since, from fig 3, the characteristic impedance is rising inversely with frequency, and given that phase sensitivity in hearing decreases with increasing wavelengths, if the supposition presented is that rising impedance (due to dielectric variability) causes phase distortion, then the two effects should cancel out, rendering the dielectric variability relatively immaterial to the resultant sound.
Ease up big feller, it was only a question. It's often hard to get a handle on what some here believe. Once you read posters adamant that people can't hear height in real life - literally can't localize sources overhead in principle - the bar isn't so much lower as buried.
The reason I raise 'depth' is it promises a metric with no value payload like bright or 'caramel mids'. Individuals might disagree as to how far behind the speakers an illusory source is placed but you'ld expect a statistically significant agreement if a change moved the illusion forward or back.
And I have no qualms about it with the gear currently in my living room. Experimenting with a couple project amps and not wanting to risk anything of value I borrowed a pair of rather old Paradigm Atoms from work. They won't fool anyone with staggering realism but on properly recorded material will blow the back wall out.
Last edited:
nice reposte John - I can see that witty repartee is a part of your arsenal.
Care to elaborate? A comment on the nature of the relative effects? Or can I take it that I have already picked the eyes out of this morsel?
Care to elaborate? A comment on the nature of the relative effects? Or can I take it that I have already picked the eyes out of this morsel?
If it were to be the colors, any serious paper would mention that, clearly printed.
I’m happy they didn’t so to me, Belden still seems trustworthy. 🙂
I’m happy they didn’t so to me, Belden still seems trustworthy. 🙂
Bud, I think it would be great if we could work on a DBT that would answer the concerns of the subjectivists whilst satisfying rigourous scientific requirements (which I stress are there to eliminate mistakes, unwanted influences, etc and to allow the experiment to be repeated). I certainly think it's possible and, given that the point is to allow the subjectivists to finally prove their mettle, I think it's only fair we bring them on board in the set-up phase and ensure they understand what is being done, and why whilst accomodating as much of their requirements (it's their claims being tested, after all) as good science permits.
Certainly a system of sufficient bandwidth, resolution, dynamic range etc needs to be assembled. I personally would be happy to leave that in the hands of the listeners. Likewise, they can pick the music tracks. They can do it in the perfect listening room. They can determine the lenght and number of listening sessions. They can do it as a repeated ABX format (recording the Xs), whatever. All I stipulate is that it's a rigourous double-blind test that produces enough data to perform a statistically meaningful analysis.
Speaking just for myself, I'd like three types of test material used - simple and complex tones at various frequencies, levels and phase/timing variatiosn, secondly freshly performed and recorded human voice and instruments and thirdly the music tracks of choice for the listeners. That's just my preference to extract the maximum utility from the test - I'd be quite satisfied if only the third choice was used.
As for your 'rate of information processing affects perception' idea - it's interesting. In the first instance, you should check the published literature for past work in the area. Your question may have been addressed already, of course, but even if not existing would could give you the best clues for how to proceed with your own investigations. In the meantime, I don't think it's a problem for the listeners as, whether they have this issue or not, they've already claimed they can hear the differences. Whether or not we understand every aspect of the ear-brain mechanism, it still works as it does and we're only interested in one result - determining if the differences alleged by the subjectivists really are due to cable differences, or are simply imagined.
Certainly a system of sufficient bandwidth, resolution, dynamic range etc needs to be assembled. I personally would be happy to leave that in the hands of the listeners. Likewise, they can pick the music tracks. They can do it in the perfect listening room. They can determine the lenght and number of listening sessions. They can do it as a repeated ABX format (recording the Xs), whatever. All I stipulate is that it's a rigourous double-blind test that produces enough data to perform a statistically meaningful analysis.
Speaking just for myself, I'd like three types of test material used - simple and complex tones at various frequencies, levels and phase/timing variatiosn, secondly freshly performed and recorded human voice and instruments and thirdly the music tracks of choice for the listeners. That's just my preference to extract the maximum utility from the test - I'd be quite satisfied if only the third choice was used.
As for your 'rate of information processing affects perception' idea - it's interesting. In the first instance, you should check the published literature for past work in the area. Your question may have been addressed already, of course, but even if not existing would could give you the best clues for how to proceed with your own investigations. In the meantime, I don't think it's a problem for the listeners as, whether they have this issue or not, they've already claimed they can hear the differences. Whether or not we understand every aspect of the ear-brain mechanism, it still works as it does and we're only interested in one result - determining if the differences alleged by the subjectivists really are due to cable differences, or are simply imagined.
I have experienced similar controversy over tweaks and cables in a Danish Hifi4all thread, but never something to this extent. In the end we sorted things out by being more tolerant to the contributions from each other. Frankly, I find the tone of this thread embarrasing. If you don't have anything positive to say: then shut up.
I do not aim this at anyone in particular. But I think a tolerant approach will benefit us all.
The nagging comments between opponents could be sent by personal message, there is no need to involve everybody in a flame war - which is never put out by adding more gas.
I do not aim this at anyone in particular. But I think a tolerant approach will benefit us all.
The nagging comments between opponents could be sent by personal message, there is no need to involve everybody in a flame war - which is never put out by adding more gas.
And here, I want to postulate, that Curly might just be a near perfect resource. How about if I provide him with three interconnect cables, all made from the same materials, but with differing amounts of the adjustable dielectric material and allow him to "find out" what they do in his system. Then, cause he is also in the nation of Texas, we send them to SY. Who will accept snake oil on loan and will treat it as it deserves to be treated, with care and consideration. Or, perhaps, off to Jan, assuming either would be willing to look at the cables using the Belden test protocols.
Bud
Andre, I don't mean to sound condesceding, I'm addressing Curly's oft-repeated worrying that DBTs don't address his concerns about allowed listening time, etc... I absolutely want to see his claims scientifically tested in a proper way and making sure he (and the other cable guys) are satisfied with the procedure is important.
I would consider it a big step forward if Curly et al would acknowledge that such a DBT would in principle be acceptable to settling the issue. So I'll work with him as much as possible in addressing his issues, concerns and questions. That he's refused so far to play ball on this matter is hugely disappointing but I'm not giving up yet.
I would consider it a big step forward if Curly et al would acknowledge that such a DBT would in principle be acceptable to settling the issue. So I'll work with him as much as possible in addressing his issues, concerns and questions. That he's refused so far to play ball on this matter is hugely disappointing but I'm not giving up yet.
If you'd like some feedback in this neck of the woods, how about sending a set over the Pacific.🙂
I don't know about others-it would be good to have opinions-but,what I think,is that if you compare an interconnect directly from say a cd player to the amp with the same interconnect through a switching box you will agree that it will not have the same sound,since:
a. It will not receive the signal directly from the cd player but from the cable that will be from cd player to the switching box,
b. It will not send the already altered signal directly to the amp but through a second(actuallythird)cable from the switching box to the amp.
c......including all the extra connectors and switches involved.
To me,the "reference"of the listener,has already been destroyed,especially when differences will be small.
That is why,in our "primitive"tests here,we chose to swap cables-blindly-despite some accusations that we were "peeking".
I'm sorry Doomlord, it's just this US and THEM thing getting under my skin.
BTW, I believe using well known, well recorded acoustical music is quite important for testing, so I would suggest that those partaking bring their own favourite test disc.
I'm sure he will if circumstances is less hostile, if he prefer testing over longer periods, I can understand his point. Sometimes I also take a while to find the differences, but once heard, I could normally identify the cable within seconds of listening. Wish I could be there.
Doomlord_UK
Several have tried....and failed....to get Curly to accept any such idea.🙄😉
Although I admire his resolute stubbornness and to a large extent share his views on many issues, I cannot take him, subjectivists and measurers in general, (nor can I take SBTs, DBTs), or anything other than the conclusion of my own hearing seriously. I know too many reviewers and also the personal motivation of a couple of them to take their views seriously. A designer needs all of these forms of appraisal...the end listener does not. What he needs is a "Curly" to demonstrate the best flavour of the month or otherwise to learn to roll his own.
A good number of seriously knowledgeable and experienced people have attempted to bring a modicum of sense to this thread and have failed - as will you Milord !🙄
The best that can be said for this thread is that here and there there can be found an occasional 'golden needle' in what has become a messed up haystack. The other great thing is that this thread has given a natural home feel to a lot of people who would otherwise be giving similar opinions on other threads!😀
Yet another OT item.
I want to apologize to all who are not culturally head blind US residents, for once again exhibiting that I am one. Pancios had to PM me to ask about my reference to "Goldilocks" a few pages ago. Here is what I wrote him.
The Goldilocks reference is to the fairy tale "Goldilocks and the Three Bears." The story revolves around Goldilocks, an innocent and self centered girl child, happening upon a temporarily unoccupied Bear home and sampling the various chairs, food and beds of Papa, Mama and Baby Bear, until she finds just the "right" one of each to suit her. It is an unusually sweet fairy tale and I suspect you can find it with a Goggle search, if you care for any more detailed explanation.
Again, I apologize for numbly assuming that US based references might be those of the rest of the world.
Bud
I want to apologize to all who are not culturally head blind US residents, for once again exhibiting that I am one. Pancios had to PM me to ask about my reference to "Goldilocks" a few pages ago. Here is what I wrote him.
The Goldilocks reference is to the fairy tale "Goldilocks and the Three Bears." The story revolves around Goldilocks, an innocent and self centered girl child, happening upon a temporarily unoccupied Bear home and sampling the various chairs, food and beds of Papa, Mama and Baby Bear, until she finds just the "right" one of each to suit her. It is an unusually sweet fairy tale and I suspect you can find it with a Goggle search, if you care for any more detailed explanation.
Again, I apologize for numbly assuming that US based references might be those of the rest of the world.
Bud
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.