For sure people like distortion - its just I cannot see cable inducing it in any meaningful way.
If they didn't like it - why the preference in some circles for tube amps with thd values in the several percent range (harmonically even ordered and declining in an orderly fashion for sure)
Even flat frequency responses in speakers are frowned upon - not enough "life"...
But the listening to recorded music is quite seperate from listening to stored music - i do not think we will ever be closer than an approximation to "live" music. Therefore I think we can only strive to make the "canned" stuff sound as flawless (meaning as free of distortion as possible with a frequency response as flat as possible) and forget about the comparison.
If they didn't like it - why the preference in some circles for tube amps with thd values in the several percent range (harmonically even ordered and declining in an orderly fashion for sure)
Even flat frequency responses in speakers are frowned upon - not enough "life"...
But the listening to recorded music is quite seperate from listening to stored music - i do not think we will ever be closer than an approximation to "live" music. Therefore I think we can only strive to make the "canned" stuff sound as flawless (meaning as free of distortion as possible with a frequency response as flat as possible) and forget about the comparison.
audio-kraut said:
You mean the possibility that some people actually prefers distorting cables? I didn't even think of that. Oh well, we first have to figure out if cables can cause audible distorsion at all.
Listening to recorded music will always be an approximation, but my point was that in the case of acoustic music, there is at least a reference for how it should sound, or how it ususally sounds. I cannot see there being any such reference for (most) other music, so I don't see how to know what one even wants to approximate. That surely leaves the field open to more subjective tastes in reproduction, especially with instruments that are supposed to sound heavily distorted in the first place.
Oh well, this was a detour from the cable debate, that I didn't intend.
I always wonder if the people that describe things as "harsh" have ever done 3 hours next to full drum kit... cymbals can hurt after awhile...
I think it would a good object lesson for many people to listen to a good 3 way speaker with the midrange and woofer disconnected; and just listen to what actually comes out of a tweeter
🙂
I think it would a good object lesson for many people to listen to a good 3 way speaker with the midrange and woofer disconnected; and just listen to what actually comes out of a tweeter
🙂
audio-kraut said:
I cant test the second conjecture so it'll have to be the first. You translated:
"On average it was switched 15 times in a test run, the test person would give the command."
The subject didn't switch sources, someone in the room held the control. I presume they were in the room because it's a stereo store - "For the tests 1 - 4 we used two Accuphase DP-55V CD-Player (each 4,600 €, we always have one in the in the store and second was lent to us for few days from customer's order)" - and the subject was required to issue a command, impying a line of sight. If the tester went to the trouble of setting up one way communication to a hidden room in which the person holding the control sat they would have mentioned it. Had they mentioned it I'm sure you would have translated it. Therefore, a skeptical tester was in the room with the subject. 'Blind' has a specific scientific definition in subjective testing, one derived from decades of tuning. Simply calling a test blind doesn't make it so. Scratch 'double blind' right off, this isn't close. The tester knew what was playing. If it still qualifies for single blind it does so at rock bottom level because of the nature of the communication with, and (the reasonable to assume) attitude of, the tester. Either way the result stands, poor methodology and junk science. The lack of true blind testing has a potential impact on the results, hence the fact that " NO (NO, you understand, NO) difference was discerned" cannot be used to validate the method. It's the method which must validate the results and the method here was severely lacking.
Did I pass the audition?
Most Western listeners without exposure or training can't differentiate sonic events as wildly different as Cantonese and Mandarin. When dealing with subleties like cable some famliarity with the sound of the test system is good science. Simply writing it off without explanation or demonstration is bad science. How could it possibly harm the test for the subject to be intimately familiar with the nature of the system being altered? A truly impartial researcher would demand that familiarity to remove one of many possibly confounding variables.
Christer said:
Christer, I agree with you completley on the acoustic reference and deplore the trend common among the mag's to abandon it for 'I like it'. However, you overlook human voice. A system's ability to reproduce speech still tells us a lot. Movies are a flawed but useful source.
that was not even mentioned.
The test was definetely not a scientifically conducted test, but trying to assess in a fairly quick way if there is any value to the claims made by those who believe in the audible differences as claimed to exist between cables and tweaks.
This test establishes that there are at least serious doubts as to such claims.
The test was "blind" only in the sense that the source/equipment playing was not known to the person being tested.
You also seem to suggest that clues given by the operator of the test might have influenced the person being tested to not being able to identify the object in question.
To that I can only say, that if the audible differences that are always claimed as being "worlds apart", to paraphrase some what I have read by "satisfied costumers" and the purveyors of such equipment, no clue to the contrary should be strong enough to confuse the testee as to not even being able to identfy his own treasured cable.
I have also learned through several years of participating on other, european forums and canadian ones, that no test ever will prove to any level of satisfaction to the ones believing that cables have audible influences, anything to the contrary.
No matter what - it is either the method, the stress, the unfamilirity of the equipment, the daily form or the weather that the ones making those claims where not able to perform the task.
Interesting though - the ones claiming the influence of cables so far have fallen short of supplying any proof supporting their claims in any meaningfull way, And by this I mean anybody in the industrie who peddles this stuff. Should the onus of such proof not be on them, if they try to sell ancilliary equipment at the price level of a decent amplifier?
No - the customers with his untrained and unfamiliarized ear is asked to supply a statement as to the efficacy of the object, with no supporting data as to the audibility of the parameters.
At least when buying an amp I can make a quick assessment that an amp with 5% thd and a frequency respone with - 10dB at 20Khz will probably not be a product I might want to even listen to, as there exists data through tests that confirm the negative influence on the listening pleasure at such levels of performance.
As long as similar product support does not exist for cables, I find any claims as to the audibility of differences in cables (given that the parameters there construction is based upon are within the boundaries known to support an audio signal) just laughable and not to be taken seriously.
The claim made instead of proof: "but I can hear it, and so can my wife, the kids and the dog" is, without further supporting evidence by those making those claims on the same level as those claims made of paranormal expreriences and alien visitations
Those claims of the audio persuasion have by necessity to be supported by tests of the double blind kind and have statistically to be well analyzed. Statistical error, deviation and all that
Anybody who can point me in the direction of ANY research like that?
Or can I continue laughing?
Those claims of the audio persuasion have by necessity to be supported by tests of the double blind kind and have statistically to be well analyzed. Statistical error, deviation and all that
Anybody who can point me in the direction of ANY research like that?
Or can I continue laughing?
Where I's been ?
I been workin mite....I started a new job 'bout 6 weeks ago mite at a startup internet & telco company.....I been very busy mite. Don't have as much time to be naughty...just as well on this thread.
Oooroo cobber
poobah said:
I been workin mite....I started a new job 'bout 6 weeks ago mite at a startup internet & telco company.....I been very busy mite. Don't have as much time to be naughty...just as well on this thread.
Oooroo cobber
From a purely scientific point of view, I will not lend credence to any audibility test that does not take into account the long term time constant associated with localizatiion of a sound source.
In addition, it is not reasonable to expect humans to be able to quicky discern a change in localization parameters...especially when the starting parameters are of a type NEVER FOUND IN NATURE.
It is of no concern whether or not dbt protocol was followed, the entire test is flawed at a fundamental level.
You might as well bounce a ball on an analog scale and tell me it's weight.
Given the flawed nature of the test, the null result is invalid.
Doesn't mean there was a diff, just that a null.....ain't..
Cheers, John
In addition, it is not reasonable to expect humans to be able to quicky discern a change in localization parameters...especially when the starting parameters are of a type NEVER FOUND IN NATURE.
It is of no concern whether or not dbt protocol was followed, the entire test is flawed at a fundamental level.
You might as well bounce a ball on an analog scale and tell me it's weight.
Given the flawed nature of the test, the null result is invalid.
Doesn't mean there was a diff, just that a null.....ain't..
Cheers, John
Hi jneutron,
Well, you can't trust the average human anyway.
Over the years I have had several customers a year wanting to upgrade their amplifier. Most of these older amps had serious defects so they weren't even working correctly. I had to show many on the bench because they didn't believe me. Talk about a shocked expression.
Now come on. Many of these audiophiles could not even hear that! Correcting these faults had them on their way in relative bliss. Makes one wonder.
Now, I have been able to create audible improvements in some products by changing cap types and so forth, but these changes are far greater than wire or connector changes. You expect the average person to hear these? I'm tickled pink when they do. I don't think that today's two legged animal cares much about sound quality. We are in that tiny percentile who do.
-Chris
Well, you can't trust the average human anyway.
Over the years I have had several customers a year wanting to upgrade their amplifier. Most of these older amps had serious defects so they weren't even working correctly. I had to show many on the bench because they didn't believe me. Talk about a shocked expression.
