|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.211.134
In Reply to: RE: You're really grasping at straws. posted by Pat D on June 20, 2010 at 16:53:41
Tom has shot down you're contentions about common grounds
For speaker wires, perhaps. And admits that his test is control-free. He has no idea as to whether or not the box dumbs down the test. We'll set validity aside. He continues to speculate about interconnects leading to active power amps where Frank Van Alstine has different experience. Test question: what happens when you plug interconnects from a powered up preamp to a powered up power amplifier? Got a clue? Can you tell us any manufacturer's who recommend this procedure?
Most significantly, you haven't shown controlled testing to show that power cords (and some other things) make an audible difference in a sensible application.
Who gives a crap? Certainly not the recording and audio professionals (not in the cable business) who use them every day. They don't share your lack of exposure and confidence in what you hear. Join Tom in your speculation all you please.
All you can appeal is worthless anecdotal evidence.
As opposed to Tom's non-experiential speculation? LOL!
If you complain about blind tests that have been done
I continue to point out they are control free and largely worthless. Do find a test involving a box where a control was first conducted on the box in situ. Best of luck to you. Are you really interested in what is scientifically valid? It would seem - NOT.
rw
Follow Ups:
You throw out the term, "worthless," without specifying the objective, which makes the usage essentially meaningless except emotively. An evaluation of the test implies it has an objective. When are able to figure that out, maybe then you can talk sensibly about what is "scientifically valid." Otherwise, no.
If your objective is to reinforce your prejudices about cables, then no doubt you would find most DBTs done as worthless for that purpose. So what? We already know you don't like them.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
When are able to figure that out, maybe then you can talk sensibly about what is "scientifically valid."
then get back with us. The assumption that placing an additional component in a test system tying together multiple cables has no effect is just that - an assumption. Comprende?
Apparently, you already realize how stupid switching ICs between pre and power amps is - unless of course they have common grounds to prevent profound switching pops. Good!
rw
Why don't you include the context of what I said, which was:
"An evaluation of the test implies it has an objective. When are able to figure that out, maybe then you can talk sensibly about what is "scientifically valid.""
You haven't told us about the objectives, no doubt for the good reason that you can see that it undermines your arguments.
You then come up with a straw man:
"The assumption that placing an additional component in a test system tying together multiple cables has no effect is just that - an assumption. Comprende?"
No one is making such an assumption.
But if you prefer expensive power cords, interconnects, and speaker cables, go right ahead and buy them. No one is stopping you.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> "The assumption that placing an additional component in a test system tying together multiple cables has no effect is just that - an assumption. Comprende?"
No one is making such an assumption. <
Then I find it odd that none of the ABX proponents has tested it to see what effect it does have, if any.
As E-Stat says, such lack of knowledge truly does make ABX a parlor game. Possibly cute, but ultimately pointless.
“Then I find it odd that none of the ABX proponents has tested it to see what effect it does have, if any.”
In the testing I described, all the participants had a chance to get used to their wires, had a chance to pick out the best, most revealing music passages, were all accustomed to whatever changes if any the switcher caused and could still “hear” their wires clearly when they said they were ready (to be “blinded by science” or rather having the knowledge of which was which was eliminated leaving only the aural inputs).
Nothing at all changed in the test except the loss of the little lamp which said which cable was which.
Now, here is a case where nothing the switcher did was any different, nothing the cables did was any different ONLY the loss of the identity changed, ONLY that was responsible for the apparently large change in hearing acuity.
One is left asking, when is it desirable to separate the domains, the customary view of hearing as an experience as opposed to what one can genuinely detect with ones ears alone.
I think the difference is important if you’re engineering a product as you are only concerned with what others might hear from your design without knowing you or your approach, while the user may not care at all why something appears to work, why they need to wear their lucky underwear to an important meeting.
I cannot say I have tested exotic power cables, this niche is a fairly recent event in aftermarket add on’ s likely having more to do with standardized power connectors and a marketing opportunity than manufactures cheating the design with a insufficient cord or plug.
Theoretically, given the size of the power distribution system, except for the absence of, should not make the kind of difference that would be revealed in this kind of test.
Until someone does that test, one can’t say with certainty which domain the claimed effect is in.
I can say that a proper power supply would normally not be subject to reasonable amounts of crud on the AC line, in test equipment a very high degree of immunity is required, price point and the designers skill is the issue.
