Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 145
  1. #51
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    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....
    A double blind test(DBT) works when it confirms a sighted listening claim. Whether the test works when it doesn't confirm a claim is less certain. Some audiophiles suspect the testing method has a null bias.

    Regardless of validity, the DBT lacks relevance as a tool for evaluating hifi equipment in the home because this method of testing is too inconvenient and too difficult to do properly. You are among the few on the Forum who have ever reported a personal home experiment with blinded testing.

    I doubt even the proponents of blinded testing use it in choosing hifi equipment. Although they believe speakers are audibly different, few report finding their favorites through testing.

  2. #52
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by mystic
    I doubt even the proponents of blinded testing use it in choosing hifi equipment. Although they believe speakers are audibly different, few report finding their favorites through testing.
    As I understand it, they believe DBT's aren't needed on purchases when there have been successful DBT's in the past, as there have been on speakers, tube vs SS amps and speaker wire 24awg vs 12 or 16 awg. When things measure similarly or the same, they require DBT's to "prove" there are differences, such as with amps, preamps and CDP's. They believe they are purchasing the finest sonic quality available when they buy $80 CDP's and $100 receivers because no DBT they are aware of has shown anything but null results.

  3. #53
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    As I understand it, they believe DBT's aren't needed on purchases when there have been successful DBT's in the past, as there have been on speakers, tube vs SS amps and speaker wire 24awg vs 12 or 16 awg. When things measure similarly or the same, they require DBT's to "prove" there are differences, such as with amps, preamps and CDP's. They believe they are purchasing the finest sonic quality available when they buy $80 CDP's and $100 receivers because no DBT they are aware of has shown anything but null results.
    We hear mostly about blinded testing to detect audible differences in components, but the testing also could be used to detect preference biases in cases where the components are already know to be audibly different. We do know there can be significant differences in the sounds of different models of speakers. We also know how a particular model sounds to a listener in sighted conditions may be influenced by his attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. In sighted listening, for example, a person might prefer the sound of a speaker that looks nice to one that is less attractive, but prefer the sound of the latter in a blinded test. However, it is very difficult to do blinded tests of speakers, and my guess is even the most enthusiastic proponents of this testing rarely use it before choosing which model to buy, relying instead on their sighted judgement.

  4. #54
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188

    A wasted effort

    "my tests don't prove anything, not even to me"

    This is one statement I wholeheartedly agree with. Your tests prove nothing.

    There weren't nearly enough trials to be statisitically significant. If you flipped a coin 13 times and it came up heads 10 times in a row, that does not demonstrate that the coin isn't fair and that after 1000 tries or 1,000,000 tries it wouldn't be nearly 50%/50%.

    The procedure was flawed. Without rapidly switching, you can't be sure there weren't other variables at work you weren't aware of. Did you just happen to listen to one cable on evenings you came home tired from work? Were there any other coincidences you didn't consider. It is very difficult to devise a fair test even when you try. That is why the test procedure needs to be published and reviewed by others who can analyze it for flaws and duplicate the results.

    But by far, most importantly, the test is the wrong one. There is only one criteria for testing cables if you accept the premise that the only function for a cable or connector is to get an electrical signal from point A to point B in a circuit with no change which would compromise its purpose and in this case, that is whether the cable is audibly different from one which ideal, namely a shunt. By this standard (the only rational one I accept) once a cable has demonstrated this property, looking further is pointless. The best cable is the cheapest one which performs this function reliably. If you need to alter the signal by changing its frequency response, buy a box of capacitors, resistors, and inductors and have a ball trying them out. It's cheaper and you can play with them endlessly. Personally, I prefer using an active equalizer for this purpose. It not only boils down to the same thing but it is inexpensive, easy to use, and entirely predictable in its operation.

    "This test served to reinforce strongly that cables should be the last thing someone tries to improve their system"

    No, IMO the selection of cables which perform identically to a shunt should be the first thing someone selects and the good news is that after about 70 or 80 years of manufacturing, testing, and understanding the performance of cables for all types of electrical applications, the cable manufacturing industry came up with inexpensive solutions to the simple problems audiophiles and sound engineers face decades ago. It is only the naive pursuit of something "better" by untrained audiophiles which has given life and profits to this niche industry.

