Frank Knows About It.............
"I agree with Eric that if you reverse only one channel at the time it gives you an odd, shifted stereo image with one channel seemingly louder than the other.
On first listen yes, one channel will seem louder, but this is due to ear/brain interpreting the first arrival of two identical signals as louder.
On closer listen phase (arrival time) difference will be revealled.
The effect is similar to having one channel with the polarity reversed albeit not as pronounced."
Yeah, sort of.
Either condition described above destoys coherency of the two channels, and a wrong widening of central mono images, and this is one of the cues to listen out for.
I expect that most of you here have never fine adjusted the head azimuth on a tape player when using headphones, and this may be instructional to you.
When a tape head is far out of azimuth, there is a large discrepency in channel FR, amplitude and phase.
As the head nears alignment FR, amplitude and relative phase become more similar.
Correct azimuth (for the particular pre-recorded tape) coincides with correct channel phase incidence (coherence).
This is where the listening skill bit comes in.
When fine tuning azimuth the parameter to listen for is CENTRAL centre imaging.
Amplitude and FR irregularities have to be mentally ignored, and only relative phase (coherence) listened for.
Similar listening skill applies when listening for wire/cable direction effects.
Eric.
"I agree with Eric that if you reverse only one channel at the time it gives you an odd, shifted stereo image with one channel seemingly louder than the other.
On first listen yes, one channel will seem louder, but this is due to ear/brain interpreting the first arrival of two identical signals as louder.
On closer listen phase (arrival time) difference will be revealled.
The effect is similar to having one channel with the polarity reversed albeit not as pronounced."
Yeah, sort of.
Either condition described above destoys coherency of the two channels, and a wrong widening of central mono images, and this is one of the cues to listen out for.
I expect that most of you here have never fine adjusted the head azimuth on a tape player when using headphones, and this may be instructional to you.
When a tape head is far out of azimuth, there is a large discrepency in channel FR, amplitude and phase.
As the head nears alignment FR, amplitude and relative phase become more similar.
Correct azimuth (for the particular pre-recorded tape) coincides with correct channel phase incidence (coherence).
This is where the listening skill bit comes in.
When fine tuning azimuth the parameter to listen for is CENTRAL centre imaging.
Amplitude and FR irregularities have to be mentally ignored, and only relative phase (coherence) listened for.
Similar listening skill applies when listening for wire/cable direction effects.
Eric.
Re: Bring It On............
Great. The more the merrier.
Nope. You can come up with all the physics you want. Any rational person would still question whether the effect is actually audible.
Good.
That presupposes an actual change. You can rather trivially induce false perception even in experienced listeners when no actual change has been made. That I've demonstrated this to myself enough times is why I don't automatically assume that even my own perceptions are accurate reflections of any physical reality.
I think it's a perfect example. Especially for those who either dismiss psychological effects completely out of hand or who believe they're somehow immune to them.
Which is why I didn't ask a sample group from the local football club to participate in this. I asked you, seeing as you have already indicated that you are sensitive to this phenomenon and have considerable experience with it.
I don't mean anything in particular. I'm not ascribing any particular probability here. I was just quoting Holmes. His point was simply that just because it might seem improbable, it's the truth just the same.
I don't. But by the same token don't you forget that not all observed audio effects have anything to do with the physics of our audio systems.
Which again is why I tried to enlist you. If your claims are to be believed, then if there is anything to this, then you should have no problem at all demonstrating actual audibility under blind conditions.
Great. I'm willing.
Like I said, the more the merrier.
Ok. Looks like Frank might be using unterminated wires.
By the way, since your standard cheap gold RCAs have a nickel layer beneath the gold, is there really much point in the gold? In other words, how 'bout nickel over brass?
Three? I can flip a coin three times and have it come up the same each time but it doesn't mean anything in particular.
No, what I want to do is use pairs since you say that having one channel opposite the other makes the most marked difference and it won't require any switching. And I want to go with a minimum of 20 left/right pairs and at least 4 or 5 trials in order to get a higher level of confidence.
Remember, establishing actual audibility is ultimately statistics.
