Jan, I am not impressed with your retort, or your general attitude. What I AM surprised at is that you interviewed VDH after agreeing with your colleagues that he was a huckster of some sort. I interviewed VDH more than 25 years ago. I know he is OK. I thought that 'everybody' in the exotic cable business was a huckster in your eyes. That might include VDH, Hawksford, EB Andre, my deceased business partner Bob Crump and of course, Jack Bybee.
Did you come to realize that he was serious about low level distortion in wires? Did he show you any measurements, or other proof. Do you now at least understand what he is doing, and why? I should hope so, after all these decades.
Did you come to realize that he was serious about low level distortion in wires? Did he show you any measurements, or other proof. Do you now at least understand what he is doing, and why? I should hope so, after all these decades.
Well, it's happened to me where negotiations were done via PM after I inquired openly in a thread. I just decided it unworthy to make it a big deal. However, I wish to further point out that in normal business practices, it is customary to sign a non-disclosure agreement quite often. This implies that unless otherwise regulated by law, anything discussed is free to be exchanged with others like knowledge. This is the reason why I mentioned DIYA needs to have the rules written. However, concerning qoute of email not originally communicated throught the DIYA system, you need to check and see if it violates "freedome of speech" or not. If it does, it may not be enforceable in this forum.
Last edited:
You should direct these questions to James Boyk or Doug Sax.
It was reported from Bernie Grundman that he sent out different sets of CDs done with different cables to decide after analysis of the reactions which cable to choose for his facility.
The phrase "no error" raises a lot of complex questions with regard to recording and listening to stereophonic reproduction.
Wishes
John, if you see a difference between results of sighted and BD tests, and just conclude there's something wrong with the DB test, you are ignorant in perception. Plain and simple. You may not like that, but that doesn't change it.
We all are ingnorant in many areas, we all have our blind spots. One of yours, judging by your posts here, is perception. I can't make that sound any prettier.
That doesn't mean I have an issue with you as a person because of that.
I don't think I said he is a huckster of some sort. I have been on record saying that cable audible differences, as far as I know, have not been proven in a reliable and repeatable way.
Aalt-Jouk is someone who has left his mark on audio big time, and as such I thought it interesting to talk to him, hear what his story is.
In the same vein, I am also of the opinion that the presumed superiority of, say, a Blowtorch over any well designed preamp will not be confirmed in a reliable, repeatable (DB) way. Does that make you a huckster? Does that mean I cannot talk to you anymore?
jd
It mainly depends on the definition of "accurate" .
If it in the end sounds awful but is extremely accurate, i have some doubts that it would convince a lot of people to spend some money on it.
Recall the famous "BBC dip" and the arguments for its use. Did that lead to a more accurate reproduction or was it more inaccurate?
Stereophonic reproduction is inaccurate by definition with respect to a real acoustical event and that makes it a bit more complicated, doesn´t it?
I certainly did not say that.
But we are in a luxury market and normally customers spend their money for the things that satisfy their needs best.
Again, the phrase "Hi-Fi" also is not clearly defined.
Wishes
@ janneman,
to rely on double blind test results for which it has not been shown that these tests were reliable, objective and valid might be even more worse because it violates the rules of science in the name of science.
Of course we agree in the point that no formal proof of audible cable differences exists so far (within the normal working conditions of every device in the chain and no predictable variations above the known hearing thresholds), but otoh we have to admit that objective, reliable and valid test are extremely seldom and wrt to the cable issue i don´t know of at least one.
BTW, audible differences between preamplifiers remain in double blind tests.
Wishes
to rely on double blind test results for which it has not been shown that these tests were reliable, objective and valid might be even more worse because it violates the rules of science in the name of science.
Of course we agree in the point that no formal proof of audible cable differences exists so far (within the normal working conditions of every device in the chain and no predictable variations above the known hearing thresholds), but otoh we have to admit that objective, reliable and valid test are extremely seldom and wrt to the cable issue i don´t know of at least one.
BTW, audible differences between preamplifiers remain in double blind tests.
Wishes
@ janneman,
to rely on double blind test results for which it has not been shown that these tests were reliable, objective and valid might be even more worse because it violates the rules of science in the name of science.
Of course we agree in the point that no formal proof of audible cable differences exists so far (within the normal working conditions of every device in the chain and no predictable variations above the known hearing thresholds), but otoh we have to admit that objective, reliable and valid test are extremely seldom and wrt to the cable issue i don´t know of at least one.
BTW, audible differences between preamplifiers remain in double blind tests.
Wishes
Jakob,
Nothing in life is ever 100% true in all cases everywhere everytime.
But the abhorrent unreliability of perception, of sighted listening, sighted tasting, what have you, has been confirmed again and again.
DBT's have not, afaiaa, demonstarted audible differences in cables.
Is all that 100% absolutely true always for ever? No. But it does point overwhelmingly to inaudibility of cables.
It also means that if you get different results in sighted and DB tests, and attribute it to 'problems' with the DB test, you are facing odds so large that it's nonsensical. It also shows you do not understand how perception works.
I'm not aware of DB preamp tests but if you have a link...?
jd
Last edited:
I have recieved "hate mail" - how it that a "totally different issue"? I don't have to keep it confidential?
If it is an "awful" recording then accuracy insists that it sound awful. What you are implying is that an accurate system could make a good recording sound "awful" and I cannot imagine how that coud ever be the case.
