View Full Version : Get a grip ffs.
Good Grief
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Oi06md947_oJ:www.malcolmsteward.co. uk/%3Fp%3D2479+http://www.malcolmsteward.co.uk/%3Fp%3D2479&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=safari
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/08/18/can-sata-cables-make-your-music-sound-better/
Articles like this really don’t help to dispel the belief of many who might otherwise support the ailing Hi Fi industry that the H iFi industry and the media that represents it, is full of sharks and badly informed reactionary old bastards that don’t have even a basic grasp of the science of sound reproduction let alone adequate knowledge of new technology.
The Vinyl Adventure
20-08-2010, 14:45
i couldnt give a toss either way to be honest ... but why bother saying it if he didnt feel it had made an improvement... dont get me wrong, im not backing up his claims... just intrigued by his motives
aquapiranha
20-08-2010, 14:58
i saw the original thread on the Wam before it was pulled as mr steward threatened legal action. I personally doubt they could make a diffierence and while reading his site I couldn't help but notice his 'tweaks' thread contained a couple of supposed tweaks which are at least loosly related to a certain manufacturers, namely naim and chord...guess who he has links to on the site too??? hmm...
The Vinyl Adventure
20-08-2010, 15:01
so there might be an ulterior motive?
aquapiranha
20-08-2010, 15:06
I couldn't possibly say! but I would like to know who made these cables, if it was chord, or one of the other manufacturers linked to from his site I would not be entirely surprised let's put it that way. I may of course be wrong, and in the interests of protecting this forum, I will add that these opinions are entirely my own. :)
The Vinyl Adventure
20-08-2010, 15:15
It's a bit chicken copping out of letting people leave comments, but the I supose the opening post is a good example o why he might not want comments (no offence)
I shall as always remain unbiased, I have no idea why a cable like that would make any odds... But then I also have no idea why it wouldn't ... I know nothing of electronics or cables shielding or data transmision or anything.... So why worry about it I say... Some people will buy it/into it some people won't ... Makes bugger all difference to me...
I’m not sure I would approach articles of this nature with a why should I care, people will either believe it or not attitude.
It doesn’t take many visits to forums such as this to realize that many visitors look to such forums for “knowledge”.
It is easy to respond with only a fool would seek knowledge on an internet forum but if we are honest, most of us have done exactly that at some point.
Add to this that many of these regular contributors/journalists either explicitly or implicitly claim larger product experience, more sophisticated auditioning equipment, years of experience in the field, etc, and what you can end up with is acknowledged experts in their field, often supported by their peers, and large financial concerns such at media companies.
I’ve read on these forums posts from contributors who have been in the HiFi business using their experience in the business to imply, albeit quite subtlety, that their opinion should carry more weight because of their former position.
Unfortunately we rarely question those concerned about exactly what it is that they believe qualifies them to be experts in their field and what interests they may have in supporting one particular view or product.
Some industries would seem to have stricter controls over expert status and advertising content than others. The “audiophile” section of the music industry seems to have virtually no controls concerning claims made by manufacturers and often self appointed experts.
Does any of this matter?
That depends on whether you would prefer to have accurate information disseminated wherever possible or are quite happy to let people struggle with sorting the probable from the improbable.
If for example you consulted an expert concerning your office computer network system and he/she recommended you spent so many thousands of pounds on a particular product you subsequently discovered made absolutely no difference to any functional aspect of the system might you not consider taking him/her to court?
I would argue that the same applies in any case where you have “experts” and knowledge seekers; schools, hospitals, engineering matters to name a few. It is in every bodies interest to have up to date, accurate unbiased and verifiable data wherever possible.
This approach has worked pretty well in reducing ignorance and superstition in the past. I really cant see any reason why audio should be an exception.
Techno Commander
20-08-2010, 17:15
increased naturalness
WTF!!!:scratch:
I tend to keep a open mind perhaps it works perhaps not....without hearing for myself no judgements
As for advice on Forums well on the whole I think a number of people here have really benefited and also there been times when members have really helped me out Yes from time to time we get the odd crackpot, but there is a wealth of knowlefge and most people enjoy sharing
Reid Malenfant
20-08-2010, 17:39
Does any of this matter?
That depends on whether you would prefer to have accurate information disseminated wherever possible or are quite happy to let people struggle with sorting the probable from the improbable.
If for example you consulted an expert concerning your office computer network system and he/she recommended you spent so many thousands of pounds on a particular product you subsequently discovered made absolutely no difference to any functional aspect of the system might you not consider taking him/her to court?
I honestly think there is a rather large difference between a so called expert installing something in a computer system to streamline things if you like, than a subjective difference between two cables ;) I'm sure it'd be noticeable if things did go to plan & the system worked more efficiently - you'd be able to measure something, whether it be a speed increase or cooler running processors ;)
I think we already understand that you can't "measure" a stereo image using any kind of electronic equipment. Yes you can measure channel seperation but you could measure things forever & it still won't tell you what the combined two channel signal will sound like on a pair of well set up hifi speakers :eyebrows:
I think this is where the objectivists fall down as all they appear to squawk about is L.C.R. (inductance, capacitance & resistance). Objectivists can't appear to accept that people hear things differently on different cables, they don't like it because they can't measure it! If they can't measure it then it doesn't exist is their mantra :doh:
Personally i'm not going to make a big fuss over audio interconnects, but digital interconnects most definately make a big difference imo, having experimented with different cables & connectors in my system :)
Here we are talking about much higher frequencies & square waveforms where edges need to be accurately reproduced & not corrupted by cable capacitance etc. It's about keeping jitter low, jitter is time distortion which is in reality little different at the end of the day from harmonic distortion imo
Perhaps not the best analogy but……….
So Mark, in general terms, would you agree with the tenant behind
“That depends on whether you would prefer to have accurate information disseminated wherever possible or are quite happy to let people struggle with sorting the probable from the improbable.”
And
“I would argue that the same applies in any case where you have “experts” and knowledge seekers; schools, hospitals, engineering matters to name a few. It is in every body’s interest to have up to date, accurate unbiased and verifiable data wherever possible”
or not?
I don’t consider myself to be firmly in the objectivist or subjectivist camp. I tend towards rational explanations of the world around me in the first instance and repeatable results through testing where possible; failing these, weight of opinion.
It is true, audio perception is a complicated business and I wouldn’t dream of telling anyone what they can and can’t hear. However, if 1000 people can’t hear something and 5 do I would tend to suspect the hearing of the 5 rather than the 1000.
Reid Malenfant
20-08-2010, 18:25
So Mark, in general terms, would you agree with the tenant behind
“That depends on whether you would prefer to have accurate information disseminated wherever possible or are quite happy to let people struggle with sorting the probable from the improbable.”
And
“I would argue that the same applies in any case where you have “experts” and knowledge seekers; schools, hospitals, engineering matters to name a few. It is in every body’s interest to have up to date, accurate unbiased and verifiable data wherever possible”
or not?
Oh i agree with that wholeheartedly :)
I happen to be a member of a certain forum that discusses shall we say scientifically proven stuff ;) Occasionally members join that in all honesty don't know what the hell they are taking about but like to think they do, but what's worse is that these people are often giving advice to others who admit they don't know :doh:
The thing is this... If i don't know i'll either shut up or ask questions in an attempt to try to understand (if i'm interested). As i'm sure you're aware there are way more than enough people out there on forums or whatever that will just jump in & give erroneous information thinking they are doing someone else a favour :eek:
These idiots need weeding out (& banning or at least being asked to STFU) imo, especially if they are mentioning anything to do with working with potentially lethal voltages :rolleyes:
As we are discussing cables right this second i don't mind chirping up :lolsign:
Seriously though i know exactly where you are coming from ;)
Guys, remember that this man uses a Naim system with DBL's. I could be wrong, but Naim systems have traditionally used un-shielded interconnects which pick up all sorts of interference given the chance - from experience here... Heck, the interconnect to the 250's used to be three core mains cable into a plastic XLR. heaven knows what's going on there :rolleyes:
Yes, possibly, but….
As I understand it this is a connection from a NAS drive to the Naim setup.
Even if in theory a very small amount of distortion was present just how likely is it that it would be audible to anything except a bloody bat! :doh:
Frankly, the whole tone of the article stinks.
Oh well, one of many in my experience :violin:
the writings of the journalist in question, from his contributions to flat earth publications such as HFReview and into the present day, should always be read with very very healthy dose of scepticism.
I have now stopped reading HFC as well.
:stalks:
dave2010
23-08-2010, 13:49
I'm not generally in favour of articles which put forward views which are scientifically unjustifiable. However it might be worth reading this follow up article - http://www.malcolmsteward.co.uk/?p=2495
It may well be that the changes mentioned, assuming they existed, were due to other parts of the system which were poorly screened. In a well designed system digital noise should have little or no effect, but not all systems are well designed. I'd say that there's just a chance that the effects mentioned were reported correctly, and in that case something else in the system wasn't ideal.
Steve Toy
23-08-2010, 14:36
Quote:
increased naturalness
WTF!!!
This is nothing more than a badly-worded yet perfectly valid subjective response.
Remember that you don't need any of these so-called "experts" when you can trust your ears. You won't get far in your quest for hi-fi musical nirvana if you choose to rely on the opinion of others to make your own choices. The opinions of others, as found here, are useful pointers but there is only ever going to be one set of ears that will be the final arbiter and they are your own.
Consumer champions are superfluous in this industry except in such parameters as safety, VFM and reliability.
Ones ears are the most untrustworthy things out there and the mind behind them the most easily fooled. It's been proven time and time again damnit.
I love the story of the people asked to compare different interconnects, from a basic patch-cord to a 1" hosepipe claiming all sorts. the listeners heard HUGE differences apparently, especially when the hosepipe was "used," yet apparently, the only cable used in this test was the basic one, together with a swich that was actually disconnected.
Sorry, I need proper verification that things do what they do. There's still more than enough leeway to hear things even so..
What cracks me up is subjectivists who say 'your ears are the only real arbiter of what constitutes good sound', then get all het up when someone, reporting their own listening experience, criticises the subjectivists own favourite component.
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 12:14
What cracks me up is subjectivists who say 'your ears are the only real arbiter of what constitutes good sound', then get all het up when someone, reporting their own listening experience, criticises the subjectivists own favourite component.
Not true. A good subjectivist should always acknowledge the validity of the findings of others based on their own experience. I would only get 'het up' if my own findings were being questioned because they did not conform to someone else's belief set that wasn't in itself based on personal experience.
DSJR,
If you don't trust your ears there is no point. You may as well sell the lot and buy something for 200 quid all-in from Currys or PC World. Or splash out a bit more on ADM9s.
I love the story of the people asked to compare different interconnects, from a basic patch-cord to a 1" hosepipe claiming all sorts. the listeners heard HUGE differences apparently, especially when the hosepipe was "used," yet apparently, the only cable used in this test was the basic one, together with a swich that was actually disconnected.
If they actually used their ears this wouldn't happen.
Now, look at the banner on top. Is the yellow around the lettering the same shade as that either side of the whole banner?
Now look again.
DSJR,
If you don't trust your ears there is no point. You may as well sell the lot and buy something for 200 quid all-in from Currys or PC World. Or splash out a bit more on ADM9s.
Why don't I do just that? If it wasn't for sentiment, it wouldn't bother me at all..
Now, look at the banner on top. Is the yellow around the lettering the same shade as that either side of the whole banner?
Now look again.
No, they aren't. Subjectively and objectively!
(Although subjectively I wouldn't call it yellow! ;))
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 14:40
Alex, they are the same shade!
Reid Malenfant
24-08-2010, 14:46
Alex, they are the same shade!
I'm in agreement, what Alex is seeing is an optical illusion caused by the thinner bit at the top being close to vastly different colours & this makes it look a different colour ;)
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 15:02
Indeed but if you allow your gaze to travel from the sides down to the bottom and then up across the bottom border into the area where the lettering is you'll see that the shade of yellow doesn't change.
When you use your senses you have to use them properly. You also need to allow for certain points of reference and other influences. In this way you can train yourself to be discerning.
Alternatively you can rationalise any lack of ability with cynicism.
Isn’t this a great example of why we measure instead of making assessments subjectively?
#CEBA52 and #CFB85A on my browser
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 15:14
Isn’t this a great example of why we measure instead of making assessments subjectively?
No, because our perception of change goes beyond what can be measured. I can't measure it therefore it does not exist is a fallacious assertion.
Hi-fi which has been designed only by measurement is often poor at detail retrieval.
I doubt that any hifi equipment is designed 'by measurement alone'.
The RGB value for the mustard (;)) colour on the banner is R 207 G 184 B 90
For the Background the RGB value is R 206 G 186 B 82
#CEBA52 and #CFB85A on my browser
The RGB value for the mustard (;)) colour on the banner is R 207 G 184 B 90
For the Background the RGB value is R 206 G 186 B 82
:D
... But depending on what you are viewing with, they may appear to be the same.
I certainly tend to fit into the subjectivist camp but also sometimes see it a bit like are you leg or breast man and forget the whole;)
Ali Tait
24-08-2010, 15:26
I doubt that any hifi equipment is designed 'by measurement alone'.
When Nick built the breadboard direct-coupled prototype amp,it was built purely using measurements as Nick doesn't have any statics so no way to listen to the amp.Not only did it work first time,it sounded superb.
Reid Malenfant
24-08-2010, 15:27
Jeez i'm thick :doh: I must learn to read things properly in future ;)
I thought someone was refering to the thin border above the banner & the thicker stuff at the sides, not around the AoS bit :rolleyes:
:doh: :lolsign:
Ali Tait
24-08-2010, 15:27
Alex, they are the same shade!
I suggest you get your eyes tested Steve!
Thats impressive but I still would want to hear it before I bought it. Good design principles we always encourage me but in the end it will come down to the sound
see it a bit like are you leg or breast man and forget the whole;)
Both are boring!
Oh... you were talking about Chicken, right? :eyebrows:
When Nick built the breadboard direct-coupled prototype amp,it was built purely using measurements as Nick doesn't have any statics so no way to listen to the amp.Not only did it work first time,it sounded superb.
But no one was more surprised than me at the time.
Also, to edit and add, while this amp was not listened to while building, I have listened to a lot of things I have built, so you do build up a cause and effect between measurements, design choices and the resultant sound.
What may be being missed here is that measurement is neither good or bad, informative or not. What matters is how those measurements are interpreted.
Ali Tait
24-08-2010, 16:56
Yes,we thought it wasn't working till I realised I had the wrong source selected on the pre. :doh:
Ali Tait
24-08-2010, 16:57
Anyway,I had every confidence in you Nick!
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 17:04
No, because our perception of change goes beyond what can be measured. I can't measure it therefore it does not exist is a fallacious assertion.
I don't know about that.
All that we can perceive from our audio systems is ultimately the result of changes in voltage and current over time, which can be measured to levels far below the ability of any human to perceive under normal listening conditions.
Where has it ever been shown that a difference established to actually be an audible one has been able to escape the ability to be measured? I can't say that I'm aware of any such example.
se
Reid Malenfant
24-08-2010, 17:10
This is beginning to sound like a certain closed cable thread i know about :eyebrows:
Steve, can a stereo image be measured by looking at the voltages & currents feeding a pair of speakers? Can the measurement predict what the stereo image should sound like :scratch:
I doubt it very much, however i'll be very happy to be proved wrong ;)
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 17:36
All that we can perceive from our audio systems is ultimately the result of changes in voltage and current over time, which can be measured to levels far below the ability of any human to perceive under normal listening conditions.
The part in bold is incorrect. You've overlooked the kind of issues that mask detail retrieval, like noise which comes in from various sources.
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 17:36
Steve, can a stereo image be measured by looking at the voltages & currents feeding a pair of speakers?
It still ultimately boils down to changes in voltage and current over time. You've simply added another channel. So, yes, all else being equal.
Can the measurement predict what the stereo image should sound like :scratch:
Predicting what something should sound like is rather more complicated as it involves psychoacoustics (remember, stereophonic sound is ultimately a psychoacoustical illusion) and correlating what's going on at the signal level with what is perceived.
se
Reid Malenfant
24-08-2010, 17:41
<snip> Predicting what something should sound like is rather more complicated as it involves psychoacoustics (remember, stereophonic sound is ultimately a psychoacoustical illusion)
My point precisely, you can't measure an illusion :eyebrows:
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 17:41
The part in bold is incorrect. You've overlooked the kind of issues that mask detail retrieval, like noise which comes in from various sources.
What noise are you speaking of? If it's in the electrical domain, it's still changes in voltage and current over time.
se
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 17:42
My point precisely, you can't measure an illusion :eyebrows:
But you can measure that which is responsible for the illusion.
se
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 17:42
Measurements will not predict how a broad consensus of people will perceive the sound.
If it's in the electrical domain, it's still changes in voltage and current over time.
You're getting close. What if the changes are only indirectly in the electrical domain?
But you can measure that which is responsible for the illusion.
But you can't predict the nature of the illusion from the measurements. Remember that the whole recorded music listening experience is an illusion. The art of sound is making that illusion as convincing as possible.
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 17:45
Predicting how something is going to sound and be perceived to sound by consensus cannot be achieved from the measurements.
Not entirely, no. At best all you can come up with are some correlations.
But that doesn't change the main point that there's nothing that can be heard that can't be measured.
se
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 17:47
You're getting close. What if the changes are only indirectly in the electrical domain?
Not sure what you mean by "indirectly" in the electrical domain. If it's in the electrical domain it's in the electrical domain. Which brings us back to changes in voltage and current over time.
se
I guess it's something like room temperature; a thermometer will tell you exactly what the temperature is, but that same temperature might make the room feel too warm for one person, and too cold for another. Similarly measurements can tell you everything about a piece of hifi equipment except whether you will like it.
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 18:17
I guess it's something like room temperature; a thermometer will tell you exactly what the temperature is, but that same temperature might make the room feel too warm for one person, and too cold for another. Similarly measurements can tell you everything about a piece of hifi equipment except whether you will like it.
Sure.
My only point has been that any changes sufficient to produce an actual audible difference are capable of being measured.
se
Reid Malenfant
24-08-2010, 18:23
Sure.
My only point has been that any changes sufficient to produce an actual audible difference are capable of being measured.
se
Only if those changes are in the electrical domain.
As an example, we all know that setting up a pair of speakers in a room is a pita. They can sound different by moving them a few millimeters, you can't measure that in the electrical domain as it'll still be just the same as it was previously.
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 18:26
Only if those changes are in the electrical domain.
As an example, we all know that setting up a pair of speakers in a room is a pita. They can sound different by moving them a few millimeters, you can't measure that in the electrical domain as it'll still be just the same as it was previously.
No, you can't measure that in the electrical domain. But you can measure it in the acoustical domain, in which case you're just talking about changes in air pressure over time.
se
Well, actually you can measure the results of moving speakers; that’s how we know about the so called “sweet spot” but never mind ;)
As you were :)
Reid Malenfant
24-08-2010, 18:39
No, you can't measure that in the electrical domain. But you can measure it in the acoustical domain, in which case you're just talking about changes in air pressure over time.
se
:lol: Yes, but i don't know of any so called tests that should tell you how it actually should sound. You might be able to measure some kind of distortion but will your measuring equipment say it's distortion caused by second or third harmonics being generated by a drive unit or if time alignment is out between two drive units near the crossover frequency?
All i'm saying is that as far as i'm concerned there is no way that electrical testing can tell us what an illusional stereo image should sound like. You'd need to process two channels with each covering at least 20Hz to 20KHz & integrate them in real time. So that works out at something like 400,000,000 calculations per second at the very least (20000^2) to get any idea of what kind of sound field might be generated. I have seen no such kit.
& don't tell me it's called a computer :eyebrows:
Well, actually you can measure the results of moving speakers; that’s how we know about the so called “sweet spot” but never mind ;)
As you were :)
What's that? :eyebrows:
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 18:44
I guess it's something like room temperature; a thermometer will tell you exactly what the temperature is, but that same temperature might make the room feel too warm for one person, and too cold for another. Similarly measurements can tell you everything about a piece of hifi equipment except whether you will like it.
Off beam, Joe. I think objectivity is possible to achieve via a consensus of subjective responses. If all five people in a room are shivering and the thermometer says 30C the thermometer is broken.
We can't measure time alignment and we can't measure time smear but we can address both and the results can be repeatably pleasing.
You'd need to process two channels with each covering at least 20Hz to 20KHz & integrate them in real time.
I can do that! :)
BUT!.... life is far too short. :lol:
We can't measure time alignment and we can't measure time smear
How the bloody hell do YOU know? :stalks:
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 18:48
Now Mike, do you mean,
"How do you know? = I'm right
or
"What makes you think that? = I'm wrong?
If I'm wrong please tell me how you measure these.
If I'm wrong please tell me how you measure these.
Ha!... not likely, sonny Jim. ;)
You made a distinct and definite statement. Justify it please? :)
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 19:03
I'm asking you. I thought this was supposed to be a place to share knowledge. You clearly know something that I don't so please share it or are you indulging yourself in a little crowing?
Remember this isn't a scientific forum as such and it isn't a court room either :)
I'm asking you. I thought this was supposed to be a place to share knowledge. You clearly know something that I don't so please share it or are you indulging yourself in a little crowing?
Ooh... being a slippery little bugger, eh?
Excellent, I like a guy with 'a pair'! ;)
OK, lets take it step by step. You said: "We can't measure time alignment" and "we can't measure time smear".
Which begs the question: "Then how do you know it exists?" - (In terms of "time alignment" and "time smear".)
Cheers...
P.S. I know this looks like I'm being a 'picky arse' but I have a genuine interest. Humour me. :)
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 19:12
:lol: Yes, but i don't know of any so called tests that should tell you how it actually should sound.
That was never my point so I don't know why it keeps being brought up.
Anyway, I think this may well be my last post here. I had the impression that this place wasn't as uptight as some of the other forums I frequent but I was apparently mistaken on that.
I've just been notified by a moderator that I need to change my avatar as it's "in bad taste."
Was fun while it lasted.
Ciao.
se
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 19:15
Steve, in my book the avatar is fine. Someone has got no sense of humour today. The dog is cute though.
Steve, in my book the avatar is fine. Someone has got no sense of humour today. The dog is cute though.
Dog?... I love Dogs! :eek:
anthonyTD
24-08-2010, 19:19
Steve, in my book the avatar is fine. Someone has got no sense of humour today. The dog is cute though.
steve it was me!
i love dogs and i suspect so do many others here, that is why i expressed my opinion that it was in bad taste!
A.
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 19:19
I love dogs too but I didn't think it was in poor taste. Anyway, I guess my sense of humour is a bit warped anyway. :eyebrows:
Off beam, Joe. I think objectivity is possible to achieve via a consensus of subjective responses. If all five people in a room are shivering and the thermometer says 30C the thermometer is broken.
I was assuming an accurate thermometer for the sake of argument. Anyway, all five people might have the flu, or they might all be what my mother used to call 'chilly mortals'.
Anyway, I think this may well be my last post here. I had the impression that this place wasn't as uptight as some of the other forums I frequent but I was apparently mistaken on that.
Oi!!...
Stick by your guns mate! ;)
This is just a bit of "flannel throwing"... it's not always like this.
Who moaned about your avatar, anyway?... looked OK to me. :lolsign:
Reid Malenfant
24-08-2010, 19:23
Steve, in my book the avatar is fine. Someone has got no sense of humour today. The dog is cute though.
I'll agree with that, Border Collies are cool & clever dogs ;)
Shame Steve, i can think of far worse for an avatar & i probably have some i could load up myself :eyebrows:
I thought the English were renowned for a sense of humour, admittedly i often don't appear humorous but then we aren't all the same (thankfully) or it'd be a boring world :rolleyes:
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 19:23
It was Anthony and now I feel a bit silly because he's not exactly uptight.
I thought the English were renowned for a sense of humour, admittedly i often don't appear humorous but then we aren't all the same (thankfully) or it'd be a boring world :rolleyes:
Yebbut Anthony's Welsh, innit?
It was Anthony and now I feel a bit silly because he's not exactly uptight.
Don't worry (see admin area)... Stick to the point! :trust:
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 19:27
I'll agree with that, Border Collies are cool & clever dogs
I've fond memories of a family a border collie in my childhood. I trained her to perform a few tricks including being a goal keeper.
I love dogs. I didn't find the avatar the least bit offensive.
Maybe the thread title says all i should like to about this :doh:
anthonyTD
24-08-2010, 19:29
hi all,
as steve has just stated i am not normaly known for being uptight, i am welsh for goodness sake :lol:
but i genuinely thought that the avatar was offensive, i used to own a border collie and he was lovely, had him untill he was 17.
broke my heart when he went.
A...
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 19:31
Steve, in my book the avatar is fine. Someone has got no sense of humour today. The dog is cute though.
Well, the offended party was an AoS moderator, so I assume the request to change/remove it was an official one, not just a suggestion.
se
Reid Malenfant
24-08-2010, 19:34
Time smear... anyone?
I'd like an explanaition of this tbh. I can understand phase discrepancies due to voice coils being out of line at crossover frequencies..
Smearing though?
Please enlighten me & once again apologies for going :offtopic:
anthonyTD
24-08-2010, 19:34
Well, the offended party was an AoS moderator, so I assume the request to change/remove it was an official one, not just a suggestion.
se
hi steve,
glad your still around, dont take it personal, it was my opinion, by all means put the dog as your avatar [he's great] just lose the gun!;)
A...
aquapiranha
24-08-2010, 19:35
Time smear... anyone?
I had a quick look on google but only came up with stuff from cable makers. Make of that what you will. Anyway, enough of this pointless bickering. When are people going to realise that there are those who believe and those that dont? The one is unlilely to convince the other so why not just chill the f out and listen to some music?
:doh:
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 19:35
steve it was me!
i love dogs and i suspect so do many others here, that is why i expressed my opinion that it was in bad taste!
A.
I love cats more than I love dogs. But I also have a sense of humor and enjoy such things as Skip Morrow's I Hate Cats series of books.
http://www.skipmorrow.com/assets/books/i_hate_cats/ihc_1-01/i_hate_cats_front_cov.jpg
se
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 19:38
Now that is funny :o and I love cats too. :)
http://www.skipmorrow.com/html/galleries/cats-frameset.html
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 19:40
hi steve,
glad your still around, dont take it personal, it was my opinion, by all means put the dog as your avatar [he's great] just lose the gun!;)
A...
Ok. Maybe later I'll PhotoShop in a crossbow. :lol:
se
anthonyTD
24-08-2010, 19:41
ok, back on track,
there are real reasons why cables should make a diffrence and if tested for the right changes they can be explained [no magic] its all mainly down to three things, resistance, reactance, capacitance.
ask most radio ham's and they will scoff if you try to explain that diffrent configurations of wire affect audio frequencies, but most of us have experienced these diffrences so...
A...
aquapiranha
24-08-2010, 19:41
OT... Simons cat series...
I1qHVVbYG8Y
Now, as you were gentlemen.
anthonyTD
24-08-2010, 19:42
Ok. Maybe later I'll PhotoShop in a crossbow. :lol:
se
:eek:
I'd like an explanaition of this tbh. I can understand phase discrepancies due to voice coils being out of line at crossover frequencies..
Smearing though?
Please enlighten me & once again apologies for going :offtopic:
The 'unmeasurable' argument goes tits up as soon as one mentions "time"!
There's an instant reference right there! :)
I love dogs too, got a Retriever. I think the Avatar is cool. I don't get the impression the dog would be shot so it's amusing and the dog is cute.
Grrrr.... no more dogs! :lolsign:
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 19:48
In case the National Lampoon didn't get much circulation in the UK back in the 70's (or some of you were too young to remember), my avatar was inspired by their iconic cover from their January, 1973 issue:
http://trustedadvisor.com/public/image/national-lampoon-73%20or%20i%27ll%20shoot%20this%20dog.jpg
Ok, back to the topic...
se
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 19:51
Grrrr.... no more dogs! :lolsign:
Agreed.