  5. #55
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025

    What the F -@&#

    Hey Skep, I thought you swore never to return?


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    "my tests don't prove anything, not even to me"

    This is one statement I wholeheartedly agree with. Your tests prove nothing.

    There weren't nearly enough trials to be statisitically significant. If you flipped a coin 13 times and it came up heads 10 times in a row, that does not demonstrate that the coin isn't fair and that after 1000 tries or 1,000,000 tries it wouldn't be nearly 50%/50%.

    The procedure was flawed. Without rapidly switching, you can't be sure there weren't other variables at work you weren't aware of. Did you just happen to listen to one cable on evenings you came home tired from work? Were there any other coincidences you didn't consider. It is very difficult to devise a fair test even when you try. That is why the test procedure needs to be published and reviewed by others who can analyze it for flaws and duplicate the results.

    But by far, most importantly, the test is the wrong one. There is only one criteria for testing cables if you accept the premise that the only function for a cable or connector is to get an electrical signal from point A to point B in a circuit with no change which would compromise its purpose and in this case, that is whether the cable is audibly different from one which ideal, namely a shunt. By this standard (the only rational one I accept) once a cable has demonstrated this property, looking further is pointless. The best cable is the cheapest one which performs this function reliably. If you need to alter the signal by changing its frequency response, buy a box of capacitors, resistors, and inductors and have a ball trying them out. It's cheaper and you can play with them endlessly. Personally, I prefer using an active equalizer for this purpose. It not only boils down to the same thing but it is inexpensive, easy to use, and entirely predictable in its operation.

    "This test served to reinforce strongly that cables should be the last thing someone tries to improve their system"

    No, IMO the selection of cables which perform identically to a shunt should be the first thing someone selects and the good news is that after about 70 or 80 years of manufacturing, testing, and understanding the performance of cables for all types of electrical applications, the cable manufacturing industry came up with inexpensive solutions to the simple problems audiophiles and sound engineers face decades ago. It is only the naive pursuit of something "better" by untrained audiophiles which has given life and profits to this niche industry.

  6. #56
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    [QUOTE=skeptic
    This is one statement I wholeheartedly agree with. Your tests prove nothing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Rapid switching DBT's prove nothing, either. So it all goes back to whether or not the consumer hears a difference during normal listening. I do. As unreliable as that may be, all else is unreliable as well.

    BTW, I come home tired from work everyday!

    >The best cable is the cheapest one which performs this function reliably. <

    I agree with that. Unfortunately, the cheaper cable did not live up to its duty in my case.

  7. #57
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    If you need to alter the signal by changing its frequency response, buy a box of capacitors, resistors, and inductors and have a ball trying them out.
    Here we go again. There is no evidence or claim that what different cables do is alter the frequency response in any meaningful way. It's this old notion that it must be the reactance that drives the belief that the differences between cables can be modeled with an R, a C and an L. - Nonsense.

    Instead of debating what it is we hear, the naysayers attempt to force the discussion back into this reactance model, and then proceed to prove reactance can not do what the cable aficionados say they hear, it is a straw man argument.

    I think cables sound different, I do not believe for a minute that only tone controls or equalizers are needed to make one cable sound like another. If I believed that I would add equalizers or tone controls to my system (mostly they cost less than cables!! )

    What I hear is a change in grain, character, harshness and noise floor. As a result of these changes it often results in an apparent increase or decrease in frequency content at one or another frequency but I've never heard a cable change sound like changing the knob on a tone control.

    Seizing on the difficulty of language to accurately describe the cable issue avoids the crux of the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    ....the test is the wrong one...There is only one criteria for testing cables ..that is whether the cable is audibly different from one which ideal, namely a shunt. By this standard (the only rational one I accept)
    First semester logic: If A is different from B; then either A or B must be different from C (the shunt)

    ps. Many cables have been tested against the shunt model, see the discussions section at WireWorld. (Yes I know they must be money grubbing corporate opportunists and any opinion they promote is automatically suspect, luckily I have ears.)

