jlsem said:
Or perhaps it would be interresting if he tells us how much practice he has done so far.
SY said:
"If at first you don't succeed,try,try again.Then quit.There's no use in being..................." W.C.Fields
Just one link. To any test where the participants were allowed familiarization. That boat has just never shown up.
John
John, that boat's been here and there about a thousand times. Use the "Search" feature so thoughtfully provided by the bulletin board software package. If, yet again, you want me to do your legwork for you, I have an hourly rate.
jlsem said:
You can set up a blind test in your own home (would your own home be familiar enough?), in a matter of minutes, so quit the excuses, cause there are none valid.
Magura 🙂
fredex said:
*morphs into this post* haha come on you don't think the morph will replace the dissolve?
I don't think it's the youth that puts the expectation of brightness in the artistic aesthetic. I worked at a photo lab for a little while with a younger high school kid. Him and I would try to make these pictures look as tastefully done as we could manage only to hear from our older boss and the older customers to go back and squash the picture with contrast and make it bright as hell. These are OLD tricks - with music probably dates back to the days of AM radio. Realistically back to competitive instrument makers trying to get an edge.
I'm not against fx and even abuse of fx in media. And I understand what you mean by using an effect ad nausea until people hate it. I see that more as a result of business pressure. Once one reality-show becomes successfully how many copy cats do you see pop up?
I think you could probably take that same effect (lets say auto-tune) and misuse it in an original fashion (why not use the graphical editor as a manual pitch shift effect instead of that auto setting on slow attack thats on every damn song now) But with music when you jack up the high end it can cause physical pain on a flat system. To me this goes beyond artistic taste - it is a trick and an old overused one.
Ha on the recording I have been mixing the last week or two I use this. A Serato control vinyl with DJ Decks software. I wanted the sound of a tape machine or a record player gradually slowing down but my multis are digital. So I dumped the drum track and used the control vinyl at 45rpm, turn off the technics 1210 while recording, and now I have the simple effect I wanted.
Magura said:
Does your mocking comment of one's own home mean that in the totally scientific way you see things,the room is not important?
My preliminary search with all posts by you containing the words "cable" and "test" have turned up exactly this: "Every published paper in reputable journals on cable phenomena involving measurements and listening, from Greiner's JAES paper forward..."
A secondary search with "AES" turns up this: "You'll have to join AES to get access or go to a local library."
I'm beginning to think my examination of the boat schedule is going to end up nothing but a water haul.
"There exist no results of a cable test published by the AES where the participants were allowed lengthy familiarization with all components under test." That statement should be easy enough to disprove.
John
Panicos K said:
Sure the room is of no importance, as the room is a constant for all cables included in the test.
Besides, when claiming to hear differences, I dare to assume people are talking about their own systems, so their home must be the ideal place for them to make a test, to prove they can tell the difference, no?
Magura 🙂
Hello SY!
I'm sure I must be missing something so please clarify this for me ok? When jlsem posted I can't think of any DBT results in the literature that show the participants were allowed to familiarize themselves at length with the system under test. I got the impression that you were somehow against this option, although maybe I'm mistaken in my belief.
From doing my own DBTs, which although probably crude were an honest attempt at learning what actually happening, the one thing I came away with is it's absolutely vital the the person taking the DBT be intimately familair with the system and the room!
I was scoring 4 out of 5 and 5 out 5 before changing my amp and preamp but, I couldn't do better than 3 out 5 after I changed the amp and preamp until almost 60 days passed. Then once I began to get intimately familair with the system, I was back to getting 4 out of 5 and 5 out 5 again.
I fully realise that providing the time and place to allow someone to become intimately familair with the system is a great hardship to bear but, I believe it's an absolute necessity if one wishes to run a truly fair DBT. It's my contention that not being intimately familair with the system and the room is one of the chief reasons why so many DBTs have such poor postive results!
Actually this wouldn't be such a difficult obstacle to overcome as it initially appears. All anyone who really wants to know if sonic differences can be heard in wires, amps CDPs etc has to do is setup the DBT in the home of a willing participant. I'd think that after 3 decades of tests that are all basically inconclusive this would be a small price to pay to hopefully discover the truth!
At that very least it would remove one more subjectivist complaint about how DBTs are performed, no?
Thetubeguy1954
I'm sure I must be missing something so please clarify this for me ok? When jlsem posted I can't think of any DBT results in the literature that show the participants were allowed to familiarize themselves at length with the system under test. I got the impression that you were somehow against this option, although maybe I'm mistaken in my belief.
From doing my own DBTs, which although probably crude were an honest attempt at learning what actually happening, the one thing I came away with is it's absolutely vital the the person taking the DBT be intimately familair with the system and the room!
