Well, 8 metres (approx 24 feet) per side seems a tad unrealistic in a domestic situation. And I was not referring to CAT5 cable. Instead, lets say 4 metres (approx. 12 feet) per side. With awg 10 cable, that’s 0.0268 ohms per side. Together with a solid state amp that’s still not enough resistance to get the amp’s frequency response to be influenced by the speaker’s internal impedance.
Even with your 8 metres example, given the length, you are going to use as thick a cable as possible (say awg 10 again). So that’s still 0.0536 ohms per side.
Maybe, a double blind test would indicate if that was true. Was your test done double blind?
Re: the terms “cable soakage” and “time energy dispersion” for stranded copper cables – I do not understand what those terms mean for cables, as cables for instance don’t “soak” voltage. And what does “time energy dispersion” mean in audio engineering terms for cables? Could you provide a link to some articles that explain these concepts as they relate to cables at audio frequencies?
Originally Posted by simon7000
"So in a not unrealistic example 8 meters of cable could be used per loudspeaker with all four conductor pairs in parallel for a total resistance of .376 ohms…......"
Cut and Paste with my italics.
"So in a not unrealistic example 8 meters of cable could be used per loudspeaker with all four conductor pairs in parallel for a total resistance of .376 ohms…......"
Cut and Paste with my italics.
Sorry, should have made it clear that the typical resistances I quoted were per metre length of two-conductor stranded copper wire. That is, the resistance in ohms per metre is for both conductors in the circuit. In that case we can just take the length of the cable run to each speaker and multiply it by the resistance values quoted.
So I believe my figures still stand.
It is an interesting question isn't it.
I accept tooles findings on how even with speakers (the greatest possible differences between audio components) what we see influences our impressions.
It really becomes a question of how practical is it to blind test speakers. In your own room! The difficulties really approach the insurmountable.
Honestly, how could it be done?
there are a few other differences tho. For starters, I accept that even with speakers we can be influenced by things other than sound. Curly (and others?) flatly refuse to believe those influences work, on him, he alone is unique in the human race.
Another variation from tooles findings, this is a diy forum and I have built my own speakers. Once I have decided on which drivers etc etc, then my room for manouvre has been set, and all I can do is start to tweak the sound as best I can within those parameters.
Just how that alters any findings of tooles I cannot say!!
As I said, I know the point you are making, and accept it! Apart from me building my own speakers that is, but I get the point.
It really does come back to 'just how do you truly do a proper blind test on speakers, in your own room'? And if you have a shortlist of five sets of speakers hahahaha...
😀😀
excellent point. Human nature.
All the more reason to account for it.
I get what you are saying, but I don't completely agree, especially when you present it like this, being in a zen state of awareness to detect _any_ audible difference presented
The main thing is that the person (presumably) is already aware of what he is listening for, it IS his cable up against 'any old other' so to speak. He has told us that he hears differences, which is why he uses the cable he does, and presumably he has chosen that cable after extensive auditions of competing cables.
So, in the test itself, he has NOT got the burden of finding any_audible_difference, he has only to recognise that which he already knows (and loves, hence his ownership). That is not the same as changing something, anything (or not even) and asking the person to 'find out what we changed (or not)'.
It seems almost reasonable!🙂 What I mean by that is (usually...and if not I agree it should be) beofre the test takes place, the person basically goes thru the procedure 'dry' as often as required (sighted) and get's the hang od it, and also ensures that they are still satisfied they can hear the differences sighted.
Once that has been completed, THEN the same procedure is followed with the only exception being blinded.
And if that does not happen in all cases, it DOES happen in enough cases that *most* of your objections in this regard have gone.
I well recall that they did do that preliminary steps in the Mike Lavigne case, and IIRC the person who administered the test even felt himself he could hear the difference sighted!
That is a *nice* feel good thought, but at some stage you have to come to a decision in life? (maybe not this case, but as a general observation.) Some things do end up as fact (maybe not this) and you can no longer walk around saying to yourself 'it may not be true that .....' and have it apply to everything in life??
So no, I don't accept that you should admit 'the other side may be right', it does depend you know!!
Of course you might not have meant that statement to be taken as sweepingly as I did......
good quote.
Again, I get your point. Maybe I did not express my point well?
