Do they? People should post them.
This one's jolly subtle. Or are you having me on here?SY's talking about measuring sound waves, so must we eliminate all such effects first before moving on to measuring acoustics? If so, what counts as 'no noise floor change' to allow a cable to pass on to phase 2 acoustic tests?
Noise floor changes do not equate to tighter bass, better soundstage, etc.
Im after those exaggerations. I want to quantify them with comparison measurements because those exaggerations describes a change in the sound wave.
I honestly have less issues with any noise floor discussion. If you have cables that reduce the noise floor (with data to back that up) then so be it. I won't care at 90dBs myself but at 60dB there is maybe something to consider. Heck, cables with -10dB attenuators on my XLR cables lower the noise floor. Amps with VCs lower the noise floor....many ways to go about the noise floor solution.
Abrax, you make an excellent point about noise. Let's look at that.
Non-random noise (e.g., buzz, hum, oscillation) can be measured acoustically to a pretty good level because of signal averaging. So, with a good mike and a minute or so of MLS, I'd think that would be sorted out at the levels where a listener can hear it (dictionary sense of "hear"). Changes in random noise above hearing thresholds are indeed less easy to measure acoustically- I haven't seen that yet proposed as a significant cable difference- way too easy to spot in a controlled listening test.
Distortion is indeed a weak point of acoustic measurement.
Non-random noise (e.g., buzz, hum, oscillation) can be measured acoustically to a pretty good level because of signal averaging. So, with a good mike and a minute or so of MLS, I'd think that would be sorted out at the levels where a listener can hear it (dictionary sense of "hear"
). Changes in random noise above hearing thresholds are indeed less easy to measure acoustically- I haven't seen that yet proposed as a significant cable difference- way too easy to spot in a controlled listening test.Distortion is indeed a weak point of acoustic measurement.
Jan's said its trivial - do you have anything to post Jan?
How do you know this? In my experience, these are precisely two areas of perceived sound which are related to noise floor modulation.
Noise floor modulation, not noise floor per se.
Lol, does everyone just pass the buck? He posted its trivial to do them, he didnt post he has any. You post that the exist....Why is all of this stuff big cloak and dagger, magic hour, now you see it, now you don't??
It would be nice to just post everything you have to back up any claims.
I will research that but it sounds like some fancy spinning of the simplistic noise floor scenario so that its harder to pin down and harder to measure...more redirection. I do that redirection stuff daily with my two little girls....this isnt much different.
Any publications on noise floor modulation that I could read?
Found this in the Measurements thread. I think it covers a lot of what it going on in this thread.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yep, so if a cable has so many uF of capacitance it makes the driving opamp oscillate, we can weed out this effect. But I doubt this will be a scenario encountered in competently designed electronics or cables. So we'll not be getting these gross effects between two cables - we won't waste time on ABXing I take it if we notice such.
Not random noise as such, this will be signal-correlated noise, far more annoying. Oh, and I am proposing it as a potentially significant cable difference
Do go on... how?
Dave's point is a similar one to mine, we've just chosen different illustrations of it. Just matching up the higher level frequency response doesn't tell us anything much about what's going on down at lower levels.
Thanks, it describes the situation the believers are in: DBTs have been conducted, "we" took the burden of proof, "we" advanced from a hypothesis. The believers have nothing more than a hypothesis. Do something to make it more than a hypothesis.
So you don't believe in directional wire. How bout directional cables?
My answer was about directional cables. Still, you've raised an interesting point. Perhaps its not the wire thats directional, but the cable covering around the wire! Maybe thats it: its the arrows on the plastic coating that affect the sound quality, not the internal wire!
A true revelation.
Well I'm not totally clear that it has a definition. But I'm more than happy to clarify with examples.
The first is in a digital audio system, if the dither is rectangular pdf rather than triangular, noise floor modulation results. The noise floor shifts with signal level.
Wikipedia Quantization
Second, in a bitstream (1-bit) DAC, the amount of out of band noise varies with the signal level - I vaguely recall this is an application of Parseval's theorem. This I believe to give rise to the 'slow bass' perceived effect from listening reports. The out of band noise needs to be very tightly controlled not to intermodulate down into the audio band and vary the noise floor as the signal level varies.
Thirdly any noise reduction system potentially suffers from it - I guess Dolby's main difficulty in developing their systems was getting the perceived noise-pumping down into inaudibility.
Its obvious to me that it will be almost impossible to find two cables that measure the same in such measurements. That's the nature of measuring noise, its variable by definition. So some threshold would have to be set, then where we set that determines which cables are in effect the same. And that's a loophole for the true believers to climb through...
Its significant that Wikipedia turns out to have a null article for this. You could read this Stereophile article
Who is "we"?
Do suggestions really = proof?
Inductive usage refers to the extension of an argument to support a wider generalization of a hypothesis, principle, scientific theory, or universal law. Many such uses of the Argument from Ignorance are considered fallacious, especially in academic papers which are expected to be rigorous about their key premises and empirical foundations. However, in some cases (such as that which the noted author Irving Copi describes above) where affirmative evidence could reasonably be expected to be found, but following careful unbiased examination, this evidence has still not been found, then it might become expedient, and sometimes even prudent, to infer that this might suggest (though it does not prove, deductively, it suggests inductively) that the evidence does not exist. Or, where the speaker can reasonably assume that all sane people will agree with a premise (e.g. "The sky is blue"), then he might decide it is unnecessary to provide evidence supporting that assertion; however, these issues (to which epistemological foundationalism is closely related, and with which it is also closely intertwined) are still debated.
The non-beliefers, especially those that conducted double blind tests in search of truth, proof and objective data.
Sorry, don't understand that sentence.
Maybe my English is not good enough but how does that relate to the cable discussion?
Go back to the original definition:
"The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."
We do have proof, you do not.
Last edited:
You know, you could just post that you can not prove cables really do make a difference instead of trying to do another redirect.....
Hah, there is zero corelation back to cable discussion. I was making the assumption you would help me understand it better but so far it seems my original point about "audiophile Spin" holds true.
Trying to reproduce something that's not on the recording seems to be where people have difficulty. I don't think it should be the goal at all as I'm sure it could never be done with the equipment available today. Just trying to reproduce the recording is hard enough.
Dan
That's your subjective opinion.It still surprices me that the "objectivitists", who state to "believe" in facts and poofs only, also in fact are being the most emotional ones here
- Status
- Not open for further replies.