Cables reviewing by reputable publications/magazines.

[mtrycraft]

Can you point me to at least one such test with full details?

rw

I have posted my citation lists many times.
Can you point to one test showing differences?

[E-Stat]

I have posted my citation lists many times.

So, would you be so kind as to provide a link to same?

rw

[mtrycraft]

So, would you be so kind as to provide a link to same?

rw

What? Are you finally going to do some research on your own?

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/c...27@.ef9eb2a/43

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@142.gbpHa8C4hbx^21@.ef469fd/11

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioand...epage/id3.html

[E-Stat]

What? Are you finally going to do some research on your own?

Thank you. I rather thought that searching for threads containing DBTs authored by you would yield hundreds of hits.

Most of those references are simply bibliographic in nature. The ones by Stereo Review are fine when you limit the playing field to mid-fi receivers and cheapo speakers. Oh well. Many are dead links. Of all the references, only one really provided the kind of details I was looking for. That was the Tag McLaren one. It still didn't answer one question: was the program material played familiar to anyone of the twelve volunteers?

There was a thread on AA some time ago when a retired Bell Labs researcher debated with Zapped by Jitter the value of using trained listeners and familiar musical content. Zapped argued for using untrained subjects with completely unfamiliar material. I would side with Jim Johnson that such a test (while useful for some purposes) cannot reveal ultimate performance qualities. I would readily concede that my older brother (who has a decent receiver based system) cannot hear all the subtle nuances on my system when playing music that he has never heard.

rw

[FLZapped]

I would readily concede that my older brother (who has a decent receiver based system) cannot hear all the subtle nuances on my system when playing music that he has never heard.

rw

What did your brother have to compare his listening to? How do you think familiarity would help? Is this a side-by-side blind comparision you're talking about, or do you believe that he has an audible memory that extends over the time it takes him to travel form his environment to yours? And how would that even be valid? The acousitical differences between the two venues alone negate any validity.

-Bruce

[mtrycraft]

Of all the references, only one really provided the kind of details I was looking for. That was the Tag McLaren one. It still didn't answer one question: was the program material played familiar to anyone of the twelve volunteers?



Just another strawman argument. There is zero evidence that it matters how well you know the material. But, if you have credible citation that it matters, not speculated ones, please post it. I'd like to know the facts, not like some.

There was a thread on AA some time ago when a retired Bell Labs researcher debated with Zapped by Jitter the value of using trained listeners and familiar musical content.

Are you a trained listener? If you claim to be, you must have credentials to support this? If not, you have no basis for anything.
Bell Labs does research, threshold research. Trained listeners get to the answers quicker. Simple.
Oh, now that I see, JJs name, he worked for At&T, not Bell Labs. Yes, he is world class in the research end and listening. Are you?




I would readily concede that my older brother (who has a decent receiver based system) cannot hear all the subtle nuances on my system when playing music that he has never heard.

rw

But he can with ones he know well? Under DBT?

I still don't have a single citation from you, or anyone for that matter, on audible differences in these matters. Why is that so hard to find?

[E-Stat]

What did your brother have to compare his listening to? How do you think familiarity would help? The acousitical differences between the two venues alone negate any validity.-Bruce

I use my brother merely as an example of someone who has your basic $2k system, but listens to music very rarely. I aver practiced listening over time sharpens one's ability to hear differences, especially with familiar program material where one is able to anticipate what to listen for. It is no earthshattering comment that most folks just don't care what level of detail a music system provides.

rw

[E-Stat]

There is zero evidence that it matters how well you know the material. But, if you have credible citation that it matters, not speculated ones, please post it. I'd like to know the facts, not like some.

As for credible evidence, I point to comments by Mr. Johnson.

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2113&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=803&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=

note: AR's otherwise helpful scripting truncates long URLs so, I removed the leading "h" in the links above.

Oh, now that I see, JJs name, he worked for At&T, not Bell Labs. Yes, he is world class in the research end and listening. Are you?

Mea culpa. I still remember the original Ma Bell names.

I mentioned Johnson because he disagrees with Jitter's and now your assertion that any listener will give the same results as a trained listener. What consititutese a trained listener? Is there a college level course? Is there a certification? I don't care. I simply mean someone who (hopefully for pleasure) regularly listens to music on a high performance system who has done comparative listening to components. As I mentioned in one of Bruce's comments, most folks don't have the interest in taking time to differentiate audible differences among components. Which is perfectly fine. My only "credentials" are that I have been a regular music listener for over thirty years, have a pretty good system, and have spent considerable time hearing some spectacular systems used by a couple of audio reviewer friends. I know what is possible.

rw

[FLZapped]

I use my brother merely as an example of someone who has your basic $2k system, but listens to music very rarely. I aver practiced listening over time sharpens one's ability to hear differences, especially with familiar program material where one is able to anticipate what to listen for. It is no earthshattering comment that most folks just don't care what level of detail a music system provides.

rw

Fine, but you still have no idea if he could hear the differences or not, especially with a properly constructed test that would maximize the potential of hearing any possible differences.

I think you also have to understand that your brlother is a single subject....the stuff we do, when "goofing around" has a minimum of 50 people involved. Statistically it gives you a much better look at what is going on.

Below is a test where they used trained and untrained listeners, They drew conclusions that trained listeners were better, however, when I studied the data supplied, I don't see how they actually came to that conclusion. Maybe I missed something. *shrug*

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/21/12307

-Bruce

[Bobby Blacklight]

Any review of almost any component used in the audio chain that was not done in your room with your gear is just a reference point. Even used as a reference point it a ppoor one because there is no way to really know how it all will work together unless you try. All reviews are based on peoples opinions and should be considered as such. Opinions will vary.

[pctower]

jj probably has forgotten more about controlled audio testing than most here will ever know in a lifetime.

Yet, for his own personal purposes he chooses not to use blind testing. Here, he would be labeled a flat-earther because of that.

I suspect he understands how difficult it really is to conduct a reliable blind test at home. But, then again, that's nothing more than rank speculation on my part.

[E-Stat]

Fine, but you still have no idea if he could hear the differences or not...

I merely used him as representative of a pretty large segment of the population who are casual music listener. Consequently, you could test hundreds of similar folks and likely get similar results.

Below is a test where they used trained and untrained listeners, They drew conclusions that trained listeners were better, however, when I studied the data supplied, I don't see how they actually came to that conclusion. Maybe I missed something.-Bruce

Well, I applaud your presenting material that doesn't necessarily support your view. I'm sure Mytry will jump all over my conclusion, but I find two aspects of the test that limit their usefulness. One is that the "naive" listeners were trained for only nine days in a two week period. Nine days of training? Also, the test material was digitally generated tones. Folks, music is far more complex than synthetically generated tones. While these results are what they are, they hardly prove that those who are truly practiced listeners (over a period of years, not days) can discern subtle differences with complex musical content.

rw

[FLZapped]

Well, I applaud your presenting material that doesn't necessarily support your view. I'm sure Mytry will jump all over my conclusion, but I find two aspects of the test that limit their usefulness. One is that the "naive" listeners were trained for only nine days in a two week period. Nine days of training? Also, the test material was digitally generated tones. Folks, music is far more complex than synthetically generated tones. While these results are what they are, they hardly prove that those who are truly practiced listeners (over a period of years, not days) can discern subtle differences with complex musical content.

rw

I don't know of any studies that would confirm or deny that assertion. I'm not really sure of what subtlties would be relavent, something to ponder, but it's late and I need to get some sleep.

-Bruce

[mtrycraft]

As for credible evidence, I point to comments by Mr. Johnson.

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2113&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=803&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=

note: AR's otherwise helpful scripting truncates long URLs so, I removed the leading "h" in the links above.


These have nothing to do with positive poutcomes, do they?



I mentioned Johnson because he disagrees with Jitter's and now your assertion that any listener will give the same results as a trained listener.


My assertions? Really? Trained listeners get the the answer quickly.





What consititutese a trained listener? Is there a college level course? Is there a certification?