How 'bout a simple quad braid of solid core wire? Either basic hookup wire, wirewrap wire, or the Vampire magnet wire I'd mentioned previously?
Of course.
Well, there would be an identifier on the end just so that all cables will have the same reference, even if the wire making them up is of opposite direction.
Not quite what I had in mind.
What I would do is send you 20 left/right pairs. Some of those pairs will have both the left and the right wired in the same direction. Some will be wired with one channel the opposite direction of the other.
What you would do is try each pair. If there's an image shift, the pair would be wired opposite. If there's not an image shift, the pair would be wired the same. You would simply notate which pairs resulted in an image shift.
Great. Looking forward to it.
se
mrfeedback said:
Great. The more the merrier.
Nope. You can come up with all the physics you want. Any rational person would still question whether the effect is actually audible.
Good.
That presupposes an actual change. You can rather trivially induce false perception even in experienced listeners when no actual change has been made. That I've demonstrated this to myself enough times is why I don't automatically assume that even my own perceptions are accurate reflections of any physical reality.
I think it's a perfect example. Especially for those who either dismiss psychological effects completely out of hand or who believe they're somehow immune to them.
Which is why I didn't ask a sample group from the local football club to participate in this. I asked you, seeing as you have already indicated that you are sensitive to this phenomenon and have considerable experience with it.
I don't mean anything in particular. I'm not ascribing any particular probability here. I was just quoting Holmes. His point was simply that just because it might seem improbable, it's the truth just the same.
I don't. But by the same token don't you forget that not all observed audio effects have anything to do with the physics of our audio systems.
Which again is why I tried to enlist you. If your claims are to be believed, then if there is anything to this, then you should have no problem at all demonstrating actual audibility under blind conditions.
Great. I'm willing.
Like I said, the more the merrier.
Ok. Looks like Frank might be using unterminated wires.
By the way, since your standard cheap gold RCAs have a nickel layer beneath the gold, is there really much point in the gold? In other words, how 'bout nickel over brass?
Three? I can flip a coin three times and have it come up the same each time but it doesn't mean anything in particular.
No, what I want to do is use pairs since you say that having one channel opposite the other makes the most marked difference and it won't require any switching. And I want to go with a minimum of 20 left/right pairs and at least 4 or 5 trials in order to get a higher level of confidence.
Remember, establishing actual audibility is ultimately statistics.
How 'bout a simple quad braid of solid core wire? Either basic hookup wire, wirewrap wire, or the Vampire magnet wire I'd mentioned previously?
Of course.
Well, there would be an identifier on the end just so that all cables will have the same reference, even if the wire making them up is of opposite direction.
Not quite what I had in mind.
What I would do is send you 20 left/right pairs. Some of those pairs will have both the left and the right wired in the same direction. Some will be wired with one channel the opposite direction of the other.
What you would do is try each pair. If there's an image shift, the pair would be wired opposite. If there's not an image shift, the pair would be wired the same. You would simply notate which pairs resulted in an image shift.
Great. Looking forward to it.
se
So since you say that the "reversing" of an interconect can make one signal delayed enough to make the other channel sound louder because the sound arives earlier. I assume that you can sit with your ears within a cm of where you sat before you swapped cables?
Even if there was a delay, the difference it would make would be so negligable. I would put money on the fact that you could not blindly AB cables 10 out of 10 times if I had a 30 cm cable and a 300 cm cable.
Anyone who believes in cable directionality is full of it. Plain and simple. Interconnects, speaker cables anything. Different types of cables etc, yeah, a difference.
Show me that a PCB has directionality to it, and I'll laugh twice as hard, that means my eyeballs may fall out.
You are full of it, now be quiet, well I guess this thread is to be loud, otherwise I wouldnt have posted this.
Even if there was a delay, the difference it would make would be so negligable. I would put money on the fact that you could not blindly AB cables 10 out of 10 times if I had a 30 cm cable and a 300 cm cable.
Anyone who believes in cable directionality is full of it. Plain and simple. Interconnects, speaker cables anything. Different types of cables etc, yeah, a difference.
Show me that a PCB has directionality to it, and I'll laugh twice as hard, that means my eyeballs may fall out.
