Playing with RCA vs Balanced in my setup

[Lodgesound]

The BBC - when developing the legendary LS 5/8 monitoring loudspeaker first of all built the prototypes and measured and corrected scientifically etc.

THEN they got 120 of the country's most respected sound engineers to subjectively listen to the end result and importantly made adjustments as per the comments they recieved from the evaluation.

How do I know this? One of my lecturers at the BBC's training colledge was the head of the design team for that particular loudspeaker.

Subjective evaluation by potential end users of critical machine designs during development is and has been proven throughout history to be vital.

The application of the "Hive Mind" can yield incredible and surprising results.

[JohnJo]

When I was doing research into "Infra bass and perceptions of reality in sound staging", which followed on from something Graham Holiman started. We found that a lot of what we did was indeed measurable, but a lot of what the large group of test subjects perceived was not, both they and us the crew could hear the effect, without going into the full details of something thing that is a large corporations Intellectual property, I will say it took almost three years to work out what was actually going on.

So when someone says they can hear what I can't measure, or I can hear it myself, my approach is to accept that people very probably, can detect the effect, then look for a new way in which this can be measured. That for me is proper exploring science. The closed minded "if I can't measure it, it isn't there" approach is not the attitude that made scientific advances, it's what has held science back.

That's a cracking post from Paul. It has always seemed to me that different people *must* have different perceptions. If some say they can't hear differences in cables I believe them. But, for me, I can't help but hear differences. In fact I've never heard two cables that sound the same so there's something going on whether people quote science at me or not and I agree that keeping an open mind to these phenomena is imperative to aiding our understanding of what's going on here.

[Qwin]

"Are you sure about that Cambridge Dacmagic? Do you have a circuit diagram? It would be very unusual to use more op-amps on the single-ended outputs than the balanced outputs."

I looked at the diagram a few years ago but didn't keep it. The subject was discussed on Diyaudio which is what drew it to my attention.

As I understand things, it depends on how the circuit is designed, if it is designed as fully balanced, you have to combine the two elements to achieve the additional single ended output at the end.

If it was designed as single ended, with just a balanced output conversion tacked on at the end, you would be correct that the single ended would use fewer op amps.

It's all down to which system the thing was designed around, it will have additional circuitry to achieve the other and may sound different/inferior through it.

[Marco]

Yes, I think Jez was misconstrued in this case too. I don't think Jez was making any comment on what anyone has heard with balanced or unbalanced connections, more taking issue with the conclusions drawn. I have similar feelings about drawing conclusions from such non-rigorous tests.

The problem was, Andrew, Jez was stating that the superiority some claim exists with balanced connections couldn't have arisen as a result of any bonafide technical reason.

Now, I cannot dispute that, because I'm technically unqualified to do so. Furthermore, I suspect he's almost certainly right, in so far as the existence of any technical explanation, which he considers is relevant to the subjective claims made to the contrary.

*However*, in stating what he did, referring to legitimate opposing views as a "myth", he's subsequently implying (albeit indirectly and perhaps unintentionally) that all those who disagree, as a result of it being contrary to their listening experience, have 'imagined' it - or otherwise what else explains the apparent dichotomy?

And, I'm sorry, there is *nothing* more insulting for some people (count me in) as when someone (a complete stranger on forum, regardless of his technical expertise) judges you in that way, when the fact is, whilst they may be qualified to make statements of electrical fact, they are NOT qualified to act as arbiter for what you hear (or don't), or demean your valid listening experience in the process, simply because it appears to contradict the scientific facts.

And as I said, INDIRECTLY that's what Jez was doing, which is why both Bruce and Neil were entitled to feel aggrieved. Having spoken with Jez, I fully accept he didn't mean it that way, but nevertheless that's why he got the reaction he did!

Furthermore, how "rigorous" should folk be on a hi-fi forum, when simply relating their SUBJECTIVE experiences, for the consideration of others? After all, they're having an informal chat, amongst mainly likeminded people, not sitting a physics exam or submitting a thesis for formal appraisal!

Marco.

[Pharos]

Scientific knowledge has been, and is gained by a few people doing a lot of hard and often sustained work.
When a new discovery is made, it is usually verified with empirical repeated testing and by peers.

If it then seems to be valid it is regarded as a truth, but it is usually only a model, one which complies (and 'explains'), with the evidence available at the time.
Further work and evidence derived may increase the model complexity, and as a result we get nearer to a deeper understanding of the area concerned.

It is by no means a full account of all that is happening in the area concerned, and I think we have to - to all intents and purposes regard reality as infinitely complex.

If we dismiss any perceptions which do not comply with, or are not explained by this knowledge, isn't it surely better to question the knowledge base's validity than dismiss the perception? But both are open to questioning, analysis, and validation.

The basis of all science is in perceptions which arouse curiosity and investigation, and it is unscientific to dismiss any perceptions, the same ones we use when we are being 'scientific'.

Engineering uses scientifically gained knowledge, and applies this in its art to attempt to improve the human condition, but we have to live, 'balanced' in the/tittering/quandry point between using established theories, and their border with the unknown.

We must not compromise the integrity of our thought processes in this position because of lack of ability to be in this not fully resolved position, and the feeling of insecurity which it may instill.

Marco, I think that there is a great deal of rigour shown here, and that is great, the more the better.

Stewart, was that Mr C. D. Mathers?

[RothwellAudio]

The problem was, Andrew, that Jez was stating that the superiority some claim exists with balanced connections couldn't have arisen as a result of any bonafide technical reason.

Well, that's where me and Jez differ, despite me agreeing with much of what he says. In situations like that my default position is not that any perceived differences must be imaginary (though that's a possibility), but that my understanding is insufficient to explain it.

[struth]

we of course dont just listen with our ears. We listen with other senses too and the brain collates all this in real time. Sometimes because the default medium of a forum is typed, then we dont hear what we read correctly.
a bit like tasting without a nose. we only really get sweet of sour initially.

[Marco]

Well, that's where me and Jez differ, despite me agreeing with much of what he says. In situations like that my default position is not that any perceived differences must be imaginary (though that's a possibility), but that my understanding is insufficient to explain it.

Indeed. Of course it's a possibility, and most likely a very real and distinct one, given the suggestive nature of the human mind.

However, I simply don't buy the notion that it's *automatically* the case EVERY TIME someone hears something, which apparently contradicts the 'facts' contained inside some engineer's favourite text books [read as self-appointed 'indisputable fact bibles']!

And when that's the case, we need to delve into the matter further, with sufficient RIGOUR, and apply some lateral thinking, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand as 'imagined', due to expectation bias, placebo or whatever. That is fundamentally NOT the way for us to genuinely learn.

In terms of the rest, we are in agreement

Marco.

[Marco]

Scientific knowledge has been, and is gained by a few people doing a lot of hard and often sustained work.
When a new discovery is made, it is usually verified with empirical repeated testing and by peers.

If it then seems to be valid it is regarded as a truth, but it is usually only a model, one which complies (and 'explains'), with the evidence available at the time.
Further work and evidence derived may increase the model complexity, and as a result we get nearer to a deeper understanding of the area concerned.

It is by no means a full account of all that is happening in the area concerned, and I think we have to - to all intents and purposes regard reality as infinitely complex.

If we dismiss any perceptions which do not comply with, or are not explained by this knowledge, isn't it surely better to question the knowledge base's validity than dismiss the perception? But both are open to questioning, analysis, and validation.

The basis of all science is in perceptions which arouse curiosity and investigation, and it is unscientific to dismiss any perceptions, the same ones we use when we are being 'scientific'.

Engineering uses scientifically gained knowledge, and applies this in its art to attempt to improve the human condition, but we have to live, 'balanced' in the/tittering/quandry point between using established theories, and their border with the unknown.

We must not compromise the integrity of our thought processes in this position because of lack of ability to be in this not fully resolved position, and the feeling of insecurity which it may instill.

Brilliant post, Dennis... The emboldened parts above are highly relevant and so true!

In terms of the second highlighted section, there simply isn't enough of that taking place from the supposedly scientifically-minded fraternity. Instead, they mostly dismiss the perception, simply to pacify their belief system, and perhaps not force themselves into the discomfort of re-evaluating the validity of their long-held conclusions.

That's certainly the behaviour I mostly witness from them. After all, it's much easier to bury your head in the sand, than potentially face something that calls into question everything you previously considered was true...

Marco.

[Pharos]

There has also ben a lot of work recently on the contextuality of perceptions, dispelling the idea that they are all separate and do not influence each other, eg. colour of ambient lighting on the taste of wine.