MORE CATS! MORE CATS! MORE CATS! :lol:
se
Agreed.
MORE CATS! MORE CATS! MORE CATS! :lol:
se
:D
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 20:02
ok, back on track,
there are real reasons why cables should make a diffrence and if tested for the right changes they can be explained [no magic] its all mainly down to three things, resistance, reactance, capacitance.
ask most radio ham's and they will scoff if you try to explain that diffrent configurations of wire affect audio frequencies, but most of us have experienced these diffrences so...
A...
Certainly one can make a cable with sufficiently high resistance, inductance and/or capacitance to alter the frequency response to the point of being audible. However it's trivially easy to make a cable that doesn't. And I'd consider any cable that does to essentially be "broken."
se
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 20:05
Time smear... anyone?
Would be helpful for one to define what they mean by the term.
If it has to do with certain frequencies being delayed more than others, a group delay plot will show you that.
se
Ooh... being a slippery little bugger, eh?
Excellent, I like a guy with 'a pair'! ;)
OK, lets take it step by step. You said: "We can't measure time alignment" and "we can't measure time smear".
Which begs the question: "Then how do you know it exists?" - (In terms of "time alignment" and "time smear".)
Cheers...
P.S. I know this looks like I'm being a 'picky arse' but I have a genuine interest. Humour me. :)
Still waiting... ;)
anthonyTD
24-08-2010, 20:07
Certainly one can make a cable with sufficiently high resistance, inductance and/or capacitance to alter the frequency response to the point of being audible. However it's trivially easy to make a cable that doesn't. And I'd consider any cable that does to essentially be "broken."
se
i agree to a point but it all hinges on what you deem an acceptable amount of either to not have an audible affect, there lies the problem!
A...
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 20:08
What about timing anomolies occuring before the signal even reaches the speakers?
I'll stay in questioning mode as it keeps me out of trouble.
I'll stay in questioning mode as it keeps me out of trouble.
Oh no it don't! ;)
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 20:15
i agree to a point but it all hinges on what you deem an acceptable amount of either to not have an audible affect, there lies the problem!
A...
Well, we already have a pretty good handle on such thresholds. Generally speaking, if you can keep the frequency response flat to within about 0.1dB, you're safe.
se
Reid Malenfant
24-08-2010, 20:19
What about timing anomolies occuring before the signal even reaches the speakers?
I'll stay in questioning mode as it keeps me out of trouble.
Wouldn't that only occur due to excessive cable capacitance delaying the higher frequencies compared to midrange & to a lesser extent bass?
:eyebrows: Keeping out of trouble? You're a mod at the end of the day :lol:
Actually i used to be a mod on a few forums, i found it was often more trouble than it was worth. Be a proletariat, it's so much easier :doh:
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 20:20
Oh no it don't! ;)
Sic 'im!
*MEOOOOOOOW!* *FSSSSSSSST!*
http://pethealth.petwellbeing.com/w/images/thumb/b/b0/Cat_aggression_1.jpg/400px-Cat_aggression_1.jpg
se
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 20:21
Keeping out of trouble? You're a mod at the end of the day
Yes but Mike's also a mod. Anyway I'll indulge him getting his jollies from going all stern on me ;)
anthonyTD
24-08-2010, 20:23
Well, we already have a pretty good handle on such thresholds. Generally speaking, if you can keep the frequency response flat to within about 0.1dB, you're safe.
se
again i agree to a point but the problem with that is we cannot predict the affect these set parameters will have on diffrent pieces of kit!
A...
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 20:25
Wouldn't that only occur due to excessive cable capacitance delaying the higher frequencies compared to midrange & to a lesser extent bass?
If one is worried about the "timing anomalies" caused by a length of cable, then they best never look at the group delay plot for most any loudspeaker. It'd curl their toes.
se
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 20:26
again i agree to a point but the problem with that is we cannot predict the affect these set parameters will have on diffrent pieces of kit!
You can if you know some basic information like input and output impedances and the resistance, capacitance and inductance of the cables in question.
se
anthonyTD
24-08-2010, 20:27
If one is worried about the "timing anomalies" caused by a length of cable, then they best never look at the group delay plot for most any loudspeaker. It'd curl their toes.
se
now that i can fully agree with!:eyebrows:
A...
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 20:29
now that i can fully agree with!:eyebrows:
A...
http://www.q-audio.com/images/yikes.gif
:lol:
se
Techno Commander
24-08-2010, 20:30
Agreed.
MORE CATS! MORE CATS! MORE CATS! :lol:
se
You asked for it. :)
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/cat.gif?w=500&h=404
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/bigthink-com.png?w=450&h=311
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/funny-pictures-pantry-cat-organizes-your-jars.jpg?w=500
EKvNqe8cKU4
Glad your avatar is back.
Yes but Mike's also a mod. Anyway I'll indulge him getting his jollies from going all stern on me ;)
So.. any answers? :)
The two yellows on the AoS banner are definitely the same. Or not, as the case may be.
Reid Malenfant
24-08-2010, 20:36
If one is worried about the "timing anomalies" caused by a length of cable, then they best never look at the group delay plot for most any loudspeaker. It'd curl their toes.
se
Ah indeed, this is why reflex speakers can be bad. Anything with a high total Q can also be a pain in the posterior as well. This is why i prefer active or should i say (seeing as some like to argue the toss) an electronic crossover with Linkwitz/Riley filters @ 24DB per octave & then time aligning the drivers.
Bass end group delay can be corrected to a good extent by using a low Q alignment, yes you'll still get some delay but nowhere near as much as using a higher Qts driver (unless using a high Qts driver in a sealed box with a Linkwitz/Riley transform filter). These also correct for transient response & time alignment ;)
anthonyTD
24-08-2010, 20:37
You can if you know some basic information like input and output impedances and the resistance, capacitance and inductance of the cables in question.
se
now we are on the same wavelength!:)
most people do not know these basic figures and wouldnt even know how to measure them, hence they will continue to use cables that have an affect on the sonics of their equipment that seemingly cannot be explained!
A...
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 20:55
You asked for it. :)
Thanks!
Love the Simon's Cat animations. He really captures the essence of cats.
Glad your avatar is back.
Thanks!
Don't know why the dog lovers have their panties in a wadd. The gun's not even loa*BLAM!*
...ded.
:rolleyes:
se
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 21:00
now we are on the same wavelength!:)
most people do not know these basic figures and wouldnt even know how to measure them, hence they will continue to use cables that have an affect on the sonics of their equipment that seemingly cannot be explained!
A...
Well, MAY have an effect. It would depend on the particular situation, most of which shouldn't have any problems.
se
Can we put "time alignment" stuff to bed then? :)
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 21:02
Can we put "time alignment" stuff to bed then? :)
Far as I'm concerned.
What's next on the agenda? http://www.q-audio.com/images/biggrin.gif
se
anthonyTD
24-08-2010, 21:03
Thanks!
Love the Simon's Cat animations. He really captures the essence of cats.
Thanks!
Don't know why the dog lovers have their panties in a wadd. The gun's not even loa*BLAM!*
...ded.
:rolleyes:
se
dont push your luck!:lol:
A...
Steve Eddy
24-08-2010, 21:07
dont push your luck!:lol:
A...
Sir! Yes Sir! http://www.socaldieseltrucks.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley_salute.gif
;)
se
Techno Commander
24-08-2010, 21:58
Love the Simon's Cat animations. He really captures the essence of cats.
Indeed. The animations are so true, as any cat servant will agree.:)
You having a bad day or what anthonyTD?
Originally Posted by anthonyTD
"now we are on the same wavelength!
most people do not know these basic figures and wouldnt even know how to measure them, hence they will continue to use cables that have an affect on the sonics of their equipment that seemingly cannot be explained!"
Any speaker builder will at least know something about what their driver specifications mean and many other hi fi enthusiasts will also.
We ain’t all thick :ner:
Steve Toy
24-08-2010, 23:24
I don't like the idea of using cables as tone controls. Now, here's a thought: all cables are imperfect and have characteristics that either work in favour synergistically with the rest of your kit or they don't and by this I'm not just talking about the wire itself but how the entire assembly it is shielded, earthed, insulated and how the contacts at termination work.
Now, I'm not interested in synergy at all, I want transparency and hierarchy; the latter ensures that the former does not reveal perceptible unwanted additions to the signal. The best cables both remove as little from and add as little to the signal as possible. Having decided that putting components into separate boxes is the way to go you need to link up the boxes somehow and retain the integrity of the signal path throughout the chain.
Anything that favours one frequency over another is not good. Anything that causes delay between one frequency band and another is not good either.
The best cable has the least perceivable effect.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 00:35
The best cable has the least perceivable effect.
Well, to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences among cables.
se
Steve Toy
25-08-2010, 02:03
To suggest that is to imply that every cable is perfect. Rudi's challenge carries with it a number of flaws, notably the insistance that the challenge takes place on his premises, so I would not bother citing him.
We do take it as a given here that there are differences significant enough to either make or break a hi-fi system's ability to resolve the musical info stored on a disc. To deny that is to breach the ethos of this site. The view that cables cannot make a difference is also based only on a personal belief mechanism (similar to religious belief) not on anything that remotely resembles empiricism; you cannot prove your assertion but we can based on consensus of accurate, i.e detailed subjective responses. Have a look at this:
http://www.theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7262
To add: to deny the validity of such consensus of findings by claiming placebo effect or that the differences are somehow imagined is also contrary to our ethos.
You may wonder why this is the case, after all it seems like censorship and suppression of viewpoints, a denial of free speech and a breach of your human rights! The answer to that is circular objectivist/subjectivist debates rear their heads reliably and consistently on every discussion board on the internet consistently whenever someone brings up the subject of cables and their own personal findings wrt a given cable. We decided that this place would be different and as a result we would then be better placed to explore and probe the nature of perceived differences beyond the obvious placebo and expectation bias issues.
A body of consensus of subjective findings could then bring us closer to objectivity than that imposed by the technocrats.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 04:39
To suggest that is to imply that every cable is perfect.
It was just a simple statement of fact. To date no one has established actual audible differences between cables, even though this debate has been going on for some 30 years.
Rudi's challenge carries with it a number of flaws, notably the insistance that the challenge takes place on his premises, so I would not bother citing him.
Who's Rudi?
Whoever he is, there have been double blind tests run in people's own homes using their own system with the trials run over the course of months or more at the listener's leisure. And at the end of the day, the results ended up being no better than if they had simply guessed.
We do take it as a given here that there are differences significant enough to either make or break a hi-fi system's ability to resolve the musical info stored on a disc. To deny that is to breach the ethos of this site.
If the ethos is to pass off opinion as fact, then I would say it's not a very good ethos.
The view that cables cannot make a difference is also based only on a personal belief mechanism (similar to religious belief) not on anything that remotely resembles empiricism;
But to take it as a given that there are audible differences ISN'T similar to religious belief? I'm sorry, but I don't see any particular distinction there.
you cannot prove your assertion but we can based on consensus of accurate, i.e detailed subjective responses.
My only assertion is that to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences. If you know of someone who has, please point me to them.
As for your claiming your can prove your assertion, you couldn't be further from the truth. "Accurate" and "subjective" are somewhat oxymoronic given that we know our subjective perceptions are not always the accurate reflection of the physical reality that our vanity and egos would like us to believe they are.
And you won't have proved your assertion until you can adequately control for that ambiguity. Otherwise, the assertion that placing photographs of yourself in your freezer improves the sound of your system has also been "proved." (http://www.positive-feedback.com/ambackissues/Belt.htm)
To add: to deny the validity of such consensus of findings by claiming placebo effect or that the differences are somehow imagined is also contrary to our ethos.
Since the consensus is purely subjective, then their validity is no greater than any other purely subjective experience. And it will remain so until the ambiguity has been adequately controlled for.
You may wonder why this is the case, after all it seems like censorship and suppression of viewpoints, a denial of free speech and a breach of your human rights!
I'm not among those who feel they have any rights to the use of someone else's property.
The answer to that is circular objectivist/subjectivist debates rear their heads reliably and consistently on every discussion board on the internet consistently whenever someone brings up the subject of cables and their own personal findings wrt a given cable.
There can be no debate between true subejctivists and objectivists.
The debates you refer to are between objectivists and those who claim to be subjectivists but who should more accurately be called pseudo objectivists.
A true subjectivist doesn't attempt to pass off their subjective experiences as anything more than that. And provided they don't, there's nothing for any objectivist to argue with.
Instead what you have are people who attempt to pass off their subjective experience as something more than that, effectively going so far as making objective claims. And when they do, they get their panties in a wadd whenever those claims are questioned or challenged.
We decided that this place would be different and as a result we would then be better placed to explore and probe the nature of perceived differences beyond the obvious placebo and expectation bias issues.
Great. If you want to keep things on a subjective level, that's fine. But if you're going to do that, then don't attempt to pass off subjective experience as any sort of objective reality.
A body of consensus of subjective findings could then bring us closer to objectivity than that imposed by the technocrats.
No, it can't. Just as 0 + 0 = 0, subjective + subjective = subjective. To believe otherwise is to believe that you can make something true if you say it enough times or get enough people to agree with you. Doesn't work that way. At least not in the rational world.
If you want to get closer to objectivity, then you need to adequately control for the ambiguities of subjective experience.
se
Well, to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences among cables.
se
Hi Steve, just so I'm clear, are you saying that there is no demonstrable difference between ANY cables? Or that there is no difference at all, demonstrable or otherwise, and how are you defining "demonstrable" - does that mean measurable? I'm not trying to be awkward, just a genuine question. (Some good arguments in your previous post, btw.)
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 06:42
Hi Steve, just so I'm clear, are you saying that there is no demonstrable difference between ANY cables? Or that there is no difference at all, demonstrable or otherwise, and how are you defining "demonstrable" - does that mean measurable? I'm not trying to be awkward, just a genuine question. (Some good arguments in your previous post, btw.)
