Jump to content
IGNORED

Ethan Winer Null Test For WIre


jtwrace

Recommended Posts

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 ?

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
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

Link to comment
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
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
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
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
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

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.  

 

 

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
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...  

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
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
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
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
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! :D

Link to comment

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
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

@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.  :D  (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
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

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...