PeterSt Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 24 minutes ago, Archimago said: Is it possible to subjectively assess something without an underlying "belief system"? Um, which is actually yours (and Mr Winer's, apparently). It doesn't matter at which level down you guys THINK that it can't matter, but over here it does. Maybe investigate dither ? (not that you wouldn't know) Kind people like you try to tell the world that any xyz down can't be audible and people believe you. Bring the message differently (like noise rides on the signal instead of being under it somewhere) and people might even believe you better. This whole null thing is the biggest misconception since, well, you ? Superdad 1 Lush^3-e Lush^2 Blaxius^2.5 Ethernet^3 HDMI^2 XLR^2 XXHighEnd (developer) Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer) Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer) Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier) Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted November 14, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 14, 2018 29 minutes ago, barrows said: Nope! What your point of view does not take into account is the many years of training associated with my use of listening tests. The fact is, that biases, and "belief systems" can both be overcome by training. I have been evaluating audio systems/components both through measures and by listening (and often correlating the two) for long enough to have learned of, and learned how to deal with these pitfalls. Anyone can suggest that what I hear is in error, I know it is not (in this case). Often I do listening tests and can discern no audible difference, often I do listening tests and can discern a difference, but cannot determine which (A or B) is actually better, and often there is a clear discernible improvement between A and B. I do not report on differences which are too close to call. In this case, the difference was of a level where one wire was audibly better without question, the difference was of a magnitude that only required a few seconds of playback to determine. It did not require multiple repeats to discern (although I did repeat a few times, and switch up the order a bit to confuse things), or trying different sample tracks. Considering differences, have you ever listened to the differences between digital filters? I find those tests maddening as while there are differences, they are very subtle to me. i find different filters do have meaningful differences, but they are very hard to evaluate, and rarely would I mention them on forums as they are so subtle to me, and I suspect, quite system dependent. The differences between these two wires are not at all like the difference between digital filters, they are significant, easily repeatable, and anyone with ears would hear them right away given a decent system context. Okay. If the above is true: 1. Biases can be overcome with training. 2. The "difference was of a level where one wire was audibly better without question, the difference was of a magnitude that only required a few seconds of playback to determine. It did not require multiple repeats to discern (although I did repeat a few times, and switch up the order a bit to confuse things), or trying different sample tracks" - clearly obvious. Then why do we not have evidence from blind testing results or for that matter from objective testing? Why is there no convergence of evidence? Why only subjective claims rather than verifiable demonstration of effect? Surely by now, we would have a number of research papers demonstrating the effect of different XLR cables, and companies competing and using objective methodology to demonstrate efficacy. This is particularly perplexing since you feel digital filters have only subtle effects compared to cables yet they are easily objectively measurable (eg. recent post)... Yet cable effects are somehow not measurable (based on subjectivist claims) but are much more obvious and audibly different according to your experience!? Something here doesn't seem to make sense ?. blue2, esldude, sarvsa and 1 other 4 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
barrows Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 21 minutes ago, Archimago said: Okay. If the above is true: 1. Biases can be overcome with training. 2. The "difference was of a level where one wire was audibly better without question, the difference was of a magnitude that only required a few seconds of playback to determine. It did not require multiple repeats to discern (although I did repeat a few times, and switch up the order a bit to confuse things), or trying different sample tracks" - clearly obvious. Then why do we not have evidence from blind testing results or for that matter from objective testing? Why is there no convergence of evidence? Why only subjective claims rather than verifiable demonstration of effect? Surely by now, we would have a number of research papers demonstrating the effect of different XLR cables, and companies competing and using objective methodology to demonstrate efficacy. This is particularly perplexing since you feel digital filters have only subtle effects compared to cables yet they are easily objectively measurable (eg. recent post)... Yet cable effects are somehow not measurable (based on subjectivist claims) but are much more obvious and audibly different according to your experience!? Something here doesn't seem to make sense ?. Years ago Nordost invested a not insubstantial amount of money in doing null testing of their cables using actual music program material. Indeed, the null testing did show differences, but the same folks, who deny cable sonic differences and demand objective evidence, dismissed the testing as flawed (despite it being carried out by an independent third party defense contractor expert in SONAR analysis). So eventually the project was withdrawn as the same so called objectivists preferred to continue with their "belief" rather than accept the scientific proof. Although, we do see differences in measured results of L, C, and R for cables which publish them, I have not heard of much made in terms of correlating these aspects of cable design with sonics. I have never suggested that cable differences are unmeasurable, in fact I am certain they are quite measurable. What measurements would I like to see, perhaps velocity of propagation at many different frequencies, perhaps dialectric effect measurements, perhaps microphonic measurements. There are lots of measurements one could do, and there are some cable companies which do these measurements internally, but do not publish them. The reason measurements such as these are usually not published is because the customer would not know how to interpret them, and they could just cause confusion, and OTOH, the customer can often easily hear the differences, and that is what matters to them. One has to understand that few customers have the technical background to make heads or tails of measurements like these. Additionally, I am not suggesting that all high end cables are legit and awesome and worth what some charge for them. But I do know that there are some high end cables which perform notably better than some of the more basic alternatives, and certainly all wires do not sound the same. 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 | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 URL to the Nordost study? also, are we talking about speaker cables or about interconnects? if the latter, RCA or balanced? Link to comment
gmgraves Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 16 hours ago, STC said: It has everything to do how we perceive sound. The influence of price, reputation of the brand, looks and peer approval all these play a part in the subjective experience. Under a controlled experiment, there should not be any difference but reverse the experiment and see if the psychological effect plays a role. While that is likely true, it's irrelevant. In the case of interconnects we are discussing the fact that a null test absolutely shows differences in cables by stripping away every characteristic of a pair of cables except for the differences. If the null test shows that there is nothing left, no matter how much one amplifies the difference signal. That means there is no difference signal and thus there is no difference between the two cables being tested. Sure a lot of people are dead sure that they hear differences in various pieces of equipment, and I know from experience that doing a null test in front of them and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no difference between the two test subjects (whatever they might be), that the "true believer" will continue to believe his pre-conceived conclusions about the devices under test. It's irrational, to be sure, but people are entitled to their irrational belief system as long as said belief system doesn't intrude on others. George Link to comment
Sonicularity Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 29 minutes ago, Archimago said: This is particularly perplexing since you feel digital filters have only subtle effects compared to cables yet they are easily objectively measurable (eg. recent post)... Yet cable effects are somehow not measurable (based on subjectivist claims) but are much more obvious and audibly different according to your experience!? Something here doesn't seem to make sense ?. I don't find it perplexing as both are more than likely imaginary differences. I consider both cables and digital filters to be audibly transparent from one another except in pathological scenarios. These differences discussed have not been shown to be real with regards to the items under test. If something is creating a distinct difference, it certainly would not be the cables that measure identically with regards to LCR. Look elsewhere for the culprit. One cannot see the filter in a conventional sense, but I'm willing to bet that if the filter change included an audible "click," the differences between any two would become just as apparent as any two cables with different appearances and costs. Link to comment
Popular Post Ralf11 Posted November 14, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, Sonicularity said: I don't find it perplexing as both are more than likely imaginary differences. I consider both cables and digital filters to be audibly transparent from one another except in pathological scenarios. These differences discussed have not been shown to be real with regards to the items under test. If something is creating a distinct difference, it certainly would not be the cables that measure identically with regards to LCR. Look elsewhere for the culprit. One cannot see the filter in a conventional sense, but I'm willing to bet that if the filter change included an audible "click," the differences between any two would become just as apparent as any two cables with different appearances and costs. I bet I can design an interconnect cable that will eff up the sound. And, I am certain that a competent EE can do so. Sonicularity and esldude 2 Link to comment
Sonicularity Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: I bet I can design an interconnect cable that will eff up the sound. And, I am certain that a competent EE can do so. Would that difference also appear in typical measurements that many could identify with a cheap multimeter? If the cable is designed to be a straight wire for audio implementations, it should not have a "sound" that is identifiable. Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted November 14, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 14, 2018 1 hour ago, barrows said: Nope! What your point of view does not take into account is the many years of training associated with my use of listening tests. The fact is, that biases, and "belief systems" can both be overcome by training. I have been evaluating audio systems/components both through measures and by listening (and often correlating the two) for long enough to have learned of, and learned how to deal with these pitfalls. Anyone can suggest that what I hear is in error, I know it is not (in this case). Often I do listening tests and can discern no audible difference, often I do listening tests and can discern a difference, but cannot determine which (A or B) is actually better, and often there is a clear discernible improvement between A and B. I do not report on differences which are too close to call. In this case, the difference was of a level where one wire was audibly better without question, the difference was of a magnitude that only required a few seconds of playback to determine. It did not require multiple repeats to discern (although I did repeat a few times, and switch up the order a bit to confuse things), or trying different sample tracks. Considering differences, have you ever listened to the differences between digital filters? I find those tests maddening as while there are differences, they are very subtle to me. i find different filters do have meaningful differences, but they are very hard to evaluate, and rarely would I mention them on forums as they are so subtle