A Professional Opinion
A muso friend who has one of my balanced extension cables rang me today.
He reports that with my cable in series with his stage microphone he gets much better foldback sound, and very little foldback eq is required.
He has been using this cable for a few months now, and reports that consistently and over repeated experiments without this cable he has bad foldback sound, and with the cable much better foldback sound.
Cables can and do affect system sound.
Eric.
A muso friend who has one of my balanced extension cables rang me today.
He reports that with my cable in series with his stage microphone he gets much better foldback sound, and very little foldback eq is required.
He has been using this cable for a few months now, and reports that consistently and over repeated experiments without this cable he has bad foldback sound, and with the cable much better foldback sound.
Cables can and do affect system sound.
Eric.
Just as a matter of interest, can anyone quote or link to any sites that have carried out DBT and show a difference?
Koinichiwa,
I actually care very much. But I have good reasons for my questions. First, what you have been asking people to reliably identify comparably small differences (cables make audible differences but they are less in magnitude than for example running one stereo channel in the wrong polarity, but often more than polarity reversal of both channels) highly unfamilar settings.
One reason why there are (in the European Broadcast Industry) strignent standards for monitoring equipement and monitoring conditions is to remove the requirement for "familarisation". While I was still working in Sound (Live & Studio) I found it much easier to work, to recognise exactly what I was I doing if I could use my own Monitors and Amps (despite the fact that some people would deny them Monitor standard based on modern criteria) because I KNEW what they where doing. Being forced to use unknown monitors required me to acclimatise and familarise myself for many hours before I could discriminate as well as I could using my own setup nearfield....
So, the requirement to have a reasonable transparent and "objectively good" setup during test of the nature you did is essential. And yes, I am aware you could not hear the differences yourself in a familiar system, which is fine with me, but did you ever test yourself the same way using polarity reversal in one channel?
You are. And if someone claims large differences for cables in a very "casual" listening test and claims that these are universally applicable and hence we all should buy Brand X I will criticise them as readily, if no-one else does it first (which usually happens - as the "anti cable" fraction is by far more evangelical and fanatic than the "pro-cable" section).
Please note that I do not issue as such with your tests. I take issue with you proclaiming as being generally applicable and you insinuate that anyone who does hear differences in cables (under whatever conditions - even including my own blind tests) is delusional, as you claim to have "proven" that cables make no difference.
My issue is simply that you take an experiemnt that has not conformed to any reasonable standards be it in implementation or statistical analysis and claim it to provide gernally applicable results. OKAY?
I do not know if my setup is a "normal envoironment" as it mainly conforms to the requirements set, plus an in room frequency response fitting into the usual tolerance field for studio monitoring according to IRT guidelines), but I CAN reliably identify certain differences.
One example would be the same interconnect made up from RG-213 and from RG-214/mil. Both cbales are identical in mechanical and electrical terms, yet one has screen and center conductors silverplated (RG-214) while the other uses plain copper.
You may wish to try the same, taking care to have the other cables in the system selected for reasonable transparency - meaning no stranded junk, use at least basic Cat5 Speaker Cables and ideally RG-214 interconnects if you use a pre-power setup.
Sayonara
The Paulinator said:
I actually care very much. But I have good reasons for my questions. First, what you have been asking people to reliably identify comparably small differences (cables make audible differences but they are less in magnitude than for example running one stereo channel in the wrong polarity, but often more than polarity reversal of both channels) highly unfamilar settings.
One reason why there are (in the European Broadcast Industry) strignent standards for monitoring equipement and monitoring conditions is to remove the requirement for "familarisation". While I was still working in Sound (Live & Studio) I found it much easier to work, to recognise exactly what I was I doing if I could use my own Monitors and Amps (despite the fact that some people would deny them Monitor standard based on modern criteria) because I KNEW what they where doing. Being forced to use unknown monitors required me to acclimatise and familarise myself for many hours before I could discriminate as well as I could using my own setup nearfield....