Hey Alex!
As I'd said previously it's certainly possible to make a cable with enough resistance, capacitance and/or inductance to alter the frequency response sufficiently to produce actual audible differences compared to a cable which doesn't. But to make a cable that doesn't is trivially easy and you'd pretty much have to go out of your way to make one that did.
What I'm saying is that to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences between cables beyond the basic lumped properties of resistance, inductance and/or capacitance as it relates to simple frequency response.
se
Hey Alex!
What I'm saying is that to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences between cables beyond the basic lumped properties of resistance, inductance and/or capacitance as it relates to simple frequency response.
se
But for completeness, I should add that permittivity and coercivity do add to the above simple lumped parameters in ways that are measurable and far more potentially complex than a simple LCR model would indicate. As to these being audible or not I am keeping away from that one.
Hello Steve Eddy
I’m what many here would probably describe as an objectivist :eyebrows:
While I don’t agree with many of the subjective views stated on this site, I do agree with the sites Ethos and would uphold their right to demand that contributors respect it :respect:
I’ve been interested in Hi Fi for over 30 years now, read most of the Hi Fi press offerings over the years and visited many of the audiophile forums the internet brought about.
I visit and contribute here, if that’s what my ramblings can be considered to be ;) because out of all the sites I have visited the contributors to this site manage to maintain a friendly atmosphere conducive to interesting and often amusing debate.
There are lots of audiophile sites where the objective v subjective debate dominates just about every topic that gets brought up :fence:
The problem is imo is that useful information and the environment necessary to rationally and good naturedly discuss said information gets buried in the bigotry often shown by both established camps.
The truth is, no amount of confrontational argument is going to change anyone’s opinion on anything.
All that seems to happen is the participants retreat further into their particular camp and the atmosphere becomes unpleasant :(
I and most other contributors here (even other objectivists) I believe, like the overall atmosphere of the site and if this means we have to endure subjectivist irrationality from time to time, that’s fine ;)
Regarding the cable debate you are correct, there has never been any conclusive evidence to support the view that cables make any audible difference providing the cables are correctly constructed and within a given range of electrical specifications.
However, despite the ABX testing and the scientific theory, aural perceptions is particular to the individual and while I may believe some things to be highly improbable I am content to let my objectivist views govern my view of the world and let the subjectivists rely on theirs.
:donk:
The recent posts about Mark Grant cables suggest that the main difference with cable is not due to the wire but due to the quality of the connection afforded by the phono plugs. Of course this is not a new posit but it's certainly been a current topic here. Cables can sound different, eg Nordost....they tend to be bright as they are not screened (RFI pickup). As long as a "sensible" wire is used then the suggestion is that most of any audible differences are down to the quality of the phono plugs and sockets.
We have quite a few people that take a objectivist stance, its part of what makes a great community. Good humour and banter helps!
Clive tend to agree about the quality of connector having some kind of influnance
Do you think there is anything in the difference beween something like copper and silver. Often people have prefences
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 08:39
Clive tend to agree about the quality of connector having some kind of influnance
Do you think there is anything in the difference beween something like copper and silver. Often people have prefences
again,
when we talk about a connector having an affect what we are mainly hearing is a diffrence in resistance,[a good connection will have a low resistance] capacitance, [an ideal connector will have a dialectric material that offers the least amount of capacitance]
A...
Yes that makes sense
Sorry I am not so technical
again,
when we talk about a connector having an affect what we are mainly hearing is a diffrence in resistance,[a good connection will have a low resistance] capacitance, [an ideal connector will have a dialectric material that offers the least amount of capacitance]
A...
Agreed, when we look ar Eichmanns and WBT 110s and 0102s etc it's clear what's going on. Sometimes I feel like soldering all my interconnects, getting rid of all the lossy connections!
John, yes I find silver does sound different, more so the lower the signal level goes, ie with tonearm wire.
But, but, but, there is no consistency in the electrical properties of the majority of signal paths from source to driver.
It’s a bit like the data transfer debate and what affects it.
Viewing the components as a pipeline there can be hundreds of points where the pipeline varies in thickness, circuit board track thickness, component leads, equipment wire, wire inside speaker enclosures and of course interconnects and speaker cable.
If relatively small changes in resistance, capacitance and inductance are that critical, then to make any audible difference the pipeline should have the same properties throughout (?)
As a resolute non-scientist I have to rely on my ears to make decisions about hifi, but I never conclude that what my ears tell me is either a) accurate b) measurable or 3) valid for anyone other than myself.
That's why I'm a bit chary of making statements like 'this component blows its competitors into the weeds' or 'this component is a piece of crap'; subjective opinions are valid only for one person at a time. Even if nine out of ten people come to the same subjective conclusion about a component that doesn't make them right, or the tenth dissenting person wrong.
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 09:14
But, but, but, there is no consistency in the electrical properties of the majority of signal paths from source to driver.
It’s a bit like the data transfer debate and what affects it.
Viewing the components as a pipeline there can be hundreds of points where the pipeline varies in thickness, circuit board track thickness, component leads, equipment wire, wire inside speaker enclosures and of course interconnects and speaker cable.
If relatively small changes in resistance, capacitance and inductance are that critical, then to make any audible difference the pipeline should have the same properties throughout (?)
hi welder,
when you look at it that way you are correct as there are many many variables within a hi fi system that contribute to its final performance, that is why it is so difficult to replicate like for like exactly, for example,,, i deal a lot with musicians and i know from experience that you can get two amplifiers off the production line with one serial number apart and they will not sound the same ie; A guitarist will choose one over the other even though the component line up and manufactering process is to all intended purposes identicle,this is what we are up against!
A...
If relatively small changes in resistance, capacitance and inductance are that critical, then to make any audible difference the pipeline should have the same properties throughout (?)
Not sure just how logical that is, it may depend on the nature of the effects, they may be additive for example instead of subtractive. It may be an emergent property for example.
Though of course as I posted before, it may be flawed to believe it is just "relatively small changes in resistance, capacitance and inductance"
The anecdotal evidence may indicate that those with simpler (as in less complex, lower feedback, lower mass drivers, no crossovers) systems often seem more aware of the effect of such things.
All these things are certainly measurable, given the right measurements, as you would expect if they are real, where the problem seems to me to lie is just what the threshold of audibility is for them, and how you measure that threshold.
Joe.
Yes, but there comes a point where the probability has to be considered.
It is not impossible to fall out of an aeroplane at so many thousand feet and survive.
But, most people accept that if you do the probability is so high that you will die only the insane would deliberately risk their life in attempting to prove the law of probability wrong.
Hopefully no-one will die because they prefer amplifier A to amplifier B.
Hopefully not, but the probability argument is still valid even if the analogy is extreme ;)
Sorry, you have lost me, what does probability have to do with it?
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 09:41
of course there are other variables involved which contribute to how we distinguish between amplifier A and B than just pure resistance, capacitance, reactance, ie; as lurcher has already discussed, metal molecule synergy and consistency for instance play a big part in how electrons flow through cables, capacitors, resistors circuit board tracks and even valves themselves.
silver has a small but in some cases a significant improvement in electrical conductivety, and this can be heard when certain items such as a cable is constructed from a percentage of it, but wether we are just hearing a diffrence in conductivety alone well,,, i am not going to get into my opinion on that, its another can of worms...
A...
Probability means nothing in the context of subjective opinions. Take an optical illusion. Most people will 'see' something that isn't there, but however many opinions are expressed in support of the illusion, they will remain mistaken.
lurcher.
The discussion is based around whether or not a particular cable or component makes an audible difference.
At some point the only way to resolve this if measurements cannot be made or are not accepted is to test using a panel of listeners.
If say 1 out of 100 listeners say they can hear a difference and 99 say they cant the probability is in a perfect test that the difference does not exist.
I believe such a test is called an ABX test and is the standard “scientific” method of resolving such debates.
While you may not wish to accept either the test or the results, a great many products are tested using variations of this kind of test and in general the results are accepted as sufficient evidence one way or another.
Will that do?
That is true Joe, but measurement would discover an illusion long before it got to the point of ABX testing I would suggest.
Steve Toy
25-08-2010, 10:08
Take an optical illusion. Most people will 'see' something that isn't there, but however many opinions are expressed in support of the illusion, they will remain mistaken.
An optical illusion is revealed as being so on a subjective level by simply asking the individual fooled by it to take another look. There is an optical illusion in the banner.
An optical illusion is revealed as being so on a subjective level by simply asking the individual fooled by it to take another look.
Not always. In the illusion where one line is made to look longer than another, it's often only by measuring the lines that one can demonstrate that they are the same length; even then, knowing they are the same length, most people will still 'see' one line as longer than the other. The same applies to the illusion where grey dots seem to appear on the page; the eye will 'see' the dots even though the brain 'knows' they aren't actually there.
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 10:36
Not always. In the illusion where one line is made to look longer than another, it's often only by measuring the lines that one can demonstrate that they are the same length; even then, knowing they are the same length, most people will still 'see' one line as longer than the other.
The same applies to the illusion where grey dots seem to appear on the page; the eye will 'see' the dots even though the brain 'knows' they aren't actually there.
explain this experiment please!
A...
lurcher.
The discussion is based around whether or not a particular cable or component makes an audible difference.
At some point the only way to resolve this if measurements cannot be made or are not accepted is to test using a panel of listeners.
If say 1 out of 100 listeners say they can hear a difference and 99 say they cant the probability is in a perfect test that the difference does not exist.
I believe such a test is called an ABX test and is the standard “scientific” method of resolving such debates.
While you may not wish to accept either the test or the results, a great many products are tested using variations of this kind of test and in general the results are accepted as sufficient evidence one way or another.
Will that do?
Ok, you mean probability in that sense, I was unsure how it came into the discussion.
Just a couple of points, it will always be possible to measure differences between (for example) two 100nf capacitors of different manufacture. The question here is are these differences audible? I use capacitors instead of interconnects, as 1. I have more personally experience of the difference, and 2 there are less manufacture based spin and pseudo science (I say less, not none), but the same is equally true I suspect of interconnects.
ABX seems to be a particularly good test methodology for providing evidence that measurable differences are inaudible, but I think it fails badly when used to prove the absence of audible differences. Despite what its proponents would suggest, I dont think ABX type tests are used in many other areas, though it may at first it may seem they are. Do you have any examples of where ABX is used outside of audio testing?
http://www.at-bristol.org.uk/hermanngrid.html
Not always. In the illusion where one line is made to look longer than another, it's often only by measuring the lines that one can demonstrate that they are the same length; even then, knowing they are the same length, most people will still 'see' one line as longer than the other. The same applies to the illusion where grey dots seem to appear on the page; the eye will 'see' the dots even though the brain 'knows' they aren't actually there.
I think optical illusions are not the obvious example they may seem to be of subjective/objective distinctions. Even though the "illusion" causes us to observe something that its "not there", its repeatable and the mechanism whereby the brain causes it to occur is repeatable and measurable and subject to test.
ABX seems to be a particularly good test methodology for providing evidence that measurable differences are INAUDIBLE, but I think it fails badly when used to prove the absence of audible differences.
Spot on, Nick. That is also my view on the matter. It's something the audio measurement/objective brigade would do well to consider!
At the end of the day I simply trust my ears, which have very rarely let me down when assessing various aspects of audio. I always find it mildly disturbing when people seem unable to place faith in their senses and continually need 'measurable proof' for nearly everything they genuinely experience in life.
Marco.
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 10:50
http://www.at-bristol.org.uk/hermanngrid.html
thanks joe, interesting!
A...
Spot on, Nick. That is also my view on the matter. It's something that the audio measurement/objective brigade would do well to consider!
Marco.
Though I do put myself in the "audio measurement/objective brigade" :-)
lurcher.
I believe variations of ABX testing are still used in the testing of cosmetics and the food industry and some products in the pharmaceutical industry, and of course, audio.
I participated in a couple of early forerunners many years ago while I was an engineer in avionics strangely enough.
It was thought that using ultrasonics in a transducer might overcome some of the problems in critical communications in noisy environments. It didn’t amount to anything.
I’m sure if you find the subject interesting there is a lot more up to date and specific information available should you wish to search for it.
I would agree that ABX testing has it’s limitations but until we have a better understanding of how we perceive audio and develop more accurate measuring methods it looks like it will remain the audio industry standard.
Though I do put myself in the "audio measurement/objective brigade" :-)
Lol!
The difference is, you seem able to differentiate between when it's necessary to place emphasis on the need for accurate measurements, and when to simply judge matters using somewhat more 'prosaic apparatus', such as the god-given organs at the side of your head, known as ears! ;)
Marco.
Marco.
That sounds okay if you say it quickly enough ;)
First, I want to make it quite clear, I’m not saying the differences under discussion don’t exist.
I make my own cables and buy components by listening to them in my own system whenever possible.
However, the fact is I don’t trust my ears, they, and my aural memory, have proven to be unreliable on many occasions.
Aural perception is not as well understood as many seem to believe; aural memory, if that is the correct term, even less so.
We do as individuals seem to “hear” differences in components. Whether or not those differences actually exist is another matter :scratch:
I believe variations of ABX testing are still used in the testing of cosmetics and the food industry and some products in the pharmaceutical industry, and of course, audio.
In the case of the pharmaceutical industry blind testing is used certainly, but I don't think ABX. It would involve taking a patient, giving him a drug or placebo. Seeing if he got better. Then giving him the drug or placebo again seeing how he felt, and repeating this process a hundred times. I think you can see the flaw.
I feel the problem with ABX and audio testing is that it assumes the test subject is somehow magical reset between tests, but in reality the subject is not the same before and after each test, so its flawed (fatally I think).
I agree it may be the only test we have, but that in itself doesn't make its results in any way more valid.
Ali Tait
25-08-2010, 12:03
Agreed Nick,the subject is never going to be in the exact same state of mind for each test.
The validity of tests of any kind is often an issue.
However, we tend as a society to rely on the testing methods the “scientific” community use to establish “truths”.
