Cables reviewing by reputable publications/magazines.

[Tony_Montana]

We usually [mostly] dismiss cable reviews by consumers as placebo effect, or as exaduration of cable effects. Some reviewers go as far as explaining in detail signature of each cable they had in their system a year ago (as compare with the current one). So there are alot of room for error and bad judgment here, and I think that is main cause of dismissing their reviews as faulty.

But what about when reputable publications or magazines reviewing cables? And they do exactly sound like consumer's reviews. With adjective such as flabby bass, warmer midrange, wider dynamics, excellent imaging, rich in textural, more resolution and on and on......one have to ask if we can dismiss these reviews as easily as consumer's reviews?

The old argument about [audio] publication's review is that since they accept advertisement money from audio manufactures, then they are obligated to make positive review of their products.

But the main question here is: Is advertisement money the ONLY motive behind positive (or negative) review of cables? I mean we do believe most of publications reviews about speakers, receivers or DVD players. Then why not believe their cable reviews??

Here are couple of publications which do review cables frequently:

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/magnan_typevi_reference.htm

http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/reviews.asp

[Pat D]

But the main question here is: Is advertisement money the ONLY motive behind positive (or negative) review of cables? I mean we do believe most of publications reviews about speakers, receivers or DVD players. Then why not believe their cable reviews??

Well, you will notice that hardly anyone bothers to measure the performance of cables and interconnects. I think you already know why. have absolutely no reason to believe reviewers who believe they hear all sorts of major differences between electronics designed to be neutral who also believe in major differences between proper cables and interconnects.

As for electronics, other than signal processors, I am prepared to believe the measurements but tend to ignore purely subjective accounts of their sound unsupported by measurements.

As for speakers, I use measurements as a screening tool but while I do take some account of reviewers' subjective preferences, with speakers I wouldn' t say I believe them. But the magazines tend to think many of the same speakers are good, and a recommendation may put speakers on my audition list. But after all, our preferencesare the ones that count in a purchasing decision.

[Rockwell]

I don't know why these reviews would be any better than consumer reviews. They've bought into the same mythology that you can hear differences between any component, no matter how trivial(note the digital cable review on the sidebar of the Soundstage review...digital cables need burnin...who knew!). Well, of course you can if you know which component is attached.

In fact, I would say that these people's egos and money are so tied up in this mythology that you would never get them to backtrack and admit that they need to use testing controls and that their conclusions may be worthless. In my book, that makes these reviews less than worthless; they are disinformation.

[markw]

Do they use any controls? Is it all sighted listening? Ifthe naswers are no and yes, I'd be very suspect.

Years ago when I was playing these games, I swore I heard things I've never heard before with the new toys. Lo and behold, when I went back to my old stuff, the same "new" sounds were there also!!! I just never listened hard enough or carefully enough until I had the incentive.


...just shows to go ya.

[skeptic]

I can't imagine why anyone would think these publications reputable. Having read a few of their reviews, I'd consider them trash. Their opinions are no more credible than the ones you will read on this web site from anonymous contributors.

[bturk667]

I can't imagine why anyone would think these publications reputable. Having read a few of their reviews, I'd consider them trash. Their opinions are no more credible than the ones you will read on this web site from anonymous contributors.

Why should anyone here read anything you write?

How are we to know if you are credible?

Are we to trust your advice? Why?

I'm not trying to be mean or an *******, I'm just asking reasonable questions.

[skeptic]

Why should anyone here read anything you write?

For the same reasons they read what other people write. People come here to express their views. Other people come here to read them and make their own comments or just see what different people have to say. I have always said, if you don't like the kind of things I write, pass up my comments and go on to somebody elses or another thread.

How are we to know if you are credible?

You don't. Like a lot of other people here, I am anonymous and want to stay that way. I'm just a moniker attached to some postings. You don't know anything about me except what I choose to tell you and then you have no way to know if any of it or even none of it is true.

Are we to trust your advice? Why?

You have to make up your own mind. Frankly, I don't trust ANYTHING I read on the internet myself. At least I don't if it doesn't make sense or I can't get independent verification from someone I know and trust. And I don't suggest that anyone else take internet advice with more than a grain of salt either. You have no way to know if I really am an electrical engineer with 35 years of varied experience or just lying. We've had liars here before. Some people may have tried some of my advice and found it useful. Others may have tried it and been disappointed. If you read what I post at all, make up your own mind.

