Jump to content
IGNORED

Ethan Winer Null Test For WIre


jtwrace

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

In addition, you need a 180 degree inverted version of that signal. It must be exactly 180 degrees out of phase, no more, no less! That means taking a signal and running it through an inverting op-amp stage with unity gain, won't work. The delay of the signal going through the op-amp is enough to make sure that the resulting inverted signal is delayed from the original signal. You must have two identical op-amp stages, both with exactly the same gain (unit is fine) with one used as a non-inverting stage and the other an inverting stage.

Or just swap the wires around.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Start looking at 24:15 fairly to the end. See how he moves the cables, tells about that not making a difference as long as they are "laid somewhere" it won't make a difference for any of two cables, ignoring the fact that it makes a hell of a difference where they will be laid (he looks at it himself), he can't imagine that possibly shielding may help to what he shows there himself but is still persistent in that the cables measure the same. "This is just stuff picking up from the computer". And somehow I must be satisfied with the following "the wires are just the same".

 

I don't like modern classical recordings. At all. Too many times I hear poor recording practices, and it irritates me, strongly. I mentioned this in another forum, and an owner of a specialist recording studio agreed with me; he said, in the "old days" the engineers took great care with the setting up of the equipment, made sure every cable path was laid out in the best possible way, were very particular about the "small stuff". By contrast, these days, "time is money!" - just get everything in place, and record as quickly as you can; the equipment will take care of everything, 9_9.

Link to comment

It would take great skill and effort to set up an experiment which genuinely detects significant differences between two versions of a rig, where only a "tiny" element was altered between the two. Which means it never gets done. So, in the real world one uses one's ears, which are extremely capable of detecting variations - provided there is a hint of open mindedness in the picture ... ^_^.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I don't like modern classical recordings. At all. Too many times I hear poor recording practices, and it irritates me, strongly. I mentioned this in another forum, and an owner of a specialist recording studio agreed with me; he said, in the "old days" the engineers took great care with the setting up of the equipment, made sure every cable path was laid out in the best possible way, were very particular about the "small stuff". By contrast, these days, "time is money!" - just get everything in place, and record as quickly as you can; the equipment will take care of everything, 9_9.

He must mean the extreme "old days" because by the mid 1960's Every major purveyor of classical music had gone multi-track/multi-mike, often with a microphone and a tape recorder track for each instrument in the orchestra! By the end of the 'sixties, Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra (for instance) were being recorded, first by Columbia and then by RCA Victor with two 48 track tape recorders locked together by SMPTE time codes. That gave them, for one performance of one work, 2 huge 2-inch wide reels containing 94 separate tracks (the remaining two were SMPTE)! It sounded awful! They did it because the thinking at the time was that the "talent" (conductor and orchestra members) was the most expensive part of the enterprise, by far. So the prudent (I.E. cheapest) thing to do was to set up a forest of microphones; one in front of each chair, then bring the "talent" in, record the piece to 94 channels, and then get the talent out of there as quickly as possible. Then the producers and engineers could fiddle with the mix till their little hearts content. Also, the "quadraphonic" craze was starting and record executives figured that if we had these performances broken up onto 94 separate tracks, they could re-mix it for quad without the talent having to come back in for a re-record. The problem is, the resultant releases sounded about as much like music as petroleum jelly tastes like Jello! 

Now in the fifties, the dawn of stereo sound, if that's what your recording studio owner meant when he said the "old days", he was right. Bob Fine of Mercury, Lewis Leyton of RCA Victor, and free-lancer Bert Whyte (Everest and Vanguard Records  to name two) et al, were that meticulous and their recordings show it by passing the test of time. Some of these recordings are the very best stereo recordings ever made and many of them are still considered show-stoppers and keep getting re-released every time there's a new "higher - Fi" format coming down the pike. 

George

Link to comment
1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

He must mean the extreme "old days" because by the mid 1960's Every major purveyor of classical music had gone multi-track/multi-mike, often with a microphone and a tape recorder track for each instrument in the orchestra!

 

Bruce B is the chap, here's a thread he kicked off talking about pro recording of DSD, with a link to his site: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/dsd-battle-royale.11944/

 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Could one not accomplish the same by sending a mono signal over left and right wires to an ADC converter, feeding the results to a sound program, and flip one of the channels?  This would eliminate all the extra boxes.

You can, but what you'll find is there are more differences in the two channels of the DAC than in the wire. 

 

I've done some null testing.  You can do a wire and record the result in a loopback DAC/ADC setup.  That way the clock is the same.  Compare it to itself a few minutes later.  Get pretty much just the thermal noise.  You can swap wires and get about the same result between two different wires (if they are the same length and have about the same propagation percent).  If you try one wire versus itself between channels the residual after nulling is greater. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

IME, the impact of triboelectric behaviours is not heard as a "thing" - rather, it degrades the perceived quality; one goes from a lively, "sparkling", energising experience, to a somewhat dull, listless, boring presentation - the "life" is sucked out of the music; you have "why am I listening to this crap?!" thoughts - and decide to do something more interesting ...

Link to comment
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

IME, the impact of triboelectric behaviours is not heard as a "thing" - rather, it degrades the perceived quality; one goes from a lively, "sparkling", energising experience, to a somewhat dull, listless, boring presentation - the "life" is sucked out of the music; you have "why am I listening to this crap?!" thoughts - and decide to do something more interesting ...

Poppycock Frank!

 

The level of such noise was around -86 dbV in my test with some of the worst cables I could find for tribo-effects.  This is when I physically grabbed and bent the cable back and forth.  Soundwaves, even vibration from a subwoofer at low frequencies will never get close to this level at all.  Unless yours jump up and bend at 90 degrees you aren't hearing these effects.  They are far too low in level.  Plain simple and that is about that.  

 

If you were talking microphone cables used during recording or maybe, maybe as tone arm cable for MC cartridge use it might become something that maybe could be heard.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Unfortunately, no. How material behaviours that seem so low in level, as regards being measurable, can have such an audible impact I don't understand to this day - yet unless I address this area my SQ is never "good enough". My first good rig suffered from this, in hindsight, but I was not aware of such factors at the time; and never resolved it.

 

I regularly visit a local audio "buddy" - and often find when I first walk in that the SQ is markedly down; we go round in circles for quite a while, and then after some frustrating hours discover that something has been positioned badly, so that "inappropriate touching" is occurring - Eureka!! SQ is restored to what it should be ...

Link to comment
13 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Yep and we even know how to test for things like triboelectric noise.

 

You should know better btw and I think you are being purposefully dishonest in regards to the title off the thread.

 

If I'm doing a null test and I take cable A and suspend it across an open span and hang a weight and let it loose I'm going to generate energy. That's going to travel across and it will show in the null test.

I never suggested one could not measure these things, my only point was that there is more to cable design than L, C, & R.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
12 hours ago, mansr said:

What do ship propulsion systems have to do with audio?

Hahaha!  Spell correct strikes again.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
On 11/11/2018 at 3:50 PM, mintakax said:

Please someone knowledgable comment on this ? 

 

Sure.  Ethan Winer wrote a book entitled "The Audio Expert" and claims that all components and all cables sound identical as all retain the fidelity of the input signal.  Ethan also claims that if your playback system does not sound like the live performance, it's due solely to the placement of the recording mic's at the live performance.

 

Kinda' silly if you ask me but 'nough said.

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Sure.  Ethan Winer wrote a book entitled "The Audio Expert" and claims that all components and all cables sound identical as all retain the fidelity of the input signal.  Ethan also claims that if your playback system does not sound like the live performance, it's due solely to the placement of the recording mic's at the live performance.

 

Kinda' silly if you ask me but 'nough said.

Well we just heard from one of those not in the know. 

 

Show me where Ethan has said: "if your playback system does not sound like the live performance, it's due solely to the placement of the recording mic's at the live performance."

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Ask him yourself.  But if he also claims all cables sound the same and all components sound the same cuz they all retain the fidelity of the input signal doesn't seem to phase you, do you really think his response (whatever it may be) to your question, should you ask, would phase you?

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, shtf said:

Ask him yourself.  But if he also claims all cables sound the same and all components sound the same cuz they all retain the fidelity of the input signal doesn't seem to phase you, do you really think his response (whatever it may be) to your question, should you ask, would phase you?

You are misrepresenting him badly.  If you don't agree with him that is fine.  But you shouldn't put false statements or opinions that aren't his to his name.  

strawman_kit.thumb.jpg.cffe305c035631a1b934e1db57718dcf.jpg

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

We know

 

Another thing I don't understand is why some people have an innate compulsion to be unpleasant ... one still can devise solutions to issues without having Full Understanding; mankind has reached its present status with remarkable little understanding of the complexities, for most of the journey ...

Link to comment
2 hours ago, shtf said:

Sure.  Ethan Winer wrote a book entitled "The Audio Expert" and claims that all components and all cables sound identical as all retain the fidelity of the input signal.

 

Ethan is right as far as measurement is concerned but spatial hearing encompasses interdisciplinary field that also involves psychology, engineering and physics among others. Most here only talks about engineering and physics but overlook the most important element of this hobby, i.e. we listen music for psychological reasons.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, shtf said:

I've engaged in more "meaningful monologue" than I care to admit with "The Audio Expert".  Do your homework before you choose to follow somebody.  There are other audio forums you know.

 

 

I'm not following anyone. I do agree with many of his ideas. So far in this thread you've not represented any of his ideas. You have misrepresented some of them. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

A 30-minute video to explain why all competently designed interconnects sound the same.... except they don't. Fail! ?

Main System: QNAP TS-451+ NAS > Silent Angel Bonn N8 > Sonore opticalModule Deluxe v2 > Corning SMF with Finisar FTLF1318P3BTL SFPs > Uptone EtherREGEN > exaSound PlayPoint and e32 Mk-II DAC > Meitner MTR-101 Plus monoblocks > Bamberg S5-MTM sealed standmount speakers. 

Crown XLi 1500 powering  AV123 Rocket UFW10 stereo subwoofers

Upgraded power on all switches, renderer and DAC. 

 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, fas42 said:

Unfortunately, no. How material behaviours that seem so low in level, as regards being measurable, can have such an audible impact I don't understand to this day - yet unless I address this area my SQ is never "good enough". My first good rig suffered from this, in hindsight, but I was not aware of such factors at the time; and never resolved it.

 

I regularly visit a local audio "buddy" - and often find when I first walk in that the SQ is markedly down; we go round in circles for quite a while, and then after some frustrating hours discover that something has been positioned badly, so that "inappropriate touching" is occurring - Eureka!! SQ is restored to what it should be ...

Poppycock and balderdash again, Frank! Inappropriate touching indeed!

George

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...