I could accept the opinion of those who question the ABX test more readily where it concerns audio matters if they discounted all the other “tests” science has chosen to establish “truths”.
Statistical analysis which is what underpins the ABX test has not proved anything beyond doubt, but we still rely on such methodology in what are often life critical matters in our world.
For me, if 99 people repeatedly tested say they cant hear a difference between A and B then before stating that the test was flawed and science has got it all wrong I would suggest the hearing of the 1 who heard a difference was tested.
spendorman
25-08-2010, 12:05
My system that is used daily (and most of each day) is a PC based, the PC I built about 3 years ago, using a old Soundblaster 5.1 card, can be any amp, from cheap Teleton to Radford STA 25 III, but usually into LS3/5a clones that I made many years ago.
However, changing the hard drive from an IDE one to a SATA made no difference (in my view) to the sound quality. I doubt that a super quality SATA lead would have made any difference either.
In fact, putting music on to a USB memory stick (another different type of connector used) once again, no perceptible difference in the sound quality.
The validity of tests of any kind is often an issue.
However, we tend as a society to rely on the testing methods the “scientific” community use to establish “truths”.
I could accept the opinion of those who question the ABX test more readily where it concerns audio matters if they discounted all the other “tests” science has chosen to establish “truths”.
Statistical analysis which is what underpins the ABX test has not proved anything beyond doubt, but we still rely on such methodology in what are often life critical matters in our world.
For me, if 99 people repeatedly tested say they cant hear a difference between A and B then before stating that the test was flawed and science has got it all wrong I would suggest the hearing of the 1 who heard a difference was tested.
Hmm, well the scientific method requires that all "tests" are subjected to examination, thats what peer review is about, not sure what your first sentence is saying.
Sadly, as a society we now seem far more likely to distrust information that comes from a scientific process, preferring to believe whatever the nearest alpha male has told us.
I start to wonder where the logic is in the third part. Do I have to ignore quantum mechanics, because I do not accept the effectiveness of homoeopathy? Your statement would indicate that I should.
I should point out by the way, that Science does not and has never concerned itself with "truths" that is the realm of the theologian.
Not sure at any point have I called statistical analyses into question?
I agree, if 99 out of 100 got the same result, then Occam would lead you to believe that the test was conclusive. However the question here is not was the test conclusive, but what was the conclusion of the test. I suggest that the conclusion was that the ABX test found there was not difference that could be detected using a ABX test. This is nowhere close to saying such a difference does not exist.
Again, the word Science seems to being used in a dogmatic way.
BTW, the point of ABX is to remove the "say" from the test, it attempts to show statistical if they actually CAN hear a difference, not just say they can.
Lets take your last statement and extend it. If 99 people repeatedly tested say they cant hear a difference between A and B, but after repeating the test a 100 times, the same one person heard a difference 90% of the time, would you then say there was no difference? What is the difference between the two set of tests?
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 13:54
Hmm, well the scientific method requires that all "tests" are subjected to examination, thats what peer review is about, not sure what your first sentence is saying.
Sadly, as a society we now seem far more likely to distrust information that comes from a scientific process, preferring to believe whatever the nearest alpha male has told us.
I start to wonder where the logic is in the third part. Do I have to ignore quantum mechanics, because I do not accept the effectiveness of homoeopathy? Your statement would indicate that I should.
I should point out by the way, that Science does not and has never concerned itself with "truths" that is the realm of the theologian.
Not sure at any point have I called statistical analyses into question?
I agree, if 99 out of 100 got the same result, then Occam would lead you to believe that the test was conclusive. However the question here is not was the test conclusive, but what was the conclusion of the test. I suggest that the conclusion was that the ABX test found there was not difference that could be detected using a ABX test. This is nowhere close to saying such a difference does not exist.
Again, the word Science seems to being used in a dogmatic way.
BTW, the point of ABX is to remove the "say" from the test, it attempts to show statistical if they actually CAN hear a difference, not just say they can.
Lets take your last statement and extend it. If 99 people repeatedly tested say they cant hear a difference between A and B, but after repeating the test a 100 times, the same one person heard a difference 90% of the time, would you then say there was no difference? What is the difference between the two set of tests?
good point!
A...
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 15:04
As a resolute non-scientist I have to rely on my ears to make decisions about hifi, but I never conclude that what my ears tell me is either a) accurate b) measurable or 3) valid for anyone other than myself.
That's why I'm a bit chary of making statements like 'this component blows its competitors into the weeds' or 'this component is a piece of crap'; subjective opinions are valid only for one person at a time. Even if nine out of ten people come to the same subjective conclusion about a component that doesn't make them right, or the tenth dissenting person wrong.
You got it, Joe!
You are among the relatively few true subjectivists out there. If there were more people like yourself, there would be a lot less arguing going on.
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 15:16
of course there are other variables involved which contribute to how we distinguish between amplifier A and B than just pure resistance, capacitance, reactance,
Who said anything about amplifiers? Certainly there's more to amplifiers than resistance, capacitance and inductance. You're dealing with active devices which bring non-linearities into the picture.
ie; as lurcher has already discussed, metal molecule synergy and consistency for instance play a big part in how electrons flow through cables, capacitors, resistors circuit board tracks and even valves themselves.
And how exactly does that manifest itself beyond simple resistance?
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 15:20
An optical illusion is revealed as being so on a subjective level by simply asking the individual fooled by it to take another look. There is an optical illusion in the banner.
If you're talking about the colors, no, there isn't. They are two different colors, not one, as has previously been pointed out.
se
lurcher.
“Sadly, as a society we now seem far more likely to distrust information that comes from a scientific process, preferring to believe whatever the nearest alpha male has told us.”
Is this true? I don’t think so, at least not in my experience. I’m not even sure I would recognize an alpha male, let alone believe what he told me.
“Not sure at any point have I called statistical analyses into question?”
No you haven’t, but in the debate concerning ABX it often is. What you are missing here is that not all my comments are directed at you alone.
”I should point out by the way, that Science does not and has never concerned itself with "truths" that is the realm of the theologian.”
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=HJx&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=s&&sa=X&ei=Ri11TOqoNZOJ4gai2smABg&ved=0CBkQvwUoAQ&q=mathematical+truths&spell=1
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=scientific+truths&meta=&btnG=Google+Search
If you’re not prepared to follow a discussion but instead play at semantics and logic in an attempt to show you’re clever than the other guy continuing the debate under the circumstances is a bit pointless really. However, thanks anyway, very interesting ;)
I leave you with the above two google links to reconsider your statement concerning truths.
Steve Toy
25-08-2010, 15:30
Nick (Beechwoods) will confirm whether there are one or two shades of yellow. Although the banner has been revised the colour scheme hasn't changed from when that shade of yellow was chosen not just for the background but also for the google ads now at the foot of the page.
lurcher.
“Sadly, as a society we now seem far more likely to distrust information that comes from a scientific process, preferring to believe whatever the nearest alpha male has told us.”
Is this true? I don’t think so, at least not in my experience. I’m not even sure I would recognize an alpha male, let alone believe what he told me.
“Not sure at any point have I called statistical analyses into question?”
No you haven’t, but in the debate concerning ABX it often is. What you are missing here is that not all my comments are directed at you alone.
”I should point out by the way, that Science does not and has never concerned itself with "truths" that is the realm of the theologian.”
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=HJx&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=s&&sa=X&ei=Ri11TOqoNZOJ4gai2smABg&ved=0CBkQvwUoAQ&q=mathematical+truths&spell=1
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=scientific+truths&meta=&btnG=Google+Search
If you’re not prepared to follow a discussion but instead play at semantics and logic in an attempt to show you’re clever than the other guy continuing the debate under the circumstances is a bit pointless really. However, thanks anyway, very interesting ;)
I leave you with the above two google links to reconsider your statement concerning truths.
Please yourself.
By the way Science <> Mathematics, and if you look at what the second search finds, its mainly a lot of pages that contain the word science and truth, or folk trying to infer that science deals with truth as a way of attempting to discredit the scientific method. If you wish to accuse me of using logic as part of a debate, then thanks. :-).
Nick (Beechwoods) will confirm whether there are one or two shades of yellow. Although the banner has been revised the colour scheme hasn't changed from when that shade of yellow was chosen not just for the background but also for the google ads now at the foot of the page.
Not needed Steve, direct measurement by at least two people have shown the same two different RGB values.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 15:44
ABX seems to be a particularly good test methodology for providing evidence that measurable differences are inaudible, but I think it fails badly when used to prove the absence of audible differences.
It's a method of providing evidence that a difference IS audible.
A null result proves nothing one way or the other. Anyone claiming that a null result proves that there are no audible differences doesn't know what they're talking about.
Despite what its proponents would suggest, I dont think ABX type tests are used in many other areas, though it may at first it may seem they are. Do you have any examples of where ABX is used outside of audio testing?
ABX is just a form of double blind testing and double blind testing is used in a variety of fields, most notably in the pharmaceutical industry. But it's even used in the world of physics where subjective biases can lead to erroneous results. Also, professional wine tasters have to be able to pass double blind tests.
While we don't know everything, one thing we do know and have known for quite a long time, is that our subjective perceptions are not the unerring reflection of the physical world around us. And all the ego and vanity in the world doesn't change that fact.
That's why, when we want to get to the bottom of something, such as whether or not two cables are audibly different from one another, we need to adequately control for that human weakness. And the best way to do that is double blind testing. That way, listeners are making judgments based on sound alone and not by externalities which can influence our subjective perceptions.
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 15:53
At the end of the day I simply trust my ears, which have very rarely let me down when assessing various aspects of audio. I always find it mildly disturbing when people seem unable to place faith in their senses and continually need 'measurable proof' for nearly everything they genuinely experience in life.
It depends on what you're placing faith in your senses to do.
If you're simply trying to figure out what you prefer, that's all well and good. There's really no other means of doing so.
But if you place faith in your senses with the goal being to get at some objective truth, such as whether or not two audio cables are audibly different from one another, then that faith is fundamentally no different than religious faith, given what we know about the fallibility of human subjective perception.
se
It's a method of providing evidence that a difference IS audible.
A null result proves nothing one way or the other. Anyone claiming that a null result proves that there are no audible differences doesn't know what they're talking about.
ABX is just a form of double blind testing and double blind testing is used in a variety of fields, most notably in the pharmaceutical industry. But it's even used in the world of physics where subjective biases can lead to erroneous results. Also, professional wine tasters have to be able to pass double blind tests.
While we don't know everything, one thing we do know and have known for quite a long time, is that our subjective perceptions are not the unerring reflection of the physical world around us. And all the ego and vanity in the world doesn't change that fact.
That's why, when we want to get to the bottom of something, such as whether or not two cables are audibly different from one another, we need to adequately control for that human weakness. And the best way to do that is double blind testing. That way, listeners are making judgments based on sound alone and not by externalities which can influence our subjective perceptions.
se
Yep, I quiet agree, but the important difference between the way ABX is used to test as opposed to double blind testing as used by the pharma testing is the assumption that the test can be repeated as required on the same subject and test n+1 is as valid as n.
The problem is as I see it, is the absence of a positive result in a ABX test is then used as proof of the lack of audible difference. If used and interpreted in the way you describe I have no issue with its use.
I have absolutely no issue with the use of DBT in those situations you mention, I was just commenting on how ABX seems to have been used in the past to make points about audio equipment, and because of its apparent similarity to DBT attempts to gain credence through that association.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 16:05
thanks joe, interesting!
A...
Here's one of my favorite ones.
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/6854/opticalqf1.jpg
Squares A and B are the same shade of gray.
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 16:10
I feel the problem with ABX and audio testing is that it assumes the test subject is somehow magical reset between tests, but in reality the subject is not the same before and after each test, so its flawed (fatally I think).
Can you expand on that a bit? Not really sure what it is you're trying to say here.
I agree it may be the only test we have, but that in itself doesn't make its results in any way more valid.
As I said previously, a null result doesn't prove anything one way or the other with regard to actual audibility. That's why it's called a "null" result. It only shows that audibility has yet to be determined. And as the old saying goes, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
se
Well, I think the problem is memory. If we are trying to check the audibility of a simple change, like the addition of distortion, or a change in pitch, then I think its fine, and ABX is a useful tool. However if you are trying to measure the sort of effects that I find (for example) changing a cap can make, then I think having heard the effect the "better" cap makes, which often seems to be additive, its very hard to forget that effect the next time you hear the musical passage.
I think we have all heard the effect of changing a piece or equipment or component and listening to a piece of familiar music, only to hear a instrument or some accent we haven't noticed before. If we then replace the old parts in the chain, and listen again, we hear the new, never before heard sound again. ABX would suggest that because we heard it now in both cases, there is no difference. What I am suggesting is that the brain, having heard that new sound, which was obviously there every other 100 times we heard it in the past, but we didn't notice it, will gleefully make sure we hear it when we listen to the same piece again.
What I believe, is that the very thing ABX attempts to remove from the experiment, the complexity and untrustworthiness of the human mind actually renders the test invalid.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 17:34
Well, I think the problem is memory. If we are trying to check the audibility of a simple change, like the addition of distortion, or a change in pitch, then I think its fine, and ABX is a useful tool. However if you are trying to measure the sort of effects that I find (for example) changing a cap can make, then I think having heard the effect the "better" cap makes, which often seems to be additive, its very hard to forget that effect the next time you hear the musical passage.
I think we have all heard the effect of changing a piece or equipment or component and listening to a piece of familiar music, only to hear a instrument or some accent we haven't noticed before. If we then replace the old parts in the chain, and listen again, we hear the new, never before heard sound again. ABX would suggest that because we heard it now in both cases, there is no difference. What I am suggesting is that the brain, having heard that new sound, which was obviously there every other 100 times we heard it in the past, but we didn't notice it, will gleefully make sure we hear it when we listen to the same piece again.
What I believe, is that the very thing ABX attempts to remove from the experiment, the complexity and untrustworthiness of the human mind actually renders the test invalid.
I don't see that the test is rendered invalid at all.
What we're talking about here is establishing whether actual audible differences exist.
Noticing after the fact something which already existed has nothing to do with actual audible differences.
se
Ok, one last go.
When you listen to A it sounds like A
When you listen to B it sounds different to A
When you listen to A again, it sounds like B
When you listen to B it still sounds like B
The actual audible difference that was real and noticed in the second test was no longer detected in all the following tests. The result of 100 tests, is 99% of the time there is no audible difference, therefore you conclude there is no audible difference.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 18:04
Ok, one last go.
When you listen to A it sounds like A
When you listen to B it sounds different to A
When you listen to A again, it sounds like B
When you listen to B it still sounds like B
The actual audible difference that was real and noticed in the second test was no longer detected in all the following tests. The result of 100 tests, is 99% of the time there is no audible difference, therefore you conclude there is no audible difference.
You're confusing the listener noticing after the fact something that was always there with an audible difference.
An audible difference in this context is a difference that exists between two components of sufficient magnitude to be audible. In the example you give here, there is apparently no actual difference between the two components. Instead it's simply the listener noticing something they hadn't noticed before.
I don't see how this in any way invalidates ABX testing.
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 18:12
By the way, in the example you gave, the test wouldn't even be able to be completed. Once you get to B sounds like A, it's over. The test can only be completed as long as A sounds different from B. Otherwise, there's nothing to test in the first place. You don't even end up with a null result. You end up with no result at all.
se
Reid Malenfant
25-08-2010, 18:14
Steve i'm sure you know i mentioned this elsewhere but here we go again :eyebrows:
With all the extra connections & switches & or relays introduced into the audio path when using an ABX box it's hardly surprising that no-one can detact a difference :rolleyes: With a stereo pair of cables there are 8 connections to take into account. With an ABX box there are at least 4 times as many (on just one pair of cables) which really isn't going to be good for the audio & i suspect the consequence is that it'll go down to the lowest common denominator. IE everything will sound like the ABX box :lol:
Did Tom ever do the AB test with Sy or is that still to happen yet?
Hi Steve,
It depends on what you're placing faith in your senses to do.
As far as audio equipment and its associated ancillaries, such as cables are concerned, it is simply using my ears and hearing acuity/experience to ascertain any sonic benefits they may impart in the context of my hi-fi system.
I therefore place complete faith in my hearing acuity when judging such matters, and need no 'scientific evidence', in the form of measurements, to confirm or deny what I can genuinely hear.
If you're simply trying to figure out what you prefer, that's all well and good. There's really no other means of doing so.
Indeed. However, when it comes to audio forums such as this, it's not just about determining what I prefer, but often also what equipment and ancillaries in my opinion produce a sound which is more musically realistic, and then relating my experiences to others here and elsewhere in the hope that my obeservations may prove useful - and indeed that others may even concur with them and benefit in some way from the results of my various comparisons and experiments.
If someone then, for example, tries a new cable I've recommended and derives the same sonic improvements in his or her system as I have done, then that is the only 'proof' I need that what that person and I have heard is real.
More often than not too I can demonstrate the results of what I hear at home in the context of other people's systems, and it is usually repeatable, in completely different environments. I care not a jot (in fact, even less than that) if what I've heard is 'scientifically provable' through measurement.
But if you place faith in your senses with the goal being to get at some objective truth, such as whether or not two audio cables are audibly different from one another, then that faith is fundamentally no different than religious faith, given what we know about the fallibility of human subjective perception.
I place faith in my senses simply to experience the joys of life in its many forms, and I can do this without the need for an oscilloscope or spectrum analyser! ;)
One of the joys in life for me is listening to music. Therefore, if I do something to my hi-fi system which results in me enjoying my favourite music more, be it changing a cable, upgrading capacitors in my preamp, or whatever else, then as far as I'm concerned what I've heard is real, and I need no further 'proof' it is so other than that.
Like I said, I do find it mildly disturbing that people can't simply trust their senses as I do, in this case their hearing acuity, (as I have explained above in relation to audio) without the constant need for 'scientific proof' to confirm what is heard. I'm afraid that I find this rather bizarre and somewhat unnatural.
Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why people like audio equipment designers and manufacturers need to obsess about such things, but as an ordinary punter and end user of a product, why can't we just relax, trust our ears, accept what they tell us, and then simply enjoy the sonic benefits of our chosen purchases without fear of ridicule or the need to 'scientifically prove' these things to others who unfortunately don't have the same faith in their senses?
Marco.
I am trying to get my head round this
For me as I listener and purchaser I have to rely on my ears and I how perceive the music, this is a subjective experience What I enjoy may not be what someone else enjoys.
For a manufacturer most will use a combination of measurements and listening in the design of their product.
What I perceive is subjective its unique to my experience it may or may not be wrong, what is measured is Objective it is something that is repeatable and comes in the form of hard data.
Just to say I still trust my ears in this I always will....even if others think it sounds wrong which in my case would be pretty rare
In the end its me who has to live with my own system.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 18:34
With all the extra connections & switches & or relays introduced into the audio path when using an ABX box it's hardly surprising that no-one can detact a difference :rolleyes:
But they DO perceive differences when using the ABX box.
If they didn't, the test couldn't even be run.
In every completed ABX test I'm aware of, the listener was confident they were perceiving differences between A and B and between either A or B and X.
With a stereo pair of cables there are 8 connections to take into account. With an ABX box there are at least 4 times as many (on just one pair of cables) which really isn't going to be good for the audio & i suspect the consequence is that it'll go down to the lowest common denominator. IE everything will sound like the ABX box
That's the common theory put forth by ABX opponents, but I can't say I've seen anything substantive to support it. Perhaps because it's much easier to just toss out some theory and hope others buy it without question than it is to take the next step and actually substantiate it.
Did Tom ever do the AB test with Sy or is that still to happen yet?
What test was that?
se
Reid Malenfant
25-08-2010, 18:38
Tom "Thetubeguy" was going to do a blind AB test with SY on his own equipment using different cables ;) The last i heard Tom was just getting used to some new kit before he had SY come over to do the tests :)
I'll get back to you about the other stuff shortly ;)
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 18:48
I am trying to get my head round this
For me as I listener and purchaser I have to rely on my ears and I how perceive the music, this is a subjective experience What I enjoy may not be what someone else enjoys.
Exactly.
For a manufacturer most will use a combination of measurements and listening in the design of their product.
Sometimes. Other times I'm convinced some products are designed based purely on how many buzzwords and acronyms it will allow them to put into their marketing literature.
What I perceive is subjective its unique to my experience it may or may not be wrong, what is measured is Objective it is something that is repeatable and comes in the form of hard data.
Just to say I still trust my ears in this I always will....even if others think it sounds wrong which in my case would be pretty rare
In the end its me who has to live with my own system.
And I'm perfectly fine with that.
Where I have problems is when people attempt to pass off their subjective experiences as being something more than that. When someone makes claims of actual audible differences based solely on their subjective experience, they've crossed the line from the subjective to the objective. And once they do, they can't go whining and crying if their objective claims are questioned and/or challenged.
se
The problem is as I see it, is the absence of a positive result in a ABX test is then used as proof of the lack of audible difference.
Indeed, Nick! This is often what the pseudo-scientists and reductionists cling to as 'proof' that they are right (for example in that audio cables all sound the same), when in fact it is no such thing.
Marco.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 18:50
Tom "Thetubeguy" was going to do a blind AB test with SY on his own equipment using different cables ;) The last i heard Tom was just getting used to some new kit before he had SY come over to do the tests :)
Oh, THAT test! :)
I don't know what's up with that. I rather lost track of it a while back.
se
Where I have problems is when people attempt to pass off their subjective experiences as being something more than that. When someone makes claims of actual audible differences based solely on their subjective experience, they've crossed the line from the subjective to the objective. And once they do, they can't go whining and crying if their objective claims are questioned and/or challenged.
se
So IMO or IMHO it stays subjective
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 18:53
Indeed, Nick! This is often what the pseudo-scientists and reductionists cling to as 'proof' that they are right (for example in that audio cables all sound the same), when in fact it is no such thing.
And I agree.
But by the same token, actual audible differences aren't going to be established without adequately controlling for subjective bias. And to date, no one has done that.
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 19:00
So IMO or IMHO it stays subjective
Yes.
And as long as you stay truly subjective and don't cross that line into the objective side of the fence, then there's nothing anyone can legitimately take you to task for. Your subjective experiences are what they are whatever the reasons may be.
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 19:06
As far as audio equipment and its associated ancillaries, such as cables are concerned, it is simply using my ears and hearing acuity/experience to ascertain any sonic benefits they may impart in the context of my hi-fi system.
I therefore place complete faith in my hearing acuity when judging such matters, and need no 'scientific evidence', in the form of measurements, to confirm or deny what I can genuinely hear.
In other words, religion.
se
Hi Steve,
When someone makes claims of actual audible differences based solely on their subjective experience, they've crossed the line from the subjective to the objective.
Perhaps in a literal sense, yes, but how else would you suggest people on an audio forum, for example, share their subjective experiences with like-minded enthusiasts, and the sonic improvements they've gained through tweaks or equipment upgrades, if they can't claim audible differences?
And once they do, they can't go whining and crying if their objective claims are questioned and/or challenged.
Questioning or challenging someone's subjective experiences is absolutely fine (and indeed welcomed) *providing* that it is done courteously, with due respect for both the person concerned and the valid experiences they have described, and it is devoid of sneering disdain and arrogance, or making people out to be 'fools', simply because they don't sign up to your particular belief system.
Unfortunately, more often than not, when I have observed the 'scientific measurement brigade' challenge someone's valid subjective experiences in audio, it is anything but that - and this is usually where the problems start and discussions quickly deteriorate into unsavoury battles which get personal and way beyond the context of the original subject matter!
The key is to always show tolerance towards other people's views, no matter how much you disagree with them. Indeed, this is something we demand on AOS and which forms a key part of our ethos.
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
25-08-2010, 19:12
Ok, here we go...The ABX box & why i think it fesses everything up :eyebrows:
As i already mentioned in a stereo pair of cables there are 8 connections being made (assuming we are talking single ended connections), 2 signal at one end & 2 screen at the same end & the same goes for the other end of the cables - 8 connections in all. That's not including the actual connections between the cable & plugs being used, if you want to add them we have 16 connections :scratch:
With an ABX box test the signal & screen on each cable must be disconnected on any cable not in use to avoid interactions ;)
So allowing for that & assuming the minimum number of connections then you have these as extra. I'll assume a relay is used & that it has the connections to the relay directly soldered to the input (& output) socket of the ABX box. Don't forget that there must be one at each end of the cables under test so they can be fully disconnected :eyebrows:
Box 1. 1 connection being the relay contacts on signal, one connection to a signal cable, one connection to a plug centre contact & one plug centre contact to the test equipment not being tested but part of the test. That's 4 extra connections on just one conductor at one end. Add in the ground & that's another 4. Add the second stereo cable & that makes 16 :eyebrows:
Then add the second box & you get 32 extra connections, you need the second box so you can totally take each cable out of the system ;)
That's a minimum number of extra connections, there could well be more as i was attempting to minimise them :lol: This is why i feel an ABX test is going to always give a no difference result. Besides which who decides what the extra cable & plugs are going to be that will hopefully reveal the differences in the cables? What relays are being used as well while i think about it?
E2A:- i forgot about the internal relay connections, it's quite possible that there could be even more depending on the relay used. Frankly BT type 47 relays might be best in this application.
Can of worms that will only end up with one result imo
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 19:28
Who said anything about amplifiers? Certainly there's more to amplifiers than resistance, capacitance and inductance. You're dealing with active devices which bring non-linearities into the picture.
And how exactly does that manifest itself beyond simple resistance?
se
hi steve,
please understand this thread is not all about you :eyebrows: therefore every reply is not a direct reply to something you said!:doh:
the amplifier comparison was brought up by another poster i was simply replying to that! at AOS we welcome thread drift from time to time as long as it eventualy gets back on track at some point!:ner:
A...
PS, thanks for the puzzle, its very thought provoking!:)
anthony,TD...
In other words, religion.
se
That might be how you choose to interpret it, and you're entitled to do so, but it most definitely not, as far as I'm concerned.
For me, it's simply a case that beyond a certain level of subjective testing and experimenting, once I have satisfied myself that what I'm hearing is real, I simply trust my ears and my considerable experience in audio, and worry not about whether what I have heard is 'scientifically provable' or not.
I am very comfortable having faith in my senses. Life's too short to continually question the existence of every single thing we experience - and I want to have fun and enjoy my life. I would consider nothing more yawn-inducing and potentially wrist-slitting and suicidal than having to 'scientifically prove' everything I genuinely experience in audio or anywhere else!! :rolleyes: :mental:
It's as simple as that. I consider this as being perfectly normal and human.
As an aside, when it comes to audio forums and observations made by people therein, I always judge those (of either an objective or subjective bent) on the sonic results they've obtained from their systems.
It's interesting to note that those most vociferous against a subjective methodology and who insist that everything heard must be 'scientifically provable' often have, to my ears, the worst sounding hi-fi systems...........
I'm unsure whether this is simply a coincidence or not.
Marco.
I don't see that the test is rendered invalid at all.
What we're talking about here is establishing whether actual audible differences exist.
Noticing after the fact something which already existed has nothing to do with actual audible differences.
se
Ok, maybe I am missing something. To my perspective, if I change something, and after making that change I listen to some well known music, that I have heard 100 times in the past, and that one time, and the first time after the change, I notice something different in the music, that I never heard before, then either its a huge coincidence, or there is some part of the sound I am hearing that has been changed by changing the part that has caused me to hear the new sound. That to me is a audible difference. However going back before, I can't un-remember the new thing I have heard, so I still hear the thing that wasn't noticed before. That to me indicates that a real and important musical difference exists that because of memory can not be detected by a ABX test. Ok, maybe it could, but each round of the test would need to use different music, and the difference may only be heard in 50% of cases (where the original sound heard was from the original, not changed equipment).
Or maybe you have in mind a different type of audible difference?
To my perspective, if I change something, and after making that change I listen to some well known music, that I have heard 100 times in the past, and that one time, and the first time after the change, I notice something different in the music, that I never heard before, then either its a huge coincidence, or there is some part of the sound I am hearing that has been changed by changing the part that has caused me to hear the new sound. That to me is a audible difference. However going back before, I can't un-remember the new thing I have heard, so I still hear the thing that wasn't noticed before. That to me indicates that a real and important musical difference exists that because of memory can not be detected by a ABX test.
Bang on (particularly the bit in bold). I completely agree! :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 19:49
+1
A...
Reid Malenfant
25-08-2010, 20:01
+2
As i just mentioned in the "what are you spinning now" thread, i had the scare of my life when i played a certain CD by Air. It nearly scared me half to death but not in a bad way :lol:
This is one CD i no doubt haven't played since the newest transport got installed. Take it from me that there is no way that it sounded like it just did when i heard it previously, it couldn't have done or it would have been played much more often as it was a revelation :) With near on 2000 CDs some just don't get spun that often...
+2
As i just mentioned in the "what are you spinning now" thread, i had the scare of my life when i played a certain CD by Air. It nearly scared me half to death but not in a bad way :lol:
This is one CD i no doubt haven't played since the newest transport got installed. Take it from me that there is no way that it sounded like it just did when i heard it previously, it couldn't have done or it would have been played much more often as it was a revelation :) With near on 2000 CDs some just don't get spun that often...
But presumably if you switched back to the previous transport the CD would sound less good?
Steve Toy
25-08-2010, 20:12
The bottleneck effect of the ABX box still needs to be ruled out before those in the objectivist camp can draw any conclusions. I think a few of these pseudo-scientific types have got their heads stuck so far up their own brand of experimental methodology that they fail to acknowledge one of the most fundamental laws of audio reproduction:
The system is only as strong as its weakest link.
There is considerable skill derived from experience in identifying the weakest link or bottleneck in order that the change or swap you intend to make stands a chance of making any improvement. The cynic in me says that this suits the agenda of many objectivists perfectly and that is to prove something they already believe. The way to achieve this is to invent some technocratic process that introduces a bigger bottleneck than the cables subject to the test.
It is highly probable that an ABX box is going to introduce itself as a bigger bottleneck than the cables themselves. My experience of ABX boxes is limited to one demonstration at a hi-fi shop in Northampton in '98 right at the very beginning of my journey into all things hi-fi and I could see the pitfalls of it back then.
I have during a demo of cables at Coherent Systems back in '08 experienced various cable swaps make no difference whatsoever. I just sat there rather nonplussed while Tony changed speaker cables, power cords and interconnects for better ones all to no avail. No difference. Nada. Zilch!
Then we discovered the bottlleneck. The system sounded harsh and lacked depth. Tony stacked some Black Ravioli pads under the pre, the depth returned, the forwardness and harshness disappeared and the cable swaps then made appreciable differences.
It pays to have an open mind rather than set out to follow your preconceived agenda.
Reid Malenfant
25-08-2010, 20:16
But presumably if you switched back to the previous transport the CD would sound less good?
Man you have no idea :eyebrows: I thought my previous transport had something wrong with it when i installed the Krell. The thing is it didn't as it had a new laser installed less than 1 year earlier ;)
Chalk & cheese, it was night & day between the previous Theta Data Basic (£2,000) & Krell DT10 (£10,000). I wouldn't have believed the difference unless i myself had heard it but it really was so damn obvious that it was unbelievable :wow:
Same DAC & the same cables & the Same Monarchy Audio DIP24/96 interface processor & yet a real night & day difference.
I can't explain it & i'm enjoying everything too much to bother. By the way, the Krell cost me less than the Theta :eyebrows: Both were secondhand.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 20:26
Perhaps in a literal sense, yes, but how else would you suggest people on an audio forum, for example, share their subjective experiences with like-minded enthusiasts, and the sonic improvements they've gained through tweaks or equipment upgrades, if they can't claim audible differences?
One doesn't need to make objective claims of actual audible differences. They may simply share their subjective experiences, i.e. "This cable sounds such and such to me..."
Questioning or challenging someone's subjective experiences is absolutely fine (and indeed welcomed) *providing* that it is done courteously, with due respect for both the person concerned and the valid experiences they have described, and it is devoid of sneering disdain and arrogance.
How on earth can you question or challenge someone's subjective experience other than to call them a liar or imply that they're lying?
Unfortunately, more often than not, when I have observed the 'scientific measurement brigade' challenge someone's valid subjective experiences in audio, it is anything but that - and this is usually where the problems start and discussions quickly deteriorate into unsavoury battles which get personal and way beyond the context of the original subject matter!
Well, as I said previously, provided one stays on the subjective side of the fence and doesn't try to pass off their subjective experiences as anything more than that, there's simply nothing to question or challenge.
I've been involved in the discussion of this issue on online forums such as this for over 25 years. And in my experience, most of the troubles arise due to those who would call themselves subjectivists but aren't content with actually being a subjectivist. Instead, they cross over the line into the objective realm by making objective assertions of actual audibility and then get all upset when their assertions are held to the standards of proof that all objective assertions should be.
Of course there are some objectivists who will challenge even true subjectivists. But that's less often the case and when it has happened, I've been critical of those objectivists who engage in such things. If someone's doing nothing more than relating their subjective experience, there's absolutely no reason for them to be taken to task for it.
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 20:38
That's a minimum number of extra connections, there could well be more as i was attempting to minimise them :lol: This is why i feel an ABX test is going to always give a no difference result.
Ok.
That might be a reasonable feeling to have if you could show that those extra connections were having some sort of significant effect on things. But you haven't. You're just saying there are more connections and then jumping to a conclusion.
You also ignored something I'd said previously. And that is that those who have undertaken ABX testing purported perceiving differences between cables during the test. Which would seem to contradict your claim that all those connections cause everything to sound the same. If that were true, then why were these people purporting to perceive differences between the cables?
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 20:42
hi steve,
please understand this thread is not all about you :eyebrows: therefore every reply is not a direct reply to something you said!:doh:
the amplifier comparison was brought up by another poster i was simply replying to that! at AOS we welcome thread drift from time to time as long as it eventualy gets back on track at some point!:ner:
Fair 'nuff.
PS, thanks for the puzzle, its very thought provoking!:)
anthony,TD...
Not to mention rather mind-bending. Glad you enjoyed it.
se
Reid Malenfant
25-08-2010, 20:50
You also ignored something I'd said previously. And that is that those who have undertaken ABX testing purported perceiving differences between cables during the test. Which would seem to contradict your claim that all those connections cause everything to sound the same. If that were true, then why were these people purporting to perceive differences between the cables?
se
Perhaps they are under an illusion as you are trying to establish.
You can't have it both ways :)
I'm off to do a bit of :drinking: I'm sure i'll get back to it tomorrow, Steve you have many hours to go ;) All the best..
Hi Steve,
One doesn't need to make objective claims of actual audible differences. They may simply share their subjective experiences, i.e. "This cable sounds such and such to me..."
I don't make objective claims of such because I can't, but I will make claims of audible differences, derived from my subjective experiences, and share them with others here. What's wrong with that - what else would you suggest?
If the differences weren't actually audible to me then I wouldn't be describing them to others when I improve something in my system!
How on earth can you question or challenge someone's subjective experience other than to call them a liar or imply that they're lying?
Eh?? By doing what I described earlier - simple.
I'm afraid that we would take an extremely dim view of anyone's valid subjective experiences here being rubbished as a 'lie'!! Persistent behaviour like that would likely result in a ban because it's completely against our ethos.
Have you read and digested our ethos thoroughly, Steve?
You can read it here: http://theartofsound.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18
Well, as I said previously, provided one stays on the subjective side of the fence and doesn't try to pass off their subjective experiences as anything more than that, there's simply nothing to question or challenge.
Well I'm afraid that we don't put such shackles on people. What they decide to "pass off" or not is entirely their prerogative. AOS is, in the main, a forum for subjectivists, so subjective views of any description are always welcomed.
If you choose to challenge those views, then that is your prerogative, and you are welcome to do so, but if you start calling people liars, simply because what they're saying isn't 'scientifically provable' or crosses a side of the fence you deem as being incorrect, then unfortunately you will be quickly shown the door.
If, however, you are able to challenge those views (as robustly as you wish) whilst showing tolerance and respect for both them and the person making them, then you can look forward to a long stay here full of many stimulating and thought-provoking debates :)
I've been involved in the discussion of this issue on online forums such as this for over 25 years. And in my experience, most of the troubles arise due to those who would call themselves subjectivists but aren't content with actually being a subjectivist. Instead, they cross over the line into the objective realm by making objective assertions of actual audibility and then get all upset when their assertions are held to the standards of proof that all objective assertions should be.
Yes undoubtedly that happens sometimes, but in my experience it is usually the sneering disdain most 'objectivists' show towards the perfectly valid (if scientifically un-provable) observations made by subjectivists with experienced and discerning ears and making out such people to be 'fools', combined with the unassailable arrogance displayed by 'objectivists' that they are right, simply because 'scientific evidence' superficially appears to support their arguments, when often way too simplistic thinking is displayed by both sides!
Of course there are some objectivists who will challenge even true subjectivists. But that's less often the case and when it has happened, I've been critical of those objectivists who engage in such things. If someone's doing nothing more than relating their subjective experience, there's absolutely no reason for them to be taken to task for it.
Indeed, but true subjectivists (such as me) are still entitled to express their views on hi-fi, whatever those may be, without being called a liar, and indeed, as you say, be 'taken to task' for it. As long as the 'taking to task' here is polite and respectful, there will be no problem.
Marco.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 21:00
That might be how you choose to interpret it, and you're entitled to do so, but it most definitely not, as far as I'm concerned.
Then I don't know what else you'd call it.
When one comes to a firm, objective conclusion based solely on subjective perception, and knowing what we do about the faults with our subjective perceptions, that's effectively a blind leap of faith. What else do you call that beside religion?
For me, it's simply a case that beyond a certain level of subjective testing and experimenting, once I have satisfied myself that what I'm hearing is real, I simply trust my ears and my considerable experience in audio, and worry not about whether what I have heard is 'scientifically provable' or not.
What do you mean by "beyond a certain level of subjective testing and experimenting"? What exactly have you done to get beyond the purely subjective level?
I am very comfortable having faith in my senses. Life's too short to continually question the existence of every single thing we experience - and I want to have fun and enjoy my life.
It's not about continually questioning the existence of every single thing we experience when it comes to our subjective experience. It's only about questioning when you go beyond the subjective. And when one makes claims of actual audibility, based solely on subjective experience, they have gone beyond the subjective.
I would consider nothing more yawn-inducing and potentially wrist-slitting and suicidal than having to 'scientifically prove' everything I genuinely experience in audio or anywhere else!! :rolleyes: :mental:
I guess it depends what you mean by "genuinely experience." I take it to mean actual audible differences. If you intend to to mean something else, please explain.
As an aside, when it comes to audio forums and observations made by people therein, I always judge those (of either an objective or subjective bent) on the sonic results they've obtained from their systems.
You judge people based on how their systems sound? So if their system doesn't sound good, they're not a good person?
:scratch:
It's interesting to note that those most vociferous against a subjective methodology and who insist that everything heard must be 'scientifically provable' often have, to my ears, the worst sounding hi-fi systems...........
What exactly do you mean by "subjective methodology"? If by that you mean simply going with what sounds best to you regardless of what the reasons might be, I can't say I know anyone of note who's against that. At least as far as other people go.
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 21:10
Ok, maybe I am missing something. To my perspective, if I change something, and after making that change I listen to some well known music, that I have heard 100 times in the past, and that one time, and the first time after the change, I notice something different in the music, that I never heard before, then either its a huge coincidence, or there is some part of the sound I am hearing that has been changed by changing the part that has caused me to hear the new sound. That to me is a audible difference.
But there is no difference between the components.
You said it yourself.
You said you listen to B, and notice something you hadn't noticed before.
When you go back to A, you say you hear the same thing in A.
So if you can hear it in A now, then obviously it always there to be heard in A.
Then you say B sounds like A.
But if B sounds like A, then A must sound like B.
So where's the difference between the two components?
However going back before, I can't un-remember the new thing I have heard, so I still hear the thing that wasn't noticed before.
You may not have noticed initially, but obviously it was there from the beginning.
That to me indicates that a real and important musical difference exists that because of memory can not be detected by a ABX test.
Apples and oranges. ABX testing is intended to determine audible differences between components. In the example you give, there is no difference between components.
Or maybe you have in mind a different type of audible difference?
In my mind, an audible difference is an audible difference that exists between two components. Not someone simply noticing something after the fact that they hadn't noticed before and exists in both components.
se
Steve,
I've just noticed your post #214 and I'm losing the will to live! If I have time later I will address the various points you have made.
However, I would warn you that if you are simply here to argue with people until the cows come home, without contributing anything else to our community, then your stay here may unfortunately be a short one.
In the meantime, please read Our Ethos very carefully and decide if you really fit in here.
Marco.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 21:24
The bottleneck effect of the ABX box still needs to be ruled out before those in the objectivist camp can draw any conclusions.
First, as I've said previously, a null result doesn't give one any conclusions.
Second, and as I've also said previously, in every ABX test I'm aware of, the listeners were confident of perceiving differences between cables throughout the test.
If they didn't, then tests couldn't be run.
I think a few of these pseudo-scientific types have got their heads stuck so far up their own brand of experimental methodology that they fail to acknowledge one of the most fundamental laws of audio reproduction:
The system is only as strong as its weakest link.
And what of the pseudo-scientific types who make objective claims based solely on subjective experience?
There is considerable skill derived from experience in identifying the weakest link or bottleneck in order that the change or swap you intend to make stands a chance of making any improvement.
And there's a considerable amount of ego and vanity in dismissing out of hand that which we know and have known about the weaknesses of subjective perception.
The cynic in me says that this suits the agenda of many objectivists perfectly and that is to prove something they already believe.
That's precisely what's being done by those who make objective claims based purely on subjective experience.
The way to achieve this is to invent some technocratic process that introduces a bigger bottleneck than the cables subject to the test.
So it's all just a big conspiracy?
It is highly probable that an ABX box is going to introduce itself as a bigger bottleneck than the cables themselves.
Highly probable based on what exactly?
My experience of ABX boxes is limited to one demonstration at a hi-fi shop in Northampton in '98 right at the very beginning of my journey into all things hi-fi and I could see the pitfalls of it back then.
But apparently you can't actually demonstrate the pitfalls.
It pays to have an open mind as well as ears.
Having an open mind is one thing. Having a mind so open your brains slosh out onto the floor is quite another.
se
aquapiranha
25-08-2010, 21:31
i would ratehr stay ou tof this one tbh, but I detect the beginnings of a spat, and I never like to see people falling out online. I am all for robust, reasoned debate though.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 21:33
However, I would warn you that if you are simply here to argue with people until the cows come home, without contributing anything else to our community, then your stay here may unfortunately be a short one.
In other words, just because you might not agree with what I've said, you label me "argumentative" in order to give some sort of justification for eventually banning me.
In the meantime, please read Our Ethos very carefully and decide if you really fit in here.
You tell me.
Do rational, non-religious views fit in here?
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 21:34
I am all for robust, reasoned debate though.
That view doesn't seem to be shared by some here.
se
i would ratehr stay ou tof this one tbh, but I detect the beginnings of a spat, and I never like to see people falling out online. I am all for robust, reasoned debate though.
Indeed, Steve. I hope that Mr Eddy pays particular attention to my post #216, above, and the contents therein.
Robust, reasoned debate is absolutely fine as long as one knows where to draw the line and understand when your 'opponent' and you will never agree. At that stage you back off and let it lie.
Arguing for arguing sake, however, is something entirely different and will not be tolerated.
Marco.
In other words, just because you might not agree with what I've said, you label me "argumentative" in order to give some sort of justification for eventually banning me.
No, not at all, it's simply because you don't appear to have the wherewithal to know when enough is enough and when to S.T.F.U ;)
Now please respect how we do things here or run along somewhere else to satisfy your argument fetish.
Marco.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 21:55
I never argue for the sake of arguing.
But when presented with irrational arguments, I do tend to become a little more tenacious, hoping that the person presenting the irrational argument might finally see the irrationality of it and eventually something "clicks."
se
But there is no difference between the components.
You said it yourself.
You said you listen to B, and notice something you hadn't noticed before.
When you go back to A, you say you hear the same thing in A.
So if you can hear it in A now, then obviously it always there to be heard in A.
Then you say B sounds like A.
But if B sounds like A, then A must sound like B.
So where's the difference between the two components?
You may not have noticed initially, but obviously it was there from the beginning.
Apples and oranges. ABX testing is intended to determine audible differences between components. In the example you give, there is no difference between components.
In my mind, an audible difference is an audible difference that exists between two components. Not someone simply noticing something after the fact that they hadn't noticed before and exists in both components.
se
No, I didn't say there was no difference between the components. I said the difference between the components was such that something was heard in the music when listening to B that wasn't heard before. Having heard that difference the genie is out of the bottle, and on hearing A again, the difference can still be heard, because the brain is aware its there. You seem to be saying that if the difference is real then it has to work both ways, but I am saying because of the way our mind loves to find patterns, it may no longer be possible to hear the music without hearing the new sound.
On the one hand you seem to expect the mind to act like a measuring device, and be able to detect a difference and the following removal of that difference as if there was no complex pattern matching and memory involved. Then on the other hand you are saying that we cant trust our senses because of the minds habit of not behaving like a measuring device.
The difference needed to raise a sound above our threshold of awareness is much smaller than the difference needed to mask that sound once heard and remembered. A sort of auditory hysteresis.
I never argue for the sake of arguing.
Lol - well you're doing a bloody good job of proving the opposite!!
But when presented with irrational arguments, I do tend to become a little more tenacious, hoping that the person presenting the irrational argument might finally see the irrationality of it and eventually something "clicks."
Understand that you are not the arbiter here as to what is or isn't considered as rational or "irrational".
Now, as owner of this site, I'm asking you to back off a little and contribute to some of the other (many) discussions and prove that you are not here simply to continually argue with those of a different mindset.
What are your tastes in music - have you even posted in the music room yet?
If you have nothing else to offer to this community then I really don't see your presence here as being anything else other than an irritant. AOS is not your personal playground, nor is it the DIY Audio forum............................!
Marco.
Did we ever find out if the two yellows were the same or different, and what, if anything, it means either way?
Indeed, but true subjectivists (such as me) are still entitled to express their views on hi-fi, whatever those may be, without being called a liar, and indeed, as you say, be 'taken to task' for it. As long as the 'taking to task' here is polite and respectful, there will be no problem.
Marco.
Funnily enough the only person ever to accuse me of lying about my hifi views was a subjectivist on this very forum!
Did we ever find out if the two yellows were the same or different, and what, if anything, it means either way?
Objectively, they are different, Subjectively, they may appear the same.
Unfortunately, like a lot of things, your computer (like your ears) may render things differently (or rather, the same), but that doesn't make me right and you wrong... or vice versa :eyebrows:
Objectively, they are different, Subjectively, they may appear the same.
Unfortunately, like a lot of things, your computer (like your ears) may render things differently (or rather, the same), but that doesn't make me right and you wrong... or vice versa :eyebrows:
I thought they were different, but then Steve Toy said they were the same, then someone quoted some computery stuff that proved they were different, then Steve Toy said that Beechwoods would confirm the sameness or differentness and now I'm all confused.
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 22:22
hi all,
it would seem to me that from time to time someone will come along with a bee they have had in their bonnet since the dawn of time,:doh: it wont matter what we say or how we explain our thought process or anything, it will come down to the one person thinking that the majority must be deluded because they have a free mind to think diffrently to them, or that they are some how imagining things that are not apparent to their mindset, well something nick explained [lurcher] cant be ignored, the reason we know items changed within the audio chain make a diffrence is because by changing said items from ones we have become acustomed to for many hours hilight things that were never brought to our attention with the old equipment, therefore as nick quite rightly states, when we do go back to listening to the old equipment we still hear what we did with the new equipment because our brain holds a memory of it, it may not be as clear as it was when it was first brought to our attention by the new equipment but never the less it is clearly apparent.
this is after all how rational thinking people come to rational conclusions is it not ?:scratch:
A...
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 22:23
lurcher, if you'd like to continue the discussion, send me an EMail or a PM.
se
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 22:30
anthonyTD, if I can't respond to your posts any longer, please don't say anything more to me or about me.
se
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 22:31
anthonyTD, if I can't respond to your posts any longer, please don't say anything more to me or about me.
se
:scratch:
I'm not a particularly rational person, but it seems to me that there are three possibilities relating to a perceived difference:
1) It is real and measurable
2) It is real but not measurable
3) It is not real and not measurable.
Now, for the individual, it shouldn't matter which of the three applies as long as the perceived difference is an improvement. If it sounds better, it is better.
However, if I changed something in my system, heard a difference, then reversed the change and still heard the difference, then rather than conclude that there was some audio memory thing going on, I'd conclude that there was actually no change.
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 22:37
I'm not a particularly rational person, but it seems to me that there are three possibilities relating to a perceived difference:
1) It is real and measurable
2) It is real but not measurable
3) It is not real and not measurable.
Now, for the individual, it shouldn't matter which of the three applies as long as the perceived difference is an improvement. If it sounds better, it is better.
However, if I changed something in my system, heard a difference, then reversed the change and still heard the difference, then rather than conclude that there was some audio memory thing going on, I'd conclude that there was actually no change.
hi joe,
thats a fair comment, but would you want to completely dismiss the fact that in the process of changing something in the chain an audible diffrence was apparent that wasnt or couldnt be heard before.???
A...
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 22:51
:scratch:
hi all,
it would seem to me that from time to time someone will come along with a bee they have had in their bonnet since the dawn of time, it wont matter what we say or how we explain our thought process or anything, it will come down to the one person thinking that the majority must be deluded because they have a free mind to think diffrently to them, or that they are some how imagining things that are not apparent to their mindset, well something nick explained [lurcher] cant be ignored, the reason we know items changed within the audio chain make a diffrence is because by changing said items from ones we have become acustomed to for many hours hilight things that were never brought to our attention with the old equipment, therefore as nick quite rightly states, when we do go back to listening to the old equipment we still hear what we did with the new equipment because our brain holds a memory of it, it may not be as clear as it was when it was first brought to our attention by the new equipment but never the less it is clearly apparent.
this is after all how rational thinking people come to rational conclusions is it not ?
A...
se
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 22:52
steve,
if my last post has offended you in some way then i am sorry, why dont you stick around and prove to us that you are nothing like the character in that post!
i for one would welcome that.:)
A...
:scratch:
Anthony, Steve's referring to me asking him to back off a little from this debate.
Backing off, however, doesn't mean that I'm gagging him - far from it. If he can present his argument in a way which is less abrasive and confrontational then he is most welcome to continue to contribute.
However, there comes a point when he must also show an ability to back off and let things lie when it becomes patently obvious that his 'opponent' has, for very good reasons, no intention of agreeing with him.
This is where the old saying of let's just 'agree to disagree' comes in! What Steve also has to understand is that he is not the arbiter of what is considered as rational or irrational.
Marco.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 22:59
steve,
if my last post has offended you in some way then i am sorry, why dont you stick around and prove to us that you are nothing like the character in that post!
i for one would welcome that.:)
A...
I'm not saying it offended me. I'm saying that seeing as I'm not able to respond to posts directed at me or about me, it's not exactly fair.
se
Hi Joe,
However, if I changed something in my system, heard a difference, then reversed the change and still heard the difference, then rather than conclude that there was some audio memory thing going on, I'd conclude that there was actually no change.
That's absolutely fine and understandable; however, why not also entertain what Nick has suggested?
I think he is definitely onto something, and it could well be a factor in the way we sometimes perceive certain effects in audio.
Marco.
anthonyTD
25-08-2010, 23:03
I'm not saying it offended me. I'm saying that
seeing as I'm not able to respond to posts directed at me or about me, it's not exactly fair.
se
???
give us another of your puzzles then!:)
A...
I'm not saying it offended me. I'm saying that seeing as I'm not able to respond to posts directed at me or about me, it's not exactly fair.
se
That is not the case! Read my post #238, above.
Marco.
Steve Eddy
25-08-2010, 23:09
That is not the case! Read my post #238, above.
I did. But I don't know exactly what I've said that you consider "abrasive" or "confrontational" I'm not taking any chances.
se
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 01:03
I'm only on page 22 of this thread but when I find this fine straw man specimen I know someone's argument is beginning to run out of steam.
You judge people based on how their systems sound? So if their system doesn't sound good, they're not a good person?
:scratch:
I'll carry on reading now to the end. I suspect there will be other straw men...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 02:52
I'm only on page 22 of this thread but when I find this fine straw man specimen I know someone's argument is beginning to run out of steam.
I'll carry on reading now to the end. I suspect there will be other straw men...
If there's a straw man here it would ironically be your very post.
What I said wasn't an argument, straw man or otherwise. It was a query. Hence the question marks at the ends of both sentences.
Further, that query was made within a post that addressed everything else you had said. How could it have possibly been a straw man when the whole purpose of a straw man is ultimately to avoid addressing the point of discussion?
You seemed to be saying that you judge people based on the sonic results they've obtained from their systems. That seemed rather odd so I wanted to see if I understood you correctly, hence the query.
Your representing my query as an argument is a misrepresentation of what I had said and the very definition of a straw man.
se
I'm not sure why this seems to happen every time people debate cables and cable differances.It's offten worse than discussing religon.
Perfactly normal people seem to get all sideways.
Can I suggest comming back to this thread after some cooling down before someone says something rash in the heat of it all.
simpley RESET.
and move on to something else for awhile.
Like Marco I heard instruments that were missing with a upgrade
For instance when I changed the baffle to my loudspeakers I heard bass synth instrumentation I never knew was on a recording. I used much thicker baffles helping firm up the drivers. Another example of this when I had a friend around and we were playing around with my system I use balanced mains and the difference in sound for both of us is that the sound without the mains treatment is more slower and less defined (by the way my friend is cable sceptic and this result is repeatable and obvious to all) So are you saying because there is no measurement of this its stays subjective.
This is a geniune question for Steve and not ment to wind up the debate
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 06:19
So are you saying because there is no measurement of this its stays subjective.
Yes.
Without any objective element, how can it be anything other than subjective?
And because of what we know about subjective biases and influences which have nothing to do with actual audibility, until those subjective biases and influences are adequately controlled for, there will always remain ambiguity. And as long as there is ambiguity, one can't come to any firm conclusions one way or the other. At least not in any rational way.
se
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 06:20
simpley RESET.
and move on to something else for awhile.
Ok daddy. http://www.q-audio.com/images/biggrin.gif
se
I gues this where common sense starts to become irrational and where Subjectivist like myself will always struggle, just because we do not measure does not make it any less real
Hi Joe,
That's absolutely fine and understandable; however, why not also entertain what Nick has suggested?
Because it simply doesn’t make sense to me. If I Iook at a scene with one eye closed, I won’t be able to see certain things on the periphery. If I look with both eyes open, I will be able to see more, but if I close one eye again, those things will no longer be visible, even if my visual memory is good enough to enable me to recall what they were. By the same token, if a component change enables me to hear something I couldn’t hear before, reversing that change should make the ‘something’ inaudible, even if it remains in my audio memory. If it remains audible once the change has been reversed, then there was actually no change.
My view is that in such cases changing an audio component leads to the expectation of a difference, which we then listen for. Such closer listening then causes us to hear things we’d previously missed. That is not, of course, to say that there are never any differences resulting from component change, but these can only be regarded as ‘real’ if reversing the component change makes the difference inaudible again.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.