  8. #58
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv

    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.
    Your argument is a strawman. No one has shown that anything outside of RCL is needed to accurately model speaker cables. If they have, please provide the necessary proof to back up your assertion. Please also show proof of your assertion that using distributed components at audio frequencies is any more accurate in describing the circuit than lumped components are.

    Dielectric absorption is a byproduct of the dielectric and this, in turn, is a part of the capacitance model. As such, this is easily accounted for. However, in speaker cables this is a non-sequitur as the circuit impedance is so low that any residual effect from the dielectric would be swamped out. So go right ahead and figure out the effects created by the energy from 1000pF into a circuit that is a fraction of an ohm. And how many dB down is it going to be from the main signal? Think it has any possibility of being audible?

    I don't understand where you are going with your RFI and heating statement, this is common to all unshielded speaker wire(or even wire in general). Actually, if your speaker wire is getting hot enough for you to detect it, you have the wrong guage wire and it doesn't take an engineer to figure that one out.

    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?
    And how often do they not? No one ever seems to mention that.....actually, does anyone really even know the answer to the first assumption? This is thrown out a lot, but never quantified.

    As it is, a good engineering manager will not be satisfied with "we heard something" - he's going to challenge you to measure it and quantify it. Otherwise there is no way to determine how severe the changes may need to be and what impact it is going to have on the product design cycle. Actually, most engineers are motivated enough to do this on their own without prompting.....gee, another strawman emerges from the rubble.

    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.
    This is another strawman argument. Engineering Models do not necessarily make a better product in single quantities. They do help make products that will perform more uniformly from unit to unit and reduce the cycle time from conception to market.

    There are so many other things an engineer does in the process of getting a product out the door that it is silly to even dream up this idea.

    I do agree that the greed at the top of the corporate structure would cause them to exclude anyone possible in order to make a buck, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. So we start with a strawman and end with one.

    In conclusion, you have presented a lot of arguments without any basis in fact or arguments that are not relevant to the discussion.

    -Bruce

  9. #59
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    [QUOTE=hermanv]
    What I hear is a change in grain, character, harshness and noise floor. As a result of these changes it often results in an apparent increase or decrease in frequency content at one or another frequency but I've never heard a cable change sound like changing the knob on a tone control.

    QUOTE]

    What I hear is a change in the imaging and soundstaging of my system, for the most part. I've never really heard a change in frequency content with a cable. Tone controls are a whole 'nuther matter. I realize that my comment won't be of much use to the science crowd around here but the lesser cable simply sounded "confused" - almost like it was getting conflicting messages from my amp. It just sounded "wrong" - not harsh or bright or dull. I'd have to work to describe it in usable terms but it did not do justice to the music coming from my system. As for grain...well, I stopped hearing grain in my system when I graduated from SS electronics to tubes.

  10. #60
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    In response to Skeptic, who wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic
    If you need to alter the signal by changing its frequency response, buy a box of capacitors, resistors, and inductors and have a ball trying them out.
    Hermanv writes:

    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    Here we go again. There is no evidence or claim that what different cables do is alter the frequency response in any meaningful way. It's this old notion that it must be the reactance that drives the belief that the differences between cables can be modeled with an R, a C and an L. - Nonsense.
    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA - where do you think passive crossovers come from?

    And BTW - there are plenty of claims such as this. One only needs to look at all the white papers from maufacturers who claim a more accurate frequency response from their product and what do the cite usually? Series inductance.(And you can put skin effect in there too, since this affects inductance eventually)

    And if you don't use RCL, what ARE you going to use? Even transmission lines are modeled as RCL structures. Want to use their conjugate, go right ahead, but at some point, you're going to return to RCL.

    As a result of these changes it often results in an apparent increase or decrease in frequency content at one or another frequency
    WOW! You have just argued against yourself. The description above is exactly what happens with the description below.

    but I've never heard a cable change sound like changing the knob on a tone control.
    Brilliant.

    -Bruce

  11. #61
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    I

    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA - where do you think passive crossovers come from?
    A passive crossover is device whose intent is to change frequency response. A cable is a device usually crafted NOT to change frequency response. There is little humor in your statement and even less information.

