No special knowledge, certainly certifiably loopy, but both were announced a few pages back and can be confirmed at the last page of the Sin Bin located in "everything else".
Sy, do you have any idea how long ago you presented this discarded protocol?, Even the month would be helpful in unearthing it, since it's time has finally arrived.
Scott,
Just to see how "spatial" different amounts of dielectric might make a monaural illusion when created by two sources. A single speaker might or might not provide the same effect. I have no experience with a full up mono system, but I have read many hand waves about how dimensional it's presentation can be. However, one of the things I am looking for is a "time slewing" of the spatial image, or widening of the illusory space, as a clue to both phase and "time train" issues, possibly provided by dielectrics. I am more certain about this effect than I am portraying here, but do not have ANY admissible evidence, as all of it is anecdotal and subjective, though not only from my experiances.
Bud
Sy, do you have any idea how long ago you presented this discarded protocol?, Even the month would be helpful in unearthing it, since it's time has finally arrived.
Scott,
Just to see how "spatial" different amounts of dielectric might make a monaural illusion when created by two sources. A single speaker might or might not provide the same effect. I have no experience with a full up mono system, but I have read many hand waves about how dimensional it's presentation can be. However, one of the things I am looking for is a "time slewing" of the spatial image, or widening of the illusory space, as a clue to both phase and "time train" issues, possibly provided by dielectrics. I am more certain about this effect than I am portraying here, but do not have ANY admissible evidence, as all of it is anecdotal and subjective, though not only from my experiances.
Bud
I doubt seriously that anyone here is an expert of depth, or even height in an audio recording.
Not really looking for experts John. Just if some subjectivists and objectivists can find anything about these "sightless" or sight challenged cables that sounds to them "different". Better, or best or how much of this that or some other utterly devalued word set, is not at issue.
Bud
Bud
Andre, how about listing a dozen or even half dozen recordings that you use for cable listening? Specifics, including label, etc., so that someone could use the same discs/tracks to repeat the test.
I'm sure it buried somewhere in here, but your equipment list would also be helpful for repeatability.
Hi
earlier simon gave his reasons, I just found this snippet on a pro forum. I have no idea which view or right/wrong, better/worse. At least if I bring along house wiring for use as speaker cables there is no construction involved!
There's a situation where cable parameters has the greatest influence I believe..when it comes to audio cables.
Line level cables are the least problematic due to the impedances involved (typically 100ohm driving 10kohm) and typically neither R C or L have an influence in the audioband at those imedances.
Speaker cables can have an effect when the load becomes relatively low (say dipping down to 3-4ohm) and when the impedance graph indicates major variations along the frequency axis. Also longer speaker cables makes the situation worse since resistance and inductance increases linear with length. High inductance and resistance in series with a speaker load have an EQ effect on the speakers output depending on the actuall impedance of the speaker. With a decent design these variations is no problem though.
This quote suggests that maybe speaker cables are more likely to have audible results.
Anyone with more knowledge than me care to comment?
SY's test protocol is here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ake-difference-any-input-310.html#post1773558
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ake-difference-any-input-310.html#post1773558
That protocol sounds very reasonable. I would probably do the test with 3 or 4 different cables because it would be easier to rule out chance. And for myself it wouldn't seem so monotonous, and would be kind of fun.
Of course to get best results it would be done in a system and setting you're very familiar with, with cables your familiar with.
Of course to get best results it would be done in a system and setting you're very familiar with, with cables your familiar with.
It's probably an illusion, Scott - 2 speaker illusion. I can't speak for the old blues 78s, but a few 50s/60s mono tracks can sound "3D" on a good system. Sorta funny, but they do. I think a fair amount of dimension and depth is there on a single channel. The effect is probably "enhanced" playing it thru 2 speakers.
I like it. Wouldn't be my personal preference, I'ld still feel rushed, but with the right participants no obvious holes and no police whistles.
Bless you boconner.
This is such a straight forward and sane protocol I do not see how it could be misused, without deliberate malice. And yes I know about ascribing malice to simple stupidity. Thank you SY, I intend to implement it on more occasions than one, an adaptation for poxy speakers comes to mind.
I have noticed a depth to mono recordings from the period Pano points to, and also some a fairly narrow width, but still, a width. Here, I am interested in providing a fix on a balanced center illusion, along with possible variations in lateral presentation.
I too have owned an old radio, a Zenith with a cobra turntable and arm, with new spikes aplenty and a fair collection of 78's, culled from widows basements in Chicago. The Zenith floor stander resides in Chicago still, at my brother in laws home (he also has my AR 3 speakers). This device was capable of some pretty extraordinary presentation, once you accommodated yourself to the frequency response aberrations and some quotient of noise. I am sure that clever use was made of the U baffle and resonating chambers and reflection boards to provide this seeming breadth of presentation, but it was certainly available to hear.
So, now I await the amazingly expensive wire. Really, amazing only because I have a 35 year history of costing the stuff into transformer designs.
Bud
This is such a straight forward and sane protocol I do not see how it could be misused, without deliberate malice. And yes I know about ascribing malice to simple stupidity. Thank you SY, I intend to implement it on more occasions than one, an adaptation for poxy speakers comes to mind.
I have noticed a depth to mono recordings from the period Pano points to, and also some a fairly narrow width, but still, a width. Here, I am interested in providing a fix on a balanced center illusion, along with possible variations in lateral presentation.
I too have owned an old radio, a Zenith with a cobra turntable and arm, with new spikes aplenty and a fair collection of 78's, culled from widows basements in Chicago. The Zenith floor stander resides in Chicago still, at my brother in laws home (he also has my AR 3 speakers). This device was capable of some pretty extraordinary presentation, once you accommodated yourself to the frequency response aberrations and some quotient of noise. I am sure that clever use was made of the U baffle and resonating chambers and reflection boards to provide this seeming breadth of presentation, but it was certainly available to hear.
So, now I await the amazingly expensive wire. Really, amazing only because I have a 35 year history of costing the stuff into transformer designs.
Bud
Why?? When you think about it Stereo is a complete fabrication once you get 15 to 20 ft away a guy singing while playing an acoustic guitar it is a point source. Ever have any issues with the "real deal" sounding real?? Imaging, sound-stage, all that, is by product of the mix. Sure it sounds good but it's not real. A mono source is more representative of what we hear than Stereo at least for that scenario.
Rob🙂
I especially like it if done with SYs choice of wines...
DDBT (double DBT) Assess the wine and the cable - massive points and kudos for those with a better that guess score in this double-header.
And just as much enjoyment if you don't!
DDBT (double DBT) Assess the wine and the cable - massive points and kudos for those with a better that guess score in this double-header.
And just as much enjoyment if you don't!
What? Didn't I bow hard enough to SY? 😕 I know it's his protocol and he made some very good points. I can't share my thoughts on a subject that interests me? I have my own opinions about blind testing methods.
Could you link a post # rather than a page as I have different page display settings and the link directs me to yesterday.
Hi. I like SY's protocol that is all. Although my post followed yours I wasn't responding in any way to what you posted. I am sorry if it appears that way.
cheers 🙂
EDIT The Peking Man refers to SY's, "sonic insights from "peeking", and was not directed at you.
Last edited:
OK.
Bollocks. His continued responses showed that he had not thought out his position out than self belief and he got called on it and obviously couldn't deal with it. If that elicited an 'emotional response' on his part then that was his decision. Because someone has a belief they express publicly does not make them impervious to others questioning it, and the methodology or sequence that brought it out.
Blather. He was questioned on his own posts and I don't recall much of the conversation being so rude that I would have been uncomfortable having it in front of my late Gram. She would have also questioned strongly on some subject she found it hard to correlate with her own experiences (except her religion or poker).
EDIT: addition not to waste a precious post before 10k.
Thanks. With my settings, this is p239
Protocol post
Yeah, I often have to go scrounging looking for posts because of this.
Email you after dinner.
Last edited:
ahh, is that what it is. I get linked to the start of this same page!!! Thought it was a joke at first, but then everyone seemed genuine.
Ohh, thanks bud, will have a look.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.