to me, and I suspect, quite system dependent. The differences between these two wires are not at all like the difference between digital filters, they are significant, easily repeatable, and anyone with ears would hear them right away given a decent system context. I've been listening to sound with my ears since I was born. No one has more experience than me. Well except for people older than me. You can trust me with my unverified, unverifiable pronouncements of sound differences. Enough said. Now I'm not denying you can be trained to spot differences or that particular experience can allow one person to hear what another doesn't. I also know you can convince yourself of hearing a difference when one simply doesn't exist. Biases cannot be fully overcome with training. They can be mitigated. When one does one's own training most often you'll be cementing biases in place if there is no outside verification. Such pronouncements aren't worth the time it took to type them into the forum. Sunflower_sutra and Ralf11 1 1 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
esldude Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 23 minutes ago, Sonicularity said: Would that difference also appear in typical measurements that many could identify with a cheap multimeter? If the cable is designed to be a straight wire for audio implementations, it should not have a "sound" that is identifiable. While true there need be no sound of an audio wire, Ralf's point is one can be designed. There is no good reason to do so in general, but it is possible. Imagine boxes with some L and C components in them that really do sound different. 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
esldude Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 39 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: URL to the Nordost study? also, are we talking about speaker cables or about interconnects? if the latter, RCA or balanced? I don't have it handy, I believe there were one or more threads discussing it here at the time. You'll find posts by me questioning what they did. 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
esldude Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 https://nordost.com/downloads/NewApproachesToAudioMeasurement.pdf Most of the links in this thread from the testing have been removed. The testing promised much more results in the future, and wouldn't you know it they never materialized. There was other more in depth discussion somewhere here on CA. Hugo9000 1 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
Popular Post Archimago Posted November 14, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 14, 2018 41 minutes ago, Sonicularity said: I don't find it perplexing as both are more than likely imaginary differences. I consider both cables and digital filters to be audibly transparent from one another except in pathological scenarios. These differences discussed have not been shown to be real with regards to the items under test. If something is creating a distinct difference, it certainly would not be the cables that measure identically with regards to LCR. Look elsewhere for the culprit. One cannot see the filter in a conventional sense, but I'm willing to bet that if the filter change included an audible "click," the differences between any two would become just as apparent as any two cables with different appearances and costs. Indeed. More than likely, my "perplexity" can be resolved with insights around the complexities of human psychology and the mind's ability to imagine. ? Sonicularity and esldude 1 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Ralf11 Posted November 14, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 14, 2018 3 minutes ago, esldude said: https://nordost.com/downloads/NewApproachesToAudioMeasurement.pdf Most of the links in this thread from the testing have been removed. The testing promised much more results in the future, and wouldn't you know it they never materialized. There was other more in depth discussion somewhere here on CA. The Methods section is inadequate to support anything in the Results section. Here is a tip I passed on to my own graduate students (after getting it from my own PhD adviser when I was young tike...): Always read the Methods section first. If it is not adequate, then there is no need to read the rest of the verbiage. jabbr, Hugo9000, Arpiben and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment
Popular Post pkane2001 Posted November 14, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 14, 2018 32 minutes ago, esldude said: While true there need be no sound of an audio wire, Ralf's point is one can be designed. There is no good reason to do so in general, but it is possible. And making thousands of dollars on an otherwise unremarkable and maybe even inferior piece of wire is not a good enough reason? Ralf11 and esldude 1 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted November 14, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 14, 2018 27 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: The Methods section is inadequate to support anything in the Results section. Here is a tip I passed on to my own graduate students (after getting it from my own PhD adviser when I was young tike...): Always read the Methods section first. If it is not adequate, then there is no need to read the rest of the verbiage. Absolutely good advice. I had the same criticisms of this and similar testing by another cable company. To be fair they gave some more detail in the links that now are dead. Yet they always left out key obvious questions about their methodology. They also promised they were developing software that could measure in a minute a system and tell the owner if something had gotten out of spec or degraded over time. That it would be made available in the near future. That was 9 years ago. You can read a thread I started on cable that had some comments at the time. Comments about Nordost started on page 7 if you want to waste some time. Also since then Nordost has been caught rigging public demos. Mark Waldrep reported on it, but their lawyers sent a cease and desist letter so he chose to remove the posting. Essentially reporting was during demos of power cords it was found they were switching to different tracks of the same music and there was a loudness difference. Guess which was louder. Ralf11, Arpiben and Hugo9000 1 2 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
crenca Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 1 hour ago, barrows said: Years ago Nordost invested a not insubstantial amount of money in doing null testing of their cables using actual music program material. Indeed, the null testing did show differences, but the same folks, who deny cable sonic differences and demand objective evidence, dismissed the testing as flawed (despite it being carried out by an independent third party defense contractor expert in SONAR analysis). So eventually the project was withdrawn as the same so called objectivists preferred to continue with their "belief" rather than accept the scientific proof.... 42 minutes ago, esldude said: https://nordost.com/downloads/NewApproachesToAudioMeasurement.pdf Most of the links in this thread from the testing have been removed. The testing promised much more results in the future, and wouldn't you know it they never materialized. There was other more in depth discussion somewhere here on CA. Someone needs to write up these recurring and various Audiophile myths, legends, and conspiracy's. This one, the "Objectivists would never be convinced so the project was not funded" is a twist I don't recall seeing before... Ralf11 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
crenca Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 10 hours ago, mansr said: Posts like this are so formulaic they don't even need a Markov chain generator. Too true. Barrows and the like however have no realization, or are simply dismissive, of how what they "hear" is dependant on the "state" of the 26,798,352 factors other than the cables in their complex chain of "listening tests"... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
mansr Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 1 hour ago, esldude said: Also since then Nordost has been caught rigging public demos. Mark Waldrep reported on it, but their lawyers sent a cease and desist letter so he chose to remove the posting. Essentially reporting was during demos of power cords it was found they were switching to different tracks of the same music and there was a loudness difference. Guess which was louder. Wasn't that Audioquest? Link to comment
esldude Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 6 minutes ago, mansr said: Wasn't that Audioquest? He didn't get a C&D from AQ. AQ did that on a video. See a pattern? http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5659 Some threads that tell you in the first couple posts what Mark reported. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2433706-funny-blog-mark-waldrep-about-nordost-axpona-power-cord-demo.html Here is some info on the AQ thing. http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5561 https://www.audioholics.com/editorials/mark-waldrep-audioquest-open-letter-editorial 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
fas42 Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 5 hours ago, Hugo9000 said: @fas42 Is your system still "in limbo," with all of your expertise on these matters? Or have you simply neglected to update your profile on CA, due to the understandable distraction of listening to music being reproduced gloriously on a well-sorted system? It is. As I've said a number of times, I've slowed down very badly recently - there are a number of people here who are gently prodding me to "get on with it!". Unfortunately, procrastination is an addictive thing, . Part of it is knowing that once I start tackling it, that I will spend too much time working on sorting out the "remaining issues" - instead of doing those things around the place that are actually important! Link to comment
fas42 Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 On the matter of whether it's important to be able hear differences - no, it's not. All that matters is whether the SQ has reached a point where it's completely convincing - anything working at a standard less than that is always obviously just a hifi system - trivially so to anyone who comes within earshot of it. When it becomes impossible to disturb that illusion, then the key work has been done - one uses "differences" in the journey to that point to assess progress made - and for no other reason. Link to comment
Richard Dale Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 1 hour ago, crenca said: Too true. Barrows and the like however have no realization, or are simply dismissive, of how what they "hear" is dependant on the "state" of the 26,798,352 factors other than the cables in their complex chain of "listening tests"... We can only bow to your genius level of listening experience System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs Link to comment
Hugo9000 Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 @fas42 I understand procrastination. But the music I love is too important to me for me to put off listening pleasure. I even managed to sneak a "walkman"-style cassette player with headphones and a highlights cassette of Leontyne Price's Madama Butterfly into Navy bootcamp lo these many years ago, and listened secretly at night. There would have been hell to pay if I'd been caught. (However, it's certainly possible the company commanders were actually aware, but overlooked my transgression as they knew I worked very hard at helping my fellow recruits get through, both with academic help in the evenings, and counseling others who were having coping difficulties.) Apologies to the OP for the OT post! 请教别人一次是5分钟的傻子,从不请教别人是一辈子的傻子 Link to comment
barrows Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 2 hours ago, esldude said: I've been listening to sound with my ears since I was born. No one has more experience than me. Well except for people older than me. You can trust me with my unverified, unverifiable pronouncements of sound differences. Enough said. Now I'm not denying you can be trained to spot differences or that particular experience can allow one person to hear what another doesn't. I also know you can convince yourself of hearing a difference when one simply doesn't exist. Biases cannot be fully overcome with training. They can be mitigated. When one does one's own training most often you'll be cementing biases in place if there is no outside verification. Such pronouncements aren't worth the time it took to type them into the forum. I did not do my own training. My expectations (bias) are often in conflict with the results of my listening experiences. I never suggested my observations/tests were 100 % certain (in this case yes, the difference is so obvious), which is why I gave the example of the digital filter test. 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 | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now