I simply look at the reverse, the person making the claim of cable audibility, where is the sensitivity test applied to him?? there NEVER is one.
Indeed, it could be argued that the sensitivity test is exactly at the point when the identity is hidden, and all of a sudden it is shown every time that the person has NOT got the sufficient sensitvity required for the task!
It is not the same as grabbing ;any old guy' off the street and putting them in the test. THEN it is valid to ask 'well, what was his hearing like?' etc etc etc.
But (say) if we managed to get andre to do a test on his own system with his choice of cables and he was used to the procedure and was still able to choose his cables under sighted test conditions, then all the objections fall away do they not? (I only wrote andre rather than curly because I didn't want to give the impression of picking on curly still! BUT I also did not want to use 'any old guy off the street', it had to be a specific example)
You process sounds with your eyes?? Science WILL be interested!
This is a totally different argument from the one above. Do the required learning, then do the test.
Nothing can be simpler or more self evident.
For example, it would be great for Andy g to do the test. We are willing to drive to his house and he can do the test on his own system with his own cables...I'll bring the house wiring for the other set, no sweat.
We will take the time for him to get accustomed to the procedure.
Any remaining problems??
Bconnor when he asked for volunteers earlier, made it clear that we would happily go to the persons house so the test can be done on their system. I recall we also added the part were we do the preliminary tests and see if the person was still able to pick his cable before we went on to the test proper.
Any remaining problems?
It gets very annoying when this tactic is used. Willful and continuing misrepresentations of the basics involved.
And, in any case, as I have tried to point out time and again, IF there were problems with how the tests were conducted in the past, well devise a test that fixes those problems! THAT is how we learn and progress from the mistakes of the past.
Andy g will happily sit back and describe what he sees as past test failures, which is why HE can design the test we can do with him.
HE can fix all those past errors, HE can be the first to do a proper test ever in the field of audio.
I expect there will be silence tho.
So John, people kept asking for SYs suggested protocol, how about yours, What is YOUR protocol that will ensure all those mistakes from the past are not repeated?
Make it an 'in principal' test, one that may not ever be done. That way at least you will show us that you are indeed interested in the topic, rather than only finding (supposed) fault after (supposed) fault with past tests that show how cables are basically the same.
I wonder, would you still be listing these faults with a test that showed cable differences???? When, for example, andre gave his example of perfect cable detection I do not recall you casting even a cursory glance over the test procedure.
Why did THAT one get thru?? when every other test done in the past seems to be laden with error after error???
I repeat, how can it be that the person is learning sounds if we test for cable differences on his own system??
You are somehow twisting this to say 'dbt's involve taking a person, throwing them in front of a system. and saying 'what do you hear?''.
What is it that YOU do not understand about the procedure??
This is basic stuff! When you do a test, you have an idea of WHAT you are testing! You need that to even begin to design the test!!
So of course the person doing the test needs to know what is being tested! I mean this is about as basic as it is possible to get. I am REALLY confused!
What is it that you do not understand? there is something real basic here, has to be.
I just don't get where this new thing of 'dbts involve throwing a person in front of an unfamiliar system and then testing them with no training and not even informing the subject what the test is about and asking them to tell us what is going on' has suddenly come from!
jakob mentioned it,now john...what is happening here???😕😕
Terry,
We were discussing a different test that I was read about in AudioXpress a while back.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ake-difference-any-input-966.html#post2011748
I'm generally in agreement with your test procedure. Though I'd much prefer to see a test in where the participant was familiar with both cables. And he should be given time to practice the blind testing like maybe a couple trial runs on different days before the actual test, over a period of a week? Or when it's convenient.
I don't know what limitations you have in setting up the test. But, it sounds like a good test. Anyway, kudos to you for doing some good blind testing.
We were discussing a different test that I was read about in AudioXpress a while back.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ake-difference-any-input-966.html#post2011748
I'm generally in agreement with your test procedure. Though I'd much prefer to see a test in where the participant was familiar with both cables. And he should be given time to practice the blind testing like maybe a couple trial runs on different days before the actual test, over a period of a week? Or when it's convenient.
I don't know what limitations you have in setting up the test. But, it sounds like a good test. Anyway, kudos to you for doing some good blind testing.
thanks john. is that article available on the net or only in hardcopy?