You are full of it, now be quiet, well I guess this thread is to be loud, otherwise I wouldnt have posted this.
PaulHilgeman said:
see my post on the last (0r maby 2 pages ago) about measurable phase or amplitude differences. seems to be the PERFECT test.
BTW, i'm just waiting to see interconnects and speaker wire coming in matched or complementary pairs...
"By the way, since your standard cheap gold RCAs have a nickel layer beneath the gold, is there really much point in the gold? In other words, how 'bout nickel over brass? "
I mainly used those as an example of what is cheap, easily available and servicable.
I suppose not - whatever is cheap and servicable will do.
We are listening to wires and not connectors.
Cheap connectors may emphasise the effect, or maybe hide it.
"Three? I can flip a coin three times and have it come up the same each time but it doesn't mean anything in particular."
Ok so you want a bigger sample size - how big is up to you.
"How 'bout a simple quad braid of solid core wire? Either basic hookup wire, wirewrap wire, or the Vampire magnet wire I'd mentioned previously?"
Solid core enammelled winding wire is probably perfectly fine, but coax sounds easier, and coax could be expected to be more uniform (L,C,R) than hand made braid.
Braided quad I suppose should be ok, BUT all four strands would need to be in the same direction, and interconnect pairs would need to be contiguous.
By this I mean cut 8 lengths from the reel - Pieces 1, 2, 3 & 4 go into say left channel interconnect, and 5, 6, 7 & 8 go into say right channel interconnect - repeat this 20 times.
Do not cut 160 lengths and then randomly assemble these into braided interconnects.
I say this because of considerations of uniformity over the length of the reel - 4 contiguous strands could be expected to be more similar than strands randomly positioned on the reel.
"What you would do is try each pair. If there's an image shift, the pair would be wired opposite. If there's not an image shift, the pair would be wired the same. You would simply notate which pairs resulted in an image shift."
That sounds straight forward based on my previous experience.
Tell me when you are ready.
Eric.
I mainly used those as an example of what is cheap, easily available and servicable.
I suppose not - whatever is cheap and servicable will do.
We are listening to wires and not connectors.
Cheap connectors may emphasise the effect, or maybe hide it.
"Three? I can flip a coin three times and have it come up the same each time but it doesn't mean anything in particular."
Ok so you want a bigger sample size - how big is up to you.
"How 'bout a simple quad braid of solid core wire? Either basic hookup wire, wirewrap wire, or the Vampire magnet wire I'd mentioned previously?"
Solid core enammelled winding wire is probably perfectly fine, but coax sounds easier, and coax could be expected to be more uniform (L,C,R) than hand made braid.
Braided quad I suppose should be ok, BUT all four strands would need to be in the same direction, and interconnect pairs would need to be contiguous.
By this I mean cut 8 lengths from the reel - Pieces 1, 2, 3 & 4 go into say left channel interconnect, and 5, 6, 7 & 8 go into say right channel interconnect - repeat this 20 times.
Do not cut 160 lengths and then randomly assemble these into braided interconnects.
I say this because of considerations of uniformity over the length of the reel - 4 contiguous strands could be expected to be more similar than strands randomly positioned on the reel.
"What you would do is try each pair. If there's an image shift, the pair would be wired opposite. If there's not an image shift, the pair would be wired the same. You would simply notate which pairs resulted in an image shift."
That sounds straight forward based on my previous experience.
Tell me when you are ready.
Eric.
By the way, I remembered that Steve Lampen of Belden did some directionality tests back in the late 90s. I dug through my back issues of Speaker Builder magazine and found the 3/98 issue in which Steve had written up the results.
I don't care to rehash the results, rather I wanted to call attention to the following quote from the article:
All the copper used in this test was drawn down (reduced in size) from one single copper ingot. Drawing consists of pusing the copper back and forth through a series of dies to achieve the desired gauge size. Unlike standard drawing, which takes place in both directions, all drawing for this experiment was done in only one direction in order to determine whether directionality is influenced by how the conductor is drawn.