So, the requirement to have a reasonable transparent and "objectively good" setup during test of the nature you did is essential. And yes, I am aware you could not hear the differences yourself in a familiar system, which is fine with me, but did you ever test yourself the same way using polarity reversal in one channel?
The Paulinator said:
You are. And if someone claims large differences for cables in a very "casual" listening test and claims that these are universally applicable and hence we all should buy Brand X I will criticise them as readily, if no-one else does it first (which usually happens - as the "anti cable" fraction is by far more evangelical and fanatic than the "pro-cable" section).
Please note that I do not issue as such with your tests. I take issue with you proclaiming as being generally applicable and you insinuate that anyone who does hear differences in cables (under whatever conditions - even including my own blind tests) is delusional, as you claim to have "proven" that cables make no difference.
My issue is simply that you take an experiemnt that has not conformed to any reasonable standards be it in implementation or statistical analysis and claim it to provide gernally applicable results. OKAY?
The Paulinator said:
I do not know if my setup is a "normal envoironment" as it mainly conforms to the requirements set, plus an in room frequency response fitting into the usual tolerance field for studio monitoring according to IRT guidelines), but I CAN reliably identify certain differences.
One example would be the same interconnect made up from RG-213 and from RG-214/mil. Both cbales are identical in mechanical and electrical terms, yet one has screen and center conductors silverplated (RG-214) while the other uses plain copper.
You may wish to try the same, taking care to have the other cables in the system selected for reasonable transparency - meaning no stranded junk, use at least basic Cat5 Speaker Cables and ideally RG-214 interconnects if you use a pre-power setup.
Sayonara
Koinichiwa,
Actually, you rarely seem to hang out in the major audio discussion groups (understandably - I don't either, the S/N ratio is abysimal). Everytime smeon reports a "casual" test with positive resul;ts he is being barked at and slapped down by the DBT Mafia and told his test means diddly squat. Surely the same blade cuts both ways.
Sayonara
janneman said:
Actually, you rarely seem to hang out in the major audio discussion groups (understandably - I don't either, the S/N ratio is abysimal). Everytime smeon reports a "casual" test with positive resul;ts he is being barked at and slapped down by the DBT Mafia and told his test means diddly squat. Surely the same blade cuts both ways.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
So, you're implying that cable differences will be inaudible unless all these requirements are met?
If so, thanks for the information, you've confirmed that the acoustic & mechanical components in my system are waaay more important than the cables, and I can now stop worrying...
Cheers
IH
PS. Rt60 less than 0.1s? Do you like listening to your music that way?
Koinichiwa,
There was a site with extensive ABX data. Can't find it now. They had a number of tests (not Cable though IIRC) which claimed "no difference" for a huge range of things. Except of course their statistics where questionable due to the se of .05 significance in small samples, thus creating an unacceptable high risk of type B errors (meaning accepting the "null" hypothesis when it is in fact wrong).
If you re-evaluate their data based on a significance that equalises the risk of Type A and Type B errors as much as possible you find a tendencey towards a difference being percieved, however as the sample size is too small we cannot be very sure about this difference. In other words their tests use too small a smaple size to get above the "noisefloor".
I'm sure someone will supply a link to that site, ABX Mafia - I'm counting on you....
Sayonara
pinkmouse said:
There was a site with extensive ABX data. Can't find it now. They had a number of tests (not Cable though IIRC) which claimed "no difference" for a huge range of things. Except of course their statistics where questionable due to the se of .05 significance in small samples, thus creating an unacceptable high risk of type B errors (meaning accepting the "null" hypothesis when it is in fact wrong).
If you re-evaluate their data based on a significance that equalises the risk of Type A and Type B errors as much as possible you find a tendencey towards a difference being percieved, however as the sample size is too small we cannot be very sure about this difference. In other words their tests use too small a smaple size to get above the "noisefloor".
I'm sure someone will supply a link to that site, ABX Mafia - I'm counting on you....
