Andre Visser said:
Yes of course we can learn. And surely the first step is to understand and accept the issue. It's hard to learn something if you think there isn't anything to learn.
But its very very hard to get control over something that has been honed to perfection for many centuries. I mentioned that Floyd Toole test before, where seasoned listeners said: "I know that I can be influenced by size, color, price etc. But I think I can switch that off". Well, they couldn't. Its that bloody hard!
jd
Hi,
No I was not.
As BudP pointed out in his reply the nature of the cable's capacitance is one cause for cable difference.
I.e. at equal measured value for C, two caps can measure differently depending of what they're made of.
Cheers, 😉
SY said:
No I was not.
As BudP pointed out in his reply the nature of the cable's capacitance is one cause for cable difference.
I.e. at equal measured value for C, two caps can measure differently depending of what they're made of.
Cheers, 😉
Sure you were. You said "easily proved." I'm still waiting for that "easy" proof. A disjointed mishmash of scale-free pseudo-technical terms is something, ahhh, less than proof.
Where's that proof you claimed?
janneman said:
I've never disagreed with you that there are external influences, my problem is with making generalisations suggesting that it is impossible to overcome or at least minimise these influences.
You can give me homemade interconnects covered with pink insulation tape and I promise I will use them if they sound better than the ones I currently use. (Of course I will do a blind test 🙂 )
audio-kraut said:
This phrasing reveals (maybe unconscious) a quite common misunderstanding about human perception.
While a dbt-protocol does address an certain kind of bias, it is in no way the _absolutely_ _only_ _thing_ it does.
It leaves at first a lot of other bias mechanism unadressed if not special care during the operationalization period it taken.
Analysis of well documented dbt attempts illustrates this.
While this statement must not be true - there are indeed a lot of people not hearing a difference in sighted tests, even when listening to differences that are audible 🙂 - the underlying assumption, that a difference must be detected in a dbt, if it is audible isn´t true either.
If they fear that, they might be right, as it is indeed quite difficult to detect something in a dbt, if you are not used to these conditions; even large differences, otherwise known to be audible, can remain undetected if this point is not addressed.
That´s the reason why positive controls (and negative) controls are mandatory, but unfortunately ever so often ommitted.
SY said:
I still believe the hardest part would be to find two different cables that measure the same, if someone can do that, I will test them.
@ Janneman,
may i asked again about the results of the Toole loudspeaker dbts in which no one could beat their expectation bias?
Was it sort of a group counting or did the individual scores provide the basis for the statement?
@ SY,
may i ask again for the number of well controlled and conducted dbts on cables during the last 30 years?
Unfortunately i don´t have access to my archive for several days.
Wishes
may i asked again about the results of the Toole loudspeaker dbts in which no one could beat their expectation bias?
Was it sort of a group counting or did the individual scores provide the basis for the statement?
@ SY,
may i ask again for the number of well controlled and conducted dbts on cables during the last 30 years?
Unfortunately i don´t have access to my archive for several days.
Wishes
L, C, and R are trivially easy to equalize with some cheap parts. Pick whatever exotic you like, and it will be easy to match with a chap, generic set of wires and a couple bucks of parts. Go for it.
Again, the claim has been made that audibility of factors other than L, C, and R is "easily proved." The "proof" is apparently blustering, shuffling, and trying to change the subject.
Again, the claim has been made that audibility of factors other than L, C, and R is "easily proved." The "proof" is apparently blustering, shuffling, and trying to change the subject.
I don't know the exact number off the top of my head. Some effort on your part with BAS and JAES back issues should get you what you're looking for.
I'm after some proof of the extraordinary claims made here. Still waiting...
Andre Visser said:
What I know would be a far more interesting experiment would be to take some bare cable and sheath some in some normal plastic sheathing for insulation and to take a same length of the same cable and insulate it using pure cotton, then measure both and listen to both. I would suggest that 3 meter lengths be used and terminated exactly the same for both sets. As you know Andre the views which I hold are based on the copyright of someone else and I cannot go into any real detail, but it does seem that the dielectric is very important in terms of stray capacitance.
On another matter, we spend many many hours agonizing over all of this when considering a new build or design, 😀 yet the recorded music has always been so often very badly handled during post studio production. When records were cut on lathes compression was used to protect and extend the life of the cutting heads. In digital production the issue of compression is still enormously important. Now that the MP form of replay is the norm for vast sections of the music buying public, the needs of the likes of us are greatly ignored except for small specialist companies who can seldom afford to record high fee artists.
There may be people who listen only to 'audiophile' recordings🙄 🙄 ...I am not one as I find that most of such recordings though often technically quite good are either of poor music or shine through as being manipulated at the expense of the content.
This whole business of DIY Audio and high-end in general is if we are honest an attempt to rescue what we can of an original once live performance which has invariably been mangled between being first put-down on tape/disc and ending up in our homes.
As SY has said, he loves fruitcake....so do high end audio manufacturers - especially cable makers and snake oil people.😉
SY said:
Unfortunately (for sad reasons) i´ve no access to my archive for some time, during the BAS and JAES or AES-meetings the number is afair a low one digit count.
And i don´t remember any dbt on cables that included a sufficient positive controls but had a negative result (means the nil hypothesis couldn´t be rejected), but gave citation to two blindtests on cables that gave positive results (means the nil hypothesis was rejected).
I´d be interested in that one too, but would suspect i´d have heard about it, if it exists.
Just because it would justify the assumption that more ordinary claims on cable differences were therefore confirmed too in a well done dbt. 🙂
Hi,
I'm not quite happy whith what I wrote but what I should have written is:
The counter argument being that provided L, C and R are of identical nominal measured values for two cables they then should sound/measure the same.
Instead of:
IOW this would be like saying that all capacitors of identical nominal value, as in both have a nominal value of say 100pF, should all measure and sound the same.
Cheers, 😉
SY said:
I'm not quite happy whith what I wrote but what I should have written is:
The counter argument being that provided L, C and R are of identical nominal measured values for two cables they then should sound/measure the same.
Instead of:
IOW this would be like saying that all capacitors of identical nominal value, as in both have a nominal value of say 100pF, should all measure and sound the same.
Cheers, 😉
That's probably right; finding out that something that should make no difference makes no difference is not worth a lot more journal time than that.
SY said:
Unfortunately if no positive controls were included, no one knows if it makes no difference. All we know is that the test result was a negative.
Sort of good old experimentator bias, i guess. 🙂
Or as worthwhile spending time on as vinyl demagnetizers.
Here's a list of all published data on controlled listening tests that support the claim of cable audibility beyond R, C, and L:
Pretty impressive.
Here's a list of all published data on controlled listening tests that support the claim of cable audibility beyond R, C, and L:
Pretty impressive.
Jakob2 said:
Its a section in a paper called "Audio - Science in the service of Art" by Floyd Toole. The whole paper is a very good read -recommended- , but the section I referred to is on page 9 or 10 titled: "BLIND vs. SIGHTED TESTS – SEEING IS BELIEVING"
Conclusion:
"The results are very clear. Figure 4 shows that, in subjective ratings of four loudspeakers, the differences
in ratings caused by knowledge of the products is as large or larger than those attributable to the differences
in sound alone."
The paper is on my website here:
http://www.linearaudio.nl/Documents/floyd o'toole AudioScience.pdf
jd
SY said:
Will it be OK to measure the cables with my LCR meter or do I need something more exotic?
Nope, a plain vanilla LCR meter or bridge (assuming appropriate sensitivity, not difficult) is far and away good enough.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.