jackinnj said:
I agree with this statement:
" Listeners are often influenced by a speaker's styling, price tag, manufacturer's reputation, and relative position within a listening room."
But I refuse to admit that these type of listeners are appropriate to participate and take conclusions from listeling tests, blind or sighted.
These are the same kind of guys that buy a certain amp because the feet light blue (Musical Fidelity😀 ), or -much worse-, they buy the latest Sony midi because it looks gorgeous.
jackinnj said:
Jack,
Interesting article. In fact, I posted a few paragraphs earlier from the first ref at the end of the article, where Floyd showed that there was a clear difference between listener preferences resulting from blind or sighted tests. What they called the " nuisance factor": the nicest, tallest, most shiny speakers got higher ratings in sighted tests than in blind tests.
To parafrase the other (Pink) Floyd: another brick in the wall
Jan Didden
carlosfm said:
I agree with this statement:
" Listeners are often influenced by a speaker's styling, price tag, manufacturer's reputation, and relative position within a listening room."
But I refuse to admit that these type of listeners are appropriate to participate and take conclusions from listeling tests, blind or sighted.
These are the same kind of guys that buy a certain amp because the feet light blue (Musical Fidelity😀 ), or -much worse-, they buy the latest Sony midi because it looks gorgeous.
Carlos,
Maybe you should read the article to know what "type of listeners" these were. There were some like you that said, hey, I KNOW what I'm hearing. Well they TOO fell on their face.
The point, which you apparently so stubbornly refuse even to consider, is that it happens with ALL listeners, its not about being good or bad, it's about being a human being. You can't rewire your brain.
Jan Didden
It’s all self-delusional then?
As long as the wire is thick enough to carry the current and screened that's it?
Some metals carry electrons better than others but by what percentage is the improvement?
Someone must have the facts on this subject!
As long as the wire is thick enough to carry the current and screened that's it?
Some metals carry electrons better than others but by what percentage is the improvement?
Someone must have the facts on this subject!
janneman said:
Of course it doesn't happen with ALL listeners.
You are generalizing.
I never look at the aesthetics of a device.
If it sounds good, it's good.
It may even have a crappy slabby case.
What's beauty got to do with sound?
Most people (I'm not including people here, don't get me wrong) would fall for gear like this:
http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/ss5/generic/homeaudioes/superaudiocompactdisc/index.shtml
Impressive, isn't it?
"It must sound very good"
, it's the "typical" reaction.I've heard it with a couple of my own CDs, that I know very well.
In original form this sounds like pure crap.
The press raved it, even with CDs.
Bless'em, those golden ears.
Hi,
A better conductor (lower seriesR) does not necessarily make for a better IC or LS cable.
The Van den Hul carbon range of conductors all prove that, which is not to say these are de facto the best cables around but still.
Thick enough, sure but not thicker IMHO.
YES.🙂
The question one should ask oneself, I think, is do you want a neutral sounding cable or do you want it to mask some flaws in your system?
Based on that you can alter the sound of a system in various directions by just swapping out cables but a transparant, neutral sounding cable won't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse no matter what it costs.
As this is DIYaudio, why worry about the silly mark ups of the High-End boutiques when you can achieve just as good or even better than most at a fraction of the asking prices anyway?
You see an awful lot of people trying to build the umpeenth variation on a theme when it comes to amps, loudspeakers and what have you.
The same crowd usually complains about the cost of good cables (if they believe it would make a difference to start with) but can't seem to think of a good way of making any...
This I find rather perplexing to say the least.................
Cheers, 😉
A better conductor (lower seriesR) does not necessarily make for a better IC or LS cable.
The Van den Hul carbon range of conductors all prove that, which is not to say these are de facto the best cables around but still.
Thick enough, sure but not thicker IMHO.
YES.🙂
The question one should ask oneself, I think, is do you want a neutral sounding cable or do you want it to mask some flaws in your system?
Based on that you can alter the sound of a system in various directions by just swapping out cables but a transparant, neutral sounding cable won't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse no matter what it costs.
As this is DIYaudio, why worry about the silly mark ups of the High-End boutiques when you can achieve just as good or even better than most at a fraction of the asking prices anyway?
You see an awful lot of people trying to build the umpeenth variation on a theme when it comes to amps, loudspeakers and what have you.
The same crowd usually complains about the cost of good cables (if they believe it would make a difference to start with) but can't seem to think of a good way of making any...
This I find rather perplexing to say the least.................
Cheers, 😉
fdegrove said:
Some have carbon ground conductors, and you know what happens when you have a high resistance ground connection, don't you?
Hum.😎
I wouldn't use 1cm of these cables.
Low series R is not the most important thing to have on a cable, but this is just too much.
Low capacitance is most of the times the best thing to have.
Sheldon said:
😀
The blind and sighted tests I talked about was comparing a DIY cable I made with some commercial products.
