Re: Setting Some Test Conditions.........
Yeah, I could send two pairs as you suggest, but I'm not sure I see how that would be any more an advantage than if I sent you a single pair with the ends properly marked and let you flip 'em around any way you want.
Well the designation pretty much takes care of itself. If there's an image shift, then it would indicate one channel is opposite the other. If there is no image shift, then it would indicate that both channels are the same. So it really doesn't matter whether you designate a pair as "image shifted" or "wired opposite."
There will be a distinct, common marking for each end.
What I'll do is make up all the pairs continguously from the same spool keeping the ends all the same, i.e., one end will always be the end of the wire on the spool.
Then I'll randomly determine which pairs remain the same and which pairs will be reversed. Once that's done, they'll all be marked the same at each end so that all pairs that are wired the same will all be the same with respect to each other.
There will be no specific source end or load end. Only a common designation for each end. You can listen to them whichever way you want.
Yes. Each channel's interconnect will be made up of four strands braided together with the strands remaining consistent throughout all test pairs.
se
mrfeedback said:
Yeah, I could send two pairs as you suggest, but I'm not sure I see how that would be any more an advantage than if I sent you a single pair with the ends properly marked and let you flip 'em around any way you want.
Well the designation pretty much takes care of itself. If there's an image shift, then it would indicate one channel is opposite the other. If there is no image shift, then it would indicate that both channels are the same. So it really doesn't matter whether you designate a pair as "image shifted" or "wired opposite."
There will be a distinct, common marking for each end.
What I'll do is make up all the pairs continguously from the same spool keeping the ends all the same, i.e., one end will always be the end of the wire on the spool.
Then I'll randomly determine which pairs remain the same and which pairs will be reversed. Once that's done, they'll all be marked the same at each end so that all pairs that are wired the same will all be the same with respect to each other.
There will be no specific source end or load end. Only a common designation for each end. You can listen to them whichever way you want.
Yes. Each channel's interconnect will be made up of four strands braided together with the strands remaining consistent throughout all test pairs.
se
Re: Keep it simple
Right.
Everything will be consistent EXCEPT for one half of the pairs that get reversed.
In other words, if we call the end of the wire coming off the spool the "bottom" and the point at which it's cut from the spool the "top" then every interconnect, including the strands making them up will have their tops at the top and their bottoms at the bottom.
Once the pairs are made up, then those pairs which will be reversed will have one half of the pair flipped around so it's bottom is at the top and it's top is at the bottom.
Exactly. Without cheating of course. 🙂
And back to rehashing 20 year old arguments. Ugh.
Yes. Nor any conclusive knowledge that it's not. Still stuck in limbo.
Yes. And I tell you, it would REALLY be nice to finally put SOMETHING to rest for a change.
se
Christer said:
Right.
Everything will be consistent EXCEPT for one half of the pairs that get reversed.
In other words, if we call the end of the wire coming off the spool the "bottom" and the point at which it's cut from the spool the "top" then every interconnect, including the strands making them up will have their tops at the top and their bottoms at the bottom.
Once the pairs are made up, then those pairs which will be reversed will have one half of the pair flipped around so it's bottom is at the top and it's top is at the bottom.
Exactly. Without cheating of course. 🙂
And back to rehashing 20 year old arguments. Ugh.
Yes. Nor any conclusive knowledge that it's not. Still stuck in limbo.
Yes. And I tell you, it would REALLY be nice to finally put SOMETHING to rest for a change.
se
Hi, guys. Fast pop-in between meetings here. These Chileans are brilliant, they've got trees which bloom in October!
Anyway, a couple of random comments:
1. A control is probably inappropriate here. We´re just trying to determine "same" or "different."
2. Twenty pairs should be no big deal. If you're talking about perceived image shifts so dramatic that a balance control can't even recenter, this should take about a minute per trial.
3. I'd be looking for a 0.05 significance (95% confidence) before I would try publishing.
4. If you think that this or any other thest will put deeply and emotionally held beliefs to rest (choose your side!), you've got better drugs in Sacramento than we have in the Bay Area.