I bring this up because those who suspect that directionality is due to wire drawing seem to assume that the wire is drawn unidirectionally through the dies. However it apparently is standard practice to draw the wire bidirectionally.
se
I don't care to rehash the results, rather I wanted to call attention to the following quote from the article:
All the copper used in this test was drawn down (reduced in size) from one single copper ingot. Drawing consists of pusing the copper back and forth through a series of dies to achieve the desired gauge size. Unlike standard drawing, which takes place in both directions, all drawing for this experiment was done in only one direction in order to determine whether directionality is influenced by how the conductor is drawn.
I bring this up because those who suspect that directionality is due to wire drawing seem to assume that the wire is drawn unidirectionally through the dies. However it apparently is standard practice to draw the wire bidirectionally.
se
So presumably wire drawn in one direction only would have a more marked effect ?.
What else did he say in his article.
Eric.
What else did he say in his article.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
Which is why I want to send an initial single pair in which you'll know which ends are which so you can first make sure that you can confidently identify the difference. If that's a go, then I'll follow up with the test pairs.
Since you'll have to listen to all of 'em, it's ultimately up to you. 🙂
The braiding won't be a problem. And it's quite consistent. Unlike twisting, with braiding the diameter of the wire seems to determine the pitch.
Do not cut 160 lengths and then randomly assemble these into braided interconnects.
I say this because of considerations of uniformity over the length of the reel - 4 contiguous strands could be expected to be more similar than strands randomly positioned on the reel.[/QUOTE]
Understood. That's just how I planned to do it. I'll also keep things more consistent within each pair.
Okie doke.
I'll let you know when I've got the initial reference pair ready and you can EMail me a shipping address.
se
mrfeedback said:
That's what he wanted to find out. That had been the most common claim as to the cause of directionality so he had the test wires made up drawn in one direction only.
Basically that the listening test results didn't show anything statistically significant.
Those statistics were based on the 22 wire kits they'd had returned out of the 78 people who'd requested the kits.
However one of the 22 participants got 9 out of 10 correct (they were sent 10 pieces of wire and asked to listen and identify them by direction). While I hardly think that's conclusive (I've flipped coins the same 9 out of 10), I think it would be worth giving that person another go at it in order to see if it was just an anomaly or if perhaps something else.
I don't consider the results conclusive of anything. There are quite a lot of things which are known to be audible but the average person probably wouldn't be able to reliably identify without without listener training if at all. So that even if something were audible, it wouldn't necessarily show up in statistics which are averaged across multiple individuals.
se
Trans Continental Cable Test.
"Which is why I want to send an initial single pair in which you'll know which ends are which so you can first make sure that you can confidently identify the difference. If that's a go, then I'll follow up with the test pairs."
Yes, that sounds like a useful direction to me.
Perhaps make that a pair with coax too.
"I'll let you know when I've got the initial reference pair ready and you can EMail me a shipping address."
Fine, and I look forward to this.
Eric.
"Which is why I want to send an initial single pair in which you'll know which ends are which so you can first make sure that you can confidently identify the difference. If that's a go, then I'll follow up with the test pairs."
Yes, that sounds like a useful direction to me.
Perhaps make that a pair with coax too.
"I'll let you know when I've got the initial reference pair ready and you can EMail me a shipping address."
Fine, and I look forward to this.
Eric.
"I don't consider the results conclusive of anything. There are quite a lot of things which are known to be audible but the average person probably wouldn't be able to reliably identify without without listener training if at all. So that even if something were audible, it wouldn't necessarily show up in statistics which are averaged across multiple individuals."
Yes, the key here is the listening skills of the participants - no boofhead footballers need apply.
Eric.
Yes, the key here is the listening skills of the participants - no boofhead footballers need apply.
Eric.
Re: Trans Continental Cable Test.
I really hate coax and terminating it to RCAs which weren't specifically made for coax is a bit of a pain in the ***. So unless coax has a more profound effect than a braided quad would, I'd just as soon stick with the braided quad. I'd rather braid than futz with soldering braided shield and I think the connections would be more consistent.
se
mrfeedback said:
I really hate coax and terminating it to RCAs which weren't specifically made for coax is a bit of a pain in the ***. So unless coax has a more profound effect than a braided quad would, I'd just as soon stick with the braided quad. I'd rather braid than futz with soldering braided shield and I think the connections would be more consistent.
se
By the way, it should be obvious that this endeavor relies on a certain amount of trust. Specifically, trust in me and that I will be honest as to how the cable pairs are encoded. If I had a mind to I could sabotage any chance of this test giving positive results simply by lying about the encoding of the cables sent to the participants.
Because if the results if these tests don't turn out to be what some are hoping or expecting them to be, I don't want to be made the scapegoat with accusations of dishonesty on my part.
So before we take this any farther we need to get the issue of trust resolved.
Do you two (Eric and Frank) trust me to carry out these tests in an honest fashion? Or would you prefer to try and work this through a mutually trusted third party?
se
Because if the results if these tests don't turn out to be what some are hoping or expecting them to be, I don't want to be made the scapegoat with accusations of dishonesty on my part.
So before we take this any farther we need to get the issue of trust resolved.
Do you two (Eric and Frank) trust me to carry out these tests in an honest fashion? Or would you prefer to try and work this through a mutually trusted third party?
se
SimontY said:
Sorry to be cynical here, but considering the guy owns a HIFI shop and sells Kimber Kable, can we really conclude that this is an objective article and not just a sales pitch to drum up more sales?
I'm not going to enter an opinion one way or the other on the directionality issue.
One thing I would like to know is whether there has been any scientific proof that oxygen free copper is better? I buy OFC cables simply because I think for the extra money, if it does make a difference it is worth it, and if it doesn't then I haven't really wasted that much (note I don't buy the really expensive stuff, where talking maybe an extra $10 to $20 over a standard cable). I remember reading an article quite a few years ago where a guy was stating that the idea OFC made a difference was complete rubbish, but have never really checked it out.
Regards,
Tony.
PS sorry if this has been discussed to death before, point me at a thread if it has.
I'm not impossible (the funny continuation)
Last night I wrote about my quick experiment with reversing
my CD interconnects. As I said, it was late and I should really
have tucked in already. Anyway, I found that I could possibly
hear a difference when reversing the interconnects.
So, now comes the funny thing, I just found this morning that
I had accidentally plugged my headphones into the CDP, not
the amp!!!! That is, the possibly perceived difference must
have been imagined, since the interconnect was not involved
in the test at all. OK, some may say that the inteconnects may
still affect the sound in the headphone jack of the CDP. Might
be so, but hardly to such an extent that the possible subtle
effects of the direction of the interconnects would matter.
I think this is a good example of how easy it is to delude
oneself, and I am usually a very sceptical nature, by habit
and profession.
Last night I wrote about my quick experiment with reversing
my CD interconnects. As I said, it was late and I should really
have tucked in already. Anyway, I found that I could possibly
hear a difference when reversing the interconnects.
So, now comes the funny thing, I just found this morning that
I had accidentally plugged my headphones into the CDP, not
the amp!!!! That is, the possibly perceived difference must
have been imagined, since the interconnect was not involved
in the test at all. OK, some may say that the inteconnects may
still affect the sound in the headphone jack of the CDP. Might
be so, but hardly to such an extent that the possible subtle
effects of the direction of the interconnects would matter.
I think this is a good example of how easy it is to delude
oneself, and I am usually a very sceptical nature, by habit
and profession.
Hi,
Sure, what point would there possibly be in cheating?
As far is the wire configuration goes, anything's fine by me as long as you can draw conclusions from it statistically.
When in doubt repeat the test the next day or so.
Cheers, 😉
Sure, what point would there possibly be in cheating?
As far is the wire configuration goes, anything's fine by me as long as you can draw conclusions from it statistically.
When in doubt repeat the test the next day or so.
Cheers, 😉
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
By the way, it should be obvious that this endeavor relies on a certain amount of trust. Specifically, trust in me and that I will be honest as to how the cable pairs are encoded. If I had a mind to I could sabotage any chance of this test giving positive results simply by lying about the encoding of the cables sent to the participants.
Yes, this has crossed my mind, but I have faith that you would not do this.