Best,
Tom
> In the testing I described, all the participants had a chance to get used to their wires, had a chance to pick out the best, most revealing music passages, were all accustomed to whatever changes if any the switcher caused and could still “hear” their wires clearly when they said they were ready (to be “blinded by science” or rather having the knowledge of which was which was eliminated leaving only the aural inputs). <
Sounds like a DBT-within-a-DBT is needed. Or maybe a "bias-cure-within-a-bias-cure", would be better stated. :)
...were all accustomed to whatever changes if any the switcher caused
The only way that would be possible is to compare listening through the switch to listening without the switch and extra cabling. The box is used or it is not. That would be the necessary control to replace the assumption set.
His main point is that folks tend to focus on visual cues. If proving that was the objective of the test, then it succeeded. If the objective, however, was to objectively compare the signal wires, then it failed.
rw
"The only way that would be possible is to compare listening through the switch to listening without the switch and extra cabling. The box is used or it is not. That would be the necessary control to replace the assumption set."
Alternately, if one were to assert that covering a cable with magic marker changed it, one is stuck either measuring the effect from the standpoint of electronic theory OR by asking if anyone hears any difference.
The electronic theory approach used to design things says if the effects are small enough, they will not be detectable, the idea with the switcher is that to do this test one must compare so what matters is the stray elements are very small as they were (like a few inches of cable).
The point is that once no one knew which was which, the differences that they heard went away, that part was a blind test, if you really can't tell which is which or a difference between A and B using only your ears, the differences are very small..
The usefulness was in showing everyone just how large even dominating what they expect or know was relative to the actual / detectable acoustic changes the different speaker cables imparted relative to zip cord.
That part was huge, totally unexpected and humbling for some who were totally "sure" about their cables.
One can debate everything makes a difference even a flyspeck of dust in the room and it does at some level, but until one removes prior knowledge from the test, one is not measuring what your ears hear but an opinion which encompasses what you know and believe as well..
The point is that once no one knew which was which, the differences that they heard went away, that part was a blind test, if you really can't tell which is which or a difference between A and B using only your ears, the differences are very small..
Do you have any interest with pursuing the differences that are found with cabling? Do you honestly think that Wal-Mart zip cord is indistinguishable from Nordost Odin on a superlative system? What is your initial bias?
That part was huge, totally unexpected and humbling for some who were totally "sure" about their cables.
Once you've made the unproven assumption that loading the amplifier with both cables using the box had no effect. Who knows - perhaps the cables tested were no better than zip cord in the test system. BTW, what was the test system? Could others duplicate your test for verification? I use low DC cables because electrostats are more sensitive to both C and L. Others are not.
...but until one removes prior knowledge from the test, one is not measuring what your ears hear but an opinion which encompasses what you know and believe as well.
Do you think this concept is under debate?
rw
“Who knows - perhaps the cables tested were no better than zip cord in the test system. BTW, what was the test system? Could others duplicate your test for verification? I use low DC cables because electrostats are more sensitive to both C and L. Others are not.”
First, I understand your skepticism. Second, in particular electrostatic speakers require a low inductance as a capacitive load will form a second order low pass filter. Understand, I am not saying cables do nothing, they do something to be sure and what they do is in part related to the length.
I have a tower I use to measure speakers up in the air so that there are no significant reflections into the bass range. I need to do this in order to design the crossovers I use which do not result in phase shift, the result being something like a full range ESS, not spreading a signal out in time.
A hundred feet of good mic cable is no real problem but a hundred feet of speaker cable is a real problem. I need to have the measurement error it adds to be very small even at 100 feet. I evaluated all the likely choices but none had low enough series L, normal extension cord would produce an error/ roll off of 2 dB at 20KHz with accordant phase shift, TOO large.
I ended up making a cable from a pair of low loss coax cables (a variant of RG-9913) cross coupled.
That 100 foot cable pair ended up having the L and C in the range of the 10 foot kimber cable sample I had while having about 1/8 the Rdc. If you want to try a theoretically blameless cable, the stuff (the modern low loss RG-8’s extended family) is dirt cheap compared to audio hose, the electrical parameters are very good, the design scientific.
If you have a ham fest locally, you can pick up usable lengths of this stuff for a few bucks, look for the stranded center conductor which is more flexible.
I have a tower...
Was the speaker cable test using the box conducted with the speakers on the tower with 100' of run for each cable?
rw
"Was the speaker cable test using the box conducted with the speakers on the tower with 100' of run for each cable?"
No, for the listening tests, the cables were what the attendees brought and varied from 10 feet to about 30 feet (10 meters i would guess)in length.
For the measurement set up, each cable type was measured open and close circuit to determine the series L, R and parallel C, ALL of these properties are directly proportional to the length so one the values 'per foot" are determined, then the effect of any length out to about 1/8 wavelength can be calculated. At 20KHz, 1/8 wl is still well over a mile so there is no transmission line effect to be concerned with in audio cables normally..