[woodman]

... but what about when reputable publications or magazines reviewing cables? And they do exactly sound like consumer's reviews. With adjective such as flabby bass, warmer midrange, wider dynamics, excellent imaging, rich in textural, more resolution and on and on......one have to ask if we can dismiss these reviews as easily as consumer's reviews?

What about 'em? Sorry, Tony, but whenever a magazine starts to review or evaluate or extoll or criticize or compare friggin' pieces of wire, thus elevating the entire subject to the level of something of actual importance, they lose whatever credibility or reputation they might have ever had with me - simply because whatever performance differences between wires MIGHT exist are too damned minuscule, tiny, infinitesimal, and in the final analysis irrelevant as to be worthy of serious discussion.

People that claim to experience HUGE improvements in performance are only the victims of their very own ABEs ... it's as simple as that! If that comes off as narrow-minded or closed-minded - so be it. My 60 years of hands-on experience working with audio have convinced me of the truth of what I'm saying.

[bturk667]

People that claim to experience HUGE improvements in performance are only the victims of their very own ABEs ... it's as simple as that! If that comes off as narrow-minded or closed-minded - so be it. My 60 years of hands-on experience working with audio have convinced me of the truth of what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

A person claims to hear differences, not HUGE, but differences none the less? Are they then victims of their own ABEs, as you say, or is there a difference? In othert words, can cables make a difference?

I say they most certainly do.

[woodman]

A person claims to hear differences, not HUGE, but differences none the less? Are they then victims of their own ABEs, as you say, or is there a difference? In othert words, can cables make a difference?

I say they most certainly do.

Any difference in performance between any two pieces of wire are one of three things:

1. One of the two wires is defective - not performing up to the level of which it was designed to be capable ... or,

2. One of the two wires has been intentionally engineered to alter in some way the signals passing through ... or,

3. The actual performance difference is gonna be too small to be of any meaningful significance. Claims by people that the difference is NOT subtle or small or insignificant are the result of their personal ABEs creating the sensory perception that they're experiencing.

When meaningful differences are proclaimed, they are ineveitably experienced in sighted testing ... NOT in any "blind" testing of any sort - SBT, DBT, TBT, QBT, it doesn't matter. When the identity of what's being evaluated is KNOWN, all real objectivity and lack of bias goes right out the window. It cannot be otherwise unless the "tester" has been asleep in a cave - Rip Van Winkle style for the last 47 years. Everything we see, hear, read, or are told by others make an impact - generally in the subconscious of the recipient, where they accumulate and begin to form the dreaded Attitudes and Beliefs which have such a profound effect on everything we experience through our 5 senses. If the perceived differences were actual, there should be little difficulty in telling one from the other just about EVERY time ... not a mere 10 or 11 out of 15 tries. AFAIK, this has NEVER been accomplished by anyone! Doesn't that tell us something of significance? What it tells us is just what I stated earlier ... that the actual differences (when they in fact DO exist) are gonna be tiny - not meaningful.

[Tony_Montana]

Any difference in performance between any two pieces of wire are one of three things:

1. One of the two wires is defective - not performing up to the level of which it was designed to be capable ... or,

2. One of the two wires has been intentionally engineered to alter in some way the signals passing through ... or,

3. The actual performance difference is gonna be too small to be of any meaningful significance. Claims by people that the difference is NOT subtle or small or insignificant are the result of their personal ABEs creating the sensory perception that they're experiencing.


I will definitely agree with you on number 2. Unless manufacture have in some way altered the performance of cable, then there shouldn't be any meaningful differences between cables.

For example, many exotic speaker cables that actually acted like a tone control, rolling off high frequency response due to excessive resistance and inductance (warm sound), while other cables make a system sound bright because of their excessive capacitance causing the amplifier to peak its high frequency response (detail sound).

But somebody might ask what is wrong with a cable that does alter the sound intentionally if it a make system sound better. And the answer would be...what about scenario where the recording we are listening to (since each recording have different equalization) have the same exact equalization or tone as the cable does? Then one will get double the warm sound (if record is warm and using warm cables), or double the bright sound of a system (vice versa) :)

[skeptic]

There is nothing wrong with using tone controls. They have a very valuable and specific function in a sound system. Unfortunately, audiophiles who imagine an idealized world where all recordings are made with equipment and are played back on equipment having a flat frequency response and that room acoustics don't alter audible frequency response have been convinced that they aren't necessary. Then they complain about cds sounding too shrill and speak about the "signature" of this speaker or that amplifier meaning its frequency response.

