Ed: yes I know at low signals (vinyl and mic levels) it occurs. Silver and PTFE being particularly bad. BUT Mark was talking specifically about line level balanced interconnect where shielding and twist and pin 1 termination are more likely to have an impact.
Personally It would interest me (in a domestic env) to compare good examples of STP and star quad with normal and neutrik EMC xlr to see how they stack up. conventional wisdom says you only need those connectors when runnning cable past a light pack or similar...
Personally It would interest me (in a domestic env) to compare good examples of STP and star quad with normal and neutrik EMC xlr to see how they stack up. conventional wisdom says you only need those connectors when runnning cable past a light pack or similar...
On the issue of cable sound, for example, IMO it is simply a matter of some humans hearing small effects. It is much easier to do IME using ultra low distortion-and-noise equipment (which is not cheap, but not ultra costly either).
What is going on in the cables to make them sound the way they do? Just the usual things we already know are there: ground currents and related potential drop from one chassis to another. Capacitive coupling to the shield works both ways: to couple ground noise into the signal and to filter out and phase shift HF of the signal. Dielectric materials in cable have some dielectric absorption, etc. etc. Maybe even some triboelectric effects as bimo suggested.
Its hard to measure those effects individually in a real world situation. However, listening experiments tend to correlate cable physical construction and materials with listening impressions.
I know you are very, very skeptical of sighted listening though. I now think some people (few?) train themselves to listen methodically for certain clues that are not affected particularly by volume level (Fletcher Munsen). Sighted vs unsighted remain somewhat different, but not entirely different. Unsighted is harder for sure, but sighted can be much more reliable than you give it credit for on a day to day basis where it is too cumbersome to find an assistant or two to switch cables (for example) while you are out of the room, then leave by another door so they don't accidentally give a clue as to which cable is in place. The other assistant doesn't know which cable is being used either, but his job is to make sure you don't have a chance to see the cable while listening. If something needs adjusting such as a request for a volume level change, he can operate the equipment so you don't have to get near it. If you don't want to cover so many potential issues, maybe only one assistant will do.
Okay, I don't have an assistant standing by all day while I have to get things done. So, I learn to judge, and or if from experience I know a difference is too small to be sure about, then I wait for someone else to come along and give a second opinion (sometimes making sure they are blind to what is being tested). I ask for a description of the sound, and comparison to previous results. I don't run several trials, if I want more certainty I ask another trusted listener's opinion using a similar process.
For me, it works more reliably than multiple trials all in a row with one person.
Of course, although the A/D device may not be perfect. It may produce some slightly inaccurate digital codes, some of which might not be perfectly legal at the given sample rate.
Last edited:
A few weeks ago I listened to an LP that I have not played in years with my Zen style pre-amp and heard very faint print through that I swore was not there before. I switched back just out of curiosity to a plain Cambridge Audio 5534 based pre-amp and yes it was always there. Sighted listening and aural memory are hopelessly unreliable.
In you, probably so. You just noticed something important, you are mostly aurally blind to things that are plainly there. What if you set about to remedy that, to develop your skill in that area over several years? Would you still be stuck right where you are today? I don't think so. You are a smart man, and you are capable if figuring out how to work at getting better at developing attention focusing skill and not forgetting to listen to check for small things that are likely there.
Audiophiles are typically not methodical in that way, so they are no example to extrapolate from.
It's funny Mark, you don't want to post sound files incase people don't believe you, but you don't have a problem posting lots of words. 😉 Can you explain that to me?
Isn't that a bit vague connection - from your description - to "sighted listening" ?
Would you assume that you couldn't have heard the "very faint print" suddenly if listening "blind" ?
Or would you assume that you've recognized the "very faint print" years before if only ever have heard under "blind" conditions?
Or would you assume that you've always heard the "very faint print" but had forgotten about it?
What about another possible reason, i.e. that you indeed suddenly were aware of the "very faint print" ,that you've hadn't noticed (at least consciously) before, and of course could not "unhear" it when using the other preamp?
The forum is for conversation, so I converse.
Recording is work, it takes time and effort to set up, do the recording and equipment changes, edit tracks to limit file size and noise at the tails, etc.
Recording one cymbal hit was work, had to set everything up, record several hits, tear down the setup, edit the recording down to one hit, etc.
Why should I feel motivated to do all that for something that will mostly pull insults?
If you spend a lot of time listening to sounds and music carefully, you will learn to hear a lot more than an occasional, casual listener. Like most things, the more time and energy you put into it, the better you get.
Asking for a T&M is a short cut. There really is no short cut to trained hearing/listening.
THx-RNMarsh
Asking for a T&M is a short cut. There really is no short cut to trained hearing/listening.
THx-RNMarsh
I disagree. It's easy to measure a lot of the parameters involved. Don't forget the number of people who say silver cables sound bright. They read it and believe it.
You are basically dismissing ANY attempt to find common ground between the ears only glommers and a science and engineering based approach preferring to just fall back on ears only (10kHz BW plus tinnitus ears).
I don't trust my ears enough.
You misunderstand. I have repeatedly said I am not interested in doing the measurement and associated research myself, I am not equipped for it either. I also have limited hobby time available and that isn't how I wish to spend it. However, I would be very happy for someone else to do it, as I suspect many others would. Apparently, nobody at all wants to do the work for fun (or for free) themselves, so it doesn't get done.
Bech and Zacharov IMO nailed it:
(Sören Bech, Nick Zacharov; Perceptual Audio Evaluation–Theory, Method
and Application; JohnWiley & Sons Ltd, 2006, xii)
(Sören Bech, Nick Zacharov; Perceptual Audio Evaluation–Theory, Method
and Application; JohnWiley & Sons Ltd, 2006, xii)
I had salvaged some silver -PTFE from B737/200 wing tank rewiring, only if I can find it.
It was happening to me almost every time I was upgrading to another cartridge or tonearm. “I haven’t heard that detail in this LP again”. No, wrong.
George
My wife and I volunteered for the Tiger Woods golf tournament in the Bahamas and one of the locals suggested that we go downtown for the Junkanoo. After a day of keeping a bunch of drunken billionaires in line it was a welcome relief.
As we hadn't gone beyond the limits of a DVM and scope I worry how you expect to mod state of the art DAC power supplies with no measurement capability at all?
Limited time I understand, but please respect my total incredulity on your cable listening results without some basics being done. For example the cable to shield C varies by conductor colour....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.