Does he need to be familiar with both cables?? I have no problem if he IS mind. But it would be good if the bloke had two very differing cables to his ears, for sure.
If (for example) a wife or family member could do the swap, and he didn't peek, then great, that would be good practice for the test.
It is precisely that that randi encourages people to do...'please, first try the test at home before you start this proceeding' or whatever the wording is. Which is exactly what Mike Lavignes test was all about..the prelim to taking the challenge. He soon realised he was guessing, and saved both parties a lot of trouble.
I personally would not be the person being tested, be no point really!! But I am happy to help administer the test, if only we could find a volunteer.
Does he need to be familiar with both cables?? I have no problem if he IS mind. But it would be good if the bloke had two very differing cables to his ears, for sure.
If (for example) a wife or family member could do the swap, and he didn't peek, then great, that would be good practice for the test.
It is precisely that that randi encourages people to do...'please, first try the test at home before you start this proceeding' or whatever the wording is. Which is exactly what Mike Lavignes test was all about..the prelim to taking the challenge. He soon realised he was guessing, and saved both parties a lot of trouble.
I personally would not be the person being tested, be no point really!! But I am happy to help administer the test, if only we could find a volunteer.
Well, I thought a little more about contacts, not necessarily cables. I guess that should count. 🙂
(Are we at 10K yet???)
John, I stopped trying to actually keep up with this about a thousand posts back. 😀
I know that my system is decidedly mid-fi. I don't have any question that there are music systems out there that put mine to shame. I also know that I am by no means the only one here in the "DIY" portion of "DIYaudio.com" that falls into this category (shocking, I know!). With this in mind, and to try and change the direction of this thread in the few remaining posts, I'll put this question out for John, or any other proponents of cables making a difference in sound quality: should I really care about the subtlety of interconnects when trying to improve the sound quality of my stereo, or should I focus my attention instead on things with MUCH more impact on sound quality, like speakers, amplifiers, or source material (or insert your highest impact component here if you prefer)?
I guess this has been MY point from the beginning--even if there is some subtle impact on sound, will new boutique cables really improve my sound more than other upgrades that offer much more "bang for the buck"?
David
6/08 "Is SACD Doomed?" by Gary Galo
You can find it online here:
audioXpress - Articles and Addenda
Yeah, I think he should be familiar with the cables he's being tested on. If he has some low quality cable he's familiar with, or can get familiar with before the test you could even test him on three cables. But, in a test, familiarity is more important than how good the cable is. I can easily hear a difference between Kimber PBJ cable and DHLabs BL1 interconnect in A-B comparisons at matched levels. It was a 20 foot run though. Could I hear the same difference blind? I think so but only one way to find out.
Main thing is can he hear a difference unblinded. If he can then that's all that really matters, I think.
Yeah, a family member or friend could practice with him if they follow the protocol.
Good luck finding a participant.
David
Assuming you listen to CD based music (or say lossless music stored on computer drives), then I think all you need is a good, well designed CD player and solid state amp for the source/amplification stage. Nothing ridiculously expensive, just something well built and reliable, from reputable manufacturers. And of course, well built but fairly inexpensive cables. Can’t comment on using turntables – haven’t used them for a long, long time.
From then on I think loudspeakers are going to be the difference between “OK” sound reproduction vs. listening to music where you forget about the technology and become emotionally engrossed with the music: the performers almost “come alive” in front of you (what I would consider true “hifi”).
So, spend your money on loudspeakers. If you can swing it, go with designs with active crossovers rather than passive, as the engineering and sonic benefits are well known. That means more amplification than just plain two channel stereo, but 2nd hand amps can be got pretty cheap. Consistent with the diy feel, a number of people are using the Behringer DCX2496 as their active crossover (I am) and you can play with different crossover types and slopes.
I would include sub woofer(s) in the mix, to give you much better low end. Probably would mean more crossover stuff and amps but the improvement is significant.
Finally, given that room modes can significantly affect the quality of sound I’d also consider digital eq of the bottom end (< 150Hz). Obviously this gets into mics and measuring room response etc but it’s (a) fun and (b) deeply rewarding to transform a system into one that can perform flawlessly all the way down to 20Hz.
dfdye,
Do not waste your time or money. Monster Cable or Orange power (much cheaper and thought highly of by SY and many others) cable from one of the big box hardware stores will do famously, and likely for as long as you can hear. Radio Shack has some stellar locking style bananna plug connectors for speaker cables too.
You might give thought to joining the EnABL crowd. Takes a bit of time to get "up to speed" but it will make your Mid Fi speakers work as near to perfection as they can get, cost you no more than $30 to get materials and the tutorials are free, as is any help you ask for.
You might also read this thread and try it out, again for free and quite helpful to many.
Groundside Electrons - diyAudio
All of this looks like snake oil, but works well for most systems. Lot's of argument so both leave many unsettled.
Jon Curl, I salute you, from Mille' Nestorovic, who never bothered with designing a preamp because he thought your efforts with the Mark Levinson units to be as good as it could get. Not sure if he ever got to shake your hand, but he loved your work.
Bud
Do not waste your time or money. Monster Cable or Orange power (much cheaper and thought highly of by SY and many others) cable from one of the big box hardware stores will do famously, and likely for as long as you can hear. Radio Shack has some stellar locking style bananna plug connectors for speaker cables too.
You might give thought to joining the EnABL crowd. Takes a bit of time to get "up to speed" but it will make your Mid Fi speakers work as near to perfection as they can get, cost you no more than $30 to get materials and the tutorials are free, as is any help you ask for.
You might also read this thread and try it out, again for free and quite helpful to many.
Groundside Electrons - diyAudio
All of this looks like snake oil, but works well for most systems. Lot's of argument so both leave many unsettled.
Jon Curl, I salute you, from Mille' Nestorovic, who never bothered with designing a preamp because he thought your efforts with the Mark Levinson units to be as good as it could get. Not sure if he ever got to shake your hand, but he loved your work.
Bud
Yes, you should use familiar sounds/music, familiar equipment, as long/short as you like. Contrary to what most opponents want you to believe, these are not limitations to DBTs. The ONLY requirement is that all non-auditory clues are removed.
And of course you realise that EVERYBODY is biased; there is no such animal as an unbiased listener, whether they are aware of it or not.
jd
Not quite: the brain processes the sound to eventually bring it up to your conciousness as a perception. But in doing so the brain, after being conditioned foor 100's of 1000' of years, cannot help to ALSO include your visual input (and a bunch of others that have been mentined in the past) into the processing. Nothing you can do about it, except making sure ther ARE NO visual clues -> DBT.
jd
Yes it´s often done for good reason. But if you care to think about Meyer/Moran or something similar it was afair not the case. Yet we got no information what the participants believed about the EUT.
If you think in front of the test, that CD format is already transparent/sufficient enough, will you be able to do the Meyer/Moran without an influencing bias? (Remember it was your position that we can´t control the bias)
Even if the participants have not yet decided in front of the test, does it influence their sensitivity if they know about the experimentators strong believes that CD format is sufficient?
What about a possible influence in case for example of the Tiefenbrunn test, remember it was your position that non verbal communication is dangerous, could it influence a participant if all other persons in the room were already convinced that the test result will be negative?
BTW, the mentioned Tiefenbrunn/Vanderkoy/Lipshitz is a perfect example that a negative control is important and furthermore that, according to Lipshitzs own description, the sensitivity level reached by the particpants were not sufficient. 🙂
AFAIR i brought to your attention a couple of blind and double blind tests done or supported by cable manufacturers. One with a positive result i´ve emailed to you, for two others of the list i´d suspect that you haven´t read them (or got no information about) but you were still using this argument.
Your are dead wrong in your statement (others diymembers must live in a similar situation with the accusation they were intentionally lying), so maybe it´s time to drop it.
And maybe we shouldn´t be so generous with the "lie" blame; it´s just to easy to forget or overlook something escpecially in a "monster thread" like this one.
Wishes
Probably not, no. The experimenter in your examples could not possibly communicate the answers because the experimenter was also blind to the X. You have to postulate some sort of mental control by the experimenters over the test subjects who, in most of these cases, were firmly convinced beforehand that they heard significant differences and were, for the most part, still convinced afterward that the differences were real, despite not being able to identify them when visual and other non-sonic clues were removed.
And if memory serves, I've already critiqued the Sturm paper. It was tough reading- my technical German is weak- but if I understand correctly, the technical controls of the experiments were not impressive. Amusingly, this was exactly the sort of test that the faith-based criticize: group sessions, unfamiliar system, short passages, no listener control of presentation (a strong point of ABX).
