Interesting Thesis on IC's

[blackraven]

Here's an interesting read on a Thesis done by an M.I.T student on IC's for what its worth-

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46225/41567257.pdf

[atomicAdam]

YAY another person who thinks they know everything in the world about cables and systems because they have a science degree and tested a couple cables.

How about this - this was done over 10 years ago and technology in terms of measurements have changed, and if they haven't, than maybe what is being measured isn't what is affecting the sound.

I do agree that is all about pairing and your own taste - but to say that a $10.95 Rat Shack cable will be a smarter purchase than a $300 whatever cable is retarded. The smartest purchase is whatever sounds good to you and if you think it is worth it.

Now I've tried and could certainly whip out a range of cables from

Rat Shack ($10)
Monoprice ($5)
Blue Jean Cables ($30)
Granite Audio ($900)
WyWires ($1000)
Monster somethings ($?)
and those full copper things I think are ($150)

and we'd hear a range of sound tweaking on the system. What I maybe consider best or worth it might not be what you do.

[Steve Eddy]

How about this - this was done over 10 years ago and technology in terms of measurements have changed...

Not really. About the only thing technology has done in the past 10 years is the ability to make high resolution measurements much more affordable, largely by way of newer, high resolution sound cards.


...and if they haven't, than maybe what is being measured isn't what is affecting the sound.

Or maybe not.

When you get right down to it, all that we can hear is the result of changes in air pressure over time in the acoustic domain which is brought about by changes in voltage and current over time in the electrical domain.

And we've had the capability of measuring such changes and differences to levels far below that which humans are capable of perceiving for quite some time.


I do agree that is all about pairing and your own taste - but to say that a $10.95 Rat Shack cable will be a smarter purchase than a $300 whatever cable is retarded. The smartest purchase is whatever sounds good to you and if you think it is worth it.

Nothing to argue there.

There perhaps wouldn't be such a controversy if people wouldn't make all manner of claims which are either erroneous or lack any meaningful substantiation.

Personally, I go with what sounds best to me, regardless of what the reasons for it may be. I don't listen to reproduced music for the purpose of satisfying any sort of objective criteria. I listen for my own subjective pleasure and enjoyment. And if something gives me greater pleasure and enjoyment, that's what I use.

If someone were able to prove beyond all shadow of doubt that competently designed cables aren't capable of producing actual audible differences, I would do absolutely nothing different.

To take from the old 60's refrain, if it feels good, do it. :D

se

[Mr Peabody]

I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured and I have to wonder sometimes if can even be explained. I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change. There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy. A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.

[Steve Eddy]

I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured...

Like what?

What else is going on in our audio equipment beyond changes in voltage and current over time? And that we can measure from DC to RF and down to the thermal noise produced by a length of wire.

So what's going on that would escape measurement?


I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

And I for one am not suggesting you do otherwise. I'm all for people using whatever gives them the greatest pleasure and enjoyment.


I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change.

I disagree.

You can't expect their minds to be changed if you never give them any compelling reason to. And simply insisting that there are audible differences isn't terribly compelling.


There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

But what's the point? If you can't adequately demonstrate that there's an actual audible difference, then what use is it for someone to try it for themselves? Even if they say they do perceive some difference, that does nothing to establish whether or not there is an actual audible difference.


And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

How can you say this unless you've first established that there are actual audible differences?


We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy.

And why would you expect them to change their beliefs when no one to date has established actual audible differences between CD players or amps?


A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

I don't know that anyone's arguing that there are no differences in analogue output stages. What's at issue is whether or not those differences are sufficient to actually be audible.


I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.

Interested in what exactly?

It's one thing to be interested in what sounds best to oneself, whatever the reasons for it may be.

It's another to be interested in whether or not there are actual audible differences.

And the former does not establish the latter.

se

[Mr Peabody]

Like what?

What else is going on in our audio equipment beyond changes in voltage and current over time? And that we can measure from DC to RF and down to the thermal noise produced by a length of wire.

So what's going on that would escape measurement?

You tell me but there has to be some reason gear sound different, why a receiver with better specs on paper pales in comparison to a higher end amp in sound quality.

And I for one am not suggesting you do otherwise. I'm all for people using whatever gives them the greatest pleasure and enjoyment.

I disagree.

You can't expect their minds to be changed if you never give them any compelling reason to. And simply insisting that there are audible differences isn't terribly compelling.

You seem to want to make a philosophical argument, is there or is it not, if you think it is therefore it is. I don't need to compel some one to do anything, if they are in this hobby then they should be compelled on their own. Most in this hobby are anxious to find areas of improvements, especially those that are cost effective. How else would any one know unless they try something for themselves.

But what's the point? If you can't adequately demonstrate that there's an actual audible difference, then what use is it for someone to try it for themselves? Even if they say they do perceive some difference, that does nothing to establish whether or not there is an actual audible difference.

See above.

How can you say this unless you've first established that there are actual audible differences?

I believe that fact is established by those with experience with different gear and your denial doesn't make it less true. I am confident that one with intelligence and hearing acuity would also be able to do so. So it's on you to establish there, is, no difference.

And why would you expect them to change their beliefs when no one to date has established actual audible differences between CD players or amps?

Your statement is inaccurate. If there's no difference then all we'd have is one brand with the only difference being cosmetic. And, there are measureable differences aside from the audible differences. Parts with tighter tolerances make a difference, how a manufacturer chooses to deal with certain issues such as jitter, current or feedback all make a difference.

I don't know that anyone's arguing that there are no differences in analogue output stages. What's at issue is whether or not those differences are sufficient to actually be audible.

Well they are, it's diffibult to believe the salesman are such good hypnotists that we all spend more money for something that's not there. As I stated, denial doesn't make it so. It's insulting for those like you to incenuate humans are not capable of hearing any difference in gear although one can demonstrate the ability to tune instruments by ear or hear pitch. You can't show that all gear sounds the same, so your request doesn't hold water.

Interested in what exactly?
It's one thing to be interested in what sounds best to oneself, whatever the reasons for it may be.
It's another to be interested in whether or not there are actual audible differences.

And the former does not establish the latter.

se

I suppose if there wasn't any interest then who would be reading this or in the hobby?

[frenchmon]

I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured and I have to wonder sometimes if can even be explained. I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change. There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy. A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.

I hear ya Peabody...and I agree with you. Most of those over at the http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com think cable and speaker wire is all the same. They also think amps all sound the same Their argument is that amps have no sound.

Look at this thread...its just stupid.http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com/showthread.php?613240-Any-thoughts-on-Bell-o-cables

[Dual-500]

I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured and I have to wonder sometimes if can even be explained. I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change. There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy. A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.
Bingo - well stated. I don't get into the arguments any more either.

I can say this - take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture.

Same holds true for speakers, amps, etc. Take gear that sounds good. No two amps sound the same and for certain no two speakers sound the same - yet, many sound good.

But, not the same.

[Steve Eddy]

I hear ya Peabody...and I agree with you. Most of those over at the http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com think cable and speaker wire is all the same. They also think amps all sound the same Their argument is that amps have no sound.

Given that to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences, what makes their thinking that so absurd?

se

[Steve Eddy]

I can say this - take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture.

What exactly don't you get?


Same holds true for speakers, amps, etc. Take gear that sounds good. No two amps sound the same...

How something "sounds" to a given individual is quite subjective. And just because two amps may "sound different" to a given individual it doesn't inherently mean that there are any audible differences between them.


...and for certain no two speakers sound the same...

Speakers are another matter. The differences between them can be quite significant and well within known thresholds of audibility.

The same doesn't hold true for most electronics.

se

[LeRoy]

Here's an interesting read on a Thesis done by an M.I.T student on IC's for what its worth-

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46225/41567257.pdf

That was an interesting read. I suppose if all he had to test back in the day was R.S. -vs- Monster...then I may have also reached the same conclusion...lol

[Dual-500]

1) What exactly don't you get?

2) How something "sounds" to a given individual is quite subjective. And just because two amps may "sound different" to a given individual it doesn't inherently mean that there are any audible differences between them.

3) Speakers are another matter. The differences between them can be quite significant and well within known thresholds of audibility.

4) The same doesn't hold true for most electronics.

se
1) Nothing - I do get it. Test gear won't discern a Bundy tenor saxophone from a Yamaha. Let alone who is playing either. I can tell you the difference as I played a Bundy for years. They don't sound the same.

Different heads on the same drum sound differently. There is no electronics available that I know of that can detect that and quantify it in terms of test results.

2) Agreed. However, many can tell audible differences between amplifiers and other components that others cannot perceive. Our entire perception of sight and sound is mapped individually. The psychologists have proven that. You and I will both agree on red, but won't be perceiving the same thing. They have tested individuals with inverting lenses in front of their eyes where the world is upside down - takes about 2 weeks for their brains to re-map the vision processing and then everything is perceived as normal. Take the lenses off and they are screwed - everything then goes upside down. Takes another 2 weeks to remap vison processing back to normal. Same with hearing. We don't have the stereophonic doppler discering capabilities at birth. That's all learned and unique to each of us.

3) Agreed again. So, would you not agree that two diffeerent pairs of speakers may test out to the same basic specifications - yet, clearly sound differently. That being said, many would agree on the differences and be able to reliably tell which they were listening to - yet, there would also be many others that couldn't tell the difference, let alone care.

4) True again. But not an absolute. I can tell one amp from another - some have glaring differences, some subtle. I'm not talking comparing tubes to solid state here. Tube to tube and SS to SS amps - apples to apples. There are many on this and other audio forums that can readily discern differences between amplifiers and other electronic front end components. Differences that don't always show up on test gear.

Put two different drummers on the same kit. Tuned the same. Have them play the same material at the same tempo. They won't sound the same - I guarantee it. They will not strike the drums the same. And even more obvious will be the sound of the cymbals.

That's why music is taught in the School of Fine Arts and not the School of Engineering Math and Science Lab.

Cheers!

[Steve Eddy]

1) Nothing - I do get it.

That's not what I meant. You said "...take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture."

I was asking you what don't you get that doesn't leave you with the whole picture?


Test gear won't discern a Bundy tenor saxophone from a Yamaha.


2) Agreed. However, many can tell audible differences between amplifiers...

I must have missed it. When was this established?


Our entire perception of sight and sound is mapped individually. The psychologists have proven that.

Yes. But they've also proven that our perceptions can be highly unreliable, which is why it's trivially easy to get people to perceive differences even when there are none.


3) Argeed again. So, would you not agree that two diffeerent pairs of speakers may test out to the same basic specifications - yet, clearly sound differently.

What do you mean by "basic specifications"? If you mean "basic specs" as in what's typically listed on a spec sheet, then sure, they could very well sound different. But "basic specifications" is a far far cry from a full measurement suite.


That being said, many would agree on the differences and be able to reliably tell which they were listening to - yet, there would also be many others that couldn't tell the difference, let alone care.

Sure.


4) True again. But not an absolute. I can tell one amp from another - some have glaring differences, some subtle. I'm not talking comparing tubes to solid state here. Tube to tube and SS to SS amps - apples to apples.

Then you should step up and demonstrate this. I believe there are still some cash prizes being offered to those who can do this without peeking.


There are many on this and other audio forums that can readily discern differences between amplifiers and other electronic front end components.

Sure, there have been many people over the past 30 some odd years who have made such claims. But so far, no one has ever demonstrated this ability under controlled conditions.


Differences that don't always show up on test gear.

But as yet, no one has demonstrated actual audible differences under controlled conditions except when the differences were trivially measurable and within known thresholds of audibility.

If someone has, please point me to it so I can check it out.

se

[Steve Eddy]

That was an interesting read. I suppose if all he had to test back in the day was R.S. -vs- Monster...then I may have also reached the same conclusion...lol

Back in the day? We're talking just 13 years ago. There were dozens if not hundreds of high end cable offerings available at the time. Thirteen years ago Monster wasn't even taken very seriously by the high end.

Hell, in 1998, Kimber had already been in business for more than 10 years.

se

[Mr Peabody]

se, I'd be interested in knowing what is in a "measurement suite" that goes beyond what is shown on a spec sheet.

[LeRoy]

Back in the day? We're talking just 13 years ago. There were dozens if not hundreds of high end cable offerings available at the time. Thirteen years ago Monster wasn't even taken very seriously by the high end.

Hell, in 1998, Kimber had already been in business for more than 10 years.

se

Ya, 13 years ago doesn't seem like a long time ago, however, given all the advancements/progress in audio technology since then it does feel like "back in the day" to me.

Good info on the Kimber though I never really kept in mind when any Hi-Fi company got it's start.

Is Monster taken seriously now? All I know is that I never took Monster seriously and I did try one of their sub-woofer cables that I had to wrestle off the sub inputs just to get it off both the amp and the sub. That was enough to keep me clear of Monster. I don't recall the audio difference that the Monster was suppose to indulge me in so I guess it did not leave a favorable impression with me.

[Steve Eddy]

se, I'd be interested in knowing what is in a "measurement suite" that goes beyond what is shown on a spec sheet.

Full frequency response, impulse response, impedance plots, group delay plots, waterfall plots, distortion plots, distortion spectra, etc.

se

[Steve Eddy]

Is Monster taken seriously now?

Are you kidding? They're being sold at Radio Shack now. :D

se

[Dual-500]

Full frequency response, impulse response, impedance plots, group delay plots, waterfall plots, distortion plots, distortion spectra, etc.

se
Why, one could ascertain the meaning of life with such a comprehensive battery of tests.

So who's right, Darwin or the Creationists?

[Smokey]

The smartest purchase is whatever sounds good to you and if you think it is worth it.

Although that sound like a good advice on the surface, but it is really not.

For example four or five years ago in AudioAsylum where Steve hangs out, there was this yellow extension cord from HomeDepot which many poeple recommended because it sounded good to them.

But if you look at extension cord electrically, it is a nightmare. Crappy insulation, dielectric insulator and cable geometry. Would you buy such a cable if it sound good to you?

[Steve Eddy]

But if you look at extension cord electrically, it is a nightmare. Crappy insulation, dielectric insulator and cable geometry. Would you buy such a cable if it sound good to you?

Why would you buy any cable if it didn't sound good to you?

What's the goal here? Winning some numbers game or enjoying reproduced music?

se

[Ajani]

Then you should step up and demonstrate this. I believe there are still some cash prizes being offered to those who can do this without peeking.



Sure, there have been many people over the past 30 some odd years who have made such claims. But so far, no one has ever demonstrated this ability under controlled conditions.



But as yet, no one has demonstrated actual audible differences under controlled conditions except when the differences were trivially measurable and within known thresholds of audibility.

If someone has, please point me to it so I can check it out.

se

The idea that no one has ever passed a blind test is a myth. In fact here's a test published in the Wall Street Journal. Both John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile were able to identify the more expensive speaker cable in a blind test:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_to


Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable.

That may not be much of a margin for two products with such drastically different prices, but I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable.
Its sound was described as "richer," "crisper" and "more coherent." Like some wines, come to think of it.

In absolute terms, though, the differences weren't great. Mr. Atkinson guesstimated the expensive cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound.

More info on the testing is provided by John Atkinson in post #7 here:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/atkinson-amp-fremer-do-community-proud-1#comment-334228

[Steve Eddy]

The idea that no one has ever passed a blind test is a myth. In fact here's a test published in the Wall Street Journal. Both John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile were able to identify the more expensive speaker cable in a blind test:

Yes, I'm familiar with that.

However it wasn't a test so much as a dog and pony show and did absolutely nothing to establish whether there were any audible differences between the cables.

Each listener simply switched between A and B and then stated their preference if any. So even if there was no real difference at all, each listener had a 50/50 chance of saying they preferred the Monster cable.

That's it. One trial, 50/50 chance of picking the Monster. That JA and MF both happened to say they preferred what ended up being the Monster cable is ultimately meaningless.

Even JA admits it lacked any sort of scientific rigor.

Now, if JA or MF had gone through say 10 or 20 trials, with the cables being randomly assigned to A or B for each trial, and they consistently preferred the Monster cable, or at least enough to be statistically significant, then you might have something.

But that's not what happened here.

se

[Ajani]

Yes, I'm familiar with that.

However it wasn't a test so much as a dog and pony show and did absolutely nothing to establish whether there were any audible differences between the cables.

Each listener simply switched between A and B and then stated their preference if any. So even if there was no real difference at all, each listener had a 50/50 chance of saying they preferred the Monster cable.

That's it. One trial, 50/50 chance of picking the Monster. That JA and MF both happened to say they preferred what ended up being the Monster cable is ultimately meaningless.

Even JA admits it lacked any sort of scientific rigor.

Now, if JA or MF had gone through say 10 or 20 trials, with the cables being randomly assigned to A or B for each trial, and they consistently preferred the Monster cable, or at least enough to be statistically significant, then you might have something.

But that's not what happened here.

se

So it's mere coincidence that the experts had no trouble then?

Also JA has mentioned on the Stereophile forums, taking another blind test with MF, where he got 4 out 5 and Fremer got 5 out 5 correct... yet their results were seen as statistically insignificant because the 'average person' in the test didn't do well.... (I'll post the link later, if I can find it again)... So the combined results of 2 experts was 9 out of 10, but I'm sure that is also coincidence, until they both submit to around 20 trials each, right? Then their results would likely still be thrown out if the 'average man' doesn't score that well....

DBT relies way too much on statistics for me to take it that seriously...

[Steve Eddy]

So it's mere coincidence that the experts had no trouble then?

What exactly do you mean by "no trouble"?

Apparently none of the 39 who participated had any "trouble" stating their preference for A or B.

And what exactly makes them "experts"? Just because they write for an audio magazine?

Consider this and then tell me if you truly think MF at least qualifies as an "expert."

The common stated purpose behind high end audio is to preserve the signal and not alter or otherwise damage it in any way. There is endless marketing literature out there about all the pains taken to do this, using the purest conductors, the finest dielectrics, etc.

Some years ago Harmonic Technology introduced their "CyberLight" cables. While intended to be used between analogue components, they were in actually an optical cable. Electro-optical converters built into each end converted the source's electrical signal into an optical signal and at the other end, from optical back to electrical.

However these converters ultimately perform worse than the cheapest opamps you're likely to find in mass market gear. They had a huge hump in the low frequency response and massive amounts of harmonic and intermodulation distortion.

They mangled the signal so badly that when JA ran measurements on them, he wrote "If this were a review of a conventional product, I would dismiss it as being broken."

He further wrote "I am puzzled that Harmonic Technology, which makes good-sounding, reasonably priced conventional cables, would risk their reputation with something as technically flawed as the CyberLight."

And the real nail in the coffin, "I really don't see how the CyberLight P2A and Wave cables can be recommended."

However this is how the "expert," MF, summed them up in his review:

Harmonic Technology's Light Analog Module Photon Transducer is the most significant single technological breakthrough I have experienced in my career as an audio reviewer. It is immediately superior in every way.

So again, what exactly qualifies him as an "expert" if he finds huge frequency response aberrations and gross amounts of distortion to be "superior in every way"?


Also JA has mentioned on the Stereophile forums, taking another blind test with MF, where he got 4 out 5 and Fremer got 5 out 5 correct... yet their results were seen as statistically insignificant because the 'average person' in the test didn't do well.... (I'll post the link later, if I can find it again)...

Yes, I'm familiar with that test as well.

And I stated at the time that just because the average of everyone who took the test wasn't statistically significant, then JA's and MF's results shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand.


So the combined results of 2 experts was 9 out of 10...

No, you can't combine them like that. That's just as flawed as dismissing them because the average of all participants was no better than chance. You can only rightly consider them individually.


...but I'm sure that is also coincidence, until they both submit to around 20 trials each, right?

While 5 out of 5 may be statistically significant, the confidence level isn't very high.

So while I don't think that result should have been dismissed, neither do I think it provides any sort of conclusive evidence that there were actual audible differences between the cables.

More trials should have been done in order to improve the confidence level in the event there actually were audible differences.


Then their results would likely still be thrown out if the 'average man' doesn't score that well....

Again, I don't think their results should have been dismissed the way they were. Demonstrating actual audible differences doesn't require some group of individuals all score high. All it takes is one person.


DBT relies way too much on statistics for me to take it that seriously...

But it's only through adequate controls and statistics that we can establish actual audible differences with any confidence.

Don't be critical of those who ran the test for dismissing JA's and MF's results out of hand and then turn around and be just as dismissive yourself.

se

[Steve Eddy]

By the way, when I was responding to the post about the dog and pony show "listening test," I was going to address the part about how 61% of the 39 people chose the Monster cable as their preference. But I had to stop short and go pick up my niece.

Anyway, I grabbed a quarter and flipped it 39 times. It came up heads 23 times, and came up tails only 16 times. In other words, it came up heads 59%.

This illustrates that just because something happens over 50% of the time, it's not necessarily an indication of anything.

But more germane to the other test that Ajani mentions, during those 39 flips, flips 5 through 11 came up heads and flips 19 through 24 came up heads. So that's heads seven times in a row and six times in a row respectively.

Just because you have a 50/50 chance of the coin coming up heads or tails each time you flip it doesn't mean it's going to alternately come up heads, tails, heads, tails, etc.

Some years ago during a similar discussion, I grabbed a quarter and flipped it 10 times, each time willing it to come up heads with my mind.

To my surprise, it came up heads 10 out of 10 times.

Did that prove that my mental powers were causing it to come up heads?

No.

I did nine more trials of 10 flips and the best I was able to get after that was 9 out of 10. And only once. And sometimes it only came up heads twice.

So just because JA got 4 out of 5 and MF 5 out of 5, it doesn't mean there was necessarily anything going on. It could very well just be nothing more than statistical "noise" and the confidence level isn't very high.

That's why you need to do more trials.

If there's nothing going on, the statistics will trend toward 50/50. If there is something going on, it won't.

se

[Ajani]

What exactly do you mean by "no trouble"?

Apparently none of the 39 who participated had any "trouble" stating their preference for A or B.

And what exactly makes them "experts"? Just because they write for an audio magazine?

Consider this and then tell me if you truly think MF at least qualifies as an "expert."

The common stated purpose behind high end audio is to preserve the signal and not alter or otherwise damage it in any way. There is endless marketing literature out there about all the pains taken to do this, using the purest conductors, the finest dielectrics, etc.

Some years ago Harmonic Technology introduced their "CyberLight" cables. While intended to be used between analogue components, they were in actually an optical cable. Electro-optical converters built into each end converted the source's electrical signal into an optical signal and at the other end, from optical back to electrical.

However these converters ultimately perform worse than the cheapest opamps you're likely to find in mass market gear. They had a huge hump in the low frequency response and massive amounts of harmonic and intermodulation distortion.

They mangled the signal so badly that when JA ran measurements on them, he wrote "If this were a review of a conventional product, I would dismiss it as being broken."

He further wrote "I am puzzled that Harmonic Technology, which makes good-sounding, reasonably priced conventional cables, would risk their reputation with something as technically flawed as the CyberLight."

And the real nail in the coffin, "I really don't see how the CyberLight P2A and Wave cables can be recommended."

However this is how the "expert," MF, summed them up in his review:

Harmonic Technology's Light Analog Module Photon Transducer is the most significant single technological breakthrough I have experienced in my career as an audio reviewer. It is immediately superior in every way.

So again, what exactly qualifies him as an "expert" if he finds huge frequency response aberrations and gross amounts of distortion to be "superior in every way"?



Yes, I'm familiar with that test as well.

And I stated at the time that just because the average of everyone who took the test wasn't statistically significant, then JA's and MF's results shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand.



No, you can't combine them like that. That's just as flawed as dismissing them because the average of all participants was no better than chance. You can only rightly consider them individually.



While 5 out of 5 may be statistically significant, the confidence level isn't very high.

So while I don't think that result should have been dismissed, neither do I think it provides any sort of conclusive evidence that there were actual audible differences between the cables.

More trials should have been done in order to improve the confidence level in the event there actually were audible differences.



Again, I don't think their results should have been dismissed the way they were. Demonstrating actual audible differences doesn't require some group of individuals all score high. All it takes is one person.



But it's only through adequate controls and statistics that we can establish actual audible differences with any confidence.

Don't be critical of those who ran the test for dismissing JA's and MF's results out of hand and then turn around and be just as dismissive yourself.

se

So let me get this straight, you don't think Fremer and JA's results of 5/5 and 4/5 respectively should have been dismissed, yet you say things like this:


Sure, there have been many people over the past 30 some odd years who have made such claims. But so far, no one has ever demonstrated this ability under controlled conditions.



But as yet, no one has demonstrated actual audible differences under controlled conditions except when the differences were trivially measurable and within known thresholds of audibility.

If someone has, please point me to it so I can check it out.

It seems to me that you are dismissing the possibility that audible differences exist, yet you acknowledge that with (smaller than your ideal sample size of 10 to 20 trials) Fremer and Atkinson have shown that they can determine differences...

Fremer and Atkinson both claim to hear differences in cables, and the limited tests they've taken so far have done nothing to contradict that claim... Actually the results so far have only strengthened their claims...

It's theoretically possible that Fremer or Atkinson would pass tests of 1 and 5 and then turn around and fail a test of 10 or 20. However, I see the limited tests as providing at least enough evidence to make a reasonable person question whether the "accepted science" that there is no audible differences between cables is correct...

IMO. there are 2 unreasonable stances in audio: 1) Every tweak, mod or dollar thrown at a system makes an audible difference & 2) Because we don't know how to measure something or it hasn't been statistically proven, means it doesn't exist.... I find both positions to be equally ridiculous...

Finally let me ask you this: If Atkinson and Fremer agreed to do tests of 20, under scientific conditions you approved of, what would the results have to be for you to believe that they can hear differences in cables? 15/20? 20/20? What if Atkinson got 20/20 and Fremer got 10/20?

[Ajani]

By the way, when I was responding to the post about the dog and pony show "listening test," I was going to address the part about how 61% of the 39 people chose the Monster cable as their preference. But I had to stop short and go pick up my niece.

Anyway, I grabbed a quarter and flipped it 39 times. It came up heads 23 times, and came up tails only 16 times. In other words, it came up heads 59%.

This illustrates that just because something happens over 50% of the time, it's not necessarily an indication of anything.

But more germane to the other test that Ajani mentions, during those 39 flips, flips 5 through 11 came up heads and flips 19 through 24 came up heads. So that's heads seven times in a row and six times in a row respectively.

Just because you have a 50/50 chance of the coin coming up heads or tails each time you flip it doesn't mean it's going to alternately come up heads, tails, heads, tails, etc.

Some years ago during a similar discussion, I grabbed a quarter and flipped it 10 times, each time willing it to come up heads with my mind.

To my surprise, it came up heads 10 out of 10 times.

Did that prove that my mental powers were causing it to come up heads?

No.

I did nine more trials of 10 flips and the best I was able to get after that was 9 out of 10. And only once. And sometimes it only came up heads twice.

So just because JA got 4 out of 5 and MF 5 out of 5, it doesn't mean there was necessarily anything going on. It could very well just be nothing more than statistical "noise" and the confidence level isn't very high.

That's why you need to do more trials.

If there's nothing going on, the statistics will trend toward 50/50. If there is something going on, it won't.

se

So therefore if the entire group in the test of 5 had gone for 20 trials and had similar results, then Fremer getting 20/20 and Atkinson getting 16/20 could still be dismissed as statistical noise... If it was 100 trials and they got 100/100 and 80/100 respectively, then it could still be dismissed as statistical noise....

Do you start to see the problem many of us have with DBT statistics yet?

[Steve Eddy]

So let me get this straight, you don't think Fremer and JA's results of 5/5 and 4/5 respectively should have been dismissed, yet you say things like this:

Sure, there have been many people over the past 30 some odd years who have made such claims. But so far, no one has ever demonstrated this ability under controlled conditions.

But as yet, no one has demonstrated actual audible differences under controlled conditions except when the differences were trivially measurable and within known thresholds of audibility.

If someone has, please point me to it so I can check it out.

It seems to me that you are dismissing the possibility that audible differences exist...

Not at all.

I'm simply saying that to date, no one has demonstrated that there are. At least not when the measured differences are below known audible thresholds.


...yet you acknowledge that with (smaller than your ideal sample size of 10 to 20 trials) Fremer and Atkinson have shown that they can determine differences...

I acknowledged no such thing.

Neither MF nor JA showed that they could determine differences.

What I said was, their results shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand. By that I mean that they could very well have been due to pure guessing. But five trials is too few to rule that out and that more trials were warranted to find out.


Fremer and Atkinson both claim to hear differences in cables, and the limited tests they've taken so far have done nothing to contradict that claim... Actually the results so far have only strengthened their claims...

The results so far are too ambiguous to strengthen anything.


It's theoretically possible that Fremer or Atkinson would pass tests of 1 and 5 and then turn around and fail a test of 10 or 20. However, I see the limited tests as providing at least enough evidence to make a reasonable person question whether the "accepted science" that there is no audible differences between cables is correct...

The "accepted science" is simply that no one to date has demonstrated to any reasonable level of confidence that there are. That's not the same as saying there are none.


IMO. there are 2 unreasonable stances in audio: 1) Every tweak, mod or dollar thrown at a system makes an audible difference & 2) Because we don't know how to measure something or it hasn't been statistically proven, means it doesn't exist.... I find both positions to be equally ridiculous...

As do I.


Finally let me ask you this: If Atkinson and Fremer agreed to do tests of 20, under scientific conditions you approved of, what would the results have to be for you to believe that they can hear differences in cables? 15/20? 20/20?

I would like to see something on the order of 90%. And preferably I'd like to have a bit more than 20 trials.


What if Atkinson got 20/20 and Fremer got 10/20?

As I said earlier, it only takes one person to demonstrate audible differences. So it wouldn't matter that MF got 20/20.

se

[Steve Eddy]

So therefore if the entire group in the test of 5 had gone for 20 trials and had similar results, then Fremer getting 20/20 and Atkinson getting 16/20 could still be dismissed as statistical noise...

Who said anything about dismissed?

Not me.


Do you start to see the problem many of us have with DBT statistics yet?

What I'm starting to see is that you're reading things into what I've written that aren't there.

Where did you get that I said anything about dismissing such results?

se

[Ajani]

Who said anything about dismissed?

Not me.



What I'm starting to see is that you're reading things into what I've written that aren't there.

Where did you get that I said anything about dismissing such results?

se

Fine, what you said:


So just because JA got 4 out of 5 and MF 5 out of 5, it doesn't mean there was necessarily anything going on. It could very well just be nothing more than statistical "noise" and the confidence level isn't very high.

If it is regarded as statistical noise, then what is it other than dismissed? Perhaps you just dislike the word I use but the point remains that results can easily be disregarded...

[Ajani]

I would like to see something on the order of 90%. And preferably I'd like to have a bit more than 20 trials.



As I said earlier, it only takes one person to demonstrate audible differences.

So back to the question: how many trials to satisfy you then? 30? 100? What if the person only got 85% in 100 trials?

[Steve Eddy]

Fine, what you said:

So just because JA got 4 out of 5 and MF 5 out of 5, it doesn't mean there was necessarily anything going on. It could very well just be nothing more than statistical "noise" and the confidence level isn't very high.

If it is regarded as statistical noise, then what is it other than dismissed? Perhaps you just dislike the word I use but the point remains that results can easily be disregarded...

Nothing is being disregarded. My saying "It could very well just be nothing more than statistical 'noise'" is not a dismissal, but simply the recognition that there can be more than one possibility for the result.

You're not saying that audible differences would be the only possible reason for a 5 out of 5 result are you? If not, then I don't see how you could have read my acknowledging another possibility as disregarding anything.


se

[Steve Eddy]

So back to the question: how many trials to satisfy you then? 30? 100?

I'd like to see about 50 trials at about 90%.


What if the person only got 85% in 100 trials?

I could accept that as being a pretty good indication that there is an audible difference.

se

[Ajani]

Nothing is being disregarded. My saying "It could very well just be nothing more than statistical 'noise'" is not a dismissal, but simply the recognition that there can be more than one possibility for the result.

You're not saying that audible differences would be the only possible reason for a 5 out of 5 result are you? If not, then I don't see how you could have read my acknowledging another possibility as disregarding anything.


se

Ahh I see.... perhaps a rephrase will make it clearer: I regard what you're saying as being that 5/5 is inconclusive... is that a fair assessment?

Inconclusive means you can draw nothing from the results... If you drew nothing from the results, then the results were essentially disregarded or 'dismissed'...

[blackraven]

That was an interesting read. I suppose if all he had to test back in the day was R.S. -vs- Monster...then I may have also reached the same conclusion...lol


I would not knock the Monster M1000i's. I picked up a pair of those and the M900i's on ebay for $30. They are well made and sound great. Certainly no worse than the Audio Quest Corals that came with my Music Hall CD player. I'm using them in my second system now and I am using BJC's in my main system because I perceive the BJC's to have more prominent treble probably because of their low capacitance, but otherwise the bass, and overall sound is the same. I'm not a big monster supporter and would never buy any new gear from them but they do make some good over priced stuff.

[Ajani]

I'd like to see about 50 trials at about 90%.



I could accept that as being a pretty good indication that there is an audible difference.

se

So 50 trials at 90% would be a yes differences exist, and 85% in 100 trials would be less conclusive?

OK then.... So is it possible that even if John Atkinson agreed to do 100 trials and scored 85%, that many DBT fans would still not be satisfied that he can hear differences in cables?

[Steve Eddy]

Ahh I see.... perhaps a rephrase will make it clearer: I regard what you're saying as being that 5/5 is inconclusive... is that a fair assessment?

Yes, that would be a fair assessment.


Inconclusive means you can draw nothing from the results...

No, not nothing. Just nothing conclusive.


If you drew nothing from the results, then the results were essentially disregarded or 'dismissed'...

But I'm not drawing "nothing" from the results.

If the results were to be disregarded and therefore "dismissed," then the whole thing would end with the 5 out of 5, as it did in the original test.

As I said previously, I think the 5 out of 5 is deserving of further investigation. So while the results may have been inconclusive, it doesn't mean I am drawing nothing from them and therefore am not disregarding or dismissing them. They are a starting point.

se

[Steve Eddy]

So 50 trials at 90% would be a yes differences exist, and 85% in 100 trials would be less conclusive?

My statistics is a bit rusty, so I don't know exactly how the two would compare in terms of confidence level.


OK then.... So is it possible that even if John Atkinson agreed to do 100 trials and scored 85%, that many DBT fans would still not be satisfied that he can hear differences in cables?

I can't speak for anyone else.

se

[Ajani]

I can't speak for anyone else.

se

I didn't ask you to... but I think you see my point with DBT and statistics... There are no clear rules about the number of trials required, number of participants required, the makeup of participants (whether experts or the average man or even what exactly makes someone an expert) and the percentage of answers that need to be correct...

So while 90% in 50 trials, with just one participant might satisfy you, it is possible that other persons would not be satisfied with such a test...

[atomicAdam]

Ok -

Let try this.

If we can't measure the difference, if all we can measure is the voltage and amplitude over time - comparing what is in the cable to what is coming out of the speaker - might be the wrong test.

What if we take what comes out of the cable/speaker and compare that to what is on the original source?

It could be a better cable aligns better if you were to overlay the two graphs. It would seem, comparing what going on in the cable and out of the speaker is apples to apples, where what we really want to compare is apples to oranges, and the differences are the changes that we hear.

[Steve Eddy]

If we can't measure the difference...

Can't measure what difference?


...if all we can measure is the voltage and amplitude over time...

In the electrical domain, what else is there but voltage and current versus time?


What if we take what comes out of the cable/speaker and compare that to what is on the original source?

Yeah, I suppose you could do that.


It could be a better cable aligns better if you were to overlay the two graphs.

Could be. Though wouldn't it be much easier to simply look at how the cable itself modifies the signal fed through it?


It would seem, comparing what going on in the cable and out of the speaker is apples to apples, where what we really want to compare is apples to oranges, and the differences are the changes that we hear.

But there's no point in doing that until you first establish that the changes you hear are actually changes which are heard.

In other words, first you need to establish that there are actual audible differences. Then you can go looking for the cause.

Otherwise, if the difference is nothing more than "placebo effect" (I'm using the term very broadly, hence the quotes), then you just end up chasing a phantom.

se

[atomicAdam]

Can't measure what difference?



In the electrical domain, what else is there but voltage and current versus time?



Yeah, I suppose you could do that.



Could be. Though wouldn't it be much easier to simply look at how the cable itself modifies the signal fed through it?



But there's no point in doing that until you first establish that the changes you hear are actually changes which are heard.

In other words, first you need to establish that there are actual audible differences. Then you can go looking for the cause.

Otherwise, if the difference is nothing more than "placebo effect" (I'm using the term very broadly, hence the quotes), then you just end up chasing a phantom.

se

Sound like you've got a grant proposal right there!

[Steve Eddy]

Sound like you've got a grant proposal right there!

Cool!

Got any connections at the NSF? :D

se

[Mr Peabody]

se, have you personally listened to various brands of cables? If so, have you detected any differences? We want to be sure what playing field you are on.

MF & JA have listened to more gear than we dream of hearing, this gives them some expertise. Another playing field that should be determined is if you are talking about "Average Joe" hearing a difference or some one who is a "audiophile" or at least has experience hearing high end gear. I have no doubt an "Average Joe" could have difficulty. Surprising to me many people can't detect the difference between an average system opposed to a high end system at first listen. When you educate them as to the detail to listen for then it becomes a bit more apparent. The same as when you give some one a guitar who has never played and told them to tune a string, they wouldn't know the first thing about it but when they hear the tuned string or it become in tune then they know the difference or can recognize when it's in tune.

[Poultrygeist]

If it sounds better because you believe it sounds better, then it is better.

I love my Placebo IC's.

[Mr Peabody]

If it sounds better because you believe it sounds better, then it is better.

I love my Placebo IC's.

I haven't tried that brand, where did you get them :)

I wish the placebo effect did work, I'd convince myself a $299.00 HTIB out performed my gear and then Audiogon here I come to recoop some money.

[atomicAdam]

I haven't tried that brand, where did you get them :)

I wish the placebo effect did work, I'd convince myself a $299.00 HTIB out performed my gear and then Audiogon here I come to recoop some money.


AudioReview has a classifieds as well. :)

[Steve Eddy]

se, have you personally listened to various brands of cables?

Yes, including my own (I'm a cable manufacturer and just now updated my signature after getting some clarification from Adam).


If so, have you detected any differences?

Yes, I perceive differences. Though I can't say whether they're do to actual audible differences. I'm human same as everyone else and just as susceptible to human weaknesses such as those which can cause us to perceive differences even when there are none.

But at the end of the day, I don't care whether they're due to actual audible differences. I'm only interested in the pleasure and enjoyment I derive from listening to reproduced music.


MF & JA have listened to more gear than we dream of hearing, this gives them some expertise.

So? It doesn't make them any less human.

I've a friend with nearly 30 years of recording, mixing and mastering experience under his belt. However that didn't prevent him one day from spending over an hour EQing a final mix only to later discover the EQ wasn't patched into the board.


Another playing field that should be determined is if you are talking about "Average Joe" hearing a difference or some one who is a "audiophile" or at least has experience hearing high end gear.

Talking about when I say what exactly?

se

[Steve Eddy]

AudioReview has a classifieds as well. :)

Shhhhhhhhhhhh! That information's classified. :D

se

[Ajani]

Yes, including my own (I'm a cable manufacturer and just now updated my signature after getting some clarification from Adam).



Yes, I perceive differences. Though I can't say whether they're do to actual audible differences. I'm human same as everyone else and just as susceptible to human weaknesses such as those which can cause us to perceive differences even when there are none.

But at the end of the day, I don't care whether they're due to actual audible differences. I'm only interested in the pleasure and enjoyment I derive from listening to reproduced music.
se

So you sell cables that cost $300 for half a metre, but you're not convinced they sound any better than $3 zipcord?

OK then...

[atomicAdam]

Shhhhhhhhhhhh! That information's classified. :D

se


And they are free!

[Steve Eddy]

So you sell cables that cost $300 for half a metre, but you're not convinced they sound any better than $3 zipcord?

Oh no, I know they sound better to me.

What I don't know is whether or not they sound better due to any actual audible differences.

And unless they're sitting on some monumental secret, neither does anyone else out there selling cables.

I just prefer to be honest with myself about it, that's all.

se

[Steve Eddy]

And they are free!

Now you've done it.

Better find some parallel universe to hide in. The black helicopters are on their way.

se

[Smokey]

Why would you buy any cable if it didn't sound good to you?

Because it is not job of a cable to make system sound good as cable should not alter the sound for better or worse. I know that sound very primitive, but there are alot of hidden meanings there.


What's the goal here? Winning some numbers game or enjoying reproduced music?

Well, since we can't have "accurate" music reproduction without good numbers, I guess the goal would be to win some numbers. My advice for buying cables would be to first find cables with good numbers, and then compare them sonicaly.

Transparency is the main goal and you can't have that without cable having good numbers :)

[Steve Eddy]

Well, since we can't have "accurate" music reproduction without good numbers, I guess the goal would be to win some numbers.

Ah, but what exactly is "accurate" music reproduction?

What is the reference?


My advice for buying cables would be to first find cables with good numbers, and then compare them sonicaly.

What numbers do you mean? You mean like resistance, inductance and capacitance?


Transparency is the main goal and you can't have that without cable having good numbers :)

Really?

Remember those Harmonic Technology CyberLights I mentioned previously? You know, the ones that measured so bad that JA said that if he was measuring a conventional component he'd dismiss it as being broken?

Here's what Michael Fremer had to say about them:

If you hear what I heard, for the first time in your life you'll hear no cables whatsoever. When you switch back to any brand of metal conductors, you'll know you're hearing cables—because what's transmitted via CyberLight will be the most gloriously open, coherent, delicate, extended, transparent, pristine sound you've ever heard from your system—at least if you hear what I heard.

So it would seem that you can indeed have transparency with very VERY bad numbers.

se

[Smokey]

Ah, but what exactly is "accurate" music reproduction?

What is the reference?

We don't know what "accurate" music reproduction is since we don't have a reference. That is why we have to keep the audio components in audio chain as transparent as possible. We don't have much control over how amps and speakers handle the signal, but cable is one area we can have conrtol as to keep it as transparent as possible.


What numbers do you mean? You mean like resistance, inductance and capacitance?

Yes. Also having decent cable geomerty, insulation, dieletric and shielding can effect cable numbers.


Remember those Harmonic Technology CyberLights I mentioned previously? You know, the ones that measured so bad that JA said that if he was measuring a conventional component he'd dismiss it as being broken?

Here's what Michael Fremer had to say about them:

If you hear what I heard, for the first time in your life you'll hear no cables whatsoever. When you switch back to any brand of metal conductors, you'll know you're hearing cables—because what's transmitted via CyberLight will be the most gloriously open, coherent, delicate, extended, transparent, pristine sound you've ever heard from your system—at least if you hear what I heard.

So it would seem that you can indeed have transparency with very VERY bad numbers.


How can you have transparency when signal is converted to light wave and then converted back to eletrical wave and it is done in analog domain. The conversion itself will alter the integrity of signal.

[Steve Eddy]

We don't know what "accurate" music reproduction is since we don't have a reference.

Wouldn't the reference be what was heard in the mastering studio?


How can you have transparency when signal is converted to light wave and then converted back to eletrical wave and it is done in analog domain. The conversion itself will alter the integrity of signal.

It would seem that "transparency" is in the ear of the beholder.

se

[dingus]

the problem with trying to establish a reference is there are no standardized methods for making a recording. yes some aspects of the process are nearly universal, but the final product is determined by a combination of intent of the artist(s), producer(s) and engineer(s), and everyone has their own goal in mind and gets there in various ways using different equipment and recording space. the best one can hope for is that the process is influenced by artistic and creative goals rather than financial.

in regards to amps and wire, there are really no mysteries there as far as far as science is concerned. these are known entities that can be made to do whatever the designer/manufacturer wants within the limits of physics. its microphones - where compression is introduced into the recording, and speakers - that cannot reproduce a waveform with true fidelity, that science has yet to fully figure out.

given that construction and material are of good quality, does wire matter? to the objectivist, differences in wire are going to be less significant than to the subjectivist. imo, neither point of view is more right or wrong on the issue. i've gone down the wire road long enough to believe that we are making a mistake and get side tracked when we start listening to the equipment rather than listening to, and enjoying, the music. the former leads to frustration, the latter to satisfaction.

[atomicAdam]

the reference is the source media.

you can sample in that data - especially on CD - straight into something like ProTools or what have you.

Make a recording or several - to find an average or something - and lay over the recorded over the digitally imported source - now you know the distortion from the amps/cables/speakers and mic, cables, ext.

by passing in some simple wave forms and some math - i'm sure someone could figure out the distortion of the system and recording.

than you know.

[dingus]

interesting. i wonder if anyone has done that, and if there were any variations found in using different recordings as a reference. still, i wonder if the end result would change anything. generally speaking, we like the sound of distortion (to varying degrees) and such a test leads back to the preference of the individual listener.

[Hyfi]

interesting. i wonder if anyone has done that, and if there were any variations found in using different recordings as a reference. still, i wonder if the end result would change anything. generally speaking, we like the sound of distortion (to varying degrees) and such a test leads back to the preference of the individual listener.


How a bout a test where you use a mic and recorder and record the same music with different cables in same system, then play back both recordings on other system.

Should you hear the difference if there was one?

[dingus]

as i see it, the article in the OP takes an objectivist view in regards to IC's. i just dont see that he's any more right than those who disagree with him. the data used in his assertion is correct, but is it complete, and how important is that to the end listener who has different criteria for a satisfying listening experience?

[Steve Eddy]

the reference is the source media.

Ok.

But why?

Let's consider what's actually on the source media.

All of the decisions made in the recording, mixing and mastering processes are made based on what's heard through the monitoring systems used throughout the process as well as the environments those monitoring systems are used in.

If we simplify a bit and ignore the environments, that leaves us with the monitoring systems.

There's no such thing as a perfect loudspeaker and there are can be huge variations between the performance of one loudspeaker compared to another.

In other words, each loudspeaker has its own "transfer function" if you will.

And the decisions made in the recording, mixing and mastering processes will be effected by the transfer function of the monitoring systems used.

So what ends up on the source media is, in effect, an inverse transfer function of the monitoring system.

To give a gross example, let's say a particular monitoring system is a bit hot in the midrange. This can result in using different mic technique or placement, perhaps even a bit of EQing.

So what gets on the source medium ends up being a bit diminished in the midrange.

And if the source medium is to be the reference, that's precisely what you get rather than what was intended when the recording was made.

So to that end, I don't see being faithful to what's on the source medium as being terribly meaningful when it comes to a "reference." I mean, how meaningful is it to perfectly reproduce that which is inherently imperfect?

The only meaningful reference would be what was heard in the same studio using the same monitoring system.

Here's the way I look at it.

Recordings aren't made with nothing but numbers. There's a tremendous amount of subjectivity involved. And not just with the recording but all the way back to the making of the instruments, to the performance itself.

Why must that subjectivity end once the recording is made?

I don't think that it should. I think the listener making decisions based solely on their subjective experience, which may involve using components that don't necessarily have the "best numbers" are just as valid as all the other subjective decisions made upstream.

And if someone has the greatest satisfaction by following the numbers, that's fine too. But that approach shouldn't be passed off as somehow being inherently and universally superior to other equally valid approaches.

se

[Steve Eddy]

How a bout a test where you use a mic and recorder and record the same music with different cables in same system, then play back both recordings on other system.

Should you hear the difference if there was one?

That would be kind of pointless as there's no argument that loudspeakers are audibly different. The debate concerns the upstream electronics.

se

[Smokey]

And the decisions made in the recording, mixing and mastering processes will be effected by the transfer function of the monitoring systems used.

So what ends up on the source media is, in effect, an inverse transfer function of the monitoring system.

Wouldn't the engineers be aware that fact when recording and compensate accordingly?

I imagine there are some reference points when recording is done and be surprise if there is none. For example, in video industry they use 6500k color temperature as reference point when shooting, mastering and recording. There must be some type of similiar guide lines in audio world also.


Recordings aren't made with nothing but numbers. There's a tremendous amount of subjectivity involved. And not just with the recording but all the way back to the making of the instruments, to the performance itself.

Why must that subjectivity end once the recording is made?

Because then we will have too many variables to deal with if the intent to hear what is on the record.

Can you imagine what kind of nightmare we would have if everybody put their own twist as what sound good in a system: the amp company will put its own twist, and then speaker company put their own twist, and then CD/LP player company will put their own twist and finally cable company put their own twist.

And then after all the twisting we have our own room acoustic which will put addition twist on sound. I hate to hear what end result would sound like from such a system :D

[Steve Eddy]

Wouldn't the engineers be aware that fact when recording and compensate accordingly?

Yes.

But that's precisely my point.

If the recording is compensated for a given monitor, then the recording itself is the inverse of that compensation.

In other words, the recording is optimized for that given monitor.

So playing that recording back on any speaker other than that particular monitor wouldn't give you the same result as what was intended and heard in the studio.


Because then we will have too many variables to deal with if the intent to hear what is on the record.

No there aren't. Just build your system "by the numbers."


Can you imagine what kind of nightmare we would have if everybody put their own twist as what sound good in a system: the amp company will put its own twist, and then speaker company put their own twist, and then CD/LP player company will put their own twist and finally cable company put their own twist.

What do you think we have right now?


And then after all the twisting we have our own room acoustic which will put addition twist on sound. I hate to hear what end result would sound like from such a system :D

Apparently you don't care what something sounds like. You only care about the numbers, right?

se

[Mr Peabody]

Wouldn't the engineers be aware that fact when recording and compensate accordingly?

I imagine there are some reference points when recording is done and be surprise if there is none. For example, in video industry they use 6500k color temperature as reference point when shooting, mastering and recording. There must be some type of similiar guide lines in audio world also.

Because then we will have too many variables to deal with if the intent to hear what is on the record.

Can you imagine what kind of nightmare we would have if everybody put their own twist as what sound good in a system: the amp company will put its own twist, and then speaker company put their own twist, and then CD/LP player company will put their own twist and finally cable company put their own twist.

And then after all the twisting we have our own room acoustic which will put addition twist on sound. I hate to hear what end result would sound like from such a system :D

Yes Sir, this is, what we have. sometimes though you put those variables together and it's a dream rather than nightmare. There may be some base standards for recording, I'm not sure, I do know for sure that recordings vary wildly in quality whether CD or LP. So even if your system is set up the way you prefer there's no guarantee every album will sound good.

[Dual-500]

I was taught it this way:

Film is the directors medium, you see and hear what the director wants you to see and hear - camera angles, lighting, cinamtography, special effects (visual and auditory), dialog, sound.

Live Theatre is the actors medium - you see the spectacle the actors produce - the director is not in control of what you see live - ultimately, the actor is in control.

Music is much the same - Live music is the musicians medium within reason - of course in a large venue the sound system and engineer play a role and are a part of the overall equation.

Reproduced music, stored music is the engineers medium. What you hear is largely a product of the engineers work. He records the tracks and his signature is even on that - microphone choices, placement, eq settings, effects. Then comes the mixdown. All the while, the engineer works in a different room, separated from the performance. The engineer may blend 60 tracks to sounds together to make the final composite stereo product.

There are many popular studio monitors - and also custom monitor systems.

With a good playback system it's easy to hear the quality of the mix.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do believe that some cables sound different than others. For me it is a question of whether those differences are worth the investment. During my studio's great cable hunt of 2009, I heard 17 different cables in two of my high end studio rooms. The best sounding cable would have set me back $76,000 in cash to outfit one room. The second best sounding cable $25,000 to outfit the entire room. I had to decide if the minuscule sonic difference between the two was worth $50,000 dollars. The 10 of us audio engineers that participated in the test all agreed it was not worth it, and the cheaper gave us about 98% of what the more expensive cable gave.

I say buy the best made cable your budget will allow, because the sonic differences are not huge between cables, and probably far more subtle than many care to mention.

[Smokey]

Yes.

But that's precisely my point.

If the recording is compensated for a given monitor, then the recording itself is the inverse of that compensation.

In other words, the recording is optimized for that given monitor.

So playing that recording back on any speaker other than that particular monitor wouldn't give you the same result as what was intended and heard in the studio.

Ofcourse you are asssuming that studio monitors have not beeen calibrated. As I said before, I be surprise if ther are no standards regarding how studio montor should sound or be calibrated.

If ther are no standard or guidelines, then you are right. Recording back on any speaker other than that particular monitor will not give the same result as what was intended and heard in the studio.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Reproduced music, stored music is the engineers medium. What you hear is largely a product of the engineers work. He records the tracks and his signature is even on that - microphone choices, placement, eq settings, effects. Then comes the mixdown. All the while, the engineer works in a different room, separated from the performance. The engineer may blend 60 tracks to sounds together to make the final composite stereo product.

What if I choose to do a direct to disc recording with no EQ and no processing aside from just balancing the mix. Who's medium is that? It is not being stored anywhere in the studio, and you are not getting the engineer's artistic impression on the mix itself, just the balance.

Microphone choices are not an engineers signature, it a equipment signature. Some microphones don't have a signature at all. Microphone placement is not a signature, as it is not changing the sound of the instrument.

Some live recordings are done with the audio engineer in the same room as the musicians, so all that you mention here does not always happen as a practice.

[Dual-500]

What if I choose to do a direct to disc recording with no EQ and no processing aside from just balancing the mix. Who's medium is that? It is not being stored anywhere in the studio, and you are not getting the engineer's artistic impression on the mix itself, just the balance.

Microphone choices are not an engineers signature, it a equipment signature. Some microphones don't have a signature at all. Microphone placement is not a signature, as it is not changing the sound of the instrument.

Some live recordings are done with the audio engineer in the same room as the musicians, so all that you mention here does not always happen as a practice.
Cmon T. Mic choice and placement mic'ing up a drum kit are what make the sound. The engineer chooses the mics and placement most of the time - sometimes the artist will have a preference - most don't.

Just the balance, is just the balance. "Just the balance"? That is the engineer. Pure and simple.

Mic's are chosen for the sound by many, many engineers. No, not every engineer - but most I know do.

What are you suggesting here? Take each individual instrument into an anechoic chamber and record them there?

There are too many variables to list in the making of a music recording.

[Dual-500]

Microphones capture sound, they don't make it. Mike placement is about capturing the best sound, not creating a sound signature.

Balancing is just making sure all of the instruments are heard equally. There is no sound signature in balancing an ensemble. There is no personalization in balancing an ensemble...plain and simple.

