I can hear a difference!
New here(been lurking for awhile).
I switched from Radio Shack "speaker wire" (18g zipcord) to Monster Cable 12 Guage and heard a difference(reduced series resistance= better bass).
Also made up some CAT-5 cables per JonRisch and heard a difference(reduced inductance= better high frequency response) .
Whats so hard to believe about that?😕
(My system has a Denon AVR3300 driving Polk LSi9 speakers)
New here(been lurking for awhile).
I switched from Radio Shack "speaker wire" (18g zipcord) to Monster Cable 12 Guage and heard a difference(reduced series resistance= better bass).
Also made up some CAT-5 cables per JonRisch and heard a difference(reduced inductance= better high frequency response) .
Whats so hard to believe about that?😕
(My system has a Denon AVR3300 driving Polk LSi9 speakers)
And what's the effect on the capacitance? If the cables are just providing a bit of EQ, there's easier and cheaper ways of doing that.
Panicos K said:Get well soon tubeguy
Imagine my surprise when, in recovery from my bilateral hernia surgery, I see such nice messages from folks who couldn't possibly have known about it!
Wait a minute ... "tubeguy"?
Sounds, unfortunately, like I'm doing considerably better than "thetubeguy" is, but best wishes for improved health. - Pat
Spectral Contamination Mesurement
Last night I read the Jensen AES paper from 1988 called
"Spectral Contamination Measurement"
It's a multi tone test, like the others sited recently. Of course the main focus is on transformers, being Jensen, but they also did amplifier tests. In the Cerwin paper linked to earlier they complain that the Jensen test uses only tones at or above 20Khz and thus is not a good test for in band audio. That is true of the Jensen transformer test, but not the amplifier tests. The tests in the paper I have show FFT for 0Hz to 7.68KHz.
Amps tested where:
MacIntosh model 30 (tube)
Hafler P500 (FET output)
Hafler XL-280 (FET)
Boulder model 500 (opamps and bipolar)
Each amp was tested no load, 8 ohm resistor load, two-way speaker load. (A "Realistic" handy in the lab)
The results are quite striking (to the eye). The MacIntosh has the highest level of distortion, or course. But they all measure differently on a speaker and on a resistive load. And the differences are not the same from amp to amp.
What was not measured was cables. Also, as noted in the paper, odd order harmonics are not identified. The ratio of odd to even harmonics is going to make a difference in the sound, IMO.
Also included are some nice multitone tests of opamps and tape recorders. Interesting stuff.
Last night I read the Jensen AES paper from 1988 called
"Spectral Contamination Measurement"
It's a multi tone test, like the others sited recently. Of course the main focus is on transformers, being Jensen, but they also did amplifier tests. In the Cerwin paper linked to earlier they complain that the Jensen test uses only tones at or above 20Khz and thus is not a good test for in band audio. That is true of the Jensen transformer test, but not the amplifier tests. The tests in the paper I have show FFT for 0Hz to 7.68KHz.
Amps tested where:
MacIntosh model 30 (tube)
Hafler P500 (FET output)
Hafler XL-280 (FET)
Boulder model 500 (opamps and bipolar)
Each amp was tested no load, 8 ohm resistor load, two-way speaker load. (A "Realistic" handy in the lab)
The results are quite striking (to the eye). The MacIntosh has the highest level of distortion, or course. But they all measure differently on a speaker and on a resistive load. And the differences are not the same from amp to amp.
What was not measured was cables. Also, as noted in the paper, odd order harmonics are not identified. The ratio of odd to even harmonics is going to make a difference in the sound, IMO.
Also included are some nice multitone tests of opamps and tape recorders. Interesting stuff.
Re: Thanks Sy!
Thanks to everyone who wished me well. I cannot tell you all how much an encouraging word means to me. Sadly with my condition there's no hope for an improvement and it will only get progressively worse as time passes but, in all honesty I still have so very much to be grateful for...