@ terry j,
i see we have some sort of understanding. 🙂
Just two or three comments.
I know that blind testing of loudspeakers is difficult, but in fact, if you were really convinced that you were not able to deal with the various bias mechanisms (at least to a certain degree) than consequently you would have to quit any sighted listening evaluation.
As said before, unfortunately this sort of discussion tends to descriptions only as black and white and any sort of grey is thrown away.
We simply wouldn´t be able to do any useful decision in our work or daylife if we were not be able to deal with bias mechanism; but of course we could at every time be trapped by bias.
While i understand your concerns about the need for a decision, i´d argue with two things, first as long as nobody did measure (and listen to maybe) the reproduction system in question it is impossible to conclude that cables can´t be audible in _that_ system.
Second thing is a formal one; the only science in which formal proof within an axiomatic system is possible is mathematics- all other sciences have to rely on experiments (means verification or falsification, the latter more to poppers taste 🙂 ), so there is always (and must always be) a sort of uncertainty.
Even more if, as in our discussions here, we are talking about psychoacoustics.
Third comment wrt to listeners in double blind tests; it is only one side of the medal to let listeners get familiar with the reproduction system (or let listeners use their own reproduction system), the other side is to let them get used to the specific conditions of the blind test protocol in use.
If you think, that a test protocol can´t be a confounder for the participants, please reread SY´s recommended protocol. Then ask yourself the question, when did you the last time listen to your system just to find out if it sounds _exactly_ the same as before?
Please try it, i bet you´ll notice that it is a very difficult task itself. And furthermore it has be shown in all DBTs (at least all i´m aware of) that exactly this question for "sameness" was extremely difficult to answer for the participants, even in cases where the differences were above the listening thresholds and known to be audible (see for example the stereophile DBT on amplifiers).
So, training means: train the listeners/participants to listen reliable _under_ _exactly_ the _specific_ DBT conditions.
Wishes
i see we have some sort of understanding. 🙂
Just two or three comments.
I know that blind testing of loudspeakers is difficult, but in fact, if you were really convinced that you were not able to deal with the various bias mechanisms (at least to a certain degree) than consequently you would have to quit any sighted listening evaluation.
As said before, unfortunately this sort of discussion tends to descriptions only as black and white and any sort of grey is thrown away.
We simply wouldn´t be able to do any useful decision in our work or daylife if we were not be able to deal with bias mechanism; but of course we could at every time be trapped by bias.
While i understand your concerns about the need for a decision, i´d argue with two things, first as long as nobody did measure (and listen to maybe) the reproduction system in question it is impossible to conclude that cables can´t be audible in _that_ system.
Second thing is a formal one; the only science in which formal proof within an axiomatic system is possible is mathematics- all other sciences have to rely on experiments (means verification or falsification, the latter more to poppers taste 🙂 ), so there is always (and must always be) a sort of uncertainty.
Even more if, as in our discussions here, we are talking about psychoacoustics.
Third comment wrt to listeners in double blind tests; it is only one side of the medal to let listeners get familiar with the reproduction system (or let listeners use their own reproduction system), the other side is to let them get used to the specific conditions of the blind test protocol in use.
If you think, that a test protocol can´t be a confounder for the participants, please reread SY´s recommended protocol. Then ask yourself the question, when did you the last time listen to your system just to find out if it sounds _exactly_ the same as before?
Please try it, i bet you´ll notice that it is a very difficult task itself. And furthermore it has be shown in all DBTs (at least all i´m aware of) that exactly this question for "sameness" was extremely difficult to answer for the participants, even in cases where the differences were above the listening thresholds and known to be audible (see for example the stereophile DBT on amplifiers).
So, training means: train the listeners/participants to listen reliable _under_ _exactly_ the _specific_ DBT conditions.
Wishes
It seems that the clever hans only works in one direction. 🙂
Key point is that it doesn´t make any difference if the experimentator is also blind to the "X". He is already convinced that no difference is audible, would you really argue that his body language can´t be a confounder?
Wouldn´t that contradict nearly everything you´ve said about nonverbal communication before?
Wishes
- Status
- Not open for further replies.