Golden Ears Fail Again [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

woodman

01-18-2005, 10:20 PM

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

I don't read or post here much anymore (a grew weary of the high end terriers who love to hear themselves talk and the biased moderators), so I don't know if anyone has mentioned the test in the link above.

As I have tried to point out previously, the fact that these highenders failed is not particularly significant. (I mean, they are trying to hear differences in power cables after all--which doesn't verge on the ridiculous--it IS ridiculous.) The real significance is that they felt they could hear differences (even after the test). Thus, as has been seen in other blind tests, what highenders think they hear (or claim to hear) is worthless as any kind of evidence. The "claim to hear" result is significant beyond audible differences in power cables as it estalishes the unreliabilty of subjective reports of audio fans. As I said, this has happened before.

Note: I know their test is not ideal and even the simpliest satistical analysis seems beyond them, but most do realize that they did not demonstrate that they could hear any difference. Now if they could just redefine reality....

Welcome back, mon frere - good to see your handle appear here once again. This entire subject is one that has been driving me bonkers here for a long, long time. This insistence on the part of those with no real understanding of electronics whatsoever that everything in a system - even the fershlugginer power cord affects the performance of the system. When I try to tell them that this is just a physical impossibility, that there is simply nothing that a power cord can do that will have the slightest ompact on the output of the device in question ... well, you know the rest of the story. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

Amazingly, a thread that discusses this insane flight of fantasy is likely to go on for days - even weeks, and generate tons of posts. By contrast, a thread that deals with a subject that does have at least a tiny bit of legitimate debate to it will be very likely to shut down after only a few simple replies. Go figure.

musicoverall

01-19-2005, 05:51 AM

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

I don't read or post here much anymore (a grew weary of the high end terriers who love to hear themselves talk and the biased moderators), so I don't know if anyone has mentioned the test in the link above.

As I have tried to point out previously, the fact that these highenders failed is not particularly significant. (I mean, they are trying to hear differences in power cables after all--which doesn't verge on the ridiculous--it IS ridiculous.) The real significance is that they felt they could hear differences (even after the test). Thus, as has been seen in other blind tests, what highenders think they hear (or claim to hear) is worthless as any kind of evidence. The "claim to hear" result is significant beyond audible differences in power cables as it estalishes the unreliabilty of subjective reports of audio fans. As I said, this has happened before.

Note: I know their test is not ideal and even the simpliest satistical analysis seems beyond them, but most do realize that they did not demonstrate that they could hear any difference. Now if they could just redefine reality....

Thanks for the article. I learned that these particular audiophiles could not distinguish these particular power cords on this particular day. But I'm afraid I can't jump to the same conclusion that it's "evidence" of anything beyond that. OTOH, I can't say I've ever heard any differences in power cords - or CD transports - even in sighted auditions. That carries more weight to me than your link.

RobotCzar

01-20-2005, 09:42 AM

But I'm afraid I can't jump to the same conclusion that it's "evidence" of anything beyond that. OTOH, I can't say I've ever heard any differences in power cords - or CD transports - even in sighted auditions. That carries more weight to me than your link.

You certainly are entitled to conclude what you want to conclude. The emphasis is on "want".

Your position is unscientific, and somewhat illogical. Science cannot test every case so it is stuck with sampling a population and drawing conclusions from the sample. What we CAN say, regardless of sampling, is that there is no credible evidence that someone has heard differences in power cords (or other specific audio stuff). Until someone does, why would we think anyone can? We go over this point repeatedly in this forum, but too many people are scientifically illiterate in the US general population (you know, the ones who say evolution is "just a theory"). (Note: there are also plenty of theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that people cannot hear differences in power cords.)

The assertion I tried to make in my post is that if we cannot trust some high enders' claims, why should be trust any? This test and others demonstrate that "some" audio buffs claim to hear differences, but can't really show that they do. So, I claim, audio buff claims are unreliable. That applies to ALL audio buffs, some being unreliable DOES result in making any particular sampling of them unreliable without other information of evidence. Sorry you can't see that, but it seems to make sense to me.

RGA

01-20-2005, 12:46 PM

musicoverall

01-20-2005, 01:12 PM

You certainly are entitled to conclude what you want to conclude. The emphasis is on "want"..

Ditto.

The answer to if you should trust any "high-enders" claims is, of course, no you shouldn't. There's no reason for you to, just as there's no reason the high-enders should care if you do or don't. It's all a matter of what you and they "want" to conclude, as you pointed out. I don't necessarily trust anyone's claims, either. I find empirical evidence to have more teeth i.e I try things for myself if it's something I think is important enough to try. In the area of audio gear... amps, cables, CD players, etc... someone's claim that one sounds better than another would certainly have to be tested. You and I just disagree on what tests yield the most valid results.

Sorry if I come off rude - I actually appreciated the read.

musicoverall

01-20-2005, 01:16 PM

Science takes second fiddle to philosophy always - so in point of interest when you learn about what is true and what is the case - well that throws these pointless arguements out. DB testing is used incorrectly per usual. And sadly for some strange reason they actually think they can use DB testing to prove or disaprove a point of irrifutable fact - now that is the most abnoxiously arrogant of stances. Engineers - too funny.

Can you explain this part of your post... "so in point of interest when you learn about what is true and what is the case - well that throws these pointless arguements out. "

I think the height of arrogance is someone telling me absolutely what I don't hear. :)

magictooth

01-20-2005, 02:06 PM

Can you explain this part of your post... "so in point of interest when you learn about what is true and what is the case - well that throws these pointless arguements out. "

I think the height of arrogance is someone telling me absolutely what I don't hear. :)
The height of ignorance is someone telling another person that they absolutely can hear <insert idiot anecdote> when they haven't even followed basic scientific theory (ie do a blind test).

Woochifer

01-20-2005, 02:47 PM

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

I don't read or post here much anymore (a grew weary of the high end terriers who love to hear themselves talk and the biased moderators), so I don't know if anyone has mentioned the test in the link above.

Actually, I posted a link to the in the cable forum when first came out. A few comments went back and forth, and the discussion got locked down.

I think in audio, there are obvious improvements, subtle improvements, and psychosomatic improvements. The problem is that a lot of the subjectivists lump any and all improvements into the same grouping, regardless of magnitude or whether their conclusions will be consistent under any kind of bias control (we're not even talking about DBT).

So, basically we got people running around these forums talking about how cables are just as important as room acoustics, or how things like transports or racks or digital interconnects produce "night and day" improvements. I wonder how many of them have actually participated in a blind test, or even done something as simple as level matching with a SPL meter during sighted listenings.

And of course, we got others who like to deride the validity of measurements, and if the measures that can be verfied and replicated don't fit their preferences, then we get into all the murky terminology that people make up -- stuff like "musical" or "airy" or "dynamic" etc.

I think the arguments about power cords are probably the most nonsensical ones out of all of them.

woodman

01-20-2005, 04:56 PM

I think the arguments about power cords are probably the most nonsensical ones out of all of them.

Of course, they are Wooch. Nonsensical because the very idea that a power cord can actually have an effect on the performance of the component that it is supplying A-C power to is outside the realm of possibility, that's why.

I posted an analogy on these boards a couple of years back - which was promptly pooh-poohed by the likes of Jon Risch (if my memory serves me). But, he was flat-out wrong to deny that my analogy was accurate, for it was very much "on the mark". It likened an A-C power cord to the hose that transfers gasoline from the pump at the gas station into the gas tank of your car. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to that gasoline hose that can have any effect whatsoever on the performance of your car. You could make it out of a different material - line the inside of it with Teflon (or whatever) - make the diameter larger - coat the outside with diamonds, etc. It's not going to make an iota of difference. Likewise, the A-C power cord can have no effect whatsoever on the performance of an electronic component ... none. It merely supplies raw electrical power to the power supply circuitry within the electronic device, where it's converted into an entirely different form of electrical power to run the other circuits of the device with. There's nothing that can be done to that power cord that's going to have any effect whatsoever on what the power supply inside the component receives and does with the power once it gets inside the "box". Yet there are countless people running around loose proclaiming that such and such a power cord made a remarkable improvement to the sound of their system, and willing to spend inordinate amounts of hard-earned cash to bring this bit of pure, unadulterated fantasy into reality - at least, that's what they think they're doing. What a pity! IMO, it's also a pity that those that are foisting off these magical pieces of wire - under the most blatant of false pretenses, aren't likely to be prosecuted for perpetrating this sort of a SCAM!

musicoverall

01-20-2005, 05:29 PM

The height of ignorance is someone telling another person that they absolutely can hear <insert idiot anecdote> when they haven't even followed basic scientific theory (ie do a blind test).

Thank you for proving my point about the height of arrogance ;) And calling me an ignorant idiot on top of it all! Wow! That's gotta be off the charts! But I'm sure one happy ignorant idiot! You, on the other hand, seem disconcerted to say the least. May I suggest a cable change? Perhaps you're listening to too much distortion! :)

When you follow scientific theory and do blind tests to determine all your preferences, come back and we'll talk.

I recall reading someone post on this site once that it was the yeasayers that were the most rude and condescending. Guess they were wrong.

E-Stat

01-20-2005, 05:52 PM

Of course, they are Wooch. Nonsensical because the very idea that a power cord can actually have an effect on the performance of the component that it is supplying A-C power to is outside the realm of possibility, that's why.
Woodie, theory is great when all contingencies are met. In this case, they are not. You are thinking entirely within the box. The next time you're in Atlanta, look me up. You may be surprised when experience confronts theory. As it has been the case with many an audio engineer and music lover.

It likened an A-C power cord to the hose that transfers gasoline from the pump at the gas station into the gas tank of your car. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to that gasoline hose that can have any effect whatsoever on the performance of your car.
Bad analogy. The rate of filling a gas tank is COMPLETELY irrelevant to an engine's performance because.... the engine isn't even running! A more apt analogy would be to compare a run-of-the-mill car's fuel pump to that of a drag racer. Music, like the acceleration of top fuel drag racers, can be downright violent. The 2000 hp motor in the drag racer would be starved for fuel on an instantaneous basis if conventional fuel pumps were used. RMS specifications for high current amps are useless when dynamic music content is used. Another factor totally absent in your analogy is the effect of local RF. The better power cords contain filter networks and specially shielded grounds. My environment is full of RF energy. Ever heard of spark suppressors on car radios?

rw

woodman

01-20-2005, 11:00 PM

Woodie, theory is great when all contingencies are met. In this case, they are not. You are thinking entirely within the box. The next time you're in Atlanta, look me up. You may be surprised when experience confronts theory. As it has been the case with many an audio engineer and music lover.

You're certainly not equating your experience with mine, now are you? And pray tell me, just what "experience" does an audio engineer (or a music lover either) have relating to the practical applications of power supply circuitry design for electronic components? Aren't you (conveniently) forgetting the fact that I spent the better part of 50 years actually working on the power supplies of both audio and video (television) products? It's probably not common knowledge, but the power supplies of just about all electronics products account for something like 75% of all servicing problems. So, I've spent a whole lot of time gaining actual "hands-on" experience in this area. Do you have any actual experience even remotely the equivalent? I'm not quoting from "theory" here although you seem to be implying that that is the case, while you on the other hand have experience to back up your assertions. Don't be offended, but I'm not inclined to buy it - especially because of some of the off-the-wall claims that I've seen you make here.

Bad analogy. The rate of filling a gas tank is COMPLETELY irrelevant to an engine's performance because.... the engine isn't even running!

Au contraire, frere. It's not a bad analogy at all. I see that before you edited this post, you made a statement to the effect that " ... There is nothing stored in an amplifier (in)advance of playing music." Sorry guy ... that is totally incorrect (perhaps why you edited it out?). There is DC power stored in the filter capacitors of the unit's power supply at all times - before, during, and after music starts, stops, or whatever. The point of the analogy (which again, you conveniently ignore) is that the qualities of the gasoline hose cannot have any effect on the car's performance simply because it is doing nothing more than providing a raw material for the car to use at it sees fit. The AC power cord is fulfilling the exact same function ... it's providing a raw "material" for the electronic device to use as it sees fit - nothing more, nothing less.

Another factor totally absent in your analogy is the effect of local RF. The better power cords contain filter networks and specially shielded grounds. My environment is full of RF energy. Ever heard of spark suppressors on car radios?

Once again, your understanding of basic electronics is falling short of the mark. "Better" power cords contain filter networks all right, but I contend that they are there to hoodwink the gullible and impressionable among the unknowing, rather than to solve some "problem" of stray RF that might have a deleterious effect on the music. FYI, spark suppressors on car radios are not there to get rid of RF, but to suppress the electro-magnetic "noise" produced in the car's engine - and that is not "RF" by any stretch. I don't know whether it will relieve your mind (or just piss you off) to learn that the RF that you seem to think is such a problem for audio amplifiers that a special (and very likely expensive) after-market power cord is required to get rid of it, somehow magically disappears as the AC power is rectified and filtered by the power supply "inside the box".

P.S. I am not only a "music lover", but also a musician - with very sensitive ears. I have never in all of my life heard any RF emanate from a loudspeaker ever. Evidently, the power supply circuits in all of the audio amplifiers that I've ever heard must have done a quite remarkable job of eliminating it, don't you think?

magictooth

01-20-2005, 11:00 PM

Thank you for proving my point about the height of arrogance ;) And calling me an ignorant idiot on top of it all! Wow! That's gotta be off the charts! But I'm sure one happy ignorant idiot! You, on the other hand, seem disconcerted to say the least. May I suggest a cable change? Perhaps you're listening to too much distortion! :)

When you follow scientific theory and do blind tests to determine all your preferences, come back and we'll talk.

I recall reading someone post on this site once that it was the yeasayers that were the most rude and condescending. Guess they were wrong.
Ignorance can generally be defined as a state of being uninformed, unaware, and/or uneducated. I feel that it is extremely ignorant to pass off as real knowledge anecdotal comparisons between cables when there hasn't been any type of meaningful testing done. I feel that some people are ignorant when they insist on misleading innocent newbies. This is probably my biggest beef. I was led down the garden path by people making statements such as I've seen by all the yeasayers here. I still have and use a set of speaker cables that cost about $18/ft. I still have and use a single pair of 3' ICs that cost about $150. At the store where I bought the cabling, you're for damn sure I could hear a difference in their sighted tests. And you could be for damn sure that for at least 2 years, I could tell a difference in sighted testing at my home. Some time ago, I compared these ICs in blind tests to several different types of ICs and couldn't hear a difference. you can only imagine my surprise.

You're right about one thing. I probably listen to too much distortion. I like my tube amp a lot.

As for being rude and condescending, I'm doing like Simon on American Idol does it: I'm only telling it like it is.

theaudiohobby

01-21-2005, 12:17 AM

The assertion I tried to make in my post is that if we cannot trust some high enders' claims, why should be trust any? This test and others demonstrate that "some" audio buffs claim to hear differences, but can't really show that they do. So, I claim, audio buff claims are unreliable. That applies to ALL audio buffs, some being unreliable DOES result in making any particular sampling of them unreliable without other information of evidence. Sorry you can't see that, but it seems to make sense to me.

I am sorry your position is as unscientific as the position you are attempting to rebuff, claims are rebuffed on a case by case basis, that is what is scientific. Hearing differences between CDPs is a totally different claim from hearing differences upon the use of shakti stones and to lump both together as per your comments is about as unscientific as you can get.

RGA

01-21-2005, 01:32 AM

musicoverall

If someone is sayng there is a difference between whatever that is one thing - if they're trying to out that upon you then that is I agree problematic.

Truth has many variables. I can park my car in lot B and go to class and when asked where my car is - I can truthfully answer that my car is in lot B. The statement or truth however depends on one thing whether or not in fact my car is in Lot B - it may have been stolen. The scientific method itself is observtional - NO matter what they try and claim the element is still there. To their credit the definition when using DBTs are very carefully constructed to not actually prove or disprove the given issue - this is exactly why there are continual arguments over it. It appears to hold that if we take sight bias out that we would then TRULY be testing one's hearing and this of course is a good thing. That does not however alleviate the obvious psychological ramifications related to what the brain is doing under duress or a test of this nature - one of which is that the brain A) utilizes a multi-modality approach to processing information including listening. The brain is partitioned in two hemispheres - 1) is an analytical side which would be to PICK either or b in a test 2) is an artistic side which would deal with the emotional response from listening to music and the way one normally listens to music. These two sides don't get the whole picture which has been shown when the brain has been surgically cut from each other - there is testing moreso on sight but it's exactly the same thing.

The concept of language in learning is huge as well which is primarily centered on socialization - somehting that tests generally fail horribly on not just some listening tests but in any academic field. So it is not surprising that when Hi-Fi Choice magazine who level matches all componants in a completely blind environment has some very different results than the "typical" and old out of date models used in various fields like engineering. The point of the thing is to remove sight bias and audible cues bias- Hi fi choice does that it is not a test environment - but then of course it should NEVER be anything resembling a testing environment.

This is a very very simplistic overview at what is happening and has been researched now for the last 5 years or so and it is pervasive in fields of education and psychology. I like Philosophy because it is a check on the arrogance of science claiming to know what in fact they don't know - with DBT's relying on statistical models it is doubly as bad. Few want to look at issues outside the box. It takes a bit of looking and thinking and a muti-disciplinary approach. I don;t claim to know it all - but I do claim to know what something isn't telling me.

That is why you will never hear some folks admit any sort of fallacy in DBT's(which does not mean they're not useful) - If they can't see ANY of the problems using basic logic even without the research on it - then why bother. One reason I don't argue it - if you want to believe in DBT's then it will save you money. If people are deluding themselves with fancy cables then their level of happiness rises so who cares. Either way it's a non issue in the big scheme of things.

Of course any designer can DELIBERATELY make a cable sound different - a DBT if it were any good SHOULD detect those differences - the fact that they do not says more about the test than the participants. Hifi News did some sot of cable test - I didn't read the thing as I was in a hurry and I don;t buy rags - but they seemed to get differring results. If we're going to use substandard tests to show "they all sound the same" then it's also ok to use substandard tests to "show they all sounded different" It's interesting the supposed scientific group is so hypocritical on this - see mrty posting the sensible sound - not a credible test by scientific standards - so why post it - and then claim some other hackneyed test in some other mag is the spawn of simple minded. Some see only the results they want to see it would seem.

theaudiohobby

01-21-2005, 04:16 AM

The concept of language in learning is huge as well which is primarily centered on socialization - somehting that tests generally fail horribly on not just some listening tests but in any academic field. So it is not surprising that when Hi-Fi Choice magazine who level matches all componants in a completely blind environment has some very different results than the "typical" and old out of date models used in various fields like engineering.
...I like Philosophy because it is a check on the arrogance of science claiming to know what in fact they don't know - with DBT's relying on statistical models it is doubly as bad.

ROTLMAO :D:D:D, out of date models! which ones exactly? I missed the article where the engineering societies announced the perfect modelling methodology. Arrogance of science ;) more like the arrogance of a few self deluded audio enthusiasts who make controversial claims and after so many years have yet to provide any credible evidence, thereby opening the industry and the hobby to public ridicule.

musicoverall

01-21-2005, 04:53 AM

Ignorance can generally be defined as a state of being uninformed, unaware, and/or uneducated. I feel that it is extremely ignorant to pass off as real knowledge anecdotal comparisons between cables when there hasn't been any type of meaningful testing done. I feel that some people are ignorant when they insist on misleading innocent newbies. This is probably my biggest beef. I was led down the garden path by people making statements such as I've seen by all the yeasayers here. I still have and use a set of speaker cables that cost about $18/ft. I still have and use a single pair of 3' ICs that cost about $150. At the store where I bought the cabling, you're for damn sure I could hear a difference in their sighted tests. And you could be for damn sure that for at least 2 years, I could tell a difference in sighted testing at my home. Some time ago, I compared these ICs in blind tests to several different types of ICs and couldn't hear a difference. you can only imagine my surprise.

You're right about one thing. I probably listen to too much distortion. I like my tube amp a lot.

As for being rude and condescending, I'm doing like Simon on American Idol does it: I'm only telling it like it is.

And I feel it is not only ignorant but ridiculous for anyone to infer that because they can't tell the difference between two cables, that the rest of the world can't, either. I've never seen a post from even one of the naysayers that says they might be wrong. I'm willing to admit that cable differences might be a result of my imagination. So I'll use the word if... IF someone ever does show that there are sonic differences between two different cables using the convoluted and overly complicated DBT method that you espouse, what then? Are you that sure you're right and I'm wrong?

Telling it like it is or telling it like you believe it? If misleading someone is advising them to try it for themselves, to listen in their own system because different cables react differently in my system than in theirs, to listen and if they hear no difference to buy the cheap generic cables... if that's misleading them, most people do that kind of thing every single day of their lives with all kinds of things. If that's ignorant, I accept that badge. It must be absolute hell to have to prove everything to yourself over and over, day in and day out. You have my pity.

musicoverall

01-21-2005, 05:01 AM

Some see only the results they want to see it would seem.

Bingo!

I've not seen any proof in EITHER direction on the cable sonics issue. It would be interesting to compare two cables that sound very different from one another... which would likely be two on the far opposite sides of neutral and see if DBT is worth anything. I might try that myself. I wish I would have tried on on a couple of CDP's when I had the chance! There is one that sounded so smooth that it had to have been altered to make it that way. It was made by a famous British turntable/arm manufacturer and it came out late in the CD era. It was a POS, as far as I was concerned. I think they wanted it to sound analog-like and it just came out boring.

magictooth

01-21-2005, 08:23 AM

And I feel it is not only ignorant but ridiculous for anyone to infer that because they can't tell the difference between two cables, that the rest of the world can't, either. I've never seen a post from even one of the naysayers that says they might be wrong.
You still don't get it. For human studies, the aggregation of scores on a large scale and extrapolation of the finding is the only way that you can accurately assess the validity of a claim. From what you're saying, we would need to test each and every person on the Earth in order "to prove" to you that sighted testing is invalid. My fervent hope is that one of the yeasayers proves us wrong. If you are able to, please present your findings.

E-Stat

01-21-2005, 09:37 AM

You're certainly not equating your experience with mine, now are you?
We're talking about different kinds of experience. I trust your career in electronics was both long and noteworthy. I'm asking about your exposure to live music and to high resolution systems, not repairing electronics. You could design, drive, and repair a Buick for a century and never have a clue as to the performance envelope of an F1 race car. Speaking of which, there was an interesting article in Car & Driver a while back where two top-of-their-game race drivers swapped cars for a day. They were Jeff Gordon, a NASCAR driver, and Juan-Pablo Montoya, a Formula One driver. Guess which one of them came closer to matching the other's lap times in the their ride? The obvious result was Montoya since he was accustomed to a much higher level of performance than Gordon. I think Gordon was a bit taken back by the difference.

If I truly wanted to understand nuances of the highest performance driving experience, I would talk to MIchael Schumacher, not the Ferrari engineers who designed the car he drives. Similarly, if I wanted to understand nuances of the highest performance musical systems, I would talk to someone with vast experience in that area, not an engineer. One of my mentors fills that bill. While he has retired as a doctor, he has performed with the Atlanta Symphony Chorus for over thirty years. He attends every week. He remains the liason between the ASO and Telarc Records. He wrote for The Absolute Sound for twenty years and had access to a wide range of superb gear. It was he who introduced me to the notion of audible differences in power cords. Don't get me wrong - you certainly need engineers. I'm a software engineer myself. But rarely, if ever, are the designers of - well fill in the blank: sports equipment, cars, aircraft, electronics, etc. experts on the ultimate performance envelope of that which they create.

And pray tell me, just what "experience" does an audio engineer (or a music lover either) have relating to the practical applications of power supply circuitry design for electronic components?
Irrelevant. Does Michael Schumacher know how the pneumatic valves operate in his Ferrari? Who cares? It is the result that is most important.

Aren't you (conveniently) forgetting the fact that I spent the better part of 50 years actually working on the power supplies of both audio and video (television) products?
Not at all. I'm sure you can visualize schematics in your head while you sleep. Again, irrelevant as far as I'm concerned when the criteria is sensory experience with specific equipment.

I'm not quoting from "theory" here although you seem to be implying that that is the case, while you on the other hand have experience to back up your assertions.
Of course you are with comments like this:

Nonsensical because the very idea that a power cord can actually have an effect on the performance of the component that it is supplying A-C power to is outside the realm of possibility, that's why.

You make blanket assertions about components for which you have no direct exposure. Fortunately, there are other engineers who supplement their theoretical knowledge with experiential knowledge that is specific to this question. I'm not talking about TVs. I just got a new 61" Samsung DLP set. Great picture in hi-def. Wonderful color saturation. Sound quality of the built in system? Poor. Doesn't matter as I switch it off and use a separate 5.1 system.
[edit] I will be happy to relate details of the systems I've heard that form my opinion. The best of which is certainly not my own. My guess is that you possess little listening experience with the kinds of systems I have. I understand that you are reticent to provide such details.

It's not a bad analogy at all. I see that before you edited this post, you made a statement to the effect that " ... There is nothing stored in an amplifier (in)advance of playing music." Sorry guy ... that is totally incorrect (perhaps why you edited it out?). There is DC power stored in the filter capacitors of the unit's power supply at all times - before, during, and after music starts, stops, or whatever. The point of the analogy (which again, you conveniently ignore) is that the qualities of the gasoline hose cannot have any effect on the car's performance simply because it is doing nothing more than providing a raw material for the car to use at it sees fit. The AC power cord is fulfilling the exact same function ... it's providing a raw "material" for the electronic device to use as it sees fit - nothing more, nothing less.
Nope, it's still a bad analogy. Tell me this. How many times do automotive engineers test an engine at full speed on the dynamometer with a gas pump filling it's tank? Uh, the answer would be never. Call me crazy, but when I fill my gas tank, I always shut the engine off. Even if I left it on, I wouldn't be trying to test out it's power. LOL !!! Your analogy is bad because the car is not even running during the filling. I edited my comments to clarify that point. The parallel to your analogy would be to compare the AC cord with the power amp turned off. Of course power cords don't matter when the component is off. The only time when the AC cord matters is when the amplifier, like the engine, is running !! So, what effects fuel delivery and performance to a running engine? The fuel pump.

"Better" power cords contain filter networks all right, but I contend that they are there to hoodwink the gullible and impressionable among the unknowing, rather than to solve some "problem" of stray RF that might have a deleterious effect on the music.
Once again, that is your theory based upon non-exposure to aftermarket cords used in high resolution systems. Here's a short, but relevant story about one engineer's experience (who designs excellent electronics) with power cords. He, like most everyone else at first, could not believe the notion.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=cables&n=83524&highlight=Ole+Lund+Christensen+E-Stat&r=&session=

P.S. I am not only a "music lover", but also a musician - with very sensitive ears. I have never in all of my life heard any RF emanate from a loudspeaker ever.
I've never heard a radio broadcast break through either, if that is your assumption. RF interference from nearby digital circuitry, wireless routers, etc. can manifest itself simply as high frequency hash, masking detail. That is what I and others hear on their systems.

rw

kexodusc

01-21-2005, 11:26 AM

The scientific method itself is observtional - NO matter what they try and claim the element is still there. To their credit the definition when using DBTs are very carefully constructed to not actually prove or disprove the given issue - this is exactly why there are continual arguments over it. It appears to hold that if we take sight bias out that we would then TRULY be testing one's hearing and this of course is a good thing. That does not however alleviate the obvious psychological ramifications related to what the brain is doing under duress or a test of this nature - one of which is that the brain A) utilizes a multi-modality approach to processing information including listening. The brain is partitioned in two hemispheres - 1) is an analytical side which would be to PICK either or b in a test 2) is an artistic side which would deal with the emotional response from listening to music and the way one normally listens to music. These two sides don't get the whole picture which has been shown when the brain has been surgically cut from each other - there is testing moreso on sight but it's exactly the same thing.
Your post is really good, and a flashback to some Psych courses in my University days...the only problem I have with this argument is that the brain is also under similar distresses when doing "sighted tests" in the comfort of your own home when undertaking any test of a sensory nature...not to mention the impact mood, fatigue, etc have on your senses and perception. There exists the fact that much of this mental behaviour the brain undertakes is a constant in blind and sighted testings, and therefore can be discarded as irrelevant to the results.

But your arguments of "what is truth" hold. I think it's safe to say that we are not necessarily testing just for truth in DBT's though...and that we can learn more than "truth" from the results. We are also testing the consistency in observations...if we don't even have that consistency (as DBT's immaculately suggest), we can't begin to use logic, science, philosophy, or even testament to speculate what a truth might be about a cable, CD player, or anything else...if nothing else, this raises considerable doubt about claims of sonic differences, and sways the debate in that direction.
This puts the onus on the manufacturers ( a cop out argument too often, but in this case relevant I think) to provide us with some sort of argument to support their claims. What research do they have? Do they have consistent results? If not should we buy something that might work some of time?

I suspect (but can't prove) that cables do in fact contribute at least something to the sound quality...it may not be detectable by the human ear, or possible to prove, but it would be premature to write-off a possibility simply because the testing methods to date haven't confirmed this. But until something comes along to end the debate definitively I'll continue to invest money into more tangible and cost-effective methods of improving my system.

OT: How do legally blind people fair in these DBT's??

magictooth

01-21-2005, 03:41 PM

Here's a short, but relevant story about one engineer's experience (who designs excellent electronics) with power cords. He, like most everyone else at first, could not believe the notion.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=cables&n=83524&highlight=Ole+Lund+Christensen+E-Stat&r=&session=

rw
Hmm, interesting read, but you still haven't answered my question as to why you feel a sighted test is better than or equivalent to a blind test. The engineer in question didn't do a blind test either. Why not? Why didn't this engineer present his findings to Nature or the NEJM? How about an EE journal? He may have some valid points. You may have some valid points. If sighted testing is truly the best, then I'm sure you can get your findings published in a real journal.

E-Stat

01-21-2005, 06:46 PM

Hmm, interesting read, but you still haven't answered my question as to why you feel a sighted test is better than or equivalent to a blind test. The engineer in question didn't do a blind test either. Why not? Why didn't this engineer present his findings to Nature or the NEJM? How about an EE journal? He may have some valid points. You may have some valid points. If sighted testing is truly the best, then I'm sure you can get your findings published in a real journal.
I guess neither he nor I has a scientific proof fetish. I buy audio components to enjoy music, not impress people. That's it.

rw

hifitommy

01-21-2005, 07:33 PM

the gas filling analogy is illicit in concept BUT look at it from another angle-or fourier transform-remember THAT catchword and how it was overused in audio?

FILLING the tank efficiently is VERY important in auto racing when the car comes in for a pit stop. just look at the filling cans that are VENTED to allow rapid flow of the gas to the tank. who knows what ELSE goes into their design .perhaps special shapes of the tubes from can to filler orifice? in racing, time is money, just as in any other business.

remember that a full tube does NOT flow as fast as one at 85% capacity (if memory serves me). so it may be power supply filling efficiency that is the issue. electronics (#) are certainly different from gasoline engines.

some very respected reviewers and engineers hear diffs, so even if only a diff is what is heard reliably, then there are real diffs. i havent participated in listening tests of these cords either sighted OR blind but my mind is open to the possibility.

RGA

01-22-2005, 12:32 AM

Bingo!

I've not seen any proof in EITHER direction on the cable sonics issue. It would be interesting to compare two cables that sound very different from one another... which would likely be two on the far opposite sides of neutral and see if DBT is worth anything. I might try that myself. I wish I would have tried on on a couple of CDP's when I had the chance! There is one that sounded so smooth that it had to have been altered to make it that way. It was made by a famous British turntable/arm manufacturer and it came out late in the CD era. It was a POS, as far as I was concerned. I think they wanted it to sound analog-like and it just came out boring.

I have done exactly one serious audition of speaker cable in my life and that was between dirt cheap cable and a $100.00 set of MITs and that was about 8 years ago. Admittedly it was sighted but the MIT was terrible it rolled off the highs nad flabbed up the bass as if it was trying to be some sort of tube amp - sorta like the dimwits who say you can convert a SS amp with a resistor or some such nonsense which I also heard and it must only mean the worst Tube amps known to man not any of the ones known to me.

It is silly to remotely even consider that cables sound the same based off of DBT's - A=B cannot even be postulized let alone proven in a DBT and that is what is alluded to. What you have is some statistics. And event he statistics are used BADLY by these CONES who conduct the tests. Consider that to achieve the .05 statistical significance to claim that one did not arrive at the results due to chance a score of 9/10 would be required. This low number of trials however has problems with reliability - it has none and neither does 16(this is simply an arbuitrary number some hack dreamt up for zero reason except that he/she was lazy). Why would i say that - well because A) this kind of testing is unreliable 2)becuase we're dealing with the brain and psychology - arguably a softer science so MANY trials are usually required to be SURE of what it is you're attempting to resolve is indeed remotely reliable valid and credible. Statistical significance none of the DBT supporters will EVER tell you also means that you should not chuck out the guy who socres 6/10. Indeed, if you score 6/10 or better ten times in a row with one misfire for a total of 59/100 correct calls on which is a and which is b then you get the same .05 statistical significance (ie; the same as scoring 9/10) - the difference of course with 100 trials is that you have a far greater number of trials and are more credible. Expecially with music - something in which is difficult to assess out of a blind test let alone in one.

But of course they dismiss every issue because it requires more work - lazy science, relying on the DBT to actually PROVE somethig is laughable. But then there is no pont in really telling them - they ignore it - they can't argue it becuase it's in every first year psych text and most basic stats books I've seen. None of them even know what the concept of Validity is - they can show great reliability that people fail these tests - but reliability is no good without validity and they don't have that. Furthermore if you chuck out all the bad DBT's ie run by the likes of the sensible sound and all other hack attempts I don;t think they even have much relibility. DBT's were made for the drug industry. And they certainly have an interest value in audio because the nut job audiophile who claims he can hear the difference between copper cable a and b 100% of the time because he has the best ear in the world will be quickly shown that no he isn't that good after all - but then that is something slightly different than what the DBT supporter will then conclude. That there are no differences? If you're on the ball you'll see the subtle leaps and bounds from what was actually tested and what people conclude.

RGA

01-22-2005, 12:54 AM

Your post is really good, and a flashback to some Psych courses in my University days...the only problem I have with this argument is that the brain is also under similar distresses when doing "sighted tests" in the comfort of your own home when undertaking any test of a sensory nature...not to mention the impact mood, fatigue, etc have on your senses and perception. There exists the fact that much of this mental behaviour the brain undertakes is a constant in blind and sighted testings, and therefore can be discarded as irrelevant to the results.

But your arguments of "what is truth" hold. I think it's safe to say that we are not necessarily testing just for truth in DBT's though...and that we can learn more than "truth" from the results. We are also testing the consistency in observations...if we don't even have that consistency (as DBT's immaculately suggest), we can't begin to use logic, science, philosophy, or even testament to speculate what a truth might be about a cable, CD player, or anything else...if nothing else, this raises considerable doubt about claims of sonic differences, and sways the debate in that direction.
This puts the onus on the manufacturers ( a cop out argument too often, but in this case relevant I think) to provide us with some sort of argument to support their claims. What research do they have? Do they have consistent results? If not should we buy something that might work some of time?

I suspect (but can't prove) that cables do in fact contribute at least something to the sound quality...it may not be detectable by the human ear, or possible to prove, but it would be premature to write-off a possibility simply because the testing methods to date haven't confirmed this. But until something comes along to end the debate definitively I'll continue to invest money into more tangible and cost-effective methods of improving my system.

OT: How do legally blind people fair in these DBT's??

Kex you forget though that when sighted you are not in a test environment - there is a fundamental shift when we put the testing hat on as to when we are simply listening to two sets of amps and or speakers etc. BTW I'm not supporting the existance of differences either - this is a common attack I get from DBT supporters. I am not saying DBT's are useless or that they should not be used or thatI'm going to buy every sighted audition because it is obvious that there exists a sight bias - but to think DBT's are the sole answer is a HUGE error - and in some ways has it's own ADDED problems that sighted listening does no have which is a testing environment. (In several fields tests can get people to do things they NEER would normally do which 1st year psych courses also show when situational variables are brought in. There are expectations biases in blind tests - "You will be given two sets of cd players to listen to chose either A or B to select which is best" if you play the EXACT same cd player and selection of song the person WILL make a selection - we are creatures of solving problems - even when they do not exist - just as one forms an image when stairing at clouds or attempting to solve optical illusions. Hearing is no different. Amazingly this kind of "trick" is used by some to support DBTs that we can't tell the difference. :rolleyes:

The simple truth is that anything can be deliberately made to sound different - it is A) in the best interest of the manufacturer to do this B) not difficult.
There was a tst several years back where a cheapie Pioneer receiver was indistinguishable from very expensive separates. Pioneer, if DBT's were worth anything in this industry, could have come out with HUGE ad campaigns on the back ogf that test and said:

"Here at Pioneer we have a rvolutionary amplifier that for a mere $199.00 sounds in scientific testing no different than the best separates in the world - yes that is right we have a revolutionary amplifier and managed to do what Bryston and Krell err Tanberg do but at 5 figure prices. Plus you get a tuner and surround sound in our unit PLUS remote control. All you need is a speaker that doesn;t dip under 3 ohms and is 87db or better and there is no difference."

Of course Pioneer would not do this - not because they hoped to sell their expensive stuff - they had none - and this kind of advertising would have been bigger gold - the reason is that the so called tests would never stand up to real scrutiny because a DBT cannot EVER prove that componant A sounds the same as componant B. What people can do well that is something else - and too many variables to get at real truth - just some statistical evidence of low trial numbers in a testing environment and nothing at all like a normal listening sessions. It don't take a degree in psych or anyhting else to see the problems here.

Now if one wants to make the case that a DBT is BETTER than a sighted test - well now that is something else and I don't have any problem in the world if someone wants to make that case - becuase there is good reason to make the case - just don't blindly(as it were) ignore the problems with that which you support.

theaudiohobby

01-22-2005, 02:12 AM

some very respected reviewers and engineers hear diffs, so even if only a diff is what is heard reliably, then there are real diffs. i havent participated in listening tests of these cords either sighted OR blind but my mind is open to the possibility.

hifitommy, now that is a very reasonable and respectable position, I liken the current situation to the turn of the century, when most ridiculed the idea of assisted flight. Many laughed, some charlattans were also on the scene, but the day the Wright brothers took off in their aircraft and landed safely ( a few had taken off in the past but not landed successfully ),the rest was history. The issue of power cables is different, but all that is necessary is a credible repeatable test that can demonstrate differences, once we reach that point, then we can start looking for the why. i.e.

Does it and then why does it?

Of course, this does not stop anybody who has reasonably convinced themselves that there are quantifiable differences to use such products and enjoy their benefits, whilst the sceptics sit back and wait for common knowledge to catch up.

theaudiohobby

01-22-2005, 02:48 AM

I guess neither he nor I has a scientific proof fetish. I buy audio components to enjoy music, not impress people. That's it.

rw

E-Stat,

there is problem with this position, the placebo effect, Many of those who make these controversial claims in the high-end industry shy away from any tests that attempt to address the placebo effect without providing any reasonable alternatives. Medical research has proven time and time again that many folks quite happily go through life ascribing imagined benefits to various placebos. For many audio claims to have reasonable credibility, more must be done to address the placebo effect issue. If Nordost, Kimber or whoever could provide a credible test that effectively accounted for the placebo effect and yet demonstrate the advertised benefits of their products, we will have solid progress.

kexodusc

01-22-2005, 04:23 AM

RGA, I guess I didn't make myself a bit more clear...I agree with just about everything you say with the exception of what you qualify as a test. Quite simply ANY time you compare items you are testing...formally or informally, the brain undertakes similar functions, if not the exact same...there are added stresses, processes, etc, in a DBT to be sure, I'm just holding the position that so much of this becomes a constant between home evaluation (where the original claim of differences is made) and a DBT (where prove is sought)...the rest becomes extremeties. In a small sample, sure they could be significant, but over the huge sample of DBT's over the last 30 years, you have to wonder WHY this small difference in environment absolutely always skews results...this is where consistency becomes important.
I can safely say that even if cables DO make a difference, it is small, subtle, and incredibly inconsistent on WHEN it is heard at best.
That hasn't stopped me from buying better electronics yet...but I tend to look for more "middle-of-the-road" stuff than Cadillac gear.

That being said, DBT's to verify results based on the 2nd sloppiest of human senses, are not the answer by themselves.

E-Stat

01-22-2005, 08:21 AM

E-Stat, there is problem with this position, the placebo effect.
If the comparison is between one inexpensive wire and a more expensive wire and the participant is aware of said, then I would agree with you. The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.

Why then do countless reviewers and audiophiles note audible differences among similarly priced cables in their systems? They're just different cables with no inherent reason for either one to be superior. Clearly, there is no placebo working here.

rw

markw

01-22-2005, 09:09 AM

The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.Nowhere is it implied that cost will affect what is percieved. It's simply the knowledge that you're listening to one item as opposed to another that is enough to skew an opinion.

I learned this with my "simple "single blind test years ago but somehow this was never accepted here.

I will say, though that people will go to great lengths to justify paying a high price for an item and listening w/o knowledge of what's being listened to is a good way to see if the rewards justify the outlay.

musicoverall

01-22-2005, 09:31 AM

some very respected reviewers and engineers hear diffs, so even if only a diff is what is heard reliably, then there are real diffs. i havent participated in listening tests of these cords either sighted OR blind but my mind is open to the possibility.

...and some of these engineers, as is the case with E-Stat's example, are designers of the very products that many audiophiles replace the power cords on. Hmmm... terrible grammar on my part! :)

I actually auditioned 2 aftermarket power cords and did not hear a difference between them and the stock cords that came with my amp and preamp. I may try it again as I've upgraded components since then. I'm keeping an open mind as well... to BOTH possibilities.

musicoverall

01-22-2005, 09:38 AM

If the comparison is between one inexpensive wire and a more expensive wire and the participant is aware of said, then I would agree with you. The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.

Why then do countless reviewers and audiophiles note audible differences among similarly priced cables in their systems? They're just different cables with no inherent reason for either one to be superior. Clearly, there is no placebo working here.

rw

I think I've run the gamut with wire auditioning and the outcomes. I've heard less expensive cable that sounded better than more expensive, certainly vice versa, I've heard no differences between cables of grossly differing costs, I've heard major differences between cables that cost roughly the same, AND the cables I just purchased are about the least attractive I've ever seen. They, unfortunately for my sense of sight, sounded the best at the price point I was seeking. They sounded better than cables costing 3 times their cost... but, also unfortunately, not as good as the Valhalla... (heavy sigh). :)

musicoverall

01-22-2005, 09:45 AM

I have done exactly one serious audition of speaker cable in my life and that was between dirt cheap cable and a $100.00 set of MITs and that was about 8 years ago. Admittedly it was sighted but the MIT was terrible it rolled off the highs nad flabbed up the bass as if it was trying to be some sort of tube amp - sorta like the dimwits who say you can convert a SS amp with a resistor or some such nonsense which I also heard and it must only mean the worst Tube amps known to man not any of the ones known to me..

I had exactly the same experience with MIT. I can't recall which model but I remember thinking that they must have designed them to cope with the glare of digital music. I quickly decided that digital's glare was less offensive than the sound of those cables.

Thanks for the info on blind testing. It certainly seems to lend some credence to the theory that people can conclude whatever they like from testing and that tests can be designed so that the desired outcome is achieved.

E-Stat

01-23-2005, 07:31 AM

I will say, though that people will go to great lengths to justify paying a high price for an item and listening w/o knowledge of what's being listened to is a good way to see if the rewards justify the outlay.
How about the converse? Let's see if I can make this story short. A couple of years ago, I bought a new CD player to replace a Pioneer unit I've used for about ten years. I decided to use it as the basis of an office system. I already had my trusty '81 Threshold Stasis amp so I purchased some Polk speakers at CC. Next I contemplated a preamp. I was thinking of finding a Dyna PAS-3 for about $100. It was about that time that I read about DIY passive preamps. Which really aren't preamps at all. They're just passive attenuators in a box. So with a little help from a guy at another audio forum, I went to Radio Shack and bought $15 worth of parts and cobbled together this:

http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/images/audio/se1.jpg

Actually, I'm fibbing a little bit about the total cost as the knobs I used were left over from a black faceplate purchase for my ARC preamp. Each knob costs what the entire project cost ! Anyway, I tried it out in my new office system and found it worked fine. Indeed, the gain of the CD was such that while I couldn't fully drive the amp, it would still play at more than adequate levels in the office. Here is where it gets interesting. Just for grins, I took it downstairs and put it on the main system. Here I was comparing my homely $15 unit to a $2500 Audio Research SP-9 MKIII.

http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/images/audio/sp9mkiii.jpg

It would really be no contest, right? The ARC preamp should easily outperform my cheapo passive. I confess I was very surprised at the results. The passive was clearer and offered a wider image than the preamp. Because the GamuT has a very low impedance / high gain output (75 ohms/4 volt) , it could fully drive the amps through the attenuators so there were no compromises with level. Later, I built another unit with better parts and use that with the CD player today. I use the preamp solely with my vinyl source.

Summary-the results of my sighted comparison was completely opposite from what I expected. How could an Audio Research preamp be bettered by a homemade POS unit that costs the same as one of it's knobs? Are you kidding? I no longer assume anything.

rw

markw

01-23-2005, 09:21 AM

How could an Audio Research preamp be bettered by a homemade POS unit that costs the same as one of it's knobs? Are you kidding?Well, in audio it's always been assumed (and rightly so) that the less there is in the signal path, the better off you are. Since your source had more than enough output to drive your mains, aattenuation was all you needed. Anything else was superfulous (sp) and merely added it's signature into the chain..

Nice attenuator, btw. I like it. Ever think of trying those $500 wooden knobs everyone in AA is chortling about?

http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=NOB_C37_C&Category_Code=VOLUME&Product_Count=2

E-Stat

01-23-2005, 10:24 AM

Nice attenuator, btw. I line it.
Thanks. It has since undergone some changes due to leftover parts from the second model and now feeds my vintage garage system. Inadvertently, I purchased twice as many Cardas RCA jacks as I needed, so I later put them in this unit. Also, I got a meter of JPS Labs wire for free and rewired both units with it. Here's my favorite passive design by Steve Eddy (who helped me with wiring mine - which is why I dubbed them the SE-1 and SE-2).

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tweaks&n=106088&highlight=preamp+Steve+Eddy&r=&session=

Ever think of trying those $500 wooden knobs everyone in AA is chortling about?
Don't think so. :D

I did spend some "extra" money on the finish of the second unit with it's nicer anodized aluminum case from Para-Metals and more leftover ARC knobs. More importantly, it uses DACT precision stepped attenuators, silver solder, Cardas connectors, and some of that free JPS Labs alumalloy wire.

http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/images/audio/se2.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/images/audio/se2_rear.jpg

BTW, the sealed baggie of sand is there to ballast the unit as my ultra stiff cables tend to stand it up.

rw

Geoffcin

01-23-2005, 12:57 PM

How about the converse? Let's see if I can make this story short. A couple of years ago, I bought a new CD player to replace a Pioneer unit I've used for about ten years. I decided to use it as the basis of an office system. I already had my trusty '81 Threshold Stasis amp so I purchased some Polk speakers at CC. Next I contemplated a preamp. I was thinking of finding a Dyna PAS-3 for about $100. It was about that time that I read about DIY passive preamps. Which really aren't preamps at all. They're just passive attenuators in a box. So with a little help from a guy at another audio forum, I went to Radio Shack and bought $15 worth of parts and cobbled together this:

Actually, I'm fibbing a little bit about the total cost as the knobs I used were left over from a black faceplate purchase for my ARC preamp. Each knob costs what the entire project cost ! Anyway, I tried it out in my new office system and found it worked fine. Indeed, the gain of the CD was such that while I couldn't fully drive the amp, it would still play at more than adequate levels in the office. Here is where it gets interesting. Just for grins, I took it downstairs and put it on the main system. Here I was comparing my homely $15 unit to a $2500 Audio Research SP-9 MKIII.

http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/images/audio/sp9mkiii.jpg

It would really be no contest, right? The ARC preamp should easily outperform my cheapo passive. I confess I was very surprised at the results. The passive was clearer and offered a wider image than the preamp. Because the GamuT has a very low impedance / high gain output (75 ohms/4 volt) , it could fully drive the amps through the attenuators so there were no compromises with level. Later, I built another unit with better parts and use that with the CD player today. I use the preamp solely with my vinyl source.

Summary-the results of my sighted comparison was completely opposite from what I expected. How could an Audio Research preamp be bettered by a homemade POS unit that costs the same as one of it's knobs? Are you kidding? I no longer assume anything.

rw

I've found a similar story with my preamp. I use a vintage PS Audio IV preamp that was designed to work both driven, and fully passive. I've compared it to some pretty expensive preamps from Classe; DR-6(SS), and Audio Research; LS-25, and I've found that I like the passive pre the best. I've bought, used, and sold a lot of audio gear in my time but I am keeping my passive pre!

markw

01-23-2005, 02:01 PM

The term "passive", implies, in this sense, no noise generating powerd circuits but the term "preamp" implies gain, which is impossible to obtain without power.

Now, if the terms used were along the lines of"passive attenuator/switching device" or some such then it would make sense.

magictooth

01-23-2005, 02:13 PM

It is silly to remotely even consider that cables sound the same based off of DBT's - A=B cannot even be postulized let alone proven in a DBT and that is what is alluded to. What you have is some statistics. And event he statistics are used BADLY by these CONES who conduct the tests. Consider that to achieve the .05 statistical significance to claim that one did not arrive at the results due to chance a score of 9/10 would be required. This low number of trials however has problems with reliability - it has none and neither does 16(this is simply an arbuitrary number some hack dreamt up for zero reason except that he/she was lazy). Why would i say that - well because A) this kind of testing is unreliable 2)becuase we're dealing with the brain and psychology - arguably a softer science so MANY trials are usually required to be SURE of what it is you're attempting to resolve is indeed remotely reliable valid and credible. Statistical significance none of the DBT supporters will EVER tell you also means that you should not chuck out the guy who socres 6/10. Indeed, if you score 6/10 or better ten times in a row with one misfire for a total of 59/100 correct calls on which is a and which is b then you get the same .05 statistical significance (ie; the same as scoring 9/10) - the difference of course with 100 trials is that you have a far greater number of trials and are more credible. Expecially with music - something in which is difficult to assess out of a blind test let alone in one.

