections possible that are going to be inserted with the test box/s it comes to quite a few. In fact for each mono phono cable it comes to 8 new connections at each cable end (remember there are two switchboxes).
My breakdown worked like this:- Ignoring the phono plug that the test cable connects to as it'd be connected to either source or amp lets say.
Connection (2) from the phono socket on test box to relay connections
Relay contacts themselves (2) for both signal & ground
Connection of output cable (no output socket) to relay connections (2 again)
Connection of cable to phono plug (2)
So on a mono cable at just one end the minimum number of new connections is 8, with a stereo pair that'd be 16 & connections at both ends make 32 (remember there are two boxes). This is assuming that a cable is run in & out of the test boxes, if there is a phono socket out of the test box then add another 16 to the total when listening to a pair of stereo cables
Of course we don't know the quality or anything else about the cable that is coming out of the test box either, or the phono plug for that matter. I'm sure it'll be as short as possible & of the best quality available so it has the least amount of influence on the cables under test
It just those 32 connections (or more) that are added to what on it's own would have been 8 that kind of makes me wonder about the efficacy of this kind of test.
I'd rather use cheap cable than add at least 32 connections into a pair of stereo cables, i'll be honest
relevance? It's ALL wires...
well.. that thar's the problem then. You fail to see the relevance. No wonder magical performance has such an appeal
well.. that thar's the problem then. You fail to see the relevance. No wonder magical performance has such an appeal
- Status
- Not open for further replies.