Only in the pop and rock world are mikes chosen for their sound signature. For more acoustical situations, mikes are chosen for their neutrality, not their sound signature. You know audio engineers, I am one and have been for 25 years.

I don't believe I said that anywhere, where did you read that? How could you even interpret what I wrote into this?

The amount of variables depends on the complexity of the what you are recording. Some recordings are a simple as two microphones going through a pre-amp and straight to hard drive, no board, no processing. Others can involve 85 microphones mixed to 5.1 or 7.1 with a wide variety of processing.
Very good. If you mic up something and record it. Then I go mic the same think and record it, what will the results be? Identical? No, never. Similar? Probably. But never identical. Why? Because along the way we will make different decisions. The final product you created will have your signature on it and the final product I created will have my signature on it.

Cheers to ya! :wink5:

[Steve Eddy]

Ofcourse you are asssuming that studio monitors have not beeen calibrated. As I said before, I be surprise if ther are no standards regarding how studio montor should sound or be calibrated.

About the only calibration would be perhaps a bit of EQing to get a bit flatter response.

But a flat response doesn't give you a speaker that sounds like every other speaker with a similarly flat response.

No matter what you do with the frequency response, a B&W 801 isn't going to sound like a JBL 4350, or a Westlake HR-1, etc.

They each have their own characteristics beyond frequency response.

se

[Steve Eddy]

Mic's are chosen for the sound by many, many engineers. No, not every engineer - but most I know do.

Not to mention mic preamps.

Many prefer tube pre's over solid state, and Chandler even sells a mic pre using old germanium transistors.

se

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Cmon T. Mic choice and placement mic'ing up a drum kit are what make the sound. The engineer chooses the mics and placement most of the time - sometimes the artist will have a preference - most don't.

Microphones capture sound, they don't make it. Mike placement is about capturing the best sound, not creating a sound signature.


Just the balance, is just the balance. "Just the balance"? That is the engineer. Pure and simple.

Balancing is just making sure all of the instruments are heard equally. There is no sound signature in balancing an ensemble. There is no personalization in balancing an ensemble...plain and simple.


Mic's are chosen for the sound by many, many engineers. No, not every engineer - but most I know do.

Only in the pop and rock world are mikes chosen for their sound signature. For more acoustical situations, mikes are chosen for their neutrality, not their sound signature. You know audio engineers, I am one and have been for 25 years.


What are you suggesting here? Take each individual instrument into an anechoic chamber and record them there?

I don't believe I said that anywhere, where did you read that? How could you even interpret what I wrote into this?


There are too many variables to list in the making of a music recording.

The amount of variables depends on the complexity of the what you are recording. Some recordings are a simple as two microphones going through a pre-amp and straight to hard drive, no board, no processing. Others can involve 85 microphones mixed to 5.1 or 7.1 with a wide variety of processing.

[Steve Eddy]

Only in the pop and rock world are mikes chosen for their sound signature. For more acoustical situations, mikes are chosen for their neutrality, not their sound signature.

You know, I can't say I can recall ever seeing any classical music recordings made using laboratory grade Bruel & Kjaer microphones.

se

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You know, I can't say I can recall ever seeing any classical music recordings made using laboratory grade Bruel & Kjaer microphones.

se

Ever heard of DPA microphones? How about the Pearl’s CC 22. I could name more....;)

[Steve Eddy]

Ever heard of DPA microphones? How about the Pearl’s CC 22. I could name more....;)

Yes.

So tell me, how exactly are they gauged for their "neutrality"?

se

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes.

So tell me, how exactly are they gauged for their "neutrality"?

se

They don't color what they are picking up. They have no sound signature in and of themselves.

[Steve Eddy]

They don't color what they are picking up. They have no sound signature in and of themselves.

And how exactly is that ascertained?

se

[Mr Peabody]

Steve, dare you say recording engineers use tube gear, seems I remember a strong stance to the contrary made by some one involved in this thread on another thread.

[Steve Eddy]

Steve, dare you say recording engineers use tube gear, seems I remember a strong stance to the contrary made by some one involved in this thread on another thread.

It's twoo! It's twoo!

http://www.morethings.com/fan/blazing_saddles/madeline_kahn.jpg

:D

se

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And how exactly is that ascertained?

se

By using those two wonderful things just outside our brains.

[Steve Eddy]

By using those two wonderful things just outside our brains.

Really?

How exactly do you go about plugging a microphone into those?

se

[E-Stat]

Transparency is the main goal and you can't have that without cable having good numbers :)
So what are "good numbers" from your point of view?

rw

[E-Stat]

Really?

How exactly do you go about plugging a microphone into those?

se
Looky who just joined our community here! Welcome, Steve. It was this very topic that brought me here years ago. I was simply amazed how much ink was spilled by those who believe cabling makes no audible difference.

BTW, I gave Atomic Adam the SE-1 Attenuator a while back so he could experiment with it. The SE-2 soldiers on just great in the main system. :)

rw

[Steve Eddy]

Looky who just joined our community here! Welcome, Steve.

Hey Ralph!

Just joined? Take a look at my join date. Guess that makes you the young whipper snapper here. :D

Actually, I think I joined here before that, but used a moniker (Koyaan I think). Because I'm pretty sure I was registered here before I registered at the Asylum in 2000.


It was this very topic that brought me here years ago. I was simply amazed how much ink was spilled by those who believe cabling makes no audible difference.

Plenty of ink spilled by both sides when you get right down to it. And given that in all these years, no one has yet established actual audible differences, you can't really blame them, can you?

Though that's no excuse for the militancy, mockery and deriding used by people like mtrycrafts and the like. That sort of thing I don't approve of.


BTW, I gave Atomic Adam the SE-1 Attenuator a while back so he could experiment with it.

That was nice of you!


The SE-2 soldiers on just great in the main system. :)

But I'm not a soldier. I'm a *ahem* passivist. :D

se

[E-Stat]

Just joined? Take a look at my join date. Guess that makes you the young whipper snapper here. :D
Yabbut, when was the last time you joined the fray?


Plenty of ink spilled by both sides when you get right down to it.
While that's true, I often wonder why folks who don't care expend so much energy to inform the rest of us out here why it is they don't care. I don't find enough hours in any day. Call me crazy but if I expended the effort to comment on all the topics in which I don't give a crap, I wouldn't be gainfully employed or enjoy much sleep.


And given that in all these years, no one has yet established actual audible differences, you can't really blame them, can you?
As a fellow hedonist in that regard, I would reserve judgement until I have some direct exposure to the question at hand.


Though that's no excuse for the militancy, mockery and deriding used by people like mtrycrafts and the like.
You know, I really miss him along with guys like Woodman, Zapped by Coffee,and Soundmind. I enjoyed many a dialog with those guys.



But I'm not a soldier. I'm a *ahem* passivist.
LOL!

rw

[Steve Eddy]

Yabbut, when was the last time you joined the fray?

Yes, well, THAT'S been quite a while. :)


While that's true, I often wonder why folks who don't care expend so much energy to inform the rest of us out here why it is they don't care.

Savior complex I suppose.

Of course there's plenty of that on both sides.


I don't find enough hours in any day. Call me crazy but if I expended the effort to comment on all the topics in which I don't give a crap, I wouldn't be gainfully employed or enjoy much sleep.

Employment and sleep are highly overrated. :D


As a fellow hedonist in that regard, I would reserve judgement until I has some direct exposure to the question at hand.

Yup. Works for me.


You know, I really miss him along with guys like Woodman, Zapped by Coffee,and Soundmind. I enjoyed many a dialog with those guys.

Mtrycrafts is now over at Audioholics.

And wasn't Zapped by Coffee jneutron?

And there's a SoundmindED over at diyAudio. Wonder if they're the same person.

se

[E-Stat]

And wasn't Zapped by Coffee jneutron?
No, no. First of all, that's my combination of his two monikers: FL Zapped and Jitter By Coffee. It's just easier to cross dress the two.


And there's a SoundmindED over at diyAudio. Wonder if they're the same person.
Yep. Same guy. He worships at the alter of Acoustic Research.

rw