nunayafb said:
Try
this test system. I think it applies to this ongoing discussion and it is not that demanding and tedious as listening panels and data.
Expect WAR!
-------------------------------------------------------------
When might you use Audio DiffMaker?
When you are interested in whether an audio signal is actually being changed by:
* Changing interconnect cables (compensation for cable capacitance may be required)
* Different types of basic components (resistors, capacitors, inductors)
* Special power cords
* Changing loudspeaker cables (cable inductance may need to be matched or compensated)
* Treatments to audio CDs (pens, demagnetizers, lathes, dampers, coatings...)
* Vibration control devices
* EMI control devices
* Paints and lacquers used on cables, etc.
* Premium audio connectors
* Devices said to modify electrons or their travel, such as certain treated "clocks"
* Different kinds of operational amplifiers, transistors, or vacuum tubes
* Different kinds of CD players
* Changing between power amplifiers
* General audio "tweaks" said to affect audio signals (rather than to affect the listener directly)
* Anything else where the ability to change an audio signal is questioned
Will Audio DiffMaker always resolve these issues?
No. Tests can be inconclusive because of noise or difficult system or recording conditions. And because the final result (the "Difference" recording) will still be evaluated by ear, human judgment is involved in determining whether the changes are significant, unfortunately leaving much room for disagreement. Technique and judgment is important also, as with any test. It is important to account for known effects. Differences that are uncovered, if due to expected causes (such as can be happen from changes of cable capacitance), won't be very useful and may be hiding other more interesting differences.
There is still no way to prove something is inaudible, and DiffMaker can't change that.
But the Audio DiffMaker process can make signal differences that do exist more obvious, which may lead to less disagreement. And in an Audio DiffMaker test, the final Difference result is recorded to a "wav" file that can be replayed by anyone, for themselves, at any later time using the freeware software. The result file itself is available, for any interested person to evaluate
-------------------------------------------------------------
When might you use Audio DiffMaker?
When you are interested in whether an audio signal is actually being changed by:
* Changing interconnect cables (compensation for cable capacitance may be required)
* Different types of basic components (resistors, capacitors, inductors)
* Special power cords
* Changing loudspeaker cables (cable inductance may need to be matched or compensated)
* Treatments to audio CDs (pens, demagnetizers, lathes, dampers, coatings...)
* Vibration control devices
* EMI control devices
* Paints and lacquers used on cables, etc.
* Premium audio connectors
* Devices said to modify electrons or their travel, such as certain treated "clocks"
* Different kinds of operational amplifiers, transistors, or vacuum tubes
* Different kinds of CD players
* Changing between power amplifiers
* General audio "tweaks" said to affect audio signals (rather than to affect the listener directly)
* Anything else where the ability to change an audio signal is questioned
Will Audio DiffMaker always resolve these issues?
No. Tests can be inconclusive because of noise or difficult system or recording conditions. And because the final result (the "Difference" recording) will still be evaluated by ear, human judgment is involved in determining whether the changes are significant, unfortunately leaving much room for disagreement. Technique and judgment is important also, as with any test. It is important to account for known effects. Differences that are uncovered, if due to expected causes (such as can be happen from changes of cable capacitance), won't be very useful and may be hiding other more interesting differences.
There is still no way to prove something is inaudible, and DiffMaker can't change that.
But the Audio DiffMaker process can make signal differences that do exist more obvious, which may lead to less disagreement. And in an Audio DiffMaker test, the final Difference result is recorded to a "wav" file that can be replayed by anyone, for themselves, at any later time using the freeware software. The result file itself is available, for any interested person to evaluate
salas. That was for the SynRTA, but I do like loud sounds so thanks for the DiffMaker as well. If there is no entertainment life is not worth living.
nigelwright7557 said:
If you are happy with what you hear, it's all that matter. If all your cables sound the same, you are lucky, choose the cheapest one.
Yes they all have an influence on sound quality.
When you are happy with your system.
André
nunayafb said:
What argument? I don't see one, why do you?
I believe most here are looking for answers or explanations, obviously with different idea's or else there wouldn't be a discussion.
nunayafb said:
I have no problem with being objective, surely there must be a balance somewhere. That can only be reached if both work together to find answers.
nunayafb said:
Yes, it must be me. Just because you can't doesn't mean nobody can do it, I've done my share of comparative tests the past 12 years to know what I like and what not.
André
So, Andre, what you saying is: “if it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck it could be a T-Rex because it is pan-dimensional and we just can't say for sure because our dimensional jumping science are not there yet.”😀
Andy Graddon said:
Really Andy? Ypou must have been reading a different thread; or did you just make this up?
R-Carpenter said:
Now that you mention it, if you view the T-Rex from far enough it could very much look like a duck. 😀
They are actually quite closely related.
Jack Horner's "The Dinosaur Heresies" is a superb and accessible treatment.
Jack Horner's "The Dinosaur Heresies" is a superb and accessible treatment.
nigelwright7557 said:
Actually, the copper tracks on the PC board can play a significant role in the amplifiers ability to be accurate.
Show me any audio amplifier pc board design layout, and I will explain exactly where the poor design is, and why there is no control over where the current goes, why there is lots of mag field splaying about within the design. Coupled with wiring layout off the board, and you have the spaghetti syndrome...
Most speaker wires in comparison, have control over the current path several orders of magnitude better.
Cheers, John
Last night I think was abducted by aliens but I'm not sure because they erased my memory.
It's said to be impossible to prove a negative, but it's a matter of degree. Philosophically one could make the case that it's impossible to prove or disprove anything, but you can prove inaudibility to such a degree of certainty that only a fool would argue against it. There is certainly a level below which things are inaudible and so far below our mental noise level as to have no effect on our conscious or unconscious perception of music reproduction. What we really argue about is what the level is, and I don't see any end to that discussion.
As for time resolution and the previous mention of localization, I'm more skeptical after thinking about tape deck alignments I've done. Step 1 is to align a tape head against a reference tape so the high frequencies aren't attenuated. Step 2 is to further refine the alignment so the phase of the high frequencies is matched. The reality is that phase will rarely be maintained on different decks, and even the same deck will be a bit unstable and sensitive to the tape used. These problems are way worse than the period of a 20kHz waveform, much less than the imaging example given, and are worst of all on a cassette deck. Yet, you can have perfectly good localization and soundstage on even a medium quality cassette deck. You can have great localization and soundstage on a decent one. Based on that, I have to move subtle time differences, propagation delays, and related stuff way down on the list of things that affect cables and electronics. IMO, whatever the audibility limit is, they're way better than that.
It's said to be impossible to prove a negative, but it's a matter of degree. Philosophically one could make the case that it's impossible to prove or disprove anything, but you can prove inaudibility to such a degree of certainty that only a fool would argue against it. There is certainly a level below which things are inaudible and so far below our mental noise level as to have no effect on our conscious or unconscious perception of music reproduction. What we really argue about is what the level is, and I don't see any end to that discussion.
As for time resolution and the previous mention of localization, I'm more skeptical after thinking about tape deck alignments I've done. Step 1 is to align a tape head against a reference tape so the high frequencies aren't attenuated. Step 2 is to further refine the alignment so the phase of the high frequencies is matched. The reality is that phase will rarely be maintained on different decks, and even the same deck will be a bit unstable and sensitive to the tape used. These problems are way worse than the period of a 20kHz waveform, much less than the imaging example given, and are worst of all on a cassette deck. Yet, you can have perfectly good localization and soundstage on even a medium quality cassette deck. You can have great localization and soundstage on a decent one. Based on that, I have to move subtle time differences, propagation delays, and related stuff way down on the list of things that affect cables and electronics. IMO, whatever the audibility limit is, they're way better than that.
From a strict technical point of view it would be very unlikely to not have differences due to the usage of different constructed cables.
We have to deal with flaws of the asymmetrical RCA-connections and we have to deal with different levels of interference both spectral wise and amplitude wise, and in the end to make it a bit more complicated we do have different grounding schemes.
Of course all these are related.
Interesting enough that all standard literature in this field, see for example Morrison, Ott, Muncy or Durcansky totally agree that in different situations there are good reasons why cables of different construction would give very different results.
And of course all these agree, see jneutrons post above too, that the internal construction of the equipment is an important factor to interfacing problems.
So only the question is left, if it will be audible.
But that requires proper listening tests (and some measurement as well). 🙂
We have to deal with flaws of the asymmetrical RCA-connections and we have to deal with different levels of interference both spectral wise and amplitude wise, and in the end to make it a bit more complicated we do have different grounding schemes.
Of course all these are related.
Interesting enough that all standard literature in this field, see for example Morrison, Ott, Muncy or Durcansky totally agree that in different situations there are good reasons why cables of different construction would give very different results.
And of course all these agree, see jneutrons post above too, that the internal construction of the equipment is an important factor to interfacing problems.
So only the question is left, if it will be audible.
But that requires proper listening tests (and some measurement as well). 🙂
Andre Visser said:
This debate is not about what we like, its about audibility. I may be under- estimating your hearing ability, but without some sort of objective test, I will never know how wrong I am. 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.