I had the cusiosity to know if I made a good cable, as at home the "best" cable I had at the time was a QED Silver Spiral.
My diy cable took second place, on blind and sighted test, as much as I wanted it to be the best.
But I'm not biased, I really like to evaluate what I make, even if it is to find out that it's pure crap, no problem, trash bin it goes.
The cable that made an audible improvement to mine was a WireWorld top of the range cable (around 1000 Euros).
Even then, we evaluated the cables on only one system.
I would never give 1000 Euros for a cable, I would rather burn my hands making a better DIY cable.
Hi,
Sure...
Yet high series R was neither the reason nor the reasoning behind the development of these cables.
I agree provided you want a wideband cable that doesn't need to filter any HF nasties.
As it happens my own IC designs have low capacitance, low series resistance (Ag) and higher than usual inductance.
Add to that high quality soldering and decent RCA plugs and you have a good chance of creating a decent audio cable.
Cheers, 😉
Sure...
Yet high series R was neither the reason nor the reasoning behind the development of these cables.
I agree provided you want a wideband cable that doesn't need to filter any HF nasties.
As it happens my own IC designs have low capacitance, low series resistance (Ag) and higher than usual inductance.
Add to that high quality soldering and decent RCA plugs and you have a good chance of creating a decent audio cable.
Cheers, 😉
Umm....Ok.
If we forget for a minute the hype about whether certain cable characteristics enhace the sound (depth, soundstage etc..) and just look how the markerters and sales people even contradict themselves.
You walk into a Hi-Fi shop and look at the pre-amps and power amps. The sales rep describes these as "a wire with gain" i.e. the output is exactly the same as the input just bigger (louder). They'll then talk about the enhanced circuitry that leaves the audio path pure.
So if I apply the same reasoning (theirs), then the ideal cable will have the following characteristics. Zero ohms, zero capacity and zero inductance. This is the only way that what goes in the cable at one end can come out exactly the same at the other end.
But then they show me the cables and (unbelievably) talk about a balanced inductive-capacitive transmission line formed by a the right amount of capacity, inductance and resistance...
huh?
This stuff was a big no no in the amp / pre-amp room!
They continue to show you the twisted structure, or the directionality, or the 2nF per foot / 1 nH per foot specification....
huh? that ain't zero.
Maybe some people can hear cable differences. If they can, what they would hear is, if you follow the pre-amp principle, a denegrated (distorted) version of what went in. Many find this perceived difference pleasing...as a guitarist likes the Marshall sound. So maybe they can hear a mellow sound stage if signal got lost along the way.
So if the best cable has near zero impedance then this is a straight and fat cable (screened for ICs). Twists and other convoluted structures only increase things like capacitance, inductance and resistance....and we all learnt in the pre-amp room that these are no no's.
So I save my money and buy plain ordinary (well screened for ICs) and fat cable and get as close to zero as I can.
Ok ...I'm done
If we forget for a minute the hype about whether certain cable characteristics enhace the sound (depth, soundstage etc..) and just look how the markerters and sales people even contradict themselves.
You walk into a Hi-Fi shop and look at the pre-amps and power amps. The sales rep describes these as "a wire with gain" i.e. the output is exactly the same as the input just bigger (louder). They'll then talk about the enhanced circuitry that leaves the audio path pure.
So if I apply the same reasoning (theirs), then the ideal cable will have the following characteristics. Zero ohms, zero capacity and zero inductance. This is the only way that what goes in the cable at one end can come out exactly the same at the other end.
But then they show me the cables and (unbelievably) talk about a balanced inductive-capacitive transmission line formed by a the right amount of capacity, inductance and resistance...
huh?
This stuff was a big no no in the amp / pre-amp room!
They continue to show you the twisted structure, or the directionality, or the 2nF per foot / 1 nH per foot specification....
huh? that ain't zero.
Maybe some people can hear cable differences. If they can, what they would hear is, if you follow the pre-amp principle, a denegrated (distorted) version of what went in. Many find this perceived difference pleasing...as a guitarist likes the Marshall sound. So maybe they can hear a mellow sound stage if signal got lost along the way.
So if the best cable has near zero impedance then this is a straight and fat cable (screened for ICs). Twists and other convoluted structures only increase things like capacitance, inductance and resistance....and we all learnt in the pre-amp room that these are no no's.
So I save my money and buy plain ordinary (well screened for ICs) and fat cable and get as close to zero as I can.
Ok ...I'm done
carlosfm said:
Carlos,
Maybe you read/remember an earlier post from me about some neurological research. They did a blind test with IIRC 67 people, asking them which Coke they preferred. They got Classic Coke and Pepsi, in unmarked bottles. The preference was about 50-50 split. During the test they monitored peoples brain activity in a scanner. As could be expected, the brain area related to taste was quite active.
