Did anybody spot the oxymoron of AC mag using Martin Colloms data for their speaker wire Microcap sim models (a model used by AC as real stuff, and a terminal conclusion drawn!) openly admitting of being lazy to do their own measurements, and also admitting that they were amazed on how Martin could be really technically proficient and an avid subjectivist at the same time?
I´m afraid but if you care to analyze well documented DBTs on such topics like cable sound you´ll discover that the methodology used is often questionable.
You should never trust in any dbt result if no positive and negative controls were incorporated.
And the next important point would be accompanying measurement of the UUT.
The most critical point would be proper listening training of the participants under the specific circumstances of the dbt protocol choosen.
If anything was done right, dbts can reach a terrific level of sensitivity, but unfortunately it´s soo easy to get false results.
That´s an understandable point of view, but should be backed up with some measurements.
Afair Robert Harley found to his surprise already back in ~1991 that he could measure some differences regarding to jitter depending on the direction of a digital interconnect.
Jakob2
Jakob2 said:
Pinging my brother in law (now owner of that digital coax) he told me that he is in an island doing some work, but he will be back soon. I hope that he will open the coax ends and take a photo soon.
For the time being I found this link
Its Deltec's (DPA) 1997 product catalogue. Third row second column they show digital interconnects. In 'Slink Two' they discuss metallurgical directivity of that cable. Another hint that my original cable from them may very well meant just that by the arrow on its sleeve. We will see soon I hope.
P.S. Deltec was an innovative and deeply technical company, founded by engineers that their main occupation was contracting Aerospace defense items, that is why they had the earliest SMT machine, and presented the first SMT constructed DAC. I think that Robert Watts is responsible for today's Chord branded digital sources.DPA tech profile
I believe...
.. that under certain circumstances, it may be possible to hear and discern differences between the use of different interconnects and speaker cables.
.. no amount of dbt tests can ever disprove this, as a null result in a dbt only means that no difference was statistically discerned under that particular test environment, which may or may not have been the " correct circumstances"
.. that under certain circumstances, it may be possible to hear and discern differences between the use of different interconnects and speaker cables.
.. no amount of dbt tests can ever disprove this, as a null result in a dbt only means that no difference was statistically discerned under that particular test environment, which may or may not have been the " correct circumstances"
Re: I believe...
I don't think it is a question of whether someone "hears" something or not, it is more about the explaination offered by that person as to what is causing the difference. With the huge amount of evidence that our perceptions can't always be trusted, any explanation should take this into account. This is what DBT does.
Your belief that "...under certain circumstances, it may be possible to hear and discern differences between the use of different interconnects and speaker cables." is easy to accept and most likely true. But I believe that in such cases there will be a simple explanation that rests on well known electrical laws.
As your post suggests that the difference in sound is due to enviromental issues I take it that you don't believe that the cables themselves have a "sound".
Andy Graddon said:.. that under certain circumstances, it may be possible to hear and discern differences between the use of different interconnects and speaker cables.
.. no amount of dbt tests can ever disprove this, as a null result in a dbt only means that no difference was statistically discerned under that particular test environment, which may or may not have been the " correct circumstances"
I don't think it is a question of whether someone "hears" something or not, it is more about the explaination offered by that person as to what is causing the difference. With the huge amount of evidence that our perceptions can't always be trusted, any explanation should take this into account. This is what DBT does.
Your belief that "...under certain circumstances, it may be possible to hear and discern differences between the use of different interconnects and speaker cables." is easy to accept and most likely true. But I believe that in such cases there will be a simple explanation that rests on well known electrical laws.
As your post suggests that the difference in sound is due to enviromental issues I take it that you don't believe that the cables themselves have a "sound".
I was referring to the analog domain. As for digital cables, I remain skeptical but Harley is not a credible source to me and neither is a 17 yo article on digital. A lot has changed since then and without comparing current SOTA in digital (frankly not that interested this morning) there is every chance it is irrelevant based upon technicological progress..Jakob2 said:
Re: Re: I believe...
More that, if such difference in "sound" of cables exist, they may only become audible in certain circumstances.
There is no proof that DBT set-ups can mimic such circumstances, hence will almost always give a "null" result. If you can prove that a DBT can mimic such circumstances, that implies that you KNOW the circumstances....
fredex said:
As your post suggests that the difference in sound is due to enviromental issues I take it that you don't believe that the cables themselves have a "sound".
More that, if such difference in "sound" of cables exist, they may only become audible in certain circumstances.