    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    WOW! You have just argued against yourself. The description above is exactly what happens with the description below.
    Perhaps if you read the post instead of a knee jerk response, I never claimed frequency response changes, I used the word apparently in a very specific way, I also described exactly what I hear in the previous sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    And if you don't use RCL, what ARE you going to use? Even transmission lines are modeled as RCL structures. Want to use their conjugate, go right ahead, but at some point, you're going to return to RCL.
    The models used for communications cables do use distributed reactance's to model loss (and only loss), that model does not explain why communications cables are twisted for example (unless they are coaxial) but they always are. That model does not deal accurately with skin effect nor does it deal with dielectric absorption. The fact that a sub set of cable behavior can be modeled with an RCL analogy does not rule out that cables have many other performance issues. In other words the model is far from complete. So since the cable effect is poorly understood you say it therefore can't exist. The creation of the universe is poorly understood, nevertheless I am here.

    Once again the opposition attempts, as always, to present an explanation for the wrong question. And then proceed to go on at great length to repeat that the wrong explanation isn't an explanation at all - duh.

    Let me re-state: ABX testing has PROOVED(!) that differences exist. The job is to find out what causes them. Technologists examined RLC parameters and pretty much concluded that those are extremely unlikely to account for the differences.

    So no matter how often it is stated that RLC does not explain cable differences this does not negate the established fact that there are differences, it only confirms that RLC is probably not the cause.

  12. #62
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    What I hear is a change in grain, character, harshness and noise floor. As a result of these changes it often results in an apparent increase or decrease in frequency content at one or another frequency but I've never heard a cable change sound like changing the knob on a tone control.
    You're not alone. The theorists have more than adequately eliminated what factors are not causing the differences.

    rw

  13. #63
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    You mean a $500 cable wont add 1db? Man,and thats sucxh a small price to pay for a gain.
    Look & Listen

  14. #64
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    You mean a $500 cable wont add 1db?
    The difference between good cables and great cables is subtractive. It is for what they don't add.

    rw

  15. #65
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    A passive crossover is device whose intent is to change frequency response. A cable is a device usually crafted NOT to change frequency response. There is little humor in your statement and even less information.
    You missed the point. Passovers are RCL circuits. Cables are RCL circuits. Therefore, to ignore that audio speaker cables cannot be modeled as RCL circuits is ignoring the obvious on your part. You have yet to prove your assertion that you can get any more accurate results by different methodology.

    Perhaps if you read the post instead of a knee jerk response, I never claimed frequency response changes, I used the word apparently in a very specific way, I also described exactly what I hear in the previous sentence.
    Not knee jerk at all, you were saying you heard 'apparent' changes in discrete frequencies caused by changing cables, and then argued against the idea that cables can do that. Apparent in this case would signal to most that you did not measure it to verify if precisely. Of course, you could now changing your posisiton and hanging your hat on the idea this was just an illusion and nothing actualy changed, except your perception. Which would make your whole cable theories moot, placing the argument squarely in the realm of psychoacoustics.

    The models used for communications cables do use distributed reactance's to model loss (and only loss), that model does not explain why communications cables are twisted for example (unless they are coaxial) but they always are.
    Guess you've never seen ladder line, or 4 wire parallel transmission line, for that matter. Have you forgotten about 300 ohm transmission line used for TV antennas???? (aka twinlead)

    That model does not deal accurately with skin effect nor does it deal with dielectric absorption. The fact that a sub set of cable behavior can be modeled with an RCL analogy does not rule out that cables have many other performance issues. In other words the model is far from complete. So since the cable effect is poorly understood you say it therefore can't exist. The creation of the universe is poorly understood, nevertheless I am here.
    The only place it is not understood is in between your ears, the universe not withstanding. The two are mutually exclusive in this case.

    I specifically asked you to make your case and yet you come back make the same assertions without supporting facts. If you are going to throw away decades of engineering knowledge with your superior methodology, you better be showing some proof you actually know what the hell you're talking about.

    So no matter how often it is stated that RLC does not explain cable differences this does not negate the established fact that there are differences, it only confirms that RLC is probably not the cause.
    Prove your assertion, especially in light of how important "apparent" has become to you.