Sayonara
Koinichiwa,
Not quiet. I am implying that if the system is unfamilar (especially if the person in the test is used to a more transparent setup) as is the cas in most test a minimum technical standard should be adhered to to maximise the tests "sensitivity".
I'm sure you would agree that if the test where carried out with a cheap $ 100 Boombox it would not be particulary meaningful? Well, by extension we should make sure to give the test the best chance. BTW, I did not per se specify expensive equipment, merely such that conformed to certain minimum technical specifications.
BTW, little story there, my bedroom system is a little, cute CD/Radio "micro" box, modified of course, original cost maybe $ 80, plus some capacitors and a bottle C37.
Speakers are fairly large, wallhanging JVC 6.5" Fullrange Drivers with Alnico Magnets similar to the Diatone unit a lot of people rave about (no, these are not the original boxes, the original boxes where thrown into the loft - awful things). In this system the speakers had fixed wiretails, cheap 16-gauge stranded wire. It bugged me.
I know, it's only the bedroom system whose main point is being a clock radio and to give background music for the best diversion in the world. So, I change the cable (it is irelevant to what). My girlfriend comes back and diverts me, but while she puts her favourite background music on she says: "This sounds different - what did you do?" Now she did not see me do anything.... So that "not-test" certainly was blind, if anecdotal and of course fo no more consequence as the other tests covered in this thread.
You DID NOT KNOW THAT? Of course the Speakers, Acoustics and so on are more important than cables. My only recommendation for cables PRIOR to sorting out the rest of the issues is to use reasonable quality DIY (or if you have to) commercial "solid core" cables. These can be very inexpensive, especially if made from Cat 5 Cable.
In fact, my recommendation to all those who use expensive "fancy" cables and loads of expensive tweaks in their systems is to first scale all this back to a reasonable basic level and to adress the more important issues BEFORE playing with tweaks and cables, so that you know you are starting from a good foundation. You may enjoy reading the introduction to my "freakazoid tweakloid" article (the rest will be way too much voodoo for you I'd wager):
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0602/freakazoid.htm
Not quiet. The max RT60 in my room is around 0.5s at LF, but above around 300...400Hz it drops to 0.1s (mainly due to the controlled dispersion of my speakers). It is a compromise, I wish for more effective LF absorbtion, but the size of structursed needed to do that are incompatible with my living room decor.
Sayoanra
IanHarvey said:
Not quiet. I am implying that if the system is unfamilar (especially if the person in the test is used to a more transparent setup) as is the cas in most test a minimum technical standard should be adhered to to maximise the tests "sensitivity".
I'm sure you would agree that if the test where carried out with a cheap $ 100 Boombox it would not be particulary meaningful? Well, by extension we should make sure to give the test the best chance. BTW, I did not per se specify expensive equipment, merely such that conformed to certain minimum technical specifications.
BTW, little story there, my bedroom system is a little, cute CD/Radio "micro" box, modified of course, original cost maybe $ 80, plus some capacitors and a bottle C37.
Speakers are fairly large, wallhanging JVC 6.5" Fullrange Drivers with Alnico Magnets similar to the Diatone unit a lot of people rave about (no, these are not the original boxes, the original boxes where thrown into the loft - awful things). In this system the speakers had fixed wiretails, cheap 16-gauge stranded wire. It bugged me.
I know, it's only the bedroom system whose main point is being a clock radio and to give background music for the best diversion in the world. So, I change the cable (it is irelevant to what). My girlfriend comes back and diverts me, but while she puts her favourite background music on she says: "This sounds different - what did you do?" Now she did not see me do anything.... So that "not-test" certainly was blind, if anecdotal and of course fo no more consequence as the other tests covered in this thread.
IanHarvey said:
You DID NOT KNOW THAT? Of course the Speakers, Acoustics and so on are more important than cables. My only recommendation for cables PRIOR to sorting out the rest of the issues is to use reasonable quality DIY (or if you have to) commercial "solid core" cables. These can be very inexpensive, especially if made from Cat 5 Cable.