Next they did the same test with original marked bottles: Classic Coke & Pepsi. THIS time, 75% preferred Classic Coke...
Again they monitored brain activity. What they saw was that not only was the taste area active, but also the recognition and memory areas lighted up ligh a Christmas tree.
Clearly, their response was heavily influenced by the recognition of the name brand. (BTW, the research was sponsored by advertising organisations trying to find out how to force us to buy a specific brand while we were thinking we made a logical decision out of free will. Ha!).
If you read the first reference in the post above about the Harman speaker testing (Science in the service of art), you have seen that the size and design of the speakers clearly influenced the preference, and that even experienced reviewers who beforehand said, hey, I can disregard these extarnal characteristics, did exactly the same: they were influenced.
Now, this is all unconciously. You (or anyone) are CONVINCED that you disregard it. But it isn't true! Conciousness is like a window over the activity movie of the brain: there is a lot (more than 99% in fact) going on in the brain we don't know, because the attention can only focus on a limited area. So, whether we like it or not, we have only very limited control over this.
Can we gain control over it? Yes, there is research suggesting it is possible. It takes a lot of time and effort, because you are trying to change a system that has been set in its tracks for all your life, and in fact has been shaped by evolution in the millions of years before your birth. BUT, the first step is to fully realise and accept that it is going on, and be extremely critical to yourself. At every step, ask yourself: if I wanted to disagree, where would I attack myself. Be very agressive.
What I see in this forum is that people don't even have a clue that this happens, and of course they feel they KNOW what they hear. Not so, I'm afraid.
If you read the article about the blind cable test I started this thread with, it is all there in its glaring ugliness. A well thought out blind test, carefully set up, giving results that contradict expectations and the process starts. Looking for arguments and fiddling factors to actually make it come out so as to fullfill expectations.
The expensive cable ending last in the first trial. Ahh, that is because "clearly" it is not a good match to the rest of the system. Now in the second trail, a cheap cable ends last. Why don't we say: Ahh, that is because "clearly" it is not a good match to the rest of the system...? Because a cheap cable ending last conforms to our prejudice, and an expensive cable ending last does not.
Man, if you look into this, it's often a lot more exiting than audio.(am I sin-binned now?😉 )
Jan Didden
Jan, I would say it's the same thing.
There are specialists in tasting wine, and those can most probably detect the type of wine much more easily than me.
Also, as I don't drink much coke, I could have difficulty in deciding about tastes.
Taste is, I think, a much more difficult matter to evaluate than hearing.
If one thing tastes good for one person and that same thing gives me vomits, I can't evaluate, I can just say I don't like it.
If I don't like coke and have little experience with it I will fail in identifying the brand.
But give me a glass of Jack Daniels and another of J&B and I will tell you what is what.😀
Coke is certainly a difficult thing to evaluate, as 99% is water.
There are specialists in tasting wine, and those can most probably detect the type of wine much more easily than me.
Also, as I don't drink much coke, I could have difficulty in deciding about tastes.
Taste is, I think, a much more difficult matter to evaluate than hearing.
If one thing tastes good for one person and that same thing gives me vomits, I can't evaluate, I can just say I don't like it.
If I don't like coke and have little experience with it I will fail in identifying the brand.
But give me a glass of Jack Daniels and another of J&B and I will tell you what is what.😀
Coke is certainly a difficult thing to evaluate, as 99% is water.
It's all in the mind!
"janneman" has the must logical approach so far.
But that may be my prejudice coming through! 😉
At least I accept that my views could be prejudiced that is the main point here.
We should strive for truth not just believe what we are told especially when money or prestige is involved.
We must also guard against people who want to maintain an exalted position be they scientist or soothsayers, at the experience of reason.
"janneman" has the must logical approach so far.
But that may be my prejudice coming through! 😉
At least I accept that my views could be prejudiced that is the main point here.
We should strive for truth not just believe what we are told especially when money or prestige is involved.
We must also guard against people who want to maintain an exalted position be they scientist or soothsayers, at the experience of reason.
carlosfm said:Jan, I would say it's the same thing.
There are specialists in tasting wine, and those can most probably detect the type of wine much more easily than me.
Also, as I don't drink much coke, I could have difficulty in deciding about tastes.
Taste is, I think, a much more difficult matter to evaluate than hearing.
If one thing tastes good for one person and that same thing gives me vomits, I can't evaluate, I can just say I don't like it.
If I don't like coke and have little experience with it I will fail in identifying the brand.
But give me a glass of Jack Daniels and another of J&B and I will tell you what is what.😀
Coke is certainly a difficult thing to evaluate, as 99% is water.
Carlos,
You don't get it.
In the sighted Coke test, the preferences with the labelled bottles would have been the same if there had been Pepsi in the Classic Coke bottles and Classic Coke in the Pepsi bottles!
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.