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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#9,221
BudP said:
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
Click to expand...

First of all, let's acknowledge that all those attributes you mention (center information, depth of stage, width of stage and lateral and vertical placement of the illusions of instruments) are just that. Illusions. Stereo is the greatest illusion we routine listen to. In that light, arguments that 'I'm sure what I hear' seem untenable, to put it mildly.

The 'data rate' argument may have something to it.The max input data rate the ear can process has been estimated to be as high as 500kB/s equivalent information or more. In contrast, the data rate which which our conciousness can present 'perceptions' to us is estimated (depending on which study you read) anywhere between 20b/s to 100b/s. That's up to 5000 to 1000 times less, an incredible loss of information. In some studies this is called 'exformation' as contrasting to information.
Anyway, that data rate is even optimistic because the concious perception not only contains the sound we hear but also the other senses. So, however you skin the cat, you don't 'hear what I hear'.

jd
 
#9,222
In the 1970es, the Danish monthly high fidelity tested high end products as follows: the component circulated between the 5 reviewers: Each had the component for one month. The reviewers had very diverse reference systems according to their own preferences. After evaluating the sound of the component for one month, each reviewer would describe his impressions in a letter that was send to the leader of the review. These 5 letters would not be opened until the five-month-long test was completed. It was forbidden to communicate the impression of the component to others before. The leader would merge the impressions from the 5 reviewers into an article in high fidelity. Measurements were done a f t e r the article was written to reduce bias. The interesting part is (I know the leader of these reviews well) that typically these 5 reviewers had very similar impressions of the components (however the Pioneer M-22 power amplifier was an exception, getting mixed reviews regarding the dynamic capabilities and soundstage).

What I would suggest is that a unrecognisable = not marketed (to reduce bias /prejudice) cable is produced, and is sent for 5 contributors to this thread in a similar manner to above mentioned. Five secret one-month reviews are collected and a conclusion is drawn. Measurements should be made afterwards.

This test would be fun for the contributors and inexpensive (cheap postage). I have a cable-set in mind, that you could try out. I will insist that the one and only set is used, and that the connectors are not disassembled. This is to avoid injury to the cable, not to hide radiocontrolled components inside 🙂
 
#9,226
janneman said:
First of all, let's acknowledge that all those attributes you mention (center information, depth of stage, width of stage and lateral and vertical placement of the illusions of instruments) are just that. Illusions. Stereo is the greatest illusion we routine listen to. In that light, arguments that 'I'm sure what I hear' seem untenable, to put it mildly.
Click to expand...

You might need to sharpen those terms. As I understand the physiology of hearing, everything we hear is a mental construct based on external data and therefore, literally, an illusion.
 
#9,227
OT
BUDP:

....AND Daddy Bear came downstairs and asked who had eaten his porridge. Baby Bear came downstairs and asked the same question. Mummy Bear came out of the kitchen and said " You two are always whinging...I haven't made it yet!"

Don't worry, I have just left!:shutup::guilty:
 
#9,229
It will be a while before I can make up the cables. I have sold all of my Litz wire to provide Snake Oil kit to the vast and ever hungry audio market.
I do not see any reason why they could not be sent around, other than some fairly staggering shipping costs. Weight will not be much of an issue nor will size. So, when I receive my next $890 worth of 10 pounds of Litz, I will make three sets of cables, proof them here and possibly with Rene' Jaeger of Berkley Dac and Gary Coe of Genesis. Heck, we might even get to do a pretty blind test with denizens of our local audio society.

Then off to Curly if he will accept the labor and on to others if wanted.

Bud
 
#9,232
And I thought that the ending of the story was:
"Daddy Bear" said "Someone has been sleeping in my bed".
"Mommy Bear" said "Someone has been sleeping in my bed".
And "Baby Bear" after looking in his room and seeing "Goldilocks" fast asleep,
said "Well my bed is just fine and I'm really tired, so goodnight Mommy & Daddy".
 
#9,233
BudP said:
Yet another OT item.

I want to apologize to all who are not culturally head blind US residents, for once again exhibiting that I am one. Pancios had to PM me to ask about my reference to "Goldilocks" a few pages ago. Here is what I wrote him.

