Observations of a controlled Cable Test - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 06:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant View Post

You know, cut the crap, JJ. You have been purposefully provocative and hostile from the start. I know damn well you're an objectivist. But if you can't take even a little snark than quit dishing it out. Your opinions are welcome but your hostility is not. Know who your allies are on this thread, and work with them, or get the hell out.


Let's see. I pointed out, politely, how he could have tested his test to some extent. Lo and behold, people pile all over me.

G'day.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 06:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant View Post

JJ, at risk of drawing some snark, I am seriously confused here. Why are we compensating out the issue we're trying to test? I don't see that at all. We're not trying to test the notion that bulk level differences are audible. That's a given.

Good, so why can't we use a GIVEN to test the test? Hello? That's the point, after all. It's what I suggested in the first case.

G'day.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #273 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 06:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant View Post

What a load of crap. JJ, this is not an academic conference, this is an enthusiast forum.

And Noisaine's article is in a hobby publication, hence both my mentioning it AND my not having it quick at hand in my library.

And, no, I don't even have it in my house. I suspect deja-news (google) might have some information on it, but you'd have to look in (cringe) rec.audio.* for it, and we know what that looks like.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #274 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 06:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
For the record I looked for the Nouisane test data on the net before I posted that. I couldn't find it. I wouldn't be surprised if Swampfox looked, too. What can I say, Google's not perfect. (Though it gives you credibility as a seasoned researcher that you referred to it as deja news!)
Quote:


Let's see. I pointed out, politely, how he could have tested his test to some extent. Lo and behold, people pile all over me.

Oh, and your attitude had absolutely zero to do with it.

Don't let the door smack you on the butt on the way out.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #275 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 06:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I just want to point out for everyone else's benefit what JJ considers to be a "polite" post:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post12351376
Quote:


Nonsense.

Ever hear of "controls" in an experiment?

If you're picking randomly, you'll get caught by the controls. End of discussion. Oh, wait, you didn't include any? Tsk!

But of course he didn't have it coming.

We can certainly take a bit of that kind of attitude here; at least I hope so, because I do a bit of that myself But to turn around and play the victim card when people push back just makes me laugh.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #276 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 06:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,618
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1214 Post(s)
Liked: 944
Michael,

It might have been easier to find if you had been provided with the properly spelled name. I haven't looked for the article either, but meanwhile here is Nousaine's website:

http://www.nousaine.com/

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #277 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 06:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Drat, I spelled it a couple of different ways, and did not manage to hit on that spelling And yet both of my attempts yielded hits so I wasn't sure I was wrong! EDIT: Wait, maybe I did use that one. I'm getting the same hits, as far as I can tell. Well, I don't know.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #278 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 07:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Swampfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post

Good, so why can't we use a GIVEN to test the test? Hello? That's the point, after all. It's what I suggested in the first case.

G'day.



The current 'debate' centers on:
1) Someone proposed that cable testing should be done by those who don't believe they can hear the difference.

2) I pointed out that this group was biased to not hear anything.

3) You 'pointed out' the need for a control

4) I asked for an example.

5) You categorically stated that 20 gauge wire can be considered a control.

6) You get pissy when asked to justify the use of 20 gauge wire as a control. Actually, you get pissy over the whole concept of the difference between a control and a variable.

Provide a reference to an article in a referred journal such as AES that shows that all listeners can hear the difference between 12 g and 20 g cable with level matched signals.
Swampfox is offline  
post #279 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 07:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Swampfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post

It changes nothing.


Of course, you do have an interesting situation if your probe situation shows a positive, and your control a negative. Such is life.


Such is life . . .Wrong. A positive control can't be negative and when it is it negates the whole experiment. The same thing happens when a negative control is positive. Controls that don't act like controls show faulty experimental design.
Swampfox is offline  
post #280 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 09:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

Such is life . . .Wrong. A positive control can't be negative and when it is it negates the whole experiment. The same thing happens when a negative control is positive. Controls that don't act like controls show faulty experimental design.


Of course. It would suggest a serious problem with the test.

Why was this in doubt?

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #281 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 09:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

Provide a reference to an article in a referred journal such as AES that shows that all listeners can hear the difference between 12 g and 20 g cable with level matched signals.

Your request is completely disingenious.

I have said "connect the wire". The way I described doing this was clearly excluding level matching. Using small cables is a way for a person to make at least a decent attempt at controls in an experiment where equipment and measurement are not possible.

Nobody, myself included, has claimed this is the BEST way. It certainly is not, if one has the lab and the equipment. The person who started this thread, whose behavior has greatly outclassed the objectivists here, does not have such meters available. I have, therefore, suggested a way that he can informally, at least, add a positive control. In doing so, I have specifically not said a thing about level matching, and you already know that, unless you only read every other word.

You now disingeniously demand proof for something I have not claimed. IN THIS CASE the use of small wire is intended to cause a small, audible level mismatch. I have said as much several times, ergo your demand that I prove the audibility of a level-matched test is outright rhetorical deceit.

If one level matches, is this audible? I doubt it, frankly, unless we have a very seriously "interesting" kind of speaker impedence, but since I haven't made the claim either way, demanding proof from me of the audibility of this is, I repeat, pure disingenuity on your part.

Yet, I am lectured by the two of you on manners. Goodness.

Swampfox, I have no idea why you persist in this charade.

While I agree with you that people who claim the affirmative, i.e. that they hear something, have the burden of proof, your claim that one cannot test the test is simply wrong, and as such is nonsense.

Suggesting or implying that one can not catch deliberate malfeasance by a subject in a test is simply absurd, and as such, is nonsense.

I do agree that sometimes people forget to include such issues in their test design, that's one of the reasons why I entered this discussion.

What have I found? Unreasonable misstatements, false implications of what I've said, and people willing to accuse me of professional misconduct without even the veriest hint of a reason to do so.

I am not obligated to be polite to absurdities.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #282 of 384 Old 12-02-2007, 10:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post

How dare you call me a subjectivist. That is literally fighting words!

Michael Grant sn't calling you a subjectivist. He was saying that you seem to be looking for a test result that is generally applicable (and therefore perhaps satisfactory) to the cable woo crowd. He agrees that Mike Lavingne's test was not that test. It is a test that showed that confidence in 'trusting your ears' is not necessarily warranted, and nothing more or less.

And folks, it's *Nousaine* for heaven's sake. Tom's email address is nousaine@aol.com if anyone wants to ask him about his tests.

The relevant reference took mere seconds to locate on google using 'Nousaine cable' as a query

Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
krabapple is offline  
post #283 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 03:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
James R. Geib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Krab,

Thanks! I kept typing 'insane' instead of 'Nousaine' and was getting the cable test results I was looking for/expecting, so I didn't realize I was spelling it wrong.
James R. Geib is offline  
post #284 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 04:29 AM
Newbie
 
germanicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I tried to post this yesterday, but it didn't show up, so I'll try again. If it appears twice, sorry.

jj, do you really think demonstrating that one can hear the difference between a coat hanger and regular speaker wire is going to convince subjectivists the test was valid? If you have as much experience with this debate as you say, I can't imagine you're so naive.

Subjectivists can hear the effects of a goat's sneeze in Mongolia on their audio systems. Not being able to hear the difference between any two cables is a clear sign the test setup was bad, or the stress of testing closed the listener's ear canals, or the Shakti holographic defibrillator was out of position, or whatever. So being proven able to hear a difference under some extreme circumstances would simply be dismissed as obvious. It's also useless scientifically - to do what yiou want properly one would establish hearing thresholds, and one data point from one cable doesn't do that.

Lavigne's system had as much subjectivist cred as is possible, pretty much. That he couldn't hear the difference (especially when he was as confident as he was) is as damning an indictment of subjectivist nonsense as you can get.

It was also (contrary to what some were saying in this thread earlier) quite conclusive statistical evidence that he could not hear the differences as he had claimed (which was that he could do so with near-perfect confidence). If his hypothesis was that he could correctly identify 90% of the time, we can reject that with something like p<.03.
germanicus is offline  
post #285 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 05:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Swampfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post

Your request is completely disingenious.

No. It is not. I'd love to read the paper.
Quote:


I have said "connect the wire". The way I described doing this was clearly excluding level matching. Using small cables is a way for a person to make at least a decent attempt at controls in an experiment where equipment and measurement are not possible.

You need to level match. It is well documented that most humans can identify very small differences in loudness of tones. You know, and I know, that you must control this for a test to have any validity.

Quote:


You now disingeniously demand proof for something I have not claimed. IN THIS CASE the use of small wire is intended to cause a small, audible level mismatch. I have said as much several times, ergo your demand that I prove the audibility of a level-matched test is outright rhetorical deceit.

Again, not true. You made a case that it's audible to the point of being a valid control. I questioned that statement and held your feet to the fire to support it.

Quote:


If one level matches, is this audible? I doubt it, frankly, unless we have a very seriously "interesting" kind of speaker impedence, but since I haven't made the claim either way, demanding proof from me of the audibility of this is, I repeat, pure disingenuity on your part.


Swampfox, I have no idea why you persist in this charade.

Charade? You don't think that 20G wire would be audible if level matched, yet I'm the one being disingenous?
Quote:



While I agree with you that people who claim the affirmative, i.e. that they hear something, have the burden of proof, your claim that one cannot test the test is simply wrong, and as such is nonsense.

Suggesting or implying that one can not catch deliberate malfeasance by a subject in a test is simply absurd, and as such, is nonsense.

I didn't say you 'can't', I just stated it is extremely difficult. The inherent bias and difficulty in finding credible controls makes it impractical. The easiest fix is to test those who claim the affirmative.

Quote:


I do agree that sometimes people forget to include such issues in their test design, that's one of the reasons why I entered this discussion.

What have I found? Unreasonable misstatements, false implications of what I've said, and people willing to accuse me of professional misconduct without even the veriest hint of a reason to do so.

I am not obligated to be polite to absurdities.

I, for one, have not accused you of professional misconduct. I have held your feet to the fire, and nothing more.
Swampfox is offline  
post #286 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 08:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Michael Grant sn't calling you a subjectivist. He was saying that you seem to be looking for a test result that is generally applicable (and therefore perhaps satisfactory) to the cable woo crowd. He agrees that Mike Lavingne's test was not that test. It is a test that showed that confidence in 'trusting your ears' is not necessarily warranted, and nothing more or less.

And folks, it's *Nousaine* for heaven's sake. Tom's email address is nousaine@aol.com if anyone wants to ask him about his tests.

The relevant reference took mere seconds to locate on google using 'Nousaine cable' as a query

Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)

 


More fool me -- I'm told by a correspondent that this article isn't the one that compared wires of vastly different gauge. Data from TN's article are summarized online at Dave Carlstrom's ABX site

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

They're pretty interesting in their own right! But there's no 'positive control listed there.

Possibly JJ is referring to the older Greenhill test

Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)

Subjectivists have made hay over this one for decades, citing editorial interference with the 'real' results. But in fact the test, as published, did show audible difference between a few cables that, mirabile dictu, turned out to have significant level differences when measured (including cables of different gauge). Thus forever giving lie to the occasional ignorant audiophile claim that 'ABX tests never show any differences between gear".

Interested readers should also scan around the other tests on the ABX site -- among the positive results documented are audible difference of 0.1dB using pink noise
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_lvl.htm

an 18-bit vs 14-bit CD player
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

phono cartridges
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm

power amps
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

note especially in each, the conditions under which differences could be heard

krabapple is offline  
post #287 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 09:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Bob Lee (QSC)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Costa Mesa, California
Posts: 1,864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

You need to level match. It is well documented that most humans can identify very small differences in loudness of tones. You know, and I know, that you must control this for a test to have any validity.

I disagree that you have to level match if the only variable are the cables being tested. In fact, level differences should be one of the expected possible audible conditions if the cables' electrical properties are sufficiently disparate.

Bob Lee
Applications Engineer
QSC Audio Products, LLC
Costa Mesa, Calif.

Secretary, Audio Engineering Society
Bob Lee (QSC) is offline  
post #288 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
but if we are doing a test whose only purpose is to determine which is which, and we do not level match, then we have an indicator in the test that will allow us to reliably identify which is which. so the test is invalid.

if we level match, (or do like mike suggested where we turn to 0 at the start of each trial and then turn to a level we like) then any determination has to be via some sonic quality.


As was suspected when the test was first announced, we have many pages of rambling and drilling into bizarre esoteric details about what was or was not learned from the test.

All that was learned was that the clear differences mike was sure he could hear are not there. THey are subtle at best and beyond his identification IN THIS TEST AS IT WAS CONDUCTED. nothing more, nothing less. it was not a condemnation of the high end industry, it was not a victory for monster cable, it was not a loss for mikes cables.

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #289 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 11:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Bob Lee (QSC)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Costa Mesa, California
Posts: 1,864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Level matching would be crucial in comparing active devices with variable gain, or to compare the sonic characteristics of loudspeakers.

But in comparing passive interconnections that should not produce an audible drop in signal level, don't match the levels. Instead, test for audible differences, including changes in levels.

Bob Lee
Applications Engineer
QSC Audio Products, LLC
Costa Mesa, Calif.

Secretary, Audio Engineering Society
Bob Lee (QSC) is offline  
post #290 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 12:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

You need to level match. It is well documented that most humans can identify very small differences in loudness of tones.

Yes, we all know this, I think. And what I proposed was to USE that level difference as a sensitivity test.

You are repeatedly avoiding the real issue, which is "how do we make a positive control easily in a situation where somebody isn't going to have a half-ohm, 10 watt noninductive resistor, or a good meter, etc".

And that's all I'm proposing. And if you level match after you set that control up, you're invalidating it.

Listen to yourself. "It's audible" you keep saying. YES WE ALL KNOW THAT. It is a marginally audible level difference and it's deliberate. No, you don't level match away a deliberate introduction of a level difference. Goodness.

We're not testing that cable for "is 22 gauge wire audible when level matched" (or 20, or whatever), we're creating an unmatched level situation that is known to be audible.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #291 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 12:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC) View Post

I disagree that you have to level match if the only variable are the cables being tested. In fact, level differences should be one of the expected possible audible conditions if the cables' electrical properties are sufficiently disparate.

This is the whole point, and (apparently Greenhill's test, sorry) a test has shown at least one situation where the level difference is audible.

And THAT is something a person can try (albiet with some inaccuracy, I certainly agree) in their own home.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #292 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 12:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

More fool me -- I'm told by a correspondent that this article isn't the one that compared wires of vastly different gauge. Data from TN's article are summarized online at Dave Carlstrom's ABX site

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

They're pretty interesting in their own right! But there's no 'positive control listed there.

Possibly JJ is referring to the older Greenhill test

Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)

Subjectivists have made hay over this one for decades, citing editorial interference with the 'real' results. But in fact the test, as published, did show audible difference between a few cables that, mirabile dictu, turned out to have significant level differences when measured (including cables of different gauge). Thus forever giving lie to the occasional ignorant audiophile claim that 'ABX tests never show any differences between gear".

Interested readers shouold also scan around the otehr tests on the ABX site -- among the positive results documented are audible difference of 0.1dB using pink noise
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_lvl.htm

an 18-bit vs 14-bit CD player
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

phono cartridges
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm

power amps
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

note especially in each, the conditions under which differences could be heard

Thanks, and sorry for pointing to the wrong test. My apologies for that.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #293 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 12:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Bob Lee: But in comparing passive interconnections that should not produce an audible drop in signal level, don't match the levels. Instead, test for audible differences, including changes in levels.

I just can't agree with this, Bob. Absolute volume is not an indicator of true sonic quality, but can be misinterpreted as such. And once a speaker cable comparison is completed, and a single cable is selected, any absolute attenuation it imparts is irrelevant---because the master volume will simply be adjusted to suit the listener's preference. So when it comes to evaluating quality differences, I see no benefit to leaving level imbalances in place.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #294 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 12:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

but if we are doing a test whose only purpose is to determine which is which, and we do not level match, then we have an indicator in the test that will allow us to reliably identify which is which. so the test is invalid.

Um, again, I see people don't quite get what a control is.

When I suggested using wire that's too small, it was to deliberately create a borderline level difference that has been shown to be audible.

This was not to show that such differences are audible, that's known to be true. It is to test the test, i.e. to show that the test COULD RESOLVE small audible level differences.

Obviously, if you have a lab and a bench of equipment, you'd do this a better way.

But when you don't, and all you have is a living room and access to Home Depot (I think we can all assume that), using a thin cable as a control, on purpose, allows you to at least verify that you can hear something close to threshold in the test.

Nobody here is arguing that level differences aren't audible. They are. I'm proposing to use that fact productively.

Hence my irritation with the ridiculous arguments coming from Col. Marion, wherein he keeps demanding that I prove something that I did not claim.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #295 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 12:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant View Post

I just can't agree with this, Bob. Absolute volume is not an indicator of true sonic quality, but can be misinterpreted as such. And once a speaker cable comparison is completed, and a single cable is selected, any absolute attenuation it imparts is irrelevant---because the master volume will simply be adjusted to suit the listener's preference. So when it comes to evaluating quality differences, I see no benefit to leaving level imbalances in place.

Michael, you're out of context again.

Nobody is arguing that level differences are inaudible.

The point of suggesting a thin cable here was to create a difference known to be barely audible, in order to determine, in the setup that the listener had, how sensitive the test situation was.

Demanding level matching when one is deliberately shading the level to create a control condition (not testing the thin wire, goodness!) is just silly. Yes, there is a level difference. That's the point. And demanding that I "prove" something I never argued for is beyond silly, it's profoundly disingenious.

And, of course, any minimally competent speaker cable shouldn't create any sort of level difference, now, should it? Can you imagine a situation where you would want a cable that was too thin, that was otherwise engineered well? Why? While I'm not particularly concerned with the issue, it seems to me that Bob's general statement is quite reasonable, why should a plain, ordinary cable create any audible difference, including level difference?

I can see it rolling off high end if you have a highly reactive speaker, and perhaps helping if there is too much direct high frequency sound from the system, but why not do that explicitly and under control, etc, etc? (Those of you who presume that all loudspeakers have reasonable impedence curves might want to examine the impedence of some of the more, um, esoteric loudspeakers out there. Don't blame me, I didn't design them.)

In other words, why use a wire to do anything other than just get the signal from here to there? Level difference in a wire is part of its performance.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #296 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 12:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post

Yet, I am lectured by the two of you on manners. Goodness.

Well, if you honestly considered your first foray into this debate "polite", as you claimed above, then yes, you need a good lecture, even from us rude folks. But as much as I got on your case about manners, what I really frosted me was that when I threw a bit of your own attitude back at you, you misinterpreted it wildly and started whining and moaning like a soccer player faking a mortal blow to his shin.

I'm actually glad you're back. But if you don't want even more pushback, then chill out just a tad---and definitely quit suggesting that we're being disingenuous, or that we're not "staying on subject", blah blah blah. We might be 100% wrong, but we are debating here in good faith. Before you suggest otherwise you might want to consider that you just haven't made your case well enough.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #297 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 12:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Michael, you're out of context again.

First of all, refer to my last post.

Secondly, I was responding to Bob, not you; and Bob was not engaging in this discussion about about controls; at least that is how I interpreted him.

So let me explain my point further. Yes I agree that there really isn't any excuse for a speaker cable to significantly alter absolute attenuation. But I'm not looking at this from that vantage point. That is, I'm not talking about how easy it is to make an electrically ideal speaker cable. My curiosity is piqued by just how far the cable can be from ideal and have it still be indistinguishable in quality from the ideal. I just happen to think that is the more interesting question. And if that's the question I am interested in exploring, then I need to level match.

I can honestly conceive of valid practical reasons why this question is to be preferred. Let's say I move into a house prewired for 7.1, but they used thinner cable than I might prefer. Should I take the trouble to rip it out and replace it with lower gauge cable? Well, if the only audible difference will be in absolute level, then of course not. My prepro can take care of that. But if it is going to compromise my speaker's response by an audible amount, I might be more likely to consider it.

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with controls vs. no controls, etc. I'm simply speaking here about the general question of the sonic quality of speaker cable. And while absolute attenuation is a symptom of potentially reduced sonic quality, it isn't a guarantee of it.

[SORRY for all the edits. I am in a hurry to get out the door but I wanted to get my point across, and when I get rushed I get "save" happy.]

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #298 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 01:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant View Post

First of all, refer to my last post.

Secondly, I was responding to Bob, not you; and Bob was not engaging in this discussion about about controls; at least that is how I interpreted him.

Oh. Sorry.
Quote:

So let me explain my point further. Yes I agree that there really isn't any excuse for a speaker cable to significantly alter absolute attenuation. But I'm not looking at this from that vantage point. That is, I'm not talking about how easy it is to make an electrically ideal speaker cable. My curiosity is piqued by just how far the cable can be from ideal and have it still be indistinguishable in quality from the ideal. I just happen to think that is the more interesting question. And if that's the question I am interested in exploring, then I need to level match.

I can honestly conceive of valid practical reasons why this question is to be preferred. Let's say I move into a house prewired for 7.1, but they used thinner cable than I might prefer. Should I take the trouble to rip it out and replace it with lower gauge cable? Well, if the only audible difference will be in absolute level, then of course not. My prepro can take care of that. But if it is going to compromise my speaker's response by an audible amount, I might be more likely to consider it.

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with controls vs. no controls, etc. I'm simply speaking here about the general question of the sonic quality of speaker cable. And while absolute attenuation is a symptom of potentially reduced sonic quality, it isn't a guarantee of it.

[SORRY for all the edits. I am in a hurry to get out the door but I wanted to get my point across, and when I get rushed I get "save" happy.]

There is an issue here, though, in that some speakers (I hesitate to name names, but I've found some doozies) may have enormous problems with high-resistance wiring.

But the statement is "may". If your speaker has a nice, polite impedence curve, all you lose is energy, and most amplifiers are way big enough nowdays...

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #299 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bob Lee (QSC)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Costa Mesa, California
Posts: 1,864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant View Post

I just can't agree with this, Bob. Absolute volume is not an indicator of true sonic quality, but can be misinterpreted as such. And once a speaker cable comparison is completed, and a single cable is selected, any absolute attenuation it imparts is irrelevant---because the master volume will simply be adjusted to suit the listener's preference. So when it comes to evaluating quality differences, I see no benefit to leaving level imbalances in place.

We're not talking about absolute volume; we're talking about audible differences between cables.

It is so so sooooooo simple to make an extremely low loss loudspeaker or interconnection cable that will not cause audible volume loss at practical lengths. I don't see the point in giving a pass to an incompetently designed cable.

Do level matching for active gear, loudspeakers, etc., where gain is adjustable or doesn't really matter. It doesn't make sense for cabling.

Bob Lee
Applications Engineer
QSC Audio Products, LLC
Costa Mesa, Calif.

Secretary, Audio Engineering Society
Bob Lee (QSC) is offline  
post #300 of 384 Old 12-03-2007, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Swampfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

More fool me -- I'm told by a correspondent that this article isn't the one that compared wires of vastly different gauge. Data from TN's article are summarized online at Dave Carlstrom's ABX site

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

They're pretty interesting in their own right! But there's no 'positive control listed there.

Possibly JJ is referring to the older Greenhill test

Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)

Subjectivists have made hay over this one for decades, citing editorial interference with the 'real' results. But in fact the test, as published, did show audible difference between a few cables that, mirabile dictu, turned out to have significant level differences when measured (including cables of different gauge). Thus forever giving lie to the occasional ignorant audiophile claim that 'ABX tests never show any differences between gear".

Interested readers shouold also scan around the otehr tests on the ABX site -- among the positive results documented are audible difference of 0.1dB using pink noise
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_lvl.htm

an 18-bit vs 14-bit CD player
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

phono cartridges
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm

power amps
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

note especially in each, the conditions under which differences could be heard


You should read Dr. Floyd Toole's work if you want an interesting read.
Swampfox is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off