In fact, my recommendation to all those who use expensive "fancy" cables and loads of expensive tweaks in their systems is to first scale all this back to a reasonable basic level and to adress the more important issues BEFORE playing with tweaks and cables, so that you know you are starting from a good foundation. You may enjoy reading the introduction to my "freakazoid tweakloid" article (the rest will be way too much voodoo for you I'd wager):
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0602/freakazoid.htm
IanHarvey said:
Not quiet. The max RT60 in my room is around 0.5s at LF, but above around 300...400Hz it drops to 0.1s (mainly due to the controlled dispersion of my speakers). It is a compromise, I wish for more effective LF absorbtion, but the size of structursed needed to do that are incompatible with my living room decor.
Sayoanra
Hmmm.... 
Excuse me for sneaking into the debate here, but somewhere on the previous page, Mr. Eric Feedback seemd (the way I read it) to get two issues mixed up.
It seems that the original debate regarded speaker cables, whereas the posted message concerning the balanced cable was for a microphone.
From my work at Brüel & Kjær , experience tells, that cabeling is very important for high-impedance sources such as microphones, whereas cable importance decreases with decreasing source impedance.
These two categories of cables are being mixed up here, as I read it...
Obviously you don't want too much resistance in your speaker cable, but within reasonable limits, cabeling for power purposes is less critical than it is for signal sources, which typically run at higher impedance levels. For these sources, shielding is also becoming relevant, as well as capacity and inductance of the cable.
As long as you avoid thin cables such as telephone line material, you are unlikely to find any diccerences between different speaker cables, as long as you avoid mile-long cables. 😉
Just my 2 cents...
Jens
Excuse me for sneaking into the debate here, but somewhere on the previous page, Mr. Eric Feedback seemd (the way I read it) to get two issues mixed up.It seems that the original debate regarded speaker cables, whereas the posted message concerning the balanced cable was for a microphone.
From my work at Brüel & Kjær , experience tells, that cabeling is very important for high-impedance sources such as microphones, whereas cable importance decreases with decreasing source impedance.
These two categories of cables are being mixed up here, as I read it...
Obviously you don't want too much resistance in your speaker cable, but within reasonable limits, cabeling for power purposes is less critical than it is for signal sources, which typically run at higher impedance levels. For these sources, shielding is also becoming relevant, as well as capacity and inductance of the cable.
As long as you avoid thin cables such as telephone line material, you are unlikely to find any diccerences between different speaker cables, as long as you avoid mile-long cables. 😉
Just my 2 cents...
Jens
Thorsten,
Could you point me to your mains filter..the one that blocks DC?
Am not able to find it on the net....
Regards,
Bas
Could you point me to your mains filter..the one that blocks DC?
Am not able to find it on the net....
Regards,
Bas
Koinichiwa,
Note that this is NOT a universal circuit. One specific implementation is shown here:
http://greggbaker.net/wwwboard/ultimate_ps_gc.gif
There also was a lengthy discussion of this I believe in the Tweaks Asylum at AA. Do a search....
Sayonara
Bas Horneman said:
Note that this is NOT a universal circuit. One specific implementation is shown here:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
http://greggbaker.net/wwwboard/ultimate_ps_gc.gif
There also was a lengthy discussion of this I believe in the Tweaks Asylum at AA. Do a search....
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
OK, I see your point, my error not being clear. What I meant is that the "subjective crowd" (and I assume it is clear what I mean, if not, sorry) accept from EACH OTHER everything reported unquestioning and uncritical. In objective circles, using what is generally known as the "scientific method" (repeatability, agreeing to known rules, etc) people are much more willing to challenge EACH OTHER to try to get to the bottom.
Jan Didden
Kuei Yang Wang said:
KYW, sorry, but you are tapdancing again. Do you want to imply that the difference between monitor speakers is on the same order of magnitude as the difference between cables? If yes, that is a grotesk statement needing strong arguments. If not, don't confuse the issue with irrelevant things!
Sayonara,
Jan Didden
Koinichiwa,
I find this creative reading of what I have written (not only by you I hasten to add) exceddingly tedious.
JUST READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.
There are NO implications, no hidden agendas, just what is written. Read it again and do not supply your own desired meaning, but read what is written. LITERAL.
I'll save myself the time to repeat my own words slightly paraphrased again and again just so I can clear somones Ideas of what MEANT up. Read it as written. I aplogise for bad gramar and spelling - whoever finds such errors is welcome to keep them.
Sayonara
janneman said:
I find this creative reading of what I have written (not only by you I hasten to add) exceddingly tedious.
JUST READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.
There are NO implications, no hidden agendas, just what is written. Read it again and do not supply your own desired meaning, but read what is written. LITERAL.
I'll save myself the time to repeat my own words slightly paraphrased again and again just so I can clear somones Ideas of what MEANT up. Read it as written. I aplogise for bad gramar and spelling - whoever finds such errors is welcome to keep them.
Sayonara
Koinichiwa,
What I read in your post is that if you use unfamiliar equipment it is difficult to hear differences in cables (note the word "difference", meaning that if you have two cables, listen to both, you hear or hear not a difference). (Implication 01).
The implication is that if you use familiar equipment, you may pick up differences you miss with unfamiliar equipment. That again implies that cable differences can only picked up with familiar equipment. (Implication 02).
Since I may assume that nobody in his right mind would get two different cables and then would proceed to test them on some one else's system which he is unfamiliar, your whole story only helps to confuse the issue and to bring in irrelevant things.
Now, I know I used the word "implications" and "assume" several times, no need to tell me that. But tell me, did I misread your post? Do you NOT agree with my implications?
Jan Didden
What I read in your post is that if you use unfamiliar equipment it is difficult to hear differences in cables (note the word "difference", meaning that if you have two cables, listen to both, you hear or hear not a difference). (Implication 01).
The implication is that if you use familiar equipment, you may pick up differences you miss with unfamiliar equipment. That again implies that cable differences can only picked up with familiar equipment. (Implication 02).
Since I may assume that nobody in his right mind would get two different cables and then would proceed to test them on some one else's system which he is unfamiliar, your whole story only helps to confuse the issue and to bring in irrelevant things.
Now, I know I used the word "implications" and "assume" several times, no need to tell me that. But tell me, did I misread your post? Do you NOT agree with my implications?
Jan Didden
OK, so no Quads then. Or Mirage. Or Sound Lab. Or any other dipole/bipole. Sheesh, I'm amazed that I can tell a Martin from a Yamaha.
Koinichiwa,
What I have written is:
"One reason why there are (in the European Broadcast Industry) strignent standards for monitoring equipement and monitoring conditions is to remove the requirement for "familarisation". While I was still working in Sound (Live & Studio) I found it much easier to work, to recognise exactly what I was I doing if I could use my own Monitors and Amps (despite the fact that some people would deny them Monitor standard based on modern criteria) because I KNEW what they where doing. Being forced to use unknown monitors required me to acclimatise and familarise myself for many hours before I could discriminate as well as I could using my own setup nearfield...."
Read as written, I see no reason to enlarge or further comment.
Actually, IF YOU GO TO A HIGH END SHOP and do the test there, on the initiation of Saulinator you would be in an unfamiliar envoironment, with unfamiliar setup and equipment, as you would if you where to participate in the many DBT/ABX tests published. Hence mypoint is entierly and completely valid, again as written.
I repeat, read what I write, not what you wish I had written so you can twist it to suit your sensibilities and worldview.
