Andre Visser said:
For an informal test, sure, use friends and family. If you want it taken seriously by others, I'd use skeptics.
Personally, I'd keep it simple. Two cables that you think will sound different but have no effect on source stability, level, or frequency response. Verify the besic engineering parameters before you start.
As long as you can guess A or B, how you do it is up to you. Just make sure that you don't communicate any of your scoring to anyone else participating in the test until it's all over. And no mulligans- if you guess A, the key sheet says B. you can't say, "Oh, yeah, that's what I thought it was, how could I have written it down wrong?"
And my sincerest congratulations for having the sand to put your beliefs to the test.
SY said:
Problem is that I don't know any sceptics. 😀
SY said:
What parameters must I verify? I believe all the cables I've mentioned will qualify to be 'exotic' whatever the meaning of that is supposed to be, I prefer well engineered.
André
"Is the a correlation between cable cost and listener preference?". or the statement
"Listeners prefer more expensive cables" or better "At the same volume, listeners prefer more expensive cables".
"Listeners prefer more expensive cables" or better "At the same volume, listeners prefer more expensive cables".
I have to say that over the years I have used anything from cheap bell wire to £8.00 p/m oxygen free speaker cable and from what I can see unless you have a mega high quality amp and signal source (more important than the speaker cable surely) and an almost acoustically perfect room then it really has never made any difference to my listening experience. Some would say that the music I listen to does not necessarily benefit from high definition, but I would tend to disagree .
At the end of the day I would think most people that have paid top dollar for cable would not be able to stand up and easily say "I wasted my money". In my case I can, I did and I would not do it again (I even went to the lengths of having cable runs cut to the same length between speakers resulting in a lot of cash coiled up under the floorboards
).
I seem to remember seeing results for comparisons where they used frequency analysers to compare the sound produced on identical systems and there was almost no difference between top notch audio cable and standard 3 core mains cable (with 2 cores twisted together for the -'ve / return signal - if there can be such a thing for a sinusoidal signal??
At the end of the day I would think most people that have paid top dollar for cable would not be able to stand up and easily say "I wasted my money". In my case I can, I did and I would not do it again (I even went to the lengths of having cable runs cut to the same length between speakers resulting in a lot of cash coiled up under the floorboards
).I seem to remember seeing results for comparisons where they used frequency analysers to compare the sound produced on identical systems and there was almost no difference between top notch audio cable and standard 3 core mains cable (with 2 cores twisted together for the -'ve / return signal - if there can be such a thing for a sinusoidal signal??
okay i listened.
the effect of these crossover points is subtle, and unless compared to the original would be un-noticable.
that said, the original does always sound more even as the voice, or sax, or audience clapping and other giveaways get (subtly) veiled, or certain notes sound quieter through the filters. it is only noticable on things that are changing pitch. drums are pretty much not adversely affected. on the sax in particular, the effect is easier to hear. the effect is exactly the same as the phasing caused by moving the sax around in front of the microphone, and so, without an 'original' to compare it to, it would not easily be recognised as a 'problem'.
i will 'finish' the test later, by answering the questions posed, but for now, i heard a (large? no.) difference on at least some of the samples.
it is quite clear, though, on the samples that i did notice phase diffferences from the originals.
the effect of these crossover points is subtle, and unless compared to the original would be un-noticable.
that said, the original does always sound more even as the voice, or sax, or audience clapping and other giveaways get (subtly) veiled, or certain notes sound quieter through the filters. it is only noticable on things that are changing pitch. drums are pretty much not adversely affected. on the sax in particular, the effect is easier to hear. the effect is exactly the same as the phasing caused by moving the sax around in front of the microphone, and so, without an 'original' to compare it to, it would not easily be recognised as a 'problem'.
i will 'finish' the test later, by answering the questions posed, but for now, i heard a (large? no.) difference on at least some of the samples.
it is quite clear, though, on the samples that i did notice phase diffferences from the originals.
Key said:
The wording of the test is important. I expect the result was that they could tell which was live and which was recorded. That's not the same as couldn't tell the sounds apart. It could just mean the listeners are not familiar with live music. Not that a company would ever play with words to sell a product......
What's the quote? "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"
thetubeguy1954 said:
And he was right to trust his friends ears, after all his friends company produces many many audio gadgets like the dcx and deq etc etc etc!😉
thetubeguy1954 said:
It seems you did not misquote him, but you sure as hell did draw erronous conclusions.
I am reasonably certain (without knowing more details) that whatever was heard would have had it's basis in what SL accepts as good basic, repeatable audio engineering. I mean I doubt he changed a speaker cable or interconnect and the problem dissappeared right?
It does seem in the end that SL came to hear what was mentioned, regardless of how long it may have taken. That is almost never the case when cables differences are heard by one party, the other does not over time begin to hear them if they do not exist.
I am also sure that these things heard would have been measurable by SL, again not the same as cables (assuming correct construction blah blah blah)
Back to the most basic 'fact' that it is difficult, to say the least, to find evidence that these heard differences in cables can be shown to exist. In a great percentage of times differences are heard when in fact no change was made.
The conclusion you are trying to draw is tenuous at the very least.
Having said that, well done to you (and andre) for having the cahooneys to do, or be willing to do, a more rigourous examination of the matter. (wish I could find some over here, I'd be in it like a rat up a drain pipe)
Another 'big name' that found cable audibility humourous was John Dunlavy. His trick was to pretend to change cables behind his speakers (and not do a thing, just have his assistants hold up pythons and allow auto suggestion to take over) and then sit back and listen to all the reported 'improved airs, darker blacknesses, liquid midranges' to occur.
Which is sufficient for me to realise there are bigger fish to fry in audio than cables.
SY said:
Not skeptics, true believers. Skeptics could here the sweet, sweet sound of that special cryo dipped in dog pooh cable and lie. Can true believers sort out lamp cord from that expensive cryo dog pooh cable? I think that's the question.
I believe expensive cables "sound" better if one believes they sound better. The question is: what changed? The sound coming out of the speaker, or the cable buyer?
dzzmiller said:
Sometimes cable choice may depend on personal preference however I listen for the amount of detail, ambiance and soudstage focus, usually you can say the one is better than the other.
I would really like to get a cheap, really good cable, pity I did not find one yet. Contrary to popular believe, for some at least, high cable prices can count against it, there are no way I would pay more for a cable if it doesn't make the system sound noticeably better. I will also never buy a cable without thoroughly testing it on my system.
If you are content with average but OK sound, any cable will do and even the very cheapest would sound OK
In some "low-fi" situations the cheap cable might even be preferred
If you are after ultimate sound, and if only the best will do, then theres no way around experimenting with cables
Mind you, Im not suggesting buying expencive cable, but more like "building" your own, which doesnt cost much
Nothing fancy, even the simplest might winn
Rather than using expencive materials, better to experiment with differnt thickness and sleeve materials
There are many ways to do it
You dont believe it matters ?
Well, have you tried ?
😱
In some "low-fi" situations the cheap cable might even be preferred
If you are after ultimate sound, and if only the best will do, then theres no way around experimenting with cables
Mind you, Im not suggesting buying expencive cable, but more like "building" your own, which doesnt cost much
Nothing fancy, even the simplest might winn
Rather than using expencive materials, better to experiment with differnt thickness and sleeve materials
There are many ways to do it
You dont believe it matters ?
Well, have you tried ?
😱
dzz, not skeptics for the test subjects, skeptics for the people actually running the test, keeping the key sheets, etc.
Driving source stability, frequency response, and level. Probably not an issue, but some "exotic" cables can kill some amps and some exotic cables have built-in inductance or excessive DCR. Best to double-check or all you'll prove is that you can hear 0.5dB frequency response errors or whatever.
Driving source stability, frequency response, and level. Probably not an issue, but some "exotic" cables can kill some amps and some exotic cables have built-in inductance or excessive DCR. Best to double-check or all you'll prove is that you can hear 0.5dB frequency response errors or whatever.
Once you guys tire of this, perhaps you can lend a hand in this thread. I see SY got an early start.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1776542#post1776542
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1776542#post1776542
SY said:
I had totally forgotten about Burstein´s comments on the Stereophile dbt.
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index10.html
Still an interesting reading- you might want to reread it too, as Burstein draw a different conclusion than "back to random chance". 🙂
It´s a given that _we_ _all_ are prone to sort of commentator/reader bias. 🙂
It was good to review that, it's been some years. One thing I had forgotten was that there was a significant frequency response difference between the two amps.
SY said:
Exactly. And still the participants had pretty big difficulties to detect the differences.
Something that is often consistent in documented blind tests, participants often fail to detect differences that are already known to be audible.
Normal conclusion i think would be to better train listeners for participation on dbts and, second, use positive controls on different sensitivity levels- otherwise you really don´t know what can be heard under the test conditions.
The conclusion for me is to take claims of audibility by enthusiastic audiophiles of, ummm, exotic things with a HUGE grain of salt and a more-than-healthy does of skepticism.
Group listening tests in large environments are fun to talk about but rather useless.
Group listening tests in large environments are fun to talk about but rather useless.
I´d usually take every claim (be it of audibility or be it of nonaudibility) with a huge grain of salt. 🙂
Do you not agree that it is better to use trained listeners and to use positive controls?
Do you not agree that it is better to use trained listeners and to use positive controls?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.