terry j said:
I guess that after the first couple of times we both knew we were under test. It was sort of a game where neither of us knew if or when the other had changed the cables.
Gees we must have been geeks !!!!
But he was always able to tell which cables were being used. I could only do it on certain tracks.
Certainly I agree with your second statement. iirc, only one of the cables was "expensive", and it wasn't the one either of us preferred.
AJinFLA said:
Firstly, I did not mention hearing differences in cables that measure the same..... where did that come from? My comments referred to the differences in the sound of speaker cables in general.
All these are for a 1m length.
Cable 1: 0R015, 43pF, 0.51uH
Cable 2: 0R007, 53pF, 0.4uH
Cable 3: 0R012, 1500pF, 0.03uH
Cable 4: 0R041, 312pF, 0.65uH
rabbitz said:
The five senses you have been "blessed" with are not infinite, they all have limits as to what they can tell you. And they can be fooled, so you can't always trust them especially when they are reaching their limits.
Your examples above are takings things too far. You can trust your imperfect eyes to drive a car fly a plane etc etc. But in low light critical situations accidents happen. Likewise you can also trust your imperfect ears for normal hearing, but listening for cable differences is not normal hearing, you are in the zone where mistakes are made.
A wise man will rely on his Instruments when landing in the fog.
cheers
terry j said:
I sort of disagree with you, to me cables are usefull to "tune" a system, eg. some systems can sound more harsch, so you can use cables that make it sound better.
I've found that a good setup sound good with any music but I believe the effort is perhaps only worthwhile when you like to listen to acoustical music.
Andre Visser said:
hi andre, well I sorta disagree with that. However I do admit I haven't personally tried different cables, so yes from that viewpoint you're one up on me.
My point is that I really don't feel there is a lot of difference (given good enough cables), and Alan kinda found that out for himself.
Besides, this is a DIY loudspeaker forum, we are surely able to
get the system right so that we aren't forced to resort to such crude tuning techniques?
looking forward to the wallabies v the boks heh heh
terry j said:
Yes luckily we can tune everything but for the other, sometimes they have to rely on the crude ways. 😀
To me good cables are like using high quality capacitors in the crossovers, in the end all the little bits make a big difference.
Can't wait for that match, if only we can get to a point to get politics out of our sport. 😉
André
Andre Visser said:
Let's start with proving the existence of audible differences by just listening to the recordings. An ABX test report with a repetitive significant score (something like 11 right out of 12 trials and that in a couple of test sessions) would prove that you're able to hear a difference. My experience is that once a difference is clearly identified it is easy to get a 100% score.
How long do you want each recordings to be?
And what source will you be using to play the 24/96 files with?
Alan Hope said:
Well done for going ahead with it, brave man to report, and especially kudos for reconsidering your prior views.
Personally I think I would have done the same as you -- filed the result away for mental musing. The odds of tossing a coin 20 times and getting 15 heads are not *that* bad (someone will fill in the facts). Doing it 1000 times and getting 750 heads would be *very* interesting. (Not suggesting that!)
Are you able to provide L, C, R measurements for the 2 cable pairs (L & R) including end connectors?
ravon said:
I should be able to organise an EMMLabs CD player for the test, mine can only play 16/44, unless you want to try both.
If you just want to give it a try first, perhaps you can choose one track that sound good and record it with a couple of different cables. Let's see if I can hear it first.
André
rabbitz said:
There is something very wrong with the specs on cable 4, wires by themselves cannot do that.
Cable 3 is also a bit off.
Cheers, John
All from the manufacturer's data sheets which is better than I can measure with my equipment.
tnargs said:
The result was statistically significant (p<0.05). It was NOT a null result. I did not expect the negative result - but perhaps having got the first cable wrong, the rest followed ... I don't want to milk the results.
I have a multimeter so will try measuring LCRs.
Alan Hope said:
Are you sure? If I force PCABX into a result of 5 out of 20 trials it responds with a 100% chance of guessing. 100% seems strange. When I lookup the p value in the spreadsheet which can be downloaded here: http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/bino_dist.zip, the chance that you were guessing appears to be 98,5%.
Am I overlooking something?
ravon said:
100% guessing, 98,5% guessing??
Bit of a software problem there methinks.
pcabx site is down.
Try here wikipedia p value entry
Its such an odd result.. its seems to indicate you might have been recognising a difference but the wrong way around.
that might indicate you were listening for the wrong cues, why is anybody's guess, but maybe when listening sighted you had an expectation of a particular difference, but they were actually the other way around. dunno !!!
anyway, bet its going to bug you for a while
that might indicate you were listening for the wrong cues, why is anybody's guess, but maybe when listening sighted you had an expectation of a particular difference, but they were actually the other way around. dunno !!!
anyway, bet its going to bug you for a while
- Status
- Not open for further replies.