I was scoring 4 out of 5 and 5 out 5 before changing my amp and preamp but, I couldn't do better than 3 out 5 after I changed the amp and preamp until almost 60 days passed. Then once I began to get intimately familair with the system, I was back to getting 4 out of 5 and 5 out 5 again.
I fully realise that providing the time and place to allow someone to become intimately familair with the system is a great hardship to bear but, I believe it's an absolute necessity if one wishes to run a truly fair DBT. It's my contention that not being intimately familair with the system and the room is one of the chief reasons why so many DBTs have such poor postive results!
Actually this wouldn't be such a difficult obstacle to overcome as it initially appears. All anyone who really wants to know if sonic differences can be heard in wires, amps CDPs etc has to do is setup the DBT in the home of a willing participant. I'd think that after 3 decades of tests that are all basically inconclusive this would be a small price to pay to hopefully discover the truth!
At that very least it would remove one more subjectivist complaint about how DBTs are performed, no?
Thetubeguy1954
It's a made-up complaint. No-one I'm aware of who has bothered to do these experiments for publication has put that restriction in place. In the Nousaine experiments, most of the trials took place in the claimant's living room with their choice of music.
I ran some simple trials of my own some years ago in my own listening room- people would bring over The Cable that would make me change my mind and marvel that I couldn't hear the Huge and Obvious differences. Once they confirmed that the unfamiliarity of my room and system didn't obscure their "ability" to "hear" those Huge and Obvious differences, I ran some simple, loosely controlled trials. Amazing how the ability to discriminate went away when "no peeking" was enforced.
I'll say once again, you're the only person on the other side of this issue participating in this thread who has bothered to actually put his beliefs to the test. I think there are some holes in the scoring and record procedure, but it's far and away the most effort I've seen anyone do, you clearly did a fine attempt, and my hat is tipped in your direction.
The fact that you need such advanced and almost unachievable tests to proof that there's any difference, shows us how small the difference actually is. I would believe that adding a sound dampening sheet on the wall will have a bigger effect on the sound.
I must emphasize that i am talking about high quality mid-priced cables compared to high end ridiculus prized cables. The difference between really cheap cables and reasonably prized cables will of course be much bigger.
edit: Another thing, we are only talking about signal cables here right? If someone her tries to defend expensive power cords
please try to convince me!
What speaker cable's conserned, i would think that 100% pure oxygen-free cobber cable with sufficient thickness is pretty much unbeatable. Maybe with some kind of screening if placed parallell with power cords.
I must emphasize that i am talking about high quality mid-priced cables compared to high end ridiculus prized cables. The difference between really cheap cables and reasonably prized cables will of course be much bigger.
edit: Another thing, we are only talking about signal cables here right? If someone her tries to defend expensive power cords
please try to convince me!What speaker cable's conserned, i would think that 100% pure oxygen-free cobber cable with sufficient thickness is pretty much unbeatable. Maybe with some kind of screening if placed parallell with power cords.
skogs said:
Even from el-cheapo to insanely priced cables, people will be hard pressed....do the math 😉
Interconnects can benefit from being shielded, but that comes cheap as well.
Magura 🙂
No, just a place to start. Am I getting warm, yet?🙂
Not a complaint nor a restriction. It started as a simple query to learn about the nature of these tests. If you were a bit less defensive and read my posts a little more carefully it may help the dialogue some. My only argument is that the history of the business of wine tasting has no equivalent in high end audio.
John
jlsem said:
It's really more signal cables that benefits from interconnects being shielded. To prevent the 50\60hz noise to get into the small signal cables. Usually not an issue of any importance tho.
Hi,
His holy Cussedness has done the exact same thing for about fifteen years. Both at home and abroad.
At hih-fi exhibitions and at friends' places listening to systems I wasn't really familiar with.
He also helped design and create a line of cables which also involved quite a bit of extensive listening test. Blind and sighted.
I too scored very well in these tests but then if you spend years doing this kind of stuff it becomes child's play.
It probably doesn't help to proof anything but when someone is going to market a line of cables they have good reason to compare various competing product.
The problem is I can't remember ever having the opportunity to compare two cables with identical LCR values.
Setting up a LCR bridge back in those days took some time and so no one was pushing it.
Cheers, 😉
His holy Cussedness has done the exact same thing for about fifteen years. Both at home and abroad.
At hih-fi exhibitions and at friends' places listening to systems I wasn't really familiar with.
He also helped design and create a line of cables which also involved quite a bit of extensive listening test. Blind and sighted.
I too scored very well in these tests but then if you spend years doing this kind of stuff it becomes child's play.
It probably doesn't help to proof anything but when someone is going to market a line of cables they have good reason to compare various competing product.
The problem is I can't remember ever having the opportunity to compare two cables with identical LCR values.
Setting up a LCR bridge back in those days took some time and so no one was pushing it.
Cheers, 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.