The Goldilocks reference is to the fairy tale "Goldilocks and the Three Bears." The story revolves around Goldilocks, an innocent and self centered girl child, happening upon a temporarily unoccupied Bear home and sampling the various chairs, food and beds of Papa, Mama and Baby Bear, until she finds just the "right" one of each to suit her. It is an unusually sweet fairy tale and I suspect you can find it with a Goggle search, if you care for any more detailed explanation.

Again, I apologize for numbly assuming that US based references might be those of the rest of the world.

Bud
Click to expand...


I did find and read it Bud,thanks.Nice one for the little grandchild🙂
 
#9,234
The 'data rate' argument may have something to it.The max input data rate the ear can process has been estimated to be as high as 500kB/s equivalent information or more. In contrast, the data rate which which our conciousness can present 'perceptions' to us is estimated (depending on which study you read) anywhere between 20b/s to 100b/s. That's up to 5000 to 1000 times less, an incredible loss of information. In some studies this is called 'exformation' as contrasting to information.
Anyway, that data rate is even optimistic because the concious perception not only contains the sound we hear but also the other senses. So, however you skin the cat, you don't 'hear what I hear'.
Click to expand...

Thank you Jan, as always, concise believable information. Now, can someone turn those numbers into a general statement about how much of, say "Cantate Dominae", we might be able to process and comprehend with just one listen?

Bud
 
#9,235
Panikos:
I don't know about others-it would be good to have opinions-but,what I think,is that if you compare an interconnect directly from say a cd player to the amp with the same interconnect through a switching box you will agree that it will not have the same sound,since:
Click to expand...
Yes - but in a DBT you're comparing TWO cables, both of which go through the switchbox. The switchbox's audible signature (if any!) is present equally in both tests so it will not affect the test - after all, we're looking for differences. Using switchboxes allows the fastest, quietest means of switching cables. They're essential, but would have no impact on the test.
 
#9,237
brianco said:
@ jd.

Your conclusion above (9220) IS the crux of the matter! I trust only one other persons opinion of reproduced sound.
Click to expand...

It's one of the interesting things in audio that the total illusion that stereo is, is somehow 'forgotten'.
People readily accept all the illusions of soundstage, depth, instrument placement etc, yet get angry if you suggest that something else might be an illusion. Go figure.

jd
 
#9,238
Doomlord_uk said:
Panikos:

Yes - but in a DBT you're comparing TWO cables, both of which go through the switchbox. The switchbox's audible signature (if any!) is present equally in both tests so it will not affect the test - after all, we're looking for differences. Using switchboxes allows the fastest, quietest means of switching cables. They're essential, but would have no impact on the test.
Click to expand...

I have heard of this excuse before.However logical it seems to be,as someone who claims to be able to hear differences,I I know that this excuse is not enough.It is like listening to three cables,a few extra pairs of connectors,a couple of switches,internal wiring of the switching box etc.....Provided that a listenre wants one of the two cables to be of his choice,this type of test simply destroys this "reference" of his,that would help him spot the change from the other cable.
No different to a test,where you ask a wine tester to draw a mixture of three wines with a straw,then change the mixture by adding the other wine in place of the first,and ask him to tell you which wine of the two was which.
 
#9,239
Doomlord_uk said:
Panikos:
Yes - but in a DBT you're comparing TWO cables, both of which go through the switchbox. The switchbox's audible signature (if any!) is present equally in both tests so it will not affect the test - after all, we're looking for differences. Using switchboxes allows the fastest, quietest means of switching cables. They're essential, but would have no impact on the test.
Click to expand...

See, thats where actual experience come in. 😀

I've once tried to extend a set of my favourite (at the time) speaker cable (2m?) with other cable of similar dia. by about 500mm, I was quite surprised to find that the signature of the cables changed mostly to those shorter 'inferior to my liking' cable. So I would not be so certain that it will have no influence on the test cables.
 
#9,240
john curl said:
F does NOT drop out. Look at the equation again, more carefully.
Click to expand...

I did. j, 2 pie and f drop out, no?
Z0=sqrt[(R*L)/(G*C)]

By the way, to my relief, I note that apparently the author is NOT employed by Belden; this is NOT a Belden paper.
There are so many misconceptions in that paper, it would never have passed Belden' review process. I would hope.
I would have thought you would have caugth them, John ;-)

jd
 

Attachments

  • e2.jpg
    e2.jpg
    7 KB · Views: 111
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom