Its very easy to test if an interconnect (or any other component) is transparent:
Do you hear a difference between input and output.
A simple ABX test can show you this.
Personally I like to rip out all feedback loops out of my amps. After I played with a single fet amp, running at the brink of destruction, I'm amazed by its purity when feedback is removed.
Sure 2nd harmonics (and 3rd) are higher but the higher order harmonics are lower and fewer.
So here I am in 2015, still playing around with the amplifier designed for tubes and convert them to solid state idea's.
Not because they are old but because they perform to my liking.
Conclusion so far: Negative feedback is a spec manager, but is killing performance in many designs. Local feedback (Hawksford) can be pretty amazing though.
Sure 2nd harmonics (and 3rd) are higher but the higher order harmonics are lower and fewer.
So here I am in 2015, still playing around with the amplifier designed for tubes and convert them to solid state idea's.
Not because they are old but because they perform to my liking.
Conclusion so far: Negative feedback is a spec manager, but is killing performance in many designs. Local feedback (Hawksford) can be pretty amazing though.
Be sure to remember that the important issue is the audibility, whether something makes audible difference or not.
Based on what objective data?
More likely the test method is flawed and or biased. That's what I've seen from many internet forum posters over the years when asked about how they conducted the listening test. Without precise level match and double blind, it won't produce meaningful results that can be used for supporting the audibility claims that are seen so often online.
Try the term "audibly transparent", meaning that it won't add or subtract something audible from the source signal.
Strawman argument. See above on the test method.
I did. Look again.
Tarasque said:
This sums it up very neatly. Some see a link between the second statement and the second part of the first statement. Others see a link between the second statement and the first part of the first statement.Tarasque said:
As, other things being equal, PP will have smaller even order and the same odd order distortion as SE it is clear (at least to me) which link is more plausible for SE fans
The ones who say amps w/ very low distortion are the ideal, are going to burn you as a witch for saying that. Can you measure the performance negative feedback is killing? Or should we finally stop looking at the numbers and listen to what we like?
I agree.. I think a lot of us know our bodies and senses and minds well enough to know when we might be fooling ourselves or hallucinating, and when we are not!! Sure, there are times when trying something might make a subtle change, and I try to fool myself that it's for the better, but I don't argue w/ others about those things.. I know what is definitely real, and what might be imaginary.
It's probably the case that a few of the people on the 'by the book/numbers' side don't actually ever pick up a soldering iron, and are only designing and simulating. Or like Dave mentioned, maybe it's them w/ the hearing issues.
(Although I too would be very surprised if interconnects make any difference, but maybe.. maybe they were switching from some cheap 100' long high capacitance cable to a 1' long cable.)
He just stated what his preference was, why should anyone object to a thing like that?
That's the spirit. LOL
It might be interesting to mention that once, long ago, I was a full-blown audiophile, just like a lot of people here. And I held the opinion that very single component sounded different. The differences were soo obvious, you must be deaf not to hear it. I spend a fortune on audio equipment. It was very much like an addiction, trying to get the best synergy in my system, what components sounded best etc... I'm sure lots here can relate to this. So I'm not unfamiliar to your viewpoints.
After testing stuff in the most honest way possible (level matched, not knowing what was being tested), I had all the classical symptoms: Cognitive dissonance kicked in hard and I was in full denial. It took me a few years to accept the test results.
Now I can enjoy music on every system, no matter how bad it is. I don't listen to the equipment any more, I just listen to the music.
Everyone is free to listen to what they like.wicked1 said:
What they are not free to do is to assert (without evidence, and despite evidence to the contrary) that what they like has hidden unspecified unmeasured numbers which are better than the hidden unspecified unmeasured numbers of other equipment which they don't like, when the latter equipment has significantly better measured numbers than their preference. That is like saying that a bent stick is somehow straighter than a straight stick, by using a private definition of 'bentness' which does not conform to any known geometry.
Count me in.
Only if I can go back in time and prevent myself from wasting my money and time on those audiophool products and tweaks...
The next best thing I can do is to help others to avoid wasting their money and time like I did in the past.
Count me in.
Only if I can go back in time and prevent myself from wasting my money and time on those audiophool products and tweaks...
It's a hobby , one supposed to waste a little money on it 🙂 The problem is, I can pretty much enjoy music on any system but mine ...and pretentious elaborate HIgh End systems . Because of fond memories from long forgotten past I really like car audio sound (preferably stock FR setup) and Japanese mid-fi towers with dedicated crummy but somehow musical speakers . If I were not such a puss I'd just grab that old Panasonic tower from neighbor garage sale and live happily ever after but of course not ..ekh
Having said that US is a source of a vast second hand market since people here are programmed to consume at light speed level so getting an equipment which is sonically decent and pleases the eyes providing much needed placebo effect isn't as painful as in other countries -Good Bless US economic wastefulness !
There are cases when one has comparable amps and develops affection to one after a long period of ownership and many listening sessions . What mechanism is at play in that case??
Having said that US is a source of a vast second hand market since people here are programmed to consume at light speed level so getting an equipment which is sonically decent and pleases the eyes providing much needed placebo effect isn't as painful as in other countries -Good Bless US economic wastefulness !
There are cases when one has comparable amps and develops affection to one after a long period of ownership and many listening sessions . What mechanism is at play in that case??
I was fortunate enough to never get onto that bandwagon, in part because the "good sound" fell into my lap at a very early stage - so from then on I knew exactly what I was after.