Sayonara
janneman said:
What I have written is:
"One reason why there are (in the European Broadcast Industry) strignent standards for monitoring equipement and monitoring conditions is to remove the requirement for "familarisation". While I was still working in Sound (Live & Studio) I found it much easier to work, to recognise exactly what I was I doing if I could use my own Monitors and Amps (despite the fact that some people would deny them Monitor standard based on modern criteria) because I KNEW what they where doing. Being forced to use unknown monitors required me to acclimatise and familarise myself for many hours before I could discriminate as well as I could using my own setup nearfield...."
Read as written, I see no reason to enlarge or further comment.
janneman said:
Actually, IF YOU GO TO A HIGH END SHOP and do the test there, on the initiation of Saulinator you would be in an unfamiliar envoironment, with unfamiliar setup and equipment, as you would if you where to participate in the many DBT/ABX tests published. Hence mypoint is entierly and completely valid, again as written.
I repeat, read what I write, not what you wish I had written so you can twist it to suit your sensibilities and worldview.
Sayonara
A analogy to what Kuei is saying is professional wine tasting
where there is a (or several?) standard for various parameters
that may affect the result, like glass type, room temperature,
white table cloths and walls, if I remember correctly. Well there
are quite a lot of people on this forum who has much much
more knowledge of this subject and could probably write an
essay on it.
Edit: For the non-professional case, say I'm on vacation in Italy
and have good meal with friends at nice Trattoria and drink
the house red. This wine may taste very good. However, if
I were to drink the same wine at home, I would probably
realize that it was a rather cheap and not too very good wine.
The situation matters a lot.
where there is a (or several?) standard for various parameters
that may affect the result, like glass type, room temperature,
white table cloths and walls, if I remember correctly. Well there
are quite a lot of people on this forum who has much much
more knowledge of this subject and could probably write an
essay on it.
Edit: For the non-professional case, say I'm on vacation in Italy
and have good meal with friends at nice Trattoria and drink
the house red. This wine may taste very good. However, if
I were to drink the same wine at home, I would probably
realize that it was a rather cheap and not too very good wine.
The situation matters a lot.
Koinichiwa,
Yup. Also not the majority of other HiFi or High End speakers (not that these might not provide enjoyable music reproduction in someones home - mind you).
But the key is that to test audibility we do not aim for a pleasing sound all mushed with loads of reflections and reverb, plenty of added harmonics (and IMD) and compressed even past the already atrocious compression rates on most CD's....
Or in other words, would you use a pair of Bose 901 to evaluate critically a recording (or replay component)? I for one would not.
The point is that if you wish to provide "universally applicable" data from a setup unfamilar to most/all listeners you need to ensure a setup that will found equally discriminating by all participants. The point is not "MfP", it is scientific research. If that is too much trouble than you have to live with uncertainties and admit that your opinion is based on personal subjective experience and opinion, which if fine for me....
Sayonara
SY said:
Yup. Also not the majority of other HiFi or High End speakers (not that these might not provide enjoyable music reproduction in someones home - mind you).
But the key is that to test audibility we do not aim for a pleasing sound all mushed with loads of reflections and reverb, plenty of added harmonics (and IMD) and compressed even past the already atrocious compression rates on most CD's....
Or in other words, would you use a pair of Bose 901 to evaluate critically a recording (or replay component)? I for one would not.
The point is that if you wish to provide "universally applicable" data from a setup unfamilar to most/all listeners you need to ensure a setup that will found equally discriminating by all participants. The point is not "MfP", it is scientific research. If that is too much trouble than you have to live with uncertainties and admit that your opinion is based on personal subjective experience and opinion, which if fine for me....
Sayonara
I think KYW is quite clear here. As a further illustration I often experience a phenemenon after a good tweak of my set. I really enjoy the music then and it almost seems that the set sounds perfect. After a time (a few hours) you realize more and more shortcomings of the 'new' tweaked system. You hear a lot more on a system you are familiar with.
BTW: I think some of the differences that cables make are subtle and can only be analysed in a longer listening session with many different recordings.
Fedde
BTW: I think some of the differences that cables make are subtle and can only be analysed in a longer listening session with many different recordings.
Fedde
- Status
- Not open for further replies.