There is no proof that DBT set-ups can mimic such circumstances, hence will almost always give a "null" result. If you can prove that a DBT can mimic such circumstances, that implies that you KNOW the circumstances....
tc-60guy said:
It's not a spoof!
If you click on the Pay Pall payment option, it will actually start guiding you through the payment process. Unbelievable!
I personally don't have a problem with wealthy people blowing money on things like expensive interconnects. Like I've said before, god bless them. It's then a 20year old is trying to build a nice sounding system and waisting money on useless crapolla because a salesman said so. Audio Critic comes in as a cold shower and after reading his publication that kid is going to end up with better system.
I have a 50 year old neighbor who build a pair of speakers for himself, using INTERNET calculators, someone else's speaker boxes and drivers that fitted already cut holes.
He's convinced that the best improvement in sound will be a purchase of a new amplifier, preferably a Macintosh. He's also not a believer in DBT and finds every excuse not to do one with me, matching the levels.
Re: Re: Re: I believe...
Sounds reasonable to me
DBT doesn't have to "mimic" anything. If you have the circumstances that allows you to hear these differences, just have another listen in the same circumstances but without knowing what is being listened to.
Don't know what you mean here?
Andy Graddon said:
Sounds reasonable to me
DBT doesn't have to "mimic" anything. If you have the circumstances that allows you to hear these differences, just have another listen in the same circumstances but without knowing what is being listened to.
Don't know what you mean here?
What circumstances Andy?
You take one short piece of wire out of the chain and replace it with another short piece of wire. Unlike the amplifier DBT, you don't even have to match the volume within .3db with pink noise.
Pardon me for been sarcastic but the correct star alignment comes to mind.
You take one short piece of wire out of the chain and replace it with another short piece of wire. Unlike the amplifier DBT, you don't even have to match the volume within .3db with pink noise.
Pardon me for been sarcastic but the correct star alignment comes to mind.
Mind games?
Lets axiomatically accept that our individual nature makes believe in our sighted living room tests for different cables or other trivia, and somehow biases us, so we fool ourselves in to differences between them. ''Naturally'' we become able to chose between them for best also.
If some neutral component is automatically twisted in our normal sighted listening mode in to something colored always, then the false color becomes a ''sense''. A reality in other words as far human perception is concerned.
Say some brain chemistry bliss mode is triggered then and we keep on feeling secure that we added a worthy ingredient to our system's sonics in the long run too. Seeing the ''chosen'' cable every time, keeps us under that placebo effect. We see it, we ''produce'' our make believe sound for it.
I don't know if we can securely break out from that human ''flaw'' vicious circle even if with some friends we decide to perform an ABX test, having them bring over their own placebos one afternoon, utterly proving to all of us that we are under the influence of a known sighted listening illusion.
Can the ''logical'' revelation of our placebo through ABX overcome once and for all the illusion? Is such a placebo brain mechanism subject to educational lift?
Will ABX be our sonic ''electroshock''?
Alas, the ABX will prove no tool at all in case that the placebo mechanism can not get lifted permanently by concrete logic. At least for some individuals.
If so, the cables and all tweaks, become real psychotropic products, indispensable for pleasing to the best of our effort our sonic ''sense''.
In such a case, tweaking will be following music replay for ever, being an indispensable part of it, exactly as drugs follow part of human creative culture through the ages. Especially musical creation.
Wow! I wrote all that an I am not under THC or Acid!
Lets axiomatically accept that our individual nature makes believe in our sighted living room tests for different cables or other trivia, and somehow biases us, so we fool ourselves in to differences between them. ''Naturally'' we become able to chose between them for best also.
If some neutral component is automatically twisted in our normal sighted listening mode in to something colored always, then the false color becomes a ''sense''. A reality in other words as far human perception is concerned.
Say some brain chemistry bliss mode is triggered then and we keep on feeling secure that we added a worthy ingredient to our system's sonics in the long run too. Seeing the ''chosen'' cable every time, keeps us under that placebo effect. We see it, we ''produce'' our make believe sound for it.
I don't know if we can securely break out from that human ''flaw'' vicious circle even if with some friends we decide to perform an ABX test, having them bring over their own placebos one afternoon, utterly proving to all of us that we are under the influence of a known sighted listening illusion.
Can the ''logical'' revelation of our placebo through ABX overcome once and for all the illusion? Is such a placebo brain mechanism subject to educational lift?
Will ABX be our sonic ''electroshock''?
Alas, the ABX will prove no tool at all in case that the placebo mechanism can not get lifted permanently by concrete logic. At least for some individuals.
If so, the cables and all tweaks, become real psychotropic products, indispensable for pleasing to the best of our effort our sonic ''sense''.
In such a case, tweaking will be following music replay for ever, being an indispensable part of it, exactly as drugs follow part of human creative culture through the ages. Especially musical creation.
Wow! I wrote all that an I am not under THC or Acid!
in many cases, these "issues" are reported in cases of one person listening on their own very well know speakers, in ones very well known room, with no-one else there.
there is no way that unsighted ABX can be introduced into that environment, because as soon as the "under test" scenario is encountered, the environment is destroyed.
as Salas say, "ABX will prove no tool at all" !!
there is no way that unsighted ABX can be introduced into that environment, because as soon as the "under test" scenario is encountered, the environment is destroyed.
as Salas say, "ABX will prove no tool at all" !!
Andy Graddon said:in many cases, these "issues" are reported in cases of one person listening on their own very well know speakers, in ones very well known room, with no-one else there.
there is no way that unsighted ABX can be introduced into that environment, because as soon as the "under test" scenario is encountered, the environment is destroyed.
as Salas say, "ABX will prove no tool at all" !!
Too much thinking, guys! There is psychology here yes, question is whether there is any actual sonic difference. Blinded tests with reasonable rigour can be easily setup in one's own environment.
1. You need an accomplice (my teenage daughter will do fine).
2. Set your system up so that cables can be changed / switched in/out without you seeing. Normal listening volume, music which you know well. Easy enough for me.
3. Leave the room. Your accomplice tosses a coin, puts the appropriate cable in, records which it is, then leaves the room. You do not see them nor speak to them.
4. You go into the room, listen, record your decision A, B, Don't know. Then leave the room without seeing or speaking to accomplice.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 twenty times.
6. Once final record made the results are fixed, you can unblind yourself and see how it went.
You must NOT reject the DBT for any reason, ie repeating DBTs will eventually throw up a "good" performance and this has been a source of error in peer-review journals and indeed in the published results of some very famous scientists!
Thats my plan. Any comments?
If it's all psychology then I can produce a natty line in cable-covers to suit all budgets.
@ Alan_Hope,
if you haven´t done DBTs before, than you´ll most likely face a lot of problems to ´prove´even quite big differences in the beginning.
So before starting i´d recommend to begin with some training sessions under the dbt protocol you´ve choosen.
Try to find out whether you need short samples or longer ones, the number of breaks needed and so on.
After that training you should think about positive and negative controls; the positive control should be on a comparable sensitivity level like the ´difference´under investigation, while the negative control will prove that no external factors are the reason for a positive result.
@ Brett,
maybe i addressed the quoted sentence to the wrong member, it was about the difference (that can´t be /shouldn´t be there) in orientation of the digital interconnect.
Whatever you think about RH, he described quite detailled in which way he was doing his tests and mentioned the test gear, the transport, the da-converter and the interconnect he was using.
Scepticism is good, but in the end such tests have to be reproduced to get more knowledge. So one may like the persons and the results or not, but it´s the data that counts.
Jakob2
if you haven´t done DBTs before, than you´ll most likely face a lot of problems to ´prove´even quite big differences in the beginning.
So before starting i´d recommend to begin with some training sessions under the dbt protocol you´ve choosen.
Try to find out whether you need short samples or longer ones, the number of breaks needed and so on.
After that training you should think about positive and negative controls; the positive control should be on a comparable sensitivity level like the ´difference´under investigation, while the negative control will prove that no external factors are the reason for a positive result.
@ Brett,
maybe i addressed the quoted sentence to the wrong member, it was about the difference (that can´t be /shouldn´t be there) in orientation of the digital interconnect.
Whatever you think about RH, he described quite detailled in which way he was doing his tests and mentioned the test gear, the transport, the da-converter and the interconnect he was using.
Scepticism is good, but in the end such tests have to be reproduced to get more knowledge. So one may like the persons and the results or not, but it´s the data that counts.
Jakob2
Hello, I'm sticking by my guns. If you want better sound, get better speakers! Speakers are still the weakest link in the chain. I still hear dynamic compression, tonal aberrations and lack of coherance in speakers costing tens of thousands of dollars. Whatever cahnge(and notice I said change and not improvment) cables make in the sound of your system is infinitesimal compared to a speaker upgrade. At the end of the day, I still believe that megabuck cables are a cynical fraud!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.