The best method to measure audible "effects" of cables is by microphone(s). Remember - someone "heard" it. Not "saw" it on a scope or analyzer. "Heard" it. As in sound waves within a sound field. Emanating not from your analyzer or wires, but from (stereo) loudspeakers.
I could give a rodents posterior what trillion "effects" you can measure on an analyzer. Unless they can be definitively correlated to audibility, who cares (other than you).
If you want to explain how wire "effects" get to your hearing process outside of sound waves, be my guest. Still waiting.
How do you propose to automatically correlate "an electrical measurement" to audibility without established thresholds?
Aren't we solely interested in what is audible, rather than what can be measured - which may be completely inaudible?
Are you suggesting that there can be an audible effect, unmeasurable in the sound field?
cheers,
AJ
SY & AJinFLA,
Thank you both for your continued confidence in me. Yes my back disability which consists of very advanced forms of neuropathy, lumbar spondylosis, lumbar stenosis, degeneration disc disease, sciatica, bone spurs on the vertebrae, plays a huge part in my participation on these forums.
I take on a daily basis 30mg of oxycodone ---{a strong pain-killer that's equal to 6 Tylox or Percodan}--- 6x a day. So that like taking 36 Tylox or Percodan everyday!! I also take 350mg of Soma ---{a strong muscle relaxer}--- 4x a day for muscle spasms and I take 400mg of Neurontin 4x a day for nerve pain and it's side-effects of making my feet feel like they're hurting, freezing & burning at the same time!
Unfortunately this means I can only sit up on hard chair and type for a very limited time. So I go back and forth between audio forums. I do that for a couple of reasons:
- I like getting different perspectives on an issue and I've found when I stay on one forum for too long I start to read the same point of views written over & over from different individuals who are all basically saying the same things as they berate those who disagree and pat those on the back who agree with them.
- I get tired of those people who seem to believe they hold the only true views on what science and rationality represents. To these folks if you don't agree with their POV on an issue that automatically means you're irrational or you don't believe in science.
I have to admit I was a bit taken back by many of the ASSumptions that were being made about me just because I hadn't been posting recently. Perhaps that's what passes as rational behavior for some? In any event, I haven't changed my mind about anything, I'm just trying to live a somewhat painless life, as I enjoy the wonderful hobby of audio.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Huh?
Kind of presumptious to assume I've not been involved in testing and experrimental design, isn't it? That's what your statement "if you've never tried it" implies. Why so confrontational?
Kind of presumptious to assume I've not been involved in testing and experrimental design, isn't it? That's what your statement "if you've never tried it" implies. Why so confrontational?
Tom, with regards to #1, I suggested previously that you simply take as much time as needed to acclimate to the new player. There should be no time frame or deadline for this test. Take as long as you need and this relates to #2. Do some sighted switches (3-4 times?) of the cables to be tested and see if you can hear clear differences with that number of swaps. It doesn't have to be the same differences you were hearing before with the previous player. Any difference that will allow you to identify them will do. Practice makes perfect, so do it yourself sighted as many times as needed.
Once you get comfortable there, then maybe have someone over to switch. Maybe start again sighted, then leave the room and have them randomly switch or not. Practice until you are comfortable with what you can hear (differences), then give SY a call.
cheers,
AJ
AJ, the best way to detect audible differences is with a controlled listening test. In fact, it's the only way.
An electrical test at the speaker terminals will show whether there's any measurable difference in the system. For example, I can reliably hear a 0.2dB channel imbalance in midrange EQ (e.g., from mismatched drivers), but I guaran-damn-tee you that I couldn't measure it with a mike in the room. Piece of cake to measure at the speaker terminals.
An electrical test at the speaker terminals will show whether there's any measurable difference in the system. For example, I can reliably hear a 0.2dB channel imbalance in midrange EQ (e.g., from mismatched drivers), but I guaran-damn-tee you that I couldn't measure it with a mike in the room. Piece of cake to measure at the speaker terminals.
Doesn't this from your previous post sound confrontational?
"sort of sounds like a "pre-excuse" that can be pulled out later"
The only reason for my post was to bring up a concern I've experienced during a random test, for discussion. Why must everything that doesn't suit the idea's of the 'no difference' camp be regarded as excuses? If you regard that as an excuse, I'm quite sure you have never done a blind random test with many consecutive sames.