Because if the results if these tests don't turn out to be what some are hoping or expecting them to be, I don't want to be made the scapegoat with accusations of dishonesty on my part
Sure, if the listening results do correlate, then everybody will be happy, except we will then need to flesh out the actual physical causes.
It is important to note that a dual (Frank and I) positive result will not prove audibilty under all conditions.
If Frank's and my tests do not correlate, perhaps then the test conditions need to be looked at more closely, or there is indeed no audibly noticable difference under the experimental conditions.
Neither of these null results though will actually prove non-directionality under all conditions however.
I do say this because I have distinctly heard directional differences previously, but under different experimental conditions to what Frank or I are likely to use this time.
So before we take this any farther we need to get the issue of trust resolved.
Do you two (Eric and Frank) trust me to carry out these tests in an honest fashion? Or would you prefer to try and work this through a mutually trusted third party?
To remove any doubts from onlookers, it may be prudent to send your records to a third party (SY perhaps ?), and then you, Frank and I confer through SY.
The only way do this testing is scientifically, sensibly and honestly.
Eric.
By the way, it should be obvious that this endeavor relies on a certain amount of trust. Specifically, trust in me and that I will be honest as to how the cable pairs are encoded. If I had a mind to I could sabotage any chance of this test giving positive results simply by lying about the encoding of the cables sent to the participants.
Yes, this has crossed my mind, but I have faith that you would not do this.
Because if the results if these tests don't turn out to be what some are hoping or expecting them to be, I don't want to be made the scapegoat with accusations of dishonesty on my part
Sure, if the listening results do correlate, then everybody will be happy, except we will then need to flesh out the actual physical causes.
It is important to note that a dual (Frank and I) positive result will not prove audibilty under all conditions.
If Frank's and my tests do not correlate, perhaps then the test conditions need to be looked at more closely, or there is indeed no audibly noticable difference under the experimental conditions.
Neither of these null results though will actually prove non-directionality under all conditions however.
I do say this because I have distinctly heard directional differences previously, but under different experimental conditions to what Frank or I are likely to use this time.
So before we take this any farther we need to get the issue of trust resolved.
Do you two (Eric and Frank) trust me to carry out these tests in an honest fashion? Or would you prefer to try and work this through a mutually trusted third party?
To remove any doubts from onlookers, it may be prudent to send your records to a third party (SY perhaps ?), and then you, Frank and I confer through SY.
The only way do this testing is scientifically, sensibly and honestly.
Eric.
Christer, This Makes You Look Stupid, And Saying So Makes You Look Even Stupider.....
"OK, some may say that the inteconnects may
still affect the sound in the headphone jack of the CDP. Might
be so, but hardly to such an extent that the possible subtle
effects of the direction of the interconnects would matter."
If you are to take a closer look at the layout, you may indeed find that external cables can influence the headphone jack sonics.
You need to do more rigourous testing before making further remark.
Christer, in light of this elementary error, how are we ever to trust any of your opinions ???!!!!.
Eric.
"OK, some may say that the inteconnects may
still affect the sound in the headphone jack of the CDP. Might
be so, but hardly to such an extent that the possible subtle
effects of the direction of the interconnects would matter."
If you are to take a closer look at the layout, you may indeed find that external cables can influence the headphone jack sonics.
You need to do more rigourous testing before making further remark.
Christer, in light of this elementary error, how are we ever to trust any of your opinions ???!!!!.
Eric.
Cryptic Communications...............
Hi Stuart, sorry I missed your reply in all the exchanges that are going down.
Thankyou for Duncan's and your compliments.
In the correspondence that I have Duncan does not mention blind testing, but of course this is a valid comment.
If he is keen to do a re-trial (better examples this time please !), I am available and perfectly willing.
Regards, Eric.
SY said:
Hi Stuart, sorry I missed your reply in all the exchanges that are going down.
Thankyou for Duncan's and your compliments.
In the correspondence that I have Duncan does not mention blind testing, but of course this is a valid comment.
If he is keen to do a re-trial (better examples this time please !), I am available and perfectly willing.
Regards, Eric.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.