Now come on. Many of these audiophiles could not even hear that! Correcting these faults had them on their way in relative bliss. Makes one wonder.
Now, I have been able to create audible improvements in some products by changing cap types and so forth, but these changes are far greater than wire or connector changes. You expect the average person to hear these? I'm tickled pink when they do. I don't think that today's two legged animal cares much about sound quality. We are in that tiny percentile who do.
-Chris
jneutron said:
It's actually possible to calculate the weight if there is an analog output and all necessary parameters are available.
😀
anatech said:
The best that current test methodologies can do is find gross changes. Subtle ones, like small shifts in relative virtual image positioning or lateral spreading of spectra, those will be missed by rapid switching.
When the recording process starts to consider localization parameters correctly, then a scientific exploration of subtle effects can begin. Until that time, why bother?
For now, I listen to music for the music...the talent buried within. To expect a correct soundstage with current technology recording/playback is folly.
I have been accused in the past of not taking the effort to actually listen for what others "hear".. I laugh...as that is quite inaccurate. What you are given to listen to is, quite plainly, garbage...from a technical point of view..so I listen to the artists..and wait..
Cheers, John
soongsc said:
Do it without control of the velocity, the angle of impact, the rotational velocity of the ball, the centroid of the ball, the temperature of the room, the mass compliance of the scale, the coefficient of friction between the surfaces, the air pressure in the ball, the duration of impact.
The point of my statement is...the problem cannot be solved if the number of variables exceeds the number of equations. In a non homogeneous system, this occurs when the augmented matrix has it's first nonzero entry in the last column..there is no solution.
Our localization capability adapts to the stimulus parameters. But it takes time, time that is not accounted for in rapid switching tests. Time that is an additional column in the solution matrix, and a variable with NO accountability assigned...a free agent, a loose cannon.
Cheers, John
anatech said:
Hey Chris, there are many ways to look at it. One leaves it open for interpretation this is an audiophile ailment. However, as I'm sure you have, I've repaired production consoles in use 12 hours a day by pros which had damaged but working opamps or dried out caps causing in significant frequency response abberations, flaws which often went unnoticed for years. These are people who depend on their ears to make a living and work with sound all day.
One of my biggest surprises designing amps was how much distortion it took to sound distorted. 5-10% predominantly second with quickly falling higher harmonics imparted a character but it wasn't what most would consider distorted on casual listen. Fuzz pedals altered our expection of what the word 'distortion' means. As has the sonic signature of solid state clipping. 🙂 However once you learn to hear it the distortion is obvious, and that learning comes from familiarity.
Sig-worthy!
Hi rdf,
In an engineer's defense, they do listen to the same rif or vocal over and over again. They manage to make groups sound listenable. That and pizza past midnight, every night. All this while the group is whining about something. I'll cut the poor guys some slack on this one.
It can take surprisingly little higher order THD to make an amp sound bad, but you can get away with gob's of 2nd order. But it normally takes a little while for you to put a finger on the fact that something isn't right.
-Chris
Definitely. Same with the amps and damaged JBLs. Want to talk about tape machine calibration? 😉 Didn't think so (I don't). A rebuild (that's what we are talking about) costs too much and takes the board down for too long.
In an engineer's defense, they do listen to the same rif or vocal over and over again. They manage to make groups sound listenable. That and pizza past midnight, every night. All this while the group is whining about something. I'll cut the poor guys some slack on this one.
It can take surprisingly little higher order THD to make an amp sound bad, but you can get away with gob's of 2nd order. But it normally takes a little while for you to put a finger on the fact that something isn't right.
-Chris
For a believer to accept Nietzsche's claim that God is dead he has to accept that his entire life is built on a lie. It's easier to hold on to the lie. The opposite of faith is not atheism, but truth. Atheism is the consequence of the truth.
Isn't it ironic that the best we have achieved in these blind tests is null results? All the infamous Transparent Cable and the other cable peddlers have offered so far are unsubstantiated claims. For some reason all reasonably credible audio manufacturer out there have stayed away from cables, Krell, Naim, Pass Labs, McIntosh. McIntosh did venture into speaker cables but pulled out when they realized it was all bogus.
The fact that somebody would ever write something like this, much less publish it, is... Idunno. I'm at a complete loss of words here.
"One thing you learn in the professional music business (I've been in the National Symphony for 21 years) is that artistic honesty and integrity are everything. Without it, you're just a hack. Well, I confess: I screwed up. After finishing all my listening comparisons during the preparation of this review, I went through the snakepit of cables behind my two equipment cabinets and, to my chagrin, discovered that the Mark Levinson No.26S preamp had been plugged into a non-dedicated circuit via an el cheapo power cord, going through an Adcom ACE-515 AC Enhancer. With all due haste, I reconfigured the AC connection from the No.26S with the correct Tiffany cord, into a 15 amp dedicated circuit.
What a difference! The sound was more open, more dynamic, and more listenable, lending credibility to the argument that dedicated circuits and high-quality power cables really can make a difference. I started out with a new slate. To hell with the fact that I'd already spent hundreds of hours listening and comparing the Cello with the Mark Levinson, or that my NSO colleagues had given so much of their time to help me out. They were gracious enough, after hearing about my mistake, to give me another long listening session, along with their invaluable input. All the comments on the sound of the No.26S in the text refer to it used in the correct manner (footnote 9)."
I really don't know what soundstage means in this context. But I agree with the rest. Sound or music reproduction is a misnomer. At best we have sound/music reinterpretation. The sound of a guitar coming out of your speaker isn't the sound of a guitar.
Isn't it ironic that the best we have achieved in these blind tests is null results? All the infamous Transparent Cable and the other cable peddlers have offered so far are unsubstantiated claims. For some reason all reasonably credible audio manufacturer out there have stayed away from cables, Krell, Naim, Pass Labs, McIntosh. McIntosh did venture into speaker cables but pulled out when they realized it was all bogus.
The fact that somebody would ever write something like this, much less publish it, is... Idunno. I'm at a complete loss of words here.
"One thing you learn in the professional music business (I've been in the National Symphony for 21 years) is that artistic honesty and integrity are everything. Without it, you're just a hack. Well, I confess: I screwed up. After finishing all my listening comparisons during the preparation of this review, I went through the snakepit of cables behind my two equipment cabinets and, to my chagrin, discovered that the Mark Levinson No.26S preamp had been plugged into a non-dedicated circuit via an el cheapo power cord, going through an Adcom ACE-515 AC Enhancer. With all due haste, I reconfigured the AC connection from the No.26S with the correct Tiffany cord, into a 15 amp dedicated circuit.
What a difference! The sound was more open, more dynamic, and more listenable, lending credibility to the argument that dedicated circuits and high-quality power cables really can make a difference. I started out with a new slate. To hell with the fact that I'd already spent hundreds of hours listening and comparing the Cello with the Mark Levinson, or that my NSO colleagues had given so much of their time to help me out. They were gracious enough, after hearing about my mistake, to give me another long listening session, along with their invaluable input. All the comments on the sound of the No.26S in the text refer to it used in the correct manner (footnote 9)."
jneutron said:
I really don't know what soundstage means in this context. But I agree with the rest. Sound or music reproduction is a misnomer. At best we have sound/music reinterpretation. The sound of a guitar coming out of your speaker isn't the sound of a guitar.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Goof around on a Hammond organ for awhile. 2nd harmonic is damn hard to here. And when you hear enough of it... your mind fills in the third.
Strike middle C on a piano. Then strike the C above. Then strike the G above that. Now strike the two Cs in unison you will clearly hear the G (3rd harmonic). That note is in your head.
😕
Strike middle C on a piano. Then strike the C above. Then strike the G above that. Now strike the two Cs in unison you will clearly hear the G (3rd harmonic). That note is in your head.
😕
Jneutron is referring to the fact that with rare exceptions... we are not listening to , or being provided with, the timing cues that suggest location i.e. "image".
Now... a straight recording with 2 mics would be an exception...
I think all the talk about soundstage and imaging is a bit delusional. The information simply isn't in the media.
🙁
Now... a straight recording with 2 mics would be an exception...
I think all the talk about soundstage and imaging is a bit delusional. The information simply isn't in the media.
🙁
poobah, nice heads up. Would never have though of that. I play no instrument.
Edit: I kinda know soundstage. But as you said, it's a bit mushy, like timbre and other words tossed around in the audiophile community. I'm not discarding them. It's not easy to put words on these things and I think audio writers generally do a very good job in that regard.
Edit: I kinda know soundstage. But as you said, it's a bit mushy, like timbre and other words tossed around in the audiophile community. I'm not discarding them. It's not easy to put words on these things and I think audio writers generally do a very good job in that regard.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.