Auplater,
I have never done a DBT where the ICs weren't changed to a different IC at least every 3rd time, so previously for me there was no possibility of hearing the same IC more than 2x in a row, let alone over & over & over again. Thus I'd always have a chance to hear a different IC to compare and refresh my aural memory against every so often. You know the aural memory that's supposed to be very short?
It was only after SY informed me of the possibility of the same IC being head 2, 3 or even 4X or more in a row, that I became concerened! It's easy for me to pick my reference IC out whenever it's compared directly against another IC because then I can listen for differences in how instruments and singers sound but how do I make these comparisons if I comparing the same IC against itself? What differences exist for me to listen for? Now considering I've never did a test like this it makes good sense to take a couple of practice tests where that occurs no?
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Right. I thought we were talking about (or at least I was) measuring an audible "effect" (difference)? Are we?
Then it's time for a better mic and measurement technique (such as very nearfield). Are you saying it can't be measured (with a mic)....or that you would rather not with your particular setup?
I'm really starting to worry about you amp guys (and the whole electro-"acoustics" thing)
You're confusing two separate issues, AJ. Measurement and correlation to audibility (there's no such thing as "measuring audibility"), and establishing audibility. The latter is done with... listening. Radical concept.
Anyone (not just me) who has even done in-room acoustic measurement (nearfield only works in the bass) knows the difficulty, if not impossibility, of getting 0.1dB repeatability in the midrange and treble. With extremely expensive mikes, rigid fixtures, and anechoic chambers, sure. In a living room? Not bloody likely.
Anyone (not just me) who has even done in-room acoustic measurement (nearfield only works in the bass) knows the difficulty, if not impossibility, of getting 0.1dB repeatability in the midrange and treble. With extremely expensive mikes, rigid fixtures, and anechoic chambers, sure. In a living room? Not bloody likely.
Sy, has it occurred to you you're playing with fire here?
If TG pulls it off and you get something published, snake-oil sales will go through the roof!
Headlines in all the Beltian boutiques:
"Science proved wrong at last - New study shows audibility of unmeasurable effects!!!"
and it's all gonna be your fault.
If TG pulls it off and you get something published, snake-oil sales will go through the roof!
Headlines in all the Beltian boutiques:
"Science proved wrong at last - New study shows audibility of unmeasurable effects!!!"
and it's all gonna be your fault.
yes indeed
I have no problem whatsoever how you prep for the test. Your participation stands way above all the other tripe offered as "evidence" in this thread. I think it's important that you condition yourself in whatever manner you deem appropriate, with guidance from those designing the tests as well.
It's the pre-results and supposed "gotchas" being discussed that seem irrelevant. The whole purpose of the test is to determine if what's being heard is due to physical and/or measurable variables, or due more to other effects that may be individual in nature.
One of the requirements of "not knowing" includes "not knowing" if there are any sequencial patterns that could provide clues or "hints". That should not make you unconfortable, unless there are other agendas at work, in which case the testing may be unreliable due to unaccounted for interactions.
John L.
I have no problem whatsoever how you prep for the test. Your participation stands way above all the other tripe offered as "evidence" in this thread. I think it's important that you condition yourself in whatever manner you deem appropriate, with guidance from those designing the tests as well.
It's the pre-results and supposed "gotchas" being discussed that seem irrelevant. The whole purpose of the test is to determine if what's being heard is due to physical and/or measurable variables, or due more to other effects that may be individual in nature.
One of the requirements of "not knowing" includes "not knowing" if there are any sequencial patterns that could provide clues or "hints". That should not make you unconfortable, unless there are other agendas at work, in which case the testing may be unreliable due to unaccounted for interactions.
John L.
Nope. Re-read all my previous posts. I'll say it again. If it is audible (confirmed via listening tests), then it's related to sound waves, that can be measured in the sound field, using microphones.
But I never said that I could reliably/repeatedly measure that now specific example, of 0.1db, in Tom's living room, only that I would measure, no guarantees. However, if the wire "effect" is 0.1db difference in amplitude response, need I say more, that it is measurable, in the sound field, using microphones.
Sy, has it occurred to you you're playing with fire here?
If TG pulls it off and you get something published, snake-oil sales will go through the roof!
Headlines in all the Beltian boutiques:
"Science proved wrong at last - New study shows audibility of unmeasurable effects!!!"
and it's all gonna be your fault.
I'll take that risk.
You're welcome to try that. In fact, I'll be happy to visit you after I'm done with Tom, and run a blind test with you- using a microphone ONLY, reliably detect a 0.2dB (I'll be generous here) EQ difference in the midrange. Good luck!
Personally, if there's an easier and more reliable way to measure frequency response differences, why try to do it using a difficult and far-less-reliable method?
OK. I am confused. Somebody tell me where I got lost.
The thread started with the proclamation that cables make no difference.
Many disagreed. Some said "prove it". And the argument began.
I thought we were all in agreement that tiny differences exist in cables. I thought we only disagreed whether they were audible. Hence the DBTs that everyone is flaking out over.
According to RDF's post, measuring differences at the end of the wire, is a good test and will prove audibility? Is that what you are saying?
SY claims it would be unmeasurable on the sound field and he probably knows more about that than I.
So far, AJ's idea of measuring the sound is shot down, based on it's "immeasurableness" (new word). Ok. Fine. But, how does measuring the ends of the wires get us beyond the original argument that they are measurable, but not audible?
Hey TG! Great to see you back.
Hmm, I guess it was me that came across a bit 'narky', sorry about that chief.
Just for the record, I only got a bit 'concerned' when I saw the date of the post AJ linked to, and that was very recent (much later than when you seemed to be here last), so I jumped the gum a little.
Ha! Then out of curiosity I just browsed a little more there...man you are an old hand over there!!
So yeah, my fault and apologies to you.
I did read in one of the threads the post from the guy who came out and listened to your system, (he played sheharazade I think), kudos, sounds like it made a very positive impression on him!
(you have linked to your cdp here previously, but his comments on your speakers intrigued me, can you give a link to them??)
As I noted here too, I spotted a post about your medical state currently, so that's when it made a bit more sense. Hope it comes good, or if that cannot happen at least it stablises soon.
BTW, if you have a bad back, and still can listen to music hours a day, must be a damn fine listening chair your have! Very underrated methinks. I need to get a chair myself, not so much for comfort but am curious about the effects of reflections from most chairs. Need to find a comfortable chair but one w/out a high back to cause reflections. (think dentist type chair, no reflecting surfaces behind the head)
Wonder how much difference that could make.
After reading some of your posts and threads last night, I got curious about how you feel going about it that would best suit you.
From memory you mentioned things like listening to the 'tail end of a cymbal' or similar?
One question you asked the audience (I think) was about short snippets vs long differences etc etc. Eg, curly likes to listen for days IIRC, but what technique do you think best suits your style? (dunno, find a specific section and only play that section, or an entire track, swap then the track again..)
just curious.
Hmm, I guess it was me that came across a bit 'narky', sorry about that chief.
Just for the record, I only got a bit 'concerned' when I saw the date of the post AJ linked to, and that was very recent (much later than when you seemed to be here last), so I jumped the gum a little.
Ha! Then out of curiosity I just browsed a little more there...man you are an old hand over there!!
So yeah, my fault and apologies to you.
I did read in one of the threads the post from the guy who came out and listened to your system, (he played sheharazade I think), kudos, sounds like it made a very positive impression on him!
(you have linked to your cdp here previously, but his comments on your speakers intrigued me, can you give a link to them??)
As I noted here too, I spotted a post about your medical state currently, so that's when it made a bit more sense. Hope it comes good, or if that cannot happen at least it stablises soon.
BTW, if you have a bad back, and still can listen to music hours a day, must be a damn fine listening chair your have! Very underrated methinks. I need to get a chair myself, not so much for comfort but am curious about the effects of reflections from most chairs. Need to find a comfortable chair but one w/out a high back to cause reflections. (think dentist type chair, no reflecting surfaces behind the head)
Wonder how much difference that could make.
After reading some of your posts and threads last night, I got curious about how you feel going about it that would best suit you.
From memory you mentioned things like listening to the 'tail end of a cymbal' or similar?
One question you asked the audience (I think) was about short snippets vs long differences etc etc. Eg, curly likes to listen for days IIRC, but what technique do you think best suits your style? (dunno, find a specific section and only play that section, or an entire track, swap then the track again..)
just curious.
Exactly. TG is not making excuses, he's stepping up. That's one reason I'm willing to bear the expense and inconvenience of going to Florida.
What would that prove?
Frequency response differences measured where?
How was the 0.1db detectable difference limit determined? Link? My understanding of Minimal audible field and Minimal audible pressure testing is that they both require microphones. Please fill me in on what I'm missing. Thnx
- Status
- Not open for further replies.