I have, it is snake oil no different than Star Trek's "science" behind quantum slipstream drive.
The copy is repeated by the dealers
That's totally different thing to what I'm talking about which is the large cylindrical device intended as series electrical connection. Can you post photos please of the item you bought and dismantled ?.
I am not intending to insult anybody, in order that I am able to make recompense please show where you interpret that I did so. My intent is to encourage exploration of concepts, in this case the concept is that loopback recordings sound different to source files. To be useful part of this discussion everybody needs to be on the same page, and that page is that everybody can identify and describe differences between 01 and 02 files. 'Do not proceed, do not pass go' if the listener cannot detect this change easily and reliably......exclusion of this set removes false negatives, too bad about the volunteers with the hurt feelings, they can lift their game or go see a therapist. Should I describe the subjective changes in 01>02 files so that everybody is cued on what to listen for ?. Or, should I present this as some kind of mystery test that only the 'best' can pass before proceeding ?. I say the former is best for this eligibility screening test and reduces loss of good/useful participants who are unsure of what to listen for but will hear the difference reliably when described to them.
Dan.
Series electrical connection BQP device works IME.
As I have stated previously I hear and recognise the effects of BQP but I do not like the signature imparted......that is information in itself to those who are alert.
Dan.
I'm not the one injecting garbage into this thread. Why don't you start your own test thread and see who is interested? Many of us here are "once bitten, twice shy".
I was a sound engineer. I NEEDED to doubt my own ears, as a soldier the accuracy of his shots.
About your question: " isn't that what we do while mixing/mastering".
Not at all. We close our eyes (or not), immerge in the virtual landscape we are trying to invent and try to build a credible cartoon that can mimic the photography of a real landscape.
AS the only way we have to look at his landscape is across monitors, we have to figure out their own errors of white balance and try to compensate them.
My message to you was very friendly and I wanted to pass-you a message that I'm sure of: You are looking/searching the wrong way (OMHO). Trying to make the varnish of you car a little more shiny by experiencing various oils. Better work on what matters a lot more: the beauty of the body's design and the quality of the painting under the varnish.
The fact that many of us make the same kind of remarks should open your eyes.
With all my affection.
Last edited:
Keep digging Dan. Whilst I don't take the following as an insult, I was tempted to tell you exactly what you can do with it. However my response was polite but you just kept going.
Last edited:
You have preconception that you are unable to hear the difference between an original recording and a loopback recording. It is sad actually that you do not have confidence in your own ears to differentiate two files that are indeed different. I can hear 01>02 file differences on my system with my eyes shut and expect 10/10 in ABX testing, I also expect that you could do the same.
Dan.
Scott, I am merely encouraging you to describe differences between two wav files that are different, no insult intended. Do yourself a small favour, if nothing else take a listen to the Benny Goodman files and see if you detect 01>02 file difference. If you need coaching on what to listen for just ask.
Dan.
With a stick? The carrot isn't that appealing 🙂 As I said what's the point with hearing a difference or not?
Last edited:
The point of hearing the 01>02 differences is that the 01>03 differences can be different, ergo 02 is different to 03.
If your system cannot resolve 01>02 file differences your system is not optimal and is by definition not capable of resolving 02>03 file differences.
Like I said, what's to lose, if you need coaching just ask.
Dan.
And then what? The suggestion of you starting a thread about this was a good one, it might be interesting to see the responses you get from a wider audience
Eventually the soldier knows his gun like a hand.
I meant we listen over and over whilst tweaking effects to get the image portrayal we want...it's another form of critical listening.
Thanks for your affections, I respect your message.
I understand that system zero distortions and nil noise is one answer, but this solution is impossible dream to the most of us. Controlling energy supply noise and energy transfer noise is where quality audio starts and need not be expensive.
Dan.
Max. May-be YOU have a problem in your set that makes the difference ? (take this as an objective question)
Let-me tell you a personal story.
When the first time the "cable sound" story appeared in the audio litterature, I was very curious about it, because it was 'AGAINST' verified laws of physics. (too lazy to explain)
So i made several tests -I' think I'm quite open minded and curious- to figure out what were the physical phenomena at work.
This was at this time I suspected the impedance curve of the speakers VS cables + amps impedances. I tried to linearize my speaker impedance curve. Easy.
Miracle: All the cables differences I could feel before had disappeared.
All my enclosures, since this time are flat in impedance all over the 20-40kHz bandwidth. And I'm now in the Peter J. Walker's camp: "I tend to prefer cables that conduct electricity.", adding "and that do not conduct my bank account to ground level".
PS: do not take for granted my poor personal hearing ability as responsible of my opinion. Take it with a pince of consideration: It was confirmed as good enough during all my personal career. I often redo parts of the mixes that sounded perfect to the producers.
Do not believe it is flaws in my system neither, it has been tuned during decades to criticise my own work, and I can feel flaws in my mixes that i was not able to hear in the studios. And I still live with my sins and my doubts.
I don't consider myself as exceptional, maybe you could consider my reports as not exceptional ? See what I mean ?
By the way, all of the people that tried to listen to your files had made the same kind of reports, Not enough to make-you asking questions about your certainties ?
Let-me tell you a personal story.
When the first time the "cable sound" story appeared in the audio litterature, I was very curious about it, because it was 'AGAINST' verified laws of physics. (too lazy to explain)
So i made several tests -I' think I'm quite open minded and curious- to figure out what were the physical phenomena at work.
This was at this time I suspected the impedance curve of the speakers VS cables + amps impedances. I tried to linearize my speaker impedance curve. Easy.
Miracle: All the cables differences I could feel before had disappeared.
All my enclosures, since this time are flat in impedance all over the 20-40kHz bandwidth. And I'm now in the Peter J. Walker's camp: "I tend to prefer cables that conduct electricity.", adding "and that do not conduct my bank account to ground level".
PS: do not take for granted my poor personal hearing ability as responsible of my opinion. Take it with a pince of consideration: It was confirmed as good enough during all my personal career. I often redo parts of the mixes that sounded perfect to the producers.
Do not believe it is flaws in my system neither, it has been tuned during decades to criticise my own work, and I can feel flaws in my mixes that i was not able to hear in the studios. And I still live with my sins and my doubts.
I don't consider myself as exceptional, maybe you could consider my reports as not exceptional ? See what I mean ?
By the way, all of the people that tried to listen to your files had made the same kind of reports, Not enough to make-you asking questions about your certainties ?
Last edited:
Then you have no place in this discussion or other discussions because you do not have sufficiently good gear to be making comment about audio quality, simple and plain.And then what? The suggestion of you starting a thread about this was a good one, it might be interesting to see the responses you get from a wider audience
So surprise me and take a listen and report back, less than 30 minutes out of your life.
Dan.
Yes, but the bold is important.
I thought a nice pic would be interesting. I downloaded a YouTube video (quality?? 720p) on tuning an E-string on a bass, and played a little. I faded the end a bit. Notice: scaling isn't the same, but relative amplitudes make sense. I also include the note to listen:
Attachments
You said sometimes they make the sound worse, didn't you? Sometimes better? Distortion can do that.
From where?
Bonsai isn't it the batteries that are being tuned for better sound and not the cables?
Interesting article on forecasting by experts: Why Is It So Hard to Predict the Future? - The Atlantic
Thanks
At about 10KHz amplitude is down -100dB - does NORMAL age-related HF loss typically go as low as 10KHz?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.