But of course they dismiss every issue because it requires more work - lazy science, relying on the DBT to actually PROVE somethig is laughable. But then there is no pont in really telling them - they ignore it - they can't argue it becuase it's in every first year psych text and most basic stats books I've seen. None of them even know what the concept of Validity is - they can show great reliability that people fail these tests - but reliability is no good without validity and they don't have that. Furthermore if you chuck out all the bad DBT's ie run by the likes of the sensible sound and all other hack attempts I don;t think they even have much relibility. DBT's were made for the drug industry. And they certainly have an interest value in audio because the nut job audiophile who claims he can hear the difference between copper cable a and b 100% of the time because he has the best ear1 in the world will be quickly shown that no he isn't that good after all - but then that is something slightly different than what the DBT supporter will then conclude. That there are no differences? If you're on the ball you'll see the subtle leaps and bounds from what was actually tested and what people conclude.
There are some huge holes in your argument here. First you say that people haven't been able to score very well on blind testing of cables. Later you say that the sample size is too small for reliability. However, if you do the math, if NOBODY has ever done well on a blind test, that says something. If you sum up all the blind tests that were performed in the past, then you get a more accurate picture of the situation.

I wrote before, that for human studies, it is the large scale studies (say 50,000+ people/trials) that will give you the most meaningful interpretations. Sure if you look at isolated cases of 25 trials here, or 16 there, there isn't much reliability. You add up all those cases done over time, and you'll get a more accurate picture. How many have been done over time? 1,000,000 individual trials? More? I wouldn't be surprised if it were more. What are the results then? We have a convergence to 50% over time. This is the point of blind testing. This is why sighted testing is not meaningful.

magictooth

01-23-2005, 02:17 PM

Monstrous Mike

01-25-2005, 07:26 AM

Let's start with a quote from Charles Barkley which he made in response to Jemaine O'Neil who claimed himself the top forward in the NBA: "I can claim that I am thin but that doesn't mean that I am".

The fundamental point of the original link was that we have to be careful drawing conclusions from our observations. The reference to Copernicus was pertinent because it involved the basic observation of how the earth moves in our solar system. It was obvious to everyone who looked at the sky that everything revolved around the earth. But Copernicus dug a lot further and found inconsistencies which indicated other things were happening.

However, the concept of a centric earth was so ingrained in society that Copernicus was not taken seriously and even imprisoned for blasphemy. The same thing happens today in audio and in life in general. However, audio is a good, benign laboratory experience to learn about how we form opinion and beliefs about other aspects of our lives.

So like the people of the Copernicus era who trusted their eyes, trusting your ears in audio is not enough to make something true. And like a centric earth, audio cabling differences are not supported by science, they are not supported by testing, and now another test (regardless of how your assess its validity or accuracy) has pointed to no differences.

It seems that more this is discussed, the stronger some people cling to their trust of their senses and observations and those of others who have like beliefs. It's amazing to see how any contrary arguement, test, fact, or opinion is marginalized or outright dismissed.

I really mainly stick around places like this because that type of behaviour intrigues me.

Woochifer

01-25-2005, 12:31 PM

I have done exactly one serious audition of speaker cable in my life and that was between dirt cheap cable and a $100.00 set of MITs and that was about 8 years ago. Admittedly it was sighted but the MIT was terrible it rolled off the highs nad flabbed up the bass as if it was trying to be some sort of tube amp - sorta like the dimwits who say you can convert a SS amp with a resistor or some such nonsense which I also heard and it must only mean the worst Tube amps known to man not any of the ones known to me.

Amazing, all this verbiage that you devote to attacking the concept of blind testing and you've yet to participate in such a test yourself! So, I guess that your ONE sighted listening is more valid than any other test out there that has come up with inconclusive results. Rolled off highs and flabbed up bass just from a cable? If it's that obvious, it should be easy enough to measure the effect ... well, unless you don't believe in those either.

I would really suggest that you try a blind test sometime. It might actually lend some much needed perspective to these exaggerations and nonsensical off-topic speculation about tubes and "dimwits" who convert SS amps. Or does the prospect of shaking your ironclad belief that your ears alone are enough to prove everything related to audio scare you enough to avoid blind tests altogether?

Woochifer

01-25-2005, 12:54 PM

Let's start with a quote from Charles Barkley which he made in response to Jemaine O'Neil who claimed himself the top forward in the NBA: "I can claim that I am thin but that doesn't mean that I am".

Oh Chuckster, what a great modern day philosopher!

It seems that more this is discussed, the stronger some people cling to their trust of their senses and observations and those of others who have like beliefs. It's amazing to see how any contrary arguement, test, fact, or opinion is marginalized or outright dismissed.

I really mainly stick around places like this because that type of behaviour intrigues me.

It amazes me that cables get discussed with almost religious fervor because it's much ado about not a whole lot. I mean, let's go back to the beginning of the thread. This article discussed differences between power cords. Yes, FREAKING POWER CORDS! No discussion about the wiring inside the house, nothing about the power delivery from the generating facility or how it travels across miles of overhead wiring, etc.

I think when discussing cables, the point should be that even if you can hear differences between cables, who the **** cares? The differences are so minute, so subtle, so insignificant that it's absolutely laughable to invest thousands of dollars on things like power cords when you got so many other parts of the system that can make a far bigger step up in sound quality for less investment.

And when we talk about blind testing, the loudest voices complaining about the methodology seem to be the very same people who've never actually done a blind test before. It's almost like they don't want to find out whether their ears are as reliable as they've built them up to be. I've done them before, and the only "night and day" difference that I've seen is how much the magnitude of difference that I thought I detected under sighted conditions narrows when the comparison is done under blind conditions.

musicoverall

01-26-2005, 05:10 AM

It amazes me that cables get discussed with almost religious fervor because it's much ado about not a whole lot.

It amazes me, too. I can't imagine people spending so much time discussing a topic that they themselves say is not only insignificant, but that doesn't exist! If cables didn't sound different, I wouldn't waste my time talking about them. I do agree that cables are the absolute last item that should get upgraded and that they have the least amount of effect on the overall sound. The significance of that effect shouldn't be ignored, however, simply because it's small. Some of us like to maximize our systems potential and we've already taken care of the rest of the components.

hifitommy

01-26-2005, 06:38 AM

magictooth

01-26-2005, 11:48 AM

they bark around about things they dont understand and then expect the 'good boy' rewards. they may actually be jealous that they arent making money on this seeming windfall to manufacturers.

word to the watchdogs-DON'T save me from the dangerous wires. i may want to taste them for myself. or not. but when and IF i ever can afford $20k speakers, amps, preamps, TTs, carts, and digital players, i will NOT be goiong to home despot for wires!

and no, i dont believe that wire can magically elevate a mediocre system to nirvanaland.
LOL, watchdoggie effect. I have one for believers in sighted testing: lapdoggie effect. The people who believe in sighted testing over blind testing are the happy little dogs in the laps of the audio industry. They happily wag their tails and lick the boots of whatever grand and important audio personage they want to believe in.

I am certainly not jealous of those who are making money hand over foot in the cable industry. It's just like I'm not jealous of the shysters, fraudsters, and thieves who lie, cheat, and steal to make a great living.

A word to the lapdogs - the watchdogs will be out there whenever you are trying to poison some innocent newbie's mind about sighted testing.

FLZapped

01-26-2005, 12:06 PM

FLZapped

01-26-2005, 12:11 PM

they bark around about things they dont understand and then expect the 'good boy' rewards. they may actually be jealous that they arent making money on this seeming windfall to manufacturers.

Oh Mr. Open Mind. Praytell, what don't we understand?

word to the watchdogs-DON'T save me from the dangerous wires. i may want to taste them for myself. or not. but when and IF i ever can afford $20k speakers, amps, preamps, TTs, carts, and digital players, i will NOT be goiong to home despot for wires!

and no, i dont believe that wire can magically elevate a mediocre system to nirvanaland.

Apparently you do("Home Despot"). Be that as it may, I don't see you complaining when some watchdog group puts the kabosh on a dangerous drug, or product that would harm a child.

hmmmmmm.......double standard?

-Bruce

hifitommy

01-26-2005, 06:20 PM

bruce,

if you dont hear diffs in wire, you dont. if you've read my past posts, youll see that i have never recommended hi buck wires but i do HEAR diffs in cabling but not every single piece between each other. i have no desire to waste time doing dbt for small dollar expenditures. i have never spent as much as $100 on ICs, or spkr wire, but have kimber 8tc that i paid $50 for a 15' pair.

comparing a vicious animal with cable manufacturers is a bit overboard, dontcha think? and if a guy gets nutsy enough to start spending large money on wires thinking that will make his droll little system spring to life, then he gets what he pays for, an expensive lesson (lapdog).

i got what i paid for when i bought kimber pbj ICs, i got MORE than i paid for when i constructed a FINE sounding pair of ICs from ratshack foam insulated 400 ohm tv wire from a recipe in IAR a decade and a half ago. and i got more than my moneysworth when i bought aq type 4 spkr wires. i may someday try the home despot speaker wire trick mentioned in tas, i use malibu lighting wire for my rear speaker runs and center front.

YES i hear diffs there, NO i had not any intention of conducting dbt. no children were hurt during these experiments.

and i really just used the doggie reference to not have to go back to the chihuahua references i so happily used in days of yore.

RobotCzar

01-27-2005, 12:28 PM

Bingo!

I've not seen any proof in EITHER direction on the cable sonics issue. It would be interesting to compare two cables that sound very different from one another... which would likely be two on the far opposite sides of neutral and see if DBT is worth anything. I might try that myself. I wish I would have tried on on a couple of CDP's when I had the chance! There is one that sounded so smooth that it had to have been altered to make it that way. It was made by a famous British turntable/arm manufacturer and it came out late in the CD era. It was a POS, as far as I was concerned. I think they wanted it to sound analog-like and it just came out boring.

You know, all opinions are not of equal weight. The usual noisemakers, who, I speculate, have a hard time getting people to listen to what they have to say, keep swawking in this forum. They can be safely ignored. But, you are showing some signs of reason. You need to go further.

First, science almost always generalizes findings from samples because not every case can be tested. Practically all information about humans is done via sampling and not testing every case. We don't, for example, tests drugs on everybody to see if they work or if they are dangerous.

Second, science cannot waste time "proving negatives" such as proving there are no ghosts, or that people cannot hear differences in cables. Science takes the postion that someone must show they CAN or there is no reason to think anyone can. If golden ears simply show (somewhere, somehow) that just ONE of them can hear differences, then we who doubt they can will, I assure you, be quiet and admit we were wrong and we have tin ears. In over 20 years, not ONE has (that I have heard about). I am aware of many trying and failing---and many claim they could. The evidence is there, is it saying humans cannot hear such differences.

Third, scientists have been studying people's sensory perception for years, we have a pretty good idea of what people can hear and we also have a good idea of the standard deviation from the norm. We also know how much subtle electrical signal differences related to sound differences generated from those signals. It is all just math (AND they can be measured). The calculations and measurements indicated that people should not be able to hear things like differences in typical cables. The point is that theory and measurement indicates that people cannot hear such differences, not just the direct tests.

While it may be true that YOU haven't "seen" any evidence--it is quite another matter to say that no evidence exists. The evidence couldn't be clearer--people can't hear differences in typical cables in typical home audio applications. All the whining and wishing in the world isn't going to change that fact.

Is it arrogant to claim people cannot do things they cannot demonstrate? Am I arrogant in claiming you cannot jump to the moon? Moreover, even though we haven't tested everybody, I assert that NOBODY CAN. I can simply measure human muscle output and the energy required and I will have "proof" that nobody can.

Feanor

01-27-2005, 01:35 PM

Of course, that golden ears convince themselves that they hear things that in fact they cannot, is well-know to us all. I should know: I'm sure I've done it myself on a good many occassions. Granted, I'm not entirely sure which occassions those were.

Still, it is a fact that while a positive DBT result proves differences do exist, a negative result doesn't prove they don't -- only that they aren't evident under testing conditions.

Your power cable example is relevant. Foolish me: I listened to various people tell that my amplifier is highly sensitive to power cord selection and also, that it is very sensitive highly to vibration. I took various measures in these regards, (thankfully not costing too much money), but I have heard no difference at all. This is my subjective evaluation and proves only one thing: differences that might exist are irrelevant to me.

Of course, golden ears will tell me (1) that I have waxy ears, and/or (2) I would have heard a difference if only I bought some much more expensive device. You can't win these arguements.

musicoverall

01-27-2005, 06:21 PM

In over 20 years, not ONE has (that I have heard about). I am aware of many trying and failing---and many claim they could. The evidence is there, is it saying humans cannot hear such differences..

So far, so good with respect to your post and my understanding. I do have a couple of questions and one statement. The latter is all of what you say is fine IF you're basing cable sonics strictly on the basis of LCR parameters. The contention of yeasayers is that there is more to it than that. Even so, would it not be true that a high capacitance cable might very easily be heard as different from a low capacitance cable in a phono application? But onto the questions.

Since you are forthright in admitting that no one has heard differences in blind tests that you are aware of, let's deal with what you are aware of. How many (roughly) failures have you heard of? Of that number, how many of them used equipment other than, for example, a plastic Kenwood receiver and Cerwin-Vega speakers? Are there any where the system was high performance? Oops... I mean, high cost? :) I forgot for a second that I was talking to what appears to be a total naysayer! LOL. Oh, and no power cords. So far I haven't heard any differences in them but I haven't experimented much, either. But my point is that a test using mass market gear won't really sway me. Lots of detail is lost in such gear.

Finally, I get the impression that your... er... disdain for those who claim differences in audio equipment doesn't begin and end with cabling. True?

RobotCzar

01-28-2005, 07:56 AM

Look, the idea that there are some mysterious factors about electrical signals (not "sonics") that we don't know about is, well, ridiculous. People who are scientifically illiterate, and who know nothing about electric theory and its application have decided that there is more to it that we can measure, or know about, or whatever. Such people are resorting not to the mythical, but to the mystical. Sorry, there ain't anything a conductor can do to an electrical signal other than offer up some LR or C. And the effects are completely known (can be calculated). Where is the evidence for something else? Name it and win a Nobel prize. Beware of technobabble in the field of high fidelity audio. If you must deal with something we don't understand that well or something that is complicated enough to use chaos theory--look to acoustics and psychoacoustics.

I haven't kept a list of all the blind tests I have read about, and they don't all address cables (some deal with electronics and other factors). Not all have negative results, but if you are talking about the factors that consistently do have negative results AND have little or no theoretical support, I'd estimate that I have read between 25-50 such tests over a long period (one reason I can't remember). Why don't you ask how many tests I have read about where someone is clearly able to tell cables apart when he can only hear them? The answer to that is zero (in the 30 years or so that expensive cables have been offtered).

People who attempt such tests have learned long ago that if you don't use high end equipment, then the high enders will dismiss you. (Even though they cannot show they acutally can distinguish such equipment other than speakers.) So, the tests I have read almost always use extremely overpriced--er, I mean "detailed" equipment. Sometimes they use a listener's own home equipment, and, of course the listeners ALL claimed they could hear differences PRIOR to the test.

You are showing some signs of being under the influence of the high end bug when you use words like "detail". Does that mean you can't hear some instruments? Sound is an air pressure wave. Waves have only two characteristics frequency (pitch) and amplitude (volume). Reproduced sound also has distortion, which can be heard as noise (sound that wasn't there originally) and inaccurate pitch and volume (as that is all there is). Now if you believe there are limits human perception of distortion, pitch, and volume then you will probably wonder what those limitis are. Modern audio electronics (including wires) have measureable performance outside those limits (note this does not apply to mikes, speakers, and listening envrionments) therefore people cannot tell them apart (and they don't when tested).

Sorry to spoil the "fun" of hobbiests who need to believe, but if you really want accuracy (not "detail") then you should attend to factors that really matter (and some are huge).

magictooth

01-28-2005, 09:48 AM

musicoverall

01-28-2005, 10:07 AM

E-Stat

01-28-2005, 12:18 PM

I couldn't wrestle a direct answer out of E-Stat with my question of whether his entire point of view rested on the say so of this audio reviewer.
All I said was Kuller's comments summarized my feelings. My opinion is based upon thirty years of music listening to a wide range of systems, including some cost-no-object evaluation flavors. Concerning the evaluation of all audio components for that matter. I read his comments a month or so back. There's a heck of a lot more complexity to music than either test tones or pink noise. I have yet to read of a single "conclusive" DBT using high end cables that specified any sort of detail as to test specifics. When I pointed that out to mtrycrafts long ago, he first cited a case by Tag McLaren. I followed the link and found that the test compared two different $300 / meter ICs and found no difference between them. Evidently, he speed read the test and thought that it was comparing one of those ICs to the $2 variety. He finally conceded that he could not find "any citations" of the nature I asked.

Do enlighten us if you can.

rw

RobotCzar

01-29-2005, 10:48 AM

I You're not familiar with the term "detail"? I'd call it an absence of distortions or whatever that mask (not completely hide) a passage or some of the instruments. Place a throw rug over your speakers and you'll hear what I mean. That's a crude definition but I find it usable.

I think the world, even the scientific world, needs to be a little careful about what they proclaim as irreversible gospel.

Where is Mtry when I need him? He has previously given a list of references to articles, sites, and tests. I will attempt to find mine and post it. Also, former poster eyespy had a site with references. Anybody have the URL?

I AM familiar with the term "detail" along with a lengthy list of mytical terms like "pace" and "resolution" that are meaningless (or vague) high end jargon. I just to find them useless in discussing salient factors of audio reproduction. When you throw a rug over a speaker you reduce the sound aplitude overall and reduce some freqencies more than others. What details are lost? All information is still there, just distorted. I'd like to know how you know what "details" are there to start with? In other words, how do you know the detail you hear wasn't added by the recording, electronics, mike, speakers, or cable? Would it be possible to add more detail? Perhaps the equipment is processing the signal to make it sound more detailed--is that possible? Is more detail that what you could expect to hear from the original source a good thing?

There are two points I am trying to make: 1) "detail" is an imprecise jargony term that often misleads listeners. English major high-end audio pundits love it--but alas on deeper examination it is not as good at the terms that accurately describe sound. 2) detail is like "beauty", what you really should be seeking is accurate sound, not pretty sound. You (seem to) have no reference from which to make any subjective judgements. Just assessing "detail" without a reference is not at all useful and if very open to psychological bias.

The scientific "world" is extremely careful about what it "proclaims". For one thing it insists on unbiased evidence and has lots of rules and checks to make sure the evidence is correct (such as peer review). The high end audio world is not careful at all, does not control for bias (in fact they try like it), eschews valid evidence, and treats subjective impressions as if they have some objective usefullness. The scientific world even states that it is always open to revision IF evidence is uncovered (not so high end audio--just read the responses in this forum). There is no such thing as irreversable gospel in science! In faith-based high-end audio, dogma is all there is. If you really believe what you wrote, the proper choice for you to adopt is obvious. Please do keep looking for accurate information.

E-Stat

01-29-2005, 11:51 AM

Where is Mtry when I need him? He has previously given a list of references to articles, sites, and tests.
Oh yes plenty. None, however that provide support for this belief that provide complete test equipment information. First, there's this:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=23387&postcount=29

Here's where he acknowledges his sources are limited:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=21812&postcount=29

Then there's the tired old Russell links that likewise mention nothing of the gear used or argue mediocrity like 18 gauge zip vs. 24 gauge zip:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=17888&postcount=20

Here's another list he posted for me:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=8252&postcount=28

I remain waiting for citations that utilize really good gear. Mtry gave up trying to find one.

rw

musicoverall

01-29-2005, 12:04 PM

Where is Mtry when I need him? He has previously given a list of references to articles, sites, and tests. I will attempt to find mine and post it. Also, former poster eyespy had a site with references. Anybody have the URL?

I AM familiar with the term "detail" along with a lengthy list of mytical terms like "pace" and "resolution" that are meaningless (or vague) high end jargon. I just to find them useless in discussing salient factors of audio reproduction. When you throw a rug over a speaker you reduce the sound aplitude overall and reduce some freqencies more than others. What details are lost? All information is still there, just distorted. I'd like to know how you know what "details" are there to start with? In other words, how do you know the detail you hear wasn't added by the recording, electronics, mike, speakers, or cable? Would it be possible to add more detail? Perhaps the equipment is processing the signal to make it sound more detailed--is that possible? Is more detail that what you could expect to hear from the original source a good thing?

There are two points I am trying to make: 1) "detail" is an imprecise jargony term that often misleads listeners. English major high-end audio pundits love it--but alas on deeper examination it is not as good at the terms that accurately describe sound. 2) detail is like "beauty", what you really should be seeking is accurate sound, not pretty sound. You (seem to) have no reference from which to make any subjective judgements. Just assessing "detail" without a reference is not at all useful and if very open to psychological bias.

The scientific "world" is extremely careful about what it "proclaims". For one thing it insists on unbiased evidence and has lots of rules and checks to make sure the evidence is correct (such as peer review). The high end audio world is not careful at all, does not control for bias (in fact they try like it), eschews valid evidence, and treats subjective impressions as if they have some objective usefullness. The scientific world even states that it is always open to revision IF evidence is uncovered (not so high end audio--just read the responses in this forum). There is no such thing as irreversable gospel in science! In faith-based high-end audio, dogma is all there is. If you really believe what you wrote, the proper choice for you to adopt is obvious. Please do keep looking for accurate information.

Ok, working a bit more with detail... first of all, no I don't believe a system can "add" detail, it can only subtract it. So I seek out components, including cables, that do less subtracting. I want to hear the full shimmer of the cymbal rather than a rounding off or an unnatural decay. I want to hear the scrape of a bow on a violin. In other words, I want to hear reproduced music as close to the original (or, what I envision as the original) without a loss in realism. My frame of reference is my attendance at literally dozens of live music events each year as well as being a professional musician.

Now as for "accurate" sound... what's accurate? How do you determine accuracy if not by what you hear as accurate? Measurements? Hmmm... even if it sounds terrible? And if you're measuring, do you have any measurements for "imaging" and "soundstaging"? How do you measure those? They are part of a good sound system, just as they are part of a live performance. If I'm fairly close to an orchestra, my ears place the different groupings of instruments in their proper locations. Some stereo components do this well and some don't. How is that measured? Soundstaging... scientific theory would tell us that the only way to widen the soundstage would be to place the speakers further apart! However, I've heard different components that widen, deepen or heighten a soundstage without touching the speakers. So how is soundstaging measured? Both imaging and soundstaging are probably "jargony" terms but have meaning regardless of what terms you use for them. So we should be able to measure them, correct? How?

So you see, accuracy too has to have a reference point. If a component measures well from a THD perspective or LCR or whatever but does not measure the other factors of reproduced music such as imaging and soundstaging, it cannot properly be called accurate, IMHO.

Folks on this forum throw words out at me such as "illusion" in an attempt to cast aspersions. But to me, audio reproduction IS an illusion. It's whatever works for me in my system and for you in yours. It's whatever makes us believe, if even fleetingly, that we're in a live venue listening to a live band. Certain components, including cables, do that for me better than others. Granted, there are absolutes with respect to measurements. But there has to be something else going on besides simple specs. Too many components measure the same and sound different, including speakers, which you've already said have been distinguished in blind tests. As E-Stat mentioned, you can find 5 speakers with identical FR measurements that all sound different from one another.

Who is "Mtry"? I can try a search on this site. Eyespy as well. Thanks for the tip. Whatever you can find of your own without too much trouble will also be appreciated.

hifitommy

01-29-2005, 01:29 PM

its already in the recording of course, it cant be added. removing impediments in your system can ALLOW more through to the listener. it can be a cable or a better capicitor or better transformer or a more intelligent layout of components within the chassis. or any of a number of factors.

some of the effects can and some cannot be shown to be better by measurement. as i have stated before, the higher the resolution of a system (not necessarily the cost), the more you can hear small improvements or changes within that system.

musicoverall

01-29-2005, 04:35 PM

Oh yes plenty. None, however that provide support for this belief that provide complete test equipment information. First, there's this:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=23387&postcount=29

Here's where he acknowledges his sources are limited:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=21812&postcount=29

Then there's the tired old Russell links that likewise mention nothing of the gear used or argue mediocrity like 18 gauge zip vs. 24 gauge zip:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=17888&postcount=20

Here's another list he posted for me:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=8252&postcount=28

I remain waiting for citations that utilize really good gear. Mtry gave up trying to find one.

rw

I went through a lot of this stuff - thanks for posting it. Not much meat, is there? A lot of technical reasons why cables shouldn't sound different, no specifics on cables used in the tests, and no details about the tests themselves. If I wanted to make sure the time honored scientific theories were kept intact, I could likely devise a test that people would fail. So far the

It's interesting to note that John Dunlavy makes expensive cables that he claims sound no different than anything else! Maybe his don't! :D

theaudiohobby

01-30-2005, 09:38 AM

I AM familiar with the term "detail" along with a lengthy list of mytical terms like "pace" and "resolution" that are meaningless (or vague) high end jargon. I just to find them useless in discussing salient factors of audio reproduction.

RobotCzar,

Selecting high end audio equipment is not a scientific pursuit but a lifestyle hobby, while it is a laudable goal to attempt to use scientific methods to resolve controversial and downright false claims, it is daft to reduce selecting high-end audio equipment to a strictly scientific endeavour, as well as reducing the hobby's terminology to using strictly scientific terminology. The use of common names is not unique to audio, and it is not going away anytime soon. At least two of the audio magazines publish a glossary that gives reasonable definitions to common high-end terminology.

RobotCzar

01-30-2005, 01:05 PM

Ok, working a bit more with detail... first of all, no I don't believe a system can "add" detail, it can only subtract it. So I seek out components, including cables, that do less subtracting.
You are not listening, how would you know that a system was subtracting detail? You have no reference beyond what you expect to hear. You also have no reason to believe that a system couldn't alter the sound to make you think you were hearing more "detail". All you have are subjective impressions which are easily misled and apply only to you,

I want to hear the full shimmer of the cymbal rather than a rounding off or an unnatural decay. I want to hear the scrape of a bow on a violin. In other words, I want to hear reproduced music as close to the original (or, what I envision as the original) without a loss in realism. My frame of reference is my attendance at literally dozens of live music events each year as well as being a professional musician.
So what, you think your not subject to bias and placebo? I haven't noticed that muscians are better at judging audio reproduction or are less subject to the effects of expectation (placebo effects), do you have any reason to think so? I want to hear those things, too. If I waste my time on factors that don't matter I am less likely to achieve audio satisfaction.

Now as for "accurate" sound... what's accurate? How do you determine accuracy if not by what you hear as accurate? Measurements? Hmmm... even if it sounds terrible? And if you're measuring, do you have any measurements for "imaging" and "soundstaging"? How do you measure those? Some stereo components do this well and some don't. How is that measured? .
Accuracy has two related defintions in my opinion: 1) Is what is reproduced similar to the live reference (note: such references do not exist for pop/rock music which is has no orginal live reference). 2) The measurements are the same for the what was recorded and what is reproduced. Item 2 is true for the electic signal within the ability of humans to distinguish a difference, but is not true for the sound we hear at our listening locations.

You sould understand that electronics (including cables) have absolutely no effect on imaging and soundstage beyond differences in the audio channels, which are determined by the recording techniques, recording equipment, and room effects at the recording and reproduction locations. The effects of imaging CAN be played with electronically by intentionally altering the time and frequency differences among the channels (as time differences are the sole means our brains use to assess imaging and soundstage).

Acoustic placement (3D) effects are extremely important to the illusion of accurate sound but depend mainly on (as I said) the recording, the speakers, and the listening environment. Anaudiophile would be well served to attend to these factors to increase both the accuracy and illusion of his reproduced audio. These factors have zero to do with electronics and cables (except under very extreme conditions). You are quite correct in saying that we have no good way to measure these effects and it wouldn't matter if we did as the listening room and lister position are critical. Note also that 2-ch stereo is a crude illusion to reproduce these factors and are a major limitation to lifelike reproduction in the home (though I have zero hope that commercial implentations of multichannel will fix this situation).

Soundstaging... scientific theory would tell us that the only way to widen the soundstage would be to place the speakers further apart! However, I've heard different components that widen, deepen or heighten a soundstage without touching the speakers. So how is soundstaging measured? Both imaging and soundstaging are probably "jargony" terms but have meaning regardless of what terms you use for them. So we should be able to measure them, correct? How?
No offense, but I don't think you are quite ready to tell us what scientific theory says.. You are simply wrong about what you say--moving speakers futher apart is not the only way to affect sound stage (e.g., projection angle is an example), and the characteristics of the speaker make a HUGE difference. Also keep in mind that reflections from room surfaces are extremely important. The terms are slightly non-technical, but I think they have no technical counterparts at this point. How would you you define soundstage? You seem to think I claim no audio component matter--I claim electronics and cables do not matter.

So you see, accuracy too has to have a reference point. If a component measures well from a THD perspective or LCR or whatever but does not measure the other factors of reproduced music such as imaging and soundstaging, it cannot properly be called accurate, IMHO.
Absolutely, accuracy must have a reference. But, you are confused in thinking that any thing about electronics affects imaging and soundstage. The electrical signal of home audio electronics are so accurate, they do not effect what we hear including soundstange and imaging. Those things are determined by acoustics.

Folks on this forum throw words out at me such as "illusion" in an attempt to cast aspersions. But to me, audio reproduction IS an illusion. It's whatever works for me in my system and for you in yours. It's whatever makes us believe, if even fleetingly, that we're in a live venue listening to a live band. Certain components, including cables, do that for me better than others. Granted, there are absolutes with respect to measurements. But there has to be something else going on besides simple specs. Too many components measure the same and sound different, including speakers, which you've already said have been distinguished in blind tests. As E-Stat mentioned, you can find 5 speakers with identical FR measurements that all sound different from one another.
Again, I agree with much of what you say. ALL audio reproduction is an illusion. We may like effects that are not accurate, we may seek something as close to live as we can achieve. Where we differ is on what factors are important in creating the illusion. Electronics (and since the advent of CD, the recording medium) are trivial factors because they do no affect what you hear (beyond placebo effects). Now you might say "if my beliefs influence what I perceive, where is the harm in that?" To which I would say "I prefer to deal with factors that are not based on my beliefs and my subjective imprresions. I prefer to deal with objectively real factors."

It is a myth that measurements do not determine what we hear (it also is extremely illogical). High enders say that, but they do not have any evidence. No two sets of speakers have idential measurements, that claim is not credible. Speakers sound like they measure--it is possible to take too few or inaccurate measurments and reach bad conclusions. Consider the source of you read.

You are doing the right thing in keeping an open mind and attempting to get more information. Just be aware that the home audio field is rife with misconceptions, myths, and outright lies--including the popular magazines (all the good ones have died).

RobotCzar

01-30-2005, 01:25 PM

RobotCzar,

Selecting high end audio equipment is not a scientific pursuit but a lifestyle hobby, while it is a laudable goal to attempt to use scientific methods to resolve controversial and downright false claims, it is daft to reduce selecting high-end audio equipment to a strictly scientific endeavour, as well as reducing the hobby's terminology to using strictly scientific terminology. The use of common names is not unique to audio, and it is not going away anytime soon. At least two of the audio magazines publish a glossary that gives reasonable definitions to common high-end terminology.

I agree that there are many factors involved in user satisfaction, including nameplate pride. But, you need to accept that the whole "lifestyle hobby" is full of misinformation and downright deception. I find the situation very unfair for newcommers to the hobby. The high end (and subjectivist magazines) have a grip on the hobby that is shameful. They don't say "we are having fun at it might not be true" they act like there is some objective reality in what they do (e.g., publishing "dictionaries" that have circular defintions). I want to "resolve downright false claims" and point the way to things that really matter--not spoil anybody's fun. I won't tolerate lies and bad information simply because someone is deriving fun (or money) from them.

To quote the Moody Blues "We're living in the land of make believe, and trying not to let it show." People are entitled to alternate views, particularly when the dominant view has no objective basis. If the emperor has no clothes, are we to keep our mouths shut so as not to embarass anybody?

theaudiohobby

01-30-2005, 03:14 PM

I want to "resolve downright false claims" and point the way to things that really matter--not spoil anybody's fun. I won't tolerate lies and bad information simply because someone is deriving fun (or money) from them.

To quote the Moody Blues "We're living in the land of make believe, and trying not to let it show." People are entitled to alternate views, particularly when the dominant view has no objective basis. If the emperor has no clothes, are we to keep our mouths shut so as not to embarass anybody?

Laudable goals :) , but try to remain level headed, do not throw out the baby with the water, demanding strict use of scientific terminology is exactly that.

musicoverall

01-30-2005, 03:26 PM

You are not listening, how would you know that a system was subtracting detail? You have no reference beyond what you expect to hear. You also have no reason to believe that a system couldn't alter the sound to make you think you were hearing more "detail". All you have are subjective impressions which are easily misled and apply only to you,

So what, you think your not subject to bias and placebo? I haven't noticed that muscians are better at judging audio reproduction or are less subject to the effects of expectation (placebo effects), do you have any reason to think so? I want to hear those things, too. If I waste my time on factors that don't matter I am less likely to achieve audio satisfaction.

Accuracy has two related defintions in my opinion: 1) Is what is reproduced similar to the live reference (note: such references do not exist for pop/rock music which is has no orginal live reference). 2) The measurements are the same for the what was recorded and what is reproduced. Item 2 is true for the electic signal within the ability of humans to distinguish a difference, but is not true for the sound we hear at our listening locations.

You sould understand that electronics (including cables) have absolutely no effect on imaging and soundstage beyond differences in the audio channels, which are determined by the recording techniques, recording equipment, and room effects at the recording and reproduction locations. The effects of imaging CAN be played with electronically by intentionally altering the time and frequency differences among the channels (as time differences are the sole means our brains use to assess imaging and soundstage).

Acoustic placement (3D) effects are extremely important to the illusion of accurate sound but depend mainly on (as I said) the recording, the speakers, and the listening environment. Anaudiophile would be well served to attend to these factors to increase both the accuracy and illusion of his reproduced audio. These factors have zero to do with electronics and cables (except under very extreme conditions). You are quite correct in saying that we have no good way to measure these effects and it wouldn't matter if we did as the listening room and lister position are critical. Note also that 2-ch stereo is a crude illusion to reproduce these factors and are a major limitation to lifelike reproduction in the home (though I have zero hope that commercial implentations of multichannel will fix this situation).

No offense, but I don't think you are quite ready to tell us what scientific theory says.. You are simply wrong about what you say--moving speakers futher apart is not the only way to affect sound stage (e.g., projection angle is an example), and the characteristics of the speaker make a HUGE difference. Also keep in mind that reflections from room surfaces are extremely important. The terms are slightly non-technical, but I think they have no technical counterparts at this point. How would you you define soundstage? You seem to think I claim no audio component matter--I claim electronics and cables do not matter.

Absolutely, accuracy must have a reference. But, you are confused in thinking that any thing about electronics affects imaging and soundstage. The electrical signal of home audio electronics are so accurate, they do not effect what we hear including soundstange and imaging. Those things are determined by acoustics.

Again, I agree with much of what you say. ALL audio reproduction is an illusion. We may like effects that are not accurate, we may seek something as close to live as we can achieve. Where we differ is on what factors are important in creating the illusion. Electronics (and since the advent of CD, the recording medium) are trivial factors because they do no affect what you hear (beyond placebo effects). Now you might say "if my beliefs influence what I perceive, where is the harm in that?" To which I would say "I prefer to deal with factors that are not based on my beliefs and my subjective imprresions. I prefer to deal with objectively real factors."

It is a myth that measurements do not determine what we hear (it also is extremely illogical). High enders say that, but they do not have any evidence. No two sets of speakers have idential measurements, that claim is not credible. Speakers sound like they measure--it is possible to take too few or inaccurate measurments and reach bad conclusions. Consider the source of you read.

You are doing the right thing in keeping an open mind and attempting to get more information. Just be aware that the home audio field is rife with misconceptions, myths, and outright lies--including the popular magazines (all the good ones have died).

Your first paragraph - very good point... and you're right. I have no rebuttal except to say that it seems to me that if the studio were adding detail, it would sound unnatural, such as additional shimmer to a cymbal. In other words, I've never heard what sounds to me as "too much shimmer" or too much detail.

You're correct that musicians aren't any better at judging audio equipment... EXCEPT for the fact that we hear live music all the time. Without that frame of reference (which certainly non-musicians can acquire by listening to a lot of live music) you're less likely to be able to tell an alto saxophone from a tenor or a viola from a violin.

You're very much NOT correct when you say that electronics and cables do not affect imaging and soundstaging. In my experience, they can and do. The item that is closest to my memory is a turntable. The soundstaging effects were quite different. Cables have done so but to a much less extent. That's not to say that I disagree with your assessment of what is (most) important... recording, speakers, room. No question. However, after all that is done, there's still a couple of small steps left.

I think you may be right when you say measurements affect all that we hear. However, there must be some things we have neglected to measure and, when we do, we'll be able to tell with a lot of certainty how something will sound absolutely.

E-Stat

01-30-2005, 04:28 PM

You're very much NOT correct when you say that electronics and cables do not affect imaging and soundstaging.
Which is why I use passive attenuators with my CDP in lieu of my preamp. The preamp's line stage shrinks the soundstage.

However, there must be some things we have neglected to measure and, when we do, we'll be able to tell with a lot of certainty how something will sound absolutely.
Exactly. Jitter, for example, wasn't important until it was fully understood.

rw

musicoverall

01-31-2005, 05:01 AM

Which is why I use passive attenuators with my CDP in lieu of my preamp. The preamp's line stage shrinks the soundstage.

Interesting. I read your more detailed post about your passive attentuators. I've never tried that route - I suppose the reason is I have quite a few things hooked up to the preamp... turntable, CDP, CD recorder, cassette deck and a tuner... and I've not found a passive linestage with enough inputs.

Your jitter example is perfect. When the medium began, we didn't even have a name for this distortion, let alone a cure for it. Once the engineers began listening to what they had designed, it was time to go back to the drawing board for some re-engineering.

E-Stat

01-31-2005, 12:04 PM

Interesting. I read your more detailed post about your passive attentuators. I've never tried that route - I suppose the reason is I have quite a few things hooked up to the preamp... turntable, CDP, CD recorder, cassette deck and a tuner... and I've not found a passive linestage with enough inputs.
Well, clearly the approach is not for everyone for the convenience factor you noted and matching issues. I don't remember if I mentioned it before, but I was totally unaware of the two highly desirable characteristics of my primary CD player when I bought it: extremely low out impedance (much lower than my preamp) and high output (again higher than the nominal output rating for my preamp). Coupled with using low cap cables, it enabled for me to say bye-bye to using the preamp for the CD source. It made no sense to use a 21 db gain stage solely to attenuate signal. I use it as a phono stage only where the gain and RIAA eq is necessary. Yes, I bite the bullet and move the cables going to the power amps from attenuators to preamp when I change sources from CD to phono. Although I have a tuner and a cassette deck, they are used with my garage system where again I switch outputs using my first attenuator project. The cassette is used very infrequently primarily to capture tapes to CD.

rw

RobotCzar

01-31-2005, 09:39 PM

You're very much NOT correct when you say that electronics and cables do not affect imaging and soundstaging. In my experience, they can and do. The item that is closest to my memory is a turntable. The soundstaging effects were quite different. Cables have done so but to a much less extent. That's not to say that I disagree with your assessment of what is (most) important... recording, speakers, room. No question. However, after all that is done, there's still a couple of small steps left.

Your quoted comment brings us somewhat back to the original discussion. People have not demonstrated they can hear differences in cables (or electronics) so you are making a claim (as many other have) that is not backed up by any evidence. In regard to imaging and soundstage, you do not seem to accept the fact that these perceptions are based completely on differences between the channels only. (Note the difference in imaging and soundstage between mono and 2-ch.). Differenences in channels(electrical signals) in audio electronics (or, laugh, cables) is extremely low. Differences in channels between speakers in a room (sound) are very great (for example, the two speakers are in different locations--duh). Any difference in soundstage or imaging you hear are due to recording differences, speaker/room differences, volume differences, or your imagination.

Now having said that, I must admit that I suspect that vinyl lovers may be a special case. (We are talking about program source (playback medium) not electronics.) I have always suspected that vinyl lovers like something that is added by the medium. I have speculated the added something is increased soundstage (a sense of 3D) ADDED by the cutting lathe or the kludged way vinyl achieves 2-ch stereo. If true, this is exactly a case of "enhanced" realism (or "detail" if you insist) I have previously asked about.

You may be interested to know that one vinyl fan reading this forum did a little experiment. He recorded some of his LPs to CD. He then admitted he could not them them apart (his opinion of the CD playback medium improved). I claim he simply recorded the additional info that results with vinyl playback. You may be getting hyper realism with vinyl, which a lot of people like--but to me is just more distortion. You can try the experiment yourself if you like vinyl.

Thanks for the discussion, it was interesting, I hope you try to find out more facts before your opinions harden.

theaudiohobby

02-01-2005, 04:58 AM

Your quoted comment brings us somewhat back to the original discussion. People have not demonstrated they can hear differences in cables (or electronics)

I will have to call you up on this again, certain amplification and source components measure reasonably differently in the frequency and time domain to be readily identifiable in a blind test. I think you should take a trip to the better measurement sites and look at some gross differences in the time domain and frequency domain behaviour of some of these components before you throw out the baby with the water. Now the game changes, when folks try to assert that components that have reasonbly similar measurements sound very different, which is the case with cables.

musicoverall

02-01-2005, 10:39 AM

I guess our opinions of what constitutes "demonstration" are just different. ;)

As for vinyl adding something to the signal (if true), it then becomes simply a preference issue. I would have trouble debating against added realism, even if it would be called a "distortion" in the lab. My point all along has never been one of vinyl being more "accurate" - whatever that means. It's simply more realistic to my ears. My goal has never been to build a system that satisfies the numbers crowd but to build a system that comes closet to that lofty goal of recreating live music in my home.

Digital is a compromised medium IMHO... at least the redbook standard. I struggle with digital effects modules for guitar as well - which truly IS adding something to the signal - that's the point of them. When done in the analog domain, they produce a sound that has become the standard for decades. When done with digital modeling, they sound artificial. So digital has done a poor job of recreating a standard in this regard. This may not be very relevant to audio reproduction, but I find it interesting. Also interesting is that my current DAC contains no digital filters or oversampling. As a result, it sounds more realistic, although it may very well measure poorly.

As for my opinions hardening, to me there's no substitute for personal experience. All the tests and specs in the world don't "measure up" if you'll permit me a small pun. :) That said, I do intend to pursue your POV further - and I thank you for your input. I may disagree but I don't dismiss your thoughts out of hand.

musicoverall

02-01-2005, 10:45 AM

The cassette is used very infrequently primarily to capture tapes to CD.rw

My cassette deck is working overtime these days as I'm doing just what you mentioned. Over the last couple of decades, I've amassed about 500 homemade tapes that I'm now transferring to CD. Very much not fun! But unlike LP's which with a minimum of care might very well be in my great grandkids collection, cassette tapes die fairly quickly! The jury is still out on CD.

RobotCzar

02-01-2005, 07:54 PM

I will have to call you up on this again, certain amplification and source components measure reasonably differently in the frequency and time domain to be readily identifiable in a blind test..

Please provide references to locations where people show they can distinguish properly performing amplifiers. Yes, amps definitely measure differently, the differences are just so low that humans can hear the differences. Now about this "time domain" stuff, please be precise in your statements. Frequency is a dynamic concept and necessarily involves time. What exactly do you mean when you say measurements in the time domain? This is another age-old myth of the high end. Transient distorition is a function of THD that is particularly evident at high frequencies. Very good amps will have lower dynamic distoriton (as measured in high frequency THD). Even the poor measuring amps are beyond human ability to distinguish (and the harmonic distortion products are ultrasonic). Misinformation abounds in high end audio. If people can distinguish properly performing amps, trot them out, I've love to believe it. Currently there is no reason to believe they can.

My original point was it is a proven FACT that claims of what people hear are unreliable. Therefore, I am not willing to believe claims. You must DEMONSTATE that you can.

If two components sound different and measure the same--you haven't measured the right things. Of course things sound like they measure, there is no magic. I get tried of hearing statements without any basis other than opinions of people not well-qualified to have valid opinions.

RobotCzar

02-01-2005, 08:24 PM

I guess our opinions of what constitutes "demonstration" are just different. ;).

We agree on that point.

The point of my origninal post was that we certainly cannot not rely on claims of what people hear. That is proven. So I surely do not believe what you claim to hear.

theaudiohobby

02-02-2005, 01:09 AM

Please provide references to locations where people show they can distinguish properly performing amplifiers. Yes, amps definitely measure differently, the differences are just so low that humans can hear the differences. Now about this "time domain" stuff, please be precise in your statements. Frequency is a dynamic concept and necessarily involves time. What exactly do you mean when you say measurements in the time domain? This is another age-old myth of the high end..

I see that you are fast moving away from your area of competence, however let's settle two definitions.

Frequency response is the relationship of the on-axis pressure amplitude (dB) versus frequency. As long as the amplitude remains constant at all relevant frequencies we have a good reading. This measurement is not in the time domain, do you agree?

Transient Response is a function of both amplitude and phase accuracy of a system. This measurement is in the time domain, do you agree?

Properly performing amplifiers, that is an oxymoron if I ever heard one, what will be the definition of a properly performing amplifier? Please consider your answer carefully.

musicoverall

02-02-2005, 04:34 AM

If two components sound different and measure the same--you haven't measured the right things.

Bingo!

musicoverall

02-02-2005, 04:38 AM

The point of my origninal post was that we certainly cannot not rely on claims of what people hear. That is proven. So I surely do not believe what you claim to hear.

There's no reason for anyone to rely on or believe what I hear. This is why I always counsel people to listen for themselves. What I hear or don't hear should only be important to me... oh, and to the objectivists, for some reason! ;) The rest of the audiophile world should, and usually does, make their own judgments with their own systems.

Monstrous Mike

02-02-2005, 10:10 AM

I have copied the following excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

*QUOTE*
Empiricism

A central concept in the philosophy of science is empiricism, or dependence on evidence. Empiricism is the view that knowledge derives from experience of the world. In this sense, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Scientific theories are developed and tested through experiments and observations, via empirical methods. Once reproduced widely enough this information counts as evidence, upon which the scientific community bases its explanations of how things work.

Observations involve perception, and so are themselves cognitive acts. That is, observations are themselves embedded in our understanding of the way in which the world works; as this understanding changes, the observations themselves may apparently change.

Scientists attempt to use induction, deduction and quasi-empirical methods, and invoke key conceptual metaphors to work observations into a coherent, self-consistent structure.</b>

*ENDQUOTE*

This is one example of many of how science actually works in explaining our world around us. You'll notice that experimentation (that is, proper scientific expermentation) is essential to understanding observations. And also, this needs to be widely reproduced before it counts as evidence.

So while people are free to observe and expermiment with cables in their homes, there is currently nothing that explains those observations nor are there any proper experiements widely reproduced which can confirm actual sonic differences in cables.

People who are happy with their observations and experience are not a problem, that's a personal state of mind. But to use those observations to try to build a scientific case for the actual existance of cable sonics will be met with skepticism by objective observers who understand the scientific process.

In conclusion, the arguement regarding cable sonics is really quite fruitless at this point. If cable sonics are indeed a fallacy, then objectivists are interested in how people can have observations to the contrary (and many theories have be put forward to try to explain this). And if cable sonics are a reality, then objectivists would like scientific method to be applied to show that it is indeed fact and why it is true.

And ironically, if cable sonics are indeed true, and testing shows why cables do sound different then we can work to make even better cables based on real science.

FLZapped

02-02-2005, 10:20 AM

FLZapped

02-02-2005, 10:25 AM

RobotCzar

02-02-2005, 12:37 PM

I see that you are fast moving away from your area of competence, however let's settle two definitions.

Frequency response is the relationship of the on-axis pressure amplitude (dB) versus frequency. As long as the amplitude remains constant at all relevant frequencies we have a good reading. This measurement is not in the time domain, do you agree?

Transient Response is a function of both amplitude and phase accuracy of a system. This measurement is in the time domain, do you agree?

Properly performing amplifiers, that is an oxymoron if I ever heard one, what will be the definition of a properly performing amplifier? Please consider your answer carefully.

NO! You are making things up. A sine wave is constantly changing and therefore "in the time domain" by my accounting. Changes in MAXIMUM or RMS amplitude also occur "in the time domain". Phase "accuracy" would, in my understanding, affect both frequency and amplitude. The factors are all connected, there is no "non time domain". Errors in ablity to reproduce phase is distortion and would affect frequency response. The concern with these issues has been a false bug-a-boo of the high end (like jitter and it seems like a million other things) for years, but I have already told you that it is established mathematically that THD of "static" signals is correlated to so-called dynamic distortion. THD measurements at high frequences include what you call transient effects. Isn't the electrical potiential (one can calll it instantaneous amplitude at that is what it is) moving up and down like really really fast in a 20 KHz sine wave? If you take any instantaneous point of a sound pressure wave please indicate the part of that pressure that is frequency and the part that is amplitude. See, both are in the time domain.

I don't claim to be a practicing physicist--I prefer that you ask one. I also prefer that you don't ask high end crackpots and pundits (or even "audio engineers")

The question of the definintion of a properly performing amp is a good one. I am tempted to say that a properly performing amplifier is one that is performing within its published specifications. However, some tube amps perform within their specs but are not, by my reckoning, performing properly because their specs are not accurate enough to not audibly distort what we hear from them. So, a properly performing amp is one that performs within its specs AND has specs beyond the ability of humans to hear distortion or noise at reasonable output levels (which includes almost all SS amps I have ever seen, heard, or read about).

E-Stat

02-02-2005, 02:17 PM

Yep.

Eyespy's Place (http://2eyespy.tripod.com/)

-Bruce
One the links is a real hoot ! Winer (great name in this case) provides both exceptionally shallow analysis and zero substantiation for some of his points.

http://www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html

rw

musicoverall

02-02-2005, 06:07 PM

One the links is a real hoot ! Winer (great name in this case) provides both exceptionally shallow analysis and zero substantiation for some of his points.

http://www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html

rw

Mr Eyespy appears to have expended a lot of effort to dispel cable "myths" for a guy that wires his speakers with Nordost SPM! That's some massively expensive cable!

Did a lot of the authors of his links seem awfully... well, *****y to you? It made me appreciate the congenial nature of most of the objectivists on this site. Still, I'm left curious and perhaps some of our naysayer friends will comment... just what accounts for the vitriol and unerring crusaderism against cable sonics? "Inaccurate" information passes hands daily, perhaps every minute. It's nothing to get worked up over. And I find it hard to believe you're that concerned over the easily swayed audiophile newbie, a guy who probably won't even venture to The Audio Lab. Seriously, the purveyors of A/R found it necessary to move the scientific camp away from the general cable masses, ostensibly to allow the yeasayers to have their discussions free of demands for blind testing, specs, etc. That's a fairly radical move.

Now, I hope you all know that I welcome and relish your input, regardless of our disagreements. But I sincerely don't understand why you spend time worrying about this. Why concern yourself over something you claim doesn't even exist?

musicoverall

02-02-2005, 06:20 PM

[QUOTE=Monstrous Mike And ironically, if cable sonics are indeed true, and testing shows why cables do sound different then we can work to make even better cables based on real science.[/QUOTE]

I should have read your post before I posted my last one asking why you folks bother with this argument. While your entire post was well thought out, I find the portion I quoted above to be particularly convincing. I certainly don't understand science but I intuitively can understand what you're saying here and agree.

So... if I were to conduct some blind tests, how would I go about it? The long term listening tests outlined by (as I recall) Magictooth will, I'm told, do nothing to sway the scientific community. Instead, I need to conduct tests with about 30 second intervals. True? Let's further go out on a speculative limb here and say I pass with statisical significance. What happens then?

I'm not married and I live with three children, none of which are allowed to touch my stereo. They've told their friends that I "bark" at them when they get too close! It's likely I bare my teeth as well! :) I do, however, have one friend to which I've entrusted a key to my house. He travels on business a lot but if I can get him to stay in town for awhile, I might be able to pull it off. Can you outline proper procedure for such testing? Thanks.

Woochifer

02-02-2005, 07:35 PM

One the links is a real hoot ! Winer (great name in this case) provides both exceptionally shallow analysis and zero substantiation for some of his points.

http://www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html

rw

Yeah, and how many more subjectivist slanted articles have equally or even more shallow analysis? How often do we read subjectivists talking about the "night and day" differences that cables and power cords make, with no measurements, no blind listenings, or anything other than the reviewer's assurance that his ears don't lie. This is a magazine article, not an academic journal. What are you expecting?

And before you go attacking Mr. Winer's writing and taking potshots at his name, you might also want to know that he's the cofounder of Real Traps, which makes some of the best room treatments out there. The Real Traps site also has several great articles about room acoustics, and the type of testing that Real Traps does with their products (product data and testing procedures are on their web site for anyone who wants to verify whether or not their products actually work). His articles on room treatments and the importance of accounting for the acoustics are spot on. (I disagree with him about the effectiveness of equalization for low frequencies, but that has more to do with the localization of the effect than anything.)

He may have an agenda to convince you that acoustical treatments are the best way to improve audio performance, but that doesn't stop him from being right and able to fully document the improvement that his product makes. I've yet to see a cable manufacturer post any test data of equal validity.

http://www.realtraps.com

Here's a quote from one of his other articles that I think puts a lot of these inane audio arguments into perspective:

Amateurs and weekend engineers are not the only people who succumb to the notion that gear solves all problems. Many pro engineers who should know better lust after gear they are just sure will help them get "that" sound. Of course, the real problem is that it's very difficult to make a great mix if you can't hear what you're doing! That favorite recording was no doubt made in an excellent sounding room, mixed in a control room with enough broadband absorption to have a uniform low frequency response, and mastered by an expert in a similarly well-treated room.

I truly believe the gear myth can and must be dispelled. The only way people will ever get good results in their ever-smaller rooms is with proper acoustic treatment. What's the point in buying electronics that are flat from DC to light when acoustic interference in your control room creates peaks and dips of 30 dB or more throughout the entire low end? How useful is a subwoofer when the real reason you have no deep bass at the mix position is cancellation due to standing wave patterns? Why buy an expensive outboard A/D/A converter having less than 0.0001% distortion when untamed room modes add substantial low frequency reverb that muddies every bass note for the key of D?

hifitommy

02-02-2005, 07:43 PM

Nice rant, but you failed to answer either question. -Bruce
what you dont understand:

what some of you dont get is imaging/soundstaging, an unMEASURABLE factor. cabling has much to do with these effects. i dont fully understand the whys of this but its there and sooner or later, someone will come up with good reasons.

once, a friend borrowed some kenwood monoblock amps for evaluation. upon insertion into the system, it seemed as if the imaging had been torn apart in the middle and it left two distinct channels with no melded central image. no manipulation of any kind resulted in mage cohesion with that setup. both of us heard it and were stymied by the situation. i have not heard a decent explanation of this phenomenon. i am still willing to learn. and that's what some of you that make hard and fast proclamations dont take the time for.

your second point was covered.

your comparison of a vicious dog and audio is fallacious. as for despot-i might actually try that cheeeeep arrangement. i dont expect a radical change from my kimber 8tc but i DO expect a difference. there certainly was a difference from my monster twin lead and aq type4 and then another from type4 to 8tc.

whether power wires can make a diff is yet to be heard in my system, i have captive cords in most of my electronics. as i work up the quality chain, this may change. meanwhile, even though i havent heard these diffs, i am not going to rebuff the possibility. that's where the learning comes in, not closing the mind.

E-Stat

02-02-2005, 08:10 PM

Yeah, and how many more subjectivist slanted articles have equally or even more shallow analysis?
The difference of course is that, unlike this article, observationalists don't spout scientific puffery as to what is FACT.

Fact: There is no evidence that a frequency response beyond what humans can hear is audible or useful.

Perhaps, but totally misses the relevant point when it comes to digital recordings and the need to address a wider bandwidth due to all the nasties inflicted by brickwall filters.

Fact: Analog tape compresses dynamics and adds distortion, which can be a pleasing effect for many people (including me). But for pure faithfulness to the original signal, modern pro-quality digital wins hands down every time.

Obviously, he has never talked to any seasoned recording engineer. Or listened at length to live unamplified music.

...you might also want to know that he's the cofounder of Real Traps, which makes some of the best room treatments out there.
Great. I use 8 bass traps in my own listening room.

rw

musicoverall

02-03-2005, 04:45 AM

Fact: Analog tape compresses dynamics and adds distortion, which can be a pleasing effect for many people (including me). But for pure faithfulness to the original signal, modern pro-quality digital wins hands down every time.

Obviously, he has never talked to any seasoned recording engineer. Or listened at length to live unamplified music.rw

Yes, that one was hilarious, particularly since he states it as "fact". Too funny! :)

jneutron

02-03-2005, 06:37 AM

imaging/soundstaging, an unMEASURABLE factor.
You are, for the moment, correct. In a year or so, you will be incorrect.

cabling has much to do with these effects.
That statement has zero proof..for now..that will also change.

i dont fully understand the whys of this but its there and sooner or later, someone will come up with good reasons.
You are indeed correct. Part now, part later.

upon insertion into the system, it seemed as if the imaging had been torn apart in the middle and it left two distinct channels with no melded central image. no manipulation of any kind resulted in mage cohesion with that setup. both of us heard it and were stymied by the situation. i have not heard a decent explanation of this phenomenon.
Insertion of the monoblocks introduced ground loop pickup via the power cord, the IC's, and the supply geometry within the Kenwoods;this pickup introduces cos phi current based errors, which disrupt the intended ITD to IID relationships that are responsible for localization imaging. In addition, within the monoblocks, the low impedance output wiring has not been designed for accurate phase reproduction across the spectrum with respect to high current slews and low impedance; this also affects the ITD relationships. The feedback loop of the mono's also are susceptible to b dot pickup within the case, and if the local feedback has any attenuation, the post attenuator traces are EXTREMELY susceptible to b dot intercept, which introduces cosine waveform error...this error is strictly ITD error. The load errors, and the compensation via feedback, of the output, are strictly designed to provide the correct output voltage at the amplifier output terminals..of course, anything with a voice coil has a well defined force vs current relationship, the returned voltage being only the speed of the coil within the magnetic field. The acceleration of the coil being the key to air compression.

In other words, the amps within that system played fast and loose with the IID/ITD inter-relationship, and your brain was unable to accomodate the discontinuity.

i am still willing to learn.
This is always good...we have that in common.

Given what we can hear, with respect to localization, I am suprised at the dismal state of the art with respect to high end electronics designers and high speed/low impedance circuitry. It amazes me that they cannot even measure the current accurately to the level we require for localization.

Bah, don't get me started..:-)

Cheers, John

PS..I apologize for keeping it simple..I hope some detail in understanding is not lost as a result.

musicoverall

02-03-2005, 09:03 AM

You are, for the moment, correct. In a year or so, you will be incorrect.

That statement has zero proof..for now..that will also change.

You are indeed correct. Part now, part later.

Insertion of the monoblocks introduced ground loop pickup via the power cord, the IC's, and the supply geometry within the Kenwoods;this pickup introduces cos phi current based errors, which disrupt the intended ITD to IID relationships that are responsible for localization imaging. In addition, within the monoblocks, the low impedance output wiring has not been designed for accurate phase reproduction across the spectrum with respect to high current slews and low impedance; this also affects the ITD relationships. The feedback loop of the mono's also are susceptible to b dot pickup within the case, and if the local feedback has any attenuation, the post attenuator traces are EXTREMELY susceptible to b dot intercept, which introduces cosine waveform error...this error is strictly ITD error. The load errors, and the compensation via feedback, of the output, are strictly designed to provide the correct output voltage at the amplifier output terminals..of course, anything with a voice coil has a well defined force vs current relationship, the returned voltage being only the speed of the coil within the magnetic field. The acceleration of the coil being the key to air compression.

In other words, the amps within that system played fast and loose with the IID/ITD inter-relationship, and your brain was unable to accomodate the discontinuity.

This is always good...we have that in common.

Given what we can hear, with respect to localization, I am suprised at the dismal state of the art with respect to high end electronics designers and high speed/low impedance circuitry. It amazes me that they cannot even measure the current accurately to the level we require for localization.

Bah, don't get me started..:-)

Cheers, John

PS..I apologize for keeping it simple..I hope some detail in understanding is not lost as a result.

I'd be very interested in these test results. Is it you that's going to make this happen?

FLZapped

02-03-2005, 09:51 AM

Mr Eyespy appears to have expended a lot of effort to dispel cable "myths" for a guy that wires his speakers with Nordost SPM! That's some massively expensive cable!

Did a lot of the authors of his links seem awfully... well, *****y to you? It made me appreciate the congenial nature of most of the objectivists on this site. Still, I'm left curious and perhaps some of our naysayer friends will comment... just what accounts for the vitriol and unerring crusaderism against cable sonics? "Inaccurate" information passes hands daily, perhaps every minute. It's nothing to get worked up over. And I find it hard to believe you're that concerned over the easily swayed audiophile newbie, a guy who probably won't even venture to The Audio Lab. Seriously, the purveyors of A/R found it necessary to move the scientific camp away from the general cable masses, ostensibly to allow the yeasayers to have their discussions free of demands for blind testing, specs, etc. That's a fairly radical move.

Now, I hope you all know that I welcome and relish your input, regardless of our disagreements. But I sincerely don't understand why you spend time worrying about this. Why concern yourself over something you claim doesn't even exist?

What you fail to understand is that he did not purchase them thinking they were making his system sound better. Maybe he just thought they were sexy. Of course, he coulda won them on a bet, too......maybe you should email him and ask.

-Bruce

Monstrous Mike

02-03-2005, 10:00 AM

I'm not married and I live with three children, none of which are allowed to touch my stereo. They've told their friends that I "bark" at them when they get too close! It's likely I bare my teeth as well! :)
That's pretty funny and I don't blame you. :)

So... if I were to conduct some blind tests, how would I go about it? The long term listening tests outlined by (as I recall) Magictooth will, I'm told, do nothing to sway the scientific community. Instead, I need to conduct tests with about 30 second intervals. True? Let's further go out on a speculative limb here and say I pass with statisical significance. What happens then?
I'll be honest with you. I have a Masters of Engineering degree and I'm not really sure how I would go about proper testing. It would be a large scientific exercise to even come up with a proper method for evaluating cables. We can all do some blind testing at home which I believe would be slightly better than sighted listening but an acceptable test method would take quite a bit of research and effort.

The key to being successful as far as gathering the evidence required to elevate cable sonics from a hypothesis to a theory would be to construct a valid test, come up with positive results and then publish the findings for other scientists and engineers to duplicate. This is no easy feat. Dr. Floyd Toole has done some interesting work in the area of double blind testing. Here is a reference: F.E. Toole and S.E. Olive, "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things", 97th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint No. 3894 (1994 Nov.).

So I doubt you or I could come up with something valid unless we really dedicate ourselves to it, time, research and money wise. And the downside to all this as well is that we could come up with negative results after a whole lot of effort. These negative results would not be enough to to negate any hypothesis about cable sonics but would be enough to cause us to pull our hair and realize maybe we should just be listening to music rather than wasting time.

FLZapped

02-03-2005, 10:01 AM

what you dont understand:

what some of you dont get is imaging/soundstaging, an unMEASURABLE factor. cabling has much to do with these effects. i dont fully understand the whys of this but its there and sooner or later, someone will come up with good reasons.

Bull. Soundstage is a product of volume and phase differential(or even group delay) between channels. All very, very measurable.

your comparison of a vicious dog and audio is fallacious.

Except that I never did any such thing. Here is what I said:

"Apparently you do("Home Despot"). Be that as it may, I don't see you complaining when some watchdog group puts the kabosh on a dangerous drug, or product that would harm a child."

Get your facts straight.

-Bruce

FLZapped

02-03-2005, 10:12 AM

jneutron

02-03-2005, 10:57 AM

I'd be very interested in these test results. Is it you that's going to make this happen?
Yes.

I have suffered a setback in doing so.

I find that, in researching the science of localization, there is a huge gap between what the brain actually does, and our understanding of how to alter the cues to provide a directionally accurate image.

It's easy enough to say ITD and IID stimulus is sufficient, but nobody has really done the work to develop the relationship between the angular relationship of the virtual image, ITD value, IID value, vs frequency, nor if it is also a function of frequency..it is a problem that can easily be described with a six dimensiona graph... It will become more difficult if you consider the ear's frequency response to off axis sound...the filtering of the ear canal..I have removed that component in order to keep the analysis simple. This has forced me to develop the test regimen to measure such in support phase two of my research...that of correlating the audible cues, with the audio electronic system that produces the sound.

The main efforts: determine the equational interrelationship of all the cited variables...develop the ability to measure current slews to 1% accuracy at about 100 amperes per microsecond into a .1 and .01 ohm load..and figure out how in the name of sam hill I'm gonna time shift a sinx/x waveform in 100 nSec increments, from zero to about 1 mSec.

I figure about a year on each task..

Cheers, John

jneutron

02-03-2005, 10:59 AM

The key to being successful as far as gathering the evidence required to elevate cable sonics from a hypothesis to a theory would be to construct a valid test, come up with positive results and then publish the findings for other scientists and engineers to duplicate. This is no easy feat.

You are absolutely correct...and, a master of understatement..

Hi Mike..happy new year..

Cheers, John

jneutron

02-03-2005, 11:15 AM

Sorry, John, but he is incorrect. This is measurable. Perhaps not directly as to it's name, but it can be quantified and simulated.
-Bruce

Hi Bruce..Happy New year..

Ah, excellent..

I have a monophonic recording of a 440 hz bell, and I wish to place it 35 degrees to the right of center, speakers 10 feet apart, listener 10 feet from speaker centerline.

What ITD and IID value is required to place the image exactly there, and apparently five feet behind the speaker line?

For each of the harmonics of the bell, what are the corresponding ITD and IID values to place the harmonics in the exact same space?

Can all of the harmonics be treated with the same values of ITD and IID, or do I have to treat them as independent?

Do all humans have the same sensitivity to these parameters, or do I have to evaluate a subset of the population, and determine the distribution of sensitivity to those parameters...is the distribution of sensitivity the same for all humans, or do I have to simply live with the peak of that distribution?

If the population sigma is very large, can I broaden the image (ala Bose) to accomodate all humans, or is it impossible to do so.

If you can provide me some research literature where even one of those questions has been answered, then there are some very very good researchers who I will direct to you..they don't know the answers. They can tell ya bout sine localization, SAM localization, and rectified SAM localization. But, they can't answer the questions I pose..

This cable sonic problem has put me into this position: What exactly is it we use to cue position in a virtual soundstage? After those questions have been answered, then, I will be able to measure meaninfully...Until then, saying that a cable shifts yada yada htz yada yada microseconds, into a 4 ohm load in quadrants 2 and 4...is meaningless...just a number that is a datapoint..

You, my friend, have assumed too much...the best researchers in the land do not agree with you..they do not even know what it is they are supposed to be looking for..

Cheers, John

PS...am able to measure my resistor down to 1.2 nHenries, but the physical constraints prevent me from measuring the actual inductance, that being 50 picohenries..guess I'll hafta live wit it...hey, hows da finga??

FLZapped

02-03-2005, 11:37 AM

John,

You're falling into the wrong trap.

Please show me anything beyond phase response, and group delay and the other well known electrical parameters that define a cable can materially affect the "soundstage."

Those are very measureable properties, are they not?

Of course I realize that soundstage is a complex variation beginning with the acoustic space where the recoding originated and ends with the acoustic space where the listener receives the results of the recording.

However, this conversation revoloves around the effects of cables. And the parameters that would affect "soundstage" in any way are indeed measurable. Whether or not there is a known and direct corallary, is another story. It STILL doesn't exist outside resistance, capacitance, and inductance and the effects these parameters impart on the signal. Does it?

Therefore, if you had two similar cables that had different group delay measurements and were able to verify a shift in "soundstage" - it wouldn't be hard to postulate that the group delay differences had something to do with it, now would it?

Next time, I'd appreciate it if you would be factual in your comments without being condescending.

-Bruce

musicoverall

02-03-2005, 11:52 AM

What you fail to understand is that he did not purchase them thinking they were making his system sound better. Maybe he just thought they were sexy. Of course, he coulda won them on a bet, too......maybe you should email him and ask.

-Bruce

How do you know he didn't purchase them thinking they were making his system sound better? I didn't notice that he mentioned anything about the time of purchase.

Maybe the cow jumped over the moon, too! :)

jneutron

02-03-2005, 12:13 PM

Next time, I'd appreciate it if you would be factual in your comments without being condescending.
Condescending? You have no idea what condescending is...actually, neither do I...

Sorry Bruce, it was not meant to be cond...that word...It was supposed to be posed as a logical sequence of things necessary to produce a soundstage..guess thinking about my response to clark johnson tailored my phrasing...:-)...however, it was factual..

You're falling into the wrong trap.
Please show me anything beyond phase response, and group delay and the other well known electrical parameters that define a cable will materially affect the "soundstage."
I answer that question with a question:hope I don't come across conde...you know..

Describe for me how to measure the time relationship between the currents and current slew rates for two audio, low impedance, channels, while the amplifiers are running in all four quadrants, with the bulk of the power drive having no correlation between channels... with the signal of interest buried within the power signal. And, measure it across the entire frequency band, to the 1 uSec level.

If you tell me you measured voltage, then you didn't measure the current or current slew. Voice coil drivers accelerate based on current, not voltage..hanging a distributed inductance/capacitance/resistance between the voltage controlled node and the reactive low impedance node, doesn't guarantee that what you see at the node is what is at the amp terminal..indeed, just attempting to measure the voltages at both points introduces measurement errors..

So far, the best measuring instrument I can think of is between our ears..

Those are both very measureable properties, are they not?
Using sine wave excitation, it is rather easy to measure amp and phase..but if a cos theta signal is added to one of the frequencies in a complex signal, do you think it is easily measured? FFT's come up zip in that respect.

Of course I realize that soundstage is a complex variation beginning with the acoustic space where the recoding originated and ends with the acoustic space where the listener receives the results of the recording.
However, this conversation revoloves around the effects of cables. And the parameters that would affect "soundstage" in any way are indeed measurable. Whether or not there is a known and direct corallary, is another story. It STILL doesn't exist outside resistance, capacitance, and inductance and the effects these parameters impart on the signal. Does it?
Last part first..

I have never, ever, claimed that RLC is not the whole story...I think maybe you've confused me with jon?? It ain't magic..it is still a question of how RLC can affect soundstage. I'm not losin it...not yet, anyhoo..

In my research, I suddenly hit a brick wall..to what level do I have to go to in order to measure how RLC can affect soundstage?

The questions I posed you (perhaps not in a very nice way...again, sorry) is exactly what needs to be answered, before testing can confirm (or deny) the existance of an effect between cables and soundstage..

Therefore, if you had two similar cables that had different group delay measurements and were able to verify a shift in "soundstage" - it wouldn't be hard to postulate that the group delay defferences had something to do with it, now would it?

That'd be a good postulate..although group delay, I'm not convinced is the correct way to look at it..especially for a reactive load, and a transmission line about 6 orders of magnitude below wavelength.

( of course, you can't forget about the grain boundary issue, the dielectric involvement, the motor-generator effect, the piezo effect, strand jumping, skin effect, the jitter effect (hey waittaminute, is that a cable thingy, or a CD thingy...It's so difficult to keep this garbage straight...the world of "high end audio" is so full of foolish guru wannabe's and charlatans, no wonder a quantum dot CD fixer selling for 40 bucks sells..

Cheers, John

Oh, forgot to add..

I have been discussing with an audiophile guy, testing exactly what you said...determining correlation between RLC, and what is heard..

Since I can design and build speaker cables while changing only one parameter at a time, for example, making two sets, one of 4 guage, one of 18, both 7.6 nH per foot/135 pf per foot, It will be easy to see what preferences may arise..it'll take a while, but it'll be fun.

Monstrous Mike

02-03-2005, 01:04 PM

You are absolutely correct...and, a master of understatement..

Hi Mike..happy new year..

Cheers, John
Thanks, same to you.

musicoverall

02-03-2005, 01:18 PM

I figure about a year on each task..

Your motivation is inspiring! Carry on, sir!

FLZapped

02-03-2005, 02:43 PM

Describe for me how to measure the time relationship between the currents and current slew rates for two audio, low impedance, channels, while the amplifiers are running in all four quadrants, with the bulk of the power drive having no correlation between channels... with the signal of interest buried within the power signal. And, measure it across the entire frequency band, to the 1 uSec level.

Why doest thou digress off topic thus?

I don't care. (cue etherial music) Cables John, not amplifiers. Passive, not active. Topic at hand, okay?(fade music)

I'm sure they're important, but not for this discussion....at least not yet.....

I have never, ever, claimed that RLC is not the whole story...

Never said you did. What I said was, or at least should have said, is that no one has been able to show that it is anything other than these parameters. Unless it's JPS Lab's digital resistance. ;~} (Maybe tht's the answer, ya think?)

I think maybe you've confused me with jon?? It ain't magic..it is still a question of how RLC can affect soundstage. I'm not losin it...not yet, anyhoo..

No confusion, well, not identity wise. And yes, finally we are on the same page, maybe it's the same floor. I think I lost it a while back, seriously, I have so many things lately I am expending enormous amounts of emotional energy on, I can't concentrate enough these days to get into heavy discussions. My thinking processes are just too crowded.

In my research, I suddenly hit a brick wall..to what level do I have to go to in order to measure how RLC can affect soundstage?

Welp, maybe the answer lies somewhere in specification for the surround sound systems in movie theaters, or that 30 speaker monster sphere that NASA has created. (I think it was 30, can't find the bloody link now)

The questions I posed you (perhaps not in a very nice way...again, sorry) is exactly what needs to be answered, before testing can confirm (or deny) the existance of an effect between cables and soundstage..

Well, maybe it should be simplified to just finding out the perception threshold in measured differences first....especially group delay.(I agree with Steve Eddy on this one)

That'd be a good postulate..although group delay, I'm not convinced is the correct way to look at it..especially for a reactive load, and a transmission line about 6 orders of magnitude below wavelength.

6 orders of magnitude? I think there is part of a sentance missing here......*lost*

Perhaps. Certainly it would be a bit easier in the interconnects than the speakers cables since there is less reactive variation of the loads. However, the starting point is always a purely resistive load....well, as close as you can get to one, anyway and then us a load simulator and watch what happens as you pull the load around the smith chart....oh wait. that's rf....nevermind....or maybe.....

( of course, you can't forget about the grain boundary issue, the dielectric involvement, the motor-generator effect, the piezo effect, strand jumping, skin effect, the jitter effect (hey waittaminute, is that a cable thingy, or a CD thingy...It's so difficult to keep this garbage straight...the world of "high end audio" is so full of foolish guru wannabe's and charlatans, no wonder a quantum dot CD fixer selling for 40 bucks sells..