Using cables as an equalizer is a terrible idea. They are unpredictible in their effect. Even an experienced engineer having all of the necessary data would find it difficult to accurately predict what any given cable would do audibly in a sound system. Only trial and error have shown that so many of them have no effect. They are uncontrollable. You can't control which frequencies they will effect or to what degree. You are left to the mercy of hit or miss luck and it is invariably miss. They are expensive. Some of them cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars with no guarantee that they will do what you want. You can spend the rest of your life looking for just the right one. A graphic equalizer on the other hand is predictable and controllable and at a modest cost. And one other thing. Connecting loudspeaker cables with extreme electrical reactance, especially capacitance creates a risk of damage to some power amplifiers. Unless you set the controls of a graphic equalizer to their extreme positions and throw all reasonable caution to the wind, there is no risk to the rest of the system by using one. Perhaps that's why every professional sound system incorporates them.

[E-Stat]

But the main question here is: Is advertisement money the ONLY motive behind positive (or negative) review of cables?

What a cynical outlook, Tony ! I confess that my response is biased because I have known two TAS reviewers for over twenty five years. Long before they became audio reviewers, each of them, albeit in different ways, have been lovers of music. That is their primary motive behind the sharing of same. Their passion is easy to recognize whenever listening to or discussing the reproduction of music. Surely there are some bad apples out there, but there are lots of good ones, too.

Another factor that is often forgotten is to remember what the good reviewers actually tell us to do. The answer is NOT to blindly follow their preferences. Reviews are simply meant to be guidelines to assist us with our selection process. By stating their reference equipment, type of music played, listening biases, and specific findings, we then can weigh that opinion as we make our own informed decision.

rw

[Tony_Montana]

Reviews are simply meant to be guidelines to assist us with our selection process. By stating their reference equipment, type of music played, listening biases, and specific findings, we then can weigh that opinion as we make our own informed decision.

You see, there are too many variables to make any conclusive decision base on references you mentioned. And throw in the fact that reviewer might be biased and have different listening taste (like bright, or warm sound), and the task of choosing the right cables from reviews alone will be a tough task.

That is why I belive one will get better results (and reviews) if we approach cables objectively which mean the test is repeatable and will have the same results. IMO, a cable's electronic specifications such as resistance, inductance and capacitance will say more about a cable, its performance and how it will perform than many [subjective] reviews all saying different things about cables.

For example, look at two posts below that are discussing silver cables and its sonic quality. One is saying that silver cable have no glaring effect (whatever that means), and another reviewer is saying the opposite:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/86570.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/86575.html

Wouldn't having cable [electronic] specifications more informative than reading above reviews???

[E-Stat]

And throw in the fact that reviewer might be biased and have different listening taste (like bright, or warm sound), and the task of choosing the right cables from reviews alone will be a tough task.

We all have biases. As I stated previously, the good reviewers state their biases.


That is why I belive one will get better results (and reviews) if we approach cables objectively which mean the test is repeatable and will have the same results.

At some future time when such measurements (likely different ones) prove to be truly relevant then I would agree. Go ahead comparing electronics with similarly useless metrics such as THD.


For example, look at two posts below that are discussing silver cables and its sonic quality. One is saying that silver cable have no glaring effect (whatever that means), and another reviewer is saying the opposite:

Did you forget the title of your post?

Cables reviewing by reputable publications / magazines

The posts cited are neither.

rw

[mtrycraft]

Lo and behold, when I went back to my old stuff, the same "new" sounds were there also!!! I just never listened hard enough or carefully enough until I had the incentive.


...just shows to go ya.

Or, you just plain forgot, as should be as time passes :)

[mtrycraft]

A person claims to hear differences, not HUGE, but differences none the less? Are they then victims of their own ABEs, as you say, or is there a difference? In othert words, can cables make a difference?

I say they most certainly do.


Only one way to know, under bias controlled listening. Anything less is just speculation and is unreliable.

[mtrycraft]

We all have biases. As I stated previously, the good reviewers state their biases.

A good reason to use biase controlled evaluations that has more meaning. You know, DBT evaluations.



At some future time when such measurements (likely different ones) prove to be truly relevant then I would agree. Go ahead comparing electronics with similarly useless metrics such as THD.

Oh, the measurements are here today, especially for cables.
You may want to contact some reputable audio experts on this, such as Dr. Floyd Toole, or Paradigm, or PSB, or Dunlavy. They can certainly demonstrate and correlate measured data.

Some just cannot accept what is and speculate about what is not.

[E-Stat]

A good reason to use biase controlled evaluations that has more meaning. You know, DBT evaluations.

I have no problem with the concept, just weak execution. I await hearing details of a DBT that isn't dumbed down to be worthless.


Oh, the measurements are here today, especially for cables.You may want to contact some reputable audio experts on this, such as Dr. Floyd Toole, or Paradigm, or PSB, or Dunlavy.

Or engineers of far better equipment such as Alon, GamuT, Edge, VTL, Joule Electra, et. al who have a different perspective. Didn't Dunlavy go out of business?

rw

[mtrycraft]

I have no problem with the concept, just weak execution. I await hearing details of a DBT that isn't dumbed down to be worthless.

Then you have nothing to evaluate audible differences as sighted listening has nothing going for it, not fixable from the start. You have nothing then. DBTs are not 'dumbed down' and have meaning. Some just don't like the answers.



Or engineers of far better equipment such as Alon, GamuT, Edge, VTL, Joule Electra, et. al who have a different perspective.

They may have different perspective. Means nothing in the real world of audio. That leaves out the high end voodoo world that they may be part of. But then I don't know any of these outfits. Maybe for the best, my blood will not boil.


Didn't Dunlavy go out of business?


Don't know. If they did, wasn't because of poor design.

[Tony_Montana]

Did you forget the title of your post?

Cables reviewing by reputable publications / magazines

The posts cited are neither.

Ok, so here are two reviews of Kimber Kable Heros Interconnects by publications "Secret of HT and High Fidelity" and "Soundstage".

Here are excerpts from each review that are somewhat opposite to each other:

Secret review writes:"Previously, the sound of his system had been hard, metallic, and altogether, in my opinion, utterly disgusting. After fitting the system with a pair of Heros, the high frequencies became almost feathery soft and light, but without a loss of detail. Heros are inherently smooth, warm, and somewhat effervescent cable".

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_5_1/kimberhero.html

But Soudstage review of Heros writes:"As such, the rest of the components in the audio chain should be up to snuff because the Heroes will not mask sonic deficiencies in recordings or equipment. Those looking to, say, tame the digitized nasties from a lesser CD player might be better off looking elsewhere".

http://www.soundstage.com/upton07.htm

So basically one review is saying that Heros ICs are smooth and warm, while the other review saying that Heros are not warm or smooth and will not mask harshness of music.

I hope you see the fault in subjective reviewing of cables. Everybody got a different take on how a cable sound. :)

[skeptic]

..."tame the digitized nasties"...

God I wish everyond hated cds. With many DG, Phillips, and so many other great cds labels selling used at the Princeton Record Shoppe for $5 or less and few over $10, I get to own a vast collection of some of the greatest recordings of the greatest music ever made and in perfect condition because so many people don't like cds. Bring on the digitized nasties. Now my only problem is which ones to listen to first.

[E-Stat]

DBTs are not 'dumbed down' and have meaning. Some just don't like the answers.

ALL tests, DBTs included, can only provide answers based upon the testing criteria used. If Consumer's Union does testing between a number of vacuum cleaners, and based upon the study, concludes that say uprights are better than canisters, then those results are only valid for the sample tested. There could well be any number of cannisters not in the test group that are better than any of the original study.

Similarly, I have no problem with Stereo Review conducting DBTs on cables using inexpensive receivers and bookshelf speakers with the conclusion that all cables sound the same. It is only when such results are then extrapolated far beyond the test study that they are rendered comical. Such a test proves absolutely nothing for when the level of the audio gear is significantly raised. The often referenced Russell link consists only of results on mid-fi equipment (that is to say where they provide ANY detail whatsoever as to the gear used).

rw

[mtrycraft]

ALL tests, DBTs included, can only provide answers based upon the testing criteria used. If Consumer's Union does testing between a number of vacuum cleaners, and based upon the study, concludes that say uprights are better than canisters, then those results are only valid for the sample tested. There could well be any number of cannisters not in the test group that are better than any of the original study.

Similarly, I have no problem with Stereo Review conducting DBTs on cables using inexpensive receivers and bookshelf speakers with the conclusion that all cables sound the same. It is only when such results are then extrapolated far beyond the test study that they are rendered comical. Such a test proves absolutely nothing for when the level of the audio gear is significantly raised. The often referenced Russell link consists only of results on mid-fi equipment (that is to say where they provide ANY detail whatsoever as to the gear used).

rw

Yes, you may be right if there was only one test. There isn't. 30 years of testing on any different number of gear, including very expensive cable maker's gear with null results.
Where are all the positive data on expensive setups? Why is none to be found after 30 years? It should be a snap from what I gather from you.

Oh, your vacuum is a very poor analogy. Unfortunate. I thought you would know better.

[E-Stat]

30 years of testing on any different number of gear, including very expensive cable maker's gear with null results.

Can you point me to at least one such test with full details?

rw

[mtrycraft]

Can you point me to at least one such test with full details?

rw


I have posted my citation lists many times.
Can you point to one test showing differences?

[E-Stat]

I have posted my citation lists many times.


So, would you be so kind as to provide a link to same?

rw

[mtrycraft]

So, would you be so kind as to provide a link to same?

rw

What? Are you finally going to do some research on your own?

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@13.U7jhaIbJjUt.27@.ef9eb2a/43

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@142.gbpHa8C4hbx^21@.ef469fd/11

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id3.html

[E-Stat]

What? Are you finally going to do some research on your own?

Thank you. I rather thought that searching for threads containing DBTs authored by you would yield hundreds of hits. :)

Most of those references are simply bibliographic in nature. The ones by Stereo Review are fine when you limit the playing field to mid-fi receivers and cheapo speakers. Oh well. Many are dead links. Of all the references, only one really provided the kind of details I was looking for. That was the Tag McLaren one. It still didn't answer one question: was the program material played familiar to anyone of the twelve volunteers?

There was a thread on AA some time ago when a retired Bell Labs researcher debated with Zapped by Jitter the value of using trained listeners and familiar musical content. Zapped argued for using untrained subjects with completely unfamiliar material. I would side with Jim Johnson that such a test (while useful for some purposes) cannot reveal ultimate performance qualities. I would readily concede that my older brother (who has a decent receiver based system) cannot hear all the subtle nuances on my system when playing music that he has never heard.

rw

[FLZapped]

I would readily concede that my older brother (who has a decent receiver based system) cannot hear all the subtle nuances on my system when playing music that he has never heard.

rw

What did your brother have to compare his listening to? How do you think familiarity would help? Is this a side-by-side blind comparision you're talking about, or do you believe that he has an audible memory that extends over the time it takes him to travel form his environment to yours? And how would that even be valid? The acousitical differences between the two venues alone negate any validity.

-Bruce

[mtrycraft]

Of all the references, only one really provided the kind of details I was looking for. That was the Tag McLaren one. It still didn't answer one question: was the program material played familiar to anyone of the twelve volunteers?



Just another strawman argument. There is zero evidence that it matters how well you know the material. But, if you have credible citation that it matters, not speculated ones, please post it. I'd like to know the facts, not like some.

There was a thread on AA some time ago when a retired Bell Labs researcher debated with Zapped by Jitter the value of using trained listeners and familiar musical content.

Are you a trained listener? If you claim to be, you must have credentials to support this? If not, you have no basis for anything.
Bell Labs does research, threshold research. Trained listeners get to the answers quicker. Simple.
Oh, now that I see, JJs name, he worked for At&T, not Bell Labs. Yes, he is world class in the research end and listening. Are you?




I would readily concede that my older brother (who has a decent receiver based system) cannot hear all the subtle nuances on my system when playing music that he has never heard.

rw

But he can with ones he know well? Under DBT?

I still don't have a single citation from you, or anyone for that matter, on audible differences in these matters. Why is that so hard to find?