There is another way ... learn not to think that some equipment is "better" than others, but recognise that all equipment is faulty to some degree - and listen for the playback being faulty, or not. You ignore where the system is doing well, and home in precisely to where, momentarily, it is not doing well - and say to yourself, that is a fault in the replay - it's like hearing an unusual noise while driving your car, you know it shouldn't be there, and it's telling you that there is an issue somewhere.
But my system will always sound terrible that way(!), one might say - luckily, that's not the case - a system can evolve to a point where it becomes impossible to hear any more faults, masking is completely effective in hiding any remaining gremlins, no matter how hard you try to hear them ... and listening then is extremely satisfying, always ...
Last edited:
Don't have objective data. Actually, I don't believe any data is purely objective. I believe the only premises we have that are absolutely true are those which we define, such as 1inch=2.54cm and a biped has two legs. All other premises, except those derived from definitions, are based on imperfect measurements and observations of the outside world and are subject to some degree of doubt.
I was just saying doubt has to be fairly applied. We have to examine the test method to determine the likelihood of it being flawed. I did mention that it was a double-blind test. Same amp, speakers and CD player. Same level. Same room etc. Only the patch cord between the amp and CD player was swapped, several times. And each time I didn't know what I was listening to. The "bad" patch cord was the one that came with an Adcom amp, looked to be of better quality than most of the stuff they give you with components, like when one buys a low-end Pioneer something or other.
When you say "strawman" you're saying I'm attacking a position that's not the one you're taking. I believed I was casting some reasonable doubt on the assertion that some interconnects are perfect.
Come on man. You gotta give me more than that. I'm not asking for a research project here. Just a few words that will help me to find the link you're referring to.
That's why scientists have to put a margin of error with their measurements.
Subjective measurements (this means not measuring with a device but with your ears) of cause should also have a margin of error supplied with it. All ABX software does this, so you know the accuracy of your measurement.
Great you seem to have heard a difference between interconnects. Did you investigate further? Did you measure the cables characteristics? What was the actual cause of the audible difference?
Experience says that this must be up to something being very wrong in one or both interconnects. But I could be wrong. Let us know.
I'm tempted to say: Get off your gluteus maximus!
But instead I did what you should have done, followed the instructions given, and give you a few links:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...NC5CqH5hG42CF04F4WDv3sg&bvm=bv.83134100,d.ZWU
AES Standard AES50-2011: AES standard for digital audio engineering - High-resolution multi-channel audio interconnection
AES Standard AES14-1992 (r2014): AES standard for professional audio equipment - Application of connectors, part 1, XLR-type polarity and gender
AES Standard AES20-1996 (r2007): AES recommended practice for professional audio — Subjective evaluation of loudspeakers
AES Standard AES33-1999 (w2004): AES standard — For audio interconnections -- Database of multiple-program connection configurations (Withdrawn: 2004)
AES Standard AES45-2001 (r2011): AES standard for single programme connectors — Connectors for loudspeaker-level patch panels
AES Standard AES48-2005 (r2010): AES standard on interconnections - Grounding and EMC practices - Shields of connectors in audio equipment containing active circuitry
AES Standard AES54-1-2008 (r2013): AES standard on interconnections - Grounding and EMC practices - Connection of cable shields within connectors attached to portable balanced audio cables
AES Standard AES54-2-2008 (r2013): AES standard on interconnections - Grounding and EMC practices - Shields of balanced audio wiring within fixed and portable passive connector panels, jack fields, and passive microphone splitters
AES Standard AES54-3-2008 (r2013): AES standard on interconnections - Grounding and EMC practices - Shields of balanced microphone-level outputs of active equipment other than microphones
AES Standard AES59-2012: AES standard for professional audio - Audio application of 25-way D-type connectors in balanced circuits
AES Standard AES63-2012: AES standard for interconnections - Data connector in an XLR connector shell
AES Standard AES66-2012: AES standard for professional audio equipment - Application of connectors - Miniature XLR-type polarity and gender
AES Standard AES68-2014: AES standard for audio connectors - XL Connectors to Improve Electromagnetic Compatibility
You could search the AES/IEEE/ASA libraries for more info.
Sorry, not good enough.
What if the degree of bentness actually has less overall bearing on the utility of the stick for the purpose it is being used than has been ASSUMED ?
What if other properties of the stick have an equal or greater bearing?
Attempting to predict the performance of an amplifier when reproducing recorded music by measuring a few parameters under steady state conditions is like trying to predict the dynamic handling characteristics of a car by measuring the spring rate and compression and rebound damping characteristics of its shock absorbers. You have to drive the ruddy thing. Measure things like chassis flex under cornering.
The methodological approach to which you subscribe is full of assumptions which have not been fully justified. I'll leave it to you to identify them.
One must be careful not to push analogies too far. My point was simply that it can be foolish to claim that significant distortion is somehow less distorting than much smaller distortion.mach1 said:
I take it that you accept that cars are essentially mechanical items which obey the laws of classical mechanics? I ask because it seems to me that some people say things which are equivalent to claiming that audio amplifiers are not subject to the laws of electrical engineering, although they usually don't realise that this is what they are saying.
I have spoken in other threads of my belief that some attention ought to be paid to 'dynamic' issues such as envelope-related distortion or IM from closely-spaced tones, but this should follow getting the basic steady-state things right. In my opinion SE doesn't even get the steady-state right so no point in subjecting it to more rigourous tests.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.