Yes, a valid question.


I don't care.

You should. It has everything to do with who is trained and who is just claiming. No different from any other claims of dubious merit.


I simply mean someone who (hopefully for pleasure) regularly listens to music on a high performance system who has done comparative listening to components.

That is what you may mean but that has no bearing on who is trained and who just thinks they are trained. Your deffinition is meaningless to being trained.

My only "credentials" are that I have been a regular music listener for over thirty years, have a pretty good system, and have spent considerable time hearing some spectacular systems used by a couple of audio reviewer friends. I know what is possible.

Well, that doesn't qualify as being trained one way or another. You have no way of knowing that after all this time you were listening to the right things. You may think you have. You may have, but you cannot be sure unless you are tested properly and under controlled conditions. I have run across people with claimed experience for a long time, even teaching their profession just to find out they have zero concept of reality. In the end, they have been wrong for all that time.

So, in the end, you have been listening to music for a long time and different setups. Great!

[mtrycraft]

As for credible evidence, I point to comments by Mr. Johnson.

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2113&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=

ttp://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=803&highlight=trained+dbt+jj&r=&session=


rw

Yes, he has an interesting comment you shoud memorize:

"I do use DBT's for detecting and evaluating small differences that are due ONLY to auditory stimulii.

For such things, sighted testing can be trivally shown to be hopelessly flawed. "

[E-Stat]

I don't know of any studies that would confirm or deny that assertion. I'm not really sure of what subtlties would be relavent, something to ponder, but it's late and I need to get some sleep.Bruce

Do you really need studies to confirm that musical content is more complex than test tones?

rw

[FLZapped]

Do you really need studies to confirm that musical content is more complex than test tones?

rw

No,no, no. Whether or not it takes "years" or not to become a "trained" listener.....

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

Whether or not it takes "years" or not to become a "trained" listener.....

OK. Consider your own talents and abilities. Be they public speaking, writing, sport related activities, musical, career skills, whatever. Which of those did you master in nine days?

rw

[Bobby Blacklight]

Hello E-Stat

http://www.harmaninternational.com/w...articleId=1018

Take a look at this white paper on the Harman site. Lots of releveant information about what is required to do blind testing. One of the issues is training. There is nothing wrong with the idea of using a synthesiszed signal as opposed to music. It makes it easier to hear collorations not the other way around. Test signals don't change amplitude or frequency content the way music does so when you switch from unit A to B the diferences are readilly apparant.

[E-Stat]

Hello E-Stat
There is nothing wrong with the idea of using a synthesiszed signal as opposed to music. It makes it easier to hear collorations not the other way around.

Using test tones (look at the GUI panel) for evaluation is fine for when reproduction of said is your ultimate goal. It is not mine.

Test signals don't change amplitude or frequency content the way music does so when you switch from unit A to B the diferences are readilly apparant

Which is exactly why I place no faith in such simplistic tests. While they may render simple frequency differences apparent, they are incapable of rendering judgement of the far more complex nature of musical content.

Which test tones do you find especially moving? How about 440 hz? Perhaps a touch of 2637 hz?

While the "speaker mover floor" is not something on my wish list, the attention to the construction of the room and the room treatments are very nice. Not to mention the $12k video projector.

rw

[Bobby Blacklight]

Hmm Ok


"Using test tones (look at the GUI panel) for evaluation is fine for when reproduction of said is your ultimate goal. It is not mine."

They are used a tools to compare changes as speakers are voiced and to compare speaker to speaker. I don't think it is any surprise that Harman/JBL/Infinity/Crown/and 20 other companies under the Harman umbrella use music listenning tests as part of their evaluation. I don't think test tones are there final goal either.

"Which is exactly why I place no faith in such simplistic tests. While they may render simple frequency differences apparent, they are incapable of rendering judgement of the far more complex nature of musical content."

As a whole there is nothing simplistic about it. The engineering required to make a room like that is no simple matter. The methodology used in the listenning tests was not just some random scheme. Do you read any of the attached references. Most are AES published papers.Many have to do with developing the methodology used. Considering Revel/JBL/Infinity use that facillity to help voice their own and compare there competitors speakers I would not be so quick to just dismiss the methods used as irrelevant or of no value.

