Sorry I had drowned in your stream of consciousness. As you started talking about B1's I made a leap of an assumption with my last breath 😀
That's correct, but what he heard was related to a small mistake in play technique/interpretation of one of the string players. It was not related to a difference in sound quality between 2 audio components. He might have been able to get it even with a low-fi equipment, as a professional cello player. Similar when we design engineers look at the schematics and instantly can see the issue that is hidden to "normal" population.
Re ABX tests, yes it was the path what to be concentrated on and not to be nervous and afraid of failure. Even more difficult is trying to get rid of any kind of bias and prejudice when you make a sighted test or a level matched A/B test with known components, without the unknown "X" component factor. I doubt it is completely possible even if we make our best efforts to be independent. The subconscious mind works even if we do not want it to work.
I'm very interested in a Double Blind Test.
I already made 3 cables after Hans' suggestion, one for a friend and two for me, of which one has a tunable impedance (impedance-network can also be switched off)
I would like to contibute the following for a DBT:
-if some agrees to be the host not too far away from my place 1), I would gladly participate and bring my cable
-if some wants to make a DBT too far for me to travel to, I would send him some boards, to prepare a cable.
1) in the range of ~3-400km around Cologne/Germany
Cheers, Boris
Last edited:
@Boris,
Remember that you are used to the sound of your speakers interacting with your amplifier and how the system sounds in your room. Going somewhere else and using unfamiliar equipment may require some time for your subconscious mind to learn in detail what is normal sound from that system. You might be setting yourself up for failure if you are not careful to think about what possible factors could cause erroneous results from your experiment.
Cheers,
Mark
Remember that you are used to the sound of your speakers interacting with your amplifier and how the system sounds in your room. Going somewhere else and using unfamiliar equipment may require some time for your subconscious mind to learn in detail what is normal sound from that system. You might be setting yourself up for failure if you are not careful to think about what possible factors could cause erroneous results from your experiment.
Cheers,
Mark
Mark, that's true. But I believe that a correct conducted DBT, with a decent system, should be able to reveal a possible influence of the cables to the sound...
As I said, I made these cables for a friend too. I always had some problems with the sound of his system- he liked it of course. But we both agreed that changing the cable was the best value for the money tweak so far. And it even made me liking his system much more after that...
As I said, I made these cables for a friend too. I always had some problems with the sound of his system- he liked it of course. But we both agreed that changing the cable was the best value for the money tweak so far. And it even made me liking his system much more after that...
@PMA, One method I sometimes use is to have multiple experienced/trained listeners who don't know what has been changed, take a listen and tell me in detail what specifically they think has changed about the sound, if anything. If I have them do it independently, and if their descriptions match, then I can be pretty sure there is a real difference. Also, its possible to learn a little about what is different perceptually (if anything), as opposed to what measures differently.
Regarding measurement, sometimes there is more than one measurable factor involved. For example, jneutron has described what happens to current flow in wires during time-domain transient conditions. Eddy currents cause lateral current flow between wire strands, skin and proximity effects change dynamically, small-ish appearing motor effects (small, that is, as sometimes measured) can occur if conductors and or insulators are not mechanically stable, etc.
For me its like this: If we can hear a difference, we can't assume its must show up as HD and or noise-floor changes as visualized on an FFT. For example, lrisbo of Purifi posted audio files showing how phase rotation of harmonics could be strikingly audible in a particular case, but didn't look different at all in spectral analysis. Also, IIRC it was none other than Scott Wurcer who pointed out a tendency towards over-reliance on typical figure of merit measurements as being all that matters (e.g. spectral type measurements).
Regarding measurement, sometimes there is more than one measurable factor involved. For example, jneutron has described what happens to current flow in wires during time-domain transient conditions. Eddy currents cause lateral current flow between wire strands, skin and proximity effects change dynamically, small-ish appearing motor effects (small, that is, as sometimes measured) can occur if conductors and or insulators are not mechanically stable, etc.
For me its like this: If we can hear a difference, we can't assume its must show up as HD and or noise-floor changes as visualized on an FFT. For example, lrisbo of Purifi posted audio files showing how phase rotation of harmonics could be strikingly audible in a particular case, but didn't look different at all in spectral analysis. Also, IIRC it was none other than Scott Wurcer who pointed out a tendency towards over-reliance on typical figure of merit measurements as being all that matters (e.g. spectral type measurements).
Last edited:
Yes, great tech talk. But as applies to audio, much ado about nothing. Not a single bit of actual testing showing any effect at all that people can actually hear. Somehow I thought this site was about things audio, but if you just want something to worry about, you are free to go on and on, just don't be surprised when others think it is a waste of time and energy.
Hello,
What I find amazing is that people who think like you say "no need to measure, our ears are so accurate and infallible" and anyone who dares to think differently is of course completely wrong. Must be nice to be soo much better.
Let me guess, you think that any endeavour that doesn't align with your world view is a waste of time and energy? Which all hobbies are...
Boy, guess I was wrong. Thought this site was about audio, not tech crap that is very unlikely to ever have any effect to the audio. Free country, if you want to talk tech BS just to make yourself feel so important, go for it. Most of us want to discuss how to get better audio, not better RF.
Can you cite any peer reviewed published research on that?
No, it should be like this: If you can perceive a difference, it needs to be verified to find out that the difference was just a perception (all in your head) or real audible difference.
You are missing the entire point of my post and accusing me of writing what I did not write.
My point is that the science of psychoacoustics is not complete and we don't know the entire set of measurements that describe the act of listening to music.
Hence, we must use both measurements and listening.
Let me quote you here...
"What I find amazing is that people who think like you say "no need to listen, our measurements are so accurate and infallible" and anyone who dares to think differently is of course completely wrong. Must be nice to be soo much better."
See? You are as guilty of bias as the "other" side.... Mind you, there is a third way, my way. We'll let you both fight each other.
Adios!
What you are really talking about is your skepticism when you are not there to hear for yourself if a difference is obvious or subtle. If a difference is plainly obvious to you and to others, it would be absurd to go to the trouble of trying to convince a forum troll of something they will never accept anyway.
OTOH, when a difference is less than obvious, when it is subtle, we know how to blind test and we do so as needed.
EDIT: Also, we have been over all this stuff time and time again. Always everyone forgets the difference between discrimination testing verses preference testing, and the implications thereof. Also, people forget that valid blind listening statistics can be produced by a variety of experimental designs. Doesn't have to be ABX per say. For one thing there are other perfectly valid blind listening protocols.
There is more that could be said but no point in responding to the same old trolling. If someone wants to have a serious discussion about listening tests you are welcome to PM.
Last edited:
Yeah... next time we go to a live show.. we'll stop it half way through the first movement and ask the conductor to move the first violin section a couple of feet to the left because they are exciting some resonance in the hall and the imaging is suffering.
Sometimes, the point of this hobby is missed, huh?
What you are really talking about is your experience as you often write "IME" on this forum. Whether the difference you've experienced was actually audible one caused by different soundwaves or it was just in your head needs to be verified which you haven't done.
Of course it's plainly obvious to you when switching chips or capacitors in DAC and subjectively listening hours or days later for comparison. 🙄
As needed? Based on your posting history / pattern, that means you haven't done one.
I'm making the point that some (often?) times people get carried away with things that have nothing to do with the hobby.
Instead of listening to music, they go on and on and on with their dogma.
The issue is not about hearing differences but when the difference becomes synonymous to "sounds better". Even though you have group of well trained platinum ears who all claim it sounds better does not mean that it is actually better. They just prefer that set of distortions to another.