Now Sy to try and answer your question. The presentation order was selected as follows. My friend who was manuelly switching the wires had to begin by using the Kimber PBJ. This was done because it was the cheapest of the bunch and I felt with it's all copper wire, it was the closest in type & style, to what's most frequently used by most audiophiles who don't believe wires influence sound of a system. My friend was then free to select any other IC he chose to, to use against it. We also it was easier to allow the wires to be refered to by their names PBJ or Blue Heaven etc. on the person's paper who manuelly switched the cables.
My friend who did the manuel switching would keep a record of which IC he put into the system and then I'd go down stairs and listen. The way we'd keep score was I'd listen and write whether or not the IC had been switched. We'd repeat this process for 5X
So if my friend started with the PBJ and the Siltech his paper could look like the first colum and my paper (if correct) would look like the second column.
1 Kimber 1 X
2 Kimber 2 Same
3 Siltech 3 Change
4 Kimber 4 Change
5 Siltech 5 Change
Thus if #2 was correct on my paper #1 was automatically correct! However if #2 was wrong #1 was also wrong and I'd already have 2 out of 5 incorrect! When we completed the 5 parts of the test my friend who switched the wires and I gave our papers to the friend who was monitoring me to correct. Then after he corrected the papers we'd all look at them together to make sure no mistakes were made.
After that the friend who did the manuel switching would keep the PBJ and select another different IC to compare against it and we'd repeat the cycle above ---{we'd repeat this process until the PBJ was compared against the Kimber KCAG, Nordost Blue Heaven and Siltech cable}--- this resulted in 3 different tests ---{1) Kimber PBJ vs Kimber KCAG, 2) Kimber PBJ vs Nordost Blue heaven & 3) Kimber PBJ vs Siltec}--- with 5 parts to each test! It might not sound like a lot but, at the end of 15 tests I was done. This was always done on a weekend and if it was on a Friday night we might do another on Saturday or Sunday. If it was done on Saturday the second was definitely done on Sunday!
NOTE: Although they liked music these two friends weren't really into audio per se, so I had to try and get these tests done in a couple of weekends or else I was afraid I'd lose their help. As it was I had to supply beer and smoke!
At the end of this series I got either 5 out of 5 or 4 out of 5 on my system in my room which I was intimately familair with. I could do the same thing on a friend's system I was also intimately familair! However in an effort to be completely honest when I visited people whose system and room I wasn't familar with and when I purchased a new preamp & poweramp ---{an David Belles designed OCM 88 and OCM 200}--- I couldn't do better than 3 out of 5 in these other people's homes or my home with the new preamp & power amp. However after approx 60 days passed, I was back to 5 out of 5 or 4 out of 5 on my system in my room.
That's why one of my requirements for doing a DBT is that I be intimately familiar with the system and the rooms it's being played in. Hopefully this answers your questions Sy. If you have more please ask them.
Thetubeguy1954
thetubeguy1954 said:
Thanks to everyone who wished me well. I cannot tell you all how much an encouraging word means to me. Sadly with my condition there's no hope for an improvement and it will only get progressively worse as time passes but, in all honesty I still have so very much to be grateful for...
Now Sy to try and answer your question. The presentation order was selected as follows. My friend who was manuelly switching the wires had to begin by using the Kimber PBJ. This was done because it was the cheapest of the bunch and I felt with it's all copper wire, it was the closest in type & style, to what's most frequently used by most audiophiles who don't believe wires influence sound of a system. My friend was then free to select any other IC he chose to, to use against it. We also it was easier to allow the wires to be refered to by their names PBJ or Blue Heaven etc. on the person's paper who manuelly switched the cables.
My friend who did the manuel switching would keep a record of which IC he put into the system and then I'd go down stairs and listen. The way we'd keep score was I'd listen and write whether or not the IC had been switched. We'd repeat this process for 5X
So if my friend started with the PBJ and the Siltech his paper could look like the first colum and my paper (if correct) would look like the second column.
