High dollar speaker cables and speaker crossovers

[FLZapped]

LCR parameters as they stand obviously aren't sufficient.

How do you know this? -Bruce

[FLZapped]

But the "basis in fact" is listening, both sighted and blind. Zip cord was compared to Cardas Neutral Reference and found lacking. Whether or not it was the Cardas that added information not included on the recording is the question. However, it is extremely low in LCR parameters so it appears the measurements have failed.

And what makes you qualified to come to that conclusion? -Bruce

[musicoverall]

What makes you qualified? Take a course? Under what conditions?

-Bruce

By virtue of possessing two ears, one brain, 6000 pieces of software, a stereo system and a room in which to play music.

[musicoverall]

How do you know this? -Bruce

Two cables, an identical set up measurements, two different sonic presentations.

[musicoverall]

And what makes you qualified to come to that conclusion? -Bruce

See above

[musicoverall]

Listening how? -Bruce

See above

[musicoverall]

Two cables, an identical set up measurements, two different sonic presentations.

Should be "...an identical set OF measurements..." In other words, two cables measured the same and sounded different. Happens fairly often.

[Resident Loser]

Oh, I'm also dropping an uncoupling membrane down, stuff called Ditra.

...Stuff sounds interesting...I'm sure you did some homework, but...FYI:

http://www.floorheating.ltd.uk/schluter.php

http://www.schluter.co.uk/produkt.as...ml&pg=material

http://www.warmboard.com/whitepaper-tile.html

And it's true, there's a forum for nearly everything:

http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/...ad.php?t=31611

jimHJJ(...tongue-and-groove...glued and screwed...)

[FLZapped]

By virtue of possessing two ears, one brain, 6000 pieces of software, a stereo system and a room in which to play music.

In otherwords, this is just your opinion. -Bruce

[FLZapped]

Should be "...an identical set OF measurements..." In other words, two cables measured the same and sounded different. Happens fairly often.

Who did the measurements? And who did the testing and what were the controls? -Bruce

[jneutron]

...Stuff sounds interesting...I'm sure you did some homework, but...FYI:

http://www.floorheating.ltd.uk/schluter.php

http://www.schluter.co.uk/produkt.as...ml&pg=material

http://www.warmboard.com/whitepaper-tile.html

And it's true, there's a forum for nearly everything:

http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/...ad.php?t=31611

jimHJJ(...tongue-and-groove...glued and screwed...)

Boy, there is a forum for everything...geeze.

Thanks for the link, that is most appreciated. If I had not done my homework, your links would have saved my butt. Thanks for thinkin of me..

I earlier mentioned Ditra, and schluter is indeed the manu of the membrane.

I learned all I needed to know from the Sept 2005 issue of fine Homebuilding...No 173, pp74-79. also, the site you linked to. This internet thingy is so cooooool...I have quite a few pdf's on radiant and tiling membranes..

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

What about ye ole tone controls..... they introduce their own set of phase anomolies to the source, which, of course, is broadband.....say, isn't this measurement you're talking of done as a single tone, or at best limited to a bark?

While I personally use tone controls and equilizers, I will not pretend that they maintain all aspects of ITD and IID. I do not have the time in my life to just sit and listen, life's wayy too hectic.

Measure, maybe not directly, but it should certainly be possible indirectly.(a calculated result)

For a load resistor, high current slews will couple to the scope probe/ground loop. The higher the slew, the bigger the error voltage, and the less the load reacts properly to the current change...however, the scope probe pickup compensates for the lack of current pull of the load....it sees an error voltage which conspires with the resistor, to make it look like the current is correct...but it ain't..

Well, if it were, it would have been done already, ala rf. I suppose you could compensate by using a a matching network, but it would only be accurate for a given length of cable and load.

You are talking about transmission line reflection stuff...that is not what I am speaking of..

You're no fun at all.

Get in line, many people already accuse me of that..

-

Bruce
(but then, does it matter, no one I know listens in an anechoic environment anyway....)

My discussion is not about listening within an anechoic enviro. It is about learning what is actually going on with respect to localization cues. What happens in a room is only going to reduce the ability to localize...it is indeed important, but fruitless to consider until the correct information has been presented to the speakers.

Cheers, John

[FLZapped]

While I personally use tone controls and equilizers, I will not pretend that they maintain all aspects of ITD and IID. I do not have the time in my life to just sit and listen, life's wayy too hectic.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

For a load resistor, high current slews will couple to the scope probe/ground loop. The higher the slew, the bigger the error voltage, and the less the load reacts properly to the current change...however, the scope probe pickup compensates for the lack of current pull of the load....it sees an error voltage which conspires with the resistor, to make it look like the current is correct...but it ain't..

There are ways around this.

You are talking about transmission line reflection stuff...that is not what I am speaking of..

no, i am not, you're talking about impedance matching the feed to the speaker, my point is, if it were easy to do at audio, we would have seen such products simiar to what is available at rf.

-
My discussion is not about listening within an anechoic enviro. It is about learning what is actually going on with respect to localization cues. What happens in a room is only going to reduce the ability to localize...it is indeed important, but fruitless to consider until the correct information has been presented to the speakers.

Cheers, John

Then the possibility is that something is being chased that is not audible in a normal listening environment. Plus the fact, as you say, recording techinques currently are only capable of volumetric changes to produce the illusion of instrument placement where instruments are close miced. Funny thing is, it does work, at least for large scale changes.

It might be more worthwhile eliminating the erroneous reports that come from uncontrolled casual listening being reported as fact.

BTW - where are you gettting all your IID/ILD info from? the reason I am asking, is I find the dB numbers particularly interesting. how were they derived? Artificial head/ears? I calculated out some of the ITD numbers and they assume a totally linear approach, when in fact, the sound has to smear(propagate) around the side of the head to get to the far ear. Even if this makes a meaningless adjustment in time, it could make a more significant difference in level due to shadowing.

-Bruce

PS - anyone want to get to sleep early tonight can read this:

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

PPS -
ITD: Interaural Time Difference.
ILD/IID: Interaural Level/Intensity Difference

[musicoverall]

In otherwords, this is just your opinion. -Bruce

Yes - one that I would think most people have of themselves. If there are qualification requirements to listen to music, I'm not aware of them and I doubt I'd find them very compelling.

[musicoverall]

Who did the measurements? And who did the testing and what were the controls? -Bruce

This is all in the Audio Lab under my blind listening post.

Would you like to make a point? I'm listening. Of course, it's only my opinion that I'm qualified to listen.

[jneutron]

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

One of many..

There are ways around this.

(meaning, the measure of high slew rate currents accurately.)

No, there are very few ways. The best is to design the load to have zero external magnetic field, to eliminate probe pickup. Very few companies know how to do this correctly, and none of them do anything with audio.

no, i am not, you're talking about impedance matching the feed to the speaker, my point is, if it were easy to do at audio, we would have seen such products simiar to what is available at rf.

Impedance matching is not the correct term, although I admit this topic is confusing.
The impedance of a cable is defined as the ratio of voltage to current which results in the energy stored within the cable inductance being equal to the energy stored within the capacitance. When this condition is met, the energy stored within the cable while driving a load will be minimized. For RF, if this condition is not met, there will be a discontinuity which causes a reflection..that is not what is going on at audio frequencies.

Then the possibility is that something is being chased that is not audible in a normal listening environment.

No. It is important to understand that while the derivations show such relationships in localization, they do not show the sensitivity of humans to such small changes. It is important to first understand the nature of the relationship, and then test it. As you see, the paper you linked to below does not address what I am speaking of..entirely artificial stimuli?..they do not understand.

Plus the fact, as you say, recording techinques currently are only capable of volumetric changes to produce the illusion of instrument placement where instruments are close miced. Funny thing is, it does work, at least for large scale changes.

No..recording techniques are different. I was referring to mixdown at the studio, using pan pots to artifically produce a R-L shift. While certainly effective, they do not reproduce the enviro we normally listen to, but rather, an artificial one.

It might be more worthwhile eliminating the erroneous reports that come from uncontrolled casual listening being reported as fact.

It is also conceivable that those uncontrolled reports have some semblance of fact, unfortunately, it is not possible to determine this given the lack of scientific rigor.

BTW - where are you gettting all your IID/ILD info from? the reason I am asking, is I find the dB numbers particularly interesting. how were they derived? Artificial head/ears? I calculated out some of the ITD numbers and they assume a totally linear approach, when in fact, the sound has to smear(propagate) around the side of the head to get to the far ear. Even if this makes a meaningless adjustment in time, it could make a more significant difference in level due to shadowing..

You are absolutely correct. Head issues are to be considered eventually.

My numbers are a simple two receiver setup, 6 inches apart, infinite bw, and entirely linear. This is the case of the sound just before it begins to interact with the proximity of the head, where it then starts to alter it's wavefront characteristics. That effect, of course, will occur during the reproduction aspect of listening, so it must be understood and simulated exactly, exactly up to the point where the two wavefronts are about to interact with the head. Consideration of the proximity effects of the head, while of academic interest, will only affect our sensitivity to the stimulus..research into the ITD and IID issues of the reproduction chain are invarient to head effects.

-Bruce

PS - anyone want to get to sleep early tonight can read this:

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

Ah geeze..I was a perfect candidate for that study...""We measured discrimination thresholds of 13 to 32 naive listeners""...THAT"S meeeee!!

Read the study carefully..they used either ITD, or IID..they did not use both..

What results can be garnered from an audibility test that determines the response of a human, to a stimulus that does not occur in nature??

While their results are certainly of academic interest, they are not in any way a measure of how humans localize.

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

But the "basis in fact" is listening, both sighted and blind. Zip cord was compared to Cardas Neutral Reference and found lacking. Whether or not it was the Cardas that added information not included on the recording is the question. However, it is extremely low in LCR parameters so it appears the measurements have failed.

Give it up. The labcoats who do not trust their own senses will never buy this. I'm rather enjoying, however, another (more open minded) labcoat pointing out to them the holes in the conventional thinking.

My guess is that neither of the doubters has ever heard the Cardas, Nordost, or JPS Labs, etc. cables in their own systems. To such a point they would respond "What difference does that make?" They do not share our experiential point of reference and would rather spend their time speculating as to how such could be. Maybe at some time in the future when the research catches up with the reality, they will begin to better enjoy the musical experience, IMHO.

rw

[musicoverall]

Give it up. The labcoats who do not trust their own senses will never buy this. I'm rather enjoying, however, another (more open minded) labcoat pointing out to them the holes in the conventional thinking.

My guess is that neither of the doubters has ever heard the Cardas, Nordost, or JPS Labs, etc. cables in their own systems. To such a point they would respond "What difference does that make?" They do not share our experiential point of reference and would rather spend their time speculating as to how such could be. Maybe at some time in the future when the research catches up with the reality, they will begin to better enjoy the musical experience, IMHO.

rw

Jneutron should be applauded for having the cojones, as well as the knowledge (as far as MY little mind can tell!) to post his research on this site. I certainly don't understand it all and neither do the two labcoat compadres of mine but they're trying...and they've been helpful to me in this regard. I'm very interested in this topic, if only because it's hard for me to believe that zipcord is as good as it gets, based on my own experiences.

Since you mention the Nordost, I should say that my experiences with the Valhalla leave the Cardas wanting. But no way was I going to shell out that kind of cash. A pair of their speaker cables and two pairs of IC's goes for half my system price! Sadly, I couldn't get the Valhalla sound with their less pricey spreads. Valhalla seems to be in a world of its own.

[FLZapped]

Read the study carefully..they used either ITD, or IID..they did not use both..

What results can be garnered from an audibility test that determines the response of a human, to a stimulus that does not occur in nature??

While their results are certainly of academic interest, they are not in any way a measure of how humans localize.

Cheers, John

Sorry John, but you're wrong this time.

Look at who did the study. They are very much the right people do be doing this, their field is in trying to understand the functioning of the auditory system in order to better treat those who have profound hearing deficincies.

They have actually gone to the extreme of seperating the two functions out.

While in nature, we may nomally depend on both ITD and ILD, there is nothing that says you can't measure each capability seperately. Perhaps in the world of medicine, when trying to make a prosthetic, one method of emulation would be better than the other as opposed to implementing both. As you noted ILD show minimal differences compared to ITD for the same change.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

This is all in the Audio Lab under my blind listening post.

So how about providing the link to it then.

[FLZapped]

Give it up. The labcoats

How about knocking off the condescending bovine scat.

who do not trust their own senses will never buy this.
I'm rather enjoying, however, another (more open minded) labcoat pointing out to them the holes in the conventional thinking.

Obviously your enjoying what you think is so, becaue you appear to not have a clue what is really going on, either in terms of psychoacoustics, nor what it means to have a real discourse in ideas. Although, by now, as much as you have been exposed to it, you would, but that would mean you were paying attention. (I can be condescending too.)

My guess is that neither of the doubters has ever heard the Cardas, Nordost, or JPS Labs, etc. cables in their own systems. To such a point they would respond "What difference does that make?" They do not share our experiential point of reference

Sheer speculation on your part.

and would rather spend their time speculating as to how such could be.

See above, as explained before, regading what it means to have a real discourse of ideas.

Maybe at some time in the future when the research catches up with the reality, they will begin to better enjoy the musical experience, IMHO.

rw

Ah yes, continuing with the condescending manure that you know has absolutely no basis in fact, much less contribute anything useful to the topic; Much like the boombox fantasy you spread around about Mtrycrafts. Your back-handed method of ad hominem attacks, if you can neither understand or refute the message, won't work.

-Bruce

[musicoverall]

So how about providing the link to it then.

I'm finally able to use the comment/excuse I get from so many naysayers when I ask questions about the theory they post:

Do Your Own Research!

I believe I got this from someone on this very thread! Sheesh, Bruce, I can't play wetnurse to you people all the time! I'm sure a search on the Audio Lab will get you what you need. Do your own research! LOL!

Gosh, that was enjoyable! I see now why you cats use this on us all the time!

[FLZapped]

I'm finally able to use the comment/excuse I get from so many naysayers when I ask questions about the theory they post:

Do Your Own Research!

IF YOU WANT ME TO READ YOUR RESEARCH PROVIDE THE LINK - ITS CALLED COMMON COURTESY.

[Bernd]

By virtue of possessing two ears, one brain, 6000 pieces of software, a stereo system and a room in which to play music.

That's the one.Well put.

[theaudiohobby]

I'm finally able to use the comment/excuse I get from so many naysayers when I ask questions about the theory they post:

Do Your Own Research!

I believe I got this from someone on this very thread! Sheesh, Bruce, I can't play wetnurse to you people all the time! I'm sure a search on the Audio Lab will get you what you need. Do your own research! LOL!

Gosh, that was enjoyable! I see now why you cats use this on us all the time!

Most of the useful information that you are asking for unsurprisingly cost good money, visit aes.org and do some searches on the abstracts.