So, I would like to return to aardvarkash10 point about the sort of "learning" that would have to be provided to an attendee before they could participate in a DBT.
I want to reiterate a point Curly has been on about since I began to read this thread, perhaps 200 pages ago, and yes that makes me a newbie. Curly has repeatedly pointed to the illusions provided by our stereo systems. Those of center information, depth of stage, width of stage and lateral and vertical placement of the illusions of instruments, if the reproduction happens to be of a musical event.
Fully intending to blow my own horn, I would be happy to provide a simple full range system that is reliably competent at providing these cues to our conscious and semi conscious brain functions. But, I want to explore the idea of the rate at which folks can process complex positional data, from a wholly illusional source.
Is it possible that the "balance" of various components Curly consistently points to is actually based upon an individuals optimum rate of information processing? Is it possible that the subjective comments like "thin, hard and sharp" come from the information presentation being "too fast"? And, that items like transformers in circuit are prized for their less than stellar response "speed", thus providing more time for us to process the information provided into a stable illusion? And is it possible that this is more "important" than perfect measured performance? Can we find a useful definition that allows us to discuss this concept, one of too fast or too slow or just the right speed, for Goldilocks.
This sort of concept would certainly fly in the face of "good engineering principles", but I bring it up as yet another potential problem in finding a suitable "mean" system to allow the largest group of DBT attendee's to participate.
Bud
I want to reiterate a point Curly has been on about since I began to read this thread, perhaps 200 pages ago, and yes that makes me a newbie. Curly has repeatedly pointed to the illusions provided by our stereo systems. Those of center information, depth of stage, width of stage and lateral and vertical placement of the illusions of instruments, if the reproduction happens to be of a musical event.
Fully intending to blow my own horn, I would be happy to provide a simple full range system that is reliably competent at providing these cues to our conscious and semi conscious brain functions. But, I want to explore the idea of the rate at which folks can process complex positional data, from a wholly illusional source.
Is it possible that the "balance" of various components Curly consistently points to is actually based upon an individuals optimum rate of information processing? Is it possible that the subjective comments like "thin, hard and sharp" come from the information presentation being "too fast"? And, that items like transformers in circuit are prized for their less than stellar response "speed", thus providing more time for us to process the information provided into a stable illusion? And is it possible that this is more "important" than perfect measured performance? Can we find a useful definition that allows us to discuss this concept, one of too fast or too slow or just the right speed, for Goldilocks.
This sort of concept would certainly fly in the face of "good engineering principles", but I bring it up as yet another potential problem in finding a suitable "mean" system to allow the largest group of DBT attendee's to participate.
Bud
Last edited:
Doomlord,
Iain was kind enough to ask everyone to cease and desist. Let's let it go.
Wasn't it you who said a few posts earlier(to Andre if I remember well)that you hope one day to be able to start doing anything yourself?
Utterly off topic, but aimed at illusions and supremely anti entropic activity, I ask all of you to check this out.... the whole thing please.
YouTube - The Muppets: Bohemian Rhapsody
Bud
YouTube - The Muppets: Bohemian Rhapsody
Bud
Experimental design
So, how would you quantify terms like "thin, hard, sharp", "speed", "too fast", "soundstage", "depth" etc. in order to 1) set the criteria for accepting or rejecting the null, and 2) determining the level of the experimental design, quality of the equipment, in the first place?
sounds like a tough proposition if you decide you somehow want to include such non-definitive terms as key criteria for experimentation.
John L.
So, how would you quantify terms like "thin, hard, sharp", "speed", "too fast", "soundstage", "depth" etc. in order to 1) set the criteria for accepting or rejecting the null, and 2) determining the level of the experimental design, quality of the equipment, in the first place?
sounds like a tough proposition if you decide you somehow want to include such non-definitive terms as key criteria for experimentation.
John L.
Yup. However, if we are going to have a robust set of terms, as found in wine, we are going to have to find out what these terms mean and find a way to securely optimize them. Otherwise there cannot be any ground of understanding nor other than suspicion, concerning an objective test of any comparative audio phenomena.
Bud
Yup - its entirely possible. Trouble is, again we start from a position that has not yet been proven. We need to find out whether subjects can reliably identify simple differences as I previously discussed.
Like any science, that leads to further questions, of which the too fast, too slow, just right question could be one.
But basics and agreement on that first.
If you go to the Belden website, they will show you that different color cables have somewhat different dielectric characteristics. You do trust Belden, don't you?
Wasn't it you that said only what the average hear are of concern of you? 😕
Some of the tests that I've seen discarded the best and worst cases to find the average, little surprise that the outcome of their tests are also average, then suggesting the outcome was nothing better than chance. 🙄
That's OK if you do tests that represent the average. Hearing cable differences certainly need a better than average system with close to perfect setup and listeners that have experience with these kind of listening before you can even start to suggest that there are no differences. How many of these tests have you seen? As said earlier, I'm interested in stuff that push the envelope, if you are not, then please allow us that do some living space also.
devils in the details
can you be more specific, I think Bud would care to pin down what the acceptable tolerance ranges for "somewhat different dielectric characteristics" means wrt determining effects on "soundstage" "image depth", etc., all variables you deem important to the "Sound Of Cables"
not to mention whether or not said "differences" have applicable effect in the first place
perhaps some insight into the chromophoric contribution to dielectric variability?
Do you have any anecdotal or emperically reproducible evidence about this?
John L.
can you be more specific, I think Bud would care to pin down what the acceptable tolerance ranges for "somewhat different dielectric characteristics" means wrt determining effects on "soundstage" "image depth", etc., all variables you deem important to the "Sound Of Cables"
not to mention whether or not said "differences" have applicable effect in the first place
perhaps some insight into the chromophoric contribution to dielectric variability?
Do you have any anecdotal or emperically reproducible evidence about this?
John L.
auplater, you mention 'depth' repeatedly in a way that suggests it's an audiophile delusion. Is the concern more with the 'language of depth' than the concept? Does your system create a sense of depth?
If anyone wants to see a small input as to what cable colors do, please Google:
'Characteristic Impedance of Cables at High and Low Frequencies' a technical paper from the Belden engineering department.
Please look at Fig 3. Relative dielectric constant with frequency.
Also, Figure 7 will show you, if you are willing to note it, the characteristic impedance between two very different cables. A bit more than previously discussed here.
'Characteristic Impedance of Cables at High and Low Frequencies' a technical paper from the Belden engineering department.
Please look at Fig 3. Relative dielectric constant with frequency.
Also, Figure 7 will show you, if you are willing to note it, the characteristic impedance between two very different cables. A bit more than previously discussed here.
Last edited:
"depth" - charged
this is a mis-characterization. I only include the term depth in quotes to highlight the implication that cables somehow influence its accuracy in audio reproduction.. not as some sort of dellusional experience.. your words
As to whether my system does or does not create a sense of depth, I consider that a personal subjective observation, thus I can't provide a definitive answer; suffice it to say people who've heard music in my home (including me) are often startled by the realism and immediacy of what they here.
this is a mis-characterization. I only include the term depth in quotes to highlight the implication that cables somehow influence its accuracy in audio reproduction.. not as some sort of dellusional experience.. your words
As to whether my system does or does not create a sense of depth, I consider that a personal subjective observation, thus I can't provide a definitive answer; suffice it to say people who've heard music in my home (including me) are often startled by the realism and immediacy of what they here.
if you look closely at figure 3 it shows results for different colours of PVC cable (back and white). It IS pretty hard to read - I had to increase my screen zoom!
I'd venture to suggest its not the colour that is causing the effect, but the components of the dielctric that colour it. Merely spraypainting your cable a different colour is not going ot change its performance! Extrapolating from that, knowing the colour of a cables insulation is no good to you unless you know the composition of the insulation. Even then, the graph notes "relative" effects. The caveat on that is that 3/5 of 5/8 of fk/all is still fk/all
- Status
- Not open for further replies.