1 Kimber 1 X
2 Kimber 2 Same
3 Siltech 3 Change
4 Kimber 4 Change
5 Siltech 5 Change
Thus if #2 was correct on my paper #1 was automatically correct! However if #2 was wrong #1 was also wrong and I'd already have 2 out of 5 incorrect! When we completed the 5 parts of the test my friend who switched the wires and I gave our papers to the friend who was monitoring me to correct. Then after he corrected the papers we'd all look at them together to make sure no mistakes were made.
After that the friend who did the manuel switching would keep the PBJ and select another different IC to compare against it and we'd repeat the cycle above ---{we'd repeat this process until the PBJ was compared against the Kimber KCAG, Nordost Blue Heaven and Siltech cable}--- this resulted in 3 different tests ---{1) Kimber PBJ vs Kimber KCAG, 2) Kimber PBJ vs Nordost Blue heaven & 3) Kimber PBJ vs Siltec}--- with 5 parts to each test! It might not sound like a lot but, at the end of 15 tests I was done. This was always done on a weekend and if it was on a Friday night we might do another on Saturday or Sunday. If it was done on Saturday the second was definitely done on Sunday!
NOTE: Although they liked music these two friends weren't really into audio per se, so I had to try and get these tests done in a couple of weekends or else I was afraid I'd lose their help. As it was I had to supply beer and smoke!
At the end of this series I got either 5 out of 5 or 4 out of 5 on my system in my room which I was intimately familair with. I could do the same thing on a friend's system I was also intimately familair! However in an effort to be completely honest when I visited people whose system and room I wasn't familar with and when I purchased a new preamp & poweramp ---{an David Belles designed OCM 88 and OCM 200}--- I couldn't do better than 3 out of 5 in these other people's homes or my home with the new preamp & power amp. However after approx 60 days passed, I was back to 5 out of 5 or 4 out of 5 on my system in my room.
That's why one of my requirements for doing a DBT is that I be intimately familiar with the system and the rooms it's being played in. Hopefully this answers your questions Sy. If you have more please ask them.
Thetubeguy1954
This part is confusing me a bit. If I understood what you were trying to say, you started with a cable A. Then on the first "blind" run, your friend would either switch the cables or not. So it would appear that there were 4 tests per set? I don't get the way you can be retrospectively wrong.
Was the presentation order determined ahead of time, or was it done on the fly?
Again, I really appreciate you taking the effort to answer these questions, despite your terrible situation.
SY said:
Ok Sy let me try and clarify what I meant. I believe the first clarification and perhaps most important one is to infrom you I wasn't attempting ---{at least in this test}--- to identify the cable as the Kimber or Siltech or Nordost etc. Instead I was attempting to identify if the cables sounded different or not! So I only had to know if there was a change or if the cables were the same.
My friend had to use the Kimber PBJ in the first set of tests for the reasons previously given. He was then free to select any of the remaining 3 different ICs ---{Kimber KCAG, Nordost Blue Heaven or Siltech}--- to use with the Kimber PBJ. In the example I used above he selected the Siltech as the second IC. That said I had no idea if the first of the 5 listening tests, per session would be the PBJ or the Siltech. Now sticking with the previous example I used:
1 Kimber 1 X
2 Kimber 2 Same
3 Siltech 3 Change
4 Kimber 4 Change
5 Siltech 5 Change
If I stated #2 was the same IC as #1 ---{which in this example I precisely what I did}--- that would mean I heard the same sonic attributes in IC #2 that I heard in IC #1. Now perhaps my way of thinking is flawed in this regard but, to me if after listening to IC #2, I was able to deteremine correctly that it was the same IC as IC #1, then that means I correctly identified the sonic signature of the IC both times.
However if my friend had chosen to use the Siltech first our example would now look like this:
1 Siltech 1 X
2 Kimber 2 Same (wrong)
3 Siltech 3 Change
4 Kimber 4 Change
5 Siltech 5 Change
In this case if after listening to IC #2, I identified incorrectly that it was the same IC as IC #1, then that means I wasn't able to correctly identify the sonic signature of either of the two differing ICs! That's why I said "Thus if #2 was correct on my paper #1 was automatically correct! However if #2 was wrong, then #1 was also wrong and I'd already have 2 out of 5 incorrect!"
Please remember I'm just an audiophile/music lover who was/is attempting to discover the truth about wires and whether or not they have sonic signatures or not! I'm not a mathematician nor do I work with statistics. So it's quite possible my logic is incorrect about my method of scoring above.
After starting the test with my knowing the PBJ was included in the first round of 5 separate listening sessions. My friend was free to choose any of other remaining ICs to compare against the PBG but, once chosen that IC or the PBJ had to in the system for all of the 5 tests in that session. At this point the presentation had no order determined ahead of time, my friend could have used any combination of PBJ and whatever other IC he chose. Fact is he could have kept the same IC in for all 5 tests if he so chose to!
Unbeknownst to me at the time, my friend who did the manuel switching decided to always bring one of the two ICs used in the previous listening sessions into the next round of 5 separate listening sessions. Sticking with our previous example that would mean after the PBJ/Siltech tests were completed the next round would include either the PBJ or the Siltech to be compared against either the Kimber KCAG or the Nordost Blue Heaven.
Sorry Sy but, I'm shot for now so that's all I can type. If you have more comments or questions fire away. Thanks for your concern about my health but, truth be told I'm really enjoying discussing this topic intelligently for once! It's nice not to be berated or disparaged for not being technically adept as some others and I really appreciate your civility when you ask your questions. The best part is it's a delight to talk about this topic without getting snide comments about my golden-ears, super-hearing powers or psychic capabilities.
Thanks, Thetubeguy1954
Thanks very much. I'll chew on this later to see if it clears up my lack of comprehension.
Unlike people whom I've given some grief, you've made a serious attempt to validate or disprove your assertions rather than retreat to excuses, superiority dances, and rationalizations. Even if there are some questions about validity and interpretation, the fact that you actually made the effort to do something controlled is commendable and (IMO) praiseworthy.
Unlike people whom I've given some grief, you've made a serious attempt to validate or disprove your assertions rather than retreat to excuses, superiority dances, and rationalizations. Even if there are some questions about validity and interpretation, the fact that you actually made the effort to do something controlled is commendable and (IMO) praiseworthy.
Cable differences
I didn't measure it, but since the inductance goes down as the number of parallelled twisted pairs increases (mine are the braided 9 pair version), I'm certain its low.
I compared the Cat5 to both the Radio Shack standard (18g)zip cord and the larger Monster Cable zip (BTW, I double-checked the MC and it is marked "14g", not 12g as I wrote earlier- I was fooled by the thick insulation!).😱
I used to think "wire is wire", but after reading more I became curious.
I'm not great at describing these things, but the best way I can describe the sound improvement with the braided Cat5 is that when listening to enembles and orchestra the sound of each instrument seems more distinct(less smear) and also brass and percussion sound less "harsh" to my ears. Basically this is what I heard and that's all I need to know (I'll stay with the Cat5).
Capacitance is no doubt higher(I've seen estimates of up to 1500pf for the 9 pair braid).
Since receiver's indicators remained stable, I'm not too worried about oscillation(which would sound BAD anyway, right?).
The whole reason I compared these three cables was to see if I could hear a difference- and I did. No B.S.
I didn't measure it, but since the inductance goes down as the number of parallelled twisted pairs increases (mine are the braided 9 pair version), I'm certain its low.
I compared the Cat5 to both the Radio Shack standard (18g)zip cord and the larger Monster Cable zip (BTW, I double-checked the MC and it is marked "14g", not 12g as I wrote earlier- I was fooled by the thick insulation!).😱
I used to think "wire is wire", but after reading more I became curious.
I'm not great at describing these things, but the best way I can describe the sound improvement with the braided Cat5 is that when listening to enembles and orchestra the sound of each instrument seems more distinct(less smear) and also brass and percussion sound less "harsh" to my ears. Basically this is what I heard and that's all I need to know (I'll stay with the Cat5).
Capacitance is no doubt higher(I've seen estimates of up to 1500pf for the 9 pair braid).
Since receiver's indicators remained stable, I'm not too worried about oscillation(which would sound BAD anyway, right?).
The whole reason I compared these three cables was to see if I could hear a difference- and I did. No B.S.
Hi,
No, for years and years you have ignored the admittedly subjective data that has been thrown at you.
Let me assure that one day you'll be admitting that not only cables make a difference but just about everything makes a difference. Measurable as yet or not but audible nonetheless.
Scientifically we're in the Middle Ages, trust me.
Ciao, 😉
SY said:
No, for years and years you have ignored the admittedly subjective data that has been thrown at you.
Let me assure that one day you'll be admitting that not only cables make a difference but just about everything makes a difference. Measurable as yet or not but audible nonetheless.
Scientifically we're in the Middle Ages, trust me.
Ciao, 😉
No, for years and years, I've been ignoring claims of sonic differences inexplicable by standard engineering (L,C, and R- frequency response and stability) put forth without even a shred of trying to do a controlled subjective test. This fellow has done far more than anyone in the "superiority dance" crew to try to actually come up with evidence.
Your English is superb, so I can only attribute your conflation of "subjective" with "uncontrolled" to trying to score debating points.
fdegrove said:
Let me make one thing clear here, I never doubted that a cable change can make a difference (I have actually heard it). This does not open the door to scientific relativism i.e. Peter Belt, Machina Dynamica, and BudP are on equal ground with everything else.
scott wurcer said:
An entirely reasonable perspective to me, and worth noting arguably near middle ground compared to the prevalent viewpoints when, say, Fulton got the ball rolling. Back then continuity meant effective operational perfection. Next hurdle: convincing some we're not all dancers, Belters or sweet talk our systems from work over the phone. Mostly.
Hi,
All efforts for trying to find scientifically valid evidence either end of the stick are absolutely laudable.
I think most of us would agree that whatever we hear should be measurable somehow.
Unfortunately I and no doubt many others haven't seen strong and unrefutable proof of some differences we keep claiming we can hear. Repeatedly hear if I may add.
By subjective data I mean data collected from tests using subjects (in casu persons) as opposed to object (in casu measurement equipment).
Naturally there can be conflation as "subjective" does not per definition excludes control.
Or at least some control.
Having total control over "subjects" would inevitably turn them into errrr....... "objects".
Furthermore I do not believe that two DUTs having identical L,C and R values per definition sound the same.
If they don't sound the same then they logically should not measure the same and we should look to find the difference outside the L,C and R measurements.
If at the end of the day we still can't find any means to measure what we keep on hearing as being different then that does not by any means prove that there actually is no difference.
BTW, sorry if I came across in a disrespectful way. That was not my intention.
Cheers, 😉
SY said:
All efforts for trying to find scientifically valid evidence either end of the stick are absolutely laudable.
I think most of us would agree that whatever we hear should be measurable somehow.
Unfortunately I and no doubt many others haven't seen strong and unrefutable proof of some differences we keep claiming we can hear. Repeatedly hear if I may add.
By subjective data I mean data collected from tests using subjects (in casu persons) as opposed to object (in casu measurement equipment).
Naturally there can be conflation as "subjective" does not per definition excludes control.
Or at least some control.
Having total control over "subjects" would inevitably turn them into errrr....... "objects".
Furthermore I do not believe that two DUTs having identical L,C and R values per definition sound the same.
If they don't sound the same then they logically should not measure the same and we should look to find the difference outside the L,C and R measurements.
If at the end of the day we still can't find any means to measure what we keep on hearing as being different then that does not by any means prove that there actually is no difference.
BTW, sorry if I came across in a disrespectful way. That was not my intention.
Cheers, 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.