Golden Ears Fail Again

[RobotCzar]

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]

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]

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]

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

Bingo!

[musicoverall]

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]

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.

*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]

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.

Nice rant, but you failed to answer either question. -Bruce

[FLZapped]

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?

Yep.

Eyespy's Place

-Bruce

[RobotCzar]

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]

Yep.

Eyespy's Place

-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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[jneutron]

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]

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]

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??