What would it be? As I understand it operating the comparator is just about the same as manually changing cables. I mean - I knew which cable is in the system but I still couldn't hear differences.
I know something about DBT tests as my wife works in clinical research company and I'm also some kind of a doctor😉
Changing the two cables manually(not using the box),could you tell any difference between them?Were the differences vanished in your opinion because of the box?Were you aware of which cable you were listening to in both cases?
Last edited:
It depends on one's point of interest - wireworld made that comparator to be able to "prove" that WW cables are better. Anyway IMO there should be no need for any kind of comparator when listening to the benefits of $10000 cable vs. $10 cable, but one needs all possible help when the test is made blinded. 😀
1. yes 2. I can't explain 3. yes. But the differences became much smaller after comparator test. 😀
Last edited:
It is difficult to build a test box that does the automatic and quiet switching between cables. It has been tried before, with Dr. Lipshitz's approval, and failed with serious audio listeners. Nobody here has shown either the understanding or inclination to build a good test box for cable comparison.
I don't know about this box, but the so called Spiegel box was a 'dog' and any standard ABX box is equally suspect.
any standard ABX box is equally suspect.
__________________
"Condemnation without Examination is Prejudice"
__________________
"Condemnation without Examination is Prejudice"
This is because most here do not understand how relays are compromised, that are used in the test box. Certainly very few people here, except perhaps Simon7000. The metalmen have never previously heard of Holm, the physicists think that Alps pots are audio nirvana, etc. I can't expect any more from such a resource of individuals.
This is nonsense. Someone 'suggests', out of the blue, that a switch hides cable differences. Since we don't know whether there ARE cable differences, and what they are, and what switch it is, this is pure unresponsible speculation.
And now it is turned into an accusation that it is done on purpose to hide cable differences. Do you guys have no self respect??
jd
While you're at it John, why not give the whole story? This was with two switch positions: in one position there was a vintage SONY PCM-1 AD-DA into the chain, in the other position it was bypassed. The PCM-1 could not be reliably detected, until someone (Dr Lipshizt) detected a slightly increased noise level after switching. He correctly concluded that this was the PCM-1 chain and was then able to correctly determine the settings 10 out of 10.
jd
I'm glad you raise this old point because so many of the ABX/DBT tests I've read are equivalent of medical staff telling subjects neither pill works. "You may believe you feel less pain but we've proven over and over how tricky a thing is the mind, and no one here believes this medication works." Attending a peer review of that paper would be major yuks, watching the author explain how it was done to preserve humanity from the onslaught of idiocracy.
yeah, right
especially when posts are misread, questions and details are left unanswered or misinterpreted, etc.
not much honest discussion available when trolling and baiting dominate
especially when posts are misread, questions and details are left unanswered or misinterpreted, etc.
not much honest discussion available when trolling and baiting dominate
Last edited:
Self respect, in banning Curly? That took a great deal of intellectual effort.
I have heard the problems with AB switching MYSELF, along with 3 other audio reviewers who evaluated it separately.
For example: One reviewer's opinion about the Spiegel box. This is JUST one of 4.
' The Absolute Sound' Vol 4 #13 1978, p 6
"JWC reports: 'With the Spiegel box on-line, I sure enough couldn't hear any difference between two preamps (the Van Alstine and the Levinson ML-1), even when I confined my switching to the two KNOWN positions. ...
The reason for this state of affairs was soon painfully obvious. Connecting the ML-1 directly into the system, rather than through the Spiegel box showed quite clearly that the box had been literally ruining the sound quality.
The box constricted the dynamic range, shaved off any sense of real highs and lows, and wrecked high frequency transient response. The box also took out all sense of air in the upper midrange and upper bass, and caused a serious of imaging specificity..."
AMEN!
I have heard the problems with AB switching MYSELF, along with 3 other audio reviewers who evaluated it separately.
For example: One reviewer's opinion about the Spiegel box. This is JUST one of 4.
' The Absolute Sound' Vol 4 #13 1978, p 6
"JWC reports: 'With the Spiegel box on-line, I sure enough couldn't hear any difference between two preamps (the Van Alstine and the Levinson ML-1), even when I confined my switching to the two KNOWN positions. ...
The reason for this state of affairs was soon painfully obvious. Connecting the ML-1 directly into the system, rather than through the Spiegel box showed quite clearly that the box had been literally ruining the sound quality.
The box constricted the dynamic range, shaved off any sense of real highs and lows, and wrecked high frequency transient response. The box also took out all sense of air in the upper midrange and upper bass, and caused a serious of imaging specificity..."
AMEN!
You know when any review of any product starts saying "...The box also took out all sense of air in the upper midrange and upper bass, and caused a serious of imaging specificity..."
We should pretty well throw the review out in the garbage!
"One reviewer's opinion about the Spiegel box. This is JUST one of 4. "
How can anyone remotely trust any reviewer to be remotely accurate or scientific that babbles like that in the first place??
We should pretty well throw the review out in the garbage!
"One reviewer's opinion about the Spiegel box. This is JUST one of 4. "
How can anyone remotely trust any reviewer to be remotely accurate or scientific that babbles like that in the first place??
I had the Spiegel box in my living room for a time. I could barely tell the difference between a JC-2 (ML-1) and a Dyna Pas3X. Therefore, I should have resigned trying to make better audio quality, on the spot, just like Dave Spiegel and Tom Holman did.
Why not do this? Use a DAC that has been verified to match channel to channel on a single given cable. Then construct an active set of monitors where the active buffer before the filters>amps has two inputs and a switcher. For testing passive speakers and variable couldn't we just construct an amp with multiple outputs and a switch measured to a tolerance?
For good measure require the test swap the cables so that all variables are tested in case someone is just detecting the switch or intermediate stage somehow.
These things can muddy the waters a bit but I think if you want a real answer you might have to find the best compromise and not some theoretically perfect scenario which will never exist.
For good measure require the test swap the cables so that all variables are tested in case someone is just detecting the switch or intermediate stage somehow.
These things can muddy the waters a bit but I think if you want a real answer you might have to find the best compromise and not some theoretically perfect scenario which will never exist.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.