amen !
gees , it is soo00 reassuring to know that truth can always be shown by contrived, synthetic, forced testing procedures.
Andy G said:
In all posts we have read about controlled tests no one has made a suggestion on which the playback system may be.That system must be able to do justice to any form of tests.IMO it is the number one factor to consider and one all have to accept(as test system).And before someone says anything about price,no,it doesnt have to be one of the so called "Reference audiophile systems".We all know what cables are used in those systems 🙂
Hi Tnargs,
Re your comments about my comments re optical/non-optical cables:
Wasn't trying to prove it to the world, just myself. I liked the idea of the optical, and they were the same cost. Sighted tests = personal tests. Both cables were connected simultaneously, I just used the selector on my TVC to swap them. Clearly different - so I use the wired connection - and wasn't going to set up a large, controlled blinded test before making that momentous decision! (Yes I realise that there could have been differences between inputs, and technical problems with cables etc).
Do you ever use the word "jittery" (edgy, nervous)? If so, how would you expect the audible effects of something called "jitter" to sound?
I was also unsure I would hear any difference, because I had read that my DAC reclocked the digital stream (which WOULD have meant an entirely psychological effect). Still not sure if it does or not.
Otherwise, I sort of agree with your objectivism. I am satisfied (personally) that cables sound different, but boy it was unexpectedly difficult to hear it when blinded. A foot in both camps.
So I suggest we all buy reasonably well made cables, with quality connectors, and listen to music. I, for one, having tried DBTs am not interested in cable swapping any more.
My mind is still not entirely closed though!
Re your comments about my comments re optical/non-optical cables:
Wasn't trying to prove it to the world, just myself. I liked the idea of the optical, and they were the same cost. Sighted tests = personal tests. Both cables were connected simultaneously, I just used the selector on my TVC to swap them. Clearly different - so I use the wired connection - and wasn't going to set up a large, controlled blinded test before making that momentous decision! (Yes I realise that there could have been differences between inputs, and technical problems with cables etc).
Do you ever use the word "jittery" (edgy, nervous)? If so, how would you expect the audible effects of something called "jitter" to sound?
I was also unsure I would hear any difference, because I had read that my DAC reclocked the digital stream (which WOULD have meant an entirely psychological effect). Still not sure if it does or not.
Otherwise, I sort of agree with your objectivism. I am satisfied (personally) that cables sound different, but boy it was unexpectedly difficult to hear it when blinded. A foot in both camps.
So I suggest we all buy reasonably well made cables, with quality connectors, and listen to music. I, for one, having tried DBTs am not interested in cable swapping any more.
My mind is still not entirely closed though!
planet10 said:
Do you have the link to this study? I looked for it but maybe with the wrong keywords.
Thanks.
Well, yes, actually. That's how sensory research is done. Experiments don't just "happen," someone must contrive them. "Synthetic" meaning "man-made,"then yes, it's generally a man or woman who designs and performs the experiments. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "forced"- in my research on haptics and organoleptics, the test subjects were generally volunteers or paid. I'm not aware of too many studies done with slave labor.
schumpe said:
cliffforrest said:
No i don't have a link, and from the 2nd comment, my recollection id a bit cloudy, as they were taking much shorter time frames than that.
They were talking about under 100pS jitter. A CD player with 1 nS jitter is not considered to have a very good jitter spec
dave
SY said:
I am sure he means "forced" choice. In an ABX, the choice of X is "forced". This has some specific affects on the statistics.
dave
planet10 said:
And not just on the statistics, but on the listener too.
This style of test is far removed from a real listening experience, but many seem to think that they provide the whole and only truth, and hold the results of such tests as actually meaning something concrete. And then they class themselves as being 'objective' ???
Key said:
no,actually. you end up compensating for the weaknesses of the playback system if it is crappy. that's why NS10's are so popular. they are crappy and fatiguing, but they are pretty flat.
the beter the studio monitors, the more likely the final mix will translate to any speaker, even little laptop speakers. if you tried to mix on laptop speakers, you'd have NO idea what was going on with the spectrum.
Key said:
sometimes, cables and dusty pots are just hanging by a thread and are wiggled until signal gets through, lol.
I think you are missing my point a little.
What I am saying is that at certain point you will just start to reveal un-fixable errors. There is no way to offsett for jitter.
Haha @ the weak solder connections. Isn't that the truth. I've been in some studios where they basically give the gear a good smack before using it lol.
Anyway what I had in mind was the Uncanny Valley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
Is it the same for percieved realism within an audio system? Like at a certain point the benfits stop and the listener starts to percieve things as becoming fake again. A theory anyway
What I am saying is that at certain point you will just start to reveal un-fixable errors. There is no way to offsett for jitter.
Haha @ the weak solder connections. Isn't that the truth. I've been in some studios where they basically give the gear a good smack before using it lol.
Anyway what I had in mind was the Uncanny Valley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
Is it the same for percieved realism within an audio system? Like at a certain point the benfits stop and the listener starts to percieve things as becoming fake again. A theory anyway
Reading the cable threads one always see objections to the ABX test. The objections are either statistical (legit) or "stress related." I.E., we don't listen to music that way.
But most folks who claim to hear differences DO swap cables and pick out better ones. Much like in an ABX test. They usually don't run the test over a period of many months. The exception is when you get used to a system, then swap in new cables. That should be the most obvious.
ABX test believers, like SY, state that blind ABX tests are very successful in other areas, such as wine. Why not audio? This is a good argument. But I would counter that by asking "if I gave you 2 glasses of Pinot noir, into one of which I had dropped 3 ml of Cabernet (1%) would you be able to tell? Have you actually tested this? We may be talking of changes that subtle with cables. What is the threshold?
Larger changes in the sound of cables is probably due to easily measurable properties, LC&R.
If we don't like the unnatural stress of the ABX, why not just wire up the test subject to a polygraph and/or EEG? Everyone though that was pretty funny, but at least the test subject is not forced into making any choices. Just listen, let the test do the rest.
But most folks who claim to hear differences DO swap cables and pick out better ones. Much like in an ABX test. They usually don't run the test over a period of many months. The exception is when you get used to a system, then swap in new cables. That should be the most obvious.
ABX test believers, like SY, state that blind ABX tests are very successful in other areas, such as wine. Why not audio? This is a good argument. But I would counter that by asking "if I gave you 2 glasses of Pinot noir, into one of which I had dropped 3 ml of Cabernet (1%) would you be able to tell? Have you actually tested this? We may be talking of changes that subtle with cables. What is the threshold?
Larger changes in the sound of cables is probably due to easily measurable properties, LC&R.
If we don't like the unnatural stress of the ABX, why not just wire up the test subject to a polygraph and/or EEG? Everyone though that was pretty funny, but at least the test subject is not forced into making any choices. Just listen, let the test do the rest.
panomaniac said:
I wish someone could find the thesis by the (hostile) ex-wife of one of our members. Probably take a visit to the university. Somewhere i have the info if someone wants to try tracking it down (as much as exHubby could provide). His summary of her thesis results was that for audio ABX is laughable at best.
And somewhere buried in jacob's posts is a comment about all the false results generated by the wine tasting tests...
dave
When my wife and daughter can walk through the room while I'm switching between the left and right speakers ( L+R speakers summed to either channel when switched) , and they both ask why the right speaker sounds different and better than the left channel, I rest my case.
Phillip Byers said:
Hello Phillip. I own and used a pair of Nordost BlueHeaven speaker wires for many years. I found them to be quite nice and better than anything else I tried up to $1K. IMO Nordost makes some of the best cables bar none.
I only stopped using them in my main system after my friend, Mike R built me a set of his ICs & speaker wires using an idea I haven't seen anyone else employ. Mike R's speaker wires and IC's are now the best I've ever heard.
Thetubeguy1954
- Status
- Not open for further replies.