I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[scott wurcer]

I disagree. In pink noise it is very easy to hear differences - trained or not.

Noise is a high entropy signal so it potentially contains more information. I would expect the frequency response deviations to jump out better.

 

[Pano]

They do, they do! Knowing what's right, is another matter, tho. That does take some training.

 

[Panicos K]

Even musicians with highly trained hearing might not be used(and they are not)to pink noise and they cannot tell what's right by listening to pink noise.Lets just not make this a must have privilage for the "trained listener".It is not.

 

[audio-kraut]

Panicos - how can you detect anything in a dynamically constantly changing signal with a different mix of frequencies at any given time?
Talk about graininess - this to me is as coarse grained as possible.

A music signal is ok if you listen to music - but if you want to assess
differences on the equipment level - that just isn't sensitive enough, you keep adding layers of complexity that can only have the effect mask real and perceptible differences.

Any unfamiliarity is easy to overcome - set the participant in front of speakers - or use headphones - and have him listen to the signal. Then change the quality slightly using tone controls/equalizer and have the participant experience the differences in the signal.

From my experience - even slight changes using a deq let you easily point out differences. Try this with a music signal.

BTW - the scope of a test as to tonal differences in cables or other equipment does not establish right or wrong - it is just there to establish if measured differences result in audible differences.

 

[Panicos K]

audio-kraut :I do not dissagree with what you say.But if we are talking about cable diferences it is already dificult for most.Why not play them some familiar music and let them see if they hear a diference?In my case,in the cable blind test my friends and I are planning,I will not just try to tell if there is a diference,but I will try to have a high score by telling which cable is which.Eventhough I am somehow familiar with pink noise/signals,I have never used them as a way to detect diferences in sound(music).How can you ask someone who is not familiar to these signals to just listen to them and decide which cable will serve his system and taste on music?On the equipment level,yes,signals are a must.

 

[Robert F]

We are still talking about speaker cables right? Here is an old article by Nelson Pass on the subject:

http://www.passlabs.com/pdf/articles/spkrcabl.pdf

I have electrostatic speakers and "think" I can tell the difference between speaker cables on my system rather easily. Maybe the phenomena described in the article explains why?

Any way a good read.

Rob.

 

[Pano]

In pink noise is very easy to hear hear a cahnge in FR, you don't have to be trained to do it. Maybe a tained listener could detect a smaller cahnge, i don't know.

So it's a very good test for FR. But may not be a good test for other things at all. Detail, decay, dynamics for example.

To get back to the ABX test - SY has suggested another method called "Trianlge" I think. Any details on that? It's buried in a thread somewhere.

 

[Pano]

Here is an old article by Nelson Pass on the subject:

Thanks for that Rob. An oldie, but a goodie.


Of course it just makes me want to buy the mogami cable and be done with it. 😀

 

[Alan Hope]

Apart from FR changes, you may want to try to hear the effects of loss of micro-details with some cables. These would show up, presumably, as restricted soundstage, reduced ambience or sense of "being-there". We all know that tingly feeling of a long cymbal decay that just sounds "right". That first valve/t-amp thrill!

Can't see pink noise revealing that. And FR changes are would be so much more influenced by the room, sitting position etc.

Just a thought.

 

[audio-kraut]

And FR changes are would be so much more influenced by the room,

Use headphones then.

 

[Jakob2]

If the ratio of false positives is actually that high, where does that leave any testing?
That indicates an "expectation" bias, which might mean that this testing is unusable, and the noise drowns out any actual results.

So, what methodology then to use to overcome this bias?

It´s just a normal problem, which in this or a similar way arises in every research.
One possible solution is to discard discrimination tests and use preference tests, see for example the mentioned test regimes ITU-BS1116 and MUSHRA, both are preferences tests with some positive and negative controls (in short, presenting a open and a hidden reference and some altered, lowpass filtered versions of the reference and the DUT; the participant has to evaluate the samples, of course the hidden reference should get the highest score, the filtered versions lowest scores)

Another solution is to train the participants for a given test scheme- quite often afterwards you´ll see that the "difference bias" isn´t there anymore as the listeners are suddenly able to detect "sameness" even under blind test conditions.

Olaf Sturm´s test was another way to deal with the "difference bias" , just use a 2 or 3-alternative forced choice test and use a control for a presentation order bias.

 

[dukeoyork]

Thanks for that Rob. An oldie, but a goodie.


