Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 145
  1. #26
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    I used the remote for volume and it doesn't click so I couldn't count them. Believe me on one thing - I had no cues of any kind. There would be no real point in being dishonest since my test won't sway anyone. It was done for my purposes only.
    It is really important that you understand that being cued has nothing to do with honesty. You can leave a cue or respond to one without knowing that you are. I think you had some misunderstanding on this point previously. You can be tipped by something that you are not aware of. Also, there could be true differences in the sound you are hearing that are due to factors other than the cables, but I admit you did your best to address both of these factors.

    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    As for "knowing" the answer, well... I still don't. To me, the cables had significant if subtle differences that I picked up on 77% of the time. To you, there's another explanation. The world appears to be spinning on the usual axis, no? I will continue to encourage those with open minds to perform their own tests rather than blindly (heh, heh) follow either the subjectivist or the objectivist path. I think that's reasonable given my test results - reasonable, if not necessarily valid from a scientific POV.
    Yes, I was probably wrong to label you as a knowing the answer (if I did that). You have suggested that you have heard cable differences which does classify you as belieiving that audible cable differences exist, but you have never said you "know" or are certain that the differences you hear are due to cables. The fact that you ran a test is testimony to your uncertainty. Sorry if I implied you felt you knew the answer in advance.

  2. #27
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    You are correct that a p value of .046 is statistically significant at the (generally accepted) aphla of 0.05. You do not indicate how you calculated the value so I don't know if your 0.046 value is correct (as I didn't calculate it). It very well might be correct, but I am reluctant to just take people's word on these things (given the nature of some people who respond in this forum). If you want me to accept your value, please say how you got it..
    The p value is from the ABX binomial probability table at David Carlstrom's ABX web page:

    http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_bino.htm



    [QUOTE=RobotCzar]To some extent the statistical result is irrelavent as formal experimental procedures were not followed and the number of trails is very small (13). I don't think statistical significance is extremely important in tihs disucssion as the experimenter was not preprared to accept an alphal level prior to the experiement and we can all agree than 10 of 13 is a positive result in this case.[/QUOTE

    I would expect skepticism when the positive results of a test go against beliefs. Of course if the experiment was faulty, the statistical results may be meaningless. What musicoverall did seems sound, but we don't know for sure that unintentional bias was not a factor. Nor do we know for sure that he didn't fabricate the whole thing(no offense intended, musicoverall ). Given the lack of any guarantees about such informal tests, I wonder whether positive results will ever cause naysayers to soften their beliefs.

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by mystic
    Nor do we know for sure that he didn't fabricate the whole thing(no offense intended, musicoverall ). Given the lack of any guarantees about such informal tests, I wonder whether positive results will ever cause naysayers to soften their beliefs.
    No offense taken - I figured this would come up. All I can say is that since I in my wildest fantasies never assumed an objectivist would be swayed by the slightest iota as a result of my test, the only one hurt by dishonesty on my part would be me. I respect reality and if reality would have shown no differences (or if I had found myself guessing most of the time), I would have been much closer to being a naysayer. As I mentioned before, the best I can do at this point is to encourage others to test themselves. Interestingly, the differences I heard blind were the same ones I heard sighted, just to a lesser degree.

    As for naysayers softening their beliefs, I think only a series of positive test outcomes done in the company of others and using an ABX switchbox will accomplish that... or some new measurements on cables! I'm not being glib when I say that but if I were, I would remind myself that I haven't studied physics or electrical engineering for decades and then hear of a group of people essentially denouncing what I had studied.

  4. #29
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    At no time did I suggest that "a few metrics" would charaterize all aspects of reproducing musical content...

    I never said how many metrics are involved
    Ok. What are all the cable metrics?


    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    There is a lot of silliness in the world. Believing that you can hear better than instuments is one of them, it is simply ridiculuous in my opinion--like saying you can see further than a telescope.
    Please explain the relevance of these comments as to Musicoverall's blind speaker cable test results.

    rw

  5. #30
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    If God did a blind cable test,some of you would not belive his outcome. I'm wondering if the ones that have a problem with this test are the ones with $10 afoot speaker wire?
    Look & Listen

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    If God did a blind cable test,some of you would not belive his outcome. I'm wondering if the ones that have a problem with this test are the ones with $10 afoot speaker wire?
    Well, first it would have to be proven that God exists!

    $10 per foot??!!??! The zipcord I tested that has been claimed on this very board to be as good as anything cost me less than $10 for 20 feet!

    As for believing MY test outcome, no one has that obligation. First of all, I'm not God!
    Second of all, I could be seen as having an agenda. I expected that rebuttal and I couldn't fault anyone for thinking that way. Also, the test itself was not totally scientific. I didn't set it up to prove anything to the scientific community.

  7. #32
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Please explain the relevance of these comments as to Musicoverall's blind speaker cable test results.

    rw
    I believe those comments were in response to Shokhead's post of 3/30/05 rather than directed at my test. Personally, I believe that while we don't "hear" better than instruments, we "decipher" what we hear and instruments do not.

  8. #33
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    I believe those comments were in response to Shokhead's post of 3/30/05 rather than directed at my test.
    Ah. The reference wasn't very clear. That's why I always include a quote to clarify to whom or what I am responding.

    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Personally, I believe that while we don't "hear" better than instruments, we "decipher" what we hear and instruments do not.
    Agreed. We are able to evaluate multiple criteria simultaneously in reconstructing the musical event. Then we apply our preferences to the outcome.

    Finally, my new speakers are enroute from Salt Lake City to Atlanta and arrive Monday. Once I get them broken in and accustomed to their sound, perhaps I'll take the time to conduct a similar test. Or, compare some Kimber Palladian power cords that a friend of mine raves over to mine.

    rw

  9. #34
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Agreed. We are able to evaluate multiple criteria simultaneously in reconstructing the musical event. Then we apply our preferences to the outcome.
    Yes, and of course the question then becomes are we evaluating accurately or not. I struggle with that word as it pertains to audio because I've heard some systems that measured extremely well and that didn't communicate musically. Conversely... etc, etc. It's always the system that I find sounds "best" is the one I deem "more accurate" - which is not technically correct. On the other hand, I've been fortunate enough to hear some master tapes that are both highly accurate and wonderful sounding. The same goes for certain components. So applying my preferences to the outcome is crucial because if I had to spend my life listening through cheap receivers, cheap cd players and cheap cable, all of which measures well, I'd be less happy with the outcome... and I'm not one to grit my teeth while proudly proclaiming that I have an "accurate" sound system.

    I'm dying to know how those speakers work out! If I were afflicted with constant "upgraditis", I'd probably find myself a bit jealous!

  10. #35
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    On the other hand, I've been fortunate enough to hear some master tapes that are both highly accurate and wonderful sounding. The same goes for certain components. So applying my preferences to the outcome is crucial because if I had to spend my life listening through cheap receivers, cheap cd players and cheap cable, all of which measures well, I'd be less happy with the outcome... and I'm not one to grit my teeth while proudly proclaiming that I have an "accurate" sound system.
    Indeed. While my music listening is certainly not limited to only a small collection of un-compressed, un-limited, un-equalized, un-mixed-down recordings, they do offer a good point of reference using un-amplified instruments.

    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    I'm dying to know how those speakers work out! If I were afflicted with constant "upgraditis", I'd probably find myself a bit jealous!
    My guess is that you and I are not among those caught up in such. The U-1s replace speakers I used for over twenty years. I hope they will be my last!

    rw

  11. #36
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Ok. What are all the cable metrics?

    Please explain the relevance of these comments as to Musicoverall's blind speaker cable test results.

    rw
    Why ask me for justification of my comments? It all seems pretty obvious. I went off about ears vs. instruments because shokhead said "I'll go with a hearing test over any instrument most test anytime." Did you not see that comment? My comments on metrics was a response to your comment (as I said) not musicoverall's test.

    Cables do not transmit, transduce, or create sound. They carry an electric signal. It has been known for over a century what metrics are involved. Impedance (composed of inductance, capacitance, and resistance) is all there is that can affect the electric signal in a passive device like a cable. These can all be measured and how they affect electric signal transmission is completely known. Musicoverall prefers a direct test, which is fine, but the fact that the impedance and distortion of cables is very very small compared to the overall impedance of the internal wiring of the speakers (many yards of very thin wire in the voice coils) and the crossover network, strongly suggests that the electrical effects of cables have no audible effect on what we hear.

  12. #37
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    Did you not see that comment?
    I did but since your response was not to his thread, I thought it was to the post in general where it didn't make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    It has been known for over a century what metrics are involved. Impedance (composed of inductance, capacitance, and resistance) is all there is that can affect the electric signal in a passive device like a cable.
    I would characterize three as "a few".

    rw

  13. #38
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    The U-1s replace speakers I used for over twenty years. I hope they will be my last! rw
    I expect my Maggie 20.1's to be it for me. I did upgrade my cables as you know and also my DAC over the last 3-4 months which is more upgrading than I usually do in 5 years!

  14. #39
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    I expect my Maggie 20.1's to be it for me.
    They were my close second choice. I heard HP's nicely driven pair in Seacliff a while back. In some ways, I preferred them to the big Alons. I would like hearing his multichannel rig using 20.1s as mains and 3.6s as center and rears.

    rw

  15. #40
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    If God did a blind cable test,some of you would not belive his outcome. I'm wondering if the ones that have a problem with this test are the ones with $10 afoot speaker wire?
    Well sure, since I think the very idea of God is, in itself, simply absurd. Just as absurd as some of the marketing BS you read about speaker cables.

    Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there is such a thing as speaker cable that is audibly more neutral than basic 12 gauge copper speaker wire. With the amount of marketing BS one would have to wade through to find those cables it seems about as easy as finding a needle in a haystack. (realizing that the actual (if it exists) audible difference is probably far less than the pre-disposed bias psychologically induced by hearing claims, seeing the price, or seeing the cables before you listen, or other cues like the self satisfied grin of the person demonstrating the cables to you...).

    Listener bias has been well and extensively documented to have significant effect. Talking to someone who has owned a respected speaker company for over 30 years and once had gone from selling audio equipment from his dorm room at MIT to running a chain of audio stores, the only cases where he had known there to be an actual audible (by him, or others) differences (in "double blind" tests) in speaker cables were due to resistance in the cable.

    Of course, there are many ways one could make cable inferior to basic copper wire (that is of sufficient thickness to offer a low enough resistance relative to the impedance of the speakers being driven) but superior cable probably only exists in the MINDS of listeners, if they THINK it sounds better, then well, they'll probably be happier with it and being happy is good.

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Critofur
    but superior cable probably only exists in the MINDS of listeners, if they THINK it sounds better, then well, they'll probably be happier with it and being happy is good.
    Can't argue with that. My ears heard differences, my mind interpreted them, and I'm happier with superior cable.

  17. #42
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Critofur
    Well sure, since I think the very idea of God is, in itself, simply absurd. Just as absurd as some of the marketing BS you read about speaker cables.

    Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there is such a thing as speaker cable that is audibly more neutral than basic 12 gauge copper speaker wire. With the amount of marketing BS one would have to wade through to find those cables it seems about as easy as finding a needle in a haystack. (realizing that the actual (if it exists) audible difference is probably far less than the pre-disposed bias psychologically induced by hearing claims, seeing the price, or seeing the cables before you listen, or other cues like the self satisfied grin of the person demonstrating the cables to you...).

    Listener bias has been well and extensively documented to have significant effect. Talking to someone who has owned a respected speaker company for over 30 years and once had gone from selling audio equipment from his dorm room at MIT to running a chain of audio stores, the only cases where he had known there to be an actual audible (by him, or others) differences (in "double blind" tests) in speaker cables were due to resistance in the cable.

    Of course, there are many ways one could make cable inferior to basic copper wire (that is of sufficient thickness to offer a low enough resistance relative to the impedance of the speakers being driven) but superior cable probably only exists in the MINDS of listeners, if they THINK it sounds better, then well, they'll probably be happier with it and being happy is good.
    And alot lighter in the wallet to.
    Look & Listen

  18. #43
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    51
    Critofur said something that falls in line with my thinking. Excellent products that approach a similar ideal should converge together to become similar or nearly identical. If we take as an ideal "high fidelity", then a group of really well designed and manufactured cables would be extremely hard if not impossible to tell apart, assuming they approached the ideal closely.

    On the other hand, if significant differences were heard, then only a few, one, or no cables would be near the ideal; that of zero signal degradation.

    I've noticed a correlation between radical cable designs that reject the bulk current transfer model at LOW relative current densities, and the high DC resistance they present between the amplifier and loudspeaker. By essentially using less cross sectional area, they return to the days of 24GA zip cord, when a typical amp had such a low damping factor the only thing you would lose with highly lossy wire was loudness, and a subtle amount at that.

    I believe a major proportion of differences between similar measuring loudspeakers is due to settling time. Two major components of settling time are from the cabinet, and the drivers. Damping Factor interacts mainly with the latter. By discarding DF through "skinny wire", settling time is extended, artificially enhancing acoustical energy output. This is the "bloom" and "warmth" you hear people talk about. Ironically, polar phase and waterfall plots have been with us for many years, but many designers I've met discount their critical importance. Those measurements show the signal being emitted not just in exact synch with the input signal, but somehow time shifted. These same designers also use big drivers with significant cone breakup modes, high mass that resist voice coil control, and a whole kitchen sink of materials that release energy randomly.

    The conclusion is that sometimes a "bad" cable, that is a cable that significantly departs from approaching the ideal as much as the state of the art allows, may actually "help out" a bad loudspeaker to sound the way the listener wants it to sound. So some people will forever be trying to tune their systems by swapping wierd cables around, instead of buying or designing decent speakers that address the problems directly.

    Ultimately, the argument really is about accuracy and the people who think their biases prefer it, when in reality they are after a certain "sound" that may have nothing to do with fidelity to the original performance. Maybe if we abandoned "high fidelity" as a requirement for enjoying music reproduction, many arguments would simply fade away, because people would stop claiming their ideal is accuracy. (e.g. "I like really accurate sound as long as its from a high 2nd order harmonic producing tube amp, playing through expensive skinny wire, into horn loaded speakers")

    Hats off to Musicoverall; he DID where most others just TALK.
    “The only thing to be Patriotic about is the Truth.”
    MAS

  19. #44
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Toga
    [COLOR=Navy]
    Ultimately, the argument really is about accuracy and the people who think their biases prefer it, when in reality they are after a certain "sound" that may have nothing to do with fidelity to the original performance. Maybe if we abandoned "high fidelity" as a requirement for enjoying music reproduction, many arguments would simply fade away, because people would stop claiming their ideal is accuracy. (e.g. "I like really accurate sound as long as its from a high 2nd order harmonic producing tube amp, playing through expensive skinny wire, into horn loaded speakers")
    ]
    I struggle with the term "accuracy" because it's used by two sets of people, both of whom use it differently than I. One set of people look at a components measured specs and claim it to be accurate or not. One set of people listen to a component and despite the measurements, proclaim it accurate or not. Until I hear the source (master tape), I'm not in a position to claim a component to be one way or the other.

    Consequently, I go for my personal preferences. I've listened to several systems that would be termed accurate because of their measurements and they sounded terrible, even with good recordings. I've also heard several systems that I thought sounded good but not accurate... i.e there was a bit too much added sweetness and the whole presentation just screamed "reproduction"!

    I use live music as my barometer and I choose components that most closely sound as MY perceptions tell me is the sound of live music, despite the measurements. This goal has led me to vinyl and SACD, planar speakers, high powered tube amps, and high definition cables. I don't say my way is the accurate way; I say it's my preference. So I'm right there with you on the "accuracy" issue - I don't use it and I don't think the people that do are qualified to do so until they compare the component/system to the master tape.

  20. #45
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Live recording would have the least accuracy?
    Look & Listen

  21. #46
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    Live recording would have the least accuracy?
    No, but my perception or aural memory of the live event might not be accurate. I choose components that best fit into my perception of what live music sounds like. Those components aren't always the ones that measure the best.

  22. #47
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    To musicoverall

    Please repeat your blind listening test with one minor modification; wait one year between each test. This would prove forever that you can' tell the cables apart.

    Seriously why wait 24 hours? This makes the test artificially hard. The simple question is: can you (anyone) reliably hear a difference?

    Many have and they've documented it. Once any one person pulls this off he is either psychic or -gasp - there's a detectable difference between cables.

    All the naysayers are so proud of pounding facts over opinions endlessly but then ignore facts that are easily available with a little research.

    Robot_Czar: Resistance, capacitance and inductance are by no means the only technogical properties of cables. No cable carrying time variant signals can be accurately modeled with a single R a single C and a single L ask any communications designer. Besides the distribution of these first order reactive devices, cables also have dielectric absorbtion, they pick up and radiate RFI signals and exhibit thermionic heating. I do not claim any of this explains the differences, it's just that trying to model a complex real world behavior with a simple set of substitutions does not work for cables (or anything else) if you examine the results closely.

    The substitution of music with test signals has exactly the same limitations, yes it provides data, no it does not provide a definitive model of how the unit under test will handle real world signals. Like I've stated before, all amplifier designers listen to their designs, why would they bother to do do this? Often the listening tests result in iteritive design changes - huh - didn't this show up in the test results?

    Why even employ engineers? Circuit simulators today are excellent, the models they produce are more accurate than ever, but design labs are still full of humans. Given todays corporate cost models, you bet your ass they'd dump them in a heartbeat if they could.

  23. #48
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    Please repeat your blind listening test with one minor modification; wait one year between each test. This would prove forever that you can' tell the cables apart.

    Seriously why wait 24 hours? This makes the test artificially hard. The simple question is: can you (anyone) reliably hear a difference?

    .
    My point was to evaluate the cables in the same manner as I listen to music...relaxed and attentive... no stress. Further, the cables had to be changed while I was away and while the swapper was available. I didn't find the test particularly hard. I was absolutely positive which cable I was listening to 8 of 13 times. I would have bet the farm on it. Now a quick 30 second burst of music and a quick guess? THAT would have been hard... not to mention that it would have likely produced a null result.

    I've been reading about DBT's a bit lately with respect to audio gear (and in general). It seems there are a lot of opponents to these tests with an awful lot of seemingly good reasons why they don't work. Interesting....

  24. #49
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968
    That was supposed to say "can't tell". not "can' tell" sorry, complete change of meaning.

    I am a firm believer in cable differences and have put considerable money into my belief.

    When I demonstrate two cables at home, non audiophiles can easily hear differences.

  25. #50
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    Cable phenomina

    For me the question on cable sonic differences should move on to "why do these differences exist?"

    I am an engineer, I've done the math, it doesn't explain what's going on. So the naysayers have an excellent point. But the inability to explain how the universe was formed does not negate it's existence. Just like the fact that resistance, capacitance and inductance doesn't explain cable sonic differences doesn't in any way guarantee that there aren't any differences.

    Let me clarify, the differences I hear between cables could not be eliminated by setting a tone control to a different position, it is not that kind of change. What I hear can best be described as a non-audiophile friend described it: "There was a reduction in dirt, now I get it".

    The noise floor dropped, hash was reduced, detail and clarity were improved. This is what I and my audiophile friends experience with the better cables.

    We do not know how this is possible, but because each cable we have tried has distinctive differences, about which hash, which band and how much change. When we discuss the tests, we hear very similar things although either language or ability to describe these things seems quite limited.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-14-2013, 08:44 AM
  2. RGA Reviews Page 3 - yes still more.
    By RGA in forum Speakers
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-11-2004, 05:10 PM
  3. JBL's Internal Monster Wiring
    By okiemax in forum Cables
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 07-14-2004, 09:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •