|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.147.251.12
See:
http://www.audiodesignline.com/201807390;jsessionid=3MNB3RGV143GZQE1GHOSKHWATMY32JVN?pgno=1
Click on the graphics to see an enlarged view (wait for it to load and auto-minimize, then click on it again to expand).
Very interesting that with a resistive load, nothing, but with a real loudspeaker, input/output differences show up.
The section with the loudspeaker cable measurements is "Part 5", and has three pages, look down at the bottom of the page to continue to the next page.
Part 6 has two pages and concludes their section on loudspeaker cables, is linked from the bottom of page 3 of Part 5.
(For those who might have trouble, here is the Part 6 page 1 URL:
http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202101992
)
Very interesting in that the authors are Pro Sound Recording Studio types, who are nothing if not pragmatic, and their article is written from the POV of concerns and issues for a recording studio monitor loudspeaker.
I also note the use of a multitone test signal, whose particulars were developed primarily by Dr. Alexander Voishvillo (formerly with Cerwin-Vega, now with Harmon Int.), who cites and references my own multitone paper in several of his papers, as well as discusses it within one of his AES papers.
Google Dr. Alexander Voishvillo, and you will see he is no light-weight.
Now, will the objectionists finally allow that there is true evidence of cable differences, or will this be swept under the rug as usual?
Jon Risch
Follow Ups:
"Now, will the objectionists finally allow that there is true evidence of cable differences, or will this be swept under the rug as usual?"
Now Risch, come on--you, a level-headed subjective objectivist and engineer, should of all people know that true objectivists, as derived from the word itself, do not proclaim that everything sounds the same, or that cables cannot affect the signal. Objectivists proclaim that if there are audible differences between pieces of gear or if cables audibly affect sound, measurable engineering reasons exist to explain them.
"Now, will the objectionists finally allow that there is true evidence of cable differences, or will this be swept under the rug as usual?"
You imply some kind of conspiricy or something! What a measurement geek requires to satisfy himself has little or nothing to do with what an absolute sounder or a highly methodical subjectivist or a pure relativist might require.
Seems backasswards and ugly the subjectivists would even bother to participate in conversations on the objectivists terms in the first place.
Who and why care what they think?
Unless they learned about hifi electronics from an audio magazine, I don’t think you could find an actual “engineering type” who would deny there wire has measurable effects depending on length, construction and especially frequency.
The higher you go in frequency, the larger most of the detrimental effects and complications become and at GHz frequencies these concerns govern the design.
What is missing is the apparent point of departure between exotic audio cables and the electronic engineering theory that has permitted the design of loudspeaker drivers and crossovers or even radio, TV computers and cell phones.
What is missing is a connection between changes of the magnitudes measured at audio frequencies and what some often say they hear from the same changes, changes which would appear (relative to changes in the speaker) to be tiny or insignificant.
At least in the testing I have been involved in, the huge changes people said they heard from the various cables they brought, then disappeared into insignificance when they didn’t know which cable they were hearing in the same system.
When the only thing that changed is prior knowledge, then what they heard had nothing to do with the cables and everything to do with what they know.
The problem is the lack of connection between subjective impressions and what the measurements suggest. Since the electronic measurements can be taken accurately and repeated but no one is measuring hearing or looking at that end scientifically, that would appear to be where the gap exists.
Unlike a hearing test(or test of your senses or knowledge), you have no clues when the test will run, when the tone will be present or how loud it is, while proven effective in every other field in interest, the same scientific method, testing without prior knowledge has gotten the broad black brush in hifi.
The idea of testing without prior knowledge is shunned in hifi instead with the marketing agents (magazines) generally clinging to the “sweet mysteries of life” approach instead of a serious look at what you can hear.
I wonder which approach is more appealing to the unscientific, which sells more cables and which approach lets you build a radio or even crossover or build loudspeaker drivers?.. I wonder which approach poses a threat to the aftermarket hifi business?
Interestingly one of the articles did touch on something else I have run across, that some hifi gear is marginally stable and having an “antenna” attached to the amp output, or having parallel capacitance, may make provoke that instability. While this isn’t the same as wires altering the sound, it can explain how cables could push marginal design over the edge into instability (something no amp designer wants to see or allow).
The bottom line might be if you’re going to use technical measurements to explain or prove something, a real proof would also involve testing to see if people are actually hearing a difference when they don’t know which is which. A person could also claim and believe they hear a 50KHz, 500KHz or 500MHz super tweeter or anything else, but a simple blind test would reveal that if actually true or just a belief.
"A person could also claim and believe they hear a 50KHz, 500KHz or 500MHz super tweeter or anything else, but a simple blind test would reveal that if actually true or just a belief."
Only thing is, there is no such thing as a "simple" blind test, or an easy one, or one that doesn't require lots of planning, forethought and resources (including money).
Secondly, even a well done blind test with controls and a baseline for what can be detected does not PROVE anything, only that a failure to detect occurred. Period. This could be due to something as simple as a poorly conceived or poorly implemented listening test (for one without a detection baseline, which is what the vast majority of the amateur listening tests that are cited by objectionists as some sort of "proof").
Now, suppose that a manufacturer DID invest all the time, money and resources into conducting a really good blind test, would any of the hardcore objectionists believe the results, or allow that a valid positive occurred? Even with two such test results available?
Even if it was 3rd party conducted?
After all that, and the considerable expense it would entail, the question becomes, why bother? The objectionists will continue to dismiss and refuse to accept the evidence, and many of the subjectivists don't need any such "iron-clad results" anyway.
Jon Risch
Hi
“ Only thing is, there is no such thing as a "simple" blind test, or an easy one, or one that doesn't require lots of planning, forethought and resources (including money).”
That would I think depend on if you’re trying to follow full scientific rigour or were satisfying curiosity at a more coarse level.. Many things lend themselves to a more simple approach than a full bore double blind approach.
“Now, suppose that a manufacturer DID invest all the time, money and resources into conducting a really good blind test, would any of the hardcore objectionists believe the results, or allow that a valid positive occurred? Even with two such test results available?
Even if it was 3rd party conducted?”
Probably not, a tribute to the effectiveness of the current romantic “sweet mystery of life” marketing tact psychologically speaking. Yet to me the argument that if in your own home, using the musical passages you pick, doing it whenever you feel like it, that if one still can’t hear the difference you heard when you “knew” which was which, that what you heard was more influenced by things internal rather than external to your tympanic membrane.
Since one cannot separate the two without that kind of test, it is worth looking at sometimes, particularly if you engineering a product or considering buying same.
More often, in the tests i took part in, the cables which the attendees brought that had a “big perceived sonic differences” when they knew which was which, essentially vanished with the same musical passages when the knowledge of which was which was taken away.
I could only conclude that the speaker cables acted on the signal, altered the result like they measured, in a way fully consistent with a “Pspice” like view would predict based on the equivalent circuit parameters as one might measure with a network analyzer (that is to say like the rest of electronics).
“subjectivists don't need any such "iron-clad results" anyway.”
True, that allows things like Kinoki foot pads, magnetic bracelets and magnetic fuel conditioners and a whole wide range of products which don’t actually work to enjoy success. It is a free country still pretty much.
Tom
When are people going to catch on - we can do as much or as little testing as we see fit before we make the purchase. I do tests and comparison and could care less if some panel agrees with me or not.If we can't convince ourselves such a purchase is worthwhile for our application then we shouldn't buy it. If we believe it's worthwhile then by all means buy it.
Why would anyone care about some panels results with some particular system, I only care about my results with mine.
I know for a fact that if someone is buying stuff just because it's expensive he's not going to end up with system that's as good as a well selected on for very reasonable money. So what why should I (we) rain on his parade? Well I guess if that guy needs to open his mouth like he's somekind of know it all expert....
Edits: 06/08/10
> > Secondly, even a well done blind test with controls and a baseline for
> > what can be detected does not PROVE anything...
While certainly true in a strict sense, that ignores the weight of the cumulative evidence that strongly suggests that, when deprived of visual or other non-audio clues or absent advance knowledge of make, model and other details, that many of the vast differences claimed for this audio item over that one fade dramatically, if they do not disappear completely.
Sure, a blind test may not resolve the issue that, with the wind from the north, the moon in a gibbous phase and a different isotope of unobtanium, differences may have been detectable in a blind test.
But, even given that, something tells me the "sighted" description of those differences is going to be far more verbose and dramatic than the blind narrative of results.
... whatever its quality/credibility is, relevant to one particular individual and one particular audio system, neither of which were part of the test?
I'm sure you're aware that hearing ability of humans differs vastly, with some being able to hear as high as to 24 Khz at reasonable SPL (established by Japanese researchers, can find the link if necessary). For such an individual, what's the relevance of the test, where nobody could hear past let's say 18 KHz?
What's the relevance of the test, performed on the system having let's say Pioneer universal player as a source, which is simply not resolving enough to demonstrate fine differences between variuos sample rates?
So far, nobody could explain that to my satisfaction - in fact, I haven't even seen any serious attempt to do so. Care to try?
I've never stated there are no differences in various types of audio equipment, whether speakers, electronics or wiring. Nor have I stated there are no differences between listeners, sample rates or anything else.
What I have commented on is that when comparisons are done in a sighted fashion or with knowledge of the items under test, one tends to get conclusions that contain so much hyperbole that one might sometimes think a vision of heaven has just been granted.
When that advance knowledge or sight is removed, the grand nature of the comments scale back considerably. Sometimes differences disappear and sometimes they don't, but the descriptions do become considerably more modest.
Humans are subjective creatures and prone to bias and influence. That is well established and audio is not an exception.
It is interesting that anyone would think that a radical concept.
> When that advance knowledge or sight is removed, the grand nature of the comments scale back considerably. Sometimes differences disappear and sometimes they don't, but the descriptions do become considerably more modest. <
My experience exactly. During all of my own SBT's and those I've witnessed, I think each time the testee has commented that the differences (if they existed at all) were less grand than was previously believed.
You wrote:
"While certainly true in a strict sense, that ignores the weight of the cumulative evidence that strongly suggests that, ....."
What evidence? In the sense of true scientifically produced evidence, there is none. No peer reviewed, journal published blind listening tests that provided controls and a baseline for sensitivity.
What there are, are just a bunch of poorly designed, ill conceived and horribly executed anecdotal accounts of an attempt at a listening test.
As null results of such poor scientific quality, they mean absolutely nothing.
Indeed, they have seemed to accumulate over the years, but so does trash, only most of the time, at least the trash gets taken out.
Jon Risch
> > What evidence? In the sense of true scientifically produced evidence,
> > there is none. No peer reviewed, journal published blind listening tests
> > that provided controls and a baseline for sensitivity.Then you would agree that precisely the same thing is true for the subjective take on things? Certainly nothing peer reviewed. Nothing controlled. Just a bunch of anecdotal stories.
What is well established in all other areas of science is the wildly variable influence of of subjective factors. As such, efforts are made to control and account for their influence.
When efforts are made to do that with audio, even the attempts are derided and sneered at, and endless excuses are presented to discount any results. (My favorite is "test anxiety".)
You seem to miss my main point however. What has been consistently true is that when efforts are made toward having even a modest level of blindness in audio related studies, the effusive language regarding "vast differences" mellows.
I wouldn't think that too controversial a point, but I guess when it come to audiophile perceptions, it's hard not to tread on someone's sacred ground. ;-)
Edits: 06/09/10
Certainly you grossly overstate this. I am sure physicists, biologists, chemists, etc. can ignore "subjective" factors. All must realize that one cannot deal with value judgments.
Similarly, you state, "When efforts are made to do that with audio, even the attempts are derided and sneered at, and endless excuses are presented to discount any results." Most of the criticism of most of the psychological testing using 30 sec. same or different methods are criticized as "invalid" measurement of the concept. Peer review normally deals with such problems, but if you dominate one journal and have only subscribers review, that safeguard is defeated. If the results are always that no one can hear the differences, the methodology is faulty.
Finally, most people reading a review are seeking vicarious impressions of the reviewer. They could care two figs whether he uses "double blind" tests. I can see that a designer might have interest in choosing between two designs, but probably would see no purpose in such methodology. I did participate in a comparison of a speaker maker's two final speakers. We listened for a while and I loved the sound. He then substituted two other speakers that looked alike with the first one. It was not as good. When I said that, he said they were identical in every respect- dimensions, drivers, wood, braces, wire, crossovers, etc., except for a different cabinet maker and that he entirely agreed with me.
> > Certainly you grossly overstate this. I am sure physicists, biologists,
> > chemists, etc. can ignore "subjective" factors.
You positive about this? From an article on blind testing: "Modern nuclear physics and particle physics experiments often involve large numbers of data analysts working together to extract quantitative data from complex datasets. In particular, the analysts want to report accurate systematic error estimates for all of their measurements; this is difficult or impossible if one of the errors is observer bias. To remove this bias, the experimenters devise blind analysis techniques, where the experimental result is hidden from the analysts until they've agreed—based on properties of the data set other than the final value—that the analysis techniques are fixed. One example of a blind analysis occurs in neutrino experiments, like the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, where the experimenters wish to report the total number N of neutrinos seen. The experimenters have preexisting expectations about what this number should be, and these expectations must not be allowed to bias the analysis. Therefore, the experimenters are allowed to see an unknown fraction f of the dataset."
Here we have an up front admission by nuclear physicists that they need to control for subjective bias. So, yes, if one is doing research, there is a need to control for subjective factors even in the "hard" sciences.
> > Most of the criticism of most of the psychological testing using 30
> > sec. same or different methods are criticized as "invalid" measurement
> > of the concept. Peer review normally deals with such problems, but if
> > you dominate one journal and have only subscribers review, that
> > safeguard is defeated. If the results are always that no one can hear
> > the differences, the methodology is faulty.
Faulty or imperfect methodology is not an excuse to abandon efforts at improving. "Gee, this is hard, let's not try anymore" is not a particularly compelling reason to embrace subjective feel-good impressions as the answer to basic research protocol.
> > Finally, most people reading a review are seeking vicarious impressions
> > of the reviewer.
I didn't say a single word about reviews or reviewers, nor the use of blind testing as a basis for consumer purchases. I happen to enjoy reading reviews but I don't treat them as science. I also did not pick out the components of my system with blind testing. I bought those items I liked.
While I'm not a particularly voluminous poster, if you look back at what I have said on this subject, I'm all for people buying what they like for whatever reason pleases them.
However, if one is doing fundamental research as respects the nature of human hearing, thresholds of audibility and various aspects of equipment design, then one does need to have some basic controls in place to help reduce the impact of subconscious influences.
I simply find it odd that some people have a hard time saying "I like this" without feeling compelled to justify their preference as some type of scientifically based choice.
"I simply find it odd that some people have a hard time saying "I like this" without feeling compelled to justify their preference as some type of scientifically based choice." I do think, however, that many who want "scientifically based choice" really think there are none.
When it comes to controversy about artistic matters, I'll go with the artists over the scientists every time. Here's an example that makes my point: the controversy over pianist's touch.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 06/09/10
"I wonder which approach is more appealing to the unscientific, which sells more cables and which approach lets you build a radio or even crossover or build loudspeaker drivers?.. I wonder which approach poses a threat to the aftermarket hifi business?"
Now that's a kicker. Finite element analysis when designing a loudspeaker driver motor is fine. Objective measurements when designing a loudspeaker enclosure or crossover are fine. Calculations when designing power amplifiers are fine. But as soon as you need to CONNECT any of these components or get a POWER CORD for them, all scientific ability is LOST on us humans and we must rely on total subjective measures and chalk flawed biased sighted results up to the mysteries of the universe.
Cheers,
Presto
That reminds me of one of Charles Rodrigues' cartoons for Stereo Review. Two largish professorial types are walking together on a university campus and one says something like this:
'I just finished my paper on unified field theory. Now I am going to work on interconnects and speaker cables.'
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
The only thing I want to add is that equipment susceptable to external influences, ie. the physical characteristics and attributes of cables/wires, is often deemed by many audiophiles as being more revealling or of having higher resolution. I'm sure that what some would consider marginal design constructs are quite intentional on the part of many manufacturers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm most certainly a relativist, and think such design choices are perfectly fair and reasonable especially given the diversity of audiophile purpose, individual preference and the fuzzy nature of a stereo recording itself.
A thing that really bothers me about the marketing vehicles is how they attempt to walk this line between objective credibility and growing the industry. IMO it's this kind of dumbing down of audiophiles that gives rise to this kind of objectivist v. subjective debate which really makes audiophiles in general look quite foolish and ignorant as well.
At a minimum a subjectivist wishing any credibility would understand the importance of blind testing and level matching. Those not in search of credibility should simply avoid the topic enjoy their pursuit on their own terms otherwise a "Sad Sack Marketing Sap is Me" tee-shirt is appropriate.
I agree with you.
It's a tough problem. If the equipment is low resolution it won't be sensitive. If the equipment is high resolution but designed with robust rejection of spurious signals then it won't be sensitive. To "maximize" sensitivity requires a combination of high resolution and low rejection.
In the real world of engineering, rejection of spurious signals is one design dimension and resolution is a different design dimension. There are always tradeoffs between design dimensions in any engineering project, even if cost is no object. Hence the "best" product for use in an environment free of EMI may be one with poor rejection but excellent resolution while the "best" product for use in an environment with lots of EMI may be one with lots of rejection but only moderate resolution. (Assuming no product can be found that is at once high resolution and high rejection.)
Of course it is conventional for those with expensive equipment to claim that differences they hear are due to "resolution" and not "lack of rejection". The reason for this has little to do with audio and a lot to do with human nature.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"If the equipment is low resolution it won't be sensitive. If the equipment is high resolution but designed with robust rejection of spurious signals then it won't be sensitive."
It is not evident that postulating a inverse relationship between rejection of spurious signals and resolution is at all meaningful. "Assuming no product can be found that is at once high resolution and high rejection." Well, why should one make such an assumption?
One can measure rejection of spurious rejection, I gather, under various circumstances.
To assess resolution, it would seem that one could measure frequency response, distortion, signal to noise ratio, residual noise, and so on. I doubt that is what E-stat means, but then I don't think he is at all clear about what he does mean.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I did not posit an inverse relationship or any kind of causal relationship for that matter. Let me try a completely different example to illustrate what I meant. It is easy to find a beautiful woman. It is easy to find an intelligent woman. It is not so easy to find a beautiful intelligent woman. Adding constraints makes a problem more difficult.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Let me try a completely different example to illustrate what I meant. It is easy to find a beautiful woman. It is easy to find an intelligent woman. It is not so easy to find a beautiful intelligent woman."
That analogy is so perfect..... As if one might not find a woman beautiful because of her intelligence. We don't all share the same definition of beauty (resolution).
I can conjure scenerios where RFI or other interference could actually be preferable to none and in fact added noise or interference might be perceived as greater resolution. I'm not talking just about masking effects (where noise might mask recording artifacts) that some might appreciate I'm talking about audible noise being percieved as detail.
But alas the analogy perfectly reveals my problem with your original comment.
That was not even close to what was said. You have taken a dramatic leap into the absurd.
Resolution (outside the digital context) is not some quantifiable engineering dimension, it's a matter of perception.
Just like beauty. What's a beautiful woman? The one who gives me a hard one just looking at her body or the one empowers me or whatever I might decide defines a beautiful woman? What dimension are we discussing when we talk about beauty?
It's the same thing with resolution (outside of the digital context). It's a matter of perception not dimension.
your failure to understand the howling logical fallacy you constructed.
Try to focus on the quote I pulled from your post: "As if one might not find a woman beautiful because of her intelligence."
Now go back to Tony's previous post and check to see if that is indeed what he said, or if you leapt there all by yourself.
He said resolution was an independent engineering dimension from rfi/noise suppression.
I say that statement is incorrect - Can a woman be beautiful if she lacks intelligence? I say no.
Surely from my POV noise suppression is as major dimension of resolution, just like intelligence is a major component of beauty.
If you don't get it just move.
It is quite obvious that you have no idea what the logical fallacy that I called you out on actually was. Try going back to my post, read it slowly, and se if you can figure it out.
I give you a hint: it didn't have anything at all to do with either your points or Tony's points about resolution.
Another hint: it had to do with how egregiously you systematically misread and/or misinterpret other people's comments.
Yet another hint: it has to do with Tony's "completely different example."
And telling me to move on? That's precious, Don. Particularly coming from someone who earned his walking papers from Critics' Corner. Just keep in mind that you are just one more Prophead poster, with no more influence around here than any other individual poster.
any number of occasions.
You said -
"Now go back to Tony's previous post and check to see if that is indeed what he said, or if you leapt there all by yourself."
Of course he didn't say that but he raised an analogy with his original comment and that of a beautiful woman being a seperate dimension than an intelligent woman.
Just like his original comment claimed resolution was a seperate engineering dimension than rfi/noise suppression.
The analogy is perfect but I disagree with them both for the same reason I disagreed originally -
beauty is not independent or seperable from intelligence
resolution is not independent or seperable from noise/rfi reduction.
There is nothing wrong with my logic nor I'm I abusing the intentions of Tony's original comments or follow up. I disagree with both of them.
but I'll bite anyway.
"Been made a fool of?" Really? That's a hoot, Don. Your powers of projection are immense. But I'll go do a little search to find one of those moments when I was made the fool by you. Its going to take a while. Of course you could help out and link one of those moments when your superior logic and knowledge really showed me. Yep, I'm still smarting from all those Don_T smackdowns.
Now back to your comprehension issue: your "logic" as presented by this piece of sheer genius, "beauty is not independent or seperable from intelligence," is an arguable opinion held by you, and hardly represents a universal truth. But that's really beside the point, as you STILL have no idea how badly you butchered Tony's analogy with your interpretation.
Here's Tony's post in question: "I did not posit an inverse relationship or any kind of causal relationship for that matter. Let me try a completely different example to illustrate what I meant. It is easy to find a beautiful woman. It is easy to find an intelligent woman. It is not so easy to find a beautiful intelligent woman. Adding constraints makes a problem more difficult."
Here's what you so brilliantly replied: "As if one might not find a woman beautiful because of her intelligence. We don't all share the same definition of beauty (resolution)."
That reply is such a nonsensical misreading of the analogy that you should be ashamed to have written this zinger: "There is nothing wrong with my logic nor I'm I abusing the intentions of Tony's original comments or follow up. I disagree with both of them."
I think you may have a case against your high school for malpractice.
I told you to "move on" originally because I am very familiar with your obstinacy ."Now back to your comprehension issue: your "logic" as presented by this piece of sheer genius, "beauty is not independent or seperable from intelligence," is an arguable opinion held by you, and hardly represents a universal truth. But that's really beside the point, as you STILL have no idea how badly you butchered Tony's analogy with your interpretation."
OK I admit it would be very difficult for me to find an unintelligent woman beautiful. It is my opinion of course.
"Here's Tony's post in question: "I did not posit an inverse relationship or any kind of causal relationship for that matter. Let me try a completely different example to illustrate what I meant. It is easy to find a beautiful woman. It is easy to find an intelligent woman. It is not so easy to find a beautiful intelligent woman. Adding constraints makes a problem more difficult."
Ok he said that.
But what he said that I am in disagreement with is
"In the real world of engineering, rejection of spurious signals is one design dimension and resolution is a different design dimension. "
As if we can have poor rejection of spurious signals in a high resolution system.
Just like I could never find a unintelligent woman beautiful (his analogy not mine) I would never conclude a noisy system is a high resolution one.
Granted one might try to claim in a noise free environment that such a system is high resolution - fair enough. Just like if I was stranded on an island or stuck in an institution I would eventually learn to see brain damaged, convicted or moronic woman as being beautiful.
I don't live on an island nor do I have a noise free environment. I live in the real world.
Edits: 06/09/10 06/09/10
There it was, right in front of your face, and you STILL don't see how badly you mangled the analogy. Just keep plowing ahead, oblivious to your howling error in logic. The issue of resolution is irrelevant to why I'm laughing so hard at you that my sides ache. I'm not sure I've ever run across anyone so arrogantly unaware of his own stupidity as you.
"Obstinate?" I'm surprised you spelled it correctly, but dear Don, the word defines your participation on this forum. You've demonstrated this in several sub-threads of this very topic.
Shame on me for thinking you were trying to participate in this thread.
You do it so well without any help at all. I didn't make up a topic: you're the one who can't understand a simple analogy.
Ever wonder why the threads in which you post end this way, regardless of debating partner?
I had in mind a woman before she speaks:
"Is your mouth a little weak
When you open it to speak
Are you smart?"
Next time I will just give a Venn diagram rather than attempting unsuccessfully to reach a common denominator.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I do remember your comment and why I objected to it.A high resolution system must be unaffected by noise, rfi or any other external influence or pure and simply it is not a high resolution system.
This is not rocket science and I can't believe any self respecting engineer or component designer would argue otherwise.
To say, and believe that a system is high resolution because it is effected by such external influences is one of the most ludicrious ideas bantered about around here. You might as well have a cheap low resolution system for crying out loud! I guess it's ok to hear external interferences instead of circuit generated noise and dynamic limitations as long as the system costs alot of money? LOL!!!!
"I had in mind a woman before she speaks:"
Hmmmm kind of like high resolution before you've heard it. Such vicarious existences some of us lead.
Edits: 06/08/10
"I had in mind a woman before she speaks:"
Hmmmm kind of like high resolution before you've heard it. Such vicarious existences some of us lead.
You appear to be clueless when it comes to the lyrics of Jazz standards.
"A high resolution system must be unaffected by noise, rfi or any other external influence or pure and simply it is not a high resolution system."
A competent engineer understands that a system operates in an environment. If the environment is suitably noise free there is no need for a system to be immune to external noise and interference. A system with poor noise immunity might have a limited marketplace or might require a specialized installation, but if operated in a suitable environment might produce excellent results.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
None of that has anything to do with the original point of contention.
"None of that has anything to do with the original point of contention."Disagree. I'm done trying to explain this to you. I've made my best shot and failed.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 06/09/10
All you had to do was agree that spurious noise and external influences effect our perception of a systems resolution.
Apparently that was asking too much.
Another epic fail!
"All you had to do was agree that spurious noise and external influences effect our perception of a systems resolution."
I already agreed with you.... back on June 5.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
1.) A system isn't high resolution if it's being influenced by external noise.
2.) As a system's "resolution" increases there is absolutely no reason to expect it to become more susceptable to noise.
In your comment you try to distinquish between low resolution systems and high resolution systems effected by noise. My God man there's no difference other than the price - they are both low resolution systems.
"A system isn't high resolution if it's being influenced by external noise."
I agree with this statement, as modified:
A system isn't high resolution while it's being significantly influenced by external noise.
"As a system's "resolution" increases there is absolutely no reason to expect it to become more susceptable to noise."
I disagree completely with this statement. Take my present system. When it is powered off it is extremely low resolution. (No more so than a brick.) It is also extremely insensitive to noise. When powered on it it experiences a huge increase in resolution (Although I make no claims as to it being "high" resolution it does resolve the difference between Chet Baker and Frederich von Stade singing "My Funny Valentine".) Unfortunately when powered on it becomes susceptible to noise from a variety of sources, including most obviously a nearby cell phone. I could easily provide a technical explanation on why there is a positive correlation between resolution and susceptibility to interference but I picked an example that should be understandable by all "air breathers".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
and needs to be fixed.
Sure Tony there probably is a correlation between increasing resolution and susceptability to external noise.
That being said anyone can "expect" whatever they please. Unlike you however I don't expect an increase in susceptability to external noise as a systems resolution increases, and certainly don't require it as proof of a systems resolving ability.
"Unlike you however I don't expect an increase in susceptability to external noise as a systems resolution increases, and certainly don't require it as proof of a systems resolving ability."
This is as egregious an error of basic logic as your last epic gaffe (remember the one about beauty and intelligence that you butchered so badly?).
You might consider spending some time investigating some of the basics of syllogisms. But by all means don't if you don't really want to, as your errors are very entertaining.
I doubt it is possible to pick up the basic elements of logical reasoning from a book. Without a certain amount of innate logic "hard wired" into one's mind (or brain if you prefer) it simply isn't possible to follow the reasoning in logic books. I'm not saying that books on logic aren't useful, but they all place certain minimum requirements on reasoning ability from the get go. In a way it's like bootstrapping a computer system.
Alternatively, there's the matter of internal noise "between the ears". One of the most serious limitations of logical reasoning is its inability to get back on track after so much as a single error in logic. In particular, if one has a single contradiction, caused perhaps by a temporary mental glitch, then one can continue to use logical deduction and prove all possible statements. In my opinion common sense is at least as important as logic. Much humor comes from clashes between "logic" and common sense.
All this is speaking in general terms, of course, without reference to any particular person and without excluding any particular person. Or as Richard Bach once wrote, "Everything in this book could be wrong."
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Ie. when one is unable to discern differences between marketing/psuedo science and technology it's a programming error not a bootstrap issue.When one refuses to admit "resolution" and noise are mostly one and the same engineering dimension cleary his thinking process is broken.
My female analogy goes like this - you come home and find some guy on top of your woman. After a herculean effort you remove the guy, you give her a bigger allowance and then go whistling happily on your way without realizing there is in fact another guy underneath your woman. All you had to do is look and listen to others but you refuse to do so instead chosing simply to broadcast your superior intelligence and experience as well as your contentment with your wife's fidelity.
Beat me with a stick buddy. Hope you like my cheerleader she's a fiesty one.
Edits: 06/17/10
that I feel sorry for your life experiences. No one, no matter how repugnant, should have to suffer through what ever made that seem like a smart analogy to the problem at hand.
And truthfully I'd be getting really turned on if your name was Roberta or Hillary or something.
But alas something really good ends up turning really gross in the end.
I see you still can't understand how you butchered up a simple syllogism. But it remains very entertaining to see you return to your old Don_T days where your only response to any type of criticism at all was to revert to schoolyard-type bullying. You are not very bright Don, and every time you post, the bulb gets even dimmer.
And really, leave your little sexual fantasies aside. The day you stop your boorish behavior and participate in a discussion without resorting to your dismissive arrogance, I'll stop responding to you. You have not adjusted your attitude one tiny bit since you were banned. It might also help if you had even the slightest ability to comprehend what others write, but that may be asking for too much at one time.
that may have only been on the LP (!) of the soundtrack to Holy Grail, where a professor of logic gets all flustered because his wife, when told that "all mackerel are fish, and that all fish live in water, deduces not that all mackerel live in water, but that fish live in trees, or that I do not love her any more..."
There is the basic issue of common sense, which can indeed provide great humor when it is uncommonly nonsensical; there is the issue of the egregious logical gaffes, which are often hysterical; and there is the issue of reading incomprehension, which is more sad than funny, unless combined with the previous two, in which case we're talking hernia-inducing milk-out-the-nose belly laughter.
Not sure why you keep bringing up this point.
The problem here is if the system resolution is being reduced by interference can it still be considered a high resolution system. Obviously NO! It's not a high resolution system it's a noisy one, really no different than any other less costly system similarly lacking in transparency.
I keep trying to get through to you. It does appear hopeless. I chose my words carefully. You have not showed the ability to read these words carefully and understand their logical implications.
You say that you are an electrical engineer. From your posts I am having a great deal of difficulty believing that you are a good one. Engineers design systems to operate as intended within a defined environment, which would seem to place the onus on any engineer to at least understand the concepts of "system" and "environment" and how the two interact according to the appropriate physical laws (in your case, electrical in nature).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
it's you that continues to deny the obvious. Noise is noise - whether it's a poor circuit design, cheap components or susceptibility to external influences it all leads to diminishing transparency and a lack of resolution.
Your POV only indicates your willingness to accept and justify this kind of poor performance from expensive audio equipment.
Me I find little satisfaction if I am hearing noise and distortion not audible on a lesser system. It's just the other half of the half assed low resolution stuff we are trying to get away from.
You and a couple of others around here keep telling me I don't understand what you are saying - bs your POVs have clearly been stated. It's you guys that need to extricate yourselves from the hooks that are binding to you.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
Your points have been made. Your points have been heard. Endlessly repeating yourself doesn't make any of your points correct. It just reinforces the clear impression that you are quite set in your opinion, and oblivious of your lack of knowledge.
Thanks for providing such a continuous and entertaining stream of audiophool drool.
...rather than attempting unsuccessfully to reach a common denominator.
Pat D doesn't understand the performance difference between a Ferrari Modena and a Mercury Grand Mo.
rw
In the real world of engineering, rejection of spurious signals is one design dimension and resolution is a different design dimension.
For some reason, some folks have difficulty understanding that concept.
rw
In particular how about a definition of the engineering diminsion concerning "resolution"? We all know, or maybe some of us do understand resolution as it applies to the bits in a digital system but that's not what we are talking about.
Personally I've never known any engineering or technical diminsion to directly and singularly relate to "resolution" as far as audio system are concerned.
Any and all design criteria relating to the audio signal would effect a system resolution - including noise rejection.
That's why I disagree with your applause.
is the same as for Pat D - consult the dictionary to understand the meaning of the word. While its true that in recent times computer based applications have used the term as a metric, such is not truly the case in the real world. Would you rather look at a 10 megapixel image through a Coke bottle lens or a 6 megapixel image through a Zeiss or Leitz lens? Would you rather hear a 24 bit DVD-A audio signal through a Toshiba SD4900 or a 16 bit CD through an EMM Labs XD-S1?
What I really like about Tony's experience is that it goes beyond audio and provides (to me) very clear examples of what he is describing. Have you experienced power oversteer? There is no metric to quantify that experience.
Personally I've never known any engineering or technical diminsion to directly and singularly relate to "resolution" as far as audio system are concerned.
Others certainly have. Take, for example a Sony music producer:
"I have come to rely on the Meitner converters for all of my high resolution projects. Meitner electronics have consistently been the most musically accurate and robust components in my experience and are truly state-of-the-art."
Stephen Epstein
Senior Executive Producer, Sony Classical
Twelve time Grammy Award Winner
(YoYo Ma, Wynton Marsalis, Chick Corea,
Placido Domingo and others)
Perhaps you have learned something.
rw
"I have come to rely on the Meitner converters for all of my high resolution projects. Meitner electronics have consistently been the most musically accurate and robust components in my experience and are truly state-of-the-art."
The fact that someone simply uses the term "resolution" in no way supports Tony's contention that you applauded and is the subject of my query.
In your quote "resolution" either refers to high resolution digital systems (which relates to bits) or to the generally accepted audiophile use of the term which in itself suggests many design factors including noise suppression as components of resolution.
Now I've never heard of a single engineering parameter for resolution. If someone wants to claim "noise floor" they won't get much argument from me but I think audiophiles chosing that term in their vocabulary are going to feel slighted by such an agreement. Maybe not?
The fact that someone simply uses the term "resolution" in no way supports...
It does, however, answer your question. Do you remember it?
rw
Yea I questioned why you applauded Tony's conflicted comment. And you responded by posting a quote by someone using the term "resolution" in a somewhat ambiguous fashion.
So yea my question did get answered but not because of the words you've chosen in your response. Quite the opposite - what clear is that you applauded Tony's conflicted comments because you are confused.
Thanks for the clarification!
used the term in the "technical dimension" of what he uses as the ADC for producing his recordings. This thread proves a point. Dialtones like RBNG claim there is no proof for audible differences in "reasonable" lengths of cable. He has been proven wrong, but will no doubt stick his head up now and again and continue to preach his manifesto in ignorance. I just brought to your attention a recording producer using the term in the "technical dimension".
The wonderful thing about the English language is there are multiple terms to describe characteristics. Speaking of the same professional gear as the Sony producer is Bob Woods from Telarc (who I had the pleasure of meeting when I played a minor role in an ASO recording years ago):
"The sonic purity and transparency of the Meitner converters have been key in Telarc's success in using DSD technology to make the best sounding SACD's that can be produced. All of Telarc's pure DSD/SACD titles have been made using Meitner converters."
Bob Woods
President and Recording Engineer
Telarc International Corporation"
Purity and transparency. High resolution. Do you honestly not understand the meaning of those words when placed in that context?
You may deny the language "Till" the cows come home. :)
rw
That's the President of an International Corporation.Why in heaven's name would you assume he's talking in a technical dimension - guys like, CEOs, presidents, etc., almost exclusively talk in a marketing/sales dimension.
Geez the guys obviously trying to pump his stuff up.
For crying out loud! You really are a goof.
Edits: 06/08/10
rw
And you are taking the bait hook line and sinker.
Keep going it doesn't change the fact that terms like resolution (not the digital use of the term), transparency or purity are really nothing but subjective observations that appeal to the audiophile.
There's no real engineering dimension to any of these qualities other than whatever a particular designers take is on what characteristics of a design give the proper effect to bring forth such descriptors from listeners.
He remains a recording engineer .
There's no real engineering dimension to any of these qualities other than whatever a particular designers take is...
Actually, it was not Ed Meitner being quoted. It is multiple engineers who chose his equipment as their favored tool.
rw
We still don't know what it is other than claims of high resolution (in the non-digital sense (possibly)), transparency and purity.
It's all open to intrepretation but I think even more obviously RFI and/or noise effects these "dimensions".
Perhaps you should re-read the engineer's comments again. I find their language quite clear.
but I think even more obviously RFI and/or noise effects these "dimensions".
They are most certainly among, but not solely responsible for, the factors which influence the perception of high resolution or transparency.
rw
"They are most certainly among, but not solely responsible for, the factors which influence the perception of high resolution or transparency."
Of course and that's my objection to your applauding Tonys original comment. Resolution (excluding digital resolution) and noise suppression aren't seperate engineering dimensions!
Resolution (excluding digital resolution) and noise suppression aren't seperate engineering dimensions!
You are completely unfamiliar with the concept of linearity as presented by active and passive devices alike and the distortion spectra effects of different circuit topologies.
rw
*not digital resolution
And you can't do it, in fact no one can, as resolution (non-digital) is a not a quantifiable quality, it is a subjective impression.
Here's to waiting for your excuse to not do it.
I am an electrical engineer and am not completely unfamiliar with concepts of linearity and/or distortion, nor am I ignorant to differences between circuit topologies.
Mr. Short Term Memory!I am an electrical engineer and am not completely unfamiliar with concepts of linearity and/or distortion, nor am I ignorant to differences between circuit topologies.
You've successfully fooled all of us.
...it is a subjective impression.
That's the third time you've made that observation. Let's cycle back through your first pass at this brilliant deduction here and my reply. Then, following another *brainstorm*, we went for the second pass and deja vu all over again!
You and Pat D must have really liked Merry-Go-Rounds when you were kids. Sorry, I'm ready to get off. :)
rw
Edits: 06/09/10
but alas like any guy caught in the sheep corral with his pants down there's really no need to even attempt to make an excuse.
Consider yourself outted.
"Purity and transparency. High resolution. Do you honestly not understand the meaning of those words when placed in that context?"
Yes I understand. He's talking about "high resolution" per the digital definition - higher bit rates. But it doesn't matter even if I forget that you miss that point there you're still off the mark.
There's no doubt he's making sense on some level, but we aren't talking tech babble or psuedo science. We're talking about design criteria.
From the onset I said that resolution has a real meaning, ie. a dimension if you want to sound mystical, in terms of digital.
Funny how you would use terms like "purity and transparency" in order to further your exploration into this mystical world.
One might have a sense of greater purity and transparency with high resolution systems but the use of those terms is analogous with using the term resolution outside of the context of it's digital definition.
There is no measurement for purity and transparency nor is there a measurement for resolution (outside of the digital context).
The engineering dimensions involved in those decriptive terms of perception are subjective at best and surely resolution, purity and transparency can be achieved without even considering such dimensions.
Funny how you would use terms like "purity and transparency" in order to further your exploration into this mystical world.
Look again as to make that observation.
There is no measurement for purity and transparency nor is there a measurement for resolution (outside of the digital context).
Are you just realizing this?
rw
And to prove my point I'll ask again -Describe the accepted engineering criteria that defines the engineering "dimension" referred to above as "resolution" that you so gleefully applauded?
Careful - I don't want you to step on your own toes.
Suprise me I don't expect a cognitive response.
Edits: 06/06/10 06/06/10
it is you who can't even remember your own questions!
Describe the accepted engineering criteria that defines the engineering "dimension" referred to above as "resolution"
Nor can you remember what I've already said. I answered this question here and here .
Intelligent engineers use their brains and powers of observation to detemine qualitative measures that have no reliable metrics. It is evident that concept eludes you. And others, too. :)
rw
And as impressed as one might be by your ability to post links one would be equally impressed by the lameness of your retort if they actually took the time to read the links.
But a little shift and a little dodge is all it takes for a peddler of fairy dust to prove mysticism for those looking to take a leap in faith.
rw
You take the podium and now there you stand - confused, naked and combative. "Where's the beef?" I say beef? This isn't about beef it's about sheep.
baaaaa baaaaaa baaaaaa
Get it right?
You consider that to be an "engineering or technical dimension?" (sp. corr.) Now wonder you are confused.
All your quote from the Sony music producer shows is that he finds Meitner DACs work well for him. But that's hardly technical information.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
rw
Seems backasswards and ugly the subjectivists would even bother to participate in conversations on the objectivists terms in the first place.
Observationalists still have confidence that the obs will eventually get it. :)
rw
> Observationalists still have confidence that the obs will eventually get it. :) <
...I'd say you must be new around here!
Then again, I suppose I have confidence that the boulder in my front yard will eventually be turned to dust by erosion. :)
N/T
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Or, is all of that negativity produced in your speculations intended to "save us?"Everyone knows that you'd never buy it: so why bother to cry?
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
Edits: 06/07/10
It's easier to make these kind of sales when people think they have more money than they know what to do with.
And really what makes you think margins on high price interconnects/cables aren't outrageously high?
I'm being told that I can't hear something that I can: and I'm being told that the differences that I hear are not there and that I'm being bamboozled. And this is by someone who is not doing any listening for themselves. I ask simple questions: why is someone who is not testing for themselves, trying to tell me the results of my tests?
AND: why is this same person/people, assuming that because certain cables are expensive that they have low universalizable value, - and/or these same manufacturers are rich?
These types of assumptions are unreasonable.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
I'm not sure I understand your response to my comments - I was just trying to clarify why cable companies may be having a tough time in this economy.
And yes I added the markup comment for the heck of it. In my main system the least expensive interconnect cost me about $600 and I've got $1200 in speaker wires. I know there's stuff at 3 times the price I'd like to have that I can live without and down the road I can get if I can comfortably afford it. I also know there's stuff at 1/4 the price of my current stuff that I could live with happily ever after.
that the high end cable business is not lucrative.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
GMAB
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
I'm wondering - why is it only audio that's blessed by his perpetual, and quite annoying, attention?P.S.: Let me take that back. For all we know, he could be whining about premium cheese on cheese-related forums, or about XO cognacs on cognac-related...
Edits: 06/07/10
I've never understood why anyone would argue about something they believe doesn't exist. Why not ignore the topic? If all audio equipment sounds the same, what's the attraction to audio? That never fails to make me laugh.
By the way, all cheese and cognac taste the same. The cheese even tastes the same as the cognac! :)
Mass-market CD players and cables from RadioShack and Walmart, that are quite simply shit , also turned - well, maybe not to gold, but to bronze for sure - for their sellers!Talk about alchemy, taken one step further...
Edits: 06/04/10
touted by some as being wonderful for playing CDs. Remember all the fuss a while back about the Toshiba SD3950? I bought one just for grins. It proved to be a decent, if not mechanically noisy DVD player. Audio through the onboard DAC/analog out was as you say. I used it for a while in the vintage system used as a transport only where it works ok. Now it lives in a bedroom hooked to a TV for playing DVDs. You can get it successor, the SD4200 for $37!
rw
It does DVD-A as well.
It attempted to slay a few giants and is now serving as a backup DVD player or CD player.
No hardware player I have or have tried can touch my PC audio rig. :o)
I have not used a hardware player in my main system for about 4 years now.
Cheers,
Presto
I've made a list of companies that have gotten wealthy off cables. Help me out - I'm stuck with only Monster! :)
"I've made a list of companies that have gotten wealthy off cables. Help me out - I'm stuck with only Monster! :) "
Ah, good one.
It might be better to ask, what is the ratio between companies that have gotten wealthy in audio and the use of marketing hype over scientific advancement.
All of the largest (in sales) in nearly any "recreational spending market" like hifi, shows a dollar spent marketing the image of science and R&D results in more sales than a dollar spent on R&D.
> It might be better to ask, what is the ratio between companies that have gotten wealthy in audio <
First you'd have to identify those companies, preferably including income statements. I'm still stuck on Monster! (and if BassNut comes back and says "Cuz Monster's stuck on me!", I'm gonna strangle him with his own nickel a foot speaker wire....).
Looks like we got the answer to a previous post asking what happened to all the poop heads.
They must be taking a break from designing the products people buy.
> They must be taking a break from designing the products people buy. <
Nah! That's too obvious. :)
As usual, nothing was decided and the two sides are still at polar opposites, but at least we're back to those good old pointless debates and personal attacks that have been missing around here for awhile. No good argument goes unpunished around here! :)
RBNG will continue to offer his "Bobwire" advice and then silently go away to deleted post land. :)
rw
All bobwire sounds the same.
rw
I've performed this test many times using many different signal types - Random, sine , multisine, swept sign. Measuring and calculating the difference (our instrumentation will calculate the difference for you.) and have never seen such differences.
Since this was using a stationary (steady) multisine, a block FFT processor, Some - though not specified - averaging, results should be reproducible. All these conditions are arguments some have used against my analytical tests of cables.
I guess I'll have to run some more (newer) tests. Do we know the loudspeaker and cables used here?
It helps to read the article.
The cable models are listed in the graphs, the Subwoofer was an 18" Cerwin Vega brand (they may provide the model number in the original paper), but the "full-range two-way speaker" with passive crossover was not identified in the book chapters shown at the Audiodesign web site.
I think that the main thing here is that they were using real world loads, rather than resistors. The 18" Cerwin Vega Sub was undoubtedly capable of a LOT of back EMF, as it would probably have been a Pro Sound subwoofer (the continuous 20 Volt RMS input is a clue, as the peak voltages would have been umpteen dB higher).
Oh, and if I am remembering correctly, you MUST use differential ungrounded signal probes, or you have contaminated the cable measurement with the measurement system ground. These would have to be capable of handing 100V peaks without problems, as the crest factor of the multitone is fairy high, around 15 dB or so.
I have PDF copies of Voishvillo's paper's (ref 3 and 4 in the article), let me know if you need a copy.
Jon Risch
There IS a difference....................but unremarkable compared to say............changing input tubes, different schematic, and nothing compared to modifying a room or changing speakers.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
If you've optimized everything else in the system, then fine - tweak away and swap power, interconnect and speaker wires in and out.
But getting a new system in place and STARTING with cable shootouts seems like starting with 400 grit sandpaper when finishing a cabinet... you've got to start with 60 or 80 and work your way up from there.
Cheers,
Presto
Your response sounds good and to a degree I agree. But like everything audio....
I was considering purchasing the Vandersteen 2Cs at one time. My dealer told me he had a pair of PSB Stratus Golds I could have for the same price and I thought way cool as the Golds retailed for about a grand more.
To make the long story short I listened to many interconnects and only a pair of $1200 Transparents allowed the system to sound good - everything else sounded harsh.
Eventually I upgrade from the Golds and the Transparents just weren't very good in the new system - bettered by far less expensive interconnects.
Three points -
1.) The most expensive interconnect worked best in the lower priced system.
2.) The most expensive interconnect worked worst in the most expensive system.
Contrary to your point -
3.) Taking the time to find the right interconnect, in this case the most expensive interconnect, allowed my to enjoy a purchase otherwise unenjoyable.
Supporting your point -
4.) In the long run the Transparent purchase was actually not much more than throwing good money after bad. However given ones financial condition it could be the best choice.
Well, let's put it another way.
If you have $10K speakers, A $10K source, and a $10K integrated you've got $30K into a stereo system. Expensive, but not as crazy as it was 20 years ago. If $1200 makes the system sound better or there is the perception that a chosen interconnect is more... "pleasing to the ear"...
In that case I'm not going to consider the interconnects to be a crazy purchase either. But I stand by the possibility that it might be part (or all) psychological.
If only perception matters, then there is nothing to debate and I think many subjectivists have been (unsuccessfully) trying to get this across since day one.
Cheers,
Presto
> > If only perception matters, then there is nothing to debate and I think
> > many subjectivists have been (unsuccessfully) trying to get this across
> > since day one.
It's fine that people like what they like. Whether stereos, fine food, art or anything else, people don't need to justify their tastes or perceptions to others.
While that's all well and good, many won't leave it at just that point and they insist the reason must be physical in nature. It's not good enough that any desired effect only be psychological. If others don't observe and appreciate what they do, it, unfortunately far too often, then becomes time to bring out the unsophisticated clod allegations.
"While that's all well and good, many won't leave it at just that point and they insist the reason must be physical in nature. It's not good enough that any desired effect only be psychological. If others don't observe and appreciate what they do, it, unfortunately far too often, then becomes time to bring out the unsophisticated clod allegations."
This is a consequence of a matter centered philosophy.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
that I am one of those who believes perception is all that matters. OT -But at the outset there's no reason to conclude that such an attitude assures a colored or inaccurate audio system.
Trying to speak objectively, the designed in i/o characteristics of the interconnected components enables an interconnect to influence the sound of the system.
If one believes the design of components should be such as to minimize the influence of the interconnect (ie. handle it's nature as if it's a nasty like RFI) then one can determine component performance based on how much an interconnect influences the sound of system. I think at one time this was considered good form.
On the other hand many audiophiles seem to believe susceptability to interconnect differences indicates a more revealling audio component. So to meet the demand why worry much about the i/o characteristic of the components and allow the end-user to select the interconnects that sound best. I think theres more of this these day - or maybe I just run into it more often.
A few years ago, I just adopted the Kimber line of interconnects as my reference - I've got KCAG throughout one system and PBJ in the other. I'm very comfortable doing this and if someone tells me that a component I am going to demo is going to sound lots better with some other interconnect I'll listen but I'm going to be real suspicious right from the outset if it actually does.
> If only perception matters, then there is nothing to debate and I think many subjectivists have been (unsuccessfully) trying to get this across since day one. <
I think I know what you're saying but I don't exactly agree. With wires, I do agree that perception is all that matters, since measurements don't seem to tell most of the story with wire. But it's been noted that most wire has a particular "sound"... a sonic signature that should be evident (by someone) in just about any system. If Cable A is bright in my system, it's bright in yours, albeit possibly in varying degrees. It's still perception but it's now become arguable, as the widely-held "objectivist" claim of all wires sounding identical is being threatened by a claim of a different sonic signature (perception) from one wire to another.
a
"Facts don't matter in faith discussions"
I suppose the issue is where is the "faith" and where are the "facts".
If your trying to get to the bottom of something, you draw a conclusion based on the sum of the observable reality.
In the testing I have been directly involved in, the large changes people said they heard from the cables they brought, disappeared into insignificance when they didn’t know which cable they were hearing in the same system with the same music.
When the ONLY thing that changed was prior knowledge, then what they were sure they heard but then didn't, had nothing to do with the cables and everything to do with what they knew / expected.
If you really can't tell which is which without knowing which is which, right after the difference when knowing was "obvious", what are you "hearing"?
An engineering approach involves measuring and theory to be sure but that same engineering approach would require that ones perception be tested too.
If someone can hear the difference without prior knowledge of which is which, then that IS the engineering fact finding approach applied to human senses and the origin will also be present hidden in the measurements somewhere.
This will generally not help aftermarket "add on" sales however which like the Kinoki foot pad, depends partly or entirely on faith to work.
While it had a decent following of the faithful believers, the disbelieving skeptic points to the internal layer of ash as the source of the "gunk " it supposedly "removes" though your feet and the problematic human physiology as an argument why it doesn't work factually in spite of faith in it.
and the veracity of the info obtained? Of course you are.
I only use my gun whenever kindness fails
There is a logic to a varied signal having an influence that an unvarying signal might not. It has always seemed implausible that what is so easily heard doesn't show up in measurements. My conclusion has always been that we are not measuring what is important.
"My conclusion has always been that we are not measuring what is important."
We don't know how to measure beauty, joy and love, but sometimes music brings these. We don't know how the stuff between our ears works, either.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
THD was enough to turn me off what EEs think is useful measurement. For a long time I applauded Stereophile's efforts to add measurement to subjective judgments. But alas it proved to have little correlation with what was heard.
"THD was enough to turn me off what EEs think is useful measurement."
Norm, could it be that you are doing the same thing at the next level? In other words are you letting your unhappiness with THD as a useful metric cause you to be using not EE's beliefs in THD but rather your belief in their beliefs to taint your perception of the usefulness of EE's, measurements and science in general?
OK, you are doing good if you can make sense out of that sentence, but I stand firm on this: Quantification and correlation are the driving forces for not only science, but all human progress. They are the precursors to understanding systems and processes and bending them to our will.
Measurements are GOOD! Measurements are good period. Good measurements are even better. Highly correlated measurements are best.
EE's are good too. They mean well, but they don't know (thank you G&S). I take strong issue with your heading as I think there's virtually nothing of importance in audio that we can't measure. Doesn't mean we do or know well how to weight it, but we already have the physical and mental tools even if our techniques are not fully developed.
Obviously there are factors still insufficiently controlled to insure user contentment. I'm all too aware of that just now as I'm right in the middle of trying to sort out a 'touch' and so far my experience with it isn't very promising, yet it has a good reputation sonically. If it weren't for that it'd be on it's way back already, but now I'm starting the grind to try and see if it's externally addressable. I've got lots of ideas to try, many from John S. and will attempt by measurements and structured testing to see if I can get it good enough to work. Guess it's part of the rich pageant of being an 'audiophile'...
Rick
Its what you do with the data AFTER its measured that seems to be the most important. Simple correlations simply do not work as the whole mechanism of the ear/brain is complicated enough to preclude a simple assessment.
Once the data is evaluated in light of how researchers have found out, more or less, how the hearing works then meaningful correlations can be found with currently available test equipment.
a
who is talking about THD? It is possible to measure much more, routinely.
Did you look into the work of Dr. Earl Geddes?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
.
That 'philes who don't even own transient accurate speakers plagued with phase distortion and bizarre impulse response are spending all their time and money swapping out interconnects and speaker tippy toes.
I say get rid of the REAL problem(s) in your system FIRST.
If you really want to "look deeper into music" try speakers with all drivers time and phase coherent and a flat phase response. Hard to find with passive boxes but it's a reality now for active systems - especially those that employ phase correction and time alignment.
Once you try these sorts of "tweaks" you'll find that probably any set of interconnects you have around will work just fine, while you listen late into the evening even on a work night.
The measurement mic does not lie. I myself don't bother things that don't show up on a MLS plot when there are things THAT BADLY OUT OF WACK that DO show up. Measureability of cables is a non-issue. The issue is philes STLLL insist on iterating with variables of minutae while leaving massive sources of error alone because of the learning curve involved. ONce you a/b corrected /eq'd / time aligned systems with conventional passive systems you'll understand the differences are NOT subtle. I'm not talking "removal of a veil" here. I'm talking the difference between listening to speakers and FORGETTING you're listening to speakers. THat's not subtle at all - it's what I have been seeking out for many years now. And I'm closer than ever before.
You guys keep swapping cables and A-goning perfectly good gear. I gave up on that once I heard what fixing the REAL problems in audio can do.
Oh, if you dismiss active digital filters then don't play CDs. They have digital active filters in them too. And even modern LPs may have had digital equalisation and other digital intruments in the chain (or in the DAW software), so it's probably far and few LPs that are truly "AAA", meaning analog master, analog submaster and analog medium.
Pick your poison, but my vote is to stop tweakery for a while and try some hardcore approaches to good sound. It saved me from insanity.
Cheers,
Presto
... in your system, finally caused you to stop hearing differences between cables?
You know... thanks but no thanks. I don't think you made good argument for active systems here.
...have allowed me to listen to music for hours at a time and not worry about a single performance related aspect of my system at all. My system is not even there anymore - only flawless music is.
You guys stick to cable shootouts and listening to tracks 15 seconds at a time - over and over. That sounds like fun too I guess. I mean, when you can't make DEFINITIVE improvements to your systems (for lack of ability or just lack of good sense) there is nothing TO do but wander in the dark and wonder whether what you heard was reality or fancy mind trick.
I know what I am hearing is not a mind trick. Because I have test results.
Cheers,
Presto
So what speakers do you have??
I have Full range Acoustat's, no crossovers or time delay to worry about! Directly drive by Acoustat Tube amps.
I also find cables make a difference and I can hear better with my system.
if you think electrostats are the panacea then there is no point in talking about which cone-type speakers I am using.
With all your talk of phase and time alined. I'm just pointing out to you that a speaker that is full range and has NO crossover, does not have to worry about phase or timming.
I would have thought you would have known that
Your arguement seemed to be pointed that way.
! Oh Well!
Like there are no compromises with those types of speakers, and there definately are some. Else, everyone would have them...
Every piece of gear has compromises, that's the way it is.
I WILL REPEAT WHAT I SAID.
"FULLRANGE SPEAKERS WITH NO CROSS OVERS, DO NOT HAVE PHASE OR TIMMING ISSUE."
I guess you must have missed that earlier!!
You where saying that cables don't make a difference if you have these areas taken care of.
I say cables do make a difference.
I thought we went through this already.
This will be my last post on this as you seem a little thick and things are hard to get through to you.
Cheers
:O)
""FULLRANGE SPEAKERS WITH NO CROSS OVERS, DO NOT HAVE PHASE OR TIMMING ISSUE."
I suppose that would be unless you measured one, because if you do, one finds that even one driver has an acoustic phase shift that is not always zero. AS the later Dick Heyser observed, a single woofer or example may move back and forth in time by a distance equal to several feet.
Also, it is comforting to think one can fix time with DSP in a multiway speaker, and you can, but only in one location.
If the distance to any of the drivers changes if you move left or right or up and down, then a DSP correction can only be a local one and only applies where the measurement the correction was based on was taken.
It is possible but difficult to actually make multiple sources combine into one but it is not generally done in hifi as it requires a specific relations ship between the sources.
Spatial errors in position in the X and Y planes cannot be fixed with DSP only in the Z plane or time and you CAN hear source shape distortion and the reducing that is what the KEF blade speakers are based on which emulate a single point source.
Here is a horn system i developed which also radiates in time and space as a single source, a spherical segment like a point source well behind an open window. I have SH-50's in my home system and they will reproduce a square wave over a decade wide band width.
Thanks for taking the time to post some further insight to the subject.
As one of the other members pointed out, with my Acoustat's, the phase can change if you move side to side or from top to bottom. When I post that, I was taking into account only the influence a cross over can have. I do agree that moving from side to side can change phase.
Much like your thoughts DSP correction. If done right, it is only at a fixed location.
For myself, I'm in near field and tend to sit in one place, although my toes are a tapping and my head can be bobbing and weaving. I do try to confine my movement by not busting into an urge to get up and dance. :O)
"Acoustat's"
I had a pair of old ones, part of their magic is the directivity only a large source can provide. This makes for a nice stereo image.
I am not sure how much the acoustic phase changes with position however as i never measured mine with the TEF machine.
As it was a single source, i would be surprised if it have very much though and nothing like the hundreds to thousands of degrees of shift often present even on axis with a typical multiway shoe box.
Yes they certainly have a magic to them and with some upgrades to the tube servo amps, they are very reliable. I'm a Happy Camper!! :O)
I'm not thick. You're just not listening because once someone decides a certain speaker design is a panacea free from any down sides theur fingers are almost certainly poked firmly into their ears. Electrostatic loudspeakers are dipoles. Some people don't want dipoles because even though they may have many advantages they add room dependent information to the signal - in the form of a backwave reflection. Sure, since ESL's operate as a line source the added "echo" from the backwave makes for some interesting imaging, but it's a compromise not everyone is willing to live with. Your choice to ignore this is simply your choice.
As for your statement:
"FULLRANGE SPEAKERS WITH NO CROSS OVERS, DO NOT HAVE PHASE OR TIMMING ISSUE."
This is patently false. Crossovers have nothing to do with whether or not a given speaker has phase roll. Any speaker with a mechanical (acoustic) roll off has phase roll. Crossovers add additional phase roll to existing 'acoustic' slopes.
Many full range advocates believe that the lack of a crossover (or use of a simple capacitor or mimimum phase equalisation network) guarantees a transient accurate system but this is not the case at all. A properly designed 3-way transient accurate speaker will almost certainly have better transient behaviour than a single full range dynamic loudspeaker that is uncorrected.
Now, electrostats (another type of fullrange speaker) DO NOT have phase or timing issues in their passband but because of the dipole nature (backwave) I am not sure they technically qualify as a transient accurate system.
As for me, I just don't do dipoles or bipoles regardless of how 'interesting' the resulting soundstage is due to the extraneous (delayed) reflections.
Cheers,
Presto
All speakers have phase shift associated with natural roll-offs, but crossovers certainly do/can add phase shifts "rolls" that wouldn't be there otherwise. Yes, crossovers add phase "roll," but it's a result of the created acoustic slopes......relative to an ideal driver.
Electro-stats are not exempted from timing "issues" either. A large panel speaker exhibits different path lengths from top/bottom to ear relative to center to ear. That's phase shift and a timing issue.
They also have a much more complicated lobing behavior than a "conventional" speaker. Out-of-phase adjacent lobes at higher frequencies, etc, etc.
It's a stretch to label ANY speaker system used in a domestic environment phase coherent, or phase accurate, or transient perfect, or whatever. It's a reverberant environment, listening positions vary, acoustic path length differences, etc.
Headphones are the only speaker system that would qualify.
Cheers,
Dave.
Sure, these things are true. A lot depends too whether or not one is referring to the design axis or the listening position. Many "TP" speakers make nice square waves on axis but this changes as you move off-axis. And of course, our hearing system does not use gating, so your comments about room affects and reflections are valid.
I suppose any speaker that is transient accurate in an anechoic environment, on axis, may well not be transient accurate in a reverberant environment at the listening position. However, if first reflections are diminshed with adequate absorption on the side walls and speakers are placed sufficiently far enough away from walls, the reflected sound can be delayed enough such that it does not interfere (perceptually) with the direct sound. In other words, reflections are pushed further to the right away from the main impulse on the impulse response measurement.
There are also digital room correction techniques (which are different from digital phase correction techniques) which can deal with reflected sound with the convolution of correction impulses after room sweeps are taken at the listening position.
But you're right in that "it's a stretch" in most home environments.
But the definitions still apply. A 4th order LR is phase coherent but does not have constant group delay and is thus not transient accurate. Nor is any bandpass transducer with a high and low end rolloff, as the phase shifts in the rolloff region(s) result in a 2nd order phase shift.
For me, I prefer my highs to come from small non-metal dome tweeters with large surrounds creating the "ring dome" effect - effective larger diameter VC for lower FS while having an effective smaller diameter dome for better disperson. The famous Seas TDFC27 has had this feature for many years now, which is perhaps why it is so popular with so many DIYers - low Fs and good top end dispersion.
I must confess I've never given planar or electrostat speakers a lot of auditioning time. I was never really all that impressed with the Martin Logan stuff. I really like ATC actives and PMC monitors. I also like my latest DIY effort (WMTMW with time alignment and phase correction) but I will probably never be 'happy' with anything I build myself.
To be able to accept a speakers limitations, I need to use someone elses design, as my own design is always subject to further investigation and improvement. I find it hard to enjoy music when I am listening for what the speakers miss or fail to do, rather than just enjoying all that they can do.
I am really a fan of WMTMW designs now, but I want to take a pair of 2-ways and make them time and phase correct and see if it is the WMTMW design that is making me so happy or the correction process. As of late, my ability to integrate mono subs has gotten pretty good - no boominess and no localisation effects.
I think I need a separate lab and a listening room. To do both activities in the same room is taking away from my enjoyment of music, something that can happen when one is being hyper-analytical.
In my "listen only room" I might find myself with a couple of nice full range speakers with only analog sources and single-ended-triode monoblocks...
In fact... I just had a great idea for a living room system...
...and recently have been thinking about head phones as well! Funny you should mention phones... Some nice open-backed phones with a Bottle-head SET headphone amp? Just maybe...
Cheers,
Presto
"For me, I prefer my highs to come from small non-metal dome tweeters with large surrounds creating the "ring dome" effect - effective larger diameter VC for lower FS while having an effective smaller diameter dome for better disperson. The famous Seas TDFC27 has had this feature for many years now, which is perhaps why it is so popular with so many DIYers - low Fs and good top end dispersion."
Hi, Presto. Have you had a chance to play with the Vifa or ScanSpeak "ring radiator" tweeters yet? If so, how do you like them? They seem to be well regarded in the DIY community, and have turned up in a number of very high end commercial speakers.
Sorry! I didn't see your query hiding within this thread.
I've used the Seas TDFC with good results and it seems to have an unusually large surround for a tweeter of it's age. It almost appears to be a predecessor to modern day ring domes. I do plan to get into a pair of Scan Speak Air Circ 6600 Ring Domes very soon because of their incredibly low Fs and incredible off-axis performance.
I have not used ring-radiators (with the phase plug) as their response curves are often a big more ragged than ring-domes and I'm sure what the benefit would be...
Cheers,
Presto
You probably should keep your eyes peeled for some used Dunlavy speakers. They would seem to be appropriate for you.
Phase distortion is interesting. Most people seem to have an opinion on the audibility of it. However, most have never A/B'd phase distortion 'exclusively' relative to an un-phase-distorted reference.
The only way to accomplish this is to construct an all-pass filter (hardware) circuit and compare to a straight-through, or, rip some CD's and pre-distort tracks with phase distortion equivalent to a typical crossover and then re-burn and compare to original tracks....blindly. Neither is a trivial process and there are pitfalls in both. Headphones work excellently for an evaluation system.
Cheers,
Dave.
Why this concern with phase distortion? Helmholtz "proved" that we can't hear it. ;-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
*
Hoist on your own petard, there, Norm.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
I wish it were possible to have scientific measurements, but we cannot. Nor do we have a complete understanding of all nature's laws.
There is, of course, the overall illusion of live music that is heightened or lessened by different systems, including electronics and wire.
The other was an illusion I had of Angelina Jolie coming toward me with her arms outstretched. But it was actually the ex-Mrs Kerr. I shot her for messing up a perfectly good (2nd) illusion - do you think I'll spare YOU if you mess up the first? :)
Actually, I agree with what I believe is the basis of your argument. We should all share our experiences. Audio is subjective, after all. ;)
.. mental disabilities onto everybody else?
Hoisting your own internal retard here, Pat.
A comedian you'll never make.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Is that your repeated exposing yourself in public (forum), also known as "flashing"?
.
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I was suggesting that if cables make "subtle" differences then why not try and optimize other things that make proven, measureable and far from subtle differences.
It seems as if people skip the major improvements that are possible and immediately start fussing with minutae.
> ONce you a/b corrected /eq'd / time aligned systems with conventional passive systems you'll understand the differences are NOT subtle. <
My speakers (in-built DSP, FIR-filters with LLL, MLL, MMM presets) allow to directly compare almost ideal response (LLL) to non-ideal response (MLL and MMM) and the difference, to my ears, IS subtle. Bass group delay is increasing making the bass somewhat less tight, but that's about it.
red: linear phase
green: bass-min. phase; mid, high-linear phase
blue: min. phase
This said, I'm using the LLL preset since it's the correct one.
Klaus
Klaus:
Those are the exact type of measurements that have my interest these days. I am using DSP IIR filters with phase correction as an alternative to FIR filters because I have not yet mastered how to get FIR filters summing up the way I would like.
The nice aspect about FIR filters, I suppose, would be that I could (perhaps) be able to incorporate crossover transfer functions and equalisation (amplitude/phase) in the same impulse, thus simplifying my digital chain. I assume you do not worry about the pre-ringing of FIR filters. I have yet to really hear this at work, although it is very easily measured with typical crossover development software tools.
I believe I have mastered the IIR approach using the Thuneau Allocator - it sounds very good - far better than other digital/active approaches that I have tried. These former methods lacked variable Q filters and phase correction despite having eq and time alignment capabilities. The Allocator/Arbitrator combo has filters, eq, time delay and phase correction rolled into one sleek package. It uses "forward/reverse" phase correction that is not dependent on mic location like digital room correction methods are. The opposite phase roll of the acoustic + electrical slopes (combined) are ADDED to the input signal. The actual phase roll then effectively cancels out with that imparted on the signal. All you need to do is match an even order target slope for it to work as designed. This can be done by combining electrical and acoustic slopes and adding in the necessary equalisation (6 or 12db) as required.
Anyways, I can appreciate the changes you are making are subtle because I believe those three systems are all very close to ideal.
What I was referring to, however, are systems that make a complete mess of phase, have no time alignment whatsoever and simply have a reasonably flat frequency response (if that). If comparing a properly dialed in system to what is commonly out there, I find the difference is not the loss of just the veil, but the entirety of her entire garb as well. And naked, I must say, she is all the more tantalizing - the music is.
I have just opened the door, really, on this stuff. I have years of work, study and trial and error ahead of me. Even if I end up putting all this DSP technology into the closet in exchange for passive crossovers and analog sourcesn, the fun of the journey alone even up to now would have been worth the effort.
Cheers,
Presto
Otherwise known as Acoustats.
Hi Presto,
> Those are the exact type of measurements that have my interest these days. <
Impulse response of the LLL is
I’ve got a review with step and impulse response of all three presets, if interested, drop me a mail.
> I assume you do not worry about the pre-ringing of FIR filters. <
Not being familiar with FIR technology at all, I had to do a quick search:
Apparently pre-ringing may be audible, but under what circumstances? Any research? Further, Klein+Hummel customers typically are trained and experienced listeners, so I suppose that pre-ringing is not really an issue, after all, K+H have a reputation to lose.
> What I was referring to, however, are systems that make a complete mess of phase, have no time alignment whatsoever and simply have a reasonably flat frequency response (if that). <
When comparing time aligned to not time aligned speakers, you are almost certainly comparing different amplitude responses and radiation behaviours at the same time, not only phase behaviour. In order to judge the effects of time alignment alone you’d have to equalize the speakers and listen in a reflection free zone (heavy absorption or anechoic)
My speakers allow comparison of time alignment only. I know of only one serious publication where time alignment was investigated, Schmid, “Psychoacoustic experiments with an electroacoustic reproduction system with variable step response”, 21st Ann. Conf. of Acoustics. (German Acoustical Society), Saarbrücken 1995. Used were four different 3-tone signals. For 3 of those, detection rate was below 10%, for the 4th the detection rate was close to 90%. That signal had its center frequency right where the phase angle of the non-aligned system dropped dramatically.
Klaus
Klaus:
My impulse response, with IIR filters, has less pre-ringing (only artifacts of the measurement process show up) but considerably more post-ringing. Your impulse response has very low ringing on BOTH sides. Very impressive. I agree that the subject of pre-ringing is not well established and to date have not heard these "artifacts" myself. THis is why FIR filters are still of great interest to me.
You said: "When comparing time aligned to not time aligned speakers, you are almost certainly comparing different amplitude responses and radiation behaviours at the same time, not only phase behaviour."
In my case I had set up time aligned and non-time aligned versions of the same cabinet and drivers, but technically even though these things are the same they are not the same speaker because as you point out, the polar and amplitude responses would be different as well. But somehow, still, what I am hearing seems like it has more to do with impulse response than amplitude or polar response but psychological forces could well be at play and can't be ruled out.
After seeing your impulse response and group delay plots and I now more than ever going to work on getting the right FIR filters going for my system. Once i do that, I want to learn how to incorporate equalisation and the filter transfer function into the same impulse, so both are done at once with one convolution. (if this is even possible).
I am relatively new to digital filters and DSP techniques (and creating my own impulses) so I don't think I can exchange with you on an eye-to-eye level quite yet. But I do appreciate you posting your excellent results, and I really like how you took the time to try different combinations of linear and minimum phase filters.
Cheers,
Presto
The FIR filters of my speakers are, as far as I know, the results of a PHD thesis:
http://sylvester.bth.rwth-aachen.de/dissertationen/1999/2/99_2.pdf
> I agree that the subject of pre-ringing is not well established and to date have not heard these "artifacts" myself. <
jj in one his presentations states that some older converters and codecs produce audible pre-ringing but that not all pre-echo is audible.
> In my case I had set up time aligned and non-time aligned versions of the same cabinet and drivers, but technically even though these things are the same they are not the same speaker because as you point out, the polar and amplitude responses would be different as well. But somehow, still, what I am hearing seems like it has more to do with impulse response than amplitude or polar response but psychological forces could well be at play and can't be ruled out. <
In the above mentioned thesis the author did some tests with a small group of listeners and found that different filters (presumably LLL and MMM) could not be distinguished, not in a reverberant room, not in the anechoic chamber. The most important parameter is said to be amplitude response, which is also what Floyd Toole has found in his research. And this is where many loudspeakers, also in the high-end, perform rather poorly. And that’s why speaker manufacturers don’t want to show the graphs.
Klaus
"And that’s why speaker manufacturers don’t want to show the graphs"
Surely if a DIY guy like myself can toil until he gets a flat AMPLITUDE response, a talented speaker designer in a big speaker company could do this in spades. My first DIY designs focused on amplitude response before I even knew the significance of a reverse null.
So are these manufacturers purposely selling a "non-flat" speaker that sounds exciting and different and "detailed" without sounding shrill or excessively lean?
I think, after seeing response graphs for Watt Puppies (speakers that were allegedly favorites for studio monitoring) which are ragged as a mountain range become revered speakers among the audiophile community. Perhaps the "right" peaks and dips in the audible bandwidth are pleasant sounding, such as the 2nd harmonic distortion euphoria of tube amps.
If we add in the fact we all have different hearing curves and rooms and room materials, it almost makes no sense to even discuss preferences surrounding slight amplitude response variations IMHO.
Or am I missing something here?
Cheers,
Presto
Look at the review of the JBL horn/hybrid speaker up now on the stereophile website. The nearfield measurements are not super but the in-room response above 200Hz, to quote John Atkinson "Good Grief!" Super flat all the way out to 20Khz (arguably too flat in the highs for an in-room response).
Obviously, that speaker has been designed to deliver the goods in a real room.
I find the in-room response to be much more telling about how a speaker is perceived than any near-field measurements.
> So are these manufacturers purposely selling a "non-flat" speaker that sounds exciting and different and "detailed" without sounding shrill or excessively lean? <
Like every other component of an audio system speakers should be built according to the theorem “garbage in - garbage out”, which means without adding any further garbage. Your audio system shouldn’t be turning a Steinway into a Bösendorfer by applying changes to the spectrum as recorded. Toole has found in his tests that the listeners prefer loudspeakers with flat response. Flat response is the only correct manner if we talk hifi.
Why speaker manufacturers don’t try to get response as flat as possible, I don’t know. Such speakers are either voiced or incompetently designed. For me such speakers are not worth a second thought.
> I think, after seeing response graphs for Watt Puppies (speakers that were allegedly favorites for studio monitoring) which are ragged as a mountain range become revered speakers among the audiophile community. Perhaps the "right" peaks and dips in the audible bandwidth are pleasant sounding, such as the 2nd harmonic distortion euphoria of tube amps. <
No comment re: audiophile community and its references. To me the label “audiophile approval” is always a sign to stay away.
> If we add in the fact we all have different hearing curves and rooms and room materials, it almost makes no sense to even discuss preferences surrounding slight amplitude response variations IMHO. <
The same loudspeaker will sound differently in different rooms and in different positions in the same room. But that and different in-ear response is not the issue. A loudspeaker is not a musical instrument that should sound good, it’s a tool that should reproduce what’s on the recording 1:1, and that means flat response. YMMV, of course.
Klaus
If you are talking about mastering engineers, then at least the better ones strive to have systems that measure flat at their listening position. Peaks and dips may sound "good" depending on where they are located, and that's the problem. When a recording is played on different speakers or in a different room there will be peaks and dips in a different places and the mastered version won't translate.
There is a lot of manipulation in studio equipment. For example the calibration curves supplied with my AKG C451 microphones show a rising high frequency response. Back when they were made this was considered a good thing, presumably to counter the effect of rolled off tape machines, high frequency air loss, or whatever.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The loudspeaker designer has no knowledge and no influence whatsoever about the environmental conditions in which his speakers are being used, the more as there are is no real standard for studio control rooms:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=10075
The only environment he is able to use and control is the anechoic chamber. That's where the speaker should measure flat, that's where the designer has to show his competence.
> When a recording is played on different speakers or in a different room... <
Add different listening conditions such as listening level, listening distance:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=6251
Klaus
The only environment he is able to use and control is the anechoic chamber. That's where the speaker should measure flat, that's where the designer has to show his competence.
for folks who listen to music in an anechoic chamber. How is yours?
rw
"The loudspeaker designer has no knowledge and no influence whatsoever about the environmental conditions in which his speakers are being used"
That is nonsense, see link.
The larger the room, the more one HAS to pay attention on where the sound goes becasue there is less and less inherent absorbtion and the reverberant field harms or worse case even prevents hearing words or information.. The reverberant field with music still sounds like music, just like with voices, it sounds like voices, but you can't understand words. The direct field is where you get the original signal and best stereo image.
While in hifi they maybe in the stone ages still on room effects, that is not the case in commercial sound.
While even a real response curve is rare in hifi, It is routine to measure commercial speaker over an entire sphere, over the whole band width and then supple the data in several standard forms which are then used to design the sound system.
What to see where the sound goes on a commercial speaker?
Down load the CLF data file for an SH-50, use the CLF viewer to open it and manipulate the radiation balloon.
> > The loudspeaker designer has no knowledge and no influence whatsoever about the environmental conditions in which his speakers are being used < <
> That is nonsense, see link. <
What I was intending to say is that a designer does not know where and how his speakers are going to be used, limiting this discussion to small rooms as in homes or recording studios. For studio monitors there is maybe less uncertainty and variation than for domestic speakers, but Mäkivirta's paper shows that there are quite substantial differences between different monitoring rooms. He also states that in some cases speakers designed for in-wall installation were used free-standing.
In a home situation the room can be very reverberant or very dead, the designer doesn't know. The room may be rectangular, or oddly shaped, the designer doesn't know. The user may place his speakers free-standing, against walls, in the corners, both of the stereo-pair or just one, the designer doesn't know. Nor has he influence other than making recommendations. As Mäkivirta has found, even in professional environment, folks do use speakers wrongly.
The designer is not in a position to design speakers that measure flat in-room, because he doesn't know in which room. My room is rectangular, the room of a collegue is rectangular but connected to an open kitchen and an open square annex used as playing space for the kids, height in the three different parts is different.
In my room the speakers are on 10 cm high platforms, not wall mounted or on stands as they would be in a control room. That's what I meant by "the designer has no knowledge or influence whatsoever".
Klaus
Measured flat, how? On axis? Total power output? The transducer maps between different dimensional spaces, hence is not easily characterized by a single number. With microphones there is the same issue, but the function is in the opposite direction.
I have no use for the AES papers because of the charges for downloading. They violate my system of ethics. All this material should be available for free download, as the authors are not paid royalties and the referees are also unpaid. The membership dues are more than adequate to cover costs of distribution (running a publications web server.) and I would have no problem with charging authors for page charges if they are not members of the organization, as there are (small) one time costs. However professional societies are not serving their purpose if they are not disseminating information. In the past it was necessary to charge per copy because there were incremental distribution costs. This is no longer true. I only pay money for journal articles if I need them for work that brings me paid revenue or if I have a specific question that I need answered for a project I am working on. I certainly will not pay money to read an article a poster has submitted in an a debate. This policy applies to all organizations, AES, IEEE, ACM, ANSI, ITU, and worse the paid publishing houses.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I corrected it" blind arrogance.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
Who are you to tell him how he should choose his equipment?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I did say that drawing statements of fact in a world of subjective interpretation based on inadequate, measured, data; leads him to a closed minded and erroneous conclusion. Denigrating and choosing to not experience that which needs to be experienced leads to simple ignorance.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
Edits: 06/08/10
You call the measurements poor and inadequate. In order to make such statements you sure must be most competent, technically that is, in that particular discipline. So just go ahead and prove that the measurements are what you say they are (just don't sing the old song of "we can't measure what we hear").
Closed minded and erroneous conclusion: when 10 years ago I wanted to buy new speakers I wanted to know what is important in speakers and what is not. Call that closed minded, if you like. I found criteria that I considered most useful for selecting those speakers, which criteria happened to be non-subjective. So I bought those speakers which are the top model of a brand well respected in professional circles, a brand that is around since more than 50 years. If you call that choice erroneous, that's your opinion but nothing more. My opinion obviously is different.
Denigrating: when audio gear doesn't meet the criteria I consider important I call this gear bad. If I see speakers having roller coaster on-axis response, then yes, in my book such speakers are blatantly bad. YMMV. You guys call audio gear that does not meet audiophile standards, whatever that might be, crap.
Ignorance: I choose to use selection criteria different from yours, for good reasons. It's your opinion that certain things need to be experienced, not mine. Any problem with that? Do I call you ignorant because you listen to the gear and don't care about measurements? You certainly are in my book!
Klaus
That is absolutely impossible.
High end speakers are artisan products built by artists who employ their simple electro-mechanical skills to design a playback device that reflects their idiosyncratic opinion of what is good sound. Good sound is the goal, and it is entirely subjective. Specifications, measurements, are not conducted until after the fact: after the device "sounds good."
You agree with the manufacturer's idiosyncrasies and pricing, and design goals and opinion? You are more likely to buy the product.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
"Specifications, measurements, are not conducted until after the fact: after the device "sounds good."
Sounds like you believe the marketing literature. The time to use these techniques is before doing subjective listening as they are a quick and efficient way to eliminate many obvious mistakes and navigate through a large maze of design possibilities. Unrestricted "cut and try" is simply a waste of time. The exception would be when making a minor change to an existing design. That case is really not an exception, because it is part of an ongoing design process.
Published "specifications" are marketing literature. If a manufacturer is honest they must be determined after a product has been completed and is in production. They are not to be confused with preliminary specifications, which are a list of design requirements and goals.
I doubt that successful artisan designers are quite so simple minded as you believe. If they convey such an image, chances are it is part of the mystic they are promulgating.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Build, listen, build some more, then listen.....
Schematics get written after the fact. I know of several designers that do this. Of course, not all. I've spoken at length about this with several designers: one interesting fellow talked to me for quite a while about not bending any wires: his amplification products are arranged in a straight line in sections/stages. Do they sound "better," - he thinks so. But, hey, his job is to convince others.
How a person works is up for debate, unless you are there watching. I can tell you about some experiences that I've had hanging out with a couple of manufacturers while they work. But, my point carries more weight when you observe the make-up of the individual components involved. Obviously, Wilson builds their own cabinets. Another speaker manufacturer uses Cardas binding posts. Somebody else uses Hovland capacitors. Not only is it a subjective, artistic, choice of what they're using, but how they apply it, and the topology of which it is integrated.
Cheers,
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
See, here is where we differ in opinion. If I buy a piano I base my choice on how it sounds. If I buy a reproducer I base my choice on how well it reproduces. And good reproduction inherently means flat response, no distortion, no diffraction, time-aligned drivers. That's what hifi stands for.
Speaker measurements have been correlated to subjective listening impressions, so my criteria are not entirely non-subjective, that's true.
> Specifications, measurements, are not conducted until after the fact: after the device "sounds good." <
I have asked many speaker manufacturers for measurements, none of those provided any and some even admitted that they would not make measurements at all, two of those referred to audio mags instead. I don't know of any high-end manufacturer who shows measurements on his website. Dunlavy and Thiel used to. Geddes does. Klein+Hummel, JBL, Genelec do. I made my choice accordingly.
Klaus
Since we have no definition for art: (at least a universally recognized one, (universalizable), anything anyone claims is art is art. It's only up to us as individuals to say that that is either not good art as they define it, or not art as they define it.
You are right, no manufacturer would ever want to give you the measurements, because they are inadequate to describe the sound. This is why basing much of anything on measurements is a fools errand. Wherein, differing rooms will bring about differing measurements. I speaker reacts differently to different applications. This not only has relevancy with rooms, but with amplification. If you take the Wilson Sophia for example: much has been ballyhooed about its poor measurements: yet, applying the speaker in the way the manufacturer recommends can make it a stellar performer.
Finally, every single choice that the equipment designer makes on a micro, component-level has attached with it a philosophical and artistic decision and statement. Whether or not to use Hovland, Vishay, another, or their own, hand built, capacitor. What resistor(s)? Cardas wire? All of these choices are entirely subjective. Why does Wilson spend all of that time and expense to develop and build those enclosures?
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
Measurements are inadequate to describe sound: Why should they, a loudspeaker is not an instrument that has to sound good? However, Harman has achieved an almost 100% correlation between measurements and subjective impression, so in a way measurements, if you know which ones, are adequate to describe sound. You have to do the listening tests blindfolded, of course.Differing rooms will bring about differing measurements: true but that's not the point. The room and placement within the room are parameters you cannot control at the design stage. You can build the most stellar speakers in the world, if the user put one in a corner, the other close to a doorway the result will be bad. What about non-rectangular rooms? Evere seen a plot of the pressure zones in such rooms?
> Why does Wilson spend all of that time and expense to develop and build those enclosures? <I don't know, but it has been shown that the main culprit is not the enclosure itself, but the enclosure's internal modes. "X" material, the days that such hype could impress me are long gone.
Klaus
Edits: 06/11/10
you may have a differing opinion: but until there's an agreed upon definition. (And several manufacturers that I know call themselves artists: so they are making art).
You may not like it, you may not call it art, or, you may call it bad art: but that's only your opinion.
" Harman has achieved an almost 100% correlation between measurements and subjective impression "
You're calling that a "fact?." That is clearly crap: and only their, (your) opinion. I'm sure that many, many, people would disagree with that: including manufacturers and consumers who would consider Harman's opinions crap. It is possible that there is some correlation between measurements and good sound: but the very term, "good sound" brings with it such a lack of clarity that that is almost not worth talking about. Clearly the designers at Wilson, Krell, and Audio Physic have RADICALLY different opinions (artistic) on what is "good sound." All of those speakers will measure very, very, differently, and all will still sound good.
Also, a seven foot tall Utopia BE is not designed to "sound good" in a broom closet: and designed to even function properly with a certain class of amplification, - which also will dramatically affect the sound.
"" I don't know, but it has been shown that the main culprit is not the enclosure itself, but the enclosure's internal modes. "X" material, the days that such hype could impress me are long gone. ""
I'm certain that just about no one cares about whether or not you're impressed. There is no "culprit" here. I'm sure that Wilson has designed a speaker that is the best product that they can make for the price/costs and that it sounds like they want it to, and it (relatively) achieves the goals that they have set for it: which are undoubtedly different subjective goals than your subjective goals.
You are insulting both yourself and Wilson when you use the word "hype:" - which is a personal, and mean-spirited, individual, idiosyncratic, value judgment on your part, based on your closed minded opinions. Surely what constitutes "good sound" and "value" to you is radically different from Wilson and their customers and their fans; who can never be "wrong" because everything is subjective.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
Surely you had a close look at Harman's data and found them defective, right? Reminds me of the discussion of the Meyer/Moran paper about SACD vs CD, where nobody actually had read the paper but all knew for sure that the study was flawed.
This discussion leads nowhere, so I'm stopping here. All I can say is that I have been into high-end audio myself but once I discovered what's really going on, high-end audio has lost a customer for good. As one comment on the AES forum re: Meyer/Moran paper put it, "More and more, manufacturers rely on convincing potential customers of the superiority of their products by sujective means and anecdotal comments from celebrities. This is marketeering - not engineering".
Case closed.
Klaus
"Reminds me of the discussion of the Meyer/Moran paper about SACD vs CD, where nobody actually had read the paper but all knew for sure that the study was flawed."
Not my recollection at all. Many of us, myself included, studied the paper carefully and posted accordingly. This can easily be ascertained by a review of the archives.
Subjective means are definitely prone to deceptive marketing, but so are objective means. The root cause of deceptive marketing is dishonest marketing people . If there is a difference between subjective and objective claims it is only that it may be easier to prove fraud in a court of law where objective claims are concerned. This is relevant only when doing business with suspect vendors.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> > "Reminds me of the discussion of the Meyer/Moran paper about SACD vs CD, where nobody actually had read the paper but all knew for sure that the study was flawed." < <
> Not my recollection at all. Many of us, myself included, studied the paper carefully and posted accordingly. This can easily be ascertained by a review of the archives. <
I had a look at those threads where Brad Meyer participated and did not see any post of yours to that effect. That's a null result so I won't draw any conclusions.
What I did note, however, is that those inmates indicated by Clark Johnsen as being AES members did not use the occasion and post their concerns on the AES forum. So far I did not see any solid proof that the study was flawed, just opinions, assumptions and a lot of mud-slinging, but then I certainly did not read each and every thread on this issue.
I'm not intending to revisit this topic in detail, hi-rez is of no interest to me personally, I'm fine with 2-channel low-rez.
Klaus
I don't know why you didn't find my posts on the subject. I did post, and I made a particular attempt to study the material carefully, because I am friends with both Clark and Brad. One summer I shared a house with both of them while we were in college.
I also had some private emails with Brad. He was not entirely happy with my posts, by the way.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Well, this thread I had actually ound. While you don't state expressis verbis that you had read the paper, it could be derived from some bits in some of your posts.
If you read the paper, you perhaps also read the comments on the AES forum. Any idea about what Brad found when investigating the block and circuit diagrams of the HHB's monitor path? He didn't post any further info on AES.
Klaus
I had forgotten about the comments on the AES forum, but yes I had read them. I don't know any more about Brad's subsequent investigations. I would assume we would have heard from him had he learned that monitor mode did in fact bypass the 44/16 data path. I have faith in Brad's personal integrity, even if we have our differences over audio.
Personally, I don't like the idea of black box testing of a component when what is being debated is a mathematical format. I prefer an all software approach where straight high res PCM is compared with PCM down sampled and subsequently up sampled to the original format. That way if something is heard one at least knows the possible sources of the difference. There is no extra equipment, hum, ground loops, etc. complicating the experimental apparatus. It is a useful exercise to play around with sample rate converters, such as the high quality iZotope 64 bit SRC, and get first hand experience on how the various settings (e.g. various anti-aliasing settings on downsampling) affects the musical sound. (You may not want to do this if you want to remain blissfully happy listening to 44/16 material.)
It is common for mastering engineers to complain that the 44/16 copy of their analog signal is degraded. It is not just subjectivist "audiophools" who complain about the non-transparency of the RBCD format.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
So, that's settled then. Which means that in fact the setups used for the test were ok (source material (check out David Moran's posts in the linked thread), gear, method), except they did not meet "audiophile standards". Unless I missed something, nobody pointed towards a real flaw AND PROVIDED SOLID EVIDENCE. Just assumption and opinions. As for allegedly insufficient resolution of gear, room, listener, where does it say that you need Harry Pearson's personal system?
However, as far as the listener is concerned, I agree with J. Gordon Holt:
"The listener is the heart of the high-fidelity system, and is noted for having high distortion, poor frequency response, marginal stability, and arbitrarily variable performance characteristics. Listener instability is the most common form of defect in a high-fidelity system, which is why manufacturers recommend that the ears be checked periodically by a qualified service agency to ensure that they meet their specifications. Defective ears may be cleaned with anti static spray or a mild washday detergent containing a wetting agent, or may be replaced by a microphone and an oscilloscope or, in cases where there is little interest in music, by a camera and a well-equipped dark-room."
Klaus
The real flaw is that there was no calibration of the source material, equipment, room, etc. as to resolution and suitability to detect the effects being evaluated, nor was there qualification or training of the listeners. For these reasons the failure of the tests to produce results has little predictive value as there is no reason to extrapolate the results to other conditions and subjects. Worse is the interpretation that others have placed on the null results. (Meyers and Moran are somewhat circumspect in this respect.) The failure to disprove the null hypothesis is just a failure to detect. One can not conclude anything from this statistical evidence.
You've got the burden all mixed up. The authors showed nothing, so there is nothing to rebut. What is curious is that the JAES even bothered to publish this non work.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
1. Calibration: If we call the effect to be evaluated "bottlenecking", the possibly only acceptable way to calibrate the system is to use a bottlenecked signal, hence the effect itself, otherwise you probably would say that the signal used for calibration was not suited. If you know of any other test material with known degradations equivalent to bottlenecking other than bottlenecking itself, go ahead. The next question is, how do you determine those “known degradations”? By biased sighted testing, by non-calibrated blind testing?
2. Qualification and training of listeners: no audiophile is calibrating his system, no audiophile is trained, are you willing to accept all those positive results of all those heavily biased listening tests as conclusive evidence? Brad's test included recording engineers and a mastering facility, and audio engineering students and a custom-designed university audio facility, if that's not trained listeners and room acoustics with sufficient resolution, I don't know. They also included an audiophile with his audiophile system and custom-built listening room, at least that should do, or is Sea Cliff the minimum requirement?
3. Meyer/Moran being circumspect: they are because it's the only way to look at their results: "our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio" and "it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomeon or process".
4. The authors showed nothing: by the same token, nobody shows anything, never. All sighted listening tests are biased. Many audio systems have non-flat amplitude response, on and off-axis. The overwhelming majority of loudspeakers is not time aligned. If you want to look for flaws, look at audiophiles, their systems and listening tests.
5. You've got the burden all mixed up: that's merely a matter of opinion. The study was published in 2007, we are now almost 3 years later, to this date no one has shown, in a test that meets both audiophile and non-audiophile requirements, that redbook is not sufficient/transparent. Instead of poking for holes in the Meyer/Moran test, the audiophile community should do its own test, watertight, foolproof, at Sea Cliff, if necessary and get it published. If you think there's a serious flaw in the study, write a comment on the AES forum, Clark is a member, so there is access!
I for one have said more than I wanted to, so I’m stopping at this point. To me the study is just providing an additional reason for not buying hi-rez.
Klaus
Audiophiles are not publishing papers in "esteemed" journals. What they do or do not do is irrelevant to my criticism of authors or journals.
If one is exploring format limitations, one can very easily "calibrate" the test setup that I previously suggested. (Hi-res PCM vs. Hi-res PCM degraded through a lower resolution "knothole".) For example, one can test the effect of various sampling rates by down sampling and re upsampling to various alternative sample rates. Similarly one can use different bit resolutions. The degradations are all quite precise as they can be software controlled and if one wants one can look at the actual source code that's doing the mangling and vet the algorithms.
I encounter the lack of resolution of RBCD almost every time I work with higher resolution recordings and have to fit 10 pounds of sound into a 5 pound RBCD bag. The result almost never sounds as good as the original. This is true whether the original was reel to reel tape, cassette tape, or high resolution PCM. Just yesterday I spent several hours downsampling a double album that was in 48/24 format to 44/16 so it could be released as a CD. As expected, the final version did not sound as good as the original, despite fiddling with various parameters such as gain, filtering and dither. My views on this subject are hardly unique. (See link)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Art is whatever any artist says it is...."
OK, so long as I don't have to pay taxes to support "artists" who piss on religious icons and call it art. Fortunately, this is not much of an issue where high end audio is concerned.
Those who produce recordings are concerned about accuracy. It is necessary for an excellent recording to sound excellent and a poor recording to sound poor. This is a more stringent criteria than "good sound". I think you will find that most good mastering studios take care that their systems are neutral, which includes flat amplitude frequency response and good transient response at the listening position. The room is the most critical element, more so than the speakers. In any system the room is an integral component of the system.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
""Those who produce recordings are concerned about accuracy.""
No, they're concerned about making money from airplay, which means no quiet parts: dead air is the greatest sin of airplay - or at least used to be. Accuracy has never been a part of the recording process beyond a live event. I can tell you that any time you involve a microphone, - you've just taken a step away from accuracy. I've played something in the control room, - gone back into the mix room and had it played back and have NEVER heard the same thing.
""It is necessary for an excellent recording to sound excellent and a poor recording to sound poor.""
This doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sure that no one intends to make a recording sound poor. But that doesn't mean that there aren't tons of poor recordings. Mostly, (especially pop industry people), are not interested in the recording quality: but preventing dead air, and making the music loud, and having the musicians look sexy.
This is outside the issue as we're not talking about recordings: but the relevancy and goals and idiosyncracies of playback equipment. Playback equipment is very, very, different from recordings: with entirely different goals. I don't deny that "accuracy" (even if it were possible to agree on a definition) would be a great "goal." But, there will always be playback equipment that seeks to "improve" accuracy, and change it to "good sound."
""I don't have to pay taxes to support "artists" who piss on religious icons and call it art""
You never did, nor will you ever. Personally, i believe that religious icons need to be pissed on: religion has brought much death and pain into this world. But, that's another story, what you and I think is art, is not an issue, (at least beyond us): and what you say about not being an issue in high end audio is very true.
""I think you will find that most good mastering studios take care that their systems are neutral, which includes flat amplitude frequency response and good transient response at the listening position.""
No, most good mastering studios, - (which there should never be a need for, by the way, do the bidding of the recording company: which seeks to destroy the accuracy of the recording, add compression, make it loud, and basically ruin it. They rarely have "accurate" or "neutral" equipment: hence the (what I view as garbage, [inaccurate-poor], mastering jobs that are made by that quasi-deaf person at Mobile Fidelity. Where-in so many recordings come out colored-warm, syrupy, with all of the treble and sibilance of sibilant instruments cut. Mobile Fidelity is the number one example of a mastering company devoted to an idiosyncratic interpretation of good sound.
""The room is the most critical element, more so than the speakers. In any system the room is an integral component of the system.""
I mostly agree, especially part two of that statement. Part one is a little strong here: but you're wise to bring it up: all elements are important and the goal is synergy.
Finally, there are a whole group of artisan manufacturers that design equipment to make classical music sound good. SOME of these manufacturers do not like, do not listen to, do not test their systems on recordings other than classical. The intentionally build systems to make acoustic bass instruments sound richer, they intentionally design and build systems to make sibilant instruments like tambourines sound less sibilant in order to make instruments like violins sound richer and less scratchy. I have had manufacturers tell me this directly. They are not interested in building systems that are good all around or accurate. Their GOAL is good sound: good sound as defined by THEM. Not by any set of measurements. Such systems, make the fast, super low, electronic bass of some recordings sound boomy. They have no intention of accuracy.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
I am talking about standards for music that has some claim to art. This includes classical music and some jazz. Perhaps some other genres. Not pop music which, by definition, is purely commercial.
The concept of building expensive components, such as speakers, that are deliberately designed to bias the sound and then charging extra for this is completely bogus, if not actually deceptive, IMO. If one wants to bias sound this can be done economically by tone controls or slightly more expensive parametric equalizers. These can be used to adjust or fix poor recordings and then removed when playing good recordings. With a computer audio system this can be done once and the adjusted version saved for future reference.
Perhaps you are in the business of selling to people who want a recording of a Steinway to sound like a Bosendorfer. When I play a piano recording, I want to be able to recognize the make and model of the piano. I am sure there are people out there who are clueless and have lots of money to blow, so it is "good business" according to some such concepts. Not mine.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
and I don't know if you fall into that camp.