"Which test tones do you find especially moving? How about 440 hz? Perhaps a touch of 2637 hz?"

This isn't about just the emotional connection. There is a lot more to it. Without sound engineering the level of performance you enjoy would not be possible. Its a ballance of both.

[mtrycraft]

This isn't about just the emotional connection. There is a lot more to it. Without sound engineering the level of performance you enjoy would not be possible. Its a ballance of both.

Emotional connection is an individual attachment to some intangible aspects of the music only. Asking him about sound engineering practices is a waste of time as he doesn't have the first incling about it.

[E-Stat]

The methodology used in the listenning tests was not just some random scheme. I would not be so quick to just dismiss the methods used as irrelevant or of no value.

No doubt. What with the moving floor, all the computer connections and the exotic room design aspects. Listening to stepped tones will certainly help with fine tuning frequency balance, especially considering most speakers that measure "flat" sound bright. Such tests will not, however, tell you about soundstaging, macro and micro dynamic capabilities, harmonic resolution, etc. All of which are very important for when reproducing music is the goal.

This isn't about just the emotional connection. There is a lot more to it. Without sound engineering the level of performance you enjoy would not be possible. Its a ballance of both.

Starting with good engineering principles is a given. Get the basics right. At least in this context, create a speaker that performs neutrally as well as measures neutrally. The more difficult process is to then to test them with that which they are designed to replicate. Then go back to the drawing board when the drivers are found to be not coherent as a whole. Go back to the drawing board for when there is little apparent depth or width to the presentation. Go back to the drawing board for when subsequent corrections to a crossover network yield a roller coaster impedance curve that causes some amps to vary the frequency response.

Such fancy rooms are a beginning, not an end to voicing a musically faithful speaker. While not a speaker manufacturer, take a tour of Audio Research. They have been producing arguably some of the finest audio components for over thirty years. While certainly not as quantity oriented as Harman International, they are nevertheless very quality oriented. You'll note that listening tests are used for final voicing and testing of every one of their products.

http://www.soundstagelive.com/factor...audioresearch/

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have admired and owned at least one Audio Research product for over twenty years since I first heard an SP-3a.

rw

[FLZapped]

OK. Consider your own talents and abilities. Be they public speaking, writing, sport related activities, musical, career skills, whatever. Which of those did you master in nine days?

rw

I can think of several things I mastered right away....

eating, sleeping, breathing..... -Bruce

[23tex]

Hi...I'm back after a long hiatus (2 years?)...seems the infamous cable debate continues...mostly new meat on the left and same DBT's on the right.

I'm certainly not a believer that I can hear the differences in cables...I do agree that a speaker wire is a terrible way to tune the sound, but, if it makes you happy.

Seems to me the first issue is can anyone hear differences in cables? This question makes the issue of hi-fi gear irrelevant. Certainly if the gear introduced a lot of distortion (by definition random), then it's of no use for testing, but, why does it have to be esoteric stuff for someone to hear these differences? Why not compare your best silverline/gold/twirl/color braided cable to romex? If you can't hear a difference between those two, you can't hear a difference with anything else.

I guess I can see that familiarity with the recording might help, but, then again, maybe it wouldn't? Not saying its the placebo effect, but, our minds play tricks on us.

I will never understand the golden ear arguements against DBT/SBT's. Yeah, there can be errors introduced by testing methods, but, its not that big of a deal. Certainly better than an informed test.

Funny, thing happened whilst I was setting up my HTR with my ratshack meter. I threw in a test tone disk to measure the output of my speakers across the audible freq. range. I could barely hear 16 k and 18 k was silence--to me. My buddy grabbed his ears in pain and the meter proved there was sound. I guess if I can't hear above 16k, I could care less about freq roll off caused by cables.

Sorry for the run-on, just happy to be back...Last I was hear, Joe the Bass man was flaming away about his extraordinary hearing capabilities...my dogs were jealous.

Mike