Anyway, a couple of random comments:
1. A control is probably inappropriate here. We´re just trying to determine "same" or "different."
2. Twenty pairs should be no big deal. If you're talking about perceived image shifts so dramatic that a balance control can't even recenter, this should take about a minute per trial.
3. I'd be looking for a 0.05 significance (95% confidence) before I would try publishing.
4. If you think that this or any other thest will put deeply and emotionally held beliefs to rest (choose your side!), you've got better drugs in Sacramento than we have in the Bay Area.
Hi,
Glad to see you're back...I enjoyed Santiago too.
Plaza Major and such places and very nice people they are indeed.
And you you didn't bring back any tubes? Plenty of RCA stuff there...
Great seafood too.🙂
I've never made a big issue out of this, to me there are far more important design factors to audio than this one.
It came as a surprise to me that the solid core powercord test didn't bring a difference...I wonder why.
To my mind this is far more noticeable than wire directionality for instance.
Let's see what shows up at the door apart from the cloack and dagger guys...😀
Cheers,😉
Glad to see you're back...I enjoyed Santiago too.
Plaza Major and such places and very nice people they are indeed.
And you you didn't bring back any tubes? Plenty of RCA stuff there...
Great seafood too.🙂
I've never made a big issue out of this, to me there are far more important design factors to audio than this one.
It came as a surprise to me that the solid core powercord test didn't bring a difference...I wonder why.
To my mind this is far more noticeable than wire directionality for instance.
Let's see what shows up at the door apart from the cloack and dagger guys...😀
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:
Is it my memory playing tricks, thought you warned him about
the seafood before he left? 🙂
I've got that impression from you and Eric too, and it makes
me wonder if directed cables is the best place to start if
actually trying to go for a scientifically valid experiment.
We had the proposed experiment of SY and Dorkus last winter,
trying to determine the audibility of passive components that
also seems unsettled scientifically. Maybe something like that
would be a better start? Wouldn't cause quite as high values
on the Richter scale in the academic world as directed cables,
but ...
Hi,
True but it tasted fine and I enjoyed it nonetheless...I'm not even 100% sure that's what got me ill in the first place...
Main thing is, SY's back and seemed to have enjoyed his stay...
Chile is an extraordinary country, anyway you look at it.
Sure. I think that's still on SY's agenda somewhere but to me at least that's beyond any question of a doubt...any component does have a sonic fingerprint, no question about it.
Wires are much harder to pin down.
I do believe in the benefits of solid core throughout and pure silver throughout too...
That's just my experience...
Cheers,😉
True but it tasted fine and I enjoyed it nonetheless...I'm not even 100% sure that's what got me ill in the first place...
Main thing is, SY's back and seemed to have enjoyed his stay...
Chile is an extraordinary country, anyway you look at it.
Sure. I think that's still on SY's agenda somewhere but to me at least that's beyond any question of a doubt...any component does have a sonic fingerprint, no question about it.
Wires are much harder to pin down.
I do believe in the benefits of solid core throughout and pure silver throughout too...
That's just my experience...
Cheers,😉
Christer said:
What do you have in mind that would be able to be self-administered remotely as this one?
What I particularly like about this is that it's not terribly difficult at all to supply two different conditions that the particpants won't be able to determine by any means other than sound.
About the only other thing I could think of that could work along these same lines would be something like wire purity.
Otherwise, I can't think of how the tests could be carried out remotely other than using something like an ABX comparator.
se
fdegrove said:
Ok. So perhaps we might be able to come up with some ways in which two different components could be compared in a similar way that we're doing the wire direction where the two components being compared would appear otherwise identical to the listener.
Any suggestions?
I'm just down the street from Mills Resistor and might be able to enlist their help if you've any ideas as far as wirewound resistors go.
se
Hi,
Similar procedure as for the cable?
The why is beyond me but for sience's sake...why not?
Lucky b*stard...well I've got Philips and Siemens begging at my doorstep to contend to this test already ...kidding.
We better do this now, globalisation isn't going to help sorting out product...
It ain't easy...
Cheers,😉
Similar procedure as for the cable?
The why is beyond me but for sience's sake...why not?
Lucky b*stard...well I've got Philips and Siemens begging at my doorstep to contend to this test already ...kidding.
We better do this now, globalisation isn't going to help sorting out product...
It ain't easy...
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:
Pretty much, yes.
Philips and Siemens? Mass market dreck! 🙂
Personally I don't know why we shouldn't proceed with the directionality tests, at least with Eric seeing as he's indicated that the effect is quite apparent, even to others he's demonstrated it to.
se
Hi,
Who said anything about holding anything....??
I said keep it going before all mayonaise tastes the same, capisce?
Ciao bambino,😉
Who said anything about holding anything....??
I said keep it going before all mayonaise tastes the same, capisce?
Ciao bambino,😉
fdegrove said:
You'd said wires are harder to pin down and I thought you were going along with Christer's notion of opting for something other than wire directionality for the listening tests.
All mayonnaise does taste the same. I'm not aware of any double-blind tests indicating otherwise. 🙂
se
Southern Hemisphere anyone?
Weve got Trees that bloom in October in Australia too Its called spring 😉
Regards,
Tony.
SY said:
Weve got Trees that bloom in October in Australia too Its called spring 😉
Regards,
Tony.
Steve Eddy said:
No you're right, since neither Eric nor Frank seem to have any
doubts about it, let's go. I was merely thinking, that since
there are so many various things claimed audible and not
properly verified, maybe one shouldn't start with the one
that even Eric and Frank seem to consider one of the most
subtle and hardest to detect. On the other hand, if we can
prove audibility on this, we will end up much higher on the
Richter scale than if doing a test on, for instance, capacitors. 🙂
Christer said:
Quite so. And the level of scrutiny of such results will be commensurately higher as well.
se
Suggestion for control
You can use a control to quantify the possibility of visual cues, as follows:
Make a set of cables and send them to someone else. His job will be to try to guess if they're 'normal' or 'reversed' by purely visual means (i.e. anything other than sending a signal down them and listening to it). He returns the results in the same way as the 'listeners'.
If the control guesses the direction as well or better than the listeners, the experiment is void because Steve must have left some visual cues in somehow. Fix these and repeat.
Otherwise, we can conclude that ability to identify normal/reversed is based on something actually audible.
Any volunteers for a control ?
Cheers
IH
You can use a control to quantify the possibility of visual cues, as follows:
Make a set of cables and send them to someone else. His job will be to try to guess if they're 'normal' or 'reversed' by purely visual means (i.e. anything other than sending a signal down them and listening to it). He returns the results in the same way as the 'listeners'.
If the control guesses the direction as well or better than the listeners, the experiment is void because Steve must have left some visual cues in somehow. Fix these and repeat.
Otherwise, we can conclude that ability to identify normal/reversed is based on something actually audible.
Any volunteers for a control ?
Cheers
IH
Re: Suggestion for control
That doesn't necessarily mean that the test listneners used visual cues. But it is vitally important to make sure that there are no visual cues in the cables.
And we had already planned to have them visually inspected both by myself and a second party, most likely SY. Both before they go out and after they come back.
So I think we already have that base covered.
se
IanHarvey said:
That doesn't necessarily mean that the test listneners used visual cues. But it is vitally important to make sure that there are no visual cues in the cables.
And we had already planned to have them visually inspected both by myself and a second party, most likely SY. Both before they go out and after they come back.
So I think we already have that base covered.
se
Re: Suggestion for control
Since you talk about comparing with the listeners, do you mean
the visual inspector should also get 100 pairs? I was about to
say it would be sufficient to just check one pair and decide if
there is any visible difference at all, but thinking about it,
inspecting a full batch of 100 pairs would be a better way.
It will add to the $$$$$$ of course.
I could do it. I trust my eyes much better than my ears, but I
suppose it is better to find someone as close to Steve as
possible to save a few bucks.
Edit: Just saw that Steve had already answered.
IanHarvey said:
Since you talk about comparing with the listeners, do you mean
the visual inspector should also get 100 pairs? I was about to
say it would be sufficient to just check one pair and decide if
there is any visible difference at all, but thinking about it,
inspecting a full batch of 100 pairs would be a better way.
It will add to the $$$$$$ of course.
I could do it. I trust my eyes much better than my ears, but I
suppose it is better to find someone as close to Steve as
possible to save a few bucks.
Edit: Just saw that Steve had already answered.
One Step at A Time.................
Most plastic or enamel insulated wires do not visually reveal direction.
I am perfectly happy to just plug the initial cables into my systems and honestly not visually inspect them.
Three single channel cables are enough for Frank and I to report whether we reliably hear two the same and one different or not (according to Steves's markings), for this initial example type of cable.
One cable marked as reference (and this reference direction consistent), and the other two as variable is an option in this triplet testing.
This triplet cable test might actually be the most reliable test - if Frank and I were to subsequently test multiple triplets and get say 20 triplets 100% correct, this would be a pretty watertight case for directional audibility in at least some cases (our systems).
Another option is to judge 19 single channel cables with respect to a single reference cable.
For such an initial test involving Frank and I, cables without connectors is perfectly appropriate and saves Steve materials and shipping costs.
I reserve my right to report my findings based on group listenings on various systems.
In such case I would (with permission) credit the listeners and the describe the systems used.
In my understanding, collective findings ought to actually increase the statistical validity of correct findings.
Eric / - Getting sick of endless banter - Steve, just send us three cables and we will report in a few days - Group opinions will take a few days longer.
I (and Frank) expect published credits and financial reward for positive gains, financial or intellectual by SE founded on this initial and subsequent testing.
Most plastic or enamel insulated wires do not visually reveal direction.
I am perfectly happy to just plug the initial cables into my systems and honestly not visually inspect them.
Three single channel cables are enough for Frank and I to report whether we reliably hear two the same and one different or not (according to Steves's markings), for this initial example type of cable.
One cable marked as reference (and this reference direction consistent), and the other two as variable is an option in this triplet testing.
This triplet cable test might actually be the most reliable test - if Frank and I were to subsequently test multiple triplets and get say 20 triplets 100% correct, this would be a pretty watertight case for directional audibility in at least some cases (our systems).
Another option is to judge 19 single channel cables with respect to a single reference cable.
For such an initial test involving Frank and I, cables without connectors is perfectly appropriate and saves Steve materials and shipping costs.
I reserve my right to report my findings based on group listenings on various systems.
In such case I would (with permission) credit the listeners and the describe the systems used.
In my understanding, collective findings ought to actually increase the statistical validity of correct findings.
Eric / - Getting sick of endless banter - Steve, just send us three cables and we will report in a few days - Group opinions will take a few days longer.
I (and Frank) expect published credits and financial reward for positive gains, financial or intellectual by SE founded on this initial and subsequent testing.
Re: One Step at A Time.................
Sure.
That's fine. And these will be unterminated, yes?
Agreed. But again, any positive result will be quite an extraordinary claim to many who will demand extraordinary proof, hence my deside to go to 5 trials if possible.
Yeah, but if what Frank said has any merit and the effect diminishes with use, then your single reference cable will be running out of steam along the way. That's why I'd prefer to use pairs so that no single cable is run any longer than any other.
Don't think it'd save much on shipping costs unless we were going to use some big heavy connectors like WBTs or something. But it certainly helps with material costs.
mrfeedback said:
Sure.
That's fine. And these will be unterminated, yes?
Agreed. But again, any positive result will be quite an extraordinary claim to many who will demand extraordinary proof, hence my deside to go to 5 trials if possible.
Yeah, but if what Frank said has any merit and the effect diminishes with use, then your single reference cable will be running out of steam along the way. That's why I'd prefer to use pairs so that no single cable is run any longer than any other.
Don't think it'd save much on shipping costs unless we were going to use some big heavy connectors like WBTs or something. But it certainly helps with material costs.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.