[E-Stat]

What did your brother have to compare his listening to? How do you think familiarity would help? The acousitical differences between the two venues alone negate any validity.-Bruce

I use my brother merely as an example of someone who has your basic $2k system, but listens to music very rarely. I aver practiced listening over time sharpens one's ability to hear differences, especially with familiar program material where one is able to anticipate what to listen for. It is no earthshattering comment that most folks just don't care what level of detail a music system provides.

rw

[E-Stat]

There is zero evidence that it matters how well you know the material. But, if you have credible citation that it matters, not speculated ones, please post it. I'd like to know the facts, not like some.

As for credible evidence, I point to comments by Mr. Johnson.

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2113&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=803&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=

note: AR's otherwise helpful scripting truncates long URLs so, I removed the leading "h" in the links above.


Oh, now that I see, JJs name, he worked for At&T, not Bell Labs. Yes, he is world class in the research end and listening. Are you?

Mea culpa. I still remember the original Ma Bell names. :)

I mentioned Johnson because he disagrees with Jitter's and now your assertion that any listener will give the same results as a trained listener. What consititutese a trained listener? Is there a college level course? Is there a certification? I don't care. I simply mean someone who (hopefully for pleasure) regularly listens to music on a high performance system who has done comparative listening to components. As I mentioned in one of Bruce's comments, most folks don't have the interest in taking time to differentiate audible differences among components. Which is perfectly fine. My only "credentials" are that I have been a regular music listener for over thirty years, have a pretty good system, and have spent considerable time hearing some spectacular systems used by a couple of audio reviewer friends. I know what is possible.

rw

[FLZapped]

I use my brother merely as an example of someone who has your basic $2k system, but listens to music very rarely. I aver practiced listening over time sharpens one's ability to hear differences, especially with familiar program material where one is able to anticipate what to listen for. It is no earthshattering comment that most folks just don't care what level of detail a music system provides.

rw

Fine, but you still have no idea if he could hear the differences or not, especially with a properly constructed test that would maximize the potential of hearing any possible differences.

I think you also have to understand that your brlother is a single subject....the stuff we do, when "goofing around" has a minimum of 50 people involved. Statistically it gives you a much better look at what is going on.

Below is a test where they used trained and untrained listeners, They drew conclusions that trained listeners were better, however, when I studied the data supplied, I don't see how they actually came to that conclusion. Maybe I missed something. *shrug*

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/21/12307

-Bruce

[Bobby Blacklight]

Any review of almost any component used in the audio chain that was not done in your room with your gear is just a reference point. Even used as a reference point it a ppoor one because there is no way to really know how it all will work together unless you try. All reviews are based on peoples opinions and should be considered as such. Opinions will vary.

[pctower]

jj probably has forgotten more about controlled audio testing than most here will ever know in a lifetime.

Yet, for his own personal purposes he chooses not to use blind testing. Here, he would be labeled a flat-earther because of that.

I suspect he understands how difficult it really is to conduct a reliable blind test at home. But, then again, that's nothing more than rank speculation on my part.

[E-Stat]

Fine, but you still have no idea if he could hear the differences or not...

I merely used him as representative of a pretty large segment of the population who are casual music listener. Consequently, you could test hundreds of similar folks and likely get similar results.


Below is a test where they used trained and untrained listeners, They drew conclusions that trained listeners were better, however, when I studied the data supplied, I don't see how they actually came to that conclusion. Maybe I missed something.-Bruce

Well, I applaud your presenting material that doesn't necessarily support your view. I'm sure Mytry will jump all over my conclusion, but I find two aspects of the test that limit their usefulness. One is that the "naive" listeners were trained for only nine days in a two week period. Nine days of training? Also, the test material was digitally generated tones. Folks, music is far more complex than synthetically generated tones. While these results are what they are, they hardly prove that those who are truly practiced listeners (over a period of years, not days) can discern subtle differences with complex musical content.

rw

[FLZapped]

Well, I applaud your presenting material that doesn't necessarily support your view. I'm sure Mytry will jump all over my conclusion, but I find two aspects of the test that limit their usefulness. One is that the "naive" listeners were trained for only nine days in a two week period. Nine days of training? Also, the test material was digitally generated tones. Folks, music is far more complex than synthetically generated tones. While these results are what they are, they hardly prove that those who are truly practiced listeners (over a period of years, not days) can discern subtle differences with complex musical content.

rw

I don't know of any studies that would confirm or deny that assertion. I'm not really sure of what subtlties would be relavent, something to ponder, but it's late and I need to get some sleep.

-Bruce

[mtrycraft]

As for credible evidence, I point to comments by Mr. Johnson.

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2113&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=803&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=

note: AR's otherwise helpful scripting truncates long URLs so, I removed the leading "h" in the links above.


These have nothing to do with positive poutcomes, do they?



I mentioned Johnson because he disagrees with Jitter's and now your assertion that any listener will give the same results as a trained listener.


My assertions? Really? Trained listeners get the the answer quickly.





What consititutese a trained listener? Is there a college level course? Is there a certification?

Yes, a valid question.


I don't care.

You should. It has everything to do with who is trained and who is just claiming. No different from any other claims of dubious merit.


I simply mean someone who (hopefully for pleasure) regularly listens to music on a high performance system who has done comparative listening to components.

That is what you may mean but that has no bearing on who is trained and who just thinks they are trained. Your deffinition is meaningless to being trained.

My only "credentials" are that I have been a regular music listener for over thirty years, have a pretty good system, and have spent considerable time hearing some spectacular systems used by a couple of audio reviewer friends. I know what is possible.

Well, that doesn't qualify as being trained one way or another. You have no way of knowing that after all this time you were listening to the right things. You may think you have. You may have, but you cannot be sure unless you are tested properly and under controlled conditions. I have run across people with claimed experience for a long time, even teaching their profession just to find out they have zero concept of reality. In the end, they have been wrong for all that time.

So, in the end, you have been listening to music for a long time and different setups. Great!

[mtrycraft]

As for credible evidence, I point to comments by Mr. Johnson.

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2113&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=803&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=


rw


Yes, he has an interesting comment you shoud memorize:

"I do use DBT's for detecting and evaluating small differences that are due ONLY to auditory stimulii.

For such things, sighted testing can be trivally shown to be hopelessly flawed. "

[E-Stat]

I don't know of any studies that would confirm or deny that assertion. I'm not really sure of what subtlties would be relavent, something to ponder, but it's late and I need to get some sleep.Bruce

Do you really need studies to confirm that musical content is more complex than test tones? :)

rw

[FLZapped]

Do you really need studies to confirm that musical content is more complex than test tones? :)

rw


No,no, no. Whether or not it takes "years" or not to become a "trained" listener.....

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

Whether or not it takes "years" or not to become a "trained" listener.....

OK. Consider your own talents and abilities. Be they public speaking, writing, sport related activities, musical, career skills, whatever. Which of those did you master in nine days?

rw

[Bobby Blacklight]

Hello E-Stat

http://www.harmaninternational.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1018

Take a look at this white paper on the Harman site. Lots of releveant information about what is required to do blind testing. One of the issues is training. There is nothing wrong with the idea of using a synthesiszed signal as opposed to music. It makes it easier to hear collorations not the other way around. Test signals don't change amplitude or frequency content the way music does so when you switch from unit A to B the diferences are readilly apparant.

[E-Stat]

Hello E-Stat
There is nothing wrong with the idea of using a synthesiszed signal as opposed to music. It makes it easier to hear collorations not the other way around.

Using test tones (look at the GUI panel) for evaluation is fine for when reproduction of said is your ultimate goal. It is not mine.


Test signals don't change amplitude or frequency content the way music does so when you switch from unit A to B the diferences are readilly apparant

Which is exactly why I place no faith in such simplistic tests. While they may render simple frequency differences apparent, they are incapable of rendering judgement of the far more complex nature of musical content.

Which test tones do you find especially moving? How about 440 hz? Perhaps a touch of 2637 hz?

While the "speaker mover floor" is not something on my wish list, the attention to the construction of the room and the room treatments are very nice. Not to mention the $12k video projector.

rw

[Bobby Blacklight]

Hmm Ok


"Using test tones (look at the GUI panel) for evaluation is fine for when reproduction of said is your ultimate goal. It is not mine."

They are used a tools to compare changes as speakers are voiced and to compare speaker to speaker. I don't think it is any surprise that Harman/JBL/Infinity/Crown/and 20 other companies under the Harman umbrella use music listenning tests as part of their evaluation. I don't think test tones are there final goal either.

"Which is exactly why I place no faith in such simplistic tests. While they may render simple frequency differences apparent, they are incapable of rendering judgement of the far more complex nature of musical content."

As a whole there is nothing simplistic about it. The engineering required to make a room like that is no simple matter. The methodology used in the listenning tests was not just some random scheme. Do you read any of the attached references. Most are AES published papers.Many have to do with developing the methodology used. Considering Revel/JBL/Infinity use that facillity to help voice their own and compare there competitors speakers I would not be so quick to just dismiss the methods used as irrelevant or of no value.

"Which test tones do you find especially moving? How about 440 hz? Perhaps a touch of 2637 hz?"

This isn't about just the emotional connection. There is a lot more to it. Without sound engineering the level of performance you enjoy would not be possible. Its a ballance of both.

[mtrycraft]

This isn't about just the emotional connection. There is a lot more to it. Without sound engineering the level of performance you enjoy would not be possible. Its a ballance of both.

Emotional connection is an individual attachment to some intangible aspects of the music only. Asking him about sound engineering practices is a waste of time as he doesn't have the first incling about it.

[E-Stat]

The methodology used in the listenning tests was not just some random scheme. I would not be so quick to just dismiss the methods used as irrelevant or of no value.

No doubt. What with the moving floor, all the computer connections and the exotic room design aspects. Listening to stepped tones will certainly help with fine tuning frequency balance, especially considering most speakers that measure "flat" sound bright. Such tests will not, however, tell you about soundstaging, macro and micro dynamic capabilities, harmonic resolution, etc. All of which are very important for when reproducing music is the goal.


This isn't about just the emotional connection. There is a lot more to it. Without sound engineering the level of performance you enjoy would not be possible. Its a ballance of both.

Starting with good engineering principles is a given. Get the basics right. At least in this context, create a speaker that performs neutrally as well as measures neutrally. The more difficult process is to then to test them with that which they are designed to replicate. Then go back to the drawing board when the drivers are found to be not coherent as a whole. Go back to the drawing board for when there is little apparent depth or width to the presentation. Go back to the drawing board for when subsequent corrections to a crossover network yield a roller coaster impedance curve that causes some amps to vary the frequency response.

Such fancy rooms are a beginning, not an end to voicing a musically faithful speaker. While not a speaker manufacturer, take a tour of Audio Research. They have been producing arguably some of the finest audio components for over thirty years. While certainly not as quantity oriented as Harman International, they are nevertheless very quality oriented. You'll note that listening tests are used for final voicing and testing of every one of their products.

http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/audioresearch/

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have admired and owned at least one Audio Research product for over twenty years since I first heard an SP-3a.

rw

[FLZapped]

OK. Consider your own talents and abilities. Be they public speaking, writing, sport related activities, musical, career skills, whatever. Which of those did you master in nine days?

rw

I can think of several things I mastered right away....

eating, sleeping, breathing..... -Bruce

[23tex]

Hi...I'm back after a long hiatus (2 years?)...seems the infamous cable debate continues...mostly new meat on the left and same DBT's on the right.

I'm certainly not a believer that I can hear the differences in cables...I do agree that a speaker wire is a terrible way to tune the sound, but, if it makes you happy.

Seems to me the first issue is can anyone hear differences in cables? This question makes the issue of hi-fi gear irrelevant. Certainly if the gear introduced a lot of distortion (by definition random), then it's of no use for testing, but, why does it have to be esoteric stuff for someone to hear these differences? Why not compare your best silverline/gold/twirl/color braided cable to romex? If you can't hear a difference between those two, you can't hear a difference with anything else.

I guess I can see that familiarity with the recording might help, but, then again, maybe it wouldn't? Not saying its the placebo effect, but, our minds play tricks on us.

I will never understand the golden ear arguements against DBT/SBT's. Yeah, there can be errors introduced by testing methods, but, its not that big of a deal. Certainly better than an informed test.

Funny, thing happened whilst I was setting up my HTR with my ratshack meter. I threw in a test tone disk to measure the output of my speakers across the audible freq. range. I could barely hear 16 k and 18 k was silence--to me. My buddy grabbed his ears in pain and the meter proved there was sound. I guess if I can't hear above 16k, I could care less about freq roll off caused by cables.

Sorry for the run-on, just happy to be back...Last I was hear, Joe the Bass man was flaming away about his extraordinary hearing capabilities...my dogs were jealous.

Mike