Of course it just makes me want to buy the mogami cable and be done with it. 😀

funny. i want the fulton gold.
i mentioned fulton gold earlier in the thread. i got to listen to it for many, many hours back in the eighties, and it was the thing that convinced me that speaker cable makes a difference. nice to see nelson pass agrees. theywere terminated with gold spade connectors, these tapered cones that once you stuck them in, you couldn't pull them back out without twisting them.
even now, i wish i could hear some of the subsonics that were audible on particular recordings that i heard back then.
like laurie anderson's 'mister heartbreak' album. on 'sharkey's day', there is a low rumble that must be lower than 30 hz by a good bit, because you only feel it on wicked systems. you wouldn't even know it was there on a typical goodish system.
or, at the end of XTC's 'wake up' on 'the big express' album, there is an F, G, A progression (chords, that is) that is played on pipe organ, where the fundamental is beyond the capabilities of typical systems. you can hear the higher octave, but the doubled octave below is usually missing. it can be felt more than heard.

low C on a piano is 32hz. what is a low F below that? that's the frequency i wish my discount hifi could reproduce, nice and tight and flatly.

that was a great article, and thanks for posting it, robert f. pretty much confirms my nebulous take on the matter.

 

[auplater]

problem with sunjective observations

One of the big problems in this argument of "cable sound" is the seemingly endless need to apply some sort of "technical sounding" attribute to the subjective observations being made, as in "micro-details", "micro-phonics", etc., not to mention the add-copy sounding and infinitely repeating descriptions of causation, as in micro-diodes, dielectric loss, skin effect, single crystal OFHC 6 nines pure unobtainium, blah, blah.


Why not simply state the opinions of subjective superiority of one cable over the other in subjective terms like "beautiful panorama" or "pleasing presentation", lifelike sounding", etc. and leave it at that? Oh, I get it, that wouldn't pass the "proof of manhood" testosterone strut, much less sell more product.

Thus the adventure continues....😀 😉

John L.

 

[Dynsdale]

Re: problem with sunjective observations

[causation, as in micro-diodes, dielectric loss, skin effect, single crystal OFHC 6 nines pure unobtainium, blah, blah.
[/B]

Hi John L.
I'm aware of skin effect and dielectric loss, even proximity effect.
I know these take effect in high frequency work and become problems in RF, especially in UHF and sattelite comms. This is much less of a problem for audio which features much lower on the spectrum.
Why the fuss, unless for the sake of marketing.
Micro-diodes I understand but am really doubtfull wether these are audable. 6 nines pure unobtainium, what's that.
Cheers,
Carl

 

[Brett]

I think John was being sarcastic.

 

[Ed Holland]

Re: problem with sunjective observations

One of the big problems in this argument of "cable sound" is the seemingly endless need to apply some sort of "technical sounding" attribute to the subjective observations being made, as in "micro-details", "micro-phonics", etc., not to mention the add-copy sounding and infinitely repeating descriptions of causation, as in micro-diodes, dielectric loss, skin effect, single crystal OFHC 6 nines pure unobtainium, blah, blah.


Why not simply state the opinions of subjective superiority of one cable over the other in subjective terms like "beautiful panorama" or "pleasing presentation", lifelike sounding", etc. and leave it at that? Oh, I get it, that wouldn't pass the "proof of manhood" testosterone strut, much less sell more product.

Thus the adventure continues....😀 😉

John L.

Well said. I've often thought that the higher forms of "hi fi speak" are absurd, but of course, also seductive.


At least this thread is bringing the debate about cables to a meaningful conclusion, and opinions towards a firm concensus... and thats the main thing.



🙄

 

[Alan Hope]

I think my VdH RCAs sound nice. Other cables I tried sounded slghtly less nice. I realise that by spending much more I could get a really nice sound. Which would be nice.

In double-blind testing, it was harder to tell which cable sounded nicest, but I think it was the yellow one (nice colour too!)

🙂

 

[Ed Holland]

Perfect 🙂

 

[Defo]

How can the external cables of a speaker get any better then the internal cables of a speaker?

How can the external cables between a source and an amplifier get any better then the internal cables of the source and the amplifier?

.....

 

[cuibono]

Thank Rob for that NP article - definitely good to read again.

I just stumbled across this bibliography from someone who takes cables seriously, its interesting :

http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/c4.htm