People have this untenable idea to associate the "sound" of the audio system to the "sound" that they hear. This is a misguided point of view. The audio system itself is like a piece of glass - it should not have a "sound". The only thing that you should be able to make a subjective assesment about is the recording, the art - the playback system should not alter the "art" in any way. Hence, it follows logically that only negative attributes could ever be perscribed to the audio playback system, with the exception that maybe "completely transparent" might be appropriate.
I don't have time to read fully through even the last few days of this thread, it's increasing so fast, much less get involved in the he said/she said. However, I'll make one technical comment on this measurement issue. I hope I've not missed a post covering it.
If you really intend to measure differences in the acoustic domain for very tiny differences between measurements, be aware of two things. One, repeated measurements with no changes can show very small variances in the measured frequency response related to the measurement system and I suspect the drivers alone. No two measurements are perfect overlays in my experience. If you make such repeated measurements you'd be surprised at those tiny deviations. Tiny is usually a non-issue, but when tiny is the target, the significance changes. I've set up my system to always do an 8-measurement average that lowers the noise floor as well as averaging out single measurement flukes from whatever source. If the differences really are tiny and don't show up between measurements, you can be fairly sure at least that the measurement system is doing its job well. That's when another approach might be needed, such as making distortion tests rather than simple frequency response.
Two, and more importantly on this topic, it's also an issue of the measurement system being used. If you're using the increasingly popular MLS systems that are two-channel and can use a probe feedback and if you use it in two-channel mode, then the feedback probe will do precisely what it is intended to do. That is, eliminate ALL signal chain influence, cables, preamps, amps and wire to the probe feedback point. Cable swapping will show nothing.
Then there's the issue of where in the spectrum a change may occur. The lower midrange inserts another issue related to the measurement system and conditions such as what type of window is used on the impulse response if an MLS was used for one. If the difference is in the mid to upper treble, it's much less of a concern, the area I suspect would be the area of possible influence.
Arguing for tests without appropriate details can further muddy an already murky issue. One has to take care to ensure that all possible variability is known and taken into account. For the subjective, I'm sure it's even harder to reduce the differences to one or two variables.
Now back to the argui..., er, debate.
Dave
dlr, I disagree with nothing you've said and these are things I'm well aware of. But if cables are making a big enough difference to be reliably heard (as is the claim), those differences have to be manifested in correspondingly significant changes in the acoustic response.
One step removed from this is to make a voltage measurement at the speaker terminals. That will have tighter repeatability for sure, but a true Believer will still be able to spin some fancier hypothesis about why that's inadequate. So,,, I proposed measuring sound waves. Even the most imaginative Believer would have a hard time arguing that a wire can change the polar pattern without changing the on-axis response.
One step removed from this is to make a voltage measurement at the speaker terminals. That will have tighter repeatability for sure, but a true Believer will still be able to spin some fancier hypothesis about why that's inadequate. So,,, I proposed measuring sound waves. Even the most imaginative Believer would have a hard time arguing that a wire can change the polar pattern without changing the on-axis response.
Its not only 'true believers' who are having trouble understanding why you think your measurements will be sensitive enough. Here's a plausible scenario:
Cables have differences in screening effectiveness, hence there will be differing ingress of broadband RF hash between two candidates for test. Owing to that, the noise floor will be subtly changed between the two cables up for test. Will your acoustic test be sensitive enough to measure the differences between the two noise floors? If so, I'm all ears for how to do that when one might be -84dB and the other say -90dB in the electronics. Note this is a noise floor rise only in the presence of signal, in its absence there's nothing for the RF to intermodulate with.
This is a trivial electronic measurement, any engineer can do that for a $1
I thought we had left that behind and were now discussing more 'subtle' issues?
jd
I'm not taking any side on this issue, but I have to disagree. Some differences can be audible (from whatever source), yet not readily measured in a typical SPL measurement. Distortion is an example. It can be low enough that it is not apparent in the typical SPL response (say it's 40db down), but it is made apparent in one or more distortion tests. Then it becomes necessary to make those alternate measurements.
Again, not taking sides, isn't that last one something of a straw-man? If the change is measurable on-axis, it will in all likelihood be measurable off-axis. That's not the issue I raised. My whole point was in regard to measuring SPL (whether on- of off-axis is immaterial) and cable-swapping. It's a good test, but the devil is in the details.
Dave
What does this post have to do with cables?
Doesn't even say anything about blind testing regimens either. What it does seem to say is either you've provided no information about the testing specifics in order to be obtuse to support your condemnation of blind testing in general, or you really haven't a clue as to what proper testing protocols are and are capable of determining and need to educate yourself so as to not appear foolish, or you are stubborn and refuse to accept reality unless it is (perversely) redefined to meet your jaded viewpoints.
Really ,I would think you'd aspire to a higher level of discourse than to pander to the pity police...
John L.
I passed 3 blind tests with the New coke vs old coke. I remember wining $500 from my roommate from that test
Im more then willing to bet any member here $$$ in a properly controlled listening test of cables
Of course I thought a couple of members where going to do one, Im sure that fell apart....good intentions wasted when reality sets in.
This is a trivial electronic measurement, any engineer can do that for a $1
OK, so when the electronics measurement shows there is a difference between the cables, then what? A difference in screening effectiveness is not an LCR difference, so does the difference count, or not?
This one's jolly subtle. Or are you having me on here?
SY's talking about measuring sound waves, so must we eliminate all such effects first before moving on to measuring acoustics? If so, what counts as 'no noise floor change' to allow a cable to pass on to phase 2 acoustic tests?- Status
- Not open for further replies.