Don't you think that it's a bit unfair of you to try and tell a manufacturer that their goals are not valid? Not accurate?
When I say POP, - I mean everything that is not classical music, and/or perhaps jazz.
My best argument is the case of Krell and Rogue. These radically different sounding amplifiers can only mean that each artisan has a different "take" on what is "good sound." Or, - they are messing up, - and unable to build the equipment to sound the way that they want. Surely the designer of Krell has a "different" idea of what good sound is, or even, what accuracy, is.
He/she is not wrong, they just have a different interpretation of the recorded musical event.
""Perhaps you are in the business of selling to people who want a recording of a Steinway to sound like a Bosendorfer.""
Bringing me into this is completely irrelevant. I have no influence over the interpretation of any manufacturer. I don't sell people equipment, and I am just like you, a consumer who enjoys listening to great music on a great system.
It is not that simple to say that any manufacturer wants one instrument to not sound like itself, or to sound like another. As you say, the room, that the instrument was recorded in could do that on it's own, - you don't need someone way down the playback chain to try and change the sound of an instrument. The microphone used will/can change the sound. The tape player, the cables. By the time anyone hears any disc, - it's usually at least 5th generation or more down from what was actually played in a room.
The designer at Rogue may simply say that the recording compromises that we made to bring out one quality of the mix made another element sound sibilant. His goal might be to "sweeten" some of the sibilance so that a Stradivarius sounds less like a Yamaha. Music is complicated. And at the end of the day, any playback system always falls short of the real thing.
If you've ever done a comparison between a super high quality system, and a super high quality recording, mixed with the actual instrument played live in the room: back to back, - the stereo system falls short every single time.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
Your example with amplifiers may not be valid. Amplifiers interact with the speakers they are driving. It may be that one design approach works better with one speaker than another. There are other reasons to prefer one amplifier over another. Where I live, Class A amplifiers would be very practical in the winter but undesirable in the summer. Some people like to look at glowing tubes and roll them, perhaps out of curiousity or boredom. Some don't. In my case, it's "been there, done that". I just want an amplifier to be transparent and reliable.
" If you've ever done a comparison between a super high quality system, and a super high quality recording, mixed with the actual instrument played live in the room: back to back, - the stereo system falls short every single time."
Actually, I have done a number of those comparisons. And after suitable adjustments to microphone position and record and playback gain there was no short fall. However I had control of the recording as well as the playback. Recording and playback were in the same room.
"I don't sell people equipment,"
Tell us why the (D) if you aren't selling stuff.
"By the time anyone hears any disc, - it's usually at least 5th generation or more down from what was actually played in a room."
Not true. The best classical recordings are no more than one generation from the original recording. In the case of PCM studio masters and direct DSD produced SACDs they can be a perfect clone of the original recording. Many of the newly remastered SACD and hi-res downloads are made directly from analog master tapes, sometimes (often, hopefully) the original analog master tape. In this case they are one digital generation removed from the original recording. Both 192/24 PCM and DSD can yield essentially transparent copies of the signal out of the tape machine if the best converters are used.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
""Tell us why the (D) if you aren't selling stuff.""
Full disclosure. I can take it away. We've covered this ground: you've already done the legwork here. I've never promoted products here and always written as an audiophile. C'mon....
""Your example with amplifiers may not be valid. Amplifiers interact with the speakers they are driving."
Amps, speakers, many digital players: all have varying degrees of neutrality and colorations, along with rooms and cables. Many of these individual components vary in the degree, and interact with each other and the room to varying degrees? Are you trying to deny this? Are you trying to assert that I'm not correct in saying that the differences between a Quad speaker and a Dynaudio are not radically different? Or the tubed Viva and the solid state Halcro's sound remotely alike? Compare Wilson, Avalon, and JMLab speakers and with the same amplification: the differences are so substantial, one can't help but be shocked.
C'mon Tony......
I would love to know the recording system, and the playback system, and circumstances in which you've achieved similar results wherein an almost live recording was difficult to tell the difference with a real live instrument.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
I would love to know the recording system, and the playback system, and circumstances in which you've achieved similar results wherein an almost live recording was difficult to tell the difference with a real live instrument.
Already posted several times:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=56690
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=50586
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=555659
Two recordings made of my wife's performances on her piano in this room using this recording equipment are available for free download. Enjoy.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There need be no conflict between decisions taken based on subjective listening evaluations and objective measurements. If there is a conflict it indicates that something is being done improperly. Common mistakes include using a limited or poor choice of reference recordings, failing to take into account room acoustics, or using simplified measurements that inadequately characterize system performance.
The choice of evaluation technique is personal and depends on circumstances.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
No, there is no conflict, as Toole and Olive have shown. Which renders the selection process rather easy. In my case only one speaker came on my short list, and this one I bought.
Klaus
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
.
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
"YMMV, of course."
Nope! I aim for maximally flat response as well. If the design is sound, there is no reason why the chosen filters *shouldn't* sum flat.
The only time flat does not sound good is when one's previous reference was NOT FLAT to begin with, which is probably more common than most would like to believe. Some people (audiophiles mostly), when they hear my system(s), start pointing out flaws in the amplitude response. Too much bass. Too little. Not enough high end. Too much. Midrange too recessed. Midrange too prevailent. Compared to what? Compared to their own personal reference, which is definately not flat!
This is why the verbiage about "tonal balance" is audiophile-speak to me. Timbre and tone are characterstics of instruments. Timbre and tone in a loudspeaker is characterstic of poor design. I've always wondered what magical response allows for "correct tonal balance and timbre" if it is not perfectly flat response? I guess it's whatever the audiophile BELIEVES to sound most like his recollection of an instruments sound. Another term is "voicing". It sounds really eloquent and alludes to some mystical skill set, but it suggests that the designer gives the speaker it's own unique tone or timbre, when flat would have done just fine. If flat sounds bad, perhaps one should look at phase response or time domain behaviour for the culprit.
I agree with you. Speakers that are not flat may sound "different, lively, fun or exciting" at first, but non-flat is a very bad thing to use as a reference. If getting the tone and timbre of instruments is important at all, that is.
Cheers,
Presto
.
This inane arguement continue to pop up time after time?
WHO CARES????
If you believe "A", fine, who cares?
If you believe "B", fine, who cares?
If you right? Who cares?
If your wrong, who cares?
Case closed, move on.
I have got no further than this: Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every man has a right to knock him down for it. Martyrdom is the test.
Plan B: If a measurable difference was identified, it will then be declared to be too small to be audible, or too small to be audible while playing complex signals such as music.
You are forgetting the rules here!
:D
Nowhere the authors of the book claim that these measured differences inevitably result in audible ones.
Re: too small to be audible
The only way to know if a measured difference is too small or large enough is to establish thresholds of audibility. To the best of my knowledge this has not been done.
Re: too small to be audible while playing complex signals
There is ample evidence that perception thresholds are very different for test signals as compared to speech or music. So, while a measured difference may result in an audible difference using test signals it may perfectly become inaudible with speech and music.
Klaus
audible or not?
Good, yes, you've done well, here is a small prize: the history of the world.
This is not the point!!!
The point is that you cannot tell from cable measurements alone, without any correlation whatsoever to human hearing (e.g. perception thresholds) that a measured difference is audible. Such correlation does not exist. If it does, indicate where.
The point is further that in the sections of that book as available online the authors do not make any statement about the audibility of the measured differences other than "the evidence is now overwhelming that cables can give rise to sonic differences". CAN, not DOES.
Klaus
"the audibility of the measured differences other than "the evidence is now overwhelming that cables can give rise to sonic differences". CAN, not DOES."
I worry when I "hear" a difference that can not exist according to theory.
When I "hear" a difference that can exist I have no need for people to tell me the difference does exist. Once can has been admitted, denialists must prove does not . This will be hard, since the situation is almost certainly sometimes does . This leaves the large jungle of when, where, and who .
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I worry when I "hear" a difference that can not exist according to theory."
I hate to say it of a person of your intelligence and sophistication, but you are relying on an equivocation. "Hear" can refer to perception, and I have no doubt that you perceive differences under sighted conditions--even I am likely to do so.
However, "hear" can also mean detection based on the sound alone, which can be established by use of controlled blind tests or comparison with thresholds already established by controlled blind testing.
I have to wonder what "theory" would predict differences do not exist--especially since KlausR is talking about the results of scientific testing, not theory.
"Once can has been admitted, denialists must prove does not. This will be hard, since the situation is almost certainly sometimes does. This leaves the large jungle of when, where, and who."
"Denialists" is a straw man. In fact, audible differences among speaker cables has been shown under some circumstances--look of Fred Davis's article, for example. As well, under some circumstances, some audible differences in interconnects is easy enough to show since some cartridges are sensitive to capacitance differences--my preamp even allows me to add capacitance to the phono input.
Why one would want equipment where different interconnects make much difference at line level is another question.
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Why one would want equipment where different interconnects make much difference at line level is another question.
Some of us are not satisfied with the mid-fi world where such does not matter.
rw
It required no real thought.
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I wondered why you asked such a dumb question.
rw
N/T
Dan said:
"Anyone who has bothered to study the issue knows that 99% of the issues are inside the boxes that the cables connect to."
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
failed audio designers. Not! :)
rw
Your remarks are most unkind and most untrue. Dan closed his business (except for repairs, I believe) due to his wife's illness---but then you already know that, don't you? Or may you don't remember?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
and not exactly flourishing before Dan decided to fold his tent. Real companies improve their products over time. Did you ever see his user forum?
rw
Dan was agreeing with something jneutron said.If you want equipment that audibly modifies the signal, that`s up to you. I prefer have controls for that sort of thing.
Edit: And now I see you have to take on tomservo as well!
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Edits: 06/04/10
"Tests of the interconnect by itself is useless. Include the system with the entire ground loop. Until this is done, the results are meaningless. "
And you'll find he has commented on cable-specific related factors such as ITD . Only guys like Roger Russell with their simplistic view would disagree (unless they are trying to sell their own gear!) I have long averred that tests looking only at the LRC values of a cable in a vacuum are useless. They become part of a system adding their own characteristics along with interactions with the other components in the signal chain.
You are taking an ginormous logical leap from:
"Testing of a cable by itself is useless"
.......... therefore ..........
"Only poorly designed gear is affected by cables"
rw
And how does jneutron`s statement contradict what Dan said?
BTW, R. E. Designs made several products, as anyone can see from the website. It had more than one trick. Personally, I am sure I would be proud to own an R. E. Designs amp.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
1. The two points, while related, cover different topics.
2. While interaction between components ("inside the box") is definitely a factor, neither of those who you referenced support your ridiculous claim that only poorly designed gear will be affected.
3. He had one amp, one preamp, and one switchbox. Switchbox?
rw
"If you want equipment that audibly modifies the signal, that`s up to you. I prefer have controls for that sort of thing."
I didn't say anything about such equipment being poorly designed. Maybe it was designed to do that. If that's what you want, fine. I'd rather have it under my control as much as I can: for example, I expect My Tilt, Bass Lift and Cut, and High Filter controls to enable me to do that sort of thing.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
"If you want equipment that audibly modifies the signal, that`s up to you. I prefer have controls for that sort of thing."
And what relevance does that have to our discussion about cables? First of all, everyone's gear audibly modifies the signal. Either you realize that or your powers of discernment is limited or exposure to that which available is absent. And what does that have to do with your comments to which I refer? Let's review them:
Why one would want equipment where different interconnects make much difference at line level is another question.
The obvious answer is those who want equipment whose resolution is high enough be able to discern fine differences. Obviously, you don't apply. If you were to put Bridgestone S001s on a Buick, similarly you would not be able to tell any differences between them and the stock rubber. What does that tell you about those tires?
I expect My Tilt, Bass Lift and Cut, and High Filter controls to enable me to do that sort of thing.
Oh yeah, those controls definitely improve the resolution. LOL!
rw
Resolution? What's that? Another optical image?
I presume that a high resolution component would change the signal as little as possible. Apparently you think that having equipment sensitive to differing electrical characteristics of interconnects is somehow resolution--it's really nothing of the sort, it's creating a modifications in the signal.
Now, if I want to make audible changes to the signal (i.e., to make some recordings sound better), my point was that I have controls to help me do that. Why you put that under the category of resolution is a mystery.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Apparently you think that having equipment sensitive to differing electrical characteristics of interconnects is somehow resolution.
No, that's called sensitivity to differing electrical characteristics. There are very expensive high resolution line stages that are quite insensitive to basic frequency changes due to capacitance. There are also inexpensive passive attenuators which also provide high resolution which, due to their nature, are sensitive to frequency changes due to capacitance. The two concepts are most certainly not synonymous.
Resolution? What's that?
I'm only to happy to provide the dictionary's explanation so that you might understand.
" the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object "
The ability for a component to be able to make evident changes that occur in the musical content or by the individual characteristics of other components, including cables independent of matching issues. Resolution allows any component to reveal that which is passed through it, for better or for worse. Low resolution gear, by its very nature, is incapable of providing that view to the truth and indeed is quite insensitive to most any change in source or other components.
You might find it beneficial that a Mercury Gran Marquis is insensitive to choice of tires. No matter which ones you choose, performance will always be poor. It's suspension design limits whatever you may choose. Mid-fi gear works similarly. No matter what quality source or cables you may choose, there will be little or no audible difference because its design limits whatever you may choose. I prefer high performance cars and audio components which are capable of communicating the differences which exist.
rw
"There are very expensive high resolution line stages that are quite insensitive to basic frequency changes due to capacitance."
Uhhh . . . yeah, I tried to find a preamp like that--though I don't think expense is all that closely related to quality.
Comparisons of auto performance to audio performance are seldom successful.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
to understand the concept - despite providing a comparative example for which most people would relate. Perhaps you have no idea as to the performance envelope of a Grand Marquis. My wife's grandmother had one. :)
rw
It's all very well to talk about different grades of audio equipment, but you haven't given any way to grade them, that is, what performance elements are relevant and audible. In that respect, you are no farther along than is carcass93.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
... but you haven't given any way to grade them, that is, what performance elements are relevant and audible.
That's because there is no single way to grade them. Which in no way negates language used to describe what cannot be wholly described by numbers.
rw
Me, as quoted by you
"... but you haven't given any way to grade them, that is, what performance elements are relevant and audible."
E/stat
"That's because there is no single way to grade them. Which in no way negates language used to describe what cannot be wholly described by numbers."
First of all, I did mention 'performance elements' in the plural, so I did not say there was any 'single way to grade them.'
As for describing what cannot be described by numbers, you are leaving out a major intermediary step, that of correlation. If someone has failed to show that they or anyone else can actually hear the difference between A and B, then there is no reason for me to give credence to any descriptions of the alleged sonic differences they provide, though they may be interesting psychologically or sociologically.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
It is not a question of "alleged sonic differences", but whether differences that are heard are due to a more transparent component's ability to reveal detail that lesser gear is simply incapable of doing. A Ferrari Modena will quickly identify tire performance differences that go completely unnoticed on a Mercury Grand Marquis.
Ok, you'd rather have the Mercury because it is insensitive to tire choice - while offering consistently poor performance.
rw
"It is not a question of "alleged sonic differences", but whether differences that are heard are due to a more transparent component's ability to reveal detail that lesser gear is simply incapable of doing."
Well, it certainly is a question of alleged sonic differences, because if you haven't established that differences are audible, then to speculate about audible transparency remains just that, speculation. Sure, there is gear that is more transparent: some gear is quieter than others, for example, and that may have audible consequences. It is possible to alter the FR to an extent that it is audible. Even distortion can be audible, if there's enough of the right (or wrong!) kinds of it.
Revealing detail, which must mean someone hears more detail, actually is not the same as transparency. A rising high end will allow one to hear more of some kinds of detail, but that's not neutral. A compressed signal may help you hear low level details--hmmm, that's not transparency, either.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Why one would want equipment where different interconnects make much difference at line level is another question...
Well, it certainly is a question of alleged sonic differences,
"Where interconnects make such difference". All of my comments have followed your scenario where the difference is assumed by you . Not "alleged". If there are no differences, then your first comment about not wanting certain equipment is irrelevant. My observations have followed your scenario where difference DO EXIST and to further determine why there are differences, not that they exist.
Revealing detail, which must mean someone hears more detail, actually is not the same as transparency.
Sure. And it is not always due to having a rising high end. Many times it is due to having a lower noise floor where the tonal balance, if anything, is darker and might be perceived as "duller".
You should act on your tag line. Your comments have taken you on a weird circular path where you have negated your own question.
rw
For one thing, I already mentioned that "some gear is quieter than others," so it isn't as if you are pointing out to me that noise floor is relevant to transparency.
Now, I posed the issue of why one would want equipment where different interconnects make much difference at line level. This does not presuppose that there are such differences, nor does it presuppose there are not such differences, since the question refers to what one might "want." Neither does it presuppose there are not such differences--it's about what one would "want." There may be reasons why someone would want the sound to be different, but as I have pointed out before, interconnects and speaker cables is a rather inconvenient and expensive way of achieving it, and usually not very effective, except maybe psychologically.
When I talk about "alleged" sonic differences, it meant audible differences that have not been established. This neither affirms nor denies that such differences exist, just that they have not been established in whatever situation is relevant, as when a reviewer or audiophile ascribes all sorts of qualities to interconnect A as opposed to interconnect B. There's no reason to suppose he/she can actually detect those differences without some good evidence and that is hardly ever supplied.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
rw
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
in circles?
rw
I am more like Sir Percy Blakeney, the Scarlet Pimpernel, who manages to escape the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at the hands of subjectivists who try clumsily to lay traps for me.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Evil, gullible subjectivists vs deaf, circular argument-driven objectivists. Mud-slinging, name calling, verbal fisticuffs... man, I sure was missing the true spirit of this forum. I was screaming "Why can't we all just not get along???" and just as I was about to give up hope, Jon Risch brings us all back together with a cable post. :)
The door's open and the bed's made. Welcome home, guys... welcome home! :)
And don't use the word *resolution* again or Don will take you to task for it!
Jon Risch brings us all back together with a cable post.
They only come out at...cable tests. Even Bob Wire appeared a couple of times. :)
rw
...you think I'm singling you two out, I'm not. I'm including us all. And I'm truly happy to see this place return back to its roots of total non-resolution. It gives me faith in the human race and the future of audio in general.
Now, let's carry on! I LOVE it! :)
> the situation is almost certainly sometimes does. This leaves the large jungle of when, where, and who. <
I'm still waiting for PHP to get to this point. It's been a very long wait so far and I expect it to be much longer still.
Hope all is well with you.Didn't you post this link back in 2007?
"" Now, will the objectionists finally allow that there is true evidence of cable differences, or will this be swept under the rug as usual? ""
Sweep what under the rug? Measured differences? Why?? Did they prove correlation between what was measured and a claim of audibility?
What they really should have done was replace the passively crossed over drivers with resistive loads, that way the gap permeability vs frequency and velocity could have been eliminated as the difference. I figured when you provided this link, they had actually elaborated on that magnetic circuit non linear behaviour.
Cheers, John
Edits: 05/27/10
Hi John, I am middlin along, my health has stabilized, but my time is all but consumed by my employer (trying to get the work of THREE engineers out of me, working like TWO wasn't enough!).
How are you doing?
You wrote:
"Didn't you post this link back in 2007?
Actually, I did, but since then, I have had a chance to see higher resolution copies of the graphs (my computer back in 2007 just did not have the resolution to see the small GIF's very well), and I was able to take them and create color-coded overlays and ANALYZE the multitone distortion products a bit more closely, and see what was going on in terms of WHERE the distortion was coming from.
I plugged the multitones from Voishvillo's paper's (reference 3 & 4) into my spreadsheet, and looked a the various orders of the highest level distortion products, and where they came from.
I have satisfied myself that they were NOT measurement artifacts, or overload of the passive crossover magnetics (a distinct possibility given the crest factor), primarily because the patterns are similar between the full-range two way with passive crossover vs. the raw subwoofer, and the orders suggested by the distortion products look like loudspeaker back EMF issues I have seen before in my own measurements.
Thus, I wanted to call attention to them once again, with people much more likely to pay attention to Dr. Alexander Voishvillo than little ole' me.
You wrote:
"What they really should have done was replace the passively crossed over drivers with resistive loads, that way the gap permeability vs frequency and velocity could have been eliminated as the difference.
Naw, with load resistors on a passive crossover circuit, what mostly shows up is crossover overload, which is interesting, but academic in terms of looking for cable distortion.
As an interesting aside, when I experimented with some power amps that BREAK the feedback loop from being influenced by the loudspeaker back EMF, most of the big sonic differences between cables goes down, as does a low level grundge that always seems to be present to one extent or another with most conventional feedback amps, even with my mostly load invariant Stax DA-80 pure class A power amps. It seems the speaker cables are much more a part of the SYSTEM than anyone ever imagined.
Jon Risch
""Hi John, I am middlin along, my health has stabilized, but my time is all but consumed by my employer ""
Glad your health is ok. Also glad your employer is workin ya, tis better than the alternative..same thing here, but I can't complain since they do pay me..
""I have satisfied myself that they were NOT measurement artifacts, or overload of the passive crossover magnetics""
I didn't think they were. I am rather confident the non-linear driver magnetics is the reason.
""Naw, with load resistors on a passive crossover circuit, what mostly shows up is crossover overload, which is interesting, but academic in terms of looking for cable distortion.
Hence my statement to do such. By loading each crossover with resistors, it can be easily demonstrated that the cables themselves do not create distortion, but cause the system to react to the non linearity of the voice coils in their environment ..it is very important to provide a baseline measurement so that variables and elements can be eliminated from the mix as it were. Far too many people setup and perform a test such as this, but yet do not strive to eliminate confounders..
The only other test to try is replacing the speakers with reactive components which match the linear aspects of the drivers. This will drive the full four quadrant operation, and in doing so will examine the amplifier's four quadrant capability with a complex waveform and a non resistive current.
A poor mans variant of the four quadrant output test setup I detailed to you back in march of 2007.
""It seems the speaker cables are much more a part of the SYSTEM than anyone ever imagined.
Sigh. Eventually what I understand will begin to be thought of.... by the rest.....:-)
A pleasure speakin with ya...
ps...had a scoop of moosetracks last night...awesome...
Cheers, John
"As an interesting aside, when I experimented with some power amps that BREAK the feedback loop from being influenced by the loudspeaker back EMF, most of the big sonic differences between cables goes down, as does a low level grundge that always seems to be present to one extent or another with most conventional feedback amps, even with my mostly load invariant Stax DA-80 pure class A power amps. It seems the speaker cables are much more a part of the SYSTEM than anyone ever imagined.
"
This seems to be more indicative of what Otalla described in the late 70s early 80s. He published a couple of papers on how back EMF from the speaker could be injected into the feedback loop and create audible distortion.
Also, Crowhurst in the 1950s demonstrated that high negative feedback creates a myriad of low level harmonic distortion components. A kind of "grass" in the noise baseline that is in fact signal correlated and therefore not noise at all!
Once I went to a GOOD no negative feedback design amp, I found a low level purity and tonal rightness that I hadn't known existed before that. That grunge is no longer there. Also, this kind of sonic "constipation" that I hear with so many amps, where the sound is kind of dynamically squashed, is no longer present.
"What they really should have done was replace the passively crossed over drivers with resistive loads, that way the gap permeability vs frequency and velocity could have been eliminated as the difference."
Why is it necessary to remove speaker cables from the real world of amplifiers, cross-overs and transducers? Speaker wires operate as part of a complete music playback system. The interaction of the cables with other parts of the system is important.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"" Why is it necessary to remove speaker cables from the real world of amplifiers, cross-overs and transducers? Speaker wires operate as part of a complete music playback system. The interaction of the cables with other parts of the system is important. ""
I didn't say that. Re-read my statement...
" What they really should have done was replace the passively crossed over drivers with resistive loads, that way the gap permeability vs frequency and velocity could have been eliminated as the difference. ""
I said replace the drivers with resistors, but keep the crossover network.
That eliminates the non-linearities of the iron dominated flux thingy's from the measurement of the cables.
Cheers, John
Sorry. You missed my point. I guess I didn't do a good job of making it. What if the mysterious problem of speaker cables involves the interaction of non-linearities in the associated components with the (more or less linear) properties of the cables? You aren't going to see this if the drivers get replaced with resistors. (Some of the graphs in the article linked by the OP already demonstrated the lack of cable effects with resistors.)
Why does one care about measuring cables? By themselves cables have no sound. They are just a pile of metal and plastic. It is the system that one listens to and that's what needs to be measured. (Or simulated, as I'll bet with a good simulation one could see all of the complex interactions.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
resistors are two quadrant devices. Different beast..
Cheers, John
there are guys like Roger Russell who boil everything there is to know about speaker/amplifier/cable interactions down to an impedance chart of gauge vs. distance based upon maintaining no more than an (arbitrary) 5% loss. :)
rw
I do not agree with Roger Russel's recommendations. They are based entirely upon the calculation of resistive losses, but not on the ability of the amplifier to control a complex, marginally linear end of line system through a transmission line that is incorrectly regarded as too short for concern at audio frequencies.
Cheers, John
Quote from part 6: "Nevertheless, the evidence is now overwhelming that cables can give rise to sonic differences."
I don't think that any objectivist will say that differences cannot be MEASURED, and this is what has been done by the authors of that book (or rather, the authors of the corresponding IOA paper), but only that, nothing more. To say that cables CAN give rise to sonic differences is reasonable and justified in view of the measured differences, but only that, nothing more.
I'm not aware of any bias-controlled ( http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14393) listening test that shows that different cables indeed do sound different. Newell and Holland don't indicate any such evidence either.
Klaus
We now have the the tests you nay sayers wanted!!
N/T
So far, nobody has been able to explain how listening tests, performed by some people who are not you, on audio system that is not yours, can prove or disprove anything.
In other words - I don't give a damn, if bunch of arbitrary people, guided by some biased deaf morons, listened to some crappy "system" somewhere and declared that they couldn't hear shit (reference: Meyer-Moran test).
Do you?
Following the same line of reasoning you should not rely on drug tests, performed by an arbitrary bunch of people who are not you, guided by some biased scientists. Yet you willingly swallow those drugs when you're really sick and your doctor prescribes them, don't you?
> reference: Meyer-Moran test <
If you have any solid, well founded technical arguments as to why the test and its results are not valid, I wonder why you did not write a letter to JAES and set things straight. The mere fact that a result is contradicting your belief doesn’t render this result invalid.
You choice of words, i.e. deaf morons, crappy "system", couldn't hear shit, is typical of immature teenage talk, so grow up.
Klaus
... biased deaf morons (including on this board, in this thread) who can't hear shit, and crappy "systems" these morons own, that causes them to rely on "tests" performed by other deaf morons -
- it's best to just call duck a duck. You hear me, duck?
> ollowing the same line of reasoning you should not rely on drug tests, performed by an arbitrary bunch of people who are not you, guided by some biased scientists. Yet you willingly swallow those drugs when you're really sick and your doctor prescribes them, don't you? <
The main difference is that no doctor tries to tell us that these drugs effect all people the same way. It's a little different than the"all cables sound alike" myth. The same drug that might be perfect for you might cause a side effect in me that offsets the drug's value. This is why it's important not to say that something performs in a certain way all the time to all people. It's why we prefer to try things ourselves and why beliefs have nothing to do with it. Experience rules.
I mean, you just HAVE to be an idiot not to see the difference!
The sad thing is that the medical DBTs are often equally bogus, just marketing tools for big pharma. The difference is that the products peddled using these tools can and do kill people, something we don't need to worry about where audio gear is concerned.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> The same drug that might be perfect for you might cause a side effect in me that offsets the drug's value. <
True, but in the first instance you will accept the doctor's advice and take the drug. You will not question the results of tests of that drug off-hand just because you were not involved in the clinical tests.
> It's a little different than the"all cables sound alike" myth. <
No one's talking about myths at this point. The issue is whether or not the test results of an arbitrary bunch of people are valid for the rest of us. Had Meyer-Moran confirmed that the CD loop was detectable, the other inmate would most certainly not have complained that the testers were deaf morons and using crappy gear.
Klaus
> you will accept the doctor's advice and take the drug. You will not question the results of tests of that drug off-hand just because you were not involved in the clinical tests. <
Neither you nor Meyer/Moran are my doctor! :)
Seriously, just about everyone trusts their doctor when it comes to prescribing meds. Most of us have no choice. And it's too dangerous for us to try various meds ourselves. In other words, we lack the experience to contradict the doctor.
> No one's talking about myths at this point. The issue is whether or not the test results of an arbitrary bunch of people are valid for the rest of us <
The issues are one and the same, or at least completely intertwined. Any test results that show that all cables sound alike are not valid for the rest of us. There may be some cables that sound identical to all people in all applications - indeed, maybe many. There are likely many people that could not discern any differences that were present. But not all 1 meter interconnects or 10 ft speaker cables that don't show gross anomalies in the measurements sound alike to all people in all applications. Such results are valid only for the people taking the test.
....that all cables sound alike are not valid for the rest of us. <
To the best of my knowledge there is no published listening test with proper controls (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14393) examining cables. So the question is without an answer. Since this is so, the amount I spent on cables in my system is less than 1% of the total system cost (for more than 160 ft interconnect).
Klaus
Since you based your decision on the test results (or lack of, in this case) of others, your decision makes perfect sense. But back when I was putting together my first system, I was blissfully unaware of both the lack of published tests and the science. Such ignorance allowed me to go in with an open mind, and my own subsequent test results proved to me that my bias-free approach led me to the correct answer.
You wrote:"Such results are valid only for the people taking the"
In fact, the common assumption that null results from a listening test mean that a negative occurred, is patently false.
Even the most well done listening test (and there are very few of those where consumer audio products are concerned) does not PROVE that there was no sonic difference. It was merely a failure to detect. Period. No other conclusions can be legitimately drawn.
Now if a baseline of sensitivity was established (very VERY seldom is this done with the typical consumer audio listening tests), then IF some sort of correlation can be made with the baseline sensitivity and the phenomenon being investigated (we really can't do this very accurately yet either), then you might have the beginnings of a bit of evidence of some sort. But then, virtually all of the listening tests cited by naysayers do not meet these criteria, and the few that actually establish a reference baseline, do not convincingly show the correlation with what we can hear.
I think that the most telling aspect of the lack of correlation, is that we are told that according to psychoacoustics research, unless the Harmonic distortion is above one or even several percent, or unless the noise floor is above XX dB (this number varies a lot more), etc., we shouldn't be able to hear any sonic differences on sine waves, much less with real world complex music. But I keep coming back to the dither algorithm evidence: different dither algorithms are audible, despite being at -90 dbFS, which according to the above criteria, shouldn't be audible.
Jon Risch
"3. Distortion by-products of any kind are likely
to be more perceptible at lower signal levels
than at higher signal levels."
I.e. masking is less broad at lower levels (see the graphs in the link)
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Distortion_AES_I.pdf
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Distortion_AES_II.pdf
Also of interest WRT to distortion audibility:
"An nth order nonlinearity generates nth
order harmonics and every other harmonic
below it."
"For multi-tones an nth order nonlinearity
causes sidebands at ±n times the modulation
frequency and every other value of n below
it, as well as harmonics (as above)."
"The masking effect of the human ear will
tend to make higher order nonlinearities
more audible than lower order ones."
"Nonlinear by-products that increase with
level can be completely masked if the order
of the nonlinearity is low."
"Nonlinearities that occur at low signal levels
will be more audible than those that occur at
higher signal levels."
This conclusion is of particular significance for audio IMO.
Note in paper II that there is Table 1 which shows the Gedlee number (their metric for distortion audibility) and the different test tones that they used and their distortion contents. What is particularly interesting is that for 9 and 10 the distortion values are quite low but the Gedlee numbers are very high, which means that they were perceived as highly distorted even when they were in fact not. Conversely, some highly distorted signals (13,16,20,21) were not perceived as such.
However, when the Gedlee number is above 10 the correlation becomes much worse meaning there seems to be a limitation to this correlation approach.
"An nth order nonlinearity generates nth order harmonics and every other harmonic below it."
This is wrong. It should say:
"For n odd, an nth order nonlinearity generates nth order harmonics and every other odd harmonic below it, in addition to an error term at the fundamental frequency. For n even, an nth order nonlinearity generates nth order even harmonics and every other even harmonic below it, in addition to an error term at DC."
The paper wasn't peer reviewed, and a competent reviewer would have caught that.
In that case his statement is not wrong but merely incomplete as it neglects to address error signals at the fundamental frequency and DC, neither of which will likely be of audible consequence. Perhaps it was written this way for the sake of clarity and in the context of the point he is trying to make WRT audibility of harmonics.
I find it interesting how you seem to notice only the trees while successfully missing the forest.
"In that case his statement is not wrong but merely incomplete as it neglects to address error signals at the fundamental frequency and DC, neither of which will likely be of audible consequence."
No, it's simply wrong. A seventh-order nonlinearity will not produce sixth harmonic, fourth harmonic or second harmonic as follows from his statement - though it will produce fifth and third. Likewise, an eighth-order nonlinearity will not produce seventh harmonic, fifth harmonic, or third harmonic either (though it will produce sixth, fourth and second), but that's what follows from his statement. It's not just an inadvertent omission, but a misunderstanding of a rather basic aspect of the problem.
Geddes is a brilliant guy in the area of acoustics, having done revolutionary and groundbreaking work with waveguides, but he's out of his element here. He used to have audio samples on his web site, associated with this paper, for testing the audible effects of nonlinearity. I'm not sure whether he put them there before or after he published his paper. But he later admitted that the samples were affected by aliasing and pulled them from his site. When you subject a signal to nonlinearity in the digital domain, unless special steps are taken, aliasing will occur. See Keith Howard's documentation on AddDistortion for more information. Keith got it right.
You'll note I've made no claims one way or another about Geddes' conclusions. I agree with the conclusion that a single number for THD is worthless. Having THD vs. frequency and signal level gives much more information, but of course identifying each individual harmonic is far better. To actually find someone who claims that a single-frequency, single-power-level THD measurement is sufficient (the idea he was attacking), you'd likely have to bring Julian Hirsch back from the dead. So while I agree with his conclusions, I see the paper as pointless, as it attacks an idea that few if any people believe in the first place.
This is typical of the difference in approach between those who are engineers at heart vs. those who are scientists at heart.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
You are too right! And...
It's not just jitter, crossover distortion is also terribly audible at moderate levels. Audibility depends upon the nature of the distortion. Both IFM and crossover are 'unnatural' forms of distortion and both are just as active at low levels as they are at maximum output.
Our ears are logarithmic and have a fair degree of intrinsic distortion as a function of level. Who cares how bad something sounds at such high levels that your ears are the dominant term? You might hear it if it goes into hard clipping but if that's at a high enough level the main thing you notice is a long term dulling from your tweeters burning out.
Rick
"I'm not aware of any bias-controlled ( http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14393) listening test that shows that different cables indeed do sound different. Newell and Holland don't indicate any such evidence either."Just because you (and Newell and Holland, et al) are not aware of such tests is no evidence that such tests don't exist. That's the oldest Strawman Argument in the world!
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. "
Furthermore, it should mentioned that even IF you were aware of such tests, chances are good you (and Newell and Holland, et al) would dispute the methods of the tests. Am I right? Or am I right?
Small wonder the objectivists are 25 years behind the times.
LOL
Edits: 05/27/10
"Just because you (and Newell and Holland, et al) are not aware of such tests is no evidence that such tests don't exist."
Did I make any statement to that effect? Answer: I did not.
Of course the fact that I'm not aware of such tests is no evidence that such tests don't exist! What is interesting, is that nobody is capable of indicating such tests, in peer-reviewed technical/scientific journals that is. If subjectivists have knowledge of any such publication, why keep this knowledge secret?
"Furthermore, it should mentioned that even IF you were aware of such tests, chances are good you (and Newell and Holland, et al) would dispute the methods of the tests. Am I right?"
If there are issues that need being disputed, then of course the answer is yes. There's a nice thread on RAHE where exactly that has happened:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/browse_thread/thread/647563b89ce89c71#
"Why do we have to do everything for you?"
So far, you have done exactly nothing. I'm regularly browsing some of the journals relevant to audio, acoustics and perception and there is simply no bias-controlled listening tests on cables. If you think that I'm not looking into the right journals, then pleeeeeeze, enlighten me.
Klaus
What is interesting, is that nobody is capable of indicating such tests, in peer-reviewed technical/scientific journals that is.
Sorry, Charlie, that is another Strawman Argument. Hey, you're batting 1000% today.
I'm regularly browsing some of the journals relevant to audio, acoustics and perception and there is simply no bias-controlled listening tests on cables. If you think that I'm not looking into the right journals, then pleeeeeeze, enlighten me.
> "I can't find it so it doesn't exist." Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Geez, Louise, how many Strawman Arguments can you make in one day? Are you going for some kind of record? LOL
nt
<"I can't find it so it doesn't exist." Ha Ha Ha Ha! <
Sorry for having taken you seriously, must be "the glitch". Go and sell some more magic phonecalls, there's customers queueing.
Over and out.
Don't call us. We'll call you. LOL
nt
nt
nt
""Just because you (and Newell and Holland, et al) are not aware of such tests is no evidence that such tests don't exist. That's the oldest Strawman Argument in the world!""
No, actually the oldest strawman argument in the world is:
""Just because you (and Newell and Holland, et al) are not aware of such tests is no evidence that such tests don't exist.""
Ya coulda at least provided such tests...
Hi Geoff..and Jon. Hope all is well with you.
Cheers, John
"Ya coulda at least provided such tests..."
Yeah, right. Why do we have to do everything for you? And you guys just sit back on your Barko Loungers and send in comments. LOL
Tootles
Cheers,
John
...
That's odd.
You hve implied that such tests exist, but divert away from my request for such..
Cheers, John
I did not intend to imply I knew that such tests existed (or not). I find it strange that those on the objectivist side often proclaim they cannot find such tests, therefore the tests must not exist. You know, as if that proves their case. As Klaus stated, "I looked in a couple of journals and didn't find anything." LOL
"" I did not intend to imply I knew that such tests existed (or not).
You implied such and disparaged others because they did not look. Indeed, you proclaim me a "skeptic" simply because I ask for what you cannot provide yet infer.
I have stated categorically that DBT's are inaccurate for imaging tests based on the program content. I cannot be "binned" as a skeptic.
"" I find it strange that those on the objectivist side often proclaim they cannot find such tests, therefore the tests must not exist.
I find it odd that some on the subjective side infer the existance of proof, yet bypass the request for such.
Hey, you didn't answer the important question. How have you been? I hope all is well.
Cheers, John
I have stated categorically that DBT's are inaccurate for imaging tests based on the program content. I cannot be "binned" as a skeptic.
I'm sure you'll agree being binned as a skeptic doesn't require one to be an DBT advocate. I have always considered you a skeptic. Maybe you're a skeptic and don't realize it. Do you think I'm not a skeptic?
Suppose such a speaker cable test exists and that it supports one side or the other. So what? Do you honestly think that would change any minds?
There is a power cord blind test on line from 2004. Maybe that will satisfy someone's hunger for some data. LOL
"" I'm sure you'll agree being binned as a skeptic doesn't require one to be an DBT advocate. ""
Around these parts, the term "skeptic" is used disparagingly towards objectivists as an indication of a closed mind, and that is needless. Having some rudimentary knowledge in e/m theory, I always read "white paper content" with an eye towards accuracy of the science. Correction of blatenly inaccurate statements or theories is not skepticism.
"" I have always considered you a skeptic. Maybe you're a skeptic and don't realize it. ""
Define skeptic . For me, with no supporting information provided, I will indeed be "skeptical" of outrageous claims.. Given supporting information which is clearly incorrect, and my stating such, is not skepticism.
"" Do you think I'm not a skeptic?
I'd be skeptical of that claim...:-)
Suppose such a speaker cable test exists and that it supports one side or the other. So what? Do you honestly think that would change any minds?
That would depend on the legitimacy of the test. So far, most tests I read of do not control all the variables, nor even identify them. With no controls, confounders cannot be controlled for, so results are questionable.
I do notice that you have not provided any link to such a test.
"" There is a power cord blind test on line from 2004. Maybe that will satisfy someone's hunger for some data. LOL ""
I have yet to see a power cord test of any kind, in situ, which had any scientific validity whatsoever. Primarily, this is because the researchers do not identify any confounders so no attempt is made to control for them. Instead, the cord is considered as a "magic device" with mis or unidentified properties that are alluded to alter the sound.
What should have been done in any PC test is a rigorous analysis of exactly what path the IC signal current takes to return to the source. Nobody considers the fact that within a single ended code compliant system, about 10% of the signal current returns by the IC shield. Coax with a net sectional current is not a shielded cable.
Cheers, John
Instead, the cord is considered as a "magic device" with mis or unidentified properties that are alluded to alter the sound.
Whatever happened to my order for the "beats-everything-on-the-market" cable from five years ago? :)
rw
The #10awg triaxial wire I made then is still coiled in my office at the top of a coat rack...
Alas, in the intervening years, I have made significant advances in ground loop theory and interventions. It is no longer a case of making a line cord which is incapable of broadcasting an e/m field nor intercepting one...but evaluation of a system as a whole with respect to grounding loops and source and amplifier susceptibility as a result of designed in problems.
Whoa...some memory ya got there e-stat...I completely forgot that thread..
Hey, was just in Seacliff..
Cheers, John
from the guys here and over at AR for using video cable to transmit AC. And I got questioned for using Belden 83808 teflon jacketed fire alarm power cable UL rated for 300V operation at 200 degrees C!
rw
It has neither the ampacity nor the robustness to serve reliably as an AC power cord.I made a triaxial line cord using:
1. A teflon insulated #10AWG high strandcount single conductor wire as the core conductor. The choice of #10 was based on the desire to have ampacity of at least 20 amps. The insulation of this conductor is what I am using to maintain a dielectric strength with respect to the neutral.
2. The neutral conductor is made of 3 layers of hollow braid, each with the cross section equivalent to that of #12AWG. This is the first level of defense in the event the cord is physically compromised, as the neutral is by design, zero volts relative to safety ground. It is covered by two layers of tefzel heatshrink tubing.
This coaxial structure does not exhibit any external magnetic field as a result of current being drawn by the device..this is the most important aspect of the cable. It is also immune to external magnetic field induction hot to neutral as long as the external spacial gradient is not overly excessive, like bending the cable around the sharp edge of an E-core transformer. However, immunity to external fields is a simple consequence of the coaxial design, and was not the primary design feature.
3. The outer conductor is two layers of #12awg braid. This is the safety ground conductor. It is not a current carrying conductor, and serves only to provide NEC compliant bonding for the chassis. This is covered by one additional layer of heatshrink tubing.
Note that the conductor which serves as safety ground by design, cannot trap any flux being produced by the line cord. This is a result of two things..the hot/neutral system does not create external flux, and the coaxial positioning of the safety ground does not form a loop with respect to the hot/neutral system.The ampacity limitation of this cord is a result of the inner #10awg being entirely enveloped within a second current carrying conductor. As such, it does not have the ampacity of a #10awg wire. My expectation is that it would suffice for 15 ampere and perhaps 20 ampere operation. However, verification of this would require pushing 20 amperes into and out of the cord in the manner in which it will be used, and monitoring the IR drop of the center conductor and neutral conductor seperately. Given the temperature coefficient of copper, it is a simple exercise to determine both conductors for temperature rise. The #10awg teflon insulation is rated higher temperature, tefzel is lower.
Cheers, John
ps. PTFE teflon is rated 260 degrees C, FEP teflon is rated at 200 C, and tefzel is rated 150 degrees C.(this from the belden master catalog, page 22.11.) The only concern I would have would be wires and plastics in the vicinity of this cable if it's external temperature were pushed to 150 C. I recommend an outer jacket rise maximum of 35 degrees C.
pps. For a coax or triax structure, one cannot use the simple current rating chart such as Belden's on page 22.4 of it's master catalog. The coax structure has a different heat transfer path from that of standard cables, so will be a tad more compromised that a simple 2 or 3 conductor cable.
Edits: 06/07/10 06/07/10 06/07/10
"Belden 83808 teflon jacketed fire alarm power cable UL rated for 300V operation at 200 degrees C!"
I believe that Teflon is used because it doesn't emit a lot of toxic fumes in a fire. If cables are to run through air plenums they must meet fire codes, made so the firemen among others aren't poisoned.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
have the same voltage and temperature ranges?
rw
I don't know about video cable.
Triaxial refers to the layers of conductors, not the type of dielectric. The original 10 mbps "fat" Ethernet cable was triaxial (two layers of shields) because the designer who specified this part of the standard was aware that "every wire is secretly an antenna". A trip to a local shopping mall and some readings on a field strength meter convinced the skeptics that the extra shielding was needed, worst case. (The mall was not far from a 50 KW AM radio station.) The choice between regular dielectric or the more expensive Teflon dielectric depended on where the cable was to run.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Define skeptic. For me, with no supporting information provided, I will indeed be "skeptical" of outrageous claims.. Given supporting information which is clearly incorrect, and my stating such, is not skepticism.> > > I define skeptic in the real sense of the word to be someone who's questioning, curious and willing to take the effort, sometimes considerable, to get to the bottom of things. I define Skeptic - with a capital S - to be someone who claims to be a skeptic but who is unwilling to get off his Barcolounger and get to the bottom of things.
> > > Define "outrageous claim." Do you mean like the claim there's a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy as well as in the center of most galaxies? LOL
Do you think I'm not a skeptic?
I'd be skeptical of that claim...:-)
> > > No, actually you'd be Skeptical of that claim. LOL
I have yet to see a power cord test of any kind, in situ, which had any scientific validity whatsoever.
> > > Hmmmm, sounds like we have a volunteer. When can expect the results? LOL
Edits: 05/28/10
I think you are confusing the answer to "Whether?" with the answer to "How?"
It is perfectly possible to test a system as a black box without understanding any underlying theory of how the system works or was designed. (You will need some understanding of experimental design and statistics, but nothing much beyond common sense and high school math.) This will allow you to answer the first question, assuming a suitable test schema.
Some theory will be helpful when answering the second question but even here it may not be necessary. I was able to optimize the sound of my uncle's Dynakit amplifier by tweaking the components in the feedback loop while observing the square wave response into a resistive dummy load. Later, we observed that the output tube plates glowed red when connected to the speaker, which was my introduction, at age 13, to stability. Ultimately we got good sound out of the speakers with this amp, but I believe my Uncle had to purchase a few extra output tubes. The issue of speaker wire did not come up as this was the 1950's and we were using zip cord from the hardware store. We had learned our lesson: components interact. Had we had a choice of wires we might have seen an interaction between amplifier, wires and speakers, rather than just an interaction between amplifier and speakers. When I mean "seen" I mean it literally. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"What should have been done in any PC test is a rigorous analysis of exactly what path the IC signal current takes to return to the source."
Paths plural I'm afraid. My guess is the road through the rectifiers is one of the rockiest SQ-wise.
"Nobody considers the fact that within a single ended code compliant system, about 10% of the signal current returns by the IC shield."
I think the situation can be far better than that. It's not required to use a chassis ground and not all transformers are junk. Years ago I did a check (by ear) on one of my systems where a computer uses a SE feed to a receiver across the room (but on the same AC circuit). It was far better than I would have supposed. I'd estimate at least 30dB in-band, but I suspect that the receiver was especially good in that regard. I just pulled out the RCA plugs enough to unhook the shields. Didn't do any measurements as it seemed low enough to not be a significant factor. Most of my previous experience is that all hell breaks loose when you do that.
My jaundiced view on power cord sensitivity is that outside of coupling with other cables in the rear tangle that it's an indicator of equipment deficiencies. And systemic ones of course, but we are largely stuck with those.
Nice to see you posting again...
Rick
"My jaundiced view on power cord sensitivity is that outside of coupling with other cables in the rear tangle that it's an indicator of equipment deficiencies. And systemic ones of course, but we are largely stuck with those."
We may be more or less be stuck with whatever built in system deficiencies are present once we've bought high quality gear supporting our toplogy of choice but we aren't stuck with a particular power cord if it turns out a different one addresses any those deficiencies in some way. But I agree, the gear shouldn't care about the cord for the most part by design. Could this mean controlling return current paths by design in a way any uneducated consumer could accomplish an install by reading the instructions? hmm never heard that around here befre...To do this would also imply controlling the current loops all over the countryside that single ended systems often end up being.
jneutron now has me convinced after a recent discussion on another forum: perhaps the best advice, since we may be waiting forever for the manufacturers to take up the torch, is just to bundle everything in the ratsnest at the back as tight as possible in SE systems, ie power cords, line cords, to reduce loop area. This seems like the next best thing to having it solved by design to me. It's easy for anybody to understand the process of bundling cords tightly even twisting and shielding the bundle if your a complete madman.
The idea of bundling the line cords tightly with the power cords sounded a bit funny to me at first.
In my system doing this did not introduce any noticible coupling between the signals that I could hear. Maybe I'm going deaf or could have used a better test signal to help isolate the issues I've caused but my current opinion is this is a better way for me to string the wires with my setup.
Doing it like this seems to make my system even lower noise but only in extreme circumstances. I wasn't normally having any noise problems to begin with due to how I configured my system to keep loop areas quite small in the first place but now I'm doing even better. In fact under normal circumstances I was achieving my systems rated noise specs per my testing even before I bundled. The one real noise problem I had left was a mild popping from the somewhat frequent (maybe 2-3 times per year that I am aware of) nearby (neghbor on hill across the street) lightning strikes. Apparently the voltages induced in my system weren't bad enough to do damage but I was hearing it. Since I've bundled per jneutron recs I have yet to hear the popping during these nearby lightning events.
The thing that I think may be the coolest about this idea is that it's easy to describe to a newb. Say "bind the wires in a tight bundle" and everyone will know what you mean. I gurantee there will be some who say it isn't a god idea but my experiments suggest it is for me.
Wow, that's really interesting.
Off-hand bundling excess power cord so that it's shorter and kept away from interconnects seems seems like a good idea and I think most of mine aren't but in general the excess is on the floor. I'll do them next time I'm in there, it's tough because I can't get to the back of the system directly. But bundling the power cords and interconnects together??? Probably not a good idea for me at least since most of mine aren't shielded and the E coupling would wipe me out. But shielded ones may be another matter and that sure would reduce the local loop area but depending on how they lay could add a great deal of coupling between the line and interconnect which may be bad even with shielded cables. Again, how can you predict an uncontrolled system???
I do however believe in keeping the power cords, at least the safety grounds if they exist plugged into the same point as much as possible. Now I've not done measurements, even by ear, to support that but it just seems reasonable to me that you don't want stray signal currents wandering through your house wiring. My guess is when to couple and when to isolate just depends on too many things to be generally predictable so the best bet is to just try various configurations. If one piece of gear puts a lot of hash out the power cord then that one may work better isolated.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply that changing power cords, interconnect cables and all that was a bad thing, just that it probably doesn't have as much traction as trying to fix the problem more directly. But, it's a lot more practical and easy so I do the same thing. But, if I can't 'fix' a problem with a Z-bead, reconfiguring the wiring, etc I sure would delve into the gadgets where the problem really is than spending kilobucks hoping that some magic is going to cast it's spell upon my gear.
But speaking of magic, do you know much about headphone connectors? No, I'm being serious, quit laughing. Years ago I happened to discover by accident that some 1/8" to 1/4" adapters sound better than others. What the heck's going on? Well more recently I got tired of the headphone jack poking me in the gut on my newish laptop (what idiots would put the headphone output on the front?? My old one was on the side) and stopped by a radio shack to see if they had some suitable connectors to build a little jumper cable. (easier than losing weight) As it turned out they had the very thing I needed, a right angle 1/8" thingy. It works great, far more comfortable. But, are you ready for it? It has a negative affect on the sound. Grrrr. Any ideas?
Rick
"Probably not a good idea for me at least since most of mine aren't shielded and the E coupling would wipe me out."I think many of the pro cables I use are shielded but I also have many cheapo RCA's for the single ended stuff which aren't. I've meant to upgrade to coax or a shielded twisted pair eventually but haven't got there. The whole wire thing is something that is coming up the list at some point but for now I've just brute forced semi reasonable results by ensuring sufficient guage for the app and called it a day.
I expected noise due to intercable capacitance as well. I haven't noticed it being significant. I was expecting some 60Hz noise and heven't heard it. I probably need to do a spectral analysis of a noise capture before and after to really prove to myself it truly is below the noise floor. AS I say, maybe due to deafness or whatever. You might just want to try it for yourself. At the very least you'd offer another data point.
The upside is a certain pleasure I take in running my gear confidently when storms are moving through, a fairly regular Seattle area occurence. I haven't unplugged anything in fear for quite a while now, almost to a point of taunting mother nature to see what she can bring.
"But speaking of magic, do you know much about headphone connectors? ...It has a negative affect on the sound. Grrrr. Any ideas?"
What is the nature of the degradation in sound quality?
Some ideas that come to mind are stuff you've probably already thought of. Connector contact clamping force? Is the old 1/8th inch jack that sounds better perhaps of a slightly larger diameter? I assume you've addressed the possiblity of excess oxidation.
I don't know much about what others have found to work best and haven't done any investigating myself. I would expect a query on DIY could yield some opinions. I've noted that many folks there seem to have spent some time sweating about the decision of which RCA jacks to use. Maybe there is some knowledge about headphone jacks too. Also there is that other site. Headfi, or whatever, where the headphone tweakers all discuss their secrets.
Edit: after thinking about cable bundling in my system for a few nanoseconds longer I need to report that the portions of my system using the cheapo non shielded RCA cables really haven't been excersized much at all since bundling. It may be that the coupling hasn't been noticed by me since I haven't been listening to the gear very often it's effects would likely be most evident. Grain of salt.
Edits: 06/01/10
"What is the nature of the degradation in sound quality?"
I don't know. I'm really not very good at describing what I hear other that I don't think it's in the bass. Enjoyment wise it's the difference between ooo, and ahhh. Not very useful.
Thanks for the advice, I'll take a gander at head-fi and see if I can get some easy insights. I was thinking to try and duplicate the problem on the bench with everything out in the open and attempt to measure the differentials. Silly that something that trivial can affect the sound.
Rick
I am a skeptic. Where it comes to DBTs that are reported here. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I suspect two problems that affect the outcome of DBTs affect any type of test. Those problems being: (1) general lack of listening ability/experience and the inability to put together a sufficiently resolving system ("all thumbs" syndrome), even with unlimited funds. It's a knowledge/skill thing.
Too bad they won't accept SBT's. I've been involved with several of those, with positive outcomes. DBT's are too difficult to perform. But I guess rules are rules. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive! ;)
We are in agreement. And what is more, we are in agreement with jj, the master of DBT tests as applied to audio CODECs. You can find some of his recent comments on these matters at the Womb forum, where he uses the handle of "Darth_Fader".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There might be a little misunderstanding since I view DBTs as wildly unreliable for the reasons I gave. Maybe I didn't make that clear.Do you think that strong proponents of DBTs view themselves as highly skilled listeners and very capable when it comes to assembling a highly resolving audio system? LOL
Edits: 05/28/10
The problem with DBTs is that they are very time consuming, difficult and expensive to do properly and have limited applicability for certain questions. Unless there is a serious economic basis there is unlikely to be funding to support proper testing. Those who understand the problems will appreciate this and if they are honest they will also explain where this kind of testing is inappropriate.
In particular, for a negative test to have any value whatsoever there have to be serious efforts to show that the test equipment, test materials and test protocols have sufficient resolution to be able to create and resolve any differences being investigated. In addition the listeners need to be qualified, trained and their qualification and training proven. This is all well known by real scientists, but not by typical audiophiles of the objectivist persuasion, most of whom appear to be second or third rate engineers and certainly not scientists.
Regardless of the quality of any test results, the nature of human belief and knowledge is that it remains impervious to facts in the absence of some kind of theoretical model to hold the facts. Any student of the history of science will appreciate this. I would be surprised if any audiophiles changed their allegiance as a result of any published reports of experiments conducted by others. In my opinion this represents perfectly rational behavior, particularly given the amount of dishonesty throughout society today in all fields, even including scientific research.
If there were real money in cables then perhaps there would be real experiments and real data.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
That's a good one!
I wonder if a certificate from De Vries will suffice. Or, "I used to be a reviewer." LOL!
This is part of the test protocol. If you are trying to prove that something can not be detected you have to calibrate the apparatus, which in this case includes the test subjects. This is well known by qualified scientists. The calibration and qualification processes become part of the experimental results and affect the conclusions drawn by the experimenter after reducing the experimental data. If a paper goes into a peer reviewed journal the referees are the ones to do any "certification". Or the readers after the paper has been published, if they are so inclined.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Not only this, repeatable experiments at the limit of detection (LOD) need to be carried out as well as a limit of quantification (LOQ) if possible. With human subjects as the "detectors" of the phenomena this is difficult at best.
In order to prove that a system is capable detecting and resolving what it is proposed to be detecting/resolving it must pass at least a rudimentary system suitability test and/or basic validation.
What this generally involves is the following:
For a qualitative analysis similar items must be tested together to determine if they are separable from each other (in chromatography are two compounds separable or do the come out as only one peak). For audio this could be a sensitivity to different kinds of distortion and not just one kind. Determining which listeners are sensitive to different distortions and if they can distinguish between different kinds of distortion.
An element to be detected that is tested at different levels (in chemistry this would be at different concentrations for a quantitative analysis) in order to establish if the response to differing levels is linear and if it is linear over how wide of a range. For audio this could taking the above distortions and supplying them in progressively lower levels until they are no longer detectable. Some way of giving a quantitative numbering to what they hear needs to be developed so that linearity or lack thereof can be evaluated.
Accuracy would need to be evaluated after training. This could be by assigning each level of a particular distortion with a number and when the individual hears that level they can correctly give it the right level number. They should have to be able to do this with all distortions presented as part of the validation. If a signal is given that is in-between levels then they should be able to determine that it is in-between two levels, etc.
Once this has been shown then the reproducibility of the detection must be shown. This will establish the variance of an individual "detector" as well as establishing the variance between different individuals to different distortions at different levels. As you can see this could easily become a multi-variate problem...and non-linear at that.
Good luck calibrating and qualifying human listeners, it is quite probable that the intra and inter person variance will be so high that meaningful statistical analysis will not be possible. Maybe we get lucky and one individual is so good that he/she can be used for a study, which will of course only be valid within the range of that individual's validated hearing range.
It may be that the most repeatable and accurate listener is not the one with the highest sensitivity to certain distortions and that their LOD is not as good as others who are less predictable.
In analytical science, we always know there are things there that we cannot detect. For some things that is irrelevant but for others it doesn't mean there are not real consequences. Take detection of heavy metals, for example. There is essentially no safe levels of lead and mercury and once upon a time analytical science was unable to detect levels that today would be considered unacceptable. Now, the detection limits are sub parts per billion (ppb) and that is STILL considered not safe. This means that there are undetected levels that may still impact human health.
Audio has a similar conundrum, distortion levels of some gear are vanishingly low according to sensitive test instruments; however, there still seems to be an impact on what we hear. Is that because there are some kinds of distortions for which there is no "safe" levels??
Goodie! I look forward to being peer reviewed by AES or Acoustical Society of America. LOL!
Cheers
You can always start your own journal. Or submit to JIR.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I have no real urge to prove anything. Ironic, ain't it?
Cheers
You must have missed my journal reference. Here's a link to a sample article.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I can certainly understand taking placebos strictly for the side effects.
LOL
.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: