AQ"s DBS A reality?

I'm curiuos about the AQ Jaguar RCA.One is being broken in for me to try at a local store.

I've seen them and heard them at a local shop near me. It was difficult for me to really notice any difference beccause the other cables used were all equally high-end. Sorry can't help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superpanavision70mm

I've seen them and heard them at a local shop near me. It was difficult for me to really notice any difference beccause the other cables used were all equally high-end. Sorry can't help.

---

Thanks for the responce.I think I'm going to bag that idea as that cable is around $275 and from what I researched the Jaguar is exactly like the King Cobra except the Jaguar has DBS.Also my AQ King Cobra is now fully broken in and after around 300 hours of play it's the most vital link in my system and I would be foolish to try to better it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fergymunster

Thanks for the responce.I think I'm going to bag that idea as that cable is around $275 and from what I researched the Jaguar is exactly like the King Cobra except the Jaguar has DBS.Also my AQ King Cobra is now fully broken in and after around 300 hours of play it's the most vital link in my system and I would be foolish to try to better it.

---

Please see the attached link "10 Biggest Lies In Audio" and read lie number 6.

Cables do not "Burn In" Never have, never will. A cable that is used for 1000 hours will sound exactly the same as a brand new cable, PERIOD.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

Please see the attached link "10 Biggest Lies In Audio" and read lie number 6.

Cables do not "Burn In" Never have, never will. A cable that is used for 1000 hours will sound exactly the same as a brand new cable, PERIOD.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

---

Never experienced it myself but then again I buy my cables used.

But for a different opinion, one should check out other audio mags such as Stereophile or The Absolute Sound. They claim to have experienced cable burn in.

Ruadmaa, thanks for this link. Isn't he about 80 years old now? Very doubtful he still has the hearing capability for subtleties so I wouldn't take his opinions to the bank. Still, as with all audio magazines, he has his target audience... his choir to preach to, so to speak. It's very unlikely that someone as extreme as Aczel would be taken seriously by the subjective side of audio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

Please see the attached link "10 Biggest Lies In Audio" and read lie number 6.

Cables do not "Burn In" Never have, never will. A cable that is used for 1000 hours will sound exactly the same as a brand new cable, PERIOD.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

---

Look,I'm not in the mood to get into a fight with you.I know as a fact that the cable sounds signifcantly better then it did 300 hours prior to me attaching it to my system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fergymunster

Look,I'm not in the mood to get into a fight with you.I know as a fact that the cable sounds signifcantly better then it did 300 hours prior to me attaching it to my system.

---

Why don't you get a brand new cable of a similar type and see if you can tell which one you are listening to. A wire doesn't burn in, it simply conducts electricity. It doesn't conduct it any differently from the first minute you use it to the last. No change whatsoever. Sorry, scientific fact.

As for getting into a fight, I simply told you a fact. Take it for what you will.

You may also wish to read:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...e-Breakin.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

A wire doesn't burn in, it simply conducts electricity. It doesn't conduct it any differently from the first minute you use it to the last. No change whatsoever. Sorry, scientific fact.

---

Or maybe factoid. There is a difference to be found with the dialectric.

rw

I have never experienced a difference in sound with certain gear over a period of time or even cables for that matter, but I do think that speakers break in a bit with time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superpanavision70mm

I have never experienced a difference in sound with certain gear over a period of time or even cables for that matter, but I do think that speakers break in a bit with time.

---

But which PSB speakers do you own? I've always wanted to hear those smaller floorstanding Image speakers. I've heard the Stratus series and also some of their small bookshelf speakers. Always an impressive line even for a confirmed planar guy like me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

Why don't you get a brand new cable of a similar type and see if you can tell which one you are listening to. A wire doesn't burn in, it simply conducts electricity. It doesn't conduct it any differently from the first minute you use it to the last. No change whatsoever. Sorry, scientific fact.

As for getting into a fight, I simply told you a fact. Take it for what you will.

You may also wish to read:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...e-Breakin.html

---

Ok,maybe breack-in is the wrong term.Here's how I noticed a dramatic difference.I have two sets of AQ king cobra's.One is hooked up to my Mini system into a Sirius reciever.The other is hooked up to the CA azur 640c into the Creek 21se amp.Since I use the Mini system- Siruis combination much more I thought after awhile of changing the cables around as there was something lacking in the CA-Creek combination.Once they were attached the difference was dramatic and sustained.Since you seem to know alot cables you tell me what happened to cause such a dramatic effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fergymunster

Ok,maybe breack-in is the wrong term.Here's how I noticed a dramatic difference.I have two sets of AQ king cobra's.One is hooked up to my Mini system into a Sirius reciever.The other is hooked up to the CA azur 640c into the Creek 21se amp.Since I use the Mini system- Siruis combination much more I thought after awhile of changing the cables around as there was something lacking in the CA-Creek combination.Once they were attached the difference was dramatic and sustained.Since you seem to know alot cables you tell me what happened to cause such a dramatic effect.

---

No amount of break in or usage would account for the dramatic differences you cited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

No amount of break in or usage would account for the dramatic differences you cited.

---

Oh yeah,"It's just my imagination runny away with me"Rolling Stones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fergymunster

Oh yeah,"It's just my imagination runny away with me"Rolling Stones

---

You were given FACTS, that you choose to believe myths is up to you. It will ultimately cost you a lot of money in the end with no significant improvement in your audio system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fergymunster

Oh yeah,"It's just my imagination runny away with me"Rolling Stones

---

Some of us are more sensitive to changes in cables. You do hear what you hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

You were given FACTS, that you choose to believe myths is up to you. It will ultimately cost you a lot of money in the end with no significant improvement in your audio system.

---

Whatever,you have your scientific theory's and I have a priceless system.No need to argue as I'm enjoying my headphones right now,Good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

You were given FACTS, that you choose to believe myths is up to you. It will ultimately cost you a lot of money in the end with no significant improvement in your audio system.

---

I have no opinion of cable burn-in whatsoever but I still have to ask - what facts? What I saw was opinions by Peter Aczel, Gene DellaSalla and previously, by Roger Russell (although perhaps not about burn in... just some comments curiously devoid of current facts about cables in general - btw, a paper that our own resident scientist JNeutron said had so many holes he could drive a truck through it). What facts? What did I miss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

I have no opinion of cable burn-in whatsoever but I still have to ask - what facts? What I saw was opinions by Peter Aczel, Gene DellaSalla and previously, by Roger Russell (although perhaps not about burn in... just some comments curiously devoid of current facts about cables in general - btw, a paper that our own resident scientist JNeutron said had so many holes he could drive a truck through it). What facts? What did I miss?

---

Perhaps you should tell JNeutron that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll bet he would shoot you full of holes. You also might mention to Gene that he's full of hot air. Personally I highly respect the opinions of both men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

I have no opinion of cable burn-in whatsoever but I still have to ask - what facts? What I saw was opinions by Peter Aczel, Gene DellaSalla and previously, by Roger Russell (although perhaps not about burn in... just some comments curiously devoid of current facts about cables in general - btw, a paper that our own resident scientist JNeutron said had so many holes he could drive a truck through it). What facts? What did I miss?

---

None really. If you follow the link, you will find that DeSalla's answer is:

"Break In" is not a proven audible or measurable phenomenon.

Therefore, it does not exist. Can he explain gravity?

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

None really. If you follow the link, you will find that DeSalla's answer is:

"Break In" is not a proven audible or measurable phenomenon.

Therefore, it does not exist. Can he explain gravity?

rw

---

We are talking about electricity, not gravity, and electricity can be measured quite exactly. (please tell Jneutron that electricity can't be measured, see what he says) If a cable is changed so much by burn in that it could be heard by a human ear, it could certainly be measured by even the crudest electrical measuring device.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

If a cable is changed so much by burn in that it could be heard by a human ear, it could certainly be measured by even the crudest electrical measuring device.

---

Well, there are zero measuring devices of any sort that support my experience quantifying audible differences among cables so you'll have to forgive my skepticism over your blanket statement. :)

Tell me, what is the speaker cable inductance threshold for hearing HF rolloff with my electrostats? Surely you have an empirical number and demonstrable proof to support your response. The transformers fall to about 2 ohms above 10k. The cables are 8 feet in length.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Well, there are zero measuring devices of any sort that support my experience quantifying audible differences among cables so you'll have to forgive my skepticism over your blanket statement. :)

Tell me, what is the speaker cable inductance threshold for hearing HF rolloff with my electrostats? Surely you have an empirical number and demonstrable proof to support your response. The transformers fall to about 2 ohms above 10k. The cables are 8 feet in length.

rw

---

Don't ask me, I am not even remotely interested in electrical problems. I'm sure there are many who would be glad to answer your math problem. As for me, it has no bearing in actual hi-fi purchasing. If I were interested in electrostatic speakers I would simply go out and demo a few. I see very few people in hi-fi shops with calculators to figure out empirical numbers in relation to the speakers they are listening to.

I enjoy Mr. Mozart and Mr.Beethoven, that doesn't mean that I have to play an instrument or even understand how to read music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

Don't ask me, I am not even remotely interested in electrical problems. I'm sure there are many who would be glad to answer your math problem. As for me, it has no bearing in actual hi-fi purchasing.

---

Interesting response. Yet you say that "If a cable is changed so much by burn in that it could be heard by a human ear, it could certainly be measured by even the crudest electrical measuring device."

I'm no longer hearing that confident swagger. I think that sentiment vividly illustrates the fact that cable metrics are frequently analyzed in a vacuum with no concern for system matching. The real world consists of interactions with various components (and external factors like RF) where there is no single answer.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Interesting response. Yet you say that "If a cable is changed so much by burn in that it could be heard by a human ear, it could certainly be measured by even the crudest electrical measuring device."

I'm no longer hearing that confident swagger. I think that sentiment vividly illustrates the fact that cable metrics are frequently analyzed in a vacuum with no concern for system matching. The real world consists of interactions with various components (and external factors like RF) where there is no single answer.

rw

---

I have been highly interested in and purchasing hi-fi gear for well over 40 years. Yes, I most certainly live in the real world. And amazing as it may seem, I have never had to do a math problem when I went to pick out audio gear. I'm afraid that I have to rely on the specifications listed by the manufacturer of that gear as most people do. I most certainly relied on people like Julian Hirsch and Ian Masters to do my measuring for me. I seriously doubt that you could do better than they.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

I most certainly relied on people like Julian Hirsch and Ian Masters to do my measuring for me. I seriously doubt that you could do better than they.

---

I am confident that Julian was capable of obtaining very accurate measurements. The relevant question is: so what? Back when I was fifteen, I took my AR amplifier to a McIntosh clinic to get its distortion measured. Sure enough, the specs were as good as the magazines reported. I learned an important lesson then about the (lack of) importance of such. Why then did it sound horrible at low levels? The numbers provided data but not information.

May he rest in peace with measurement champs such as a pair of his beloved AR-LSTs driven a Crown IC-150 preamp and DC-300a amplifier. :)

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

I am confident that Julian was capable of obtaining very accurate measurements. The relevant question is: so what? Back when I was fifteen, I took my AR amplifier to a McIntosh clinic to get its distortion measured. Sure enough, the specs were as good as the magazines reported. I learned an important lesson then about the (lack of) importance of such. Why then did it sound horrible at low levels? The numbers provided data but not information.

May he rest in peace with measurement champs such as a pair of his beloved AR-LSTs driven a Crown IC-150 preamp and DC-300a amplifier. :)

rw

---

So, - - - have you measured a burned in cable against a brand new one and found any differences??? If so, please enlighten us all. You seem to be in the quantifying business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

So, - - - have you measured a burned in cable against a brand new one and found any differences??? If so, please enlighten us all. You seem to be in the quantifying business.

---

A much better question would be: what factors other than the standard placebo effect response could be responsible for this common observation? Do you think that the system should be analyzed rather than taking the cable out of it's context?

Like musicoverall, I don't really care about break in. I just listen to components and withhold serious judgement for a while. I just don't understand those who make pronouncements about that which is not fully understood.

rw

I don't want to get into the middle of anything here but that article "10 audio lies" is the biggest load of crap I've read in a long time. I am not familiar with the writer but I have serious doubts as to him ever having any hands on audio experience. I believe he has an axe to grind or just wanted to get a buzz going by printing contradictory babble. I will try to stick with cables since that's the topic but all 10 of his rants were off base.

You know if you want to use zip cord for speaker wire that's your choice, and if you've actually tried better wire and didn't think you heard a difference, I don't see how, but too bad for you. But it really makes my blood boil when I do hear a difference and some one says it's my imagination. Whether it's some one here or an idiot with a english degree who is paid to write articles that attract readers, and what's better to attract readers than causing controversy by going against popular opinions on audio subjects.

I've returned products that I've tried and didn't hear a difference or not enough to warrant the expense. I have a hard time believing that anyone really wants to spend hundreds of dollars when they don't have to. I am fortunate enough to have a good relationship with a couple shops here and I audition before I buy, when I put something in my system, I'm not sitting there thinking boy I hope I get to spend a few hundred more dollars.

Not all audible differences can be measured. Explain why your average receiver will have better spec sheets than a Krell or Levinson. That may not be the best analogy but there are materials and designs that do make sonic differences that there are no way to measure. What about capacitors for instance, you may have several measuring the same micro farrads yet because of the material inside they have different sonic effects on audio equipment.

I personally have not noticed any differences in my cables over time but I have never compared a new one to one I've had in my system with many hours use either. I believe there must be some break in period because some companies have a device called a cable cooker for just that purpose. I have in many instances heard sonic differences between brands of cables.

Why can't we all be friends?

The cable debate really seems to fire people up on this site. The camps are divided. Those that say they DO make a difference and those that say they DON'T. The only real debate that the disbelievers have is the argument about 'fact' or 'scientific proof', which is all fine and dandy except for one minor problem. All the math in the world doesn't mean squat to most people. What does matter is a true difference. We are not talking about something very microscopic here....the cables that I have tested and compared have all shown dramatic differences that are noticeable quickly to even the most uninterested listener.

So if everyone wants to keep this debate going on and on that's fine, but there will really never be a final conclusion because no one actually wants to take the time to listen to one anothers systems and perhaps become convinced otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

Perhaps you should tell JNeutron that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll bet he would shoot you full of holes. You also might mention to Gene that he's full of hot air. Personally I highly respect the opinions of both men.

---

He said Roger Russell is full of hot air and I agree. I would therefore have no reason to tell JNeutron he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I respect that you respect the opinions of both men. But you claimed that the Della Salla link was "fact". Now that we know that was a misstatement, we're all ok. Carry on.

Naaaaahhhhhh! :)

Short version - he was once able to hear differences in cables, amps, etc. Then he reviewed the Fourier speaker and "forgot" to tell his readers that he was part-owner. Naturally the review was a rave and the speakers were perfectly ordinary. The audiophile community (media, etc) came down on Aczel pretty hard and he did something right for a change - he went away. When he came back, he became the biggest most extreme objectivist the world has ever known. I'd say he's grinding his axe quite nicely. He even has a readership - small but vocal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

May he rest in peace with measurement champs such as a pair of his beloved AR-LSTs driven a Crown IC-150 preamp and DC-300a amplifier. :)

rw

---

...I'd want to rest in peace myself! Or at least it would cure my obsessive music buying problem! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

but all 10 of his rants were off base.

---

No, you are incorrect. Not all ten are off base. A few of them are correct.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

No, you are incorrect. Not all ten are off base. A few of them are correct.

John

---

Which ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

Which ones?

---

1. Cables.... A mix. States RLC matters, correct. Then provides an example of a coat hanger (magnetic, wide spacing) as equiv, even though R and L are incredibly different. Both sides at the same time??? Ok...

2. Tubes..another mix..tube sound vs transistor..tubes rarely have low Z high current slew signals internal to the chassis while zistors do. Major diff..

3. Antidigital..Reconstruction accuracy in the time domain we hear is based entirely on the depth of the digital algorithms. Too shallow gives loss of time and amplitude accuracy. And, has he ever heard the 11 uSec interchannel shift??

4. Listening test..He has no clue as to human localization parameterics, especially the time dependence to changes in cues. Use of any switching style listening test for image change discernment is futile without consideration of this.

5. Feedback without control of in-chassis magnetic fields is a mixed bag. Pos and neg rails in ss amps project different field patterns, and affect feedback based on the quadrant of operation..

6. Burn in..In essence, correct. It is not the cables that are burning in, it is the human re-interpretation of changed cues.

7. Bi wire..He's never calculated the dissipation loss envelope for single vs two wire sets. And, he is incorrect that whomever figures it out will garner major scientific prizes.

Oh, and magnets in shoes to indeed do something. They produce discomfort.

8. Power conditioning.. He knows nothing at all about ground loop currents. Guess anyone who hears hum is simply hearing things..The good thing about hum, is it announces it'self. Without it, the user is unaware there is a problem. Bryston was aware..

9. CD treatments.He needs to learn what "dielectric coefficient, and "light dispersion" is. While I do concur on the green thingy, I am familiar with optics.. Sometimes, a fluid can be used to "buff" out, even temporarily, an interface issue. This has even more meaning for CD's that are burned over 8x, as the reflection diff between a 1 and a 0 is less.

10. Golden ear..It depends on what one is listening for. Localization cue training has been reported by researchers, down to 1.5 uSec capability.

Cheers, John

PS. Sorry for the tech talk, guys...this forum is not supposed to be for that, but I don't think anybody would look in the lab for my response.

PPS..sheesh, the typo's one gets when one doesn't look at the keyboard...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

1. Cables.... A mix. States RLC matters, correct. Then provides an example of a coat hanger (magnetic, wide spacing) as equiv, even though R and L are incredibly different. Both sides at the same time??? Ok...

2. Tubes..another mix..tube sound vs transistor..tubes rarely have low Z high current slew signals internal to the chassis while zistors do. Major diff..

3. Antidigital..Reconstruction accuracy in the time domain we hear is based entirely on the depth of the digital algorithms. Too shallow gives loss of time and amplitude accuracy. And, has he ever heard the 11 uSec interchannel shift??

4. Listening test..He has no clue as to human localization parameterics, especially the time dependence to changes in cues. Use of any switching style listening test for image change discernment is futile without consideration of this.

5. Feedback without control of in-chassis magnetic fields is a mixed bag. Pos and neg rails in ss amps project different field patterns, and affect feedback based on the quadrant of operation..

6. Burn in..In essence, correct. It is not the cables that are burning in, it is the human re-interpretation of changed cues.

7. Bi wire..He's never calculated the dissipation loss envelope for single vs two wire sets. And, he is incorrect that whomever figures it out will garner major scientific prizes.

Oh, and magnets in shoes to indeed do something. They produce discomfort.

8. Power conditioning.. He knows nothing at all about ground loop currents. Guess anyone who hears hum is simply hearing things..The good thing about hum, is it announces it'self. Without it, the user is unaware there is a problem. Bryston was aware..

9. CD treatments.He needs to learn what "dielectric coefficient, and "light dispersion" is. While I do concur on the green thingy, I am familiar with optics.. Sometimes, a fluid can be used to "buff" out, even temporarily, an interface issue. This has even more meaning for CD's that are burned over 8x, as the reflection diff between a 1 and a 0 is less.

10. Golden ear..It depends on what one is listening for. Localization cue training has been reported by researchers, down to 1.5 uSec capability.

Cheers, John

PS. Sorry for the tech talk, guys...this forum is not supposed to be for that, but I don't think anybody would look in the lab for my response.

PPS..sheesh, the typo's one gets when one doesn't look at the keyboard...

---

GREAT stuff. I'll look up what I don't understand of the specifics but I think generally - even for those of us that are scientifcally challenged - you've given us another example of what happens when opinions are taken as facts. But could you clarify what you mean in item #6? What cues are changed and how? Thanks.

Oh, sorry for the question mark in the title - tried to edit it out but it'll only let me edit text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

GREAT stuff. I'll look up what I don't understand of the specifics but I think generally - even for those of us that are scientifcally challenged - you've given us another example of what happens when opinions are taken as facts. But could you clarify what you mean in item #6? What cues are changed and how? Thanks.

Oh, sorry for the question mark in the title - tried to edit it out but it'll only let me edit text.

---

When we hear a sound, our ears give us information that the brain uses to interpret where it is coming from. Our ears give the brain two essential things..the ear to ear time delay, and an ear to ear level difference. With both of these, the brain has enough to go by to localize a source.

If a source is directly in front, there is no arrival difference and no intensity difference.

If a source is on our right, the right ear gets it first, and gets it loudest.

The music recorded in a studio is put onto the final two channel recording by using a pan pot, which uses only intensity as a side cue. Unfortunately, humans are not hardwired to interpret only the intensity difference to locate a sound, we are wired to also use the delay from ear to ear.

We have to learn, or acclimate, to this different style of sound locating. It is unnatural. With headphones, the brain interprets the information as being within the head (unnatural for most, I think). With speakers, the added ear to ear stuff helps confuse the brain into thinking the source is in front of us. But still, in a very un-natural way...speakers produce 4 images for one intended image source. 1, the desired image cause by the right ear getting the right signal, the left the left signal. 2, the image that happens when the right speaker gets to the left ear, and the left to the right ear. 3, the left speaker by itself, and 4, the right.. temporally and amplitude wise, we tend to interpret #1 as the primary image, but that requires the brain reject the other three. A learned response..

Any part of the reproduction chain that can change either the intensity difference or timing difference between channels, will alter the cues the brain needs to localize. Once a change is made, it takes a while to adjust...remember, the brain has to learn how to reject the spurius images.