JOHN! hahahahhahahhaa.....

Cheers, John

Oh, forgot to add..

I have been discussing with an audiophile guy, testing exactly what you said...determining correlation between RLC, and what is heard..

Since I can design and build speaker cables while changing only one parameter at a time, for example, making two sets, one of 4 guage, one of 18, both 7.6 nH per foot/135 pf per foot, It will be easy to see what preferences may arise..it'll take a while, but it'll be fun.

Well, have fun. Personally, I think I'd start with the less reactive situation of interconnects and then graduate to speaker cables....but I know how you loath the easy path. ;~}

Need a bruised nailbed?

-Bruce

FLZapped

02-03-2005, 02:50 PM

How do you know he didn't purchase them thinking they were making his system sound better? I didn't notice that he mentioned anything about the time of purchase.

Maybe the cow jumped over the moon, too! :)

Probably because I've known eyespy a hell of a lot longer than you have...which for you is not at all.

Sorry if you missed the last showing of the cow jumping over the moon thingy, it's gonna be a while, it's all sold out for the next millenium. The part for the dish and spoon is open, we can't figure out where they ran off to.

-Bruce

RobotCzar

02-03-2005, 02:54 PM

So... if I were to conduct some blind tests, how would I go about it? The long term listening tests outlined by (as I recall) Magictooth will, I'm told, do nothing to sway the scientific community. Instead, I need to conduct tests with about 30 second intervals. True? Let's further go out on a speculative limb here and say I pass with statisical significance. What happens then?

Nobody expects you to set up totally valid scientific experiment, or to run valid statistical tests. But, your goal is the same as a valid scientific study: to remove bias and other factors that could account for the differences you are hearing. This basically means that you should attempt to make the two alternatives you are trying to distinguish as similar as possible. For example, if testing to hear difference in amps, have the rest of the system be the same (e.g., don't use differnt sources or speakers for the things being compared). The factors most often overlooked are:

1) You must make sure whatever you are comparing are at the same volume level. this is trickier that you think as very small differences in volume can be detected by humans and the louder is often heard as better. You can use a volt meter connected to electronics or a sound pressure level meter. You probably don't have either so you can't run even a simply valid test. Your only alternative is to play a 1 KHz sine wave (spring for a test disc) and earball the levels until you can't tell a difference (test yourself).

2) You must blind yourself (not with a blindfold, you must not know which is which when you are making a judgement. There is not a shadow of a doubt that expectation does and will affect what you hear. It is not that you are intentionally bias, your perceptions actually change so that you precieve the thing you expect to sound better as actually sounding better. This is why "just listening" is really bad adivce.

You absolutely do not have to listen for any length of time. Listen and switch back and forth as often and as quiclkly as you like. Then make a judgement. Choose your own stereo with recordings you know really well and segments you think might show a difference (or which you think do show a difference).

Check your final score. (The expectation is that you will get half correct.) Even if you got them all right it proves nothing as you may have done so by luck. But, if you can repeatedly do so, let us know. Those running a real statistical analysis would accept that you can hear a difference if you score better than would be expected by chance in one out of twenty cases of random guessing. You can choose whatever level seems reasonable to you, but I wonder what that level isn't 100% if there are "huge, obvious" differences.

An ABX devices is a switch that automatically (and secretly) chooses input A or input B and play on the X position. You can move the switch between A, B and X as often and and as slowly as you want to. Is X A or B? Choose. I think you can by these things, but having somebody else do the switch will single blind the experiment and may be okay for your personal peferences. A double blind insists that the person doing the switching also not know which is which,

musicoverall

02-03-2005, 05:35 PM

Probably because I've known eyespy a hell of a lot longer than you have...which for you is not at all.

Sorry if you missed the last showing of the cow jumping over the moon thingy, it's gonna be a while, it's all sold out for the next millenium. The part for the dish and spoon is open, we can't figure out where they ran off to.

-Bruce

Well, since you know him, ask him to get some new links for his website, will ya?

So the cow did jump over the moon? Hmmm... I guess you're right about someone buying Nordost SPM for looks, then.

musicoverall

02-03-2005, 05:40 PM

Nobody expects you to set up totally valid scientific experiment, or to run valid statistical tests. But, your goal is the same as a valid scientific study: to remove bias and other factors that could account for the differences you are hearing. This basically means that you should attempt to make the two alternatives you are trying to distinguish as similar as possible. For example, if testing to hear difference in amps, have the rest of the system be the same (e.g., don't use differnt sources or speakers for the things being compared). The factors most often overlooked are:

1) You must make sure whatever you are comparing are at the same volume level. this is trickier that you think as very small differences in volume can be detected by humans and the louder is often heard as better. You can use a volt meter connected to electronics or a sound pressure level meter. You probably don't have either so you can't run even a simply valid test. Your only alternative is to play a 1 KHz sine wave (spring for a test disc) and earball the levels until you can't tell a difference (test yourself).

2) You must blind yourself (not with a blindfold, you must not know which is which when you are making a judgement. There is not a shadow of a doubt that expectation does and will affect what you hear. It is not that you are intentionally bias, your perceptions actually change so that you precieve the thing you expect to sound better as actually sounding better. This is why "just listening" is really bad adivce.

You absolutely do not have to listen for any length of time. Listen and switch back and forth as often and as quiclkly as you like. Then make a judgement. Choose your own stereo with recordings you know really well and segments you think might show a difference (or which you think do show a difference).

Check your final score. (The expectation is that you will get half correct.) Even if you got them all right it proves nothing as you may have done so by luck. But, if you can repeatedly do so, let us know. Those running a real statistical analysis would accept that you can hear a difference if you score better than would be expected by chance in one out of twenty cases of random guessing. You can choose whatever level seems reasonable to you, but I wonder what that level isn't 100% if there are "huge, obvious" differences.

An ABX devices is a switch that automatically (and secretly) chooses input A or input B and play on the X position. You can move the switch between A, B and X as often and and as slowly as you want to. Is X A or B? Choose. I think you can by these things, but having somebody else do the switch will single blind the experiment and may be okay for your personal peferences. A double blind insists that the person doing the switching also not know which is which,

Thanks. I'm almost positive a friend of mine owns an SPL meter.

BTW, who ever said cable differences are "huge" and "obvious"? I didn't.

jneutron

02-04-2005, 07:06 AM

Why doest thou digress off topic thus?
I don't care. (cue etherial music) Cables John, not amplifiers. Passive, not active. Topic at hand, okay?(fade music)
I'm sure they're important, but not for this discussion....at least not yet.....
The assumption that cables can treated as an independent entity is not scientific. They are part of a chain of things that transfer energy to the air outside your ears.. I am not confident enough that it is possible to separate the blocks in this fashion, as they inter-react at some level.

If the amp reacts strangely to the incremental inductance changes we are talking about (5 nH per foot up to 200 nH per foot, this reaction is faster than the normal 20 to 20K human hearing capability, meaning it isn't on the radar screen of audio testing..I must admit, finding initially that we need to discriminate ITD's to the level of 1 to 5 uSec really threw me. I had never considered that kind of current slew rate before.. Once those numbers came up, I realized rather quickly (coupla picoseconds), that standard test methods are out..I've dealt with low impedance measurement errors at high current slews in the past. If you don't consider the geometry of the setup in terms of e/m field theory, accurate measurements are doomed....(doomed, I tell ya). Using a pair of Dale 250 N style bifilar resistors, as JR trusts, is just fooling yourself..Hell, I told him that about two years ago.. I get 1.5 volt errors at 20Khz, into a 250 u-ohm resistor, if I use "standard techniques". Because the errors are cos theta errors (shifted 90 degrees relative to the actual current), seeing the actual current is not possible with standard techniques. Errors in a 1 ohm load at 4 kiloamps per microsecond was a tad bit more "challenging", but it was still possible to get accuracy to within about 1 to 5% once the mag fields were understood.

The amp? It gets it's voltage feedback directly from the output binding posts (assumption)...at high z load, there will be no current slew (I dot) error associated with measuring the voltage at those terminals.. But as load z decreases, the current and I dot error increase, but the amp AND the voltage measuring device(scope) at the output terminals, will see the exact same thing. It won't be correct, as both entities are seeing the exact same error....amp says "yada", scope says "yada", but "yada" is actually "yada-goop", goop being the error. ( I love the technical terms).

The first things to come out of my research:

1. A .1 and .01 ohm current viewing resistor capable of 1% accuracy at slew rates up to about a Kiloamp per nanosecond.
2. A load resistor geometry capable of pure resistance with the same slew spec.
3. A voltage pickup device capable of zero I dot error.
4. An air toroid I dot pickup feedthrough...this will allow direct viewing of the current slew, which is the hottest contender for ITD errors in a cable.
5. A 3 axis B dot pickup coil set, to measure changing magnetic fields around components.

I've already built revision 1 of item 2, had difficulty measuring below a nanohenry.

Item 1 is a relative no brainer, I've not yet bought the resistors.
Item 2 has gone through 2 revisions...rev 2 is the sub nanohenry unit I'm testing.
Item 3 is a triviality, so I've held off.
Item 4 is designed, but that #49 guage wire is a real Bi*ch to use.
Item 5....same Bi*chy wire in item 4.

Unless it's JPS Lab's digital resistance. ;~} (Maybe tht's the answer, ya think?)
WHAT????holy mackeral..

I think I lost it a while back, seriously, I have so many things lately I am expending enormous amounts of emotional energy on, I can't concentrate enough these days to get into heavy discussions. My thinking processes are just too crowded.
Welcome to my world...hey, didn't you have some medical problem recently? Hope all is well.

Welp, maybe the answer lies somewhere in specification for the surround sound systems in movie theaters, or that 30 speaker monster sphere that NASA has created. (I think it was 30, can't find the bloody link now)
While the research is quite good (unfortunately, not well published), the "put the sound anywhere for everyone, just ain't tenable..the dipole field cancellation technology requires a sweet spot in space, and two people cannot share it..lots of speakers, with huge dsp to move the sound around the theatre, that's cool..I had considered trying that with my 128 4 inch speakers just for kicks. But, I'm too busy. got a honeydew list the size of manhattan.

Well, maybe it should be simplified to just finding out the perception threshold in measured differences first....especially group delay.(I agree with Steve Eddy on this one)
Steve Eddy???? Where??
I'm workin on this, with a computer controlled slide for moving a single speaker, and some programming to randomize ITD and IID with some speakers, all behind a visually opaque, audibly transparent screen, front lit to hide the speakers. Intent is to use real sounds, like a cowbell or something, to develop localization relationships..I have difficulty believing the use of sines or sine amplitude modulated sines are useful for actual complex sound localization...for the researchers, it makes the problem easier, but I think it's missing the boat.

6 orders of magnitude? I think there is part of a sentance missing here......*lost*
It was a glib statement reflecting the length of an audio signal wavelength vs the length of a wire.

Certainly it would be a bit easier in the interconnects than the speakers cables since there is less reactive variation of the loads. However, the starting point is always a purely resistive load....well, as close as you can get to one, anyway and then us a load simulator and watch what happens as you pull the load around the smith chart....oh wait. that's rf....nevermind....or maybe.....
Smith charts...man, I loved using those...it was so darn easy for me to understand, while my classmates were clueless..one a dem "kodak" moments..had few, so relished every one of em...
Item 4 will be also designed to view the shield currents in the IC as a result of loop pickup of b dot due to the power cords...but that's another story.

Well, have fun. Personally, I think I'd start with the less reactive situation of interconnects and then graduate to speaker cables....but I know how you loath the easy path. ;~}
That transparent, am I?

Need a bruised nailbed?
No thanks...already got one..honeydew related..
Cheers, John

E-Stat

02-04-2005, 08:09 PM

The assumption that cables can treated as an independent entity is not scientific. They are part of a chain of things that transfer energy to the air outside your ears.. I am not confident enough that it is possible to separate the blocks in this fashion, as they inter-react at some level.
Amen.

Unless it's JPS Lab's digital resistance. ;~} (Maybe tht's the answer, ya think?)
Don't mind Zapped. His imagination far exceeds his reading retention ability. It took me three posts to explain the concept of a product line to him.

rw

theaudiohobby

02-07-2005, 04:00 AM

NO! You are making things up.... both are in the time domain.

I am making thing up eh :p :p :p , well here goes, have a read (http://www.asel.udel.edu/speech/tutorials/acoustics/freq_domain.html), a quote from the article goes
The frequency domain provides an alternative description of sound in which the time axis is replaced by a frequency axis. In the frequency domain, sounds are represented in a frequency by amplitude and/or phase diagram

I did read your commentary on a 'properly performing' amplifier and decided you got the point :p , so there is no need to heckle you further.

Happy reading :p :p

RobotCzar

02-08-2005, 01:27 PM

I am making thing up eh :p :p :p , well here goes, have a read (http://www.asel.udel.edu/speech/tutorials/acoustics/freq_domain.html), a quote from the article goes

I did read your commentary on a 'properly performing' amplifier and decided you got the point :p , so there is no need to heckle you further.

Happy reading :p :p

Yah, but I'm not done heckling YOU. First off, can't you come up with a better reference than this? Nothing this person says is drastically wrong, and it is pretty simple. I could not find a reference to the credentials of the writer. Don't you think that is, um, kinda important?

Let me quote fromt the start of the article: "The representation of sound in the time domain is important to understand, but in some ways it is also awkward." I'll say its awkward, as sound is completely in the "time domain"--without time there is no sound, no frequency-- it IS rather difficult to talk about it in another way. But, people persist. I have asked you questions, which you refuse to answer. Why not tell me how this article contradicts what I said? YOU read it, and you will find that there is nothing in it that says that frequency and time variations in maximum or RMS amplitude are separate or in separate "domains". The term "domain" in this case is means "topic"--mere a way to organize what the author wants to say. The fact that the author uses the term "time domain" merely suggests that he isn't really an electrical enginieer or physicist. Even if he was, this label is being used as a topic, not suggesting that frequency, amplitude, and phase are not completely related. Nothing in this article suggests their would be audible differences in amplifers because of frequency and time domains.

I guess you argument runs like this... "Hey, I found an article on the Internet (from a speech college, for heavens sake---why not the physics or engineering departments?) that mentions "time domain" in regard to sound. Yay, that means all the dumb stuff said about these 'domains' is true."

Sorry, why not bite the bullet and learn something hard instead of taking the easy way out and reading technobabble? Please state what you think the article says is the difference in the frequency "domain" and time "domain", or give me your understanding if you find the article too difficult.

Next time you do a Goggle search on something, page down a little further and actually read what you find.

theaudiohobby

02-10-2005, 05:59 AM

RobotCzar,

You hold an extreme and wrong opinion very much like the very individuals you heckle, just an opposite extreme, I saw other articles that dealt with the topic more rigorously but decided they were too heavy going for the purposes of this discussion, hence I put that one up, but I suppose that accepting that certain performance criteria exist in the time domain will ruin your "All components except loudspeakers sound the same" extreme mantra, dogmatic ignorance by another name, the extreme opposite of everything produces an audible difference. Here is another reference (http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/filters/Impulse_Response_Representation.html) to time domain performance in digital filters and another on Class D power amplifiers (http://www.ee.washington.edu/stores/DataSheets/linear/lm4651.pdf).

To achieve full bandwidth operation there are several filter points that must be modified. They are the output filter, the feedback filters, the error amplifier filter and the input filter. If any of the filter points are too low there will be large phase shifts in the upper audio frequencies reducing the resolution and clarity of the highs. For this reason the frequency response of the system should be flat out to 20kHz. The mistake is often made to set the .3dB point near 20kHz resulting in good bench performance but poor quality in listening test.
The quote refers to both the phase shift (time domain) and frequency response (frequency domain) performance of the power amplifier module, i.e audible tradeoff between the frequence domain performance ( 0.3dB at 20Hz) and the time domain performance (phase shift in the upper audio frequencies) and recommends a preferred tradeoff.

You entitled to disagree with the new references but you will be wrong and like many of the dogmatic subjectivists you heckle, simply too strong-headed or egotistic to accept that your dogma is wrong, way too extreme, blind to other petinent variables, to be right.

RobotCzar

02-10-2005, 08:02 AM

Dear theaudiohobby,

Here is a link I got by doing a Goggle search on "flat earth" (from a University). I had over 6 million search hits!

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/flaterth.html

The Earth is flat, the flat earthers have a point (after all, if this many people say the Earth is flat, then there must be something to it). Scientists who maintain the Earth to be sphrerical really have not proven this fact (or really that haven't proven that the Earth is NOT flat). Science has been known to be wrong many times in the past. I am kind of amazed that scientists have such a closed mind about this issue. There are clear flaws in the tests used to determine the shape of the Earth. I also can't understand why these scientists want to spoil the fun of the flat Earthers, after all they are so sincere.

Those scientists are all so snooty. And, they are biased in not allowing equal time to alternative theories. What hypocrites!

Happy reading.

RobotCzar

02-10-2005, 08:57 AM

Now that you have actually said something, let's examine what you say a bit more. Then we can decide who is dealing with dogmatic igorance. I have to say that you keep ignoring the points I make and simply repeat yourself or your "sources"

First off, you and your ilk love to say that people like me think all components sound the same. (I guess you think all components sound different, hence we end up with audiophile wood pucks, spikes, power cords, etc, etc.) "We" are quite clear that some components sound very different and make a "huge difference" in what one hears. And, guess what, people can tell them apart with their eyes closed.

I have repeatedly tried to tell you that there is no "time domain" and "frequency domain" that those concepts are made up to support the audiophile position. But, you are not listening, you simply assume you know the answer (gee, that sounds familiar).

One more time (no pun intended): Without time, there is no frequency--hence frequency is in the "time domain". I ask again, what is the "time domain"? You don't know, do you?

Phase errors ARE COMPLETELY connnected to frequency errors. If you have phase "errors" (i.e., distortion) you WILL have frequency errors and vice versa (the phase is beween frequencies). Now, we can measure high frequency performance of a amp (in terms of either frequency or phase) and see just how well an amp performs. Note that your article tips its ugly high-end hand in mentioning things like clarity and detail. Those are subjective, not scienitifc and technical terms. An electric signal carrying an analog of and audio signal, has time-varying characteristics such as frequency and amplitude (and differences in phase among frequencies) that can be measured. Those factors (along with distortion) relate to what we perceive as clarity etc.

Now, one last time: errors in phase MUST show up as errors in frequency response and noise (go ask someone who knows). The phase errors of modern home audio amps are so low that the distortion caused is below our ability to hear. One can measure the effect of "phase errors" by simply measuring the THD and frequency response using high frequency sine waves ("dynamic distortion"). Many cheaper amps DO have higher dynamic distortion than higher quality amps---we just can't hear it because it is still below the threshold of distortion we can hear.

"The quote refers to both the phase shift (time domain) and frequency response (frequency domain) performance of the power amplifier module, i.e audible tradeoff between the frequence domain performance ( 0.3dB at 20Hz) and the time domain performance (phase shift in the upper audio frequencies) and recommends a preferred tradeoff."

Phase shift and frequency are concepts invented by humans to understand time-varying signals (like sound). They are both aspects of the same phenomina and both are time based. They cannot be "traded off"--they are directly correlated. Higher phase distortion will result in higher frequency response errors (relative amplitude). You are being let down a path by people with an agenda. That path is that there are two unrelated entities "phase" and "frequency" and audio engineers only pay attention to one (how ridiculous). Get some real information, ask a real authority.

JoeE SP9

02-10-2005, 12:38 PM

You're certainly not equating your experience with mine, now are you? And pray tell me, just what "experience" does an audio engineer (or a music lover either) have relating to the practical applications of power supply circuitry design for electronic components? Aren't you (conveniently) forgetting the fact that I spent the better part of 50 years actually working on the power supplies of both audio and video (television) products? It's probably not common knowledge, but the power supplies of just about all electronics products account for something like 75% of all servicing problems. So, I've spent a whole lot of time gaining actual "hands-on" experience in this area. Do you have any actual experience even remotely the equivalent? I'm not quoting from "theory" here although you seem to be implying that that is the case, while you on the other hand have experience to back up your assertions. Don't be offended, but I'm not inclined to buy it - especially because of some of the off-the-wall claims that I've seen you make here.

Au contraire, frere. It's not a bad analogy at all. I see that before you edited this post, you made a statement to the effect that " ... There is nothing stored in an amplifier (in)advance of playing music." Sorry guy ... that is totally incorrect (perhaps why you edited it out?). There is DC power stored in the filter capacitors of the unit's power supply at all times - before, during, and after music starts, stops, or whatever. The point of the analogy (which again, you conveniently ignore) is that the qualities of the gasoline hose cannot have any effect on the car's performance simply because it is doing nothing more than providing a raw material for the car to use at it sees fit. The AC power cord is fulfilling the exact same function ... it's providing a raw "material" for the electronic device to use as it sees fit - nothing more, nothing less.

Once again, your understanding of basic electronics is falling short of the mark. "Better" power cords contain filter networks all right, but I contend that they are there to hoodwink the gullible and impressionable among the unknowing, rather than to solve some "problem" of stray RF that might have a deleterious effect on the music. FYI, spark suppressors on car radios are not there to get rid of RF, but to suppress the electro-magnetic "noise" produced in the car's engine - and that is not "RF" by any stretch. I don't know whether it will relieve your mind (or just piss you off) to learn that the RF that you seem to think is such a problem for audio amplifiers that a special (and very likely expensive) after-market power cord is required to get rid of it, somehow magically disappears as the AC power is rectified and filtered by the power supply "inside the box".

P.S. I am not only a "music lover", but also a musician - with very sensitive ears. I have never in all of my life heard any RF emanate from a loudspeaker ever. Evidently, the power supply circuits in all of the audio amplifiers that I've ever heard must have done a quite remarkable job of eliminating it, don't you think?

I have in the past lived close to a ham radio operator who occasionaly would interfere with radio and tv reception for the whole block. I would also hear him through my rig. The same goes for a CB'er who was running an illegal linear amp.

theaudiohobby

02-11-2005, 01:57 AM

RobotCzar,

You did not disappoint, ofcourse they are all inter-related, how can they not be, all these variables work together to produce a single entity called sound. Sound is a function of time but also of frequency. Frequency is also function of time, so it is any surprise that they are dependent variables. For the purposes of performance evaluation, there is a time domain representation and frequency domain representation, hence the terms. I found a very good reference (http://ccrma.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Courses/150/time_frequency.html) for you that illustrates the issues, two statements in the link sum my points up very nicely.

Transforming a time-domain signal into its corresponding frequency-domain representation often helps to make apparent important characteristics of that signal.
...
Most musical signals have time-varying frequency content.

I hope this resolves the issues for you.

musicoverall

02-11-2005, 06:11 AM

Those running a real statistical analysis would accept that you can hear a difference if you score better than would be expected by chance in one out of twenty cases of random guessing. ,

Upon rereading your post, please check my understanding of the above quote.

Are you saying that if I ran 20 sets of trials and scored better than chance (how many corrects out of 10 would better than chance be?) in just one set of trials, statistics would suggest that I do hear a difference? Even if I botched the other 19????

Sorry for being slow on the uptake here ;) I do thank you for all your information.

RobotCzar

02-14-2005, 11:44 AM

Upon rereading your post, please check my understanding of the above quote.

Are you saying that if I ran 20 sets of trials and scored better than chance (how many corrects out of 10 would better than chance be?) in just one set of trials, statistics would suggest that I do hear a difference? Even if I botched the other 19????

Sorry for being slow on the uptake here ;) I do thank you for all your information.

No, I am sayting that if your score on one set of trials would only happen by chance 1 time in 20 (5% of the time), the accepted standard is to assume you were not guessing (i.e., your score was not due to chance). The point to note is that you could get a really good score and it could be lucky. So experiments need to be replicated.

If there are two alternatives (e.g. two different cables are being compared) then you would have a 0.5 chance of getting one trial correct. You would be expected to get 0.5 X 10 = 5 trials correct if you did 10 trials. So, how many would you get have to get right to convince a scientist? The number that would would get by chance only 5% of the time. Do you think you could calculate that? It is not trivial.

theaudiohobby

02-17-2005, 03:16 AM

RobotCzar, you seem to have vanished into thin air.. :D :D Time to heckle you again since your sudden silence suggests that you now know that your original layman opinion of time domain and frequency domain representation was somewhat uninformed, embarrassed? :p :p

RobotCzar

02-17-2005, 10:37 AM

If there are two alternatives (e.g. two different cables are being compared) then you would have a 0.5 chance of getting one trial correct. You would be expected to get 0.5 X 10 = 5 trials correct if you did 10 trials. So, how many would you get have to get right to convince a scientist? The number that would would get by chance only 5% of the time. Do you think you could calculate that? It is not trivial.

As it is not nice to propose a problem and not give an answer, here is mine:

Using the 11th row of Pascal's triangle (appropriate for outcomes with two alternatives such as an AB test) we see that there are 1024 possible combinations of 10 trials (2 to the 10th power). That row also indicates that the probibility of getting all right by chance is 1/1024 = 0.001 and the probablity of getting 9 right is 10/1024 = 0.01, 8 right is 45/1024 = .043.

Scientists generally accept your result as non-random if you do better than a probability of 0.05 by chance alone. Already, with 8 correct you are over the limit (.001+.01+.043 = .0531). Therefore, you must get 9 or more correct in ten trials to meet the standard criterion of significance. If you get 8, you are close and should probably run more trials or experiments. You should run more trials in any case as the more trials the more sensitive your test will be.

To sum up, if you do only 10 trials, a scientist would not be able to rule out that your score was due to chance (pure guessing) unless you got 9 or 10 correct. Formally, the null hypothesis (that you cannot tell differences) cannot be rejected unless your score is 9 or 10. If you do score a 9 or 10, you still could have been guessing, but the odds are so much against it that a scientist will believe that you were not guessing (this is a type 1 error).

musicoverall

02-18-2005, 09:33 AM

As it is not nice to propose a problem and not give an answer, here is mine:

Using the 11th row of Pascal's triangle (appropriate for outcomes with two alternatives such as an AB test) we see that there are 1024 possible combinations of 10 trials (2 to the 10th power). That row also indicates that the probibility of getting all right by chance is 1/1024 = 0.001 and the probablity of getting 9 right is 10/1024 = 0.01, 8 right is 45/1024 = .043.

Scientists generally accept your result as non-random if you do better than a probability of 0.05 by chance alone. Already, with 8 correct you are over the limit (.001+.01+.043 = .0531). Therefore, you must get 9 or more correct in ten trials to meet the standard criterion of significance. If you get 8, you are close and should probably run more trials or experiments. You should run more trials in any case as the more trials the more sensitive your test will be.

To sum up, if you do only 10 trials, a scientist would not be able to rule out that your score was due to chance (pure guessing) unless you got 9 or 10 correct. Formally, the null hypothesis (that you cannot tell differences) cannot be rejected unless your score is 9 or 10. If you do score a 9 or 10, you still could have been guessing, but the odds are so much against it that a scientist will believe that you were not guessing (this is a type 1 error).

13 trials is my maximum, due more to happenstance than logistics or a desire to be statistically or scientifically correct. I have exactly 13 days in a row where my friend can swap (or not) the cables. Then I'd have to wait about 3 weeks to do it again. So I'm sticking with 13.

Thanks for the info.

mystic

02-18-2005, 01:34 PM

13 trials is my maximum, due more to happenstance than logistics or a desire to be statistically or scientifically correct. I have exactly 13 days in a row where my friend can swap (or not) the cables. Then I'd have to wait about 3 weeks to do it again. So I'm sticking with 13.

Thanks for the info.

I see a problem with the experiment. Because your mood may change from one day to the next, your choices can be more a result of variations in how you feel than differences in the cables. This could result in the test having a negative bias. Given the method you will use, I don't know a way around the problem. It should not, however, in itself invalidate positive results.

If you decide to go ahead with the experiment, I recommend that you ask your friend to try to make the cable switches random -- his using coin flips should be good enough. You don't want have to deal with the possibility that he is trying to throw you a curve by using the same cable all 13 days, or giving you say 7 consecutive days of Cable A followed by 6 days of Cable B, when you assumed random switching at the start of testing.

Good luck!

musicoverall

02-18-2005, 01:41 PM

I see a problem with the experiment. Because your mood may change from one day to the next, your choices can be more a result of variations in how you feel than differences in the cables. This could result in the test having a negative bias. If you decide to go ahead with the experiment, I recommend that you ask your friend to try to make the cable switches random -- his using coin flips should be good enough. You don't want have to deal with the possibility that he is trying to throw you a curve by using the same cable all 13 days, or giving you say 7 consecutive days of Cable A followed by 6 days of Cable B, when you assumed random switching at the start of testing.

The sonic differences should come through regardless of my mood, I would think.

Coin flips are determining which cables are used when. I won't know which cables were used on which days until the test is over.

RobotCzar

02-18-2005, 02:45 PM

I see a problem with the experiment. Because your mood may change from one day to the next, your choices can be more a result of variations in how you feel than differences in the cables. This could result in the test having a negative bias. Given the method you will use, I don't know a way around the problem. It should not, however, in itself invalidate positive results.

Good luck!

One might also assume that a mood might have a positive bias.

So you (mystic) hypothesize that a person's mood can affect their ability to distinguish cable differences. I agree, even the time of day might. The fact that these variables can influence what you "hear" is in itself an indictment of uncontrolled listening tests. The advice to "just listen" is really bad advice. One must make some effort to even out all the subjective factors that might be affecting one's perceptions.

Your advice about random selection is excellent.

mystic

02-18-2005, 04:04 PM

One might also assume that a mood might have a positive bias.

So you (mystic) hypothesize that a person's mood can affect their ability to distinguish cable differences. I agree, even the time of day might. The fact that these variables can influence what you "hear" is in itself an indictment of uncontrolled listening tests. The advice to "just listen" is really bad advice. One must make some effort to even out all the subjective factors that might be affecting one's perceptions.

Your advice about random selection is excellent.

I think in the proposed experiment the influence of mood can be only a negative bias. I'm in a bad mood, so I identify A (the cable preferred in sighted listening) as B. Or I'm in a good mood, so identify B as A . Misidentification obviously lowers the positive scores. I can't imagine how mood bias would work the other way(i.e., raise the scores). But you may have had something entirely different in mind when you said " one might also assume that a mood might have a positive bias."

I don't rule out that attitudes, beliefs, and expectations can influence what listeners think they hear or do not hear, be it sighted or blinded listening. But I'm not convinced that ABE's are the strong and pervasive influence some seem to think. If someone suggests I can be convinced through the power of suggestion that horse pee is beer, I'm going to say -- Hey, maybe you but not me! I believe things usually are as the senses indicate.

Toga

02-19-2005, 09:14 PM

:D haha @ horse beer!

RobotCzar

02-20-2005, 04:22 PM

mystic

02-21-2005, 12:03 AM

"Misidentification obviously lowers the positive scores." Actually, misidentification lowers correct scores as that is the definition of misidentification. We are concerned about how a person's mood effects their peformance. Why is it hard to see that perhaps mood can make scored go up or down? You seem to imply that there are only two moods bad and good. Is there a state of neither bad nor good mood?

Well, if a "negative bias" would decrease the number correct of a subject (relative to some normal conditions--what they would score without the bias), then a "positive bias" would increase one's score relative to no bias at all. For example, if I really could distinguish A from B, then I might do better when I feel happy or am "pumped". Sometimes people say that they are "in the zone".

You to need to stretch your imagination a bit as one could demonstrate that they can hear differences--and have all their guesses be incorrect. If you did much worse than chance, you would be demonstrating that you can hear a difference, you are just misidentifying the choices. This does happen.

My main point was that if a mood can effect the outcome of a listening test, then one's expectations certainly could (as in a sighted test).

"Positive" and "correct" in the context of the test under discussion mean the same thing to me. After the test, we count the number of times the subject identified the cable as positive (or correct)scores and the number of times he misidentified the cable as negative (or incorrect) scores. Perhaps I'm missing your point.

I didn't mean to imply a person is either in a good mood or a bad mood with no in between. I don't know about everyone, but I'm in between in varying degrees most of the time. However, when not in a good mood I don't like listening to music. Thankfully, music is enjoyable at other times, and can add to feeling good.

Please consider the following hypothetical example of moods hurting performance: The subject in the 13 day blinded test might say " I correctly identified Cable A (the one he preferred in sighted listening) 5 days out of 7 days, and probably would have done better, but wasn't in a good mood those two days so maybe the cable didn't sound good to me for that reason. And I identified Cable B on 5 of 6 days, the one wrong being a day when I felt particularily good."

You gave an example of how you thought a positive mood bias might enhance a person's score. "For example, if I really could distinguish A from B, then I might do better when I feel happy or am "pumped". Sometimes people say that they are "in the zone." If listeners need to be that way to do their best in blinded testing, I see it as a reason to question the validity of the testing. How can you assure that the people who need to be "pumped" will be during the testing?

I continue to wonder whether there is something inconsistent about assuming attitudes, beliefs, and expectations can affect a listener's perceptions while at the same time assuming the act of blinded testing cannot affect his listening performance. If the mind and the way the mind and ears work together can be influenced by so many things, why is the testing itself exempt?

You don't have to tell me about "have all their guesses be incorrect." I have had first-hand experience as a student in doing worse than random on true/false exams. If only I knew then what I know now, I would have tried to convince my instructors I knew the answers but just misidentified the choices. I know this is not the kind of wrong beyond random you are talking about, but it reminded me of those exams.

Reflecting on school experiences, I also recall futile efforts at trying to beat the odds on exam questions. For example, being pretty sure the first three answers on an exam were false, I might guess the fourth should be true unless I was certain it was false. Listener's uncertainty or insecurity about failing could cause "trying to beat the odds" in blinded testing, a distraction that I suspect would hurt performance.

You said " My main point was that if a mood can effect the outcome of a listening test, then one's expectations certainly could (as in a sighted test)." I agree, one's expectations could affect the outcome of a sighted test, but I don't believe they necessarily would. Also, I think expectations could work either for or against hearing differences.

RobotCzar

02-21-2005, 08:52 PM

"Positive" and "correct" in the context of the test under discussion mean the same thing to me. After the test, we count the number of times the subject identified the cable as positive (or correct)scores and the number of times he misidentified the cable as negative (or incorrect) scores. Perhaps I'm missing your point..
I don't see what "positive" has to do with "correct". Postive (or good) relates to a mood (I thought from your comments). To my thinking your are confusing performance (%correct) with mood. Mood can affect performance: bad mood can decrease it, good mood can improve it (in comparison to "no mood" or neutral mood)--but they are different concepts.

Please consider the following hypothetical example of moods hurting performance: The subject in the 13 day blinded test might say " I correctly identified Cable A (the one he preferred in sighted listening) 5 days out of 7 days, and probably would have done better, but wasn't in a good mood those two days so maybe the cable didn't sound good to me for that reason. And I identified Cable B on 5 of 6 days, the one wrong being a day when I felt particularily good.".
Well, I would NOT let the subject explain what happended, I would let the data do so. If you want him to self-report his mood, fine. But his explanation of mood to performance is worthless. He shouldn't even know how he did on days he felt bad, because he is blinded. The test should merely look for correlations between self reported mood and performance. As an aside, the subejct could have said "I identified better on days when I was in a good mood, I did a bit worse on days I felt neither good or bad, and I did even worse on days I felt bad". (His explanations, however, carry no weight, the data will show if there is a correlation between mood and performance or not.)

You gave an example of how you thought a positive mood bias might enhance a person's score. "For example, if I really could distinguish A from B, then I might do better when I feel happy or am "pumped". Sometimes people say that they are "in the zone." If listeners need to be that way to do their best in blinded testing, I see it as a reason to question the validity of the testing. How can you assure that the people who need to be "pumped" will be during the testing?
I see no reason to question the testing procedure because it demonstrates that factors like mood (or time of day, or whether the subject just ate, or whether the subject took asprin, etc. etc.) affect performance. A host of factors can affect performance which is why some effort must be made to control them. The factor of expectation (or simple bias) can be controlled by blinding. Why do you think that procedure needs to be tested or checked or whatever? If you don't know which is which, you bias cannot affect your performance--it is that simple. Doesn't that make sense?

I continue to wonder whether there is something inconsistent about assuming attitudes, beliefs, and expectations can affect a listener's perceptions while at the same time assuming the act of blinded testing cannot affect his listening performance. If the mind and the way the mind and ears work together can be influenced by so many things, why is the testing itself exempt?
Blinding in a test does not mean cutting off eyesight. A typical audio ABX test lets people see just fine. Blinding in this context means removing the knowledge of which item test is which. You need to find out more, you are in no position to question testing procedure because you don't know what it is. What good is a test that tests if you can tell two things apart if you already know which is which. I wouldn't accept that as a test, would you?

Reflecting on school experiences, I also recall futile efforts at trying to beat the odds on exam questions. For example, being pretty sure the first three answers on an exam were false, I might guess the fourth should be true unless I was certain it was false. Listener's uncertainty or insecurity about failing could cause "trying to beat the odds" in blinded testing, a distraction that I suspect would hurt performance. As I said, you don't know enough at this point. Test subjects do not know how they are doing on the test until it is over. That cannot try to "beat the odds" as you suggest, because they generally don't know their score.

You said " My main point was that if a mood can effect the outcome of a listening test, then one's expectations certainly could (as in a sighted test)." I agree, one's expectations could affect the outcome of a sighted test, but I don't believe they necessarily would. Also, I think expectations could work either for or against hearing differences.
Right, one's expectations may or may not affect the result a test. The only way to be sure they are not affecting the result is to blind the subject (remove knowledge of which component is which). You have just explained why blinding is required in a valid listening test.

mystic

02-21-2005, 11:56 PM

I don't see what "positive" has to do with "correct". Postive (or good) relates to a mood (I thought from your comments). To my thinking your are confusing performance (%correct) with mood. Mood can affect performance: bad mood can decrease it, good mood can improve it (in comparison to "no mood" or neutral mood)--but they are different concepts.

Well, I would NOT let the subject explain what happended, I would let the data do so. If you want him to self-report his mood, fine. But his explanation of mood to performance is worthless. He shouldn't even know how he did on days he felt bad, because he is blinded. The test should merely look for correlations between self reported mood and performance. As an aside, the subejct could have said "I identified better on days when I was in a good mood, I did a bit worse on days I felt neither good or bad, and I did even worse on days I felt bad". (His explanations, however, carry no weight, the data will show if there is a correlation between mood and performance or not.)

I see no reason to question the testing procedure because it demonstrates that factors like mood (or time of day, or whether the subject just ate, or whether the subject took asprin, etc. etc.) affect performance. A host of factors can affect performance which is why some effort must be made to control them. The factor of expectation (or simple bias) can be controlled by blinding. Why do you think that procedure needs to be tested or checked or whatever? If you don't know which is which, you bias cannot affect your performance--it is that simple. Doesn't that make sense?

Blinding in a test does not mean cutting off eyesight. A typical audio ABX test lets people see just fine. Blinding in this context means removing the knowledge of which item test is which. You need to find out more, you are in no position to question testing procedure because you don't know what it is. What good is a test that tests if you can tell two things apart if you already know which is which. I wouldn't accept that as a test, would you?

As I said, you don't know enough at this point. Test subjects do not know how they are doing on the test until it is over. That cannot try to "beat the odds" as you suggest, because they generally don't know their score.

Right, one's expectations may or may not affect the result a test. The only way to be sure they are not affecting the result is to blind the subject (remove knowledge of which component is which). You have just explained why blinding is required in a valid listening test.

You accept results of blinded listening tests as truth. You do not accept results of sighted listening tests as truth. I get the impression you also don't believe a claim can be true unless it has been verified through blinded testing, but I may be misunderstanding you. You have confidence in the state of blinded testing in audio, believing its practice has always revealed the truth.

I accept results of objective tests as truth. Blinded listening tests do seem objective. But all this talk about how easily the mind is influenced makes me wonder about the influence of the testing itself. I'm not in a position where I have to assume the testing is objective for work or any other practical reason. So for me the reasonable conclusion is no conclusion.

RobotCzar

02-22-2005, 07:23 AM

Mash

02-22-2005, 10:11 AM

in trying to enlighten those who may simply be foolish.

Why do I write "those who may simply be foolish"?

Because "those who may simply be foolish" would not only be wasting their wealth on illusions. If they actually hold responsible positions in knowlege-based professions in Science, Engineering, IM and so forth which are NOT a part of the Mystical Audio Industry, if they discuss at their workplace the pseudoscience we read here they risk loosing all credibility with their peers. And once you have lost credibility with your peers in a knowlege-based profession, your career is over. Your superiors will simply find a way to "farm you out" or otherwise get rid of you. I sense that you already know this, and are trying to warn those who simply "will not get it".

Roger Russel, head of McIntosh Labs, has a wonderful site on speaker wires that not only relates the scientific information and tests but also presents the political marketing reality. It is well worth a careful read by one and all. Even "those who may simply be foolish".
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

E-Stat

02-22-2005, 10:34 AM

Roger Russel, head of McIntosh Labs...
Uh, no. According to his website he was the "former director of acoustic research at McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and originator of the McIntosh loudspeakers."

... that not only relates the scientific information and tests...
Tell me, which of the "tests" do you find most significant?

rw

Mash

02-22-2005, 10:50 AM

Is this a subtle attempt to be dismissive of the presented information?

And why should I select "which of the "tests" " that I "find most significant" ?? Why do you ask this?
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

Remember, I achieved a very favorable retirement from an EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE company, with full benefits, and at a favorable age. This would not have happened if I had walked around preaching the pseudoscience I often read here. Credibility in the knowlege-based professions is key, my friend. I know many who "didn't make it".

So be as dismissive as you wish, but understand that "I got mine".

E-Stat

02-22-2005, 10:55 AM

Is this a subtle attempt to be dismissive of the presented information?
I'm trying to uncover what you find to be important information.

Congratulations on the retirement.

rw

mystic

02-22-2005, 11:14 AM

Let's suppose you meet a person who claims to be able to tell Coke from Pepsi. Knowing that human perception is easily misled, you ask him to demonstrate that he can. He agrees and you pour the colas into cups and set up a test. You attempt to hide which is which from him and he, at first, objects but eventually agrees. You mix up the drink so he doesn't know which is which (but it is written under a piece of tape on each cup. He driinks each, taking a long as he likes, and being able to take as big a sip as he wishes. You ask if he can tell the difference and he says "yes, for sure".

The test is completed and you add up his score and find that his correct number of responses is exactly what you would expect by chance from someone who could not tell the difference between the colas.

You tell him the results. He says that there is something wrong with the test, because he knows that he can tell the difference. He says that it is unfair to not let him know which is which before hand and suggests that the pressure of the test affected his ability to do the test. You test him again, this time he is not so cocky. Again he fails to demonstrate he can tell the difference.

He still claims he can. He says your test is flawed because he needs to know which is which to tell the difference (I'll bet that helps a lot). He says that you need to test your test because it does not reveal the truth. Why would he lie about this, he asks? You say, because you are fooling yourself--your perception of taste is being affected by your expectations. You point out this is a well-known scientific fact. He says you are a pin head and that all you care about is numbers, not reality. Besides, he loves Coke and you are spoiling his fun.

You meet another guy. He says he can easily tell Coke from Pepsi. You say "That's nice, but I can't believe you until you demonstrate that you can because you tested somebody and found out they couldn't. He says, "well that was him, I can do it," You test him and he cannot distinguish Coke from Pepsi. He calls you a naysayer and says: "you think everything tastes the same because you can't tell the difference." You say: "neither can you" and until somebody does, I am not sure anybody can. I know one thing for SURE, just because people SAY they can doesn't mean they really can.

This is a rough approximation of what has happened with blind listening tests of amps and cables. Except the situation is much worse for these audio compoents, Much time has gone by and nobody has demonstrated the ability to distinguish these type of components. In addition, scientific test has established that people's hearing sense cannot distinguish the differences in sound at the levels measured from audio components.

The bottom line is what you consider logical or fair is not what I do, nor, I claim--what a scientific opinion would be.

Someday I'll get around to doing a blinded taste test to see if I can distinguish Diet Coke from Diet Pepsi. I drink a lot of both, but have no preference, and buy whichever is on sale.I think I can tell the difference, but wouldn't bet on it. It should be an easy test to do --much easier than a cable test. One problem might be the taste carryover from cup to cup, but rinsing the mouth with water between cups could be a solution. Another problem could be the repeated number of trials in a short period lessening the ability to discern. Rather than doing say 14 trials in one day, however, you could do two trials a day for seven days.

Suppose we deveop what we believe to be a flawless way to do blinded taste testing on subjects who say they can taste a difference between Coke and Pepsi. We then test 20 subjects, and none can tell a difference. I would only conclude those 20 subjects couldn't taste the difference in that test. However, if we had a scientific sample representative of all people who claimed to taste a difference, and they all failed to do so, I would conclude there probably is no one who can taste the difference. Sure, it's possibile some rare individual out there can do it, but not likely.

From what you have told me, I think you would conclude that if those 20 subjects can't taste a difference, no one can. I suspect you might further conclude all similar soft drinks taste alike. These extrapolations would be too much of a stretch for me.

I have respect for the opinions of scientists. But I know of cases where scientific opinions have been proven wrong. I also know that opinions of scientists can be different.

theaudiohobby

02-23-2005, 12:51 AM

in trying to enlighten those who may simply be foolish.

Why do I write "those who may simply be foolish"?

urm...some of RobotCzar's posts firmly places him in the same group, RobotCzar himself is a layman who is simply holding the opposite end of the audiophile myth. The precariousness of his position was brilliantly illustrated by Quagmire a while back in this excerpt

As part of his introductory speach he make the statement, "...there are no absolutes". From the back of the room, a hand is raised. The professor, looking a little bit bothered that someone had nerve to interrupt his speach reluctantly acknowledges the student. "Yes, what is it?" he says. The student stands up and asks, "I just wanted to know, sir... did you mean that last statement, absolutely?".

markw

02-23-2005, 06:00 AM

urm...some of RobotCzar's posts firmly places him in the same group, RobotCzar himself is a layman who is simply holding the opposite end of the audiophile myth. The precariousness of his position was brilliantly illustrated by Quagmire a while back in this excerptBelieve me, you wouldn't know if you were talking to someone with engineering experience. You've proved that already.

Now, as far as being a "layman" goes, there are quite a few "laymen" who are quite knowlwdgable in many areas.

Robo has come through many times with good, solid knowledge when it comes down to solid facts and explaining things. After you dismal showing on that decibles vs hearing thread in speakers last week, you proved you really aren't up to snuff in either theory or practal experience.

Your main contribution seems to be calling into question others advice, most times with no basis nor backup infornmation as to WHY you question it. Your usual snipe and scurry as evidenced here. You snidely point out what doesn't suit your beliefs (sometimes incorrect, but that's another story) in a condesending manner as if to insuniate that you know better and then scurry away without saying anything to clarify your position. This was evidenced by your incursion imto my discussion in the speakers forum as well.

Now, if you disagree with something then feel free to join in and express (intelligently) why you think what you do. Of course, you may meet with some people who may not agree with you and you might have to defend your statements on an adult level with some real, solid facts and /or evidence but hey, that's what this forum is about. This is an adult swim, kid. Just the facts, ma'm. No jolly snipe and runs allowed.

Simply throwing in childish snipes and running simply makes me think you are simply a poser with nothing of value to offer. Simply pointing fingers and snickering is a child's trick.

Now, would you care to explain why your belief that Robo is a laymen is a problem or how what he's saying is incorrect and should be ignored? If I didn't know any better I'd almost say that you are jealous that others can disagree and yet still carry on a deep, meaningful conversation based on facts and with civility and respect for each others position.

theaudiohobby

02-23-2005, 08:09 AM

Believe me, you wouldn't know if you were talking to someone with engineering experience. You've proved that already.I got to laugh here :p :p :p :p , I suppose your boo boo on the speaker board is still getting to you, get over it and move on, you were wrong pure and simple. There is no need brooding over old threads, it clouds clear judgement.

Does a preference or even knowledge of blind testing automatically indicate a knowledge of audio electronics theory. Do you join RobotCzar in saying that time domain performance and frequency domain performance measurements are audiophile myths?
I have repeatedly tried to tell you that there is no "time domain" and "frequency domain" that those concepts are made up to support the audiophile position.

markw

02-23-2005, 08:39 AM

...what problems do YOU find with what he says. After all, you're the one that cast a doubtful light on his input. .and tried to use the words of two "strangers" to you in doing so.

Did you ever ask them what they meant or did you simply pick and choose words that could be taken out of context and misconstrued to mean what you wanted to imply?

*Why not confront him yourself instead of sniping him? He doesn't bite and, if you can keep up with him, which I doubt, perhaps you could learn something.

...or is this just more of your smokescreen? Why does it seem that those with the most "imnpressive" monikers that have the least to offer? Perhaps your moniker would be more appropiately "the Audio Poser"?

And, if you think you came off so clever in that other forum, feel free. It's really kinda funny. Simple sniping with nothing of substance to add. ...Just like here. Now, if you wish to show where I made my "boo boo" instead of bombarding us your trademark hyena laughing smiley faces and scurrying off with no valid rejoinder, feel free. That's what you did there, too.

..but, then again, that's what I'm saying here now, isn't it? Thanks for proving my point so succintly.

Hmmmm... on second thought, maybe "The Audio Hyena" might be more appropo.

*Oops...I see you already did and, as I suspected, could not keep up with him either. It's a biitch going up against someone who knows what they are talking about and can carry on an intellectual discourse, ain't it? Oh well, you might as well snipe if that's all you have left.

theaudiohobby

02-23-2005, 09:12 AM

Read my revised post, care to answer the questions...I could always call you names but I will refrain from that and I expect you to do the same.

RobotCzar

02-23-2005, 02:10 PM

Note that audiohobby does not give his own opinions, he references high end audio pundits (but he does give is snide comments). Perhaps he will share his background (as I have done in the past) so we can better judge his expertise. But, then again, we can tell he does not have any, can't we? It seems he can be classed with the other high end faithful who live here. I guess this forum is therapy for them as I speculate that they cannot get people to listen to their ramblings in real life.

Face it audiohobby, you don't konw what "time domain" and "frequency domain" means, so why do you think you can correct people about them? Don't bother trying to tell me now, you had your chance. Now, go and take the time to learn something, quit taking the easy way out or no one will ever pay attention to what you say. When you put your thoughts down in forums you expose your ignorance. Ignorance can be corrected, why get so defensive about it?

markw

02-23-2005, 02:52 PM

We lined up in teams. As we approached the front of the line we were given a life saver.

The object of the game was to guess what color it was by the flavor without seeing it first.

You would think that's easy but until you've tried it, you have no idea how difficult that really is. I mean, it's most certainly doable to a great extent but you would be surprised how much our taste was influenced by the color cues.

Just a little food for thought. (yes, bad pun)

Now, on with the show. ...Move along... nothing to see here...

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 01:28 AM

markw

02-24-2005, 02:30 AM

RobotCzar,

You spoke out of your arse on time domain and frequency domain performance and that was the reason you became dead silent when faced with authoritative information. As for Markw, his childish sulk in another thread where he committed a booboo similar to yours, means that you have a companion to sulk with. I know more about time domain and frequency domain performance than you do and the proof is right up in this thread where you spoke out of your arse. I repeat you are in the same boat as those that you pursue, just opposite ends, extreme opinions that are out of touch with reality.Rather than being childish and foolish, both yourself and markw should learn to accept correction, that's true learning.Smiley faces, childish taunts and incorrect assumprions, even when made by several people don't make you right. It ain't a voting situation, where if two or more people misunderstand what they are reading that makes it right. You just jumped on the wrong dogpile and didn't even know what you were doing. Face it kid, ya saw two people who, like many newbies, misunderstood something jumping on me and you thought you would join in the fun and jumped in with your wise arse comments. Now, you're being asked to be a man and substantiate them.

Again, please prove that a 3 decible change results in "DOUBLE the audible change in volume", as was the original statement under dispute.

I thought I was pretty clear in stating my case. I'm still waiting to hear yours. C'mon kid, show me what ya got. Smiley faces don't count. If it did you would win.

And, for any interested in this train wreck, here's the thread with TAH's insightful comments. Please note that the original poster changed the question after the first three responses.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

And, I'm sure Robo would be open to any meaningful input that you could openly discuss on an adult level. Merely shooting a paragraph or so from another source without being able to understand, explain it and back it up doesn't count.

If not, then please drop it and let the adults carry on their conversations unimpeded with your childish taunts.

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 03:32 AM

Markw, it is you that should drop it as you are being foolish and childish, I have no need to add to that thread, newbsterv2 has said it all

I agree with that 100% but that conflicts with everything you say before it!
behave like an adult and accept that your original post on that thread was wrong. Get off this thread and nurse your lousy self-ego somewhere else. As for RobotCzar, I am sure he is wisely keeping quiet cos he now knows he is wrong.

markw

02-24-2005, 03:43 AM

Markw, it is you that should drop it as you are being foolish and childish, I have no need to add to that thread, newbsterv2 has said it all

behave like an adult and accept that your original post on that thread was wrong. Get off this thread and nurse your lousy self-ego somewhere else. As for RobotCzar, I am sure he is wisely keeping quiet cos he now knows he is wrong.Do you even bother to undersand what you cut and paste? Can you say "oxymoron"?

You really think he's a source you want to quote? He's the one who started this whole mess by making that foolish statement in the first place!

And again, you simply cut and past someone else's words. How about something that you wrote that explains your position? ...or are you gonna huff and puff and blow my house down?

I'd say that your condescending, high and mighty and above it all attitude is being called into question. now, you getto prove you realy CAN hold your own in t hese discussions. You've talked the talk. Now it's time to walk the walk.

It's time to either put up or shut up, kid.

Now, come up with something of your own akin to my post 22 on that thread defending your position.. After all, it's a fairly basic and simple concept so it shouldn't be too much of a task for one of your superior intellect and experience to explain it in your own words so a simple, misguioded fool such as my humble self could understand the error of my ways. I've lived under this "misconception" for over 40 years since I started in audio.

I would love to finally learn the truth from you. ...and, I'm sure the rest of the people reading this thread eagerly awaits enlightenment from one so wise as yourself..

So, it's the bottom of the 9th, one strike and no balls. Wanna take another swing?

And, I'm sure Robo ran away trembling in fear of your superior knowledge and is crying into his pillow because you say he's wrong.

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 04:55 AM

markw

02-24-2005, 05:00 AM

Markw

It is a pity that an individual (you) who has contributed positively in the past to many threads can become a carricature of very individuals he is trying to correct, goes to show how a huge ego and stupid pride can do a lot of damage to an otherwise intelligent individual. Get over it and you are getting more pathetic, big sulk!Strike two and still no balls.

More bluff and bluster, eh? All sizzle and no steak I'd say. What grade are you in, anyway?

As you are learning, simply cutting and pasting words from the internet without understanding the concepts of what they are saying and jumping onto dogpiles without understanding what is being discussed can be a double edged sword, eh? Looks kewl at first glance but when used excessively, the veneer proves to be quite shallow. Well, we're scratched the veneer and we're down to the real substance now.

I'm pretty sure you've pretty much shown us how valuable and researched your contributions are and simultaneously clarified your position in the intellectual pecking order in this community.

Hey, you jumped all over me saying I was wrong and still don't see where you blew it. I'm simply returning the favor and giving you a chance to redeem yourself and show the world how really, really smart you are.

Want to take another swing? One more and yer out!

Well, we've hijacjked this poor thread enough and it'e really not fair to the others here. Any more comments to me on my matter can be made on the original thread in the speakers forum. To make it easier fot you, here's a link to take you there. I'll not bring this up again in this thread (in Audio Lab) unless, of course, you do.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

See ya there I hope. I Iook forward to learning from you there.

Of course, if you have issues with Robo, then this is the place to air them. I look forward to you teaching him a thing or two.

Thanks for playing.

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 05:42 AM

markw

02-24-2005, 05:47 AM

I pity you, basically reduced yourself to a big sulk because someone pointed an error in a post of yours, a huge bruised ego..what to do? It is a pity that you joined the thread just to continue sulking, thankfully you have decided to put a stop to it.

Tell ya what. I'll make that a ball to keep the game going.

So, you've got two strikes and one ball.

I'm waiting... http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 05:50 AM

I thought you said your prior post was the last post on the subject, help yourself, stop sulking.

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 05:52 AM

Tell ya what. I'll make that a ball to keep the game going.

So, you've got two strikes and one ball.

I'm waiting... http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

Nobody cares, big sulk.

markw

02-24-2005, 05:54 AM

I thought you said your prior post was the last post on the subject, help yourself, stop sulking.As I said, and you can quote me on this, "I'll not bring this up again in this thread (in Audio Lab) unless, of course, you do."

...and you did.

I'm still waiting... http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

I'd call that a foul to keep the game alive. Two strikes and one ball.

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 05:57 AM

Have fun sulking then...the floor is open.

markw

02-24-2005, 06:02 AM

Have fun sulking then...the floor is open.Thanks for playing, kid. You've made my point quite well. ...and you wonder why most people simply ignore your input and don't respond?

You might want to be a little more careful whatyou say and who you say it to. I think you're gonna be called out a lot more when you open your snippy mouth.

Hope yer arse can keep the promises your mouth makes. I gotta say, it don't look too promising from what I can see here though.

It's all about credibility, kid, and simply calling names, reposting ambigious text you don't understand, bold print and smily faces doesn't cut it.

Come back in a few years when you grow up and can keep up with the class.

Markw out..

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 06:06 AM

Thanks for playing, kid. You've made my point quite well

What point, that you made a gaff, and you then proceeded to make a fool of yourself in this thread?

markw

02-24-2005, 06:09 AM

What point, that you made a gaff, and you then proceeded to make a fool of yourself in this thread?What are you, the black knight or what?

I'm waiting... http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

C'mon in. the water's fine... but watch out for the killer rabbit.

Seriously, you could always start over with a new moniker as long as you learn from this and don't make the same mistakes you did under this one.

RobotCzar

02-24-2005, 06:10 AM

Just for grins, I decided to check out my old textbooks regarding electric theory and application. Here are the three I checked, they are quite dusty but I don't think electromagnetic theory has changed much since I bought these books:

Weidner, R. T., & Sells, R. L. (1965) Elementary Classical Physics, Volume 2 (Electromagnetism and Wave Motion). Allyn and Bacon, Inc.:Boston

Corson, D. & Lorrain, P. (1962) Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves. Freeman and Company:San Franscisco

Ristenbatt, M. P., & Riddle, R. L. (1966) Transisitor Physics and Circuits, Second Edition. Prentic-Hall:Englewood Cliffs, NJ

None of these textbooks include either the phrase "frequency domain" or "time domain" in either the topic index or TOC.

Now, I know these books are not recent (I took these subject a while ago), nor are they as authorative as your Google searches; but humor me and check out your textbooks. Please provide a reference to the key concepts of time and frequency "domains". Such books are a cure for ignorance. Any explanation as to why these books don't mention this assumedly basic concept?

I don't claim to be anything but a "layman" when it comes ot electric theory and especially electric circuit theory, but I sure am not accpeting high end pundits as experts. I care not that the audio hobby club makes up stuff to talk about.

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 06:22 AM

markw

02-24-2005, 07:04 AM

There was a post here from our resident troll referencing a certain textbook a minute ago. Whoppened?

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 07:13 AM

markw

02-24-2005, 07:33 AM

... the crux of the matter is what do they say about it? As it stands, this link says nothing.

If you're trying to prove you don't simply post what you find searching the internet without understanding them, this really doesn't look too promising.

I found this page from the site pretty cute, though.

http://www.artofelectronics.com/uses.htm

RobotCzar

02-24-2005, 08:45 AM

Thankfully, a quick browse located a suitable book

Paul Horowitz, Winfield Hill The Art of Electronics, Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (1989)

cites both concepts in the index, I do not have access to the book but judging from the page reference (Pg 23), they are basic concepts.

Gee, you didn't read the book. What a surprise. You know it's right though and that it backs your misconceptions regarding frequency and phase. Right.

As I have tried to make clear to you, but you don't seem to be able to "get" is that it doesn't matter what somebody writes in a web site or book (fer crisakes, Robert Harley wrote a book). What matters is the validity of the source. You are never going to find a valid source simply by Google searching---give it up. I can find book reference to all kinds of high end nonsense (or flat Earth theories), that doesn't make them valid.

Why is it you think a book on "audio circuits" (whatever those are) would be different that one on electronic circuits? Aren't audio circuits electronic? Aren't electrical waves carrying an audio signal following the same laws of physics as those carrying other signals? Do differences in the "frequency domain" and "time domain" apply only to audio signals?

I have also tried to explain that these concepts can be used to divide up the topic for instructional purposes, but have no physical identity. You simply don't hear me because you think you know something. Does Mr. Horowitz back up your claims about the significance of the "domains". I have pointed out several times that frequecy and phase are both time related (in fact time defined) and they are aspects of the same physical entity (air pressure waves or electrical waves), but you do not respond. I think you do not because you do not understand these concepts. What do I have to do to get you to explain how errors in the "time domain" are resulting in bad audio? (And please explain why audio cirucuit designers keep ignoring this "problem".)

Please clarify your status as a layman, expert, hobbiest, or ...whatever. If you are a layman, then where do you get off "correcting" people about things you don't understand? State your opinion or better yet make a point, don't act like you have some special knowledge because you read a magazine and can do a Google search. And let me know if you want to talk about the issues, drop references, call names, or impugn character. I am willing to make you look bad on all accounts, but not so as it drags on and on as if staying power settles the issues.

Mash

02-24-2005, 09:04 AM

"The Art of Electronics", Horowitz & Hill (Cambrige)

"I've hunted high and low for good electronics textbooks. This one is the best, bar none. No extraneous math, lots of insider's information ... and a huge range of topics covered clearly and thoroughly. So well written that I've had difficulty putting it down!" -- CoEvolution Quarterly

I did find "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" referenced in the Index for Page 23, but they are not apparent in the TOC. Since I have not read this book (but the numerous favorable reviews suggest that I should), I do not know if the authors consider "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" to have useful meanings, or if they view thse terms as foolish. Since both are cited as being on Page 23, based on prior experience I would anticipate the latter.

Synonyms for Domain

Area
Field
Province
Realm
Sphere
Sphere of Influence

I suppose an enterprising poultry dealer could lure Audiophiles with "Free Domain Chickens" ........

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 09:37 AM

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 09:42 AM

I did find "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" referenced in the Index for Page 23, but they are not apparent in the TOC. Since I have not read this book (but the numerous favorable reviews suggest that I should), I do not know if the authors consider "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" to have useful meanings, or if they view thse terms as foolish. Since both are cited as being on Page 23, based on prior experience I would anticipate the latter.

Ya..ya.. and the sub-heading of that section was called debunking audiophile myths, nice try though.

Mash

02-24-2005, 10:11 AM

Mr A-H
Re your
"Ya..ya.. and the sub-heading of that section was called debunking audiophile myths, nice try though."

Have you read this book? You are telling us that "the sub-heading of that section was called debunking audiophile myths" ?

How interesting!

I have read MANY technical books, and having several similar terms cited on a common page early in the book was usually a poor sign. Either the author(s) dismissed the validity of the terms or they considered the terms inferior to more precise terms.

B/t/w this book is available from Amazon.com for $56 delivered, and for $54 delivered from bookpool.com

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 10:20 AM

Why is it you think a book on "audio circuits" (whatever those are) would be different that one on electronic circuits?

Aren't audio circuits electronic?

Aren't electrical waves carrying an audio signal following the same laws of physics as those carrying other signals?

Do differences in the "frequency domain" and "time domain" apply only to audio signals?

Does Mr. Horowitz back up your claims about the significance of the "domains"?

What do I have to do to get you to explain how errors in the "time domain" are resulting in bad audio?

And please explain why audio circuit designers keep ignoring this "problem"?

RobotCzar,

I have distilled all the questions you have in your post, do you have anymore questions to the list before I go away and answer them?

theaudiohobby

02-24-2005, 10:23 AM

I have read MANY technical books, and having several similar terms cited on a common page early in the book was usually a poor sign. Either the author(s) dismissed the validity of the terms or they considered the terms inferior to more precise terms.

Really Mr. Mash...most technical books introduce basic concepts in their introductory chapters, and then expand on these concepts in subsequent chapters. You are assuming too much Mr. Mash, trying reading the TOC of the book in question, it should give you a clue.

Mash

02-24-2005, 10:58 AM

Really, Mr. A-H

W/r/t your
"You are assuming too much Mr. Mash, trying reading the TOC of the book in question, it should give you a clue."

I DID read the Table of Contents, twice, and carefully.

As I wrote before, "I did find "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" referenced in the Index for Page 23, but they are not apparent in the TOC. "

In other words, "Frequency Domain" and "Time Domain" are nowhere to be found in the TOC. Nope. Not there.

markw

02-24-2005, 11:09 AM

B/t/w this book is available from Amazon.com for $56 delivered, and for $54 delivered from bookpool.comhttp://www.freegiftworld.com/gift.html?nopop=1&ADTGID=11324&xid=0&CID=39216&SID=KE87833

All ya gotta do is move to the states. There ya go, TAH. Don't say I never did anything for ya.

markw

02-24-2005, 11:15 AM

Really Mr. Mash...most technical books introduce basic concepts in their introductory chapters, and then expand on these concepts in subsequent chapters. You are assuming too much Mr. Mash, trying reading the TOC of the book in question, it should give you a clue.Generally, if a concept is introduced in an early chapter to be referenced later, it's usually mentioned by name in the subsequent chapters. In that case, most indices would show multiple references and ,if not, they would mention only the one that explained it, not where it was merely introduced.

Phrases like "that concept we mentioned in an earlier chapter" is a little vague for most technical publications.

jneutron

02-24-2005, 11:22 AM

It's getting rather tiresome, being e-mailed that someone has posted on this thread..

I'm unsubscribing this one..

Somebody wake me up should information arrive...

Cheers, John

Mash

02-24-2005, 11:28 AM

Mr markw:

Your referenced site does NOT offer the book under discussion for FREE.

That site offers the referenced book for FREE*.

Those little * can have some big teeth. Here are a few of those teeth:

Step 2: Complete sponsor offers
Sponsors cover the entire cost of your free gift, plus all the shipping & handling fees. By "completing an offer", we mean that you take delivery of the product or service provided by the sponsor. For credit card offers, you must be approved for and activate that credit card. Activation means completing a balance transfer or using your new credit card for a purchase. A pop-up window will appear after you click on a sponsor's offer with details on how to complete a particular offer.

It takes up to 60 days after you complete an offer before our sponsor notifies us. Once we receive this notification, your account will be updated accordingly.

Please note: Earning some free gifts requires you to complete more than one sponsor offer. Each gift has a Level which indicates the required number of sponsor offers that you must complete:

yadda-yadda-yadda

markw

02-24-2005, 11:29 AM

RobotCzar,

I have distilled all the questions you have in your post, do you have anymore questions to the list before I go away and answer them?Get some good answers. sumptin' tells me there's gonna be a quiz...

markw

02-24-2005, 11:34 AM

Mash

02-24-2005, 11:51 AM

While I considered that you were teasing him with the FREE* by posting it as FREE, I did want to avoid a wholesale slaughter of those here who suggest in their posts the credulity to purchase exotic wires and I/C simply because they 'want to believe'.

Sometimes adults aren't.

markw

02-24-2005, 12:16 PM

RobotCzar,

You ask for a textbook that references the concepts, I provide you one and you retort saying "You know it's right though and that it backs your misconceptions regarding frequency and phase" How would you know that without the reading the book first? Or did you forget that you specifically asked for textbook references, if you want to know what is in the book, you can either read it yourself or ask me to get it rather than build castles in the air which is how you got yourself into a mess in the first place... that if you are citing a reference book as a source of information you would at least know what it says.

Unless, of course, merely playing games and producing nothing substantial is the overall intent. I'm beginning to smell a troll...

I think any and all can see this attention starved kid for the clown he really is.

He just isn't worthy of any serious discussion. The kid simply hasn't got in him. He just wants the attention. He can't even own up to that decibles fiasco he started and that's year one stuff. I mean 40 (forty) posts asking him to either put up or shut up and he's got nothing to show for it. All he can do is play word games and thinks that he's clever.

Well, maybe he's got a point. So far it's worked. He's certainly got the attention he craves from superior minds. Maybe not the best kind of attention but to some, any attention is better than none at all.

I mean, I'm starting to feel like I'm carrying on a conversation with Paul Reubens in a Florida movie theater.

What say we simply ignore this kid until he produces something worthy of a response.

Now, he'll crow about how much bettter he is and how we can't match his superior intellect but by now I'm pretty sure any and all can see what's up. He ain't shown squat and everyone here, yeasayer, naysayer and maysayer alike can see that. It's kinda like worrying about a child calling you names because he's mad at you. You take it from the source.

Well, maybe a quick biitch slap once and a while when he asks for it ;), but you know what I mean.

So, any adults have any input on any other subject matter at hand?

theaudiohobby

03-01-2005, 06:22 AM

Now, I know these books are not recent (I took these subject a while ago), nor are they as authorative as your Google searches; but humor me and check out your textbooks. Please provide a reference to the key concepts of time and frequency "domains". Such books are a cure for ignorance. Any explanation as to why these books don't mention this assumedly basic concept?

First music signal is a time-variant signal, that it characteristics vary with time, however in electronics (especially in digital audio but not exclusive to it) musical signals can be represented in the as time invariant signals, here the signal is defined in terms of it frequency domain performance. This is possible because the frequency domain performance of a musical signal is defined in terms of discrete time samples. An analog signal can be successfully defined as an infinite set of successive discrete time signals. The frequency domain performance of time domain signal is effective a summation or (an integral) of the time domain representation of the given signal i.e. time parameter is a fixed quantity in the frequency domain representation of a music signal. In the time domain, the relationship between the input and output of a given signal is defined by the impulse response, however as can be readily appreciate this impulse response of a signal is frequency dependent, the frequency domain removes the complexity by assuming discrete time samples.

As can be readily seen from the brief introduction above, the frequency domain representation is simple performance parameter than time domain representation since it assumes time invariance i.e. fixed impulse response. This approach was popular in the early days of audio but the technology of the time, i.e. low sampling rates e.g 44.1KHz soon uncovered an unforeseen problem, i.e. an FIR filter in the name of brickwall filters have detrimental effects on audio quality at low sampling rates. Generally, filters in general are not subjectively benign at audio frequencies, due to their large departure from what can be regarded as an impulse response. Therefore the departure from the ideal impulse response has to be accounted for, an issue that is largely acknowledged in loudspeaker design and digital audio and more recently in amplifier design because of it measurable as well as audible consequences. The time domain behaviour is an issue in amplifier design as the published measurements of many amplifiers readily demonstrates that not an inconsiderable number of them show frequency dependent distortion and some of this frequency dependent distortion has its origin in the time domain.

So in answer to your questions RobotCzar here goes,

Why is it you think a book on "audio circuits" (whatever those are) would be different that one on electronic circuits?

Audio circuits deal with time variant signals, not all signals are time variant anyway.

Aren't audio circuits electronic?

Sure they are.

Aren't electrical waves carrying an audio signal following the same laws of physics as those carrying other signals?

Yes, the behaviour of a 300MHz signal and a 20KHz are different in so far as the relevance of various performance parameters, In certain fields, it sufficient to define a signal in it frequency domain representation.

Do differences in the "frequency domain" and "time domain" apply only to audio signals?

Most certainly, there is whole body of work on this, I have already referenced some in the past.

Does Mr. Horowitz back up your claims about the significance of the "domains"?

I am fairly confident that he does since he mentions the concepts alongside a RC circuit, moreover frequency domain and time domain resolution have become fairly standard parts of signal representation theory.

What do I have to do to get you to explain how errors in the "time domain" are resulting in bad audio?

I have already done so, it is by no means definitive but it points you in the right way

And please explain why audio circuit designers keep ignoring this "problem"?

The simple answer is that they do not and this can be readily seen in the material that you have poo pooed, when you amplifier references. Remember this, frequency response measurements does not capture phase shift nor does it capture the any departure from the ideal impulse response. For example, Time alignment is time domain effects compensation facility.

There is sufficient reputable work out there, some of the previous material were lectures notes from Stanford!, to show that you that your posts were simplistic and totally wrong wrt to their conclusion on time domain and frequency domain behaviour. I hope I have succeeded in humouring you and that you will eat humble pie and accept that you were 'out of your depth' when you ridiculed my objections to your overly simplistic view of audio quality measurement and perception.

Finally, what kind of references on time and frequency domain do you want to see?

theaudiohobby

03-01-2005, 07:03 AM

Unless, of course, merely playing games and producing nothing substantial is the overall intent. I'm beginning to smell a troll...

so far, as per this little diversion, you are the troll, approximately five extra posts since you said you were signing off and more tostill come, your huge ego will make sure of that.

theaudiohobby

03-01-2005, 07:51 AM

Nice cut and paste.

:mad: :mad: :mad: , what and where from? On this thread, you are nothing but a troll.

markw

03-01-2005, 08:27 AM

:mad: :mad: :mad: , what and where from? On this thread, you are nothing but a troll.I said I wouldn't bother with you until you said something meaningful but I still posted this. Hindsight made me think twice about going against what I had posted and deleted it but, you aw it first. In any case, here is the post I deleted.

I'm still waiting for you to "be a man" and finally prove that "3db up or down is DOUBLE the audible change in volume " statement that you staunchly defended with smiley faces and name calling.

That "nice cut and paste" was in reference to your response to RC here. Had it been your thoughts, I'm sure you would have posted immediately and not searched for almost a week before posting. Googling and cutting and pasting takes time . y'know.

Anyhow, I'm still waiting... http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9894

...but you aren't, you can't and won't. You've proven that already.

Anyhow, Markw out and abiding by his word. Sorry guys. On with the show, if anyone cares.

theaudiohobby

03-01-2005, 10:30 AM

I'm still waiting for you to "be a man" and finally prove that "3db up or down is DOUBLE the audible change in volume " statement that you staunchly defended with smiley faces and name calling
It shows how petty minded you really are, stop sulking and get over it, it is unbecoming of you, next time try not to carry over your sulking to unrelated threads. On this thread you are nothing more than a troll.

That "nice cut and paste" was in reference to your response to RC here. Had it been your thoughts, I'm sure you would have posted immediately and not searched for almost a week before posting. Googling and cutting and pasting takes time . y'know.
You are not doing yourself any justice here whatsoever, so the basis of your snide remark was a direct answer to a question posed by RobotCzar, who must be feeling silly by now and it forms less than five percent of the post, even then I wonder why Mash or yourself did not pick up on the information last week, it was always there, read my response to Mash about the TOC, match the TOC entries with the relevant index entries, its simple deduction.

Anyhow, Markw out and abiding by his word. Sorry guys. On with the show, if anyone cares.
A bit late in the day to close the stables, the horses have already bolted. On this thread, you pretty much scored an own goal by betraying a huge ego problem as well as a sulking demeanor, hence your lousy judgement and very silly bait.