Interestingly, one cable type was significantly worse than lamp cord, that was the generic round hardware store extension cord. It has much more space between conductors and so had by far the highest inductance per foot.
That series inductance can only exist when there is uncoupled flux between the two conductors (which carry equal but opposing currents), the self shielding of the coax apraoach or the weaving (and extension of twisted pair) greatly reduces the un-coupled flux which is why these types have low series L.
Best,
Tom
with the last post was to ascertain your test system to be able to put it into context. Source. Amplification. Speakers. Program material. Cabling not under comparison.For the measurement set up...
Was that done first without box and then WITH BOX and other cable(s) connected?
I was more interested with actual measurements, not calculated values in a vacuum.
rw
Edits: 06/22/10
> His main point is that folks tend to focus on visual cues. If proving that was the objective of the test, then it succeeded. If the objective, however, was to objectively compare the signal wires, then it failed. <
Precisely.
I'm not against blind testing at all. I'm not even against double blind if it can be pulled off properly, and not even against the box if it can be proven that it works as advertised. In other words, I'd like that same stuff I get asked for repeatedly... evidence.
is that one is limited by a set assumptions that can omit causal factors.
Theoretically, given the size of the power distribution system, except for the absence of, should not make the kind of difference that would be revealed in this kind of test.
The "miles and miles" argument misses the relevant points. Here is some commentary from near ten years ago from an engineer who used to work at GamuT
Ole's comments
Perhaps all of the award winning recording artists, engineers and audiophiles who have used aftermarket cords for years are just experiencing mass hysteria. Or...
rw
Ole's comments reflect traditional power supply engineering.
I have seen sketchy power supplies in audio before but think about it this way;
If you made test equipment, part of the requirement is that the ac power have minimal or no effect on the measurements OR what your measuring.
If you examine either HP or tektronics test gear from the 80's, that is pretty much what you have.
Now, do you think any of them would have not spent some extra bucks for better /easier compliance, by using a special cord?
Put your self in a hifi mfr's shoes, your interested in the maximum performance possible, you buy parts in huge quantities, would you short on the design of your expensive amplifiers by putting on an inferior AC cord? NO you don't, you use the connectors and hardware that looks like what is expected given the cost.
That leaves the sellers of aftermarket power cables. What motive do they have, what ability to analyze what is needed do they have the original mfr didn't?
I am not saying one can't hear a power cables, but ideally you shouldn't be able to and if so, there is the question of which domain it may be in.
Put your self in a hifi mfr's shoes, your interested in the maximum performance possible, you buy parts in huge quantities, would you short on the design of your expensive amplifiers by putting on an inferior AC cord? NO you don't, you use the connectors and hardware that looks like what is expected given the cost.
I have spoken with several directly on that matter and find a different answer than your assumption. I wouldn't use the term "short on the design" either. What Jud Barber, Luke Manley and Ole have said is they don't see the need to add cost to their products only for those who wish it. My forte is inventory management and stocking expensive power cables merely adds disproportionately to the overall cost. My GamuT CD-1 came delivered without a cord altogether. A basic, UL approved one would have been provided free upon request, but most users don't go that route. Using your logic, why don't amplifier and/or speaker manufacturers provide interconnects and speaker cabling? You certainly can't use the speaker without cables! What speaker wire do you include with purchase price with your designs?
rw
"Then I find it odd that none of the ABX proponents has tested it to see what effect it does have, if any."
Tell it to E. Brad Meyer.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> Tell it to E. Brad Meyer. <
Do you think he'd listen? Do you think he's at all curious as to whether the components under test are being compared to themselves instead of each other? Maybe, but one cannot tell from the post you linked.
No one is making such an assumption.
Except of course for guys like Roger Russell, Tom Noussaine, etc. Maybe Tom is different and couldn't care less if using a box invalidates any comparisons. Parlor games can be fun.
rw
"Except of course for guys like Roger Russell, Tom Noussaine, etc. Maybe Tom is different and couldn't care less if using a box invalidates any comparisons."
Just putting out names of people you disagree with does not establish your point. They are not a stupid as you seem to think they are.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
rw
Sadly, it in not possible to conduct a comparative test without switching between the two things under comparison.
While It is possible to have a person at each end to switch the physical cables, this is not as fast and as others doing blind testing have found, the people doing the switching can intentionally or more often unintentionally affect the test consistence with what they belive.
For example(s) cold fusion the conclusions from the Princeton University paranormal research (pear) work.