    -Bruce
    Last edited by FLZapped; 05-25-2005 at 05:21 AM.

  16. #66
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    You're not alone. The theorists have more than adequately eliminated what factors are not causing the differences.

    rw
    No, engineers have. It's only audiophiles(pronounced audiofools) who hold onto the "flat earth" idea to justify their waste of money on snake oil.

    -Bruce

  17. #67
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    I specifically asked you to make your case and yet you come back make the same assertions without supporting facts. If you are going to throw away decades of engineering knowledge with your superior methodology, you better be showing some proof you actually know what the hell you're talking about.
    My case:
    1. Several people have repeatedly "passed" the double blind cable listening tests. Either they are psychic or there is in fact an audible difference between cables. Once any one person can do this repeatedly the argument that there is no difference is dead.

    2. The mathematics of reactance calculations for cables that are a meter or so long and conventionally constructed show that the reactance components are tiny with respect to the audio band and the circuit impedances, this makes the reactance components of a cable extremely unlikely to cause the "cable's sound signature" under discussion.

    3. I have thrown away nothing of engineering knowledge; I have only said that the RLC model by itself does explain how cables work. (Example: it is possible to build a cable with identical RLC values to your twin lead example that is effectively worthless for transmitting RF signals.)

    In other words there is a fact that cables sound different. There is a second fact that RLC does not seem to explain why they sound different. So the simple fact is that most people, and possibly no one, knows what causes the cable effect. I say most, because as I have said in other posts, there seem to be a small number of cable companies (examples like Kimber and WireWorld) whose cables get high ratings at many different price points. Even though they are built of different things someone there knows how to get good performance out of quite different ingredients.

    So you seem to be saying that in spite of absolute proof that cables do sound different, if I can't replace the RLC model with another science model then suddenly cables can't sound different anymore?

    In spite of 30 years as a communications engineer, I do not understand the answer. As an electronic engineer I was a powerful skeptic because I did the math. I concluded that a cable sound signature was an extremely unlikely phenomenon, but I listened and became instantly convinced that the RLC model couldn't begin to explain the differences I heard.

    I have discussed this with other engineers and the theories proposed slowly moved far out of the mainstream. I'm not willing to mention them here because the likely hood that they are the correct explanation seems pretty small.
    Last edited by hermanv; 05-25-2005 at 10:33 AM.

  18. #68
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    No, engineers have.
    Very well. Engineers have determined what the answer isn't.

    rw

  19. #69
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    Cables

    Exactly. Every time we try and discuss a possible explanation, we are dragged back into the it does, it doesn't exist diversion.

    Hey moderator: How about a thread where we discuss possibilities with the given that participants acknowledge no debate about whether a difference exisits?

  20. #70
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    Exactly. Every time we try and discuss a possible explanation, we are dragged back into the it does, it doesn't exist diversion.

    Hey moderator: How about a thread where we discuss possibilities with the given that participants acknowledge no debate about whether a difference exisits?
    Feel free to post such a thread in the cable forum where the guidelines are more open. The intent of the Audio Lab was to focus the discussion on scientific principles and tests as opposed to anecdotal experience.

    I'm pleased that the former era of inappropriate personal attacks remains in the past. I certainly have no trouble with benign jabs such as Zapped's "audiofools" comment.

    rw

  21. #71
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    [QUOTE=hermanv]Exactly. Every time we try and discuss a possible explanation, we are dragged back into the it does, it doesn't exist diversion.

    QUOTE]

    I'm always amazed that some people on this board expend such massive amounts of time and energy on something they believe doesn't exist!

  22. #72
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    Here we go again. There is no evidence or claim that what different cables do is alter the frequency response in any meaningful way. It's this old notion that it must be the reactance that drives the belief that the differences between cables can be modeled with an R, a C and an L. - Nonsense.

    Instead of debating what it is we hear, the naysayers attempt to force the discussion back into this reactance model, and then proceed to prove reactance can not do what the cable aficionados say they hear, it is a straw man argument.

    I think cables sound different, I do not believe for a minute that only tone controls or equalizers are needed to make one cable sound like another. If I believed that I would add equalizers or tone controls to my system (mostly they cost less than cables!! )

    What I hear is a change in grain, character, harshness and noise floor. As a result of these changes it often results in an apparent increase or decrease in frequency content at one or another frequency but I've never heard a cable change sound like changing the knob on a tone control.

    Seizing on the difficulty of language to accurately describe the cable issue avoids the crux of the matter.

    Fascinating. There is a 'prize' of several thousand dollars waiting from rec.audio.high-end to anyone who can pass a DBT of a pair of cables that have been vetted to be within 0.01 dB of each other at three FR test points. I urge you to consider taking them up.

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en

    IIRC the Amazing Randi's $1 million paranormal challenge may also cover dubious audio claims, but you'll have to check with his organization to verify that.




    ps. Many cables have been tested against the shunt model, see the discussions section at WireWorld. (Yes I know they must be money grubbing corporate opportunists and any opinion they promote is automatically suspect, luckily I have ears.)

    It's curious that no audio cable manufacturer (and certainly no *high-end* cable mfr) has ever published any DBT results in scientific literature..or even in promotional literature, AFAIK. Apparently that includes Wireworld. Wireworld is wrong about ABX cable tests...they *can* be set up so that the user does the switching. Contrary to what Wireowlrd calims, they also certainly can be and are used in mp3 development (see www.hydrogenaudio.org). So Wireworld is a rather suspect source to me.

  23. #73
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    My case:
    1. Several people have repeatedly "passed" the double blind cable listening tests. Either they are psychic or there is in fact an audible difference between cables. Once any one person can do this repeatedly the argument that there is no difference is dead.
    It is certainly possible that difference in guage , length, or construction can result in audible cable differences. That two cables *can* sound different is not a controversial or unreasonable claim. So it's always important to note under *what* condition differences were heard.



    In other words there is a fact that cables sound different.

    There is a fact that cables *can* sound different....that's a *different* fact suggesting they all do...or that any given pair does.


    There is a second fact that RLC does not seem to explain why they sound different.
    No, that is a *claim*...unless you can demonstrate that two cables with the same RLC values sound different in a DBT.


    So the simple fact is that most people, and possibly no one, knows what causes the cable effect. I say most, because as I have said in other posts, there seem to be a small number of cable companies (examples like Kimber and WireWorld) whose cables get high ratings at many different price points. Even though they are built of different things someone there knows how to get good performance out of quite different ingredients.
    This 'cable effect' has yet to be demonstrated scientifically, hence the explanation would be premature.It is certainly NOT the case that in the engineering world, audible differences between cables are thought to be 'unexplained'. Nor has the AES to my knowledge ever published any demosntrations of this unexplained 'effect'.


    So you seem to be saying that in spite of absolute proof that cables do sound different,
    Such proof has not yet been offered. There is plenty of proof, however, that cables *can* be made to sound different.


    In spite of 30 years as a communications engineer, I do not understand the answer.
    If you have data on such an astonishing 'effect' , why have you not published it?

    As an electronic engineer I was a powerful skeptic because I did the math. I concluded that a cable sound signature was an extremely unlikely phenomenon, but I listened and became instantly convinced that the RLC model couldn't begin to explain the differences I heard.
    That doesn't sound very scientific. DId you do a proper DBT series? WHere's the data?


    I have discussed this with other engineers and the theories proposed slowly moved far out of the mainstream. I'm not willing to mention them here because the likely hood that they are the correct explanation seems pretty small.
    Oh...I see.



  24. #74
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    25
    One might also consider the rather authoritative essays from audio component engineers Doug Self and Rod Elliot, that touch upon speaker cable differences:

    http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...o/subjectv.htm

    http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p2.htm#spkr-leads

    and some ABX results of speaker cable comparisons:

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

  25. #75
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by krabapple
    One might also consider the rather authoritative essays from audio component engineers Doug Self and Rod Elliot, that touch upon speaker cable differences:
    Carlstrom's data is from the seventies and Self's is from the eighties. The NYT article was lacking in any details other than cables can offer the last two percent of performance.

    Got any real tests using something like Valhalla more recently than 15 years ago?

    rw

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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
  •