Our sensitivity to these ear to ear differences extends down to the 1.5 to 5 uSec range for time delay, and strange as it seems, less than .1 dB..

I know of nobody in the audio world who has demonstrated the ability to measure those type of differences accurately at the low impedances of a speaker, even for simple two tone sines, nevermind a complex signal.

The researchers I speak to do not even understand the basic concepts of 2-D localization, nevermind the more complex angular and spacial first and second order derivatives necessary for differential localization and image stability.

It's not rocket science, for goodness sake...sheesh..

Cheers, John

PS...differential localization is our ability to determine the difference in spacial location of two sources, like two people ten feet away side by side talking to us. We are far more able to discern the relative positions of two people in space than we are to discern one person's absolute location. We key on one source as a reference point.



Image stability is how solid the virtual image is in space, even though the signal is being massaged either by the electronics, or by the position of our head. As an example of this, consider the toe in of a speaker that beams it's highs..if the beams intersect in front of you, when you move to the right, the left signal becomes louder while the right becomes weaker, shifting the image to the left. That is not what happens with a real source..and if the mids do not beam, the mid image will act more naturally. The effect will be to seperate the frequencies of the image spacially..Disembodiment.

But I'm still not getting how this ties into cable burn in. Are you saying there could be a change in sound but it's not the cable, it's our body position and the change in localization?

Might that not be true of a lot of component changes (swaps)? Your explanation reveals a lot but I'm quite certain I'm missing your point with respect to cable burn in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

But I'm still not getting how this ties into cable burn in. Are you saying there could be a change in sound but it's not the cable, it's our body position and the change in localization?

Might that not be true of a lot of component changes (swaps)? Your explanation reveals a lot but I'm quite certain I'm missing your point with respect to cable burn in.

---

Ah, sorry.

The cable is electrically locked. It's RLC parameters can be sufficient to alter the signals in such a way that the cues we use for localization are changed. When you put a new cable in, your brain is not adapted to the new cues. It takes time for you to acclimate to those new cues, but as you do, you are more aware of the images that are being presented.

So the cable is not changing as in burn in, but your ability to discern image placement does. Note that this does not mean that you are getting better or worse hearing wise, just that you are adapting to the current stimulus.

Unfortunately, slow adaptation by the human is not considered when doing ABX or DBT or SBT... The assumption is that memory is short, so test quick..

That is a significant test methodology error. The test method has to be sensitive to the entity being tested. Currently accepted scientific methods are not sensitive to subtle localization changes...that being imaging, soundstage, focus..because the localization cues are being altered from one completely un-natural relationship, to another un-natural one.

One of the typical arguments for localization not being an issue includes the term "head in a vice". If absolute positioning were the issue, yes I would agree. But absolute image positioning is not the issue, it is the relative image positioning...and further down the line, not only relative, but how the relative positioning sensitivity is affected by other entities..IOW, image stability in light of perturbations.

But image stability is a concept that is unknown in the world of audio. Differential localization isn't even known..they have a long way to go, don't they?

Cheers, John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Ah, sorry.

The cable is electrically locked. It's RLC parameters can be sufficient to alter the signals in such a way that the cues we use for localization are changed. When you put a new cable in, your brain is not adapted to the new cues. It takes time for you to acclimate to those new cues, but as you do, you are more aware of the images that are being presented.

So the cable is not changing as in burn in, but your ability to discern image placement does. Note that this does not mean that you are getting better or worse hearing wise, just that you are adapting to the current stimulus.

Unfortunately, slow adaptation by the human is not considered when doing ABX or DBT or SBT... The assumption is that memory is short, so test quick..

That is a significant test methodology error. The test method has to be sensitive to the entity being tested. Currently accepted scientific methods are not sensitive to subtle localization changes...that being imaging, soundstage, focus..because the localization cues are being altered from one completely un-natural relationship, to another un-natural one.

One of the typical arguments for localization not being an issue includes the term "head in a vice". If absolute positioning were the issue, yes I would agree. But absolute image positioning is not the issue, it is the relative image positioning...and further down the line, not only relative, but how the relative positioning sensitivity is affected by other entities..IOW, image stability in light of perturbations.

But image stability is a concept that is unknown in the world of audio. Differential localization isn't even known..they have a long way to go, don't they?

Cheers, John

---

Thanks!

Interesting info, as always. I found imaging and soundstaging to be critical factors in cables, although JJ on another audio board tells us that those factors are 100% caused by frequency response differences rather than localization issues.

Even ye scientists don't always agree, eh? :)