To remove that operator effect, a mechanical switcher was used, which from an engineering view would have added an insignificant alteration in the “in vs out” signals or amplifier loading.
One cannot make such a switch that has no effect in the most skeptical view, all one can do in the engineering view is make that alteration a very very small effect relative to the differences (between cable properties in this case) one is looking for.
Thus, having a switch which represented a few inches of the best cable under consideration, when that cable is 10 to 30 feet long, represents an insignificant effect.
Insignificant especially when compared to what the test (and other similar tests) generally revealed about how terribly strong the automatic “filling in the blanks” part of our conscious experience of “hearing” is, compared to what one can honestly draw from the acoustic signal alone.
This was generally humbling to the attendees, maybe like realizing one’s own “response curve” more or less followed the equal loudness contours instead of being FLAT. But, hey, that’s the only thing we are aware of, what we experience and like many things we know no differently until someone actually measures it.
Best,
Tom
Sadly, it in not possible to conduct a comparative test without switching between the two things under comparison.Uh, yeah. Do we have anyone in the audience who doesn't understand this? :)
While It is possible to have a person at each end to switch the physical cables, this is not as fast and as others doing blind testing have found, the people doing the switching can intentionally or more often unintentionally affect the test consistence with what they belive.
And the assumptions keep rolling in... I've used my wife (a university pharmacy professor) to proctor changes. First of all, she doesn't even know which cable should be "better". Secondly, and more importantly, I've left the room through one door and she enters through another where there is no opportunity for visual cues. And no, she doesn't stamp her foot once with one choice and twice for another. :)
Thus, having a switch which represented a few inches of the best cable under consideration, when that cable is 10 to 30 feet long, represents an insignificant effect.
Your response is a perfect example of the pitfalls of substituting assumptions for empirical data. The obvious concern is not the effect of a "few inches" of cable. It is that the switch exhibits crosstalk such that you are not comparing A with B. You are comparing AB with AB. All that you had to do to answer my repeated questions about first establishing a control is reply "No, I did not use a control. I assume that the box exhibits perfect isolation between the cables and that it has no possible effect on the outcome.
I guess your test system is likewise an irrelevant part of the test. I'll stop here since you seem to have difficulty with simple, direct answers. Thanks anyway!
rw
Edits: 06/22/10
> Secondly, and more importantly, I've left the room through one door and she enters through another where there is no opportunity for visual cues. And no, she doesn't stamp her foot once with one choice and twice for another. :) <
LOL!
I've found a similar method to work wonderfully. Doesn't require a switchbox, allows for long term listening and is foolproof. That's all that matters to me.
To be honest, I don’t know what you’re asking for, bare with me here, I am in engineering. When I say insignificant, to me that means something in particular, it doesn’t mean it’s gone but very small.
You ask about measurements, this is how one concludes what insignificant is relative to what your trying to measure, for electrical components I use one of these;
http://www.testequipmentconnection.com/index.php?main_page=search&search=4274A&gclid=CK3Ar9-StKICFQQMDQodfmWg5g
For networks, I use one of these;
http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/usedequipment/hewlettpackard/spectrumanalyzers/3562a.htm?gclid=CKiLiqmStKICFVD75wod2iBA4g
Or a TEF-20 to measure driver impedance curves as with the tower. Also, a network simulator program which with some steering can derive the equivalent circuits for most drivers and deal with a drivers as the load for a filter network etc.
It is relatively easy to measure the signal at each end of a cable too, even using music as the test signal, without a switcher too. That way if one is in doubt about the signal being altered and if it is according to network theory, one can examine the difference and see how close that is to predicted based on measured parameters.
AS for the listening system used back in the cable tests, the amplifiers were several, a threshold stasis (mine) a mcintosh 240, a QSC pl-236, in the amp listening a chevin something and several crowns were added.
The speakers were an early version of a full range horn product used in commercial sound.
The goal (for the last 12 years) was hi fidelity for a large group of people, all the problems one faces get worse as the size of the room increases. My solution was to make a full range horn system where all of the drivers combined coherently into one source with no lobes, no crossover phase shift, constant directivity and high output, all things desirable for home hifi too..
The closest “hifi speaker I have measured “in time” was a manger which was admittedly somewhat better than the SH-50. The SH-50 does go about 30 dB louder, two octaves lower and has about 1/1000 the distortion at livingroom listening levels and does reproduce a square wave “out front” for more than a decade spanning both crossovers. While not aimed at hifi, they are about as close as commercial sound has at the moment and a few have found their way into livingrooms, search here SH-50.
A more typical large scale “hifi” use;
http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?26261-IMAX-cinema-sound&p=265081
Best,
Tom Danley
rw
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: